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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 767 in total
Sun, 06 Dec 2015 #91
Thumb_donna_and_jim_fb_bw 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 #92
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #93
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 6 posts in this forum Offline

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

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 08 Dec 2015 #94
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #95
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #96
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #97
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 123 posts in this forum Offline

hello

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

etc

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

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

cheers

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Dec 2015 #98
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #99
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 123 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 #100
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #101
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 9 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 #102
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Dec 2015 #103
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 6 posts in this forum Offline

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

max

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Dec 2015 #104
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #105
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #106
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 9 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 #107
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #108
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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 #109
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 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 #110
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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. But...is 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 #111
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 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: ...it 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
Thu, 24 Dec 2015 #112
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: The Eternal Seeker

Questioner: What is it I'm seeking? I really don't know, but there is a tremendous longing in me for something much more than comfort, pleasure and the ( vain ?) satisfaction of self-fulfilment. I happen to have had all these things, but this is something much more - something at an unfathomable depth that is crying to be released, trying to tell me something. I've had this feeling for many years but when I examine it I don't seem to be able to touch it. Yet it is always there, this longing to 'go beyond the mountains and the skies' to find something (of a truly spiritual significance ?) . Perhaps this thing is there right in front of me, only I don't see it. So, how am I to cross to the "other shore" without taking a boat and rowing across the waters? I feel that's the only way.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's the only way - to find oneself ( consciousness-wise ?) on the "other shore", and from there to live, act and do everything that one does in daily life.

Questioner: But is it (also available ?) for me? I've sat silent; I've studied, examined myself rather intelligently, and of course I've long ago discarded the temples, the shrines and their priests. So you see ,I have come here with complete simplicity.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you really are ( inwardly ?) so simple as you think! From what depth (of your being ?) are you asking this question, and with what love and beauty? Can your mind and heart receive that 'something' which (always ?) comes unexpectedly?

Questioner: If it is as subtle as all that, how real is it? Intimations of such subtlety are usually fleeting, coming and going unnoticed .

Krishnamurti: Must everything be written out on the blackboard (of the 'conscious' mind ?) ? So let us find out whether our minds and hearts are really capable of receiving that Immensity, and not just the words.

Questioner: I think that I've done (my inner 'homework') fairly intelligently, putting aside all the obvious stupidities of nationalism, organized religion, beliefs and I think my mind can grasp the subtleties of life, but that surely is not enough? So what else is needed? What have I to 'do' or 'not do'?
Krishnamurti: ( The contemplative inner state of ?) 'doing nothing' is ( spiritually ?) far more important than 'doing something'. Can the mind be completely inactive, and thereby be 'supremely active'? Love is not (to be found in ?) the activities of thought; it is not (to be found in ?) good behaviour or social righteousness. As 'you' cannot cultivate it, 'you' can do nothing about Love.

Questioner: I understand your statement that "inaction is the highest form of action" - which doesn't mean to do nothing. I come back to my original feeling that there is this ( universality of ?) Love, and I know, too, that it is the only thing (that matters ultimately ) . But my heart is still empty after I have said that.

Krishnamurti: Does this mean that you are no longer ( subliminally ) saying to yourself : "I must attain this 'something' beyond the furthest hills?"

Questioner: You mean I must give up this intimate feeling I have had for so long that 'there is something' beyond all the hills?

Krishnamurti: It is not a question of 'giving up' anything, but there are only these two things: love, and the mind that is empty of ( its identification with the self-centred process of?) thought. If you really have finished with all the ( 'spiritual' goals ?) which man in his search for something has put together, then, are only these two things ( to be seriously meditated upon ?) - 'love' and the 'empty mind'.

Questioner: I am not sure of (having grasped the truth of this ?) . So again I ask what I am to do ?

Krishnamurti: Do you know what it means to 'commune' with what we have just said about love and the mind?

Questioner: Yes, I think so.

Krishnamurti: I wonder if you do. If there is communion with these two things then all (your meditative ?) action will be ( starting ?) from there.

Questioner: The trouble is that I still think that there is 'something' (else) to be discovered which will put everything else in its right place, in its right order.

Krishnamurti: Without these two things there is no possibility of 'going further'. And ( inwardly speaking ?) there may be no 'going anywhere' at all!

Questioner: But can I be in 'communion' with ( the true spirit of ?) it all the time? When we are together I can be somewhat in communion with it. But can I maintain it?

Krishnamurti: To desire to 'maintain it' (to give it a temporal continuity ?) is the 'noise' (of thought & time ?) , and therefore the 'losing' of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Dec 2015 #113
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 9 posts in this forum Offline

Hello John, thanks for your last reply. It has been nice talking with you, even though I often feel a bit out of my depth. Hope you have a good Christmas.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Dec 2015 #114
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 9 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
And therefore I must not get ( inwardly ?) entangled with those who are in the stream.

That is such a good word 'entangled'. I was thinking that the other day, how there are a few people I feel entangled with and how nice it would be to disentangle.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Dec 2015 #115
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

The K lesson du Jour: All about the 'psychological' conditioning and... its undoing

Questioner: You have talked a great deal about (the time binding nature of our psychological ?) 'conditioning' and have said that one must be free of this bondage, otherwise one remains imprisoned always. ( If misunderstood ?) such a statement seems rather outrageous and unacceptable, so I should like to discuss it with you to see how far the human being can uncondition himself. Is it really possible, and if so, what does imply? Is it possible for me, having lived in the ( man-made ?) world of habits, traditions and (thoughtless ?) acceptance of so many things - is it possible for me really to 'throw off' this deep-rooted conditioning? So, what exactly do you mean by "conditioning", and what do you mean by "freedom from conditioning"?

Krishnamurti: Let us take the first question first. We are physically 'conditioned' ('neuro-programmed' ?) by the climate we live in and the food we eat, by the culture in which we live, by the whole ( mentality ?) of our social, religious and economic environment, by our experience, by education and by family pressures and influences. All these are the (active) 'factors' which condition us. Our 'conscious' and 'unconscious' responses to all the challenges of our environment - intellectual, emotional, outward and inward - all these are the action of conditioning. Language is ( part of our cultural ?) conditioning and all thought is the action, the response of conditioning.
Not being able to 'uncondition' (unprogram ?) ourselves in this world, and/or not even realising that 'conditioning' is the central problem, we think that (there is a spiritual ?) freedom in 'Heaven', or in (reaching) 'Nirvana'. Nowadays the 'psychologists' do try to get to grips with this problem, but in doing it (analytically they ?) condition us still further. Thus the religious 'specialists' (myth makers ?) have conditioned us, the 'social order' has conditioned us, the family which is part of it has conditioned us. All this is the ( psychological imprinting of the ?) past which makes up the open as well as the hidden layers of the mind. En passant it is interesting to note that the so-called 'individual(ity)' doesn't exist at all, for it draws on the common (collective ?) reservoir of conditioning which we shares with everybody else, so the ( antagonstic) division between the 'community' ( mentality ?) and the 'individualistic' (one) is false: there is only ( an active human ) 'conditioning' (dealing with ?) all our relationships - to things, people and ideas.

Questioner: Then what am I to do to free myself from it all?

Krishnamurti: The central factor of this conditioning is the "me" (psychological identification ?) which thinks in terms of ( its own continuity in ?) time, the same "me" which now exerts itself in the demand to be free. So the ( active?) root ( process ?) of all conditioning, is the ( self-centred ?) thought which is ( identifying itself as ?) the "me". This "me" is the very essence of the past, the "me" is (generating its own ?) 'time', the "me" is ( colaterally generating ?) 'sorrow' , and now same the "me" endeavours to free itself from itself, makes efforts to achieve (a higher consciousness ?) . This 'struggle to become'( or 'upgrade' itself ?) is ( projecting its own ?) time (line) in which (is involved) the greed for "the more and the better".
( In a nutshell ) The "me" is the ( active) factor of (this man-made ?) 'conditioning'.

Questioner: But what am I left without this "me"?

Krishnamurti: If there is no "me" (identification ?) you are unconditioned, which means you are ( inwardly as ?) 'nothing'.

Questioner: How can the ( self-sustaining ?) action of the "me" stop?

Krishnamurti: It can "stop" ( come to an end ?) only if one sees this whole thing, the whole business of it. If you see it in action, in its relationships, the 'seeing' is the ending of the "me". Not only is this ( non-personal ?) 'seeing' an action which is not conditioned but also it acts upon conditioning.

Questioner: Do you mean to say that the brain - which is the result of our vast evolution in time can free itself?

Krishnamurti: The brain is the result of (mankind's evolution in ?) time; and it is conditioned to protect itself physically; but when it ( is 'overdoing' it ?) trying to protect itself 'psychologically' then the "me" begins, and all our misery starts. It is this (instinctual ?) effort to protect itself 'psychologically' that is (resulting in ?) the affirmation of the "me". The brain can learn, can acquire practical knowledge , but when it acquires ( the self-protecting ?) knowledge psychologically then that ( active) 'knowledge' asserts (expresses ) itself in relationship as the "me" with its experience, its will and its violence. This is what brings division, conflict and sorrow to relationship.

