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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 650 in total
Mon, 30 Nov 2015 #91
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #92
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #93
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #94
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #95
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Dec 2015 #96
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #97
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #98
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #99
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 #100
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 #101
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #102
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 14 posts in this forum Offline

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


Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 #103
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #104
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #105
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #106
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 posts in this forum Offline


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 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 long as it remains ONLY in practical fields and nowhere else the naughty side effects of this will be OK.....


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...


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Dec 2015 #107
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #108
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #109
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #110
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 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 #111
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 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 #112
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 14 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.


Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 #113
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #114
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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
Thu, 17 Dec 2015 #115
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
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.

Even when there is no seeking of it, there is a natural pleasure at the feeling of the brain becoming more alive. I imagine it is common to get an intermittent electic alive feeling in the brain/head through involvement with K?

I have really enjoyed reading these meditations, especially the last one. I wonder if you could say anything about the process of writing one?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Dec 2015 #116
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Choiceless awareness and Attention ( from the Urgency of Change, cca 1972)

Questioner: I should like to know what you mean by 'awareness' because you have often said that this 'awareness' is really what your teaching is about. I've tried to understand it by listening to your talks and reading your books, but I don't seem to get very far. You seem to give some deeper meaning to this word, since it seems to me that we are (pretty much ) aware of what's going on all the time. When I'm sad I know it and when I'm happy I know it too.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we really are aware of anger, sadness, happiness (at the very moment they occur ) ? Or we are ( becoming conscious ?) of these things only when they are all over?
So, let us begin (this enquiry ?) as though we know nothing about it and explore it very deeply (since it ?) could reveal an extra-ordinary state, a ( perceptive ?) dimension not touched by ( our self-centred ?) superficial awareness.
Let us start from the 'superficial' (level of sensory awareness ?) and work through (inwardly) . We perceive with our senses the things about us - the colour of the flower, the humming bird over that flower, the light of this Californian sun, the thousand sounds of different qualities and subtleties, the depth and the height, the shadow of the tree and the tree itself. We feel in the same way our own bodies, which are the instruments of these different kinds of superficial, sensory perceptions. If these perceptions remained at the superficial level there would be no confusion at all since there is no preference, no 'likes' or 'dislikes', no 'psychological' involvement. Is this sensory perception (level of ?) awareness quite clear? It can be expanded to the stars, to the depth of the seas, and to the ultimate frontiers of scientific observation, using all the instruments of modern technology.

Questioner: Yes, I think I understand that.

Krishnamurti: Now, the next step ( level of awareness ?) is ( related to ?) what you 'think and/or feel' about them, to your ( personal) 'psychological' response to (what we call ?) 'thoughts' or 'emotions'. (At this level ?) the ( verbal) description is never the ( actuality of the facts ) described. Never confuse the words with the things they describe. The word is never the real, as we are so easily 'carried away' when we come to the next stage of awareness where it becomes 'personal' and we get emotional through ( by ?) words.

So there is the sensory awareness of the tree, the bird, the door, and there are (our personal ?) responses to that (in terms of ?) thoughts, feelings, emotions. Now when we become ( non-verbally ?) aware of these ( 'personal') responses, we might call it the 'second depth' of awareness. There is the awareness of the rose, and the awareness of our response to the rose. In reality it is the same (choiceless quality of ?) awareness which sees the rose and which sees the response. It is one movement and it would be wrong to (split it into ?) an 'outward' and an 'inward' awareness. When there is a ( direct ?) visual awareness of the tree without any 'psychological' involvement there is no division in that relationship. But when there is a 'psychological' (and/or cultural ?) response to the tree, this response is a conditioned response, the ('knowing' ?) response of our past memory, past experiences, and this response is (subliminally bringing ?) a division in our relationships. This response is ( the origin ?) of what we shall call the "me" in relationship with the "non-me". This is how 'you' place yourself in relationship to 'the ( rest of the ?) world'. So the world is seen not as it is, but in its various relationships to the "me" of memory.

