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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 650 in total
Fri, 29 Jan 2016 #151
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 #152
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #153
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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 #154
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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 #155
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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 #156
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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 #157
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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 #158
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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 #159
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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
Sat, 06 Feb 2016 #160
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The known and the unknown (from Commentaries on Living, first series)

WAITING for the train, we were walking up and down the platform, watching the movement of life about us. A man came up to us and , in a broken English, said that he had been watching us, and felt impelled to say something to us. With great feeling he promised he would lead a 'clean' life, and that from this moment he would never smoke again. He said he was not educated, as he was only a rickshaw boy. He had strong eyes and a pleasant smile.
Presently the train came and, as the sun was setting it was passing through a lovely country. The cattle were coming home, and there was golden dust. There were huge, black clouds on the horizon, and the crack of distant thunder. What joy a green field holds, and how pleasant ( looking ) is that village in the fold of a curving mountain! Darkness was setting in. A big, blue deer was feeding in the fields; he did not even look up as the train roared by.

In the carriage a man introduced himself. He was a well-known scholar, full of years and knowledge, well-to-do and ambitious. He talked of "meditation", but he gave the impression that he was not speaking from his own experience. His 'god' was the 'God of books' and he was strangely vain in his knowledge and position.

K: Knowledge is ( like ?) a flash of light between two darknesses; but (the light of ?) knowledge cannot go above and beyond ( the inner ?) darkness, it cannot reach out into the Unknown.
( In meditation ?) 'knowledge' must be set aside for the Unknown to be; but how difficult that is (to be achieved ?) ! We have our being ( rooted ?) in the past, our thought is founded upon the ( knowledge of the ?) past. The past is the 'known', and the response of the past is ever overshadowing the present, the Unknown. The unknown is not ( necessarily in ?) the future, but in the present. The 'future' is but the ( memory of our ?) 'past' pushing its way through an uncertain 'present' , (in which ?) the intermittent light of knowledge is covering an (unknown ?) emptiness ; but this "emptiness" holds the miracle of life.

Our addiction to knowledge offers an escape from this fear of ( that inner ?) emptiness, of 'being (as) nothing'. The (mental) light of knowledge is providing a delicate ( yet efficiently self-protective ?) covering under which lies an (unknown inner ?) 'darkness' that the ( conscious ?) mind cannot penetrate. The ( conscious ?) mind is (afraid of ?) this 'unknown' , and so it escapes into ( the 'safety' of ?) knowledge, theories, hopes, imagination; so this (psychological ?) 'knowledge' is becoming a hindrance to the understanding of the unknown (depths of the human psyche ?) . Ignorance is the lack of self-awareness; and our 'knowledge' is ignorance (illusory ?) when there is no understanding of the ways of the 'self'.

It is not easy to put aside ( our psychological ?) knowledge . Only an ( insightful ?) understanding of the 'self' is ( bringing ?) freedom from ( such) 'knowledge'. There can be such freedom only when the process of gathering, the motive of accumulation, is understood. The ( subliminal ?) desire to store up ('psychologically' is originating in ?) our desire to be secure, to be certain. But this 'desire for certainty'- through identification, through condemnation and justification- is also the cause of a fear (of anything 'unknown' ?) , which destroys all communion (with 'what Is' ?) . When there is this 'communion', there is no need for ( any 'psychological' ) accumulation. Accumulation is a self-enclosing (form of ?) resistance, and ( such ?) 'knowledge' only strengthens this resistance.

Our worship of knowledge is an (upgraded ?) form of idolatry, and it will not dissolve the ( existing ?) conflicts of our life. The cloak of knowledge conceals ( covers up the inner 'facts' ?) and can never liberate us from an ever increasing ( global ?) confusion and sorrow.

(In a nutshell:) The ways of (our 'knowing' ?) mind do not lead to Truth and its happiness. To ( live in the safe enclosure of the ?) 'known' is to deny the Unknown.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #161
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: All about Inner Simplicity ( From Commentaries on Living, first series)

We were sitting in the shade of a large tree, overlooking a green valley. The woodpeckers were busy and there were ants in a long line scurrying back and forth between two trees. The wind was coming from the sea, bringing the smell of a distant fog and the (surrounding ?) mountains were blue and dreamy.

