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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 552 in total
Fri, 19 Feb 2016 #91
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Will-power and Inner stillness ( From Commentaries on living, first series )

There was hardly anyone on the long, curving beach. A boy passed by singing, with long, cheerful strides; and the sea came rolling in. There was no strong breeze, but it was a heavy sea, with thunderous waves. The moon, almost full was just rising out of the blue-green water, and the breakers were white against the yellow sands.

How 'essentially simple' life is, and how we complicate it! Life is complex, but its complexity must be approached simply, otherwise we shall never understand it. We know too much , our ( self-centred ?) experience and knowledge bind us, and the waters of life pass us by. To sing with that boy, to be ( in comunion with ?) those villagers and that couple in the car - to 'be' all that, not as a trick of self-identification , needs ( free affection and ?) love. Love is not complex, but we are too much with the mind, and the ways of love we do not know. We know the ways of desire and the will of desire, but we do not know love. Love is the flame without the smoke. We are not simple with the beauty of the flame, following swiftly wherever it may lead. We know too much ( superficial stuff ?) and love eludes us, but those who know (see the inner truth ?) that they 'do not know' are the simple; they go far, for they have no burden of knowledge.

He was a sannyasi with a distant look. He was saying that he had 'renounced the world' many years ago and was now approaching the stage when neither this world nor the other world interested him. He had practised many 'austerities', and had extraordinary control over his breathing and nervous system. This had given him a great sense of (inner will- ?) power, though he had not sought it.

K: Is not this ( will-) power as detrimental to self-understanding as (any personal ?) ambition and vanity? Greed, like fear, breeds (or builds up ?) the 'power' of ( its own ?) action. All sense of domination, gives strength to the "me" and "mine"; and is not this 'self (-consciousness' ) a hindrance to Reality ?

Q: The conflict between the various desires of the mind and the body must be stilled; in the process of their control, the 'rider' tastes (the inner sense of ) power, but such power is used to climb higher or go deeper. Power is harmful only when used for oneself, and not when used to clear the way for the (realisation of the ?) Supreme. When will (-power ? ) is used in the right direction it is beneficial. Without ( the inner energy of ?) will, there can be no action.

K: Are not all our 'goals' the outcome of one’s own inclinations, fears and hopes? If you use your
will (- power?) , to make way for the Supreme; ( the virtual image of ?) that Supreme is fashioned out of desire, which is will. Will creates its own 'goal' and sacrifices or suppresses everything to ( achieve) that end. But this 'end' is (a projection of ?) itself, only it is called the Supreme, or the State, or the ( winning ?) ideology.

Q: Can our inner conflicts come to an end without the power of will?

K: Without understanding the ways of (the desire which is creating the inner ?) conflict and how it comes into being, of what value is it merely to suppress it? You may be able to suppress ( the physical symptoms of ?) a disease, but it is bound to show itself again in another form. Will itself is ( creating its own ?) conflict since it is ( a concentrated form of ?) purposive, directed desire. Without (non-dualistically ?) comprehending the ( root-?) process of desire, merely to control it is to invite further burning, further pain. You may succeed in controlling a child or a problem, but you have not thereby understood either. ( An insightful self-) understanding is of far greater ( psychological ?) importance than arriving at an end.
The ( 'psychological' ?) action based on will(-power ?) is self-enclosing. 'You' cannot silence the (inner) conflicts of desire, for the 'maker of the effort' is himself a ( self-identified ?) product of desire. The 'thinker' and 'his thoughts' are the ( fragmented ?) outcomes of desire; and without (a global ?) understanding of desire, which is the 'self'-(interest ?) placed at any level, high or low, the mind is ever caught in ignorance.

( In a nutshell :) The way to the Supreme does is not to be found through will (-power ?) or through desire. The Supreme can come into ( our inner ?) being only when 'the maker of effort' is not (home ?) . When the ( self-centred fragmentation of the ?) mind - which is put together through desire- comes to a (natural ?) end, in that (free space of ?) 'stillness' Reality comes into being.

Q: But is not simplicity essential for that stillness?

K: What do you mean by 'simplicity'? Do you mean identification with ( the ideal of ?) simplicity, or being simple?

Q: You cannot be 'simple' without identifying yourself with that which is simple, externally as well as inwardly.”

K: You are complex, but you become simple through identifying yourself with the simplicity of the peasant or with the monk’s robe. Does this process of ( self-) becoming lead to simplicity ? Am I simple because I keep on ( mentally) identifying myself with the pattern of simplicity?
Simplicity lies in the ( non-dualistic ?) understanding of 'what is', not in trying to change 'what is' into 'simplicity'. Can greed ever become 'non-greed'? What we identify ourselves with is always the self-projected (ideal) , whether it is the Supreme, the State or the family. Identification at any level is the ( defining ?) process of the 'self'.

Simplicity is ( to be found in ?) the understanding of 'what is', however complex it may appear. The what is is not ( really ? ) difficult to understand, but what prevents ( a holistic ?) understanding is the 'distraction' (the mental diversion ?) of comparison, condemnation, prejudice and so on. It is these that make for ( its superficial apparence of ?) complexity. 'What is' is never complex in itself, it is always simple to understand, but it is made complex by your ( dualistic?) approach to it; so there must be a (holistic ?) understanding of the whole process of ( self-centred ?) approach, which makes for complexity. If you do not condemn the ( actions of a ?) child, then he is 'what he is' and it is possible to act (to interact educationally ?) .

( Recap:) The action ( born out of the direct perception ?) of 'what is' is simplicity.
Nothing is essential for ( bringing an authentic inner ?) 'stillness' but... stillness itself; it is its own beginning and its own end. No effort can bring it about, for it 'is'. Only when stillness is regarded as
something to be achieved, the 'means' become important; but that which is purchased is not stillness. (The commercially available ?) 'means' are grossly or subtly acquisitive, and their end-product is of like nature, for the end is (implicitly ?) contained in the means.
( On the other hand ?) if the beginning (of meditation ?) is (a selfless ?) silence, the end is also silence. There are no means to silence; silence is when noise is not. ( The 'self'-sustained inner?) noise does not come to an end through the further noise of effort, of discipline, of austerities, ( and/or ?) will(-power) . See the truth of this, and there is silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Feb 2016 #92
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Condensed version of the Q&A MEETINGS Madras, JANUARY 1985

Krishnamurti: I wonder what we mean by a ( Happy ?) New Year. Is there anything (creative within us ?) that is really afresh, something that you have never seen before? This is rather an important question: to turn all the days of our life into something which you have never seen before. That means, can we change the whole ( spiritual ?) direction of our lives? Or are we condemned forever to lead rather meaningless lives ? Can we drop all that and start anew with a clean slate and see what comes out of that ?
Suppose I have no problems - as a matter of fact, I don't have any. Not that I'm old (and well cared for ?) , but I don't feel like ( necessary to) have ( 'personal' ?) problems. It's as simple as that: as long as I have such problems, I can never solve any (serious human ?) problem. Do we see that? So my question is: can my brain uncondition itself so that it is free and being free it can solve problems ?
( Eg:) Suppose K hates somebody -I hope not - that becomes a problem. And his brain being conditioned to ( personally deal with such ?) problems, asks, 'What can I do about hate? Can I control it? Can I suppress it? Can I run away from it (as in ?) 'I must be kind' ? Which all becomes another problem. The brain goes round and round in circles with problems.

K is asking himself whether the brain can be free of all problems, sexual, relationship, problems of 'God', so that it is completely free of that (problematic approach ?) . Is it possible to be ( inwardly ?) so completely free of problems, ( an inner state of being ?) in which there is no ( personal)'offence' or 'defence'? Now comes the (new attitude ?) : to put oneself the question and leave it alone. If I don't seek for an answer the very question has its own vitality ( is gathering its own momentum ?) . If the question is serious, and has tremendous vitality, significance, then the question itself begins to (reveal the ?) answer. (We are talking here of 'psychological' questions, not technological questions like, 'Will I have a job, will I pass my exams? and all that kind of thing). So here the ( opening ?) question is important. Not the answer. Because if the question has great urgency, great intensity, passion behind that question, then that very question will flower and answer, or wither away.
( Eg: Suppose ) you want to know if God exists. How will you find out? If you're really serious, the traditional (approach based on ) belief is out. Which means having a brain that is totally free to find out. Is your brain free, or frightened ( to leave the 'psychological' safety of the 'known' ?) , worried, lonely? As long as those factors exist, you will never find out. So 'God' is not (the prioritary question ?) , but whether there is ( the inner ?) freedom to find out.

Question: I want to get at what you're saying without any stress, strain or effort. How can one do this?

K: First of all, in 'spiritual' questions, when you ask the question 'how' then you become immoral (time-dependent ?) . You are asking something from somebody else, and this 'somebody else' is like you, (except that ?) he has meditated for fifty years, and he has kept silent for ten years. The man who ( supposedly ) 'knows more' (than you) psychologically is still seeking 'the more', 'the better', which is, measurement, comparison, time and so on. So his brain is caught in measurement - ( inwardly) psychologically.
So the questioner asks, he wants to understand K without any strain or effort. What K is saying is 'Look at yourself', what he is saying is only a verbal outline of what is happening in you. And I say 'Do not bother to listen to K. It's not worth it.' But listen to yourself very carefully. Just ( non-personally ?) watch yourself. And you say, ' I have no time to look at myself', which is nonsense. One has plenty of time if you want to do something serious. But there are thousands of ( rational ?) excuses for not being serious. So to listen or to observe yourself, and yourself is not different from the thousand, million other 'selves'. I know we are educated to (emphasise ?) 'individuality', separate souls, separate atmans. But ( psychologically ?) are we actually different? You ( inwardly) go through great travail, boredom, loneliness, despair, tremendous self-interest as each one of you has. So do the Russians, so do the Americans, so do the Chinese, French and Germans . If it is (seen as a true inner ?) fact, it has tremendous significance. And can one live with ( the truth of ?) that fact? That means a great (sense of) compassion. When there is compassion, there is ( a global ?) intelligence. Then you wipe away all divisions, all wars.

Question: What is 'myself' and what is its relationship to the Cosmos?

K: First of all, let's look at what is the 'self' (consciousness ?) . The 'self' is the ( outward identification with ?) name, the form, the ( sensory) responses; the 'profession' , the ( self-assumed ?) 'responsibility' of going to the office for fifty years and being ( competitively ?) ambitious, to have a better house, car, and all the rest of it. That's only the outward signs. But inwardly, what are you? The ( subliminal ?) identification with ( the culture of ?) your country, the ( 'psychological' ?) roots in your family, knowledge (which is the most dangerous root !) - all that is the activity of thought. Right?
So, (inwardly ) what 'are' you? Be honest with yourself. Don't play tricks. ( Consciousness-wise ?) you are the story of mankind, the ( active memory of the ?) past ( updating itself ?) all the time . You need ( factual) memory to drive a car, to go from here to your house, or to your office, to recognize your wife or husband - there you need memory. But why ( subliminally ?) carry this immense ( 'psychological') memory which has accumulated for a thousand years or one day? As long as this ( background ?) memory is operating, which is the past, the 'self interest' -which is the beginning of all corruption.

So the 'self (-consciousness') is put together by ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought which is ( the response of our ?) memory. Then the ( time-free ?) question arises, if there is no ( response of that ?) memory, then what else is there left?
The second part of your question is, 'What is the relationship of the self to the cosmos?' What is the meaning of the word 'cosmos' ? Cosmos means 'order', from the Greek. 'Chaos' is the opposite. There is a ( Cosmic ?) relationship only when there is complete order in you, because the Universe is ( existing ) in supreme order: sun rises, sun sets, stars, clouds, the beauty of the sunset. All that is order. And I, who live in disorder with my self-interest, want to find out my relationship to that (universal ) Order. So, the first question is , can I put my house in order? Not, 'What is my relationship to the cosmos?' since I can never find this out if my ( inner) house is in disorder. What then is my inner disorder? Disorder basically means ( an ongoing state of inner ?) conflict. Conflict exists when there is duality. 'I want this', and 'I don't want that' or 'I am this' but 'I must be that'. I am questioning, is there (inwardly) a duality at all? Or is it only one (movement ?) ? ( Eg:) I 'am' (not separated from my) anger. Duality arises only when ( I assume that ?) I must not be angry. So ( inwardly ) there is only the 'fact' (the 'what is' ) and not its opposite. ( When the reaction of anger occurs) I 'am' angry - that is a fact. Can I live with the fact? That is, I 'am' angry and 'I' am not different from 'anger'. So, there is no ( need to create any inner ?) 'duality'. If you really understand ( the practical aspect of ?) this , ( the self-generated inner ?) conflict ends and you "are what you are" . And "what you are" can never be changed by thought, by ( cultural) circumstances. You "are" that.

Disorder exists when there is conflict, when there is the ( hope for the ?) 'better'. Take 'violence' and 'non-violence'. Non-violence is not the fact. To remain with the fact, to let the fact ( bring its own) answer - when 'you' try to answer the fact as though you were separate from the fact then the ( duality) problem arises. 'I am violent'. That is a fact. Not only the 'physical' ( aspects of) violence, but also the (inner reactions of ?) violence: hate, anger, jealousy, obedience, imitation, conformity. You 'are' that violence, therefore 'hold it' quietly (contemplatively ?) . That means giving your entire (undivided ?) attention to that and in that complete attention, that (instant reaction of ?) violence is gone. You can test this out for yourself, 'put your heart' into it. So can there be order in yourself first? Because you as a human being have made the (outward ) society: with your ( competitive ?) greed, ambition, aggression .
So, ( in a nutshell) disorder comes to an end and then there is ( inner) order. When there is that complete ( inner) order you will never ask, 'What is my relationship to the cosmos?'

Question: Is not the 'psychological' time a fact? While there may be no ( time-line) for the attainment of Truth, how can you question the usefulness of self-preparation for establishing a right kind of "body and mind" harmony. Surely this must be a gradual process.

K: Sir, this is a very complicated question and the question reveals in itself a much more complex state. First of all, what is 'psychological' time? I 'hope to' meet you tomorrow. I 'want to' be a beautiful person . I'm not, but I want to be. The 'want' implies ( a psychological expectation in terms of ) time. My 'hope' (to become something better ?) implies time. Any illusion can ( virtually ?) become a 'fact' . So you live ( inwardly ?) in illusion; your gods, rituals, nationality. What is 'being an Indian'? What is 'India'? A geographical description of a sub-continent. And you have given to that group of people living within the borders of that country the tremendous significance of an ancient culture 5,000 years old . And thought has invented all this. I have invented, "I'm an Indian". K is questioning ( the validity of ?) this whole psychological time as ( means for inner ?) evolution. I am 'this', but I hope 'I will become that' in a future life. So (the psychological) 'time' is a ( self-projected ?) movement, as thought is a ( self sustained ?) movement. So time 'is' ( undissociated from ?) thought. They are not two separate processes. Time is ( a self-created continuity of ?) thought.

But to go beyond ( the virtual reality of ?) memory, beyond knowledge, is something entirely different. And for the attainment of Truth the questioner says, time is necessary. Is truth something static, or tremendously alive? That ( innermost Reality ?) which is greatly alive has no 'path'. How can you have a path for something which moves, lives, changes, vital, full of 'something else'? Therefore there are no paths to truth. Be clear about it, then you won't be caught in a trap. The goal 'is' ( implicit in ) the means. They are not separate. The moment you have a ( spiritual) goal, you are ambitious to achieve it . But the ( hope for ) achievement is the basis of self-interest: 'I have achieved Nirvana'. As though Nirvana, or Heaven, or something immense, is to be achieved by a (self-centred) brain that is conditioned, frightened, anxious, limited, fearful, sorrowful - all the rest of it. How can such a brain ( spiritually ?) achieve anything? It can only end all the fears, all its loneliness, it can only end all that. That's all it can do. It can't achieve something Immense. Where there is self-interest, all achievement is disorder.
And the questioner says 'Is not the preparation for the establishment of a right harmony of body, mind, heart - surely this must be a gradual process.' I wonder if you can put away the whole concept of gradation which is really ( a material ?) measurement.

Now, (regarding the harmony of ?) body and brain; is the (psychosomatic ?) body different from the brain? It's one instrument, isn't it? An organic whole. But we have ( artificially ?) separated the body and the brain. Who is creating this division? Is it thought? Or is the brain itself being divided (compartmentalised ?) in itself and therefore it divides everything?
So (the self-centred process of ) thought is responsible for all this division because it wants ( to fonction on 'auto-pilot' ? ) security. Thought is necessary in a technological world, but thought has no place in the 'psychological' world. So can ( the 'psychological ' activity of ?) thought end? There is a tremendous depth to that question. Then there is no ( inner) division - then you 'are' humanity, and there is ( the intelligent action of ?) Compassion.


I would like to ask, if I may, why you come here and what is it you are seeking? What is it deeply we want? If each one of us asked that question seriously to find out for oneself what is it most profoundly you desire, or crave for, or pursue ? Most of us built a marvellous ( self-protecting ?) scaffolding, but behind it there is no ( spiritual ?) foundation, no strong lasting building behind that scaffold. So let's go back to our questions, shall we.

Question: You have shown that thought is limited, but what other instrument of enquiry is available to man?

K: We live ( in a world dominated by ?) by thinking. Everything we do is through ( the mental instrument of ?) thought. We generally 'think about something', about my job, about my business, about my wife about so many things. The object of our thinking may vary, may be different with each person, but thinking, thought is common to all mankind. So, we are not investigating the 'thinking about something', but rather the whole activity of thought, how it arises, what is its origin, and so on.
( The proces of ?) thinking can only exist when there is a whole background of memory. If I have no memory at all I can't 'think'. Right? Memory is based on 'knowledge'. I have had an experience of a car accident and that incident has been recorded by the brain, and that recording is the memory of that incident. The function of the brain is to record, and the recording is (stored as ?) knowledge. So (there is an ?) experience, then the brain records that experience as knowledge, then that knowledge is memory and that memory is ( used by ?) the movement of thought.
And obviously, there is no 'complete' experience of anything. So as our ( capacity to ?) experience is limited, the (resulting ?) knowledge is also limited. So, memory is limited, and therefore thought is limited, and all our ( mental ?) activity is limited too because it is based on thought.
So, the questioner asks, if thought is not the ( adequate) instrument for investigating the deeper levels of one's own consciousness, for understanding the fullness, the wholeness of life, then what is the ( other?) instrument ? Thought is necessary, however limited it is. You have to use thought when you do anything externally, physically. So ( the process of thinking within the field of ?) knowledge is always necessary for external activity.

Now, is there another ( perceptive ?) instrument which is not limited, which can penetrate into the whole structure, nature of the 'psyche' (or into the whole phenomenon of the 'self ') ? Is there an instrument apart from thought? Right? What would be your answer realizing that thought is limited, and therefore when you exercise thought as a means of investigating into yourself it will not be holistic. If you see that clearly for yourself, for oneself, then what is the ( other ) 'instrument'? Or there is no (need for a material ?) 'instrument' at all?
When you see a tree, how do you look at it? What's your relationship to that tree? Can you look at it without any ( verbal) interference of thought which is limited? Or you are so occupied with 'thinking about' your own problems, that you never ( take a time-out to ?) really look at that tree? Now carry that same thing (in the field of human relationships ) : can you look at your wife, or husband, or (anybody else ?) , without the word, without the ( personal ?) 'memories' associated with that person? Do I (have to ?) carry the ( psychological ) memory of 'knowing' that person (if I want to ?) look at him/her afresh ? You ( actually) never look (anew ?) at that person at all because you have got this ( interfering images of?) memory ( acting ?) as a ( self-protective ?) ?) screen and through that screen you look at people.

So there is a (quality of direct, non-verbal ?) observation which is not controlled by words or twisted by thought, and that is the only - I don't like to use the word 'instrument' - that is the only ( perceptive tool for of inner ?) "observation", to look without ( the interference of ?) any word. Don't shake your head, this demands extraordinary watchfulness. To look (directly) , to observe without the word, without (the protective screen of?) all your activity of thought. Then this (quality of direct) observation which it is not shaped or driven by thought is holistic, whole, not limited as thought is limited. Is this clear? Please don't 'agree' unless you ( actually) 'do it'! What we are saying is extraordinarily important to understand: that there is an observation, (a way of purely ) 'observing' without a single movement of thought. And such observation is complete.
Now from that arises another deep important question: what is our 'action' when there is such complete perception? (Our commun) action is based on the past memories, knowledge, or acting according to the future, what I must do tomorrow, therefore I will do this today. But is there a (perceptive?) action which is not based either on the past, or on the future? The 'doing' is now, not tomorrow or yesterday. You understand what I am saying? We cannot live without 'acting' (doing something ?) . When 'you get up', that's an act, when you 'go to your home', that's an act; the actual action is now. So I am asking myself, what is the relationship of 'action' to 'perception' which is the holistic (way of life ?) ? So is there an 'action' which is holistic, which is whole, not limited? Because our ( regular) 'actions' are based on thought. If ( our self-centred ?) thought is limited, our action will be also limited and therefore it creates all kinds of ( inner and outer ?) trouble.

Question: Silence is the pivotal point in all your teachings for the transformation of man. To your closest circle you have advocated the need for 'sitting still', and 'staying in silence' for short periods during the day. To bring about this mutation in the brain please teach us the practical steps to achieve this transformation.

K: God! Who put this question? The speaker has no 'closed circle' round him, the 'disciples'. To have disciples is a horror to the speaker, because generally the disciples destroy the teacher. (Laughter) You may laugh at it but it is a fact. So there is no 'closed circle'. I would walk out of it tomorrow if there was such a thing. And I really mean it. Because independence is necessary. And it is only through independence there can be ( authentic) co-operation. You understand, co-operation is immensely important in life. We either co-operate for our own (personal or group ?) profit, or we co-operate round a person because we all worship him, then it becomes personal idolatry, which is an abomination. But ( the authentic spirit of ?) 'cooperation', can not take place unless each one is free to co-operate. You are not my boss, I am not your boss. You understand all this?

(I am afraid the questioner has got things totally wrong !) "Silence is the pivotal point of all your teachings for the transformation of man. And to your close circle you have advocated the need for sitting still, staying in silence for a short period during the day, so to bring about transformation." You know that becomes 'Transcendental Meditation': in the morning twenty minutes, in the afternoon twenty minutes, in the evening another twenty minutes keep silent, watchful. The speaker is not 'advocating' anything. On the contrary he says doubt, doubt what the speaker is saying, not only other speakers, this speaker, question, be sceptical, be ( inwaedly ?) 'independent'.

Sir, the transformation of the human psyche, the human selfishness, the human violence, is not through ( the practice of ?) silence. Silence is something totally different from the ( traditional connotations of the ?) word silence. Silence may include sound. We don't ( holistically ?) understand the 'sound' ( the sound of a tree, the sound of a thunder, the sound in ourselves there is tremendous sound in the world) and we just separate the 'sound' from 'silence'. Sound may be, and 'is', part of silence. I won't go into this now.
To bring about the transformation of the 'psyche' - our self-interest, our confusion, our pains, sorrow, fear, pleasure and all the things that we go through life: the pain, the uncertainty, the lack of security, the demand for security both physically and psychologically, all this is 'me', 'you' , your worries, your problems, your quarrels, your desires, your sexual demands, your name, and so on, is you. And to bring about a total transformation, that is, a total 'ending' of this self (-ishness?) which is creating such chaos in the world, that ending is not 'through silence'. That 'ending' has to take place now through a careful, attentive ( silent ?) observation of your desires, your thoughts, your attempts at meditation, concentration, all that is part of the (rthe collective stream of ?) 'self-interest'. And to end that completely, this 'self-interest', you need a very good clear brain, a brain that is free from all 'programmes', to be free from all conditioning, and therefore one has to observe the ( sticky effects of our past ?) conditioning. The conditioning that you are a Hindu, Muslim, that you are this and that, all those trivialities which thought has created. That requires a great inward attention. You give a great deal of ( outward directed ?) attention to earning money, to go to your office, to do this or that, tremendous attention, but you give very, very little attention to the (inner) .

Suppose you and I have been "going north" for the last hundred thousand years, and suppose that somebody comes along and says, 'You have been going along that 'path' for the last hundred thousand years or more, I have been on that path too, but it leads nowhere'. That man says. He says, 'Go east', or 'south', or 'west'. And he says it in all seriousness, and you listen to it because you are weary of this ( lonely ?) path of 'going north', and you listen very carefully. And you say, 'Quite right, let me see'. When you ( stop and ?) 'turn away' the brain has broken the (self-centred ) pattern of (going) north. The moment it turns (shifts to ?) 'going east' it has changed radically the brain cells (neuronal patterns ?) themselves, because you have broken the pattern. The moment one perceives the absurdity of this division (divisive mentality ?) there is a ( qualitative ? ) mutation in the brain cells themselves. So there is a 'mutation' - mutation means 'total change' - when there is clear perception.

Question: Can humanity survive without a universal code of morality, which is true for all times and in all climates? Can an earnest man discover this ( universally integrated ?) way of life by his own reason and goodwill?

K: Aren't you like the rest of humanity? You live a very, very superficial life, occasionally being 'jolted out' by sorrow, or fear? And your 'neighbour' next door, or thousands of miles away, goes through the same thing in a different way. So ( consciousness-wise ?) you 'are' the rest of humanity. To you this is not a ( living ?) truth because you have been conditioned to (a mentality of self-centred ?) individualism. So you cannot understand (see the 'fact' ?) that psychologically (inwardly ?) sorrow is common to all mankind. You may suffer from a disease, while another has a sorrow caused by the death (of a loved one) , or the sorrow of ignorance; there is not one single human being on earth who has not had this pain ( un-) fulfilment and its sorrow, the desire to have roots in some place and not finding it: there is (a conscious or subliminal sense of frustration and ?) sorrow in every human being. So you are not different from another human being. Yes sirs, it is a hard pill to swallow: if you are ( inwardly corrupt or 'fragmented' ?) because of your self-interest, you are adding to the ( cummulative ) misery of the rest of mankind. But ( this global tendency can be reversed ?) if the brain can wipe away its self-interest.

( The collective stream of ?) self-interest is one of the most deceiving things because it can hide under everything: in politics, in religion, in prayer, in the family ( responsability ?) and so on. It is so cunning, so deceptive. And you can't trace all its hidden ( karmic ?) ways, nobody can because it is far too subtle. But when there is the ( passion and ) urgency to see the nature of the 'self', and its 'interest', when there is (the insightful ?) perception of which I was talking about- to see things as they 'are' inwardly, when you observe (them) without any movement of thought, then that "glimpse of the truth" will wipe away all the self-interest.

Questioner: If sorrow is common for all of us why don't we have (access to ?) love which is also common to all of us?

K: Do you ( really ?) love your wife? Do you ( have ) love ( for ) that tree? In India and elsewhere, they don't know what "love" is, sir, don't say it is 'common'. You worship, you are devoted, you go to temples, but you won't even pick up the village dirt. So we have (not even basic sense of ?) love. Don't use that word, sir, if you don't know it (in your heart?) . It is the most sacred thing on earth if you have it.
Oh, it's nearly ten to nine. Do we go on?

Q: Yes, go on.

K: I know, you would like me to go on and it becomes some kind of ( subliminally ?) 'hypnotic' process. Sir, what we are talking about is a very serious matter, very, very serious. You can have a (video ?) tape and play that if you want to go to sleep, but if you are really serious about these matters, because we are reaching a ( 'consciousness' ?) crisis in the world, of which you are not ( even ?) aware: religion has no meaning any more, there is no morality any more, there is corruption all over the world. Where there is self interest, in you or in anybody, corruption begins right there, that's the ( inner) root of corruption, not just passing bribes and all the rest of that. That's only a symptom. And there is the threat of war, you are not aware of the immense issues involved in all this. Some "crazy" politician can push a button and you are all gone, 'evaporated' .

So we are facing an extraordinary ( challenging ?) situation in the world, and there must be a few of us who turn their face not towards the 'North' ( by... Self Interest ? ) but in some other ( more humane ?) direction.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 23 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #93
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: I think it is important to enquire 'why' and 'to whom' do we put the question. Do we put the question to find an answer from somebody, or do we put questions to ourselves? If we put questions to ourselves, from what depth, or superficially, do we put the questions to ourselves? And is the answer something outside the question or in the question itself ? If the question is serious, and therefore the question itself has the answer. Right? We're going to find that out, because we're going to investigate the question, not the answer. We're not going to ( positively ?) answer the question. Probably the answer will come out when we look at the question closely.

QUESTION: In spite of all my love, care and attention, I don't know where I lack in bringing up my daughter. Can you throw some light on the best way of educating the child?

K: We ought to enquire together into what we mean by "educating" a child. Is it a 'holistic' education or only a career-minded education? Do we educate a child to face the whole problem of life, our complex, divisive way of life, or do we educate them to memorise and remember a lot of knowledge and then exercise those memories to acquire a skill and a job? And we neglect totally the other side of life, the 'psychological' side of life. And we are asking, is our education lopsided or holistic?
Why do we neglect the whole area of the ( inner) 'psychological' field which is immensely important? Is there any school or any university in the world where they are doing this? That is, to cultivate the brain as a whole, not a part of it. We are asking, is it possible for the cultivation of the whole brain, not part of it? The speaker has never read any 'philosophical' book, nor read the Gita, the Upanishads and all that business. Why should your mind be burdened with all the knowledge of what previous thinkers, previous people who had 'religious' experiences and so on, why should you read all that? Aren't 'you' as a human being the ( open ?) book of mankind ? If you know how to 'read' that book, then you don't have to read any other book, except learn technological knowledge to earn a livelihood.

So, how do we approach this question: whether it's possible to cultivate (or awaken ?) the entire human brain and not one part of it alone? The (old ?) brain contains all the animalistic reactions, fears, all that. That's part of our hereditary, because we have come from the ape and so on. And that is part of our ( 'self'-) consciousness. Now, we have been 'educated' to function only with a part of our brain by acquiring a great deal of memory, knowledge about particular subjects and with it's discipline to earn a livelihood. Right? We are educated that way and the other part, the "psychical" part, is uneducated, is left alone. So our education is 'lopsided' (unbalanced ?) .
So is it possible to cultivate knowledge, memory but also at a different period ( help the child) understand the whole psychological content of a human being? Both of them running together. The speaker thinks that is the only right kind of education. To understand the other side (of ourselves ?) - the psychological world - you are mankind, you are the history of man; you are the story of mankind. Obviously. Because (inwardly) you are one with the rest of the world. So can you read the Book of Mankind, which is you? You are ( inwardly the expression of ?) the entire history of mankind; not the history of kings and queens and dates, but the ( actual human ?) experience, the sorrow, the pain, all that tremendously complex 'psychological' world - can you "read" that Book as you read an ordinary book?
We are not capable of doing that because we have (delegated our responsability ?) on others to 'read' (and/or 'write' ?) that Book for us.

Can we ( interactively ?) read that Book -without depending on any other- and read it without any distortion? As you see your face in the mirror when you comb your hair or shave, is there an (transparent inner ?) 'mirror' in which everything is reflected very clearly, distinctly, so that the (full content of the ?) Book reflects in that mirror? Suppose I don't know how to read that book, because my brain is distorted ('psychologically biased' ?) . Therefore I can hardly read that book clearly. So can (my inner-observation be?) free of ( the traditional ?) prejudices, theories, suppositions ? Therefore I must be free of ( the generally accepted ?) tradition to read ( the content of this ?) tradition. Vous avez compris? You have understood this? Yes? It's rather interesting if you go into it.

I am answering the poor lady who wants to bring up her daughter carefully, well educated and during the educational period she ( will subliminally ?) acquire all the ( cultural ) 'nonsenses' of ( modern) society. You know what is happening in the world, I don't have to go into all that.
If you loved your daughter or your son really deeply, then would you allow that child to grow up and be caught in this tremendous conflicting and insane world? Do you want your children whom you love, to enter this insane world? It's a tremendous problem, because you have to have an occupation. You have to earn a livelihood. You can't just withdraw from the world, because you 'are' the world. So, the mother asks, 'what shall I do?' - knowing that society is so corrupt, so extraordinarily unbalanced. Everyone is "out for himself", self-interest. So does your love stop after a certain age? You've sent your child to a school, to a college and perhaps to an university and then get him married, and settled down. Right? That's what most parents are concerned about. And this is called 'love'. We are questioning whether that is love at all. There can be no ( authentic ?) love if there is self-interest. Right? This is a fact. If I am concerned about myself all the time, which we are, how can there be ( compassion and ?) love? That's one side of it.
And we are talking about whether you can read the story of mankind, the (dynamic content of the ?) Book that you "are" - to go through to the very end of it. It is possible only in the ( 2-way) mirror of our ( daily) relationship. In that mirror of relationship you can see your reactions and responses, not only the 'biological' responses but also all the 'psychological' responses of ambition, greed, envy, to flattery or insult. The whole ( active ?) "content of your consciousness" is revealed if one is watching very closely, without any distortion. Then (such reading ?) is a holistic movement, having its own discipline, and one is always related in life with everything - I am related to you, I am related to another - so, in that ( 2-way ?) mirror, watching carefully without distortion, that requires tremendous passion and energy. Can this both be done? That is ( the essence of a ?) real education. Then you don't have to read a single ( 'knowledgeable' ?) book about the human "psyche".

QUESTION: Why is it that we are not able to sustain ( our inner) attention for more than a couple of minutes?

K: You want "to sustain attention". Why? Because somebody has told you attention is very important? Or you have discovered for yourself the ( inner ?) nature of attention? Therefore what is ( prioritarily ) important , is to understand what is ( the nature of ?) inattention, then ( perhaps ?) there is attention. Right? So what is 'not-attending'? Is not ( the dualistic nature of of our ?) thought in itself a distraction? 'I' want to concentrate on this ( chosen) 'subject' and I can do that only for a few minutes, and then, thinking about something else, instead of what I am supposed to be thinking about, is called 'distraction'. But if I don't call it 'distraction' and just follow whatever direction my thought moves, there is no sense of distraction, which means no division. So then there is a (choiceless ?) watching of 'attention' and 'non-attention'. Then non-attention is ( becoming part of an all-inclusive ?) attention.
(Recap:) Thought is always moving. It's never static. It's always 'in action' - whether you are asleep, whether you are awake or day-dreaming, it's in movement. And thought is also a 'material' process ( since based on the memory, experience, knowledge stored in the brain and the brain contains millions and millions of cells and those cells 'hold' memories) . And they are always in movement. Then one begins to discover that the brain has its own ( natural) rhythm, not the rhythm of thought.
Now we're asking, is it possible to be 'absolutely watching' all the time? That's really another form of asking, can I sustain attention? Is attention brought about through ( a personal ?) effort? If 'you' make an effort, is that attention?( In a nutshell : ) If you ( holistically ?) understand inattention, there is attention. And it's never 'sustained'. Why should you 'attend' (yourself ?) all the time? You can also look at the stars. And also that requires ( its own quality of ?) attention. So, there is no 'distraction'.

Q: You said that when we see how we behave with somebody we can know what we are. But suppose we are alone. When we are alone and just thinking, then is it not possible to know who we are?

K: Are you 'alone' at all? Do you know what that word 'alone' means? The etymological meaning of that word 'alone' means 'all-one'. Physically you may be single, unrelated, but (inwardly) you are related to the whole of mankind. And then we say to ourselves, we are lonely - I mean single - and with all the problems of being single. Then I try to have a relationship with another and yet remain single. You understand? I may get married, have children, go to the office and all the rest of it, but I remain 'single' because I am pursuing my ambition, and all the rest of it. So there is no isolated person in the world, including the most lonely hermit, he's still 'related', related to his (cultural) tradition, to all the knowledge he has acquired and so on and so on.

QUESTION: Does ( our past) suffering and enjoyment have any bearing on the deeds of present life?

K: You are talking about reincarnation aren't you? "Karma", the root meaning of that word is action. Action means to be acting now. But for most people action has a past motive or a future intention or future ideal and so on. Either the past is directing, shaping the action, or ( our hopes for ?) the future are shaping the action. So that's not ( a time-free ?) "action". Action means the 'doing', the 'active present'. But this ( time-free dimension of the ?) 'active presen't is denied when you have a ( psychological ?) motive, a cause for action and a future action. So when you ( inwardly) depend on the future or on the past, you are not acting. I wonder if you see this. For most of us acting is based on memory, on a motive: "I love you" because you have given me something and so on. You are playing this ( time-binding ?) game.
Now, the questioner asks: ( supposing that ?) I have lived on this earth before and because I haven't done things properly the last life, therefore I am suffering now, and if I understand what is right action now, next life I'll have a better chance, a better house, a better wife.

Now, this is really a very serious question. What is the 'I' that says, 'I must continue'? Or, I have sown a certain seed, good or bad, and that 'flowers', smells bad or good, and the effect is that. Now, ( psychically speaking ?) is the cause 'permanent' and the effect also 'permanent'? Or the effect becomes the cause, and that has another effect, which then becomes another cause. So 'causation' is a movement. (Eg:) If I don't eat properly, the effect is pain. Then I say, that pain must be controlled. I take a pill. But the cause still goes on, because I'm still eating the wrong food. So, there is the 'psychological' continuity of cause and its superficial effects. But if I see the cause is eating wrong food, I change it, the effect is health. But health is not a ( static end ?) result. It is ( part of a dynamic process of ?) living properly. So, the cause is never permanent nor is the effect. The effect becomes the cause and so it's a chain, it's a movement. And the ( deeper ?) question really is: can this movement stop? You understand? This movement, which is, cause-effect, effect becoming the cause and so on, and this movement is of 'time'. So I'm asking, need there be any causation for action? Is there an action 'per se', for itself, not for something? To understand that I have to go into the question of "reward and punishment". The human brain ( traditionally ?) lives on this principle - reward and punishment - like all animals do. Right?
And we think along the same principle: I haven't done things properly this life or past life. I'm paying for it now but the next life I'll be rewarded if I behave properly. Right? So its reward and punishment. Same principle. Now, can you act (now) and live without a motive, without this (mentality ?) of reward and punishment? So, we're asking, is there an action which has no cause, which has no motive, which has no self-interest action? Is there such an action 'per se', for itself? There is, which is Love. Right action takes place when there is this sense of "holistic love" - I can love my wife and love mankind, because it's ( Universal ?) Love. It's not love to one and denied to the others. That's really (the action born of ?) Compassion. And when there is that Compassion, there is Intelligence. And this intelligence has no opposite to it. Go into it sirs, see for yourselves how extraordinarily interesting it is, not just whether you believe ( or not) in re-incarnation.

QUESTION: Is it possible to be "aware with all our senses" simultaneously?

K: Anything is possible. But how do we function (right now ?) ? With all our senses or only with partial senses? ( Inwardly our ?) senses are are only partially awake. And it has been one of the (main ideological trends ?) of religions all over the world, to 'control your senses' so as to have energy for finding God. And have you noticed that people who live by 'the' book are very bigoted, narrow, while those who have 'lots of books' like the Hindus, they play around, (but nevertheless ?) are more tolerant; they absorb. And they consider that 'absorption' (or tolerance ?) is a great capacity, which it is not, (since deeper down ?) it is just indifference. So, is it possible to be aware simultaneously, of all the senses ( turned on ?) in full action ?
Have you watched a sunset with all your senses? Have you noticed the movement of the sea, the blue light and the movement of a wave, with all your senses? Now, when you 'watch with all your senses', what takes place? If you begin to be aware of ( the inner activity of ?) your senses, aware without choice, the whole movement of senses, to ( inwardly) watch our ('personal') reactions to every sense, the taste, the hearing, the seeing, the smelling, the feeling, (you may notice that psychosomatically ?) we live by sensations, and thought takes over (in order to validate and/or optimise the sensory responses ?) the 'sensations': you see something beautiful in the shop, a nice shirt, or a nice sari, there is the 'seeing', the 'touching' it - seeing, contact, sensation. Then ( our self-centred process of ?) thought comes along and says, "(Wouldn't it be nice ?) to have that shirt on me ?" So thought (instantly ) creates the ( self-rewarding ?) 'image' of you in that shirt or in that sari. Then ( the time-binding process of ?) 'desire' is born. (Additional 'psycho' - entanglements may arise when ?) we are fighting desire.

(To recap:) seeing, contact, sensation. And (if one is ?) seeing the truth, that the moment thought comes and builds a ('self'-rewarding ?) 'image', then ( a time binding process of ?) desire is born, which is a simple, observable fact (of life). Now, sensations ( the sensory responses ?) are normal, healthy, otherwise you would be dead. But (one can ?) watch very carefully ( the subliminal interference of ?) thought and not let (allow ?) thought create an image out of that sensation. I wonder if you understand ( the practical aspect of ?) this? (Recap:) I see that shirt in the shop. Then I go inside and touch the material and say, 'What beautiful material, hand made' . And then thought comes along and says, 'How nice it would be if I had it. I'll put it on. Nice blue'. When thought creates the (self-rewarding ?) 'image', then ( a time-binding ?) 'desire' is born.
Now, sensation ( the sensory responses) has no desire. I wonder if you see this? It's really important. Then to become aware of thought making a (self-rewarding ?) 'image' out of that sensation, then the ( inner ) conflict ( created by the fragmentary trends ?) of desire. So, is there such an ( holistic quality of inner ) observation to see ( the image-making interference of ?) thought and not allow it to react immediately, so that there is a 'gap'. You understand? 'Do it' and see what happens.

Q: Why is every sensation or reaction of the brain is always in terms of a thought?

K: Why is thought interfering with every sensation? Don't ask me, find out. You are so 'lazy' (psychologically ?) ; that's what it is. We live by ( the "auto-pilot" mode ?) thought. Right? That's the only ( fool proof ?) instrument you have now. And ( functioning safely in the field of ) thought has created the most amazing ( technological ?) things in the world, (along with?) a tremendous ( human ) chaos in the world: wars, separated nations, separated religions and separated economies . So thought has done immense harm in one direction and great good in the other direction, like having better sanitation, communication, marvellous surgery. So thought is the ( globally accepted ?) way of our life. And (as any?) thought ( process based on self-interest ?) is very limited, therefore it is creating chaos in the world.
We never ( seriously ) ask ' Is there another instrument'? Is there another (quality of ?) perception which is not ( controlled by ?) thought? That requires a great deal of "going into", not just intellectually , but also "doing it". There is that instrument which is "insight", an instant perception in which there is no ( interference of ?) memory, no 'time'; and that perception 'is' action, not separated.

Q: Can we come out of this 'world of thought' through any (personal) effort?

K: Who is the 'maker of the effort'? Does not ( the 'self'-identified process of ?) thought also say, 'If I can get out of this, I'll have a better reward' ? You see we put these questions without thinking it out for ourselves. The speaker doesn't want to 'help' you, but we can have a 'dialogue' together so that both of us see the same thing clearly.

QUESTION: I don't follow doctrines and commandments of "divine" souls, since I am afraid that they may do something wrong to me. So, I always feel uneasy and live in a fearing condition. Please guide and advise me.

K: Sir, we've got the most extraordinary ideas. Perhaps they are neurotic - that some evil souls are controlling us, shaping us, telling us what to do. And that there are 'divine' souls, saying, 'Don't do that', advising the opposite of the 'evil birds'. Why are we so frightened of 'curses', of some people doing us harm psychologically, black magic? You know all that dark side of this country. Not that the other countries don't have dark sides, but it's not so pronounced. Why are we always caught in this (mentality of ?) 'somebody doing me harm'?
Sir, really the question is, there is good and bad, the noble and the ignoble and so on. Is Good related to the bad? If it's related then it's not Good. Right? Religions all over the world lay down a moral way of living; don't kill, don't steal, all religions have done it. And we do quite the opposite of all that. 'Don't kill', we kill. Right? 'Don't cheat', we cheat. 'Don't have double standards' and so on. We all do the opposite. So why do you bother about the commandments coming straight from some "saint" or some "god" or other. It seems so absurd - trying to live something which is not 'natural'. Why don't we change what is 'natural'? Why am I greedy? That's 'my' problem, not somebody else's problem. Because our whole (collective mentality and/or ?) 'education' is based on having more: more money, more this, more that. "The more, the better", which means comparison, which means measurement. Now, if I don't compare myself with (anybody) I am "what I am" and can move from there. Have you ever done it: never compare yourself with anything ?
You know, if you have been to museums, can you look at a picture without (mentally) comparing it with another picture? Can you see that old, ancient picture, looking at it without any side distractions, which is comparison? Just look at it. Have you ever tried to live a life without any 'comparison'? That's the beginning of ( inner ?) freedom, when there is no measurement of your becoming something (or not ?). Which means, that you don't get better and better in violence. Which is called non-violence. I wonder if you see the joke of this. Better and better in violence - which is what you are all doing. So if the brain, which has been conditioned to measurement, to comparison, can put that completely aside then there is that quality of ( iner) freedom. And it's only when there is that 'depth of inner freedom' (or just freedom), there is also ( a quality of universal ?) Love in it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 25 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #94
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

1ST Q&A OJAI MEETING 1985 ( 'reader friendly' edited )

K: I think we ought to ask ourselves why do we ask questions? From whom does one expect an answer? Or can we 'have a dialogue' about a question? That is like playing tennis, back and forth, until the question itself is suspended ( and contemplated ?) between the two of us. If you have ever done it, the ( mind contemplating the ?) question begins to have its own vitality, its own urgency, its own capacity to answer itself. So if we could let the question evolve, grow, expand, then the answer, is ( unfolding itself from ?) the question, not from your (knowledgeable ? ) background. It's very rarely that one has such a dialogue. But as you watch the question without any ('personal' ?) deviation then the question itself has an extraordinary meaning.

So we are going to look at these questions that way. We're going to watch, listen to the question. Then the question begins to respond (expose its truth ?) out of the very heart of the question.
The speaker has talked all over the world, except behind the Iron Curtain or Bamboo Curtain. And questions are put to him of every kind. But if one puts aside one's own tendencies and one's own acquired knowledge, and looks at the person who is asking the question, looks at his face, his gestures, why he is asking the question, what is the expression on his face, then you can see either it's a superficial question, just put to catch you, or to see what your quick response would be and so on. But if we could do what we just now said, that 'back and forth' (exchange ) , and let the question itself respond, then the ( truth revealed in ?) answering the question becomes extraordinarily significant.

QUESTION: Would you please explore further into the mechanism of guilt and its relation to the ego?

K: 'Ego' being the psyche, the 'subjective entity', right? That's what generally one calls the ego, the 'me', and the 'you'. The question is, what relationship has guilt, the mechanism of it, to the whole structure of the 'self'.
Now, the question is a ( 2-way ?) challenge, a problem that you have to face and resolve. We never resolve ( holistically ?) any problem because we're always answering from our ( personal ?) background. Right? So let's go into this question. Why does one have this sense of guilt? It may be very, very superficial, or very, very deep, rooted from childhood, and allowed to grow as one gets older. And that feeling of guilt makes one either feel very 'empty' ( insecure ?) - a sense of not being able to do anything (right ?) . And then out of that guilt one builds a ( protective mental ?) "wall" round himself. And that wall prevents any ( authentic ?) communication. Or you have told me to do something from childhood, and I can't do it, but I feel I must do it; and if I fail I feel guilty. And the parents play a terrible role in this: they encourage this guilt, consciously or unconsciously. So, this guilt becomes part of the ego, part of 'me'.

