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
Thu, 19 Nov 2015 #91
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

More New Delhi Meditations

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 #92
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Nov 2015 #93
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 14 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Nov 2015 #94
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

Love and the 'reality' of psychological fragmentation

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #95
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

K Lesson du Jour: All about Sorrow

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

*

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #96
Thumb_open-uri20151130-31475-1glr6q4-0 Victor Williams United States 1 post in this forum Offline

Very useful work, thanks for sharing the wisdom!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #97
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Dec 2015 #98
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

*

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

**

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Dec 2015 #99
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

K Lesson du Jour: On Fragmentation

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Dec 2015 #100
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

*

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 #101
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 14 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 #102
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

*

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

*

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

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

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

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

*

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

*

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

*

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

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

K: You really want to go into this deeply?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #103
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #104
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 112 posts in this forum Offline

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

Quite a nutshell!

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #105
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #106
Thumb_a1056283319_2 Tom Paine United States 4 posts in this forum Offline

So relevant to what we've been discussing lately on Clive's forum. I once owned that very book. Don't recall any of it however. It was one my first K books....late '70's or early 80's. I doubt if I understood much of it at the time.

Let it Be

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Dec 2015 #107
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 112 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: In meditation the dividing line between "you" (the 'observed'?) and "me" ( the 'observer' ?) disappears; in it the light of silence destroys the knowledge ( the 'knowing' interface ?) of the 'me'.

This in light of the 'cunningness' of the self, of the almost absolute 'supremacy' of the self, of its need to 'continue', to persist come what may; "silence" is the only thing that can stand in face of it, that cannot be perverted by it, that cannot be 'used' by it to strengthen itself and maintain its continuity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 07 Dec 2015 #108
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

I would say that this silence comes into being when thinking and thought are totally absent.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 #109
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lessons du Jour: On Meditation and Seeking

To meditate is to transcend ( the inner continuity of ?) time. ( This continuity of ) 'time' is the ( self-projected ?) distance that thought travels in its achievements. The travelling is always along the old path covered over with new sights, but always the same road, (inwardly ?) leading nowhere - except to (an accumulation of ?) pain and sorrow. It is only when the mind transcends (this illusory ?) 'time' that Truth ceases to be a (philosophical ?) abstraction. Then Bliss is an actuality that is not verbal. The emptying of the mind of ( these active 'psycho-residues' of ?) time is (opening the door to ?) the Silence of Truth, and the seeing of this (truth ?) is (simultaneous with ?) the doing- there is no (temporal ?) division between the seeing and the doing. In the interval ( time delay ?) between 'seeing' ( the inner 'facts' as true or false?) and the 'doing' is born conflict, misery and confusion. That ( inner state of mind ?) which has no 'time' is the Everlasting.

On every table there were daffodils, young, fresh, just out of the garden, with the bloom of spring on them and nobody seemed to care. They were there for decorative purposes but as you watched them their yellow brilliance filled the noisy (dining ) room. Colour has this strange effect upon the eye, it seemed to fill your being. You 'were' that colour, you were the anonymity which is innocence. Where there is no ( inner quality of ?) 'anonymity' there is ( the outward response of ?) violence, in all its different forms. But you forgot the ( real ?) world, the smoke-filled room and the ( 'civilised' ?) cruelty of man; those shapely daffodils seemed to take you beyond all time. Love is like that. In it there is no ( psychological ?) 'time', 'space' or 'identity'. It is the ( sense of ?) 'identity' that breeds pleasure and pain; it is this (self-centred ?) 'identity' that brings hate and wars and builds a ( separating ?) 'wall' around people, around each family and community.

Love isn't like that; it is like that wood across the way, always renewing itself because it is always 'dying' (to its own past ?) . There is no (sense of time- ?) 'permanency' in it; it is a movement (of the heart ?) which (the self-centred process of ?) 'thought' can never understand, touch or feel. The 'feelings' of (induced by our self-centred ?) thought and the 'feeling' of love are two ( qualitatively ?) different things; one leads to ( "psychological" ?) bondage and the other to the flowering of Goodness. This (inner ?) flowering is not ( to be found ) within the ( outward ?) area of any society, of any culture or of any religion, whereas the ( thought-time?) 'bondage' belongs to all societies, religious beliefs and faiths in 'otherness'. Love is ( essentially ?) 'anonymous' (non-personal ?) , therefore not violent. ( The instinctive human drive for ?) pleasure (however) 'is' violent, for desire and will are its moving factors. Love cannot be begotten by thought, or by good works. The denial of the (self- identification with the self-centred ?) process of thought becomes the beauty of action, which is love. Without this there is no bliss of truth.

*

Meditation is the (inward ?) awakening of Bliss; it is both of the ( inner flowering of the ?) senses and transcending them. It has no 'continuity', for it is not of ( the order of ?) time. The happiness and the joy of relationship, the sight of a cloud carrying the earth, and the light of spring on the leaves, are the delight of the eye and of the mind. This ( sense of ?) 'delight' can be cultivated (or recycled ?) by thought and given a duration in the ( mental) space of memory, but it is not the Bliss of Meditation in which is included the ( integrated ?) intensity of the senses. The 'freedom' ( flowering of ?) the senses is not ( synonimous with ?) the indulgence of them: the indulgence is ( brough by the ?) pleasure (drive) of thought. Thought is like the smoke of a fire, while Bliss is the ( inward ?) fire without the ( outward ?) 'cloud of smoke' that brings tears to the eyes.

( To recap:) Pleasure is the bondage of thought, and Bliss is beyond and above thought. The foundation of meditation is the understanding of ( the self-centred component of ?) thought and of ( its subliminal drive for ?) pleasure. The Bliss of Meditation is not of time or duration; it is beyond both and therefore not measurable. Its ( timeless ?) 'ecstasy' is not in the eye of the 'beholder', nor is it an experience of the 'thinker'. This Bliss comes out of complete silence.