(To recap:) When there is the (pure) 'awareness' of the tree there is no evaluation. But when there is a (verbally compounded ?) response to the tree, the tree is 'judged' ( in terms of ?) 'like' and 'dislike', then a ( subliminal inward ?) division takes place as the "me" who is ( feeling to be) different from the "thing observed". This "me" is the ( self-identified cultural ?) response of all our past memory, past experiences.
So can there be a (non-verbal ?) awareness of these responses and reactions, without any judgement? In this way we eradicate the ( 'psychological' sense of ?) division both in looking at the tree and in looking at ourselves.

Questioner: Yes, I think I understand all that.

Krishnamurti: Is this seen as clearly as the (actual perception of the ?) tree itself, or is it simply the clarity of ( the verbal ?) description? Remember, as we have already said, the (fact) described is not the verbal description. What have you got, the thing or its description?

Questioner: I think, the 'thing'.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, there is no "me" ( interfering with its ?) verbal description in seeing the actual fact ? There is either the "me" or the "seeing", there can't be both (at the same time) . The "me" cannot see, cannot be aware ( of anything underneath its own level ?) .

Questioner: I think I've got the feeling of it, but I must let it sink in. May I come again tomorrow?

Questioner: Is there a 'true me' outside the 'me' of temporal reality ?

Krishnamurti: We have seen how heavily conditioned are our ( 'psychological') responses . When you ask if there is a "me" ( a true 'self' ?) outside of ( the world of ) relationship, it becomes a speculative question as long as there is no freedom from these ( self-identified ?) conditioned responses.

So our first question (should rather be): Can the mind, in which is included all our ( thoughts and ?) feelings, be free of the ( burden of this psychological ?) conditioning, which is the ( stream all our ?) past? This (active) past is ( impersonated by ?) the "me". As long as the mind is operating in ( rooted in?) the past there is the "me" ( safe platform of observation ?) , the mind 'is' ( identifying itself with ?) this "me".
So we are asking: can the mind (or the human consciousness ?) free itself from ( the psychological burden of ?) yesterday? All this ( has to be ?) one unitary action of awareness.

Questioner: Indeed, can the human mind be free of the past ?

Krishnamurti: Who is putting that question? Is it the ( self-centred ?) 'entity' who is the result of a great many conflicts, memories and experiences, or does this question arise out of the perception of the ( actual) fact? One either turns away from ( such ?) a 'fact' or one faces it. If there is no ( response of the past interfering as the ?) 'observer', then there is ( an authentic state of ?) silence, a complete negation of the whole past.

Questioner: Here you 'lost' me. How can I wipe away all my past in a few seconds?

Krishnamurti: Let us bear in mind that we are discussing ( choiceless ?) 'awareness'. To recapitulate: there is the ( sensory perception of the ?) tree, then there is the 'word ( the 'recognising & naming' ) response to the tree, then 'my' ( personal) response coming from the past; and ( since the 'personal' mind gets stuck there ?) there is the question: can I escape from all this turmoil and agony? If the "me" is asking this question it is (obviously trying to ?) perpetuate itself.
Now, being aware of this ( time binding trap ?) , it (the mind ) doesn't ask the question! Being aware and seeing all the implications of it, the question cannot be asked. Do you see that all this (self-centred ?) awareness is superficial? It is the same as the awareness which sees the tree.

Questioner: But isn't there any other dimension of 'awareness' (of human consciousness ?) ?

Krishnamurti: When the 'observer' is wholly silent isn't there a different quality of awareness coming into ( one's) being?

Questioner: What action could then be taken without the 'observer' ?

Krishnamurti: Again, are you asking this question from this 'side of the river' ( the 'known' side) , or is it from the 'other bank'? If you are on the 'other bank', you would not ask this question since your action will be 'originating ?) from ( the 'not-knowingness' of ?) that bank.

So ( to re-recap): there is the ('knowledgeable' ?) awareness of this bank, with all its structure, its nature and all its ( time-binding?) traps, and what deadly monotony there is in all that! Now, ( the non-personal quality of ?) awareness has shown us the nature of the trap, and therefore there is the negation of all traps; so the ( open ended space of the ?) Mind is now empty. It is empty of the "me" and of the traps. This ( awakened ?) mind has a different quality, a different dimension of awareness. This awareness is not ( even) aware that it is aware (is not self-conscious ?) .