I think it would be wrong to put the question, "what is the relationship between the two ?" since they are not two separate things. It is ' guilt' along with other (cultural ?) factors, that constitute the ego. They are not two separate reactions. So guilt is part of the psyche, part of the ego, part of the me.
Now why does one feel guilt? Apart from ( the 'bullying' ?) people who make you feel guilty, and hold you in that state. Because it's very 'convenient' for them, to bring about a sense of guilt, the feeling that you must submit, you must obey. And though ( later on ?) you may revolt against it, you ( subliminally ?) hold on to your guilt ( along with ?) other ( conditioning) factors making up the 'ego', the 'me'. And 'guilt' ( the sense of failing the expectations ?) creates a ( generalised) sense of depression and therefore I come to you and say, "Please help me to overcome this guilt." And then you ( the 'psy' ?) impose another reaction (creating its own ?) guilt. So it ( the inner sense of insufficiency ?) goes on. In Christianity there is the "original sin" and (to get rid of it ?) I must feel guilty (repent ?) and the whole 'circus' begins. It takes different forms: in the Christian world confession, absolution, while in the Asiatic world it has a different form: they go to temples - you know, all kinds of things they do.
But is it necessary to feel this ('original guilt' ?) ? Can't there be a (different form of ?) education in which there is nothing of this? Is there a way of bringing up a child ( the future adult ?) in which there is not this encouragement or the feeling of guilt?

Q: There is something that I don't understand: how can I 'look at guilt' if guilt is not happening in the moment, without looking in my background?

K: We're going to go into it in a minute. Let me finish. Guilt becomes a problem, how to resolve it, how to get over it, and human beings apparently have thousands of problems: political, religious, economic, sexual, relationship, my living becomes a problem, and guilt is (just a) part of it. Etymologically, 'problem' means 'something thrown at you', which you have to face. And what happens? ( Outwardly ?) there are (a lot of ?) 'political' and 'social' problems; and these problems are never solved completely . In the very solution of one problem other (colateral) problems develop. So let's go into the question, why human beings have problems at all, and is it possible not to have a single ( 'personal' ?) problem - sexual, religious, political, economic, relationship, and so on? So - you are playing the ( 'dialogue ?) game' with me - let's find out why human beings have problems.

From childhood, when a child goes to the school writing, reading, spelling, mathematics, geography, history, biology, chemistry, science, from the very beginning he is 'trained', or ( culturally ?) conditioned, to (approach life in terms of formulating and solving ?) "problems". Right? And all his life from the moment he is born 'til he dies, the brain continues to live in ( a mentality of ?) problems, because he has been educated, cultivated, and the whole system of comparison, examinations, rewards, punishments, and so on. All that has made the brain not only receive problems but have its own problems, it's conditioned that way, therefore it can never solve any problem.

So is it possible from the very beginning not to give the child or ourselves problems? Which means, can the brain be free from its conditioning to live with problems? When the brain is free (of 'personal' problems ?) , then it can solve problems, it doesn't matter what they are. Now, is that possible, because as long as you have problems you must have the feeling that you must resolve them and if you can't resolve them, you feel guilty. And so we keep this going. Then others come (trying to ?) help us, and the whole thing beings again in a different form.
So in ( sharing ) the investigation, the question is beginning to ( bring the true ?) answer to all this. It's like a map you unfold and you look at the whole of the map, and if you see the whole, you can see ( and see the connexions between ?) the parts. Right? And that's the importance of ( abiding with ?) a question. And if you look ( non-personally ?) at the question the question itself ( un)covers the whole field. Right? Is this clear so far? Can we go to the next question?

QUESTION: Evolution has brought about certain physical differences in racial groups. Are there also parallel psychological differences born into an infant of a particular race, or are they only acquired conditioning? And if the conditioning is inherited, can it really be changed or left behind?

K: Suppose I am born in India: they are ( mentally) more subtle, much more clever, much more analytical. But they don't go beyond that. They are all 'up here' and they can argue back and forth, all that (acquired ?) capacity of five thousand years, does that affect the psyche? Does it affect the ( self-centred ?) conditioning? Is their 'psyche', their 'subjective state', different from the rest of mankind? Don't you and I suffer? Don't we go through various forms of fear? And does the child inherit the biological conditioning? You are following all this?
I hope you 'listen' to the question. Then you can answer the question if you really listen to the question. Does the physical conditioning shape the psyche? Does it condition the childhood racially? If you treat me as 'black', you would slightly ( subliminally ?) 'look down' upon me. And I may feel inferior, so you exploit me. This is happening the world over, in India there is a great deal of 'colour prejudice'. The 'lighter' ( shade of brown ?) you are the better you are. They would like to marry a girl or a boy who is light-skinned. It sounds rather silly, but it's a fact. And one can see that psychologically we are the same: we all feel anxious (about our future ?) , insecure, confused, depressed and all the rest of it. That means (that consciousness-wise ?) you 'are' the entire humanity. a tremendous realization, not something utopian.

Q: You're saying the ( racial ?) conditioning only goes so deep ?

K: Yes, the biological conditioning is only 'skin deep', if you like to put it that way. But there are other forms of conditioning- the ( self generated ?) conditioning of the 'psyche', in it's desire to be secure: I'm an 'American', or 'British' or 'French', I feel safe . I have been told as a young boy when I first came to England, "You're an Indian, don't look over the hedge." Fortunately I never played that kind of game. So is it possible to leave behind this 'psychological' conditioning? Obviously it is, if one gives one's attention to it, not analytically but just 'observe': as you observe your face in a mirror, you can observe (non-personally ?) your reactions, without any distortion. And that can only be done in the 'mirror' of our relationship with another. Relationship then becomes the mirror in which you see "yourself" ( your personal 'image' ?) exactly as you are (as it is ?) . And if you like to keep that (self-identified ?) 'image' , keep it! Or if you don't like it, break it ('drop' it ?) ! It isn't something tremendously difficult.
So that question (of racial conditioning ?) , if we don't come to it without any prejudice, if we can approach it without any conclusion, then it covers (unveils ?) a tremendous lot.

QUESTION: Why do you say there is no "psychological" evolution?

K: This is really a very serious question. What do you mean by evolution? The oak tree here, it drops its acorn; out of that grows the tree. And also we have biologically evolved from the most ancient of times until what we are now. This has taken us two or three million years to grow into what we are now. And we have also evolved ( culturally and/or ?) 'psychologically', inwardly. Biologically we have probably reached the limit. But 'psychologically' we think we can 'grow' (up ?) ; we can become more noble, less violent, less brutal, less cruelty, you follow? This idea of 'psychological' growth is becoming ( trendy and ?) tremendously important. Otherwise the ego has no meaning. Either in the business world, in the world of technology, in the world of skill, I am always ( struggling to ?) become something better. I'm a better carpenter than I was two years ago, better electrician, better chemist, better this and better that. And we apply the same (mentality ) to the development of the 'psyche'. But is there 'psychological' evolution? Or "what I am (inwardly ) today" I'll be tomorrow. Have I as a human being who have lived on this earth, two or three million years ago or 50,000 years ago, or even 8,000 years ago, have I progressed 'psychologically'? Aren't you ( inwardly ?) as you were at the beginning? More or less brutal, violent, aggressive, insecure, ready to kill for ( the security of ?) your tribe, for your god, for your country, it has existed the same phenomena from the beginning of time. Look at it, sirs, carefully consider all this.

So one asks, is ( it a matter of ?) 'psychological growth', or just a 'psychological ending'? If I don't end my violence today, if I don't leave that violence behind or drop it or radically bring about a mutation, I'll still be violent tomorrow. This is a fact. So, is there a progress, development of the psyche (through ?) 'evolution' ? For me personally there isn't.
But the question remains: I have been what I have been and I am ( inwardly still ) what I have been. I am all the memories, racial, religious, educational, all that (psychological heritage of ?) the past which is "me". And if I don't 'drop all that', I'll be tomorrow exactly the same thing.
From this statement arises the ( experiential ?) question: Is it possible to let go all that? The ball is in your court. Don't wait for me to answer it. Realizing that all this accumulated racial, religious, economic, scientific, political background is the conditioning of your psyche.
There was a man we used to know many years ago. He was walking along the beach, and picked up a branch, a piece of stick that long, and it had the shape of a human form. He brought it home - this is a fact - and put it on the mantelpiece. And one day he put a flower to it. And after several days he began to put a garland round it, worship it, you follow? Human beings create their own images out of their own conditioning.

So, is there psychological evolution at all, or is there only ( the time-free option of ?) 'ending' ( the inherited ?) violence, not tomorrow, but now. Understanding the whole implication of violence: aggressiveness, ambition, part of the feeling of guilt and I'm not wanted to be - you follow? This whole concept of growth, psychological growth. Of course the baby grows into an adult and old age and pops off. That's one irremediable fact, that we're all going to end up in the grave or be incinerated. So one has to look at ( the inner implications of ?) this question and find out the truth of it, not just say, "yes, I think so", or "I don't think so", but carry on day after day.

QUESTION: "To live peacefully needs great intelligence". Please enlarge on this.

K: The speaker said at the first talk that you need great intelligence to live peacefully. And the question is, go into it, have a dialogue about it.
What is 'intelligence'? I'm asking you the question, but you must answer it to yourself. The meaning of that word, coming from Latin, is "to read between the lines".
You need a great deal of ( technical ?) intelligence to go to the moon, to build a computer, to programme it. requires intelligence. This intelligence , based on knowledge, on experience and skill is the 'intelligence' of thought. So that's a limited intelligence, because there is always the 'experiencer' saying "I'm experiencing". Therefore as long as there is the "experiencer", (the 'intelligent' interface of the ?) background of memory- which makes him recognize the experience - that experience is ( intrinsically ?) limited, therefore all thinking is limited. And out of that 'limitation' there is a certain kind of ( practical ?) intelligence with which we operate daily, you couldn't drive a car if you haven't intelligence. And that 'intelligence' had become automatic, you follow (the 'machine-cycle': ) (having a sensory ?) experience - ( acquiring) knowledge- (storing it in) memory- ( 'intelligent' response of ?) thought. That 'intelligence' is limited (to the outer domains of existence) .

So we are asking, is there an "intelligence" which is not limited? You can only ask that question when you actually observe in yourself and in others, the activity of our 'limited' (materialistic ?) intelligence. Otherwise you can't ask that question. The limited intelligence, which ( also) kills human beings and animals purposely, deliberately. You understand, sir? The material for wars, that requires a great deal of thought, great deal of experiment. After centuries of ( empirically ?) killing each other, they have reached the point to 'vaporize' human beings by the millions...

When one realizes the 'fact' of this (deadly limitation ?) you can ask the other question: Is there an intelligence which is not limited? If you are asking it from the 'limited' to find out the other, you can never find it out. You can't have one foot in this and one foot there. But you can't go from the limited to that. And to find 'that' out you have to give (dedicate ?) your life to it, give your (total) energy, your heart, your brain, everything to find that out. And 'that' (unlimited intelligence ?) can exist only when there is Love and Compassion, nothing else.

QUESTION: You have spoken to large audiences the world over. What is it that all of us desire?

K: Will you answer it? What is it you're longing for? What is it that makes people go to church, you follow? What is it you all desire? Can you answer it seriously and honestly? Not one moment I want this, next moment I want that and third moment, third year something else, you know, as is happening in this country. So what is it, when you sit down quietly as you are doing now, what is it we all want? If you put that question really seriously, what is it? Is it 'happiness'? Is it "security", to be completely safe in that (personal) freedom which you want. Safety and freedom. Security in a family, in a group, in a country, in a belief, and to be free at the same time ? To have better relationship with somebody, to live with your husband, wife completely without conflict? Is it that you want to be completely free of your conditioning? Or not to be afraid of death?

When you look at all these various desires, longings, escapes and attachments, what is it out of all that we want? Would not all these questions be answered when you have an absolute, unconditional psychological (inner) freedom? Such (inwardly open ?) freedom means Love- and where there is Love, there's Compassion and that unlimited Intelligence. When it's there, you've answered everything. Then there'll be no wars, no conflicts. In our relationships there'll be no conflict when there is love; not the (personal ?) 'images' of each other, fighting each other. Is that the answer? Is that the ( spiritual ?) root of all our desires, wants, longings, prayers, worship?
The question is answered, sir.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 27 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Feb 2016 #95
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: I wonder what you would like to talk about?

Q1: What conditions are necessary in order to understand completely what you're talking about?

Q2: What shall we teach our children?

Q3: Please talk more on "freedom means love". You could talk a great deal about that.

K: The first question was: what is necessary, or ( rather ?) what kind of brain one must have to understand what K is talking about. Put aside "what K is talking about" and let us see what is necessary to understand, to ( insightfully ?) go into oneself. Would you like to talk about that?
First, what are the ( subliminal ?) 'barriers' that prevent us from understand ourselves, not only at the conscious level, but much deeper into oneself? Very deeply, what is the thing that's lacking?

(a:) I am (outwardly ?) occupied all day with business, travelling here and there; or if I am an artist I am concerned with painting, writing poems, literature; and if I am a politician I am greatly concerned about politics, my place in it and my self-interest, my ambition and then the concern about people afterwards.
(b:) Lacking the ( integrated ?) Energy, or the intellectual capacity?

Or (c:) Having got so many romantic, illusory, concepts, images about others and about ourselves that prevents us from grasping the whole of one's being ?

( In short:) We occupy ourselves a great deal with superficial things. Does that deprive us of the necessary energy to 'dig deeply'?

So, can you look at this whole (inner ?) structure of ourselves as a whole, not as fragmented beings? If you are using (K' s words ?) as a mirror to understand yourself, the 'mirror person' is not important. What he is saying may reflect what you 'are', so you are beginning to look at yourselves, doubting, questioning, asking. How you approach any (psychological ?) question is of great importance. There is always this (subliminal ?) background of "gaining and losing". Can one put aside all that and look at the problem, approach the problem freely?

Take the question asked just now, about freedom, love and all the complexity of it. Why is it we can't ourself go into it very cautiously, not assuming anything, be 'terribly honest' and see what it all means? Unfortunately, one of our difficulties is that we read so much. We have been told so much: by philosophers, by experts, by specialists, by those who have travelled all over the world and gathered information, met with various saints and gurus, and they say, " Yes, I met all these people, I know", and we are so 'gullible', we are being 'bombarded' (media-wise) and gradually our brains 'narrow down' - it's like constantly being shocked .
So would you consider whether it is possible to put aside all this and look anew at ( the deeper causes of ?) why has our brain become so petty? ( You understand the word "petty", narrow, limited, deeply rooted in self-interest).

Sir, these are questions that can be put by anybody. But to discover the root of all this, one has to dig into oneself or go into it. And ( the quality of ?) how we listen to each other matters tremendously: to listen as a child listens to an exciting story, he's full of eagerness, curiosity to find out. Could we do that? Not only listen to the words and so on but also listen to all our thoughts, all our feelings and watch the ( self-protective screen of ?) 'images' that we are building constantly.

Question: What is the difference between that 'shyness' you have talked about and 'fear'?

K: We talked the other day about the (psychological ?) fear which is part of my 'psyche', part of 'me'. And this fear (of a potential failure or punishment ?) also breeds ( a sense of ?) guilt, (and/or ?) various ( compensatory ?) types of greed. And all this makes one rather 'nervous' ( insecure ?) , a sense of withdrawing, and yet wanting to express oneself. So there is an (active?) contradiction in oneself. And that contradiction breeds further ( frustration and ?) guilt and we 'carry on' this way.

Now, what is the root of this fear, guilt ?
If you watch quietly the (obvious or subliminal ?) activities of fear, how it creates barriers, not only in our relationship but also in our attitudes to the whole of humanity, and so on, ( the first question to ?) ask (ourselves ?) is: Is it possible to live without fear? The other day we said that "time and thought" are the two major factors in manufacturing ( psychological ?) fear. Last time we went briefly into this question of 'time'.

( Recap:) All of us live in this "time" process. That is, I have done something ( or a lot of things ?) "yesterday", and I am doing ( optimising all) that again "today", and I will do it again (still better ?) "tomorrow". And if you watch yourself very carefully, all (our active) memories are the result of (previous) experience, contained within the major ( thoughtful ?) part of the brain. So, "time", which is ( the guideline of mankind's?) 'evolution' in one sense, time as survival, time as something to be gained, something to be achieved, an ideal to be pursued, or an ideology to be held strongly, and all this takes ( millenia of 'chronological' ?) time. Right? And also time is ( considered to be inwardly ?) necessary: I was this yesterday and I need time to change it. The very word 'change' implies time.

In this cycle ( 'evolutionary' concept ?) of 'time' we are caught. Whether it's the greatest scientists or the greatest religious persons, or the ordinary 'laymen' like us, we are caught in this ( mentality ?) . And man has ( occasionally ?) asked, is there an end to time? You will find it in various literature; Shakespeare (Goethe ?) "Time must have a stop." And also Eastern philosophers and Eastern (mystics ?) have enquired into it. And they have invented various methods of "ending time". But ( some of them ?) asked, "Is there an end to knowledge? Or must it always go on and on and on and on? The boredom of it!"
So we are asking that (same) question. That is, the ( inner continuity of ?) time by which we live, act, think, feel - one may get rather tired of it all, bored. And also in acquiring this 'skill' (self-centred 'life skills' ?) one becomes lonely. And when out of that 'loneliness' you act, you ( may inwardly ?) become neurotic and all the rest of it.

So one asks very carefully, what is this ( 'psychological' continuity of the ?) past, which is 'time'? Humanity has lived on this earth, according to the archaeologists, for over two to three million years, or ( in the 'sapiens' version for?) 50,000 years. We have evolved (physically ?) and during that long period of time our brain has gathered ( a lot of 'technical') information and has battled with each other, gone through various horrors: barbarism, cruelty, extraordinary brutality, and holocausts.
And at the end of this long '( evolutionary) period what are we now? Are we still ( 'psychological' ?) barbarians, highly cultivated savages, fighting each other ? So all this ( sad inner situation ?) is still with us after the long period of 'evolution' which is time.

So one asks, is there a (possibility of ?) 'ending' to all this, which is "ending of time"? Put your whole heart to find out. That is, I have been for centuries like this and ( the inner residues of ?) those centuries are (still active ?) 'now'. And (the world of ?) 'tomorrow' is modified by the recent challenges: economic, social, war, and so on; the "past" is modified and goes on into the ( probabilistic timelines of the ?) future. This is a "fact".
So one says, "the future is now". I wonder if you see the truth of it. The future is ( co-present ?) now and if I don't fundamentally bring about a ( qualitative inner ?) mutation "now", tomorrow I'll be still the same. So tomorrow "is" (already available ?) now.
So when the brain doesn't look to tomorrow can all that ( inner movement of "self-interest" ?) end now, instantly? Asking yourself this question, can you look at the "fact" and remain with the fact?

That is, sir, how do you observe an inner "fact"? Take the oak tree there. Do, please, 'look' at that oak tree and find out how you observe it- not only visually, optically, and the nervous responses (sensations ?) , all that, but what is the process of observation?

Q: Yes...

K: It's easy to observe impartially without any ( mental) prejudice the tree. But can you observe your wife, your friend, or your antagonist ('nemesis' ?) without without any bias? To be aware without choice, right? Can you do it?
( Still further ?) can you watch yourself (as in a ?) mirror so that psychologically you see everything in minute detail, what you are? Is there an (non-distorting ?) 'psychological mirror' as there is a physical mirror? A good ( inner) mirror shows you exactly what you look like, (providing that ?) you are interested in what you look like. So is there such an (inner ?) mirror in which you ( objectivey) see the whole "psyche" as it moves? There is such a "mirror": that of your daily relationships - either that relationship is very superficial (and for starters ?) even there you begin to see very clearly, or it's very intimate. ( Once properly focussed ?) it will never distort. But if in our relationship ( the first priority is given to ?) sensation and possession, domination, ( $$$ ?) and so on , then the "mirror" (of relationship) distorts (is shielded by the 'image' making process ?) .

So ( in a nutshell:) to observe very carefully the minutest activity in that mirror, and as you observe it the mirror tells you the whole story (of mankind ) . And then you can put aside the mirror; because the mirror is no more important. ( Directly interacting in ?) relationship then becomes extraordinarily important.

QUESTION: The whole world of nature is a competition to survive. Is it not innate in humans to struggle for the same reason? And are we not struggling against our basic nature in seeking to change?

K: It's very simple: if you want to remain ( inwardly) as you are, carry on, nobody is going to prevent you. All religions have tried to 'civilize' man, but they haven't (really ?) succeeded. But the question is: nature struggles to achieve light, like in a forest, for example; and the questioner says, if it is part of nature, why should we ( bother to ?) 'change' at all?
But why should we accept that it's 'innate' in us? Is it our (traditional ?) indolence that says, "For God's sake, leave it all alone."
Are we not, as human beings, supposed to be a little more intelligent, little more reasonable, little more sane, and use our intelligence, our experience to live differently? Perhaps that (resulting qualitative ?) difference may be total; and not just remain as a "mediocre" person - which is now being encouraged through a ( standardised ?) education and all the rest of it.
So is this (inertial ?) mediocrity that we hold on to, and say, "We are slowly moving ( progressing ?) , it's all right." Slowly moving towards the precipice ! But if you begin to question the whole process of our existence, using your reason and awareness, not just say, "Well, it's innate"... Let's go to the next question.

QUESTION: Why is it that mankind universally has sought what is called God? Is it only out of fear and a need for security? Or is there some essential religious instinct in all human beings?

K: What do you think? Is it fear? Is it the desire for security ? Is it desire for ( the ultimate ?) comfort? So the (right ?) question is not whether there's a God or not, but why do human beings live with illusions? If you look at yourself, you've got lots of (multi-purpose ?) 'images': the ( identitary?) 'image' about yourself , then the ( relational ?) 'image' about your wife and children, or you have ( the media created ?) 'images' about the politicians, religious people, you follow? We accumulate 'images' which are illusions (illusory ?) . ( The mental safety provided by ?) these 'images' becomes far more important than the actual 'facts'. So I ( subliminally ?) impose this 'image' on my wife or children or ( collectively ?) on the politician. And these 'images' ( interact ?) intervene all the time. So this separates us: everyone is fulfilling his/her ambition, position in society.
But the ( holistically inclined ?) brain says, why should I create these 'images'? The wife is what she is and I am what I am. From there you can start, you can do something. You can break the 'image' ( the 'image making process' ?) and face things as they are. So, that's the real question, not whether one believes in God or not, but : can one live without a single illusion? That's the "real freedom": you are facing (and dealing with ?) 'facts' all the time. Not try to change the facts, that (may ?) take place (naturally ?) when you just watch ( 'see the truth' of ?) the fact.

QUESTION: What is the primary basic obstacle that prevents direct observation and insight?

We just talked about ( an image-free) observation just now. What is "insight", to "have an insight" into things ? That is, having a perception into not only free of images, illusions, but of 'facts'.
Let's take for example: All 'religious organization' is merely the (joint ?) activity of convenience & fear". Now, if I ( subliminally ?) cling to Hinduism I shan't have an insight into Hinduism. Right? So I must be free of my ( dependency on that cultural ?) conditioning to have 'insight'. Insight implies not having the continuity of ( 'psychological') memory, but the ending of it and seeing something new. If I have been ( culturally) programmed as a Catholic, Hindu, Democrat or Republican or Presbyterian, and that conditioning is always 'active', I cannot have an insight, (although) I may have the capacity to invent. Invention is based on knowledge, creation is not. Creation is (not) 'continuous'. We'll talk about it Sunday, if we have time.
So to have an insight into ( inward truth of ?) things, there must be freedom from ( the mechanical responses of ?) memory, that's the conditioning. The brain that is ( pre- ) 'programmed', cannot have insight. It may have partial insights, which the scientists have; but ( having a ?) total insight is to be free of ( the 'psychological') conditioning of the brain and that freedom, total freedom gives you a complete holistic insight.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 29 Feb 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Mar 2016 #96
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


We must ask at the end of the day what is ( the essential ?) freedom? Can there be ever a complete, unbroken ( inner ?) freedom? Freedom implies also not only to act freely, to think freely, but also love and compassion. And ( unfortunately ?) we have reduced freedom to each one doing exactly what he wants, or what he thinks he should have. And that limits the immense ( dimension of ?) freedom implied in that word. Freedom implies the absence of the 'me', the absence totally of self-interest. And we are also going to talk over together about why do we live in disorder and also about ( the inward meaning of ?) death. It's not something that concerns only the old people. It concerns you from the moment you're born 'til you die. It is the inevitable lot of all of us. That's one certainty: death is facing each one of us, and (we'd better ?) understand the immense significance of it.

So we must first consider why is it that human beings (inwardly) live in disorder? Throughout the world politically, religiously, economically and socially there is such vast disorder in the world.
So, we have to find out the real cause of it, not the multiple causes or causations. And if we are ( deeply) honest, if you want to find out the true causation of disorder, we have to enquire ( into the fact that ?) our brain is fragmented (compartmentalised ?) , it's not whole, active completely. It's broken up inwardly, through ( various pursuits of?) desire, through (greed ?) aggressivity, violence and so on. It's never holistic. Is that one of the causes of disorder? Are you following this? Because our brains have been so 'programmed' (culturally) to think along a particular line, to act according to its faith, to its ( past) experience. Is disorder caused by this constant division in oneself? I'm greedy and cruel, but one day I'll be... That is the entity who says 'I am different from (my inherited ?) quality (of violence ?)' , then he has to come into conflict with the quality. But that quality is ( part of ?) 'you', and if you really understand this in depth, then you eliminate conflict altogether, which is 'the' (root ?) cause of disorder. I wonder if you understand this? Look, it has been my ( cultural ?) conditioning, (to think that 'my' ?) greed is something which I must control, or (to nonchalantly ?) yield to greed. But the actual fact is: "greed 'is' me", (basically ?) 'I' am not different from 'my greed'. So this 'psychological' division in each one of us may be one of the major causes of disorder (since it prevents dealing directly with the actual 'facts') . As long as there is division (psychologically) in me, I am different from my ( poor ?) qualities, I am different from my 'image', I am different from violence, that (self-divisive mentality ?) brings about conflict and conflict may be the root of ( our inner ?) disorder. And when there is no ( inner) separation as the 'actor' and the 'thing acting', but they are (seen as ?) one inseparable (whole) , then if that ( insight ?) is true, accurate, then (the inner ?) conflict ceases and a totally different 'movement' takes place.
So conflict is the essence of disorder: between man and woman, between the 'good' and the 'bad'. Be careful please, the Good has no roots in the bad. If the good has a (causal ?) relationship with the bad, that 'good' is still limited by the bad. Right? You understand this? The ( causal) opposite of 'violence' is 'non-violence'. If the good is born out of the (conceptual ?) understanding of non-violence then it's not the Good. Good has no ( causal ?) relationship with the bad. This is the actual fact.

Now, we have to talk about 'death', and what is 'religion'? What is it that man sought from times beyond time ? He said (or assumed that ?) there must be something (truly spiritual ?) beyond all this ('world wide web' of ?) brutality and vulgarity, something that is not put together by thought, something that is immense, nameless.
Man has always been frightened of death. That's a fact. Why? What does death mean? Not what lies beyond death - we'll go into that presently. It is something extraordinary to die ('psychologically' ?) if we are going to give our energy to find out the ( true) significance, the depth of that extraordinary event.

There are two things implied in it, basically: ( psychological ?) 'continuity', and the 'ending of that continuity'. You understand? We have lived 40, 50, 90, 120, whatever the length of time it be. And during that long interval from birth to death we have 'acquired' so many physical things: cars, houses, if you're lucky, but you've also acquired knowledge, lots of memories and lots of experience. We are gathering like squirrels. And to what we have gathered we are getting (consciously or subliminally ?) attached, tremendously. And that is ( generating the inner sense of 'self' ?) continuity. It may be a ten-day continuity or hundred years' continuity, the continuity of tradition, the continuity of identifying (with 'oneself' and/or ) with a race, with a group, with a family. This (deep) desire, this 'urge' to continue, not only for myself but for whole the inherited collection. If I die there is my son to continue. He inherits what I have collected physically. And also psychologically.
So there is this long (stream of collective consciousness ?) , centuries and centuries upon centuries of collecting and continuity. And 'Death' (eventually) comes along, which is, the organism withers and ends. So we must ( wisely ?) consider what does it mean to end: this continuity which you cling to, and there is the ending of that continuity. We have understood, I hope, what it means to 'continue' (within the stream of Time ?) -the whole of the East more or less believes in rebirth because they want to continue. But few of them have asked 'What is it that continues?' Is there a ( temporal ?) continuity at all? And if there is no such continuity what is it all about? Why should I collect any more? So I won't collect, or I'll collect only one idea: which is my God, my Saviour and I cling to that.

So we know what it means to have a continuity. Now we have to enquire into what does it mean 'to end'? To end (the 'psychological' sense of continuity ?) , voluntarily, not through age old, disease and some kind of awful pain. What does it mean to ( inwardly ?) 'end' anything? Can I end (my 'thinking' ?) habit? Can we enquire and find out for ourselves what it means to end something, easily, happily, without any effort ? That means ending not only certain physical habits but the ( deeper) habits that the brain has cultivated in order to live safely. You understand? That's what it means to die ('psychologically') , doesn't it? Because we 'are' (inwardly identified with ?) a vast accumulation of ( 'active' ?) memories. We ( psychologically ?) 'are' a bundle of memories. So ( the inner sgnificance of ?) death means the 'ending' (of this attachment ?) . So is there an ending ( of the subliminal attachment ?) to one's deep memories? Ah, let's take that up.
What is attachment ? And what are the consequences of attachment ?
If the speaker is attached to you as an audience, think what his state of brain must be. He's frightened he may not have an audience- he is attached to have a reputation. So the ( 'psychological price' or ?) consequences of any attachment are that it breeds fear of losing. Right? And out of that fear there is jealousy, hatred, suspicion, secrecy. Haven't you noticed all this? It's so common in the world. So, if you are (becoming aware of being ?) attached to some idea, or to some person, can you end it now? That is ( the 'releasing' aspect of ?) death. Which means (meditation-wise ?) , can you 'live with death' all the day long? Go into it and you will see the ( spiritual dimension ?) of it, the immensity of it. That is, to live with that ('psychological' opportunity of ?) ending all attachment, all fear.

Which means having a (fully awakened ?) brain that is acting but never having ( a preset ?) direction, purpose, all the rest of it. Acting. That is to 'live with death' every second, never collecting, never gathering, never giving anything a continuity. Sirs, if you 'do it' you will see what it means. That is real freedom. And from that freedom there is (a sense of unconditional ?) Love.

And we ought to talk over together what is ( the true meaning of ?) 'religion'. From the days of ancient some people have said, the way we are living is meaningless, there must be 'something' beyond all this. Going to church once a week, confession, accepting the wafer, the medieval dress and all the singing you do in those places: that's what we consider religion, which has absolutely nothing to do with our daily miserable 'happy' or 'unhappy' life. But if we are serious what is it to have a 'religious mind' ? To the speaker the 'brain' is different from the 'mind'- I'll explain a little bit. The activity of the brain is not only 'neurological' (physiological ?) but also 'psychological'. It is the ( processing ?) centre of all sensory stimulation - sensations, urges, desires. It's also the centre of all thinking. And it's limited: it can invent 'God', it can invent immense space, but it's still in the area of the brain's (previously stored ?) knowledge .Whereas the 'mind' is ( an intelligent energy field ?) outside the brain. Love is not within the brain. For God's sake, realize it, Love cannot be in the ( memory bank of the ?) brain. You can't 'think' about love. So to the speaker the 'brain' is something separate (distinct ?) from the 'mind'. Can the human brain, which has been conditioned to (work exclusively in the field of knowledge ?) be free of it? Not 'tomorrow', ( but in the time-free ?) 'now'.

So if that (inner addiction to knowledge ?) ends, then comes the whole question of what is 'meditation'?
Because ( the 'insight' based ?) meditation implies to see what is Truth, which- like Love- is not mine, or yours. Truth has no 'nationality', no (organised ?) 'religion', no 'path' to it. So there is this whole question of meditation, awareness, attention.
The dictionary meaning of the word meditation is 'to ponder over', to deeply think about something. I 'meditate' about the book I am going to write. Or 'meditate' about the picture one is going to paint. But the ( commercial ?) 'meditation' which is now being practiced the world over, is a deliberate ( contemplative ?) act, sitting cross-legged, breathing in a certain way, controlling your thoughts, silencing your reactions and becoming aware bit by bit of your whole body. There are various systems and methods. Some are pleasant, some are unpleasant. Or you meditate on a picture, on a symbol, or on a poem, just a phrase. Which all implies direction, control, limited energy, forcing.

To the speaker all ( self-) 'conscious' meditation is a form of (subliminal ?) ( self-interest based ) 'achievement', as in business. So is there a meditation which is not deliberate? Which means a brain that is ( set ?) free from all its accumulated knowledge. So, for the brain which is everlastingly chattering, praying, asking, demanding help, can that ( space & time ?) activity calm down, become very quiet, still, without any movement, not induced, not cultivated silence? There is a great deal to be said about the silence of a brain that is empty of everything that man has collected. And man has always sought from the beginning that which is Nameless. When the brain is utterly quiet then that which is Nameless 'is'. That cannot be described, that cannot be given any quality, it is something (an inner dimension ?) entirely different, something that is beyond 'time', because all time has stopped. That is the 'true' religious mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Mar 2016 #97
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: An insightful approach to guilt ( condensed from SAANEN PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETINGS JULY 1985)

K: Why do you come here? Is it curiosity? Is it the reputation the man, the speaker has built for the last eighty years? Does one expect for someone else to tell how to live, how to examine, what to do ? Or is it that one wants to see what one 'is' ( inwardly ?), examine that very closely and see if we can go beyond that ?

The speaker has been ( coming ) in this valley for twenty eight years and the public talks have been going on in Saanen for twenty five years. And, if one may ask at the end of it all, what remains, what is the content of our life? Is there any breaking (free?) ? Or the ( mental ?) patterns of our constant concentrated habits is being repeated over and over and over again? The habit of ( self-centred ?) thought, the habits of one's everyday life- is there a 'breaking' (undoing ?) of that ( self-centred ?) pattern in which we live? Or just carry on day after day, adding a little more, taking away a little more, and at the end of one's existence regret that one has not lived differently? Are we aware of what is happening in our daily thought, of every emotion, reaction, response, habits? Or is it just flowing by like a river?

Question: Various gurus, say that essentially they are giving the same teaching as you. What do you say?

K: I know this is a fact, both in India, Europe and in America, various 'gurus' say, "Yes, we are also going along the same river as you are doing." .
First of all, why do they compare what they are saying with K? What is the intention behind it? Is it to ride the same 'band wagon'?
So in talking over with some of them, we went into it. First of all I doubt what they are saying and I doubt the speaker's own 'experiences'. So in speaking with them - as you push the inquiry deeper and deeper, at the end of it, the speaker has heard many of them, "What you say is perfect, is the truth. You embody truth" and all that business. And they salute and go away saying, "We have to deal with ordinary people so this is only for the ( spiritual ?) elite." I said, "Double nonsense!" The other day I heard, "What you are speaking so am I speaking, what is the difference?" I said, "We use the same language, but the content, the depth that lies behind the word may be quite different".
We are so easily satisfied with ( their) explanations, with all the paraphernalia, and we are impressed by all that. Our brains don't work very simply. That is one of my questions I would like to ask you.
Have you ever watched, seen how your brain works? Watched as an outsider watching your brain in action? Have you ever ( meditatively ?) watched one thought chasing another thought, the (endless ?) series of associations, of memories, holding on to your own experience?
The other day, in America, a person whom we have known for some time said that that he 'lived according to his (inner) experience', his experience was real, actual, very deep, and that experience is all important to him. And we said "why don't you doubt your experience, it may be actual, or it may be imaginary; but why don't you doubt that very thing (entity ?) that says,"My experience tells me?". And... one has not seen that person again.

So can we not accept ( the spiritual authority of ?) any guru, any leader, including especially ( that of ) the speaker? Never accept anything except what we have seen ourselves in our relationship, watching our speech, the tone of the voice, the words we use, all that. Can one be (non-personaly ? ) aware of all that ? Then perhaps you don't need any guru, any leader, any book, including those of the 'speaker'. Then there is something totally different taking place when one is really attentive.

QUESTION: What about guilt ?

K: Why do we feel guilty? Guilt for not being like the rest of the group, the guilt for having done something wrong and feeling the remorse, anxious, and therefore frightened, uncertain. And this guilt is (or can be ?) a very distorting factor in our life. The guilt of a man who feels he hasn't supported the war of his own country. You know the various forms of guilt and the causes of it. We are asking: why does this feeling exist?
Is it because (inwardly) we are not (fully ?) 'responsible' , demanding the excellence of ourselves? Is it that we are (inwardly slack ?) indolent, inattentive and therefore slightly 'irresponsible'? And facing that irresponsibility we feel guilty?
Let's find out what to do about it, shall we? Not investigate the causes of it, which we ( kind of ?) know. I haven't done something which is not proper, which is not correct, which is not true and I realize later that action has been causing unhappiness to others and I feel guilty. So what shall we do when we have this guilt, how to deal with it ? What is ( the quality of ?) your approach to it, how do you come near the problem? Is it that you want it resolved, that you want it wiped away ('deleted' ?) so that your brain is no longer caught in that? So you approach it with the desire to resolve it, to be free of guilt?

If you have a ( 'personal' motive or ?) direction for solving that problem, then that motive or direction directs ( interferes with ?) the issue. So can we approach a problem like this guilt without any ( personal?) 'motive', without any sense of a background ( 'me'-knowing ?) knowledge and look at as though for the first time?
So there are two things involved: (a) "how you approach it", and (b) "what is a problem".
You have (lots of personal ?)problems, don't you, of money, business problems, family problem, sexual problem, 'spiritual' problem, of whom to follow politically. According to the ( ethymological) dictionary, 'problem' means 'something thrown at you' - a challenge, a thing that you have to answer - right? From childhood when you're sent to school, writing or reading ( may ?) become a problem: and as he grows up his brain has been trained to ( creating and solving ?) problems - I have to learn mathematics, chemistry, biology, physics, then college, university, the whole process of that, learning all that is a problem and so the brain is conditioned ( to approach life in terms of creating and solving ?) 'problems' - your brain is conditioned, educated to live with problems. So ( eventually ?) our whole life becomes a ( major ?) problem.

So can we look at ( our psychological conditioning ?) as a 'fact' and see whether the brain can be ( originally ?) 'free' to solve ( and/or not create ?) 'problems', not approach it with a mind that is already crowded with problems. I am not against ( modern ?) education but I am pointing out - our whole education has become a tremendous problem. And even if I can pass a Ph.D degree and become 'somebody', my life is still an (ongoing ?) problem.
Now, our question is: is it possible to be free of ( 'personal' ?) problems and then attack ( all incoming ?) problems ? You understand? I cannot resolve them ( holistically ?) unless the brain is free. If it is not free (of its inherited self-centred attitude ?) , in the solution of one problem other problems are created, like in politics. The poor chaps try to solve one problem and there are a dozen (new) problems involved in it. So the speaker is asking: can we first 'uncondition' the brain which has been educated to live with problems ?

Now let's proceed. Do you think 'it is possible'? Or do you say, 'no it is impossible'? When you ( glibly ?) say it is possible or impossible you have already prevented yourself from going into the ( truth of the ?) question. So, what do you do, or not do?
The brain is conditioned to this whole 'culture of problems', it is conditioned to ( adapt and function in ?) that. But is my brain different from the ' me' (entity ?) who is looking, examining? Is my ( personal reaction of?) anger, greed, envy, different from 'me'? Or I 'am' anger ? But our education has made us ( create an 'ethical' problem by ?) separating the two. There is my 'envy' I must control it, thereby the is conflict.

Or is that violent (response of 'envy' undissociated from ) 'me'? Violence is not something different from me, me is violent. Once one realizes (the truth of ?) this fact there is no difference between that quality (of envy?) and 'me', then there is a totally different ( integrative ?) 'movement' taking place - right? There is no more conflict. You understand? As long as there is ( the 'observer-observed' ?) separation there is a ( duality ?) conflict in me - right?
Now I realize this, that I 'am' ( fully accountable for ?) that quality. I 'am' ( impersonating the collective streaming of ?) violence. The ( self-conscious ?) 'me', 'is' (congenially ?) greedy, envious, jealous and all the rest of it. So, (by having a full insight into this ?) I have abolished altogether this division in me. I 'am' that. Can my brain, which is so active, thinking, watching, listening, trying, effort, can that ( 'old' ?) brain stay with the ( truth of the ?) fact that "I am that"? Stay ( or abide ?) with it, not try to control it, because the moment 'you' try to 'control i't there is again the controller and the controlled, therefore (the brain) becomes (entangled in ?) effort.

If you really grasp this truth, this fact, you eliminate altogether ( the dualistic mentality based on ?) effort. Effort means contradiction. So once you see the actuality that you 'are' your ( poor ?) quality of anger, your envy, your jealousy, your hate, your uncertainty, your confusion, you 'are' that. If you actually see this fact and stay with it, what is implied in it? No ( mental) movement away from the fact. So when there is no movement away from the fact the ( resulting spiritual ?) 'essence' is (generating a state of ?) 'no conflict'. Then you have broken the ( self-centred psychological ?) pattern of the brain - right?

It is like holding an (inner ?) 'jewel', and you watch it, because you 'are' the jewel, you are the centre (core ?) of this most intricate, subtle jewel of which you are. The moment one sees that fact the whole thing is different.
So ( in a nushell ?) guilt is not a problem, it is a 'fact', and if you feel guilty, that is a fact, and you 'stay with it'- a rather unpleasant jewel, but it is still a (potential ?) jewel. When you ( meditatively ?) 'stay with it', it begins to 'flower' (unfold itself ?) and ( eventually ?) wither away. Like a flower, if you keep on pulling it out to see if the roots are working properly, the flower will never bloom, but once you 'see' the (seed of truth in that ?) fact and stay with it, then it shows itself fully- all the implications of guilt, where it hides, it is like a flower blooming. And if you 'let it bloom', then it begins to wither away and die. You understand? You can do this with every ( 'psychological' ?) issue. Then you ( eventually ?) have an insight into all that. That is ( the integrating action of ?) insight. If you discover it, it is an enormous psychological factor that frees you from all the past struggles and present struggles, and effort.

QUESTION: What do you mean by Creation?

K: When you ask that question you must also ask the question, what is 'invention'? Is invention creation? A scientist in a laboratory is experimenting and he comes upon something new. The man who invented the jet engine, first he knew all about the internal combustion machinery, and the propeller, then a new idea came in, which is the jet - right? That is, the scientist must first have some (basic) knowledge and from that a new inspiration comes. And that inspiration is ( leading to ?) an invention. But is that creation? Or creation has nothing to do with knowledge?

Don't accept what the speaker is saying, that would be terrible to merely say, yes, yes, yes. It would destroy ( the integrity of ?) your brain, as it has been destroyed by others. The speaker says have scepticism, question, don't accept or deny, just find out. We know what is invention, at least to the speaker it is very clear. We are asking what is Creation? Is it related to Love? Is love, which is also compassion, is that love ( the original source of ?) compassion and creation? And is creation or love related to death? Can there be ( any) creation without death (the ending of the old ?) ? So, the ending of knowledge means ( the creation of something ?) timeless, which is love. You understand?
So the quintessence of all intelligence (is created ?) when there is love, compassion. And there cannot be compassion and love without (the psychological ?) 'death', which is the ending of everything (that one knows ?) . Then there is Creation. That is the Universe, not according to the ( theories of ?) astrophysicists and scientists, but the Universe is ( functioning in ?) supreme Order, and this can only exist when there is supreme Intelligence. And that ( Universal ) Intelligence cannot exist without compassion and love and death. This ( insight ?) is not ( just the result of ) a process of meditation but (of a ) deep, profound enquiry, with great silence, great ( inward ?) space: that with "love and compassion and death", there is ( the awakening of ?) that Intelligence which is Creation.
( In a nutshell : ) Creation is there only when the other two are there, Death and Love. Everything else is 'invention'.

QUESTION: When one understands something must one act on this understanding, or does the understanding act of itself?

K: Now, what do we mean by 'understanding'? We use that word so easily. So we must investigate, explore the meaning of that word. Is our understanding merely an intellectual affair, a theoretical affair about which I can talk endlessly, adding more ideas to it and think I am growing up, understanding. In that understanding is there any emotional quality? So, there is the intellect, there is emotion, there is action - right? Emotions exist 'naturally' - unless they have become romantic, sentimental and very, very superficial. So is the intellect, which says, "I understand", apart from the rest of it? Or the intellect dominates my whole life until I begin to age, and then I become a Buddhist, or whatever it is.

So we are asking: is understanding a 'whole' (holistic ?) movement, not an act of the intellect only? We will now have to examine what is 'action'? Is our action based on ( the projection of ?) an ideal, or on a theory, or an ideological conclusion ? The scientific or theoretical philosophers, they want 'new ideas' all the time. 'Idea' comes from the Greek, which means to observe, to see. So, there is the 'fact' and our 'idea about the fact'. But ( aided by our intellect ?) we (comfortably) pursue the ideas, not the ( tedious ?) investigation into the facts. An so, idea becomes far more important than the fact. Don't we, each one of us, always move away from the 'fact'? So what do we mean by 'acting'? If our action is based on the past (ideas ?) , or (ideas about) the future, then we are 'acting from the past'.
Now we are asking is there an action ( in terms of direct perception ?) which is not based on 'time'? How does one's brain react to that question? Because the brain has been conditioned to think according to the past, the future. That is, caught in the field of time, in the network (mental logic ?) of time - right?
So, for the moment the brain is not able to answer it, it says, " I am used to this pattern, it has brought its own misery, suffering, but also there is the other compensating side to it, so, I can carry on." Do you want me to go into it?

( The holistic ?) 'action' is related to love, not to memory. So love 'is' ( has its own ?) action - there is not love first and action later- for the speaker there is no division between ( direct ?) perception and the ( inward) quality of love. When there is that ( universal) 'quality', there is the action of immediate perception.

QUESTION: You have said many things about violence. But, would you allow one of your friends to be attacked in front of you?

K: It is a 'good old' question. What would you instinctively do? You would attack, wouldn't you? Or, if you knew karate, or some kind of (martial arts) tricks, you would trip him up. So this question is often put to me, to the speaker. This has been an old question, but I treat all questions as something new.

