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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 753 in total
Sun, 03 Jan 2016 #121
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour; TIME, HABIT AND IDEALS (from Commentaries on Living 3-rd series)

The mind is silent only with the abundance of ( brain's free?) energy, when there is that ( self-sustained?) attention in which all 'contradiction' -created by the pulling of (thought & ) desire in different directions, has ceased. A mind that is not silent is never (time-) free; and it
is only to the silent mind that the Heavens are opened
. Only the silent mind can receive that "blessing" which is not of the church or belief. For the total mind to be silent, all its contradictory corners (compartments ?) must be "fused" in the flame of understanding. All ( time based activity of ?) desire is ( eventually reaching the limits of its own ?) contradictions, for every ( self-focussed ?) centre of desire is opposed to another centre. The silence of the total mind is ( the main task of ?) meditation.

He was a youngish man, with a large head, clear eyes and capable-looking hands. He spoke with ease and self-assurance, and he had brought along his wife, a dignified lady who evidently wasn’t going to say anything. She had probably come under his persuasion, and preferred to (sit back and ) listen.

Q: I have always been interested in religious (spiritual ?) matters, and early in the morning, before the children are up and the household bustle begins, I spend a considerable period of time in meditation. I find it very helpful in gaining control of the ( restless activities of the) mind and in cultivating certain necessary virtues. I heard your last public discourse on meditation a few days ago, but as I am new to your teachings, I was not quite able to follow it thoroughly . So, I came to talk with you about 'time', since a certain amount of time is necessary for the cultivation of those qualities and sensibilities of mind which are essential if enlightenment is to be attained. Am I right ?

K: Do not such conclusions prevent clarity of thinking ?

Q: This is what most of the religious books maintain, that ( a certain) time (of self-preparation ) is necessary to attain liberation. Perhaps that some (lucky ?) individuals here and there have realized that exalted state instantaneously; but they are only the very few. The rest of us must have time, short or long, in which to prepare the mind to receive that Bliss.

K: Now, what do we mean by 'time'? There is the (chronological) time (measured ) by the clock- ( the historical) time as our past, present and future. There is also the ('psychological' dimension of ?) time ( involved in ?) the process of becoming something. But is it ever possible for our mind to be free of time, to go beyond its limitations? Let’s begin with the 'chronological' (component of ?) time. Can one ever be free of it?

Q: Not if one wants to catch a train ! To be 'sanely active' in this world, and to maintain some kind of order, chronological time is essential.

K: Then there is ( the background psychological process of ?) 'time' of ( our collective) memories, habits and tradition; and ( the personal ?) time as effort to achieve, to fulfil, to become. It obviously takes time to learn any skill or technique. But is "time" also necessary for the realization of the Supreme?

Q: It seems to me that it is.

K: What is (the entity ?) that is achieving, realizing?

Q: I suppose it’s what you ( generically) call the 'me', or the 'ego' ?

K: Which is an (active ?) bundle of ( self-centred) memories and associations, both conscious and unconscious. It’s the ( self-conscious ?) entity who enjoys and suffers, who has practiced virtues, acquired knowledge, gathered experience, the
entity who has known fulfilment and frustration, and who ( wishfully ?) thinks there is the Soul, the Higher Self. This 'ego' entity is the product of ( our outward existence in ?) time. Its very substance is ( a background mentality of ?) time: it thinks, it functions and builds itself up in ( terms of its own continuity in ?) time. This 'me' also thinks that through time it will reach the Supreme. But its ( image of the ?) 'Supreme' is (a concept) it has formulated, and is therefore also within the field of time, is it not?

Q: The way you unfold it, it does seem that both the 'maker of effort' and the ( final) 'end' for which he is striving are equally within the sphere of time.

K: Through time you can achieve only that which time has created. ( The self-centred process of ?) thought can realize only that which thought has put together.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that the mind must be free from (its psychological anchorage in ?) memory, and from the desire to realize the Supreme ?

K: We shall come to that presently. If we may, let us approach the problem differently. There is a time interval, a "gap" between what I actually 'am', and what I ( think I) should be, the ( spiritual) ideal. This ideal is to be achieved gradually, while during this the gradual approach I have the ( rewarding ?) opportunity to indulge in the pleasure of (my self-centred habits ? ). It has
been said for centuries, and we go on repeating, that time is necessary to be free from violence; but it has become a mere thinking habit, and there’s no ( vital ?) wisdom behind it (since in the meanwhile ?) we are still (indulging in the rewards of being inwardly ?) violent. So ( the mentality of ?) time is not the factor of freedom. Cannot ( the inherited self-centred ?) violence just
cease now - not tomorrow or ten years hence?

Q: Do you mean 'instantaneously'?

K: When you use that word, aren’t you still thinking or feeling in terms of time? Can ( this whole momentum of self-centred ?) violence cease, that’s all, not in any given ( chronological ?) moment?

Q: Is such a thing possible?

K: Only with the ( insightful ?) understanding of ( thinking in terms of ?) "time". The ( traditional ?) mind thinks in habits ( along temporal patterns ?) ; it is conditioned to "gradualism", and has come to regard time as a means of
achieving freedom from violence. With the understanding of the "falseness" of that whole process, the truth of ( our 'psychological' background of ?) violence is seen, and this is the liberating factor.

Q: I think I understand what you are saying, or rather, I feel the truth of it. But isn’t it very difficult to free the mind from (its deeply rooted 'thinking' ) habit?

K: It is 'difficult' only when you fight habit. Take the habit of smoking. To (dualistically ?) fight that ( bad ?) habit is to give it life. Habit is ( psycho-somatically ?) 'mechanical', and to resist it is only to give it more power. But if you ( meditatively ?) consider this mind and observe the formation of its habits, then with the understanding of the larger issue, the lesser ( related dependency ?) becomes insignificant and drops away.

Q: But since we're here, why does the human mind form habits?

K: Be (choicelessly, non-personally ?) aware of the ways of your own mind, and you will discover why. The human mind forms 'habits' in order to be secure, safe, certain, undisturbed, in order to have ( a sense of its own safe?) continuity. The mind moves from the 'known' to the 'known', from one certainty to another; so there’s never freedom from the known.
This brings us back to what we started with. Whatever ( our self-centred) thought can think about is still within the field of time. The ( 'knowing' ?) mind cannot possibly formulate the unknown. It can speculate about the unknown, but its speculation is not the Unknown.

Q: Then the problem arises, how is one to realize the Supreme?

K: Not by ( following ?) any method. Its realization is possible only when the mind is no longer (entangled ?) in ( its) bondage to time.

Q: Can the mind free itself from its self-created bondage? Is not any outside agency (or some help ?) necessary?

K: When you look ( forward ?) to ( any help coming from ?) an 'outside' agency (including K ?) , you are back again in ( the 'psychological' safety of ?) your (existing cultural ?) conditioning, in your 'conclusions'.
Our only concern ( here and now ?) is with the question, "Can the mind free itself from its self-created bondage?" All other questions are ( spiritually ?) irrelevant and prevent the mind from 'attending' (giving full attention to what 'is' ?) There is no (free energy of ?) "attention" when there’s a motive, the pressure to achieve, to realize; that is, when the mind is
seeking a result, an "end". The mind will discover the solution of this problem ( of Supreme Truth ?) through the (time-free ?) intensity of the question itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 04 Jan 2016 #122
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: All about TIME and CONTINUITY (from Commentaries on Living second series)

There is a (hidden) sadness (within our 'shared-by-all' consciousness ?) of which we are so little aware. We know our own sorrow, but we are not aware of the sadness of the other. How can we be when we are enclosed in our own misfortunes and trials?
When our 'hearts' are weary and dull, how can we feel the weariness of another? Sadness is so exclusive, isolating and destructive. How quickly the smile fades! Everything seems to end up in sorrow, the ultimate isolation.

She was very well read, capable and direct. She had studied sciences and religion, and had carefully followed modern psychology. She had attended several of the (K) talks and discussions and had felt that a source common to all the great (spiritual) Teachers was active; she had listened with care and had understood a great deal, and
had now come to discuss the "inexhaustible" and the problem of "time".

Q: What is the (inner energy?) Source beyond time, that state of being which is not within the reasoning of the mind? What is the "timeless", that creativity of which you have often spoken?

K: If we can understand what we mean by "time", perhaps it may be possible for the timeless to be. This "timelessness" is a state which comes only when ( the psychological component of ?) time is not (active ?) . So let us rather consider what we mean by "time". Time is ( both) chronological and psychological. The heavens are filled with physical growth (which can be measured in terms of chronological time) , and so is the earth. This is an obvious fact, and it would be stupid to deny it. ( And inwardly there is the process of ?) psychological becoming: I "am this" and I (hope that I) shall "become that", using time as a passage, as a means; the what has been is becoming the what will be. We are very familiar with this process.
So thought is ( creating its own continuity in ?) time, from what has been to what will be, the 'what is' and the 'ideal'. Thought is ( both the producer and ?) the product of time, and without the thinking process, time is not. The ( thinking) mind is the maker
of time, it 'is' time.

Q: That is obviously true. Our mind is both the maker and user of time. Without this mental process, time is not. But my question was: is it possible to go beyond the (temporal limitations of our?) mind? Is there a state which is not of thought?

K: Let us together discover whether there is such a state or not. Is love ( compatible with the self-centred process of ?) thought?.

Q: Do you mean that when there is ( the inward sense of ?) "all-oneness", thought ceases and there is only love?

K: That is not the point. Is love ( the result of ?) a thought process? Thought is (a process of ?) of time; but is love time-binding? Thought is bound by time, and you are asking if it is possible ( for the human mind ?) to be free from the binding quality of time.

Q: It must be, otherwise there could be no ( possibility of inward ?) Creation. Creation is possible only when the process of ( self-centred ?) continuity ceases. Creation is the new, the new vision, the new invention, the new discovery, the new formulation, not the continuity of the old.

K: Continuity is ( like ?) 'death' to Creation.

Q: Exactly. But how is it possible to put an end to this continuity?

K: What makes for ( this inner sense of self- ?) continuity? What is it that joins moment to moment, as the thread joins the beads in a necklace? The ( perceptive creativity of the present ?) moment is the New, but this new is (quickly ?) absorbed into the ( memories of the ?) old and so the (time-binding) chain of ( our self-conscious ?) continuity is formed. Is there ever the ( full experiencing of the ?) New, or only ( the verbalised ) 'recognition' of the new by the old? If the old recognizes the new, is it the (direct perception of the ?) New? The (active memory of the ?) 'old' can recognize only its own projection; it may call it 'the new', but it is not. The ( newness of the ?) New is not recognizable; it is a (timeless ?) state of non-recognition, non-association. The old gives itself continuity through its own projections; it can never 'know' the New. ( Perception-wise ?) the New cannot be with the old. The ( direct) experiencing of the New is ( happening only in ?) the absence of the old. It is the ( active memory of the ?) old that gives continuity; the old is
memory, the 'word' (the verbal process ?) , which is time.

Q: Then, how is it possible to put an end to this (constant interference of our?) memory?

K: The ( controlling ) 'entity' that desires to put an end to memory is himself the forger of memory; he is not apart from memory. That is so is it not?

Q: Yes, this (self-conscious) "maker of effort" is born of memory, of thought; thought is the outcome of the past, conscious or unconscious. Then what is one to do?

K: Please listen, and you will do naturally, without ( much ?) effort, what is essential. Desire is ( the active source of energy behind the process of ?) thought; desire forges the ( time-binding ?) chain of memory. And the way of desire is "accumulation" ; to accumulate is to continue. ( The background process of ?) gathering experience, knowledge, or things, makes for ( our self-) continuity and the gathering "centre" ( energy core ?) is desire, the desire for the more or the less. This ( dynamic) centre is ( manifesting as ?) the "self" (-consciousness ) , ( a psychological identification ?) placed at different levels according to one’s conditioning. ( And of course....) any activity of this ( self-focussing) "centre" ( of desire ?) only brings about the further continuity of itself. Any 'move' (of its part ?) is time-binding; it prevents ( the newness of ?) Creation.
The 'timeless' (dimension of our being ?) is not (to be found ?) within the time-binding quality of memory. There is the Unnameable only when ( the desire for further 'personal' ?) experiences (and/or ?) knowledge, has wholly ceased. ( The perception of this ?) Truth alone frees the mind from its own ( temporal ?) bondage.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Jan 2016 #123
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K ( triple ) Lesson du Jour: Envy, the body-mind interaction and the silencing of the mind (From Commentaries on Living, second series)

The path leading up through the hills to the high mountains was dusty, stony and rough. There were no streams, no sound of running waters. The heat was intense in these hills, but in the shade of some trees along the dry river bed it was bearable for here there was a slight breeze coming up the canyon from the valley. From this height the blue of the sea was visible many miles away. It was very quiet, even the birds were still, and a blue jay which had been noisy and quarrelsome was resting
now. A brown deer was coming down the path, alert and watchful, making its way to a little pool of water in the otherwise dry bed of the stream; it moved so silently over the rocks, its large ears twitching and its great eyes watching every movement among the bushes. It drank its fill and would have lain down in the shade near the pool, but it must have been aware of the human presence it could not see, for it went uneasily down the path and disappeared. Across the path a mother quail was
leading her newborn chicks, more than a dozen of them; she was softly encouraging, leading them to a thick bush. They were round, yellowish-grey balls of delicate feathers, so new to this dangerous world, but alive and enchanted. There under the bush several had climbed on top of the mother, but most of them were under her comforting wings, resting from the struggles of birth.

What is it that ( can really ?) bind us together? We may come together (and even cooperate ?) out of convenience, or through necessity, danger, hate, or worship, but none of these things ( truly) holds us together . They must all 'fall away' from us , so that we are alone. In this ( integrated sense of ?) "all-oneness" there is love, and it is love that holds us together.

He had come from a far distant land. Though he had had polio, the paralysing disease, he was now able to walk and drive car.

Q: Like so many others, especially those in my condition, I have belonged to different churches and religious organizations, but none of them has given me any satisfaction; but one never stops seeking. I think I am serious, but one of my ( psychological) difficulties is that I am envious. I have tried building various types of ( mental blocks ?) against this compulsive envy, but in spite of all my
efforts I get caught up in it again and again; it is like water seeping through the roof, and before I know where I am, I find myself being more intensely envious than ever. You have probably answered this same question dozens of times, but if you have the patience I would like to ask how is one to extricate oneself from this turmoil of envy?

K: The desire or the will 'not to be this', but 'to be that', makes for conflict. We generally consider this conflict to be the natural process of life; but is it? This everlasting struggle between 'what is' and 'what should be' is considered noble, idealistic; but the desire and the attempt to be 'non-envious' is (essentially )
the same as being envious, is it not? If one really understands this the conflict of duality ceases.
This is a 'fact' to be seen immediately, and this ( insightful inward ?) perception is the important thing, not the 'how' to be free from envy. Freedom from envy comes with the understanding of what is; but this "understanding" is not possible as long as the mind is concerned with changing what is.

Q: Isn’t change necessary?

K: Can there be ( an authentic ?) change through an act of ( the self-centred ?) will? Is not will concentrated desire? Having bred envy, ( the mental process of ?) desire now seeks a state in which there is no envy; ( but) both states are the product of desire. ( The joint process of thought and ?) desire cannot bring about fundamental inner change.

Q: Then what will?

K: Perceiving the truth (regarding ?) "what is". As long as the (self-centred ?) mind, or 'desire', seeks to change itself from this to that, all ( resulting ) change is superficial and trivial. The full significance of this 'fact' must be felt and understood, and
only then is it possible for a radical transformation to take place. As long as the mind is comparing (itself), judging, seeking a result, there is no possibility of ( an authentic inner?) change, but only a series of unending struggles which it calls 'living'.

Q: What you say seems so true, but even as I listen to you I find myself getting caught in this struggle to change, to reach an end .

K: The more one struggles against a 'habit' (a self-programmed cycle of desire ?) , however deep its roots, the more force one gives to it. To be choiceless aware of one habit without (attempting to ?) cultivate another, is ( leading to ?) the ending of ( the psychological mechanism of ?) habit .

Q: Then I must remain silently with 'what is', neither accepting nor rejecting it. This is ( looking like ?) an enormous task, but I see that it is the only way if there is to be freedom.
Now may I go on to another question? Does not the ( physical state of the ?) body affect the mind, and the mind in turn affect the body? I have especially noticed this in my own case. My thoughts are occupied with the memory of what I was before - healthy, strong, quick of movement - and with what I hope to be again , as compared with what I am now. I seem unable to accept my present state. What am I to do?

K: This constant ( mental) comparison of the present with the past and the future brings about ( an unnecessary ?) pain and the (long term ?) deterioration of the mind, does it not? It prevents you from considering the 'fact' of your present state.
The ( memory of what you were in the ?) past can never be again, and the future is unpredictable, so ( inwardly speaking ?) you have only the "present". You can adequately deal with the "present" only when the mind is free from the burden of the past memories and its future hopes. When the mind is "attentive" to the present, then there is a possibility of other things happening.

Q: What do you mean by ‘other things happening’?

K; When the mind is ( constantly) pre-occupied with its own pains, hopes and fears, there is no ( inward) space for freedom from them. The self-enclosing process of thought only ( gets stuck or ?) 'cripples' the mind further, so the vicious circle (of worry and depression ?) is set going. ( Such self-centred ?) pre-occupation ( eventually ?) makes the mind trivial, petty, shallow. And even its pre-occupation with ( achieving a state of inner ?) freedom still breeds ( its own ?) pettiness. Your ( obsessive self-centred ?) preoccupation with the body prevents adaptability to the present, the gaining of vitality and movement, however limited.
The 'self'(-centred mind ?) , with its pre-occupations, brings about ( amplifies ?) its own pains and problems, which in turn affect the (psycho-somatic state of the ?) body; and the concern over bodily ills only further hinders the body. This does not mean that health should be neglected; but ( any obsessive ?) pre-occupation with health, like preoccupation with ideas, only entrenches the mind in its own ( inner steady state of ?) pettiness.
There is a vast difference between a pre-occupied mind and an active (creative ?) mind. An 'active' mind is silently aware and choiceless.

Q: Consciously it is rather difficult to take all this in, but probably the 'unconscious' is absorbing what you are saying; at least I hope so. Now, I would like to ask one more question. You see, sir, there are moments when my mind is silent, but these moments are very rare. I have pondered over the problem of meditation, and have read some of the things you have said about it, but for a longtime ( the state of ?) my body was too much for me. Now that I
have become more or less inured to my physical state, I feel it is important to cultivate this silence. How is one to set about it?

K: Is "silence" (an inner quality) to be cultivated, carefully nurtured and strengthened? And who is the 'cultivator'? Is it different from the totality of your being? Is there silence, a still mind, when one ( 'thinking' ?) desire dominates all
other thoughts and desires , or when it sets up resistance against them? Is there ( an authentic inner ?) silence when the mind is disciplined, shaped, controlled? Does not all this imply an ( all controlling ?) 'self' who judges, chooses? But is there such an 'entity' (other than ) the ( self-identified ) product of thought? In this division lies its own 'security'. ( The self-centred process of ?) "thought & desire" now seeks safety in silence, in place of worldly things it now craves the pleasure of silence, so it breeds (a still deeper ?) conflict between 'what is' and 'what should be'. There is no (authentic ?) silence where there is conflict, repression, resistance.