Questioner: My God, this is sounding too difficult. You are saying things that sound true, but I'm not there yet. Can you put it differently? Can't you pull me out of my trap?

Krishnamurti: Nobody can 'pull you out' of your trap - no guru, no drug, no mantra, and especially not myself. All that you have to do is to be (diligently ?) 'aware' from the beginning to the end, and not ( fall asleep and ?) become inattentive in the middle of it. This new quality of awareness is ( a state of inwardly integrated ?) 'attention', and in this 'attention' there is no frontier (no boundaries ?) made by the "me". This 'attention' is the highest form of virtue, therefore it is (the anonymous action of ?) Love. It is supreme intelligence, and there cannot be ( a self-sustained quality of inward ?) attention if you are not sensitive to all these man-made ( 'time'-binding ?) traps.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 19 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 #117
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The New Human Being ( From the Urgency of Change)

Questioner: I am a reformer, a social worker. Seeing the extraordinary injustice there is in the world my whole life has been dedicated to reforming society so that man can live in dignity, beauty and freedom, and realize the potential which nature seems to have given him, and which he himself seems always to have stolen from his fellow man. It seems to me that all the social injustice in the world absolutely must be changed. I want passionately to do something about it, yet I don't know where to begin to tackle it.

Krishnamurti: Reforms needs further reforms, and this is an endless ( postponing ?) process. So let us forget ( being obsessed with ?) this idea of wanting to reform the world and let us see actually what is happening, right throughout the world. ( The omnipresent medias ?) are constantly talking about the political (and economical ?) action as being a most important action, then there is the 'religious' action based on belief, authority and acceptance, obedience and the utter denial of (any individual) freedom. So if one puts aside all these, what is one to do?

Questioner: This is what I was actually asking you...

Krishnamurti: We must take the 'fact'( the 'what 'is' ?) of the actual relationship between human beings and change that radically. That is the real thing. But this ( qualitative ?) revolution is not to be achieved through ( the traditional process of ?) evolution, which is ( a process of ?) time.

Questioner: All historical changes have taken place in time; none of them has been immediate. Are you not proposing something quite ( unrealistic and) inconceivable?

Krishnamurti: If you take time to change, everything you are trying to change is constantly being modified and perpetuated by the environment, by life itself. So there is no end to it. It is like trying to clean the water in a tank which is constantly being refilled with dirty water. So ( for an individual change in our consciousness?) 'time' is out. Now, what is going to bring about this ( inner) change? It cannot be (our self-centred ?) will, determination, or choice, or desire, because all these are part of the ( same self-centred ?) entity that has to be changed.

Questioner: Is there any human action which is not the action of will and ( self-) assertiveness?

Krishnamurti: Instead of asking this ( academical ?) question let us go much deeper. All the 'social maladies' you mentioned are the projection of a (hidden contradiction and ?) conflict in the heart of each human being. The only possible change is a radical transformation of yourself in all your relationships, not in some vague future, but ( in the time-fee dimension of the ?) 'now'.

Questioner: But how can I completely eradicate this conflict in myself, this contradiction, this ( ages old ) conditioning? I understand what you mean intellectually, but it is merely an idea to me; I don't see it with my heart. If I try to act on this 'intellectual understanding' I am getting in ( a still greater ?) conflict with other deeper parts of myself.

Krishnamurti: If you could passionately see (the truth about ?) this contradiction, the ( subliminal ?) division between the mind and the heart, then that very ( insightful ?) perception 'is' the revolution. If you actually see ( the truth about it ?) in yourself, then the problem ( of man's fragmentation ?) comes to an end. A man who is passionate about the ( actual state of the ?) world and sees the necessity for ( a radical ?) change, must be free from the weight of time, free from the ( psychological) burden of the past, free from all the action of ( self-centred ?) will: this is the new human being. This is the (true ?) social, psychological, and even political revolution.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Dec 2015 #118
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

Questioner: But how can I completely eradicate this conflict in myself, this contradiction, this ( ages old ) conditioning? I understand what you mean intellectually, but it is merely an idea to me; I don't see it with my heart. If I try to act on this 'intellectual understanding' I am getting in ( a still greater ?) conflict with other deeper parts of myself.