If I have lived a violent life all my life - right? - then my response would be naturally violent. But if I have lived, as I have, not only without physical violence but without the 'psychological' violence- aggressivity, competition, comparison, imitation, conformity and my friend, or my sister, or my wife, is attacked - I would act ( do something ?) , but it depends of how I have lived. The 'art of living' is the greatest art - not living according to somebody, but to find it out for oneself it is the supreme art. All my life, except once or twice I never lost temper, - one may get irritated because of (the airplane) noise, and all that.

( In a nutshell:) If one has lived with ( without questioning one's ?) violence one will act violently. If one has lived a life of "not violence", he will meet the circumstances as they arise, and his action will depend how he has lived. A simple answer.

QUESTION: What is 'intelligence'?

K: The meaning of that word, if you looked into a good etymological dictionary, comes from 'interlegere', to 'read between the lines'. The other ( more common ?) meaning is to discern among the various information what is the correct information. That depends on one's education, on one's way of life and so on.
So there is the (natural) intelligence of the body - if you let it alone ( not interfere with ?) , the ( psycho-somatic ?) body is an extraordinary instrument - right? How all the nerves are connected to the brain, how the liver works, from the moment it is born until it dies the heart keeps on beating. It is an extraordinary ( biological ?) 'machine' , the product of a million years. But we ( often ?) destroy the native intelligence of the body by doing all kinds of extravagant things. Drinking, sex, greed, stress, all that affects the brain, the nerves, the organism, therefore the biological instrument gradually withers and loses its vitality, its energy. But if one left it naturally alone, it then looks after itself, you don't have to do a thing.
So, there is the body intelligence - right? Then what is the ( practical ?) intelligence of a clever physician, a technocrat, technologist, or the (collective intelligence of ?) thousands of people who send a rocket to the moon, that requires intelligence, co-operation, see everything is perfect - right? That requires great ( practical) intelligence and co-operation. And that ( manipulating ?) "intelligence" which is very cunning, calculated, which has put together the whole ( spiritual) rituals of the world (in order ?) to control people through their 'apostolic succession'. That is also very 'intelligent', to control people, to make them believe in something that may or may not exist, to have faith, and to be baptized. And the scientists, the theoretical physicists, all are very "partially intelligent".

Then what is the "holistic" intelligence? Is there an intelligence which is complete, which is not partial (lopsided ?) , which is not fragmented ?
Is there a (holistic quality of ?) intelligence which is incorruptible, which covers the whole ( consciousness ?) field of man? To enquire into it the brain must be free of any kind of self-centred movement, self-interest. Therefore, a brain that is totally free from fear and sorrow and when there is the end of sorrow there is a 'passion' behind it. Sorrow has a deeper meaning than merely shedding tears and pain and grief and anxiety: 'passion'. So one has to come upon this "passion" which is has no motive. There is such passion when there is an ending of sorrow. When there is an end to sorrow there is love and compassion. And when there is compassion, not for this or that, but compassion, then that compassion has its own supreme intelligence that is not of 'time'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 03 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Mar 2016 #98
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

Last Q&A's in Saanen

QUESTION: Is there any benefit to the human being in physical illness?

K: The speaker would say there is ( sorry!) But ( it all depends on ?) how your brain is operating when you are ill, of what are your ( psychological ?) reactions, responses? It ( could be a natural ?) purification of the body, when you have fever it burns out certain things, or you take a pill to stop that fever. So if you are not afraid of (such minor ?) illnesses - illness has quite a different meaning. The speaker was paralysed for a month in Kashmir, North India, they overdosed the poor chap with antibiotics, so a few days later he was paralysed for a month. I thought that is final. Right? I thought there it is. The speaker wasn't frightened - he said, "Yes, all right, paralysed for the rest of my life." This actually happened ( in the early 50's) . I am not exaggerating. They carried me, washed me and all he rest of it, for a whole month. But if I struggled against it and said, "For God's sake, what stupid doctors. I am anti antibiotic!" I am struggling against this illness so it makes it worse and I have learnt nothing from it - right? It hasn't cleansed my body, it hasn't benefitted. But if one is not afraid to remain with it, to stay with it, not immediately rush to a doctor, observing what your reactions are, why this craze to be healthy, to have no pain, then you are resisting the whole thing - right? This 'self-interest' may be one of the ( aggravating ?) factors of illness - right? It may be the true reason for ( psycho-somatic ?) illnesss. So physical illness has certain natural (psychological ?) 'benefit'.

QUESTION: Why do you differentiate between the 'brain' and the 'mind'?

K: First of all what is this brain that we live with? What is the daily function of our brain? Look at our own brain. Action and reaction - right? Sensation (sensory responses ?) , ( culturally ?) conditioned from the past - the brain is the centre of all this. The nerves, the memories, the nervous responses, like, dislike, I hate, I am hurt - it is the very centre of all our existence, emotionally, imaginatively, art, science, knowledge - right? So that brain is ( psychologically ?) very, very limited and yet it is extraordinarily capable (in the outer world) - right? Technologically it has done things unimaginable fifty years ago, (but inwardly) it is very limited. Concerned with oneself. Self-interest, self-serving, in the name of God, in the name of all the rest of it - right? So (its ) consciousness is ( determined by ?) its content - right? What it 'contains' makes ( colors its ?) consciousness ? And it contains all the qualities, the experiences of human beings- anxiety, belief, faith, bitterness, loneliness, jealousy, hate, violence. That ( general human ?) consciousness is not 'yours' because every human being on this earth whether they are the most poorest, ignorant, degraded, and the mostly highly sophisticated, educated, have these problems. They may put on robes and crowns, but remove all that, they are like you and me. Conflict, annoyance - right? So we share the (same collective ?) consciousness of every human being in the world. So your consciousness is not ( only ?) 'yours'. It is the consciousness of the entire humanity. . So psychologically you 'are' the entire humanity. And when there is ( the realisation of ?) that truth then the whole movement of your life changes. You will see what deep transformation takes place, which is not intellectual, nor imaginative, nor sentimental, romantic. In that ( 'all-one' mind ?) there is tremendous sense of compassion, love. And when there is that you act ( 'it' acts ?) according to that supreme intelligence.


K: People have been talking a great deal about 'art', and I believe the root meaning is "to put everything in its proper place".
What do you think is the greatest art, the supreme art? Is it the art of listening, the art of seeing, and the art of learning?

Let us begin with the "art of listening". We not only hear with the ears, words conveyed to the brain, but surely it is much more than that. When a child listens to a very good story, he is 'consumed' (fascinated ?) by the story, he is completely involved with the hero, or the heroine, he is excited, he is listening. ( But as adults ?) do we ever completely listen to anybody? Or do we ( mentally ) 'translate' what is being said into our own terminology, compare it with what we already know, evaluating, agreeing, disagreeing, the whole ( mental) movement that goes on when you listen to another? Is that listening? As the speaker is talking now, are we actually paying attention, to the words, to the meaning of words, to the content of words, not translating, comparing judging, agreeing, disagreeing, just 'listening'? Isn't that one of the most important things, in what manner we listen to another?
If you go into this question rather deeply you will find it is one of the most difficult (demanding ?) things to listen to another, completely. So there is the "art of listening".

And there is the ( associated ?) "art of seeing", the art of "seeing things as they are". When you look at a tree, do see the shape of it, see the beauty of the light on a leaf, see the quality of a tree? (And inwardly ) do we see ourselves as we are, without without judgement, evaluation and so on, just to see what are our reactions and responses, or that we indulge in ( 'tweeting' ?) opinions ? Not to do anything about it but just to observe it - right? So there is an art of ( directly perceiving or ?) seeing things as they are, without naming, without being caught in the whole operation of our thinking interfering with perception. That's a great art.

And also there is the "art of learning". What do we mean by learning? Generally 'learning' means accumulating (experience or knowledge ?) , storing it up to use ( it later,) skilfully or not. That is generally called 'learning', memorizing, but the computers can ( already ?) do all that faster and better. So what is the difference between us and the computer? Our brains have been ( culturally) programmed in various ways, to be a Hindu, Buddhist, Christian, Communist and so on.
Is that (all there is to ?) 'learning'? It is necessary to learn how to drive a car. It is necessary to learn a language, but isn't learning something much more? ( The "art of ?) learning" means constantly learning, not accumulating, not gathering in what one has seen, what one has observed, heard, learnt and storing it up, a constant (act of direct ?) observation, listening, moving, never taking a stand, never taking a position, never letting ( the 'psychological' ?) memory act - right? That is a great art.
And the "art of discipline". That word itself means 'to learn'. It comes from the latin root "disciple", one who learns from someone else. If there is (a diligent ?) hearing, not only by the ear, but also deeply listening to yourself, to everything that is happening around you, to listen to the birds, to the river to the forest, to the mountain, you follow, listening. And observing the minutest insect on the floor, if you can see it, if you have got good eyes. And learning. All that constitutes a "way of living" (with its integrated ?) discipline, but a constant ( learning) movement. This is "the art of living", in which there is no (residual) conflict whatsoever. Where there is conflict (inner friction ?) , that numbs the brain, destroys the brain. But this great "art of living" is ( conflict ?) free, and in that freedom you don't need ( a self- controlling) discipline, there is constantly movement - right?

Can we go on with our (last) questions?

QUESTION: I can see that thought is responsible for my confusion. Yet in going into it, more ( self-centred ?) thought is generated and there is no end to it. Please comment.

K: ( One self-centred ?) thought is associated with other (self-centred ?) thoughts. Right? There is no single thought. It is a series of ( mental) movements which we call "thinking": I think about my ( pretty expensive ?) shoes, then how to keep them clean. I polish them, then I look after other things and so on. So ( a single) thought cannot exist without all the (colateral) associations in connection with that one thought. And ( the self-sustained activity of ?) thought is a movement on which we live. It is ( polarising ?) the very life of us, thinking - right? You wouldn't be there and the speaker wouldn't be here if we hadn't thought about it. We thought about it because there have been (mental) associations with his reputation, books and all the 'bla' and you come and the 'speaker' comes too. So there is no single thought by ( existing ?) itself. And in pursuing one thought other ( associated ?) thoughts arise. The speaker is polishing his shoes and looks out of the window and he sees those mountains and he is off! And then he has to 'come back' (to his daily reality ?) and polish his shoes. So that goes on all the time from childhood until we die.

And the more ('thoughtfully' ?) I think about 'thought', the more thoughts there are: "I shouldn't think along those lines", "I must think rightly", "is there right thinking ?", "what is the purpose of my life ?", and so on. The whole ( "chain- ) thinking" begins. And technologically this has done the most extraordinary and also the most appalling things, terrifying things. So the ( next level ) question is: is there an end to 'thought' (to this 'chain-thinking' habit ?) ? Can thought ever stop ? Which is, is there an end to (its continuity in ?) "time"? So when we are asking whether 'thought' (the self-sustained process of self-centred 'chain thinking' ?) can ever end, we are asking whether there is a stop to time? That is, to the ( inner) movement of time. (Psychologically speaking ?) , there is a distance between 'what I am ', 'what I will be ', and this distance can only be covered in time. So 'time' implies ( to think in terms of ?) evolution - right? You plant the seed in the earth, it takes years to become a fully grown tree - right? Everything that grows, or becomes (in the material world ) , needs time - right?

So ( inwardly speaking) ? 'time' and 'thought' ( the 'self-centred chain-thinking' ?) are not two separate movements. They are one solid (self-sustained mental) movement. And we are asking whether this "thought and time" movement can have an end, a stop? This has been one of the ( major existential ?) problems confronting man from his beginnings: Can 'thought & time' come to an end? Because inwardly ( 'chain-thinking' in terms of ?) 'time' is a bondage. So this is really a very serious question, whether 'time' has a stop, which is ( the continuity of ?) thought. Now how will you discover that? Through analysis? Through "intuition"? That word "intuition" may be ( tricky ?) since it may be (the subliminal projection of ? ) an unconscious desire, or a deeply rooted motive of which we are not aware. So we are asking if you put all these (traditional approaches) aside, has time a stop? And how will you find out? You may like the ( spiritually resonating ?) sound of the word, you may like the person, or you may say, "Well a whole group of us are ( planning to do it ?) together" - all that is rather infantile. But when you put this question to yourself, in what manner do you come to find out?

So can all this ( self-sustained habit of 'chain-thinking' ?) come to an end? Or its ending is a gradual process? If it is gradual (in 'baby steps' ?) , the very 'gradualness' is (generating its own sequence of ?) time. So it cannot be gradual - right? It cannot happen eventually. It cannot happen next second either. You understand? All that (logic) allows 'time'. If one deeply comprehends the (inertial ?) nature of thought (of the 'chain-thinking' process?) and "stays with it quietly", - then there a (full) "insight" into it. But for the brain to understand its own (addictive thinking ?) movement unless we actually investigate it, experiment, push it, go into it deeply, unless you do that you can't come upon that strange sense (inner dimension ?) of timelessness.

QUESTION: Please speak further on time and death.

K: What relationship has thought with this extraordinary thing called 'death'? If one is frightened of death then one will never see the dignity, the beauty and the depth of ( the inner dimension of ?) death. This fear is caused by thought and time (because) human beings insist, demand, require, to be ( endlessly ?) psychologically secure. So we have not only to enquire into security, that is being safe, protected. To have millions in the bank gives you great sense of security. Security also implies having a companion who will stand by you - right - who will help you, who will comfort you, who will give you what you. So we seek security in the family , in 'tribalism'- which actually prevents (our global) security because there is war, one group destroying another group. But since our (own) 'psychological' security is the greatest demand, we are asking: is there a 'psychological' ( self-projected ?) security at all? And if there is no ( validity to this ?) psychological security then what is physical security, right?

The world is changing constantly from day to day, it is in tremendous flux - right? And physically also one needs a little security to sit here, talk together, but that is gradually being restricted - right? So if one recognizes the fact that "psychologically" there is no ( long term ?) security - at the end of it there is death. And death is putting an end to our 'psychological' continuity.
See the whole process of it? (Inwardly ) I have identified myself with that continuity. That continuity is 'me'. And death says, "Sorry old boy that is the end." - right? But ( one needs not be ?) frightened of death if ( inwardly ?) 'ending' every day ( the psychological attachment to ?) all that which you have gathered, memorized, or experienced.
So to live every day with that feeling of ( psychological ?) 'ending', not merely intellectually, but actually . Next life I will be as silly (ignorant ?) as I am now if I don't end this 'silliness' these illusions, now - right? If I don't end it now it will be there next life. 'If'... there is a next life.
So thought gives ( itself the illusion of its temporal ) continuity, and we 'cling' ( identify ?) to that continuity and therefore, the fear (of ending it ) . And we are asking: can one (inwardly ) "live with death" and ( the psychological continuity of ?) "thought and time" have a stop? Don't separate "time- thought" and "death". It is all one thing.

QUESTION: Is it not (an indication of ?) violence and corruption to have physical security while others are starving?

K: Who is asking this question? The man who has his physical security or the one who is starving ? You understand my question? If you are really very poor would you ask this question? You see there are so many ( financially secure ?) 'do-gooders' in the world, but aren't they fulfilling themselves in doing something for the poor? The question is put to the speaker when he is in India, "What are you doing for the poor? They are starving, you seem to be well fed, what do you do?" We are not avoiding this question. The speaker has been broght up in poverty. Is that speaker when he was young, living in poverty, asking this question? There is poverty in the world, slums, appalling conditions. What do we do about it? That is really the question isn't it? You may be wealthy, I may not be so ( 'personally' ?) wealthy but what is our ( holistic ?) responsibility? Are we ( primarily) concerned with physical poverty? Or with the 'psychological' poverty, being (inwardly) poor, in the sense you may have a lot of ($$$ and/or ?) knowledge but you are still poor.
Doesn't ( the holistic solution of ?) poverty begins first 'psychologically' and then you can crack everything outside ? You understand? If I am rich inwardly I can do something.

(Story time:) Once the speaker was walking in the rain in India and a little boy came up and said, "Sir, give me some money." The speaker had no money. So then he said "Give me your shirt". I said, "All right". It was pouring. So I gave it to him. Then he said, "Give me your undershirt". I said, "Just a minute. Come with me to the house. You can have anything you like, food, clothes, anything you like, within limits of course." So he came with me, holding my hand, he was very poor, dirty. We walked together to the house. I left him, the speaker left him and went upstairs to get some clothes for the boy. And the boy went round the house, looking into every cupboard, all over the place. The person with whom the speaker was staying caught him and said, "What are you doing in this part of the house?" "Oh", he said, "He asked me to come in." "But he didn't ask you to come upstairs and look into all this. So why are you doing it?" And the boy got rather frightened and he said "My father is a robber." He was 'casing' (mapping ?) the house. You understand the phrase?
So we have not only to deal with poverty externally, but also inwardly. Probably there would be no (long term ?) poverty in the world if all the nations got together and said we must solve this problem. But "nationalism" divides them, the "religious beliefs" divide them , and ( more locally) "nepotism". We have talked to politicians, to 'higher' (placed) people, but they are not interested (in a global solution ) ? So ( we'll have to ?) begin with ourselves first.

QUESTION: How can our limited brain grasp the unlimited, which is beauty and truth? What is the ground of compassion and intelligence and can it really come upon each one of us?

K: How can our limited brain grasp the Unlimited? It cannot, because it is limited. But once we grasp the ( truth of the ?) fact that our brains are limited by knowledge, by specialisation, by belonging to a ( select ?) group, which is basically our self-interest, camouflaged, hidden under all kinds of robes, crowns, rituals. Essentially this "limitation" comes into being when there is self-interest. That is so obvious. When I am concerned with my own happiness, with my own fulfilment and all the rest of it, that very self-interest limits the quality of the brain and the energy of the brain. Right?
And, this human brain has evolved through millenia, millions of years, in whole series of time events. We have been the 'ape', now we are - that has taken two and a half million years, or more, or less. To put all the religious rituals together needs time. So the brain has been conditioned, limited by its own volition, seeking its own security, self-interest. Whether it is in the hierarchy of religion or among the politicians talking about goodness, peace and all the rest of it, it is part self-interest. The man who seeks ( political ?) power through money, self-interest. And the professor with his tremendous scholastic knowledge, and so on and so on. And essentially the gurus. Face all this.

So ( by the joint effect of self-interest & specialisation ?) we have reduced the quality of the human brain which has immense capacity. Technologically the world has ( greatly) improved and also it has got immense capacity to go inwardly, very, very, very deeply. But ( the invisible strings of ?) self-interest limits the brain. And to discover where this 'self-interest' is (individually) hidden, it is very subtle. It may hide behind an illusion, in some family ( property and ?) name and all the rest of it. ( So, inwardly one has ?) to 'uncover every stone' to find out. Either you take time to find out, which again (can ?) become another bondage, or you see the whole thing, have an insight into it instantly. When you have a complete insight it covers the whole field. Right?

And the questioner also asks: what is this Ground of Compassion and Intelligence, and can it come upon each one of us?
Can the limited brain grasp this? You cannot possibly grasp it, hold it. You can do all kinds of meditation, become terribly austere, having one cloth, or one robe. ( Eg;) During the ( medieval) days of Florence (Italy) , they dressed most elegantly. And St. Francis of Assisi said, "No" and put on a brown cloth ( and belted it ?) with a white cord...

( In a nutshell:) The 'rich' cannot come to the truth, nor the people who have taken a vow of celibacy, silence, of austerity and so on and so on. So as (long as ) the brain is limited (by its heritage of self-interest ?) , do whatever you will, Compassion doesn't come to it.

Therefore one must understand what is (not ?) "love": Love is not sensation. Love is not pleasure, desire, fulfilment. Love is not ( breeding) jealousy, hatred. All the qualities are not love. To come to 'that' requires a great sense and appreciation of beauty- which exists where the 'self-interest' is not (at work ?) . You can see the great old trees of three to five thousand years old in California, and see the majesty of that tree and say, "How marvellous" but the self-(interest ) hides (even) behind ( the personal appreciation of ?) that tree - right? So Beauty exists only where there is Love. And ( the action of ?) Beauty and Love is Compassion. And that ( inner sense of ?) "beauty, love, truth" is the highest form of intelligence. When there is that intelligence there is action, clarity, a tremendous sense of dignity. It is something un-'imaginable'. And that which is not to be 'imagined', the Unlimited, cannot be put into words. It can't be ( properly) described, philosophers have described it but the philosophers who have described are not ( necessarily experienced ?) that which they have described.

So to come upon this there must be the absence of the egocentric activity, the self-becoming. There must be the great silence in one. Silence means emptiness of everything. In that there is vast ( inwardly open ?) space. Where there is vast space there is immense energy, not self-interested energy, unlimited energy.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 05 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Mar 2016 #99
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

K's last Q & A Brockwood meetings ( 1985)

K:( opening Question) What is Creation, the 'Origin' of all things? The human brain has an extraordinary capacity but it has been restricted, narrowed down by an education (based on ?) self-interest. And this very brain wants now to find out what is beyond all this, what is the origin, the source, the beginning. May I leave you with this (timeless ?) question? Will you give your energy, your capacity, your enthusiasm, your passion, your whole time to find out?

QUESTION: At various times we have all had mystical and spiritual experiences. How can we know if they are illusions unless we know ( the Ultimate ?) Reality?

K: What do I mean by 'mystical experience' ? Does it involve a sense of something happening to me from heaven or from some ( higher ?) place, which is something totally outside my daily experience ?
Is there an experience without an ( all controlling ?) 'experiencer'? Because if the 'experiencer' is experiencing, there must be the feeling that I have already known it, otherwise I couldn't recognise it. So as long as the experiencer is there, every kind of experience, call it mundane, or spiritual, or the releasing (of kundalini) energy, what is most important is the 'experiencer' who gets more and more 'subliminally egotistic', more and more "I know a great deal which you don't know. I have had marvellous spiritual experiences. I am 'illumined'.
And what is 'spiritual'? We are bored with our daily life, the habits, the loneliness, the despair, the attachments to ( money and/or ?) power and all the rest of it. We want to avoid all that and invite heaven. ( Sounds straight forward but... ?) we can deceive ourselves so enormously - all Christianity is based on belief and faith. And you go across the ocean to India and there, three thousand years, five thousand years old. The same process of selling (marketing ?) 'God'.

So the questioner aks : how can we know if they are 'illusions' unless we know Reality? Then we have to examine what is Reality? Reality is (including the world of ?) nature, that tree, that animal, that dog, the marvellous earth, the blue sky about us. And the 'actual' (outer/inner facts of our life ?): you and the speaker are sitting now, and it's twelve o'clock. There is some wind but I hope it won't rain. So, what is the 'reality' in ourselves? Is there anything real in us? Or is it all a movement, change?

( Sory time:) The other day in Switzerland when we closed the Saanen Gathering altogether, some people came up and said to the speaker, "We are so sad you have closed it." And the speaker said, "When you (got attached and ?) are sad it is about time we closed it." [Laughter] So few people want a fundamental ( inner) change.

So, what is 'illusion'? The word itself, in a dictionary, means "something you play with" - ( lat.) ludere. Something you invent, playing ( mind games ?) with something that is not actual. ( Suppose that) one has a sense of tremendous, unaccountable loneliness. That is the actual 'reality'. And we create the illusion that 'somebody' is going to help us fulfil our lives, make us feel not lonely. That is all illusions. The actual (psychological) 'fact' is that one is desperately lonely.

So it is fairly simple to see for oneself, if one wants to, what is an illusion, what is reality and why this craze for ( spiritual) experience. But is there inwardly a period where the 'experiencer' is not? That is the real (door opening ?) question: is there a period, an interval of time, where the 'experiencer' or the 'observer' is not (around ) ? ( If this is the case ?) then you don't want ( spiritual) experiences. You understand? ( since in that silent interval) there is nothing, not a 'thing' of thought - meaning the ending of the "time & thought" (mental process) . That is ( a state of being ?) where there is no 'experiencer' at all. That is the 'real thing'.

QUESTION: Is illness due to simply to degeneration or abuse of the body, or does it have some other significance?

K: We have all been ill at some time or other in our life. The modern ( and overpopulated ?) society is producing more disease than ever - right? And does it make us understand deeply why we become ill, what is health, and why we ( hedonistically ?) cling to 'health' and we never stay with it a little, see what is implied, how you meet pain? You (can happily ?) meet pleasure, but pain, not only physical pain but the psychological pain, the pain of getting wounded psychologically how do you meet it? ( The cummulative ?) psychological hurt is a form of illness - right? So, what is far more important in all this is the 'psychological' pain -the feeling of a deep agony inside. That's a greatly ( ignored) 'illness', and nobody can heal it ( for us) . There is no pill, no guru, no book, no gods, no ritual, nothing will stop that pain.

But if you really deeply 'stay with it', then you can penetrate into something that goes beyond all self-interest. So if one stays with pain, not ( for) too long of course, it has some ( unfolding) significance, and that significance depends on how you look upon it, in what manner you receive it, in what way you react to it, if one observes it as you observe a lovely tree, or a pigeon on the flight, observe yourself closely, it is an extraordinary thing what it reveals.

QUESTION: What is my responsibility toward the present world crisis?

K: You are ( obviously) responsible for your children. The professors, the teachers, the educators are (also supposed to be ?) responsible for educating the children. But what takes place when ( one puts aside the subliminal sense of ?) 'duality' (involved in) 'I' feeling responsible for 'my children', for 'my wife', for 'my job', when you see you hear something but you don't act about it. I am not ( personally ?) 'responsible' for Brockwood. I am not 'responsible' to tell you anything. Has Love a ( time-binding) responsibility?

Q : It is unity.

K: If love is (free from the personal ) attachment which is implied in 'responsibility', then what takes place? Do we ( have an unconditional ?) 'love' (for ?) anything? Love, having something which is not dualistic ? I have not answered it, but the question has 'evolved' ( its own answer ?) .

QUESTION: Does asking for guidance necessarily prevent understanding? Cannot seeking help be a ( valid) means of self-discovery ? If not, what is the sense of listening to you, K?

K: If you are actually truthful , you are not listening to K but to yourself. You are seeing ( the reflexion of 'what you are' ?) yourself in the 'mirror'. (K is not talking about something 'extra-ordinary'. There is something far beyond all this but he is not talking about that now).
However, you can ( conveniently ?) distort ( the 'virtual' image seen in this ?) mirror. You can say " I don't like what I see in this mirror " and break the mirror but you are still ( stuck with ?) what you 'are'. So if you are listening to yourself (as ) for the first time, this is the greatest thing that can happen. But (this implies) hearing not only with the ( physical) ear but ( with the 'inner ear' ?) much deeper , then you will listen to everything. And ( if ) you will listen to what K has to say, either you 'live with it', it is true, actual, or it is something verbal, intellectual and therefore of very little meaning .

So, does our 'asking for guidance' necessarily prevent understanding? Understanding of what? Chemistry? Mathematics? Some philosophical concept? First what do we mean by understanding? We use common English and if we mean the same thing and not give to the words different meaning - like Alice in Wonderland says, "I give to the words the meaning I want". So "understanding" means actually listening to what another is saying, not only intellectually, but with all your being, with great attention, then you are there entirely. Then there is not only the verbal (dimension of ?) communication but a 'non-verbal' communication.

So, why do I want ( spiritual ?) guidance? You answer me, those of you who follow these bearded gurus coming especially from Asia, India included? Are you being ( dualistically ?) 'guided' now? Or are we together investigating, exploring, communicating ? (When ?) we are 'moving together', there is no guidance. Here we are not guiding anybody, but, like two friends talking over things together. That is ( qualitatively ?) totally different. And guidance prevents ( self-) understanding, in the deeper sense of that word, because you are 'guiding' me all the time, "do this, don't do that" - you ( subliminally ?) become the authority, I become your 'psychological' slave . These gurus with their ashramas, become ( the 'psychological' version of ?) concentration camps. They tell you what to do, how to salute, all that ( spiritually correct ?) tommy rot. I am not 'condemning', it is so.
So why can't we be simple (inwardly) and face things actually as they are, instead of all this ( mis-guiding ?) labyrinth? Is our brain so cunning, so (mentally ?) devious, that it cannot see things directly , what is in front of our (inner ?) eyes? If you are very, very simple inwardly, then that (integrated ?) 'simplicity' ( of mind ?) has immense subtlety, much more subtle than all the ( mental) 'cunningness' of the brain.

QUESTION: Could you please explain what is the 'total' (holistic ?) vision? Is it an extension of our normal brain function? Or does it imply something totally different?

K: Do I see ( my life only ?) 'partially', because I have so much (self-centred ?) prejudice, fear, so much anxiety and all the rest of it, so I never see somebody entirely - right? To see something wholly, 'holistically', completely, in that seeing there is no ( choice or ?) contradiction, it is 'so': I am angry, I am impatient, exhausted. Can I see myself wholly as I am? Can I see the whole ( inner ?) 'map'? Suppose that a map of the world is put here in front of us. It is ( obviously) not possible to look at that whole map if my attention is ( focussed ?) on Britain. Similarly, (our 'thinking' ) self-interest prevents the 'holistic outlook' - the seeing of the whole thing. If I am always thinking "why am I poor ?, why am like I this ?" and all the rest of it, I am (psychologically ) stuck, and I can't see the whole ( sadness ?) of it. Right? It is as simple as that.

But there is much more to (this holistic ) 'seeing' than that. Observing without any words, without any interference of thought, just seeing. First ( seeing outwardly) visually and then inwardly seeing everything as is. And from that ( 2-way ?) seeing we can go much further, and you ask what is "insight", "seeing something to be absolutely true" and ( also) "acting" at that moment. This requires an "investigation without analyser" into what one is. And from there you can move infinitely, boundlessly. There is no 'beginning' or 'ending' (in ?) there.

QUESTION: How does one meet aggression and psychological attacks from a close relative from whom one cannot escape?

K: When you are (living in the same house ?) with a close friend or relative, psychologically, inwardly, there is always a ( 'psychological' ?) pressure going on between the two. Always trying to do something about the other, attacking through subtle words, or gestures, trying to push the other into a certain pattern - right? This is common to you, isn't it? Now the questioner asks , what will you do ( in order to ?) not to be "pushed around" psychologically? ( The added difficulty may be that ?) you may depend on that person financially or for various ( personal ?) reasons. And the moment you depend you become a ( 'psychological ) sclave' - because I depend on you for my satisfaction, comfort, and for my physical well being too.

But if I don't ( want to ?) depend on you, I have to find out whether it is possible living (intelligently ?) in the same house, husband, wife, relative and so on, without ( inwardly) building a 'wall' around oneself ? So is it possible for me to "live vulnerably" and yet not be wounded ? But if one is dependent on another financially, that becomes rather ( tricky and/or potentially ?) 'dangerous'. If I am dependent financially on you, what happens between us? You (or s(he) ?) then have the "whip" in your hand.

If I am quite young I would probably start a new career but if I am sixty, seventy or ninety, then you can't do it. So then what shall I do? What will you do?
So where do I draw the 'line of dependency'? You understand my question? 'Psychologically' I won't depend ( 'psychologically') on anybody, or on anything, nor on any past experience and all the rest of that rubbish. There is no dependence. But if one is dependent financially where do I draw the line, or being rather oldish, you say, "Sorry I have to put up with it." ? How deep is that line, is it just superficial or the line has great depth? So what is important (to understand) in this question is ( one's inner ?) "freedom". ( This inner) freedom is absolutely necessary. I may depend on the 'postman' and so on, but otherwise 'psychologically' I don't depend. I must be very clear on this.

QUESTION: Some people seem to 'pick parts' of what you say that fits their problems or interest and then discard the rest. What do you say to this?

K: I don't have to say anything about it. But what do you say? We are dealing here with the whole of our life, both the 'psychological' world, which is immense, not just ( limited to our ?) physical reactions and nervous responses, but much deeper than all that - if you can go that deeply. So we are dealing not only with ( our personal ?) 'psychological' world but the tremendous violence that exists in the world. It is a dangerous (slippery ?) subject, please listen carefully, not take part of it and say, yes he is against the army. We are concerned with the entirety of human life, not only with one's own particular life but also the life of human beings throughout the world, the immense poverty, of which you don't ( really want to ?) know.

So, if you are (really ?) concerned with the whole humanity, ( the first thing to consider is that ?) you 'are' humanity, not 'humanity' is over there, and 'you' are different. We are human beings first, but we have (culturally and psychologically ?) separated ourselves and that is why there is chaos in the world. So ( consciousness-wise ?) we 'are' the entire humanity. If one realizes that marvellous truth, then you will not kill another, then there is no division between this country and that country, then your whole life is different. If one actually, deeply, honestly, without all the ideological nonsense, (realise) the (truth of the ?) fact that we 'are' ( the 'all-in-one' consciousness ?) of the entire humanity, all our (self-centred ?) search for individual freedom, individual becoming and so on becomes rather childish ( spiritually redundant ?) .

QUESTION: There are many accounts of people following a particular discipline who come upon the Immeasurable. Are they self-deluded? Or have they come to this somehow despite their efforts? Or is there another explanation?

K: It has nothing to do with disciplines, with effort. You may disagree, but let us both understand what we are talking about, each of us. You may belong to a particular discipline, Buddhist, Hindu, Tibetan, Christian, certain abbot, certain guru, all the rest of it, follow certain discipline, early morning pray, (or meditate ?) . And through that ( self-imposed ?) 'discipline' some people say they have understood or realized the Immeasurable. Are they self-deluded? What do you say? The word 'discipline', according to the dictionary, means to learn: the ( authentic ?) 'disciple' is learning, not conforming, not imitating, not obeying. Learning itself has its own discipline - right?

There is this ( holistic ?) quality of learning, not (based on ?) memorizing and repeating. So can ( a self-imposed ?) 'discipline', which is conforming, imitating, obeying, lead to the Immeasurable? 'Immeasurable' means that which is beyond all measurement, all delineation. For the speaker, it seems that is not possible, because the brain then is ( solidly ?) 'conditioned' to a routine, while seeing the Limitless requires immense, incalculable ( inner) freedom.

There are two kinds of freedom; the 'freedom from' and the 'freedom per se'. (Eg:) There can be 'freedom from fear', but that freedom is ( 'relative' or ?) conditioned because it is 'free from' something. And is there ( a state of 'being free' ?) a freedom which is ( existing) 'by itself' ? That freedom requires compassion, love, and that freedom is that supreme intelligence which has nothing to do with the (smart ?) 'intelligence' of thought . But to come to That, one has ( also ?) to be 'free from' all fears and all the rest of it. If that (inward freedom ?) interests you, put your energy into it. You have to put your ( 'inner ?) house' in order, a complete order, not just 'neatness', or 'polishing the furniture'. That is part of it.
This ( new and orderly ?) 'inner house', has no 'roof', no 'shelter'. 'You' can't invite the Immeasurable, nor lay down the 'path' for another to follow. It is not to be put into words. We ( like to ?) 'measure' everything with ( psychologically convenient ?) words. We call it the 'Immeasurable'. It certainly is not that. It is something entirely different.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 08 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Mar 2016 #100
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: There are several questions here and you and the speaker together are going to explore the nature of the question, and then perhaps we will be able to find the answer in the question itself. Is this fairly clear?

Q: Is the perception of the "actual" possible without the intervention of thought?

K: Is it possible to perceive a tree, your wife, or your husband, or your boss, or your helper, your servant, or the nature around you, to perceive that without the ( verbalised ?) intervention of thought? Let us explore the question.
What do we mean by 'perceiving ? Do you actually see the things as they are, or you have a picture of them, an image of them, and you look through that ( mental) 'image' ? Suppose I live with my wife for twenty, or thirty, or fifteen years , and during that interval of time I have built through various incidents, accidents, an ( mental ?) 'image' about her. And she has built another (mental) image about me. These 'images', these ( subliminally stored ?) memories, prevent me from looking at her actually, what she is.
And then the question arises: is it possible to look at a human being, whether it be my wife, or a neighbour, or a stranger, to look at them without a single ( 'image' making ?) movement of thought. Can you observe the speaker without all the ( spiritual ?) "reputation" that you (and others) have build about him, and about what he has said, to put away all that and look at him (non-verbally ?) , just to look afresh, is that possible? That means thought not interfering with your observation. If you have ever tried it, you will find the most extraordinary things happen: ( the quality of ?) your relationship is constantly renewed, and you are looking at the person for the first time afresh. And when you look at that person afresh a new kind of relationship comes into being.

Question: How can one live with a husband who does not care ?

K: Let's look into the ( psychological implications of the ?) question. I presume that most of those who are here, are married. So, what is a 'husband'? A husband is supposed to go to the office, or go to some kind of work, either pleasant or unpleasant, and so on. And then comes home. The wife, the woman, cooks the meal, looks after, if she has children, the children, and so on. This is our daily (family) routine. What is the relationship between these two people? And, as modern life is becoming more and more complex, more and more expensive, both the woman and the man have to work. And if they have children, what happens to the children? The woman comes home and the husband comes home tired, and will they really care? You should put this question to yourself and not to the speaker.
The question is: how does one live with a husband who doesn't care? Either you say, 'Goodbye old boy', or you put up with him, getting more and more indifferent to each other, more and more isolated, more and more depressed, and all the misery of living with a man or a woman who doesn't really care at all. So what will you do? Go after another man ? And it will also happen there, after a little while he will not care (either) . So you are probably always caught in this problem: is there love at all? When two people live together, is it a biological coming together, or is there love in their lives, caring for each other? Perhaps you know the answer better than the speaker.

Question: Is it necessary to marry in love? What is the physical relationship between man and woman?

K: What a strange question this is, isn't it? Is it necessary to marry in love? What do you say? If the speaker puts this question to you, what will you answer: is it necessary sirs, and ladies, that I should marry? What would be your answer? Your answer probably would be, do what you want to do, it's up to you.
But you see the ( psychological implications of ?) question are really much more complex than that. Because most of us cannot "stand alone", on our own feet, we say, I must marry, or I will have a friend, or whatever it is, I must have somebody with whom I can be "at home". But we are never (feeling ?) "at home" with ( ourselves or with ?) anybody because we are living in our own ( self-centred ?) thoughts, problems (worries ?) , or our (professional ?) ambitions and so on. So, we are frightened to 'stand alone'. And because our ( own ) life is very lonely, complex and troublesome and one needs somebody with whom you can talk things over. When you marry you have sexual relationship, children and so on, but if there is no love in this relationship, you use her and she uses you. That's a fact.
So the questioner asks, "should one marry ?". It's up to you, sirs. But to really enter into this whole complex problem of living together, not only with two people, but living together with humanity, with your neighbour, one has to find out how to live without any conflict, without any sense of struggle. That requires a great deal of intelligence, integrity.

Question: What is the difference between the "brain" and the "mind"?

K: This is a very complex question. We know (less or more about ?) what the brain is. The scientists are saying there is the 'left side' of the brain and the 'right side' of the brain. The 'left side' of the brain is ( constantly ?) in operation, functioning with all the daily activity. And the 'right side' of the brain is not functioning fully because the right side of the brain is much more intelligent, much more acute, much more aware. And -the speaker is saying- the brain is the centre of all action and reaction, of all the sensory responses. So the brain has (full control over ?) the whole content of our consciousness; our beliefs, name, capacity, all the (personal and collective ) memories, hurts, pleasures, pains, affection and so on, all that is the (psychologically active ?) "content" of our consciousness.

( More generally ?) the (active) content of your consciousness is the "you", the 'me'. Do we see this? You "are" your name, your body, your anger, your greed, your competition, your ambition, your pleasure, your pain, affection, you "are " ( identified with ?) the ( psychical ?) content of your consciousness. The content of your consciousness is the ( active memory of your ?) past: ( personal and collective ?) memories of past incidents, past experiences. 'You' are the ( constantly refreshed memory of ?) past. You are knowledge, which is the past.

And the speaker is saying the "mind" ( energy field ?) is "outside" the brain - the brain is one thing, and mind is something entirely different. The ( 'spatio-temporal' ?) brain with all its content, with its struggles, with its pain, anxieties, can never know, understand the beauty of Love. Love is limitless. And the brain with all its ( self-conscious ?) 'content' cannot comprehend, or be alive (inwardly open ?) to love; only the "mind", which is limitless.
So there is a ( vast qualitative ?) difference between the "brain" and the "mind". But there is still a further question involved in this: what is the relationship then between the mind and the brain? The ( energy of the ?) brain is in a constant state of struggle, conflict. Whereas the "mind" is totally out of that category. There is a ( 2-way) relationship only when the brain is completely free from all the ( psychological ) 'content' of its memories. This requires a great deal of ( meditative ?) enquiry, sensitivity. The (self-limited ?) 'intelligence' of thought cannot contain the Intelligence of the "mind". Does somebody understand what I am talking about?

Look, sirs, let's be very simple. Your (routinely) daily life, going to the office ( working & working & working ) being (specialised ?) in certain disciplines, as 'doctor', 'businessman', or 'cook', ( the holistic quality of ?) your brain is being narrowed down, limited. If I am a 'physicist' and I spend years and years learning ( the 'facts' ) about physics, studying, investigating, research into it, so my brain is being narrowed down. Our brain has become mechanical, routine, small, because we are so concerned with ourselves, always living in a very, very small area of like, dislike, pain, sorrow, and all the rest of it. But the "mind" is something entirely different and you cannot understand or comprehend the nature of that "mind" if your brain is ( inwardly ?) limited. You cannot understand the "limitless" (dimension of an Universal Mind) when your life is limited. Right? So (an authentic ?) relationship between the "brain" and the "mind" can only take place when the brain is free from its ( conditioning ?) content. This is a complex question, and requires much more ( quality time for ?) going into but... we haven't the time for it.

Question: What is faith?

K: The whole of Christianity, as in the Islamic world, all the religious structure is based on faith. If you 'have faith in God ' you cannot possibly allow any form of "doubt" to enter;. But in the Hindu world, and in the Buddhist world, doubt is one of the necessary qualities to cleanse the brain.

There is also another complex question involved in this: why do we have "ideals"? The whole communist world is based on the theoretical suppositions of Marx, or Lenin - they are their "gods". And they "believe" in what they have said as the Christians believe in what the Bible says, or you, with your Gita, Upanishads, or something else, you are all absorbing what the books say, but you never, question the ( inward validity of the ?) whole thing, because the moment you question, doubt, you have to rely only on yourself, and therefore you are ( uncertain, insecure and subliminally ?) frightened; therefore much better to have faith in something illusory, something that doesn't really actually exist. But if I want to understand my own life, if I have to see if it is possible to bring about a great (inward qualitative ?) revolution in my life, then you start from there. f you have faith in something, you are living in an extraordinarily illusory world.

Question: You often say, "thought is me" - please show me how.

K: The speaker will explain, step by step. But will you "see the truth" of it, or say, no, that is not the self, the self is something far superior, it is divine, it is atman, it is something else. So let us together find out. What 'are' you? Physically, aren't you your face, your eyes, your nose, your hair and so on? (Psychologically : ) aren't you ( identify with your ?) greed, or ( you think that ?) your greed is separate from you? When there is anxiety, aren't you that anxiety? When you are suffering, when one loses one's wife, husband, children, or grandmother, is that suffering something separate from you? Aren't you all that? Or do you (just) 'think' that you are separate from all that? Right, sir? You are ( inwardly identified with ?) your bank account, aren't you? Or if I take away your bank account you say, that's not me? Would you say that? 'You can take my bank account because it is not me'. How you would howl if I took away your bank account! So you "are" (identified inwardly with ?) your 'bank account'. You 'are' (+/- attached to ?) your furniture, house, mortgage, money.
But if you say, 'I am not all that, there is something in me that is watching (onjectively witnessing ?) all this' - is that a fact? Many people say there is a (Higher ?) Consciousness, above all this ( materialistic ?) consciousness. Is that ( concept ?) not invented by ( our self-centred ?) thought? Is not your recognition of your wife, your husband, isn't that thought? So aren't you all the ( active ) memory of the past, all the tradition of the past, as a Hindu, as this, you know, a Brahmin, non-Brahmin, and all that business, aren't you all that? Of course you are. So you 'are' the knowledge which is the past.

( Psychologically speaking ?) you are nothing but memories. If all your ( collective and personal) memories were taken away, what are you? You would be a "vegetable". So your ( active pack of ?) memories, which is always the ( continuity of the ?) past, is what you 'are'. Your tradition as a Hindu, as a Parsi, as a Muslim and so on, that's the result of thousand years of propaganda, years of tradition, which is the activity of thought.
So ( the self-conscious ?) 'you' are thought. If you don't think at all, what are you? (Not-a-thing ?) So you 'are' the whole ( dynamic ?) content of the past. That past is modifying itself in the present, and continues as the future. So you are the past, the present and the future. In 'you' all time is contained.
And the 'me', (along with my personal qualities ?) my name, my quality, my achievement, my ambition, my pain, my sorrow, is all the ( manifestation of the collective ?) past. So the "self" (consciousness) is the essence of the past, and therefore very, very limited. And that's why the self (-centred consciousness ?) is causing so much mischief in the world. Each 'self' (-identified consciousness ?) is out for itself. If you were ( inwardly) honest, aren't you 'out for yourself'? - your ambition, your achievements, your fulfilment, your satisfaction.

So ( the self-identified process of ?) thought is (creating the ?) "you". (And as the activity of ) thought is limited -because all knowledge is limited- therefore your 'self' (- consciousness ?) is the most limited thing. And therefore you are causing enormous (direct and/or collateral ?) sorrow, enormous conflict, because the self is separative, divisive.
So, sirs, the speaker has "explained it" ( verbally ) . But his explanation is not ( the actual 'seeing' of ?) the fact. The ( truth of the ?) "fact" is for you to see for yourself. And there might be some of us who say, " That is not the (right ?) way to live. One must live with a global brain, without any division, without any 'self'(- isolating consciosness ?) . Don't make that into some (ideal) of "heightened illumination - only a few can reach it". Anybody who sets his brain and heart to understand the ( illusory ?) nature of the "self", and be free of that (false ?) self-(identification ?) , anybody can do it if they put their mind (and heart ?) to it.

Question: If the great religions of the world are not "true" religions, what is a "true religion"?

K: Why do you say, 'if'? Their rituals, their hierarchy, their faith, belief, their going to temples and offering enormous sums of money to some things made by hand or by the mind, which you call "God", is all that "religion"? If you would question, doubt, then you begin to see these things are all 'put together' by thought. Your so-called 'religious books', they are all put down by thought, they are not straight from God's mouth. I know you love to think that, but thought has operated and put it down on a piece of paper, and then you accept it as something extraordinarily sacred.