It was a lovely morning with fleeting clouds and a clear blue sky. It had rained, and the air was clean. Every leaf was new and the dreary winter was over; each leaf knew, in the sparkling sunshine, that it had no relation to last year's spring. The dividing line between man and nature disappeared; but the man driving his car, and the woman returning from market, were unaware of this. They ( probably) were carrying their problems in their hearts, and the 'heart' never looked at the brightening spring day. The ( implicit ?) sadness of it was that they bred these children and these children would soon become the man driving his racing car and the woman returning from the market; and their world would be dark again. Therein lay the unending (time-bindingness of ?) sorrow. The love on that leaf would be blown away with the coming autumn.

He was a young man with a wife and children. He seemed highly educated, intellectual, and good at the use of words. He said he had always been seeking - not only philosophical truths but the Truth that was beyond the word and the system.

K: I suppose you are seeking because you are discontented?

Q: Not exactly . I can't say even what I'm seeking; it seems I was born with this, and though I am happily married, the search still goes on. I have talked it over with some clever philosophers and with 'religious missionaries' coming from the East, and they have all told me to continue in my search and never stop seeking. After all these years it is still a constant (inner) 'disturbance'.

K: But, should one 'seek' at all? Seeking is always for 'something over there' on the other bank, in the 'distance' ( supposed to be ?) covered by time and long strides. The seeking and the finding are ( both projected?) in the future - this is the essential meaning of 'seeking'. There is the (mediocre ?) present and the thing to be found in the future. ( Our awareness of ?) the 'present' is not fully active and alive and so, of course, that which is 'beyond the hill' is more alluring and demanding.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that it is vain to seek; that there is no hope in the future; that all time is in the present?

K: All life is ( unfolding itself ?) in the present, not in the shadows of yesterday or in the 'brightness' of tomorrow's hope. ( However ?) to (fully ?) 'live in the present' one has to be free of the 'past', and of 'tomorrow'. Nothing ( of spiritual significance ?) is found in the 'tomorrow', for this 'tomorrow' is the ( projection of what we are in the ?) present, while ( what we were ?) 'yesterday' is only an (constantly 'refreshed' ?) remembrance. So the ( psychological ?) 'distance' between 'that which is to be found' and 'that which is', is made ever wider by (our 'self'-projected ?) 'search' - however pleasant and comforting that search may be. To seek the "purpose of life' is one of the odd escapes of man. If he finds what he seeks it will not be worth that pebble on the path. To 'live in the present' the mind must not be 'divided' (split inwardly ?) by the remembrances of yesterday or the bright hopes of tomorrow. (In a nutshell:) it must ( psychologically ?) have no 'tomorrow' and no 'yesterday'. This is not a poetic statement but an actual fact. Love is that beauty ( of living ?) in the present which is not to be found in the ( intellectual process of ? ) 'seeking'.

Q: I think I'm beginning to see the futility of the years I have spent in this (dualistic ?) 'search', in the questions I have asked of myself and of others, and the futility of the 'answers'.

K: The ending ( of the 'known' ?) is the beginning (of something New ?); this beginning (anew ?) is the first step, and this 'first step' ( out of the 'known' ?) is the only ( necessary ?) step.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Dec 2015 #110
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The seeing is the doing ( From 'The Only Revolution' 1969)

He was rather an (intellectually ?) blunt man, but full of interest and drive. He had been to the East and knew a little about Indian philosophy, had read the so-called sacred books and had followed some guru or other. And here he was now, in this little room overlooking a verdant valley smiling in the morning sun. It was a quiet valley, especially at this time of the year, full of silence, and the sound of cow-bells, and the smell of pine and new mown grass. There was delight in the air and the beauty of the land lay upon one's senses. The eye saw the blue sky and the green earth, and there was rejoicing.

Q: I have listened to you for some years, in different parts of the world, and I have 'absorbed' a great deal of what you have said and it has almost become part of me. So I seem to lead a double life; there is the ordinary activity, family, work, and so on, and on the other hand there is the teaching that you have been giving, in which I am deeply interested. Now, if I just 'follow' your teachings then I'm the same as any Catholic who conforms to a dogma. So, from what ( ground ?) does one act in daily life if one lives the teaching without simply conforming to it ?

K: There is only learning: such learning is the doing. The ( directly perceptive act of ?) learning is not separate from the action. If they are (offset or ?) separate, then our learning is ( based on ) a set of 'ideals' according to which action takes place, whereas if 'learning' is (inwardly integrated with the ?) the 'doing' there is no conflict. You cannot (actually ?) learn about yourself except in action. It is not that you first learn (gather informations ?) about yourself and then act from that knowledge, for such action becomes imitative, conforming to your ( choice of ?) accumulated knowledge.

Q: But, sir, every moment I am directly challenged, by this or by that, I respond ( instinctively ?) as I always have done - which often means conflict. So, I'd like to understand the pertinence (validity ?) of what you say about learning in these everyday ( 'real life' ?) situations.

K: Challenges are always new (unexpected ?) but (our self-centred ?) responses are inadequate, and therefore there is conflict. So, what is there is to learn ? There is the learning about how these responses come into being, about their (subliminal ?) background of conditioning, so there is a learning about the whole structure and nature of the (psychological ?) response. However, this 'learning' is not ( resulting into ?) an accumulation (of knowledge ) from which you are going to respond to the ( future ?) challenges. Learning (by direct perception ?) is a movement which is not anchored in knowledge. If it is anchored it is not a living movement. The 'intelligent' machine, the computer, is anchored (in its preset programming ?) . That is the basic difference between man and the machine. Learning is watching, seeing, but if you look from ( the safe background of the ?) accumulated knowledge then the seeing is limited (to a practical functionality ?) so there is nothing (qualitatively ?) 'new' in it.

Q: You said that one learns about the whole structure of ( one's psychological) responses. This means there is a certain accumulated volume of whatever is learnt. But on the other hand the 'learning' you speak of is so fluid that it accumulates nothing at all?

K: Our (present ?) 'education' is (based on ?) gathering volumes of knowledge, but the computers do this faster and more accurately. What need is there for such an ( outdated ?) 'education'? Eventually the machines are going to take over most of the ( demanding ?) activities of man. So, when we (assume ?) that learning is ( mainly concerned with ) gathering knowledge, aren't we denying the (non-mechanical ) movement of life, which is ( expressing itself in ?) relationship and behaviour? If our relationship is based on our previous experience and knowledge, then is there a 'true' relationship? ( Our psychological ?) memory is (essentially based on ?) images and words, and if our relationship is 'tethered' to this 'memory', ( the freedom of ?) its movement is limited and it becomes agonizing.