Krishnamurti: "If you could passionately see (the truth about ?) this contradiction, the ( subliminal ?) division between the mind and the heart, then that very ( insightful ?) perception 'is' the revolution."

To me the 'questioner' here has not yet glimpsed the fact that the 'conditioned' 'I' who wants to help create a better world (a noble desire) is the actual 'cause' of the problems humans face today. That, it seems to me is the "contradiction" that K has pointed out and that has to be deeply seen by us for there to be any possible real change. The seeing of our conditioned state is the arising of intelligence.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 19 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Dec 2015 #119
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Seeing The Whole ( from The Urgency of Change, 1972)

Questioner: When I listen to you I seem to understand what you are talking about, not only verbally, but at a much deeper level. I am part of it; I fully grasp with my whole being the truth of what you say. My hearing is sharpened, and the very seeing of the flowers, the trees, and those mountains with snow, makes me feel I am part of them. In this awareness I have no conflict, no contradiction. it is as though I could do anything, and that whatever I did would be true, would not bring either conflict or pain. But unfortunately that state lasts only for an hour or two, while I'm listening to you. When I leave the talks it all seems to evaporate and I'm back where I was. I am constantly trying to be aware of my ( state of inner ?) conflict, of my confusion, but this ( self-directed ?) 'awareness' in no way resolves these things. On the contrary, being aware of them seems to give them vitality and duration. You often talk of a 'choiceless' awareness, but my mind is full of choices, decisions and opinions. I have applied this ( highly recommended) 'choiceless' awareness to a particular habit I have, and it has not gone. When I am trying to be aware of some inner conflict or strain, the 'observer' keeps looking to see if it has already gone... so I'm never able to 'shake it off'.

Krishnamurti: Awareness is not a ( mental ?) commitment to something. Awareness is a (non-verbal quality of ?) observation of both outer and inner, in which the 'direction' (of personal motivation ?) has stopped. You are ( passively ?) aware, but the thing of which you are aware is not being encouraged or nourished. Awareness is not is not a (concentrated ?) action of will (focussed on ?) what it will be aware of, and analysing (disecting ?) it in order to bring about a certain result. When atention is deliberately focused on a specific subject - whether reading a book or watching your anger this (is enclosing) all your energy and thought within your chosen frontiers ; and in this exclusion (of everything else ?) , the very thing you are concentrating upon is strengthened, nourished.

So here we have to understand the (holistic ?) nature of awareness: You can either be aware of a particular thing, or be aware of that particular thing as part of the totality (of your being ?) . The particular in itself has ( a relatively ?) little meaning, but when you see (it as part of ?) the total (picture ?) , then that 'particular' has a relationship to the whole. Only in this (all inclusive ?) relationship does the 'particular' find its right meaning (its right place ?) ; it doesn't become all-important, it is not exaggerated.

The real question is: does one see the total process of ( one's ?) life or is one concentrated on the particular, thus missing the whole field of life? To be aware of the whole field (includes the ) seeing of the particular, but, at the same time, ( it is seen in the wider perspective of?) its relationship to the whole. (Eg:) If you are feeling angry and are getting concerned with ending that (particular reaction of ?) anger, then you try to focus your attention on that 'anger' and ( implicitly ignoring its relationship to ?) the whole and that feeling of anger is strengthened. But anger is interrelated to the whole ( of yourself ?) . So when we separate the 'particular' from the 'whole' , this (obsessive focussing on the ?) 'particular' breeds its own problems.

Questioner: What do you exactly mean by 'seeing the whole'? What is ( the nature of this ?) 'extensive' (or all inclusive ) awareness in which the particular is seen as a detail? Is it some 'mystical' experience? And of what "whole" are you talking about ?

