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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?

Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 641 in total
Fri, 20 May 2016 #181
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: I work as a teacher and I am in constant conflict with the system of the school, and the pattern of society. Must I give up all work? What is the right way to earn a living? Is there a way of living that does not perpetuate conflict?

K: This is a rather complex question and we will go into it step by step, if we may. What is ( the role of ?) a teacher? Either he gives information about history, physics, biology and so on; or he is ( also sharing ?) learning not only with the pupil, with the student, but also ( his) learning about himself. This is a whole process of learning: teaching (as sharing and ?) understanding the whole movement of life. So we are asking: is there such a person as a 'psychological' teacher? If I am a ( non-specialised ?) teacher of biology or physics, but 'psychologically' inform you, then will my pointing out help you to understand yourself? Is there such a 'psychological' teacher at all? Or only (standardised ?) 'factual' teachers, like a professor of chemistry, science, neurology and so on? Is there a teacher who will help you to understand yourself?
So when the questioner says: I am a teacher. I have to struggle not only with the established system of schools and education, but also my own life is a constant battle with myself. And must I give up all this? And then what shall I do if I give up all that? So he is asking not only what is a right teacher but also he wants to find out what is the right ( way of earning one's ?) living.

As society exists now you have to earn a livelihood, you have to earn money, you have a family, you have children, you become responsible for them and so you accept if you have been through university and so on, you become an engineer, professor, a (culturally standardised ?) teacher and so on. As the society exists now can one have a right (integrated way of ?) living? So I am asking what is ( the) right (way of ?) living? What is one to do in a society which is corrupt, which has such contradictions in itself, in which there is so much injustice - the society in which we live? What shall I do? What is one to do in a society so ( slowly but surely ?) degenerating, conflict, violence and terror, what is one to do? What is the right (way to ensure a ?) livelihood?
Or, would you ask a ( psychologically related ?) question: is it possible to live in this society, earning a ( decent ?) livelihood righteously and also end all conflict within oneself? Are these two separate things: earning a living rightly and not having conflict in oneself, or with society? Are they watertight compartments, or they ( should ?) go together? To live a life without any conflict requires a great deal of understanding of oneself and therefore an enormous sense of intelligence, not the 'clever' (glib?) intelligence of the intellect, but the capacity to see objectively what is happening, both outwardly and inwardly, knowing that there is no ( qualitative ?) difference between the outer and the inner ( life ?) - it is like a tide that goes out and comes in. The ( inner and outer mentality of our ?) society is what we have created (collectively ?) , and can I live in this society without any conflict in myself and at the same time have a right livelihood? You understand?

Now, on which shall I lay emphasis? On earning a right livelihood, right living, or on finding out how to live a life without a single conflict? Now which comes first? The bread (& butter ?) or the other? You understand what I am saying? Is there a way of living which will naturally bring about a right livelihood and at the same a (inner quality of ?) life without a single shadow of conflict? Is that possible?
People have said (traditionally ?) you cannot live that way except in a monastery, becoming a monk because then society (may benevolently ?) look after you because you have renounced the world and all the misery of the world, and you are committed to the "service of God", which is what happens in a monastery ? But nobody believes any more in (the value of living forever in ?) monasteries. So what shall we do? Can you live (wherever you are living ?) a life without a single shadow of conflict? I say this is "possible" when you have understood the (true ?) significance of living. That is, living is (essentially a matter of ?) relationship and action. Therefore what is the "right" action (and the "right" relationship ?) under all circumstances?

So one has to go ( experientially ?) into the question of what is "action"? What do you mean by "action", which is ( whatever we are doing in our daily ?) living? Talking, acquiring knowledge, the relationship with another and so on and so on. Life is action, movement. And life is also relationship with another, however deep or superficial. So we have to find both whether there is a right action and a right relationship - if you want to answer this question deeply.

( Brief "reality" detour : ) actually what is our relationship with another? It (may or not ?) involve sex, a (psychological) dependence on each other, comforting each other, ( the illusion of ?) possessing each other and therefore jealousy, antagonism, and all the rest of it? And the man or the woman goes off to the office, or to some kind of physical work and there he is (very 'territorial' ?) competitive, aggressive to succeed and comes back home and becomes the "friendly and affectionate" husband or wife and so on. That is (generally speaking the gist of our ?) actual daily relationship. Nobody can deny that. Is that a "right" relationship? We may say certainly not, it is (sounding ?) absurd to live that way but we don't seem to be able to understand what is (the alternative approach of a better ?) relationship, but accept the pattern set by society, by ourselves - right? So what one has to 'do' (in terms of psychological action ?) is to go into it seriously to find out (the truth about it all ?) .
Our (more intimate) relationships are generally "sensuous". Begin with that. From that sensuality there is the (need for ?) companionship, ( developping into ?) a sense of dependence on each other, which means creating a 'family' which is dependent on each other. And when there is (occuring some ?) uncertainty in that dependence "the pot boils over". So we are saying, to find what is right relationship one has to enquire into the great (psychological ) dependence on each other. In our (closer) relationship with each other, why are we so "psychologically dependent"? Is it that we are (subliminally feeling ?) desperately lonely and we hope to trust somebody, my wife, my husband and this dependence gives a sense of security, a protection against the ( uncertain ?) world (out there ?) . And so.... we say, "I love you". In that "love" there is always the (shared ?) sense of being possessed and to possess - is then arises all the (colateral ?) conflicts.
( In a nutshell ?) we create a (reassuring general ?) "image" about each other and cling to that image. But one (seldom ?) realizes that the moment you are 'tied' to another person, 'tied' to an idea, 'tied' to a concept, (a subliminal form of ?) corruption has begun. That is the ( potential inner 'danger') to realize and... we don't want to realize that. If I am 'tied' ( inwardly dependent ?) on my audience to fulfil myself, I am thereby encouraging vanity and all that follows, which is corruption. So can we live (and work ?) together without being psychologically dependent on each other? Unless you find this out you will always live in conflict because (whatever we do in ) life "is" ( in happening in the field of ?) relationship - right?

So can we objectively, without any (hidden personal ?) motives, observe the consequences of attachment and let it go immediately? There is only the "fact" of attachment and one can see the whole (pretty sad ?) consequences of an attachment in which actually there is no love. So can that (psychological) attachment ( naturally ?) end? When I observe the nature of it, how it arises ( "observe", not analyse it !) , then there is only that and you totally eliminate ( the secondary ) conflict of ( desire creating ?) the opposite. And when one so completely remains with 'what is' - not try to suppress it, go beyond it, escape from it - then 'what is' ( is unfolding itself and eventually ...?) withers away.
( For homework :) You (take some 'quality time' to ?) experiment with it.
( Take for instance this tough 'reality' challenge : ) my son is dead. I am attached to that son. I have put all my hopes in that son and unfortunately some accident takes place, he is "gone". And I shed tears, loneliness, despair, the (instant) shock of it. Then I (usually) run away from it - go to a church, read, "escape". But whereas if I remain completely with the fact that he is gone and I am (feeling) lonely because by becoming depended on him, I have never understood this sense of (my self ?) isolation. I have escaped from it all my life. So when I remain with 'what is' then I can go into it fully, completely and 'go beyond' it. Please sirs, do it!

As we said the other day, this is (supposed to be a ?) serious gathering, not for casual visitors, casual curiosity, casual criticism. One must begin to doubt all that you are clinging to. And then ( feel free to ?) doubt what the speaker is saying; don't begin by doubting what the speaker says. What he is saying is pointing out ( the right way of looking ?) to yourself.
So when there is this freedom ( of any psycho-dependency ?) in relationship, when there is no "image" about each other, then there is real communion with each other.
And also: what is the "right" action - which must be right under all circumstances, whether in the western culture or in the Communist world - there it is more difficult because you daren't speak, you daren't act, there is no sense of freedom there. So we are asking: what is right action?
To find that out we must (make another detour and ?) enquire into what is our action now. An (outward ?) action based on an ideal, on a principle, or on certain values? Or ..."I do what I want to do this !".

What does ( the word) 'action' means? The "doing now". And is that action based on your past experience? If it is you are acting according to (memory of ) the past, so (your personal experience of the ?) past is dictating your action in the present - right? We have accepted that as action, that is our norm, that is our pattern. Our brain is conditioned, our mind and our heart (go along ?) according to that. We are questioning that. ( An authentic ?) action can only be when there is complete freedom from the (experience of the ?) "past" and the (expectations of the ?) "future". When we use the word 'right' it means an accurate action which is not based on ( personal) motive, an action which is not directed, committed. The understanding what is the right action and right relationship, brings about (a different quality of ?) intelligence. Not the intelligence of the intellect but that profound (compassionate ?) intelligence which is not yours or mine, and that intelligence will 'dictate' (or...whisper ?) what you will ( have to ?) do to earn a right livelihood. Without that (quality of compassionate ?) intelligence your (means of ?) livelihood will be dictated by circumstances. When there is that ( universally open ?) "intelligence" you may be a gardener, a cook, or something, it doesn't ( really ?) matter. You see, now our minds are culturally trained to accept (the daily competition based on ?) status, position; but when one has understood all that, in the very understanding of all that is (an awakening of ?) intelligence which will show what is the 'right' livelihood - right?

Now that you have all heard this, will you do something about it? Or carry on with your usual ways? That is why it demands a great deal of ( self-) enquiry, denying every form of ( previously accumulated ?) experience in that enquiry. So there is a way of living in which there is no conflict and because there is no conflict there is ( the spontaneous awakening of a compassionate ?) intelligence which will show the way of "right living".

QUESTION: Is it possible to be so completely awake at the moment of perception that the mind does not recall the event?

K: Is it possible not to record ( 'psychologically' ?) at all, your hurts, one's failures, despairs, anxiety, experience - you follow? All the things that are going on inside and outside, not to record it ('personally' ?) so the mind is always free. That is the question. Now, let's start examining it: the brain, evolving in time, its ( basic survival oriented ?) process is to record.
(Suppose that ?) someone says to me, "You are an idiot"- politely and impolitely. And the brain instantly records it (and starts processing it ?): "I don't like it" because I have a (pretty good) image about myself and when you call me "an idiot" I am hurt (personally ) . That is ( the psychological aspect of our brain's indiscriminate ?) recording. The ( possibility to be ?) hurt exists as long as I have an image about myself. And everybody will ( purposely or not ?) tread on that image - right? And there is hurt, the brain has recorded it. And the (effect of such ?) recording is to build a wall round myself, (in order ) not to be hurt any more. I am afraid (of being further hurt ?) so I shrink within myself, build a wall of resistance and there I feel safe. Now the questioner asks: is it possible not to record that hurt ( not to take it personally ?) as at the moment when I am called an idiot? You understand? Not only the hurt but the flattery - and I have had plenty of that too. One has had both. So is it possible not to record either?

Now, the brain has been trained to record (practically everything concerning the safety of its continuity in time?) because then in that recording there is safety, there is security, ( plus as a bonus ?) there is ( a gathering of ?) strength, a vitality, and therefore in ( its desire to make the most of ?) that recording the mind creates the (personalised firewall?) 'image' about oneself. And that (very) image will constantly get hurt. So is it possible to live without a single "image" (about oneself ?) ?

( For homework: ) Go into it sirs. Without a single ( pro-active ?) "image" about yourself, about your husband, wife, children, friend and so on, about the politicians, about the priests, about the ideal, not a single shadow of an image? We ( K ?) are saying it is possible, it must be, otherwise you will always be getting hurt, always living in a ( self-centred) pattern in which there is no freedom. So when you call me "an idiot", to be so attentive ( inwardly awake ?) at that moment - then there is no ( 'psychological' ?) recording. It is only when there is inattention that 'you' record. Suppose you flatter me. 'I' like it. In that moment there is no attention. Therefore the recording ( automatically ?) takes place. But when you listen to it so completely, without any ( personal) reaction, then there is no centre which records.

We have to go into the question of what is (the nature of ?) this 'attention': there is no (fixed ?) point from which 'you' are attending. One wonders if you have ever given such attention to anything - which means there is no other thought, no other movement, no interpretation, motive, just listening so completely. So there is a difference between concentrating (one's attention ?) , which is from point to point, and therefore resistance; whereas ( in a holistic ?) attention there is no centre from which you are attending, and therefore that ( quality of ) attention is all inclusive, there is no border to it. Just see the truth of it: that concentrating ( one's attention on something?) inevitably brings about ( a colateral) resistance: avoid noises, avoid interruptions. If your whole brain is centred on a point, the point may be excellent, but what is taking place there? There is a ( subliminal ?) 'division', the controller and the controlled - right? The "controller" is the ( self-identified ?) thought which says, "I have understood, I must control that".

I wonder if you see that (inwardly) the controller "is" (an integral part of ?) the (thing being) controlled. The ( controlling ?) "thinker" is ( part of the ?) thoughts (it is trying to keep under control ?) . There is no ( actual) separation from thought and the thinker - do you see (the implications of ?) this sirs? You eliminate altogether the (internal) division when one realizes the thinker is the thought.
(To recap:) When one actually sees the truth that the controller "is" the controlled, then there comes ( a compassionate non-personal quality of ?) attention in which one may have to concentrate on doing something but it comes from ( an all inclusive ?) attention.

QUESTION: In your talks you have said death is total annihilation and also you have said there is immortality, a state of timeless existence. Can one live in that state?

K: First of all, I did not use the word "annihilation". I have said ( the psychological aspect of ?) death is an "ending" - like in "ending attachment". When you end (inwardly ?) something like ( your old ?) "attachments", something totally new begins - right? This is obvious (even in the material world ?) . ( But inwardly) when I have been accustomed all my life, to greed (and other forms of mental ?) aggressivity, (if ?) I end ( my dependency on ?) it, there is something totally "new" happening - right?
(Just a silly example:) I have followed my guru, with all the "gadgets" (secret mantras, etc ?) he has given me and (if ?) I (ever ?) realize the absurdity of it, I end it. See what happens ? There is a sense of freedom from the (time binding ?) burden which I have been carrying uselessly.

So I said death is like ending an attachment.
And also we said: what is it that has ( a self-conscious ?) "continuity" through (one's) life? We put "death" in opposition to "living", we say death is at the end, that end may be in ten years, or the day after tomorrow. I hope it will be ten years, but this is (just) our desire, and this is our (psychical ?) momentum. It is like asking how to face death. I say you cannot understand how to face death without understanding or facing ( your present ?) living. Death is not the (existential ?) opposite of living. I wonder if you understand all this?

I think a much more important question is not what is (a spiritual ?) immortality, but whether that "immortality" is a state in which one can live (here and now) ; (still closer to our daily reality ?) much more important is how to face life, how to understand this terrible thing called "living", because living as we are is ( spiritually ?) meaningless. Going to the office from day to day for the next fifty years, slaving away, going to church, you know, all these things, what is the meaning of all this? You may give (a verbal ?) meaning to life, as people do, say life is this, life must be that. But without all this idealistic nonsense, (inwardly our ?) life is this: our daily sorrows (and/or depressions ?) , competition, despair, depression, agony - with occasional flashes (breaks ?) of beauty and love. That is our life. And can we face it and understand it so completely that we have no conflict in life?

That is (implied ?) in "dying" (inwardly ?) to everything that ( the collective streaming of self-interest based ?) "thought" has built. Thought has said, "Achieve, become somebody, struggle, compete," (like in the Olympics ) Thought has built my vanity. Thought has said, "You must be this". Thought has said, "You are much cleverer than the other". That is what ( our self-interest based ?) thought has put together, which is "my" (self-isolating ?) existence, "our" gods, churches, gurus, rituals, all that is the activity of thought. And thought, as we said, is a movement of (our self-centred ) memory, experience, knowledge. Which is, experience brings certain knowledge stored up in the brain as memory, and responding, that (response of ?) memory is the (basic) movement of thought. Now, this thought is a material process and when thought predominates in our life, as it does, then ( our self-centred ?) thought denies love. Right? You will agree with this but that is our life. And living that way you have separated that thing called "death" which is ( the inner challenge of ?) ending (of our psychological ?) attachments ?) , and you are frightened of that.
( In a nutshell:) If we deny everything in oneself that ( our self-interested ?) thought has created, end your attachments, your ( wishful thinking ?) "hopes", your vanities, your sense of importance, all that is (involved in ?) "becoming". When that ( inner mentality of ?) "becoming" completely ends what have you? You are (then living) with death, aren't you? So then living "is" (inwardly not separated from ?) dying, and so (the possibility of an inner ?) renewal.

( For homework ?) "Do it"and you will find out. We are (traditionally) trained to be ( self-centred ?) individuals - me and you, my ego and your ego. But, is that a fact? Or we "are" (subliminally impersonating ?) the entire (consciousness of ?) humanity, because we all (eventually) go through whatever every human being goes through: sexual appetites, (sensory or intellectual ?) indulgence, sorrow, great hope (high hopes ?) , fear, (high) anxiety (for the wealthy and 'worry' for all the rest ?) , and an immense ( subliminal ?) sense of loneliness, that is what each one of us has, that is our (psychological ?) life. So ( consciousness-wise ?) we "are" the entire humanity, we are not ( free ?) "individuals". We like to think we are, we are not. You may be clever at writing a ($$$ ?) book, but that doesn't make you (inwardly) an "individual". You have a "gift" to write or sing or dance, whatever it is, but when you consider it as 'my gift', the (personal) vanity and all the ( celebrity ?) circus round it begins.

So there is a (way of ?) life in which there is no (self-identified ?) centre as "me", and therefore life is walking hand and hand with death; and therefore out of that sense of ending totally (all attachments and identifications ?) "time" has come to an end. Time is (inwardly) a movement (generated by ?), thought, thought "is" time.
( Now, meta-physically speaking ?) when you say: "I want to live in that (timeless ?) Eternity. I want to understand Immortality" - it means "I" must be part of that. But what "are" you? A name, a (physical) form, and all the "things" that thought has put together. That is what we actually "are". And we cling to that (mental identity ?) . And when ( the "real" ?) death comes, through, disease, accident, old age, how scared we are...
So ( bottom line is: ?) can one live a life so completely without a ( self-identified ?) 'centre', and therefore no conflict ? Then only that "state of mind" which is timeless comes into (one's inner ?) being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 21 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 May 2016 #182
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


K:' opening statement:) The word "question" derived from the Latin which means "to seek". ( Therefore the emphasis is ?) not on finding an answer but on seeking the answer in the question itself, not away from it. In answering these questions exploring together : the speaker may explain but we are together seeking to find out the truth in the question, not away from it. So we are sharing the (unfolding of the ?) question together and trying to find a true correct answer.

QUESTION: I am dissatisfied with everything. I have read and thought a great deal but my discontent with the whole universe is still there. What you talk about makes me more discontented, more disturbed, more troubled. I now feel frustrated, antagonistic to you. What is wrong with what you are saying? Or is something wrong with me?

K: I think the more one observes what is happening in the world: over population, pollution, corruption, violence - practically in every country in the world, one is trying to find an answer to all this. That is one part of the question. And the other is: "I am discontented, not only with what you are saying but with everything around me. And that is the common lot for most of us. Either it becomes a consuming flame, or it is dampened down by seeking some kind of satisfaction in various activities of life. So, this ( existential ?) discontent, instead of allowing it to become a consuming flame, most of us almost destroy it. But the questioner says I have not found an answer to this discontent. And many people who are thoughtful, aware of what is happening around them and in themselves, are aware that politics, science, religion has not answered any of our deep human problems. They have technologically evolved, developed and so on, but inwardly one is still (frustrated and ?) discontent. And listening to you as the speaker, I am becoming still more disturbed, more discontented and even antagonistic to what you are saying. What is wrong with you and what you are saying? Or there is something wrong with me?

First of all let us be very clear whether it is a discontent "per se" - in itself, or you are discontented with something? You understand? I may be discontented with the state of the world, with the philosophies, with the various instructions of various religions. But if that discontent is directed towards something or about something, it has a cause, and therefore it can be (satisfied or ?) ended? Or this discontent has no ( particular ?) cause? Please go with the speaker, we are sharing this question together. As we said, the moment there is a ( psychological ?) 'measurent' (a comparison ?) there must be discontent.
So we must be very clear whether this discontent has a ( personal ?) cause - and if yes, then that discontent is creating the ( image of the ?) opposite, to be contented, to be satisfied, then that discontent will find a way to gather satisfaction, and therefore ( the intelligent energy involved in ?) that discontent is withered, gone.

And perhaps that is what most of us are doing ( subliminally ?) - wanting (to find ?) some kind of certainty, some kind of assurance, some gratifying truth. And if that is so then you will find satisfaction very easily, which most of us do - in the kitchen, in some aspect of religion, or enter politics and carry on. And so you gradually, inevitably narrow down the mind. And the capacity of the brain is so immense, you have reduced it to mere satisfaction.

Now, if you are not satisfied with anything, if you are discontented with the whole universe, not (just ?) because you ( personally ?) haven't got a house, or you haven't got money. So this (metaphysical quality of ?) discontent, has no ( particular ?) cause and therefore it is a discontent in itself, not because of something? Now, such people who have this flame of discontent are rare. And perhaps such a person listens, reads, hears, and that discontent increases, it becomes all consuming. So what shall do a human being who is totally and completely dissatisfied with all the structure of ( self-centred ?) thought?

As I said, such a person is a very rare human being. Such a person one can meet because he is (inwardly) in an "immovable" (time-free ?) state - not seeking, not pursuing something or other - he is "aflame" with this thing. And the speaker is also "immovable" - what he says is "so". He says that if you comprehend your consciousness with its (self-centred ?) content, in the freeing of that consciousness from its ( time-binding ?) content there is a totally different dimension (of being ?) . The speaker says human beings with their brain and heart and mind are (grossly or subtly ?) 'material' (time bound ?) , so instead of looking (only ?) at the material world outside of you, enquire into this matter who you (think you ?) are, and you can go much further: the ending of sorrow, the ending of fear and so on.

So now there are these two entities, one completely discontented, nothing satisfies him, words, books, ideas, leaders, politics, nothing and so he is in a state of ( 'end-of-the- tether' ?) immobility. And the other (the 'speaker') is equally is immovable, he will not yield. What happens?
When (such ?) two human beings meet, one who is completely, from his depth of mind and heart, dissatisfied, and the other who from his depth of his mind and the depth of his heart says "It is so", these two (minds ?) meet. If one feels antagonistic to the other, it means he has already moved away from what is 'burning' (within himself) . But when this person meets the other without antagonism, without wanting ( expecting ?) something from the speaker, then he is "alight". (I see you don't understand this...)

(Recap:) If this ( non-personal energy of ?) discontent develops an antagonistic ( attitude ?) , it is no longer ( the time-free flame of ?) discontent. But if he is aflame with what he calls 'discontent' and the other too is a flame ('alight' in himself ?) . Then both are (at the ?) same (level of communication ?) . (Both are inwardly 'afire' ?) . It is not 'your' fire, and my 'fire', it is "fire". Only when the (inner) "fire" is dampened, then the two are different. So are you, as a human being, living in this ( pretty much ?) 'terrible' world, what is your condition of discontent? Is it merely puerile, childish, immature? Or if you are a human being totally "aflame" with (a holistic ?) discontent and let that flame be alive, then both are the same (all-one ?) .

QUESTION: One realizes deeply the importance of an awareness of one's inner and outer actions, yet one slips into inattention so easily. Must there be a Krishnamurti, or the books & videos, to keep us alert? Why this gap between understanding and immediate action?

K: Why is ( the way of ?) inattention so easy, so common? It is taking place all the time. And to be aware of what is happening inside and outside of ourselves must there be ( always be ?) somebody (or something ?) to remind you of it? That is the question.
By putting on a monks' robe you don't become a saint. Either the clothes ( and a monastic environment ?) remind you that you must be constantly aware, or can one be aware without slipping into inattention?

So let's find out what it means to be "aware". We can't know everything that is happening in the outer world - right? But we can become aware of ( the origins of ?) this "movement" inwardly. Is that ( chaotically 'organised' ?) movement which is happening outside, the pollution, the corruption, the chicanery, the deception, the hypocrisy, the violence, is that very different from ( the inward reality of ?) each one of us? Or it is a constant movement, like a tide (of our shared consciousness ?) going in and out. Can one be(come) aware of this (unitary ?) movement? Aware being knowing, recognizing, seeing, observing (non-personally) . Or in the very process of observation of this flow, of this unitary movement, (introduce our own personal) choices ?( I like this, I don't like that ) .

So can you observe this movement, which is "you and the world, and the world is you" without any (personal preferences or ?) choice? That (natural quality of pure ?) observation is an awareness which you don't (even ?) have to cultivate once you see for yourself the truth that this (consciousness ) movement 'out there' and the movement 'in here' are essentially similar. They may vary ( a lot or just ?) a little bit here and there but it is the same movement ( of our survivalistic self-interest ?) that has created the society, the army, the scientists, the politician, that same movement is ( originating in ?) you. So, one has to be extremely watchful.
And naturally that attention, awareness cannot be constant, cannot. But to be aware that it is not constant, is ( the natural way ?) to become aware of inattention. One cannot sanely say "I am going to be "alert" from the moment I wake up until the moment I go to sleep" - you can't. If you practise, practise and say, "Yes, I am going to be aware, I am going to be aware" - then it becomes (verbal ?) words and it has no ( experiential ?) meaning. But if you see that this attention, awareness cannot be maintained all the time, which is a fact, then inattention, not being attentive, has its own meaning: in attention you discover that you are not attentive.

And the questioner also asks: why is there a gap between understanding and immediate action? What do we mean by "understanding"? I listen to some (clever ?) "philosopher" - it is the function of the intellect, to discern, to evaluate, to analyse. And at that level you say, "I understand". And the questioner asks: why is there a gap between understanding of that kind and immediate action? (Simply because ?) the (understanding of the ?) "word" is not the ( direct experiencing of the ?) "thing" - right? That is the first thing one has to deeply understand, the (verbal) explanation is never the actuality - right? Now ( an insightful ?) understanding can take place only when the mind is quiet. I must 'listen' to you, not translate what you are saying (in terms of my previously known ?) , or listen partially because I am frightened of what you might say. Then the mind is 'volatile' (slipping on words ?) , whereas if I really want to listen to what you are saying, the mind must be naturally quiet. Then there is that profound perception of what has been said, as being false or true, or (optionally ?) one can also discover the truth in the false. In that state of silent observation ( the ) action (resulting from it ?) is naturally immediate, there is no gap between the two.
Look sirs, when you ( suddenly realise that you ?) are standing on ( the verge of ?) a "precipice", your intellect doesn't say "let me think about it", there is an immediate action which is a natural form of self protection. So, if your perception is complete (if it includes the 'observer' ?) - which can only take place when the mind is quietly listening, then the (inner ?) perception and action are (simultaneous ?) . It is not perception and I'll wait for action.

QUESTION: I have understood the things we have talked over during these meetings, even if only intellectually. I feel they are true in a deep sense. Now when I go back to my country shall I talk about your teachings with friends, etc? Or since I am still a fragmented human being will I not produce more confusion and mischief?

K: "I have understood the things that you have talked about" - has one understood (experientially ?) the nature of thought, how it arises, and what is its activity? If that is fully deeply comprehended then when I go back to my home shall I talk about the teachings, your work, or since I am still fragmented (inwardly) will I not create more mischief and confusion?
You know this is really a very good question. All the "religious" talk is promulgated by "fragmented" human beings - right? The moment you have said "I" have attained , you are ( consciousness-wise ?) a "fragmented" human being. The ( 'certified') priests have said it and we are spreading what they are telling us because we are 'fragmented' human beings like them, therefore we just accept another fragment.

And the questioner says: I cannot say that I have understood the "whole works", I have understood a part; I am not "interpreting" (vulgarising ?) the teachings, or the "works", I am just informing you what I have understood. What is wrong with that? But if you say, "I have grasped the whole damn thing and I am telling you" - then it becomes the authority, the interpreter, the "chairman of the committee" and such a person becomes a danger, he corrupts other people. But if I have seen something which is true, I feel in that there is a certain affection, love, compassion, I feel that very strongly. Naturally I can't help but go out, it would be silly to say I won't.
But I warn my friends, I say, "Look, be careful, don't put me on a pedestal". You haven't put me on a "pedestal". This "pedestal" (wooden platform ?) is only doesn't give the speaker authority whatsoever. But as the world is so corrupt and we also are also somewhat corrupt(ible ?) so we join the crowd.
If you see the beauty of these hills, the river, the extraordinary tranquillity of a fresh morning, the shape of the mountains, the valleys, the shadows, seeing that won't you write to your friend? You say, "Come over here, look at this". Then you are not ( prioritarily ?) concerned about yourself but about ( sharing ?) the beauty of the mountain. You understand?

QUESTION: What do you really mean when you ask us to "think together"? Do you intend that everybody who listens to you should think with you at the same time? Don't you think that this may be leading people to follow your ideas, thoughts and conclusions?