Q: Are you not contradicting yourself when you say that one learns in observing the whole structure of one's responses, and at the same time say that learning precludes accumulation?

K: The seeing of the ( existing 'psychological' ?) structure is alive, it is moving; but when that seeing adds (o reinforces ?) this (existing) structure then the (continuity of the ?) structure becomes far more important than the ( action of direct ?) seeing, which is the living. So, there is no contradiction. What we are saying is that the ( direct, non-verbal ?) 'seeing' is far more important than the (continuity of the 'psychological' ?) structure. When you give importance to the (academical ?) learning about the structure and not to learning as ( the direct action of ?) 'seeing', then there is a contradiction; then seeing is one thing and learning about the structure is another.
(To recap:) We said the 'seeing' is (undivided from) the 'acting'; the two things are not separate . Then this seeing is always new and so the acting is always new. Therefore the seeing of the everyday response brings out (or awakens ?) the ( creativity of the ?) 'new', which is what you call 'spontaneity'.

( Here is a practical example: ) at the very moment of ( the instinctive response of ?) anger there is no ( mental) recognition of it as 'anger'. The ( verbalised ?) 'recognition' takes place a few seconds later as "being angry". Now, is there an actual 'seeing' of that anger, a choiceless awareness of that anger, or is it ( a mental processing based on ?) 'choice', based on the old? If it is based on the old, then all the ( previously 'known' ) responses to that anger - repression, control, indulgence and so on - are the traditional activity. But when the ( quality of inward ?) seeing is "choiceless", there is only the ( perception of something ?) 'new' . From all this arises another ( metaphysically ?) interesting problem: our dependence on ( shocks or ?) 'challenges' to keep us awake, to pull us out of our daily routine, tradition, established order, either through (social) revolt, or some other (more natural ?) upheavals.

Q: Is it possible for the human mind not to depend on challenges at all?

K: It is possible (but only ?) when the mind is undergoing a constant (inward renewal ?) and has no (psychological need for ?) safe anchorage, vested interests or ( self-) commitments. An awakened mind, a mind which is 'alight' (a light for itself ?) - what need has it of 'challenges' of any kind?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Dec 2015 #111
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Meditation and the 'psychological' significance of Death

Meditation is the (inward?) action of Silence. We (usually ?) act (inwardly ?) out of opinions, conclusions or speculative intentions. This inevitably results in ( multiple inner ?) contradictions between 'what is' ( what we 'are' ?) and 'what ( we) should be'. This action out of (our experience of the ?) past called 'knowledge' is 'mechanical', capable of adjustment and modification but having its roots in the past. And so the shadows of the past always covers the present. In our daily relationship this action is the outcome of the images an conclusions; relationship then is becoming a thing of the past, not a living (interaction) . Out of this inner disarray and contradiction ( the utilitary daily ?) activities proceed, breaking up into social institutions and religious dogmas. From this endless ( socio-cultural ?) noise, the "revolution" (promising ?) a new social order is made to appear as though it really were something new, but as it is ( a mere translation within the field of the known ?) it is not a real change at all.

A change (within human consciousness ?) is possible only when denying (or 'dying' to ?) the known; action then is not according to a pattern but out of a (spiritual ?) Intelligence that is constantly renewing itself. ( Such?) intelligence is not a matter of discernment or critical evaluation but the seeing of (the truth regaring ?) 'what is'. The 'what is' (within the human psyche ?) is constantly changing, and when our seeing is anchored in the past, the intelligence of seeing ceases. Then the dead weight of memory dictates the action and not the intelligence of (direct ?) perception. Meditation is the seeing of all this ( inner/outer confusion ?) at a glance. But to see it, there must be silence, and from this silence there is ( a quality of ?) action which is entirely different from the activities of thought.

*
He was a well-known ( Italian ) film director very friendly, with a ready smile. Like all the more 'sensitive' film directors he was concerned with the unconscious, with fantastic dreams and conflicts to be expressed in his pictures. He had studied the 'gods' of the analysts and had taken drugs himself ( but only ?) for 'experimental' purposes...

K: The human mind is heavily conditioned by the culture it lives in - by its traditions, by its economic conditions and especially by its religious propaganda. The (modern human ?) mind strenuously objects to being a slave to the tyranny of the State, yet it may accept the ( psychological ?) 'tyranny' of the Church or of the latest 'fashionable' psychiatric dogmas. This (fragmented human ?) mind, which has created such havoc in the world, is basically frightened of (inwardly facing ?) itself.

Amidst all this (global) turmoil of wars, dissensions and utter selfishness, there is the main (unsolved ?) issue of 'death'.
The various 'religions' give us a ready-made answer to this issue; but ( the inner challenge of ?) 'death' is not answerable by the intellect; it is a 'fact', and you cannot get round it. You have to 'die' ( inwardly ?) to find what ( the truth about ?) death is, and that, apparently, man cannot (or is not willing to ?) do, for he is ( subliminally ?) frightened of 'dying' (or letting go ?) everything he knows, (especially ?) his most intimate hopes and visions.

( Inwardly ?) there is really no 'tomorrow', although many (calendaristic ?) "tomorrows" are between the 'now' of life and the 'future' ( of the physical?) death. In this ( time) dividing (interval) man lives with anxiety, but always keeps an eye on that ( 'ending' ?) which is inevitable. To 'die' to everything one knows is ( the 'psychological' experience of ?) death. To invite the (inward actuality of ?) 'death' to cover the whole of 'today' is the total ( inward ?) dying; then there is no ( 'time') gap between life and death. Then death 'is'( integrated with ?) living and living 'is' death.

Apparently, no one is willing to do this . Yet man is always seeking the (creativity of the ?) 'new'; holding in one hand the 'old' and groping with the other into the Unknown for the 'new'. So there is an inevitable conflict of duality between the fact and the what should be. This (inner) turmoil completely ceases when there is the 'ending of the known'. This 'ending' is ( the 'psychological' essence of ?) death and you cannot possibly escape from it by clinging to the ('known') things of today, which are of yesterday, nor by worshipping the ( commercialised ?) symbols of 'hope'.