Krishnamurti: The whole field of our life (of our existence ?) : the mind, love, everything which is in life. Let's put this (in a holistic perspective?) way: do you perceive with your 'mind' and your 'heart' ( kept ?) separately, or do you 'see', 'hear', 'feel', 'think', 'all (- in one' ?) together ?

Questioner: I don't know what you mean.

Krishnamurti: ( Take an everyday challenge of life :) You hear an insult, your feelings tell that you don't like it, your mind intervenes to (respond or to calm down ?) control or justify, and so on. Then again ( a self-assuring ?) feeling takes over where the mind has concluded. So ( even a minor ?) event unleashes a chain-reaction of the different parts of your being. What you heard had been 'broken up' (and processed fragmentarily ?) , and if you concentrate on (or... get stuck into?) one of those fragments, you miss the total process . Hearing can be fragmentary or it can be done with all your being, totally. So, by "perception of the whole" we mean ( an inwardly integrated ?) perception with your eyes, your ears, your heart, your mind; not perception with each separately, giving your complete attention. In that (inner state of integrated ?) attention', the particular, such as anger, has a different meaning since it is (perceived as ?) related to many other issues.

Questioner: So you mean "seeing with the whole of your being"; it is a question of quality not quantity. Is that correct?

Krishnamurti: Yes, precisely. But do you "see totally" in this way or are you merely (conceptualising ) it? Do you see anger with your "heart, mind, ears and eyes"? When you give importance (priority ?) to the ( perception of the ?) whole (picture ?) you do not forget the particular.

Questioner: But then, what happens to the 'particular', to that specific reaction of anger?

Krishnamurti: If you are aware of that 'anger' with your whole being, is there ( any residues of ) anger (left )? ( Our) inattention is ( at the origins of ?) anger, not attention. So an "attention with your entire being" is seeing the whole, while "inattention" is ( resulting in ?) seeing (an/ord getting stuck in?) the 'particular'. To be ( perceptively ?) aware of the whole and of the particular, and of the ( subtle inter-?) relationship between the two, is the whole problem. When (inattentive inwardly?) we ( cvasi-unconsciously ?) divide the particular from the rest and try to solve it. And so ( the chain of human ?) 'conflict' increases and there is no way out.

Questioner: Are you saying that there should be no division between this reaction of anger and me when I look at it with all my being?

Krishnamurti: Exactly. this what you actually are doing, or are you merely following the ( rationality of the ?) words?

Questioner: Well, I am simply trying to understand you...

Krishnamurti: Are you trying to understand me or are you "seeing the truth" ( having an insight into ?) what we are talking about, which is independent of me (as a 'speaker' ?) If you actually "see the truth" of what we are talking about, then you are ( a "light for yourself" and therefore ?) your own guru and your own disciple, which is to understand yourself. This ( insight-based quality of ?) understanding cannot be 'learnt' ( or bought ?) from another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Dec 2015 #120
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Reincarnation and the Stepping Out

( a reader friendly edited K conversation with Alain Naudé and Mary Zimbalist following the death of a common friend)

KRISHNAMURTI: The other day Sidney Field came to see me. His brother John died recently and he was very concerned whether his brother was living in a different level of consciousness; whether there was John as an entity born [in the] next life. And did I believe in reincarnation, and what did it mean. So out of that conversation two (metaphysical) things came up. First, is there a permanent ego? If there is such a thing as a permanent something, then what is its relationship from the present (life) to the future (life) ? If you admit or accept or believe that there is a permanent ego, then reincarnation is plausible, because the permanent ego (self) if it is permanent, can be changed in ten years’ time. It can incarnate differently in ten years’ time. If there is no permanent entity, then what is reincarnation? Both involve time, both involve a movement in space. Space being environment, relationship, pressure, all that existing within that space, time. So is there a permanent 'me'? Obviously not. But Sidney said, “Then what is it that I feel, that John is with me? When I enter the room, I know he is there. I’m not fooling myself, I’m not imagining; I feel him there as I feel my sister who was in that room yesterday. It’s as clear, as definite as that.” I said of course he is there, because first of all you have your association and memories of John and that is projected, and that projection is your remembrance.