K: The question says, when the speaker asks us to think together, are you not setting up yourself as a guru? So let us examine what it means to think together, when the speaker says "think together".
He very carefully explained each time that (a) it is not accepting what the speaker is saying. It is not to accept the ideas, the conclusions which he may have. The speaker in fact has no such "conclusions". But he says "think together" in the sense of "let's both of us ( mindfully ?) observe together". That doesn't give him any authority. You can make him into an authority, which would be unfortunate, but he doesn't have any authority, and denies any kind of following, disciples. So please don't make me into a guru and I won't accept you as a disciple because the disciple ( sooner or later ?) destroys the ( freedom of the ?) guru, the guru destroys the ( freedom of the ?) pupil. Swallow that pill!
So when he says "think together", it means let's ( thoughtfully ?) share together what we are observing, 'out there' and 'in here'. That is all.

And this longing for somebody to tell us how to live (holistically ?) , how to love, how to think. That is, all our education was about how (and what ?) to think (outwardly ?) , apparently you seem to be incapable of standing alone. (Did you know that 'alone' also means 'all-one' ?) When you are really all-one, being (inwardly) free you "are"n (all-one with ?) the whole world, but (in the meanwhile ?) we are frightened to be alone. We always want to be "with somebody", either with a person or with an idea, an image. You know what it means to be 'all-one'? It is not (necessarily ?) solitude, which it has its own beauty, to walk alone in the woods, to walk alone along the river, not ( necessarily ?) "hand in hand" with somebody or other, if you are walking by yourself, you are ( enjoying the freedom of ?) watching the sky, the trees, the birds, the flowers and all the beauty of the earth, and also perhaps you are also watching yourself as you casually watch the woods and the trees and the flowers, you are also casually watching yourself as you are walking along. Not not carrying your "burdens" with you (providing ?) you have left those at your home.

So this ( outward ?) solitude (eventually ?) reveals your ( deeper sense of ?) loneliness, your depression and so on and so on. And when you have finished with ( your own ?) solitude there is the "other" (the sense of "all-oneness" ?) . But when you are being 'guided' (psychologically ?) , then you lose totally (contact with the spirit of ?) freedom from the very beginning. Freedom isn't at the end, it is ( an essential factor ?) at the very beginning (since) where there is no ( sense of inner ?) freedom there is no love and truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 May 2016 #183
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 61 posts in this forum Offline

Thanks for the last quote John....of course I was deeply interested in the words on discontentment....


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #184
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 81 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K. But when you are being 'guided' (psychologically ?) , then you lose totally (contact with the spirit of ?) freedom from the very beginning. Freedom isn't at the end, it is ( an essential factor ?) at the very beginning (since) where there is no ( sense of inner ?) freedom there is no love and truth.

Crux of the 'teaching', right there. And here:

K: You must be aware of yourself as you are, simply, constantly and directly, with all your ugliness, your cheerfulness, your brutality, joy and suffering. As you become aware you will see a miracle happening that you would never have suspected, a miracle that is truth, that transforms, that liberates.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 24 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #185
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 61 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote from K:
First of all let us be very clear whether it is a discontent "per se" - in itself, or you are discontented with something? You understand? I may be discontented with the state of the world, with the philosophies, with the various instructions of various religions. But if that discontent is directed towards something or about something, it has a cause, and therefore it can be ended? Or this discontent has no cause? Please go with the speaker, we are sharing this question together. As we said, the moment there is a measurement there must be discontent.
So we must be very clear whether this discontent has a cause - and if yes, then that discontent is creating the opposite, to be contented, to be satisfied, then that discontent will find a way to gather satisfaction, and therefore ( the intelligent energy involved in ?) that discontent is withered, gone.

Hi John, I go back to that this morning....

In short, discontentment must be for the analyser-thought to live and admit its incompetence in most fields of life...unless of course all what happens including all the horrible thing mankind does is meant to happen...whether entirely incidentally or willingly, whether it is" good luck bad luck fate" or whether there is a plan behind it with an origin whatever it is full of hate , totally demented etc etc

the latest is kind of version the insane elites are trying to sell to us....they just try to self forgive themselves of all their horrors....if it was the elites only that would be fine....but in the poorest place you find the same type of persons...and they work for the insane because they are insane too...

to be insane and harm no one is fine for me , but here we do not talk about such person...but about insane dangerous for all...murderers.

this is the outer k mentions, there is discontentment with factual causes...

Then he brings a no cause discontentment....

I remember reading somewhere from k himself, that he was permanently discontented whatever was taking place....discontentment was there all the time, this is the no cause discontentment...I would be tempted to say a no analytical cause to it...

And here what I sense is that thought itself IS discontent , so is sorrowful etc all the time. Its mechanical state is discontent, because as soon as it has done something, the machine never rest and keep going on and on and on and on....round and round in circles...

thought is not a machine like ours...there is more to it, however sophisticated our machines are they will remain machines made by flesh and blood machines, themselves made by ????...what I mean here is that it is like a photocopy, each time you make one and use that one to make another you lose something....

So flesh and bones and blood machines are discontent, I sense that this is their ( my, ours, yours etc) nature to be so...I say that if we were meant to be that only, we would not exist at all...

again the intention ( of the ground??) is at the beginning , before anything physical is) this is why I always put aside so called evolution , which for us now means coming from the worse to the very good, the ultimate ( us of course)...

there are changes yes and so what ? to reach the ultimate self destruction, got to be joking !! that the way it is, not a big deal as we have nothing to do in it...we are machines...flesh and blood machines...where is the creator ?? what is it ?

unlike our machine we suffer, we are discontent, in sorrow, in pain, with a few blue skies when I get my reward...immediately loaded with discontentment..

Has it no cause? like in can I find causes like the state of the planet , I have no food, no shelter ...

Or has it no such cause in the sense thought is discontentment in itself....

For me it is....and by analysing we tend to (quoting k:) create the opposite, to be contented, to be satisfied, then that discontent will find a way to gather satisfaction, and therefore ( the intelligent energy involved in ) that discontent is withered, gone.

What I say is that one is often mixed up for the other , the absolute discontentment which for me is the natural state of thought, is not usually perceived nor for what it is,not known for what it is , and the analyser not knowing that will always find outer reasons of being discontent, not being aware that basically its is its nature to be so.....because it must be like that as it is the only way to go beyond thought..

when I think that I am discontent with my own outer circumstances it is in fact that I am absolutely discontent by nature before all, then this unsolved inner problem invades the outer too bringing its mischievous state into everything....where it gets more complex it is that the outer has to be fixed too....but it is not the tool which created the mess which is going to do so..

If so, we are meant to be discontent and in sorrow and all other usual goodies, meant to solve it personally and go beyond..on this way we get help from ???? if ........

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #186
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: Why does sex play such an important part in each one's life in the world?

K: Why do you ask me? Why does it play such an important part in 'your' life?
You know there is a particular philosophy, especially in India, part of Tantra (Yoga), which encourages sex. They say through sex you reach Nirvana. It is encouraged. I won't go into all the horrible details of it - so that you go beyond it, and you never do. And sex used to be taboo, keep it quiet, for god's sake don't talk about it, but now... I remember hearing on the television - 'Sex at any time, at any place, but be careful what you eat'!
Why has sex become so important in our life? Probably it is the greatest pleasure a human being has. And in demanding that pleasure there are all kinds of complications and volumes have been written about the complications, the explanations and the psychological etcetera, etcetera. But they have never asked this question why human beings have made this thing so colossally important in their life. You could answer it probably as I can.
Let's go into it, shall we? I am not telling you (all ?) about it, you know better, but we are looking, observing, asking. As we said, it may be one of the greatest pleasures and ( the sense of ?) freedom in that pleasure. Our (everyday) life is a constant struggle, nothing original, nothing ( truly ?) creative . The painter, the architect, the wood carver, he may say it is creative. The woman who bakes bread in the kitchen, kneading it - they say this is creative also. And sex is also 'creative', they say. Or is "creativeness" is something totally different. That is, you are seeing the ( materialised) expression of creativeness in the painting, in a poem, in the prose, in a statue, in music, that is expressed (artistically ) according to his talent, to his capacity - it may be great capacity or a very small capacity. It may be modern Rock&Roll or Bach - sorry to compare the two! They are quite incomparable, but it doesn't matter.

So we human beings have accepted that ( outward expression ?) as creative because it brings you fame, money, position, but I am asking is that ( all there is about ?) Creativity? Can there be Creation in the most profound sense of that word, as long as there is egotism, as long as there is the demand for success and money? And the recognition of that? Then it is ( just like any other industry ?) supplying the market.
I say there is a state (of being ?) in which there is Creation, where there is no shadow of selfishness. That is real Creation, which does not need expression, it doesn't need ( self) fulfilment. The origin of the world for the Christians is God - you know, Genesis - it suddenly came into being (a seven days job ?) . The other (concept ) is evolution. And perhaps sex is felt to be creative, and also has it become important because everything around us is 'circumscribed' (standardised ?) . Everything around us, the job, the office, going there every day for fifty years, going to the church for fifty years, following some philosopher, some guru, all that has deprived us of ( all other creative ?) freedom. And we are not free from our own knowledge either - it is always with us, the past. And so sex, perhaps there is freedom there. But also there too it is ( eventually becoming ?) circumscribed.

( In a nutshell:) we are deprived of freedom outwardly and inwardly, for generations upon generations we have been told what to do. And the ( modern) reaction to that is: I'll do what I want. Which is also limited, based on your pleasure, on your desire, on your capacity and so on. So where there is no freedom both outwardly and inwardly, and specially inwardly, then we have only one source which is called sex - is that right? Why do we give it importance? Do you give equal importance, to being free from fear? No. Or givve the energy, vitality, the thought(fulness ?) to end sorrow. No. Why don't you? Why only this? Because that is the 'easiest' thing at hand. The other ( opening to Creation ?) demands ( the gathering of ?) all your energy, which can only come when you are free (of the known ?) . So naturally (billions of ?) human beings throughout the world have given this thing such tremendous importance in life. And when you give such tremendous importance to something which is ( just ) a part of life, then you are destroying ( the quality of wholeness in?) yourself. Life is a whole, and if you give importance to everything then this (obsession with sex ?) becomes (more or less) unimportant. But when you give that thing only all importance, then you are ( inwardly becoming ?) corrupt - you understand?

QUESTION: You seem to object even to our "sitting quietly" every day ( in meditation ?) to observe the movement of thought. Is this by your definition a practice, a method and therefore without value?

K: The questioner asks: what is wrong with 'sitting quietly' (in meditation ?) every morning for twenty minutes, in the afternoon another twenty minutes and perhaps another twenty minutes in the evening or longer, what is wrong with it? I do not know if you have heard of that "ridiculous" meditation practised - in the Transcendental Meditation? The word 'transcendental' is a good word but it has been ruined (abused ?) . They have learnt that by sitting quietly ( and concentrating on a 'secret' mantra ?) you can relax, you can observe your thinking, your reactions, your responses, and your reflexes and so on and so on. Now behind all this so-called ( system of) 'meditation', what is the ( subliminal ) motive? What is the (personal) motive behind the desire to sit quietly for half an hour every day and so on ? Isn't it important to find out why you want to do this? Is it because somebody has told you that if you sit quietly you will have "parapsychological" experiences, that you will have some kind of ( abiding inner ?) peace, some kind of understanding, some kind of enlightenment, some kind of power. And being rather gullible, we pay thousands of dollars to receive instructions and a ( secret ?) mantra so that we can repeat those. I know some people who have spent thousands and thousands of dollars to pay the man who will give you a ( 'magic' ?) Sanskrit word, so what is the motive behind it? If you go into it, ask yourself why you are doing this. Is it for a psychological reward? Is it that by sitting quietly you attain some kind of super consciousness? Or is it that you want that which has been promised by your ( charismatic ?) instructor?

Now here the psychological urge is to have (to get ?) something that a guru, or an instructor promises. But if you question the (spiritual integrity of the ?) person who is offering you something: is it true, who are you to tell me what to do? Then you will find that sitting quietly without understanding your (subliminally hidden ?) motives leads to all kinds of psychological troubles. And the speaker has met dozens and dozens and dozens of such people (followers ?) and they have mentally become gradually unbalanced, slightly neurotic and something psychologically goes wrong. Don't accept my word for all this. You can see it in your own faces, if you are doing it.
So if that (subliminal expectation of a reward ?) is (behind) the intention of sitting quietly, then it isn't worth it. But sitting quietly, or walking quietly by yourself or with somebody you can watch the trees, the birds and the rivers and the mountains, and the sunshine on the leaves and so on and so on, and in the very watching of all that you are also watching yourself, not striving, making tremendous efforts to achieve something. I know, those of you are committed to the other kind of meditation, find it awfully hard to throw it off because your mind is already conditioned, you have practised this thing for several years and then you are stuck. And somebody comes along and says, "What nonsense all this is" - and perhaps at a rare moment you become rational and say, "Yes, perhaps this is wrong" - then begins (a new inner ?) conflict between what you have found for yourself to be wrong and what you have been practising for the last five, ten, three years. And this struggle is called 'spiritual progress'.

So ( back to square one : ) if you have observed it (non-personally ?) the mind is always "chattering" - pursuing one thought or another, one set of sensory responses to another set of responses. So the brain is always chattering, consciously or unconsciously - right? This is so if you observe your own mind, this is what is happening. Now if you want to observe (the beauty of ?) something, a tree, a flower, the lines of the mountains, you (naturally) have to be quiet. But you see we are not ( merely) interested in (seeing the beauty of the ?) mountains, or the beauty of the hills and the valleys and the waters; we also want to 'get somewhere', to 'achieve something spiritually'.
So is it not possible to be "quiet" naturally (motive-free ?) ? To look at a person, or to listen to a song, or to listen to what somebody is saying quietly, without resistance, without saying "I must change, I must do this, I must do that", just be ( non-personally ?) quiet. And apparently that (spontaneous quietness ?) is most difficult (or... eluding us ?) . So we practise ( 'fool proof' ?) systems to be quiet. Do you see the ( time bounding) 'fallacy' of it? By practising a regular everyday routine, you think the mind will at last be ( well disciplined and ?) quiet; but it will never be (spontaneously ?) quiet, it will be mechanical, it will be setting a pattern, it will become dull, insensitive but you don't see all that (as long as ?) you want to (safely) get something.

So if you listen now quietly, not saying he is right or wrong, just listen to what is being said without resistance, (it becomes) your own discovery of what you are doing, then your mind in the very process of investigation it becomes quiet. So can we, ordinary people, with all our (ongoing) troubles and turmoils, be (inwardly ) quiet and listen to all the promptings of our own (iiner) movements? It appears to be difficult, but if really interested in something you are naturally attentive. So it is possible to sit, or stand or walk quietly without any (expectations for a psychical ?) reward, or having extraordinary extra sensory experiences (ESP ?) . Begin at the most rational level, for God's sake, then you can go very far.

QUESTION: I have a cancer and find myself in the following dilemma: should I try to let medicine save my life, even if it may mutilate me? Or should I live with this illness and pain and meet the consequences, which could be death, candidly without an operation?

K: Do you want me to decide this? This is a very serious ( personal) question. We all have illnesses, and perhaps unbearable pain. And one may have cancer, which is, I believe, very, very painful. Now first let's enquire into how to meet pain - right?
Let's make it much more simple. How do you meet a ( very disturbing ?) noise? We are thinking over together, and this train rushes by, how do you receive it? Do you resist it? Or let the sound go through you and it is gone? You follow what I am saying? Which is it that you do? I am not instructing you please. I am not your guru, I have no followers, I am not your authority - thank god! How do you meet this tremendous noise that is so disturbing? Do you let it come without any resistance and go on?
Now if you have pain, and the speaker has had his share of it, like every human being, do you allow it to ( naturally come to an ?) end? Or you want to end it (right away ?) with some ('painkilling') medicine? Say you sit in the dentist chair, and he drills. Do you identify yourself with the pain? Of course if the pain is too intense he gives you some novocaine . But if it is not too unbearable, do you observe the pain without an immediate identification with the pain? Or it is possible to "disassociate oneself" from the actual movement of pain? Find out for yourself how deeply one can not identify with "I am in great pain" - you follow?

Now if the questioner has cancer, should he take medicine or an operation, or bear with it? I know people who have cancer and they don't want to go on the table to be operated on, and they bear with that enormous pain. You understand what I am saying? If one has great, unbearable pain, the brain has its own capacity to protect itself against pain: through some (neuro) chemical reaction to protect itself against some pain. Don't accept my word for this. The speaker has found that out long ago: that the brain has the capacity to protect itself against pain, against a certain amount of grief, but beyond that the brain (faints or ?) becomes 'unconscious', it is giving up. And the questioner says: what shall I do? How can the speaker decide this? Perhaps I can hold her hand for a while, but that is not going to solve the problem. Either one has great sense of not identifying with the pain, but it is impossible when you have tremendous pain. And if one can bear without operation the extraordinary pain that one has, one must also be aware that it might injure the brain: you can bear pain up to a point, which is, the brain has the capacity to bring about some chemical responses which will safeguard it against pain. But if you have too much pain of course that is impossible. Is that question clear?

Questioner: May I ask about the cancer? Is it possible to heal it?

K: Ah, that is a different question altogether. Let's examine it. There are people who heal by putting their hands on somebody. It has been proved. Don't agree or disagree. For god's sake look!
There are people in India, and there are people in England who have this capacity, nothing ( really ?) "spiritual", that by putting their hands on somebody's head who has a great deal of pain, they seem to ( momentarily ?) cure the pain. And the speaker has done quite a lot. But please don't want (expect) to be healed by me, go to somebody else. And it is possible. But to have such healing capacity, really, deeply, there must be no shadow of selfishness. It is not healing and then give me money. There must be no quiver of selfishness, of the centre, of the "me" healing. That is a perfectly different matter.

QUESTION: What is enlightenment?

K: You see we must understand if we really go into what is enlightenment, illumination, (hearing ?) the (inner) voice of truth, we must go very carefully into the question of "time". The ( traditionally ?) enlightened people have come to it through time, gradually, life after life if you believe in reincarnation, I have come to the point when I am "enlightened" about everything - right? Which is, it is a gradual ( spiralling ?) process of experience, knowledge, a constant movement from the past to the present and the future, an (ever ascending ?) cycle . But is ( spiritual) enlightenment, the "ultimate" thing, a matter of time, gradually becoming that?
So one must understand the (material ) nature of time - the chronological time- but the psychological ( mentality ?) which has accepted time. You are following this? That is, one's ( self-centred ?) desire which is part of hope, ultimately says, "I will get there". And the so-called "enlightened" people, and they are not, because the moment they say, "I am enlightened" they are not. That is their vanity. It is like a man saying "I am really humble" - the (authentic) humility is not the opposite of vanity. When the ( self-centred mentality of ?) vanity ends the "other" is. Those people who have asserted they are "enlightened", say you must go through it step by step, practise this, do that, don't do this, become my pupil, I'll tell you what to do, I'll give you an Indian name, or a Christian new name, and so on and so on and so on. And you, a kind of irrational human being, accept this nonsense.

So ( for) that supreme enlightenment - a mind that has no conflict, no sense of striving, going, moving, achieving, one must understand this question of ( psychological ?) time: when the (sense of personal ?) becoming is rooted in the mind, that becoming conditions all your thinking, all your (psychical) activity, then it is a matter of using time (a chronological timeline ?) as a means of becoming, achieving. But is there such a thing as (psychological ?) 'becoming'? "I am violent, I will be non-violent". That is, becoming an ideal - right? I am violent and the non-violence I project the idea of not being violent, so I create duality. Violent and non-violent and so there is conflict. Then I say, "I must control myself, I must suppress, I must analyse, I must go to a psychologist, I must have a ( better ?) psychotherapist" and so on and so on.

Now, the fact is violence, not non-violence. Right? The fact. The non-violence is non-fact. If you get that once, the truth of that. That is, I am violent, the concept of non-violence brings about this conflict between the opposites. The non-fact has no value, only the fact, which is I am violent. Now to observe the whole (inner) movement of violence, anger, jealousy, hatred, competition, imitation, conformity and so on and so on, to observe it without any direction, without any motive - right? If you do that (non-personally ?) then there is the end of violence, which is an immediate perception and action.
So one can see that Illumination, ( having) this sense of Ultimate Reality and so on, is not of time. We are pointing out something (of a transcendental nature ) which is: can the mind, the brain, the whole nervous structure as well as the psychological structure; be free of this burden of a million years of time so that you see something clearly and action is invariably immediate.
So we are saying that ultimate thing, which is Truth, is not to be achieved through time. It can never be achieved (personally ?) . It "is" there, or "it is not" there

QUESTION: People talk of (ESP) experiences beyond the senses. There seems to be a fascination in such experiences but the lives of those who claim to have had them seem to be as mediocre as before. What are these experiences? Are these experiences part of enlightenment, or a step towards it? And so what is enlightenment?

K: You know life, the daily living of everyday, is a vast ( but often overlooked ?) experience - right? A tremendous experience, the joys, the pleasures, the anxieties, the burden of sorrow, the injustice around you, poverty, over population, pollution, lack of energy - energy as petrol and in ourselves. This life is such a tremendously complex experience. And we are bored with it (because ?) we cannot face it. We don't feel responsible for this and we (safely) separate ourselves from all this. But this (inner) separation is fallacious, unreal, irrational because we 'are' that, we have created that, each one of us. We are part of all that. And we don't want to face it. So being bored, or being exhausted by trivialities of life, we hope to have new (ESP) experiences. And you will because when you want something you are going to get it, whether it is rational, irrational, sane or insane, it doesn't matter.
So first we must understand the ( self-centred ?) nature of our daily living, the daily irritation, the daily angers, the daily boredom, the loneliness, the despair. Instead of facing, understanding and cleaning all that, we want a super experience beyond the senses, when we haven't understood the activity of the senses, the daily response of the senses. And there are those people who will give you experiences; it is all trickery, gadgetry.

When one has really ( experientially) understood very clearly the sensory responses, how the (memory of these ?) sensory responses dominates, how they condition the mind - right? So if (and when ?) the depths are cleared, that is, when the (right inner) foundation is laid - no conflict, you have understood desire, pleasure, fear, sorrow - and you are shrugging off your daily burden, then when you go beyond it you will find out that a mind that is asking for (ESP) experiences is still in the state of being conditioned by the senses. And there is a (time-free quality of ?) mind that has no ( need for further ?) experiences whatsoever.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #187
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 81 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
K.: So one can see that Illumination, ( having) this sense of Ultimate Reality and so on, is not of time. We are pointing out something (of a transcendental nature ) which is: can the mind, the brain, the whole nervous structure as well as the psychological structure; be free of this burden of a million years of time so that you see something clearly and action is invariably immediate.
So we are saying that ultimate thing, which is Truth, is not to be achieved through time. It can never be achieved (personally ?) . It "is" there, or "it is not" there.

It seems to be coming clear to me that for the 'self' (oneself) to be 'seen' totally, that there must be 'Love'. Also 'compassion' and 'freedom' (all these may be the same 'thing'.) Otherwise without these it will continue to be one fragment looking at another fragment etc. And none of these mentioned are 'personal' in any way. But these 'qualities' are probably the only way one can 'face oneself'. And perhaps with these qualities at the beginning, it could be truly understood what it means to 'be the world'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #188
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 61 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

And here what I sense is that thought itself IS discontent , so is sorrowful etc all the time. Its mechanical state is discontent, because as soon as it has done something, the machine never rest and keep going on and on and on and on....round and round in circles...

Hi, Dan, I would rather say that the total existential discontent is the after-taste of thought: some deeper awareness that something is really wrong with living entangled in the field of time and knowledge.

Well John, not quite in what I sense so far, I am careful to indicate "so far" on purpose. This taste is embedded in thought in what I sense, a vital need is what I sense, otherwise there will not be any beyond thought, when you see that there are none already , apart a few every 2500 years...sort of two out of 50 billion....

As far as I sense anything, this is the outcome ,again, of the program set up of thought...and its mechanical programming which needs incentives to work like desires and some other incentives to do the job properly like this sort of craving to achieve what had been decided....all those incentives create a terrible frustration when the desires goal are not reached....

all "this" does not mind about what the goals are, the process itself has become all the war and killing is no problem for many, for some....

we are now even more organic machines than we can actually believe is neither good nor bad as such, it is meant to be that way regarding this process but the experience shows that it leads to many " unforgivable, unforgettable" the absence of some other process we have and that I, like some, know the reality of for myself by experiences..of course always involuntary experiences..

the field of time and knowledge being the analytical process in my words...;-)

John Raica wrote:
So, somehow the 'genius' of these Teachings is to remove this total energy or 'flame of discontent' from its temporal context and bring it into the field of the direct inner experience- where an original intelligence is released and will soon learn to act 'insightfully'.
So, in short...where there's a (holistic) will...there's a (holistic) way

I have found that when thought is not concerned there is no "genius"...there is what there is only ....discontentment like sorrow is myself...there is again one item , not two...and yes something is then released...and this is already in some sort of goodness floating around...

can you expand on your last sentence in bold letters John, I do not understand it..thanks..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 24 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #189
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
It seems to be coming clear to me that for the 'self' (oneself) to be 'seen' totally, that there must be 'Love'.

Agreed, Dan; but the practical difficulty is that this universal quality of 'love' cannot be 'self'-generated. So, up to a point it is either there or it is not- which is putting us in a rather hopeless position. From where the necessity from our part of doing some serious inner work like de-fragmenting or de-polarising some traditionally watertight compartments ( the 'sleep consciousness ' is just one example )- and for lack of a better word, meditation seems to be the first and last accessible step we can to take

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 May 2016 #190
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
can you expand on your last sentence in bold letters John, I do not understand it..thanks..

It was a just a 'tongue in cheek', Dan- the old saying was 'where there is a will there is a way' . Now K seemed to have serious objections regarding the validity of 'will' in the context of self-knowing and he has a point here since a self centred will can be a major distorting factor: the 'ego' is already a seriously self-locked structure and its 'will' would only enforce the status quo. So I have added the (holistic) in brackets partly seriously and partly jokingly, in the sense that no matter how hopeless would seem our psychological situation at any point in time some 'action' has to be taken in order to move us from that 'deadlocked' situation ( pour s'en sortir du 'point mort'...sinon on risque d'y rester encore pour longtemps )

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 May 2016 #191
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 81 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Dan McDermott wrote:

It seems to be coming clear to me that for the 'self' (oneself) to be 'seen' totally, that there must be 'Love'

JR: Agreed, Dan; but the practical difficulty is that this universal quality of 'love' cannot be 'self'-generated. So, up to a point it is either there or it is not- which is putting us in a rather hopeless position.

Agreed that 'love' can't be "self- generated". "It is either there or it's not". But "hope' which is time-binding can't be the answer. The 'chasm' between 'me' and my separation from the 'world' is not something to be crossed by 'hope'. Perhaps it has something to do along the lines of what Bohm related: that 'insight' was a 'coming upon' a different way to view the challenge. To see it from a totally 'new' angle?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 May 2016 #192
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 61 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

can you expand on your last sentence in bold letters John, I do not understand it..thanks..

It was a just a 'tongue in cheek', Dan- the old saying was 'where there is a will there is a way' .

Hello John, "si tu veux tu peux", en Français en quelque sorte..

John Raica wrote:
Now K seemed to have serious objections regarding the validity of 'will' in the context of self-knowing and he has a point here since a self centred will can be a major distorting factor:

So have I, I see it in many many experiences now...always difficult ones , a need to solve whatever was wrong and the perfect inability of thinking,analysing to ever solve one single of those mental problems, I can know it because some problems were solved somehow but never by thinking... but by something else with apparently its own sort of autonomy..

but beyond "he has" and "I have" serious objections etc, some have etc most important is if so and so what ? because

John Raica wrote:
: the 'ego' is already a seriously self-locked structure and its 'will' would only enforce the status quo


John Raica wrote:
So I have added the (holistic) in brackets partly seriously and partly jokingly, in the sense that no matter how hopeless would seem our psychological situation at any point in time some 'action' has to be taken in order to move us from that 'deadlocked' situation ( pour s'en sortir du 'point mort'...sinon on risque d'y rester encore pour longtemps )


is it why dukkha-suffering is ( appears to be) a fact of human life, like mental problems are and solving them are the action we need within our own brain mind ?? and that this action is not in thought field of competences...

If not we suffer for no reason, no cause at all when we could have not suffer at all, just bad luck ?? better luck in next universe ?? no it does not ring at all even any logical bell here..

when caught in the blind side of life where discontentment is escaped so is increasing its pain, it may look like that....

dukkha sorrow is an easy start in fact...because you do not have to search for anything and any teacher , as it causes major problems and they must be solved by oneself exactly like no one can eat instead of me......OK many have no clue about that, apparently, yet possibly so many if not most would be keenly interested in such matter, my children are interested at home, they are not exceptional , no one is in it is a subject for all of us and does not need to built a university for it..

such proper dealing does not tolerate hidden expectations of any kind so it must include, somehow, what is not conscious for us any more, it does imply that "I" will loose, that there is no running away of any sort etc..

All things that are not compatible with thought is so obvious that dukkah suffering is the needed ingredient to go into all that...and that any blah blah even by k contains no action, because any action can only be taken by each one of us when "I" is defeated....

that is a key "I" needs to be defeated...