Questioner: Can this brain be ( inwardly) 'still' and only operate when knowledge is demanded in (terms of outward ?) action, as for example in learning a language, driving a car or building a house?

Krishnamurti: The real question is whether the brain, the whole of it, can be still, quiet, and respond efficiently only when it has to, in the practical fields of daily living ? We say it can and this is (very much related to ?) the understanding of what 'meditation' is.


Questioner: I should like to continue where we left off yesterday. As you said at the end, meditation is the emptying of the mind of all conditioning so that there is no distortion or 'illusion'. But in fact, what do you mean by 'illusion'?

Krishnamurti: It is so easy to deceive oneself, so easy to convince oneself of anything at all. The ( subliminal) feeling that one must 'be something' is the beginning of (self-) deception, and, of course, this idealistic attitude leads to various forms of 'hypocrisy' ( theatrical 'masks' ?). What makes 'illusion'? Well, one of the factors is this constant ( mental) comparison between 'what is' and 'what should be', or 'what might be', ( the process of ?) thought trying to improve itself, to get more pleasure, and so on. It is this 'desire for more', this (inner sense of) dissatisfaction which must inevitably lead to every form of self-deception and illusion. It is our desire and despair, that project the 'goal' to be reached . ( In a nutshell:) Desire, dissatisfaction, fear, pleasure, wanting more, wanting to change, all of which is measurement - this is the 'way of illusion'.

Questioner: Do you really have no illusions at all about anything?

Krishnamurti: I am not all the time (mentally ?) 'measuring' myself or others. This freedom from measurement comes about when you are really living with 'what is' - neither wishing to change it nor judging it in terms of good and bad. Living with 'what is' does not mean to identify yourself with it either.

Questioner: Can we go back to the question of what is this 'freedom' that everyone wants? Sometimes this innate desire for freedom expresses itself in the stupidest ways, but I think one can say that in the human heart there is always this deep longing for freedom. What does it mean to be really, honestly, 'free'?

Krishnamurti: Perhaps this may help us to understand it (in a roundabout way ?) : the total negation ( of the psychological illusion of 'being' or 'becoming' something ?) is ( bringing ?) that freedom. To negate all inward acceptance of authority, to negate everything one has said or concluded about reality, to negate all the drives which stem from remembered or forgotten pleasures, to negate all ( attempts of self-) fulfilment, such negation is the most positive action, therefore it is freedom.

Questioner: If I chisel away at this, bit by bit, it will go on for ever and that itself will become my ( new ?) bondage. Can't it all wither away in a flash, can't I negate the whole human deception, all the values and aspiration and standards, immediately? I am faced now with this challenge which I know is true, and yet my utter incapacity to 'do it' (is blocking ?) me. I see the beauty of this thing, to be inwardly completely 'as nothing', but....

Krishnamurti: You know, it is only when there is 'emptiness' ( free inner space ?) in oneself, that 'emptiness'( Inner Void ?) that comes with the total negation of everything "one has been and should be and will be" - it is only in this emptiness that there is ( the inward opportunity of ?) Creation - that something new can take place.
It is your imaging of ( what such inner?) 'emptiness' is ( that generates its own ?) fear. You are really ( 'viscerally' ?) frightened of leaving the 'known', the attachments, the satisfactions, the pleasurable memories, the continuity and security which give comfort. Thought is comparing 'this' (safety of whatever it knows ?) with what it thinks is ( a void?) 'emptiness' , so this fear 'is' (enfolded in that very ?) thought.
To come back to your question - can the mind negate the total content of the 'conscious' and 'unconscious' essence of 'yourself'? Can you "negate yourself" ( the 'self'-identification ?) completely? If not, there is no freedom. Freedom is not 'freedom from something' - that is only a reaction; ( the spiritual essence of ?) freedom comes in ( to be found in ?) this total denial.

Questioner: But what is the good (or the advantage ?) of having such freedom?

Krishnamurti: 'Good' in terms of what? Of (what was already ?) 'known'? Freedom is the absolute Good and its action is ( creating ?) the beauty of everyday life. In this freedom alone there is living, and without it how can there be love? Everything exists and has its being in this 'freedom'. It is everywhere and nowhere. It has no frontiers. Can you (inwardly ?) 'die' now to everything you know and not wait for tomorrow to 'die'? This freedom is (its own ?) eternity and ecstasy and love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Dec 2015 #116
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: An insider's view into the nature of insight and the field of 'time'

Q : We were discussing among ourselves this question about the need for a tremendous (inner) clarity. (The problem is that ?) the 'ego' (the 'self'-consciousness ?) inteferes with ( a pure ?) perception.

K : How do you have an 'insight' into anything ? It's not dictated by your previous knowledge or by your past experience. This 'flash of clarity' takes place suddenly, right ?

Q : Yes, all the great discoveries are made that way. Except that in science this is easier because you are looking at something which is 'objective'. But when you are looking at 'yourself' it's a pretty subjective issue...

K: That's why, when you are looking at yourself can you have an insight into the whole whole movement (constantly changing activities ?) of your (self-centred) consciousness ?

Q: That's just the question : how can there be 'insight' (a flash of inner clarity?) in a confused person with its 'ego' ? How can that 'insight' arise at all?

K: It won't arise ! A man who is concerned with its own little 'self' does not want (such) insight.

Q: So, unless the 'ego' ( the 'self'-identified consciousness ?) comes to an end there is no insight.

K: I'm not quite sure whether it should 'completely end' or (whatever the nature of ?) 'insight' is, will end that. You understand ? Not the other way around. To have an insight into (the totality of your) consciousness you do not have to have the ending of the 'ego', but you can have a (flash of ?) insight into the whole movement of your consciousness.

Q : But will not the 'ego' distort that perception ?

K: If the ( inner clarity of that?) insight is tremendous, the 'ego' can't interfere at all, it has no place. And wouldn't that ( flash of ?) insight wipe away the ('identification' ) because the insight is (qualitatively?) much 'stronger' (of a higher level ?) than the other ?

Q: This statement is for me only a ( metaphysical) speculation; although to you it may be a 'fact'.

K : Yes, it is speculative to you...So, what shall we do ?

Q: May I ask why our ( inward ?) insights are so limited ?

K : Because of our (active?) conditioning, obviously. A scientist has a sudden flash (into his 'scientific' problem) That 'flash' takes place without ( any direct link to ?) his previous knowledge. He is 'caught up' (absorbed ?) in this enormous inquiry, and suddenly he gets a 'flash' ( has a true perception regarding his problem) . But that 'flash of insight' is 'partial' (is not affecting his inner?) life because (at that level) he is still 'conditioned' (anchored in the known ?) … So, what shall we do then ? Let's work it out!

Q: It seems to me that one of the important points is the nature of the question. You see, like Newton was asking the question 'Why the Moon is not attracted by the Earth?' When everyone thought that it was only 'natural' because the Moon has a different kind of matter- 'celestial' . And Newton questioned that. He said that he questioned everything in science, but he asked questions only about science...

K: About a particular field

Q: I feel that this ( inspiring ?) analogy with science it's 'side-tracking' us. A scientist is looking at ( material) facts which fall within a certain pattern, and if he can find a beautiful equation to describe it, that's the 'insight' for him . So the scientist's insight is related to the 'phenomenal world', while the (inward) 'insight' you are talking about cannot exist as long as the self(-consciousness) is there .

K : Yes, ( a total ?) 'insight' can only take place when there is no 'self' (identification?) but (generally speaking ? ) the 'self' is so dominant (so 'all controlling'?) that there is no (free inner space for a total) insight . But in talking it over together you are beginning to move away from the (total dominancy of the?) 'self', aren't you ?

Q: I find that these things are becoming more clear intellectually , but this kind of (verbal ) understanding has its own limits...

K : That's right.

Q : ...since the 'self' (identification) has been acting ( to protect its own continuity ?) in a more subtle way. I felt that when we are discussing it ( academically ?) there is not that intensity of perception which perhaps comes when there is a deeper experience- like the big loss of something you were very attached to, something that shakes you up. It is like when you act in a situation of emergency, the 'self' (consciousness) does not have the time to interfere : you just perceive and act.

K : You have just touched on something: isn' it ( the inner proces of?) 'time' that prevents ( the total ) insight ?
Let us go slowly into it: the whole proces of the 'ego' is ( based on our evolutionary experience in ?) time. Right?

Q : Yes
K : So, the ending of ( this 'psychological' continuity in?) time is (allowing ?) the 'total' perception. You see what I mean ? The 'ego' is built through time.

Q : That's clear...

K: And when you are still thinking in terms of time it is the ( same mentality as that of the?) 'ego'.

Q : Are you saying that 'time' is (synonimous with the) 'ego' ?

K: Of course ! Everything is time. Just remain with it, old boy !

Q : You mean, all ( our self-centred ?) thought is (the cummulative result of ?) 'time' ?

K Yes. So whenever you are ( engaged in ?) thinking in terms of time there is no ( inner space for any ?) insight

Q: This brings us to this other question : the brain operates and has its (biological) function for the organism to survive. And it must 'think' in order to survive. So ( the self-centred process of ) thought arises (naturally ?) which ( automatically) brings you (the thinking entity) into the 'psychological' field of time.