He was once a very rich man and had renounced his riches. He was
saying that he had given up his possessions because it had struck him one day, as he was reading something, how vastly stupid were his moneymaking and his wealth. Now he had but few things and was trying to lead a simple life to find out what it was all about and whether there was something beyond the appetites of the physical senses.

K: To be free from the (psychological) burden of (possessing too ?) many things is not difficult when one is on a ( spiritual ?) journey: the urgency of inward search clears away the confusion of many possessions, but being free from outer things does not ( necessarily ?) mean a simple life. Outer simplicity and order do not necessarily mean inner tranquility and innocence. It is good to be simple outwardly, for it does give a certain freedom, it is a gesture of integrity; but why is it that we invariably begin with the outer and not with the inner simplicity ? Freedom from ( our attachments to wordly ?) things needs intelligence and this intelligence is not personal. If one is ( becoming ?) aware of all the implications of having many possessions, that very ( clarity of inner ?) awareness liberates, and then there is no need for dramatic assertions and gestures. It is only when this "intelligent awareness" is (not awakened ?) that we resort to disciplines and detachments.

The emphasis is not on 'how much' or 'how little' (we are giving away ?) , but on ( the awakening of that non-personal quality of ?) intelligence; the intelligent man, being content with little, is free from ( carrying the psychological burden of ?) many possessions.
( The material ?) contentment comes with the awareness of 'what is', while ( the spiritual ?) simplicity comes with the freedom from 'what is'. It is well to be outwardly simple, but it is far more important to be inwardly simple and clear.
( Inner ?) clarity does not come through a determined and purposeful mind; the conscious mind can adjust itself, can arrange and put its thoughts in order; but this is not clarity, nor simplicity.
The action of ( personal ?) 'will' makes for (inner) confusion; because will, however sublimated, is still the instrument of desire. The will (the enforced desire ?) to 'be', to 'become', however worthwhile and noble, may clear one's way amidst confusion; but such a process leads to ( self-) isolation, and ( inner ?) clarity cannot come through
isolation. The action of will may temporarily light up the immediate foreground, necessary for the daily activity, but it can never clear up the ( psychological ) background; for will itself is the outcome of this very background. Our (collective psychological?) background breeds and nourishes the ( personal ?) will, and will may heighten its potentialities; but it can never 'cleanse' this background (of self-interest ?)

Simplicity is not ( the result of ?) a cunning self-adjustment, a defence against pain and pleasure; it is the self-enclosing ( mental ?) activity which breeds various forms of conflict and confusion.
It is ( our own mentality based on ?) conflict that brings darkness, within and without. Conflict and clarity ( obviously ?) cannot exist together; but it is the freedom from conflict that gives simplicity, not the ( analytical ?) overcoming of conflict. What is conquered has to be conquered again and again, and so conflict is made endless. The understanding of ( one's inner ?) conflicts is (implied in ?) the understanding of (the dualistic process of "thought &) desire". Desire may abstract itself as an (objective ?) "observer", the "one who understands"; but this sublimation of desire is only postponement and not understanding.

The phenomenon of the "observer" and the "observed" is not a dual process, but a single (unitary ?) one; and only in experiencing of the ( inner?) "fact" of this unitary process is there freedom from desire, from conflict. The ( redundant ?) question of how to experience (the non-dualistic perception of ?) this 'fact' should never arise. It must "happen" ; and it "happens" only when there is ( a state of inner?) alertness and passive (non-personal ?) awareness.
( Eg:) You cannot have the actual experience of meeting a poisonous snake by imagining it, while sitting comfortably in your room. To "meet the snake" you must venture (inwardly ?) beyond the 'paved streets' and 'artificial lights' (of the known ?) . Thought (the 'self-centred' process of thinking ?) may record ( outward experiences ?) but it cannot experience the (non-dualistic state of ?) freedom from conflict; for Simplicity, or (inner) Clarity, is not of the ( competency of a dualistic ?) mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Feb 2016 #162
Thumb_3135 Jo D United Kingdom 12 posts in this forum Offline

I find reading these every day beneficial, as well as learning they act as a daily grounding agent in the 'what is' when I have become lost in fanciful ideas. Thank you.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Feb 2016 #163
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: CONFORMITY AND INNER FREEDOM (from Commentaries on Living, second series)