That is what my own experience factually shows..

why have I the impression to ramble again and again? :-))


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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 May 2016 #193
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:
dukkha sorrow is an easy start in fact

Agreed, Dan, it is a constant reminder that something is going wrong- both outwardly and inwardly. But the 'error' may be systemic: we have all inherited a 'culture' almost exclusively based on the 'known'- and which supposes that even the 'unknown' may be conquered, domesticated. So consiousness-wise it is very much like living in a 'Lascaux cave' -perhaps with improved conveniences. And we don't object to it mostly because it is our traditional 'safety choice' that makes us stay there no matter how tight and obsolete the life has become.

So in short, the 'natural' solution would be to exit ASAP this inner 'cave mentality' which is inherently bringing its own conflicts and sorrow. And the redeeming action seems to be only an experiential 'learning' or perhaps also 'unlearning'. Now in these fine Teachings K seems to give us a lot of clues about what is wrong with this living in the known- fear, anxiety, envy, ruthless competition, etc, but is becoming rather 'vague' as to the 'exit' solutions (as in...'brexit'). So in these 'reader friendly' edits I'm trying to stay focussed on giving both an equal 'talk tim'e (temps de parole)- otherwise, just constantly telling an inmate about how bad and problematic are the living conditions in his cell may have a 'double tranchant' . As some of K's open minded Buddhist scholar friends were telling him in his last year of life , there's no great value in performing the perfect surgical operation if...the pacient dies at the end of it. Some clear pointers to his holistic healing must be also given.

So, back to your 'dukkha' sorrow (the cummulative sorrow of ignorance ?) the first and last 'redeeming' action seems to reside in an 'honest learning attitude' about our inner and outer 'reality', while not neglecting the 'spirit of freedom' or an ' universal' openness of mind

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 May 2016 #194
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: I have a young child. How do I educate him so that he will live a different sort of life without being so different that society will destroy him?

K: First of all (in the few existing K schools) it is very difficult to get the 'right' kind of teachers. When they come to teach the difficulty is that they have all kinds of ( personal ?) opinions about how the teaching should be done, and so on. They ( subliminally ?) project their own desires and volitions and their own prejudices. They may be very capable of transmitting information, knowledge, but they also project their own 'personalities', their own peculiar idiosyncrasies. So it is a constant trouble to get the 'right kind of teachers' who are really interested in teaching not only the academic subjects but teaching something much more: teaching how to live a life as you go older, adolescent and so on, how to live a life which is rational, not superstitious, not confused and so on. It is very difficult.

But the ( main ?) difficulty is that (the pressure of ?) society is so strong, the temptations of the young person who wants to be with other young children who are already (psychologically ?) corrupt, who have already accepted all the nonsense of society, and it becomes extremely difficult to bring up a child who will not yield to the tremendous weight of society.
We have been through it year after year and this requires not only cooperation from the parents but also 'good' teachers who are capable of understanding not only the academic subjects but also something much more serious.

QUESTION: I think I can solve my ( own ) problems. I do not need any help. I have the energy to do it, but beyond this I come to 'receive' , or if you don't like that word, to 'share' something measureless to man, something that has great depth and beauty. Can you share that with me?

K: The questioner says: I can solve all my problems - and problems can be solved without the help of others, because the problems are created by oneself in relationship to another and these problems, however subtle, however superficial, however great, they can be solved if one applies one's mind and heart to resolve them. That is fairly clear. That is, if one has ( free inner ?) energy, not be slack, lazy. And if one really wants to solve them they can be solved. The questioner says that is "simple".
But he wants to go much further. He says: I come here to share something as he calls it 'measureless to man', something beyond all measure, something that is not given in churches, and you know, all the rest of it.

The first thing is to realize is what do we mean by "measure" - any distance can be measured, from here to there. And the 'progress'of our material evolution can be measured. One was this yesterday, through meeting the present what was yesterday is modified and the movement to the future. That can be measured. And ( the activity of ?) thought, which is a material process can also be measured. The shallowness of one's thinking, the superficiality, the deeper and the deepest. Comparison is a process of measurement. And imitation can be measured. Conformity can be measured.

So as long as there is ( a mentality based on ?) measurement the human mind can only function within ( the framework of ?) that measurement, whether it is wide or narrow. The brain has been ( traditionally ?) trained, (got) accustomed, and has fallen into a habit of "measurement" ( comparing and evaluating everything ?) . And is there something which is not measurable, and can "the mind, the brain, and the heart"- they are all one, can that whole structure be (inwardly ?) free of ( this mentality of ?) measurement? Then only you can find out.

As we said, the brain, is not "your" brain. It is the human brain which has evolved through ( a long span of ) time, millions and millions of years. And that brain is the common brain of humanity. You may not like that because we are accustomed to the idea that our brains are 'individual' (personal ?) , 'mine', not 'yours'. And that concept (of separate 'individuality' ?) has been a constant tradition through millennia. And so the brain is conditioned to that and is constantly measuring (comparing itself with others ?) - the more, the less, the better and the best . So this brain is constantly functioning in that pattern. Physically you can see the (local) priest becoming a bishop, cardinal, pope. The apprentice, then the master, the master carpenter. This is the whole ( mentality ?) 'pattern' of our ( outward?) existence, which are all measurable. And the questioner aks: is there something beyond measure, measureless to man?

Now, is there something beyond time, which is ( inwardly is generated by our?) thought: time is movement - right? And thought is (also a mental ?) movement. So ( inwardly speaking ?) time 'is' thought. Thought is born out of ( the accumulation of past ?) memories, experience, knowledge. And this process is a material process because in the very cells of the brain are (recorded ) the memories, so it is a material process, and everything that it creates is a material process. (Please follow this, not accepting or denying but observing it in oneself, and also observing externally).
So as long as thought is moving in ( the field of mental ?) measurement, there can be no other than measurement - right? Obviously. Now the question is: can all (mental activity based on ?) measure end (inwardly ?) ? Measure as comparison - comparing oneself with somebody else, the hero, the example, the 'perfect one' and so on. If you observe it for yourself, from childhood we are trained to compare (and... compete ?) - better marks in a school, the various classes, college, university, a degree, it is all measurement, which is essentially comparative - right?

So, ( for a change ?) can you "stop comparing" completely? That is, 'psychologically' can you 'end' ( 'freeze' ?) immediately all sense of comparison, if the mind wants to go much further? And imitation, conformity, comparing (oneself ) are all (part of ?) the same movement - can that movement end totally and, as we talked about it yesterday, have an "insight" into ( the inner validity of such ?) measurement.

Such "insight" is the total perception of the whole complex (mental) movement of measurement. And you can only have that "insight" ( in(ner)sight ?) when you perceive it without (relying on your ?) previous knowledge - since if you are using the knowledge then it is comparative, it is measurable. Insight is not measurable. Got it now?
Then when there is that 'measure'-less insight, (allowing ?) the unfolding of the whole movement of comparison, which is not only seen ( as is ?) but ends immediately. You don't have to accept the speaker's word for it, you can test it out.

So, (in order to discover ?) what is beyond measure (of the measuring mind ?) , there must be freedom from the conscious or unconscious fear. That is a problem which can be ( eventually ?) resolved (if we see that ?) the root of that fear is 'time' - right? I am afraid of ( what may happen ) tomorrow, or I am afraid of what has happened before (to occur again) . Or I am afraid of dying: I am (still) living but I dread what might happen - which is the measurement (based mentality of ?) of time. So the root of fear is time and thought. Right? Now to have an "insight" into ( the truth of ?) that is the ending of fear totally.

So (in a nutshell:) the ending of fear means the understanding of 'time' and the ending of sorrow. If this is cleared, if the mind, the brain is not afraid then there may be "something more". But like a good Swiss watch you want it "guaranteed", that will last at least three years. We have the same attitude that if I do this what will I get? That is ( the honest ?) commercial mentality - right? If I do this will you guarantee me that?
There is no guarantee, and that is the ( timeless ?) beauty of it. You have to do it for itself (for its own sake ?) , not 'for something'. And that is very difficult for ( modern ?) people. One 'gives up this' in order to 'reach that', Nirvana, Heaven whatever it is, which are all acts of ( a materialistic mentality based on ?) measurement.

So can the mind be (inwardly) free of all ( this mentality of ?) measurement? Or in your relationship to another, which is much more difficult (tricky ?) ? And to be free of all that is to be (inwardly) "measure"-less and then something totally different (may ?) take place. ( But bear in mind that ?) you can describe the mountain, the shape of it, the line of it, the shadows, you can paint it, make a poem of it, describe it - but all that is not "the" mountain. We (comfortably ?) sit in the valley and say, "Please tell us about the ( timeless beauty of the ?) mountain". We don't walk there. So ( making a long story short ?) there is a 'state' (an inward dimension ?) , there is something beyond all (man-made ?) measure.

QUESTION: What is our consciousness? Are there different levels of consciousness? Is there a Consciousness beyond the normal one we are aware of? And is it possible to empty the content of our ( self centred ?) consciousness?

K: What is our 'consciousness'? To be 'conscious of', to be 'aware of' what is going on, not only outside but also inside. It is the same movement.
So when we say we are conscious, we are aware - this (self-conscious ?) "consciousness" is the (by-)product of society, our education, our culture, racial inheritance and the inheritance of one's own striving, the result. And our beliefs, our dogmas, our rituals, our concepts, our jealousies, anxieties, our pleasures, our so-called love, all that is (the cultural background of ?) our consciousness. Right? You can add more to it, or expand it, but that is the ( mental infra-) structure which has evolved through millennia, after millennia. Wars, tears, anxieties, sorrow, depression, elation, all that is part of "us". So all this (man-made ?) content makes up our ( self-centred ?) consciousness - right? And there are those ( knowledgeable ?) people who say you can't change it. You can modify it, you can polish it up, but you have to accept it, make the best of it but it is there.

Now, as we said, the content makes the consciousness. Without the content, this consciousness - as we know it- doesn't exist (is 'transparent' ?) , obviously if I have no belief, no dogma, no this and no that.
So, the ( experiential ?) question is: is it possible to empty all the ( 'self-interest' based ?) 'content'? You understand? The ( personal ?) sorrow, the struggle, the terrible ( quality of our ?) relationship with each other, the quarrels, the anxiety, jealousies, the affection, the sensuality - you follow? All that is our ( self-) consciousness with its "content". Can that "content" be emptied ( 'garbaged' ?) ? And if it is emptied is there a different kind (dimension ?) of human consciousness?

And has (the human ) consciousness different levels (of maturity ?) ? In India they have divided consciousness, into 'lower' ('intermediate' ) and 'higher'. But whether that consciousness has different levels or not, it is still within ( the global field of human ?) consciousness.
Now the question is: can the "content" be emptied? Can sorrow be ended, not only your 'personal' sorrow but the sorrow accumulated through millennia of mankind? By 'personal' sorrow I mean immediate sorrow ( having an immediate cause ?) : "I have lost a son" - the tears, the despair, which is momentary. But there is this vast (residual ?) "sorrow of mankind", accumulated through five or ten thousand years of wars - tribal divisions, tribal hatreds, between those who believe and those who don't (the 'infidels' ?) .

Can all that (self-interest based content ?) be "ended" (terminated ?) ?
And must you take one by one and resolve them (in linear sequence ?) - fear, conformity, pleasure, the nature of pleasure, the whole movement of pleasure, and sorrow - will we take one by one and resolve these? That will take one's whole life time (or more ?) . Or, can one have a "total insight" into ( the common factor that generated ?) all that?
And we say it is possible to empty this content ( 'at once' and ?) completely. The essence of this content is ( the survival-based process of ?) thought, which has put together the 'me' (self-protective interface ?) , the 'me' which is ambitious, greedy, aggressive, all that. That is the "essence" of the content of consciousness. Can that "me" with all this (self-identified ?) structure, the 'selfishness', can that be totally ended? The speaker can say, "Yes, it can be ended completely" - which means no ( self-isolating ?) 'centre' from which you are acting, no 'centre' from which you are thinking. The "centre" is the essence of ( our materialistic mentality of ?) measurement, which is the "becoming". Can that ( self-interest based mentality of ?) becoming end? But... if I end this 'becoming', what is then ( left as?) 'being'?

First of all find out for oneself if this ( basic mentality of ?) 'becoming' can end. Can you 'drop off', or 'end' something that gives you some deep (psycho-somatic ?) pleasure, without saying, "I can do it if there is something at the end of it"? Can you do something immediately, end something that gives you great pleasure? You see how ( experientially ?) difficult this is? Like a man who smokes, his body has been 'poisoned' by ( psycho-somatically addicted to ?) nicotine and when he ends it the body is craving for it, and so he takes something else (nicotine patches or chewing gum ?) to satisfy the body. So ( in the 'psychological' domain ?) to end something without any ( lingering expectations of ?) reward or punishment, just to say "finished".

(However, the totally addictive mentality of ?) "selfishness" hides in many, many (profitable or respectable ?) ways: "seeking truth", "social service", "surrendering oneself" to a ( charismatic ?) person, idea, or concept. One must be(come) so astonishingly aware of all this. And that requires ( a lot of intelligent ?) energy, which is now being wasted in conflicts, in sorrow, in all the travails of life. ( Not to mention ?) the energy being wasted in so-called "meditation". And this requires enormous energy, not ( just the ?) physical energy, that is fairly easy, but the ( non-material ?) energy that has never been wasted. So, ( the psychological content of our ?) consciousness can be 'emptied', and (if and ?) when it is emptied you will find if there is something more or not, it is up to you. We like to be guaranteed 'that', but there is no such guarantee.

QUESTION: Why is it that almost all human beings apart from their talents and capacities are mediocre, including Beethoven, Mozart and Bach and all the rest of them? I know I am mediocre. I don't seem to be able to break through this mediocrity.

K: First of all "mediocre" means "neither high nor low", just hovering in between. The great painters, the great musicians, the great architects, they have got extraordinary capacities and talent but in their daily life they are ( living just ?) like you and me and like everybody else (or better ?) . Like Haydn, when he composed he put on his best clothes, and when we go to church we put on our best clothes - you understand what I am saying?
Now, if I am (becoming ) aware that I am (or the quality of my life is ?) mediocre what does that mean? I may have a great ( spiritual gift or ?) talent, as a writer, a painter, musician, (or famous ?) teacher; but that is all outward dress, outward show of inward poverty. Being poor inwardly we are always struggling to become rich, not (only ?) financially, but in knowledge, in understanding, in striving to become something 'nobler'. This sense of ( inner) insufficiency and trying to fill that insufficiency with the latest gossip of politics, with the latest rituals, the latest meditations, the latest this and that - all that is an act of ( 'psychological' ?) mediocrity. Please don't get angry with me, we are just pointing out to each other.

And this (inner) sense of (one's own inner insufficiency or) 'mediocrity' shows itself in outward (demand for social ?) 'respectability' - right? Or in the revolt against ( the 'bourgeois' ?) mediocrity, the hippies, the long haired- it is ( basically) the same movement, you understand? I can join a "community" and by joining I become important, there is an action. So when one is aware of this utter sense of insufficiency, this sense of deep frustrating loneliness, which is covered over by all kinds of activities, then what is (the root cause of this ?) insufficiency? How do you measure (evaluate ?) this insufficiency? You follow? The moment you 'measure' it (evaluate it mentally ?) you are ( still ?) insufficient. Like ( naming it as ?) 'depression' is already a measurement (a value judgement ?) . So, we are saying this 'insufficiency' comes into being ( or gets strenghtened ?) as long as there is comparison.

And this measurement is (becoming) a constant (mental) movement for a human being who is insufficient in himself.
Now can that comparative ( judgemental quality of ?) observation end? Then is there ( the same sense of ?) insufficiency? (Eg:) I compare myself with you and I realize that you are much more ( holistically ?) intelligent, alive, full of this and that, and then I say to myself 'how dull I am' in comparison. So I strive to compete with you. But if I don't compare with you who are very clever - the 'very clever' is already ( involving a process of mental evaluation and ?) comparison, am I 'dull' ? Or am I ( beginning to be ?) aware of "what is" actually taking place in me? So, when I compare (myself with the 'great man' ?) I am avoiding the fact of (facing my own inner ?) 'what is'.
So ( in a nutshell:) this 'mediocrity' that all of us seem to have, can be "broken through" when there is no sense of ( 'personal' ?) comparison, measurement. It gives you an immense freedom (or just a "jump-start" in that direction ?) . And where there is freedom (from self-measurement ?), a 'complete' psychological freedom there is no (inner ?) sense of mediocrity. You are out of that ( pretty boring ?) "class" altogether - a totally different state of mind exists.

QUESTION: Attachment brings about a kind of emotional exchange, a human warmth, this seems a fundamental (human ?) need. Detachment produces coldness, lack of affection, a break in relationship, it can also deeply hurt others. Something seems to be wrong with this approach. What do you say?

K: ( Suppose that ?) I am ( getting ?) attached to you. The word 'attach' means to cling, to hold, the feeling that 'you belong to somebody' and that 'somebody belongs to you'. All that is implied in that word. And the questioner says that 'cultivating detachment' breeds a coldness, a break in relationship. The cultivation of the opposite, naturally it will. If I am attached to you, to this audience, and I feel this attachment is 'dangerous' (or illusory ?) because I will be unhappy if I don't meet all of you ( next year ?) and talk to all of you, which is my ( personal) fulfilment, then seeing the ( potential ?) danger of that (such as falling into a deep ?) depression when only two people are coming - I say I must cultivate 'detachment' ( get detached ASAP ?) . So I must 'break free' from you and I gradually withdraw. And in this process of isolation I 'hurt' (the expectations of ?) lots of people (as in: where would they go next year ?) .

Now, if (my personal) 'detachment' is the opposite of attachment, that detachment is a concept, is a ( mental) conclusion that ( my own self-centred ?) thought has brought about realizing that attachment produces a lot of trouble, (iner) conflict, jealousy, anxiety and so on and so on. So thought says, "By Jove, it's much better to be detached !". This 'detachment' is a non-fact - right? Whereas my attachment is (already) a fact. I don't know if you are following all this.
Look: the speaker has done this (naturally) - not (being ?) attached to a thing: the house, the audience, the books, the speaking, people - he has been like that from childhood. So he is a biological (a 'psychological' ?) freak', so leave him alone. But you can see clearly that when attachment is there, trying to cultivate detachment is a "movement towards illusion". And ( living ?) in that illusion you become hard, bitter, isolated, without any sense of affection. That is what we are all doing. We are all living ( inwardly ?) in "non-facts".

So ( back again to square one:) can you face the 'fact' that you are attached? It is not only to a person, to an ideal or belief, but to ( the memory of ?) your own experiences, which is much more dangerous, since (the personal ?) experience gives you such a sense of 'being alive'. So are we aware that we are attached to something or other? And if you got attached to a piece of furniture, you 'are' that furniture. Yes sirs. So if one is (becoming) aware that one is attached and see all the ( colateral ?) consequences of that attachment - anxiety, lack of freedom, jealousy, anger, hatred , (while ?) in that attachment to something there is safety, there is a sense of stability, a sense of being guarded, protected. And where there is the ( mentality of the ?) 'possessor' and the (object ?) 'possessed' there must be jealousy, anxiety, fear and all the rest. Do you see the consequences of all that? If I am attached to you and that attachment takes place out of ( a necessity to decorate ?) my (own) loneliness, (it is ?) that attachment who says, "I love you" - you understand? - two people "clinging to each other" out of their loneliness, out of their depression, out of their unhappiness, you know all the rest of it.

So what happens (inwardly ?) ? I am clinging not to you, but to the idea (to the image of ?) 'you' ; I am clinging to something which ( hopefully ?) will help me to escape from myself. Right sirs? Don't ( politely ?) 'agree' with me, just observe it.
( Suppose again that ?) you are (getting ?) attached to an experience which has given you great excitement, a great sense of elation, a sense of power, a sense of safety, you cling to that. That "experience" which you have had, what is it? Either you have projected it because you wanted some kind of experience and you will get it because that is what you want. And then that experience is ( being subliminally ?) registered in the mind and you hold it. That is, you are holding on to something that is "dead" - right? So ( if) that which you are holding is 'dead', you also are becoming ( inwardly ?) 'dead'. I wonder if you see all this? So if you see all this without any (personal ?) motive, observe it, then you will see, if you observe, that "insight" shows the whole thing as a map. When once there is this ( inner flash of ?) insight the thing disappears completely, you are not attached ( the pychological attachment is deleted ?) . ( Not that) you have been attached to this and let go and you are getting attached to something else. ( An insight into the truth of?) attachment is the ending of attachment.

QUESTION: As you pointed out yesterday, being ( inwardly ?) uncertain we seek certainty through different channels, trusting them, then distrusting them, is there an absolute, irrevocable "certainty"?

K: We (usually ?) move from certainty to uncertainty, then from that uncertainty to another certainty: we trust this person and then later on discover that he is not worthy of our trust and move to another and again put your trust in him then discover he is untrusting, that's our life, right?
Please be very clear that you're not putting your "trust" in me - I won't have it! To me that is the beginning of ( psychological ?) corruption, ( I have) avoided it all one's life, this life, not to be corrupted. I won't be corrupted!
So, as I pointed out yesterday, various types of (psychological ?) experiments have been made on pigeons, monkeys, rats, where by pressing a button they get their food. But if you keep changing the buttons all the time the bird, the monkey, the rat gives up, (an eventually ?) they die. Do you understand this constant movement from 'certainty' to 'uncertainty', from trust to (mis) trust? This is what has happened ( culturally ?) to all of us, to human beings: you trusted the (local) priest, the whole hierarchical structure of organized religion, then you discard it then go to another, it is the same thing in a different garb. Then discover later "Good Lord what have I done ?", always seeking outside, somebody who will give you hope, trust, certainty either in books, in philosophers, in priests, or in scientists or in politicians, right? And none of them have (delivered ?) ... extreme left, right or centre.

So, if you are asking for "certainty", where do you find it? In somebody else? In an ideal? In having plenty of money and feeling completely safe? There is no such person anymore ( they pretend ?) .
( Story time:) I used to know a man who one day while walking, he was walking one day along the beach and he found a piece of wood washed by the sea for many many years, a piece of wood which looked like a human head with a face and eyes it was the most beautiful thing, polished wood, and he took it home and put it on the mantelpiece and said what a beautiful thing that is, I'm glad I found it. As he looked at it, week after week one day he put a flower, and then a few days later, incense and began to worship it. By some misfortune, by the maid or somebody pushed it into the fire and burnt it. He came to me and explained to me the whole thing and was literally a grown up man in tears, you understand what I am saying, there was (placed ?) his "certainty", in a piece of wood...
So where do you seek it? If you don't seek it anywhere outside you, or if you don't "seek certainty" in anything that thought has created? In "God", in "illumination", you know, in the whole thing ? The same phenomenon which is out there is happening inside.
So the moment you don't "seek certainty", ( a different quality of ?) certainty "is" (happening ?) - something far greater than ( any material ?) certainty.

QUESTION: Are there different paths to Truth?

K: The speaker has said sixty years ago, "truth is a pathless land". The ancient Hindus have laid down ( personalised ?) "paths" according to the tendency of ( various of ?) human beings. They said that truth can be obtained through ( the path of acquiring the right ?) ?) knowledge, that truth can be obtained through ( service ?) work or through devotion, romance, imagination. You see? Gratifying (and motivating ?) each human being according to his state, according to his idiosyncracies, and that is well established. There have been volumes written on each "path". Which is, the clever birds at that time laid down these paths for the (spiritual ?) comfort of human beings.
So ( to the 'speaker' ?) this idea that "there are different paths to Truth" is utter nonsense. Follow the idea: Truth is (assumed to be something ?) fixed and this (or that) "path" will ( hopefully ?) lead you there: the path of Devotion, of Action, of Knowledge - I think there are four (only in the context of Yoga ?) , (not to mention) the Christian path, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Tibetan, etc you follow? Then you are safe. You don't have to give up your path. It is a (mind ?) game they play.

Now, (if ?) Truth is not something that is "fixed" (not located in a specific place ?) , therefore there is no "path" to it, which means the mind must be free from all movement - you understand? ( Following any ?) path means gradual arrival. And you can take your time. If you can't do it this life, or perhaps ( better luck ?) next life. ( Even) if you want to (cut corners and ?) do it quicker, ( or) go to somebody who will help you, it is still the movement of walking, striving, moving towards an ideal. But when you see the falseness of it all , it is really utterly false, that there is "your way" and "my way"- because your mind is the "mind of humanity". It is not "your" mind, therefore it is not "your" path. It is the human path, human life, the way we live, the way we meet life, not according to your temperament or my temperament, or my idiosyncrasy or your idiosyncrasy, which is what we are doing now. This is the human mind, common to all of us. And when one realizes that, not verbally, but actually, inwardly, the feel of it, the beauty of it, the depth of it, the extraordinary width of such a thing, then one realizes there is no "path", there is no striving for that, there is only this: the ( qualitative ?) transformation of 'what is'. The ( qualitative) transformation of (the 'mind energy' now entangled in ?) hate, jealousy, fear, sorrow, and in all the travail of our daily human existence.

And (the bottom line is: ) if there is no ( an inward opening to ?) love and compassion, nothing exists. You understand? The love that we have is not "love", it is ( an emotional response ?) based on pleasure, maternal instinct - which you have derived from the animals. The love of one's wife or one's husband or one's children is still (in terms of ) "me" (and 'mine' ?) and "you". And with that ( universal quality of ?) Love and Compassion goes Intelligence, without this, do what you will, you will never have that thing.
Goodbye sirs, (have ?) a pleasant journey.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 27 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 May 2016 #195
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


QUESTION: You have spoken so much against organizations, so why do you have schools and Foundations? And why do you speak?

K: I think a group of us saw the necessity of having a school. The meaning of that word 'school' means leisure, leisure in which to learn; and a place where students and the teachers can flower, and a place where a future generation can be prepared, because schools are meant for that, not just merely to turn out human beings as mechanical, technological instruments, merely jobs and careers and so on - which is necessary - but also to "flower" as human beings, without fear, without confusion, with great integrity. And to bring about such a "good" (integrated ?) human being - in the sense of a whole human being, not fragmented, not broken up, not confused. They may not always succeed but perhaps one or two, (people ?) after ten years, might come out of it as total human beings.
And the Foundations exist not as centres of enlightenment and all that business, but merely to publish books, to organize these Gatherings, to help the schools and so on. And nobody is making a ( real ?) profit out of it - right?

And why do I speak? This has been often asked. "Why do you waste your energy after sixty years and nobody seems to change. Is it a form of self-fulfilment, whether you get energy talking about things, so you depend on the audience?"
First of all I don't depend (inwardly ? ) on you as a group who come to listen to the speaker. I have been silent (during the WW 2 ?) so you can rest assured the speaker is not exploiting you, he is not attached to a particular group or is it necessary for him to have a Gathering. But then why do you speak, what is your motive? There is no ( personal ?) motive. When one sees something beautiful and true, one wants to tell people about it, out of affection, out of compassion, out of love. And those who are interested perhaps can gather together. And also can you ask the flower why it grows? Why it has perfume? And it is for the same reason the speaker talks.

QUESTION: Is it always wrong or misguided to work with an enlightened man and be a sannyasi?

K: It is a very old tradition in India where the ( wandering ?) monks who take this vow, they really renounce the world outwardly. They only stay one night in each place, they beg, they are celibate, they have nothing except they have one or two clothes - you understand? The 'modern' sannyasi puts on a yellow robe or pink robe and beads and they think they are sannyasis. They are not. It is misguided, and not ethical to call them 'sannyasis'.
"Is it always wrong and misguided to work with an enlightened man?" How do you know he is enlightened? By his looks? Because people call him enlightened? Or he himself claims that he is enlightened? If he calls himself enlightened then you may be assured that he is not enlightened! There are a great many gurus who are playing this game, giving themselves titles, a new lot of mischief. And before you find out who is enlightened why don't you find out ( for yourself ?) what is "enlightenment"? Or is "enlightenment" something that cannot possibly be talked about?
So to ( find and ?) work with an "enlightened" human being is totally unimportant. What is important is to work upon oneself, not with somebody - because truth is something that has no (trodden ?) path - it is not something fixed and you can go towards it by a system, by a meditation, by a method and so on. A ( spiritually ?) "living" thing has no path to it, and if one is seriously inclined to find out what is Truth one has to lay the foundation first, to have a great sensitivity, to be without fear completely, to have great integrity and to be free from all "psychological" knowledge, and therefore the ending of suffering. From that arises love and compassion. If that is not there as the well laid deep foundation, one is merely caught in illusions - illusions that man has fabricated, thought has invented, visions that are the projection of one's own conditioning. So all that has to be put aside to find That (inner Reality ?) which is beyond time.

Question: You say that my mind is as everyone else. Why does this make me responsible for the whole world?

K: The speaker said that wherever you go throughout the world, human beings suffer, they are in conflict, they are (inwardly living ?) in anxiety, uncertainty. Both psychologically and physically there is very little security. There is fear, there is loneliness, despair, depression. This is the common lot of all human beings whether they live in China, or Japan, India or here, in America or Russia, everybody goes through this.