( In a nutshell:) One has to die to 'death' (to the 'known' ?) ; only then is Innocence born, only then does the timeless 'New' come into (one's ) being. Love is always 'new', but the (mental ?) 'remembrance' of love is the death of love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Dec 2015 #112
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

hello

I was interested in today's quote ,as in my view it says much about K's teaching, if teaching they are

Ojai, California | 4th Public Talk 16th June, 1940

Without fully understanding the process of greed, merely to cultivate kindliness, generosity, is to perpetuate ignorance and cruelty; without integrally understanding relationship, merely to cultivate compassion, forgiveness, is to bring about self-isolation and to indulge in subtle forms of pride. In understanding craving fully, there is compassion, forgiveness. Cultivated virtues are not virtues. This understanding requires constant and alert awareness, a strenuousness that is pliable; mere control with its peculiar training has its dangers, as it is one-sided, incomplete, and therefore shallow. Interest brings its own natural, spontaneous concentration in which there is the flowering of understanding. This interest is awakened by observing, questioning the actions and reactions of everyday existence.

To grasp the complex problem of life with its conflicts and sorrows one must bring about integral understanding. This can be done only when we deeply comprehend the process of craving which is now the central force in our life.

Dan: to me thought cannot go into such corner,cannot "do" it...
the entire distrust of thought must happen first however it happens.

Craving is the outcome of desire, this implies to get as much as possible insights so indirect vision of that,a vision for me is something which totally by passes thought...about what is craving is, what thought is, how does it function and more ....

For myself I have seen that desire must exist otherwise there is no analysing, no thought of if so , just what is needed to vaguely continue to survive .....kind of like a veg so....

I have seen that desire is necessary so vital and at the same time if used where it must not be used it is going to produce some nasty effects up to total destruction of the species...out of total nonsense,dementia, suffering and the attempt to run away from that.....there is no running away but a mental illusion....

the nasty effects are for me , known by "what" is behind all this,all what is..no proof at all of this of course

k: without integrally understanding relationship, merely to cultivate compassion, forgiveness, is to bring about self-isolation and to indulge in subtle forms of pride.

Dan. pride, when it showed itself insightfully was and is perceived as one of the desire adds on component, again a natural function of a complex program, which like desire is necessary to make the analysing functioning , in practical fields this help the analyser to try to make something properly by inducing a sense of self pride.....as long as it remains ONLY in practical fields and nowhere else the naughty side effects of this will be OK.....

etc

The drowning into suffering have produced such revealing for myself , it happens by itself...
it seems to confirm that we have tools to by pass thought.....

all this is so far from today's world concerns...

cheers

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Dec 2015 #113
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: On Love & Beauty

It was a wide, luxuriant ( Swiss ) meadow with green hills round it. That morning it was brilliant, sparkling with dew, and the birds were singing to the heavens and to the earth. In this meadow with so many flowers, there was a single tree, majestic and alone. It was really a splendid tree with its late spring leaves all aflutter in the breeze, healthy; it wasn't clothed in the robes of majesty but it was in itself splendid and imposing. With the evening it would withdraw into itself, silent and unconcerned, though there might be a gale blowing; and as the sun rose it would wake up too and give out its luxuriant blessing over the meadow, over the hills, over the earth. Though your eyes had seen more lovely things, it was not the 'accustomed eye' that saw this tree, alone, immense and full of wonder. As you went and sat in its shadow, your back against the trunk, you felt the earth, the power in that tree, and its great aloofness. It was really a good place for meditation if you know how to meditate. It was very quiet, and your mind also became quiet, uninfluenced by the surroundings, a part of that brilliant morning, with the dew still on the grass and on the reeds. There would ( perhaps ?) always be that ' sense of ?) beauty there, in the meadow with that tree.

*

He was a middle-aged man, well kept, trim and dressed with good taste. He said he had travelled a great deal though not on any particular business. His father had left him a little money and he had seen a bit of the world, not only what lay upon it but also all those rare things in the very rich museums. He said he liked music and played occasionally.

Q: There's so much violence, anger, and hatred of man against man. We seem to have lost love, to have no beauty in our hearts; probably we have never had it. Love has been made into such a cheap commodity, and artificial beauty has become more important than the beauty of the hills, the trees and the flowers. The beauty of children soon fades. I have been wondering about love and beauty. Do let us talk about it if you can spare a little time.

K: 'Love' and 'Beauty' cannot be separated. Without Love there is no ( inner sense of ?) Beauty; they are inseparable. ( But unfortunately for the modern civilisation ?) we have exercised our intellect, our ( mental ?) 'cleverness', to such an extent that they predominate, violating what may be called ( empathy or ?) Love. We shan't be able to find out what that ( compassionate intelligence of ?) Love is if we don't step down from our ( self-protecting?) 'cleverness' and intellectual 'sophistication', if we don't 'feel' the brilliant light reflected on water and are not aware of that new grass. Isn't it important for us to find out how we have alienated ourselves from the very common things of life? If we lose touch with Nature doesn't it also mean that we are losing touch with ( people and also ?) with ourselves? We seek for Beauty and Love outside ourselves, in other people, or in ( valuable ?) possessions. ( So, eventually ?) they become far more important than ( the inner sense of ?) Love itself.
Beauty is in ourselves, not necessarily in the things about us. When we invest 'beauty' in them, then the ( inward sense of ?) beauty in ourselves lessens. So as the (outer) world becomes more violent, materialistic, the museums and all those other possessions become the ( safe cultural values ?) with which we try to clothe our own inner nakedness and emptiness.

Q: Why do you say that when we find beauty in people and in things around us, and when we experience pleasure, it lessens the beauty and the love within us?

K: All ( 'psychological' ) dependence breeds in us possessiveness, and we become ( inwardly identified with ?) the 'thing' which we possess. ( Eg:) If I possess this house - I 'am' (inwardly identified with the mental 'image' of ?) this house. So the dependence on the beauty of a line, or on the loveliness of a face, surely must diminish the ( creative freedom of the ?) observer himself; when the things outside us become of great (inner value ?) meaning, we are inwardly poverty-ridden .