K : Yes...

Q : And this (process of spatio-temporal thinking?) creates the 'ego'. Now, why does this happen?

K: Because (the brain) has found ( established its 'psychological') safety in that. It hasn't realise the 'insanity' (irationality ?) of that because we have lived for so long ( safely protected ?) in our tradition, our whole (mentality ?) is ( the result of ?) 'time'.

Q: Why hasn't intelligence or 'insight' broken through?

K: Ah, we haven't got it (yet ?) ! So we've come to a point which is, we are thinking in terms of ( continuity in?) time. The 'ego' is (the result of our natural evolution in?) time and we are still caught up (inwardly) in that.

Q : So, the physical brain produces both ( the process of self-centred ?) thinking and ( the 'psychological background' of our continuity in ?) 'time'.

K: And in that there is security.

Q : A false ( sense of ?) security ?

K : It thinks (and feels ?) that there is security.

Q : So, one is living in a body in which there is a brain constantly producing 'thought' and 'time'. So how can it end, Sir ?

K: I'll show you in a minute. We said that ( the inner process of?) 'time' is (undissociated from the?) 'ego'. The ego (the self-centred mentality ?) 'is' time. So, are you still thinking in terms of time ? Are you caught in that ( mental ) pattern ?

Q : Is it not possible that a person is out of the 'ego' (-centric mentality ?) but he may use his capacity of thinking?

K : That's different.

Q: So, that's just factual thinking , not the kind of thinking that expands the 'ego'.

K: Yes, yes. So, listen to it carefully : «Time 'is' ego». Are you still thinking (inwardly ) in terms of time? Thinking is time. Are you still caught in that (mental?) pattern?

Q: I'm afraid that yes...

K : Wait. Be 'aware' of that. 'Aware' in the sense that you know the full depth of these words «Time is ego». Are you aware of the full significance, the depth of it, the ( inward) meaning of it?

Q: Intellectually it seems pretty obvious...

K: No, it's not 'obvious'! If you are not 'aware' of that (truth ?) , then you have no ( moral ?) right to ask the question «What is insight?»... 'Insight' has nothing to do with 'time'. That means, if you are still (inwardly involved in ?) 'time' in the sense of ( self-centred?) 'thought' and so on, you can't have (free access to?) the other .

Q : We are occupied with ( a multitude of problems related to our physical existence in ) 'time'

K : Even if one is occupied with (thinking in terms of?) 'time' (one can take a meditative 'time-out' to ?) find if ( the inner process of 'thought- ) time' can stop.

Q: That was our starting question, sir!

K: Careful now, just listen to it: your brain is reluctant to go into this because it may loose (the feeling of its ?) complete (inner) security. As it has lived in (the field of ) time, it has worked in time, it has brought about (its own continuity in ?) 'time', in that (the brain has generated this feeling of?) complete protection for itself.

Q: Which is (then expressed as?) the 'ego'!

Q2: But why doesn't thought realise that it is (creating) the problem ?

K : Because we have not faced this thing ! Nobody has critically faced this thing. We are (experientially placing ourslves ?) in a 'crisis' (situation) now ! We four are in a 'crisis' to find out ! But thought says : "I must (take some more time to ) investigate , I must question, I must argue !"

Q : That is the problem: the 'ego' (is deviously ?) interfering.

K : No, no! ( the whole proces of ?) 'time' interferes. Therefore, look at it. Can you observe without ( the psychological background of ?) 'time' (interfering?) , without the ( knowledgeable control of the?) 'ego' ? Can one observe oneself without saying 'Yes, I am conditioned, I must be free of it' and all the rest of it? Just to look at this 'yourself', who is made up ( of hyper-active memories?) And the brain is finding security in ( the virtual permaneny of ?) that 'thing' which it has created as the 'me'. So, the brain is 'reluctant' to let it go because it doesn't know if there is ( a different form of inner?) security . When there is (the inner light of ?) 'insight', there is complete security.
(Thinking in terms ?) time doesn't give (an authentic) security.
Now, you have listened to it. Has this been a 'challenge', a shock ? If not, why ?

Q: Because we have a partial, fragmentary perception ?

K: No! No! Much more than that ; when you are ( totally) challenged, say your son or somebody close to you dies, that's a tremendous ( psychic-) challenge to you: you have to do something . But here you say, 'Well, I will (take all my time) discuss it ( seriously ?) …

Q : Yes, because the (personal ) challenge is not so clear here...

K: Why? It will never be clearer!

Q : Sir, this is the problem of all the mankind that it is not so 'clear'. That is ( causing) the 'lack of insight'. Which in turn is due to the 'ego' (self-protective mechanism) and that's back ( into the field of the known ?) - the vicious circle. I see that I'm caught in this 'vicious circle' and that another person (such as K?) is not able to help you break this circle...

K: Ah, no! The other person doesn't say "Break the circle" . The other person says: "Listen! Look!" Now, if you 'look' or 'listen' it either is just a verbally (induced ?) wave and goes off, or it is (received as ?) a tremendous (inner) challenge, as great as somebody dying next to me !

Q: For us, it's obviously not...

K: Why?

Q: I think because we are still (psychologically anchored ?) in the field of time.

K: No, no! That's not an ( intelligent ?) answer.

Q: We are still holding on to our ( 'psychological' sense of ?) security.

K: No, my question was: why isn't it (perceived as a total?) challenge? You haven't answered it.

Q: Why does the brain resist (facing this total?) challenge?

K That's right. Why are you 'resisting' ?

Q: Is it because we don't perceive the 'danger' of it?

K No, no! You are preventing yourself (from seeing it?) by talking (by translating the direct challenge in terms of the known ?) .

Q: It seems to me that for a 'flash' there is a (perhaps a subliminal?) perception of the 'danger', but it resists...That's just the way it goes!

Q2: But would you feel this (psychological) 'danger' as acutely as if your house were on fire? My answer is 'No'

K: Why 'no'?
Q : Because the fire is destroying everything that I hold on to, while this ( challenge doesn't look like ?) changing things too much.

K: Why? Isn't this the same thing?

Q : I don't see this (presumed inner ) 'danger' clearly...

K: Why is this ( not seen as ?) a greater challenge than your house on fire- far more dangerous ? You would not allow yourself ( the inward space?) to 'see the danger', because "God knows what might happen to you: you might give up your 'professorship' (laughs ), you might give up your family! You might give up everything!" ( The 'subliminal' feeling is ?) "By Jove, it's too risky!"

Q: So, it is the 'self''s (own protecting mechanism?) that is preventing such a (radical inner) perception?

K: No! No! ( the subliminal mentality of?) 'time' is making you feel how dangerous it is, and therefore you say 'It is the 'self'. But of course, this thought- time (process) 'is' ( undissociated from?) the 'self'.
( To recap:) We are asking: why don't you see this tremendous (inward) danger? Is it by 'habit' ? Is it that you are not (vitally) interested in it ?

Q: I'm not making any excuses, sir, but is it that the physical structure of the brain is such? This brain is creating ( its own sense of safety in terms of?) time and thought...

K: Would you say, sir, that the brain is in (a state of) constant (self-centred) movement ? Thinking, foreseeing, registering ? It is like a ( moving) jelly ! (laughs) And it has never ( fully) appreciated a quiet, still (inner state of) non-movement, of non-registration?

Q: Would you say, 'never' ?

K: Occasionally! Therefore it (the quality of this quietness?) is partial.
It is a partial (occasional?) movement. When it is so, it (the brain) must (automatically?) go back (to its 'default' settings?) , because it has lived 'partially' ( fragmentarily ?) all its life!

Q : Isn't it therefore a question of ( lacking the sufficient ?) 'energy'? It requires a tremendous (concentration of ?) energy to stay in that (meditative state of 'non-movement'?), but it is 'soooo easy' not to be in that !

K: Agreed. But when you have a (major existential crisis ?) the energy is (instantly gathered ?) there.

Q: Whereas here we dissipate (temporally ?) that ( total) energy and bring only our partial energy to deal with our problem ?

K:Surely !

Q: What is ( the nature of ) this (total) energy, sir ?

K: Sir, ( mental and emotional ?) energy can be created through friction: like a motor ( motivational ?) energy. With us it's like that, isn't it ? We have a great deal of energy (generated) through friction ( trying to overcome our difficulties ?) But when there is no friction we 'flop' ( or fall asleep ?)

Q : The whole structure of any society is based on this premise (of overcoming material challenges): competition, success: that will 'activate' (really motivate ?) us, otherwise you will go (on stand-by ?) or 'go to sleep'

K: Of course! That's all we know. So we are asking is there a (different inner ?) energy which is not brought about through friction ? Suppose I say 'Yes' . For you, it may be just a theory. But if you are ( vitally) interested, if you say ; "By Jove, I will give my life to find that out !" You will have it there (laughs)

Q : But...has it happened to anyone? This going from a state where there is the 'self' , through insight, to a state of 'no self'?