And as a human being (psychologically speaking ?) you "are"(sharing the consciousness of ?) the whole world . (Inwardly ?) you are not separate from the (consciousness of the ?) man who is suffering, anxious, lonely in India, or in America. So "You 'are' the world, and the world 'is' you" (there's a 2-way interaction between the 'personal' and the 'collective' consciousness ?) . This is an (inner ?) fact which very few people ( care to ?) realize, it is a fact as (when) you have a headache. And ( if or ?) when one realizes that profoundly, then the question arises: what is my responsibility? When you realize that (consciousness-wise ?) you are not an (isolated ?) 'individual' (which is a great shock for most people) , then what is your responsibility for the whole ( consciousness of ?) of mankind ? How do you meet this challenge? If you meet it from your old (personal ?) conditioning, your response will naturally be totally inadequate - right? It will be fragmentary, it will be rather shoddy. So one has to find out what is our response to this great challenge? Does your mind meet it greatly, or with your petty concern about yourself?
So the ( actual sense of one's ?) responsibility depends upon how you respond to this challenge inwardly? Is it just a flutter, a romantic appeal? Or something so profound that will transform your whole way of looking at life? Then you are no longer (self-identified as a ?) British, American, French - you follow? Will you give up all that (inner pseudo-identity ?) ? Or merely play with the idea that it is a marvellous concept?
So ( bottom lie:) the responsibility to this challenge depends on you, whether your mind is capable of meeting this enormous human wholeness, this human current.

QUESTION: When I listen to you there is an "urgency to change". When I return home it fades. What am I to do?

K: Is the urgency to change influenced by the speaker and therefore while you are here you are "driven into a corner", and when you leave naturally you are no longer in the corner. That means you are being influenced, driven, persuaded, and when all that is gone you are back where you were before .
Now, what is one to do? Please let's think it out, the right answer to this. What is one to do? I come to this Gathering from a distant place. I have read not only what the speaker has said and written, but I have read a great deal about the Christian concepts, the Buddhist investigation, the Hindu mythology, I have also done different forms of meditation, the TM, the Tibetan, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Zen. And I am dissatisfied with all those. And I come here and I listen. And am I prepared to listen "completely"? I cannot listen completely if I bring all my ( previous) knowledge here, if I am attached to one particular concept and I want to add what has been said here to that also - right? If I am serious I must come with an (anchor ?) free mind, with a mind that says Let's find out for God's sake (what this is all about ?) . Not just to add what you are saying to what I already know.

So what is one's attitude about all this? The speaker has been saying constantly: freedom ( to search ?) is absolutely necessary. Without ( a spirit of ?) inward freedom, which can only come about when one understands one's ( cultural ?) conditioning and... can one be free of that? One fact (to consider ?) is that ( inwardly ?) you are not an ( integrated ?) 'individual'. The very word 'in-dividual' means "undivided", and we are not.... So will you move away from that ( egocentric ?) conditioning? Me first everybody else second!
Now, what is difficult in all this is that we ( subliminally ?) cling to something ( we knew before ?) so deeply that we are unwilling to let go. Perhaps one has studied a particular (philosophy or ?) psychology and finds out that "By Jove, there is a great deal in it" and sticks to it. And then comes here and listens and adds what he has heard to that. Then he becomes a "mélange", a mixture of everything - right? So our minds become very ( self-conflicted and/or ?) confused. And for the time being when you are in this tent that confusion is somewhat 'pushed away' and when you leave it is back there again.
So can one be aware of this ( ongoing inner ?) confusion, not only while you are here but when you are at home, which is much more important than being clear here. But when you go back home to face ( the sadness of ?) all that business, going to the office every day for the rest of your life - you understand what it all means?
We all have this capacity to think clearly, objectively (in the outer world) , but to become aware of the limitation of thinking is the beginning of ( 'holistic' ?) intelligence. So, if we could observe our own confusion, our own individual narrow way of looking at life, at home, not here, to be (responsibly ?) aware of all that, and to see how ( our self-centred ?) thought is perpetually creating problems. Thought creates the ( 'personal' ?) image and that image divides. To see the 'psychological' dangers is intelligence. But apparently we don't see ( the danger of ?) those ('image' ?) things. That means that somebody (else ?) has to guide you all the time, (in order ?) to make one aware of oneself. And I am afraid nobody is going to do that, even the most enlightened human being.

So ( in a nutshell:) if one has the vitality (both the) physical vitality and the psychological energy which is now being ( subliminally ?) dissipated in conflicts, in worrying, this endless (mental) chattering not only with others but with oneself. All that dissipates energy, the 'psychological' energy. And that ( intelligent ?) energy (once gathered together and integrated ?) is needed to observe. To observe ourselves in the ( 2-way ?) mirror of relationship, and to discover the ( pet ?) illusions, the "images", then out of that freedom comes ( a holistic ?) intelligence which will show the (right ?) way of our life.

QUESTION: Is suffering necessary to make us face the necessity to change?

K: This is one of our ( spiritual ?) traditions that says you must suffer in order to be (become ?) "good". In the Christian world, and in the Hindu world they say you must go through suffering, which is not only physical suffering but also psychologically. That is, you must strive, you must make an effort, you must sacrifice, you must give up, you must abandon, you must suppress, you know. That is our (spiritual ?) tradition, both in the East and in the West. And suffering, being common to all mankind, one says you must go through that particular "door". Someone comes along, like the speaker, and says, suffering must "end", not go through (the labyrinths of ?) it, it must "end". You understand what I am saying? Suffering is not necessary. It is the most destructive element in life. Like pleasure suffering is made "personal", secretive, mine, not yours. There is not only global suffering, mankind has been through enormous sorrows, wars, starvations, violence, has faced suffering in different forms and so he accepts it as inevitable and uses that as a means to become noble, or change himself.
We are saying on the contrary, you may reject it, question it, doubt it, but let's find out. Can sorrow end? Sorrow being our grief, so many ways we suffer, an insult, a look, a gesture, a wound that we have received from childhood, a wound that is very deep of which we may be conscious, or unconscious, the suffering of another, the loss of another. And if you examine it closely, taking (just this) one fact, which is, that we are wounded from childhood, by the parents, by the teachers, by other boys, girls, it is happening all the time. And this wound is deep, covered up, and ( instinctively ?) one builds a "wall" round oneself ( in order ?) not to be hurt (again) , and so that very (self enclosure behind this mental ?) wall creates fear. And one asks: can this (psychological memory of the ?) hurt, can it be wiped away completely so that it leaves no scar? I am ( pretty ?) sure you have been hurt, all of you, in some way or another. It is there. And we carry it throughout our life. The consequences of that are that we become more and more isolated, more and more ( suspicious and ?) apprehensive. We don't want to be hurt anymore so we build a wall round ourselves and gradually withdraw. Isolation takes place. So one asks: is it possible not to be hurt in the future, or today, but also to wipe out the hurt that one has had from childhood ? Is it possible to wipe away the ( emotionally charged memory of that ?) wound, the hurt that one carries about all the time?

If one is serious one should discover for oneself (a) the cause of the hurt and (b) what or who is hurt . Which means: is it possible not to register the (incoming) insult, the flattery, the look of annoyance, anger, the impatience? Not to register any of that (personally ?) . Shall we go into it deeply?
The brain is the instrument of registration - like a computer it registers. It registers because in that registration it finds ( a sense of ?) security, safety, it is a ( natural ?) form of protecting itself - right? So when one is called an idiot, or some other (more polite ?) insult takes place, the immediate reaction ( of one's brain ?) is to register it ( both emotionally and ?) verbally, the word has its significance, wanting to hurt and it is registered. Like flattery is also ( subliminally ?) registered. Now can the ( 'personal' component of this ?) registering process come to an end? Bearing in mind that the mind, the brain must register (a lot of stuff anyway ?) , otherwise you wouldn't know where your house is, you wouldn't be able to drive your car, or use any language. But not to register any ( personal) 'psychological' reactions.

Then one will ( reasonably ?) ask: how will I prevent the ( subliminal ?) registration of an insult, or a flattery? Flattery is more pleasant and therefore I like to register, but the insult or the hurt I want to get rid of. But both factors, insult, flattery, are registered. Now is it possible not to register psychologically?
'What' (or 'who' ?) is it that gets hurt? You say, "I am hurt", what is that entity that gets hurt? Is it an actuality, something concrete, something tactile, or is it something ( like a virtual reality ?) that you have created for yourself about yourself? Most of us have have ( built ?) a ( +/- favorable ?) image about themselves . That image has been ( spontaneously ?) created from childhood - you be(come something) better, you must be good (at something ?) - you follow? This image is gradually being built, through education, through relationships and so on and so on. That ( self-protective ?) image is ( surreptitiously becoming ?) "me". Now, that (mental ?) image which is (getting identified as ?) 'me' gets hurt. So as long as I have ( identified myself with such ?) an 'image' it is going to be "trodden on" by everybody, not only by the top intellectuals but by anybody. So is it possible to prevent the ( subliminal ?) formation of ( such ?) "images"? The "image-making" machinery. What is this ( mental ?) machinery that makes the ( self-protecting ?) images about 'my' country, about the politicians, about God - you follow? - the whole fabrication of images. Who makes them and why are they made? We can see very easily "why" they are made - for ( reasons of social) security, of self protection, because if in a Communist world, if I am not a ( practising ?) Communist, terrible things might happen. So (in inwardly) identifying myself with a (highly recommended social ?) image gives me a great security. That is the cause, that is the reason, why all of us, in some form or another, have (self-protective 'personal' ?) images. And what is the ( thinking ?) machinery who creates this image? What is the process of it?

Will this (mental) 'machinery' come to an end when there is complete attention? Or, the machinery is (automatically) set going when there is no attention? When there is complete attention when you call me an "idiot" (or a loony ?) - this 'verbal stone' has an impact and the response is "You are also"! Now can I (quietly ) receive the (psycho-) insult that you want me to feel by using that word, can I be attentive of all that instantly? You are using that word to hurt me. And to be completely attentive at that moment. In that ( quality of non-personal ?) "attention" there is no ( need for any personal ?) recording. I wonder if you see it. Whereas if I am inattentive, not paying attention, then registration takes place.
( For homework:) You can experiment with this, ( or still better ?) 'do it now' for God's sake. So that not only the (subliminal memory of your ?) past hurts, but also your ( present quality of ?) mind then is so sensitive, vulnerable, it is so moving, living, acting, it has no static moment (stand-by intervals ?) where you can hurt.

QUESTION: My ( actual) problem is I have a "ten foot (high) wall around me". It is no use trying to overcome it, so I ignore it. It is still there. What do I do?

K: Is it ( meditatively ?) possible to be vulnerable, to be so sensitive, to be alive in fact that you need never build a wall? ( Not if) you treat yourself as a ( private ) property and so build a wall round yourselves. Why do we build a wall and then try to tear it down, and not being able to break it down we try to avoid it, or we hide behind it. This is a "problem" to the questioner, something that he has not been able to resolve - right? You have been to a psychiatrist, or you have analysed yourself and the problem still remains, ( because ?) the cause remains. And you have examined the effects, analysed the effects - right? And the peculiarity of any (psychological ) cause is the cause ( mutates and ) becomes the effect - and the effect becomes the (new) cause.
Let's take a silly example. of ( psychological) problem: does God exist? And if God exists how can he create this monstrous world? So it becomes more and more and more of a ( conundrum ?) problem. First of all I assume that God has created this world, and then I get ( too personally ?) involved in it. You follow how we create a "problem": create something illusory first, like non-violence is illusory. The fact is violence; and then my problem arises: how am I to be non-violent? You follow? Whereas I ( would acknowledge that ?) am violent, I can deal with that, not with ( implementing my ideal of ?) non-violence. You follow what I am trying to say? We make "problems" out of everything. But the question which is much more important than the resolution of the problem is not to have ( personal) problems at all so that your mind is free from this everlasting struggle to resolve something or other. So, what is the ( causational ?) core of all our deep, inward psychological problems - what is the root of it? Come on sirs. Is there a root that can be pulled out, or ( allowed to unfold and ) wither away so that the mind has no problems whatsoever?

Is ( a psychological ) problem something to be solved in the present, or in the future - right? An (existential ?) problem only as long as we are thinking in terms of ''time'', not only chronological time but inward psychological time. So, as long as I have not understood the nature of this 'psychological' time I must have problems. (Eg:) I want to be successful in the worldly sense, and also I want to be spiritually successful - now wanting to be successful is a movement ( projected in ?) in time - and that ( inner time-dependency ?) creates the problem. That is, "wanting to be something" is ( projecting its own endeavour in ?) time, so that "wanting to be" is ( the very cause of ?) the problem. So what is the root of this that creates problems, problems, problems. Not only ( my thinking in terms of ?) time, but the centre which is always moving within its own (tether's ?) radius - as long as I am ( 360 °) concerned about myself? As long as "I" am wanting to be good, wanting to be this, wanting to be that and so and so on, I must create (both personal and collective ?) problems.

Which means "can I live without a single (self-centering ?) image about myself?" You understand? As long as I have a (personal) image (as one who ?) is successful, and achieve enlightenment, or that I must have a "quiet mind", I must know what meditation is , to live so freely and so on. You follow? As long as there is ( the self-identification to ?) a centre there must be problems. Now ( the creation of ?) that (psychological) 'centre' is the essence of inattention (and/or ignorance ?) . Are you getting it? When there is ( a free state of ) attention there is no centre. When you listen to what is being said and are "attending"( not trying to personally understand what he says ?) , just "attending", in that attention there is no "you". The moment there is no ( inward free) attention the 'you' ( self-centering ?) creeps up. And that centre creates the problems. Got it? This is very, very serious if you ( meditatively ?) go into it: to have a mind that has no problems, and therefore no ( need for psychic) experiences. The moment you have an experience and you hold on to it, then it becomes memory and you want more of it. So a mind that has no problem has no ( self-centred ?) "experience". Oh, you don't see the beauty of it.

QUESTION: I derive (inner) strength from concentrating on a symbol. I belong to a group that encourages this. Is this an illusion?

K: May I respectfully point out: don't 'belong' to anything - right? But we cannot stand alone, we want support, we want the strength of others, we want to be identified with a ( winning ?) group, with an "organization". The ( K) Foundation is not ( supposed to be ?) such an organization, it merely exists to publish books and so on. But the idea of belonging to something gives one strength - right? I am an "Englishman" - there is a flare up - or a "Frenchman".

(Story time:) Once I was talking in India and I said, "I am not a Hindu", and a man came up to me afterwards and said, "You mean you are not a Hindu? You must feel terribly lonely" (Laughter).

Now the questioner says that he derives strength from concentrating on a symbol. We have all had symbols. The Christian world is filled with symbols - right? The whole Christian world of religious movement is symbols; symbols, images, concepts, beliefs, ideals, dogmas, rituals - the same in India and so on. Now when one belongs to a large group which adores the same "symbol" (such as $$$ ?) , you derive enormous strength out of it, it keeps you excited, it creates a feeling that at last you are understanding something (the spiritual value ?) beyond the symbol and so on.
So, first we invent the symbol - the image in the church or in the temple, and in worshipping that which we have created out of our thought, we derive ( inner ?) strength (to stand the daily existence ?) . The "actual" may never exist, but the symbol satisfies (our desire for safe continuity ?) and the symbol gives us vitality, energy, by looking, thinking, observing, being with it. Surely that which has been created 'psychologically' by ( our self-centred ?) thought, must be illusion - no? You ( may like to ?) create me into your guru. I refuse to be a guru, because I see how the followers destroy (corrupt ?) the guru and the guru destroys (corrupts ?) the followers. To me the whole thing is an abomination - I am sorry to use strong language. But you create an ( marketable ?) image about the speaker, and the whole "business" begins.

So first, if I may point out, ( our self-interest based ?) thought is the "mischief maker" in this. All the things in the churches or in the temples have been invented by us out of our fear, out of our anxiety, uncertainty of the future - you follow - all that. We have created a symbol and we are caught in that. So first to realize that thought will always create the things which give it satisfaction, psychologically. Pleasure - you follow? - gives it comfort, therefore the reassuring image is a great comfort. It may be a total illusion - and it is - but it gives me comfort therefore I will never ( have to ?) look beyond the illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 May 2016 #196
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING BROCKWOOD PARK 1980 (reader-friendly condensed )

QUESTION: What is the relationship between thought and consciousness? Why do we seem unable to go beyond thought?

K: Do we want to be serious about all this? All right, let's be serious.
First of all what is thought? And what is consciousness? Are the two different movements? So first of all we have to consider together: (a) what is "thought", what is this whole ( habit of ?) thinking upon which all our conduct, our activities, political, religious, economic, social and all other factors of life, are based on thought. ( Experientially- wise our self-centred ?) thought is part of ( the physical process of ?) emotions, sentiments (feelings ?) reactions, the recognition of those reactions and so on. And (b) what is "consciousness"? To be aware of someting , to be able to recognize, to understand, to have a whole field in which the mind is operating. And what is the relationship between the two?
So psychologically, physically, almost in every direction, ( the process of ?) thought is operating (in order to get some control on what is going on ?) . And our relationship with each other is based on thought, the thought which has created the image about you and the other, and the other about you. Now this (self-centred process of ?) thought is surely based on ( our previous) experience, knowledge (stored in ?) memory. And the ( verbalised) reaction of that ( constantly updated ?) memory is thinking. So it is a material process which is always limited because ( both our personal and collective ?) knowledge is always limited. There is no complete knowledge about anything except (after ?) the 'ending' of knowledge, that is quite a different matter. So where there is the operation of knowledge and the movement of memory, ( the resulting response of ?) thought is limited, finite.

And what part does thought play in consciousness? I hope we are together in this, thinking together. What is our 'consciousness'? ( The mental display of ?) all the knowledge which we have accumulated, all the experiences, not only personal but collective, memories, genetic responses, the accumulated experience of generations after generations, all the travail, the trouble, the anxiety, the fears, the pleasures, the dogmas, the beliefs, the attachments, the pain of sorrow and all that. I think there is no question about that, no one would doubt that or argue about it. You can add or take away from it but it is still the movement of thought ( displayed as self-?) consciousness. One can say that there is a "supra ( an Universal ?) consciousness" but ( the verbal statement ?) would still be part of thought. This consciousness is in a constant movement, breaking ( splitting ?) itself up into the 'you' and the 'me' - my nationality my religious beliefs, my dogmas, my rituals, my wounds, my beliefs, my ideals, my constant struggle to become something, all that is not only the consciousness of a particular person but it is the consciousness of mankind, because a human being, wherever he lives, goes (inwardly speaking ?) through sorrow, depression, great uncertainty, insecurity and so clinging to some image, belief, all that is part of our being, our ( self-) consciousness.

So our consciousness is ( the holographic display of ?) its content. Without the ( personalised memory ?) content what is ( left of ?) our (self-)consciousness? You understand my question? Is there a Consciousness totally different from that which is made up of the various activities of thought which we call (our self-) consciousness?
To come to that point one has to find out if ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought can end, not temporarily, not ( as a transition ?) between two thoughts, where there is a gap and a period of silence or unconscious movement. Can ( the mental activity of ?) "thought" ever end? This has been the problem of most serious people who have gone into this very deeply through meditation, to end thought.

Can ( the process of self-centred collective and personal ?) "thought", which is so enormously powerful, which has got such a volume of energy behind it, that energy created through millenia, both in the scientific field, economic, religious, social, personal, all that ( subliminal inner ?) activity can that come to an end? Which means can those "things" that thought has built into our consciousness, which we are (identified with ?) , can that consciousness with its content end?
And when one asks that question: can it come to an end? - are we seeking for a method which you practise day after day so as to (eventually ?) end thought? If you practise ( choiceless awareness and/or attention ?) day after day ( in order) to end thought, that very practice intensifies ( the controlling component of ?) thought, naturally. So what is one to do?

( Recap:) One realizes the ( mechanical ?) nature of thought, its superficiality, its intellectual game. One knows how thought divides, divides into nationalities, into religious beliefs and the perpetual conflict from the moment we are born until we die. Is that the reason why you want to end thought? So one must be very clear why one wants to "end thought", because the ( open or hidden ?) motive will direct. One can live in the ( self-created ?) illusion that thought has come to an end. Many people do this, but that illusion is merely another projection of ( a self-sublimated component of ?) thought which ( deviously ?) desires to... 'end itself'.
So realizing that thought with its ( personal ?) content has built (the self-centred ?) consciousness, can all that ( self-projected activity ?) come to an end? If the speaker says it can, what ( practical ?) value has it (to you ) ? None whatever. But if one realizes the ( self-centred ?) nature of our consciousness and the movement of thought as a material process, can you observe this movement of thought, not as a (self-separated ?) "observer" looking at ( its own ?) thought, but thought itself becoming aware of its own movement - (namely) the awakening of ( an integrated activity of ?) thought observing its "movement". Can you 'do' this?

Let's take a very simple example: either "greed" or ( its collective expression in the context of ?) 'nationalism', which are both the same: to observe it as it arises in oneself - that is fairly easy (???) . Then ( in order to play safe ?) I separate myself as an (independent ?) observer and watch my ( greedy way of ?) thinking, which most of us do. But this division is illusory, is fallacious, because the 'thinker' is ( as greedy as his ?) thinking - right? So can the ( mental process controller -or the ?) "observer" be absent in his observation? This "observer", is the (controlling reference of the ?) past, the remembrance, the images, the knowledge, the experiences, all the things that he has accumulated during that ( million years of evolutionary ?) time, the past, is the "observer" who names that reaction as "greed" and when he names it he is already caught in the ( knowledge field of its own ?) past.

Whereas ( one can try ?) to observe the same reaction without "naming" it (and trying to keep in under control ?) . By the very naming of this reaction which we (agreed to ?) call "greed", you have 'established' (assigned ?) it in the (memory bank of the ?) past. It becomes ( an experience of ?) the past. Whereas if there is ( an inner attitude of ?) "no naming" but ( one of free ?) pure observation in which there is no division as the observer and the observed, then ( for homework ?) what takes place?
You see our ( cultural ?) conditioning is this ( mental) division between the observer (as a controlling mental entity ?) and the "observed" (as the responsed that should be controlled ?) . And that is why we make such enormous efforts to control the thing that is observed: I am greedy, that is the reaction. ( But if I think of myself as being ?) different from greed, therefore I can control it, I can operate on it, I can suppress it, I can enjoy it, I can do something about it. But the ( inward truth of the ?) fact is the thinker is ( not qualitatively different from its greedy ?) thoughts.

( In a holistic nutshell :) There is no 'thinker' without 'thought'.
So (it all comes down ?) to observing without the (controlling interference of our ?) past memories, reactions, all that ( surrepticiously ?) projecting itself immediately in observation - right? Then, if one has gone into it pretty deeply, one will find that ( the time-binding activity of ?) thought does come to an end, thought being (or projecting its own ?) "time" - right?
( Quick holistic proof: ) Thought is a ( mental) movement and (as) time is (involved in any material ?) movement, so (it follows that ?) "time 'is' thought" - right sirs? This is ( an experiential topic of ?) real meditation, not all this ($$$ ?) stuff that goes on in the name of meditation, this is ( the experiential basis ?) of real meditation, which is: to 'see' (inwardly ?) the movement of thought, for thought to see its own "movement" (namely:) how it rises , the creating the ( desired ?) 'image' and the ( time-binding ?) pursuit of that image: to observe it so that there is no ( interfering verbal ?) 'recognition' of what is being observed.

To make it very simple (for absolute beginners ?) : to observe a tree without naming it, without wondering what use it can be put to, just to observe it. Then the (subliminal process of mental) division between the tree and you comes to an end - the physical, nervous, neurological ( neuro-lingvistical ?) responses to that tree creates the division. Then, can I observe my wife, or my girlfriend without the 'word' ( without the verbal associations ?) and so without the ( mental) "image" created by all the remembrances (involved ?) in that relationship, which is : to observe purely? Then in that ( non-dualistic quality of ?) observation, which is complete attention, has not ( the self-centred process of ?) thought (naturally) come to an end? This requires a great deal of attention, step by step watching, like a good scientist who watches very, very carefully. When one does that thought does come to an end, therefore "time" has a stop - right?

QUESTION: If there is a supreme truth and order why does it allow mankind to behave on earth in such a shocking way?

K: Either you accept the idea of God, the supreme person in whom total order exists and you are part of that entity, (then that person must be extraordinarily cruel and extraordinarily intolerant to make us behave as we are doing, destroying each other). Or, there is the other idea which is: the human beings have made this world, the social world, the world of relationship, the technological world, the world of society, our relationship with each other, we have made it, not some supreme entity. We are responsible for this horror that we have perpetuated.
So ( it all comes down ) to having order in ourselves, then you are 'supreme gods' because the Universe is order - right? Sun sets, the sun rises, the stars, the heavens the nature, this whole universe is ( existing in ?) order - not according to us, it 'is' order, explosion, destruction, whatever is going on out there but it is order. With us there is no order. We live in confusion, we live in conflict, we live in every kind of disorder. Can there be in us total complete order? That order is not created by thought, that order has no relationship whatsoever to any system, method, which are all put together by thought. Order comes only when there is the complete ending of thought, because then thought has no place as a divisive movement - right?

QUESTION: I have been a member of a Gurdjieff group and I find it has given me a background to better understanding to what you are saying. Should I continue with such a group to possibly help others, as I was helped? Or does a group make for fragmentation?

K: It is an extraordinary idea: helping others (spiritually ?) , as though you have got extraordinary comprehension, beauty, love and truth and the whole world of order, and that great immense sense of wholeness. If you have that you don't talk about helping others - right?
First of all why do we want to belong to some group, some religious body - why? Is it because it gives us strength? Is it that we cannot stand alone? The word 'alone' means "all one". Is it that we need encouragement, we need somebody to tell this is the right way? And the questioner asks: as I belong to certain groups, they have helped me to understand you - understand what we are talking about? Do we need "interpreters" to understand what we are talking about? To be kind, to love, to have no sense of nationality. Does it need anybody to tell you? If we do depend on others "psychologically" we become second hand people, which we are. The whole history of mankind, is in us, the whole story of mankind is not in books - there is in outward things but the whole history is here. But when you (try to ?) read this Book as a (casual ?) reader it has no meaning. But if (you realise that ?) you "are" the book and the book is telling you the story, then you will not depend on a single person, you will be a "light to oneself". But we are all (gathered here ?) waiting for the "light " of another, the "fire" of another. And that is where the tragedy lies because we cannot see clearly for ourselves. So, before we help others we have to see clearly, for god's sake. ( If not ?) it is like the blind leading the blind.

Questioner: Excuse me but you also help -year after year- those who come again and again.

K: Sir, I am glad you come here year after year. I would too. Like going to see the mountain day after day. There is great beauty in the mountain. I am not saying I am the mountain. There is great beauty in the mountain - the skyline, the snow, the valleys, the absolute quietness, and the river flowing, rippling along, chattering. There is great beauty in that and the lake that is so still. I would go and see it everyday. The more I see it the more beauty there is in it. Not one casual look of a weekend but the constant looking, asking, observing the truth and the beauty of it. Naturally one must go, move.

QUESTION: What is freedom?

K: You have every kind of ( material) freedom and what have we done with that freedom? We think where there is choice: I can go to Italy, to France, and does this choice give ( the inner sense of ?) freedom? If you are very clear (inwardly) clear, purely perceive, there is no choice. Out of that comes right action. It is only when there is uncertainty that we begin to choose. So choice, if you will forgive my saying so, choice prevents freedom.

So does freedom lie 'out there', or (in) here? Where do you begin to search for freedom? In the outward world, which is to express and do whatever you like, so-called individual freedom. Or does freedom begin inwardly, which then expresses itself intelligently outwardly? You understand my question? That is, ( inwardly ?) freedom exists only when there is no confusion inside me, when I am seeking not to be caught in any trap - you understand? There are innumerable traps - gurus, saviours, preachers, the excellent (mystery ?) books, psychologists, and psychiatrists, they are all there. And if I am confused and there is disorder, mustn't I first be free of that disorder before I talk of freedom? If I have no ( authentic) relationship with my wife, or with my husband, with another person, because our relationship is based on ( self-centred ?) images. You have an image about me and I have an image about you. And so the conflict which is inevitable where there is a division - right sirs? So shouldn't I begin here, inside me, in my mind, in my heart to be totally free of all the fears and anxieties, despairs, hurts and wounds that one has received, to watch it for oneself and be free of it.

But apparently we haven't got the (necessary intelligent ?) energy. We go to another to give us energy, always depending (inwardly ?) on somebody else. And so that dependence inevitably brings great conflict, disorder. So if one has to begin to understand the depth and the greatness of freedom, we must begin quite near. And the nearest (problem to be solved ?) is "you". As long as there is ( the divisive mentality of ?) 'you' and 'me' there is no freedom. We can express ourselves, we can openly criticize each other, we can do all that, that is called ( the 'human rights' ?) freedom. The right to think what you like. But the greatness of freedom, and the dignity, the beauty of it is ( to be found only ?) in oneself when there is completely order. And that ( sense of an universally open ?) Order comes only when we are ( becoming ?) a light to ourselves.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 30 May 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Jun 2016 #197
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: Could we have a good dialogue together? So please, you choose the subject you want to talk about, or want to investigate, and let's go into it.