To live 'alone' (as in 'all-one'?) needs great intelligence; but to live alone and yet be pliable is 'arduous' (more demanding ?) . To live 'alone', without the walls of self-enclosing gratifications, needs an extreme (inner ?) alertness; for a solitary life (could ?) encourage ( settling down in ?) comforting habits that are hard to break. Only the 'wise' can live alone without harm to themselves or to others. Wisdom is 'alone' but it is not found in withdrawal. There is no ( prescribed ?) path to wisdom, for in their very nature, such a 'path' is an exclusive process and can only lead to isolation, though they are (assumed to lead to ?) 'Unity', to the Whole, the One, and so on. If the ( chosen ?) 'means' are exclusive, and the 'end'(result) is as the 'means'.
Wisdom comes with the ( insightful ?) understanding of one’s relationship with the green fields, with the passer-by, with the fleeting thoughts. To isolate oneself in order to find wisdom is to put an end to ( self-) discovery. (A non-dualistic approach of) relationship leads to an 'all-oneness' of (inner ?) freedom. The 'complete' (the integrated mind ?) is the 'alone' (all-one ?) , while 'incompleteness' seeks the way of ( self-) isolation.

She had been a writer, and her books had quite a wide circulation. She said she had managed to come to India only after many years. When she first started out she had no idea where she would end up; but now, after all this time, her destination had become clear. Her husband and her whole family were interested in religious matters, but nevertheless she had made up her mind to leave them all, and had come in the hope of finding some (inner ?) peace. She hadn’t known a soul in this country when she came, and it was very hard the first year. She went first to a certain ashram, a retreat about which she had read. The guru there was a mild old man who
had had certain religious experiences on which he now lived, and who constantly repeated some Sanskrit saying which his disciples understood. She was welcomed at this retreat, and she found it easy to adjust herself to its rules. She remained there for several months, but found no peace. Then she went to an ashram among the mountains and stayed there for some time, happily at first, for it was beautiful with trees, streams, and wild life. The discipline was rather rigorous, which she didn’t mind; but again the disciples were worshipping some dead knowledge, dead traditions, a dead teacher. When she left they threatened her with spiritual darkness. She then went to a very well known retreat where they repeated various religious assertions and regularly practiced prescribed meditations; but gradually she found that neither the teacher nor the disciples wanted freedom, though they talked about it. They were all concerned with maintaining the centre, with holding the disciples in the name of the guru. Again she broke away and went elsewhere; again the same story with a slightly different pattern.

Q: I assure you, I have been to most of the 'serious' ashrams, and they all want to grind one down to fit their pattern of thought which they call "truth". Why is it that they never give ( spiritual ?) freedom but only promise freedom?

K: Conformity is gratifying; it assures ( a sense of 'psychological' ?) security to the disciple as to the teacher, but ( such) conformity makes for (a spiritual ?) dullness, which they call 'peace'. If one wants to avoid 'suffering', such conformity anaesthetizes the mind to conflict. Conforming oneself to the (spiritual ?) authority of the dead or the living (masters of Wisdom ?) gives ( a sense of ?) intense satisfaction.
( In a nutshell:) The teacher and the disciple thrive on mutual exploitation. You really don’t ( have to ?) go to an 'ashram' for (achieving spiritual ?) freedom, do you? They cannot offer ( a total inner ?) freedom, for it would be their own undoing.
Freedom cannot be found in any "retreat", in following any system or belief, nor through the ( joint process of ?) conformity and fear called 'discipline'.
Imitation as a means to freedom is the very denial of freedom, but we like to deceive ourselves, and that is why compulsion or the promise of reward exists in different and subtle forms. ( Such ?) hopes are the denial of (a spiritual ?) life.

Q: I am now avoiding all ashrams like the very plague. I went to them to find inner peace and I was given compulsions, authoritarian doctrines and vain promises. At one of these places, where the teacher is very popular, when I told them that I was coming to see you, they threw up their hands, and some had tears in their eyes...
But I'd want to talk over something that is actually gripping my heart: this ache of solitude is more than I can bear; not the physical solitude, which is welcome, but the deep inner pain of being alone. What am I to do about it? How am I to regard this (existential ?) void?