So if you brush aside all that, and that requires a sense of freedom to observe, and freedom from fear, then you can find out for yourself what is ( the true ?) "religion". That is, is there something sacred, not invented by thought, not measured by words, is there something that is immeasurable, timeless? This has been a question from the ancient of times. The ancient Egyptians, the Greeks, all the great past civilizations have asked this question: is there "something" beyond all this ? Thought is a material ( brain ) process, and whatever it invents is not sacred. So to find that out the brain must be entirely free from its ( conditioning ?) 'content', from fear, from anxiety, from the sense of terrible loneliness, from ( the fear of ?) death. Then only you will find out what is Truth, what is the highest form of Religion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 #101
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: Most of us put questions and then ( passively ?) wait for somebody to answer them. So what we are interested in is the answer and not in the question itself. Whereas the importance is in the question, not in the answer. You will discover this (an example of interactivity ?) presently, if a question is put to the speaker, then the speaker responds to the question, then you pick up that response and reply to that response, we keep this going until the ( truth of the ?) question remains, and not anything else. And when the question becomes extraordinarily important it has its own vitality, and therefore its own answer. We will see it in a minute.

QUESTION: I can understand that all people have 'similar' consciousness, but it seems a big "jump" to say that all people share the same consciousness. Could we walk together slowly between these two points?

K: ( For starters ?) what do we mean by 'consciousness'? To 'be conscious' (or aware ?) of things, conscious of the trees round here, people round here, but in that awareness there is usually a certain sense of 'choice' ( selective preference ?) . Now is there a (quality of ?) awareness, which is part of ( our non-personal ?) consciousness, in which there is no choice at all? Because where there is a choice (or preference ?) between 'this' and 'that', this division (between contradicting desires ?) breeds conflict. Now is there an awareness without choice? You understand my question?
As you cannot reply, I am taking your ( devil's ?) part: it seems it is very difficult to be 'aware without choice'. And the (K) reply to that is: Isn't the very word 'difficult' (inhibiting ?) throwing a barrier ? When I use the word impossible, difficult, I am a failure, those words act as (inhibiting factor or ) barrier. So in using this word 'difficult' you are already making it (doubly ?) difficult.

So ( back to square one: ) is it possible to be aware, without any ( 'personal' ?) choice, just to observe? Right? And the common reply to that is "I will try". And to that reply the speaker says: Don't "try"! The moment you "try", you are making a (another personal choice based on ?) effort. And when you make a (personal) effort you don't understand anything. Only if you ( effortlessly ?) perceive the actual. Right? And then you may say, sorry, I don't understand it. So I say, let's go into it further.

"But it is a vast jump to say that all people share the same ( matrix of ?) consciousness". Is that so, or not? You may say each one of us is different, each one of us has his own peculiarities, his own idiosyncrasies, his different environment, was educated in different ways, so we do not all share the same consciousness. And the speaker says, let's examine this very closely. And you say, what do you mean examine, explore? Who is exploring? Your own ( holistic quality of ?) "attention". Most educators are concerned with awakening the (personal motivation of ?) 'interest' in the student, but there is always a ( subliminal ?) contradictory process going on. I say, find out what is the nature of ( a holistic quality of ?) "attention". Suppose the student is ( momentarily ?) very interested in watching very closely a frog, or a lizard, or the ( blue ?) bird out of the window. He is paying much more ( authentic ) attention to that than listening to my (boring talk ?) on history. So I would encourage him to watch much more carefully, so that his whole attention is given to his watching. When he does that, then I can ask him to pay attention to everything ( but more ?) 'slowly'. Learn to pay (full) attention , not ( redirecting the personal ?) interest. You have got it?

So ( with this holistic attention at hand ) let's examine ( the K statement ?) that "we all share the same consciousness".
Wherever we may live (the average ?) human being goes through terrible times. There is great poverty in Africa and India, and parts of Asia. There is great suffering. People are (constantly worried and ?) anxious all over the world. People are afraid all over the world. And they all want security, both physical as well as inwardly . This is a (shared ?) "fact" common to all of us: you suffer, the Indian suffers, the Russian suffers. So all the inhabitants of the world, go through this, but you may say, " I feel that I am different from my neighbour". The speaker then says, the superficial difference both biologically and physically, is a natural fact: you are tall, another is short, one is very clever, the other is not, and so on. But below ( underneath) that, in the 'psychical' world, we all share the same sorrow (of self-isolation ?) , sorrow is common to all of us, fear (of the unknown ?) is common to all of us. Right? So we all share the same ( self-centred ?) consciousness.

And you may say to that: "All this sounds very logical, but is it an (absolute ) "fact" ? So I say, listen to what I am saying: Externally you are different, obviously. But inwardly, are you different? You say, "Yes, I am quite different". Is it because you ( like to ?) think you are different, or is it a fact that you are different? You understand? Thinking about a fact is something totally different from the ( actual inner ?) fact. Psychologically, inwardly, we all ( consciously and/or subliminally ?) cheat, lie, want success, want ( more ?) money. This is a common thing to all human beings. So it is not ( just) 'your'(individual) consciousness. And you say, 'It's your invention'. I say, look, the root meaning of the word 'individual' means "indivisible". Right? Are you ( inwardly ?) 'indivisible', or fragmented? You understand? If you are ( inwardly ?) 'fragmented', not an (integrated ?) individual. You are a 'fragmented' human being, like all other fragmented human beings. Individual means "unique" (but inwardly speaking ?) you are not. We like to think we are unique because we are 'clever' (or 'smarter' ?) , we are this or that, you know, which is just another (collectively shared ?) form of vanity.

So when you examine it very closely, without any sense of egoticism in this, you find we 'are' (inwardly as the rest of ?) humanity. We don't just 'share the same consciousness', we 'are'( fully responsible for the aching consciousness of ?) humanity. When you hear that statement, you may accept it as an idea, make an ( intellectual ?) abstraction of it and say, "it is a good idea". Right? And (K) says, "you are avoiding the ( full impact of this ?) fact when you make an ideal out of it ". Right? So please look at the fact that every human being in the world goes through all kinds of problems, misery, unhappiness, and does all kinds of crooked things, you know, the whole game. And we all do ( less or more ?) the same thing in a different way, but the (basic self-centred ?) motive, the urge is the same. And you may reply to all that, "Yes, I follow it all logically but I can't feel the ( true) depth of your statement that "we are humanity", the ( compassionate ?) feeling of it. Then the speaker says, why, why don't we feel this tremendous sense of wholeness in humanity? So if one can 'look' (or inwardly contemplate the truth of ?) this fact that psychologically we "are" really the whole of humanity, this gives a sense of tremendous ( compassionate intelligent ?) energy, and there is no ( inward ?) separation.

QUESTION: Have you designated a special person, to carry on your Teachings after you have gone? Someone is ( already ?) claiming this position.

K: I know that various people are doing this kind of rubbish, but what are they claiming? Suppose K is going to die. That's certain, as all of us are going to die. That is one absolute, irrevocable fact, whether you like it or not. Fortunately, or unfortunately, he has said many things, written some books, and become somewhat 'notorious', some kind of 'biological exception'. And because of that reputation in the world someone may think of himself (or of an organised group ?) that he is going to carry on the K's work. Why? Probably it is also 'profitable' financially, and you can say, well I ( we ?) can collect (and/or guide ?) a lot of 'silly' people. This is happening in the Catholic church - the 'apostolic succession', you know, is 'handed down'. They have it too in India, in a different way.
So the speaker has designated no one ! It is all rather silly, isn't it?

QUESTION: What do you mean by "observing thought down to its very roots"? I watch my thoughts but each one leads to another in an endless chain. What is the (missing ?) factor that ends this? What actually brings ( this qualitative ?) change?

K: One of the questions (implied) is: "can thought be aware of itself?" Suppose one is thinking about "what will I do when I get back home", can that thought be aware of itself? Can thought (the 'thinking brain' ?) be aware that it is thinking of the next meal? Or is there an ( intermediary ?) "observer" who says, "I am thinking about my next meal?"
Is this "observer" different from the (thought) "observed"? Or the "observer" is ( a prioritary process of ?) thought, and that which he is observing as "his thought" is still (but with a lower priority ) thought.
So the "observer" is ( part of a multi-level process of ?) thought. The "observer" is all the ('personal' ?) memories of the past. And then he says, "I" am going to watch "my thinking". But (if) the "observer" is also ( a sub-process of ?) thought, then one ( prioritary ) thought is watching the other thoughts. So the common factor between the two is "thought" (the "thinking activity" of the brain ?)

And what is the root of all our thinking? Probably you would say, "I have never thought about it". And I say, Why not? because all your life is based on thinking - business, everything you do is based on thought? Why aren't you interested in ( inwardly ?) finding out what is thinking? What's wrong with you? You explore ( outwardly ?) so many things, you go under the sea, you go in the air, you do all kinds of ( experimenting and) exploring, but you have never given your energy to find out what is thought. And you say, "sorry, I have never done it". And so we say: Observe the movement of thought, from the extreme (outward) technological world to the ( inward ?) psychological world, and the relationship between the psychological world and the next person. It's the same movement (activity of ?) thought.

Now what does it do in the relationship between you and another? Right? You say, "I have never thought about it, or even if I thought about it I don't know how to go into it". And you are expecting that somebody will come along and explain you the whole thing. Which means that you are not ( feeling personally ) concerned. You are concerned to earn a livelihood, and you jolly well work at it. But here you say, "sorry, generations upon generations got used to 'thinking', and they have never ( figured out the practicality of ?) going into this question at all". And so you brush it aside and go off.

But whereas if you begin to feel (personally involved ?) committed to finding out (what are the roots of thought?) , you will find out that one can answer certain things very quickly, instantly, while for other things I take time.
So (a) an instant response, (b) taking time before response, or (c) ultimately saying, "I really don't know". These are our states of thinking: instant reply, taking time to respond to a question, thinking, asking, reading about it and then say, this is the answer. And the other is to say, I really don't know.
When you answer quickly you are familiar with it, the way to your home, you know how to turn on the heater or wash the dishes. But if one asks you something much more complex you take time. And if there is a question like, "Is there Eternity ?", you say, I don't know. When you say, "I don't know", either you are waiting for somebody to tell you, or you don't accept anything from anybody, but you say, I don't know. Right?

So let's examine what is the "root of thinking". Thought is surely the ( verbalised ?) response of memory. Right? If there was no memory , if you are in a state of amnesia, you can't think. So what is ( producing this ?) 'memory'? One is driving a car, and ( for a moment) you look in another direction and you have an accident - and that causes pain and all the rest of it. So that 'incident' has been recorded in the brain, and has brought certain knowledge. So that accident was a (painful ?) experience, which has brought some (accident related ?) knowledge, and that knowledge has been stored in the brain as ( stand-by ?) memory. And the ( next ?) response of that memory is thought. That's simple.

Now, since all (personal ?) experience is limited, the ( resulting ?) knowledge is limited, my (recording capacity of ?) memory is limited, so my thinking (responses) is (are) limited. So whatever 'thought' does is limited. Whether it imagines there is eternity, it's limited; if a 'god' is invented by thought, that god will still be limited. I can give him various ( convenient ?) attributes, say he is omnipotent, all powerful, all (forgiving and ?) compassion, but he is still limited because thought has put ( that 'image' ?) there.

So thought is limited. Do we see this 'fact' that thought is always limited because it is based on ( the previously recorded ?) knowledge ? And all our actions based on thought naturally must be limited. When I am ( addicted to ?) 'thinking about myself', that limitation creates trouble for somebody else - to my wife, to my husband, to my children - because by thinking about myself, my action is limited and must ( eventually ?) breed conflict. My country may be enormous, thousands of miles across, but the ( mental) concept of 'my country' is very small and that limitation is creating conflict with another limitation, so it goes on.

So do we see this fact that ( the intrinsical ) limitation (of thought ?) must create division and therefore conflict? We have all accepted ( a life of ?) conflict as inevitable, as part of our existence. And we have never asked: is it possible to live without conflict? This is only possible if you understand the ( limited ?) significance of thought and find out where thought has no place at all. You understand? Thought has its right place - when you go from here to your house, drive a car, write a letter, do your business, the computer, and all the rest of it, thought there is necessary. But in the 'psychological' world, in my relationship with another, has thought a ( rightful ?) place, knowing that thought is limited, divisive, therefore creating conflict ? If you see this as an actuality then in the very seeing of it, our relationship means something entirely different. Has ( an action based on ?) love any relationship to thought , or no relationship at all?

The questioner also asked: what is the factor that ends this ( endless) continuity (of thought), what actually brings this change?
Can thought bring change? There must (obviously) be a ( qualitative ?) change in human behaviour, in the human existence. But when thought 'organizes' the change, when thought says, I am going to create an organization, a new world, that organization is limited, and it is going to create conflict. So if one sees the 'fact', this truth that thought is absolutely limited, then what takes place in the brain? If you see this revolutionary fact there is already a ( qualitative ?) mutation of the cells themselves in the brain.
One has walked all one's life north, going always north - suppose. And you come along and say, sorry, that leads nowhere, try going east or west. And I say, yes, I'll go south. The very movement, where you had been going north has now suddenly changed to going south. There is a mutation taking place in the very brain cells themselves. Right? You go into it, and you will see it for yourself. The realization of a truth, that very realization brings a radical change. There is no, "I will meditate to change, I'll make an effort to change".

QUESTION: Please explain what you mean by saying that if one perceives the truth ( about something ?) and doesn't act, it acts as poison.

K: All right. I have heard the truth that ( the process of self-centred ?) thought is ( intrinsically) limited, but I carry on with my daily life. What takes place? I have realized something to be true and I am acting quite the opposite to that. What happens? ( The inner ?) conflict increases more and more and more. It is much better not to hear the truth, then you can carry on in the old way. But the moment you hear something to be extraordinarily (true and ?) beautiful, and that 'beauty' (of truth ?) not just a mere description but the actuality of that beauty, when you do something 'ugly', and keep on repeating it , obviously it is ( acting as ?) a poison. It not only affects you physically (psycho-somaticall) but and also it affects a great deal the ( fragmentation of the ?) brain that has heard something to be true and does the contrary. Therefore it's much better not to hear if you want to carry on in your old way.

( Story time:) There is a very good story of two robbers. And they have been robbing, and their father has been praising their god for his kindness, for their benefit - you understand, thieves have also gods, not only the rich people. So one day they have been robbing somebody or other, and they are coming back. In the square, there is a man giving a sermon, and he is saying "you must never steal, you must never hurt another, be kind". One brother closes his ears, he doesn't want to hear, but the other brother hears it. And for the rest of his life he is in pain.

I think this is really a great 'fact', and we don't seem to realize it; that when you see something enormously beautiful, if you are sensitive enough to see that beauty, and you do something ugly, it really tortures you, if you are sensitive. And that's why truth is such a "dangerous" thing.

QUESTION: Why is the 'observance of silence' so important for seekers of truth?

K: The 'natural' question is: is it possible to stop this tremendous endless continuity of ( the our self -centred ?) occupation? It would naturally stop when you are ( silently ?) 'attending' to something. If you are attending to what the speaker is saying now, if you actually listen, you are attentive, and that attention 'is' silence. Right? I wonder why we make everything so complex. Life is complex, tremendously, like the computer, it is a tremendously complex thing. But to understand it one must have a very simple mind. To have a simple clear mind, uncluttered, then (the silent quality of ?) "attention" becomes extraordinarily simple.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 10 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Mar 2016 #102
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: There have been a lot of theoretical and ideological questions that really have no meaning at all. One wonders why one doesn't ask questions about one's own life, depression, anxiety, a sense of deep loneliness, or is it just that we live in a 'make-believe' world, and try to find answers to our idealistic, religious beliefs. I wonder why one asks, if I may, why don't we ask such questions directly, simply about oneself?
May I raise a question? Why do you come, why are you all here? When the speaker is in India and talks to between five to eight thousand people at every meeting, they come there to be in the presence of a 'religious person' . They don't quite understand what the speaker is talking about, I am sure they don't. And perhaps you come here out of curiosity, or to spend a nice morning under the trees and listen to the poor chap. And so you go on that way and this ( shared inquiry ?) doesn't profoundly change us.
One wonders if you have ever considered how one man can change the whole (direction of ?) human consciousness, human beings. And you might say, has the Buddha, 2,500 years ago, has he in any way affected the world? Or the Christians believing in Jesus and all that, have they really changed the world, changed the human mind, human behaviour, endless suffering? Or have the priests throughout the world prevented this change?
One has no direct ( verbatim ?) teachings of the Buddha, or that of Jesus ( his teachings apparently were 'interpreted' after sixty years) and perhaps that has also prevented human beings from acting rightly. So one wonders all why human beings don't profoundly change their ways of life. Is more suffering necessary? Is more violence necessary? Or we haven't got the the passion, the intensity to change the whole pattern of one's deep (inherited ?) behaviours? Can one put aside all 'spiritual' organizations, not be caught in any box, in any system, and work, look, observe, perceive one's own behaviour and change?

QUESTION: There are moments of awareness in which there is great clarity, and fear, division, and the experiences are absent. But the moments are brief. What is necessary to allow a 'sustained' clarity, intensity, and the wholeness of being?

K: This is apparently a serious question and you want a ( serious ?) reply from somebody. We never ask ourselves if we can, totally independent of others, find out if it is possible to be (inwardly ?) clear, not momentarily, not just occasionally when you have nothing else to do ? Not (a temporal ?) 'continuity' of clarity - you understand? Suppose one is clear ( inwardly transparent ?) for a moment, and that clarity for a second banishes away fear, (all the sad ?) experiences and all that. Suppose I am walking in the woods and listening to the birds, and to the spot of light, and the beauty of the foliage, and for a moment there is absolute clarity. And that clarity has left an imprint on the brain, it says, "By Jove, how clear it was!" Then one wants that clarity to continue, don't we? Like pleasure, you want it to continue. The ( desire for its ?) continuity is the movement of ( our self-centred ?) memory. Right? And it involves ( a continuity in ?) time, doesn't it? But it is the very freedom from ( a mentality based on ?) time that is clarity.

( Eg:) Say that for a few seconds, or for a few days, one has this (inward) feeling of being absolutely safe, ( loved ?) protected, solidly secure. Then that disappears after a few days. But the memory of that feeling remains. And we want to continue (to live with ?) that (inner clarity ) which has happened two days ago. This is what we are all caught in: wanting the continuity of that (stimulating experience ?) which has happened. And this ( self-projected continuity in ?) 'time' is a (desire- projected ?) movement of thought from "the past - to the present- to the future" is creating its own continuity. And the brain, which has evolved through time, says, this (sense of temporal ) continuity is essential because for it continuing (to survive ?) it is physically, biologically, essential. But ( by extending the same mentality ?) psychologically it also wants also to continue. So the brain becomes confused (seriously disturbed ?) when there is no ( sense of its 'personal' ?) continuity (in time) .

And one question implied is whether there is ( any need for a ?) 'psychological' continuity at all ? That is, this interval of ( spiritual ?) clarity which banish all problems, and all the travail of life, happens in a (timeless ?) moment. And the brain says, (that timeless clarity ?) must continue, because our brain only can think in terms of (its own) continuity in time . You understand? Biologically it is a vital necessity to continue day after day. Same house, food, clothes, and (as a bonus we hope that our ?) 'psychologically safe' relationship to continue. Are you following all this? But is there in (our 'personal') relationships ( any guarantee of such ?) 'security' at all? So, when there is the demand for that (kind of security ?) there is ( a ground for ?) conflict.

( Recap:) Relationship is a tremendously important thing in life and you are always related ( either) to ( your own ?) past, or to a person, or to a concept of the future. And there are moments in which our relationship has great depth, silence and a sense of tremendous well-being. And (the memory of) those moments of deep sense of fullness, wholeness, is recorded in the brain, (as the ( memory-) function of the brain is to record and keep going). And so that ( 'special ?) memory' begins to play an important ( psychological ?) part.

So the question is whether there is ( a 'time guarantee' of ?) security at all in our relationships? We (may like to ?) think it is absolutely necessary, but is there anything in life "permanent"? This (basic) demand for security and permanency is translated (by our brain in terms of a time-binding ?) "attachment". Right? So there is a "deep attachment" to another. It may (last) for a month, or for a week, or for fifty years. And during this (time-locked ?) state of attachment there is all the conflict of jealousy, suspicion, fear of loss, you know all this, don't you ? So this (subliminal) demand to have a sense of permanent continuity in all our ( personal ?) relationships leads to attachment and all the ( psychical) complications of attachment. If one "sees" ( the truth ?) that our (compulsory ?) demand for permanency and security in our relationships inevitably leads to a great deal of conflict, attachment, fear and so on, then that very perception "burns away" the (subliminal ?) demand for ( 'psychological' ?) security.

( In a nutshell:) The moment when we ( begin to ) think in terms of time, of continuity, the inner clarity and the feeling of wholeness disappears. And we are saying that if we perceive the truth of this, that very perception burns away the ( irrational ?) demands for security and permanency. Then what is ( the quality of ?) our relationship with each other? When there is no demand for ( an illusory guarantee of ?) 'permanency' and 'security' ( in our relationships with everyone and everything ?) is it possible a new (spiritual) awakening, a new sense of "love"? Do you understand my question? Permanency and attachment, with all its ( psychological tail of ?) pain and pleasure, anxiety and fear, is not 'love'. And in the absence of ( all ) these, the "other" (Love) is like a flower that blooms. That Love is not ( related to ?) thought, desire, sensation; it has a totally a different quality. And this ( holistic quality ?) is totally absent when the ( brain's insistence on its 'psychological'?) security, (in terms of attachment ?) and all the rest, is the ( subliminal ?) demand of every human being.

QUESTION: What is judgement? How is one to determine the ( fine ?) line dividing opinion, and the perception of fact?

K: It's a good question. The meaning of the word 'opinion' is ( a personal ?) judgement, evaluation, preconceived concepts; you know the whole assertive, dogmatic opinions that each one has, giveing you a sense of freedom and independence. It's my opinion, it is my right. So we have a thousand (conflicting ?) opinions.
And what are 'facts'? That which has (actually) happened. An incident or an accident is a fact, which took place yesterday. And fact is also what is happening now. Right? What is happening now, you and I are sitting here having a conversation, a dialogue, or a question and answer and so on, that's a fact. What is not ( yet ?) a fact is 'what may happen' when you leave this place and go off to your car. ( However, the probability field of ?) 'what will happen' is decided (influenced ?) by what is happening now. I wonder if you see this: the 'future' is ( implicitly contained ?) in the 'present': what you are now is modified, but basically (one's psychological ?) future is what one is now.

So, (holistically speaking ?) the 'future' is (also accessible through ?) in the present. Right? And the 'past' is also ( interfering ?) in the present. So the "present" contains all ( our 'psychological' process of ?) time; and if you don't 'change' now, you will be ( inwardly ?) exactly the same tomorrow, ( but perhaps ?) slightly modified. So (our psychological ?) 'future' is ( accessible ?) in the present. This is really quite important to understand because ( inwardly ?) what is 'action'?
So why do human beings cling to ( their ?) 'opinions' and not (deal directly with ?) facts? You can conclude (infere ?) from a 'fact' an opinion: I may have a car accident and you come along and see it, and have umpteen opinions about it, but the fact is I had an accident. So why do we have opinions at all, about government, about religion, about literature, about poems ? Is it a kind of ( mental?) game? Whereas if you stick to facts, which is, what has happened, what is happening, that's only facts. I am looking at the tree. That's a fact. Why do I have to have an opinion about that?

And the question also was: what is "judgement"? A judge passes a sentence on somebody, criminal, or some innocent man. There was a judge once whom the speaker happened to know. He was high up in law and became a judge. And one morning after many years of judgement, he said, "What am I judging? What is truth? I am passing a judgement about everything according to precedence and so on, what is truth? Unless I find that out judgement has no meaning". So as was customary in India in those days - about 50 years ago - he called his family and said, "I am going to withdraw from the world, go off into the forest, into some distant village, meditate and find out." After another 20 years somebody brought him to listen to one of the talks that K was giving and he came to see the speaker afterwards, and he said ,"You know what I have been doing these 40 years? I started out to find truth meditated, did all kinds of things and I see now that I have been mesmerizing myself. I have been living an illusion." Right? You understand all this? For an old man to acknowledge such statement and say that is a fact, that needs a great deal of ( integrity of ?) perception.

Now, is there justice in the world? The so called 'legal justice' is totally different from actual justice. Justice can only be found where there is freedom and compassion. Without that freedom and compassion which in its movement is intelligence there is no justice in the world. When you have this feeling of great compassion, in that ( intelligent ?) compassion, there is justice.

Question: There are many people who have considerable difficultly with (accepting ?) the fact of homosexuality. Could you, even briefly, put some light on this question? I have travelled 2000 miles to ask this question.

Krishnamurti: This has been a question for thousands and thousands of years. It isn't something new. These are facts. Right? As heterosexuality is a fact. Homosexuality exists in different parts of the world, while in other parts of the world it is practically unknown. So why do we make it into such an enormous problem? Apparently we don't make heterosexuality a problem at all, but we make this into a problem, why? So, why sexuality, both (kinds ) , has become so colossally important ? It is part of life, part of walking, seeing, running, laughing, tears, but why has this one thing taken importance. And it is being encouraged very carefully by the entertaining industry.
So seeing all this, what does one learn from all this? The popular opinion is that to reach God, to reach the highest, you must live a life of absolute abstinence. Which means human beings have never understood what is "austerity". The root meaning of that word, is 'to have a dry mouth', which is to be harsh, to be dry. When you are forcing yourself day after day, month after month, year after year, driving yourself you end up as 'dry' human being. And if you indulge in the other direction you have the same problem.

So ( the holistic meaning of 'austerity' is ?) can one live a life without conflict? Neither extremes, which imply conflict, and the sensory demands and the suppression of sensory demands. To live a life without conflict requires an investigation into the whole question of desire, which is a very, very complex problem. Why desire has become so extraordinarily important: desire to become successful, desire to have money, desire for sex, for excitement, for amusement, the tremendous urge and the speed of it, and the demand for its fulfillment ? We are not trying to suppress it, or encourage it, but it is a 'fact' that we are ( inwardly ?) driven by desire. And to thwart it is ( resulting in frustration and ?) pain. So at any cost, at any price we want the fulfillment of desire. You may desire 'God', or '(self-) understanding', but it is still desire. Shall I go (deeper) into all this?

When you look at the beauty of the tree, and see that enormous beauty of the earth, the very seeing arouses the sensations. Right? Seeing a beautiful woman or a man arouses various kinds of sensations; that sensation is normal, healthy, natural and when one is sensitive one is acutely aware of all this. Then what takes place? Doesn't then thought come in and say, "what a beautiful thing that is"? Thought then creates a (mental) "image" out of that sensation, then "desire" is born. Sensation is not ( necessarily leading to ?) desire. Sensation is sensation. But when thought comes and says, yes, what a lovely thing that is, what a lovely dress that is, nice shirt, touches it, feels it, puts it on, and then thought says, "how beautiful I look". Then the desire ( to possess it ?) is born. You understand this? This is a fact.

Now the ( deeper ?) question is: can 'sensation' and 'thought' be kept apart? Not through compulsion, effort and all that, we are asking a very serious and simple question. Sensation is natural, thought is also "somewhat natural", with its "image" (-making ) . Can there be a "gap", a (silent) interval, so that sensation and thought are separate? It requires a tremendous ( quality of non-personal ?) attention, great watchfulness. The speaker has seen some most beautiful things in the world, and the destruction, what human beings are doing to the earth, and seen some of the most beautiful gardens in the world, houses, but never asked "I wish I had it". You understand? That requires a great ( integrity of ?) perception, watchfulness and clarity. And all that implies a sense of great ( non-accumulative ?) inward learning, which is (has its own ?) "discipline". Learning is discipline, not conformity.

QUESTION: How is one to live on this earth without harm or destruction to its beauty, without bringing suffering and death to others?

K: It is a very, very serious question. To live a life without causing suffering to others, or causing death to others, that means not killing any animal for sport (and/or ?) for your food.
There were a certain class of people in India at a certain time, they never ate meat. They thought killing was wrong. They were called at the time, Brahmins. And the western civilization has never ( seriously considered ?) enquired whether killing any living thing is justified. Can't we live on this earth without killing, without wars? I can answer it, but what value has it to you, because you are killing? (I am not advocating "vegetarianism").

To go into this question very deeply- and it is a very, very serious question- is there a "quality of love" that can answer this question? Go into all these questions, sir, and live it, don't just 'talk about it'.
What is dividing the world is the ideology of one group against another group. This eternal division between man, woman, and so on. They have tried to bridge this through logic, through reason, through various institutions and foundations and organizations, and they have not succeeded in any way. This is a fact. Knowledge has not solved this problem either - knowledge in the sense, accumulated experience and so on. And thought has certainly not solved this problem.

So there is only one issue (coming) out of it: to discover or find out what is ( the inward quality of ?) "love". And apparently that love, that perfume, that fire, that compassion, has no ( practical ?) meaning to most people. But when there is that intelligence which is born of compassion, love, then all these problems will be solved simply, quietly. We may pursue it intellectually, verbally, but to do it with your heart, with your mind, with your passion behind it, then the earth will remain beautiful. And then there is a great sense of beauty in oneself.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 12 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 13 Mar 2016 #103
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: This question arises quite often : "If there are half a dozen people in the world who have really transcended, gone beyond the (limitations of the ) 'self' what effect will they have on the rest of humanity?" Would it be the "right" ( practical ?) question to ask? Are we changing because of an ( expected global ?) effect? Or we are changing ( independently ?) 'per se', for its own beauty, for its own strength, love and compassion ? And if we do, perhaps half a dozen or a dozen people in the world, will ( perhaps subliminally ?) affect the whole consciousness of mankind, as the real religious teachers have affected it. One 'loves' not because one is going to affect the ( Consciousness of the ?) world or (even that of ?) your neighbour, but the very perfume, the depth and the beauty of it, will ( eventually ?) have its own ( impact ?) without each one wanting a ( pre-determined ?) result.

So we had better tackle these questions. There are seven of them this morning, but can we not (expect ) another to help us but have that strength, that quality which resolves our own problems? And when we ask questions, how do we approach a ( vital ) question ? The word 'approach' means coming as close as possible to ( core of the ?) the problem (since) the solution may lie in the question itself. So, shouldn't we approach the problem tentatively, hesitantly, and without a ( personal ?) motive ? Because if you have a (personal) motive it has already set a direction which had already limited ( the freedom of enquiry ) - right? So could we have a ( silent interval?) gap , a sense of (being momentarily free of our personal ?) motives ? Then one can (objectively ?) go into the problem, and in the understanding (of the factors generating ?) the problem the ( holistic ?) solution is there, not outside the problem - right? To investigate the ( true) 'causes' (of any psychological problems ?) requires a quality of pliability, quickness, but this ( insightful ?) 'quickness' comes when there is ( a time-free ?) patience, the quality of a brain that is ( holistically ?) looking, watching.

QUESTION: How do we tell the difference between 'observing ourselves' in the ( holistic) sense you mean, and merely 'thinking about ourselves'?

K: 'Thinking about' ourselves and 'observing' ourselves are two ( qualitatively ?) different things according to this question. Thinking about oneself, which we all do - I am making progress, I am better than yesterday, I wish I had better food, better clothing, better housing, or more money - which most of us do, even the austere monk, he does think about himself - right? Only 'in the name of God' - right? And the questioner says, what is the ( qualitative ?) difference between thinking about yourself, and ( non-dualistically ?) observing yourself ?

Now we know what it means to think about ourselves ? It is really going round and round in ( concentric) circles. Either expanding the ego, or contracting the ego - right? I am the world, I am God, I must be more kindly, I must love. I must be more intelligent, I must meditate in order to achieve - whatever they want to achieve. So we are all caught in that. And "observing" oneself could be something entirely different - let's find out what does it mean.
First of all, do we observe anything without the word? Do we observe the mountain and not call it 'mountain'? Can we look at those clouds and the mountains without using a single word? That is, can we look at anything "objectively" (non-personally ?) , the trees, nature, the waters, the sky and the evening star and the silence of a morning, this extraordinary world we live in, natural world, can we look at anything without a single word? Can we look at my wife, my husband, my daughter, the politicians, all the circus that goes on in the name of religion, can we look at all that without the ( mental) network of words interfering with our observation. Have you ever tried that? When one looks at one's wife or husband, can you look at her or him, without all the ( associated mental ?) images that you have accumulated about her or him, just to look? Can you?

So one has to find out why the brain is so ( entangled ?) caught up in words. When you say he is a 'materialist' or a 'totalitarian' you have you have put him in a ( mental box or ?) category and that is the end of it. See what is happening to our brain ? Linguistically (and culturally ?) the brain has been caught in words, and we never ( care to ?) look at anything without words, without ( the associated cultural ?) reactions. Look: you are all sitting there and seeing the speaker. And ( consciously or not ?) you have already put him into a 'category'. You already have an 'image' about him, so you ( are) never (able to ?) look at him as "for the first time". You understand the (innocent ?) freshness of a mind which is not caught in words, ( and personal ?) reactions, looking at everything as though for the first time ?

That (same quality of ?) observation is ( necessary ?) to watch oneself (inwardly ?) , never allowing a single ('ego'-unfolded ?) thought to escape, without watching it, being aware of it, giving your whole attention to that one thought. And then another thought, keep at it. So that your brain is ( getting ?) tremendously attentive. So that ( "non-verbal" & 'non-personal' ?) quality of ?) watching is not ( dependent of the ?) egocentric movement. Whereas "thinking about yourself" is ( basically an ?) egotistic, self-centred activity. It is clear, isn't it?

Now, how do we move from 'this' to 'that'? Naturally, you must ask that question. Suppose one is self-centred, all my outlook is 'personal' - 'I' am not loved, 'I' must love, you know, all that silliness that goes on. Then how is it to move (switch ?) to the other ('non-personal' mode ?) ? If I say "I am selfish, now I must not be selfish, I must observe myself", the ' I must' is still part of the same movement of thinking about oneself. Right?
So, the ( experiential ?) answer is (to be found) is observing what the question itself "reveals". Because this observing, ( the direct, non-verbal quality of ) perceiving has not time. While "thinking about myself"- that 'I will fulfil one day', or 'find my ( true ?) identity' - all those are time binding qualities. This 'time binding' quality is essentially the (result of our?) 'self' (- identification ?) . Whereas ( the pure act of ?) watching, if you just watch that bird, there is no 'time' in it at all, just watching - right? So (in a nutshell ?) the 'word' and ( the self-identified process of ?) 'thought' create the 'time' (the 'time-binding' quality of the human 'psyche'?) Got it?

QUESTION: In our relationship with another ( our psychological ?) memory is there. What is the action of not letting memory intrude? Is it to see its presence as it arises and drop it instantly? Or should one be in a state where memory does not raise its head unless it is necessary.

K: The question is in our relationship with each other, intimate or not, ( our own past) memory is ( lurking ?) there - right? It is always there because one is living with that person, cooking, sex, washing up (Laughter) the speaker has done a lot of washing up. Wherever he goes he washes up! Except in India, there they won't allow it.
Now the actual state in our relationship with another is (dominated by ?) the ( subliminal ?) activity of memory. Is not our relationship based on recognition, words, what she said this morning, he was moody, you only looked at the newspaper, never looked at me, his concern about his job and so on. That is the ( background personal ?) memory in operation.

Now, the questioner asks : "what is the action, of not letting memory intrude ?". Have you already come to that conclusion by listening to the speaker and saying, "Yes, quite right, memory should not intrude" ? Then you ask me the question, "How is it possible?" You have put a wrong (superficial ?) question, Right? Let's get that clear.
We live with ( almost dead ?) memories, not only with regard to our intimate relationship with another but also the long series of memories which we have accumulated through time, this whole ( indiscriminate ?) accumulation of memories ( starting ?) from childhood, plus the racial memories which have been impressed upon us and so on. So we 'are' (giving life to these ?) memories - let's be clear on this point. We 'are' (safely living with our?) past and present memories, and also the future memories unless there is a ( major ?) crisis and so on arises. So ( all these ?) memories of the past, the present and the future is what we 'are'; we are all the time ( psychologically ?) accumulating (and updating ?) memories, not that memories intrude. When you say that memories should not intrude, it is ( the response of ?) another form of (deeper personal ?) memory. You may not want a particularly (depressing ?) memory to intrude, but elsewhere it doesn't matter ( "memory bussiness" as usual ?) - right?

So, is it about 'seeing' this ( personal ?) memory arising, and as it arises drop it instantly in relationship? Or should one be in a ( integrated inner ?) state where memory does not ( need to ?) raise its head unless necessary? It is a very complicated (delicate ?) question which requires not a 'complicated' brain but a very simple brain that can observe this. I am going to show it ('how' ?) to you in a minute:

( Suppose that ?) I am (inwardly identified ?) with my (racial and 'personal') memories. The whole structure of my 'ego', and all 'my knowledge' is (based on this residual ?) memory. Now the question is why does the brain retain all these ( personal) memories : something pleasant she has told me, and something unpleasant which she said yesterday that also is recorded, both pleasant and unpleasant are being recorded, but we are asking a much more serious, fundamental question: why does the brain ( indiscriminately ?) record everything? It is necessary to record how to drive a car, how to write a letter, to be skilful in using instruments, but why does it ( have to ?) record 'psychologically', inwardly? Doesn't such 'psychological' recording (subliminally ?) build up the ego, the me, the personality ? Is there an ( overflowing ?) of the outer physical necessities into the psychological necessities, a continuity of the outer knowledge, which is necessary, and we say psychologically also it is necessary?
So we are questioning the whole ( rationale of this ?) recording process. Is it necessary (inwardly ?) to build an 'image' about her and she is building an image about me ? ( In time, the division created by ?) this ( constantly actualised ?) image becomes very strong (and/or sticky ?) and I say, "She is like that" and she says 'I am like that' and we keep apart, except perhaps in bed. And the division grows wider and wider and wider, and I break or she breaks, and we start the same old game again ? Do you agree to all this, the married people?

So in examining the question, the inevitable question arises: is it possible not to record 'psychologically'? It is a 'mechanical' ( safety based ?) process; our brain has become accustomed to it, it is part of our (cultural ?) tradition, it is part of its continuation of sustaining itself as a 'self' So we are asking: is it possible to record only (when and) where it is absolutely necessary, but not to record at all 'psychologically'? Don't you see the beauty of this, for God's sake? Which means first of all see the 'danger' of recording psychologically. I am a 'Hindu', you are a 'Christian', with (or without ?) a lot of money, power, position, but it is still a little affair. So you see all this. So we are asking is it possible (to be inwardly awake and ?) not to record inwardly? What is your answer? I am putting you this question. Is it possible not to record psychologically? Which means not to (record the personal ?) "hurts" , or "flattering", it is the same thing. ( There are only 3 possible answers:) You may say "it is possible", or you might say "it is not possible" -in either of those things you are inwardly 'blocking' yourself ( when you think "I can't walk up that mountain", you stop walking) Or you say, "Well I will walk, and see what happens", then a totally different ( awakening ?) action takes place.

So are you ( non-verbally ) "aware" of anything? Aware of the shape of this tent, how many sections there are in this tent, the (logo of the owner) of the tent , are you aware of all this? The proportions of it, the length of it, not measuring, the length of it, and are you aware of the people sitting around you, the various colours, the faces, different faces, young, old, white haired, black haired, and so on, are you ( non-personally ?) aware of all this?
If you are not, then you may not be ( choicelessly ?) aware of your own reactions either. You may not ( even ?) be aware of your body, because you are terribly "intellectual", living "up there", or perhaps being very "romantic", "sentimentally attached" and so on. But if you are "choicelessly" aware, then you are ( also) attentive - you understand? Choiceless awareness means an attention which is not cultivated, simply becoming aware of the (living presence of the ?) trees, the birds, the light on the clouds, the evening, the moonlight; aware of all this and of your ( 'personal' ?) reactions to all this, not 'choosing'- I like this, I don't like that, it is mine, it is yours - but just to be "aware". From this choiceless (non-personal ?) awareness there is ( an integrated state of ?) attention, attending with your eyes, with your ears, with your nerves, with all your being. Then when (s)he says something to me I am (already) fully attentive - so there is no need for any psychological ?) reaction. You understand? It is only when there is inattention there is reaction. When there is "complete attention" there is no ( need for psychological ?) recording. In driving a car I obviously must be attentive. But ( also inwardly) the moment that I am attentive( fully attending ?) to what she is saying and see the truth of it, then there is no recording. If you inattentively record, even then you (still ?) can deal with it instantly (ASAP ?) . But if you are constantly inattentive ('psychologically-blind' ?) , as we ( usually ?) are, in our relationship with another, that (recording) is (going on like any other ) habit.

(Recap:) The quality of attention, and the quality of inattention, or "not attending", are two very different things. Where there is inattention there is choice, and the recording process goes on, the old habit is established. But when there is ( an integrated quality of ?) "attention" the old ("recording" ?) habit is broken. Got it?

QUESTION: I understand that inner silence cannot be practised or sought after, but what is the ground on which it may come about?

K: When you observe something, clouds, the mountain, the river, or the tree, or your wife or your neighbour, can you observe all these silently?
When you ( directly ?) observe, or perceive something, if you have no (mental ?) reaction to it, that observation itself is (bringing its own ?) silence - right? If you are watching the speaker and you have reactions, you are not (actually ?) watching him, you are watching (him through ?) your ( conflicting ?) reactions. So the ( inner ?) ground in which silence can come about comes naturally when there is freedom from conflict. So you have (first ?) to understand ( the nature of the inner ?) conflict. Not say, "I must have silence", which is ( a cultivated ?) nonsense. So the ground on which the immense depth of silence comes is a complete freedom. So one should ask (in the first place ?) can one be ( inwardly) free? Free from conflict, free from being hurt, free from fear, anxiety, loneliness, sorrow and all that. Then the ( inner space of this ?) 'house of silence' is immense.

QUESTION: How can one reconcile the demands of society with a life of total freedom?

K: What are the 'demands of society'? That you go to the office or to a factory from nine to five, that you go to the night club (or local pub ?) after all the boredom of office, that you must earn a livelihood, that you must live in that particular part of the country for the rest of your life, practise there as a lawyer, or as a doctor, or a surgeon, or in the factory and so on ? Therefore one must also ask the question: what is this 'society' that demands so much? Is the society different from you? Or you (we ?) have created this society, each one of us, through our ( survivalistic greed ?) ambition, through our greed, through our envy, through our fear, wanting our ( orderly) security in the community, in the nation, you follow? We ( as well as the previous generations ?) have created this ( mechanistic mentality of our?) society and then blame the society for what it demands. Therefore to ask: " How can I reconcile this society and myself seeking freedom?" is such an absurd question, because you 'are' ( responsible for this ?) society: each one of us on this earth for the last forty thousand years, or more, we have created this (pretty brutal ?) 'society' in which we live. ( If ?) I insist on being an 'American', or 'French' or 'Russian', a 'Catholic', 'Buddhist', and so on, it may give ( a sense of local ?) security but our (global ?) security is ( eventually ?) being destroyed by our divisions.

So it is not (a matter of ?) 'reconciling' the demands of society and your demand for freedom. This demand is ( subliminally coming ?) from your own limited selfishness. And it is one of the most complex (delicate ?) things to find out where this 'self-interest ' is very subtly hiding itself. It can hide 'politically', doing good for the country. It can also hide in the 'religious' world most beautifully: "I serve God". It can hide in marriage, in 'love' - right? So, it requires a very observing brain to see where the subtleties of the self (-interest) are hidden - ( the various masks of ?) selfishness.
When this ( self-identified mentality ?) is not (active ?) , the'society' ( as a separated entity ?) doesn't exist (either) ,(so) you don't have to 'reconcile' to it. It is only the inattentive, the unaware mind , that says, "How am I to respond to society when I am working for my freedom?" You understand?

If one may point out, we need to "re-educate" (ourselves) , not through college, school and university -which (further ?) conditions our brain- but by being (or becoming ?) aware of how we are caught in words and so on. Can we do this? If we cannot do it, we are going to be always ( psychologically entangled ?) in conflict, misery and all the rest of it.
The speaker is not 'optimistic' or 'pessimistic', these are (actual inner ?) facts. And when one 'lives with facts' as they are, watching your own activity, your own egotistic pursuits and so on, out of that (inward dilligence ?) grows a marvellous ( sense of ?) freedom with all its great beauty and strength.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 14 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #104
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: One wonders if there is a "final question" at all, one question that will answer all questions ? ( How about: ) Is there, apart from the ordinary biological experiences , any necessity of ( inwardly gathering ?) experience at all? Does the human brain need ( to create for itself 'psychological' ?) challenges, crises, in order to keep itself awake? Because we live such a superficial life, and becoming (inwardly) rather mechanical (repetitive ?) and lazy, indolent. And to keep us awake we feel that ( overcoming our various ?) problems, pressures and so on, is needed to keep the brain alert. Can't the brain be alert, extremely watchful, without any drugs, problems, challenges, shocks? Could we enquire and find out whether our brain, which has been conditioned ( culturally ?) programmed for millenia upon millenia, , can that brain be naturally, without any effort, fully awake? And in order to find that out one must reject totally our ( search for new ?) "psychological" experiences. And so not depend on ( the incoming ?) pressures, impressions, stimulations. Unfortunately you are being (psychologically ?) stimulated right now by the speaker, which will ( subliminally) act as a drug. If one depends on these things as a stimulant to keep the brain alert, then you are merely sustaining the mechanical process. And the brain has become for most of us mechanical, repetitive.

So (this 'all-in-one' final question would be:) to live an (inwardly awakened ?) life without ( the need for) a single ( psychological ?) challenge, without a single demand, both outwardly or inwardly so that the brain is extraordinarily active. This action is not ( a spatio-temporal ?) movement. All physical and psychological (mental) movement, all thought is contained in the field of time. Right? And ( the directly perceptive ?) action is not of time: such "action" is instant, the very living of it immediate, instant.
We are talking of a human brain that has been so often shocked, so wounded. And to have a brain which is not capable of being hurt, psychologically, to have an (innocent) mind which is untouchable by circumstances is something extraordinary, and (getting to ) that is ( the primary task ?) of "meditation", not all the silly stuff that is going on. So we have asked: is there a question which would answer all questions, only one question ? We have answered it. Right?

QUESTION: Your statement that art is merely the product of thought and therefore not creation has troubled many artists, poets, musicians, including us who are here, and who think that they are "creators".