Questioner : Sir, could we see whether it is actually possible for a mind that doesn't see clearly to bring about a transformation in itself?

K: When we talk about not having a clear mind what do we mean by that? Do we mean such a mind is conditioned, enclosed, resisting, incapable of being not only free within itself but also go beyond itself?
Are we aware, that our minds are conditioned? And what do we mean by being conditioned?

Q: A 'conditioned' mind has a pattern to which it always comes back to, and all responses according to that pattern.

K: Yes, that's one aspect of it. What is the origin of our conditioning?

Q: Any memory that is retained, any experience.

K: Would we say that human beings from the very beginning of time are conditioned by their immediate (physical) experiences? Immediate experience of danger, of security, of physical uncertainty, of survival, seeking protection, and not completely finding that protection being anxious, afraid, both neurologically and physically. Surely that is the beginning of our (self-centred 'psychological' ?) conditioning, right from the very beginning.

Physically most of us have ( inherited ?) this urge to be protected, find safety, security, certainty. Right? So that is the beginning of it.

Q: Isn't it healthy to have an urge to live in safety and security?

K: That's a natural demand of every human being right through the world, whether rich or poor, that's natural. But now I am asking whether that very same urge, has that entered into the psychological field, the inward field, inside oneself, which says, 'Yes, not only I need protection, physical protection, security, safety, clothes and all that, but also I need somebody on whom I can depend, from whom I can have protection, security, safety.' You understand, the same movement has entered into the "psychological" world.

Q: Is not the desire for food and shelter a psychological thing as well as a physical one? Is it separate?

K: Is desire for food a 'psychological' desire? I need food. This morning it was very cold one had to put on a coat. So that's not a (psychologically related ?) desire.

Q: It is not a 'psychological' desire for you but for normal people food becomes a 'psychological' need.

K: Ah, why do I need food 'psychologically' ? I need sufficient food, but if my 'tongue' (the sensory pleasure ?) dictates what kind of food I need, that becomes 'psychologicaly' (addictive ?) .
( In the same way ?) our minds are ( addictively ?) 'conditioned' by our culture, by our food, by our beliefs, and also through ( the carrot & stick forms of ?) education, through knowledge and so on. And the question is: can such a mind free itself from its ( habit creating ?) conditioning? Can the human mind 'go beyond' (transcend the limitations of ?) its own conditioning? So, please answer my question. Are you aware that your mind is "conditioned" (psychologically ?) ?

Q: That is the only mind we know.

K: Now when you say this, are 'you' different from that mind? You understand my question? Look: suppose my mind is ( culturally) conditioned because I was born in India, educated abroad in England: how do I know (become aware ?) that it is conditioned? Because you tell me? Or it discovers (by itself ?) that it is conditioned by the past cultural traditions of India, of Europe and partly, very lightly by the Americans ? I have lived ( happily ignorant ?) that way for twenty, forty, a hundred years. How do I know that my mind is conditioned?

Q: Unhappiness ?

K: That means that if I am ( feeling globally ?) happy in my conditioning there is no problem ?

Q: But we are not always happy, sorrow is coming always.

K: So you are aware of ( the mixed effects of ?) your conditionings, sometimes being happy, sometimes being unhappy. Is that it?

Q: I was born in Finland and I may feel homesick, so that sorrow tells me that I am conditioned to live (ever happily ?) in Finland.

K: So you are ( becoming) aware that you are homesick. Is that the indication of your conditioning? That's only a part. ( But besides that ?) you are getting conditioned by your religion, you are conditioned by your literature, the propaganda that is going on, the books that you read. I am asking you, how do you realize that your mind is conditioned?

Q: By the repetitive (mechanical) aspect of it ? But I am not seeing it with any of the senses, or with sense?

K: That is, 'I' think that I am conditioned. So the thinking (entity ?) is separate from ( the psycho-fact of ?) being conditioned. You understand the difference? My thinking is the response of memory. But when my ( intellectual processing of ?) memory says "I am conditioned" that is not the actual realization that I am conditioned. See the difference? I only (speculatively ?) 'think' that I am conditioned.

Q: Sir, is not the memory itself conditioning?

K: Wait, sir. First see the position we are in, actually, and then we can proceed step by step. I 'think I am conditioned', so there is a (safe psychological distance or ? ) division between the 'thinker' (entity) who says, "I am conditioned", and the actual realization that the mind is conditioned. I may like to think that I love you, ( although ?) I may not actually love you. The actual ("special" ?) feeling of loving is different from the thought that I love you. Is that clear? So the ( actual) realization of being conditioned is different from the (intellectual ?) idea that 'I am conditioned'.

Q: In what way is it different?

K: One is 'actual', the other is 'imaginary'.

Q: Imagination is all I know.

K: Is the tree an 'imagination'? No, it is an actuality you can touch it. The idea you cannot touch, it is not as real as the tree. So may thought (intellectually ?) conceive that it is conditioned, but the ( realisation of the ?) actual fact of being conditioned is (something qualitatively ?) different.

Q: But sir, (our self-centred ?) thought is so devious, so clever ...

K: Be simple, sir, begin simply and you can work very, very deeply if you want to go into it. I want to find out if my mind is actually conditioned. And I say (intellectually ?) , yes it is ( obviously ?) conditioned because I have lived in India, born in a certain category of social status, educated here, there and so on. Now can the mind (itself) realize that it is conditioned, or have 'I' to tell the mind that it is conditioned? You see the point? If 'I' tell the mind that it is conditioned then I am playing with words.

Q: Isn't it really I am not seeing it directly?

K: That's right. Can you 'see directly' that your mind is ('psychologically' ) conditioned?

Q: If I ( can ?) watch my actions (non-personally ?) then I know I am conditioned.

K: That's all, that's all. So you realize through ( the mirror effect of your ?) actions that your mind is conditioned. That is, when you say, "I am a (practising) Catholic", it is part of two thousand years of (enforced ?) propaganda that you are (supposed to be ?) a Christian and all this pressure has been imposed on your brain for two thousand years, and you say, yes, I believe it.
So we are asking, can such a mind free itself from (the limitations of ?) its conditioning? Obviously it can.

Q: I have to actually see the limitations of my conditionings.

K: That's right, that's right.

Q: So I can change it.

K: Of course you can change it. The speaker was born in India, with all the (pressures of cultural) conditioning there, I can say, well, nonsense, and drop it.

Q: What if this (tradition) is ( refering to ?) the spiritual world?

K: The spiritual world is beyond all conditioning.

Q: But if I think that my conditioning is on a spiritual level, that it is not actually physical, then won't that throw me off?

K: Of course. Go step by step you will find out for yourself. If you are born in America and you are conditioned to the cultural patterns of American society, by your education, by your parents, by your friends, your mind is conditioned (to think in terms created ?) by the culture in which you are living. Now can you break that down and go beyond? (If you want to).

Q: It needs an extra-ordinary awareness.

K: That doesn't need great awareness, it needs simple observation.

Q: What am I going to do?

K: What am I going to do with regard to what?

Q: My culture.

K: Sir, supposing that I am born in the French culture, they ( subliminally ?) think they are the most intelligent race in the world, 'la force', 'la voix' (l'exception culturelle ?) , and I look down upon others, I create a division between myself and others, I have a sense of superiority, I am extraordinarily intellectual because I have passed ( le Bac ?) in lycee and all the rest of it, and I think I am better than anybody else. Now that (kind of mentality ?) I can break that down.

Q: But sir, that is fairly easy, like with 'nationality'.

K: I am going into that. You are all so impatient, you don't want to go step by step. So can I drop my French culture, Indian culture and see what happens.

Q: But there is also the (racial ?) conditioning that we have already had.

K: Sir, we are saying that (the identification with with one's cultural ?) conditioning divides people: you are a Catholic, I am a Protestant, you are a Baptist, I am a Lutheran, you are Buddhist, I am a Hindu. So if one sees this, at least being intelligent, I drop it. I drop ( the identification with ?) the culture in which I have been born. The outward expression of this conditioning is fairly easy to drop, but inwardly it is quite a different matter.
Now if you haven't dropped the outer you can't go to the inner . You can only pretend you are going to the inner so I must test this, that I have dropped it. That's the proof of my freedom from that ( outward ?) conditioning: I am not ( identifying myself as ?) a Hindu. I don't go to their temples, to their beliefs, to their books, nonsense, I put it aside. I don't belong to any of that, which is an actual (non -?) action, not just a theory. So I now say, am I conditioned psychologically?

Q: There are patterns of knowledge which we seem to be trapped in.

K: So why have human beings given such extraordinary importance to knowledge- whether the accumulation of experience of the scientists, or of the businessman, or of the artist, why have human beings - why have human beings given such extraordinary importance to knowledge?

Q: Knowledge works in a physical world. Besides, there seems to be security in knowledge.

K: What do you mean by 'knowing' ? What do you know?

Q: Well, I know how to act in certain situations in order to get the result which I want.

K: Yes, so what you 'know' is ( based on the experiences of?) the past. You have experimented, found and stored up, and that has becomes your knowledge in that (particular ) field. Like a technician, or a plumber is excellent in that field because through skill, through practice, through action, he has acquired certain information about that, stored it up and that has become the knowledge.
So this knowledge is always in the (result of the ?) past. You can modify that knowledge, you can enlarge that knowledge, but it is always in the (memory bank of the ?) past.

Q: Isn't there a form of inner knowledge, that goes beyond time, and is actually prior to the conditioning?

K: Yes. Is there knowledge which is not of time ? Yes, I will come to that (eventually ?) . But unless I understand ( the nature of ?) this ( mechanistic ?) knowledge, I can't find out the other. You want to jump to the other without knowing this. That's a ('psychological' form of ?) escape. I refuse to enter into a 'theoretical' world. So I say: now my life in the (mechanical repetition of the ?) past. I live in the (safety of the ?) past and meet the present happening, the present incident, which modifies (or not ?) my past knowledge and I proceed. So ( my active) knowledge has always been modifying itself but having always its roots in the past.

Q: When knowledge modifies itself it is ( actually updating itself ?) in the present.

K: I said that when the 'past meets the present' ( the 'thought-time' process ?) - it modifies itself but still it is the ( same continuity of the ?) past. So one realizes that all our ( psychological ?) actions come from the past; or the past projecting an idea, ideal, and acting according to that. Our ( subliminal addiction to the ?) past knowledge has conditioned the mind. Now the question is, can the mind be free of (all its) knowledge? ( Outwardly ?) it cannot free itself from because it must know how to get to my home, how to do my job, how to do various necessities of life. So there knowledge has its place. But why is there our knowledge continuing psychologically?

Q: What is the place of knowledge in the 'psychological realm'?

K: What place has knowledge in the psychological world? May I ask you something? Is the remembrance of your wife, or your husband or your girl, which is in the psychological field, is that love?

Q: What do you mean by the "psychological field"?

K: I am going to tell you. That is, when I get angry - at the moment of anger (occuring) you don't say, 'I am angry', it's only only a second later. Which is (after ) the recognition of that feeling which you have had before. Right? So the recognition gives strength to the present reaction.

Q: How can you have anger without thought first?

K: You call me a fool; I get angry. Which means that (subliminally ?) I have (identified myself with ?) an (good) image about myself that I am a great man and.... you call me a fool. The 'image' is the ( personal) response which gets angry. Right? We are asking, what is the content of your 'psyche', that is, of your psychological world?

Q: The sorrowful evolution of humanity ?

K: Isn't the ( active ?) 'content' of your psyche your 'belief' in god, or the idea that you must become somebody? Isn't the ( active psychological ?) content of your psyche the desire to be happy, the conflicts, the joys, the pleasures, the fears, the anxieties, the greed, the envy, the violence - isn't that the content of your psyche? Isn't that the content of your psyche, the content of your consciousness?

Q: The result of your past experiences again.

K: So we are saying, can your "psyche" (the self-centred consciousness ?) , with its content, anger, jealousy, hatred, hurts, envy, greed, can that totally be 'emptied'? The content of your psyche is 'I' and 'you', 'we' and 'they', I, a Catholic, you, a heathen - this is the whole phenomenon of the world. You don't see this.

Q: Is the psyche because of the ideas that we have that we separate ourselves?

K: Obviously. Beliefs, your ideals, your concepts, your conclusions, your opinions, all that divides us. So I am asking a very, very serious question. And there are a great many scholars, writers, philosophers who have given their life to this, and they say, 'It cannot. Accept this condition, make the best of it, don't be violent, do be kind . But you cannot escape from this prison.'

Q: Sir, when you asked the question " Can the mind be free of its content ?", then we are conditioned to think 'how'.

K: The moment you say, 'how', it is part of our conditioning that demands a system.

Q: There is one question along those lines: if it was possible to free oneself would it be done point by point?

K: I am going to come to that, madam. The content of my consciousness, my psyche, is the various 'divisions' (divided compartments ?) in itself, conscious, unconscious, anger, not angry, be good and at the same time be violent, there is contradiction, opposition, resistance, desire to go forward and recoil, hurt, all that is ( the active content of ?) my consciousness, my psyche, that is me. I "am" that. Now I am asking, is it possible to take one aspect of my psyche, one aspect of my consciousness, take that and unravel it and finish it ? Or, as there are so many "things" (interactive compartments ?) in my consciousness, in my psyche, is it possible not to go bit by bit, part by part, but "totally"? Are you interested in all this?

Q: Yes.

K: So can you - in spite of what Freud, Jung and all the scholars, intellectual people - say: look, I want to find out if the psyche with its content can be completely ended. Or must this everlastingly go on. You understand? The Hindus have said, life after life it must be gradually wiped away, life after life, you cannot possibly do this in this life, but you need time, you need many, many lives to do this.
So we are asking, as ordinary people: is there a possibility of freeing the psyche completely, putting everything aside, its own content?

Q: That means to end the ( temporal continuity of the ?) "psyche" itself?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: But sir without any system what happens in the consciousness when it comes to an end?

K: What happens? Find out! Sir there is a mountain here called Topatopa, six thousand five hundred feet; you sit here and say, what is beyond that.
So, first can you see clearly the fact that your mind is conditioned by your culture? That's a fact. By your religion, by your language, by the food you eat, by your wife or your girl or husband, whatever it is. Can you see that fact?

Q: It seems that we see quite a lot of 'facts', but we don't see the root of all this conditioning.

K: I'll show it to you in a minute. But first do you see these (fragmentary ?) 'facts' in your psyche?

Q: All the time.

K: As many as you can. Your anger, your jealousies, your hurts, your anxieties, your fears, your pleasures, your beliefs, your opinions, your judgements, your egotism, your violence, your arrogance. You follow, the whole of that.

Q: I want to step out of it.

K: 'You' are that, 'you' can't step out of it. That's just the ( finesse ?) point.

Q: If "you are that", then how can you...

K: I am going to show you in a minute. You see you are always wanting to ( mentally) go ahead without starting (experientially ?) .

Q: But, sir, the difficulty is that I don't see all my conditioning.

K: At least you can see one (aspect of it) , sir. Take one aspect of the content of this psyche, of this consciousness, of this egotism, which is all the same. So take one aspect of it, one quality of it, one reaction of it. Go on, sir, take it.

Q: The hurts ?

K: It is a common factor of every human being. Now take that one thing and go into it very, very deeply, and see if you can be free from the past hurts and never to be hurt again, without resistance. Find out. You see you don't go into this. If you go into this one thing completely you may end the whole thing.

Q: If you go into one thing completely you may wipe it all away?

K: Perhaps.

Q: You need awareness but the attention itself resolves it.

K: Look, sir, you have been hurt, haven't you?

Q: Yes.

K: Why? What causes this hurt, and who is hurt?

Q: We have "images" of ourselves so we get hurt because we are not so good as we thought.

K: No, madam. What is it that is hurt?

Q: One's ego.

K: All right, one gets hurt because one has an image about oneself. Right? If I have an image about myself as being extraordinary this and that, a great man and a reputation, blah, blah, blah, and you come along and say, 'Don't be a fool', I get hurt. Which means what? That I have an image about myself. The ( projected ?) image created by all of you, and also created by myself, and when you call me a fool that image reacts, that image gets hurt. Now listen carefully. Can I live without any (socially protective ?) image? That I am good, that I am happy, that I must find god, that I must be a great success - no image at all. Then nobody can hurt you and you can't hurt anybody. Can you? See the logic of it first, the reason. You get hurt because you have an image-the image created by your parents, by your society, by your friends and by yourself, whether the image is small or big is irrelevant. So that image gets hurt when you say something ugly and it (the self-identified image ?) builds a wall of resistance round itself, it doesn't want to get hurt more and so there is fear, anxiety, a withdrawal. And if you see ( the truth of ?) this and the consequences of it, and you say, right, finished, there won't be any (need for such an ?) image.

Q: Is that an act of will?

K: No, a mere act of perception. ( Seeing the potential ?) danger (of getting constantly hurt) .

Q: What if we haven't such a clear (insightful ?) perception?

K: You ( the subconscious mind can ?) see it, sir.

Q: Logically you see it.

K: Do it, do it! If you see ( the psychological) danger (involved in it ?) you act. If you see a dangerous snake, a rattler, you jump, you do something.
You (realise) it is impossible to live that way, constantly getting hurt, restraining, fighting, quarrelling, so if you see clearly the whole of that, it is finished.

Q: But only a very small part of you sees that and sees it clearly. I understand what you say very well, but a great part of me apparently does not understand (the total implications of ?) what I am doing.

K: That's the whole point, sir, why doesn't it? Why doesn't the whole of you say, 'Yes, that's right, finished'.

Q: Well, only the part that hurts...

K: Sir, when you see the rattler, the whole of you acts.Why? Because you see the deadly danger. Right? But (inwardly) you don't see the danger of having an image about yourself, totally. Why don't you see it? You don't see it because part of you says, "I like my image, it's nice to have an image, I am rather a clever chap, I am rather clever, I look rather beautiful, I like that". Only that part of me which is not pleasant, I say, yes, I want to get rid of that.
So, when you hear a statement like this that the 'image' (you got subliminally identified with ?) gets hurt, do you listen to (the truth of ?) it, or do you make an abstraction of it, an idea of it? When I listen to the actual fact that the image gets hurt- not only with the hearing of the ear but also hearing it inwardly- and that (self) image will always be trodden on by somebody much cleverer than me, I see the ( psychological) danger of it, so it's finished. That means I listen with all my heart and mind, with my blood I listen, as you listen to the rattler. Right, sir? You listen with all your energy otherwise you are going to be 'killed' (busted ?) .

Q: How do you know the rattler will kill you unless you remember the rattler kills?

K: Have you ever met a rattler? I have, high in the mountains. You don't 'remember' (the danger of ?) it, you "see" the danger there, instantly.
So we have spent an hour and a half, what have you understood out of this? Are you free from your conditioning? Even the most simple conditioning, smoking, or being identified with some belief ? It's like a man who wants to climb Everest, he must climb with very few things, not carry all his burden.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Jun 2016 #198
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


Krishnamurti: (To start this dialogue?) let's go into this question: what is it we are all wanting? Obviously one must have more money if you haven't got it, that gives us food, clothes and shelter. But apart from that, in an affluent society where most of us have some kind of assurance of food, clothes and shelter, apart from this, what is it we are seeking?

Q: Completeness.

K: It is suggested that we are seeking completeness. Because most of us are discontented, dissatisfied with things as they are, both in our private life and in public life, and we want to bring about some kind of inward peace, tranquillity, a sense of order, not only in society but in ourselves. And if one has this social order, which doesn't (yet) exist, we want something more: we want to find God, we want enlightenment, we want a kind of mental peace and so on - what is it each one of us wants, craves after, pursues? I wish we could discuss this.

Q: We don't even know what we want because we give a label to God, or enlightenment.

K: Is that it? We do not ( really) know what we want, therefore we go window shopping ?

Q: I think we do know what we want. That's why we want it because we know what we want.

K: If you know what you want you can get it, only the trouble is getting it. Then there is no problem: you say, look, I want money, I want to be happy, I want some kind of order in my life, then you work for it. That's very simple. But we aren't satisfied with that, we are always wanting more and more and more. What is this (desire for) 'more'?

Q: If we can work at it to include a physical security and also include - I don't know if I can call this 'psychological security' or 'psychological serenity', if there could be that and physical security, because I think the two have to go together.

K: Sir, are you saying that for most people in the world, the increasing population, the destruction that is going on of the earth, the air, everything, to have physical security is becoming more and more difficult. That's one point. Second, psychologically, inwardly we all want some kind of attachment, some kind of comfort, some kind of release from our own daily routine, turmoil. Now are you saying, cannot these two go together? Just enquire into it, sir. You may be well fed, have clothes and all the rest of it; the vast majority of people in the world, specially in Asia, including India, life is becoming enormously difficult, poverty, the degradation of poverty. What is preventing this? What is preventing a human being to live on this earth, having plenty of food, clothes and shelter for all human beings, what is the cause of this prevention? We are enquiring, we are not accepting, we are thinking the problem over together.

Q: Is it that some amass such wealth and food and power?

K: Is it that some ( individual) people amass enormous wealth and are only concerned about themselves? Is that the cause? Or is it also nationalities, economic divisions, political divisions, religious divisions, all these factors and some others prevent human beings coming together, organizing it so that we all have enough food, clothes and shelter?
But most of us here at least are not seeking physical security, otherwise you wouldn't be here. But we want psychological security, we want something inwardly. What is it you want?

Q: When you say 'psychological' security is that the same as 'spiritual' security?

K: Oh, I am not using the word 'spiritual' at all, that's rather an overused word and rather a catchy word. I am using the word 'psychological' in the sense of this inner demand, most people want something, what is it you want.

Q: We want to realize our potential.

K: If you say, I want to realize my (full) potential, first I must find out what my potentials are and then I can put all my energy into that. But what is my potential?

Q: Happiness.

K: Happiness? Is that a potential, or is that a by-product?

Q: We are all seeking eternal life.

K: We are all seeking eternal life - what do you mean by that word 'eternal'? Eternal, which is something beyond time. Eternal we generally understand to mean a continuous existence, eternal - is that what you want?

Q: Sir, I want to end my confused mind.

K: Yes, my mind is confused, the questioner says, and I want clarity. Can we discuss that? Most of our minds are confused. That's obvious. If your minds were clear you wouldn't be here. You wouldn't attend any meetings, you wouldn't have to go to any guru, to any philosopher, to any recent man who says, 'I know what I am talking about'.

Q: Maybe then we would just come for conversation and friendship, just to know you. You are a very nice person.

K: Maybe, is that what you want? So most of us are confused, why? Please, go into it, put your heart into this to find out. Why are we confused?

Q: Sir, the world demands action, and we don't really know how to respond.

K: The world demands action, and we do not know how to respond. How can one respond at your excellence, at your highest capacity if your mind is confused? Please stick to this. Would you say your minds are confused?

Q: Yes.

K: Right, let's start from there, please. Why is it confused?

Q: We are constantly living in contradiction.

K: We live in constant contradiction, and therefore our minds are confused. That's one reason. Go on, go into step by step, sir.

Q: One reason is that our education has taught us about different religions, and different political ideologies, and that's why there is contradiction.

K: So are you saying, ( this confusion is due to ?) our education?

Q: Our ( cultural ?) conditioning.

K: Our ( cultural) conditioning, various people saying various different things, one philosopher saying this, the others saying contrary to that, a scientist and so on and so on, and therefore we listen to all these people and we do not know who is speaking the truth. Is that it? Give your thoughts to this a little, please.

Q: How can a confused mind recognize this?

K: First I have to have the capacity for clarity, we must first see what is the cause of this confusion. Right, sir? What is the cause of it?

Q: Is it not the content of consciousness?

K: Should we go slowly into this because it is very important for you if you could understand why our minds are confused. Is it: (a) because we are unhealthy physically and therefore that psychosomatic reaction makes us confused? That may be one thing. (b) Because we are being pushed around in all directions constantly ? The latest guru, the latest philosopher, the latest psychologist and we listen to all these people and you say, 'Who is telling the actual fact, who is telling the truth?'

Q: We have been conditioned to seek things we don't really need, that's part of it.

K: Do you really want to find out why your minds are confused? Right? What 'price' are you willing pay for it ? You have asked a very serious question.

Q: What do you mean by 'confused'?

K: If I may ask, why are you here?

Q: Not to find out about confusion. I'd like to know what is compassion and what is love and how do we do that.

K: You see, everybody has different 'wantings'. You want to find out what is love, and somebody says something else, and at the end of this gathering you will be still left with your confusion. So what is important is, if we can clear up this confusion by really talking about it, going into it, really being clear.

Q: We want somebody to tell us what to do and that is why.

K: We are coming to that, madam. What is the (inner ?) cause of this ( state of inner ?) confusion that man lives in, not only during this century it has been like that always?

Q: I don't know.

K: If you do not know, don't you want to find out together to find out if we can clear up this confusion. I want to find out what is the cause of this. Is it because each one of us is so terribly selfish, each one wanting his own expression, his own pleasure - is that it? Here there is freedom to do what you want. In a totalitarian state you cannot do that, here you can do what you want. And we are doing 'what we want', each one asserting himself, each one wanting his own success, his own happiness, his own fulfilment of his own ambition and so on and so on. Is that the cause of this extraordinary (cultural ?) chaos?

Q: That's a by-product of some cause, it is not the cause.

K: Selfishness is not the cause?

Q: Maybe selfishness is a by-product of the real cause, whatever that is.

K: What is further? Is it that each one of us thinks that we are extraordinary individuals, separate, and therefore each one wanting to express his own urges, his own reactions, his own demands? Which can all be expressed in one word, 'self-centredness'.

Q: It's part of it.

K: All right, part. But through ( examining ) the part you can find the whole. Right? You understand? I want to find out for myself why my mind is confused. I say is it because I am really so self-centred? And I find by observing in the (outer) world very critically, historically, watching all the human activities, political, religious, they are all in one way or another self-centred. That's a fact. I may be (subliminally) self-centred, but not knowing it , I say, 'I am expressing God's wishes, I represent the eternal' - but it is still self-centredness. So if that is the cause, and I am pretty sure it is the cause, then what shall I do to clear up that (global psychological ?) confusion whose cause is this eternal self-centredness? So if that is the root of it what am I to do? How deeply do I want to be free of this ( mentality of ?) self-centredness? How deeply am I willing to put aside those things that create self-centredness?

Q: One can see the danger of it ?

K: Therefore inwardly, (subliminally ?) , one may see the ( potential risks or ?) dangers of not being self-centred: it may bring about such a deep psychological revolution, therefore you say, please, let me remain (comfortably installed ?) in my confusion, I'll go on 'window shopping' for the rest of my life but I see the danger of going very deeply into this. Is that the case with most of us?

Q: We fear the responsibility of clarity. But since clarity does not exist in the self, where does it exist?

K: I am going to point out a different way of approaching the problem.
I am asking, having a dialogue -whether is it possible not to be self-centred, what are the ( experiential ?) implications of not being self-centred? If try to I do it by will, I am still self-centred. If I say, I must not be self-centred, the 'must not' is still part of the ( good old ?) self. Right? I wonder if you see that. If I renounce property, beliefs, all that, in order to achieve something (else inwardly ?) ) is part of this self-centredness. So this is an enormous complex question, you understand ? There must be no escape into some kind of illusion, ideologies, into some kind of fanciful living, but ( finding an) actual daily living in which self-centred action doesn't take place.

Q: But if I give perfect attention to the present moment I am not self-centred.

K: Give your complete attention to the present. What do you mean by the word 'present'?

Q: This very second, instant, now.

K: I am asking a very serious question, when you say ' living in the now', which means there is neither the past nor the future.

Q: Is it possible for the self (consciousness ?) to exist without self-centred activity at all?

K: Its very activities is ( generating) the self (consciousness ) . If the self has no activity it dies. It has no substance. Obviously.

Q: Sir, the fact is we don't know what it means to live without any self-centred activity.

K: We are going to find out.

Q: What is the self-centred activity?

K: My attachments to my wife, to my husband, to my girl, to my house, to my belief, to my nationalities, to my experience, to my dogmas, to my gods. My belief, my attachments, my activities of ambition, arrogance and so on, all that is self-centred activity.

Q: What is the root of it?

K: The root of it is this vast energy ( of our consciousness ?) 'channelled' in a particular direction of ambition, of greed, envy, violence, belief, all that is all this energy channelled through all this. The very centre of this is ( a pure spiritual ?) 'energy', and this energy is now being used along particular, narrow, limited lines and therefore it is (getting ?) self-centred.

Q: Could we ask where thought comes in ?

K: Madam, (the self-centred process of ?) thought is part of this ( whole field of ?) self-centredness . I identify myself with my group, with my society, with my wife, with my god, I identify, the identifying process is part of this self-centredness. Sir, I have said this, please see if it is the truth, or false.