Q: You are saying that if I respond to that lovely face I might be inwardly ( insufficient or ?) 'poor'. But on the other hand, if I do not sensitively respond to that face or to the line of a building am I not also isolated and dull ?

K: When there is ( this assumption of one's self- ?) isolation there must, precisely, be dependence, and dependence breeds (the need for more ?) pleasure, therefore fear (to see the inner facts ?) . When there is inward poverty there is the urge to fill it. This is ( leading to ?) the bottomless 'pit of the opposites', the ( endless pursuit of self-projected ?) 'opposites' which fill (occupy ?) our lives and create the ( daily ) 'battles' of life. All these ( self-projected ?) 'opposites' are identical (to whatever they are trying to compensate ?) for they are branches of the same root (of desire ?) However 'love' is not the product of ( any sensory ?) dependence, and has no opposite.

Q; Doesn't ugliness exist in the world? And isn't it the opposite of beauty?

K: Of course there is 'ugliness' in the world, as hate, violence, and so on. But why do you compare it (place it on the same level with ?) beauty, with non-violence? We compare it because we have ( a mental ?) 'scale of values' and we put what we call 'beauty' at the top and 'ugliness' at the bottom. Can you not look at ( the actuality of our inherited ?) 'violence' non-comparatively ? And if you do, what happens? You are ( inwardly) dealing only with facts, with what ( actually) 'is' and act (in a flash of insight ?) immediately.
Beauty ( as an inward state of 'being' ?) is not comparable, nor is Love, but when (the 'I' starts choosing ?) : "I love this one more than that one", then it ceases to be Love.

Q: Being sensitive one responds readily and without complications to the lovely face, to the beautiful vase. ( But usually) this ( spontaneous ?) 'un-thinking response' slides imperceptibly into dependence, pleasure and all the complications you were describing, which seems to me inevitable.

K: Is there anything ( psychologically ?) "inevitable" - except, perhaps, death?

Q: If it is not inevitable, it means that I can ( take steps to) order my conduct, which is quickly becoming 'mechanical'.

K: The ( insightful ?) seeing of this 'inevitable' ( sliding ?) process is to be (inwardly) not mechanical. It is only the mind that refuses to see 'what is' that becomes mechanical.

Q: Supposing that I see this 'inevitable' (sliding back into duality ?) , I still wonder where and how to draw the line?

K: You don't (have to ?) 'draw the line'; the 'seeing'( itself) brings its own action. When you say, "Where am I to draw the line?" it is the interference of thought which is frightened of being again (trapped ?) and wants to be free. ( The insightful ?) 'seeing' is not ( connected to ?) this process of thought; seeing is always new and active. Thinking (coming from the 'known' ?) is always old, never fresh.

(In a nutshell: ) ( The 'insight'-based ?) 'seeing' and the ( 'known' based ?) 'thinking' are of two different orders altogether, and these two can never come together. So, Love and Beauty have no ( mental) 'opposites' and are not the outcome of ( the attempt to compensate ?) inward poverty. Therefore ( the insightful perception of ?) Love is ( occuring ?) at the beginning and not at the end (of the spiritual Quest ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #114
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 322 posts in this forum Offline

Well John, after having left your response to my last post sunk for a while into my brain, I was going to reread it and go into it, but it is now gone...

it is a bit like sending a letter then take it back from the receiver...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #115
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: What is 'God' to you ? (From the Only Revolution (1969)

The sound of the church bell came through the woods across the water and over the deep meadow. The sound was different according to whether it came through the woods or over the open meadows or across the fast-running, noisy stream. Sound, like light has a quality that silence brings; the deeper the silence the more the beauty of the sound is heard. That evening, with the sun riding just above the western hills, the sound of those church bells was quite extraordinary. It was as though you heard the bells for the first time and they carried the feeling of that evening.
We hardly ever listen to the sound of a dog's bark, or to the cry of a child or the laughter of a man as he passes by. We (mentally ?) separate ourselves from everything, and from this isolation look and listen to all things. It is this separation which is so destructive, for in that lies all conflict and confusion. If you listened to the sound of those bells with complete silence you would be 'riding' on it - or, rather, the sound would carry you across the valley and over the hill. The beauty of it is felt only when 'you' and the 'sound' are not separate, when you are part of it. Meditation is (an unique opportunity for ?) ending this separation

Meditation is not ( supposed to be ?) a separate thing from life; it is the very essence of daily living. To listen to those bells, to hear the laughter of that peasant as he walks by with his wife, to listen to the sound of the bell on the bicycle of the little girl as she passes by: it is the whole (unity?) of life that meditation opens.

*

Q: What is God to you? For the priests, it is a convenient word to enable them to hang on to their jobs, or to their vested interests, both physical and spiritual, but for the average man - I don't think it bothers him very much, except occasionally when there is some kind of calamity, otherwise it has very little meaning. So I've made the rather long journey (till) here to find out from you if God exists in your life. I've been to India and visited various teachers in their places there, with their disciples, and they all maintain that there is God, and point out the way to Him. I would like, if I may, to talk over with you this rather important question which has haunted man for many thousands of years.

K: It is important from the beginning to understand the contradiction between 'belief' and 'reality'. Belief is the result of ( our cultural ?) conditioning, or the outcome of our own fear (of the Unknown ?) , or the result of (accepting ?) an outer or inner authority which gives ( spiritual ?) comfort. Reality is something wholly different, and there is no passage from this to That. The theologian starts from a fixed position. He 'believes in God', and then spins theories according to his ( cultural) conditioning and the cleverness of his mind. The unwary ( belivers ?) are caught in this, as the unwary fly is caught in the web of the spider. The ( sacred ?) words become extremely important, and their repetition 'mesmerizes' the credulous. The 'believing mind' is not an enquiring mind, and so it remains ( comfortably installed ?) within the limits of the formula or the principle. It is like an ( domesticated ?) animal tied to a post, who can wander only within the limits of the rope.

Q: But without ( any faith or ?) belief we have nothing! I believe in Goodness; I believe in the Hereafter and in evolutionary growth towards spiritual perfection. To me these ( inner) beliefs are immensely important, for they keep me in line, in morality; if you take away belief (my inner faith ?) I am lost.