Q: Should one not seek silence?

K: There can be no ( authentic ?) Silence as long as there is a 'seeker' ( the controlling pseudo-entity ?) . There is the silence of a still mind only when there is no 'seeker', when there is no ( self-identification of ?) desire. Without replying, put this ( time-free ?) question to yourself: Can the whole of your being be silent? Can the totality of the mind, the 'conscious' as well as the 'unconscious', be still?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 Jan 2016 #124
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour "All about our fear of death"( From Commentaries on Living' second series)

Q: I have always been haunted by some fear or another . As a child I was very timid, shy and sensitive, and now I am afraid of old age and death. I know we must all die (eventually ?) but no amount of rationalizing seems to calm this fear. I have joined the Psychical Research Society, attended a few seances, and read what the great ( spiritual ?) teachers have said about death; but fear of it is still there. I even tried psychoanalysis, but that was no good either; I wake up in the middle
of the night with frightful dreams, and all of them are in one way or another concerned with death. The (2-nd WW) war was a continual nightmare to me, and now
I am really very disturbed. I have listened to a few rather stupid (scholastic ?) lectures on reincarnation, and have somewhat studied the Hindu and Buddhist literature concerning it. But all this has been very unsatisfactory, at least to me. I am not just superficially afraid of death, but there is a very deep fear of it.

K: How do you approach the 'future', the "tomorrow" of death? Are you trying to find the truth of the matter, or are you seeking a gratifying assertion of continuity or annihilation? Do you want the truth, or a comforting answer?

Q: When you put it that way, I really do not know what I am actually afraid of; but the fear is both there and urgent.

K: What is your problem? Do you want to be free from fear, or are you seeking the truth regarding death?

Q: What do you mean by the 'truth regarding death'?

K: ( The physical ?) death is an unavoidable fact; do what you will, it is irrevocable, final and true. But do you want to know the truth of what is beyond this death?

Q: From everything I have studied and from the few psychic 'materializations' I have seen at séances, there is obviously some kind of continuity after death. ( The energy of our ?) thought in some form continues, which you yourself have asserted. Just as the radio broadcasting of songs, words and pictures requires a 'receiver' at the other end, so ( that part of our ?) thought which continues after death needs an instrument through which it can express itself. The instrument may be a 'medium', or thought may incarnate itself in another manner. This is all fairly clear and can be experimented with and understood; but even though I have gone into this matter fairly deeply, there is still an unfathomable fear (of 'not being' ?) which I think is definitely connected with death.

K: ( The physical ?) death is inevitable. ( But 'psychologically' , the self-centred ?) continuity can be ended, or it can be nourished and maintained. That ( thought ?) which has continuity can never renew itself, it can never be the new, it can never understand the Unknown. There must be an 'ending' for the new to be. The 'new' is not within the continuation of thought. ( The collective stream of self-centred ?) thought is a continuous movement in time; this "movement" cannot enclose within itself a state of being which is not of time. Thought is founded on the ( personal and collective memories of the ?) past, its very being is of time.
Time is not only 'chronological' but it is (inwardly manifested ?) in (our everyday ?) thinking as the ( 'psychological' ?) movement of the past through the present to the future; it is the ( mental ?) movement of ( our ?) memory, of words, images , symbols, the (brain cell's) 'recording' and 'repetition' (play-back ?) .
( This process of ?) thought (based on our past ?) memory, is 'continuous' (creates its own continuity ?) through words and repetitions.
The "ending" of ( the 'psychological' continuity of ?) is the "beginning" of the new; the 'death' (the 'coming to an end' of the continuity of ?) of thought is ( the spiritual opportunity for ?) "life eternal". That ( inner dimension ?) which is ( eternally ?) New is not 'continuous'; the New can never be within the field of time. The ( creation of the ?) New is (happening ?) only in (psychologically) 'dying' from moment to moment.
( Recap: ) There must be ( a psychological) 'death' every day for the Unknown to be. This 'ending' is the ( spiritual opportunity ?) for a ( new) beginning, but fear prevents the ending.

Q: I know this fear, but I don’t know what is beyond it.

K: Fear comes into (our) being only in relation to something. You said you are afraid of death. What do we mean by death? Though we have (volumes of ?) theories, speculations, and certain observable facts, death is still ( entering into the ?) Unknown. Whatever we may know about it, ( the actual experience of ?) 'death' cannot be brought into the field of the known; the Unknown cannot be made 'familiar'; ( the mind settled in its ?) habits cannot capture it, so there is fear. Can the 'known', the (knowable) mind, ever comprehend or contain the Unknown? The 'hand that stretches out' can receive only the knowable, it cannot hold the unknowable. To desire ( the 'transcendental' ?) experience is ( subliminally amounting ?) to giving continuity to thought.

Though (you are still) living, you want to know what death is. But do you know what 'living' is? You know living only as ( a self-centred survival based on ?) conflict, confusion, antagonism, (eventually sprinkled with ?) passing joys and ( their associated ?) pains. But is this 'life'? Are struggle and sorrow life? In this state which we call (our known ?) 'life' we want to experience something that is not in our own field of ( self-centred) consciousness. This pain, this struggle, the (resentment ?) that is enfolded in joy, is what we call 'living'; and we want to experience something which
(we think to be ) the 'opposite' of what we call living.
But death is not this 'opposite'. It is ( entering into ?) the Unknown.
The 'knowable' (mind) craves to experience ( what happens after ?) death, the
unknown; but, it cannot ( sit back and ?) 'experience' death, therefore it is fearful. Is that it?

Q: You have stated it clearly. If I could know or experience what death is while living, then surely my fear would cease.

K: Can the 'conscious' (self-centred mind ?) experience that state ? The known can only experience what is always within the field of the known; the known cannot experience what is beyond its field (of competency ?)
"Experiencing" is not within the field of the 'experiencer'; but as ( our inborn capacity for direct ?) experiencing fades, the ( duality of the ?) 'experiencer' and the 'experience' come into being, and then ( any spontaneous ?) experiencing is brought into the ( safe ?) field of the known. The knower, the experiencer, craves for the
state of "experiencing the unknown"; and as it cannot enter into the state
of ( direct) experiencing, he is afraid. But he is not ( actually) separate from it ; he is fear itself, the very instrument of fear.

Q: I don’t feel that I 'am' fear, but that 'I am fearful' of something. Fear is a sensation distinct from the ‘I’ who is looking at it, analysing it. I am the observer, and fear is the thing observed. How can the 'observer' and the 'observed' be one?

K: You say that 'you' are the observer, and 'fear' is the observed. But are 'you' separate from 'your qualities'? Are you not identical with your qualities? Are you not your thoughts, emotions, and so on? You are not separate from your qualities. Thought creates the ‘you’, the supposedly separate entity; without ( the self-centred process of our ?) thought, the "thinker" (entity) is not. Seeing the impermanence of itself, thought creates ( its self-identification as a permanent ?) "thinker" which then becomes the ( background controller ?) experiencer, the analyser, the observer separate from the transient. Thought is the foundation of this whole ( mental) structure.

But we were concerned with your fear of death. Death is the
( total immersion into the ?) Unknown, but how can you be afraid of it? You are really afraid not of the unknown, of death, but of the loss of the known, because that might take away all your pleasures, all your gratifications. So, it is ( our strong attachment to the ?) known that causes this fear, not the Unknown. How can the unknown cause fear? It is not measurable in terms of pleasure and pain: it is "un-known" .
You are actually afraid of the ( loss of the safety and comfort of whatever your ?) "known" in its relation to death, are you not? Because you cling to the known, to (all your past ?) experience, you are frightened of what the "future" might be. But this ‘what might be’ is merely the (negative ?) opposite of 'what is'. This is so, is it not?

Q; Yes, that seems to be right.

K: But do you ( actually) know 'what is'? Have you opened the "cupboard of the known" and looked into it? Are you not also (subliminally afraid to be inwardly destabilised ?) of whatever you might discover there? Have you ever inquired into the "known", into what you ( think that you ) possess?

Q: No, I have not. I have always taken the "known" for granted. I have accepted the ( collective and personal experience of the ?) past as one accepts sunlight or rain. I have never considered it; one is almost 'un-conscious' of it, as one is of one’s
shadow. Now that you mention it, I suppose I am also afraid to find out what might be (potentially disturbing ?) there.

K: Are not most of us afraid to ( objectively ?) look at ourselves? We might discover 'unpleasant' ('destabilising' ?) things, so we would rather not look, we prefer to be ignorant of 'what is'. So, we are not only afraid of "what might be" in the future, but also of "what might be ( found ?)" in the present. We are afraid to know ourselves as we are, and this avoidance of ( facing ?) 'what is' (what we 'are' ?) is making us afraid of 'what might be' ( in the future) .

(To re-recap: ) We approach not only our so-called 'known' with fear, but also the 'unknown', death. The avoidance of 'what is' is the ( ignorance generated by our ?) desire for gratification. We are seeking ( to protect and optimise our inner sense of ?) security, constantly demanding that there shall be no ( significant) disturbances; and it is this ( collectively shared ?) desire 'not to be disturbed' that makes us avoid 'what is' and fear 'what might be'. Fear is the ( result of a deeper ?) ignorance of 'what
is', and our life is spent in a constant state of ( trying to solve the many problems created by this ?) fear.

Q: But how is one to get rid of this ( ancestral heritage of ) fear?

K: To get rid of something you must first understand it. Is there fear, or only the ( result of a collective choice ?) 'not to see'? It is the ( psychologically 'comfortable' ?) desire 'not to see' that brings on fear; and when you ( have decided that you ?) don’t want to understand the full significance of what is, fear acts as a ( subliminal) 'preventive'. You can lead a "gratifying" life by deliberately avoiding all inward inquiry into "what is", and many do this; but they are not (really ?) happy, nor are those who "amuse" themselves ( intellectually ?) with a superficial study of 'what is'. Only those who are "earnest" in their inquiry can be aware of ( creative?) "happiness"; to them alone is there freedom from fear.

Q: Then how is one to objectively understand "what ( one actually) is"?

K: The "what is" is to be seen in the ( interactive ) "mirror of relationship", in the relationship with all ( living) things. The "what is" cannot be understood in ( from the safety of self- ?) isolation; it cannot be understood if there is the "interpreter" (the knowledgeable interface ?) who denies or accepts. The ( truth about our inner ?) "what is" can be understood only when the (self-conscious ?) mind is utterly 'passive', when it is not (interfering or?) operating on "what is".

Q: Is it not extremely difficult to be so "passively aware"?
K: It is, as long as there is ( our self-centred process of ?) "thought" (is controlling it ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 08 Jan 2016 #125
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: Inner conflict and Mediocrity ( From Commentaries on Living, 2-nd series)

Q: The other evening you said something about the mediocrity of our mind and heart . I listened but couldn’t take it in, for I was too disturbed; but as you were talking, that word ‘mediocrity’ struck me very forcibly. I had never thought of myself as being ( inwardly ) mediocre. I am not using that word in the social sense, and as you pointed out, it has nothing to do with class and economic differences, or with birth.

K: Of course. ( This inner ?) "mediocrity" is entirely outside the field of arbitrary social divisions.

Q: I see it is. You also said, if I remember rightly, that the truly 'religious' person is the only revolutionary, and such a person is not "mediocre". I am talking of the mediocrity of the mind, not of job or position. Those who are in the highest and most powerful positions or those who have marvellously interesting occupations, may still ( inwardly) be mediocre. I have neither an exalted position nor a particularly interesting occupation, and I am aware of the state of my own mind. It is just mediocre. I am an earnest student of both western and eastern philosophy, and am interested in many other things, but in spite of this my mind is quite ordinary; it has some capacity for coordinated thinking, but it is still mediocre and uncreative.

K: Then what is the problem sir?

Q: Deep down in myself, in spite of all my learning, I find that I am not creative in the most profound sense of that word. It must be possible to have that creativeness of which you spoke the other day; but how is one to set about it? Is this too blunt a question?

K: Can we think of this problem very simply? What is it that makes the "mind-heart" mediocre? One may have encyclopedic knowledge, great ( scientific) capacity, and so on; but beyond all these superficial acquisitions and gifts, what makes the mind deeply 'stupid' ( dull ?) ? Can this mind become other than what it has always been?

Q: I am beginning to see that this ( self-centred ?) mind may be infinitely capable of reasoning, speculation, design and calculation; but however expansible, it will always remain in the same field (of its own self-interest ?) ?) . But you are asking whether the human mind, which is capable of such astonishing (scientific and technological ?) feats, can transcend itself by its own will and effort?

K: That is one of the questions that arise. If, however clever and capable, the human mind (& heart ?) is mediocre, can it through its own 'volition' ever go beyond itself? Mere (intellectual ?) condemnation of this mediocrity will in no way alter the fact. But is it possible to ( experientially) find out what it is that brings about this (inner) state of mediocrity? Is not one of the factors of ( our inner ?) mediocrity the (self-centred ?) urge to achieve, to have a result, to succeed? When creativeness is something to be striven after, a result to be achieved, the mind has reduced it to its own condition . This is the process that we have to understand, and not attempt to change mediocrity into something else.

Q: You mean that any effort on the part of the (self-centred ?) mind to change what it is, merely leads to the ( modified) continuation of itself and so there is no change at all?

K: That is so, is it not? The mind has brought about its present state (of 'knowledgeable' mediocrity ?) through its own efforts, through its desires and fears, through its hopes, joys and pains; and any attempt on its part to change that state is still in the same direction. A petty ( self-centred ?) mind trying not to be petty , is... still petty. Surely the ( meditative solution of this ?) problem is the cessation of all effort on the part of the mind to 'be' (or become) something, in whatever direction.

Q: Doesn't this imply an inner state of vacuity?

K: If one merely hears these words without catching their true significance, without experimenting and experiencing, then one's conclusions have no validity.

Q: So ( the authentic state of inner ?) creativeness is not to be striven after, or brought about through any form of compulsion. I see the truth of that. My mind, which has been ashamed of its mediocrity, is now aware of the condemnatory attitude brought about by its own desire to change - the outcome of its own pettiness. So far I have understood.

K: What is the state of your mind (& heart ?) when it is not attempting to change itself, to become something?

Q: It 'accepts' what it is.

K: 'Acceptance' implies that there is a (supervising ?) entity who 'accepts', does it not? Is not this 'acceptance' also a ( devious ?) form of effort in order to gain, to experience further? So a new "conflict of duality" is set goingn the very 'conflict' that breeds mediocrity of mind and heart. Freedom from mediocrity is that state which comes into ( one's) being when all conflict has ceased.

Q: I can see the implications of my 'acceptance' since you have given me an insight into its significance. But what is ( the best approach ?) to reach that ( liberated) state of the mind which no longer accepts or condemns?

K: Why do you ask (me) , sir? It is a thing to be discovered (by yourself ?) , not merely to be explained (by another ?) .

Q: I am not being speculative, but is it actually possible for the mind to be still, without any movement, and yet (as you used to say) be "unaware of its own stillness"?

K: To become ( self-consciously ) 'aware of it' breeds the same old conflict of duality, does it not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Jan 2016 #126
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online


There had not been enough rain for many years. The earth was parched and cracked, the few trees were covered with brown dust, and there was not even the morning dew. The sun was relentless, day after day, month in and month out,
and the doubtful rainy season was still far away. It was a lonely place, and there was the silence of the coming heat. Two women came down the path carrying firewood on their heads. One was old and the other quite young, and the burdens they carried looked rather heavy. . They had nothing on their feet, though the path was rough. The feet seemed to find their own way, for the women never looked down; they held their heads very straight, their eyes bloodshot and distant. Down the path we all went. The small country town was several miles away, and there they would
sell their burden for a pittance, only to begin again tomorrow. They were chatting, with long intervals of silence. Suddenly the younger one told her mother she was hungry, and the mother replied that they were born with hunger, lived with hunger, and died with hunger; that was their lot. It was the statement of a fact; in her voice there was no reproach, no anger and no hope. We continued down that stony path. There was no observer listening, pitying, and walking behind them. He was not
part of them out of love and pity; he "was" (one with ?) them; 'he' (his self-consciousness ?) had ceased and 'they' were not the strangers he had met up the hill, they were ( part of ?) of him; and the sweat, the exhaustion the smell, the hunger, were not 'theirs', to be sorrowed over.
( The inward limitations of ?) 'time' and 'space' had ceased. There were no thoughts in our heads, too tired to think; and if we did think, it was to sell the wood, eat, rest, and begin again. The feet on the stony path never hurt, nor the sun overhead. There were only two of us going down that accustomed hill, past that well where we drank as usual, and on across the dry bed of a remembered stream.

Q: I have read and listened to some of your talks, and what you say appears very
'negative'; there is in it no 'direction', no 'positive' way of life. Your 'negative' attitude, and especially your insistence that there must be freedom from all ( self-centred ?) thought, can be misleading to us westerners, who are (mentally hyper ? ) active and industrious by temperament and necessity. What you are teaching is altogether contrary to our way of life.

K: If one may point out, thinking is not of the West or of the East, but man divides it according to his conditioning. Love is also not 'geographic', held as sacred on one continent and denied on another. This does not mean that individuals are not different in temperament, and so on; there is similarity, and yet there is difference. All this is fairly obvious and 'psychologically' factual, is it not?

Q: It may be factual to you, but our (western) way of life is entirely different from that of the East. Our scientific knowledge, slowly developing since the days of ancient Greece, is now immense. East and West seem to be developing along two different lines.

K: Seeing the difference, we must yet be aware of the similarity. The outward expressions may and do vary, but behind these outward forms and manifestations the urges, compulsions, longings and fears are similar. Both here and there, man wants to have peace and plenty, and (eventually ?) to find something more than material happiness. Civilizations may vary according to climate, environment, food and so on, but ( the timeless principles of an authentic ?) 'culture' throughout the world are ( should be?) the same: to be compassionate, to shun evil, to be generous, not to be envious, to forgive, and so on. Without this (moral foundation ?) any civilization, whether here or there, will ( eventually ?) disintegrate or be destroyed.
The love of God and the freedom of man are not so easily come by and without these, material welfare doesn’t mean much.

Q: You are right in that but I wish you would consider what I said about your teachings being 'negative'. I really would like to understand them, so don’t think me rude if I appear somewhat direct in my statements.

K: What is 'negative' and what is 'positive'? Most of us are used to being (guided spiritually or ?) told what to do. The giving and following of directions is considered to be 'positive' teaching and to those who are 'conditioned' (culturally programmed ?) to follow, a truth (such as ) 'following is evil' seems negative, destructive.
( The direct perception of ?) truth is (spontaneously occuring in ?) the negation of the false, not ( in pursuing) the ( idealised ?) 'opposite' of the false. ( The inner dimension of ?) truth is entirely different from the 'positive' and the 'negative', and a mind which thinks in terms of "opposites" can never be aware of it.

Q: I am afraid I don't quite understand all this. Would you please explain a little more?

K: You see, sir, we are used to ( accepting 'spiritual' ?) authority and guidance. ( However) this ( subliminal ?) need to be guided springs from the ( ages old ?) desire to be secure, to be protected, and also from the desire to be successful. This is one of our deeper
urges, is it not?