K: The speaker has said that ( a 'self- interest' based?) 'thought' can never be creative - since ( such ?) thought is always limited. Right? So we must enquire into what is thought and why it is limited, but first of all what is Creation, how the ( material) world has come into being, and we ought also to enquire into the "art of living", which is by far the greatest art, the supreme art.
So first let's enquire what is the "art of living"? Some of us who are not (professional ?) 'artists', may still have the ( necessary inward ?) sensitivity to look at the mountains, sensitivity to someone suffering, sensitivity to nature, to look at a tree. When you look at that beauty, or the beauty of a cloud, with sunlight on it, we have to also enquire then what is Beauty - right?
So this question implies a great many things, not just one thing. What is beauty, apart from the physical form, a clean cut face, healthy, with sparkling eyes and smile and sense of dignity? There is the beauty of a mountain, of a tree, or the running waters. But when does one ( really) 'see' such great beauty? Does it lie in the eye, in the heart, or in the mind? Or there is ( an inward sensitivity to ?) beauty when our 'ego' is not (around ) ? The 'ego' with all its problems, all its ( psychological burden of ?) confusion, uncertainty, misery, happiness, you know, the "self"-(identified consciousness ?) So is it possible to look at something, the tree, the mountain, the valley, your wife or your husband, or something without the (interference of this ?) "self", coming between that and your (direct ?) perception? You understand? Is it possible to appreciate that sense of great beauty? And that beauty cannot possibly exist when the self is there. You may be ( globally recognised as ?) a "great artist" but be tremendously egocentric, tremendously ambitious, grabbing money - right? And painting those extraordinary pictures...

So then we have to ask what is the "art of living"? - which is the greatest art on earth because then everything you do is "art". I believe the word 'art' means placing all the things in (your) life in their ( natural ?) order, not exaggerating any one thing. And to find out this "art of living" requires not only intellectual capacity but also a great ( inner ?) sensitivity, a total freedom from all our petty little worries, all our ( self-created ?) problems, fears and when there is this extraordinary sense of wholeness. That is, when "you are (inwardly as ?) nothing". ( Inwardly speaking ?) nothingness "is" wholeness. I wonder if you understand all this. Because we are always wanting to "be something".

To go (still deeper ?) into that ( inward nothingness ?) we must find out the nature of thought. Thought is born of ( our reservoir of ?) knowledge - right? - ( stured ?) as memory. Thought is ( the verbalised response of all our ?) memory, knowledge, experience. And our ( self-centred ?) thinking in any direction is (intrinsically) limited because ( the extent of our ?) knowledge is always limited whether now or in the future. And being limited there is a demand for more knowledge. And man ascends through knowledge, probably physically - better houses, better heating, better roads, better communication, better ways of killing man and so on. So thought being limited (and limiting ?) has created this world, this society in which we live. Thought is a material process because it is contained in the brain. So thought whatever it does is limited, its inventions are limited. One invents something and somebody comes along and invents the same thing much better and so on and so on and so on.
But what is Creation? This has been a question that has been asked by the ancient Hindus, the later Greeks, and to say "God has created all this" is a very convenient way out of things. But if one asks for oneself, putting all these assertions aside, what is Creation? Can it be born out of (our existing) knowledge - and therefore such creation is limited- ? or Creation (in the Universal sense ?) has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge. You understand? Creation must be something limitless.

To find out whether the brain can ever be free from knowledge and the word, and keep knowledge in its ( right) place - driving, talking, writing a letter, various forms of skills and disciplines, there knowledge is absolutely necessary, otherwise you and I, the speaker wouldn't be sitting here. But the ( inward ) sense of Immensity, the sense of Creation which is not measurable by thought has no relationship with our 'knowledge'.

QUESTION: I would like to cry out for help but how can one be helped to freedom ?

K: Sir, there are moments and days, periods, when we want to be helped. We want to be helped when we go to a doctor, we want to be helped when we have a disease, by talking it over with somebody. And there are those who ( are supposed to ?) give you help, the priest, the vicar in the local village, the pope, and all those ( new age ?) gurus who say, "I'll help you". There are all those people in the world who are 'trying to help others' because people are wanting help. This is apparently a natural response to all their travail and to their misery, unhappiness. But who is to help one (to find freedom ?) ? To be ( actually) helped ( along this direction ?) means to become strong, not depend on anybody, to see things objectively, very clearly, non-personally. Most of us are (naturally) discontent, but don't ( always ?) keep that flame alive because it is too troublesome, it might bring about the destruction of one's own ( self-centred safety -aka: ?) 'pettiness', and so on.

So is it possible not to look to ( psychological help coming from ?) another and say to yourself, "I am going to understand myself, I am going to watch myself, see exactly what I am." - not get depressed ( by) seeing what you are, just to observe. And this ( direct inward ?) "observation" is very simple, if you (can) rely entirely on yourself, which means ( realising one's own ?) tremendous responsibility. And to have a deep understanding of this ( psychological) movement called the 'self', it can be perceived very clearly in the ( interactive ?) mirror of our relationships - in our everyday action, every thought, every feeling, then you have immense strength, then you don't rely on anybody because you are ( feeling) totally responsible for yourself and for your actions. But this demands a great deal of ( integrated inner?) energy, not wasting energy by chattering. And very few will do all this, unfortunately, because we are all rather ( psychologically ?) "slack" and we never go to the cause of things. Where there is a 'cause' there is a (possibility to ?) end it. ( Suppose that ?) one drinks a tremendous lot, and next morning you have a hang-over, headache, and to overcome that you take a pill, and the next day you carry on - you follow? This is the way we live. A highly sophisticated world we live in and asking for ( 'psychological' ?) help is to make oneself more irresponsible, more dependent. Whereas if you are feeling totally responsible for yourself, for everything that you do, you can stand on your own feet, with dignity and responsibility.

QUESTION: How can we educate our children to be intelligent and both free and responsible human beings in today's world?

K: Apparently this is a question that is asked by every parent in the world: How can we help our children to be intelligent and free and responsible human beings in today's world? ( But...) are the parents intelligent and free? ( and also are ) the teachers intelligent and free and responsible? Is the whole educational system (succeeding in ?) helping them to be free and responsible and intelligent? So we have to enquire, if you will, why are we being educated in mathematics, and biology, science, chemistry, history, and go through university, college, obtain a degree and get a good (or decent ?) job in this world where there is an immense increase of population, unemployment.

So we have to find out what do we mean by a ( holistic kind of ?) 'education'. Does it not mean educating the ( total ?) human being, not just acquiring techniques and skills, but educating a human being to live with great art? That means inquiring into the immense, (inwardly ?) limitless field of the 'psyche' and going beyond it, that is a holistic education - you understand?
So all this implies the educators and parents needs also need ( such ?) education, not just the children. How can there be intelligence when your brain is being conditioned by ( its mechanistic ?) knowledge on one side, conditioned by your own fears, a loneliness, despair, all the rest of the 'ugliness' of ( self-centred ?) human beings. And then on top of that, religion has nothing to do with your ( actual) life, and ( you get) committed entirely to earning a livelihood - this dichotomy is becoming more and more serious, this separation. And ( a 'holistic' ?) education is ( should be ?) something where there must be respect, love.

One heard a parent saying, "Must I sacrifice my life for my stupid little children?" And so the world goes on this way and it has been going on for millenia, because we as ( grown up ?) human beings, do not want to live a holistic, a complete life. We are ( inwardly ?) fragmented and (in such way of living ?) there is no intelligence, there is no compassion, there is no freedom.

QUESTION: What is your relationship to us? (Laughter)

K: I am ( first) reversing the question: what is your relationship with the speaker? What is the speaker's relationship with you, will be answered a little later but you have to ask first what is 'your' relationship with the speaker? That means, why are you (coming ?) here? What is it that you want? Are you here to be ( inspired or ?) 'stimulated'? To identify with a larger group? To find out the truth of what the speaker is saying? Or you are (subliminally ?) attracted physically by the ( looks and personality of the ?) speaker? The speaker has been saying this is not ( intended to be ?) a personality cult at all, the person doesn't matter. What matters is ( to grasp ?) what he is saying: doubt, question, ask.

So what is your relationship with the speaker? To put the question differently (meta-physically ?) : what is the relationship between 'light' and 'darkness'? What is the relationship between ( a mind living in ?) conflict and (one without ?) conflict? What is the relationship between the 'good' and the 'bad'? Is the good the ( optimised ?) outcome of the bad? If the good has its roots in the bad then it's 'partially good', therefore it is not ( 100% ?) 'Good' - right? (Eg:) Take 'violence' and to be 'free of violence'. Human beings are ( inwardly and/or outwardly ?) violent - one can trace back the biological origins of this violence, derived from the animals and so on . That is, human beings are violent, but they have 'thought out' not to be violent, they have created the opposite (goal) which they call 'non-violence', so this (cultivated ?) 'non-violence' is related to violence, therefore it is not ( being totally ?) free from violence - you understand?

So what is the relationship of a man who is ( inwardly ?) free and the man who (inwardly) lives in a ( self-created ?) "prison"? You understand? We make our own ( 'high security' inner) prisons and we live (+/- comfortably ?) in them - right? And what is the relationship of a man who lives in the prison to the man who is outside it? You understand what the speaker means by 'prison' ? ( The inward limitations created by ?) our fears, our anxieties, our thought, our loneliness, our dogmatic or superficial opinions and so on, that is our 'prison'. And what is the relationship between the man in that prison and the man who is outside the prison? Has the man in the prison any ( co-operating ?) relationship with the man outside it? Naturally not. But the man outside it has a relationship with the man in prison. Because you (have ?) love, compassion, you are intelligent, you are utterly responsible ( even though you are living ?) 'out there'.
We always want to have a relationship with something totally outside of us, with something immense. But ( the problem is :) that Immensity has ( an intelligent and compassionate ?) relation to us but we have no ( authentic ?) relationship to that. If we see the truth of it, then we will ( endeavour to ?) break the (inner) prison at any cost. (Realising that ?) we are really caught in a 'prison' our brain becomes subtle, quick.

( Recap:) A man realising ( the sad truth of living in a 'psychological' ?) prison is suffocating, crying, hoping, trying to break free. And if he 'prays' what value has it? It is like those monks and nuns the world over, praying for peace, while the other part of the world is ( producing sophisticated ?) armaments. You understand the absurdity of all this?
So there is a (co-operating ?) relationship with another only when both of us are free - right? But if one is ( comfortably living ?) in ( his self-created ?) 'prison' and the other is not, then we just waste our energy trying to be related to that. Either one is free or one is not. And to realise the depth of that freedom, the beauty of it, to see the immensity of that freedom there must be no 'self' (identification ?) , no 'ego' ( subliminally ?) hiding in the recesses of one's brain. Right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #105
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline

3RD Saanen Q & A MEETING (condensed) 1984

K: We have been handed over many, many questions, but before we go into that, how can one live totally honestly in a modern world becoming more and more complex and 'dangerous' ? What is honesty? Not to have any 'illusions'. The word 'illusion' comes from the (latin) root word 'ludere', to play. We are playing with 'illusions', which have nothing whatsoever to do with ( the 'facts' of ?) our daily life and cannot (intelligently ?) face this 'modern' world, which is fairly corrupt, and immoral, where money and power play an immense part, how can one live now, every day, with total honesty?

To go into that a little bit what is integrity? Integrity is the quality of a brain, or of one's existence, which is holistic, not fragmented. Our lives are fragmented; we 'imagine' something to be true and we triy to live according to that, which has nothing to do with the actual 'fact' ( with what our life really 'is' ? ) . And so there is always a ( multilevel ?) fragmentation going on in our lives. And that partly brings about dishonesty. The 'idealist' is ( psychologically speaking ?) a dishonest man, because he is living according to a 'preconceived' (pattern of ?) of life, which has nothing (or little ?) to do with daily life and so there is ( a subliminal ?) conflict that breeds hypocrisy.

So is it possible to live in this world with total honesty, integrity, a sense of 'doing the right thing' inwardly, to see that one's way of thinking is completely free of ( dealing with ?) illusions ? That requires a tremendous integrity, never saying anything that is not 'true' to yourself. And is it possible to have such ( inner ?) clarity, to see things exactly as they are, to have a clear, sane brain, that is not persuaded (or driven ?) by personal desires, motives and dependence?
As we were saying the other day 'time' is the ( active memory of the ?) past, all that one has accumulated, all the experiences and so on, which is ( creating our 'psychological' ?) background. That ( memory) background is ( subliminally ?) operating now, as you listen to these words you ( instantly ?) translate ( give ?) those words a certain 'meaning' which depends on your past ( experience and ?) knowledge and so on.

So ( what one is doing in ?) the present contains ( the implicit memory of all one's ?) past. And also the 'future', ( what one will be doing ?) 'tomorrow', is contained in the "now". If one is angry for whatever reasons, if ( the inner causation of ?) that anger is not understood and ( terminated ?) put an end to, I will ( very likely ?) get again angry tomorrow. So the "now" contains all time. The future, the past and the present is now. And the "now" is ( psychologically determined by the joint process of ?) "time and thought" - it is a movement, isn't it? From the past, through the present to the future is a constantly ( cyclically repetitive ?) movement. And can one ( meditatively ?) remain in the "now", without any ( mental ?) movement and have this sense of living 'totally' (whole-heartedly ?) in the now, without any movement, either of thought or of action ?
So ( in a nutshell:) integrity, honesty, and a sense of wholeness is a quality of brain in which there is no movement -except the brain's own natural rhythm. This is 'Greek' to you probably. But this is very serious because this constantly 'going round and round' not only makes the brain quite (unperceptive and ?) dull but also it breeds a 'mechanical' ('auto-pilot' ?) way of life which cannot have a deep abiding honesty. So, ( for having this inner ?) integrity or wholeness, one must discover a state of brain in which there is no ( 'thought-time' ?) movement at all. This, of course, is ( an essential ?) part of meditation.

And then, that ( awakened inner state of ?) 'non-movement' has its own action in life; where there is no ( 'thought-time' ?) movement there is a ( sense of ?) wholeness, and from that wholeness there is a (holistic quality of?) action which can never bring about conflict. Right? And if we could work ( it out ?) together, and 'see' this thing, it will radically bring about a fundamental change. For the ( 'programabled' ?) brain has lost its ( original ?) infinite capacity . Look what extraordinary capacity has gone into the technological world - computers, submarines, ( automobiles and ?) aeroplanes, the extraordinary things they are dong. But the brain has directed that tremendous capacity in one ( outward ?) direction, and not (applying it ?) inwardly. You understand? When both of them operating together there is something tremendous .

QUESTION: How can one come to this tent without a motive, a desire to come here, to listen to you, I must have a motive to come here. How does one 'live without motives'?

K: You have probably heard the speaker saying (that the self-centred ?) motives are very destructive, and you are merely repeating what he has said.
So let's find out together what is a 'motive', why we have motives. The ( dictionary ?) meaning of that word 'motive' comes from 'motion', to move. That is one comes to this tent with a 'motive', obviously. That is, the motive is to listen to somebody ( supposedly 'enlightened' ?) . Now, if you are not clear about ( your true ) desire and motive, then you have to enquire what is your intention in coming here. ( It could be ?) to be helped (out ?) from our pain, anxiety, misery, all the terrible things we live with. A motive means the brain has set a direction - right? "I want to understand this man", or criticize and contradict, "Oh, he is a stupid man, he doesn't know what he is talking about." all that is ( pre-) occupying your brain, therefore you are not (openly ?) listening - right? Listening is an art (in itself) , to listen to somebody with all your being, not to interpret what he says. And if you so listen, that is the greatest miracle. Whereas if you have an (open or hidden ?) 'motive' you can't listen - right? As simple as that.

And if one has an (irresistible ?) desire to come here. We don't ask: What is this desire?" I want to come to this tent because I will meet my friends, I haven't seen them for a year. It is a good opportunity for me to meet them, and I ( hope to ?) have a good time. And ( as a bonus ?) the K-talks will be thrown in! (Laughter) That is part of our ( sensory activity of ?) desire. So what is desire? To go into that one must ask: what is 'sensation' and how does it arise? Seeing a beautiful chalet and the lovely view - seeing it brings a 'sensation' (a global sensory response ?) . That's natural. And also then thought says, "I wish I lived in that chalet" . Which is what? ( Our self-centred ?) thought 'giving shape' to (creating an image of oneself living in that comfy ?) sensation. Thought giving an image of 'yourself 'in that house. Right? At that moment when thought brings the image about you in that house, at that second ( a 'personalised' ?) desire is born.

So thought 'shapes' sensation into (personal) desire. Thought creating the 'image' of you driving that car, you owning that picture, or seeing a 'beautiful' man, woman and so on, then thought creates a (desirable ?) image out of that sensation, at that second desire is born. This is quite simple to see and it doesn't require 'tremendous brains'.

But the ( experiential ?) question is: can 'sensation' and thought creating its (personalised ?) image that sensation, be kept apart for a while? You understand? Not immediately take shape. You have understood ? (Usually) there is no ( inwardly perceptive ?) 'interval' between sensation and thought giving shape to that sensation - right? Now is it possible to "keep them apart" for a while? That requires a great (accuity of ?) attention to see sensation and thought immediately taking over, giving a shape to it. To ( meditatively ?) watch the quickness of thought, and to 'slow down' that thought. So in that the slowing down, if one watches it carefully, desire ( finds its right ?) place - right?

Now ( similarly ) we have 'motives': to get rich, to be happy, to fulfil one's life, to identify oneself with something (worthwhile) . And the ( object and direction of our ?) 'motives' is always changing. Therefore 'motive' gives shape to our life - the ( personalised memory of the ?) past is giving shape to our life - right? Therefore we are (getting identified with ?) the ( memories of the ?) past. So we are ( 'psychologically' identified with ?) a whole series of ( 'sensational' ?) memories, a bundle of memories, and that is the self (-consciousness ?) , the ego.
So to break (-free from ?) this ( 'self'-identifying ?) cycle is to understand time. But as having ( these personal) 'motives', has become normal in our life, how can one live without a motive? And we have accepted motives. We never ( meditatively ?) go into this whole question of desire, motive and fulfilment - right? So that brings us to the point, can one 'listen' so completely to another, not only hearing with the ( outer ?) ear, but also hearing with the 'inner ear', as it were so that you are giving total attention. Where there is attention you don't ( need to ?) to have a (personal ?) 'motive' - right?

QUESTION: To begin with, most of us must consciously be attentive, but does this attention become a constant spontaneous state of action?

K: There is a ( personal ?) motive (involved ?) there: how can 'I' maintain this attention continuously. So let's enquire: what is 'attention' and what is 'not being attentive' ?

( First:) what is attention? What is the relationship of attention to ( the common ?) 'awareness'? We are aware of the tent, of the people and so on. (Interfering with ?) that awareness there is ( our personal ?) choice. Are there my friends here ? I wave to the friends and I don't to the others. And in that awareness I say, "She looks quite nice and intelligent. I am surprised she is here" (Laughter) So in that (common ?) awareness there is (involved a selective process of?) choice which prevents total awareness.

Can one be ( passively ?) aware without choice? Try it now as we are talking; to be so completely aware without choice is "attention" - right? Is that clear? If you are ( becoming ?) completely aware that you choose, that you have likes and dislikes, that you have ( a personal ?) motive, that state of ( non-personal ?) awareness is attention - right? That state of attention has no "me" in the middle of it. Choice always has a centre: 'you' choose , whereas if you observe (freely ?) and are aware without choice, that ( non-personal) awareness expands to total attention. In that attention there is no self, there is no 'me' (supervising entity ?)

So, now what is inattention? Is inattention (due to ?) 'distraction'? We are distracted by the noise of the (local ) train, and by various forms of (background ?) distractions. But why do we call it 'distractions'? There is only complete attention or 'not attention'. Would you call ( the state of ?) sleeping inattention? One goes for a walk, looks at all the trees, the mountains, the perfume on a sunny day of the pines, and the running river, the sound of it, that is all attention, if you are attentive. And why should there be "no attention", a ('time out' to ?) relax - you follow? ( Because ?) We want to 'be something' all the time, a continuity of something which we think is right. But that which has 'continuity' is not ( necessarily ?) 'right'. We want the continuity of ( our ) 'happiness', continuity of our 'relationship', continuity of so many, many things, which is what? The (constantly 'refreshed' ?) continuity of (our 'bestest & safest' personal ?) memory - right? And if there is no ( practical possibility for achieving this ?) continuity we feel lost, we feel 'empty'. But...why shouldn't we be empty for a while? Why shouldn't we ( inwardly ?) be ' nothing'? Even for a few minutes. But to us that ( meditative opening looks ) frightening because (all) we 'know' ( is built on the premise of our ?) continuity - right?

So ( to recap:) "attention" has no ( temporal) continuity. There is only attention (or 'no-attention' ?) . When one says "I must be continuously attentive" - then it is a ( 'will & desire' based ?) 'mechanical' process. Attention is something living, not ( the enforced result of ?) a conclusion that 'I must be attentive'. That becomes too childish - right?

QUESTION: Could you tell us something more (specific ?) about this vast Intelligence of which you speak? Is it an untapped capacity within the brain, or is it some 'disembodied force' to which we may become open?

K: Lovely question, isn't it? There is ordinary ( practical) intelligence, isn't there? You wouldn't be here if you hadn't that 'intelligence', would you? You took a train, you came by a car, and so on, which is the exercise of (your practical ?) intelligence to come here because you wanted to come. It is ( the same practical ?) intelligence that has put man on the moon, made the computers, missiles, the neutron bomb, and all the things they are investigating about cancer - you follow? That all requires intelligence. But that 'intelligence' is ( inwardly ?) limited because it is the outcome of ( our self-centred ?) thought - right?

Now, is there a (quality of ?) 'intelligence' which is not limited? How will you probe into this, knowing that thought has created an intelligence which is (intrinsically ?) limited. So is there an intelligence which is not 'additive' (cummulative ?) ?
Is it possible to probe into that ( universal quality of ?) intelligence which is not limited? That intelligence we don't 'know' - right? But how shall we ( experientially ?) come upon it? To enquire into it, I must probe into my own life: Obviously the first thing (to notice) is that ( in a mind ?) where there is conflict there is no ( quality of free ?) intelligence. And if ( become aware that ?) I am in conflict all the time with people, ( or ) with their ideas, theories, opinions, is there an end to this conflict and other (correlated ) problems ? If I see the truth of it, that very ( perception of ?) truth frees the brain from conflict. That is ( the highest ?) Intelligence: seeing the truth of something and let that truth act - right? So, if I see very clearly ( the inner truth that ?) as long as there is conflict in the brain it is not possible to see clearly, that very perception ends conflict - right? Because it is 'so' - ( like seeing that ?) a snake 'is' dangerous. There is no two ways about it. Right?

So ( if inwardly there ) is conflict, what is the root of this conflict? Is there a 'remedy' for it, a (non-dualistic ?) perception that frees the brain from conflict and therefore that brain is now living in quite a ( qualitatively ?) different state - right? And what is that state?
Very briefly : the 'analyser' is not separate from the thing he is analysing. I am analysing myself, suppose that I am 'neurotic', and then I say, "why am I neurotic ?" as though it was something outside of me - right? I am ( feeling) neurotic because the brain is neurotic, my whole being is 'neurotic', it is not I am different from neurosis. So the analyser 'is' the analysed - clear?
The next step: if the experiencer is not different from the experience and (therefore ?) there is no ( more inner) conflict and there is only the fact - right? There is only ( living with actuality of ending that inner state) of conflict. It is a fact: this brain is now without conflict - right? Because one has (diligently ?) looked at it in my relationships there is no conflict - with the woman, the man - right? Then when there is no more conflict in (our) relationship then what is it? Is it not "love"? When there is no conflict between you and me, you understand, there is a 'total' relationship with you and me. That is "love" and where there is love (s)he can do what (s)he wants but there is (a quality of unconditional ?) "love". Where there is love there is "compassion". And where there is love and compassion that is "intelligence". In that ( compassionate ?) Intelligence there is ( the sense of ?) absolute security, not relative security. And that quality intelligence is limitless, it is not 'yours', or 'mine', it is Intelligence. Yes sirs. That ( quality of intelligent ?) "love" may be for one or for the many, it is still "love". Where there is love there is no hate, there is no enemity. So that is intelligence. You can't talk endlessly about it unless you do it.

If you want to go into it much deeper , have you ever looked at a drum? A drum is tuned to its 'highest excellence' and when you strike on it, it gives the right note. So ( similarly when ) the brain when it is ( universally ?) tuned (-in) it gives the "right note", the right response. And it is not ( properly ?) tuned, like when the drum is not, when it is ( indulging ?) in conflict, it is "slack".

So to have the brain ( inwardly ?) "tuned". Not 'you' tune the brain, because 'you' are part of the brain. So is it possible, like the ( empty ?) drum to have the brain so tuned at its highest excellence that it gives the 'right note' all the time ? Yes sirs.

QUESTION: Why do the teachings you put forth have so little effect on us?

K: (Laughter) Why do the so-called (K) 'teachings' have so little effect on us? Many people have asked this question of the speaker. And the speaker says to you: why ( words of ?) truth have so little effect on you, on us, why? One can give a dozen reasons : ( psychological inertia ?) 'laziness', indifference, weariness, boredom, holding onto one's habits, being ( comfortably ?) 'conditioned', and saying 'It is awfully difficult to get rid of conditioning, what am I to do about it, tell me more about it, and so on" . You are never asking this question of yourself: why some of you who have listened to the speaker for years and years and years, why have you not changed?

The speaker is now 'reversing the table' on to you. He is challenging you - but that challenge is respectful, not impudent. So he says: why have you not, having read books , watched videos and all the 'bla', why have you not changed? Will more ( accumulations of ?) suffering 'help' you to change? We have suffered for a million years, a thousand years, or one day of suffering is enough. So will suffering help you ? Obviously not - right? More pressure? Obviously not, you have had tremendous pressures, 'hell and heaven' - threats. That has not changed us. Wiser leaders, better gurus , what will make us change? Nothing, except your own ( insightful ?) perception - right? Nothing from the outside can ever change us. If you do not rely on the outer then you have to rely entirely on yourself- which doesn't means you become more selfish, but on the contrary this demands great responsibility - you understand? That you are totally responsible for yourself whatever you do. It is no good blaming an 'ugly' (unjust ?) society, so I am caught in society - you follow? This demands that you 'work'. Realize how much we all work (outwardly) , but we don't ( put to ?) work even an infinitesimal amount of that energy inwardly. And (therefre inwardly ) we have become feeble, irresponsible. So we don't change because we don't ( really ?) want to - simply. If you want to do something you 'do it'.
Sirs, there are no questions at all, and therefore no answers. "You" are the problem. One is caught in this ( self-made inner ?) 'prison' and your work - to observe and all the rest of it- must come ( both ?) from your 'heart' and your 'mind', then you are a total human being, free. Where there is freedom there is no fear. And when there is freedom you don't need any ( man-made ?) 'god'. Right sirs ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 18 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Mar 2016 #106
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


Before we go into these questions we ought to talk over together if we can ask a question or face a problem from an ( inwardly ?) 'integrated' outlook. You understand what I mean? Most of us are ( living a compartmentalised ?) fragmented, ( existence) - family life, bussiness life, religious life and so on and so on. And can we face a problem from a wholly different outlook, which is not fragmented at all?
Can we ask any question, or face any problem "holistically", from a point of total integration, integrity and ask questions.
Is it possible to meet a problem ( anew) without ( the interference of our old ?) brain that is already conditioned to 'solve' problems? Do you understand my question? You don't understand it. Neither do I for the moment! (Laughter)

So let's look at it. We go to school, very young, almost five, where all children are faced with a (huge education ?) 'problem' - mathematical problems, how to write, how to read, so from childhood our brain is conditioned to solving problems. Then one goes to college, there are again problems. And university, jobs, various functions, vocations and so on, problem after problem. Our brain is full of problems - right? And from a ( specialised ?) brain that is conditioned to 'solve' problems, we are always seeking a solution to ( our existential ?) problems - right? Now how can the brain solve ( these) problems if it is not free from ( its existing ?) problems?
And as the brain is conditioned to this problem (solving attitude ?) it is not ( taking time for ?) understanding the problem itself but ( tries to find ?) the 'solution' of the problem - right? So, is it because a conditioned brain, which is embedded in ( many material ?) problems can never solve ( the existential ?) problems? Isn't there a ( qualitative ?) difference between the 'solution' of problems and the ( holistic ?) understanding of the problem? In the ( global) understanding of the problem the solution may ( be found in dealing directly with ?) the problem itself: we all suffer we all have pain and anxiety, boredom, loneliness, despair. We don't tackle that but we want to 'solve' the problems that seem to have external causes - right?

The right ( experiential ?) answer can only be when we realise that as long as the brain is conditioned to a 'problem solving' (attitude ?) we will never find the right answer. So do I recognize this ( inner ) 'fact' that my brain is conditioned to solve problems ? Can you and I see the truth of it and not move away from that ? The ($$$ ?) psychiatrists, psychotherapists, ( personal coaches ?) and so on, are multiplying in the ('free' ?) world, like mushrooms. And they are not solving ( the root causes of our?) problems.

So we should consider together what is the "art of living". We have the art of poetry, painting, the art of ( TV ?) cooking, specially now, and so on. But we have never asked ourselves what is the art of living? Is there such an art? Or is it all just a ( matter of ?) biological chance ? If you are asked this question, what is the art of living, what would be your answer?
Obviously ( living a life without any inner?) conflict whatsoever - right? And as long as self-centredness exists there must be conflict because self-centredness is limited, small, petty. You may say that is not possible in this modern (brutally competitive ?) society to live without self-centrednes; but have you ever tried? Have you ever lived without self-centredness just even for an hour, and see what happens ? So if one can do it and see what happens, you can ( eventually) extend it. And it gives you a great sense of energy and passion to pursue something profoundly to the very end of things.

I haven't read these questions - this is the first time I am looking at them. So you are also looking at them for the first time.

QUESTION: What is attention if it has nothing to do with thought? Is it an activity of the brain? Is it a physical process? How does it come into being? You say we cannot bring about attention by an act of will? What must one not do in order to allow this attention to exist?

K: Do nothing! Sorry, I ( still) must answer it...
How does this attention come about? Can it come naturally, easily, without being 'trained' ? We are going to look at the ( implications of this ?) question, not (offering a ready made ?) answer. What is implied in ( the act of) "attention"? Not only the hearing of the ear but ( an inward listening ?) 'hearing' without the ear. And also attention implies seeing, perceiving visually, but also a seeing with the "inner eye", as it were - right? And also attention also implies learning - right? Seeing, hearing, and learning. Those three things are implied (in the act of attention) .

What is this ( inner) learning ? Is there a 'learning' that is not an accumulative process of knowledge ? In this ( knowledge-free ?) learning is implied (a quality of holistic ?) 'hearing', not only the words, the significance of the words, your reactions to the words, and also an (inner quality of ?) 'seeing' without the (cultural interference of the ?) words, without direction, without motive, without the "network of thought" blocking the seeing. Then learning is a limitless process. So "attention" implies all that, but ( experientially ?) the beginning of it is "being aware" - right? Are we ( non-personally ?) aware as we sit here, the extent of this tent, the great number of people accumulated here, and to look at all that without a single word. To be ( passively ?) aware. But in that awareness 'you' begin to choose: 'I' like that blue shirt better than what "I" am wearing - constantly comparing, judging, evaluating, which is ( my personal ?) choice; rather than (simply) being 'aware' - as we are talking will you do all this? If yes, then you begin to discover ( that this ) 'awareness' is entirely different from a ( mental) concentration. Concentration implies focusing all ( one's self-centred ?) thought on a particular subject and building up a resistance to every other thought, which then becomes narrow, limited - right?

So ( start with this ?) "awareness without ( 'personal' ?) choice", and from that move to a (quality of holistic ?) attention, which is ( coming ) naturallly . That is, you are telling me something very, very serious I am so eager, so attentive to understand ( the actual truth behind ?) what you are saying. Therefore 'I am all attention' - all my nerves, my whole being says "I want to understand what are you talking about" . In that attention there is no "me" (no self-interest involved ?) - which means all your energy is given to understand what you are saying, I am not thinking about myself, therefore there is no centre in me that says "I must attend" - right? I wonder if you get all this?

QUESTION: If the whole of life is one movement, with its own order, why is man so disorderly?

K: What is the cause of disorder in our life? First of all we must admit, whether we like it or not, that we live a very, very disordered ( careless inner ?) life. That is a fact, isn't it ? And how can a brain, which is so disorderly find out what is order? We have to go into this carefully. First let us enquire what is the cause of this disorder. If one can understand that and be free of that cause there is naturally order. First we have to enquire why this ( total lack of inward ?) discipline - in the schools, in our whole way of life, and what is discipline? The word 'discipline' comes from the root 'disciple'- one who is learning- so if you are ( inwardly ?) learning in the sense we are talking about, without accumulation then the very learning is (bringing ?) its own discipline - you understand?

Audience: I still don't understand what this 'learning' is because if one watches one's thoughts surely one is watching with one's thoughts. So I don't quite understand how you use 'learning'.

K: I have tried to explain it: first of all do we see the 'fact' that the knowledge we have accumulating all our life is very limited ? And therefore if we our action is ( based ) on that ( self-centred ?) knowledge it will always be limited and must produce disorder. That is, if the wife or the husband is ( constantly ?) thinking about her/his (personal) ambitions, progress, self- fulfilment, and the other man or the woman is also thinking of his/her (personal) progress - right? - they are ( eventually getting ?) in conflict obviously.

So we are beginning to discover that disorder comes where there is ( 'self'- ?) limitation. So we begin to learn, to have an "insight" - we are using the word 'insight' which is to observe something without ( the intervention of "thought and ?) time", without motive. To have instant insight into ( the nature of our inner ?) disorder, which is ultimately (the result of ) any ( self-) limiting action. Are we getting together on this a little bit? A fraction? And if it is a fraction, keep it and move with it, then you will see this (insight) begins to break up the self-centred process of living.

QUESTION: How can our listening be 'adequate' to the depth of what you are saying? What is the quality of mind that will allow the fullness of what you are saying to act in us?

K: The speaker is saying something which you yourself have not ( yet ?) discovered. He is merely acting as a ( psychological) "mirror" in which you, by listening, (may 'see' or ) discover for yourself. And if you are ( interactively ?) listening to what he is saying (as for instance:) "What do I feel ( regarding) what he is saying, or what is my reaction to what he is saying?", then there is a ( 2-way) communication between what ( the truth content of what ?) he is saying and yourself. ( An insightful ?) communication implies listening to what he is saying, to discover your (personal) reactions to what he is saying, and your ( active ?) response to his ( implied ?) subtleties, we are then "moving together". Then ( whatever you discover) it is "yours" not his. I wonder if you understand ?

Audience: No, you...

K: Please Madam, take a little time with what I am saying. Don't respond immediately, but see ( whether there is any significance in ?) what he is saying. First of all, he says he is not your 'guru' and you are not 'his disciples' ( supposed) to "live (according to ?) what he is talking about". What he is saying is not about your own deep undiscovered life - he is talking about your daily, monotonous, boredom, tiresome, fearful, sorrowful, lonely life. The violence, the chicanery, the dishonesty, the lack of integrity. Where there is integrity there is strength. Then you can stand by yourself. Then nothing affects you, then you are not influenced by anybody because you are then discovering what is true for yourself. Not according to you, or according to somebody else - a truth, which is not his, or yours, but something entirely outside the activity of the brain.

So we are together finding what is "truth". We are together finding out what is the art of living, what is the ( right) way to listen, what is the way to learn, what is the way of seeing. And if you "see" it, it is yours, then you need no guru, no leader, no book - you understand? We are now living on other people's knowledge. We have no insight into ourself, into our own existence.

QUESTION: Is there such a thing as 'good' or 'evil' in the world, or are these human concepts, values, projections?

K: What is the "good"? Try to look at it for a minute. What is your instinctive feeling to that word? And when you say the "bad", what is your response to it? A repulsion? So ( the first thing ?) to discover for oneself is our own reaction to these two words. Is the good related to the bad? If goodness is born out of that which is ( was ?) bad it is not 'good' - right? So they are two entirely different things, the one cannot become the other. Goodness is something totally divorced from that which is bad, but ( for ethical and moral purposes ?) we have mixed the two together and we say we must fight, or put away the 'bad' (qualities) in order to be (socially recognised as ?) "good" - you understand? So the goodness is always ( measured ?) in terms of the bad. And we are saying something entirely different. Goodness has no relationship whatsoever with that which is bad. For the goodness to exist the "bad" (qualities ?) must cease. That's all.

Now to come very near ( to our 'inner' ?) home: in us there are ( co-existing) these two opposing elements, this duality. Duality of aspiring for ( becoming ) something (better?), but ( the authentic inner ?) "goodness" cannot coexist with that which is bad. From the 'bad' you cannot possibly go to the Good. ( The transition ) is not a movement from 'this' to 'that'. It is not a process of time, going from that which is "bad" to achieve that which is "good" - right?
Now the question arises: what is 'bad'? You understand? I will know what is good only when that which is bad is not. Is it bad to be 'nationalistic'?

Audience: It might not be to some, but ( it may be ?) to us.

K: We are including all of us Sir, what is 'bad' ( potentially harmful ?), not according to me or according to somebody else. As long as there is ( the sense of 'divisiveness' ?) racial division, class division, religious division, those divisions ultimately will create conflict and war . Isn't that 'bad'?

Audience: Yes, yes.

K: Can't we be free of all that ( sense of divisiveness ?) first? Not belonging to any group, to any guru, to any religious organization because they are all divisive. That brings about another question: authority. Political authority, religious authority, the totalitarian authority - you understand? There is (the need for some ?) authority outwardly - keeping to the left side of the road (in UK) , or keeping to the right side in France and Europe. And there must be ( some respect for ?) authority in a school, in a college, but we are talking about ( the 'psychological' ?) authority in the deepest sense of that word is bad, is evil.

So, the 'bad' we said is ( implicit in ?) any kind of division. The division that says "We are a closed (self-selected community ?) , you can't come in here" - it all comes down to any form of 'individualistic' division - any 'organizational' division in the 'psychological) sense of that word. That's 'bad' (on the 'wrong' side of spirituality ?) . And can one be free of all this (self-enclosing tendency ?) ? Can't we end all that in ourselves first, in not the 'organizational' thing ?

You know that ( 'educational' ?) story which the speaker invented forty or fifty years ago ? There were two men were walking along on a street talking about various things of life. And one of them sees something on the pavement, picks it up. The moment he looks at it, his whole face changes, something tremendous has taken place in him. And he puts it in his pocket very carefully, in his inner pocket. And the friend says to him, "What is it you have picked up? Why have you become so extraordinarily... your face has changed." He said, "I have picked up truth". And his friend says, "By Jove, is that really so? I can see by how you look. So what shall we do about it? Let's go and 'organize' it".

So can we begin with ourselves first and (put an ) end (to) this division in ourselves? Then you can use organisations - you understand? But if you use oganizations to change the 'inner' you will never succeed.
So can we, each of us, put away anything that divides us from another? Of course you must have your own house, but 'psychologically', 'inwardly', 'subjectivel'y. Then you don't ( even ) have to search for the Good. Then ( the inward spirit of ?) Goodness flowers and the beauty of that Goodness is endless. It never can be destroyed by anything.

(Recap:) So ( for this inward flowering to happen ?) we must begin with ourselves, to penetrate this 'sheathe', this outward appearance, the (daily) outward show, to go deeply inwards, that journey (of learning ?) is endless, it has got such extraordinary beauty.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 20 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Mar 2016 #107
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: Before we begin to enquire into the questions, we should talk over together what is 'peace' and its relationship to 'intelligence'. What does it mean to live together peacefully? Apparently this is one of the most difficult thing in the world. One heard the other day about a man who was very good at writing, literary, he was doing quite well, newspapers, magazines and all the rest of it, and he gave up all that one day and he went off to some kind of ashrama that a guru collects round himself. And there what do you think he is doing? Pulling old nails out of old pieces of wood and he is 'perfectly happy and living peacefully', he says. Is that 'peace'? To forget any kind of (human) responsibility, put aside any kind of relationship with another and (vanish) into a 'community', or enter into a monastery ?

I am sure one has asked this question of oneself: to live completely peacefully in relationship to others, and not isolate oneself, that is fairly simple but also it has its own ( psychological ?) 'dangers': that you become more and more self-centred, or commit yourself to some symbol, a figure, or to some doctrinary concept, and devote all one's energy to that, keeping that to oneself and ( happily ?) working in a garden. And, as one is living in a world that is monstrously divisive, with every form of brutality, where does one find peace? Can a group of people live together peacefully? Does one look (to a 'happy community' ?) for (finding inner) peace? Or does one ( have the inner responsability to ?) bring about this peace? You understand? Does "peace" lie externally, or does one really want (to create this ?) peace?

So can one ( first ?) bring about peace within oneself living in this (pretty troubled ?) world? Can we wait ( spend ?) a few minutes for that? To "live in peace" implies no act of ( self-) divisiveness, and is that possible not only for oneself but living with a group of people. The speaker has been living for over sixty years with a group of people. In India, in America, here. And there there is always contention, always dissension, opinion against opinion, why shouldn't I think this way, you think your way, and so on. This process has been going on, not only now, always perhaps. And one wonders if it is at all possible to create "peace"- in your house, perhaps four of you, or two of you, in a family? Does one really want to live in peace? And if one does, what (psychological ?) 'price' do you pay for it? It is only in ( living in ?) peace that one can really flower, so, what will you do, what will you put aside ? It is very easy to say, "Yes, I am willing to live in peace. I will join your little community, or I will follow a guru and come and live (happily ?) in that community". that is very easy but... rather slack, indifferent to what is happening to the rest of the world. It is a form of ( self-) exclusiveness, an exclusive way of looking at life .

So we come to the point that if one wants really ( to find ?) peace in oneself and in one's family, or in one's group of people, this requires to be highly sensitive (and open ?) to nature, to other people's way of looking, their difficulties, which requires an enormous sense of yielding and watching, and observing, seeing what the other is: he may be brutal, he may be insensitive but help him to be sensitive, help him not to be... you follow? It is a constant sense of ( interactive ?) 'movement', not taking a stand at any time.
(Is that at all possible? Not only in a family, but in a group of people, like in this ('K' ?) school here and we are having a lot of trouble (brewing ?) there too. So this is a great ( unsolved ?) problem not only for those who are responsible here at the school at Brockwood but also responsible to ourselves and to our environment, to the way we live. Because ( creating a authentic spirit of cooperation and ?) peace requires a great deal of intelligence. You can't just say, "I must live peacefully. I must leave this place where there is conflict." and go somewhere else where there is no conflict. Such a place (simply) doesn't exist ( yet ?) .
So one has to enquire also what is this ( inward quality of ?) intelligence? Because to have that (inward ?) quality of peace which is unshakable, which has no shadow of disturbance in it, requires great intelligence. So we must ask ourselves: what is that intelligence? Is that intelligence the outcome of ( our self-centred ?) thought? Thought with its ( self-imposed ?) limitation has a certain quality of intelligence, otherwise we wouldn't be here. You need intelligence to travel, or to go to the moon, also the scientist, or surgeon, to operate requires great skill, requires some form of ( practical ?) intelligence- born of knowledge, born of experience, accumulated skills with their high discipline. But thought being (inwardly ?) limited, can it bring about peace? Or has this ( time-free ?) Intelligence nothing whatsoever to do with the activity of thought? Is there ( in ourselves ?) an intelligence which is not limited? One must ask (oneself) these questions if one wants ( to live in ?) peace: Can there be peace without love, or without a sense of compassion? And where does one find this intelligence, or come upon it? One cannot possibly ( thoughtfully ?) 'cultivate' that ( universal ?) intelligence. You can 'cultivate' the limited intelligence in the world of science, biology, mathematics, art , that can be cultivated carefully, day after day, until you have that extraordinary skill. But is compassion, with its extraordinary intelligence 'cultivable'? And as it is not, you cannot cultivate 'love' - right? So, if you want to live peacefully, deeply, without a single shadow of conflict between each other, what shall we 'do', or 'not do'? (Meditative clue: ) One has to go really very deeply into the question of desire, and the whole problem of pain and sorrow and death and meditation. So the speaker had better pick up the ( chosen) questions!

QUESTION: You spoke last time about Goodness. But I am still not quite clear whether the quality of goodness or evil is outside - is an outside agency, or force existing in the world, or only a projection of our thinking.

K: There have been wars for thousands upon thousands of years. There has been killing of human beings by the million and that killing has created an immense "sorrow". Is that ( collective reservoir of ?) sorrow ( really ?) separated from us? ( Not to mention that ?) we have our own sorrow, our own pain, our own anxiety, our own sense of 'goodness' and 'badness'. And as the questioner asks: is our sense of the 'good' and the 'bad' just our projection, our prejudice,? Or is there a 'Goodness' which separate altogether from human endeavour, human existence?
This is a very serious question this. It is not just a flippant question. People have talked about Goodness for many years. Aristotle, I believe, talked about it, Plato and the ancient Hindus. And still before them there was somebody else talking about it, enquiring. The same ( perrenial inquiry ?) as we are doing now. There are (still some 'bad' ?) people in the world, like the terrorists, the 'great conquerors' of the world from Ghengis Khan, Napoleon (and so on) . And there have ( always ?) been a great many ( anonymous ?) people who pursued Goodness, they were not famous people, they were people who said, "I will live a good life." And they have pursued that and the building up (reservoir ?) of that Goodness, though those people have died and gone, must exist (in our shared Consciousness ?) . Haven't you found when you entered a ( deserted ?) house one can feel if there have been quarrels in the house, there has been violence, there has been perpetual conflict in that house. One can 'feel' it. So it is also 'outside' - right? So there is a 'goodness' and also that which is called 'evil' , exists in the world apart from our own (personal ?) contribution to it. One can (eventually) become highly sensitive to all that and put an end to our (share of self-created ?) conflicts, divisions. But this requires a very careful ( inward ?) observation, perception of oneself, perception of one's own activities, behaviour.
( In a nutshell: ) Either one contributes to Goodness or to the so-called 'bad'.

QUESTION: Do your schools, here, or elsewhere, give the students an understanding of the total human problem, the immensity of human life and its possibilities?

K: The question has been put to the speaker (personally) , so take a rest! (Laughter) First of all the "speaker" helped ( to create these schools ?) in various countries, in India there are five schools and there are going to be other schools, and there is one school here at Brockwood, and one in California, at Ojai. They are not the "speaker"'s schools. They are the schools where not only the speaker and others have helped to bring it about. I know that K's name is used but it is not his 'personal' school. All these schools in different parts of the world come together with hundreds of people working for it. Their teachers, educators are human beings like you and me with their own "personal" problems, their own difficulties, and (on the side ?) the students come already conditioned by their parents, by their neighbours, by other children. And the teachers are also ( culturaly ?) "conditioned", unfortunately.

And you are asking a question if these schools are (bringing to the students) an understanding of the immensity of human existence and its vast possibilities. First of all, do the parents ( really ?) want this? Generally the ( paying ?) parents want their children to have some kind of degree, so that they can get a good job, settle down, marry, have children and carry on. And ( some of ?) these children do feel certain responsibility towards their parents, so, especially in the Asiatic world, they conform.
But in California, or here (UK) - some of the parents don't really care whether they pass examinations or not, so long as they relieved of their ( difficult ?) children. They send them off to boarding houses - you know all that - in England too. And they hardly have any ( direct) relationship with their children except in the summer holidays, or winter holidays. So the (workload of ?) 'responsibility' for the educator becomes immense. And to help them to understand the immensity of human life, the vastness of existence, not only one's own personal existence the nature, the animals, the whole universe, requires not only a capable mind, brain and enquiring into that, but also ( the ability of ?) teaching a particular subject - you understand? Because as society is (organised) now if you are a good engineer you get a better, good job. And the students also wants a 'good job', they don't want to become a salesperson in a shop. So their whole 'concentration' (main concern ?) is to getting a good degree, A level, O level and all the rest of it. And (also) there is the ( mentality ?) pressure of a society which you all have created.