K: Let us understand the (true) nature of this pain rather than try to overcome it, or go beyond it. Till there is a complete understanding of this "ache of solitude", there can be no (inner ) peace, but only an incessant inner conflict - whether we are aware of it or not. This (existential ?) ache is only in relation to the ( memories of our ?) past, and not in relation to "what is". The "what is" has to be ( exposed and ?) discovered ('uncovered' ?) , not just verbally , but experienced directly. And to (insightfully ?) understand it, must you not come to it freely, denuded of your past knowledge concerning it? Must you not come with a 'fresh' mind, unclouded by its habitual responses?
Please do not ask "How is my mind to be free to see the new ?", but (rather ?) listen to the truth of it, since ( the perception of ?) truth alone liberates, and not 'your' desire to be free. The very ('personal' ?) desire and effort to be free is a hindrance to liberation.
To understand the new, must not the mind be still (at all its levels ?) , without seeking a remedy for this "aching solitude"? Must it not be observed (non-personally ?) in its movements of 'despair' and 'hope'? The ( central ?) problem is not the 'ache of solitude', but the ( dualistic activity of our ?) mind , this movement (away from 'what is' ?) that makes for solitude and its (associated ?) fear?

(More generally ?) is not the very activity of our ( self-centred ?) mind a process of isolation, resistance? Is not ( our daily ?) relationship and experience a process of self-isolation? So, the ( insightful ?) understanding of this ( self-centred tendency of our?) mind is the beginning (the first step to ?) of (inner) freedom. Freedom is not something ( to be achieved ?) in the future, it is (necessary in ?) the very first step. This (self-centering ?) activity of our mind can be understood only in our responses to every kind of (incoming ?) stimuli . Stimulation and response are ( the basis of any ?) relationship at all levels. (But the 'psychological' ?) accumulations in any form do prevent ( the inner ?) freedom; and it is only when there is (inner) freedom that (the direct perception of ?) "truth" can be.

Q: But is not a (spiritual ?) 'effort' necessary to understand?

K: Do we understand anything through struggle, through conflict? Does not ( the insightful self-?) understanding come when the mind is utterly still, when the (dissipative ?) action of (self-centred ?) effort has ceased? The mind that is ( purposedly ?) 'made still' is not a tranquil mind; it is a 'dead' ( self-confined ?) , insensitive mind. When (the self-centred thought and ?) desire is (interfering ?) , the beauty of (inner) Silence is not.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Feb 2016 #164
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

The K Lesson du Jour: ALL-ONENESS AND THE LONELINESS OF SELF-ISOLATION( from Commentaries on Living, first series)

THE SUN HAS gone down and the trees were dark and shapely against the darkening sky. The wide, strong river was peaceful and still. We walked up the steep bank of the river and took a (pilgrim's ?) path that skirted the green wheat-fields; many thousands had trodden it, and it was rich in tradition and silence. It wandered among fields and mangoes, tamarinds and deserted shrines. There were large patches of sweet peas deliciously scenting the air. The birds were settling down for the night, and a large pond was beginning to reflect the stars. Nature was not communicative that evening. The trees were aloof; they had withdrawn into their silence and darkness. A few chattering villagers passed by on their bicycles, and once again there was deep silence and that peace which comes when all things are alone.

This aloneness is the 'all-oneness of being'; it is uncorrupted, rich, complete. That tamarind tree has no existence other than being itself. So is this (integrated ?) aloneness. One is ( naturally ?) alone, like the fire, like the flower, but one is not aware of its purity and of its immensity. One can truly communicate ( with All That Is ?) only when there is aloneness. Aloneness is the (meditative ?) purgation of all motives, of all pursuits of desire, of all 'ends'.

( On the other hand, the sense of one's inner ? ) 'loneliness', with its ( associated ?) fears and aches, is the inevitable action of the 'self'. This ( subliminal ?) process of (self-) isolation, whether expansive or narrow, is productive of confusion, conflict and sorrow. Isolation can never give birth to 'all-oneness'; one has to cease for the other to be. Aloneness is indivisible and loneliness is separation. That which is alone (all-one) is pliable and so enduring. Only the 'alone' can commune with that ( essence of being ?) which is causeless, the Immeasurable. To the 'alone' (to the spiritually integrated mind ?) , life is eternal; to the alone there is no death. The 'all-one' can never cease to be.