Q: I think it is, but without protection and security, mankind would probably have been destroyed...

K: Please let us go deeper into ( the psychological issue ?) and not jump to 'conclusions'. In our ( instinctive ?) urge to be secure, not only as individuals, but as groups, nations and races, have we not built a 'world' (a "collective mentality" ?) in which ( competition and ?) war, within and outside of our particular society, has become the major concern?

Q: I know; my son was killed in a war across the seas.

K: Inner "peace" is a state of mind; it is ( spontaneously occuring with ?) the freedom from all ( self-centred ?) desire to be secure. The "mind & heart" that seeks ( its own 'psychological' ?) security must always live in the shadow of fear. ( This time-binding ?) desire is not only for ( optimising our ?) material security, but much more for a 'psychological' security, and it is this desire to be inwardly secure that creates conflicting 'groups' and 'ideologies'. This (subliminally active ?) desire to be secure, to reach a coveted end, breeds the acceptance of direction, the worship of success and the authority of 'leaders' , 'saviours' and (various ?) 'gurus'. All of this is
called 'positive' teaching; but it is really thoughtlessness and imitation.

Q: I see that; but is it not possible to direct or be directed without making oneself or another into an 'authority'?

K: We were trying first to understand this urge to be directed: is it not the outcome of seeing ( a lot of ) impermanency around us ? So, there is the urge to find something secure, permanent; but isn't this urge born of our fear (to face 'what is' ?) . Instead
of understanding what this fear is (covering up ?) , we run away from it, and the very running away is ( creating its own insecurity and ?) fear. ( As a result ?) one takes
flight into the ( traditional field of the ?) 'known': beliefs, rituals, patriotism, the comforting formulas of religious teachers or the reassurances of priests, and so on. These in turn bring conflict between man and man, so this problem (of ignoring 'what is' ?) is kept going from one generation to another. If one would solve the ( psychological insecurity involved in this ?) problem, one must explore and understand the root of it.

Q: I think I am beginning to see what your approach is. But to go back to a point which I raised earlier: most of us have been educated to 'think' - or as you put it, have been taught 'what to think', - will it not bring us more confusion when you keep on saying in different ways that all thinking is conditioned and that one must go beyond it?

K: To most of us, (the habit of self-centred ?) "thinking" has become extraordinarily important; but is it? It has a certain importance, but ( the intellectual mechanisms of ?) thought cannot find That which is not the product of thought. Thought is the result ( the verbalised response ?) of the 'known', therefore it cannot fathom the (inner dimension of the ?) Unknown, the "unknowable". We are not talking here about the ( objective) thinking of a scientist at work in his laboratory, or of he thought of an absorbed mathematician, and so on, but about ( the 'personal', 'psychological' component of ?) thought as it operates in our everyday contacts and responses. To survive (in the complexity of the modern world ?) , we are forced to think. Thinking is (a faculty developped for ?) our physical survival, whether of the individual or of a nation. Thinking, which is ( fueled by ?) desire in both
its lowest and its highest form, must ever be self-enclosing, conditioning. Whether we 'think' of the universe, of our neighbour, of ourselves, or of God, all our thinking is limited, conditioned , it not?

Q: In the sense you are using the word ‘thinking’, I suppose it is. But does not ( an objective function of?) knowledge help us to "break down" this conditioning ?

K: Does it? We have accumulated knowledge about so many aspects of life - medicine, war, law, science - and there is at least some (available factual) knowledge of ourselves, of our own consciousness. But with all this vast store of information, are we free from sorrow, war, hate? Can the ( self-identified 'ego- ?) centre' which breeds ( greed, suspicion and ?) antagonism be radically transformed through ( the very ) 'knowledge' ( it controls ?) ?
( In a nutshell: ) Love is not the opposite of 'hate'; if through knowledge our 'hate' is changed into 'love', then it is not Love. This 'change' brought about by thought, by
will, is not Love, but merely another self-protective (mental ?) convenience.

Q: I don’t quite follow your reasoning.

K: (Re-recap:) Thought is the ( brain's) response of ( the stored memory of ?) what has been, is it not? This memory is ( the active engramming of all our genetic and cultural ?) tradition, experience, and its ( 'thinking') reaction to any new experience is the outcome of the past; so ( the newly acquired ?) experience is always strengthening (and/or actualising the existing engramming of the ?) past. The (thinking) mind is the result of the past, of time; thought is the product of many yesterdays. When thought seeks to change itself, trying to 'be' or 'not to be' something, it merely perpetuates itself ( in time) under a different name.
Being the product of the known, thought can never experience the unknown; being the result of time, it can never understand the tTmeless, the Eternal.
Thought must cease for the Real to be. You see, sir, we are so ( subliminally ?) afraid to lose what we think we have, that we never go ( investigating) into these things very deeply. We look at (and from ?) the "surface of ourselves" and repeat words and phrases that have very little significance; so ( inwardly ?) we remain "petty" (self-confined ?) , and breed antagonism as thoughtlessly as we breed children.

Q: As you said, we are thoughtless in our ( self-created illusion of ?) 'thoughtfulness'. Perhaps I shall come again, if I may.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 11 Jan 2016 #127
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: WHAT DOES IT MEAN TO BE SERIOUS? (from Commentaries on Living third series)

Over the palm trees could be seen a great stretch of pale blue sky, which the clouds were rushing to cover. Among the people, along the noisy streets, and in the gardens of the well-to-do, there was great beauty; it was there everlastingly, but few cared to look. The two of them, a man and a woman, had come from some distance to attend the talks.

Q: My father was somewhat familiar with your approach to life, and he used to talk to me about it, but I never got around to investigating the matter for myself, probably because I was ‘told’ - which is perhaps a normal reaction when one is young. As it happened, a friend of ours attended your talks last year, and when he recounted to us something of what he had heard, we decided to come. I don’t know where to start, and perhaps you can help us out.

K: Since you have said that you are both serious, I wonder what we mean when
we talk about being serious? Most people are 'serious' about something or other. The politician with
his schemes, and in his attaining of power; the schoolboy in his desire to pass an examination;
the man who is out to make money; the professional man, and the man who is dedicated to some
ideology, or is caught in the net of a belief - they are all 'serious' in their own way. The neurotic is
serious, and so also is the sannyasi. What then does it mean to be serious? Please don’t think I am
quibbling, but if we could understand this thing, we might learn a great deal about ourselves; and
after all, that is the right beginning.

Q: I am serious in wanting to clarify my own confusion and it is for this reason
that I have gone around seeking the help of those who say they can guide me towards that
clarification. I have tried to forget myself in good works, in bringing some happiness to others,
and in that effort I have been serious. I am also serious in my desire to find God.

K: One is serious in achieving, in gaining, in succeeding, in becoming; it is the "end" that
makes one serious, the thing that one hopes to get or to avoid. The doing, the result, the achievement, is all-important, and not love itself, which has its own action.

Q: I want to find God, and it is important for me to find Him, otherwise my life has no meaning; it’s only a bewildering chaos, full of misery. I can understand life only through God, who is the end and the beginning of all things; He alone can guide me in this welter of contradictions, and that’s why I am serious about finding Him. But you are asking, is this seriousness at all?

K: Yes. The understanding of living, with all its complications, is one thing, and the search for God is
another. In saying that God, the ultimate "end", will give meaning to your life, you have brought into being two opposing states: living, and God. Perhaps there is no such thing as finding God first, and then living; it may be that God is to be found through the very understanding of this complex process called life. But we were trying to understand what it means to be "serious". One can see that to pursue (one's ?) "fulfilment" in any form, however noble or stupid, is not to be really serious.

Q: I always took it for granted that I was serious in my various undertakings, but now I am beginning to see that there is an altogether different kind of "seriousness". I don’t think I am able to put it into words yet, but I am beginning to get the feeling of it. Do please go on.

K: Let’s inquire and learn about it together. You are not being taught by me, Being taught, and being
free to learn, are two entirely different things, are they not? If we are free to learn, we shall learn (even) from the falling leaf, from every kind of relationship, from being aware of the activities of our own minds. But most of us are not ( inwardly) free to learn, because we are used to be told what to think by books, by our parents, by society, and being 'taught' (being mentally standardised ?) has made one repetitive, mediocre. The urge to be guided, with its implications of authority, obedience, fear, lack of love, and so on, can only lead to ( spiritual) darkness. Being free to learn is quite another matter. And there can be no freedom to learn when one’s outlook is based on the past experience as knowledge; or when the mind is tethered to the (subliminal ?) desire to be secure, or to achieve a particular "end".

Q: It seems impossible to be free of all that!

K: You don’t know if it’s possible or impossible until you have tried it. The mind can become aware of its own bondage, and in that very awareness it is "learning". But first of all, is it clear to us that a mind that’s blindly held in what it has been taught, is incapable of "learning"?

Q: In other words, you are saying that as long as I merely follow ( the guidelines of our cultural ?) tradition I cannot learn anything new ? But then, how am I to be free of this 'tradition'?

K: To (be able to freely ?) learn there must be no ( emphasis on the ?) accumulation of knowledge, no piling up of experiences as the past. Do you actually see the truth of this? Is it a "fact" to you, or just something with which you may agree or disagree?

Q: I see it to be a fact, but of course, you don’t mean that we must throw away all the
knowledge that science has gathered, that would be absurd, Your point is that if we want to "learn" (about ourselves) , we cannot assume anything ?

K: Learning is a ( free inner?) movement, but not from one fixed (known ?) point to another, and this movement is impossible if the mind is burdened (inwardly identified or stuck ?) with an accumulation of the past, with conclusions, traditions, beliefs. This ( psychological ) accumulation, is ( manifesting itself as ?) the ‘me’, the 'ego', the 'self' (self-consciousness ?) . The "self" and its maintenance prevent the free movement of learning.

Q: I am beginning to understand what you mean by this " free movement of learning": As long
as I’m enclosed within ( the boundaries of ?) my own desire for security, for comfort, for inner peace, there can be no free movement of learning. So, how am I to be free of this desire?

K: There’s no 'method' by which to be free. The very perception of the importance of being able to learn will free ( or...start freeing ?) the mind form its self-(centredness ?) put together by ( our collective ?) memory. The practising of a method, the ‘how’ and its discipline, is another ( subtler) form of accumulation; it never frees the mind, but only sets it (the self-centredness ?) going in a different pattern.

Q: I seem to understand something of all this, but I wonder if I shall ever really get to the bottom of it.

K: It’s not ( really ?) as bad as all that. With the ( insightful ?) understanding of one or two central facts, the whole picture becomes clear. So let’s go back to the question of "seriousness", with which we started.
We saw that the mind is not ( profoundly ?) serious if it has some end to be gained or avoided. Then what is "seriousness"? To find it out, one must be aware that one’s mind is (usually directing itself ?) outwardly or inwardly in order to gain or to become something. It’s this ( self-exposing ?) "awareness" that sets the mind free to learn what it means to be serious; and to such "learning" there is no end. To a mind that’s learning, the heavens are open.

Q: I have learnt a great deal in this brief conversation,but shall I be able to learn further without your help?

K: Do you see how you are "blocking" yourself? You are greedy for more learning, and this ( subliminal action of ) greed is preventing the ( timeless) movement of learning. Had you been aware of the full significance of what you were feeling and saying, it would have opened the "door" to that movement. There is no ‘further’ learning (projected in the future ?) , but just "learning as you go along". To "die to" (let go inwardly ?) everything that you have learnt is to learn anew. This dying is not a 'final' act: it is a "dying" (a "letting go" of the inner attachments ?) from moment to moment.

Q: I have 'seen' and understood, and ( hopefully some ?) 'goodness' will flower from it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Jan 2016 #128
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

A condensed K Lesson du Jour on WHAT IS LOVE?

Two young men had come from the town nearby. The bus had brought them to the corner, and they had walked the rest of the way. They worked in an office, they said, and so couldn’t come any earlier. They had put on fresh clothes, which the old bus hadn’t soiled, and they came in smiling but rather shyly, their manner hesitantly respectful.

Q: May I ask a question, sir? What is "love"?

K: Living is a 'total' action, not a separate, partial activity; yet our thinking about ( how to live our ?) life is shaped by opinions, conclusions, tradition. That is clear, isn’t it?

Q: Yes, sir, that is clear enough, But again, what is love?

K: Merely to seek an explanation of what love is, is still to be caught in words, in opinions, which are accepted or rejected according to your conditioning.

Q: Aren’t you making it impossible to inquire into what love is?

K: Let me put it this way: is thinking the right instrument for ( such a delicate ?) inquiry? Will thinking help one to understand what love is?

Q: How am I to find out what love is if I’m not allowed to think?

K: Please be a little more patient. You have thought a lot about "love", haven’t you? You have read, exchanged opinions with each other, and come to certain conclusions about love, all of which is called thinking. Has it helped you to find out what love is?

Q: Well, the more we have gone over this whole question of what love is, the clearer it has become.

K: Is it 'love' itself that has become clear, or what you think about it? Let us go a little further into this, shall we? The word "love" is not the actual feeling, is it? And the word ‘love’ means so many different things.

Q: It’s all very confusing. One doesn’t know where one is.

K: That’s just it. Now, can you separate (disentangle ?) the ( actual) feeling from the word, and from your preconceptions of what love should and should not be?

Q: What do you mean ?

K: There is the feeling, and the word which describe that feeling, either approvingly or disapprovingly. Can you separate the feeling from the ( co-notations suggested by the ?) verbal description of it? It’s comparatively easy to separate an objective thing, like this watch, from the word which describes it; but to 'dissociate' the
feeling itself from the word ‘love’, with all its implications, is far more (demanding ?) and requires a great deal of attention.

Q: What good will that do?

K: When you ask, ”What good will it do me if I dissociate the feeling from the word ‘love’”, you are thinking of a result; therefore you are not really inquiring to find out what that feeling is, are you?

Q: I just want to know what will be the outcome of dissociating the feeling from the word. Isn’t this perfectly natural?

K: Perhaps; but if we don’t dissociate the word, which is memory and all its reactions, from the feeling, then that 'word' destroys the ( actual ?) feeling; and then the words are the ash without the fire. Isn’t this what has happened to you both? You have so entangled yourselves in a net of words, of speculations, that the feeling itself, which is the only thing that has deep and vital significance, is lost.

Q: I am beginning to see what you mean: we really don’t know what love is, but merely have opinions about it. Is that it?

K: Don’t you think so? Surely, to know Love, Truth, God, there must be no opinions, no beliefs, no speculations with regard to it. If you want to know the truth or the falseness of the 'fact', then you must not live in words, in the intellect. You may have a lot of knowledge, information, about the 'fact', but ( experiencing ?) the actual fact is entirely different.

( In a nutshell) Put away the book, the description, the tradition, the authority, and take the journey of self-discovery. Love, and don’t be caught in opinions and ideas about what love is or should be. When you "love", everything will come right. Love has its own action. Love, and you will know the blessings of it. Keep away from the ( spiritual) "authority" who tells you what love is and what it is not.
No (scholastic ?) "authority" knows; and he who knows cannot tell. Love, and there is Understanding.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 12 Jan 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 13 Jan 2016 #129
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K (Double ) Lesson du Jour : THE ACTOR

It was a strange evening, full and intense, but as the road wove in and out among the rolling (Californian) hills, time had come to an end. The sign said it was eighteen miles to the main road leading north. It would take half an hour or so to get there: time and distance. Yet at that moment, looking at that sign on the roadside, time and distance had ceased. It was not a measurable moment, it had no beginning and no end. The blue sky and the rolling, golden hills were there, vast and everlasting part of this timelessness. The eyes and the mind were watchful of the road; the dark
and lonely trees were vivid and intense, and each separate blade of hay on the curving hills stood out, simple and clear. The light of that late afternoon was very still around the trees and among the hills, and the only moving thing was the car, going so fast. The silence between words was of that measureless stillness.
Life and death are inseparable, but in their separation lies everlasting fear. Separation is the beginning of time; the fear of an end gives birth to the pain of a beginning. In this (karmic ?) "wheel" the mind is caught and spins out the web of time. ( Our self-centred ?) thought is both the result of time and ( its ongoing ?) process but thought cannot (generate or ?) cultivate love.

He was an actor of some repute who was making a name for himself, but he was still young enough to inquire and suffer.

Q: Why does one act? To some, the stage is merely a means of livelihood, to others it offers a means for the expression of their own vanity, and to still others, playing various roles is a great stimulation. The stage also offers a marvellous escape from the realities of life. I act for all these reasons, and perhaps also because I hope to do some good through the stage.

K: Does not acting give strength to one's 'self' (-consciousness ?) ? We pose, we put on masks, and gradually the pose, the mask becomes the daily habit, covering the many ( latent inward ?) selves of contradiction, greed, hate, and so on. The ( acting ?) ideal is a 'pose' (a self-projected image ?) , a 'mask' covering the fact, the actual. Can one do good through the stage?

Q: Do you mean that one cannot?

Q: It is a question (worth considering ?) , not a judgment. In writing a play the author has certain ideas and intentions which he wants to put across; the actor is the medium, the 'mask', and the public is 'entertained' or 'educated'. Is this ( profit based ?) 'education' doing good? Or is it merely conditioning the human mind to the ( mental ?) patterns, good or bad, intelligent or stupid, devised by the ( clever ?) author?

Q: Good Lord, I never thought about all this. You see, acting has a curious
fascination of its own, sometimes very destructive, and at other times very pleasant. You can take acting seriously, but in itself it is not really serious. There is something in me that rebels against the absurd superficiality of it all, and yet I am greatly attracted to it; so I am disturbed, to put it mildly. Through all this runs the thread of seriousness.

K: If one may point out, any activity that gives emphasis to the ego, is ( psychologically ?) destructive; ( and eventually ?) it brings (its own ?) sorrow. This is the principal issue, is it not? You said earlier that you wanted to do good; but surely the 'good' is not possible when, consciously or unconsciously, the self (-centredness ?) is being nourished and sustained through any career or activity.

Q: Is not all our action based on the survival of the self?
K: Perhaps not always. Outwardly it may appear that an action is self-protective, but inwardly it may not be at all.
What others say or think in this regard is not of great importance, but one should not deceive oneself. And ( a durable ?) self-deception is very easy in such 'psychological' matters.

Q: It seems to me that if I am really concerned with the 'negation' of the self, I shall have to withdraw into a monastery or lead a hermit’s life.

K: You see, we have a concept of ( what should be ?) a selfless life, and it is this concept which prevents the understanding of a life in which the 'self' ( interest ?) is
not (dominant ?) . This very concept is another form of the 'self'. Without escaping to monasteries, is it not possible to be "passively alert" to the (time-binding ?) activities of the "self"? This awareness may bring about a totally different ( quality of human ?) activity which does not breed sorrow and misery.

Q: So, there are certain professions that are obviously detrimental to a sane life, and I include mine among them. I can give up the stage, but then what am I to do? I
have certain talents which may ripen and be useful.

K: Talent may become a curse. The self may use and entrench itself in its own capacities, and then talent becomes the way and the glory of the self.

Q: I am beginning to get a glimpse of all this, but it is still very complex.