K: Again, you are thinking in terms of 'time': (you or other people going ) from 'this' to 'that'. You don't ask the right question ! I know the energy that's created through friction- the whole civilisation is based on that, on ( entropy and ?) friction. I want to find out if there is an (available source of inner ?) 'energy' which has no friction. You gave 30 years to become a Professor, but you don't give even five minutes (of meditative inquiry?) to find this out!

Q: No, that's not true, we give it time but I guess we don't give it the 'totality of ourselves'

K: You never give it ( a chance to happen ?) ! I'll put it this way : Without (the spiritual light of ?) insight life (on planet Earth ?) is a burden- 'Burden' in the biggest sense of the word . So there must be (this quality of?) insight, otherwise what is the point of going through all these horrors that one goes through ?

Q: So, if there is no ( temporal) transition from 'this' to 'that', what then is this 'total revolution' you are talking about?

K: That is (taking place in?) the ending of 'this'.

Q: Therefore, when 'this' is not, 'That' is ?

K: So your concern is with (understanding and ending?) 'this'.

Q: If I may ask you, sir, what is the relevance of this extraordinary phenomenon that is 'K' to our lives ? When one listens to you one has a certain feeling (of inner clarity) which goes away rapidly when one is away from you. You yourself say that you can't 'help' anyone- or in your words "Seek your own (spiritual) salvation" or " Be a light to yourself". So, why do we keep coming back, why are we unable to see what you're putting forward as a tremendous ( spiritual ) crisis in our life ?

Q2: I would say that we live (keep being busy ?) with 'problems' and that's all that we know- and here is a man who says there is an entirely different way of living in which we can dissolve all our (personal?) problems and there would be love and compassion.. So one is concerned with listening to him to find out what he has to say. The day you find out, perhaps you won't come back...

K: Either you come back because you want (expect ?) something or you have various problems which you want to (get expose and?) dissolve. Or, it may be something much deeper : perhaps you see the (inward) beauty of ( what) this man is talking- so the 'Beauty', the 'Good' is attracting

Q: But why can't I see for myself the 'crisis' or the 'challenge'?

K : Either it is (for you personally) a tremendous crisis or it's like this ( wealthy ?) man who came to see me every day, and one morning he said: 'tell me about myself, really, I'm interested'. I began to tell...and from that morning he never came back because he saw that : " I'll have to give up my- etc, etc' ". He couldn't take it. But here we 'take it', we assimilate a little bit (laughs)

Q: But it also creates a tremendous inner conflict because it's a partial assimilation: going back in a world where this does not operate, and then coming back to listen to you again.... So, again, what is stopping this (insightful ) perception you are taliking about? You speak with a great deal of passion, of clarity and still we seem unable to 'see' it. I don't think we understand it even intellectually or verbally.

K: Oh, yes, you understand that! You understood every word when we said 'Time "is" (creating?) the ego'. You understood it verbally and saw the fact of it.

Q : Then, at this moment wouldn't it be all finished ? But we see it through 'analysis', we don't see it directly the way you are talking of 'direct perception'- So, in our discussions with you it remains a verbal communication which is (intellectually accepted by ) the conscious mind. It does not go deeper.

K: That's very clear. So, what shall we do?

Q: Can't you communicate it non-verbally?

K: Yes. If I want to tell you something which is very 'serious'- to me at least, it's very, very serious. But, will you 'listen'?

Q : We seem to be (either unwilling or ?) incapable of it... I can see intellectually that what is preventing (this non-verbal listening) is our attachment, our self-dentification, and 'time' …

K: Now, if you just sat quietly and listen without any words? Would you listen?

Q: We do this when there is love...

K: No, no. I want to tall you something ( which inwardly) is dreadfully serious, which will affect your life and the life of your friends and so on. Apparently the (non-verbal dimension of the ) 'story' I want to tell you, you have not listened to. Now, I want to tall you the story non-verbally. Which mens what ? To 'listen' with the same intensity, at the same level, at the same time. Otherwise there is no (total?) communication. Will you do it?

Q: Yes!

K : Now?

Q: Yes!

K: Be clear about that. Which means that when you are as 'intensely eager' to listen to it, you are at the same level, there's no 'high' and 'low', but ( both) at the same depth: "By Jove, I want to listen to this chap!" ( at those deeper levels ?) you can't 'argue' with him, see? So, stop arguing. Will you listen to it that way?

Q: I think that part of our ( cultural) conditioning is that there is an (subliminal ?) resistence to such listening.

K: That's just it!

Q : But I want to listen, so do please go on.

K I will go on! Which means what ? That we are in communication with each other completely. The same intensity, the same level, at the same time- that means you are completely listening- there is no thought interfering. Right ? Which is implying what ? A non-verbal state of 'love' and therefore there is no (need to ) communicate ( verbally ?). When I tell you something serious and say "My dear chap, I love you with all my heart " would you argue ?

Q: It seems to me that we are not able to meet at the same level...

K: Therefore... you are not 'listening'

Q: Yes, but it's not voluntary.

K You are not listening because (subliminally ?) you don't want to listen! Because you feel: "'My God, I don't know what may happen"... You see, nobody has told you that!

Q: Sir, the intellect is more superficial than the emotions.

K I don't differentiate between the two! They are both the same. When a man is 'emotional' (dominated by emotions) he is nonsensical . When he is 'intellectual', just words, he is 'nonsensical' too.

Q: But suppose you are able to approach a man either "intellectually" or "emotionally "?

K: I ( personally ?) can't (do this ?) - then I say: "Go and jump in the lake!"

Q: I just wanted to ask you : anyone who has not dissolved the ego is automatically 'evil' ?

K Not that he is 'evil'; there is ( a seed of? ) 'evil' in him.

Q : But, for instance Mother Theresa and Hitler - we cannot put them in the same bracket...

K: I don't put them in the same bracket. All I say is they are both working in the same 'field' (of mankind's known ?) . They may be at distant corners- it's an enormous field !

Q: But that field (of the 'world' ?) is our life, Sir...

K: That's what I'm saying: "Get out of it!"

Q: Well, that brings me to another question: even if an individual 'steps out' of this field...

K Ah, that's a hypothetical question. I wouldn't answer that. Then you didn't listen to that man ( K) saying : You 'are' the total, the whole humanity. You 'are' the rest of humanity. Would you accept that (responsability?) , not theoretically, but factually? So, if you transform yourself- not from 'this' to 'that'- but if you end 'this' , then it ( the resulting global consciousness ?) affects the rest of the world.

Q: But the 'rest of the world' is going down the stream the same way! Buddha came and went, Christ came and went...

K: That is not your concern !

Q: But I feel that (even an enlightened ) individual is unable to help the others...

K Wait a minute. What do you mean by 'help' ? ( 'Help' people to ) move from one corner of the field to another corner of the field?

Q : Sir, this can be done and people are helping each other to do that.

K : And that has no value !

Q: It has no 'value' from the point of view of stepping out of the field.

K: The whole ( 'psychological') field ( dominated by self-interest ?) has no value !

Q: Sir, the man who has 'stepped out' of the field is affecting the consciousness of those who are still living in that field ?

K: Yes.

Q: The whole human consciousness, of everybody?

K: Yes. I am certain of it !
Q: What makes you feel so certain?

K: It is so!

Q: I mean, it 'could be so'. But how can you make it clear that the man who is out of the field is affecting the field of (human consciousness) as a whole?

K: Because he brings about a new light, a new perception, he brings something totally "new" which the men in the field- perhaps some of them- can capture it.

Q: But now we have another point that you may be trying to say that some people in the field are more (inwardly) perceptive than others?

K: Yes.

Q: Not everybody is ( 'psychologically' ?) equal in the field ?

K: No. Of course not!

Q: Therefore some are more likely to "see it" than others and this man who is out of the field may make possible...

K: For a few in the field...

Q: To see something.

Q2: Two things I'd like to clarify, sir: The man who has 'stepped out' ( of the 'known' field ?) does he affect the whole field of human consciousness?

K: I say he does!

Q2: But the people who came in contact with him, who have a certain receptivity , he affects them more ?

K: Surely. They may be living in the field , then their whole (inward) movement of life would be to move out...

Q2: Is that why they come to you?

K: Perhaps...

Q: I'm not sure, sir, that if the Buddha was not born the world would have been very different today.

K: No. I doubt it too! But you are talking from the (collective mentality of the?) field. Therefore your statement has no value ! As long as you are living in the field and say that the Buddha has no value, you are looking at it partially. So, are we discussing from living (anchored ) in the field and trying to bring the 'Other' into the field ? Those of us who are ( holistically ?) 'serious' want to move out of the field !

Q : Now, what makes a certain person respond to you more than others ?

K: It may be pure chance! It may be that they had a hell of a life and they feel that something must (be changed?)

Q: Sorrow?

K: Their sorrow, or they may see something beautiful which they have never seen before. They notice inwardly this extraordinary sense of beauty and they say: "By Jove!" So, there are all these factors...

Q: Now, sir, you meet people who have come to you with different levels of receptivity and who come for different reasons. And you want people to step out of the field ; so you're talking to these people, describing what is happening to them and you also lead a personal life which exemplifies what you are talking about, but...