Q: Sir, is (that pure ) energy somehow trapped?

K: All right, it is trapped by your ( thought enforced ?) desire. Where are you at the end of it? We have come to a point where we see we are self-centred, and is it possible not to be?

Q: No.

K: You say, no. Then you have blocked yourself from finding out if it is possible. And if a man says, yes, it is possible, then he is also blocked.

Q: The only way that we can try to understand this process of self-centredness is to go to the suffering process and remain with it, and do nothing about it.

K: Do it, sir. Are you doing it, or is it just talk?

Q: I am doing it.

K: Good luck! Yes, sir, I am glad you are doing it.

Q: You see the process of self-centredness yet you continue.

K: We have come to the next step, which is: if you see that the cause of this confusion is self-centredness, then what will you do? If you say, it is not possible not to be self-centred, then you give it up. But if you say, it is possible, you have also encouraged it. So both are the same. If you discard both and then say, look, one of the expressions ( of my self-centredness ?) is attachment - attachment to my wife, to my family, to my god, to my belief, to my opinions, to my (value) judgements; can you observe (non-personally ?) your attachment of various kinds, not just of the wife or the husband, or the girl, attachment to a particular idea, to a particular opinion, to a particular belief, attached, and that very attachment implies you 'are' that. You understand?

Q: No.

K: Just listen, sir. If I am attached to my furniture I 'am' the furniture. Because without (all my accumulated ?) 'furniture' I am ( feeling) lost. So can I observe this attachment to this or that or the other, and without (creating a new ?) conflict just drop it?

Q: How?

K: The moment you ask 'how' you want a pattern, you want a system, and that very system is (also) the expression of the self.
(Recap:) I want to understand the cause of my (inner state of ?) confusion. The cause of this confusion is this self-centredness; one of the aspects of this self-centredness is attachment; I see this very clearly, the rationality of it, I have examined it, and the very examination brings about a certain quality of intelligence. Right? That (awakened ?) intelligence says, "finished, I am not attached". It's not your ( self-centred ?) will that says, I am not attached, it's the intelligence that has come into being through observation of being attached, all the implications of it: fear, jealousy, anxiety, and the loss which I call suffering, I see all that and the very perception of that is intelligence.

Q: We 'understand' it.

K: If you like to use the word 'understand'.

Q: I don't see this clearly.

K: If you don't see clearly, madam, why? Which means you are not either hearing, or not following, you are not interested, you are distracted, your attention is not fully (focussed ) in the enquiry.

Q: I don't want to give it all up.

K: Ah, then keep it. Then keep it and live in confusion. I am not asking you to give up (your furniture ?) . I say on the contrary, by giving it up you haven't solved the problem. You can drop your belief, but you haven't solved the problem. The ( central) problem is ( the inborn tendency of ?) self-centredness, and one of the expressions of that self-centredness is attachment. Suppose one is attached to a woman or a man, they both like being attached to each other, it is part of their sexual, personal, sensational demands. And if anything happens to one or she chooses after three years another man, then begins the whole problem of jealousy, antagonism, or indifference.
Q: Sir, we are so secure in psychological terms but in reality we live not only in the psychological world, we live in the natural world as well. Our daily life has another aspect other than what you call psychological.

K: We are living (immersed ) both in the psychological world and in the physical world. But the 'psychological' world dominates the physical world. You can have all the money, all the food, all the cars, everything, but you may be unhappy because your husband or wife has run away, you know, all the rest of it.

Q: I am a painter, and when you talk about attachment I understand this in psychological terms but in my work when I try to express myself on a canvas, to paint a picture, I don't see that as an attachment, I try to realize my potential, I try to establish a line of communication. So if I consider that as an attachment - perhaps it is, a sort of attachment in that - but in another sense it is not attachment.

K: Isn't it a (subliminal form of ?) attachment when you say "I want to achieve my potential, when I want to be a great success"?

Q: No, no. I make a distinction between success and potential.

K: Just a minute, sir, if you have (an artistic ) potential then it will operate, you don't search out its fulfilment. If you have a first-class feeling for music, you know, and you go on working, working - the moment you say, I want to fulfil, then the self-centred activity begins. It is like a violinist, sir, who has got great potential, and he uses the instrument to fulfil himself, to become rich, to become famous, to becomes this or that.

Q: Yes, sir, maybe. But we are together this morning talking about confusion, that's how it appears in our daily living. We hear that attachment is the source of our trouble, of our misery, and if we sense that what we are doing is a matter of attachment so we get confused, should we go ahead with what we want to do, or are we serving some kind of attachment in this way?

K: Sir, I said that is only part of it. Sir, this self-centredness is also getting psychologically hurt. That's part of self-centredness. Part of self-centredness is being violent. Part of self-centredness is, I must fulfil, I have got capacity, I have a certain potentiality in me and I must express it, and when there is no fulfilment in that expression then there is frustration, disappointment, depression, anger, all that is part of self-centredness.
So I say, when you observe this ( general) confusion, and man has accepted this ( self-centred) way of living which leads to confusion, which encourages confusion, and we live with it, we never say, "can this end ?". Not knowing how to end it, we run away from it - we want to know about meditation, we want to know about god, if there is immortality, if there is anything else but this.

(Story time:) One year I was in India, a very famous guru sent his disciples, wanting to see me. And the disciples came for three days and said, 'You must come and see our guru'. I said, 'I am sorry, I don't go out searching any guru'. And at last the guru came because he wanted to see me. We were sitting on a little platform, on a mattress about that thick, out of politeness we got up and asked him to sit on the mattress. Immediately he became the guru because he was a little higher! And he began to tell us what to do. You understand this, the absurdity of it.
So sitting on a platform, as I am, doesn't give me any authority. But I am just pointing out certain things if you are willing to listen. That the (root) cause of our ( inner) confusion is this enormous deep-rooted, unconscious as well as conscious selfishness, self-centred activity. And can one observe it not only in our relationship intimately, but also in our work? One can observe this going on all the time.
Now to observe it (holistically ?) , what does it mean? You can observe either as though you are outside of it and looking in, or the observer 'is' that which is observed, that is, there is no ( psychological) division between the observer and the observed.

Q: This is not exactly clear for me, this division.

K: What is this division? I'll make this very clear. When you observe this mountain in what manner do you observe it? Do you see the mountain as it is, or the word 'mountain', the word, interferes with the observation? Because when you look at that thing, the verbal reaction comes immediately, 'that's the (Topa Topa ?) mountain'. So when you observe the word interferes with looking at that thing. Right? That's simple. Now in the same way, can you observe your reactions without the ( memory of your ?) past telling you, this is good, bad, this is right, this is wrong, just to observe?

Q: Without thought ?

K: That's right. (Eg:) One is greedy, you see something, a dress, a pair of trousers, shoes, whatever it is, car, woman or man, you see it. And can you observe without the past memories interfering with it? When the past interferes you are not actually looking, are you ? The past memories are looking, there is no actual looking at that which is happening now. So the 'observer' is the (active memory of the ?) past, the past is looking at what is happening now, so there is a division ( a psychological distance ?). You understand, sir?

Q: Is it possible to have that (inner?) clarity one moment and not the next?

K: If one has clarity one moment and at another moment you have not clarity, it is not "clarity". But I am pointing out the logic of ( not having ?) it, the reason of it, which is: we are always looking from the past (from the known ?) .

Q: Would you say that the man, or the being who is looking, is himself the past?

K: Yes, sir. That's right.

Q: The moment before you named it 'mountain' wasn't that clarity?

K: I am going to show you something, sir: can you look at your girlfriend , or your wife, or your husband, without the (interference of ?) the past memories, past sensations, past disagreements, all that piled up, can you look at her or him without a single ( mental) 'image' you have built about her or about him, can you?

Q: I have never tried.

K: Quite right. Never tried it. What does that mean? He has taken the past (mental images ?) as granted: it's "my wife", "my husband", with all the past implications involved in it - probably he wasn't aware of all the past incidents accumulated which has become the 'image', and so ( based on that mental ?) picture ( thought ?) says, 'I know my wife'. Like the pope saying, 'God exists'.

Q: What if your wife is doing the same thing every time you see her?

K: Right, sir, ( so it all comes down to:) can one observe without the past accumulation? If you cannot observe without the past accumulation it is not possible to observe (holistically ?) at all. And with all of us the (momentum of the ?) past is so enormous, our minds are so 'burdened' that we cannot see without the (guidance of the ?) past, see (directly) what is actually happening.
( So, for homework:) Find out. If you find this out to be true for yourself, then there is a totally different (quality of ?) relationship taking place. It isn't just ( the mental ) routine, it isn't just a mechanical repetition of the past operating all the time.

Q: Sir, when you are asked a question, an answer from memory comes up and you try...

K: Don't 'try'. Just 'see' how the memory jumps immediately, pops up, so watch it. Sir, this requires a great deal of (meditative ?) enquiry and attention, it isn't just, well I'll learn this ( K trick ?) by heart and something else will happen; you have to be very attentive, watchful and observe how the past is always meeting the present happening, modifies itself, and goes on; but it is still always the ( same self-centred mentality of the ?) past.
So man has lived this way; the great (TV ?) scientists, philosophers, say, the only (option for ?) the ascent of man is through knowledge - which is, knowledge is always the (continuity of the ?) past. So we are saying, on the contrary, man can only "ascend" (spiritually ?) if the past with all the knowledge of the past has its right place and is free of the known, then there is the freedom to move on.

Q: Sir, I was serious in that comment because it may be that (the psyche of ?) my wife is mechanical (repetitive) and therefore when you look at her you see the same thing because simply the mechanical pattern is the same. Do you understand what I mean?

K: I think I understand, sir, but why have our minds become mechanical? Our jobs have become mechanical. Get up in the morning, all the rest of it, office, the routine, the routine, our way of thinking is routine, always along a particular line, horizontal or vertical, aspiring or floating along. So our minds are caught in a groove of belief and so on and so on, so everything has become 'mechanical' (safely repetitive) , your sex, your ambitions, your aspirations, your gods, everything. You don't realize this. So there is nothing new. So we are saying something contrary to all that: to observe without the observer, which is the past.

Q: But sir, when I try to observe 'what is' without the past, the (memory of the ?) past operates.

K: Then find out why the(memory of the ?) past operates, why the ( knowledge of the ?) past has become so important in our lives. Sir, look, the past (experience and knowledge) is important when you are driving a car. Right? Because if you are just put in a car, with a wheel, and you didn't know the technique of driving which you have learnt by constant repetition, which becomes the knowledge, you won't be able to drive it. So ( the accumulated ?) knowledge in language, in business, in doing all the necessities of daily life, is important. But when ( inwardly) this same process is operating from past knowledge, past experience, past memory, then it becomes a 'dangerous' instrument that divides people, that destroys people (psychologically ?) .

Q: Without meditation life has no meaning.

K: What we are doing now is part of meditation. This is meditation, to clear up one's mind. But if I am a (devout) Catholic my meditation would be confined to one particular pattern (of belief) , and that isn't meditation. Meditation is something that has no limitations. I won't go into all that, because to meditate is an extraordinary activity. It can only come when the mind is completely free from confusion. A man who is (inwardly) confused and 'meditating', his meditation is still confused, whether it is transcendental, or any other nonsense, it is still confused meditation, which only leads to illusions.
You see, sir, these various gurus have come to see me at one time or another. I am just telling you for the 'fun' of it. The great ones and the little ones. And they all say, 'What you are saying is the greatest truth, is what you are living, it's a great privilege', and they go on their own way, because they say, 'Sorry, sir, but we must help the poor people who don't understand'. You understand their game?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jun 2016 #199
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

3-rd K PUBLIC DIALOGUE Ojai 1979

Krishnamurti: This is a discussion or a dialogue and what shall we talk about?

Questioner: Last Sunday you talked about the "art of observation" and the "art of learning". It seems to me that if we would find out exactly what that is perhaps we wouldn't have to come back every year and ask you. We could observe things ourselves.
Q1: Would you be kind enough to give us the meaning of 'psychological registration'?
Q2: Sir, is there any relationship between love and freedom?
Q3: Psychological death?
Q4: Is silence of the mind possible?
Q5: The meaning of life?
Q6: Could you talk about peace and order?
Q7: Last Saturday you said god did not create man, but man created god. Would you elaborate on that subject?
Q8: Is there life without an entity that is responsible?
Q9: Would you talk about sex?

K: I don't know what there is to talk about sex...

Q(10): What is responsibility?
Q(11): Sir, what do you mean by "the answer to the question is the question itself"?

K: What do you think is the most important one of all these questions?

Q: Sir, freedom, love and responsibility.

K: Freedom, love and responsibility, is that what you want to talk about? I wonder what we mean by "responsibility". The word itself means 'to respond', - to respond either partially or completely, wholly. That's the meaning of that word, to respond in our relationship adequately, completely, partially, in a limited way. How do we respond in our relationship - by being in contact wholly, objectively, or very narrow, personally, selfishly? That's implied in "responsibility".
And when we talk about "freedom", what do we mean by that word? Each one translates that word according to his own opinion, experience, according to his own knowledge, conditioning, pleasure or displeasure. But does all that indicate freedom? And also when we talk about "love", what do we mean by that word? Love of the country, love of the family, love of the beautiful, love of one's wife, husband, children, the nation, love of god, love of virtue and so on, sexual, sensory, all that's implied. So what do we mean by these three words: love, freedom and responsibility?

Q: Love is the related to desire.

K: When you say, 'I love you', what do you mean by that word? And what is the relationship of sensory responses, or sex to love? You follow? And freedom? That's a tremendous word, the content of that word. Love, freedom, is it possible for man to be free, or is he always free in the limited circle which he has woven round himself? And the word 'responsibility', if you undertake something to do you are responsible for doing it, and if you don't it you feel guilty. All that is implied in that word responsibility and relationship. And are these three words, love, freedom, responsibility, are they separate or one whole? Are they a unitary process, holistic, or they are three separate activities and human beings are trying to integrate ? I don't know if you are following all this. Which is it you are, in this dialogue, attempting to do?

Q: Our freedom and our love, it is limited love and we are always asserting instead of getting really out of it.

K: Sir, everywhere throughout the world they talk about (asserting one's ?) "individuality"; the individual love, the individual expression, the individual freedom, the individual responsibility and so on and so on. The 'individual' (consciousness ?) has been given enormous importance and on that all our civilization is based: individual freedom, individual expression, individual fulfilment, that's the culture in which we live. And on that all our social responses, economic striving and so on is based. What relationship has this whole concept of 'individuality' to love, freedom, responsibility? This is a very complex and very serious question if you want to go into it fully. The old cathedrals in Europe were not built by 'individuals', they were built ( anonymously) and one doesn't know who built them and so on and so on.
So this question when we want to discuss it as two friends who really want to go into it, where shall we start?

Q: Let's start by what you would like to say from your heart about it.

K: Look, madam, this is our question: ( in the context of our) 'individual', freedom and responsibility, love, the 'you', the 'me', is given tremendous importance . And how do you approach this question, how do you receive this question? Casually, because there is nothing (better) to do, there are too many players on the golf course so you say I must just as well sit under a tree and talk to you instead of playing golf?

Q: How do "you" approach this question and how is the answer in the question?

K: You ask me how does the speaker approach the question, is that it?

Q: How is the question ( containing) the answer to the question?

K: (I all depends on) how you approach it. If one approaches it from a very narrow, selfish point of view, your approach is limited and therefore your answer will be very, very limited because it is a tremendously complex problem. So is your mind capable ( holistically ?) of meeting this challenge? Are you (subliminally ?) afraid that in answering fully your actions may bring about a radical change and therefore you hold back? It is very important to find out how we approach a question.

Q: (Inaudible)

K: Sir, that's a fact: the American culture, American civilization, American growth, evolution and so on is based on the 'individual' (mentality ?) . The individual achievement, the individual success, the individual competition, the individual creativeness, you follow, all that is there. And what is the relationship of that individual (consciousness ?) to love, freedom and responsibility?

Q: Sir, my problem is that 'freedom, love and responsibility' is an ideal, I feel that is not an actuality at all.

K: That's right, sir. For most of us freedom, love, responsibility is just an ideal, it has no value at all. What is "real" in our daily life is our individual desires, individual sexual demands, individual urge for self-fulfilment, and in that desire one must be free to fulfil. That's all we are concerned with (inwardly) , not about love, freedom, responsibility. Those are all just words.

Q: Sir, we cannot answer the question because the question throws us into the distress of relativity and non-meaning, how do we deal with the stress of our incapacity to answer the question?

K: I am doing it, sir, we are trying to find out. Are you responsible in the full meaning of that word to another, to your wife, to your girlfriend, to your boy friend or husband, are you totally responsible? That means care, it means attention, love, in which there is no 'personal' demand.

Q: Sir, I am involved in a relationship, and I see pain, and I began to respond to it and then (my self-centred ?) thought came into my mind and I see that I am not responding fully.

K: First of all, sir, are we aware of our responsibility to another, intimate or not intimate? What does that responsibility involve? If one has a family, please just go with me for a little, if one has a family, wife, children, are you responsible for those children? That you care, that you have love for them, that you are concerned with their health, with their clothes, with their education, are you concerned that they become healthy good citizens? Or you have no time at all for them because you have to go out and earn money and have very little time for the children. So that's a fact. So where is your responsibility?

Q: If I have a friend and I perceive that my friend has a need, is this because I myself have a need, or is this responsibility?

K: Suppose that I need an audience for my (personal) fulfilment, for my pleasure, would you help me to fulfil my pleasure or would you say, don't be a fool? Then I am using you for my satisfaction, for my glory, for my aggrandisement and so on. Look, sir, are we responsible for the earth on which we live? The trees, the mountains, the waters, the forests and the beauty of the land, to maintain it, or are we gradually destroying everything because we must have more cars, more (diversified ?) pleasures, more, more. Sir, you don't face all these things.

Q: I feel a special responsibility for my wife, for my child, for my piece of land, does that deny my responsibility for the whole?

K: No. On the contrary. There is the 'feeling of responsibility' and 'feeling responsible for'. You see the two different things? That is, one feels responsible for this grove, for this beautiful place, or you feel responsible when you are walking down the road, you feel responsible to pick up a piece of paper that has been thrown down, you feel responsible. So wherever you are you are responsible for everything around you. But if you are merely 'responsible for' this one little thing, that responsibility assumes a very narrow, rather shoddy little meaning.

Q: What is the greatest act of love?

K: I am showing it to you, sir. Do you feel responsible that way for the whole of mankind not just your children - if you have children do you feel responsible for those children, to see that they have right education so that they won't be killed in a war, they won't become mediocre. Oh, you are not interested in all this. You can talk about love, freedom and the beauty of the sky but it is only an outside interest, but basically what are we interested in?

Q: In ourselves?

K: Yes, that's right, each one is interested in himself. (And) on that (self-centred mentality ?) our society, culture, religion is based. Right? Each one interested in himself, his progress, his expression - you know, all the rest of it. Now what relationship has one's self-centred activity to freedom?

Q: The relationship between responsibility to oneself and responsibility for the whole.

K: Responsibility to oneself and responsibility to the whole. What is this "yourself"? Are you not the result of your parents, genetically, heredity, are you not the result of your culture, of your religion, of all the literature and so on; and you are that and the European is that, the Indian is that. Right? They are the product of their environment, of their culture, of their religion, of their social condition, economic and so on. And they have produced this society in which we live. Do you, as a human being, realize that ( consciousness-wise ?) we are "all one" not as an idea, but as a fact ? When you go to India, you see the misery, the confusion, the anxiety, the despair of people, running to their petty little gods whom they have created; you come here it is exactly the same. So if you are "responsible" you are responsible for all mankind. You understand?

Q: When you say that "humanity is basically one", do you mean that our conditioning is basically one? Or that beyond the conditioning we are one?

K: I am sticking to the conditioning, not beyond. You can only find out what is beyond when you are free from one's conditioning. So if one realizes that, that all human beings go through this extraordinary misery, confusion, anxiety, sorrow, right through the world. You understand, sir? Right through the world every human being goes through it - Africa, China, Australia, here, everywhere. And you are that also, you, you are part of all that. So if you are responsible you are responsible for all humanity in that sense.

Q: Sir, does irresponsibility relate to striving for our 'individuality'?

K: The questioner asks, striving for (your) 'individual' fulfilment, is that irresponsible ? It is, obviously. First to realize in your heart, in your blood, in your whole thinking, that human beings right through the world go through the same agonies that one goes through: the loneliness, the despair, the depressions, the extraordinary uncertainty, insecurity, whether they live ten thousand miles away or two thousand miles or here, they are all psychologically 'bound together'. If one realizes that profoundly in your guts, in your blood, in your heart, in your mind, then you are responsible.

Q: What is it that stands in the way of our seeing our responsibility? Not only seeing responsibility but seeing the whole.

K: You see, madam, if you realize that then what is your action?

Q: I will know when I realize that.

K: No, no, if you realize that inwardly you are not "Mrs so-and-so", but you are like the rest of mankind - inwardly we are all similar though outwardly we may be dissimilar. If one realizes that, what is your action, what will you do? What's your responsibility? Wouldn't you then ask a simple question: is it possible for the person who sees this, is it possible for that person to change, not "follow the current" (of self-interest ?) ? Because if one can fundamentally change then you are no longer contributing to that "stream", to that ocean of confusion, which is self-fulfilment. You follow? I must earn more money, I must have a swimming pool, I must have, and all the rest of the thing that goes on.

Q: Sir,some of the people here understand maybe intellectually that we have to change because we are the rest of the world. But then at the same time we are continuing our individual desire to change. That's the difficulty.

K: Ah, no, no, sir. It's not an 'individual desire'. Look, sir: verbally, intellectually one may understand that psychologically we are all similar, but the verbal clarity is not the feeling of it. You understand? The verbal statement, the acceptance after argument, reason, is not the 'fact' or the feeling that you 'are' the world.

Q: What makes one understand it?

K: First it must be (seen as ?) an absolute, irrevocable truth, then you ask, what is my responsibility.

Q: What is the responsibility if you see, what is the entity that "is" the world? And what is 'the world'?

K: That's very simple: there is the outer world and the inward world. Right? The outward world, you know what is happening, I don't have to describe the outward world, with all the confusion, anger, jealousy, arrogance, self-fulfilment, wars; and inwardly we are confused, we are unhappy, we are disagreeable, we are selfish, you know. So this 'inner' (actuality) has created the outer, and the outer then encourages the inner. Right? It is simple, this fact. So if you realize that you are essentially (inwardly) 'psychologically' like the rest of the unfortunate mankind, what is your response?

Q: I observe it.

K: All right, sir, if you observe that and you realize that you have to bring about a transformation, why don't you 'do' it?

Q: I don't stay with it long enough.

K: You stay long enough with your job to earn a livelihood, you spend years and years and years, you get money, all the rest of it, why don't you spend a day with this? You understand what I mean? Give (yourself the necessary ?) time to find out.

Q: Sir, people have real needs, part of our responsibility is to meet some of those needs.

K: Of course, we agree. But if you spend all your time, as one does, acquiring one's needs and giving perhaps an occasional glance at this (inner ?) misery of mankind, your occasional glance has very little value.

Q: Excuse me, please, I think that we miss the central point of your statement that "we are the world", and I think that is the central point.

K: Yes, sir, in this discussion.

Q: It is a verbal understanding.

K: To me the mere clarity of verbal statements has very little meaning if I don't live it, find out the truth of it. So is it one of our difficulties, amongst others, is it one of our difficulties that we have become so terribly verbal, superficial, 'intellectual' in that sense that one understands words very quickly, and gets on with it. There is no depth in our enquiry, is that it?

Q: There is no depth.

K: Yes, sir. How will you acquire this depth of enquiry?

Q: I am trying to understand what is standing in our way.

K: You see, if I want to tell you something, will you (fully ?) listen to it? Listen not only with the hearing of the ear, but will you listen to it completely with your heart, with your mind?
That gentleman asked at the beginning of this questioning if we could discuss seriously the art of listening, the art of seeing, the art of learning. If we could go into that, desperately, he wants to find out. You understand? If we could go into that, not superficially, to the very depth of it, perhaps it may (help ?) solve our problems. Because that involves a great deal of attention, a great deal of comprehension together. You may tell me something true but I may not be capable of receiving it. I may not know what you mean by it, so I must listen to you with empathy, with sympathy, with affection, with care, with real deep attention to find out what you are saying. You know, if you have a small child who wants to tell you a story or something that has happened to him, Will you listen to the child completely?
So will you learn the art of listening? As we said the other day, 'art' means to give everything its proper place; to be fully, completely attentive to what is being said? Such listening implies a tremendous attention.

Q: Would you listen to a lot of small talk?

K: That depends, I wouldn't personally, but...

Q: So, there are two kinds of listening, and you have to decide what you want to listen to.

K: Ah! That's just it. If you decide what you want to listen to you shut off listening altogether.

Q: As the man said, listening to small talk is insignificant.

K: But if you (and I ) are serious and say, Look, I want to understand something completely, tell me', then we can meet each other. The Buddha, (500 BC), talked about love and all the rest of it, long before Christ, long before. And he preached for fifty years and he had two disciples amongst many who really understood, not intellectually, understood him, lived with him, comprehended his depth, his beauty, and they came every day to listen to him. They didn't say, 'Well, I'll just listen to you, I've got it', and went away, they came because there was the beauty (of truth ?) in what he was saying. And these two disciples died before he died.
And the art of seeing, seeing something as though for the first time, not the routine. That can be possible only when all the memories that you have accumulated from that (place or ?) person drop away and you can look. And we said there is a way of learning which is not the action of memory. So if you want to learn these things you become terribly serious, even for an hour.

Q: How did this answer our question?

K: Look, sir, the day before yesterday, we said what is the root cause of sorrow. Can sorrow ever end? Not only the personal sorrow but the sorrow of mankind, the collective misery of mankind. And if you really asked the question with all your heart and mind, that very question will ( bring up the true ?) answer, because ( experientially- wise ?) the answer, is (unfolded ?) in the question is not outside the question. So, what is the root cause of sorrow? Either you say, 'I don't know', because you may never have even asked such a question. But since you are good enough to be here, and you say, 'What is the root cause of it?', I can tell it to you but it will become intellectual, then you will say, if that is so, then how am I to be free of this thing. Back again. You follow? But if you put this question ( in the context of a meditator-less meditation ?) with all your intention, with all your seriousness, the question then begins to reveal (its true answer ?) . So if one asks such a serious question as this, whether you as a human being can end your sorrow, which means to discover the root of sorrow, then you have to give your tremendous attention to this very serious question, it isn't a casual superficial question. Mankind has asked this question, you may not have (yet ?). Men who are very, very serious, have devoted their life, given up everything to find this out. What is the root cause of it?

Q: Even when I see the problem, I am not capable of solving it. What then?

K: Why is one incapable of solving a psychological problem, why? Is it that you are educated to rely on another to solve it for you?

Q: We rely on you.

K: No, just look at it. Why is it that you are incapable of solving your own anxiety ? Let's take anxiety, that's a common problem of all mankind, anxiety, constantly worrying about (what might happen ?) tomorrow - why can't a human being solve it?
Q: Because of its magnitude?

K: No, you have already come to a conclusion that it is 'enormous'. Is it that you have been educated, conditioned to rely on ( the advice coming from ?) another, psychologists, psychotherapists, the priest, the pope, the professor, the specialist, so we are always relying on somebody else. If you don't rely on somebody else and you have got to solve it , what will you do ? You understand my question? There is nobody on earth who is going to solve this (existential problem ?) for you. I have got to solve it.

Q: Beethoven also had many ( personal ) problems, he didn't solve them, instead he created music.

K: He had a great talent for ( sublimating his existential anxiety through ?) music, marvellous, I have heard them, marvellous, but his own life was ( pretty much ?) like the rest of mankind. So what are you trying to say? That (having an artistic ?) talent is a ( psychological ?) danger, because through that you can (very conveniently ?) escape from yourself. So, sir, as nobody can solve your anxiety, not only in this generation, but for thousands of years they have tried: 'God help me, please help me somebody', and nobody has helped you. They (may) help you to escape (to avoid it ?) , so you are left with this thing, what will you do? You don't say then, 'I have no capacity', you have got to answer it. Or you just carry on, say, 'I am anxious, I can't solve it' and die that way. That's what most people do. But if life isn't just (living in ?) anxiety for the rest of my life, I am going to resolve it. Then you begin to find out what anxiety is. The moment you 'apply' (your mind ?) you have capacity. But one loses that capacity when one depends on another.

Q: We all have that capacity?

K: Absolutely. Sir, haven't you the capacity to earn a livelihood, money, cars, sex, houses, swimming pools? One has tremendous capacity and energy, only we apply it in one ( outward materialistic ?) direction and not to this at all.

Q: Shall we also give up listening to you?

K: Perhaps you have already given up! No, sir, just listen, wouldn't you go (out) and see something beautiful every day? Beautiful trees, the mountains, every day the light changes, different shadows, the wind, the breeze moves through different leaves, you go and see it every day. In the same way, when somebody is telling truth, you go and listen, there is such variety, such shapes.