K: Perhaps; but what is ( psychologically ?) important is a "choiceless" (passive ?) awareness of the obvious and the subtle activities of the self.


THE SUN HAD set behind the mountains, and the roseate glow was still on the rocky range to the east. The path led down, wandering in and out through the green valley. It was a calm evening, and there was a slight breeze among the leaves. The evening star was just visible high over the horizon, and presently it would be quite dark, for there was no moon. It was cool and silent among these hills and now the sky was full of stars and the mountains were clear and sharp against them.
That smell peculiar to the night was filling the air, and far away a dog was barking It was a very still night, and this stillness seemed to penetrate into the rocks, the trees, into all the things about one, and the footsteps on the rough path did not disturb it.

The mind too was utterly still. After all, meditation is not a means to produce a result, to bring about a state which has been or which might be. If meditation is with intention, the desired result may be achieved, but then it is not meditation, it is only the ( temporary ?) fulfilment of desire. The ( insightful ?) understanding of desire, without trying to put a stop to it, or sustain it, is the beginning and the end of medita- tion. But it is strange how the ( process of desire identifying itself as the ?) 'meditator' persists; he seeks to continue, he becomes the 'experiencer', the one who evaluates, accumulates, rejects. When meditation is ( in the hands ?) of the 'meditator', it only strengthens the meditator, the experiencer.
The ( authentic ?) "stillness of the mind" is ( happening in ?) the absence of the 'experiencer', of the 'observer' who is ( self-consciously ?) 'aware' that he is still. When the mind is still, there is the "awakened" state, but that ( intelligence ?) which is ever awake is neither desire nor the product of desire. Desire only breeds the "conflicts" (the self-fulfilments and frustrations ?) of duality, and ( living in ?) conflict is darkness.

Well connected and rich, she was now on the (safari ?) hunt for the 'spiritual'. She had sought out the Catholic masters and the Hindu teachers, had studied with the Sufis and dabbled in Buddhism.

Q: Of course, I have also looked into the occult, and now I have come to learn from you.

K: Does wisdom lie in the accumulation of much knowledge? If one may ask, in reading what others have said about the structure and behaviour
of human beings, in analysing social and cultural differences, in studying any of the various schools of philosophy, what is it that you are gathering?

Q: I feel that if only one had enough knowledge it would save one from a lot of strife and misery, so I gather it where I can. Knowledge is essential to understanding.

K: Does ( self-) understanding come through knowledge? Or does ( the accumulation of ?) knowledge prevent creative understanding? We seem to think that by accumulating facts and information, by having encyclopedic knowledge, we shall be set free from our bondages. This is simply not so. Is it not important to find out "why" we are gathering ( psyche-related ?) knowledge?

Q: If knowledge can be spread sufficiently widely it will perhaps dissipate man’s hatred for man and prevent the complete destruction of the world. I think this is what most serious educators are concerned with.

K: Though we now have so much 'knowledge' in so many fields,it has not stopped man’s (competitive ?) brutality to man, even among those of the same group, nation, or religion. Perhaps ( the emphasis on our past experience and ?) knowledge is blinding us to some other "factor" that is the real solution to all this chaos and misery.

Q: What is that?

K: A verbal answer could be given, but it would only be adding more words to an already overburdened mind. For most people knowledge is ( used for ?) the strengthening of their prejudices and beliefs. Words, thoughts, are the
framework in which the "self" exists. This ( ego-centric ?) 'concept' contracts or expands through ( its accumulation or discarding of ?) experience and knowledge, but the hard core of this "self" (-protective interface ?) remains, and mere knowledge or learning can never dissolve it. ( The only 'psychological' ?) revolution is the voluntary dissolution of ( one's identification with ?) this 'core', of this 'concept', whereas action born of "self"-perpetuating knowledge can only lead to greater misery and destruction.

Q: You suggested that there might be a different factor which is the true solution to all our (inner) miseries, and I am asking in all seriousness what that factor is. If such a factor exists and one could know and build one’s whole life around it, a totally new culture might well be the outcome.

K: ( The "self"-centred activity of ?) thought can never find it, the ( self-conscious ) ‘you’ with its knowledge, its fears its hopes, frustrations and illusions, can never discover it; and without discovering it, merely to acquire more knowledge, more learning, will only act as a further barrier to the coming into being of "that" (other) state.

Q: If you won’t guide me to it, I shall have to seek it out for myself; and yet you imply that all search must cease.

K: If there were "guidance", there would be no ( authentic self-) discovery. There must be freedom to discover, not guidance. ( The inner ?) discovery is not a "reward".

Q: I am afraid I do not understand all this.

K: if you are "guided" you are no longer free (to discover "what is" ?) and you may become a slave to the one who knows. He (the guru, psy, coach, etc ... ) who asserts that he knows is already a ( 'certified' ?) slave to his knowledge, while he should also be free to find. Finding out (the truth or falseness of 'what is ?) is from moment to moment, so ( your previous ?) knowledge becomes an impediment.

Q: Would you please explain a little more?

K: Knowledge (the collective pool of the "known" ?) is always of the past. What you 'know' is already in the past, is it not? You do not know the present or the future. The way of knowledge is the strengthening of the past . Whatever may be
uncovered could be something totally new, but a ('knowing' mentality ?) , which is the accumulation of the past, cannot fathom the new, the unknown.

Q: Do you mean that one must get rid of all one’s knowledge if one is to find God, love or whatever it is?

K: The "self" (-centred mind) is the ( active memory of the ?) past, the power to accumulate things, virtues, ideas. (Our self-centred) thinking is the outcome of this conditioning of 'yesterday', and with this ( time bound) 'instrument' you are trying to uncover the "Unknowable". This is not possible. Knowledge must cease for the Other to be.

Q: Then how is one to empty one's mind of 'knowledge'?

K: There is no ‘how’. The practice of any "method" only further conditions the mind, for then you have a result, not a mind that is free from ( the psychological residues of ?) knowledge, from the "self". There is no ( 'positive' ?) way, but only a passive awareness (seeing ?) of the truth with regard to knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Jan 2016 #130
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: MEDITATION OR THOUGHT-CONTROL ? ( from Commentaries on Living 2-nd series)

He had been educated abroad and had held a good position with the government; but over twenty years ago he had made the decision to give up the ways of the world in order to spend the remaining days of his life in meditation.

Q: I practiced various methods of meditation, till I had complete control of my thoughts, and this has brought with it certain (psychic ?) "powers" and domination over myself. However, a friend took me to one of your talks in which you were saying that as generally practiced meditation was a form of self-hypnosis, a cultivation of self-projected desires, however refined. This struck me as being so true that I sought out this conversation with you; and considering that I have dedicated my life to meditation, I hope we can go into the matter rather deeply. According to the sacred books, thought could not penetrate into the many illusions unless it was controlled and directed; so that was my first task. I went from despair to the highest form of bliss and finally had the pride of one who has become the "master of himself".
Though I had heard of you for many years, the pride in my achievement had always prevented me from coming to listen to you; but my friend, another sannyasi, insisted that I should come, and what I heard has disturbed me, who had previously thought that I was beyond all disturbance! You said in your talk that the mind must go beyond all "experience", otherwise it is imprisoned in its own projections, in its own desires and pursuits, and I was deeply surprised to find that my mind was caught up in these very things.
Now, being conscious of this fact, how is the mind to break down the walls of the prison it has built around itself? Have these twenty years of meditation been wasted? Has it all been a mere wandering in illusions?

K: Various religious teachers have advocated the "control of thought" as the primary step, but are they right? Who is this 'controller' (entity) ? Is he not part of the very ( proces of self-centred ?) thought which he is trying to control? Surely its 'control' implies the coercive action of will to dominate, to build up resistance against whatever is not desired. In this whole process there is a vast and miserable conflict. Concentration in ( the sphere of ?) meditation is a form of self-centred improvement, it emphasizes action within the boundaries of the the 'ego'. Concentration is a process of 'narrowing down' (or focussing one's?) thought. Similarly a child is ( naturally ?) absorbed in its toys, which arrests the restless wanderings
of the mind, and his mind is taken over by the image, by the object. The "image" (as well as the habit ?) or the "object" is then becoming all important. Concentration on something is comparatively easy. The toy does absorb the mind of the child but it does not free the mind to explore, to discover what is, if there is anything, beyond its own frontiers (boundaries ?) .

Q: What you say is so different from what one has read or been taught, yet it appears to be true and I am beginning to understand the implications of ( thought) control. But how can the mind be free without ( any self-) discipline?

K: The first step towards freedom is the understanding of (one's inner ?) bondage; when there is an awareness of the 'ways of desire', that very awareness brings its own clarity and order. After all, sir, concentration is still the way of desire. A man of business is concentrated on his work because he wants to amass wealth and/or power, and when another concentrates in meditation, he also is after ( a higher form of ?) achievement, (with its ?) rewards. Both are pursuing success, which yields a sense of self confidence and the (rather illusory ?) feeling of being secure. This is so, is it not?

Q: I follow what you are explaining, sir.

K: The liberating factor is the perception of the truth or the falseness of this matter. If we can understand the implications of concentration and see it as being "false", then there is freedom from (its background ?) desire to achieve, to experience, to become.
From this comes ( a quality of integrated ?) attention, which is wholly different from concentration. Concentration implies ( the divisive choice of ?) duality: the "maker of effort" and the "end" towards which effort is made. So concentration strengthens the ( self-consciousness of ?) the 'maker of effort', the conqueror, the virtuous one.
But in ( this integrated, non-dualistic ?) "attention" there is an absence of the ( all controlling) "experiencer", the one who gathers, stores and repeats. In this (holistic ?) state of 'attention' the conflict of self-achievement and ( its associated ?) fear of failure have ceased.

Q: But unfortunately not all of us are blessed with that power of attention.

K: It is not (necessarily ?) a "gift". It comes into ( one's ?) being with the understanding of desire, which is ( the core of ?) self-knowledge. This state of attention is the ( action of the ?) Good .

Q: Then, are all my efforts and the (self-imposed) discipline of many years utterly wasted and of no value at all? I see can now that for over twenty years I have
pursued a way that has led to a self-created (high security inner ?) 'prison' in which I have lived, experienced and suffered. Obviously one must begin again with a different spirit; but what about all the visions and (psychic) experiences? Are they also false, worthless?

K: Is not our (shared human?) 'mind', sir, a vast ( memory) storehouse of all the experiences, visions and thoughts of man? It is capable of fantastic inventions, from the simplest to the most complex. It is also capable of extraordinary delusions and of vast perceptions. The hopes, the anxieties, joys and accumulated knowledge of both
the 'collective' and the 'individual' are all there, stored away in the deeper layers of the human consciousness, and one can 'relive' ('playback' ?) the inherited or acquired experiences, visions, and so on. We are told of certain drugs that can (temporarily ?) free the mind from its turmoils, giving it great energy and insight. But must the human mind travel through all these dark and hidden( occult ?) passages to come to the Light? Must one go through these weary processes to find That which is not measurable? Can we bypass all this and come upon That which may be ( generically ?) called ( Universal ?) "Love"? Since you have had visions, powers, ( and psychic ?) 'experiences', what do you say, sir?

Q: While they lasted I naturally thought they were important and had significance. When these various "powers" come they give one great confidence in oneself, a feeling of self-mastery in which there is an overwhelming pride. Now, after talking all this over, all these "visions", and so on, do not have the same meaning for me as they once had. They seem to have receded in the light of my own understanding.

K: Are they necessary to open the door of the eternal? Can they not be by-passed? What is essential ( in meditation ?) is a "still" mind. All these practices and disciplines only strengthen the "self".
The mind must be empty of the 'known' for the Unknowable to be. The movement of the 'self' (- interest ?) , with its 'will' and 'desire', its searching and accumulation, must wholly cease. Then only the Timeless (dimension of Reality ?) can come into being. It cannot be 'invited'. The mind that seeks to 'invite' the Real through various disciplines, prayers and attitudes, can only receive its own ( self-) gratifying projections, but... they are not the Real.

Q: I perceive now, after all these years of asceticism, self-discipline and mortification, that my mind is (safely) held in the prison of its own making, and that the walls of this prison must be broken down. How is one to set about it?

K: The very ( insight or ?) "awareness" that they ( are 'false' and therefore ?) must go is enough. Any ( psychological) action to 'break them down' (re-)sets in motion the ( self-centred ) desire to achieve, to gain, and so brings back the ( 'mind game' called ?) "conflict of the opposites": the 'experiencer' and the 'experience', the 'seeker' and the 'sought'. To see the false as the false is in itself enough (in terms of doingness ?) , for that very ( insightful ?) perception frees the mind from ( its subliminal attachments to ?) the 'false'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 15 Jan 2016 #131
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: INTEGRATING THE FRAGMENTED CONSCIOUSNESS (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

HE CAME TO see us surrounded by his disciples. They were of every kind, the well-to-do and the poor, the high governmental official and the widow, the fanatic and the young man with a smile. They were a pleasant ( care-free ?) and happy lot, and the shadows were dancing on the white house. In the thick foliage, parrots were screeching, and a noisy lorry went by. The young man (with a smile ?) was eager and insisted on the importance of the guru, the teacher; the others were in accord with him and smiled with delight as he made his points, clearly and objectively. The sky was very blue, and a white-throated eagle was circling just above us with hardly a flutter of the wing. It was a very beautiful day.

K: How easily we 'destroy' ('cancel' ?) each other, the pupil the guru, and the guru the pupil! ( Inwardly ?) we are 'many' (fragments ?) and not One. The One (the fully integrated consciousness ?) does not come into being till the ( inner fragmentation of the ?) 'many' cease. The clamorous 'many' (inner fragments ?) are at war with each other day and night, and this 'war' is ( creating ?) the pain (sorrow ?) of our life. We may destroy one (unpleasant fragment ?) , but another rises in its place; and this seemingly endless process is ( occupying most of ?) our (inner) life. We try to impose the one (the 'bestest' image ?) on the many (existing images ?) , but that one soon becomes ( like ?) the many. We are (inwardly) the "voices of the many", and yet we try to catch the still voice of the One. The One 'is' the many (only) if the 'many' (conflicting self-images ?) are silent to hear the voice of the One. The 'many' can never find the One.

Our problem is not how to hear the voice of the One but to understand the composition, the make-up of the 'many' (fragments of our consciousness ?) which we are. One facet of the many cannot understand the many; one ( self-identified ?) 'entity' cannot understand the many ( overlapping ?) 'entities' which we are. Though one (dominant entity or ?) 'facet' tries to control, discipline, shape the other facets, its efforts are ever self-enclosing, narrowing. The 'whole' (of our consciousness ?) cannot be understood through the part, and that is why we never (fully) 'understand' (ourselves) . We never get the ( global ?) view of the whole, we are never aware of the whole, because we are so ( obsessed ?) occupied with the ( problems created by the dominant ?) part. To be aware of this conflict (of our inner fragmentation ?) , there must be the understanding of "desire". There is only one (central) activity of desire; though there are many varying and conflicting demands and pursuits, they are all the outcome of ( the same energy of ?) desire. This (global process of ?) "desire" must be understood without the "one who understands". If this(controlling ?) entity who 'understands' is there, then it is still a ( fragmentary ?) 'entity' of desire. To understand without the "experiencer" is to be free of the ( inner fragmentation of the ?) 'one' and of the 'many' (of the 'me' and the 'not me' ?) .

All ( inner ?) activities of conformity and denial, of analysis and acceptance, only strengthen the "experiencer" (the self-identification of desire ?) .
This "experiencer" can never understand the whole. The "experiencer" is the accumulated (active memory of the past ?) , and there is no ( holistic self-?) understanding within the shadow of the past. Dependence on the past may offer a ( psychologically safe ?) way of action, but its cultivation is not ( leading to a deeper ?) understanding. Understanding is not of the ( 'knowing' ?) mind, of "thought"; and ( if the process of ?) thought is "disciplined into silence" to capture That which is not of the ( man-made) mind, what is 'experienced' is ( coloured by ?) the projection of the past.

( Recap:) In the awareness of this whole process ( of the inner fragmentation of desire ?) there is a Silence which is not of the 'experiencer'. In this Silence only does ( an insightful ?) understanding come into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Jan 2016 #132
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lessons du Jour: THE KNOWN and THE SEARCH FOR TRUTH ( From Commentaries on Living, first series, 1956)

We were sitting under a tree, overlooking the river. Under the last rays of the sun, the water was the colour of newborn flowers. Presently someone joined us and began to talk of his ( spiritual) experiences. His consuming interest was the finding of God and now, after many years, His voice was being heard, and it guided him in little as well as big things. He had no will of his own, but followed the inner voice of God. It never failed him, though he often corrupted its clarity; his prayer was ever for the purification of the vessel, that it might be worthy to receive.

K: Can That which is not of time be caught in the net of our ( personal ?) desires? What we can capture is the projection of the known; but the Unknown cannot be captured by the known. We respond to stimulants, but Reality offers no stimulant: it 'is'.
The ( time-bound ?) mind moves from the known to the known, and it cannot reach out into the unknown. What you can 'think about' comes out of the known (experience of ?) the past. This ( inner movement of the ?) past is ( the self-centred process of ?) thought, ( constantly) modifying ( updating ?) itself according to circumstances and pressures, but ever remaining a process of time. Thought cannot search out the New, but when thought is silent, then there may be the New . When the experiencing ( of the New) ceases, then thought takes over and terms it within the (files ?) of the known. Thought cannot penetrate into the unknown, and so it can never discover or experience ( the Ultimate ?) Reality. For this reason the mind must be entirely and deeply silent; but this Silence cannot be purchased through self-sacrifice, sublimation or suppression. This silence comes when the mind is no longer ( engaged in a process of ?) 'seeking', when it is no longer caught in the process of 'becoming'. This silence must be as 'unknown' to the mind as the Timeless; for if the mind ( is self-conscious in ?) experiencing this Silence, then there is the 'experiencer' who is cognizant of a past silence; and what is experienced by the experiencer is merely a self-projected repetition. The ( superficial ?) mind can never experience the New, and so the - totality of the ?) mind must be utterly still. And it can be still only when it is not (engaged in ?) naming, recording or storing up in memory. This "naming and recording" is a constant process of the different
layers of consciousness, not merely of the upper mind. But when the superficial mind is quiet, the deeper mind can offer up its intimations. When the whole consciousness is silent and tranquil, free from all ( temporal) 'becoming' (which is timeless spontaneity) then only does the Immeasurable come into being. Reality has no ( temporal ?) continuity; it is ever new, ever fresh. What has (a time-bound ?) continuity can never be creative.

( Recap:) The upper mind is only an instrument of ( material survival and ?) communication, but it cannot measure that which is immeasurable. Reality is not to be spoken of; and when it is, it is no longer reality. This is meditation.


HE HAD COME ( to India from) many thousands of miles, by boat and plane and had the greatest of difficulties in adjusting himself to this new and (rather) disturbing environment. He was entirely unaccustomed to this kind of food and to this climate; having been born and bred in a very high altitude, the damp heat was telling on him. He was a well-read man, a scientist of sorts, and had done some writing. He seemed to be well acquainted with both Eastern and Western philosophies, and had been a Roman Catholic. He said he had been dissatisfied with all this for a long time, but had carried on because of his family. His marriage was what could be considered a happy one, and he loved his two children. They were in college now in that faraway country, and had a bright future. But (the sense of an inner) dissatisfaction with regard to his own life and action had been steadily increasing through the years, and a few months ago it had reached a crisis. He had left his family, making all the necessary arrangements for his wife and children, and now here he was, with just enough money to carry on, he come to find God. He said that he was quite clear in his purpose.