MARY ZIMBALIST: When you say 'he was in that room', whether alive or dead, was there something external to his brother and his sister that was there, or was it in their consciousness?

K: It is both in their consciousness and outside their consciousness. That may emanate from them or from John's (psychical) atmosphere, his thoughts, his way of behaving still remaining there, even though physically he might have gone.

Z: Are you saying there is a sort of ( psychic ?) energy which human beings give off?

K: There was a photograph of a parking lot taken where there had been many cars, and the photo showed, although there were no cars there, the form of the cars that had been there. That is, the heat ( image) that the car had left came on the negative.

ALAIN NAUDE: And also one day when we were all living in Gstaad, the first time I was your guest at Gstaad, we were living at Les Capris—you left for America before any of us left, and I went into that flat— and your presence was there, so strong, that one felt one could touch you.

K: So there are three possibilities. a) I project it out of my remembrance and consciousness, b) pick up the residual energy of John.

A: Or John is really there as before he died? The third possibility?

K: I live in a room for a number of years. The presence ( the psychological atmosphere ?) of that room contained my energy, my thoughts, my feelings. So those are the three possibilities. And the other is John’s ( self-identified ?) thought, because John (still) clings to ( this) life. John’s desires are there 'in the air', not ( just) in the room.

A: Immaterially?

K: Yes, they are there just like a thought( standing wave ?) .

A: Does that mean that there is still there a being who is self-conscious calling himself John, thinking those thoughts?

K: I doubt it.

A: Well, that is what most people who believe in reincarnation would postulate.

K: This makes three possibilities plus the idea that John whose physical body is gone, exists ( as a thought form in the stream of collective ?) thought.

A: As a thinking entity?

K: It’s rather interesting—John continues (within that Stream ?) because he is (was a psychological manifestation of ?) this world of vulgarity, of greed, of envy, and competition. That is the common pattern (the self-centred collective mentality ?) of man. It continues and John may be identified with that, or 'is' (the manifestation of ?) that.

A: John is the desires, the thoughts, the beliefs, the associations which are incarnate and which are material.

K: Which is 'the world'—which is ( the mentality of practically ?) everybody.

A: It would be nice if you could explain it a little better. Do you mean that John continues because there is the continuation of the 'vulgar' in him ?

K: That’s right: (greed ?) fear, wanting power, position. So because that ( drive) is a common thing of the world, he 'is' of the world and this ( self-centred consciousness of the ?) 'world' does incarnate.

A: What do you mean when you say "the 'world' does incarnate" ?

K: Take the mass (group consciousness ?) of the people caught in this 'stream' and that stream goes on . I may have a son who is part of that stream and in that stream there is John also, as a human being who is caught in it. And my son may remember some of John’s attitudes.

A: Ah, but you are saying that John is contained in all the memories that different people have of him. In that respect we can see that he does continue to exist. Because I remember a friend of mine died not long ago, and it was very clear to me when I thought about it that in fact he was very much alive in the memories of all the people who had loved him.

K: That’s just it.

A: Therefore, he was not absent from the world, he was still in the stream of events which we call 'the world', which is the lives of different people who had associated with him. In that sense we see that he can perhaps live forever.

K: Unless he breaks away from it—breaks away from the stream. A man who is not vulgar—let’s use that word, vulgar, representing all this... greed, envy, power, position, hatred, desires, all that—let’s call that vulgar. Unless I am free from the vulgar, I will continue representing (impersonating ?) the whole 'vulgarity' of mankind.

A: Yes, I will be that vulgarity by pursuing it, and in fact incarnating in it, giving it life.

K: Therefore I incarnate in that ( collective Stream of ?) vulgarity. That is, first I can project John, my brother.

A: So, all his ( self-identified ?) thoughts remain in the room?

K: Feelings...

A: The 'psychic' equivalent of his physical energy remains like the smell of an old coat that you hang up.