Q: Maybe we are ( inwardly) depending on you.

K: You see I said it carefully: when you look at (the beauty of ?) those mountains every day, the rocks, hills, valleys, shadows, the movement of the clouds over the mountains, the line of the mountains, the depth, the variety of light, all day it is changing. But if we say, 'It is just ( the same) mountains, I have got to go and play golf' - it is finished. But if you are interested in seeing their beauty then you go there every day, or look at it out of the window. In the same way when you are speaking something extraordinarily beautiful, like Beethoven, sir, you hear him every day, every day you hear and every day it is different.

Q: You spoke of telling a story, is that the story about Buddha?

K: No, just a story. You didn't hear? That child wants to tell you a story, how you listen to that story. That's all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Jun 2016 #200
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


Q: You have been talking to people for over fifty years, and also there are these (K) schools, this one ( in Ojai) and those in other countries, in all of this time, out of this talking, out of these schools has there come about the total radical transformation of even one single human being?

K: You have been talking for over fifty years and has there been one single human being who has been transformed? Do you want to discuss that?

Q: Sir could we have a discussion as to what is impeding this transformation. We are coming here, and many of us are very serious, who want to transform.

K: Could we discuss seriously whether it is possible to bring about a radical transformation and what are the things that block us?

Q: And not only that. Can we talk about observation without the observer?

K: That is a very good question: the art of seeing without the observer. Perhaps we can include that question sir in discussing about is it possible to bring about a change and what is preventing us.
First of all what do we mean by "change" ? If one has an idea, a concept, a conclusion, an end to which you conform, to which you change to, or from this to that, is that change? One may project what one should be, the projection of that is coming from one's own desire, from one's own belief, from one's own demands and you project that. And when you want to become that you are (only) becoming what you are now, perhaps slightly modified. Is that clear? If one says "I must change myself in order to be good" - that goodness is a concept, is an idea, or a series of conclusions to which you are conforming, or to which you think you are changing from this to that. We are asking: is that change at all or a (self-optimised ?) continuation of what has been? If one desires a "new experience" , when you do experience that thing after which you are striving, you must be able to recognize it, you must be able to say "This is the something which I am feeling, which I am experiencing," which means that you have already recognized it and therefore recognition means that you recognize again that which you have already experienced. I wonder if you see that?

Q: I can understand it intellectually and then it is easy to deceive yourself that you are not doing that and go on wasting a lot of time.

K: I quite agree, sir. Therefore, to change from this to that, that being a projection of this, then it is not change at all. It is like moving always in the direction of 'north', going further and further and further in the same direction and therefore it is not change; but it is a change, a mutation when you are going north and you go diametrically opposite, south, or east, or west. You have moved from one direction (or ) from one dimension (of being ?) to totally another direction, (or to) another (inward ?) dimension. That is an actual "change". But if you keep on going in the same direction (of self-centred improvement ?) of course there is a modification, there is a change of scenery, change of experience, but it is in the same direction. Is that clear sirs? So one has discovered something very serious, which is to have no ( preset ?) 'direction'.
Just go step by step: (a) the first step is that one wants to change. That is a fairly intelligent demand if one is at all aware. Then (b) one asks: what do we mean by "change"? Generally it implies moving from the "known" in the direction of the "unknown". I don't know what the unknown is but I try to move towards it. But it is (a change) along the same direction. So (c) to discover "change" implies not having any movement towards any direction. Which doesn't mean you stay in the same place. I wonder if you get this?

Q: You don't stay in the same place but it seems like you have to stop or begin something .

K: All right. If you have been going "north" - and you stop, what takes place, actually?

Q: You cast about for another direction.

K: That is right sir. You are looking for a new direction: and we are saying such 'movement' (mental attitude ?) doesn't bring about a change at all. See how very complex this is and it requires a little (insightful ?) subtlety, which is: the mind has always moved in a 'horizontal' or 'vertical' (direction) , with all the variable degrees. Right? That is what we are used to and that is what we call "change", that is what we call "progress". I wonder if you see the inwardness of this ?

Q: Is this not our habitual (self-centred) thought, the outer and the inner?

K:Of course that is what we said. This is our life: one is pushed in this direction by various (cultural and economical ?) influences, desires, purposes, and if that isn't suitable one is driven in another direction. And this constant movement from one ( compass ?) degree to another degree is called progress, change, acquiring knowledge, moving. Right? So we are asking if that is ( an actual) change at all - in the sense of a deep fundamental (qualitative ?) mutation, of a "psychological" revolution. That is what we are talking about. Can we go on from there?

Q: Sir, it doesn't seem clear because if we have no direction then don't we become rather "apathetic"?

K: No. Isn't 'apathy' (implied in ?) going the same direction? You asked a question: if you have no ( desire to move along any ?) direction don't you just collapse, isn't there ( an inner state of ?) apathy? One is really ( becoming) 'apathetic' (inwardly inert ?) when you are moving in the same direction. It is routine, mechanical: one has learnt a lesson and you keep on repeating it. But to say: look, let's find out if there is any possibility of (an inner ?) movement in which there is no direction.

Q: Sir, would "enlightenment" have anything to do with what you are talking about? That is, if we are aware that we are already a part of "That which Is", there is no ( need to move in any ?) direction.

K: There is a (time-binding ?) 'danger' in that sir. That is what the ancient Hindus have been saying for three thousand years, or five thousand - we are inwardly (one with ?) Brahman, God, the Highest Principle, and through various lives and experiences we are going to "peel off our ignorance" until we achieve that Ultimate thing. That is a supposition, that is a belief, that is an idea. And also it is directive. Right?

Q: What is the nature of "direction"?

K: (a) Physical direction is: go towards Ventura, or Santa Barbara or Los Angeles, take a road and go, because your house is there.
And (b) if you are getting "educated" and having "degrees", that is a (mental movement along the ?) direction to get a (well paid ?) job - professor, scientist, psychologist and so on and so on and so on. So culturally we are conditioned to function in a 'direction' (oriented mentality ?) , or perhaps ( think along ?) a meditative, cosmic direction. Right? You are (becoming) a brilliant physicist and (perhaps get a ?) Nobel prize and you know all the rest of it. You follow (that metal guideline ?) . And the religious groups have their own concepts, ( and all you have to do is to ?) follow that (line of self-becoming ?) . But we are saying that (a qualitative inner ?) transformation implies (in the first place an ?) uprooting of that which has been, not modifying that which has been.

Q: Are you implying that we cannot 'know' change?

K: That's right. The moment you are ( becoming self-consciously ?) aware that you have changed you are not changed. That's the beauty of it. Haven't you noticed the moment you say, "I am very happy" - something has (ineffably ?) already escaped from you.

Q: What we call change, what we call growth, dissipates the capacity for ( an integrative ?) "transformation".

K: Yes sir. There is the biological process of evolution, the cultivation of the the brain. And ( thinking along the same line ?) that man grows from childhood to adolescence and so on, that may be our idea of (inner ?) change too. You follow? Being a child, psychologically you may have the same idea (mentality ?) . But as there is biological growth and evolution and decay, psychologically it is the same thing. So we are saying: ( a radical ?) transformation implies ( an state of inner ? ) "non-movement" as 'time' and 'measure'. We are always measuring (our progress ?) , aren't we? I have been, I shall be. Right? Tho whole western (mentality ?) is based on measurement, both technologically - right - if you have no (accurate tools of ?) measurement you can't produce an aeroplane. Right? The whole of the western civilization is based on that. Because thought is ( based on ?) measurement. And this is the real meaning of meditation, to go into it (and beyond it ?) .
Now, the eastern world said -in the ancient days that "measurement is illusion" and to discover the Immeasurable there must be no ( inward mentality based on ?) measurement. Naturally. But... they employed ( their measuring instrument of ?) thought to achieve the immeasurable. "You must control, you must meditate, you must sacrifice, you must behave", all the ( traditional) patterns laid down through measurement, which measurement is thought. Are you following all this?

Q: It seems to me sir that a sort of physical measurement is necessary...

K: Of course. Physical measurement is necessary; to build this chair you must have ( the right ) measurements.

Q: What is the nature of 'time' in its movement from the past to the present?

K: Look sir, we started out by asking: what is change? As long as there is the ( inner mentality of getting ?) "more", which is measurement, the comparison which is measurement, moving from this to that , which is a continuation of measurement, there cannot be change.
However, one wants to change because one sees that one is ( inwardly speaking ?) "ignorant". You may have a great deal of knowledge of outward things, how to go to the moon or be an excellent plumber, electrician or a physicist - one realizes that must be done. But also one says to oneself: how am I, how is one to change? We have always changed from this to that, in the same direction (of optimising our self-interest ?) . But is that an authentic change? Or such "change" is to have a mind that has no directional movement at all, but has ( its own intelligent ?) movement.
Sir, look, we expend our energy in a particular way, sexual, ambitious, competitive, greedy, engineering, success. But we are saying all these have not changed man (inwardly) . Right? Would you agree? They have modified ( our living conditions) - they built better roads, better cars, better aeroplanes, but psychologically, inwardly man has not changed. He has been afraid from the most ancient of days until now. He has been violent from the ancient times until now. He has been envious, brutal from immemorial time. So man has not changed deeply. And one asks: is it because he has always considered all movement must be directional, growth must be directional. It is ( true) biologically. You plant an acorn it will be an oak. It will take time. So why has not man, human beings, changed fundamentally? I am asking you why?

Q: Because we haven't wanted to ?

K: Oh, when you want something you get it, whether it is sex, money, position, anything you want, you have immense energy.

Q: Pardon me. She said, "because we haven't wanted to". We haven't changed because we haven't wanted to.

K: Sir look: if you wanted to changed what would you do? I am asking you. You would exercise will (power ) . You would say, "Well, I must achieve that" - which means you are already moving in a direction, which you have done for a thousand years. (EG:) You may smoke, that has become a habit, nicotine (addiction ?) and all the rest of it. And you know it is very harmful to your health, for your brain, for your heart but you still go on. And you don't say, now let me observe why I don't drop it. If you drop it because of your health, because of some other reason, the motive is not to change radically, just drop the cigarette. You understand what I am trying to convey?

Q: Could you explain that a little better?

K: All right. Why do you smoke? It must have tasted for the first time rather unpleasant. Right? But people around you smoke, it (eventually) tastes perhaps good - so the commercials say so. So first you smoke and it is unpleasant and then you get in the habit of it. Then doctors come along and say it is very bad for your health, for your lungs, for your brain, it does, etc., etc. All the doctors are saying this. And for what reason will you drop smoking? You are frightened and so you say, "By Jove, I will have pain therefore I mustn't smoke". So the ( particular) desire to smoke may be stopped. But you have other desires. Do you follow it? Which have created their own habits. So you are always 'moving' (in the same desire-controlled ?) area - always dropping one thing and picking up another and this is the modern world. Go from one guru to another, one better guru than the other, or one religion better than the other, one sect is better than the other, and so on and on and on. Which is always from one 'centre' (of desire ?) to another 'centre'. So we are saying: any movement of ( our desire-propelled ?) thought projected in a particular direction, and achieving that end is not leading to a basic transformation of man.

Q: What you are saying is that we mustn't look for (self-) gratification.

K: Yes sir. You you have reduced it to some little affair. Gratification. Why do you want to be gratified? Who is to gratify? You follow? Why?
So ( a holistic ?) change implies the "non-movement" of ( desire-propelled ?) thought. You see. Because thought says, "I want that. I have had that and I have had not sufficient (satisfaction ?) , so I must have this." And so it is constantly moving from this to 'this' to 'that'. And that is what we call "change" generally (changing the object of our desire ?) . And we are saying, no, that is not change at all. Change implies when ( our desire-propelled ?) thought has no "object" towards which it is moving. It has projected enlightenment. Right? God - whatever it has projected and says it must be achieved, therefore I must ( make some ?) sacrifice, I must do this, do that, but it is in the same direction.

Q: One can see that this is what one has done, moved in direction. One can see that movement in direction is all tho same and yet...

K: Wait, wait. Is that so? Have you seen it verbally, intellectually or as "truth"?

Q: Apparently one has not because...

K: That is the point. Let's stick to that. You say I see intellectually clearly this thing.

Q: And I can also see factually that this is what I did do in the past. That is a fact.

K: Yes, that is a fact. And I say why don't you see it "as a whole", with your whole being? Why prevents you?

Q: It seems that there is no awareness of that ( desire induced ?) movement.

K: Yes, go on sir, explain a little more.

Q: At the moment that the ( mental) movement in a direction is taking place there is no ( direct ?) awareness that this is movement.

K: I am not saying you are wrong, but I am not sure. Which is I want - one wants to become a "congressman" and you work ( the crowd ?) for it. You know the direction you want to go, you are aware of all the implications, you are going in that direction. You also want to be "enlightened" and you read books and you study what is implied and you say, to achieve to enlightenment I must do certain things - vows of celibacy, poverty, etc., etc., etc. So you conform to that ( traditional) pattern, if you want that. So, you know you are deliberately doing this.

Q: Not at the very moment of wanting it.

K: You may be conscious of it, or unconscious of it. So before you move towards enlightenment obviously a ( presumably ?) "sane" man asks, "Why do I want it?" What is the reason? "Am I bored with my life? Am I bored with my job? Am I bored with my wife, my girl friend?" and so on and so on. "And I have experienced so many things but this may be totally different kind of experience, so I would like that." So consciously or unconsciously there is a ( subliminal ?) "cognizance" of this movement. You may not be actually aware of this whole structure of this movement but obviously, whether one is aware or unaware this movement takes place from being this to that. So, if I may point out, one cannot possibly say one is not aware of it.

Q: We are not aware even though we may be 'unconsciously 'aware. You see my difficulty?

K: I understand sir. That means you are being driven in a particular direction without knowing it. See the danger. You are being coercised, pressurized, driven, 'brainwashed' (to move ) in a particular direction.

Q: It is like when we become angry, at the moment of anger you are not aware, it is only after you say, "I was angry".

K: Yes, that is right. But we are talking of something different from that. That is, sir, don't you know when you "are" greedy?

Q: Afterwards.

K: No, wait. See the reaction (of a very common greed ): You see something in the window and ( if you can afford it ?) you "want" it. What has taken place? The seeing of that dress, that trouser, that coat, that car, that woman, that man, or whatever it is, seeing, the sensation, the contact and say, "I like that, that's exciting." - which is thought creates a (promising ?) "image" of you sitting in the car and driving it . You follow? This whole movement is ( either ?) so quick (subliminal ?) or you ( can ) observe as it is arising. That is seeing, contact, sensation, thought creating the ( mental) image of "you in the ( Mercedes coupé ?) car and driving it" - all that is so quick.

Q: One can see that.

K: Yes if you observe (it non-personally ?) . If you are very aware of this movement, then you can see how it arises. And also you can see that the moment that ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought comes in with the image the ( psychological) 'trouble' begins.

Q: I understand that. You said before we may be "unconsciously aware". Could you just describe...

K: "Unconsciously aware" in the sense one is not ( consciously ?) aware of the quickness of this movement. It takes over so quickly, but if you "slow down" the whole process, then you see like in a (slow motion) film, you can turn it very fast or very slowly, then you will see everything in action. That is all I am pointing out.

Q: In this "slowing down" does the thing that moves become aware of its own movement?

K: Yes sir.

Q: How do you "slow it down"?

K: Sir, look, there is no ( need to ask ?) 'how', because the moment you have a 'how' you have fallen into a system, you have fallen into a direction, you have begun the same game again. But (suppose) one goes to a museum and sees some (famous ?) painting and you want to see the whole of it so you look very, very carefully don't you? Every part of it, detail, different depths, different quality of colour and the movement of colour, you watch it slowly, you watch it and then you can step back and see the whole thing. There is no (purposeful act of ?) "slowing down" because you want to see the details. You understand? Therefore there is no effort made to slow down, you want to see it clearly, that is all.
So talking about ( a qualitative inward ?) "change": why haven't you changed? What is the block, blockage, the impediment that prevents you from changing? Is it fear?

Q: Partly the ( fear of the ?) unknown.

K: Is it 'laziness' ( inertia ?) ? Is it the mind has got so used to a certain pattern of living that it refuses, and says, "This is all right, why do you want to change it?" Because any change might imply ( going through a period of ?) insecurity. Therefore you say, "Look, sorry I can't be insecure." Do you follow? ( In a nutshell:) There may be several reasons for not changing. And the reasons ( why one should change ?) are fairly logical, fairly clear, so you say, "Please, what is wrong?"

Q: Does that mean that we don't actually see the "danger" of it? The danger that if we dared to change...

K: Sir, isn't it very ( holistically ?) "dangerous", the way we are living? To the things of the earth, to the things of the air, to the things of the sea, isn't it (globally ?) "dangerous" the way we are living?

Q: Aren't we afraid of "dissolving" ourselves and/or "losing" ourselves?

K: Yes, sir. We are so ( knowledgeably ?) "selfish" that we don't want to change. That is the basic reason.
Now, if you go into this (question of inward change ?) very carefully a great many things are involved in this, extraordinary things if you go into it. Which is, (a) first of all to live without any comparison. Right? Can you live without any ( self-) comparison, both physically as well as psychologically? Find out what it means to compare. Which is, one is this, the example is perfect, I must become that. Or, compare oneself with something higher, both economically, socially, physically. This comparison is measurement, isn't it? So stop "measuring" (yourself ?) . Can you? See what happens to a mind that has no sense of ( self-) comparison. We think through comparison is ( measuring our degree of ?) evolution, growth, progress, change. We say, on the contrary, ( self-) comparison is merely a projection (of oneself) in the same direction. I am 'this', I must become 'that. Right? To have no sense of ( self-) comparison, doesn't that bring a tremendous ( inward ?) freedom?
So if you don't compare ( yourself with anybody ) what takes place? You have never tried these things...

Q: The mind doesn't move in that direction anymore.

K: So what takes place?

Q: There is a change.

K: No, no. That's too quick (glib ?) . You don't investigate. You do compare yourselves , don't you sirs? Obviously. Now if you don't compare yourself what takes place?

Q 1: Nothing?

Q2: Confusion?

Q3: We have to look at everything by itself?

K: Sirs, look, if you don't compare (yourself with others ?), that is (already a qualitative ?) change, isn't it?

Q: There is space.

K: Don't compare. That is an absolute change (of one's inner attitude ?) , because your minds have been comparing, comparing, comparing. And ( living immersed in the field of ?) knowledge is comparison too; more knowledge, less knowledge - the "Professors" with their immense knowledge, history, physicists, biology and so on, great knowledge. Knowledge is a progressively comparative (process ) .

Q: We compare ( or evaluate ?) 'what is' with our ( existing ?) knowledge.

K: Yes. For the money you have you choose the better (stuff) and so on. But we are talking 'psychologically' (inwardly ?), not to have (to carry on) this burden of ( self- ?) comparison.
So when you don't compare (yourself ) you have stopped wasting your energy in a particular direction (of self-becoming ?) - haven't you? You have that energy (gathered together ?) . So when you drop completely "comparison" you have ( free access to ?) this ( reservoir of ?) immense energy, quick, alive.

Q: The moment the idea of non-comparison comes in it sets up a whole new chain of comparison. The mind is comparing (itself with ?) that which is suggested by you.

K: Of course, of course. Sir when you go to a museum and watch several pictures - Michelangelo and so on, you are all the time ( evaluating and ?) comparing you never observe completely. Because somebody has told you this is a better painter than that and you want to accommodate yourself to the (appreciation of the ?) better, to the man who specializes in ( evaluating the artistical quality of ?) pictures he says, "This is the best picture" - so you are conditioned - you follow? By ( the cultural) propaganda, by other people, so you never (take the time to ?) look at a picture completely, forgetting who has painted it. In the same way when you are always comparing ( yourself with others) you never ( take the time to ?) look at yourself completely. You understand sir?

Q: Are you saying that as long as there is comparison there is division?

K: No only division but there is never total observation of the thing which you are looking at.
So, let's proceed. What is blocking us from a radical (inner) change ? Is it that we are always dealing with parts, rather than taking the whole structure of our ( self-centred ?) psyche and "ending" it, not (sequentially) takling one part after another. Is that (fragmentary approach ?) one of our difficulties?

Q: It seems that the "self" (consciousness ?) can take refuge anywhere and as one moves step by step, dealing with an aspect here, an aspect there, the self will take refuge (get a new ID ?) somewhere else.

K: Yes sir, so it will take the rest of our life.

Q: In fact it will never take place.

K: That's right.

Q. So how can we move to ( dealing directly with ?) the "centre" ?

K: I am going to show you, sir. In our relationships, sir, what is your relationship with another? Intimate or not intimate. Be actual. Put your teeth into it and find out. Is it convenience? Is it that you are using another for your own benefit? Is it that it gives you satisfaction? Fulfillment? A sense of well being because being together and so on and so on? Which is, we are exploiting each other. Is that it? See, you are all too frightened to go into this.

Q: We are not afraid, sir.

K: That is only part, isn't it? Observe the part and go through the part completely to the end and then you will cover the whole. I will take ( the question of ?) relationship, and go into it thoroughly.
One is related to another through attraction, convenience, comfort, encouragement, (and not in the least to ?) escape from loneliness. So all these and other reasons make you get "attached" (psychologically dependent ?) to a person, or to a thing. That is, you have a great longing because you feel lonely, desperately depressed by yourself. And you do not know how to solve that, so you accept ( the opportunity of getting closely related to ?) another to escape from this. That is, "you" (and/or your personal needs ?) are always the centre from which you are moving. That is you have an image of your own sense of importance, your own inhibitions and so on and ( if) you do not know how to solve this inside yourself, you either go off to somebody to "solve it" - psychologists and so on and so on - or ( still cheaper ?) you get attached to somebody to escape from this.
Now this is only a part (of our existence) relationship - and go through that part completely and end your attachment, completely. You follow? Completely end it and face wholly your "loneliness". That may be why you get (trapped ?) into sexual habits - to temporarily escape from this sense of deep loneliness - that becomes the mechanical ( repetitive ?) pattern. So... face this extraordinary sense of loneliness.
So through ( introspectively investigating ?) the part I can go step by step and "drop it" as I go along, not ( keep) playing with it and carry on. Drop it (the attachment ?) , seeing ( the inner fact that ?) I am lonely. I am going to understand what this thing is, to be lonely. Why am I ( feeling ?) lonely? Is it because all my activities are self-centred? My seeking god, my seeking a position, power, my seeking clairvoyance, is this all a means of avoiding actually ( facing) what I am? So if you can drop those ( superficial ?) things actually, then what? Then I have discovered an inner state in which there is no ( need for going in any ?) direction at all. There is only the dropping away (the falling back ?) of everything that I have held. You understand what I am talking about? Can you do this?

( If not, it may end up like this:) One holds furniture, a piece of furniture and you identify with ( the idea that you possess ?) that piece of furniture and... you "are" that furniture. I was told by a lawyer once, a man and a woman were seeking a divorce and they had been wrangling about this and that, this property, that property - you know - they go through all that mess - and they had settled most things and the last day the woman said, "I must have that" - it was an ashtray! And they fought over it and the woman wanting it and the man wanting the ashtray. It was an ashtray - you understand - nothing important. So the lawyer took the ashtray and broke it. You understand all this?

Q: How petty !

K: We are petty sir. So we are saying, ( a radical inner ?) change implies a state of mind that is not moving from a "centre" (of interest ?) to another "centre". Can you "do it"? The "centre" is lonely and to move to a "centre" ( inner state ?) which is not lonely is still the ( modified) movement of (my present ?) loneliness. Just see the truth of it. If you see that then you enquire "why" is this loneliness. Is it that my ( self-conscious ?) actions are self-centred and are isolating me all the time? You understand sir? Do you follow all this? I am ambitious, I am greedy, I am this, I want that, I must have this or that outwardly and inwardly. So the essence of loneliness is this movement of (self- ?) isolation. Right? So is there an action which is not self-centred?

Q: One of the things that "slows us down" is our need for security, is it not that this slows us down ?

K: Now wait a minute sir, this is an important question (to be considered ) again. You must have physical security, obviously, clothes, food, shelter. But inwardly we also want ( a continuous feeling of ?) security. And we never question whether inwardly there is ( such a ?) security at all. Inwardly one has found security in a belief in god, in some fanciful idea. Is that security? You may find security in ( getting attached of?) your wife, in your girl friend, husband, is that security? When you have ( projected that sense of ?) security in a person, see how (psychologically ?) 'dangerous' it is ? If you have sought security in that woman, or in that man, then you become attached, jealous, angry, you follow? The whole agony begins. Don't you know all this?

Q: If there is no (psychological ) 'security' then there is no need for such security.

K; That's right sir. When you see that 'psychologically' there is no security, the very seeing is ( an act of ?) intelligence. And in that (compassionate ) intelligence there is a tremendous ( sense of inner ?) security.

Q: Sir, you asked if there is an action that is not self-centred. The only action I know that is not self-centred, is to 'surrender'.

K: Surrender to what?

Q: To everything.

K: Wait sir, look carefully. The Christian world has said, surrender ( yourself ) to God. See the ( potential ) danger. Which is, surrender to the ( accepted ) idea of God, surrender to what people have said about God, Christ . So I am asking: to whom are you surrendering?

Q: To the "higher being" within you.

K: You see, that is you have created the ( concept of a ?) "higher being".

Q: What about surrending to 'what is'?

K: 'What is' is there. You don't surrender to the "sunshine"...You see we use words that are so meaningless when you examine it.

Q: Perhaps we should discuss this in terms of "psychological pressure".

K: All right, take that one fact of (psychological) "pressure". Are you being "pressurized" by the speaker here?

Q: No.

K: Go carefully sir. Aren't you under the pressure of your institutions, your education, of the newspapers? So can you be free of this pressure?

Q: You will be pressurized by external circumstances, they won't go away.

K: No, wait. Yes maybe because you are living in a crowded city, travelling by the underground 'tube' or whatever it is called. So physically, but psychologically can't you be free of the (the multiple psychological) pressures from your wife, from your husband, from your girl, from your own urges? After all your own desire is ( excersing ?) a tremendous pressure.

Q: Yes. You can be free of that pressure 'psychologically'.

K: Are you saying you "are" free from psychological pressures?

Q: No, but that is why I am here.

K: Therefore what will you do when you realize that you are under ( constant mental ?) pressure by your wife or girl friend? Will you stop that pressure? Or your own sexual demands, your own loneliness say, "Well, I can't".

Q: But when I look I don't see anything. There is nothing there.

K: Find out, is that so?
( To recap:) Mutation implies the "non-movement" of the (usual) activities of the self. Which means all ( self) measurement as comparison, measurement of the more, the less, the desire to fulfil, all that is ( encapsulated in the syntagm ?) "movement in measurement". So a mind that has no ( self-) measuring ( activity ) of any kind, that doesn't say "I am ignorant, but I am going to be enlightened". ( So, for homework:) Find out sir, slow down the whole mechanism of ( your) thinking, and observe.

Q: One would easily end up with ( a still stronger inner?) pressure: it means that all our activity ceases.

K: Oh no. Our activity is completely destructive when it is self-centred - obviously. Look what is happening all over the world.

Q: But at the moment of observation, doesn't the activity of the mind...

K: Sir that again is very difficult - we must first find out what our "action" is. Do we act from a "centre" (of self-interest ?) ? From a strong belief? From an ideal? Which is always a "centre". Right? And the nobler the principle - which is still the "centre" - we think that is extraordinary. So there is an action without the centre ?
Let me put it differently: we consider all self-centred action "positive". Right? Achievement is a positive thing. We create a 'dynamo' ( a psychological momentum ?) which is very positive. And being so psychologically active and acting from a centre, to be a businessman, to be this or that, is the "positive action", which has resulted in chaos in the world. In misery, confusion. So there is an action which is "non-positive". I wonder if you see this.

Q: Is observation part of this?

K: Pure observation without any ( self-centred ?) movement is action. Observation "is" action. If one observes very clearly attachment, watch it, not do positive action about it, but through negation, negation is the most "positive" action , not the other.

Q: When one is observing, totally observing the action, is that the end of all that ( self-centred) activity?

K: Yes. So, have you changed? After an hour and a half have you caught the truth that "change is non-movement in any direction"? Even intellectually grasped it ? That means, ( such a radical qualitative ?) change implies absolute observing of 'what is'. You understand? Observing ( the movement of ?) one's greed, one's loneliness, despair, depression, watching it without any desire to change this or that, just watch it. Sirs, you are watching this shadow. You can't change that shadow. But we want to change the shadow which is ourselves. Just to watch it, and the very watching of it is the ending of it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 12 Jun 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 Jun 2016 #201
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1979 The 'total' action (condensed version)

K: For the next five days, every morning here, we are going to have a dialogue. A 'dialogue' means conversation between people who are concerned about their life, about their way of living, and about the world about us and serious enough to ( attempt to ?) resolve their problems. ( En passant ?) Dialecticism is the art of investigation, the truth of opinions. But (through expressing our ) opinions, our judgements, personal evaluations, points of views I don't think you can find ( the living dimension of ?) truth through those means. This is n together having a friendly conversation, not opposing points of view but together go into our problems. So that is the intention of these morning meetings here for the next five mornings. And I hope we will do that.
Now what shall we talk over together this morning?