K: Is God to be found by 'seeking Him out'? Can you search after the 'unknowable'? To seek -( for a fixed ?) truth is to deny it (its living nature ?) . Truth has no fixed abode; there is no path, no guide to it, and is truth to be found in a particular setting, in a special climate, among certain (spiritually inclined ?) people?
When truth is sought (outwardly ?) , what is found can only come out of ignorance, for the search itself is born of ignorance. 'You' cannot search out ( the ultimate ?) Reality; 'you' must cease for Reality to be.

Q: I have come to this country because here there is a greater feeling for the spiritual search. Physically one can be more free here, one need not have so many things; possessions do not overpower one here as ( much as ?) elsewhere. That is partly why one goes to a monastery. But I do not want to escape into an ordered (monastic) isolation, I am here, living my life to find the Nameless. Do you think that I am capable of finding it?

K: Surely, your question implies that only the 'exceptional' ( the select people) find truth, and not the everyday man. Is ( free access to ?) Truth granted only to the few, to the exceptionally (lucky and/or ?) intelligent? We have the 'image' of the men who are supposed to have discovered truth; and there is competition between their 'example' and ourselves; we also long to be the ( globally acclaimed ?) 'record-breaker'. Why do we compare ourselves with the 'ideal'? Does such comparison bring self-understanding? Is it not a self-projection preventing the understanding of ourselves as we are? Surely, without the understanding of oneself, the search for so-called (Ultimate ?) 'Reality' is a (very convenient ?) escape from oneself. Without knowing oneself, the 'God' that you seek is the 'God' of illusion; and ( living in ?) illusion inevitably ( eventually ?) brings conflict and sorrow. Without knowing oneself there can be no right thinking; and then all ( one's accumulated ?) knowledge is ( a process of ?) ignorance which can only lead to confusion and destruction. Knowing oneself is ( however) not the ultimate end; it is the only the 'opening wedge' ( the 'foot in the door' ?) to the Inexhaustible.

Q: But is not this 'self-knowledge' extremely difficult to acquire, and will it not take a very long time?

K: The very conception that 'knowing oneself' is ( time-consuming and ?) difficult to acquire is a ( self-projected block or?) 'hindrance' . If I may suggest, just begin. Self-knowledge is to be discovered in the ( mirroring ?) action of relationship; and this does not come about through self-isolation. The ( various forms of psychological ?) 'resistance': comparisons, justifications, condemnations and identifications, are the very denial of ( the direct perception of ?) "what is".

The "what is" is implicit ( 'enfolded' ?) ; and the awareness of the implicit, without any choice, is ( allowing) the unfoldment of it. This unfoldment of "what is" is the beginning of wisdom. Wisdom is essential for the coming into being of the Unknown, of the Inexhaustible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Jan 2016 #133
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: Highlights on Meditation ( From Comentaries on Living-first series)

He said he was practicing 'meditation' for a number of years; he had followed certain disciplines after reading many books on the subject, and had been to a monastery of some kind where they meditated several hours a day. He said that, though after these many years his mind was under control, there was no joy in his meditation; and that the self-imposed disciplines were making him inwardly rather hard and arid. Somehow he was very dissatisfied with the whole thing. He had belonged to several 'religious' societies, but now he had finished with them all and was seeking independently the 'God' they all promised. He was getting on in years and was beginning to feel rather weary.

K: The 'right' ( approach to ?) meditation is essential for the purgation of the mind, for without the emptying of the ('known' ?) there can be no inner renewal. Mere ('psychological' ?) continuity is decay. The mind withers away by the friction of wrong usage or by the constant repetition of sensations which make it dull and weary.
The control of the mind is not important (in the context of meditation ?) ; what is important is to ( expose and ?) find out the ( deeper) interests of the mind. The ( superficial ?) mind is a ( dynamic ?) bundle of conflicting interests, and merely to strengthen one ( dominating ?) interest against anothers is what we call (self-) discipline. ( Such enforced ) 'discipline' is the cultivation of resistance, and where there is resistance there is no understanding.

A well-disciplined mind is not (necessarily ?) a free mind; it is only in (an inner environment of ?) freedom that any ( self-) discovery can be made. There must be spontaneity to uncover the movements (activities ?) of the 'self'-( identified consciousness ?) , at whatever level it may be placed. Though there may be ( some?) unpleasant discoveries, the movements of the 'self'
(-identification ?) must be exposed and understood
; but (merely following?)disciplines destroy the ( inner spirit of ?) spontaneity in which discoveries are made. ( Following these ?) 'disciplines' fix the mind in a pattern; through self-discipline the mind can strengthen itself in its ( chosen ?) purpose; but this 'purpose' is self-projected and so it is not the Real. The mind creates ( its own self-centred image of ?) reality, and disciplines merely give vitality to that image.

Only in ( self-) discovery can there be joy - the discovery from moment to moment of the ways of the self. The ( process of ?) 'self' (identification ?) , at whatever level it is placed, is still part of the known; and though there may be layers of the 'self' of which the superficial mind is not aware, they are revealed in the ( mirroring ?) action of relationship;( but only ?) when our relationships are not confined within a pattern, it gives an opportunity for self-revelation. Relationship is ( revealing) the action of the self, and to understand this action there must be an awareness without choice; for to 'choose' is to emphasize one interest against another. In this ( choice-free ?) experiencing there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the 'experienced'. Thus the mind is emptied of ) its ( psychological ?) accumulations, (since) there is no longer the ”me,” the 'gatherer'. These ( residual ?) accumulations, the stored-up ( personal) memories are the (active content of the ?) ”me; the ”me” is not an entity apart from these accumulations. ( However ) the ”me” ( is constantly trying to ?) separate itself from 'its characteristics' in order to give itself ( a sense of safe ?) continuity amidst the (relative ?) impermanency (of the material world ?) . The ( insightful ?) experiencing of this ( mind-splitting trick?) as an unitary process frees the mind from its ( time-binding ?) duality. Thus the total process of the mind, the open as well as the hidden, is understood in its entirety.

Then dreams and everyday activities are ( an open opportunity for ?) this emptying process. ( In the context of meditation ?) the mind must be utterly empty to receive; but the (self-centred ?) 'craving to be empty' is a deep-seated impediment, and this also must be understood completely. The craving to experience (something extraordinary ?) must wholly cease, which happens only when the 'experiencer' is not nourishing himself on his experiences and their memories.

This ( 'psychological' ?) purgation of the mind must take place not only on its upper levels, but also in its hidden depths; and this can happen only when the naming (verbal recognition ?) process comes to an end (or is suspended ?) . Naming only strengthens and gives continuity to the 'experiencer', to the desire for 'permanency'. There must be a silent awareness of ( this process of ?) naming, and so the (insightful) understanding of it. We name not only to communicate, but also to give continuity and substance to an experience,( in order ?) to revive it and to repeat its sensations. ( In the context of meditation ?) this 'naming process' must cease, not only on the superficial levels of the mind, but throughout its entire structure. This is an 'arduous' ( very demanding?) task, not to be lightly experienced; for our whole (self-centred ?) consciousness is ( based on ?) this process of naming our experience and recording them (for further use ?) . It is this process that gives nourishment and strength to the illusory entity, the 'experiencer', as being distinct and separate from its experiences. ( In other words ?) without ( self-centred ?) thoughts there is no 'thinker'. Our thoughts create the 'thinker', who then isolates himself to give ( our physical brain a sense of ?) permanency; for thoughts are always impermanent.

( Recap: ) There is freedom when the entire ( inner ?) being, the superficial as well as the hidden, is purged of the past. If there is any effort to be free (of this burden of the past ?) , there can never be a total purgation of the whole being. When all the many layers of our consciousness are quiet, utterly still, only then is there the (inner light of the ?) Immeasurable, the renewal of Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Jan 2016 #134
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K lesson du Jour: Learning about Desire (First Madras Talk 1952)

Surely, those who are really earnest, those who really want to see a peaceful world, to have peaceful relationship with each other, to be friendly and compassionate, must understand the process of desire. Desire is not static, is it? You cannot just impose certain rules and regulations on desire if you would ( really want to ?) understand it. You have to follow every movement of its intricate, conscious and unconscious whims and fancies. You cannot say "That is right desire. That is wrong desire. This, I want to do", and so on. This is not easy because we have been trained from childhood to repress, to control, to dominate and say "This is right, that is wrong"; and therefore, we put an end to all ( self-) understanding.

If you would really follow it out, then you will see that you have a 'centre' which is always ( related to) the process of recognition. Our difficulty is to understand desire without ( the interference of ?) this process of (verbal) recognition. By 'recognition', I mean something that happens when you meet or see somebody. You then have a subjective reaction, an emotion, and you recognize; you give it a name; and that recognition only strengthens (the self-centred ?) experience. So, if you would understand what is Reality, what is God, that 'centre of recognition' must completely end (come to a full stop ?) . Our 'gods' are measurable; we 'know' them previously. Our scriptures and our religious teachers have so conditioned us that we 'know' what everything is (all about) . But all that we are actually 'knowing' is merely ( based) this process of recognition.

Is it possible to dissolve this 'centre of recognition'? After all, to say 'I know, I have had experience, it is so', indicates the strengthening of self. Now to find out if there is God, if there is Truth, if ( in meditation ?) there is such a state in which recognition is not possible, in which all measurement has ceased, surely, we must begin to understand desire.
So, to understand desire we have to follow it. You can (objectively) follow it only when you are not looking at 'desire' as something outside of you.
( Eg.) Suppose I have a (particular ) desire. My instinctive reaction is either to condemn it, how stupid it is; or to say how good, how noble it is. Then what happens? I have not really followed the ( process of that ) desire; I have just (put a lid on it ?) . Please think it out, and you will see the extraordinary importance of it. Then I assure you, you will have an inward revolution of the greatest kind; and that can only take place when we follow, understand the whole process, the complex process of psychological desire, motives, urges conscious as well as unconscious. That is not easy, but if we can understand how to pursue desire, how to be acquainted with it, how not to translate it, then we shall solve all these problems.

How is it possible for an ordinary person like you and me, who has got so many problems - economic, family, the mess we are all in - to pursue desire to the end, to go with it, to understand it? It would be easy if you had a companion who would stop you each time, and say: 'Look, what are you doing? You are interpreting, translating, condemning desire. You are not really following it. You are really putting a cap on it'. If somebody could make you observe what you are doing, then perhaps it will be helpful. But you have no such companion; you do not even want such a 'companion', be cause it is too difficult, too irritating, too disturbing. But, you will have such an inner companion in your own mind if you are earnest and say 'I want to understand it'.

Take any desire, ( for instance the ?) desire to be powerful, to dominate, which most of us have; anybody, rich or poor, has the desire to be powerful. Do not condemn it, do not say 'It is wrong', but go into it; you will then see where it will lead you. You do not have to read any book. All the subconscious accumulations of this 'desire for power' will be open to the conscious mind. There you have your " Book of ( self-) knowledge"; and if you do not know how to "read" it, you will never understand anything, because, in your heart, in your mind, truth lies, and it is no good seeking it outside though it may be (more comfortable ?) to do so.

So, that is what we are going to discuss and talk about for the next six weeks, that is, how to understand "desire" and how to go beyond ( the process of verbal) recognition, that 'centre' which recognizes, which cripples all creative action. I feel there is something (beyond the identification with ?) that 'centre' that can be grasped and understood, something much greater than physical or superficial existence. I would like to convey this to the two or three who are really serious and can go into it. But it is very difficult to find those two or three, because we have got here all kinds of people with their self-importance, their ambitions, and their refusal to see beyond themselves. So, I beg of you most earnestly not to come if you are not serious, if you are not earnest; but if you are earnest, we can go very far and understand, not eventually but immediately. And that is where there is real transformation, to see anything very clearly and to act upon it; and that requires ( a timeless quality of ? ) patience, observation and inward integrity.

Question: You have been in retreat for the past sixteen months and that, for the first time in your life. May we know if there is any significance in this?

Krishnamurti: Don't you also want to go away sometimes to quiet and take stock of things and not merely become a repetitive machine, a talker, explainer and expounder? Don't you want to do that some time, don't you want to be quiet, don't you want to know more of yourself? Some of you wish to do it, but economically you cannot, the family responsibility and so on crowd in your way. All the same, it is good to retreat to quiet and to take stock of every thing that you have done. When you do that, you acquire experiences that are not recognized, not translated.

My 'retreat' has no significance to you, but your retreat, if you follow it rightly, will have significance to you. And I think it is essential sometimes to go to retreat, to stop everything that you have been doing, to stop your beliefs and experiences completely, and look at them anew, not keep on repeating like machines whether you believe or do not believe. You would then let in fresh air into your minds. If you can do so, you would be open to the mysteries of nature and to things that are whispering about us, which you would not otherwise reach; you would reach the Truth that cannot be invited but comes itself. But we are not (inwardly) open to love, and other finer processes that are taking place within us, because we are all too enclosed by our own ambitions, by our own achievements, by our own desires. Have a complete break with the past and see what happens. Sirs, do it, and you will see delight. You will see vast expanses of love, understanding and freedom. When your heart is open, then Reality can come. Then the whisperings of your own (worries ?) are not heard. That is why it is good to take a retreat, to go away and to stop the routine - not only the routine of outward existence but the ( inner) 'routine' which the mind establishes for its own safety and convenience.

Try it sirs, those who have the opportunity. Then perhaps you will know what is beyond recognition, then you will find that 'God' ( Truth, or Love ?) is not a thing to be experienced, to be recognized; but that God is something which comes to you only when your mind and your heart are absolutely still, not seeking, not probing, and when you have no ambitions to acquire.
God can be found only when the mind is no longer seeking (its personal ) advancement. If we take a retreat from all that, then perhaps the whisperings of desire will cease to be heard, and the "thing" that is waiting will come directly and surely.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 21 Jan 2016 #135
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: Belief and 'psychological' security ( From Commentaries on Living, first series)

How still the river was! Two brilliant little kingfishers were flying up and down close to the bank and just above the surface; there were some bees gathering water for their hives, and a fisherman’s boat lay in the middle of the stream. The trees along the river were thick with leaves, and their shadows were heavy and dark, in the fields the newly planted rice was a vivid green, and there were
white ricebirds calling. It was a very peaceful scene, and it seemed a pity to talk over our petty little problems. The sky was the tender blue of evening. The noisy towns were far away; there was a village across the river, and a winding path went meandering along the bank, A boy was singing in a clear, high voice which did not disturb the tranquility of the place.


He said he had gone into the question very thoroughly, had read as much as he could of what had been written on the subject, and he was convinced that there were Masters (of Divine Wisdom ?) in different parts of the world. They did not show themselves physically except to their special disciples, but they were in communication with others through 'other means'. They exerted a beneficent influence and guided the leaders of the world’s thought and action, though the leaders themselves were unaware of it; and they brought about "revolution and peace". He was convinced, he said, that each continent had a group of Masters, shaping its destiny and giving it their blessing. He had known several 'pupils' of these Masters - at least they had told him they were, he added guardedly. Was it possible to have direct contact with them ?

K: We are odd people; we wander in search of something in far-off places when it is so close to us; truth is never in our homes but in some distant place. We go to the other side of the world to find the Master, but we do not ( bother to ?) understand the common things of our life, the everyday struggles and joys, and yet we attempt to grasp the 'mysterious' and the hidden. We do not know ourselves, but we are willing to follow those who promise a reward, a hope, a Utopia.
As long as we are ( inwardly) confused, what we 'choose' (to follow) must also be confused. We cannot perceive clearly when we are ( inwardly) 'half-blind'; we (may think to ?) 'know' all this, and yet our desires, our cravings are so strong that they drive us into illusions and ( their colateral ?) miseries.

Our belief in the ( reality of the ?) Master creates the ( illusion of the?) Master, and our further 'experiences' are shaped by that belief. For most of us, our beliefs have greater meaning than actuality. An (insightful ?) understanding of 'what is' does not require belief; on the contrary, belief, idea, prejudice, is a definite hindrance to ( self-) understanding. We prefer ( to stick to ?) our beliefs, our dogmas because they encourage us, but f we understood the ( illusory ?) way of belief and why we cling to it, one of the major causes of antagonism would disappear.

(In a nutshell:) The desire (the greed ?) to "gain more" , individually or for a group, (eventually) leads to ignorance and illusion. This desire is not only for more and more physical comforts, but also for 'power': the power of money, of knowledge, of identification (with a greater cause ?) . This 'craving for more' is the beginning of ( all human) conflict and misery.
We (eventually may ?) try to escape from this ( colateral) misery through every form of self-deception, but this 'craving' continues, perhaps at a different level. One of the easiest (and convenient ?) escape is the Guru, the Master. Then the "means" of our escape become all-important, and fear and obstinacy guard the means. Then it does not matter what you are (inwardly) ; it is the 'Master' who is important. You are important only as a disciple. To become part of this (select group ?) , you have to do certain things, conform to certain patterns, undergo certain hardships. You are willing to do all this and more, for the identification (with a higher cause ?) gives pleasure and power. In the name of the Master, your ( drive for ?) pleasure and power have become respectable. You are no longer lonely, confused, lost; you belong to the party, to the idea. You are feeling safe. After all, that is what most of us want: to be safe, to be secure. That is why 'nationalism' and 'organized religion' has such a strong hold on people, even though they divide and breeds antagonism.

( Re-recap;) The craving to be safe psychologically engenders illusion. Our (inner) life is ( mostly spent in ?) illusion, with rare moments of clarity and joy, so anything that promises a 'haven' we eagerly accept. And, as our beliefs shape our experiences, the Masters become 'reality'. Once it has experienced the
( psychologically rewarding) pleasure which identification (with a higher cause?) brings, the mind is firmly entrenched and nothing can shake it. But if the 'experiencer' (believes to ?) experience ( the Ultimate ?) Reality, then he knows only illusion. ( The psychologically biased ?) 'experience' and 'knowledge' must both cease for Reality to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Jan 2016 #136
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: THE NEED FOR A 'SPIRITUAL' LEADER (From Commentaries on Living first series)

HE SAID THAT his guru was too great a man to be described, and that he had been a pupil of his for many years. This 'teacher' (possibly Gurdjieff ?), he went on, imparted his teachings through brutal shocks, through foul language, through insults and actions that were contradictory; and he added that many important people were among the followers. The very crudeness of the procedure forced people to think, it made them sit up and take notice, which was considered necessary because most people were asleep and needed to be shaken. This teacher said the most awful things about God, and it seemed that his pupils had to drink a great deal, as the teacher himself drank heavily at most meals. The teachings, however, were profound; they had been kept secret at one time, but now they were being made available to all.
The late autumnal sun was pouring in through the window, and one could hear the roar of the busy street. The leaves in their death were brilliant, and the air was fresh and keen. As with all cities, there was an atmosphere of depression and unnameable sorrow in contrast to the light of the evening; and the artificial gaiety was even more sorrowful. We seem to have forgotten what it is to be natural, to smile freely; our faces are so closed with worry and anxiety. But the leaves sparkled in the sun and a cloud passed by.