The moon was just coming over the tree tops, and the shadows were thick and dark. The river was so still that it caught the ( reflexion of the ?) stars and the lights of the long bridge among its waters. A night-bird flew silently by. Someone began to sing on the other bank of the wide river, and his words were clear and penetrating. Again the all-pervading 'all-oneness' of life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Feb 2016 #165
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: But is not simplicity essential for that stillness?

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Feb 2016 #166
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Yes, go on.

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Feb 2016 #167
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 26 Feb 2016 #168
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Feb 2016 #169
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

Q2: What shall we teach our children?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q: Yes...

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Mar 2016 #170
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Mar 2016 #171
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: What about guilt ?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: What do you mean by Creation?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: What is 'intelligence'?

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Mar 2016 #172
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

Last Q&A's in Saanen

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Can we go on with our (last) questions?

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

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

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

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

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

QUESTION: Please speak further on time and death.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 04 Mar 2016 #173
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K: If one deeply comprehends the (inertial ?) nature of thought (of the 'chain-thinking' process?) and "stays with it quietly", - then there a (full) "insight" into it. But for the brain to understand its own (addictive thinking ?) movement unless we actually investigate it, experiment, push it, go into it deeply, unless you do that you can't come upon that strange sense (inner dimension ?) of timelessness.

Hi John,

Here again is a seeming contradiction where he says that it is necessary to go very "deeply" into ones "nature of thought" and "stay with it quietly". "Experiment", "investigate", "push it"... and all without a 'motive'(!). This keeps some from going ahead with this suggestion because of thinking one should wait until this all comes 'naturally' and one will not be then 'guilty' of trying to 'do' something, of trying to "come upon that strange sense of timelessness".etc. etc. But one might die waiting for that perfect 'time'. To me, he is saying "do it!" Things will sort themselves out as you go along. The 'motives' are there to be discovered and let go. Let his question: " Can the thoughts become aware of themselves, awaken to themselves?" be the guide. Uncharted territory.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Fri, 04 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Mar 2016 #174
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Q : It is unity.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 06 Mar 2016 #175
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K:Observing without any words, without any interference of thought, just seeing.

Hi John,

But one could say, if the brain is 'addicted' to thought/time, without that 'addiction' coming to an end, non-violently, naturally, as a result of intelligence (?), there will never be this "just seeing".

K. is speaking of another 'dimension' here, isn't he? A dimension where there is psychologically only the 'present', only the "what is"?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 06 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Mar 2016 #176
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Question: What is faith?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 09 Mar 2016 #177
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John

I just wanted to write a short note about something you mentioned a while back about a certain "carefreeness" of the young child. It is true that apart from the physical needs of the child, the psychological state of the young brain, could be very carefree. Unattached in so many ways to ideals and things, the brain could feel itself as a part of the world around it, not 'separate or alien from it. That feeling of separation and apartness would grow as the child grew. The psychological 'barrier'of the 'self image' between ourselves and the world around would thicken and isolate us almost so completely, that we ,the brain almost totally forgets what that freedom, that carefreeness, it enjoyed, was like. And as a result, the cares, burdens, fears and deep sense of loneliness we carry until our deaths, could go unquestioned were it not for K. and his work.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 09 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 #178
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 10 Mar 2016 #179
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But, fortunately for some of us ( psychologically speaking, of course) the imminent challenge of a 'final ending' of our attachment to all we possess and/or are identified with, is a pretty good 'awakening' factor.


Yes the fact that we don't have 'all that much time left' can get you asking: "so what is this stuff really all about anyway?" And speaking of questions, I'm beginning to see why K.placed so much importance on them: " Can thought become aware of itself?"..."Can the mind free itself from its self-created bondage?"etc. because without the question the inquiry dies. And not the intellectual inquiry with the intellectual answer or conclusion but the 'real','pondering, meditative one. I would also add this as a question: "Is the observer really the observed?, and "Am I the 'world'? and is the 'thinker' really the thought?" All these can lead to an investigation, meditation into ourselves; and this awareness of our "mortality" gives it an urgency to find out the 'truth' (or falseness) of all this and a passion to go deeper and not 'settle' for, or stop at, the intellectual understanding...

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 10 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 11 Mar 2016 #180
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 650 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)