K: "Being" good is now, in the present; "becoming" good is the invention ( projection ?) of a mind that is caught in time. What is ( inwardly ?) important is not what you believe, but why your mind is burdened with beliefs. Are they ( spiritually ?) essential? If you put that question to yourself seriously you will find that they are the result of fear, or of the habit of accepting (the collectively adopted values ?) . It is this basic fear (of being insecure inwardly ?) which prevents you (of getting directly ?) involved in what actually is. Being involved is natural; you are involved in life, in your activities; you are in life, in the whole movement of it. But to be ( inwardly ?) 'committed' ( to an ideology ) is a process of ( the self-centred ?) thought, and thought is always (self-) separative, it always functions in fragments (in safe compartments ?) .

Q: You are forcing me into a corner by ( the integrity of ) your perception, but isn't this also a ( subliminal ?) form of propaganda ?

K: Surely not. You are 'forcing yourself' (or... are 'subliminally' pushed ?) into a corner where you have to realize for yourself what is actually ( shown in the 'mirror' placed ?) in front of you, therefore you are free of all (outward) authority. To see (the truth about 'what is' in there ?) belief is not necessary. On the contrary, to see, freedom from belief is necessary. Seeing is a 'negative' state (of not-knowing ?) in which the "what is" ( is revealing itself ?) evident. Belief is a ( safe) formula (for inner) inaction which (eventually ?) breeds hypocrisy, so it is a ( 'psychological' ?) danger which must be totally avoided if one is to see the truth of 'what is'.

Q: Can I be free of this (inner) fear?

K: Surely you're putting the question wrongly: you 'are' the (producer of this subliminal ?) fear; 'you' and the 'fear' are not two separate things. The (self-) separation is (generating its own ?) fear, but when you see that you 'are' the fear, that you and fear are not two separate things, fear disappears. Then ( your ) 'beliefs' are not necessary at all since you live only with 'what is', and see the truth of it.

Q: But you still have not answered my question about God, have you?

K: Where is God to be found? In the skies, in your heart, or, is it merely a symbol representing 'something' that cannot ever be put into words? Obviously you must put aside the "web" of words that man has woven around himself. Only after having done this can you begin to enquire if there is, or not, a Reality which is Immeasurable.

Q: But when you have discarded all this ( verbal shield ?) you are feeling completely lost, empty, alone - and in this state (of inner insufficiency ?) how can you seriously enquire?

K: You are in this state (of self-insufficiency ?) because you have not actually seen (inwardly) the false as being 'false'. When you see ( the truth about ?) it, it gives you a tremendous ( intelligent ?) energy and freedom to see the truth as being the 'truth', not as a fancy of the mind. It is this ( inwardly perceptive ?) freedom that is necessary to see if there is, or not, 'something' (the Unnamed ?) which cannot be put into words. But this is not a 'personal' achievement. Truth (or 'God' ?) is not 'yours' or 'mine'. What is 'yours' can be organized, enshrined, exploited. That is what is happening in the world. But ( a living ?) Truth cannot be 'organized'. Like Beauty and Love, Truth is not in the realm of ( personal) possessions.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #116
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 14 posts in this forum Offline

I usually keep a copy of John's replies to me, in case I want to look at them again. Although personally I like that posts are deleted, it feels like it enables an ongoing newness to the forum. Maybe it wouldn't suit all forums, but this one it seems to suit well.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #117
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 112 posts in this forum Offline

K: Meditation is not ( supposed to be ?) a separate thing from life; it is the very essence of daily living. To listen to those bells, to hear the laughter of that peasant as he walks by with his wife, to listen to the sound of the bell on the bicycle of the little girl as she passes by: it is the whole (unity?) of life that meditation opens.

Thanks John. I stopped reading at this point because it recalled something that came to me this morning...it had to do with 'being in the present': There were the loud, raucous sounds of some crows harassing an eagle that had landed in a nearby tree. I could not see only hear them.. And in the listening, the 'pure' listening to them, there would intermittently come in, words such as : "the crows are harassing an eagle" etc, and it became clear that the words came 'after the fact'; the sounds were in the 'present', the words could never 'catch up', they were always after the 'fact'. This was a bit of a shock because it illuminated this idea that the 'description is never the described' and these 'words' almost automatically replace, obfuscate, the actual event: sight, sound etc. that is taking place. Replacing the 'real' with 'symbols?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 12 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #118
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 17 posts in this forum Offline

Good post. Thinking is always after the fact, always out of touch with what's going on. That's why it is essentially useless. Memory is necessary, but thinking is something else.

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 #119
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Meditation is the essence of Energy ( From The Urgency of Change, K in conversation with Alain Naudé, cca 1972) )

Questioner: I would like to go into the deeper sense of meditation. There are various ( meditation) schools which (are all trying to ) teach 'awareness' but they seem rather superficial, so can we leave all that aside and go into it more deeply?

Krishnamurti: In (the context of ?) 'meditation' ( the acceptance of ?) any form of authority, either one's own or the authority of another, becomes an impediment and prevents the freedom (of inquiry) - a freshness, a newness (of insightful perception ?) . Conformity and imitation must also be set aside completely. Even your past ( inner ) 'experience' must go. Then only can one enquire into this very deep and extraordinarily important thing called meditation. Meditation is the essence of energy.

Questioner: What do you mean by these two words 'energy' and 'meditation'?

Krishnamurti: Whatever you 'do' or 'think' needs energy, but this energy can be dissipated through various conflicts, (trivial ?) pursuits and/or 'sentimental' activities. Our energy is wasted in the conflicts which arise in the (perceptive duality between ?) "me" and (whatever is perceived as ?) the "not-me", in the division between the 'observer' and the (thing) observed, the 'thinker' and the thought. When this 'wastage' is no longer taking place there is an (holistic ?) quality of energy which can be called (choiceless ?) awareness - an 'awareness' in which there is no evaluation, judgement, condemnation or comparison but merely a (quality of ?) 'attentive observation', a seeing of things exactly as they are, both inwardly and outwardly, without the interference of ( the self-centred process of ?) thought, which is the (response of the) past.

Questioner: This I find it hard to understand. If there were no ( memory based ?) thinking at all, how would it be possible to recognise my house, my wife or my neighbourhood? Isn't recognition necessary when you look at a tree or the woman next door?