And ( not in the least ?) the 'educator' needs educating, as the 'parents' need educating, so do the students. It is a process of living, working, co-operating, feeling together, which requires a great deal of ( good will and ?) energy.

QUESTION: Would you enlarge on what you mean by saying that "the future is now"? Is it that the seeds of the future are contained in the present? Or that the future already fully exists on a different time scale?

K: This is a very complicated question. Apart from the theories which the scientists have about 'time' as ( being a ) 'series of movements' and so on, apart from the demand that our own future be comfortable, safe and happy and all the rest of it, what is "time"?

You can see "time" as ( associated to ? ) a movement from point (A) to point ( B) - right? To go from here to your house there is a distance to be covered which will take 'time'. That's obvious.

But also ( the inward sense of continuity in ?) 'time' is ( generated by ?) the whole movement of past - right? - in which is implied all the accumulated traditions handed down from one generation to another - their knowledge, their books, etc. We 'are' (psychologically speaking this movement of ?) the past, a "bundle of ( personal and collective ?) memories", whether you like it or not. Without those memories, pleasant or unpleasant the "self (-consciousness" ?) would not exist.

So we are, each one of us (is having a 'psychological' existence based on ?) memories. Which is, ( an existence based on ?) the whole process of accumulation of knowledge, responses, reactions, judgements, condemnations, acceptance, and so on, this whole process which (our species' evolution ?) has brought about, not only biologically, subjectively, is what we are now. After forty, fifty thousand years, all those centuries, that vast sense (of continuity in ?) time, is ( ongoing ?) now. And that is also the future if there is no break. That's simple surely.

A very simple example: tribalism has existed from the beginning of time; the whole (cultural) accumulation of a group, or a tribe, or a nation, is the past. And after fifty thousand years of (homo-sapiens ?) existence on this marvellous earth, psychologically, inwardly, we are still very, very, very primitive - right?. You may pick up a telephone and talk to the other end of the world but what you say is still rather 'primitive'. "Darling how are you?" It is the same process that has been going on, much more difficult to achieve in past centuries, now it can be done in a second.

So ( psychologically speaking ?) the past is now, is ( embedded in?) what we are now after forty thousand years (of our species' evolution ?)
You understand ? - ( our long evolution in ?) time has not changed us (inwardly) - right? Be honest to oneself. We have made incredible progress technologically, but inwardly- at the core- we are still 'primitive' - right?
So, please listen: time has not changed us. Our ( safety oriented ?) evolution has not changed the ( core of our ?) 'psyche'. On the contrary it is making it more and more strong. The 'psyche' being the (subliminal identification with the ?) whole accumulation of memories - racial, national, tribal, religious divisions. After all this ( cultural ?) 'evolution' we are still primitive.
(Inwardly ) 'time' ( repeating the cultural patterns of our past ?) is going on. Time is a movement. So our 'future' is ( determined by ?) what we are now - right? We will (still) have wars, hate each other, compete with each other, seeking sexual fulfilment, or different forms of fulfilment. So the 'future' is co-present ?) now, not just the 'seeds' of it, the (inward ) actuality of it.

Is it possible to radically change all that? Not allowing ( inwardly the mentality of ?) 'time' at all - you understand? ( The inner mentality based on ?) 'time' has not changed us, evolution has not changed us, suffering has not changed us.

If one looks to 'time', to 'tomorrow', to bring about a ( sensible inner ?) change then it is futile hope - right? That's clear. Therefore you have to enquire: what is the ( nature of a ?) change in which there is no time (involved) ? Is there a possibility of 'ending now' (this) something which has been (going on for millenia ?) , now ? Suppose I am greedy, envious - I can (keep it under control it by ?) rationalizing it, say it is natural, it is the cultural (the global trend) , part of the commercial process of gaining and losing and all that stuff. Man has been ( envious and ?) greedy from the beginning of time - right? And time has not changed us inwardly at all. Because through our ( knowledgeable ?) greed we have created this appalling society, both commercially and through envy, which is comparison, we have ( psychologically ?) destroyed each other. This is an ( ongoing) fact.

So, can that ( self-identified process of greed & ) envy end instantly, not " gradually" - you understand my question? Is there a (coming to an ?) "ending" and not a continuity? A continuity implies time, so can one not allow 'time' at all to enter into the (process) of (inward ) change? That change means 'ending'. Ending ( psychologically 'dying' ?) not knowing what will happen because 'what might happen' is still (along the continuity of ?) time and so on. Is it possible to end ( the 'personal' involvement in ?) envy, instantly, completely, so that it never exists any more? Yes, Sir! That's why it is very important to understand the ( 'slacking' ?) nature of ( an inner action in terms of ?) time. ( The inner sense of a continuity in ?) time is a ( constantly updating memory ?) movement, like thought. And ( the linear, cummulative order of ?) time is necessary to learn a language, to acquire a skill, to go to the moon, or to put a ship together. But psychologically, inwardly, if we think ( of a qualitative change ?) in terms of time there will be never such a change. See what is happening ( in the political world ) you have had the League of Nations, now you have United Nations, and another 'blow up' will bring another United Nations. But it is the same process - reordering the same misery in different forms.
So is it possible (inwardly ?) not to have ( not to rely on ?) tomorrow? To live an (inwardly time-free ?) life which has no 'tomorrow' at all?

You see, understanding this thing, 'time' implies enormous things. A 'drum' is tuned carefully, and because it is tuned, because inside it is empty, when you strike on it it gives the "right" note. And if you have that inward quality of a highly sensitive "no-thingness" , you have something extraordinary. The speaker is not ( subliminally ?) enticing you into doing something. ( In the context of right meditation ?) there is no 'reward' or 'punishment'.

QUESTION: Why do you not find value in prayer?

K: I don't know why you accuse me of not having any value in prayer. You know that there are a whole community of monks who are perpetually praying. One group finishes praying, another group takes it up. And we also pray when we are in difficulties. When there is a great crisis in our life we want to pray, or say, "Somebody help me, please". You know that joke of a man hanging onto a cliff? He says, "Please, God, save me" and God says, "Have faith and jump!" (Laughter) And the man who is hanging on to the cliff says, "Isn't there somebody above that still?" (Laughter)
Does prayer answer our difficulties? In some cases when you are praying silently, without words, perhaps you might 'get an answer' because your whole brain has become quiet. And in that quietness, in that stillness of the brain without the movement of thought, you find an answer. And then you say "I should pray more ". Which is, you have gathered some experience and that experience has brought certain result and you like (to optimise ?) those results and so you keep this going! Then it becomes a habit and you have lost everything.

But why do we pray at all? (Suppose) one is in great difficulties. There is great crisis, pain, sorrow, insoluble. And at that moment we look to somebody to help. And this 'somebody' is not my husband, wife, children, or my neighbour, because I know them too well, and they are also in the same position as myself. And so I turn to some "outside agency"- God, Christ, or in India it is another deity and so on. I pray on my knees because I can't solve this problem at all. I cannot ( inwardly ?) resolve my own sorrow, my pain, my loneliness, and so I gradually begin to depend on something externally. Either it is the doctor, the psychiatrist or God. They are all ( on) the same (psycho-logical level) , the moment I want to be 'helped'.
So - it may sound rather cruel, but it is not- the person who is always asking for help becomes ( inwardly ?) weaker and duller - he then becomes utterly dependent on something, either on drugs, or on people, or on ideals, ultimately of his concept of 'God'.

Now we are asking ourselves: is it possible to solve my own (psychological ?) problems without a single aid from another? This requires a great deal of stamina, energy, to go and say, "Now, (taking for instance ?) this problem of envy, what is envy, it is just (the result of ?) comparison, or a little (deeper) than comparison, the craving, the want. Can that 'end' without time?" Then I don't have to 'pray' (...just 'meditate' ?) . Then the person who is like that is totally free from all contamination (psychological interference ?) of (one's own self-centred ?) thought. So it requires to be able to stand completely on your feet. But this ( self- integrating opportunity ?) is slowly being denied by all that is spreading in the (modern) world - ( the largely commercialised illusion of an ?) 'easy' way to live without any (need for self-) understanding.
It (this problem of our psycho-dependency ?) is much more complicated than merely the ( holistic ?) statements of the speaker (since ?) we are all so (collectively inclined to be ?) 'small minded'. But if we could step out of that (group mentality ?) , not 'tomorrow', but "now", then life is something that is endless, immense.

QUESTION: When you are no longer physically with us what are those of us who "understand your message" (even if only intellectually) to do? Do we continue working on ourselves and forget the rest of the world? Or try to spread your teachings as we see it?

K: When you are no longer ' physically' with us - why add 'physically'? Need I answer this question? (Laughter)
Sir, ( if you understand yourself ?) it is 'your' message, not mine. It is your book, not mine. If you live in the way we are talking about, "timelessly", that is - your very living is the 'message' . It is one absolute, irrevocable fact fact in life, that we are all going to die. But (as ) the future is now, the (opportunity of a 'psychological'?) ending is now, not in ten years time, or fifty years time. So, if one lives that ( time-less ?) way your very living 'is' the message, it is not K's message, it is "yours". Then your very living, the way you live, will spread 'that' which you are living. Not spread that which someone else has said. You understand? So be very, very simple (about) this: ( the message of ?) beauty is ( to be ?) "yours", not somebody else's.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 23 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Mar 2016 #108
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: What is the role of the artist in life and what is the significance of music, poetry, and all art in our relationship to each other and the world ?

K: First of all, we must be clear what we mean the word 'art', The etymological meaning of the word 'art' from Latin, is to join; to adjust; to put things (in their right place ?) . Art implies, doesn't it, a flowing melodious 'manner' (inner sense ?) of space, weight, grouping together words, sentences, or a painting on a canvas or a sculpture or a poem, or literature. Do you agree to this at all? If you see a painting by the really great painters, there is a sense of space. The figures are grouped together in a certain way; there is a certain depth to it, in colour; in the sense of movement, and it must be 'melodious' , having a depth of colour, proportion, a sense of harmony. And that would be great painting.

So we are asking: What is (the inner sense of ?) beauty? When we look at a mountain there, when you see those mountains, those hills: range after range, blue in the evening, and early morning when the sun touches it before everything else, there is an enormous ( open ?) space, between you and that; and for an instant you become silent. The very beauty, the very grandeur, the majesty of the mountain keeps you, makes you absolutely quiet. The shock of that beauty drives away for the moment all your ( personal ?) problems. There is no self (-consciousness ?) worrying, talking to itself, there is no ( self-conscious ?) entity, the 'me' looking. At that moment when the self is not, there is ( this sense of ?) great beauty. And the questioner asks, what is the role of art in our lives? The greatest art is the art of living; the not the paintings, the sculpture, the poems, and the marvellous literature. That has its certain place, but to find out for oneself the art of living, that's the greatest art, it surpasses any role in life.

Some of the great artists had very, very disturbed lives, like Beethoven, and others, very disturbed. And that disturbance perhaps may help them to write great music. But one may also lead an 'aesthetic' life - 'aesthetic' is the capacity of (clear) perception- which means one must be extraordinarily sensitive. And this 'sensitivity' comes from the depth of silence. It's no good going to colleges and universities to learn how to be sensitive. Or go to somebody to teach you how to be sensitive. As we said, "aestheticism" is the capacity to perceive; and you cannot perceive if there is not a certain depth of silence. If you look at these trees in silence - there is a communication which is not merely verbal, but a communication, a communion with nature. And most of us have lost the (direct ?) relationship with nature: with the trees, with the mountain, with all the living things of the earth.
And ( bringing that same ?) sensitivity in our relationship, to be aware of each other, is that at all possible? That's the 'art of living': a relationship that is not conflict, that's the flow of a "melodious manner", of living together without the whole cycle of human struggle.

This "art of living" is far more important than the art of great painters. It may be that through music, through going into all the museums of the world and talking about them endlessly we may try to escape from our own troubles, anxieties, depressions. So can we live an "aesthetic life" of deep perception? This requires a great deal of ( silence and ?) observation of oneself; just to watch the way we walk, the way we talk, the noise, you know all that goes on. Then out of that comes the art of living.

Art, as we said, is "putting things together harmoniously"; to observe the contradictions in oneself, one's desires that are always so strong, just to observe the fact and live with the fact. It seems that's the way to bring about a "life of melodious harmony".

QUESTION: Is not the 'observation of thought' a continuing use of thought and therefore a contradiction?

K: When you observe that tree, are you looking at it with all the memories of trees that you have seen, with the shade under the tree under which perhaps you have sat, and the pleasure of a morning; sitting quietly under a tree looking at all the beauty of the leaves, the branches, the trunk, and the sound of the trunk. When you observe all that, are you observing through words, or through your remembrances? Or the memories of those pleasant evenings you have sat under a tree or looked at a tree, then you are looking through the structure of words. Therefore you are not actually observing.
So, are we aware that we ( usually ) look at everything through a ( mental ?) network of words? So is our observation a ( direct ?) perception, or a process of thought? Let's find out what we actually do. Can we look at a person with whom we have lived for a number of days or years without all the past remembrances and incidents, and the pleasures or the antagonisms, can you observe ( him/her ?) as though you are meeting the person for the first time? That sensitivity is not possible when there is our memory of the past projecting itself all the time.
So from that one asks a ( non-personal ?) question: can thought be aware of itself? This is a rather complex question: can the whole process of thinking be aware of itself, or there is an ( all-controlling ?) 'thinker' who is aware of his thoughts? Is this becoming difficult for you? Are you interested in all this?

Questioner: I wonder if the group might find it a little more interesting if you could address some of the striking statements that are in your tapes and books that I have read. In one tape you refer to marriage as 'that terrible institution'. My question would be, could you elaborate?

K: All right, sir. Let's have some fun. Let's answer that question; we'll come back to this. One may live with another person and take the entire responsibility, both of us, and continue with that responsibility, not change when it doesn't suit you. Or, you go through 'marriage', go to church and the priest blesses the couple, you know, and there you are tied legally. And that tie, legally, gives you more the feeling of being more responsible. What's the difference between the two? Either it is a responsibility based on law, either the responsibility of convenience, necessity, comfort, and all the other demands - where is love in all this? Please answer this question for yourself.

Is love the pursuit of desire? Is love pleasure? Is love attachment? And if one negates (or sees ?) intelligently that attachment is not love, the stored-up memories, the pictures, the imagination: through negation, you come to the positive. But if you start with the ( asserting the ?) 'positive', you ( may ?) end up with negation. So, this gentleman asked why doesn't the speaker talk about all that? Sir, what is 'important' in life? What is the root or the basic essential in life? As one observes more and more, in television, and literature, magazines, and all the things that are going on, our life is becoming so superficial and 'vulgar'. If one may use that word without any sense of derogatory or insulting. It's all becoming so superficial and rather childish.
So what is the fundamental, basic thing that is really of the utmost importance in one's life?

Q: Do you want us to answer?

K: You can answer, sir, if you want to.

Q: The answer is 'compassion'.

K: When you use that word, are you again using that word superficially or there is compassion in you? You understand? When you say, yes, compassion, you have already "stamped" it. The word compassion means "passion for all"; and you cannot have compassion if there is not complete ( inward ?) freedom. And with compassion there is intelligence. So if you say compassion, love is the root of all things in life, in the universe, in all our relationship and action; to come upon it, to live with it and act from there then you are no longer a (self-centred ?) "individual", there is something else entirely different from one's own petty little self. Right, sir?

( Returning to our previous question ) we asked: can thought be aware of itself? (The practical difficulty being ?) that thought has created the 'thinker' (controlling 'entity' as ?) separate from his thought. "I" must control my thoughts, I must not let my thoughts wander.
Now, is this 'thinker' different from thought? Or the (very process of ?) thinking has created the 'thinker'. You understand the question? This is rather important to find out why this duality exists in us; has not thought created the thinker?

Q: I can see it 'logically'.

K: Verbally (or intellectually ?) I can see very clearly that there is this division between the thinker and the thought, and thought has created the thinker. So the 'thinker' is ( identifying itself with ?) the past, with his memories, with his knowledge, all put together by our thought's (need for safety and stability ?) . Why do we say I understand it 'intellectually'?

Q: It seems obvious.

K: Is it not because we never look ( directly ?) at the whole thing ? We only look at something 'intellectually' (in the safe-mode ?) . The speaker explained very carefully, logically, the (artificial division between the ?) thinker and the thought. And you accept that 'logically'. Is it that our intellect is developed much more than our sensitivity of immediate perception ? Because we are trained from childhood to ( mentally) 'acquire' (facts and skills ?) , to exercise a certain part of the brain, which is to 'hold' what has been told, informed, and keep on repeating it. So when you meet a new challenge , you say, I (can safely ?) understand it 'intellectually'. But one never meets the "new" (challenge) totally- that is, intellectually, emotionally, with all your senses awakened; you never receive ( the impact of ?) it completely. You receive it 'partially'- and this is the 'intellectual' activity. It is never the whole of our being observing (in total immersion ?) . You say, "yes, that's logical". And we ( safely ?) stop there. We don't ask ourselves , why is it that only a part of the senses are awakened?

( To recap:) Intellectual perception is ( the result of a ?) 'partial sensitivity', partial senses acting. In putting a computer ( program) together, you don't have to include all your emotions and your senses, so you have become ( mentally ?) mechanical, and repeat that. So the same process is carried when we hear something ( challenging and ?) new, you say: I ( can safely ?) understand it....intellectually. We don't meet it entirely. So the ( new challenging ?) statement has been made but we don't receive it totally.

So we never meet anything with all our senses highly awakened, especially when you see a tree or the mountains, or the movement of the sea,. Why? Is it not that we (got used to comfortably ?) live in a limited sphere, in a limited space in ourselves. It's a fact. So if you will, look now at those mountains with all your senses; when that act (of direct perception ) takes place, all your senses - your eyes, your ears, your nerves, the whole response of the ( psycho-somatical) organism which is also ( including) the brain, looks at that whole thing entirely. When one does that there is no centre as the 'me' who is looking.

So we are asking, can thought (the 'thinking' brain ?) be aware of itself? That's rather a complex question, because this requires a very 'careful' (diligent ?) observation. One can ( objectively ?) see what thought has done (in the outer world) , right? So thought can be ( non-personally ?) aware of its own ( dualistic ?) action, so that there is no contradiction (no conflict of interest ?) between the thinker and the thought; between the observer and the observed. When there is no such ( active ) 'contradiction', there is no ( need for inward ?) effort. It's only when there is contradiction (a conflict of desire ?) , which is division, there must be effort. So to find out whether it's possible to live a life without a single shadow of ( inward ) effort, or contradiction, one must investigate this whole (dualistic ?) movement of thought. So to find out what's the activity of thought, to watch (non-dualistically ?) it - that's part of 'meditation'.

QUESTION: You have often said that quietness, silence, comes unsought. But can we live in ways that will allow it to come more readily ?

K: Have you ever enquired into what is silence? Or into what is peace? What we call 'peace', it's ( the relatively 'peaceful' interval ?) between two wars. Now, ( inwardly ?) what is silence? Silence must mean (creating some free inner ?) space, mustn't it? I can shut my eyes, put a wall round myself, and in that (exclusive inner space?) there can be certain amount of peace, certain amount of silence. Right? I can go into a 'quiet room' and sit there; but the ( inward ?) space in my brain is very, very limited.
Now, is there an (inner) 'space without a centre' and therefore with no borders ? You understand? As long as (the inner space is occupied by thinking about ?) 'me', my problems, my selfish demands, it's very limited. That limitation has its own small space. But that little space is ( created by ?) a self-protective wall, (in order ?) not to be disturbed, not to have problems, not to have - you follow - all the trouble and so on. So, for most of us, that 'space of the self' is the only space we have. And from that space we are asking what is silence.
Am I making the question clear?

Q: Sure. You are saying we've got to have (some inner) space, so that we can have an understanding of silence. We can't enjoy. or understand silence or have silence without space.

K: Of course. Space to understand, space to enjoy. But always that space is limited, isn't it? So where there is limitation, there cannot be vast space. That's all. And (having an inwardly open ?) space implies silence. ( But with ?) all the noise that is going on in towns, between people, and all the noise of modern music, there's no space, there is not silence anywhere, just noise. It maybe pleasant or unpleasant, that's not the point.

So ( back to basics:) what does it mean to have ( this inner sense of ?) space? (The silent interval or ) 'space' between two notes on the piano; that's a very small space. Or silence between two people who have been quarrelling, and later on resume the quarrelling is a very, very limited space, so is there a limitless (inner) space in ourselves, in our whole way of living, having the actual feeling of a vast sense of space ?
Now, you may say, yes, I understand that 'intellectually'. But ( in the context of a 'meditator-less' meditation ?) to receive that question entirely, with all your senses, then you will find out if there is such a vast (open ended inward) space which is ( silently ?) related to the Universe.

QUESTION: Is there such a thing as a true 'guru'? Is there ever a right use of 'mantra'?

K: I think it is necessary to understand the ( original) meaning of those two Sanskrit words, guru and mantra.' Guru', the root meaning is ( someone who has spiritual ?) 'weight'. And also it means, 'one who dispels illusion' and/or the 'one who points'.
And the original meaning of the word "mantra" means "to ponder over ( on) not becoming", or put away all self-centred activity.

And the questioner asks, is there a true guru? (Basically ?) nobody can ( inwardly) teach you anything except yourself: nobody can ( insightfully ?) teach you about yourself: you are the teacher and the disciple, there is no teacher or a disciple 'outside' you. And this ( non-dualistic ?) "learning about oneself" is infinite. Not learning about oneself from books, which has certain ( intrinsical) limitations; there is no complete knowledge about anything, even the (highly knowledgeable ?) scientists admit it. The outward knowledge is ( obviously) necessary but (we have traditionally assumed that ?) this same 'wave' continues inwardly, that we must 'know' (all about ?) ourselves. The Greeks - and (others ) before the Greeks they said 'know yourself'.

Now 'knowing yourself' doesn't mean go to somebody and find out ( the actual facts ?) about yourself. It means to watch (non-personally ?) what you are doing, what you are thinking, your behaviour, your words, your gestures, the way you talk, the way you eat, 'watch'. Not say "this is right or wrong", just watch, And to watch there must be ( an inner space of ?) silence. And in that ( non-dualistic ?) watching there is learning. And therefore when you are ( so) learning you also become 'the' teacher. So you are both the teacher and the disciple; and nobody else on earth.

I do not know if you have noticed that in the (modern ?) world, there are ( mushrooming ?) institutions, foundations, associations, for various things, outwardly and inwardly. Foundation for 'right action', for 'right thinking', and so on, each holding on to his own little Foundation. You might just say, then why do you have (the K ?) Foundation? I'll tell you. This Foundation exists merely to maintain schools, ordinary schools, both in India, where there are six schools, in England, and here at Ojai. And to publish books and to arrange the talks, and nothing else! No "spiritual" - I ( personally?) dislike that word - no 'religious' content behind it .

So when one ( eventually ?) understands the (original ?) meaning of the word "guru", and "mantra", they become very, very serious. "Mantra" means to dissolve the whole structure of (one's 'psychological' ?) becoming. So it means there is no ( temporal ?) 'evolution' for the 'self', for the 'psyche'. That's very complex, I won't go into that. And there is nobody outside yourself that can ( set you ?) free except one's own inward integrity, great humility to learn.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 25 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #109
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

K. "So ( step 1 would be ?) to find out for oneself 'how' we waste our ( natural ressources of intelligent ?) energy. And the greatest waste of energy is to be concerned with 'oneself'. Because by being ( psychologically ?) concerned with one's own problems, one's own achievements, your energy is ( getting ?) limited. But when there is freedom from that there is ( an inward opening to an ?) immense energy. To be free from that ( obsessive ?) concern with oneself and with one's (past) hurts and (subliminally ?) wanting to hurt others; that concern with oneself is bringing about great chaos in the world. To seek one's (personal ?) enlightenment, following your own particular little guru, is such a wastage of energy. So is it possible not to waste ( one's ressources of intelligent ?) energy along all these lines?
And if you have ( eventually tapped into ?) that energy, what will you do with it? So in the discovery ( or negation of ?) how you wasted your energy, there is the beginning of ( an awakening of ?) Intelligence. That intelligence is not wastage of energy. That intelligence is (non-entropic and ?) extraordinarily alive."

Through 'learning' about oneself, a shift of 'attention' takes place...when a habit is dropped, or fear drops away from situations where previously it was present, it's possible to see the huge amount of 'energy' that it consumed and that kept it in place due to a lack of 'intelligence'(?) Could you say that our 'self-centered' consciousness is NOT intelligent? That they, intelligence and self-centeredness, are mutually exclusive? It would seem so.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #110
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So then, our universal capacity of 'holistic intelligence' has still to prove that it can take care both our material and physical security simultaneously -and this in "real time".

Yes this came up in a talk with D.B.: K. was saying that there is only total security in 'no-thing' and why was that so impossible to get across and Bohm was saying, yes but that's hard to see how one's material needs would be met etc.and K replied that if there was no 'attachment' to anything that 'intelligence' would act and one would do what was it seems a certain amount of 'faith' is called for.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #111
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 58 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Plus that I can wear a variety of 'masks' and use a large spectrum of tricks ( a million years of survivalistic evolution are not...nothing !) and almost instantly the whole background of all our past and present reality is engulfing us. Sounds more than 'safe'...except that there's nothing really new happening there.

I agree. Nothing short of a "miracle" is called for. (Or a bunch of 'mini-miracles') Well how many generations of our intrepid ancestors died freezing on those cliffs before one them realized that what they were sitting on was 'coal'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Mar 2016 #112
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Malgré les exagerations de rigueur je crois qu'il y a quelque chose de vrai dans tout ça. Pour paraphraser un ex-syndicaliste polonais: 'Ce n'est pas pour demain, mais pour aprés demain"

Salut John, je ne sais pas....ce qui m'avait intéressé dans le film, c'est ce qui n'est pas dedans...qui est au delà....

Sinon demain c'est la mort du corps...trop tard donc.

Je ressens de + en + que il ne serait pas impossible que il n'y ait absolument pas d'approche globale possible des problèmes humains non pratiques....

Cela impliquerait de coopérer uniquement par choix conscient à la fois personnel et collectif, de ne forcer personne, et de partager parce que cela est le seul chemin....

nous n'avons pas cette dimension collective mentale du tout, quoique pratiquement on est obligé de l’être car seul personne ne survit et mème n'existe.. personnellement je l'ai ...comme je rejette le profit naturellement en ayant vu suffisamment de cela lors de moment privilégiés cela se trouvait être là, je n'ai pas chercher à le comprendre..

Alors c'est con d'un coté on refuse de coopérer et de partager, et de l'autre on est obligé d’être collectif pour survivre...mais là le partage dérape en guerre..

Plus con tu meurs !!

y'a du boulot si c'est çà !! Avec notre handicap c'est pas gagné du tout....

Bon assez de divagations du matin....

merci du partage...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Mar 2016 #113
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: One wonders why you all come. I'm just asking: what is the ( real ?) motive of your coming? Is it out of curiosity or trying to find out for oneself what it's all about our life, or you want to hear the speaker; or you want to gather what kind of person he is, either he is a hypocrite, or sane or rational.
If one questions not only what others might say, but be doubtful of one's own ( sujective ?) judgments, evaluations and if you could be very clear about your intention of our coming here, then that intention, if it is right and honest, has some depth in it. But if (the subliminal ?) it's merely to gather a few ideas, a few statements, I'm afraid that it'll have not much value.
So may we go on with the questions?

QUESTION: Why don't you be more practical and not so abstract in what you are saying?

K: The word "practical" means 'fit to act'. And when there are ( all kinds of ?) 'wars' going on, after many, many thousands of years, is that practical? Or we got so 'used' to that kind of ( competitive ?) way of living, and we accept that as the most practical. And the word 'abstraction' means to "draw away" from what one actually is; to separate it from what we feel we should be. That's an abstraction. So the questioner asks, why don't you be more practical and not so abstract in what you are talking about?

So are we ( holistically ?) "practical" at all? - Except (outwardly ?) in earning a livelihood, having a skill, being a good carpenter, good chemist- but being ( inwardly ?) violent: is that "practical"? Or we got so used to it and keep on repeating this ( pattern of ) action and reaction: you are violent, I become violent. You hit me, I hit you. This is the pattern that we have repeated through centuries.

You might say: but have you, the speaker, done anything which is not reaction; which is not just habitual response; repeated action ? We must be clear about what we mean by 'action': either one has an action based on some 'moral' (or ethical ?) values, aesthetic perception, and if another does something which is not correct, which is not moral, then you have a certain certain responsibility to act. That may not be habitual; a repeated action.
And the questioner also wants to know: why are you talking in abstraction. Is the speaker talking in abstraction? Or he is pointing out what we are all doing, each one of us; not judging or condemning but (just observing ?) watching . But if in this 'watching' of oneself and others there is not a quality of ( compassionate ?) silence, then from that watching you can make a (mental) 'abstraction' from what actually 'is', separate it into an ( abstract) 'idea' (or concept ?) . The original meaning of the word 'idea' is 'to observe.' Not make an abstraction of what you observe.

( Psychological Eg:) Suppose I am afraid (of something or other ?) . That fear is an actuality. But (making an) abstraction of that, which is to ( mentally) separate ( oneself) from the fact into, "I should not be afraid" or that "I must cultivate courage" is an abstraction. So this 'ideal', which we now accept, is something separate from the ( inner) 'fact'. Right? So we bring about a ( subliminal ?) division between the "actual" and the "idea" of it, and then pursue the "idea" ( or the 'ideal' derived from that abstraction) rather dealing with the 'facts'. That's what we are doing (on the global scale ) all the time.
(Outward Eg: ) There is poverty in the world. Now the abstraction of that is, what to do (practically about it) . And each one of us, or each group, or each political party, says this should be done, that should be done. So they are ( getting prioritarily ?) involved in ( organisational ?) ideas (rather than dealing directly ) with the fact- and that's only possible when there is a global relationship, not a political (or 'organisational' ?) relationship. And as poverty is increasing in the world, ( the root causes of ?) that poverty can only be solved ( holistically ?) by the realization that as long as there are all these various ( inner and outer ?) divisions this problem of ( misery and ?) poverty cannot possibly be solved. Right?

Then one says, as a person living in a country that's full of a 'patriotic' spirit, what am I to do? ( To realise inwardly that ?) as long as there is a "separative" action with regard to any human problem, that problem will never be solved (globally) . So what we are saying seems to be (holistically ?) 'practical'- in the sense that something can actually be done (but not necessarily ?) through our habitual (self-enclosing) actions and resisting everything else.
Is there ( any authentic) security in separation? In ( self-) division? We're "all one" as human beings, but we have separated ourselves into races, religions, and keep to that pattern, that programme. We have been programmed, like a computer, and we keep on repeating that. And that we call very "practical".
So is it possible to be somewhat different? Or I was just going to say, "impractical" ?

QUESTION: Most of my energy and time goes into the daily struggle to earn a living. Is it possible for me and those like me to be deeply unselfish and intelligent?

K: This is our everyday life. Those who are "lucky" (enough) have their own means and they don't have to work endlessly, while most people have to earn their daily bread from nine to five in a factory, office, labour, carpentry and so on, we spend a great deal of energy in all that. And the questioner says, I have very little time to enquire into this ( whole 'psychological area' ?) of selfishness and intelligence. My energy is dissipated in my work and I have not much energy (left). Is that so?

We really should enquire into how we waste our ( intelligent ?) energy; not, "all my energy is taken away through daily work", but into how we waste our energy; whether it's possible to conserve energy, and use it when necessary, and retain it when it's not. Am I making myself clear?
How do we waste our ( intelligent ?) energy - do we waste energy by (various forms of mental ?) 'chattering'? And is it a wastage of ( our intelligent ?) energy to be constantly in conflict - in the office; at home; and so on? Right? Is not the conflict (both within oneself and outside) a wastage of energy?

Not "how to be free of conflict ?", for the moment; but to observe how we waste our energy through conflict (due to ?) the concept or an illusion that we are ( isolated ?) 'individuals', and enclosing ourselves in a little, neurotic (self-conscious ?) state , building a ( psychologically protective ?) 'wall' round ourselves and so on. That's a great deal of wastage of ( of intelligent ?) energy. Right? And to pursue a (psychological ?) ideal rather than ( dealing directly and ?) ending of a fact, is a wastage of ( our intelligent ?) energy .

Suppose one is ( inwardly ?) 'violent'; you pursue 'non-violence', which is non-fact. The pursuit of ( an ideal of ?) non-violence is a wastage of ( our intelligent ressources of ?) energy. Whereas ( putting it to work in order to ?) understand the nature of this violence, to go deeply into the complexity of violence, and see if it is possible to end it, that's not a wastage of energy. But to pursue a non-fact, which is the ideal (of becoming less and less violent ?) is ( resulting in ?) a wastage of energy.

So ( step 1 would be ?) to find out for oneself 'how' we waste our ( natural ressources of intelligent ?) energy. And the greatest waste of energy is to be concerned with 'oneself'. Because by being ( psychologically ?) concerned with one's own problems, one's own achievements, your energy is ( getting ?) limited. But when there is freedom from that there is ( an inward opening to an ?) immense energy. To be free from that ( obsessive ?) concern with oneself and with one's (past) hurts and (subliminally ?) wanting to hurt others; that concern with oneself is bringing about great chaos in the world. To seek one's (personal ?) enlightenment, following your own particular little guru, is such a wastage of energy. So is it possible not to waste ( one's ressources of intelligent ?) energy along all these lines?
And if you have ( eventually tapped into ?) that energy, what will you do with it? So in the discovery ( or negation of ?) how you wasted your energy, there is the beginning of ( an awakening of ?) Intelligence. That intelligence is not wastage of energy. That intelligence is (non-entropic and ?) extraordinarily alive.

( Recap:) One cannot possibly be ( holistically ?) 'intelligent' if one is selfish. Selfishness is part of ( the inherited mentality of ?) division; separation: I am selfish and you are selfish; so, in our relationship we are ( competitively ?) selfish. So by understanding the nature of this wastage of energy, not only 'superficially', but very deeply, out of that ( meditative ?) investigation, probing, questioning, one comes to a certain quality of (a holistically integrated ?) energy which is the outcome of Intelligence; not merely ( rationally ?) setting aside wastage of energy.

So, what is (the nature of this ?) Intelligence? Are those people who are very, very learned, are they intelligent? Is the very activity of thought ( generating this ?) intelligence? All the activities of human thought, including invention, putting very, very complex machinery together like the computer, like a robot, like a missile, or the extraordinary machine of a submarine, or these beautiful aeroplanes; they're all the result of tremendous activity of thought. And also the ( follow-up ?) activity of thought is how we use them based on profit, and various other forms of motives.

So we are asking a very fundamental question: whether intelligence is the root of thought? Thought is 'limited', because thought is derived from experience, stored in the brain as memory , and the reaction of that brain (stored memory) is thought. If there is no ( available ?) memory, there is no 'thinking'. Now, every little thing on this earth, the smallest little thing, must have the ( same basic ) quality of 'thought'- (aka ?) 'instinct'. But as human beings we have 'evolved' and our greatest instrument is ( a far more sophisticated process of ?) thought. But that thought is ( inwardly speaking ?) very 'limited'; because knowledge is always (creating its own linear time-continuity?) - "past, present and future" - will be limited. This limited thought can invent the 'limitless', but it's still the result of thought. Thought has divided the world into various religions and all the things that are in the churches, temples, mosques, are the inventions of thought. You can't get beyond that, that's a fact. And what thought has created, then we worship it. Marvellous self-deception!

So we were asking: is ( holistic ?) Intelligence (generated by ?) the ( highly industrious ?) activity of thought? Or it is totally outside the realm of thought and then can use thought. You follow, not the other way around!
So ( to re-recap ?) one has to enquire into the ( true ) nature of Intelligence. ( And also ?) one must very carefully (and non-personally ?) examine the only instrument apparently we have, which is thought. Thought includes the emotions, the sensory responses, and so on. All that is centred (collected and processed ?) in the brain, which is the whole ( mental ?) structure of human beings.
The speaker is not an "expert" with regard to the brain, but as one watches one's own reactions, one's own responses, hurts, illusions- when one watches "silently", without any ( hidden personal ?) motive, then that watching reveals a tremendous lot. One learns a great deal more in silence than in noise. Right? So are we ( now more ?) intelligent and therefore ( holistically ?) practical? Therefore never bring about a division.
We'll talk more about it when we talk about the significance of death, suffering, and the great question of Compassion.

QUESTION: You travel about a great deal in the world but I must stay with my family in one place and live in a limited horizon. You speak of a global vision. How am I to have this?

K: I'm sorry, I've never talked about "global vision". The speaker was saying that you cannot have peace in the physical world, if you have no global relationship. The fact is that we are divided, as nationalities, religions, sectarian, little groups, smaller groups - divided. And outwardly there must be a global relationship which means no national or religious divisions .
The questioner says "You travel about a great deal but I must stay with my family in one place and so my horizon is limited". Do you mean to say that while you are living in a small village one can't have a holistic approach to life? So, what does it mean to have a feeling that the whole human world 'is' ( inwardly one with ?) you?
The (shared consciousness of our ?) world has great troubles; great anxieties and miseries and confusions;(as well as ) various 'neurotic' activities. And one ( eventually ?) realizes that what you are (consciousness-wise ?) 'is' (also shared by all ?) the rest of humanity. That's a fact, if you go into it 'simply' and even if you (examine ?) it intellectually, it's a fact that our brains are not 'individual' brains. They have been evolving through thousands of years. And even when you observe from one's little village one can see what is happening in the world: wars, man against man; the eternal ( family ?) quarrels between people. All this could be ( easily ?) settled if you are somewhat 'intelligent'. And you cannot ask (another ?) "how am I to break through this limitation and have the feeling that you are the entire humanity ?". There is no 'how', psychologically. A 'how' means following ( someone else's ?) method, and when you practise it you're back again in the same old limited & dull (self-consciousnes ?) .

So it's not a question of how to get out of this limited way of life (in order ?) to understand the global, holistic way of perception, but to observe (non-personally ?) one's own limitations, prejudices, conclusions . The ( psychological ?) "walls" which we build round ourselves, that is the real problem: to become aware of all this, to observe them without ( any personal ?) motive; and that's very difficult for for a person who has concluded he is this, or the other person is that.
( Recap:) A global ( 'holistic' ?) relationship alone can solve our human problems, as war, poverty. And becoming aware of one's own limitation.

QUESTION: You have stated that if one 'stays with fear' and not try to escape and ( eventually) realize one 'is' fear, then the fear goes away. How does this come about, and what will keep it from returning on other occasions in a different form?

K: Please don't accept what the speaker has stated. That's the first thing. Doubt him, question him. Don't make him into some kind of stupid authority.
So, you heard that if one actually stays with fear, then that fear goes away. To 'stay with fear' means not to escape from it, not to try to rationalize it or to transcend it. To stay with it like when you look at the moon - to look at it. Right? Not say, how beautiful, how this, how that; but just to look at it; be with it. Then, it is stated, that fear goes away. And the questioner says, is that so? He wants further enquiry into it.

What is fear? Fear can only take place when there is time and thought. Time as ( the actualised memory of ?) something that happened yesterday or forty years ago, and that something you should not have done, and somebody is 'blackmailing' you about it - look at it. Right? Time is that ( actualised memory of something ?) which has happened, which you are threatened with, and afraid of that threat, because you are protecting yourself; and the 'future' is, ( hoping) not to be afraid. Right? So the whole movement of fear is the ( memory of the ?) past meeting the present creates the feeling, the reaction of fear - right - and it continues in the future. So that's a problem of time; right? Time is a factor bringing about fear. Right? I have a job now, but I might lose the job. The factory might close. It is not closed, but it might close, which is future. It may be tomorrow, or 20 years hence; but the fear it might close. That is, my thinking about the future which is 'time', creates the fear. Right? So thought and time create fear. That's simple enough. Right? One has done something wrong and you come along and threaten me with it. Right? And I get frightened. Clear?

Time 'is' thought. They are not two separate movements. Right? Time is is movement, isn't it? From here to there. I need time to go from here to that place. I need time to learn a language, and so on, so on. Thought is also ( the active memory of ?) time; because thought is based on experience, acquiring knowledge is time. Right? And memory is time, which is the past. So "thought" & "time" are together; they are not two separate movements. So that is the cause of fear. I might die; I am living, but the idea of ending, which is in the future, causes fear, the 'time- distance' from the living and the ending. Which we'll talk about another time. You understand? So, those thought-time is the factor of fear.

One has faced this quite recently. Right? We all do. We are threatened by some persons. This is happening the world over. Threatened by one nation against another - you know all that. Or one individual against another; threat is a form of blackmail; you have done... and so on, so on, so on. And to be aware when you are threatened, when fear arises, you just observe without any ( mental) reaction when there is an understanding of the nature of time and thought.

The questioner says, how does this happen? How does fear end when you understand its nature and watch. To escape, to rationalize, to sublimate it is a complete waste of energy. Because it's always there when you come back - from your football; from the church, it's always at home.
To analyze and gradually discover the cause of fear, either through your own self-analysis or the analysis of another, is also a wastage of energy. Because if you just watch, you can find out what's the cause instantly. Which is time and thought. Right? You see unfortunately, (our past ?) knowledge may be making us dull. We are saying, where there is a cause, there is an end. Obviously. If I have some kind of disease, and the doctor discovers the cause of it, it can end it. Or it cannot be ended. Where there is a cause, there can be an end to the cause. That's a fact.

So watching fear as it arises, and living with it, not escaping from it, you begin to see the fact, time, thought are the root of it. That's the cause. And, that very focusing of energy on the 'fact' of time, dissipates fear completely. That is ( the insight into the fact that ?) fear 'is' you. Fear is not separate from you. Right? We have separated fear from me. Right? Which is an abstraction, a division. Right? Or you say, (my) greed is separate from me so I then can act upon greed. If I, the 'thinker' is separated from my thought then I control(my) thought. Right? I try to concentrate and all the rest of it. But the thinker 'is' the thought. Thought has created the 'thinker', right?

So when one realizes the actual fact that fear 'is' you then the division ends. If you 'are' fear the inner conflict ends. I wonder if you realize this. As long as there is a (psychological) division in me, as the 'me' and 'my fear', and me and the greed, me and violence, there must be conflict. But the actual fact is, violence "is" me. Greed is me. Envy is me. So this division which ( the self- centred ?) thought has created between 'me' and 'fear' ends; and therefore you have no conflict and therefore there is great (release of the ?) energy (previously entangled in conflict ?) right? That's a fact. Can we go on from there?

I am not 'teaching' you; you are ( supposed to be ?) learning from your own observation. So you are your own guru and your own disciple. And the questioner also asks, what will keep fear from returning on other occasions in different forms?
Fear has many branches, many expressions; many forms: fear of the dark, fear of public opinion, fear of what I have done, fear of losing something- you know - fear has a thousand branches. And it's no good 'trimming the branches' because they'll come back. So one must go to the root of it; and not cut the superficial expression of fear; one must go to the root of the cause of fear; which is thought and time.
If one really sees the truth of it, and remains with it, not run away from it, then fear (ends ?) - for the speaker this is a 'fact'. You might say, what nonsense. You live in illusion. You have a perfect right to say it, but it's not so for oneself (as K ?) .

QUESTION: Is it some lack of ( psychical?) energy that keeps us from going to the very end of a problem? Does this require a "special" energy? Or is there only one basic energy at the root of all life?

K: The questioner says, when we go to the very root of the problem, that requires (a 'special' ?) energy to go to the very end of it.
So what is a 'problem'? ( A 'challenge' ?) 'thrown at you', something that you have to face, something different from ( what one is familiar with ?) . And from childhood we are trained to 'solve' (countless outward ?) problems: mathematical problems, how to ( spell correctly and ?) write, how to ride a bicycle, how to drive a car, how to live with another person without (other ) problems arising. Our brain is actually trained to solve problems. Right? That's a fact. So ( eventually) our whole life becomes ( to be regarded as ?) a problem to be solved (or optimised ?) . See for yourself how this ( problem solving mentality ?) operates? Then we can proceed from there.

And I am asking "why" do we have this (conflicting mentality ?) that creates problems? So another question arises from that, which is to live without a single ( psychological ?) problem. Not that there are not ( a lot of outward ?) problems, but to have no ( inward ) problems. And the questioner says, to go to the very end of a problem, does it require energy? Obviously. Not any 'special' energy, but just the ordinary (but focussed ?) energy of (a diligent ) investigation. Now to investigate ( one's own mind ?) very closely, very delicately, deeply, you cannot have a ( personal ?) 'motive'.

Suppose I have a problem ( personally I haven't, whatever happens happens, I'll deal with it. But I am not going to have any problems. It is stupid to have problems, for myself I am saying). And I need ( some free inner ?) energy to go into it very, very carefully, never coming to any conclusion, moving, moving - you follow? But if you are ( inwardly) "attached to a tether" you can only go that far, whatever the length of that rope is. So there must be ( an inner sense of ?) freedom from any conclusion, any motive, to investigate. That's clear. Obvious. Like a scientist (in the outer world ?) , he may have (access to ?) a great many hypotheses, theories, but he puts them aside to investigate. And then he says that theory is true; but he doesn't insist that that theory is true before investigation. Right? But we do!
So you need ( some free inner ?) energy to go to the very end of a problem. Take any problem that one has - what?

Q: Loneliness ?

K: All right, let's take "loneliness". Why are you ( feeling) lonely? That is, feeling separated, divided. You may be married, have a great many 'friends' but there is this sense of deep loneliness of human beings. How does that "loneliness" come about? Isn't it brought about by our daily self-centred activity. I must be a great man, I must be a successful man, I must meditate, I must do this, I must do that. "I" am the most important person. So when you emphasize all day long this limited ( self-limiting ?) state of mind, it must inevitably lead to a ( deep) sense of loneliness, which is to have no (authentic ?) relationship with anybody. Right? Which is brought about by our daily activity of ( self-centred ?) thought and action. And then you say, I am lonely, therefore I am going to a night club, or whatever you do. Or hold on to your wife, hold on, cling, because you are afraid of being lonely.
So, you can see the cause of it, which is very simple and (then try to ?) to hold the whole thing together and not use the word 'lonely'. Because the ( actual) 'fact' is not the word. And the cause of the fact is this constant thought of oneself: 'I' am hurt, 'I' want to be great, 'I' want to be this, 'I' want to be that. When you use the word 'lonely' it has its associations with the past. So you can live with that feeling (of loneliness ?) afresh only when you see ( have a total insight into ?) the ( actual) cause of it - daily concern with oneself.
(Recap;) If you want to understand a way of living which is totally different, then you have to look at all this very closely, and ask 'fundamental' questions. You can only ask fundamental questions by doubting, questioning, asking.