K: Carry on.

Q: Now, it is not succeeding, if I may point it out crudely!

K: I understand...

Q: So, isn't there something beyond this which is possible?

K: Look at it the other way, which is, meeting people and talking is both at the conscious level and also at a deeper level, right?

Q : Yes, there must be receptivity at both levels.

K Of course! The intellectual says 'By Jove, it's quite logical, sane, I see what he means'. And the romantic, emotional , sentimentalist, is responding in his or (her?) own way. So what is your question?

Q: You are out of the field. In what way are you affecting people who are 'within the field' and what is the barrier within the field which is preventing the deeper perception?

K: Look, sir, it's simple enough: the people (inwardly living anchored ) in the field (of time ?) ) only want 'rewards'- they think in terms of 'reward'. They have been trained in (terms of) punishment and reward all their life. Now, here comes a man who says " ( Inwardly, psychologically ?) there is no reward or punishment" . They are not used to this.

Q: But the same man (K) also says that there is an 'ending of sorrow' and that becomes a reward for them...

K: Of course! So they are thinking in terms of expecting a reward (for their psycholgical endeavours ?)

Q: So, is that the (communication ?) barrier?

K: Perhaps, sir ! That's one barrier.

Q: So, can't there be another form of communication which can 'cut through' the 'barriers' which the other person has?

K: Yes, if he's willing to listen! Therefore the very act of (a non-verbal, non-argumentative?) listening is ( triggering ?) the awakening of that (quality of integrated ?) Intelligence. Then that Intelligence can communicate with the Other. You follow what I'm saying? If you are actually free from all sense (of getting ?) a reward, that is ( leading to ?) the ending of sorrow. But this is not a 'reward'; it is so (a 'fact' ?) !

Q: For you this is not a reward, but for us when you say that, you are holding a promise, a reward, because we think in terms of our personal sorrow ending...

K: I know. There is not only the personal sorrow, there is also a global sorrow.

Q: Now you see this 'barrier' and you see this person keeps coming back to you . So there must be something happening to him...

K: : Which is what? Say for instance that you can't give up a (bad) habit instantly- you will take days!

Q: But you say it can be done instantly...

K: Yes, but he says: I'm used to the other. Tell me how quickly I can do it! So, he's still ( subliminally ?) thinking in terms of expecting a reward

Q: Sir, if I may ask you (a very personal question ?) : were you once ( living ?) in this field (of time ?) ?

K: I question it too! (laughs)

Q: So, then you are telling us that "it is possible", but you haven't stepped out of that field yourself, (since...) you were never in the field. So in other words the question is whether it is possible (for someone already libving in the field of thought and time?) to 'step out' of that field ?

K: A man who is not born in the 'field' may have more (perceptive? ) clarity than the man in the field. So he says "Get out. This is the way out!"

Q: But he didn't have to get out, he was out...

K: You are missing my point: if you have never been ( psychologically anchored ?) in this field you see the whole thing at a glance. Therefore he says: 'Look, this is the way to do it.'
So (to recap:) You began by asking : as long as the 'ego' exists, there is no insight . And I said: ( a total) 'insight' ( awakening of Intelligence ?) takes place when there is no 'time' ; 'time' being the (essence of) the 'ego'. And...we are still talking from within the field of time. All that you have said is still within the field of 'time' . And I say: For God's sake stop (arguing ?) for a minute and listen ! And you keep saying : 'I can't listen because I am caught' Then... you are caught. It's up to you!

Q: But are you not saying that a man who is caught (in the field of thought-time) can step out?

K: I say so, obviously!
Q: Do you know a single person who has done it?

K: That's not my business!

Q: And you are concerned that people 'step out', otherwise you would not be at it...

K: Of course!
Q: There are 2 ways in which this concern is showing: to talk to people, to create 'centers' where there is...

K...more ( space for ?) sensitivity-

Q: Yes, and the other is affecting ( more directly) the whole consciousness of man...

K: Leave that (aside) !

Q: The third is the life you are leading, which is a tremendous thing...

K: Doesn't matter!

Q: But is it having an effect, sir? Do you see it having an effect?

K: Sir, I am not ( personally ?) concerned with it. It's like a spring flowing. If you want to drink from it, drink it!

Q: But you watch some people very carefully, you know them. Is it having an effect?

K: I wouldn't answer your question.

Q: Isn't it a valid question?

K: No, it isn't. It is a 'valid' question if you ask: "Is it affecting me, Asit". Then I will deal with it, but not 'generally' .

Q: We are obviously affected. I mean, we have all benefitted, but we have benefitted from the field ! I think that mankind has benefitted, but still within the field.

K: I say that's not a (spiritual?) benefit at all. It's like moving from that corner to this corner and saying 'That's marvellous !'

Q: Yes but there's significance in that too.

K: Mighty little significance! Even logically it has very little importance.

Q: Sir, have from childhood heard you, lived with you and I still do all the things I should not be doing! Not only intellectually, but in every way-

K: If you really mean it, don't do it ! You say : I smoke and I can't give it up. I say: "why the hell can't you give it up?" And he says: "because I don't see clearly", etc -(laughs)

Q: So the question is that after listening to you for my most innocent, formative 40 years of my life (starting from age 6) my brain still starts deteriorating. What happens, sir?

K: Look, Asit, you've got (still ?) a good brain! Why don't you use the brain for this ? What is preventing you ?

Q: I don't know, I wonder about it a great deal

K: Don't 'wonder' , you'll never find it (this way) ! If you've got a good brain why is it deteriorating?

Q: What is in this brain, or mind, or body that is making it go (inertially ?) in this direction though he sees it's the wrong direction ?

K: What is preventing? I can give you a dozen reasons, what is the (central ) fact? This is applicable to everybody! Is it that we are innately, so profoundly ( inwardly negligent and/or ?) "lazy" ? We've got to this ( time spread ?) lethargy...

Q : It is the easy way out. So easy...

K : Which means, we are "psychologically" seeking ( to constantly improve and optimise our ?) comfort and we want to remain comfortably in that "amorphous" state of laziness !

Q: That means there has not been any authentic communication during all these 40 years; subconscious or unconscious …

K: Why, sir? You answer it yourself!

Q: Because from the age of 6 up to 20 there was no resistance.

K : I know, it may be ( the psychologicaly sloppy ?) 'European' education. The (material temptations of the ?) western civilisation are much more stronger - with all their industry, their comfort, their money- you follow ? That's much more attractive than the other. I'm not saying that you are ( forever ?) trapped in it ! But we like this 'amorphous laziness' of ( psychological ?) comfort !

Q: Is that all?

K: That may be the central factor. You've got a candle, you've got the matches, but "my God, to get up and go and light the match !" (laughs)

Q : But isn't that due to the lack of insight ?

K: No, no! Because there may be a tremendous (psychological ) danger in getting up and trying to 'light the candle' ! He (the 'ego' ?) may see things which may shock him, frighten him , which might 'destroy' him !

Q: What kind of things?

K: I don't know, with him it may be (losing?) the personal comfort, attachments, ambitions...

Q: It would seem to me that if there is a really total insight, then there is an insight into that laziness too.

K: He hasn't got it! What he's got is an insight in the field (of time) - knowing that it's rotten!

Q: But then, what is needed is a total insight beyond that?

K: That's just it, it ( the 'ego') cannot have total insight.

Q: So, is it that unless the mind is truly sensitive the communication (with truth ?) does not have the intensity to make the breakthrough?

K: But sir, if you really want something beautiful, you 'go after it'! Nothing is going to prevent you! If you want to furnish your (inner?) house in a most marvellous way- I am talking of the 'house' which is not within the field (of time)! When you want to have that (inner) feeling of beauty you work for it ! So, what shall we do ? A man says to me 'Come this way, it's much more beautiful ; you'll live much more happily- really happily- And you say, 'It takes so much energy (plus the inner discomfort?) to leave all this ; it will mean walking in a totally different direction and I don't know if I want to, and even if I do, what's the pont of it?- in the sense that 'it won't affect vast masses of people, and so on' !

Q: You see, chasing money may not bring you happiness but it brings you comfort (laughs)

K: But if you know the value of money and put it in its right place, you are finished with it! To put it in the right place needs a little energy, but you are unwilling to spend that energy!

Q: But we are not masters of ourselves,sir, we are just led down the road. We are slaves to this!

K: Therefore don't talk about getting to the 'other'!

Q: So, the whole ( necessary ?) thing is putting everything in the right place?

K: Yes.

Q: Putting thought in its right place, money, food, sex...

K: Everything.

Q: The moment it goes out of its 'right' place, you're trapped ( in time?)!

K: You've lost the energy.

Q: But you cannot define what this 'right place' is...

K: Oh yes, you can! Didn't you hear what that man ( K) said? If I have nothing 'psychologically' in me, it's perfect order!

Q: And this 'putting things in their right place' is (related to) perceiving things clearly?

K: To see things clearly!

Q: That puts it in the right place.

K: That's very simple, that doesn't need (a lot of ?) insight- but from that ( inward order ?) comes insight!