Krishnamurti: When you observe a tree is ( a verbal ?) recognition necessary? Do you have to say 'it is an oak tree' or do you just look? If you begin to recognise it as an 'oak' or a 'mango' tree then your past (knowledge ) interferes with the direct observation. Same when you look at your wife, if you look with the ( 'psychological' ?) memories of annoyances or pleasures you are not really looking at her but (are confirming your ?) 'image' which you have about her. (Obviously ?) that prevents (or inhibits any ?) direct perception: direct perception does not need ( the back-up of ?) 'recognition'. To ( physically ) recognise your wife, your children, your house or your neighbourhood is, of course necessary, but why should there be an interference of the past in the eyes of the mind and the heart? Doesn't it prevent you from seeing clearly ( objectively) ? When you condemn or have an opinion about something, that opinion or prejudice distorts ( the objective quality of ?) observation.

Questioner: Yes, I can see that. That subtle (subliminal ?) form of 'recognition' does indeed distort . So, you're saying all these 'interferences' of thought (of the 'previously known' ?) are a 'waste of energy'. This point can be logically and actually understood. Then there is the ' space' (the 'psychological distance' ?) that exists between the 'observer' and the thing 'observed' is also a similar waste of (our intelligent ?) energy and brings about conflict. I find your statement 'logical' but I find it extraordinarily difficult to remove this ( self-separating ?) 'space' and bring about harmony between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. How is this to be done?

Krishnamurti: Asking 'how ' means (asking for) a system, a ( meditative ?) practice which ( eventually ?) becomes ( repetitive and ?) mechanical. We have to be rid this word "how".

Questioner: We certainly can go beyond those ('time' loaded ?) words, but ( the question still remains ?): is it possible to bring about a union between the observer and the observed?

Krishnamurti: The 'observer' is always casting its ( 'knowledgeable' ?) shadow on the things it observes. So one must understand the (psychological ?) structure of this 'observer' rather than ( trying to ?) to bring about a 'union' between the two. One must understand the movement ( temporal sequence of activities ?) of the 'observer' and in that ( insightful ?) understanding perhaps the ( identification with this all controlling ?) 'observer' comes to an end.

We must (first ?) examine what the (psychologicl content of this ?) 'observer' is: all the memories (gathered in the past ?) , conscious and unconscious, the racial inheritance, the accumulated ( practical) experience which is called 'knowledge', its reactions. The 'observer' is really a conditioned (id-?)entity, who asserts that 'I am'. (In our brain's constant effort to improve its ?) comfort and security, the 'observer' sets himself apart as 'something' ( an independent entity ?) different from that which he observes, inwardly or outwardly. This brings about a (perceptive ?) duality and from this duality there is conflict, which is the "wastage of energy".
To be ( meditatively ?) aware of this 'observer' , of its self-centred activities, assertions, prejudices, it must be observed without any form of ( judgemental ?) evaluation, without like and dislike; just observe it in daily life, in its relationships. When this ( inward quality of ?) observation is ( crystal ?) clear, isn't there then a freedom from the ( identification with this ) 'observer'?

Questioner: You are saying, sir, that the 'observer' is really the 'ego'; and as long as the 'ego' (this self-centred interface ?) exists, he must resist, divide, separate, for in this ( individualistic ?) separation he feels alive. It gives him the vitality to resist, to fight, and it has become accustomed to that battle; it is his way of living. But can I look at myself so completely, so truly, without distortion? You say that when I do look at myself so clearly then the "I" has no 'movement' at all. You're saying this is part of meditation?

Krishnamurti: Of course, this 'is' meditation.

Questioner: Such quality of observation surely demands extraordinary self-discipline...

Krishnamurti: The root-word for 'discipline' means to learn; when there is ( this integrated inward ?) learning which needs (a quality of ?) undivided attention, it brings about its own responsibility, its own (creative ) activity? If this is what you mean by the word 'self-discipline', then surely there is ( in yourself) this freedom to learn?

Questioner: I can't quite go along with you where this 'learning' is concerned, but I see very clearly that this 'observer' (active interface ?) must come to an end. It is logically so, and there must be no conflict: that is very clear. But for most of us learning ( about oneself) is an additive process, so you are apparently giving it a different meaning altogether. Can learning be without accumulation?

Krishnamurti: This learning is (has ?) its own action. But what generally happens is that having learnt we try to act upon what we have learnt. So there is ( a subliminal ?) division between the past and the ( present) action , hence a conflict between 'what should be' and the 'what is', or between 'what has been' and "what is". We are saying that there can be (an insightful ?) action in the very movement of learning: that is, learning 'is' doing; it is not a question of having learnt ( about all the 'psychological' stuff ?) and then acting. This ( time delay ?) is very important to understand because 'having learnt', and 'then acting from that accumulation', is the very nature of the "me", (and of the 'psychological' time ?) . The "I" (the 'me-thinking' process ?) is the essence of the past and this (active ?) past impinges on the present and so ( is going ?) on into the 'future'. While in the ( non-dualistic ?) 'learning' there is a constant (moving with the 'facts' ?), so there is no (need for any psychological ?) 'accumulation' which (would eventually ?) become a (new facet of the ?) "I".

Questioner: But in the technological field there must be accumulated knowledge. One can't fly the Atlantic or run a car, or even do most of the ordinary daily things without knowledge.

Krishnamurti: Of course not, sir; such knowledge is absolutely necessary. We are talking about the (inward ) 'psychological' field in which the "I" operates. ( But since the 'outer' reality is intimately related to our 'inner' reality ?) the "I" can use technological knowledge in order to achieve a better position or prestige; so whenever in (our practical ?) functioning the "I" interferes, things begin to go wrong, for the "I", through ( its acquired) technical skills seeks (to optimise its social ?) status. So the "I" (the 'self'-centred mind ?) is not concerned merely with knowledge in scientific fields; it is using it to achieve something else. It is like a musician who uses the piano to become famous. What he is ( truly) concerned is ( 'money' and ?) 'fame' , not the Beauty of music in itself .
We are not saying that we must get rid of technological knowledge; on the contrary, the more technological knowledge there is the better living conditions will be. But the moment the "I" (our self-interest ?) uses it, things begin to go wrong.