QUESTION: Could you go into the nature of intelligence which manifests itself when (an insightful ?) perception takes place and is this the only true source of action?

K: We are always seeking security in ( 'psychologically' getting identified with ?) the part: 'my' property, 'my' country, 'my' wife, 'my' god . So we have always cultivated the 'part' and the (associated activity of that ?) part is the intellect. And in this 'intellectual' comprehension, we think there is security. Don't you know all the ( fame & fortune ?) world of Professors, Scientists, all the writers, they become "great people". That is, ( the intellectual ?) 'part' means the superficial, right?
Now, is our "perception" only by the intellect or only emotions or only a sensory response? Or ( the insightful ?) perception implies a seeing totally, not partially. Do you understand?

( Eg:) One perceives the (actual) cause of fear not verbally, intellectually, emotionally. ( The insightful ?) perception is an action of seeing the whole of nature of fear - right - not the various branches of fear but the whole 'movement' of fear. The 'movement' (generating ?) of fear is time, thought. When you see something wholly, completely, what takes place is something quite different: the brain has been 'unconditioned' from the old pattern. Do you get this? The moment I perceive ( for myself) the truth of what you have said , the very insight into what you have said brings about a radical change in the very cells of the brain . The speaker has discussed this matter with scientists. Some of them agree with this, but the others say, it's pure 'romanticism', etcetera.

But the fact is : I have been going north. You come along and say, that way leads to danger and ( if ?) I listen to you, discuss with you, I may have quick insight into what you are saying and I see the truth of what you are saying. So I (instantly ?) 'move away' from (the mental patterns associated to my ?) going north. I go south or east or west. That very insight- contrary to the old habit- has brought about a radical (qualitative ?) change in the brain itself. Because you 'understand' (the truth involved ?) the (old) pattern will be broken. When the pattern is broken, there is ( the awakening of ?) something different. An insight is a quick, instant perception of what is true. But most of us aren't capable of that because we are not (inwardly ?) sensitive. And this (catch 22 ?) situation cannot be changed if there is not an insight into ( the nature of that ?) conditioning.
Now the questioner asks, when ( this insightful ?) perception takes place, there is intelligence and is this intelligence the source of action ? Do you understand? When there is a perception that our (particular form of) 'tribalism' is the most destructive element in life, bringing wars and so on, if you have instant insight into it, that insight has its own action. It's not 'insight' and then 'action' but that insight itself 'is' action. There is a (subliminal ?) action that wipes away your particular form of 'tribalism' - your (personal attachment to ?) belonging to a group. Right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 #114
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: I understand that in order to have a "deep insight" thinking must stop; ( but then ) for thinking to stop there must already be a deep insight. Where does one start? In this isn't the brain working to achieve something and thus preventing insight?

K: Do we clearly see that our brain has become mechanical? We repeat, we live in the ( routines and memories of the ?) past and the reactions we have are obvious (predictible ?) . And the question is: where does one start to understand the whole problem of ( our mechanical ?) existence? If we could start from the (realisation ?) that our brains have become mechanical and then investigate deeper and deeper, then we will ( eventually ?) come upon something which may be not mechanical.
( Just an example :) When you insult another, the other insults you. Action, reaction and from that another action, and so on, like a tide going in and out. And that is ( psychologically speaking ?) a "mechanical" process - right? Or I have an exciting experience, it has brought about several rewards and I cling to that, which then becomes mechanical. If I am getting attached to a person, or to an idea, or to some kind of experience then that ' attachment ' becomes mechanical, you repeat over and over again the same thing. Sexual and every other form of repetitive action is "mechanical".
The human brain has been ( culturally ?) programmed to be 'mechanical' because it is seeking security in this constant repetition and the question is whether this mechanical process can stop.

Suppose one has a habit, either smoking, drugs, alcohol, sexual, or the habit of belonging to a group of people who also think alike. And ( engaging in ?) this mechanical process gives one a sense of security. So, in the daily existence one finds the brain keeps on repeating the same things over and over again. So our brains have (inwardly ?) become mechanical through long evolution, through innumerable experiences, and the brain has accumulated a great many memories and keeps on repeating the ( personal and collective ?) memories. And in this mechanical process it seeks (and generally finds an inner sense of ?) security. We all want security, both biological, physical, as well as 'psychological'. And when a brain becomes 'mechanical' one thinks there is security. That is clear.

Now, even before we go into the problem of "insight", the (first experiential ?) question is whether this mechanical process can come to an end? This mechanical process brings about a deterioration in the (inner sensitivity of the ?) brain. Do we see this ? The brain needs challenging, questioning, doubting, asking, demanding. But if it is ( getting settled in a ?) routine it stops being sharp, clear and so gradually it deteriorates. You can see it all around, from teenagers to old age. I wonder if one is aware of one's own brain ( slowly ?) deteriorating by constant ( pattern ?) repetition. You may revolt against the old and fall into another pattern and then repeat that. "I am no longer a Christian, but I am a Buddhist". "I am no longer a (mere) Buddhist but a Tibetan Buddhist " - you know the game one plays all over the world.

So the ( intermediary ?) question is: whether the brain can stop deteriorating? That is really a very, very serious question. ( Not) as long as we are living ( psychologically anchored ?) in the past, which we are, because we live (in the 'known' ?) , we 'are' memories, and this is all we do (psychologically) : the ( memory of our ?) past meeting the present, modifying itself and then proceeding further. But it is still the "past" in movement, isn't it?

So we have come to that point where one asks: why does the brain depend so much on the past, on being (individually or collectively ?) 'programmed' ? We were saying that this repetitive action gives (the brain a sense of ?) great security. Freedom doesn't give security - right? We will come to that a little later. So ( brain's need for ?) security is the basis of holding on to the past. And we are asking whether the brain can perceive its own mechanical process and that very perception brings about a challenge to move away from it. You have understood? I perceive that my brain is mechanical and I perceive it, not as an idea but actually - right? That very perception is in itself a challenge - like when I perceive a dangerous snake. I have to do something about it otherwise that poisonous snake will kill me, so an (instant ) action takes place when there is perception - right?

( Take a Swiss- friendly example: ) When one is climbing a mountain and you see a precipice, the precipice is a challenge, isn't it? Either you are very capable and so go on, or you get dizzy and hold on to a rock and crawl back. So in the same way when you perceive, when there is ( the 'critical' ?) perception that your brain is ( getting ?) mechanical, being 'programmed' ( both collectively and individually ?) , and in ( living) that 'programmed' (existence) there is no ( authentic) security, because the brain is becoming dull, deteriorating- when there is perception of this (potential ?) "danger", that very (clarity of ?) perception brings about the ( intelligent ?) energy to end that repetitive action - right? I wonder if you get this? Whether you are a ( well paid ?) philosopher, scientist, or businessman, whether you are following some (prestigious ?) 'guru', whether you belong or not to some religion, this whole mechanical process is going and the brain must (eventually ?) deteriorate because the brain needs to be tremendously active. It is active in mechanical processes - right? But it is not active in freedom. Therefore only in freedom the brain doesn't deteriorate. Can we move from there?
As long as the brain is being programmed, repetitive, there is no (inner sense of ?) freedom, and therefore it must deteriorate- like a human being living in an (invisible ?) prison. And if is no freedom there, not only biologically, organically, and also mentally, the brain deteriorates gradually. Now let's move from there.

It is not (a question of ?) "how to stop thinking", or how to "break the routine" but (just to ?) see the ( truth of this ?) fact that (inwardly) clinging to (repeating the ?) experiences which you have had and so on, is one of the major factors of deterioration. If you see (the actual danger of ?) that then you have brought altogether a different ( quality of ?) action - is this clear? When there is a perception of danger, physical danger, you act. But (inwardly) you just 'go on' because you don't see the fact that routine is deteriorating the brain. If you 'saw' (the inner danger of ?) it you would act.
Now let's go into it further. What is the cause, or causations of our 'thinking'? What is the root of ( your) thinking? When you are asked a familiar question: "what is your name" or "where do you live ?", you immediately answer. Why? Because you are familiar with your name, you are familiar with the road and the house that you live in. And so by constant repetition, you reply instantly. Right? Suppose one asks a little more complex question, there is an interval between the question and the answer. In that interval you are searching into your memory, you are looking. So there is an time (delay) or interval between question and answer. Suppose one asks some very complex question What is the (exact ?) distance from here to Mars? You say, "I don't know" - right? So this whole process of ( answering) a question which you are familiar with, or a question which demands time, or when you say "I don't know", all that is a (memory search and retrieve ?) process of thinking. ( Similarly ?) thinking along a particular line, if you are attached to a particular experience and you hold on to that experience, your thinking then is ( centered ?) around the ( memory of ?) that experience - right?

So, (the process of ?) thinking is based on ( the available ?) memory. And that memory is gathered in the brain (and organised as verbal ?) as knowledge. (Sensory, emotional or intellectual ?) 'experience', ( organised as ?) 'knowledge', ( stored in the brain as ?) 'memory', ( and its mechanical response as) 'thought'. Now, since our (personal) 'experience' is always limited, whether you are experiencing pleasure, pain, sorrow, loneliness, depression, anxiety, all that is limited, therefore all ( such) knowledge is limited.
( In a nutshell:) Thought is the child of memory, and since ( the available experience stored in ) memory is limited, when one is 'thinking' about oneself, which most of us do, such (self-centred thinking ?) is very limited. And this (core ?) 'thinking about oneself' is also very divisive. Right? If you are thinking about yourself and I am thinking about myself in various ways, it brings about a division, therefore in that division there is ( a potential for ?) conflict - whatever is (self-) limited must bring about conflict. This is very important to understand because all our lives are based on this ('thinking-about-oneself') limitation - right? And therefore we are ( living) in a perpetual conflict- in our relationship, however intimate, national division, economic division, social division, religious divisions, there must be conflict, struggle, war. This is a law, ( like ?) the "laws of Moses".

So seeing the truth of this, what is the action? Not "how to stop thinking". There is the perception that ( the pychological component of our ?) thought has created this division. You perceive the (truth of this ?) fact. Does the very (perception of the ?) fact free you? Or does the ( understanding of this ?) fact merely remain (stored in memory for later?) as an idea?
So seeing the fact and the perception of the ( truth about that ?) fact in itself brings about a ( perceptive ?) "movement" which is not thought. So, the questioner asks: what is "insight"? How does this "perception and action" instantaneously take place? Is there an action which is not based on (our) past memories, past experiences and therefore on ( our self-centred ?) thought? That is the question. And he (K) says, that is insight. You understand? Seeing something clearly and acting - right? If we don't see ( the inner danger of ?) something clearly, we take time, and during that interval other changes take place, so our actions are always ( time-delayed and ?) confused. So, please ask this question of yourself: is there an (inwardly perceptive ?) movement, an action in which the past, thought, doesn't enter at all.

( Recap:) Thought as an 'instrument of action' apart from the technological field, has created havoc in the world. Thought has built marvellous cathedrals and thought has put all the things in the cathedral, the ceremonies, the rituals, the mass, all the dresses they wear, all that is the product of thought, and not 'divine' revelation. ( Inwardly ?) that movement is ( self limiting ?) limited, therefore must create conflict. Thought has its right place, technologically, but thought may not have a place at all "psychologically".
So find out for yourself whether there is an action which is not based on thought. And the speaker says that there is such an action which is not based on thought. (Be sceptical please, question what he is talking about.) Hasn't it ever happened to you in your life, to see something (as) true (or false ?) and "act" without the process of thought, without the process of rationalization, without remembering, it must have happened - right? Every person has moments of this. Clear perception without any movement of thought, action taking place at the same time - no? Some call it "intuition", but this word intuition is rather a 'dangerous' (slippery ?) word. since you can "intuit" ( the projection of ?) your own desire.

So there is a "movement", ("movement" here is refering to "action" ?), there is a movement in which thought doesn't interfere at all. I will show it to you. Love is not ( the result of ?) thought - love is not desire - right? Love is not ( related to one's?) pleasure. So through the "negation" of what "love" is not, the positive ( aspect of love ?) is. So love is an "action" in which desire is not, and from that (quality of being ?) any action taking place is not the movement of thought.

(Re-recap) To put it round the other way: can the brain see the "fact" that it is operating from the past, and see the consequences of that, and seeing the ( sad ?) consequences of it not depend on the past - right? And therefore there is an (opening for a holistic?) action which is not of memory, an insight which is not born of remembrance. Insight is not of "time" - right? Time is ( related to the process of ?) thought - memory, experience, knowledge- and as long as ( inwardly ?) we depend on ( this process of thought and ?) time, which is divisive, there is conflict; so to perceive the actuality of this, then only is there an "insight" into it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Mar 2016 #115
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: Is there such a thing as right education?

K: If you have children, this is 'the' question, is there such a thing as right education? Either a parent has put this question because he has many children and knowing what the world is, the extraordinary brutality and vulgarity and all the terrible things that are happening, what is their future? Any parent ( should be ?) concerned not only with his own children, but with the children of the world, because those children are going to contaminate my son, my daughter. So this a question which we must very carefully enquire into. Why are we being educated? What does education mean? The ethymological meaning is "to draw out" - ( from latin) 'educare'. It means to help the child to grow, to understand, to comprehend the whole process of living. And he goes to school, there he is taught, he learns to memorize really. So he gradually builds up a whole structure of memories along a particular line, doctor, engineering, philosophy, psychology, physicist and so on. And ( eventually) the computers are taking the place of teachers. So, why should he carry all the encyclopaedic knowledge about one subject or the other and retain all that in one's brain? Is that "education"? We can look up a book, an encyclopaedia and work from that. Or, if one is (studying to become ?) a surgeon you have to naturally know a great deal of the human anatomy, it may take ten to fifteen years. And also technologically to have extraordinary understanding of the whole world of the technique. And that is what we are cultivating more and more and more.

But we are also neglecting totally the whole 'psychological' world, the whole world of the "psyche" - right? This is what is happening. One side you have an extraordinary development in technology - whether it is science, biochemistry or genetic engineering and the other (inward ) side of the human being, which is far more important is neglected, denied, you say it is not important. There are some friends of mine who say "what matters is not the psyche but the environment. Change the environment fundamentally and then you will change man"- which can never take place.

So both in the 'Democratic' world and in the 'Totalitarian' world, and the 'Religious' world obviously, education means academic training, academic excellence. To be able to argue, to learn a job, to become a professor, and live in a world of your own in that particular discipline and so on. And the 'psyche', which always overcomes the outer - you may have a marvellous government, rules, laws and so on, but ambition, the drive for power, position, all that overcomes the other - right?

And if if I was a parent that would be my tremendous concern: what is one to do in a world like this? You understand my question?
So what is a "right" ( balanced ?) education? Is it not both the cultivation of a brain that can function excellently in the world and also psychologically understand the whole meaning of our existence,the ( human) psyche? You understand? Couldn't these two go together - like two well trained horses trotting along harmoniously together ? And apparently one 'horse' is highly developed, the other is still a baby, a foal. And right education seems to be not only academic training, because we ( all ?) have to have a job - you may have a job and work only for two hours if the computers become more and more important you will have more and more leisure. That is taking place already. And that leisure is going to be exploited by the "entertaining industry". You can see it is happening now. So how does one, apart from the academic affairs, how does one become a good human being ?

So how am I, having a few children, knowing they are going to be conditioned by other children, knowing that they are going to be ( subliminally) conditioned by the newspapers, the magazines, the books, the history books, my country opposed to your country, my kings are better than your kings - you know all that nonsense that goes on. And how am I, as a parent, to bring about a 'good mind', a 'good' human being - not sentimental, not romantic, or just having a sloppy brain, what am I to do?
First of all "good" means correct action, precise action, talking precisely, clearly, communicating to another what he wants to say, not mumble, you follow, all the rest of it. And also "good" means 'whole' or "holistic". I would like my children, daughter and son to have a 'holistic' view of the world as a whole. You understand? The whole of the human world. And also to have a "good" relationship with nature, not to destroy things, the birds, the animals, the whales - you understand? Not to destroy. And to have a great sense of ( inner) beauty, and a great sense of affection, love, compassion.

Now how am I as a parent and therefore a teacher - teacher is not merely in the school but also being a parent I am a teacher also - so how am I to help him to have this? You understand my question? Please answer this question: how are you, if you see this is the (right) way to live, this is the way to act in relationship and so on, how are you going to bring this about in a student, in your child?
If you are ( trying to be ?) an "example" as a parent, you want him to copy what you are and so you deny him freedom to work, think, act. But the child is conditioned not only by you or but by the language you have used, by the climate, the food, the social environment, the other boys. So the child is being gradually conditioned, (his consciousness being ?) "narrowed down".

How am I as a parent to prevent that? Is it possible for me in talking with my son to realize I am conditioned, I realize also that he has been conditioned. So I tell him "Look, I am conditioned and you are being conditioned. Let us talk about it, let's see what it does in the world. Let us see if we can be free of it." - you understand? ." I will go into it with him, day after day, in different ways, not to bore him. But the pressure from the outside is much stronger and probably he will ( temporarily or permanently ?) succumb to it, as most children do. There are very, very few exceptions.

So it is a (matter of ?) constant ( interactive ?) observation, constant helping, guiding -and this can only happen if there is love between us. If he respects me and I respect him. But... do you ( have love and ?) respect for anybody? And if you don't what is the good of talking to a child to have respect? Isn't respect part of love ? In ( having an authentic affection or ?) love there is generosity, there is sympathy- but sympathy is not (necessarily ?) love - right? So have I love in my being when I talk of love to him? Or is it just a word? You understand what I am saying? Don't you see nthat unless we lay the ( right) foundation in our own life you can't go very far. You may sit endlessly in a certain posture, meditate. So do we love anything at all? Do you love your wife, and husband, or your girl-friend, or whatever it is? If every parent in the world loved their children, do you know what would happen naturally? You wouldn't allow anybody to kill him or him to kill others. But the governments all over the world are based on ( infrastructures of ) power, position, status, and therefore to protect all that...(they also have ?) guns. You know all the rest, I don't have to go into that.

So (to recap:) right education seems to be not only to have an academic training so it will be excellent in that direction, but also to be a good whole human being, unfragmented, not broken up and contradictory, living in a ( constant) battle with himself and with others. That requires a great deal of enquiry into the (workings of the human) "psyche", not according to Jung or Freud or the speaker, but to ( non-personally ?) watch one's own responses, one's own actions, one's own behaviour. And out of that comes an extraordinary sense of freedom. And "freedom" has the root meaning in "love".

QUESTION: Could we speak about the brain and the mind ? Thinking takes place materially in the brain cells. If thinking stops and there is a perception without thought what happens in the material brain? You seem to say that "mind" has its place outside the brain but where does the movement of pure perception take place if not somewhere in the brain? And how is it possible for mutation to take place in the brain cells if pure perception has no connection in the brain?

K: It is a good question, so please listen to it. I am listening to it too. Let's begin with the 'brain' and the 'mind'. The 'brain' is a material function. It is a (thinking ?) 'muscle' - like the heart. And the brain cells contain all ( our personal and collective ?) memories. I am not a 'brain specialist', but I have lived a long time now and I have watched a great deal, not only the reaction of others - what they say, what they think, what they want to tell me, but also I have watched how (my own ?) brain reacts and so on. .

So this human brain has evolved through time - from the single cell, taking millions and millions of years, until it reached the ape and go on another million years until it could stand (walk on 2 feet) and so ultimately the human brain. The human brain is ( physically) contained within the skull - right? But ( mentally ?) it can go beyond itself - right? You can sit here and think of your country, or your home, and in ( your) thought instantly you are there. The brain has extraordinary capacity - right? But that (same) brain has been ( culturally ?) conditioned by the limitation of language, by the climate it lives in, by the food it eats, by the social environment, the society in which it lives, and by million years of ( survivalistic ?) 'experience' , and by the accumulated ( collective) knowledge based on that experience, which is tradition.

( In a nutshell:) The brain has an extraordinary capacity (potential ?) but it has been conditioned and therefore limited - not in the technological world, but it is very, very limited ( inwardly) with regard to the 'psyche' (to its 'psychological 'content ?) . ( Many ) people have said, "Know yourself" - from the Greeks, from the ancient Hindus and so on but the ( well paid modern) psychologists, philosophers and brain experts, never study themselves.They study the 'psyche' in another or they study the rats, the rabbits, the pigeons, the monkeys and so on and so on and so on, but they never say, "I am going to look at myself. Am I ambitious, greedy, do I compete with my neighbour, with my other fellow scientists ?... " - you follow? It is the same 'psyche' (self-centred mentality ?) that has existed for thousands of years, though technologically you are ( a) marvellous (outwardly oriented ?) person. You understand? Inwardly we are still very primitive - right? And can that 'limitation' (or self-centredness ?) be 'broken through' ? Can that limitation, which is the 'self' (centred consciousness ?) be "wiped away"? Which means the brain then is ( getting) unconditioned, it has no fear. Now most of us live (inwardly) in fear- frightened of what is going to happen, frightened of death, you know, ( openly or subliminally ?) "anxious".

Can all this ( self-centredness ?) be completely "wiped away" so that the brain is ( conditioning- ) free ? Then its relationship to the "mind" is entirely different. ( However the practical difficulty is that ) the 'self ( interest' ?) may hide itself in many ( ingenious ?) ways: it can hide ( even) in 'compassion', looking after the poor people, because the 'self' is ( getting identified or ?) 'attached' to some ideal, some belief, you understand? - which makes me ( feel) compassionate because 'I love Jesus' and I ( hopefully ?) go up to heaven. The "self" (-interest ?) has many, many "masks" - you understand? The "mask of meditation", the mask of "achieving the highest", the mask that "I am enlightened" and all this "concern about humanity" that is another (trendy ?) mask. So one has to have an extraordinary "quick" (and insightful ?) brain to see where (its 'self-interest' ?) is hiding. It requires a great ( non-personal quality of ?) attention, watching, watching, watching. But probably you are all too 'lazy' ( inwardly asleep ?) , or too 'old' and say, "For god's sake, all this isn't worth it. Let me alone." But if one really wants to go into this very deeply one has to watch like a ( seriously motivated ?) 'hawk' every movement of (one's) thought, every ( 'personal' ?) reaction, so the brain can be free from its ( 'self-interest' form of ?) conditioning.

So when the brain is completely free of its 'self' (-centredness ?) and therefore no longer conditioned, then we can ask: what is the mind?
The ancient Hindus have enquired into the ( Universal Consciousness or ) 'Mind' - right? And they have posited various statements. But wiping all that out, not depending on somebody however ancient, however traditional, what is the "Mind"?

There are two things involved in it: our brain now is now constantly in ( an inner state of ?) conflict therefore it is indisorder and how could such a brain understand what the Mind is? The Mind that has created the universe, the Mind that has created the living cell, that "Mind" is pure energy and intelligence. So when the brain is free (of its self-centredness ?) , that Mind can have a relationship to the brain, but if the brain is conditioned it has no relationship. So Intelligence is the ( living ?) essence of that Mind- pure order, pure intelligence and therefore it is pure compassion. And that (Universal ?) Mind has a relationship with the brain when it is free.

Now I could go lots more into this but ( as usually ?) I won't. Look sir, the sea is in constant movement -the tide is coming in, the tide going out. This is its 'action'. And the human beings are also ( actively engaged ?) in this ( process of ) 'action - reaction', so when there is this ( mental ? ) movement back and forth there is no ( inward ?) quietness naturally. In that "quietness" you can hear the truth or the falseness ( of anything) - not when you are (mentally going ?) back and forth'- right? At least see it "intellectually", "logically" that if there is (this) constant (mental) movement you are not listening, how can you listen? But only when there is absolute silence you can listen - right? See the logic of it. And is it possible to stop this ( 'self'-centred ?) movement back and forth? The speaker says it is possible when you have "studied yourself", when you have "gone into yourself" , "understand yourself"- then you can say the movement has really stopped.

And the questioner also asks: as the Mind is not contained in the brain, but outside, how can this ( 'insightful' ?) perception- which takes place only when there is no activity of thought- how does it affect the brain cells (which are a material process) and bring about a mutation?
Sir, this is a very, very complex question but we must begin very simply to understand something very vast. So let's begin 'simply'. Traditionally you have pursued a certain 'path', a certain 'direction' all your life. You (K) come along and say, look, the ( self-centred ?) way you are going leads nowhere. It will bring you much more trouble, you will have tremendous economic difficulties . But you say, no sorry this is "my ( fail-safe ?) way" of doing things. And you keep going that way. Most people ninety nine per cent of the people keep going that way, including the 'gurus', including the 'philosophers', including the 'enlightened' people. And you come along and say, "Look, that is a ( spiritually ?) 'dangerous' path, don't go there. Turn and go in another direction entirely" And you ( verbally) show me the reason, the sanity of it and I ( eventually ?) turn and go in a totally different direction. What has happened to the brain? The brain cells have themselves changed (their priorities ?) . You understand? If I listen to find out what you are saying if it is true or false, if I want to know the truth of the matter, therefore I listen with all my being and I see you are quite right. I have 'moved' - right? In that (awakening ?) 'movement' there is a ( qualitative ?) change in the brain cells. It is so simple if you could only look at this thing very simply. There is a ( qualitative ?) "mutation" in the very brain cells, not through any effort, not through the will, or through any motive, when there is (such an insightful ?) perception. Perception is when there is a (quiet ?) observation without a movement of thought, when there is absolute silence of (our past) 'memory', which is 'time', which is 'thought'. To look at something without the ( memory of the ?) past. Do it (now) sir. Look at the speaker without all the remembrance that you have ( subliminally ?) accumulated about him, not his ( looks and ?) gestures, but watch him without any past ( personal ?) remembrances and hurts and all that. When you so watch without any prejudices, then there is freedom from "that which has been".

QUESTION: I long to be loved. And it is a constant anguish. What am I to do?

K: What is the root cause behind wanting to be loved? Is it that I am (feeling) lonely? Is it that if I am loved I feel I can flower, grow, be (forever ?) happy and all that? Is it that in myself ( I feel that I ) am nothing but when you love me I become something? This is your life, not my life. So please listen to this. So there is a cause which makes me say, "I want your love" - right? There is a cause, there is a motive, there is a background which says, "I must have that" - right? So this is one of the causes. I am desperately lonely, depressed, isolated, feel desperately unhappy, and if you love me I will say, "By Jove, everything is so beautiful". So my demand, my desire, my longing, is based on loneliness, demand for companionship, with whom I can talk, unfold and all the rest of it. So there is a cause: I am ( feeling) lonely. This sense of being totally isolated comes into being as long as I am ( openly or subliminally ?) self-centred, thinking ( comparatively ?) about myself, I am 'unhappy'. I have reduced all my life, which is such an extraordinary thing, to a small affair, that you love me.

See the tremendous complexity of a very simple question ? I want to be loved and I am not loved therefore I am full of anxiety. And when the brain is caught in such such anguish, it can't think clearly, can it? Right? It can't even listen to its own sense of desperation. Now can there be a (silent ?) 'interval' in which you listen (to it non-personally ?) A short period in which you say, "Tell me all about it" - then will you listen? Or will you say, "No, I don't want to listen because without that sense of ( self-created ?) anguish you ( feel that you) are nothing. That sense of anguish keeps you 'alive' (inwardly) - no? Oh come on sirs, this is all childish psychology!

So as we were saying the other day, if you really listen with your heart, with your mind, with all your being, then you have ( some inner) space, your brain becomes quiet, then you listen. Then that very ( quality of non-personal ?) listening is like a "seed" (of truth ?) that is being sown, then 'you' don't have to do a thing, it then grows, multiplies. And when you understand love is not something to be 'asked for' you don't stretch out your hand to be loved. If you are asking to be loved by another, it means you have no ( an inward opening to ?) love in yourself. It is so obvious. If you have love, you don't ask anybody that you be loved. You see, we are making ourselves into ( psychological ?) "beggars". That is what is happening. When you go to church and pray, when we want somebody to help us, or when we depend on books we are beggars. It may ( or not ?) be all right to be a "beggar" but see the consequences of it: you are always depending on somebody else. And there are all those people who will ( offer to ?) help you 'fill your bowl' with their rubbish.
So see what has taken place when we (silently ?) listen to this question: "I want to be loved, what am I to do?" That means one has no love in oneself. Then how can another love you - you understand? If you have no love and you are incapable then of receiving love - you understand? Love is not a vacuum, a sense of emptiness. On the contrary. If you have that tremendous feeling, quality, depth, (inner) beauty, then you don't ask anybody for love. It is like a cup being full. And if you have listened to this very carefully, then the problem is gone.

QUESTION: I once hurt someone very much. Why is the feeling of guilt such a deep tenuous one that endures in spite of every effort to be free of it?

K: Don't most of you here have "guilty consciences" about something or other - no? Or are you "all pure" human beings? What does the word 'guilt' mean to each one of us? Having, doing something one feels one shouldn't. Psychologically hurting another, and the other commits suicide and you feel my god, what a terrible thing I have done. Right?
Or, some people can (actively try to ?) make you "feel guilty", that is one of their ( manipulative ?) 'tricks'. Because ( if that works ?) then they can do what they like with you. We have all been in that position, all of us. Somebody (like Rajagopal ?) bullies you and you feel you have done something terrible and then they have you by the neck, blackmailing you. I can understand why you make me feel guilty because you want power over me. Even nationally they do it - you understand? You have hold of the whole government because you are going to fast (for 40 days ?) - you know all the tricks they are playing...

Guilt is like a wound never healing because we are always remembering it and that ( could possibly ?) destroy our life. However, if one has done everything possible, yielded, lied (???) , given (away the copyrights ?) , but the "bully" wants more, the responsibility is not yours but that of the "bully" - right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 30 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 #116
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: There are several questions here and one wonders how you "approach" a problem. The word "approach" means to draw near, to 'come close to'. And the root meaning of the word "problem" is 'something thrown at you', a ( personal ?) challenge. Now, how do you receive that challenge? If we approach a ( psychological) problem with a "trance of tradition" then you will never solve the problem. On the contrary the problem remains and you introduce into it more problems, which is what is happening in the political world and so on. Or if you approach a problem, come near, draw near, with some ideological conclusion, belief, then again the same thing continues - right? So, we are going to answer these questions without any "personal" motive, without the deadening weight of tradition, or having a particular bias, prejudice - right? So that your brain is free to look at the problem. I hope it is clear: to understand the ( true significance of any ?) problem the brain must be free to look at it afresh, otherwise you just repeat (or...parrot ?) and that becomes rather tiresome, boring and useless.

QUESTION: What is desire? And is desire awakened ( only ) by external objects?

K: This is a very good question. It requires a great deal of enquiry into this. So first let's look together: what is desire. Desire in our life has become extraordinarily potent. We desire so many things. We desire heaven and (spiritual ?) liberation; or you desire a car, a woman or a man, or you desire a lovely garden, to have plenty of money and so on. So the object which is outside, awakens the desire to possess it.

But we are asking ( a deeper ?) question: is there desire without the 'object'? If there was no car, no woman, no man, no house, or the desire for power - it is all the 'outside' which then awakens the desire and then you fulfil that desire and you are satisfied, until ( comes...) the next desire, which is another object, not a car but something else. So we are asking: is there desire without the external object? That is one question.
Second is: you may create for yourself an 'image' which is externalized and you want to fulfil that image, therefore there is a desire to achieve that which the thought has created - right? You are violent and you create ( an idealised image of 'non-violence') which is a 'non-fact', and then you desire to become 'non-violent'. So there is not only an outside object which awakens desire but also inward ideologies, symbols, psychological images; having created it then you desire (to achieve it ?) . So external objects or internal objects are both the same (psychologically - wise ?) because they both awaken desire.

Now we are asking a very serious question, seeing this, is there a desire which is so extraordinarily strong, without an external object or an object created by the psychological process of thought?
So we are going to enquire together why has 'desire' become such an extraordinary potent power in our life? We desire so many things, from the most trivial to the sublime - right? So one has to enquire what is desire? How does it come into being and whether it can be controlled? Then if you are controlling it, who is the 'controller'? The 'controller' is another form of ( prioritary ?) desire - you see this? So ( both) the 'controller' and the ( desire supposed to be ?) 'controlled' are the activities of desire. We are trying to (have an insight into ?) the extraordinary movement of desire, look into it. When one ( non-dualistically ?) understands the whole movement of desire then you will see something else take place.

So what is desire? How does it come into being? There must be a cause. And we are going to discover for ourselves what the cause is.
If I may go on with this 'simile', you see a car, the latest Mercedes, and the seeing, the sensation, contact, sensation - right? That is the process: seeing, contact, sensation. Then ( your self-centred ?) thought creates the ( rewarding ?) image of 'you' sitting in the (latest Mercedes coupé) car and driving it. So there is a ( certain) time interval, or gap, between the actual sensation and ( almost ?) instantly thought creates the image of 'you' in the car and driving it. The instant that thought ( takes over and) creates the image, that is the beginning of "desire". The ( actual) thing is so rapid, so quick, but if you "slowed it down" and watched (in slow-motion ?) the movement of contact, sensation, then the image created by ( the self-centred ?) thought, at that second desire is born. Right?

So the question is not of 'controlling' this process of desire , but ( as ) the process slows down, to watch all this process slowly, carefully, step by step - right? So can we 'slow down' this whole process so to watch every step very carefully? When you so watch it, then you find there can be a 'gap' between sensation and the moment when thought takes it over - right? . So ( the next experiential step is ?) to extend that gap. That is, I see the blue shirt in the window, go inside, touch it, see the quality of it and... "wait", so that the ( self-centred process of ?) thought doesn't immediately enter and take over. That requires a very careful watching of all your reactions so that there is an interval between sensation and the activity of thought with its 'image'. Extend that ( silent ?) gap and then you will see that "desire" has very little potency. So then desire becomes not the 'master' but ( the emphasis falls on ?) the 'slowing down' of the sensation and (its taking over by ?) thought. So that you are ( desire-free but ?) extraordinarily alert. It is the ( inwardly ?) "inattentive" that are (psychologically -wise ?) "slaves to desire" - right?

(Recap:) The 'object', the visual seeing, ( the sensory) contact, and the ( rewarding ?) sensation awakens the "desire" to own it and then the ( mental) 'battle' - do have I the money ? and/or the ( very personal ?) frustration of not to have it and so on. But when you understand that desire is not only for the object outside but also from the projection of a (psychologically rewarding ?) image, Nirvana, Heaven, that is also from the inside but it is projected outside. So if we can ( slow down and ?) observe this whole process totally (non-personally ?) you can look at a car and you will have no ( greedy ?) reaction, unless you...(really need ) it - you understand?

QUESTION: You said it is necessary to have no opinions about anything. But I feel it is necessary to have ( responsible ?) opinions about such serious things as Nazism, Communism, the spread of armaments, the use of torture by governments. One can't just sit (back) and observe these things taking place. Mustn't one say something, or perhaps do something?

K: You are not going to 'catch me' ! I am not saying it is necessary or not necessary, but "why" do we have opinions? Not that they is not spreading of armaments and the use of torture by ( some ?) governments. And you may have strong opinions that this should not happen. And what are you going to do? Join a group, demonstrate, shout, be beaten up by the police, tear gas? Now, has your opinion brought about a change? The "armaments thing" has been going on for centuries - right? They all say we must not and yet big business, great industry says we can't exist if we don't sell armaments. No government is free of it, whether it is more subtly, more obviously, but it is going on. Now what is one to do? You may be strongly opposed to Nazism. Germany was a most civilized country in Europe, they studied philosophy, you know, inventions, they were great at one time. Those very cultured people were taken over by a "lunatic".

Now ( psychologically speaking ?) what is an "opinion"? "I am against all this". What value has that opinion? What can I do with my opinion? Will it affect selling up armaments, will it prevent Nazism, will it prevent torture? Or the (psychological aspect of the ?) problem is much deeper than opinions ? A more serious question: why is man against another man? Ask that question, not whether my opinion is justified or not. Why, after all these centuries of civilization and "culture", man is against man? Why? To go into that requires a much more serious enquiry than holding on to opinions or (having) no opinions, then we will enter into an area where we might 'do' something.
So we are asking a much more fundamental question, deeper issue: why is man against man? Go on sirs. Aren't you ( biased ?) 'against' somebody? Aren't you ( openly or subliminally ?) violent? And you 'are' ( inwardly a representative of ?) the whole of humanity. I know we like to think we are separate individuals, separate souls - I won't go into all that - because you are not. You are (inwardly like ) the rest of mankind because you suffer, you are lonely, you are depressed like all the rest. So you "are" basically (sharing the collective consciousness of ?) mankind. And if you 'are' humanity, and in the global sense you "are" (that) whether you like it or not, and if (inwardly ?) you are antagonistic, violent, aggressive, 'patriotic', then you are ( tacitly ?) helping to torture people, because where there is division there must be conflict and all the rest of it. So are you acting "whole"-ly or is it the small little "me" acting?

QUESTION: From what we read you have had strange and mysterious experiences? Is this 'Kundalini' or something greater? And we read that you consider the so-called "Process" that you have undergone to be some sort of expansion of consciousness. Could it be instead a self-induced, psychosomatic thing, caused by tension? Is not K's consciousness put together by thought and words?

K: I wish you would be simple about all this. K apparently has had various experiences. They may be psychosomatic, induced by tension, or pleasurable projection of his own desires, and so on. In India the word "Kundalini" has a great meaning. They have written books about it and several claim they have "awakened" it. Don't be mesmerized by this word. A kind of release of ( psychic ?) energy so that that energy is inexhaustible, that is the meaning of that word.

The fact is to awaken the energy and to let it function completely. And the so-called "Process", one is able to read other people's thoughts. They have experimented with this in Duke University in America, they have proved (statistically ?) that telepathy exists, that thought can control matter and so on. . Perhaps K has done some of these things but is this all important? It is like after a hot day having a good clean healthy bath with clean towel and good ( sandal ?) soap, but at the end of it you are "clean". K has been through all this. He knows a great deal about all this. But he treats all this as "not necessary". There is the ( same ?) energy which has been 'misused' by us in conflicts , in quarrels, in pretensions; so it is far more important to enquire why human beings behave as they do now, and to find out sanely how you waste your energy by conflict, by quarrels, by fear and pretension. When all that energy which is being wasted is not wasted, you have ( free access to ?) all the energy in the world. As long as your brain is not deteriorating through conflict, through ambition, through strife, fighting, loneliness, depression, when the brain is free of all that, you have an abundance of ( psychical ?) energy. But if you release some kind of little energy then you do an infinite harm ( in misguiding ?) others - right?

And also the questioner says: is not K's consciousness put together by thought? Your ( self-centred ?) consciousness with its ( active ?) 'content' of fear, belief, loneliness, anxieties, sorrow, saying "my country has the highest culture" and all that business, it is part of your consciousness. It is what you 'are' - right? And if you are ( breaking ?) free of that then you are (living inwardly ?) in a totally different dimension. It is not an 'expansion of consciousness'. It is the denying (negating ?) of the 'content' of consciousness - right? Not expanding, becoming more and more ( sophisticated ?) self-centred - right?

QUESTION: What does death mean to you?

K: What does life, the living and coming to the end of it, what does it mean to you? If you believe in "reincarnation" and if you have lived rightly, correctly, happily, your next life you will have a better chance to reach the higher ladder - right? You understand? But ( even) those people who believe in reincarnation live like any ordinary people, fighting, quarrelling, aggressive, vicious, violent. So, why do we give so much importance to what happens after death? Is it not far more important ( to deal with ?) what is happening during the long years of living, struggling, pain, anxiety, depression, suffering, loneliness, that you all go through - right? Isn't that more important to consider, whether all that can be 'changed', or 'ended', rather than go on talking about what happens after death? You understand?

Suppose I am attached to my wife, my children, my house, my furniture, and death comes along and says "you can't take it with you" - right? You have understood? Death means the 'ending' of all my (psychological attachments ?) and is it possible to end all that while living? You have understood? While I am living is it possible not to be attached to a single thing? To my furniture, to my house, to my experience, to my books, to my reputation ? To end all that (personal attachment ?) instantly. That is ( the spiritual significance of ?) death. Right?

Audience: That is wonderful...

K: It is wonderful if you "do" it. If you don't do it, it is just a lot of words.
So what we are saying is this: the death of the body, with all the accumulated memories, comes to an end. So is it possible to end all my ( personal ?) attachments while I am living, to be free entirely of it ? Attachment to your ideas, experiences - right? Because that is what death is going to do (anyways ) . So while living, the ending (of all personal attachments ?) means 'living with death'. You understand what I am saying? Like when you have a habit of smoking and you end it, though the body demands nicotine and all that kind of stuff, end ( your dependency to ?) it. Because ( grosso modo ?) that is what is going to happen when you die. End your clinging to some experience, to some memory so that your brain is new, fresh, clear, not burdened with all this rubbish, garbage. So to "live" (free of the past ?) is to live with death all the time. You understand? "Do it" sir!
( For homework:) Take one thing that you hold most precious and end ( your attachment to ?) that. Not "how an I to end it ?",or "tell me the way to end it", (just) end it, because death means that. So it is possible to live a life of freedom, and therefore a life of love ? Because a mind that is burdened with all kinds of stuff, a brain that has all kind of problems is not capable of (free ?) affection, love.
Understand, sir, the beauty of it: living and ending the 'things' you are attached to, so that you really understand the ( spiritual ?) depth of freedom.

QUESTION: After listening to you and thinking about these matters on my own, how am I to really not just solve my problems but radically bring about a change in my life?

K: To put it very simply, the question is: "what am I to do or not do to bring about a radical mutation in my whole existence?"
First of all, are you aware that your brain is conditioned? Sir, that is not difficult to be aware. When you say, "I am a British" - you are ( culturally ?) conditioned. So, are you aware of your ( cultural ?) prejudices ? Are you aware of your own 'laziness', of your pretensions that you are something 'extraordinary' you have reached? Are you aware of all this? And the moment you become aware of all your reactions, trying to correct your reaction implies an ( controlling ?) 'entity' who is also reacting ; this very entity that is observing is part of that conditioning.
To put it another way: the "observer" is not different from the (conditioned reactions being ?) 'observed'. The thinker is not different from his thoughts - the "thinker " is ( a virtual entity ?) separated ( empowered ?) by thought as being a little more 'knowledgeable', and that entity is 'observing'.

So apparently nothing external or internal changes man - right? You have tried ( charismatic ?) leaders, you have tried various 'philosophers', you have tried various religions, and yet ( inwardly ?) we remain as we are, indolent, indifferent, callous, without any spark of love. What will make us change? Nothing! No-thing from outside, nor your own 'desire' to change. So start with that 'fact' that nothing , no inward or outside (factor ?) is going to change you. Start with ( seeing the truth of ?) that fact - then you start with something actual, something that is real, as nobody outside is going to help you (change inwardly ?) . The 'Buddha' hasn't helped you, all the 'Christian' religions haven't helped you. Start from there. No thing from outside, or your own desire (to change ) is going to change you (inwardly ?) .
So then you start and say, " Do I really want to change, basically?" (clue: most of us don't !). But if you really want to change, it is ( holistically speaking ?) "simple": You deny totally every form of "outside agency" (including ) your own ( self-centred ?) desire ( wisely ?) put aside all that, then you start from ( considering ?) what you "are" and see if that 'thing' cannot be changed radically. It is up to you.

QUESTION: What is a spiritual life?

K: Would you say a "spiritual" life is a life of "total freedom"? Freedom from sorrow, freedom from fear, freedom from all the conditioning - right? To "be free". Most of us are ( 'psychologically' ?) in 'prison' - ( a virtual ?) 'prison' of our own ideas, or of other people's concepts, their own prejudices, their own experiences, they are like bars that hold us in prison. Most of us are 'slaves' to tradition, slaves to some kind of belief, or to ( our own past ?) experience. To be totally, completely free of all that. Freedom implies love. If there is no freedom there is no love. You cannot possibly achieve that ( total inward ?) freedom through some symbol, person, idea. Freedom means the ending of the self (-centredness ?), of the ( self-protecting ?) 'images' I have about myself. Then when the brain is free, only then is there that supreme Intelligence. Not all the rituals, sitting in a posture, meditating, breathing, you follow? That is not "spiritual". That is all the movement (the calculated activity ?) of memory and thought.

So we have "reduced" our life into a very small petty little affair. To be free of that entirely. And it "is" possible. Don't accept my word for it. I say it is possible. Find out. Do it. So in that spiritual life, there is no division between you and another. You won't kill another. The world is your country. The world is your religion. And living a spiritual life, a life that is holy, is not something for the "elite", for the ( self-selected ?) few, but (if you think ?) that is what is necessary work at it, not "pretend" and all that nonsense.
(In a nutshell :) a "religious" mind (requires?) a brain that is functioning with truth and therefore with great intelligence and compassion.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 31 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Mar 2016 #117
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: Without conflict or struggle in the sense of desire to improve, how can there be any progress, material or social in the world? The desire to change supplies the motive force for work towards achievement and progress. If you accept 'what is' then how can there be any kind of progress?

K: When you say 'self-improvement', what is the 'self'? Could we go into that? What 'are' you? You have a name, you have a physical appearance, but apart from that, what are you? All that you have been taught in school and what your ( cultural) environment has impressed upon your brain. ( And still deeper ?) you are your greed, your envy, your beliefs - you are all that surely. the whole movement of thought. So what is there to 'improve'? Or there is freedom from all this, not 'improving'. I can't 'improve' my selfishness or my sense of despair. What is possible is to 'be free' of all that completely. That's simple enough.

The next part of the question is: if there is no conflict, struggle, there will be no progress. Is there "psychological" progress at all? ( Such) progress means moving from what I 'am' and gradually change, or transform myself . But is there ( any validity to thinking in terms of ?) time inwardly? I need time to learn a skill, to become an engineer, carpenter, but does one need time to be free of violence? To ( hopefully ?) attain a state of 'non-violence' is a movement from 'what is' to 'what should be', that requires time. But does being free from ( my mentality based on ?) violence require time? You understand? Our brains are conditioned to (consider anything in terms of ?) time and now we are asking a question which is totally different from that conditioning : is it possible to be instantly free from violence ? That is, without ( any postponement in ) time. We are saying it is possible. Which is (related to ?) how you observe your violence. Are you the 'observer' and (the response of ?) 'violence' is something apart from you? Or you 'are' (part of that ?) violence ? Is (my reaction of ?) anger different from me? I am anger, it is not different from me. I am greed, greed is not different from me. Violence is me, I am part of that. So then, there being no division, hence no conflict, and the observer is absent, there is only that state. Then in observing it ( non-dualistically) with all your energy and it totally disappears. 'Do it' and you will discover for yourself.
So the progress outwardly, physically, exists, of course. But to understand the nature of our ( psycho-heritage of violence in our ?) relationship and the transformation in that relationship, does it require time? Or there is immediate perception, an ( timeless flash of ?) "insight" which transforms the conditioning.