K: His 'will' (power ?) , if he has a very strong will; active desires and thought, they also remain (are hanging around ?)

A: But that’s not different from the third point. The third point is that his (self-identified ?) 'thought' remains, which is will, which is desire.

K: The fourth point is ( his continuity within ?) the Stream of Vulgarity.

A: Well, that’s not very clear.

K: Look, sir, I live an ordinary life, like millions and millions of people. A little more refined, but ( inwardly) I am ( part of ?) that current. This 'me' is bound to continue in that stream, which is the Stream of 'Me'.

A: Therefore are you saying, sir, even dead I continue because the things (or tendencies ?) which were ( creating the) 'me' are continuing.

K: In the (shared consciousness of all ?) human beings.

A: Therefore, since these 'things' which filled and occupied my life survive, in a manner of speaking I survive since they do.

K: That’s right. That’s four points.

A: The ( 1000 $ ) question is: is there a ( self-) conscious thinking entity who knows that he is conscious when everybody has said, “There goes poor old John,” even put him in the ground. Is there a conscious entity who immaterially says, “Good gracious, they’ve put that body in the ground but I have consciousness of being alive.”

K: Sidney was asking that same question. Does John, whose body was cremated — does that 'entity' continue to live?

A: Does that entity continue to have its consciousness of its own existence?

K: When you ask whether he is still living in a separate consciousness, I question whether he was ever separate from the stream. You follow what I am saying, sir? When John was alive, was he different (spiritually independent ?) from the Stream? The Stream of humanity is ( propelling itself by selfishness ?) anger, hate, jealousy, seeking power, position, cheating, polluted. When John existed physically, he had a physical body, but 'psychologically' (inwardly) he was ( part ?) of this. Therefore was he ever different from this stream? Or only thinking that he was different.

A: Well, there was an 'entity' who was self-conscious...

K: But was there a 'John' who was different from the stream? This is what is happening with millions of people. As long as I 'swim' in that current (of self-centredness ?) , am I different from the stream? This is what we call the 'permanent self' . There is only an (independent spiritual entity of ?) 'John' when he is ( stepping ?) out of that stream.

( To recap: ) We were trying to find out if there is a permanent 'self' which incarnates. People who 'believe' in reincarnation say there is a permanent 'self' and it take many lives so that it can become ( perfect and ?) absorbed in Brahma and all that. Now, is there from the beginning a permanent entity, an entity that lasts centuries and centuries? There is no such permanent entity, obviously. The (illusion of my) 'permanence' is ( created by ?) the identification with my furniture, my wife, my circumstances. But these are 'images' of thought. So ( at this stage of our spiritual development ?) there is no permanent 'self'. If there is something 'permanent' it would be the stream itself . Now, realizing that I am like the rest of the world, that there is no separate 'K', I can 'incarnate' ( become spiritually individualised only ?) if I step out of it. 'Incarnate' in the sense that such ( qualitative ?) 'change' can take place away from the stream. In the stream there is no ( posibility for such inner ?) change.

A:Therefore, if there is a (spiritual ?) entity, then it must be out of the stream. Therefore, that which is 'true' (truly spiritual ?)

K: is not (to be found ?) in the stream. When Naudé dies, as long as he (inwardly ) belongs to the stream, that stream and its flow is semipermanent. But if Naudé 'steps out' of the stream, he is no longer belonging to the stream; therefore there is nothing 'permanent'. So, as long as I belong to the Stream there is no ( independent spiritual ?) entity. I 'am' the world.

A: That’s right.

K: So, when I step out of the( stream of the ?) 'world', is there a ( self-conscious ?) 'me' to continue?

A: Exactly...

K: So, when we say 'I must have many lives' (in order to become spiritually enlightened ?) what we are trying to do is to justify the existence of this (collective ?) stream, (assuming that) I must go through ( all the tribulations of ?) the stream.

A: What we are trying to do is trying to establish that we are different from the Stream.