K: Even in so-called 'spiritual' movements the social divisions are maintained. How eagerly a ($$$ and/or a ?) 'titled' person is welcomed and given the front seat! How the followers hang around the ( rich and ?) famous! This craving would maybe understandable in the everyday world; but when carried over into the 'spiritual' world where such distinctions have no meaning whatever, it reveals how deeply we are conditioned by our cravings and ( egotistic ?) appetites. Without understanding these cravings, it is utterly vain to seek to be free from ( ego's ) pride.

Q: You may be beyond them, but we ordinary people need them, otherwise we shall be like lost sheep.

K: We choose our leaders, political or spiritual, out of our own 'confusion' (or lack of inner clarity ?) and (since they accept to play the game ?) they also are confused. We do not search out ( the ultimate ?) Reality, but go after gratification and sensation. It is essentially for self-glorification that we create the ( image of the ?) Teacher, the Master; and we feel lost, confused. and anxious when the ( same) 'self' is denied (by his teachings ?) . If you have no ( access to a ?) physical teacher, you fabricate one who is far away, hidden and mysterious; but both are the outcome of your choice based on bias and prejudice. If you are seeking ( personal) gratification, you will naturally find what you desire, but do not let us call it 'truth'. Truth comes into being when the ( inner momentum of?) desire for gratification and sensation, comes to an end.

Q: You have not convinced me that I do not need ( help from a spiritual) Master.

K (The direct perception of ?) Truth is not a matter of argumentation and conviction; it is not the outcome of opinion.

Q: But this Master helps me to overcome my greed, my envy.

K: Can another, however "great", help to bring about a transformation in yourself ? You may be merely 'influenced'. His (subliminal ?) influence may last a considerable time, but you are not transformed. 'You' have been just overcome; so, whether you are overcome by envy or by a so-called 'noble' influence, you are still not free.

Q: I must resist greed, I must fight it, make every effort to destroy it, and only then will it go.

K: From what you say, you have been in conflict with 'greed' for a great many years, and yet you are not free from it. Can you understand anything through conflict? To conquer (one's greed ?) is not to understand it. There is freedom from it only when it is fully understood. To ( insightfully ?) 'understand' it there must be awareness of the (dualistic ?) process of resistance. We are 'educated' to resist and this 'resistance' is an indication of the ( inner perceptive ?) dullness of our mind. A mind that 'resists' is self-enclosed and so is incapable of sensitivity, of understanding. To understand the ways of resistance is far more important than to get rid of 'greed'.

Q: I both agree and disagree with you...

K: Which shows that you are not 'listening'. You are weighing your commitments against what is being said, which is not to listen. You (may be subliminally ?) afraid to 'listen'( to the truth of it ?) and so you are in conflict, agreeing and at the same time disagreeing.

Q: You are probably right, but I cannot 'let go' of all that I have gathered: my friends, my knowledge, my experience. I know that I must let go, but I simply cannot, and there it is.

K: The (intensity of your inner) conflict might now become greater than ever; for once aware of 'what is ' and denying (choosing to ignore ?) it because of your 'commitments', a still deeper contradiction is set going. This contradiction is ( producing the inner conflict of ?) duality. There can be no bridging over of opposing desires; and if such a bridge is ( artificially ?) created, it is the resistance which is (consolidating one's self-?) consistency. Only in ( a holistic ?) understanding of 'what is' is there freedom from 'what is'.

Is't it an 'odd' fact that followers ( seem to ?) like being bullied and directed, whether softly or harshly? They think the harsh treatment is part of their 'training in spiritual success'. But the desire to be rudely shaken, is part of the pleasure of hurting; and this mutual ( process of interactive ?) degradation of the leader and the follower is the outcome of their (common) desire for sensation: because you want a greater ( 'spiritual' ?) sensation you create a ( "sensational" ?) leader, a 'Guru'; and for this new gratification you will put up with ( the colateral) discomforts, insults and discouragements. All this is a (devious ?) form of mutual exploitation, it has nothing whatever to do with Reality and will never lead to ( any creative ?) 'happiness'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Jan 2016 #137
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

INNER INTEGRATION (From Commentaries on Living- first series)

THE LITTLE PUPPIES were plump and clean, and were playing in the warm sand. There were six of them, all white and light brown. The mother was lying a little away from them in the shade. She was thin and worn out, and so mangy that she had hardly a hair on her. There were several wounds on her body, but she wagged her tail and was so proud of those round puppies. She probably would not survive for more than a month or so. She was one of those dogs that prowl about, picking up what they can from the filthy streets or around a poor village, always hungry and always on the run.
Human beings threw stones at her, chased her from their door, and they were to be avoided. But here in the shade the memories of yesterday were distant, and she was exhausted; Besides, the puppies were being petted and talked to. It was late afternoon; the breeze from across the wide river was fresh and cooling, and for the moment there was contentment. Where she would get her next meal was another matter, but why struggle now ?

( Self-) understanding comes in flashes and there must be intervals of silence for these flashes to take place; but the quick are too impatient to allow space for these flashes. ( The insightful ?) understanding is not (taking place ) on the verbal level, and it does not come as a result of thought, for thought after all is ( the response of our past?) memory, and the process of image-making. At this level there is no ( authentic self-) understanding. Understanding comes in that (silent) interval before the words shapes (triggers ?) thought. Understanding is for those who are aware of this measureless ( inner ?) space.

Q: What is ( the cause of the ongoing ?) disintegration of human relationship in the world and in ourselves. How can this 'falling apart' be stopped? How can we integrate?

K: There is ( the possibility of inner ?) integration if we can (become aware ?) and watchful of the ways of disintegration. Integration is the coming together of the whole (human consciousness ?) . Before that can be, we must (get in touch with the actual process of our inner ?) disintegration, must we not? Is 'conflict' (the conflicting state of mind ?) an indication of this disintegration?

Q: If I did not struggle towards a goal I would degenerate. To struggle if as essential as breathing.

K: ( Starting with ?) a categorical statement stops all ( further) inquiry. We are trying to find out what are the ( active) factors of disintegration, and perhaps conflict, struggle, is one of them. What do we mean by conflict, struggle?

Q: Competition, striving, making an effort, the will to achieve, discontent, and so on.

K: This 'struggle' is not only at ( the superficial) level of our existence, but at all levels. The very process of ( self-) becoming is (involving ?) struggle, conflict, is it not? The clerk ( hoping to ?) become the manager, the vicar becoming the bishop, the pupil
becoming the Master - this "psychological" becoming is effort, conflict.

Q: How can one be free of this conflict?

K: We are trying to find out ( experientially ?) not merely at the verbal level, but deeply, what makes for disintegration, and not how to be free of conflict or what lies behind it. Living (Being ?) and 'becoming' are two different states, are they not? ( The physical) existence may entail effort; but we are considering the 'psychological' process of becoming, the urge to become something, the struggle to change 'what is' (within ourselves ?) into its opposite. This ( active factor of ?) psychological becoming makes our everyday living painful, competitive, a vast field of conflicts.
What do we mean by 'psychological' becoming? It is the struggling (desire ?) to change 'what is' into something else, is it not? I am 'this', but I want to become 'that', and this becoming is ( entailing ?) an endless series of conflicts. Now, why do I want to become something other than what I am?

Q: Because of our cultural conditioning, because of social influences, because of our ideals. We cannot help it, it is our nature.

K: Who conditions us? Is it the ( personal identification with the?) 'ideal'? Would we degenerate if we would not struggle towards an end ?

Q: We would probably stagnate, or go from bad to worse...

K: You say that having an 'ideal' (a psychological objective ?) is giving us the impetus to struggle, so let us find out how this 'ideal' comes into being. Is not the ideal a projection of our mind?

Q: Suppose I want to become (an important person ?) like you. Is that a mental projection?

K: Of course it is a projection of your desire. You are this, which you do not like, and you want to become that, which you like. This ideal is a self-projection; the opposite is an ( optimised ?) extension of what is; it is actually a continuity of what is, perhaps somewhat modified. This projection is self-willed (self-energised ?) and the (resulting inner?) effort is called 'becoming'; but that 'ideal' is actually our own projection. See how the mind has played a trick upon itself ? This struggle is considered necessary, spiritual, evolutionary, and so on; but it is
wholly within the cage of the ( knowing ?) mind and only leads to illusion. When you are aware of this trick which you have played upon yourself, then (its falseness ?) is seen as such. This ( imaginary ?) struggle towards an illusion is the disintegrating factor. When there is a (choiceless) awareness of this trick that the human mind has played upon itself then there is only 'what is'. When this whole ( illusory ?) structure has collapsed, then the 'what is' has undergone a complete (qualitative ?) transformation.

As long as there is a (verbal recognition ?) of 'what is' there is relationship between the ( knowing ) mind and what is; but when the naming process is not (active ?) , then the 'what is' is not (the same as before ?). In this( time-free ?) transformation alone is there integration. When there is no ( self-created ?) conflict, no struggle to become, only then is there the Being whole, the Complete.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 25 Jan 2016 #138
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour : On Self-identification ( From Commentaries on Living, first series)

Why do we 'identify' ourselves ( psychologically ?) with a group or with a country? Why do we belong to one of the innumerable sects? Religiously and politically one 'identifies oneself' with this or with that group through (the pressure of the survival ?) impulse, prejudice, imitation and/or laziness. ( But besides offering a strong sense of safety ?) such (self-) identification puts an end to all creative understanding, and then one becomes a mere tool (or pawn ?) in the hands of the party boss, the priest or the (charismatic ?) 'leader'.

The other day someone said that he was a ”Krishnamurti-ite,” (a K-follower ?) whereas so-and-so belonged to another group. As he was saying it, he was utterly unconscious of the ( sad ?) implications of this 'identification'. He was not by any means a foolish person; he was well read. cultured and all the rest of it. Nor was he sentimental or emotional over the matter; on the contrary, he was clear and definite. He had followed others, belonged to many wearisome groups and organizations, and at last found himself 'identified' with this particular person. From what he said, it appeared he had chosen (made the 'right choice' ?) , and nothing could shake him. He would now comfortably settle down and follow eagerly all that had been said and was going to be said.

K: Does not (such) 'identification' put an end to ( one's inner freedom ?) love and to experiment? Identification, surely, is a (positive) assertion of 'ownership'; and it denies love, does it not? To 'own' is to be secure, but is there love when there is ( a self-protecting wall of ?) defence? Love is vulnerable, pliable, receptive; it is the highest form of sensitivity, and identification makes for insensitivity. 'Identification' and 'love' do not go together, for the one destroys the other. Identification is essentially a thought process by which the mind safeguards and expands itself; and becoming ( identified with ?) something it must resist and defend, it must own and discard. In this process of becoming, the ( self-conscious ?) mind or the 'ego' grows tougher and more capable; but this is not love. Identification destroys ( the inner sense of ) freedom, and only in freedom can there be the highest form of sensitivity .

The ( creative) happiness that truth brings cannot be if there is no ( actual) experimentation in self-discovery. Identification puts an end to (self-) discovery; it is another form of (spiritual ?) laziness. To ( directly ?) experience, all ( self- ?) identification must cease. It is ( the ancestral ?) fear ( of the unknown ?) that makes for ( self-) identification and in a state of self-defence, how can there be venturing on the uncharted sea? Truth or happiness cannot come without undertaking the journey into the ways of the 'self'. You cannot travel far if you are 'anchored' in a ( 'psychological ID' ?) refuge. (Self-) identification also brings destruction upon itself, and hence the (ongoing ?) conflict between various ( cultural ?) 'identifications'.

If one is ( becoming responsibly ?) 'aware' of this whole process of (self-)identification, outward as well as inner, if one sees that its outward expression is projected by the inner demand (for security ?) , then there is a possibility of ( self-) discovery and
happiness. He who has ( psychologically ) 'identified' himself can never know freedom, in which alone all truth comes into being.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Jan 2016 #139
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: All about the ending of thought (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

HE WAS A scholar, well versed in the ancient literature, and made a practice of quoting from the ancients to 'top off' his own thoughts. One wondered if he really had any thoughts independent of the books. Of course, to think is to be dependent; thought can never be free. But he was burdened with knowledge and carried it highly. He began right away talking in Sanskrit, and was very surprised to find that Sanskrit was not at all understood.

Q: What you say at the various meetings shows that you have either read extensively in Sanskrit, or have studied the translations of some of the great teachers.

K: It is odd what importance we give to the printed word, to so-called sacred books. The scholars, as the laymen, are (like mental ?) 'gramophones'; they go on repeating, while the 'records' may be changed (personalised ?) . They are concerned with (accumulating all kinds of ?) knowledge, and not with ( direct) experiencing. Knowledge is their safe haven, and as the ignorant (minds ) are impressed by knowledge, the (expert ?) 'knowers' are respected and honoured.
( The acquisition of ?) knowledge is ( a habit) as addictive as drinking, but it does not bring understanding. Knowledge can be taught, but not wisdom; there must be ( an inner ?) freedom from knowledge for the coming of wisdom. Knowledge is not the coin for the purchase of wisdom; but the man who has entered the ( apparently safe ?) "refuge of knowledge" does not venture out, for the words feeds his thought and he is gratified with thinking. Thinking is an impediment
to experiencing; and there is no wisdom without experiencing. Knowledge, idea, belief, stand in the way of wisdom. An 'occupied' mind is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be self-discovery. An occupied mind is self-enclosing; it is not vulnerable and therein lies its ( illusion of ?) security.
Thought is the ( self-centred ?) continuity of (the memory of the ?) past, but there is freedom only in ending. An mind occupied ( with thinking ?) creates what it is working on. It can turn out the bullock cart into the modern jet plane. We can also think that we are God, and we are ( mentally energising ?) our own conception: ”I am That.”

Q: But surely it is better to be occupied with the things of God than with the things of the world, is it not?

K: What we think, we 'are'; but it's the understanding of the ( self-identifying ?) process of thought that is important, and not what we think about. Whether we think about God, or about drink, has its particular effects, but in both cases ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is occupied with its own projections: ideals, goals, and so on.
(In a nutshell:) To be occupied with one’s own ( mental) projections, at whatever level, is to 'worship' (and/or consolidate ?) the self(- centred consciousness ?) . Whatever thought is occupied with, that it 'is' ( giving life to ?); but this is nothing else but ( a holographic display of ?) thought.

So it is important to understand the ( workings of our ?) "thought process". Thought is the response (of our "active" memory ?) to any challenge , is it not? Without challenges, there is no ( subject matter for ?) thought. This ( interactive ?) process of
challenge and response is ( stored in the brain as ?) 'experience'; and this verbalized experience is ( fueling our ?) 'thought'. (Our life-) 'experience' is not only ( the static residue of ?) of the past, but also ( the interactive process ?) of the past in conjunction with the present; it is the conscious as well as the hidden.
(Recap:) This residue of experience is ( stored in our 'stand-by' ?) memory and the response of this 'memory of the past' is thought.

Q: But is that all there is to thinking ? Are there not greater depths to thought than the mere response of memory?

K: ( The self-centred process of ?) thought can and does place itself at different levels, the stupid and the profound, the noble and the base; but it is still (the same process of ?) thought, is it not? The thought of God is not 'God', it is merely the response of (our collective ?) memory. This memory is long-lasting, and so may
appear to be concealed, not in immediate view, but that does not make it profound. ( The self-centred process of ?) thought can never be anything more than what it is. When the ( thinking ?) mind is occupied with its own self-projection, it has not gone beyond thought, it has only assumed a new role, a new 'image' ; under the cloak it is still thought.

Q: But then, how can one go beyond (all these subtle limitations of ?) thought?

K: The 'thinker' cannot go beyond thought, for it is the result of thought. ( However ) in uncovering the thought process, which is ( the essential act of ?) self-knowledge, ( a global insight into ?) the truth of 'what is' puts an end to the ( self-centred ?) thought process. The (direct perception of the ?) truth of 'what is' is not to be found in any book, ancient or modern. What is found is are words, but not the truth.

Q: Then how is one to find truth?

K: Again, 'you' cannot find it. The ( personal ?) effort to 'find truth' brings about its own self-projected end; but that end is not ( the living ?) truth. Only when ( the self-sustaining process of ?) thought ends is there (an inward opening to ?) truth. Listening to the story of 'what is' brings its own liberation. It is ( the direct perception of ?) Truth that liberates, not the (personalized ?) efforts to be free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 27 Jan 2016 #140
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Meditation du Jour: ON SILENCE (From Commentaries on Living, first series )

It was a smooth road and the traffic was very light. There was an intense awareness of the country, of the occasional passing cars, of the road signals, of the clear blue sky, of the body sitting in the car; but the mind was very still. It was not the quietness of ( physical ?) relaxation, but an (inner ?) stillness that was very alert. One heard the roar of the wind as the car sped along, yet this ( loving ?) stillness was inseparable from the noise of the wind, from the sounds of the car, and from the spoken word. The mind had no recollection of the silences it had known before; it did not say, ”This is tranquillity.” There was no verbalization, no (mental ?) recognition of a somewhat similar experience. Because there was no verbalization, thought was absent. There was no recording, and therefore thought was not able to pick up this silence or to think about it; for when the words are not (used ) , the ( thinking ?) mind cannot operate, and the 'experiencer' cannot store up it as a means of further pleasure. There was no gathering process at work, the ( mental) movement was totally absent.

The car stopped at the houses. The barking of the dog, the unpacking of the car and the general disturbance in no way affected this extraordinary ( inner) silence. ( Inwardly ?) there was no disturbance, and the stillness went on. The wind was among the pines, the shadows were long, and a wildcat sneaked away among the bushes. In this silence there was a (living ?) 'movement', but this movement was not away from the silence but was of it. It was the stillness of life in which there was a total absence of conflict, the movement Creation, ever renewing itself, a movement that had no beginning and so had no ending. (Any physical ?) 'movement' implies time; but here there was no time. Time is ( involved in pursuing ?) the more and the less, the near and the far, yesterday and tomorrow; but in this stillness all (the mental movement of ?) comparison ceased. The many tricks of the cunning mind were wholly absent.

If this ( inner state of ?) silence were an illusion, the ( thinking ?) mind would either reason it away or with subtle satisfaction identify itself with it; but since it had no ( 2-way ?) relationship to this Silence, the mind could not accept or deny it. The ( self-centred ?) mind can operate only with its own projections, but it has no relationship with the things that are not of its own origin. This 'silence' is not ( the product ?) of the ( self-conscious ?) mind, and so this mind cannot cultivate it or become identified with it. The ( true ?) content of this silence is not to be measured by words.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 27 Jan 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Jan 2016 #141
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: Meditation and the desire for Bliss ( from Commentaries on living, first series )

The single tree on the wide green lawn was the centre of that little world which included the woods, the house and the small lake; the whole surrounding area seemed to flow towards the tree, which was high and spreading. It must have been very old, but there was a freshness about it, as though it had just come into being; there were hardly any dead branches, and its leaves were spotless, glistening in the morning sun. Because it was alone ( 'all-one' ?) , all things seemed to come to it. Deer and pheasants, rabbits and cattle congregated in its shade, especially at midday. The symmetrical beauty of that tree gave a shape to the sky, and in the early morning light the tree appeared to be the only thing that was living. From the woods, the tree seemed far away; but from the tree, the woods, the house and even the sky seemed close - one often felt one could touch the passing clouds.