Q: Perceiving things clearly does need insight?

K: Sir, look: if you put your socks and your trousers and your shirts all jumbled up, it takes time to fetch the socks- but suppose you put socks in the right place, the coat in the right place and so on, you are free from all the 'bother'-ation: you go to it directly, you don't waste energy. So, if you put everything in order, inwardly, you conserve (do not dissipate?) energy!

Q: All 'things' have a (natural ) tendency to 'go out of place' and it's only a constant clear perception of it which keeps it in its right place.

K: You do not have to do it constantly. Once you put it (garbaged the 'psychological things'?) in its right place, it's finished !

Q: That "once you put it in the right place and it stays there" it is not quite clear to me...

K: Not only physically, but can you do it (inwardly?) You can't! Because (in there) it's such a vast jumble. So, as long as there's something accumulated 'psychologically' , there can not be ( lasting sense of ?) order inside!

Q: In other words, sir, the moment there is any attachment, things are not in the 'right place'?

K: That's it!

Q: The moment there's no attachment it (the psyche) is automatically, forever in its right place?

K: Right!

Q: Which brings us back to square one: The attachment is (the nature of the) 'ego' and if there was no 'ego' there would be order

K: No, it is disorder that is the 'ego' , which is tim. So, where there is attachment there is fear, suspicion, anxiety...

Q: Pleasure..

K: Of course, (the search for) pleasure, comfort: but where there is 'attachment' there is no freedom. If you like to be caught in the net of comfort, fear, occasional pleasure, occasional sense of openness and so on- remain there!

Q: Now, Sir, in order to think clearly does one not need to have certain basic self- disciplines and a certain basic physical equipment?

K: But you have it! The moment you say: I'm going to keep the socks in the right place, it's finished!

Q: You mean to say people have these basic disciplines? All these yogic disciplines people go through, are unnecessary?

K: Absolutely!

Q: Because most normal human beings have the ( perceptive) 'equipment' ?

K: Of course!

Q: Are you saying that very seriously?

K: I am saying that seriously. If I want to get up in the morning-as I do now- at a quarter to six to do asanas and the rest of it, I get up. If I am tired, I say, allright, this morning I won't do so many exercises...

Q: No, Sir, don't take your example! Look at other people.

K: Other people say: "For God's sake, let me stay in bed!" They are lazy...

Q: You always talk of 'discipline' as suppression, but obviously there is a ( different quality of?) discipline .

K: There's (an inner) discipline which is ( having this inward) order.

(Re-re-re recap:) Look: my urge is to tell you something; He( K) does it every other day, he feels intensely; but will you "listen"? That's all he says: For God's sake, "please listen!" And you say: sorry, I have got my wife, my job, my family. I listen because it sounds very nice theoretically...

Q: Yes, but is man intrinscally capable of listening in the state in which he presently is?

K: Of course, sir, when you are in an (actual state of inner ?) crisis, you listen. When someone near to you dies , you 'listen' damn well; you are shocked by it. You are in a state of concentrated energy.

Q: Because that suffering is affecting me within the field ?

K: No! It is 'challenging' you to question the ( spiritual validity of living in that ?) field! It is challenging you to say "For God's sake, why am I going through this?" "Why is everybody going through this"? But if you say : I need my comfort (zone ?) , it must be somewhere- then you're off (back to square one) ! We've got plenty of (such ) challenges, all the time. I am challenging you right now, but you wouldn't even listen...

Q: If it was voluntary, I would listen!

K: Then, don't listen! Carry on, knowing that you are living in a field ( of "time" ?) where nothing Good is going to flower!

Q: When you see that, I think the 'carrying on' will become even more difficult....

K That's all; But he won't listen to that, he is alreasdy arguing that there is someting good in that field (of Time) : Gandhi has done some good, and Mrs Gandhi has done some good and... Hitler has not done good...
So, you didn't ( fully ?) 'listen' to what is being said.

Q: Isn't it possible that our ( involuntary ?) 'non-listening' is partly because one starts to say something immediately about it?

K: I think, Sir, probably a great deal is because we have never loved or been loved. If I come to you and say " My dear chap, I really love you", you would not listen, it wouldn't mean anything to you. Nobody has told you that from the bottom of their heart- neither your parents, or your wife nor your friends! Had they, perhaps then you would listen (with an open heart?)!

Q: But when you talk to us we feel this 'love'...

K: Therefore that (lack of sensitivity to 'love'?) may be the factor that's destroying (the consciousness of?) mankind- 'mankind' being you. They wouldn't listen! They say: 'Yes that man says that 'he loves me', I wonder why ? What is he going to get out of it?'

Q: Don't the parents love their children?

K Don't tell me they (really?) care for them! If they loved them , they would do something else, they wouldn't like them to become bourgeois little non-entities! You see, you're off ( in the field ?) again! You would not (silently) 'listen' even for five seconds. That's why I feel that in our life nobody has told us : 'I love you' . When someone is saying that, you "listen", you don't discuss, you don't play around. You say, My God, is that so ? How marvelous !

Q : I think everybody has become very cynical...

K: Of course, absolutely cynical! Because they have been cheated that way (by various 'gurus') !

Q : It's been happening so many times- (laughs) …

K: The Indian peasant, sir, is dirt poor, he has been so exploited, (but if) anybody comes and says 'I love you, I'll help you', he says 'Thanks God! (laughs). I think we got somewhere.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 #117
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: THE FUSION OF THE "THINKER" WITH HIS "THOUGHTS" ( from Commentaries on Living- second series)

He had spent many years in search of Truth. He had been the round of many teachers, many gurus, and being still on his pilgrimage, he had stopped here to inquire. Bronzed by the sun and made lean by his wanderings, he was an ascetic who had renounced the world and left his own faraway country. Through the practice of certain disciplines he had with great difficulty learned to "concentrate" and subjugate his appetites. A scholar, with ready quotations, he was good at argument and swift in his conclusions. He had learned Sanskrit, and its resonant phrases were easy for him. All this had given a certain sharpness to his mind; but a mind that is made sharp is not (necessarily ?) pliable and free.

K: To understand, to discover (the innermost Truth?) must not the mind be free at the very beginning? Can a mind that is 'disciplined' ever be free? ( Understanding the value of inner?) freedom must be at the very beginning, must it not? A mind that is ( self-) disciplined and controlled, is 'free' ( only) within ( the boundaries of ?) its own pattern; but that is obviously not Freedom. ( Self-imposed inner ) 'discipline' is conformity; its paths lead to the "known", and (the field of what is already ?) known is never the free. Discipline with its (subliminal background of?) fear is ( propelled by ?) the greed of ( self-) achievement.

Q: I am beginning to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with all these ( spiritual) 'disciplines'. Though I have spent many years in trying to shape my thoughts to the desired pattern, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: If the 'means' is imitation, the end (result) must be a copy. If the mind is being 'shaped' in the beginning, it must also be conditioned at the end; and how can a conditioned mind ever be free? The means "is" (undivided from ?) the end, they are not two separate processes. It is an illusion to think that through a wrong means the "true" (end result) can be achieved. When the means is suppression the end also must be a product of fear.

Q: Well, even since childhood my 'education' has been a process of conformity, and self-discipline has become almost instinctive with me ever since I first put on this (monk) robe. But most of the books I have read, and all the 'gurus' I have been to, do prescribe ( self-) control in one form or another, and you have no idea how I went at it. So what you say is really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have my years been wasted?

K: They would have been wasted if your 'practices' would have prevented your (inner) receptivity to truth, that is, if these impediments were not wisely observed and deeply understood. The very urge to understand is the beginning of freedom. So what is your problem now?

Q: I am still seeking Truth; my deepest instinct urges me to seek and find It and I am not interested in anything else.

K: Let us begin near to go far. Can Truth be found by 'seeking'? Search implies a fore- knowledge, something already felt or known, but is Truth something ( static ?) to be gathered and held? Search implies an 'out-going' or an 'inward-going' process, does it not? But must not the mind be ( meditatively ?) 'still' for Reality to be ? ( This process of ?) "search" is ( also a subliminal ?) form of acquisitiveness; and as long as the mind is the focusing of this effort ( inner 'conflict') can it ever be still?

Q: But is not a certain kind of ('spiritual') effort essential?

K: We shall see. Let us inquire into the truth (regarding) 'search'. To seek, there must be the "seeker", the (self-identified ?) 'entity' separate from "that which he seeks". But is there such a separate entity? Is the "thinker" separate from "his thoughts and experiences"? Without inquiring into this whole problem , Meditation has no meaning. So we must understand the (mental) process of the "self". What is ( behind ?) the mind that seeks, that chooses, that is fearful, that denies and justifies? What is "thought"?

Q: I have never approached the problem in this way, and I am now rather confused; but do please proceed.