Questioner: So, you are giving quite a different dimension to 'learning', which is marvellous. You are saying that meditation is the ( natural ?) movement of 'learning' and in it there is freedom to learn about everything, not just about meditation, but about the way one lives, drives, eats, talks, everything.

Krishnamurti: As we said , " The essence of energy is ( to be found in ?) meditation". To put it the other way round (negatively ?) - so long as there is a 'meditator' there is no ( authentic ?) meditation.

Questioner: So, you are saying that learning must be a constant flow, without any 'breaks', so that learning and action are one, in a (time-free) movement? The moment there is a 'break' between learning, action and meditation, that is bringing disharmony and (a mentality based on ?) conflict. In that 'break' is ( created the duality of the ? ) 'observer' and the 'observed' and hence the whole wastage of energy; is that what you are saying?

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is what we mean. Meditation is not a ( static) state (of mind) ; it is a (fluid) 'movement', and when we separate ( our daily ?) action from ( an inwardly integrated ?) 'learning', then the 'observer' ( the 'me-who-knows' ?) comes between the learning and the action; then he uses action and learning for 'ulterior' motives. When there is this harmonious movement of acting, of learning, of meditation, there is no wastage of (one's 'mind'?) energy and this is the Beauty of meditation.

(In a nutshell:) 'Learning' is far more important than meditation or action (taken separately ?) . To learn ( holistically ?) there must be complete ( inward) freedom, not only consciously but deeply, inwardly - a ( sense of ?) total freedom. And in freedom there is this movement of learning, acting, meditating as a harmonious whole. The ( ethymology of the ?) word 'whole' not only means 'health' but 'holy'. So learning is holy, acting is holy, meditation is holy. This is really a 'sacred' thing and its Beauty is ( to be found in ?) itself and not 'beyond' it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 16 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 #120
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 485 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The 'ending' of thought (From The Urgency of Change, cca 1972)

Questioner: I wonder what you really mean by 'ending' thought? I talked to a friend about it and he said it is some kind of 'oriental nonsense'. When we don't think we are vacant, dull and unproductive, whereas when we are awake we are thinking, doing, living, quarrelling: these are the only two states we know. You say, be beyond both - beyond thought and vacant inactivity. What do you mean by this?

Krishnamurti: Very simply put, thought is the ( global) response of ( our past) memory, and when thought is functioning there is no new (new quality of ?) living at all; it is ( the 'active' memory of ?) the past modifying itself in the present. So there is nothing new in living that way. When something New is to be found the mind must not be cluttered up with (its self-centred ?) thoughts, fears, pleasures, and everything else. Only when the mind is uncluttered can the New come into being, and for this reason we say that ( the whole mechanism of ?) thought must be still (passively stand-by ?) and operate only when it has to - objectively, efficiently. All ( 'psychological' sense of self-?) continuity is ( generated by an 'unconscious' activity of ?) thought; and when there is (the all controlling sense of self-?) continuity there is nothing new . Do you see how important this is? It's really a (trully existential ?) question : either you live ( 'psychologically' anchored ?) in the past, or you live totally differently.

Questioner: I can see your point but how in the world is one to end this (very intricate process of ?) thought? When I am awake, I think, when I am asleep I also think. The whole structure of my ( 'psychological') being is ( built around this self-identified process of ?) thought and its roots lie far deeper than I know. So how can one 'go beyond' it?

Krishnamurti: We both agreed that when thought is still, something New (a new perceptive quality ?) can be (or occur ?) . We both saw that point clearly and to ( insightfully ?) understand it is (triggering ?) the 'ending of thought'.

Questioner: But isn' this 'understanding' also (taken over by?) thought ?

Krishnamurti: You assume that it is ( taken over by ?) thought, but is it, actually?

Questioner: It is (when translated into ?) a mental movement with a meaning, a communication to oneself.

Krishnamurti: But is the (insight-based ?) 'understanding' a mere 'mental movement with ( a verbal) meaning? The (verbal recognition of the ?) meaning of the words and the ( intellectual) 'understanding' of that meaning is necessary in ( all the pactical areas human ?) life. There thought must function efficiently. But you are asking how ( the 'psychological' component of ?) thought, which is the ( driving) movement of our life -as we know it-, can come to an end. Doesn't it end when 'you' die ?

Questioner: Yes...?

Krishnamurti: So, that is the 'right' question (psychologically-wise ?). To 'die' to ( your attachments to ?) the past, to tradition.

Questioner: But... 'how' ?

Krishnamurti: The brain is the source of thought. The brain is ( a form of living ?) matter and thought is ( the compex processing of all our experience in the world of ?) matter. Can this ('thinking' ?) brain be very still? It is not a question of ( how) to end ( the whole process of ?) thought, but of whether the ( total energy of the ?) brain can be completely still. Can it act with full capacity when necessary but otherwise be still? What happens (inwardly) when the brain is completely still ?

Questioner: In this ( 'silent' moment ?) there is ( the perception of ?) a blackbird singing, the blue sky, the sound of the wind in the trees and my own heartbeat, the total quietness of the body...

Krishnamurti: If there was (a verbalised ) recognition of the blackbird singing, then the ( 'thinking' ?) brain was active, was interpreting. So, it was not still. This really demands a tremendously (awakened ?) 'alertness' and a ( quality of inner ?) discipline which is not brought about by your (subliminal?) desire to achieve a (highly rewarding ?) new experience. Therefore during the day thought (the 'thinking' brain ?) must operate effectively, sanely, but also to watch itself.

Questioner: That's (relatively ?) easy, but what about 'going beyond' it?

Krishnamurti: 'Who' is asking this question? Is it the ( self-identified ?) desire to experience something new or is it the ( authentic spirit of ?) enquiry? If it is the (spirit of ?) enquiry (itself) , then one must enquire and investigate the whole ( multi-level process ?) of thinking, to become completely familiar with it, know all its tricks and subtleties (psychological 'nuts and bolts' ?) . If you have done all this you will know that the question of 'going beyond thought' is an empty one. Going beyond thought is ( implicit in the actual ?) 'knowing' (of) what thought is.

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.)