Q: But does this transformation take place through the will of our thought, or through some other energy?

K: What is will? When you say, 'I will do that', 'I will be that', is it not the summation of desire? So let's find out together what is desire.

Q: Desire is the outcome of ( self-centred ?) thought.

K: May I go into it very simply? Do you consider desire part of sensation? Desire is part of sensation. And what is sensation? The ( natural ) response of the senses. So there is first seeing, touching, then sensation. That's normal, isn't it ? Then what is the next step which brings about "desire"? Then ( the 'self'-centred process of ?) thought says, 'I wish I had that house'. That is, when thought 'identifies itself' with ( the rewarding ?) sensation then desire begins and thought creates the "image" of (myself comfortably ? ) living in that house. So, when ( the self-centred thought process ) creates the "image" then ( the time-binding process of ?) "desire" begins. Is this clear? Through the explanation of the speaker you see ( as in a magic mirror ?) the movement of seeing, contact, sensation, then thought with its image begins the "desire".
Now will is desire. Does any ( authentic inner ?) transformation take place through desire? Or ( the process of self-centred ?) thought is coming to an end (is 'taking a break' ?) and only the ( pure) sensation remain. I see that beautiful tree, but I 'want' this ( same species of ?) tree to grow in 'my' land. So "desire" has (clicked ?) taken place. So, "desire" cannot possibly bring about (a radical inward) transformation because ( the self-centred ?) thought creates an "image" of what transformation is (supposed to be) , and "you" desire that.
Or you may say, well, it is not this ( kind of) 'desire' but some outside agency. Is there an "outside agency"? This you would like to know, wouldn't you ?

Q: That is ordinarily called "luck" (or "heavenly gift" ?) . Coming from outside.

K: Is there an "outside agency" which will help us to transform ourselves?
You have had all those gurus, the "sacred" books for millennia. Has that helped you to become transformed? Answer, sir.

Q: Yes.

K: Oh, yes, you have transformed? So that you are compassionate, that you love, that you are supremely intelligent? Sir, let's be factual and honest for God's sake. You have had all the pressures put on you to change. Have you?

Q: Are you not an "outside agency"?

K: I am not. I am not "helping" you (to change) . I say, "help yourself". Right? You have relied on leaders, authority for centuries, and you are what you are now - confused, uncertain, insecure, suffering, anxious. Therefore you have to find out a different method - not rely on anybody.

Q: Don't you point in a certain direction?

K: No. I am not 'pointing out' (a way to be followed ?) , I am only saying, "look at yourself".

Q: But that is "pointing".

K: No, sir, you can make everything ( sound ) ridiculous. You believe in God, most of you do because you are 'frightened' and ( in the belief in) God there is a great sense of security. Right? That 'God' you have made. You might say, then "who" created the Universe ? That's a ( psychologically ?) 'wrong' question. You see, is there an state (of mind ?) in which there has been no cause?

Q: Spiritually ?

K: I am asking you a question which is very "serious", if you are interested in it. What has a cause comes to an end. Right? But is there a "state of mind" in which there is no cause, and therefore is"eternal"? Investigate it, sir. For us there is always a cause. I do "this" because I want "that". I compare myself with you who are intelligent, who are compassionate, who have some "flame" in you. And I want to be like you, or go beyond you. But if I don't compare what happens? I am 'what I am'. From there I can proceed (my own inward journey ?) . But if I am saying to myself, I am not as clever as you, and I must be as clever as you, then I begin to ( intellectually ?) 'compete' with you. So I want to find out if it is possible to live in this world without a sense of "comparing" myself with somebody. With Ramakrishna, or with the Buddha, or with the Christ, or with some guru, why should I compare myself? When I don't compare at all I am beginning to understand myself. You understand? I am beginning to see what "I am". A rose doesn't compare with a jasmine. It "is" a rose.

Q: Is it not due to a feeling inadequacy?

K: All right. So, if one is ( feeling) inadequate, insufficient, inwardly what do you do? I feel empty, I feel all kinds of ( depressing ?) things, insufficient. So what happens? I (will instinctively ?) try to fill that insufficiency with words, with images. But how do I know I am insufficient? Because I have ' subliminally ?) compared myself with you who appear to be self-sufficient. But if I don't compare ( yourself with anybody ?) what takes place? You ( can directly ) "meet" this insufficiency. Right, sir?

QUESTION: Tell us seriously what should be done to help this country and the people of the country, for no philosophy, no books, no talks, can solve these problems.

K: If you are serious, and you say, none of these will help, and you are clear about it, that nobody can "help" you to bring about a radical change in the structure of this country, moral, ethical, social, then what will "you" do? You know you cannot rely on any politician, or on the people who write books about something beyond the mind- they don't know what they are talking about. Right? So what will 'you' do?

Q: Look at the problem ?

K: Please, madam, we can easily see the problem. The problem is overpopulation, the division in class, the lack of right education, tradition, and we have become so depended on 'leaders', one after the other you have had. Right? And the country, the people, have not changed. What will you do, sir, when you realize this?

Q: You have to take the responsibility and behave properly.

K: Are you accepting the responsibility for yourself to see that you behave properly? Or again is that just talk? Sir, do you know what is happening to this country, do you all realize? The speaker has been coming to this country every winter for the last sixty years. You have advanced technologically, you are as clever, as inventive as anybody else. But (inwardly ?) as a human being, you are slowly dying. The culture that this country has had, gone, finished, torn apart. Everyone is living for himself. He is not concerned about his son's future, his grandson's future. You are not concerned for your neighbour. You follow? You are not concerned at all about another except about yourself. The country is breaking up , the family is breaking up. And there is no "new flame", you are just repeating. When you repeat there is certain 'dead' (form of) security, and you are in that state now. What are we going to do? Education, you know what it is in this country, it is at the lowest ebb, there is violence hidden, it may explode at any time. So the country is facing a tremendous crisis, your country, the land on which you are living, and you don't seem to "care". So you let it go down the drain?

Don't look at me, sirs. Look at the land that you are despoiling, the beauty of the country. Will you undertake the responsibility for what you are, what you do, what you think, what you feel, behave honestly, with integrity ? That's the only thing that is going to change this country. If there are a group of people who are really concerned with the future of this country, if you seriously undertake that responsible for yourself you will be generous, you will not be corrupt. Then you will probably help the country to become something totally different than it is. It is a beautiful country, vast space, marvellous rivers and trees and mountains. Somebody said the other day, 'It's a lovely country except for the Indians!' Yes, sir, face it.

QUESTION: What is sorrow?

K: What is sorrow, the questioner asks. Aren't you in sorrow when you see all that's going on in this country? Or is sorrow only when you personally are affected? So, what is ( the personal ?) sorrow? Tears, pain, self-pity, the loss of somebody whom you love - if you love, which I doubt - you are 'attached', love is not attachment. Is sorrow (only) 'personal', or there is the "sorrow of the world", of which you are. You follow? We have reduced everything to a small limited 'me' - my pain, my sorrow - we don't see the sorrow of man, of which you are. Sir, have you ever realized historically for five thousand years there have been wars, practically every year, and how many women, men, maimed, shed tears, the loneliness, the brutality of all that. You understand, sirs? Isn't that a great sorrow? Isn't it a sorrow that the poor man round that corner will never have clean clothes, isn't it a sorrow to realize such a (sad) state exists?

So the ( global ?) understanding of sorrow is the ending of ( one's individual ?) sorrow. Sir, this requires a great deal of investigation into sorrow. Probably you have never never actually suffered, felt the intense pain of it, because we are always ( pro-actively ?) seeking comfort, escape from sorrow. You have got dozens and dozens of explanations for sorrow, and ( dozens of practical modalities ) to escape from sorrow. But a man, or a woman who realizes the depth of sorrow, (has only 2 choices: ) either he remains ( stuck ?) with that sorrow, becomes cynical, bitter, angry, violent, or he "goes beyond", he is free from sorrow. And it is possible to be free from sorrow, only when there is "love".

QUESTION: What is the nature of freedom? Why does it happen?

K: What is the nature of freedom ? You have had ( political ?) freedom in this country since the British left, what have you done with it? So, what do you mean by "freedom"? The freedom to do what you like ? Which is what you are doing. Freedom from anxiety, freedom from pain ? There is a "freedom from something", which is not freedom. I can be free from ( a certain) attachment- that's fairly simple. But that's not actual freedom. I am free from a ( particular ?) burden, but what is "freedom"? Will you 'know it' ( will you be conscious of it ?) when you are "free"? When you are happy and you say, 'How happy I am', is that happiness, or is it only after it is gone? You understand my question? Can you ever "recognize", or "experience", complete freedom - not 'from anything' - freedom? When 'you' say (for the record ?) , 'I am totally free', then you are not ( necessarily ?) free. Right? It's like a man who says, 'I know', then he does not ( really ?) know. So "freedom" is something, sir, that "you" cannot ( self-consciously ?) experience. Like enlightenment is not to be experienced, because where there is ( the self-consciousness of having ?) an experience there is an "experiencer" who must recognize ( and label ?) the experience otherwise it is not a (memorable personal ?) experience. So "freedom" is a state of being, not ( a subject of 'personal' ?) becoming.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 31 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Apr 2016 #118
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


K: Most of us, if I may respectfully point out, are more or less ( inwardly ?) asleep. Our brains are not functioning at their highest level because we work and think in a routine, habit, mechanically living and so gradually our brains become atrophied, naturally, like an old car that has lost its vitality. So ( this being said ?) we may proceed with the questions.

QUESTION: What is the place of 'right action' in one's quest for self-knowledge?

K: Now, ( inwardly speaking ?) the 'right action' is freedom from the past and not projecting ( to do something in ?) the future and acting according to the ( expectations involved in that ?) 'future'. When there is right action, it is 'right' under all circumstances, wherever you are. You know what that means? One must have tremendous (inward) strength, like a rock, immovable, because that's "right action".
And "self-knowledge". I can only 'know' ( everything about ?) that which has already happened. But a for a flowing water, a stream, a river that is rushing by, I can't say, 'I know it'. The moment I say, 'I know', I have stopped ( the movement of ?) learning . Therefore the cultivation of ( gathering stuff in our ?) memory is not "learning". I may go to a university, school, college, and I have accumulated a great deal of information. That has become my knowledge which I use skilfully to earn a livelihood, or unskilfully. But the moment I have accumulated a great deal of information, and act according to that information, according to that knowledge, my "skilled action" is ( becoming) limited. But if I am learning all the time, what does it mean "knowing myself "?

(Eg:) I become aware that I am "angry" (or frustrated ?) . That's part of my being, that's part of "me". Why do I use the word 'anger'? Because I remember the previous "angers" which have been named. So when there is a new reaction of that emotion ( in order to safely deal with it ?) I 'name' it. Which means that I like to think it is different from me because then I can keep it under control , I can "rationalize" it, but it is part of 'me'. That's a fact. And I have named it, as "anger". Because ( using ?) that word is part of my ( cultural) tradition, part of my inheritance. The (cultural significance of that ?) word has become important, not ( dealing directly with ?) the actual feeling. So am I capable of looking at that new emotion without the word, without 'recognizing' it as ( something that happened to me in ?) the past? You understand? That is, we are always living (according to our experience acquired ?) in the past. Right? And this ( cultural background of the ?) 'past' is a series of memories, words, symbols. So when a new reaction takes place I immediately name it. Which means I have brought it back into my old cultural tradition (which either condemns or justifies my anger) . Whereas if I could look at that new reaction without the word, without (thought taking control and) saying, 'I know it's anger', I can meet every reaction afresh. That means my brain is extraordinarily alive, sensitive, not just caught in the old repetition .

Will you do that (for homework ) ? That is, to become aware of this whole movement of some reaction, and how the very naming of it strengthens the past, and so we are strengthening 'anger' (and its 'observer' ?) by repetition of the word. Clear?
The ancient Greeks and the ancient Hindus have talked about ( the importance of ?) self-knowledge, of knowing oneself. That is, if I don't know myself I am just a leaf in the wind. So if I want to learn about myself, I can dispense with all the ( psychological ?) authority of what other people have said about 'me' since I have to discover it for myself. 'Myself' is a living thing, so is there a 'looking at myself' as though for the first time? Not with my previous ( background of accumulated ?) "knowledge about myself" ? That is, to learn about myself anew because I am a living thing, not a dead thing. ( Psychologically speaking ?) you may be 'dead', because you are so caught up in ( the virtual world of ?) memories, which is 'dead'. So it becomes extraordinarily vital and energising if you can 'look' (non-verbally ?) at that tree as though for the first time, at your ( 'personal' ?) reactions, your sensations, rather than ( quickly ?) name them, which is to catch it in the ( mental) 'net of the old', so that every time it's ( seen) anew.
Do it, sirs and you will see what extraordinary vitality one has, an energy that has an extraordinary quality of freshness, of something totally new.

Q: Why are we not able to do this?

K: Because you don't want to (pay the 'price' for it ?).

Q: I want to.

K: Sir, how many hours of the day do you spend in an office, or in a factory, or how many years you have spent to learn a skill ? Now this (direct way of learning about oneself ?) requires not one day, you have to be aware, watching, watching the trees, the moon, the birds, and also inwardly watching yourself 'like a hawk', to see that not even one ( self-centred ?) thought escapes (your diligent observation ?). So, how much time will you give to that? Or you ( might meditate and ?) deny 'time'.

QUESTION: Even though I am able to bring about order within myself, the disorder and pressure of the world around me constantly affects my daily life. Is it possible to remain (inwardly ) unaffected?

K: Aren't you (psychologically speaking ?) 'under pressure' all the time? The newspapers ( subliminally ?) telling you what to think, and what not to think, you have also the pressure of your parents, and your family. You are under pressure of your own desires. In fact you are constantly "under pressure". Are you aware of this? So don't say there is 'order' in us: as long as you are conforming to that pressure there is disorder. You understand, sir, life isn't a game. Life demands that you be serious.
Is not the 'self' in itself ( part of this ?) disorder ? Because there is ( an ongoing ?) contradiction in myself: I want, and I don't want; I am bad but I want to be good; I am envious and where there is contradiction there cannot be order. And our consciousness is (in a state of ) total disorder. You look doubtful ? All right, I'll explain.
Our ( self-centred) consciousness is ( based on ?) greed and non-greed, the bad wanting to be good, I have anxiety, and I am lonely, all contradictions. That's my consciousness. Right? And in that consciousness there is the desire to be orderly, which is ( creating still ?) another contradiction. So even as you say, 'I am able to bring about order', "you" (the self-centred entity ?) are bringing about greater disorder. But if you (want to) understand what is (the nature of this ?) disorder - I say one thing and do another, the 'modern' (way of life) and the 'traditional', which is disorder, obviously. Either you are conscious of it or you are unconscious of it.

Now (an authentic ?) order is not born out of ( optimising the existing ?) disorder because if it is born out of disorder that ( imposed ?) 'order' is still part of disorder. I wonder if you see that only when there is no disorder I am orderly. The "art of learning"- can you learn about your (existential ?) disorder? The way you treat your wife, and the wife treats you, the disorder of ( inward ?) contradictions. To learn about it, sir.
So order is not ( following) a blueprint. It is a living thing.

QUESTION: You once said, "give your life to understand life", what does it mean?

K: Sir, have you "given your life to anything"? Your whole being to something? Have you given something generously, completely (if you believe in God) to God? Or we are always giving a little, but withholding a great deal. ( In the same way) to understand life, which is myself, the world around me, you must 'give' something to it, 'learn' (non-accumulatively ?) from it. Obviously. Will you? Or is there always a "string attached" to it? If you are rich, do you give generously, or you always have a motive behind that generosity ? I watch people who are very rich, how extraordinarily miserly they are (inwardly ?), and... they build temples. It's a crazy world.
Sir, to understand life one must be extraordinarily committed to life. To live it, to understand the beauty of living without conflict. And to understand conflict you have to go into it, search it out, work (bearing in mind that ?) nobody is going to help you. Therefore you have to have an extraordinary "strength". We are brave but not strong. Right?

Q: Isn't there an intense effort needed to love?

K: No, sir, to love somebody, does it require effort? To be kind to somebody, does it require effort? To give what little you ( may ?) have to somebody, does that require effort?

QUESTION: I am a twelve-year old boy. I am constantly afraid of death. How shall I get rid of this fear?

K: The other day in Rishi Valley a boy asked the same question. He was probably still younger. He must have seen death, a dead bird, or he has seen in his family somebody dying, and all the people weeping, weeping for their own self-pity, for their own loneliness. It is a very complex question, what death is, and its fear. I am asking the forgiveness of the boy who has put this question, if he is here, please come Saturday or Sunday we will ( try to ?) answer it.

But, see sirs, what have you done to your children? You have many children, overpopulation, what have you done to them. You marry them off, or you send them off to schools, if you are rich enough, to boarding schools, residential schools, and at home you are constantly scolding them, do this, don't do that, be like your father. So you are all the time bullying that boy. And he grows up to bully others. We don't see that it is our responsibility to create a "good" human being; neither the educator, nor the parents see that we ought to create a new society, a new human being. Right? We don't feel the responsibility of that. And it is very difficult to have "good" teachers too. They pass some exams, get a title, and if can't get a better (paid) job, they turn to teaching. And you entrust your children to somebody who is not ( deeply ?) interested in ( educating ?) your children, as nor are you interested in your children. And they grow up in fear, in solitude, in anxiety. ( In a nutshell:) There is no love at home, no love at school.

Please see your ( individual ?) 'responsibility' for God's sake. ( An authentic ?) education is to bring about a "good" human being who will know what affection is, who will care, who has love, consideration, sympathy, generosity. Will you see to it for your own children, demanding the right teacher, (and...paying him) ? You see, you don't. So we are 'creating' a generation of people like ourselves; dull, insensitive, superstitious, and very clever at business, getting money, and so as a parent you are interested that you should get a degree, and get a good job, and wash your hands of him completely. Right? That is, every parent in the world is concerned with that. Get him a good job, get him married and settle down. Settle down to what? To ( a life of 'psychological' ?) misery ?

QUESTION: Kindly give a "straight" reply. Does God exist, or not? Yes, or no. If yes, how best to realize Him in this life?

K: This is a lovely question, isn't it. Man throughout history from the ancient Greeks, from the ancient Summerians, had this idea of God. I am not at all sure whether in the Upanishads they mention God at all. Or is it a later ( cultural) invention? A 'God' who is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, merciful, all Goodness. That's your 'concept' of God. And if you say, he has created us, then we are part of him. That is, we are omniscient, generous, loving and eternal. Right? Are we? Or we just 'think' we are? So if you examine very closely, you have created ( the concept of ?) "God". In India there are about - I was told - about 300,000 "gods" and more ( to come ?) . You understand?

So, sirs, we have created ( the concept of ?) 'God'. See the irony of it ? Thought has created 'God' and then thought worships the "image" which thought has created. Which is ... to worship ( a magnified image of ?) oneself and call it 'God'. You understand all this? The better part of you is God. Right? I wonder if you understand this. First of all, let's be clear. Have you created god? The local "gods" round the corner, or the local 'gods' in Rome, or wherever, you have created them, haven't you? You are so very uncertain, aren't you, so frightened (of the Unknown ?) . Out of your fear you want safety, you want to feel there is somebody looking after you because you are afraid, so you create that ( god-image ?) , and then worship that. Just see what you are doing: Going to Tirupati and putting all your money in the bag - do you think the gods want your money ? Sir, look at it: you have nothing to offer but money, garlands, prostrations, rituals. Right? You have nothing else to offer. Have you realized the tragedy of this, sirs?
It is very easy to "love God" because it is an abstraction, but if you ( have ?) "love" (in your heart ?) , that very love is God, that very love is sacred. You won't go outside to look for God. You understand all this, sirs ?

And the questioner wants to know if I "believe in God". I don't. Because God is not something created by man. ( However ?) there is such a thing as "Eternity", which is to be outside of time. Right, sir. But for ( an inward opening to ?) "that" you must have a mind, a heart that is completely free from all the ( time-binding ?) burdens of (our daily ?) life: from your (intellectual ?) arrogance, your ( 'natural' ?) selfishness, you follow, sir ? And if we say, "we are not capable of it, tell us what to do", you are back in the ( 'guru' ?) cycle, somebody to tell you what to do.

Sir, ( psychologically speaking ?) you are in a 'jungle', and you have to walk through it by yourself. And for that you need vitality and vigour and strength. Not "belief in God" - "belief" has no place where Truth is concerned. Right?

Q: Then what is "atman", sir, the "conscience inside" each of us ?

K: You think there is "something" (eternal ?) inside you which is permanent, which is the light of God, which is Nameless - call it atman, soul, light- that there is inside you, in your conscience, in your brain, in your mind, something which is not worldly, which is not of thought. You "believe" that, don't you?

Q: I don't believe in it.

K: Why?

Q: There is no such thing.

K: How do you know?

Q: I believe there isn't.

K: Just belief, belief, belief. What kinds of brain have you, sirs? Don't you want to find out? Don't you want to investigate into the truth of this matter, whether there is a "soul", "atman", whatever you like to call it ? If you 'believe' , what value has it in my daily life ? I am miserable, I am confused, I'm lonely, anxious, in agony, what's the point of my having a "belief in atman"? (On the other hand ?) if I am free from all that, completely, then I shall ( be able to ) find (it) out.
Sir, would you forget all these ( saintly) people, including Ramana Maharishi, or whoever the other gentleman was. Would you forget them? What value has their life to you? You have your life to live, not their life. And when the people say they have "attained" how do you know?

Q: Then what do you mean by "timeless eternity"?

K: I have said it, sir. Don't 'believe' it! Truth is something you cannot "experience", it cannot be told to you, the word is not "It". I can describe "eternity", blah, blah, but the word is not "that" (living spirit of Truth ?) . But we are satisfied with the ( sound of that ?) word. Right, sir? You love with your heart, with your mind, with everything that you have, and you tell me of that "love", and I (intellectually ?) accept the ( inspiring ?) words but the "perfume" isn't there.

( Recap:) If you realise that you are literally in a ( psychological) "jungle", where you have to make your own way out, there is nobody ( around?) to lead you, then you forget all the 'examples', the 'books', everything, because you have vitality, ( the inner) "strength" to go through. Once you realize it in your heart, not just 'intellectually', you are a human being who is free to "walk straight". It is so simple when you think of it all...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Apr 2016 #119
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: Our children are aware through television and other ( media) means of the threatening world they live in. The violence of crime, wars, nuclear danger. How do we help them to face this?

K: How do "we" face the problem, rather than the children? Because after all the parents are (should be ?) the really deeply responsible people to teach them. So, what is our responsibility? How do I or you meet this terrible world? Do we accept things as they are (trying to) adjust ourselves to things as they are, modifying our lives but accepting the status quo ? Or, if we do not accept them, let's find out together how do we face (and tackle ?) these problems.
If I am a parent and I have several children, and I see the things that are going on in the world, how shall I educate him to face this life? First of all, how do I as a parent face these problems? Do I take the total responsibility of what is happening in the world?
Is it possible for me as a parent, and so a ( potential ?) 'teacher', is it possible for me to break away from the usual mediocre tradition? I am afraid most of us are ( comfortably ?) mediocre and I leave it all to the teachers and let them educate my children? Not undertake the responsibility of educating them at home as well as in their holidays and so on.

By nature, by inheritance we are violent people: aggressive, competitive, arrogant, and we have come to that, through various biological demands and necessities which have become habitual. And we create a 'violent' (and/or disorderly ?) society and can I educate my children not to be violent? Come on, answer! If I have taken the responsibility to help them understand this cruel world; I may talk to them, but at home I tell them one thing, and when they go outside they are being "gregarious", wanting to follow the tradition, not to be abnormal, different from others, they become like the rest of them, mediocre, cruel, thoughtless; you know what is happening. So, what shall I, as a parent, do?

(a) Can I give up ( the attachment to ?) my pleasures? I am in the habit of smoking , drinking, taking marijuana and I tell my children not to do it; they won't believe me. They'll say, you're a hypocrite. So will I give up all those things for ( the sake of educating ?) my children? I have heard several parents in Europe and elsewhere say, " Why should I give up my pleasures for my blasted children? They will have to face the ( real ?) world; and if we make them 'soft' they will be destroyed. So we must make them hard".

( b) Can I, as a parent and a teacher of my children, "(re-) educate myself" as well as my three or four children? That means I have to break up the ( habitual ?) "pattern" in which I have been living. If I love my children, I have to educate them not live in the same old pattern; the same old habits of past generations and amusements and pleasure. Obviously I must give them up (in the first place ?) . This has been a problem with which the speaker has been (having in his "experimental schools" ?) for the last 60 years. Not only the biological sexual problem of an adolescent; but also the (pressure of ?) society is so brutally strong, the outward environment; you may (try to ?) bring them up very, very carefully, but the structure of society is so powerful.

(c) From this arises rather an interesting question: As ( the present ?) society does not demand people who have this sense of integrity, the sense of wholeness in their life, a profound religious life, can we as a group be those people? Do you understand my question? It is a very interesting point. Then we'll have such a person, such a human being, who has such strength, such vitality in himself. And such a group becomes essentially important. They are like a light in darkness. So are there such parents who will be that?
Please, sirs, this is a very, very serious question because ( willingly or not ?) you are bringing about a new generation of people. If that generation is merely the continuation of what you are, with all the violence and all the stupidities of war, society will then become more and more ( self-) destructive. So, as a group of ( responsible) parents, is it possible that we demand of ourselves the highest excellence in behaviour, in conduct, so that we educate our children in a totally different way ?

QUESTION: Great teachers have been on earth; Buddha, Jesus. Do you think there will be less conflict, more understanding when you also depart, or is the world moving in an unalterable direction?

K: The Buddha, two thousand five hundred years ago talked about love, conduct, and so on, not to worship anything. But his followers made ( culturally convenient ?) "images" of him, and so destroyed him (his teachings ?) . There are various ( Buddhist) scriptures written down from memory, but the 'disciples' always (have a natural tendency to ?) exaggerate, distort, or extol; and lose the real depth of his teaching. And the Christian world has also made up ( the image of ?) that person into something incredible. And probably when the speaker "kicks the bucket", there will be the same phenomena going on.

All this points to something extraordinary: the ( culturally transmissible ?) "symbols" have become far more important than the truth of any of those people who have said things which are utterly true. Why do we want 'mediators' between that truth and yourself - the priests have existed from the ancient of times to "interpret" or "come between" you and " That". Why can't we not look to (getting help from ?) anybody? Because the whole history of mankind, his suffering, his agony, his desperate uncertainty, loneliness, it's all in the "book" which we are. We are the ( living ?) history of mankind. And if we can ( learn to ?) read that "book" for ourselves, we will need nobody outside to help.
Now, to read that "book" we need a careful ( meditative ?) observation of every movement of thought, feeling, reactions; and we don't do it because we want an easy way to everything. And as long as we depend on others, whether it be Buddha and so on, we shall always (continue to ?) live in conflict, our life will become "hypocritical". So, is it possible to be totally, completely free from all dependence, to have one's own deep abiding unshakeable integrity; which involves no fear and so on. Otherwise we create 'gods', 'saviours'.

QUESTION: My behaviour indicates that I am afraid. Yet the actual perception of fear is elusive. How do I reach and deal with this deep-rooted but unconscious emotion?

K: This problem of fear has existed from time immemorial. And man has lived with it; both consciously or hidden deep down; its roots very, very deep. And either we have (tried to get rid of it ) through logic, through psychoanalysis, through any form of entertainment that helps us to avoid coming directly into contact with it, and holding it; or we have 'suppressed' it (swept it under the carpet ?) . And one knows the consequences of fear. The physical shrinkage, a tendency to be 'hypocritical' (hiding under a mask ?) , an avoidance of the fact that one is really afraid (of the 'unknown' ?) .

So what is the ( central ) root of fear? One knows various forms of fear: fear of death, old age, fear of insecurity, fear of not being loved, fear of loneliness; fear of loss, fear of not having anybody to rely on, and so on. There are various forms of fear; the fear of the dark, the fear of light. So do we want to deal with fear superficially, which is intellectually (analytically ?) or going to the very root of it: what is the root of fear? Is it ( the ongoing process of ?) "time and thought"? Thinking about the future, thinking about the past; thinking of what might happen, or what has happened. The ( memory of our personal and collective ?) 'past' modifying itself in (updating itself in ?) the 'present' and moves towards the 'future'. Thinking about a (previous) incident which has caused fear, and thinking about the future (occuring ?) of that incident is awakening the new fear - you are following all this? So there is a 'horizontal' ( "past-present-future" dimension of ?) fear and a vertical (dimension of ?) fear ( of the 'now' ?) . Right? One is afraid of the past, the present, and the future: it is a (thought -out) movement. Right? This is not something that is static, it is a movement. And as any movement means (involves ?) time; getting from one point to another point means time. So we are asking if ( thinking of oneself in terms of ?) 'time' is one of the factors of fear. Isn't (our self-centred ?) thought also the root of fear? I think that I will be unemployed tomorrow. Thinking about ( what might happen to me ?) 'tomorrow' is also the beginning of fear. Right, you are following? Thinking about the actual moment of life in which there is such tremendous ( material) uncertainty, ( taking very personally that kind of ?) thought breeds fear.

So ( in a nutshell:) "time and thought" are the major factors of fear. And as in reality they are, what is one to do? We have the (intellectual ?) habit of ( instantly ?) making ( verbalised) abstractions of a fact. I have made an abstraction of what you have told me; "time and thought are the root of fear"; and how am I to carry it out in my daily life. The speaker says, please don't ( bother to ?) translate it into an idea, but ( experientially ?) find out the truth of it, the actuality of it. That is, to see that I really am (horizontally ?) afraid of ( a 'future' that I have projected from ?) the ( subliminal memory of my ?) past. Also I am ( vertically ?) afraid of the "present", because the things are so incredibly ( chaotic and ?) destructive around me. So, I see the (truth of this ?) fact that "time and thought are the root of fear" ? Now what shall I do?

Then if you have gone that far, the ( following experiential ?) difficulty arises, who is the 'observer' who says, "yes, I see the truth of it"? Is this 'observer' different from what he sees? You understand my question? When I say, yes, I (intellectually ) see the truth of what you have told me, I have already played a ( subliminal mental ) trick, which is: I see the truth of it; that means I am different ( I am distancing myself ?) from the (actual fact ) .

Let me put it much more simply. When I am ( actually ?) 'angry', is that anger different from me? At the moment of anger, there is no difference. There is this tremendous reaction. A few seconds later I say, "I have been angry", therefore I have (safely distanced ?) myself as the 'me' who has been ( momentarily) 'angry'. So, (similarly) when you have told me the truth, the 'fact', that "time and thought are the factors of fear", I listen to it very carefully and I say, yes, I see the truth of it; and the (intellectual processing of that direct ?) perception of that truth is ( split subliminally into ?) 'something out there' and the 'me' watching it. Or, there is no 'observer' but only the 'fact' ? So, when I (actually) see the "truth" of what you have told me, there is no division between the observer and the observed. There is only the truth of it, not, "I" see it. And that (insightful ?) perception, which is holistic, frees the mind from ( the root-cause of ?) fear completely. Have you got this?

Putting the same question still differently: can the (subliminal) conflict of me controlling my fear, can this conflict ( come to an ?) end? Why is there this ( mentality of ?) division? Is the division actual? Or, not being able of dealing directly with the problem, thought has divided itself as the 'me' and the 'fear' ? You probably have never thought about all this, but it is important to resolve this conflict, because we live in duality; I am this, I should not be that, I should be that. So there is always this "duality" which brings about conflict. Now, can this (ongoing ?) conflict end? Is there an 'opposite' to fear? Or, there is only the 'ending' of (the root-process of ?) fear, this ending being (an inner state of ?) "no conflict"? To ( psychologically ?) "end" something, there must be no 'me' who is ( surreptitiously ?) trying to end it. Right? Is there an (direct) observation of this reaction called "fear" without the past interfering with that observation? The (active memory of the ?) past, can it abstain from looking at the fact with the memory of yesterdays?

Look, sir; suppose that I am married, I meet my wife every day. Every day, rather boring, every day. So, I begin to know her; I know how she looks, what her gestures, all the rest of it, words, so gradually I have built up a ( huge amount of ?) 'knowledge' about her, and whenever I look at her all the knowledge comes out. This ('psychological ) knowledge' is the ( active response of the ?) "past". Right? So (in that 'known' relationship) there is nothing new. You understand? The remembrance of the accumulated memories, which is knowledge about my wife, has separated as the 'me' and her. Got this? The past has brought about this division. Now, similarly, the past remembrances of fears, past remembrance of accidents of fear, the happenings of fear, is stored in the brain. And that brain is remembering the past and so when the present reaction, when it comes, you name it immediately as fear, and record it as fear.

Is this clear? No.... don't tell me this is not clear! I can't help it, sorry. I've tried to put it in three or four different ways...

(Re-re-recap:) The ( controlling memory of the ?) 'past' is ( personalising itself as ?) the "observer". And so the "observer" says, yes, I know it's "fear", because I have had it so many times. So, the moment it recognizes, it's ( becoming ) part of the ( dead memory of the ?) past.
So, is there a (non-verbal) observation of that 'fear' reaction, without the past? And when there is an observation without the past, you are looking it afresh. Which is, when you observe fear from the past, you are using a ('mechanical' perceptive ?) energy which has already been employed ( in dealing with outward challenges ) year after year. That's a wastage of energy (when used inwardly ?) . Is there a "new ( inwardly perceptive ?) energy" that meets this fear without the past? You understand the question now? Oh, for God's sake!

( Final recap:) One sees the truth that ( the joint psycho-process of ?) "time and thought" are the root of fear. Fear exists when there is inattention, when there is no ( inward) attention. If I give complete attention to this (root-process generating ?) fear, it (the 'psychological' fear) doesn't exist. But my brain has been conditioned not to (pay much ) attention to this ('subjective') reaction. Whereas if you give your total attention to ( the root-process of ?) it, which means giving your whole energy to look- when you do it , fear is not.
The mind that has ( not dealt with its own ?) fear is a destructive, aggressive, neurotic mind. Whereas a mind that is utterly free of fear, psychologically, is an extra-ordinary mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Apr 2016 #120
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: The act of "attention" for most of us is difficult to maintain. Only a small part of one is willing, interested seriously. What can one do to nourish this attention?

K: What do we mean by "attention" and what is the difference between awareness, concentration, and attention? To be "aware"; as one is sitting under these beautiful ( oak) trees on a lovely morning, nice and cool, not too hot, one is aware of that woodpecker pecking away, one is aware of the green lawn, the beautiful trees and sunlight, the spotted light; and if you are looking from that direction, you are aware of those mountains. Do you observe it, aware of it without any choice, just to observe the extraordinary beauty of the land. And when you observe so "easily", aware of all this; the light and the shade; the branches, the darkness of the trunks and the light on the leaf; what is the ( quality of the ?) feeling behind that awareness? Is it that beauty part of our life; or it is 'something to be observed'; the awareness of this, what is its relationship to one's life? That's part of awareness, the awareness of the external and the awareness of one's own reactions to the external, and to be aware of the movement of this.

When we are aware is there a ( personal ?) choice? I prefer this valley to other valleys, so there is always ( a subliminal intrference of one's ?) memory and choice operating. And can one be aware without any choice at all, just to be aware of the extraordinary sense of the blue sky, the blue sky through the leaves, and just move with it all? And so from this ( free awareness ?) of the outer move to the inner - you understand what I am saying - so that there is no division between the outer and the inner; it's like a tide going out and coming in. That's an awareness of this world outside of us and an awareness of the world deep inside of us, conscious as well as the unconscious. When one is deeply conscious or aware, there is no hidden unconscious movement. I don't know if you have gone through all this, if you have done it. So awareness is ( encompassing ?) this movement of the outer and the inner and to discover for oneself whether there is 'division' (a sense of separation ?) between the (awareness of the ?) outer and the inner and discover how we react to beauty, to ugliness, to brutality, to violence, to competition and quietness and so on.

And what do we mean by "concentration"? (because they are all related: awareness, concentration, and attention). What is concentration? To (focus one's attention ?) upon a page, upon a picture; to concentrate all one's energy on a particular point: in that ( self-centred ?) concentration is there not the effort to concentrate, a constant struggle to focus one's energy, visual, and so on. In ( the mental effort of ?) concentration there is always the one who tries to concentrate, and in that concentration there is an effort and control. So there is a 'controller' (entity ?) who is trying to focus his attention on a particular subject, and as his thought is all the time moving, wandering around, and so he tries to control it; and in that control there is a form of resistance. There is a division between the controller and the controlled. And so there is an effort, a sense of division. Where there is division there must be conflict between the controller and the controlled; that is generally what we call 'concentration'.
Now in "attention" is there this division? Is there in attention a centre from which you attend, or when you listen to that woodpecker, you are attending with (all your senses ?) giving all your energy to it ? And when you really listen, there is no centre as the 'me who is listening'. You are following this? Is this right? Whereas, there is always a centre in concentration. We are saying attention has no centre and therefore 'it' is attending.
So, this sense of extensive ( all inclusive ?) , vast attention has no periphery, whereas ( the attention of ?) concentration has; it is limited.

QUESTION: What is an action and state of being that is completely pure?

K: We are ( usually ?) acting either with a motive or with a conclusion which we have come to through experience and set a pattern according to which you are acting; or act according to an ideal, a projected ideal, or according to a pattern set by an authority, specialist, and so on. We generally act in that manner. And we are asking, is that ( pure ?) action?
( Pure ?) action means the "doing now". Is there an action totally free from all ( our cultural ?) conditioning? Such conditioning impies to have an ideal ( of what our action should be ?) which then is imposed upon 'what is'. Right? I am greedy, and I have an ideal of not being greedy. And I try to act according to 'what should be', not 'what is'. Or, if I have been conditioned by commercialism, by television, ( the ideal of 'non-greed' ?) is nonexistent; I want to buy and I buy. They tell me to buy this or that, and I buy.
So the problem is: can the mind be free from all ( its cultural ?) conditioning so that it acts (purely ?) ? That requires a great deal of attention, a great deal of watching: to be aware that one has ideals and is conforming our actions according to that. I am this, I should be that, which is called "self-improvement". Lovely phrase! That is, the "self", which is ( the impersonation of our ?) selfishness, trying to improve itself, so it is becoming more selfish.

Is it possible to put away all this ( conditioned mentality ?) and see actually "what is" and act?

Shall we go more into it? Is there a (dimension of ?) action which is not born out of knowledge (of what we knew before ?) ? Careful now.
There is the technological (practical) action where I must have a great deal of knowledge if I am to be a good engineer; a specialist in computers, I must have a great deal of knowledge about it. But if I act 'psychologically' according to ( my 'personal' experience or ?) knowledge which is incomplete, this action is always (generating contradictions and ? ) conflict; right?
If this is understood clearly, then, apart from the technological (practical knowledge) and all the rest of it, is there an action which is not born out of our "psychological" recording? What is the state of your mind which is freed from the sense of past recording, and acting according to that? It's free. If it is free, and if it's possible to be freed, then what is the quality of perception that is ( bringing an ?) instant action?

Suppose that I am walking along the mountain, and I suddenly come to a precipice. The action there is instantaneous. The action is brought about by self-preservation; which is ( a native form of ) intelligence. Self-preservation is a natural bodily response, which says, "guard yourself". And it is also "cultivated" (shared culturally ?) . That 'self-preservating' motive is recorded, unconsciously or consciously. And its (instant) response is a natural (act of ?) intelligence. Now, similarly we have recorded a (cultural instinct of ?) "psychological" preservation. That is, what am I if I have no memory? If there is no recording ( of my psychological identity ?), I am nobody. So, the (ancestral ?) "fear of being nobody" (within my community ?) gives a central feeling that you must "preserve yourself". And from that ( 'identitary' instinct of self-preservation ?) you act .
Now I want to find out whether there is an action which is not born out of previous records. If that is your intense (self-knowing ?) demand, then one has to watch very carefully any 'recording' taking place. And the ( psychological ?) recording will not take place when there is complete attention. It's only inattention, lacking attention, that creates this recording. Have you noticed that when you are looking at those mountains or this landscape with all the trees and the sunlight, and you are giving complete attention to it there is no (psychological ) recording. Please experiment as we are sitting here.

So "not to record" (all the 'psychological' stuff ?) is an action born of insight; and from that insight there is pure action. I'll take one example: one 'perceives logically' that the 'organized religion' is just born out of fear, born out of propaganda,etc. So, you 'see' the ( psychological) content of that structure instantly, and that immediate perception (aka 'insight') , frees you from all religious constructed organization. To have the insight that no 'spiritual authority' will ever free man from sorrow means that you don't ( inwardly ?) belong to anything. There is immediate freedom from all that, as when you come to a precipice, there is instant action. So, that is an action that is not born out of past remembrances or future hopes and ideals; it is ( brought by ?) being totally aware of 'what is', and having an insight into (the truth or falseness of ?) 'what is', is the ending of 'what is'.

QUESTION: Since "the word is not the thing", can we truly be enlightened through ( listening to your ?) words? Can symbols undo the damage done by symbols, or are we being seduced by illusions of enlightenment?

K: I wonder if most of us realize that our brain is caught in a network of words. I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am an American, you follow? They are all symbols, they are all words, images; and the brain is caught in that (mental field ?) . 'Can we truly be enlightened through words?' Good God! It may be very interesting to go into what we mean by 'enlightenment' ? To some people that is a sacred word, to be enlightened; not through books; not through knowledge; not through time. Isn't 'enlightenment' a complete freedom from conditioning? And can a human being be 'enlightened' when he is frightened, when he is seeking power, position, accumulating money ?

So the word is not the thing. And, the questioner asks, have the symbols done damage to the human psyche? Symbols obviously have done damage. Because they prevent a human from being going directly to truth, to the fact.

The questioner also asks: are we being seduced by the illusion of enlightenment? Obviously. But "enlightenment" is not something that you gradually come to. To be free from all conditioning, which also implies to be a light to oneself completely; and not depend on any person, any idea, any particular - to be a light to oneself. So from that (inner ?) light there is ( a right) action.

QUESTION: Why do we not change?

K: I see people here whom I have known for many years come year after year, and I have asked them too, why do we not change? What is the energy, the drive, the intensity, that will make us change? And what do we mean by that word, "change"? A change from 'this' to 'that' is preconceived (by the self ?) therefore it's a continuation of 'what is', modified, which I hope will lead me further. So, what do we mean by "change"? To the speaker it means the "ending", not the continuation of 'what is' modified. (Take for instance, the Communist revolution: their (general) idea was to change the whole structure of society through an outside pressure and as soon as possible make man different. So, they have not succeeded; on the contrary, they have done terrible things.

So we are talking about changing "psychologically"; to change completely the (violent ?) content of our consciousness. Right? Not into a more polished consciousness; less violent but occasionally violent; and so on and so on. The "ending" of the (inherited violent ?) content of consciousness is a radical (qualitative ?) mutation. I won't use the word 'change' there. So, why don't we move away from this (violent psycho-structure ?) totally ? Why, after millions and millions of years, we human beings have reduced ourselves to the present appalling condition - it is appalling, frightening, the violence, the brutality, the killing for a piece of land, for God's sake! Why don't we bring about an ending to all this? Please answer this. You are all 'educated', intelligent in a certain direction, making money, going to work, and all the rest of it, but you haven't solved the 'real' issue. Why? Will outside pressure change you, bring about a mutation of "that which has been"- my anger, my violence, my stupidity, my holding onto some idiotic illusion ? What will make us change? By changing society, you are not going to be (radically ?) changed. Because we have made this society and after thousands of years we are not free from fear. What will make us change? More knowledge about yourself? Will suffering, pain, attachment, pressure, the "carrot" - reward and punishment, will all that change us? Apparently it hasn't. So what will make us end this terrible confusion, sorrow, pain, anxiety, lonely, all that; end? Tears? We have cried enough. Sorrow? Nothing from "outside", no saviours, no external agency is ever going to change us. We are much too clever for all that.

One should ask oneself: will "time" bring about this mutation? You have had ( a lot of ?) time, million years and obviously, time will not. So, nothing outside will bring about ( a 'psychological' ?) mutation. What will change us is only our own "awareness of the confusion in which we live"; and remaining with that completely, not trying to do something about it, you understand this? It is very interesting; any intelligent man does reject the 'outside agency' altogether; 'gods' and all; But he doesn't reject the "operator" inside, the "actor" who says, "I" will do this. That "actor" is the ( pro-active interface of our ?) past memory; past remembrance, past knowledge. Now, if that (personalised interface ?) could be completely transformed (or transcended ?) , then you observe 'what is' completely freely; and when you observe so totally with complete attention, "that which is" has completely ended.
So (the factor of change) must be one's own perception of one's misery, confusion, and live with it wholly, not trying to act upon it.

QUESTION: Can you speak more deeply about the meaning of "holiness" and especially its place in the modern world?

K: The word "holy" is not the reality. Is ( our self-centred ?) thought holy, sacred? If you have been to some of those ancient temples, the ancient cathedrals in Europe; the extraordinary sense of vitality of those pillars, the beauty of the high ceiling. The human thought has done all that. And the same thought also has created all the "content" within that marvellous stone structure. So if thought is sacred, then everything that it creates is holy: the the atom bomb; the computer; the Saviour, the rituals, you follow? Then, if you once admit thought is sacred, everything it does is sacred. Right? And, thought has invented that which is not sacred and that which is sacred: the 'saint' and the 'sinner'.
So if you once accept that thought, whatever it does, is sacred, then you have nothing to worry about. Then you will carry on as you are. That may be what humanity ( as a whole ?) wants.
But if you really want to find out That which is most holy, you cannot measure it by words. To measure that which is measureless by words has no (true spiritual ?) meaning. But to come upon that which is Holy, Sacred - (one should ask ?) is love thought? Is love desire? Without "love" (in on's heart ?) , "that which is sacred" cannot be.

So all these explanations are not that which "is". That which "is eternal" cannot be put into words. But (however ?) when "time and thought" have come to an end, that which is most sacred "is". So, to go into what is thought, whether it can end (inwardly ) , thought cannot end as I am going from this place to that place, when I drive a car, or in the very usage of language, in communication. But, inwardly (speaking) , can "time" stop? Can thought come to an end? Not through control, not through will, but by the urge to find out ( in oneself ?) that (spiritual essence ?) which "is" from the beginning, which has no end. To find it out, requires a real "meditation"; which is (encompassing ?) the whole movement of life

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 552 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.)