K: Through sensory perception and contact there is "sensation"; from this arises desire, desire for this and not for that. Desire is at the beginning of ( self-) identification, of this (sense of ?) "mine" and "not-mine". Thought is ( a form of ?) "verbalized sensation"; the verbal response of the memory (of all our past ?) experience (plus) the "image"( making process ?) . In itself, ( this sensory -generated ?) 'thinking' is transient, changing, impermanent, and ( therefore ?) it is seeking ( its own "steady-state" of ?) permanency. So thought creates the 'thinker' , who then assumes the role of the censor, the moulder of ( its lesser ?) thoughts. This illusory "permanent entity" is the ( evolutionary ?) product of the transient process of thought. But this ( controlling ?) entity "is" ( part of ) thought; without (the basic activities of ?) thought he is not.

( To recap:) The "controller" 'is' (undissociated from the thoughts being ?) controlled; (the "thinking brain" ?) is merely playing a ( self-) deceptive game. Till this false(ness) is seen as "false", Truth is not.

Q: Then who is the entity that says, "I understand?”

K: Again, the "desire to experience" creates the "experiencer", who then accumulates and remembers (its previous experiences ? . Desire makes for this separation of the thinker from his thoughts; namely the "desire to become", the "desire to experience", the desire to 'be more' or to 'be less', makes for ( the 'psychological'?) division between the "experiencer" and the "experience". The ( choiceless ?) awareness of these "ways of desire" is ( the Way of ?) self-knowledge. And self-knowledge is the ( true?) beginning of Meditation.

Q: Now, how is actually happening this "fusion" of the thinker with his thoughts?

K: ( Negatively put: ) not through the ( enforced ?) action of 'will', nor through 'self-discipline', nor through any other form of ( 'self'-centred ?) 'effort', 'control' or 'concentration'. The use of (such) 'means' implies an 'actor' who is (using them) , does it not? As long as there is ( this subliminal identification of 'thought&desire' as ?) the 'actor', there will be a division. The "fusion" takes place only when the mind is utterly still, without 'trying to be still'. This (total inner) stillness is ( taking place ?) not when the 'thinker' ( self-identification process ?) comes to an end , but when the "thought - time" process itself has come to an end. There must be freedom from this response of (the sensory) conditioning, which is ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought. How can there be understanding when the (totality of the ?) mind is agitated? (But one's spiritual ?) "earnestness" must be tempered with the swift play of "spontaneity". You will find, if you have actually 'listened' to all that has been said, that Truth will come ( to you) in moments when you are not expecting it. So, if I may suggest , be open and sensitive, be fully aware of what "is" from moment to moment. Don’t build around yourself a "wall" of impregnable ( self-centred) thoughts. The Bliss of Truth comes when the mind is not occupied with its own activities and struggles.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Dec 2015 #118
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 98 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: ( To recap:) The "controller" 'is' (undissociated from the thoughts being ?) controlled; (the "thinking brain" ?) is merely playing a ( self-) deceptive game. Till this false(ness) is seen as "false", Truth is not.

Q: Then who is the entity that says, "I understand?”

This it seems is a good question, easily answered intellectually, but grasping the idea that there is NO entity that 'understands"...not so easy. I recall from other readings that K has answered this in different ways. But basically his answer has been that when the mind is quiet; not through any method or discipline, that something can happen that cannot happen when the mind is occupied with "seeking", and "desire". And this 'something' (or no-thing) cannot be 'experienced' as the questioner asked. And to ask "how can the mind, and thought then become quiet?" is again the movement of desire (greed) to reach an imagined state that K. is saying is there but no amount of 'work', wishing, sacrifice, etc. can get one 'there'. 'It' may find one when all effort has ceased and 'choiceless awareness' exposes the "ways of desire".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 31 Dec 2015 #119
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Desire and the 'I'

Q: Meditation is of the greatest importance to me; I have been meditating very regularly twice a day for more than twenty-five years. At the beginning it was all very difficult, I had no control over
my thoughts and there were far too many distractions; but I gradually cut them out pretty thoroughly.
More and more I gave my time and energy to the final end. I have been to various teachers and have followed several different systems of meditation, but somehow I was never satisfied with any of
them; they all led to a certain point, depending on the particular system, and I found myself becoming a mere result of the system, which was not the final end. But from all these experimentations I have learned to master my thoughts completely, and my emotions also are entirely under control. I have practiced deep breathing to quiet the body and the
mind. I have repeated the "sacred word" and fasted for long periods; morally I have been upright, and the worldly things have no attraction for me. But still, after all these years of struggle and effort, of self-discipline
and denial, there is not the ( inner) Peace, the Bliss of which the Great Ones speak. On rare occasions there have been enlightening moments of deep ecstasy, the intuitive promise of greater things; but I seem
unable to pierce the illusion of my own mind, and I am endlessly caught in it. A cloud of confusing despair is descending upon me and there is increasing sorrow.

We were sitting on the bank of a wide river, close to the water. The sun was setting behind us and there were heavy shadows on the water. It was a beautiful still evening with masses of clouds towards the east,
and the deep river seemed hardly to be flowing. To all this expanding beauty he was completely oblivious; he was wholly absorbed in his problem. We were silent, and he had closed his eyes; his stern face was calm, but inwardly there was an intense struggle going on. A flock of birds settled down at the water’s edge; their cries must have carried across the river, for presently another flock came from the other shore and joined them. There was a timeless ( loving ?) silence covering the earth.

K: During all these years, have you ever stopped striving after the 'final end'? Do not will and effort make up the 'I', and can the process of ( our self centred thinking in terms of ?) 'time' lead to the Eternal?

Q: I have never consciously stopped striving after That for which my heart, my whole being longs. If I stop I would 'fall back' and deteriorate. It is the very nature of all living things to struggle upwards, and without this purposive striving, I could never go beyond and above myself.

K: Can the 'I' ever free itself from its (temporal) bondage and illusions? Must not the 'I' cease for the Nameless to be? And does not this constant striving after the "final end" only strengthen the self? Your effort may be ennobling, but it is still ( fuelled by ?) the desire to gain, is it not?

Q: I have overcome all desire, except this one, which is more than desire; it is the only thing for which I live.

K: Then you must 'die to' (let go ?) this too, as to the other longings and desires. Through all these years of struggle you have strengthened your 'self' ( -consciousness ?) in this one purpose, but it is still within the field of the 'I' (of self-interest ?) . But you want to experience the Unnameable - that is your longing, is it not?

Q: Of course. Beyond a shadow of doubt I want to experience 'God'.

K: The 'experiencer' is ever being conditioned by what (he desires to ?) experience. If this 'experiencer' is aware that he is experiencing God, then that 'God' is the projection of your hopes and illusions. There is no ( authentic inner ) freedom for the 'experiencer'; he is the maker of ( his own continuity in ?) 'time' and he can never experience the ( timeless dimension of the ?) Eternal.

Q: Do you mean to say that all what I have diligently built up, with considerable effort and through wise choice, must be destroyed? And must I be the instrument of its destruction?

K: Can the 'I' positively set about (ab)negating itself? If it does, its (background) motive is to gain That which is not to be possessed. However noble its aim, any effort on the part of the 'I' is still within the field of its '(kn)own' memories, idiosyncrasies (individualised characteristics ?) and projections, whether conscious or unconscious. The 'I' may divide itself into the "organic 'I'", and the "non-I" or the "transcendental self"; but this dualistic ( mental) separation is an illusion in which the mind is caught. Whatever may be the ( self centred ?) movement of the mind, of the "I", it can never free itself; it may go from stupid (choices) to more intelligent choices, but its movement (activities ?) will always be within the sphere of its own making.

Q: You seem to cut off all hope. What is one to do?

K: ( Meditation-wise ?) you must be completely 'denuded', without the weight of the past or the enticement of a hopeful future - which does not ( necessarily ?) mean 'despair'. "You" (the self-identified mind ?) cannot do anything. ( Nevertheless ?) the mind can and must be 'still' (inwardly silent ?) without any longings, or desires; but (not by ?) suppressing all noise, for that very effort (is generating its own background?) noise. This ( quality of loving ?) "silence" is not the opposite of noise.


Early next morning he came back. The sun was just showing itself above the treetops, and there was a mist over the river. A boat with wide sails, heavily laden with firewood, was lazily floating down
the river; except for the one at the rudder, the men were all asleep on different parts of the boat. It was very still, and the daily human activities along the river had not yet begun.

Q: In spite of my outward anxiety, inwardly I must have been alert to what you were saying yesterday, for when I woke up this morning there was a certain sense of freedom and clarity that comes with understanding. May we proceed from where we left off?

K: We cannot begin exactly where we left off, but we can look at the whole problem afresh. The 'outward' and 'inward' (compartments of one's ?) mind are ceaselessly active receiving impressions;( but by getting entangled ?) in its memories and reactions; it is (becoming ?)
a (pro-active ?) aggregate of many desires and conflicts. ( As a result ?) it functions only within the field of ( its past knowledge accumulated in ?) time, and in that field there are various contradictions, the opposition of (various) desires and ( the resulting ?) 'efforts'.
This (messy ?) 'psychological' activity of the 'I' must cease, for such activity causes problems and brings about (mental ?) agitation and disorder. But any ( pre-determined ?) effort to stop this ('brownian' mental) activity only makes for greater activity and agitation.