K: ( Which ) we are not. So, sir, if there is no permanent ( self-conscious entity as ?) 'K' or 'Naudé' or 'Zimbalist', what happens? I think that in the Tibetan tradition, when a person is dying, the monk comes in and sends all the family away, locks the door and says to the dying man, “Look you’re dying, so let go all of your antagonisms (all your negativity ?) , all your ( deeper attachments to ?) worldliness , because if you let go you are going to meet a ( spiritual ?) 'light' in which you will be absorbed. If not, you’ll have come back to the Stream (and start all over again) . You will be ( part of ?) the Stream (of Self-interest ?) again.

A: Yes...

K: So what happens to 'you' if you step out of the stream? The stepping out is the ( spiritual equivalent of ?) 'incarnation'. Yes, sir, there is a new ( spiritual ?) dimension coming into being (being born?). You follow? ( Suppose that ?) Naudé has stepped out of the stream. You are not ( self-identified as ?) an 'artist', as a 'musician', all that ( outward ?) identification is part of the stream. When you discard all that, what happens?

A: You have no (such self-centred ?) 'identity' ?

K: 'Identity' is here. Say, for instance, Napoleon, or any of these ( bad ?) 'world leaders': they did every horror imaginable, they lived and died in this Stream (of collective selfishness ?) , they were of the stream. Now there is a man who 'steps out' of the stream.

A: Before his physical death?

K: Of course; otherwise there is no point (it's too late ?) . Suppose you, living now, step out of the stream. What happens?

A: Nothing can be said about what happens. It’s like people talking about deep sleep from awakeness.

K: You see, none of us 'step out' of this river (of collective selfishness ?) , and we are always from the river, trying to reach the 'other shore'. We belong to this stream, all of us. Man does belong to the stream and from the stream he wants to reach that other shore, (without ) never ( actually) leaving the river. Now this man says, all right, I see the fallacy of this, the absurdity of my position. So the ( totality of his) mind says, “Out!” He steps out and what takes place?

A: The only thing that one can say is "silence". But in terms of the stream it is sometimes called 'oblivion'.

K: You know what it means to step out of the stream: no 'character' (no self-image ?), because the moment you have (a self-conscious ?) 'character' it’s of the stream. The moment you say 'I am virtuous',—or 'not virtuous', you are of the stream. To 'step out' of the stream is to step out of this whole ( self-centred mental ?) structure. Even the (artistical forms of ) creation as we know it is in the stream. Mozart, Beethoven, the painters, they are all here: I can 'create' in the stream. I can paint marvelous pictures. I can compose the most extraordinary symphonies, all the technique...

A: Why are they extra-ordinary?

K: Because the world needs it. There is the demand and the supply. But I’m saying to myself what happens to the man who really 'steps out' ? Here in the river, in the stream, our energy is ( caught) in conflicts, in contradictions, in vulgarity and that’s going on all the time... When he 'steps out' of it, there is no more (inner sense of ) 'conflict', there is no ( sense of self-) division . So what is the ( inner ?) quality of that mind that has no sense of division? It is one of 'pure energy', isn’t it? So our ( first and last ?) concern is ( to have a total insight into ?) this 'stream' (of collective self-interest ?) and to step out of it.

A: That is the (true purpose of ?) real meditation, because the ( swimming or drifting in the ?) stream is not a (creative ?) life. The (survival based mentality of the ?) stream is totally mechanical.

K: So, I must 'die' to the stream .

A: All the time ?

K: All the time . And therefore I must not get ( inwardly ?) entangled with those who are in the stream.

A: You mean that one must repudiate the 'things' (the 'psychological values' ?) of the stream.

K: As I move away from the stream my mind is now ( Universally ?) open. I think that is Compassion. When man stream steps out of the (selfishness) Stream and looks, then he has compassion.

A: And love...

K: So, you see, sir, 'reincarnation', that is, incarnating over and over again, is ( taking place ?) in the stream. This is not a very comforting thing. I come to you and tell you my brother died yesterday, and you tell me this. I call you a cruel man. But you are weeping for yourself, you are weeping for the stream. That’s why people don’t ( really ?) want to know ( the truth ?) . I want to know 'where' my brother is (gone) , not whether he 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 650 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.)