We had been seated under the tree for some time, when he came to join us. He was seriously interested in meditation, and said that he had practiced it for many years. He did not belong to any particular school of thought, and though he had read many of the Christian mystics, he was more attracted to the meditations and disciplines of the Hindu and Buddhist saints. He had realized early the immaturity of asceticism, with its peculiar fascination and cultivation of power through abstinence, and he had from the beginning avoided all extremes. He had, however, practised ( self-) discipline, a constant self-control, and was determined to realize 'That' ( Bliss?) which lay through and beyond meditation. He had once played with worldly things, but the 'play' was over some years ago. He had a job of sorts, but that too was quite incidental.

K: The end (purpose ?) of meditation is meditation itself. The search for something through and beyond meditation is ( motivated by ?) gaining; but that which is gained is again lost. Meditation (if used ?) as a means to arrive or to gain (something) only gives strength to the 'meditator'. The 'meditator' is ( not apart from from ?) the meditation; meditation is the understanding (and/or dissolving ?) of the meditator.

Q: I meditate to find ultimate Reality, or to allow that Reality to manifest itself. It is not exactly a 'result' that I am seeking, but for that Bliss which occasionally one senses. It is ( deep- ) there; and as a thirsty man craves for water, I want that inexpressible happiness. That Bliss is infinitely greater than all joy, and I pursue it as my most cherished desire.

K: That is, you 'meditate' (in order ) to gain what you want. So your 'meditation' is a very calculated affair, is it not?

Q: When you put it that way, it does seem -in the superficial sense- rather absurd; but deeply, what is wrong essentially with seeking that Bliss? I suppose I expect a result for all my efforts; but again, why shouldn’t one?

K: This desire for (inwardly reaching that state of ?) Bliss implies that bliss is ( regarded as ?) something final and everlasting, does it not? One has ardently pursued worldly goals and has seen their transient nature, now one wants the Everlasting , the
final and imperishable refuge. You may once have experienced that Bliss, but now you are pursuing it like any other (earthly reward ?) only you have placed it at a different level; you may call it 'higher', but that is irrelevant. ( Pursuing ?) a result implies the effort to become. So, the mind is never at rest (at peace with itself ?) , it is always ( engaged in this illusory ?) achieving and gaining - and, of course, always in fear of losing. (But is) this process 'meditation' ? Can a mind caught (engaged ?) in this endless (process of self-) becoming be free to receive that Bliss?

Through resistance and denials the mind ( only) makes itself insensitive; and through the desire for that Bliss, have you not built a wall around yourself which the the 'Unknown', cannot penetrate? Have you not effectively shut yourself off from the New? And can the New be contained in the (mental patterns of the ?) old?
The ( self-conscious ?) mind can never create the New; such a mind itself is a result of the old. Results can never be new; the pursuit of a result can never be spontaneous- that (inner quality of mind ?) which is free cannot pursue an end. Meditation is the freeing of the 'meditator'; in ( such) freedom alone is there ( self-) discovery and sensitivity to receive.
Without (this quality of inner ?) freedom, there can be no Bliss; but such freedom does not come through ( the practice of any self-) discipline. The ( mental ?) patterns must be broken for freedom to be. The breaking of the mould is meditation. But this breaking of the mould is not a (fixed ?) goal . The mould ( of the known ?) is broken from moment to moment. The ( mould-) breaking moment is the forgotten moment. It is the 'remembered moment' that gives shape to the mould (to the 'known' ?) , and only then does the 'maker of the mould' come into being, the creator of all problems, conflicts, miseries.

( In a nutshell: ) Meditation is freeing the mind of its own ( self-centred process of ?) thought at all levels. This (process of ?) thought ( subliminally ?) creates the 'thinker'. But the 'thinker' is not separate from thought; they are a unitary process, not two separate processes. ( Keeping them ?) separate only leads to ignorance and illusion. When the meditator 'is' the meditation the mind is alone (all-one ?) and ( naturally ?) silent, not made silent. Only to the alone (integrated mind ?) can the 'Causeless' come, only to the alone is there Bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Jan 2016 #142
Thumb_kinfonet_avatar Clive Elwell New Zealand 1 post in this forum Offline

Hello. I hope no one minds if I jump into this forum, this discussion. I have something to contribute to the question of 'what are K's teachings?'. They are not my words, they were said originally, I think, by Professor P Krishna of Rajghat. He said this:

Krishnamurti's teachings have no
content, they are all approach.

I myself find those words meaningful – but I will wait and see of there are comments from others before I continue.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Jan 2016 #143
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 104 posts in this forum Offline

The analogy that comes to me regarding 'approach' is that of a hand grasping water. There is at first, the meditator separate from the 'meditation'. The 'thinker' separate from thought. There is the 'desire' for a result. There are all the images: the 'prison', the 'wall', the 'field of reality', the "firewall" etc. And then there is the 'opening' of the hand and the thinker is seen as the thought and the 'water' flows more freely and each time there is a 'grasping', it is allowed to open again. It is the 'seeing' of the 'grasping' that relaxes it.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 29 Jan 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 Jan 2016 #144
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: MY PATH AND YOUR PATH (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

HE WAS A "scholar", addicted to knowledge as another is to drink.
He was everlastingly quoting the sayings of others to bolster up his own opinions, with a smile that conveyed in a subtle way that it was not merely his opinion, but the final truth. He said he had his own ( psychic ?) experiences which were authoritative and conclusive to him. To him, the Masters, though not visible gurus, were a reality, and to become their disciple was essential. To find the Master you had to serve, work, sacrifice, obey and practise certain virtues; and of course belief was necessary.

Q: You have your experiences too, but you cannot convince me. You go your way, and I mine. There are different paths to Truth, and we shall all meet there some day.

K: To rely on one's past experience as a means to the discovery of "what is", is to be caught in illusion. Desire conditions (puts a personal spin on ?) this experience and to rely on experience as a means to the understanding of truth is to pursue the way of self-aggrandizement. To meet the challenges of Life adequately, the conditioning memory of ( our past ?) experience must be set aside, the responses of pleasure and pain must be deeply understood.
Experience is an impediment to ( the realistion of ?) truth, for experience is the outcome of the past; and how can a mind which is the result of time, understand the timeless? The truth is perceived only when there is ( a choiceless ?) awareness without any form of ( self-) identification.

Without self-knowledge, experience breeds illusion; with self-knowledge (the inner ) experience does not leave a cumulative residue as memory. Self-knowledge is the discovery from moment to moment of the ways of the 'self', of its intentions and pursuits, thoughts and appetites. There can never be ”your" experience and ”my" experience; the very term ”my" experience indicates ignorance and the acceptance of illusion. But many of us like to live in illusion, a private heaven which stimulates us and gives a feeling of
superiority. ( As a bonus ?) if I have capacity, gift, cunningness (and/or the looks ?) , I become a (certified ?) representative of that illusion; and as most people avoid (inwardly looking at ?) "what is", there is built up an organization with properties and rituals, keeping it within the field of social respectability.

Can there be hierarchical divisions in the understanding of truth, in the realization of God? Love admits no division. Either you love, or do not love; but do not make the lack of love into a long-drawn-out process whose end is ( universal ?) Love. When you are choicelessly aware of the 'fact' that you do not love, then there is a possibility of inner transformation. The separation between God, or Reality, and 'yourself' is brought about by the mind that clings to the known, to certainty, to security. This ( inner sense of?) separation is ( constantly created by ?) the conflict of opposing desires and ( an authentic inner ?) transformation is not a matter of being centred in one desire, but of being free from the conflict which craving brings.

This ( subliminal ?) inner conflict cannot be dissolved by someone else, but most of us do not want to "wake up", and so we live in illusion. With the dissolution of conflict, there is tranquillity, and then only can ( the direct perception of Truth or ?) Reality come into being. Therefore, what is essential is to understand this increasing conflict of desire; and its understanding comes only through constant awareness of the movements of the 'self'. ( However this ?) 'self' awareness is 'arduous' ( potentially disturbing ?) , and since most of us prefer an easy, illusory way, we bring into being the authority of the Master, the Saviour, the Guru. ( Following any?) 'authority' breeds thoughtlessness (personal irresponsability ?), and corrupts not only the wielder of power, but also him who follows it.
( Following the ?) 'authority' of the Master takes you away from the central issue, which is the ( ongoing ) conflict within yourself.

The understanding of yourself, however painful or (rewarding ?) , is the beginning of wisdom. But is wisdom a thing to be learnt, to be accumulated? If it is, then it becomes mere knowledge, a thing of ( personal) experience and of the books. Experience and knowledge are ( caught within ?) the continuous chain of responses and so can never comprehend the New, the Uncreated. Wisdom is the understanding of "what is" from moment to moment, without the accumulation of experience and knowledge. What is accumulated does not give freedom to understand, and without freedom there is no ( authentic inner) discovery; it is this endless discovery that makes for wisdom. Wisdom is ( the perceptive quality which is ?) ever new, ever fresh, and there is no means of gathering it. The "many paths" to one Reality are the invention of a mind that cultivates tolerance. ”I follow my path, and you follow yours, but let us be friends, and we shall eventually meet.” Will you and I meet if you are going north and I south? To be 'friendly' implies ( an authentic ?) relationship in work, (in our global outlook ?) ; but is there any ( 2-way) relationship between the man ( comfortably ?) living in illusions and the one who is free? The free man may try to establish some kind of relationship with the one in bondage; but he who is in illusion can have no relationship with the man who is free. Tolerance is of the mind, not of the heart. Do you talk of tolerance when you love?
There is no "path" to Truth. ( The direct perception of ?) Truth must be ( individually ?) discovered, but there is no ( magic ?) 'formula' for such discovery. What is (mentally ?) formulated is not true. You must set out on an uncharted Sea, and this "uncharted sea" is yourself and this self-discovery brings an (inner) joy that is ever new.

(Recap:) Self-knowledge is the beginning of Wisdom - in whose tranquillity and silence there is (an inner opening to ?) the Immeasurable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Jan 2016 #145
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: INNER SIMPLICITY AND SILENCE (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

THERE WAS HARDLY anyone on the long, curving beach. A few fishermen were going back to their village among the tall palms. Some of them walked with ease and grace, and others with dragging feet. A boy passed by singing, with long, cheerful strides; and the sea came rolling in. There was no strong breeze, but it was a heavy sea, with thunderous waves. The moon, almost full was just rising out of the blue-green water, and the breakers were white against the yellow sands.

How essentially simple life is, and how we complicate it! Life is complex, but we do not know how to be simple with it. Complexity must be approached simply, otherwise we shall never understand it. We ( live in the ?) know(n) too much, and that is why ( the simplicity of ?) life eludes us; with that (knowing mentality ?) we
meet the immense; and how can we measure the immeasurable? Our ( past) experience and knowledge bind us, and the waters of life pass us by. To sing with that boy, to be those villagers and that couple in the car - to be (one with ?) all that, not as a trick of ( self-) identification, needs love. Love is not complex, but the mind makes it so. We are too much with the mind, and the ways of love we do not know. We know the ways of desire but we do not know love. Love is the ( spiritual ?) flame without the smoke, but do not live with ( the inner light of ?) this flame, following swiftly wherever it may lead. Those who "know that they do not know" are the simple; they (can ?) go far, for they have no burden of knowledge.

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

K: Is not this ( sense of inner ?) power as detrimental to ( an insightful ?) understanding as the power of ( wordly ?) ambition and vanity? All sense of domination, gives strength to the
”me”, and is not this self (- consciousness ?) a hindrance to Reality?

Q: The lower 'self' must be suppressed or made to conform to the higher. Conflict between the various desires of the mind and the body must be stilled; in the process of control, the rider tastes power, but this sense of power is used to climb higher or go deeper. Power is harmful only when used for oneself, and not when used to clear the way for the supreme. Will is power, it is the directive; when used for personal ends it is destructive, but when used in the right direction it is beneficial. Without will, there
can be no ( liberating ?) action.

K: Every leader uses his ( available ?) power as a means to ( achieve a desired ?) end, and so does the ordinary man; but are not all such 'goals' the outcome of one’s own prejudices, inclinations, fears and hopes? So, will creates its own goal and it sacrifices or suppresses everything to (reach) that end. The end is (a projection of ?) itself, only it is called the Supreme, or the State, or the ideology.

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

K: Without understanding the ways of conflict and how it comes into being, of what value is it merely to sublimate or find a substitute for it? You may be able to suppress ( the external symptoms of a deeper ?) disease, but it is bound to show itself again in another form. ( The self-centred action of ?) will 'is' conflict, a more purposive, directed (expression of ?) desire. Without comprehending the ( mental ?) process of desire, merely to ( keep it under ?) control is to invite further burning, further pain. You may (eventually succeed in ?) controlling a child or a problem, but you have not thereby understood either. ( Insightful ?) understanding is of far greater importance than arriving at a (desired ?) end.

This action of will is ( psychologically ?) destructive, for it is self-enclosing, separating and isolating. You cannot silence the ( inner) conflicts of desire, for the maker of the effort is a (higher level ?) product of desire. The 'thinker' and 'his thoughts' are both the outcome of desire; and without understanding ( the process of ?) desire, the mind is ever caught in ( a self-created ?) ignorance.
The way to the Supreme is not (to be found ?) through (the self-centred action of ?) will or desire. The Supreme can come into being only when the 'maker of effort' is not (home ?). When the ( self-conscious ?) mind which is put together through desire comes to an end, in that ( total inner) stillness Reality comes into being.

Q: But is not simplicity essential for that stillness?

K: Do you mean identification with ( the ideal of ?) simplicity, or just being simple?

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

K: You 'become simple', is that it? You are ( inwardly ?) complex, but you become simple by identifying yourself with an ideal of simplicity?
Simplicity is ( to be found in ?) the understanding of what is, however complex it may appear (to be ?) . The 'what is' is not ( really ?) difficult to understand, but what prevents ( an insightful ?) understanding is the ( mental ?) 'distraction' ('diversion' created by our ?) comparison, condemnation, prejudice and so on. It is these that make for ( inner fragmentation and ?) complexity. The 'what is' it is always simple. What you 'are' (inwarly ?) is simple to understand, but it is made complex by your ( dualistic ?) approach to it; so there must be a (qualitative ?) understanding of the ( dualistic?) process of approach, which makes for complexity.
( Eg:) If ( in the process of education ?) you do not condemn the ( hectic behaviour of a ?) child, then he is 'what he is' and it is possible to act (intelligently ?) . The ( dualistic ?) action of 'condemnation' leads to complexity; the ( non-dualistic ?) action (in approaching ?) "what is" is simplicity.

Nothing is essential for stillness but stillness itself; it is its own beginning and its own end. No ( effort is needed to ?) bring it about, for it "is". It is only when this (inner) stillness is ( considered as ?) something to be achieved, that the 'means' become essential. If these 'means' are ( controlling and ?) violent, or subtly acquisitive, the 'end' is of like nature, for the 'end' is ( implicit in ?) the 'means'.

(In a nutshell:) If the beginning (of meditation ?) is silence, the end is also silence. This silence is when the noise (of 'though & desire' ?) is not. Such noise does not come to an end through the further noise of effort, of discipline, of austerities, of will. See the truth of this, and there is Silence.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Feb 2016 #146
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: Self- continuity and spiritual renewal (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

The man sitting in the opposite seat began by introducing himself, as he wanted to ask several questions. He said that he had read practically every serious book on death and the hereafter, books from ancient times as well as the modern ones. He had been a member of the Psychical Research Society, had attended many 'séances' with excellent and reputable mediums, and had seen many 'manifestations' which were in no way faked. Because he had gone into this question so seriously, on several occasions he himself had seen things of a super-physical nature; but of course, he added, they might have been born of his imagination, though he considers that they were not. However, in spite of the fact that he had read extensively, had talked to many people who were well informed, and had seen undeniable manifestations of those who were 'dead', he was still not satisfied that he had understood the truth of the matter. He had seriously debated the problem of belief and not-belief; he
had friends among those who firmly believed in one’s continuity after death, and also among those who denied the whole thing and held that life ended with the death of the physical body. Though he had acquired considerable knowledge and experience in physic matters, there remained in his mind an element of doubt; and as he was getting on in year he wanted to know the truth. He was not afraid of death, but the truth about it must be known.

The train had come to a stop, and just then a two-wheeled carriage was passing, drawn by a horse. On the carriage was a human corpse being taken to the river to be burnt. There was only one passenger in the carriage besides the river; he must have been a near relative, for his eyes were red with much crying. The sky was
the delicate blue of early spring, and children were playing and shouting in the dirt if the road. Death must have been a common sight, for everyone went on with what they were doing. Even the 'serious inquirer' into death did not see the carriage and its burden.

K: The ( self-centred ?) mind cannot "experience" something that is not already known and to rely on ( psychic ?) experience as a mean of understanding truth is to (continue being ?) caught in ignorance and illusion. To desire to experience Truth is to
deny (the living nature of ?) Truth; for desire 'conditions' (puts its own spin on ) the experience , and belief is another cloak of desire.
The 'self'(-centred consciousness ?) cannot be if there is no cumulative effect of experience; and the fear of death is ( actually ) the fear of not being, of not 'experiencing'. If there were the assurance, the certainty of ( a futher ?) experiencing (after death ?) , there would be no (such) fear. Fear exists only in the relationship between the 'known' and the 'unknown'. The 'known' (the knowing mind ?) is ever trying to capture the Unknown; but it can capture only that which is already known. The Unknown can never be experienced by the 'known'; the (self-continuing process of the ?) 'known' must cease for the ( truth of the ?) Unknown
to be. If there is ( a personal ?) motive in the search, then Truth does not come into being.

Can there be a search without any (personal) motive, conscious or
unconscious? The (insightful ?) understanding of "what is" has no 'motive'; the ( personal ?) motive only prevents understanding.
( The authentic ?) Search, which is (essentially based on ?) choiceless awareness, is not 'for something'; it is to be aware of the craving for (achieving a desired ?) end and of the means to it. This "choiceless" (non-personal ?) awareness brings an understanding of "what is".

The desire for ( self-) continuity takes many forms, from the crudest to the most subtle. With the obvious forms we are well acquainted: name, shape, character, ( bank account ?) and so on. But the subtler ( components of this ?) craving (for continuity ?) are much more difficult to uncover and understand. ( The self- identified process ?) of 'being' ( someone ?) or 'becoming' (something ?) , at whatever level, is difficult to perceive (or expose ?) and bring to light. We only know ( life as ?) continuity, and never non-continuity. We know the continuity of ( personal and collective ?) experience, of memory, of incidents, but we do not know that (inner) state in which this ( 'known' ?) continuity is not . We call it 'death', the 'Unknown', the 'mysterious', and hope somehow to capture it - which again is the (good old ?) desire for continuity.