K: That is true, I have noticed it. The more one tries to make the mind still, the more resistance there is, and then one’s effort is spent in overcoming this resistance; so it becomes a vicious circle.

K: If you are aware of the viciousness of this circle, in this very
realization the 'observer' ceases to be ( active ?) .

Q: That seems to be the most difficult thing to do: to suppress the (all-controlling ?) 'observer'. How is one to do it?

K: After all, the "thinker" (controlling entity ?) and "his thoughts" are not two different processes, but we (conveniently split ?) them in order to attain our desired end. The 'censor' comes into being with ( the time- spread of ?) desire. Therefore our problem is not how to suppress the censor, but to understand ( the time-binding process of ?) desire.

Q: There must be an (awakened state of mind) which is capable of such understanding, a state which is apart from ignorance. Otherwise I do not see how this ( identification with the ?) 'observer' can be eradicated. And can it be?

K: We were saying that it is essential to understand desire. Desire can and does divide (splits ?) itself into (the pursuit of ?) pleasure and ( the avoidance of ?) pain, one desire opposes another, the more profitable ( choice ?) conflicting with the less profitable (options) and so on. Nevertheless, though for various reasons it may separate itself, ( the vital energy of ?) desire is in fact an invisible process, is it not?

Q: This is kind of difficult to grasp. I am so used to opposing one desire by another, that I cannot as yet be fully aware of desire as a single, unitary process; but now that you have pointed it out, I am beginning to feel that it is so.

K: Desire may break (split or fragment ?) itself up into many opposing and conflicting urges, but ( deepp down ?) it is still ( an unitary energy of ?) desire. Those many ( fragmentary ?) urges go to make up the (active content of the ?) 'I' (-consciousness ?) , with its memories, anxieties, fears, and so on. So, the entire activity of this 'I' (the self - centred consciousness ?) is taking place within the field of desire, is it not?

Q: Please go on. I am listening with my whole being.

K: Our problem, then, is this: is it possible for this (fragmentary ?) activities of desire to come to an end naturally, freely, without any form of compulsion? It is only when this ( energy integration ?) happens that the mind can be "still". If you are ( meditatively ?) aware of this actual fact, does not the ( time-binding ?) activity of desire come to an end?

Q: Only for a very brief period; then once again the habitual ( fragmentary mental ) activity begins. How can this be stopped?

K: You see how "greedy" we (the fragmentary activities of desire ?) are ; we want ever more and more. So the very demand for the cessation of the ( old) 'I' becomes the activity of the (new) 'I'; but it is not new, it is merely another ( self-fragmented energy ?) form of desire. Only when the ( 'desiring' ?) mind is spontaneously still can the other (time-free dimension ?) which is not of the ( conditioned content of this ?) mind, come into being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 31 Dec 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Jan 2016 #120
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: Insights into the 'psychological' fragmentation of Desire

Q: As far back as I can remember, I have had endless conflict, mostly within myself, though sometimes it manifests outwardly. I am not greatly worried by any outward conflicts, as I have learnt to adjust
myself to circumstances. But what I cannot understand is this ( ongoing ?) inward conflict which I am unable to control; it goes on beneath the everyday occupations, and frequently explodes in
my more intimate relationships.

K: What do you mean by 'conflict' and what do you think is the nature of it?

Q: Outwardly I am fairly busy and my work demands concentration and attention. When my mind is thus occupied, the inward conflicts
are forgotten; but as soon as there is a lull in my work, I am back in my conflicts. These conflicts are of varying nature and at different levels. On (the personal) level I want to be successful in my work, to be at the top
of my profession, with plenty of money and all the rest of it, and I know I can be, but at another level, I am aware of the (vanity ?) of my ambition. I love the good things of life, and opposed to that, I
want to lead a simple, almost an ascetic existence. I ' sincerely) hate a number of people, and yet I want to forget and forgive. Instinctively I am a peaceful person, yet anger is easy for me. Outwardly I give the ( reassuring) appearance of being calm and steady, but I am agitated and confused by my inward conflicts.
I would really want to 'break through' the confusion of my own desires, but I find it almost impossible to talk these things over with anybody. I am not secretive, but I hate to talk about myself and I could not possibly
do so with any "psychologist". Knowing all this, can you tell me whether it is possible for me to have some kind of inward serenity?

K: Instead of trying to 'do away' with conflicts, let us see ( first) if we can understand this "agglomeration of desire", for it is ( the fragmentation of ?) desire that causes conflict. Desire is stimulated by ( sensory ?) associations and remembrances; the recollection of the pleasant and the unpleasant memories nourishes desire and 'breaks it up' into (multiple layers of ?) opposing and conflicting desires. The ( self-conscious ?) mind identifies itself with the 'pleasant' ones as opposed to
the unpleasant and through this ( subliminal ?) choice the mind separates (fragments the total energy of ?) desire, dividing it into different categories of pursuits and values.

Q: You are saying that, although there are many conflicting and opposing desires, ( inwardly ?) all desires are one. Is that it?

K: That is so, is it not? And it is really important to understand this point , otherwise the conflict between opposing desires is endless. This "dualism" (the inner splitting ?) of ( the vital energy of ?) desire, which the ( self-centred ?) mind has brought about, is an "illusion".
There is no ( such) 'dualism' in desire, but merely different types (vectors ?) of desire. There is dualism only between time and eternity.
Therefore our concern is now to see the "unreality" of the ( self-splitting ?) dualism of desire. Desire does divide itself into ( what it) wants and ( what it does ) not-want, but the avoidance of one and the pursuit of the other is still ( the time-binding activity of ?) desire.
There is no escape from ( such internal) conflicts through any of the "opposites" of desire, for desire itself is breeding them.

Q: I see rather vaguely that what you say is factual, but it is also an ongoing fact that my mind is still torn between my many desires.

K: If it is an (actuallly perceived ?) "fact" that all (the contradictory aspects of ?) desire are one and the same, then we cannot alter that fact: if we see it to be true then it (the "intelligence" awakened by this perception ?) has the power to set the mind free from breeding illusions. So we must be ( responsibly ?) aware of ( the total inner energy of ?) desire breaking itself up into separate and conflicting parts. We 'are' (all) these opposing and conflicting desires we 'are' the whole bundle of them, each pulling in a different direction.

Q: Yes, but what can we do about it?

K: Without first catching a glimpse of desire as a single unit (unitary inner movement ?) , whatever we may or may not ( try to ?) 'do' will be
of very little significance, for desire only multiplies (the fragmentation of ?) desire and the mind is trapped in this ( hopeless ?) conflict.
There is freedom from conflict only when desire, which makes up (includes ?) the 'I' (the self-centred consciousness ?) with its ( personal) remembrances and recognitions, comes to an end.

Q: When you say that conflict ceases only with the cessation of ( the fragmentation of ?) desire, does this imply an end to one’s active ( 'worldly' ?) life?

K: It may or it may not. It is foolish on our part to speculate about what kind of life it will be without ( the inner fragmentation of ?) desire.
Q: You surely do not mean that organic wants must cease ?

K: Organic wants are moulded and expanded by our 'psychological' (ego-related ?) desires; we are talking of these desires.

Q: Can we go more deeply into the functioning of these inner cravings?

K: ( Our fragmentary ?) desires are both open and hidden, conscious and concealed. The 'concealed' ones are of far greater significance than the 'obvious'; but we cannot become familiar with the deeper if the superficial are not understood and "tamed". It is not that our conscious desires must be suppressed or sublimated, but they must be observed and 'quieted'. With the calming of ( their) superficial agitation, there is a possibility that the deeper ( fragmented ?) desires, motives and intentions will come to the surface.

Q: How is one to quiet the surface agitation? I see the importance of what you are saying, but I do not quite see how to approach this problem, how to experiment with it.

K: ( In the inner context of meditation ?) the "experimenter" is not separate from that with which he is experimenting. The truth of this must
be seen. "You" are not an entity apart from the "desires" you are experimenting with . The 'I' who says, ‘I will suppress this desire and go after that’, is himself the outcome of all desire, is he not?

Q: One can feel that it is so, but actually to (experientially ?)realize it, is quite another matter.

K: If as each desire arises there is an awareness of this truth, then there is freedom from the illusion of the "experimenter" as a separate entity unrelated to desire. As long as the "I"( 'observer') exerts itself to be free from desire, it is only strengthening ( the fragmentation of ?) desire ( by pushing it ?) in another direction and so perpetuating conflict.

If there is an awareness of this "fact" from moment to moment (and) the experiencer "is" (not separing itself from ?) the experience, then you will find that ( the internal fragmentation of ?) desire with its many varying conflicts comes to an end.

Q: Will all this help one to a calmer and fuller life?

K: Certainly not at the beginning(since) it is sure to arouse more ( latent conflicts and ?) disturbances, and ( therefore a lot of ?) deeper "adjustments" may have to be made; but ( on the long run ?) the deeper and wider one goes ( inwardly ?) into this "complex problem" of ( the self-fragmentation of ?) desire and ( the resulting ?) conflicts, the simpler it becomes.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 01 Jan 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 120 of 767 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.)