'Self'-consciousness is ( created by our ?) experience, the naming of experience, and so the recording of it; and this process is going on ( recycling itself ?) at various depths of the mind. We 'cling' (or get 'identified' ?) to this process of self-consciousness in spite of its ( colateral?) conflicts, confusion and misery. This is what we 'know', the ( mental ?) continuity of our very being, the 'idea' (the self-image?) , the memory, the word.

Now, this 'idea' ( self-image?) that makes up the "me" continues ( within the Stream of our collective consciousness ?) ; but does this 'continuity' bring about ( the creative ?) freedom, in which alone there is discovery and renewal?
What has ( temporal ?) continuity can never be other than that which it is (now) , with certain 'modifications'; but these modifications do not give it a Newness. It may take on a different 'cloak', a different 'colour'; but the (psychic ?) 'centre' of continuity is not of a ( truly ?) spiritual essence, for it is still (continuing ?) within the field (Stream ?) of "thought and time". Thus, as long as it exists (continuing there ?) , it can never experience anything (spiritually new ?) beyond itself. It ( the 'self'-identified image ?) must "die"; it must cease to give itself continuity through idea(tion?), through memory, through words.

(Recap:) Continuity is decay, and there is "renewal" ( an authentic spiritual regeneration ?) only with the cessation of the (continuity of this virtual ID ?) 'centre'; then rebirth is not ( a karmically modified ?) continuity; then death is as life, a ( spiritual ?) renewal from moment to moment. This (inner) renewal is ( the true action of ?) Creation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Feb 2016 #147
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: Thought, self-centred consciousness and beyond (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

Thought is always an 'outward' response, always an effect, and thinking is the reconciliation of effects. Thought is always superficial, though it may place itself at different levels. Thought can never penetrate the profound, the implicit (aspects of human consciousness ?) . Thought ( the response of the 'known' ?) cannot go beyond itself, and every attempt to do so is its own frustration.

Q: But...what do you actually mean by 'thought'?

K: (Brain's ?) response to any challenge, the result of ( our past experience stored in ?) memory. Memory 'is' ( fueling ?) thought; thought is the verbalized response of memory. The thinking process is the (random response of ?) hidden (memories ?) as well as of the open (ones) . This whole thinking process is ( generating its own ?) 'consciousness'; the waking and the sleeping, the upper and the deeper levels are all part of the 'Memory (Depot' of all our past ?) experience. Being (a pro-active) result , thought 'compares', 'condemns', 'justifies', it can 'manipulate', 'wander', go a certain distance, but it cannot be free from its own moorings. It is anchored to ( the past ?) memory and it can never be free to discover ( uncover ?) the truth of any problem.

Q: Do you mean to say that thought has no value at all?

K: It has value in the ( outward ) reconciliation (and optimising ?) of effects, but it has no value as a ( perceptive tool?) 'means' to ( 'psychological' ?) action. ( A 'holistic' ?) action is revolution(ary) , not the mere reconciliation of effects. ( Such intelligent inner ?) "action" freed (untangled ?) from thought, ideation, belief, is never within a ( temporal ?) pattern. There can be ( a whole spectrum of ?) 'activity' within the pattern (of the known ?) , and that activity is either violent or the ( non-violent ?) opposite; but both are within the field of (time?) , and ( even if ?) pursuing the opposite, thought is caught within the net of its own responses.
( In a nutshell:) ( The holistic ?) "action" is not the result of thought, since thought can never create the New; the ( perception of the ?) New is from moment to moment, and thought is always the ( mechanical response of the ?) old, the past, the conditioned. It has ( its own materialistic ?) value but no ( in regard to inner?) freedom.

Q: What relationship is there between 'consciousness' and 'thought'?

K: Are they not the same? Is there any difference between "thinking" and "being conscious"? Thinking is a (mental) response; and is 'being conscious' not also ( the display of that ?) response? When one is conscious of that chair, it is a ( recognition?) response to a ( visual) stimulus; so ( more generally ?) is not thought the response of memory to a challenge? This total process of (sensory) 'experiencing'- along with the naming (and/or) recording of it - at different levels, is (the active content of our ?) consciousness, is it not?

( To recap:) ( All our stored?) 'experience' is the result, the outcome of experiencing. The result is ( verbally processed into ?) a 'conclusion', one of the many ( previously stored ?) conclusions which constitute our memory. This "concluding process" is ( constantly defining our ?) self-consciousness. The 'self' is memory,
the many conclusions; and ( the self-centred process of ?) thought is the response of that memory. Thought is always (starting and ending with ?) a conclusion; thinking is concluding, and therefore it can never be free.

Thought is always ( dealing with ?) the 'superficial' (aspects of existence ?) and (our) consciousness is the recording (and optimisation ?) of the superficial. The superficial ( mind ?) separates itself as the 'outer' and the 'inner', but this separation does not make thought any the less superficial.

Q: But is there not something ( deeper within ourselves ?) which is beyond thought, beyond time, something that is not created by our (all-knowing ?) mind?

K: Either you have been told about that state, have read about it, or there is the ( actual ?) experiencing of it. The 'experiencing' of it can never become a (processed and stored ?) 'experience', a result; it cannot be 'thought about' - and if it is, it is
a remembrance and not ( the actual) 'experiencing'. That state of (pure ?) "experiencing" cannot be as long as there is ( any interference of ?) thought; the result, the effect, can never know the state of experiencing.

Q: Then how is ( this interference of ?) thought to come to an end?

K: See the truth that thought (as the verbalised outcome of the known) , can never be in the state of (a non-dualistic ?) "experiencing".

( Re-recap:) Experiencing is always the New; ( while the self-centred process of ?) thinking is always of the old. See the truth of this, and ( the insightful perception of this ?) truth brings freedom - freedom from thought, the result, Then there is That which is beyond ( the self-centred ?) consciousness, which is neither 'sleeping' nor 'waking', which is Nameless: It 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 03 Feb 2016 #148
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour: CLARITY IN ACTION (From Commentaries on Living, first series)

IT WAS A lovely morning, pure after the rains. There were tender new leaves on the trees, and the breeze from the sea had set them dancing. The grass was green and lush, and the cattle were hungrily eating it up, for after a few months there would not be a blade of it left. The fragrance of the garden filled the room, and children were shouting and laughing. The palm trees had golden coconuts, and the banana leaves, large and swaying, were not yet torn by age and wind. How beautiful the earth was, and what a poem of colour! Past the village, beyond the big houses and the
groves, was the sea, full of light and with thunderous waves. Far out there was a small boat, a few logs tied together, with a solitary man fishing.

She was quite young, in her twenties, and recently married, but the passing years were already leaving their mark upon her. She said she was of good family, cultured and hard working; she had taken her M.A. with honours, and one could see that she was bright and alert. Once started, she spoke easily and fluently, but she would suddenly become self-conscious and silent. She wanted to unburden herself, for she said she had not talked to anyone about her problem, not even to her parents. Gradually, bit by bit, her sorrow was put into words. She she could not speak of certain things, however hard she tried, but her very silence conveyed those pains and unbearable indignities of a relationship that had become merely a contract. She had been struck and left alone by her husband, and her young children were hardly companions. What was she to do? She was courting (the social) respectability, and was confused.

K: It is strange how, when one is clear within oneself, whatever may happen is right. This is not ( necessarily ?) according to one’s desire but with the ( proper ?) understanding of 'what is', whatever 'is'... is right. But how difficult it is to be ( inwardly ?) clear!

Q: How am I to be 'clear' about what I should do with my life ?

K: Action does not follow clarity: clarity 'is' (or 'has' its own?) action. You are concerned with what you should do, and not with being clear. You are torn between your hopes and the 'what is'. This dualistic (inner split of ?) desire brings conflict and confusion; only when you are capable of looking (non-personally ?) at 'what is', is there clarity. ( Then ?) the 'what is' is the (only) actual 'fact'. Whatever ( personal ?) choice you may make in a state of (inner ?) confusion can only lead to further confusion. See this very simply and directly; then you will be able to observe the 'what is' without distortion. Then you will see that there is no (need for ?) 'choice' but only ( for a holistic ?) action, and the question "What should I do ?" will never arise; such a question arises only when there is uncertainty ( about the best ?) choice. ( Right?) action is not ( dependent of personal) choice; ( psychologically speaking ?) the action of choice is the action of confusion.

Q: I am beginning to see what you mean: I must be clear in myself, without the pressures of social respectability, without self-interested calculation, without the spirit of bargaining. Now I am clear, but it is difficult to maintain this ( inner state of ) clarity, is it not?

K: (To try ?) to 'maintain' it, is to resist ( the incoming ?) confusion: ( but if ?) you are experiencing (with the fact of ?) 'confusion' and see that any action arising from it must inevitably be still more confusing, then the ( implicit ?) clarity of 'what is' is there; you do not have to maintain this clarity, it 'is' there.

Q: I quite see what you mean. But what about 'love'? We don’t know what 'love' means. I thought I loved, but I see I do not.

K: From what you have told me, you got married out of fear of loneliness and through physical urges and necessities; and you have found that all this is not 'love'. You may have called it 'love' to make it (sound) respectable, but actually it was a matter of convenience under the cloak of the word ”love”. To most people, this is 'love', with all its confusing 'smoke': the fear of insecurity, of loneliness, of frustration, of neglect in old age, and so on. But all this is merely a ( survivalistic ?) thought process, which is obviously not Love. ( Getting inwardly identified with this process of ?) thought makes for ( a life of mechanistic ?) repetition, which makes (any intimate ) relationship stale.

Thought is (psychologically speaking ?) a 'wasteful' ( an 'entropic' ?) process, it does not renew itself, it can only continue; and what has continuity cannot be the New, the fresh. Thought is ( a higher level result of ?) sensation, thought is sensuous and it (simply) cannot 'end itself' in order to be creative; thought cannot become something other than what it is, which is 'sensation'. Thought is always stale, old; thought can never be New.
As you have seen, Love is not ( to be found in the field of ?) thought. Love is when the 'thinker' (the 'thinking entity') is not. The 'thinker' is not an entity different from ( the total process of ?) thought; thought and the thinker are one. The thinker 'is' the thought.
Love is not ( the result of ?) sensation; it is ( pure spiritual energy ?) a 'flame' without smoke. You will know Love when 'you' as the 'thinker' are not (there ?). You cannot sacrifice 'yourself', the 'thinker' , for Love. There can be no deliberate (mental) action for Love, because Love is not of the mind. ( The self-identified process of ?) thought is 'continuous', while Love is Inexhaustible, ever New. That which has continuance is ever ( living with ?) the fear of ending. Only that which 'ends' knows the eternal beginning of Love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Feb 2016 #149
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Subject du Jour: Time ( From Commentaries, first series)

HE WAS AN oldish man with long, grey hair and a white beard. He had lectured
about philosophy at universities in different parts of the world. He was very scholarly and quiet. He said he did not meditate; nor was he religious in the ordinary sense. He was concerned with knowledge only; and though he lectured on philosophy and religious experiences, he hadn’t any of his own nor was he looking for any.
He had come to talk over the question of 'time'.

K: Time is a very strange phenomenon. Space and time are one; the one is not without the other. ( Thinking about our continuity in ?) time to us is extraordinarily important. For the ( primitive man ?) time has hardly any meaning since he
forgets from day to day; but if the educated man did that, he would be put in an asylum or would lose his job. To an historian, 'time' is the ( guideline in his ?) study of the past; to a mother, it is the memory of her son; to an exhausted man, it is rest in the shade. Chronologically (speaking ) time is as essential as the ( succession of the ?) seasons. But is not the our 'psychological' (continuity in ?) time a deceptive convenience of the mind? Surely, there is ( a physical) time to grow and a time to die, a time to sow and a time to reap; but is not ( the) 'psychological' ( component of ?) time, the ( inner) process of becoming, something utterly false (or imaginary ?) ?

Q: What is time to you? Do you think of time? Are you aware of time?

K: Can one think of time at all except in the "chronological" sense? We can use ( our thinking in terms of ?) time as a means (to achieve something physically ?) like getting to the train station, but most of us use ( the same mentality of ?) 'time' as a means to achieve a 'psychological' end and these ends are many.
We are aware of this (inner continuity of ?) time when there is an impediment to our achievement, to our becoming successful. ( So, inwardly speaking ?) 'time' is the 'space' ( the separating distance ?) between 'what is' and 'what might/ should/ or will be'. The beginning (cause ?) going towards the end (result ?) is time.

Q: Is there no other time? What about the scientific implications of time-space?

K: "Cause-effect" (a cause producing its effect ?) is said to be (or involve ?) a time process, not only physically but also psychologically. The cause and the effect of a disease may be separated by a chronological ( measurable interval of ?) time ; but ( inwardly speaking ?) is not 'cause-effect' a single process? ( What one is inwardly ?) 'today' is the effect of (what one was ?) 'yesterday' and the cause of ( what one will be ?) 'tomorrow'; it is a continuous flowing. There is no
separation, no distinct line between cause and effect; but inwardly we (choose to ?) separate them in order to ( measure our inner becoming ?) or to 'achieve' (what we desire by thinking in terms of ?) 'I am this', but 'I shall become that'.
But (inwardly speaking, to expect that our present ?) ignorance will ( eventually ?) become wisdom is only a progressive (form of ?) ignorance; for ignorance can never become wise, any more than greed can ever become non-greed. Ignorance is (implicit in ?) the very process of ( self-) becoming.
Is not thought the product of (our evolution in ?) time? . ( Any new ?) experience is (stored in memory as ?) knowledge, and ( our thinking in terms of ?) 'time' is the continuation of ( this ?) experience. The (thinking ?) mind is the machinery of time. This continuation of memory is ( generating its own time-based ?) 'consciousness'. The (recorded memory of the ?) past in conjunction with the present is moving to the 'future'; but this 'future' is (a modified continuity of ?) the past . This whole process is our 'thought', and cannot function in any field other than that of ( material space and?) time. Thought may speculate upon the timeless, but it will be its own projection. All ( such) speculation is ignorance.

Q: Then why do you even mention the 'timeless'? Can this 'timeless' (dimension of our being ?) ever be known? Can it ever be recognized as the timeless?

K: Recognition implies the 'experiencer', and this 'experiencer' is always of time. To recognize something, thought must have 'experienced' it; and if it has 'experienced' it, then it is the known. The known is not the timeless, surely. The known is always within the net of time. The (dualistic process of ?) thought cannot know the Timeless- which is a state of being in which thought ( or ?) 'time', is not.

Q: What value has it?

K: It (this timeless dimension of one's being ?) is not "marketable". It cannot be 'weighed' for a (practical ?) purpose. Its worth is... Unknown (not in the sphere of knowledge ?) .

Q: But what part does it play in life?

K: If ( our) life is ( completely dominated by ?) thought, then none at all. ( The thinking ?) mind cannot formulate the timeless, shape it to its own end; it cannot be 'used'. ( However ?) life has ( a true ?) meaning only when the 'timeless' ( dimension of our being ?) is (activated ?) ; otherwise our life is one of sorrow, conflict and pain.
( Recap:) Thought cannot solve any human problem, for ( the self-centred continuity of ?) thought itself is 'the' problem. The ending of ( inwardly living in the field of ?) knowledge is the beginning of wisdom (the awakening of a time-free intelligence ?) . Wisdom is not of time, it is not (to be found in ?) the continuatity of our experience, knowledge. Life in time is ( ending up in ?) confusion and misery; but when "that which is" is the Timeless, there is bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Feb 2016 #150
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 690 posts in this forum Online

The K Lesson du Jour : Dullness ( From Commentaries on Living, first series)

K; How insensitive we are (inwardly ?), how lacking in swift and adequate response, how little freedom to observe! Without ( inner ?) sensitivity, how can there be pliability and a quickening perception; how can there be an understanding free of striving?
( Self-) understanding comes with high sensitivity, but this sensitivity is not the result of cultural influence; it is a state of being vulnerable, open to the unknown, the imponderable. But ( in the modern world ?) we take care not to be ( too ?) sensitive; it is too ( potentially disturbing ?), too exacting, and it demands to be watchful; we would rather be put to sleep, made dull (by?) newspapers, magazines, books, through our addiction to ( watching TV, surfing the net and/or ?) reading, a marvellous escape, like drink or (attending a ?) public ceremony.
We desire to escape from the pain (and boredom ?) of ( a routinely way of ?) life, and ( this self-induced insensivity or ?) 'dullness' is the most effective way: the dullness brought about by ( listening to expert ?) explanations, by following a leader or an ideal, by getting identified with some ( personal or collective ?) achievement. Most of us ( seem to ?) want to be made dull, and ( the creation of ?) habits is very effective in putting the mind to sleep. The ( highly prized ?) habit of ( self-) discipline, or the sustained effort to become are respectable ways of being made ( inwardly safe and ?) insensitive.

Q: But what could one do in ( the'real' ?) life if one were (so inwardly ?) sensitive? We would all shrivel up, and there would be no effective action.

K: What do the "dull and insensitive" ( 'standardised' minds ?) bring to the world? What is the outcome of their ”effective” action? Wars (of all kind ?) , confusion within and without, ruthlessness and increasing misery for themselves and so for the world. The action of the ( inwardly ?) 'unwatchful' ( sooner or later does ?) lead to destruction, to ( a global ?) physical insecurity, to disintegration.
However (the inner ?) sensitivity is not easy to come by; sensitivity is the (result of ?) understanding the simple (facts of a life ?) which is ( superficially ?) highly complex . It is not a withdrawal, an isolating process. To act with sensitivity (also requires ?) being aware of the total process of the 'actor'.

Q: To understand the total process of myself will take a long time, and meanwhile my business will go to ruin and my family will starve.

K: Even if you have not saved up enough money for your family , it is always possible to arrange that they shall be fed. Your 'business' will undoubtedly go to ruin; but ( a subtler ?) disintegration at other levels of ( our inner ?) existence is already taking place; you just do not want to see what is actually happening within yourself. You disregard the 'inner' and hope to build up ( optimise?) the 'outer'; yet the 'inner' is always overcoming the 'outer'. The 'outer' (ourtward mind ?) cannot act without the fullness of the inner; but the fullness of the inner is not ( brought by ?) repetitious sensations, nor by the accumulation of facts called 'knowledge'. The way of all our inner pursuits must be understood for the 'outer' to be healthy.

( In a nutshell:) It is not a matter of 'lack of time', but one of ( spiritual ?) disregard and disinclination.
You have no inward richness, for you want the gratification of the
. You are not ( actually ?) seeking just to feed your family, but the ( long lasting ?) satisfaction of possessing. The man who possesses, whether property or knowledge, can never be (inwardly) vulnerable or open. (The basis of an authentic inner ) virtue is freedom. This freedom of aloneness (all-oneness ?) is not ( to be found in ?) the enclosing process of isolation. To be ( self-) isolated in wealth, in knowledge, in success, in your ideas is to be ( inwardly ?) dull, insensitive. The dull (minds) cannot commune ; and when they do, it is with their own self-projections. To 'commune' (with 'what Is' ?) there must be sensitivity, vulnerability and freedom from becoming, which is ( also the ?) freedom from fear. The ( mind) which is ( engaged in self-) 'becoming' cannot 'commune', for it is ever isolating itself. Love is the vulnerable; love is (the expression of ?) the open, the imponderable, the Unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 753 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.)