Questioner (1) : Sir, is it possible to observe thought as it occurs in the present, or when there is its observation the thought is already past?

Q (2) : I was struck by an automobile when I was seventeen years old and I have had a great deal of difficulty with energy. And I have listened to you for quite a few years and understand about not identifying with the problem. I wonder if you could go into personal 'mental cripples' like me.

Q (3) : The difference between the 'me' and the individuality.

Q (4) : Would you speak a little bit more about action which is not based on recording?

Q(5): What is the relationship between love and death?

Q (6) : Could you speak more about the relationship between fear and dependence? I am concerned about dependence in my own life and my relationship with my girl-friend. Sometimes I see it and yet it still continues. Somehow I don't become free of it. Many times I think of just leaving and going away to live on my own. Yet somehow I sense that is not the answer. And yet there are other times when I see my own dependence and yet I am not free of it. And there is tremendous fear.

Q (7) : Ambition and why we are so insensitive in our daily life.

K: Which of these questions shall we talk over together?

Q: If we discussed ( the psychological) "dependence" would that cover many of the questions?

K: Or would you discuss our action in daily life, the doing, the way of behaviour, the way of conduct, the way of a relationship in which all action takes place, is there an action that is so totally complete that it doesn't leave a sad remembrance? Shall we discuss that ( first ) ?

Q: Yes.

K: All right, let's talk about action and perhaps in that we will include "thought", "what is the relationship between love and death", fear and dependence, and physical illness affecting the mind, and the ( problem of the ?) psyche and the "universal" (mind ?) . Can we do this?

Q: Yes.

K: Right. What do you mean by "action"? Ttogether we are ( hopefully ?) going to find out if there is an action which is so whole, complete, total, that it doesn't leave a single shadow of pain, regret, grief, hurt and all that - right? So what do we mean by "action"?

Q: Action must be a ( an act of ?) creation.

K: You see, when you are now making a ( conclusive ?) statement like this, (our dialogue ) is finished. So, let us take it (apart ?) and examine it together - right sirs ?
So the first thing is to find out what we mean by that word "action", by the "doing". Do we mean 'that which has been done', or 'that which will be done', the action in the past, or the action in the future, or the action which is taking place now. This is action. Either moving from here to there physically, or taking a hammer and a nail and putting it in a wall, or driving a (luxury ?) car. Actually ( inwardly ?) action means "that which is happening now " - not the action which has happened, or the action which is going to happen. All these are also (intimately related in the spatio-temporal ?) action: that which has happened, that which is happening, and that which will happen - right?
So (inwardly-wise) what is the action that has happened? What is it the result of it ? What is the motive of that action? What is the impetus? What is the ( pre-established ?) conclusion from which our action takes place?
Our common daily action has always some kind of motive, pleasant or unpleasant, rewarding or painful, or under pressure, driven by various (environmental) influences. And is there an action which has no motive, which is not ( done) under pressure, which is not frightened, which is not rewarding and therefore (potentially ?) painful?

Most of our actions, as one observes, are based on a remembrance, on a desire, on ( the expectation of some ) personal reward, or (avoidance of ?) punishment, or it is an action based on an ideal, or on a belief, and so on.
So let's examine it together : if our action is based on an ideal, on the future, that action is conforming, adjusting, or imitating the "ideal" - right? Therefore is that an action which is whole, complete, without leaving any marks of hurt, regret, and so on? So what is our action based on? Pleasure, fear?

Q: It is based on necessity.

K: Necessity. That is sir, I need food so I go to the market, if I have money, buy it, that is an action. I need clothes, if I have money I go and buy them. Shelter and so on. So on necessity, on our physical needs, and then (there are the ?) 'psychological' needs - right?

Q: Do the 'psychological' needs (really) exist?

K: There are the physical needs and the actions based on what we consider 'psychological' (personal ?) needs. One needs somebody else to give one comfort, therefore our action is based on that dependence - right? I need somebody (like K ?) to tell me how to live a different life and I depend on that person.

Q: Is it possible for an action not to have a cause?

K: You see when you make a ( final) statement like that: "is there an action without cause ?" ,you are asking a question which is theoretical, and the answer must also be theoretical. But if we go step by step, slowly, examining, and doing it as we are going along, then there will be no theoretical problems at all. So please in a dialogue, don't jump to something. See what our actions are based on first, what is actually going on; either physical needs, food, clothes, shelter and the labour required to earn the money to have those, and the "psychological" needs. It is a fact. This is what we have, physical as well as psychological and our actions are based on these two. One recognizes physical needs are absolutely necessary: as society now is organized we all (may ?) have to work from morning until night for years and years and years. Just look at the tragedy of it. You may not like it but it is a fact. One goes to the office, factory, whatever one is doing physically to earn money, from the age of twenty, fifteen, until you are almost dying, day after day to the office, and so on and so on. That is how our society is organized. That is a fact.

Q: Do you call that action or is it reaction?

K: It is both because I need food and if I don't get proper amount of money, labour, I am becoming jealous , anxious, and all the rest of it begins. Therefore it is a reaction. So there is the physical need. Then one's actions are (also) based on psychological needs. Please go into it.

Q: Psychological needs are different from desire?

K: Are the 'psychological' needs different from ' the activities of ?) desire? Perhaps not. Let us first see as a fact that human beings "need" ( the need may be false) an action based on 'psychological' needs. That is, one needs beliefs, one needs certain conclusions, certain opinions, or need ( to think in terms of ?) nationalities, hierarchical approach, 'images', religious and otherwise created by the hand and by the mind . You 'need' all this. Please don't deny it, it is a fact for most people. You may not just say "I have no psychological necessities", that would be a most rare thing to say. Right?
So we must find out for ourselves: are these ( authentic ?) needs?

Q: But there is always a necessity for action in some way or another.

K: We said that for physical needs there must be. But we are questioning the 'psychological' needs for our action. I question it.
What we are trying to find out is, what is ( the 'holistic' approach to ?) action. sed on these and it were based on true observation then there may not be so many problems. But most action is based on desires, on our conditioning, and on our needs. So what is the right means to base on action on?

Q: What would determine what is a "correct" need, instead of desire and so on? In other words, is there a strict separation between the one and the other?

K: Do physical needs go( spill ?) over to the psychological needs? One needs a house, or a room to stay in, then in that room one gets attached to the furniture, the ( personal ?) 'attachment' to the furniture is a psychological need - without that furniture I would feel a bit uncomfortable. So is there demarcation at all? I am becoming attached to the furniture and I hold it dear. And that furniture has become me ( part of my life?). And I act from that.

Now we are going the next 'step' (next awareness level ?): is there an (authentic ) necessity for these 'psychological' needs to exist? ? We ( usually) say, yes, they are a fact. The necessity of ( having) a ( strong) belief, the necessity of dependence, the necessity of sex, the necessity of achieving success - right? And on all that (psychological background) my actions are based. That's obvious, isn't it ? So we are now questioning why we consider that 'psychologically' we need things. Right? Now, do we need beliefs?

Q: No.

K: The gentleman says, "no". That means you are free of beliefs. Now see what we mean by 'belief'. Belief in something that cannot be (physically ?) proved. One believes in god - it can't be proved. One believes in heaven - it can't be proved. One believes that there are people somewhere else (in the universe) , one believes that, it can't be proved. And we believe in 'nationality'. You are French, German, English, Indian, and god knows what else. Follow it step by step. Either you relinquish all this as you go along and say, "Sorry, I am not a nationalist" - finished...

Q: May I ask a question? Don't we have to ask ourselves first where those needs come from?

K: We are going to find it out in a minute if you have patience. So our 'beliefs' have become necessities. Talk to anyone from the Christian world that believes in Jesus, a saviour and all the rest of it, they believe. Right? And you go to India, they also have their (local ?) gods, they believe. So why do they believe in something that cannot be 'proved', that has no validity. Why do they believe?

Q: Because they love that form of action ?

K: Why do they love that kind of action?

Q: It gives them security.

K: Go into it please. Enquire into yourself. You (also) believe, don't you, if you are honest, in something or other. Or you don't believe and you go to the other extreme: "I don't believe in God, I am an atheist". And both take a stand, both remain convinced of ( the psychological validity of ?) their conclusions.

Q: Sir, 'believing in oneself' is the same thing.

K: All right, let's take that (more realistic ?) 'believing in oneself'. What is 'oneself'? Just look at it sir, examine it. Do you believe 'you' exist because you have a (physical) body?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes. When you say, "I believe in myself", I say it is a strange thing to say, what do you believe in? In the knowledge that you have acquired?

Q: May I suggest that we take a more actual example. Most of the people who are present in this tent believe that you are "enlightened".

K: Sir, we are not talking who is enlightened, who is not enlightened and how do you know. But we are talking about a man who says, "I believe in myself", I say, who is this 'yourself' ? One has to find out for oneself who he is. Now, two friends are meeting and talking over, and say, look, who am I, in whom I believe so strongly?

Q: A piece of the 'absolute truth' ?

K: You see, and then there is no discussion possible.

Q: Well if you say you 'believe in yourself', doesn't that generally mean that a person has certain challenges in life and he has overcome some of these challenges. And from overcoming these challenges or whatever the experience was he forms a certain 'image' of himself and when says he believes in himself, or she believes in herself, it is that ( self-created ?) image that they believe in.

K: That gentleman asked in the beginning 'what is action?' Is there an action that doesn't bring sorrow? Is there an action that doesn't breed contradictions? Is there an action that is so complete, so whole, that it is finished without leaving any shadow of regret, of saying to oneself "I wish I hadn't done it", and so on? That is the question we are having a dialogue about it. The other gentleman asked, I have had a car accident, my body is affected, and it is affecting my mind, what am I to do? Right? He is asking that question because he is in pain, he is confused, he says, "Tell me what to do". Right? Are we in that position, any of you? Or is it all so casual a dialogue that you will listen but you will do nothing about what you have listened to?
I hope you have not had ( such ) an accident, but are you in that position and say, "Look, I want to give my life to find out if there is an action which is really whole" , or you are just sitting on the river bank and looking at the waters go by, never entering in the stream?

Q: There is no ( such ) 'complete' action.

K: Very few are concerned really about it, who say: Let's us put aside our problems, our opinions, our judgements, our way of thinking, our conclusions, put all those aside and let's "think together". You won't even do that. And when we meet two, or half a dozen, it will be the same problem. We have done all this; in India, in Holland, in America, small groups, big groups, but nobody gives his life to find out.

Q: Can we not just discuss one problem?

K: I am discussing it: when a (psycho-somatic ?) body is affected by an accident, why does it enter into the psychological mental state - right sir?
Look: my nerves have been shattered through an accident - right? A car has run over my leg and that leg is paralysed, I can't walk properly. And that affects my thinking because I can't get a proper job - right? You don't see all this. I depend on somebody to help me, so gradually I become anxious, I become frightened, I develop nervous ticks, and what am I to do?

Q: Sir, I would like to suggest that there are a lot of us here who are in the same situation as the gentleman, not physically, but in other ways also.

K: Look sir, one's problem is both psychological and physical - right? One is affected physically and therefore the nervous organism has been upset, crippled and it affects one's thinking, one's feeling, and one is frightened. That is one (aspect of the) problem, which is the result of a physical accident. And the other is, one is equally 'crippled' (stuck ?) psychologically - by one's dependence, attachment, fear and so on. Now can we see these two (sided ) fact first, not move away from that? Or you say, "Sorry I am not crippled physically, I am not mentally, psychologically, there is no ugliness, there is nothing crippled, and therefore I am perfectly healthy" - right? That is a very rare person.
So we have got these two (sister ?) questions. (a) What is the action with regard to the one who has had physical calamity, which is affecting his nerves and therefore his brain, his thoughts, his emotions and all the rest of it, a result of an accident. And (b) being 'psychologically' crippled and equally frightened, equally nervous, equally inhibited, equally anxious and developing neurotic attitudes - right? Both are similar.
Now what is the action with regard to this one ( two sided) thing? Physically affecting the nerves and the brain, and the other, crippled by tradition, crippled by belief, crippled by attachment, crippled by various pressures, job, you follow, they both come to the same thing. Right? Do you see that, please? These two are not separate, they are one. Right? One is physical, one is psychological. The physical (incidents ?) bring about the psychological results, which is what has happened to most of us, which is psychologically we are "crippled" ( handicaped ?) . Now what is the (right ) action

with regard to this one fact: human beings are 'crippled' ( handicaped ?) both psychologically and physically. Some are 'extravagantly crippled' in both ways, others are medium, partially, and what is the action which will correct this thing? Now, which is most important (prioritary) , this psychological aspect of this, or the physical aspect of this?

Q: The 'psychological' ?
K: If I am (becoming) aware, that I am psychologically crippled, and because I am psychologically crippled I gradually develop a sense of isolation which gradually affects my psycho-somatic) body, - you follow? And if I am ( handicaped) physically, it is the same thing. So I am saying which is more important to consider first? The psychological state of being crippled, or the physical state of being crippled? You understand? To which do we give (the prioritary) importance To the physical or psychological?

Q: Both of them?

Q: Psychological?

K: Careful, careful. If I am physically affected would I consider ( as prioritary the ?) psychological ? See the difficulty. I have been run over, I am crippled and it is affecting my mind. ( But even then ? ) my mind has already been affected by society, by my parents - you follow? Only this ( physical) incident has added more to it.
So I don't ( have to) neglect the physical but I will go into after I have understood whether I am ( also being ) crippled psychologically, or the physical is making me crippled, psychologically. So I am first investigating being psychologically crippled as the result of living in a monstrous society, the wrong kind of education, wrong kind of acquiring knowledge and so on and so on, that has crippled my mind. So if I can understand the whole structure of my 'psyche' then I can attend to the physical. I think this 'psychological crookedness', unclarity, can be cleard and the mind can be completely made whole. Then with that clarity of mind I can attend to my physical ailments. So I am saying: being crippled psychologically can the mind be made whole? That is the question which needs action. I have to do something. Right?

Q: Sir, I am sorry to interrupt, but I feel that now we are putting our foot into an old, old trap. And the trap is that we sit here and watch you "perform". We are perfectly sure we know it, we have seen you do it a hundred times. We know that in half an hour you can (magistrally ?) "totally break out" of all psychological problems, and probably physical and spiritual and everything else. Unfortunately sir, maybe I am the 'odd man out', since I may sense a certain hostility on the part of some members of the audience, who may feel that I am throwing a spanner in the '( K) works'. They want to watch you breaking out onto 'Cloud 9' - if so I don't want to interfere with them, I am happy to leave.

K: Go on sir. I am listening to you.

Q: Ten minutes ago, after having spent fifty minutes, you came to a point where you felt that we were all just pussy-footing around with the thing, and all we wanted to do was "to take a ride and watch you do the trick". Then in despair perhaps you seemed to have washed your hands of the whole thing, and decided to have a dialogue with yourself, which is what you have been doing (anyway) for a long time. If so it seems to me that it can only harm me because watching you have a dialogue with yourself is very entertaining, may be even a bit instructive, I have seen you do it a lot of times, but it is not going to get me anywhere.

K: No, sir. Quite right.

Q: Since it seems this is the only choice: either we have got to have the guts.
to have a (2-way) dialogue with you, which means we have got to care about this thing. It means we have to stop saying how much benefit we are getting and please go along and carry on and nobody should interrupt and so forth. I mean even when our friend interrupted and said that he feels that most people here look on you as an enlightened person, you didn't want to go into all that, but it is perfectly true. We do look on you as an 'enlightened' person. Unfortunately the fact that we do so means that we can't listen to you at all. And I don't think we are 'listening' to you.

K: Yes sir, I know this.

Q: So now just tell me what I should do, (do not) put me out of my problem because to carry on sitting here, I feel I just have to listen while you do your "act", it is a marvellous act, but I don't (just) want to listen to you doing it...

K: Sir. I have made it perfectly clear that there is no authority, don't say the other is enlightened, and all the rest of that business. I have been saying, please, the speaker is not at all important. I say, look at yourself, be serious, be committed, put your whole mind into it - right? You are important as a human being, let us talk about that. But apparently we don't do that. So what shall we do?

Q: I don't know...

K: I do know.

Q: You do? What is it sir? Give me any answer other than "having a dialogue with yourself" !

K: I can in my room, or on my walks, or with some few people, I can have that (kind of) dialogue. But what is necessary (here) , is that all of you, put your mind, your heart into this, not say, "you are enlightened, we will listen to you". Wipe all that out. The speaker keeps on insisting on this, every day of his life: don't follow, don't imitate, don't conform, think it out, observe. But our whole conditioning is the other - right?

Q: We have to have some authority, there are too many people here.

K: Is it a question of too many people? Sir there are not 'too many people' if you really want to find out for yourself, then your whole attention is drawn (inwardly ?) and you are examining.

Q: Somebody must be in charge, so it stops us from really listening.

K: I am not the chairman. I say, please let's work together, let's ( listen and ?) think together. But you won't even do that. What am I going to do?

Q: I experience you are 'doing it again'. You are expressing your frustration, expressing perhaps your disappointment about the audience as it has been for years and years and years. I think the same thing will probably happen tomorrow and the day after. I have been waiting to meet you, in person for quite a while. I have read a book written by (Rom Landau ?) about his meeting with you maybe forty or fifty years ago, the same frustration, the same anxiety, the same disappointment you expressed to him then that you are expressing now. What I experienced in the book was a man of real love, of real humanitarian concern. What I experience now is an older man who makes side comments, who is frustrated, who says what is going on. I think that we can continue but it is not going to change. There has to be a different format. The question has to become more pertinent, more vital.

K: Right sir. You say the question should become more vital, more personal, more intense, I will do it.

Q: Why don't you stop speaking and leave us to (discuss ) it?

K: Delighted! Why don't you stop speaking and leave us in the tent. Is that what you want?

Q: Yes.

Q: I think a few minutes ago we were talking about psychological and physical division and how they were both a kind of (crippled). The first point that I thought was important was that everybody had realized that they had this psychological incapability. How many people realized or even looked at our psychological shortcomings. How many people realize exactly what that all involves? That is the point.

Q: How can they acknowledge the fact that they are psychological cripples?

K: You can't. Unless I say "I am blind, please help me", then I can do something. But if you say, "I see quite clearly", there is no point.

Q: Most people were saying that they realized they were psychologically crippled but at the time I felt the question was what to do, how to get over it.

K: I will 'point it out' to you (and for homework ?) you will have to do it yourself. Will you listen then and do it? You won't even have the courtesy to listen, to find out what the man is saying. And then see if it applies to you (or not) . If it applies to you then say let me put my energy, my guts, my whole heart into it to be free of it. You don't do that. So, what am I to do?

Q: Some of us do that Krishnaji. I have done it.

K: If you do it, so much the better.

Q: Can we ask why the people who cannot do that and keep on coming here (for spiritual entertainment ?) year after year, why can't they do it?

K: Sir, will you listen to why you cannot go into it yourself, go into the cause, break ( through) the cause and move out of that? If it is pointed out will you 'do' it?

Q: It won't work.

K: I don't know but will you do it? If want to be a good carpenter and I go to the man who is a 'master carpenter', I ( would first) want to have a clear mind. But apparently you don't (really want it ?) . Or you go half way and stop. Will suffering help you? Offering you a reward of heaven if you do this, this, this?
So one says to oneself - and perhaps somebody amongst you will catch this - like the grain thrown out, it might fall on the rocks, or on a fertile field, or just die by itself, but the man who is "throwing out the grain" he can't help it. You understand, he 'does it', maybe out of affection, compassion, love and so he is not concerned where the seed drops - right?

Q: We must put some 'fertilizer' on ourselves.

K: I am doing it sir. I am doing that (too) . Will you listen? Will you say it is my problem, I have got to solve it? I will put my life into it, my energy into it, my guts, my feelings to find out. Will you do it?
You expect your energy to change somebody else, it can't. Will you, as a human being, listen and put your whole energy into this, as you put your energy into earning a livelihood, when you want sex, when you want this, or that, you 'put your guts' into it. Why don't you do it?
You see at the end of an hour and a half, we haven't even discovered ( what is the right action ) for ourselves, not I have a dialogue with myself and give a performance like an actor, I am not that. I would walk out of this tent if I felt it was ( really ?) hopeless and you will never see me again. I mean it. But I feel somebody amongst you will 'take the coin', somebody will say, yes, I have got it, let me go with you. And I will go on doing this all my life. Somebody will 'catch some fire'. If you don't, you don't. That is not my business.

Look sir, for an hour and a half, what have we done? You, not me. I am very clear what I am doing. Whether there are two people listening, or a thousand listen, I will go on, or if nobody listens, it doesn't matter, I will go on. So leave me out of it. But if you are willing to listen, go into it, we will go together into the very depth of it. But you must give your ( total) energy. It is not like those people, having their own particular guru and (for a change) coming here, and saying, yes I will listen to you. Or having their own (strong) opinions, conclusions and not letting them go. Our relationship is (in walking ) together - you understand? You and the speaker together take a walk into the whole 'psychological world'. It is not 'my performance', it is you who have to act. Right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 18 Jun 2016 #202
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


K: Before we begin our dialogue I think we ought to clear up some points that arose yesterday towards the end of the meeting.
We seem to be blocking ourselves. Some say "what you are talking about can never be put in daily life. I have listened to you for twenty, thirty, forty, fifty years and nothing has happened, I am just the same (self-centred person) as before". That is a ( self-created ?) block that prevents each one, or the person who says these things, it prevents him from investigating himself, he has blocked ( the understanding of ?) himself, saying, "It is not possible".
And also there are those ( stuck on the intermediate level ?) who say, "I understand partially, I want to understand the whole before I can do something about it." - again that prevents your own investigation of yourselves, you are blocking yourself.
And there are those who say, "What you are saying is totally impractical, why don't you stop talking and go away?" Such people, and I have heard this very often, not only prevent their own investigation of themselves, but also because one person can't do it himself he condemns the rest of the world - "If I can't do it, you can't do it". And so this goes on.

Now, if we could realize that we are not a thousand of people in the tent but we are talking to each other, as a single person - you understand? When we two talk together it includes ( sharing it with ?) all the others, and don't block yourself, by saying, "You are a biological (or psychological ?) freak and this is not applicable to ordinary people". If we could do that then perhaps we could have better communication with each other.
And also I would like to point out that in all these discussions and dialogues and talks we are missing that essential perfume of listening with love, with care, with affection, with a sense of communication with each other. And for that one must have love. And probably that is what is missing.
So could we this morning have a dialogue on whatever subject you want, bearing in mind that without this quality of affection, care, love and compassion, we merely play with words, remain superficial, antagonistic, assertive, dogmatic and so on. It remains merely verbal, it has no depth, no quality, no perfume. So bearing that in mind, what subject would you like to talk about this morning?

Questioner(1): Sir, could we continue with our (unfinished ) discussion of yesterday, of action, and how to deal with mental and physical disability?

Q(2): Is it possible to think together if the other person refuses to think together?

Q(3): I have difficulty in understanding what you mean by ( psychological) "registration". In English we use the word meaning to become aware of something, to register an impression, register discomforts. But you seem to use it as 'recording'. Would you go into that?

Q(4) : Why are we satisfied with the way we are living?

Q (5) : What is the relationship, or the difference, between the nature of thought and the mechanics of thinking? One thought appears to follow another even for no special reason, and the movement of thought can be violent even if the content of the 'thought' was positive.

K: Ah! Is our thinking always mechanical, or is there a different kind of thinking which is non-mechanical?

Q: No. My thinking often doesn't flow very well. There is violence in the thoughts, in the mechanics but not in the content of the thought. Positive thought can be violent.

Q(6) : Why is love missing? Why don't we love?

K: Why isn't there love in my heart, or in my being? Would that be right sir?
Any other questions?

Q (7): You said that thought is limited and yet if we look around thought has contributed to humanity and 'thinking' is the common factor of all humanity.

Q(8) : Could you go into how one is blocking oneself?

Q(9) : Is it possible to know something without having to demonstrate it?

K: So out of these questions which shall we take? If we take them all together which is the central question in all these?

Q: The question of love, sir, it would (perhaps ?) answer the others.

K: Could we go into this question, why is it that we human beings have no sense of love? Perhaps if we could go into that very deeply and then perhaps in the investigation of that we will be able to find out what is thinking, what place has thinking, whether it is mechanical, or non-mechanical, and why the mind is always registering incidents, accidents, hurts, all the experiences of man stored up, and what is action that will be so complete it won't leave a mark of misery, confusion. Could we take this one (holistic ?) question, which is, what is love, why don't we love? Do you want to discuss that?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes? I wonder how we approach this question, how do you ( experientially ) find out what is the meaning of love, why you, as a human being, have not (free access to ?) this perfume, this quality that perhaps may answer all the other questions in life? Now, it may not be possible to investigate that directly , but one can find out what may hinder it, what may prevent this extraordinary thing that man seems to be longing for and doesn't seem to have. Could we do that?
So are you aware of your (mental ?) approach, of your prejudices, your images about it, your conclusions about it, or what ( wise?) people have said about it? Can you put all that aside and try to find out?

Q: What is "love"?

K: What is love ? Generally in a good dictionary the origin of it is ( associated to ?) desire. In Sanskrit it is, "he desires".

Q: You say that a baby 'loves' its mother because it needs its meals. So in this case we say love is a fact of necessity.

K: Is that so? The animals 'love' their babies. The lowest manifestations of life, loves its young. And is that "love", or is it the instinct from the animal carried on through the human and (the associated ?) attachment, the animal brings up the cubs up to a certain age and then forgets about them. Right? With a human there is tremendous care until they are three, four, five, nursing them, looking after them, cleaning them, cuddling them, holding them, that is if you love the baby, and after that they send them off to school, and so on, gradually push them away - right? And we are asking is that ( all there is about ?) "love"? If the parents loved their baby, looked after them, there would be no wars - right? There would be the right kind of education. There would be the right kind of society. So we are asking when the parents love their baby, is it just for a short period? Or right through life? Which means that they must have right education, bring them up with right behaviour, without violence, without conflict, would a parent who really loved his children do this? Go on sir, you are parents, think it out.

The baby needs a great deal of affection, care, if the parents don't give affection, care, love to the child, the child 'withers' (emotionally ?) . It is a well known fact. But generally the parents have their own problems, their own anxieties, fears, sorrows and business worries - you know, all that. And they give the child a little of what they can when they have time. You understand all this is actually happening in the world. And so is all that "love"?

Q: I think the parents even defend themselves against the child.

K: Of course, that always happens. The parents are ( defending themselves ) against the child, and the child becomes... you know what is happening in the world. For god's sake, look at it. So from that arises the question: is attachment ( an indication of ) love?

Q: Many people would think so.

K: So that is why I asked at the beginning, unless we do this actively, see, aware that it is so in us, and being aware look at it, go into it, search out why human beings hold on to this attachment. Why you are attached to your husband, wife, furniture, book, belief. And if you are attached to one thing and the other person is attached to another, there is division - you understand? And is this division love? Please go into it.

Q: From what you are saying, we might get the idea that we should love. I think most of us have the idea very strongly that we should love. And most of us are very afraid that we don't love. Perhaps that is the barrier.

K: The speaker is not saying that you 'should love'. That would be silly because then we may feel guilty. And being guilty we force ourselves - right? So I hear you telling me that love is not attachment. Am I attached to my daughter, to my wife? And if I am not ( feeling) 'attached' will I neglect my responsibility - you understand? Will I be indifferent, will I get bored and chase another person? So I am looking at both (sides of attachment) , (a) whether attachment is love, and also (b) in attachment there is ( dependency and) fear - I can't let her or him go , because in attachment I find security. And what happens if I am not ( safely ?) attached ? I get frightened, and that very fear makes me more attached. So I have to face the fear, see what is implied in it and then I can say, "Well all right, I see the danger of attachment, but what then? Do I live in a ( psychological ?) vacuum, when all people around me are attached? Am I 'antisocial'?
So in ( widening ?) my enquiry I want to find out what ( unconditional ?) love is. To me that is very important to find out because that may solve all my problems if I know how to love ( this way ?) So I understand that love is not attachment. Understand in the sense I have seen it, not verbally, in action. I say, "All right, my girl, I am not attached to you". I see the danger ( of getting attached ?) and therefore I am holding it - you understand? Keeping a watchful eye. Are you doing all this?

Q: Can we determinate what is not love?

K: I am doing that sir, please. Attachment is not ( necessarily an indication of ?) love. It is a tremendous discovery for me. Because I have so far accepted attachment as ( the material indication of ?) love, and you come and say, "Find out, look at it". I look and I find yes, you are perfectly right because in attachment there is ( involved possessivity and ?) fear, and fear cannot go ( hand in hand ?) with love. So are you doing this with me, or are you just verbally playing around?

Q: You are going over a very serious problem with these people. Have you ever really considered that there is a very simple statement which tells you all about love, and that is found in the Bible. And the simple statement is, that God is love and there is no love to be found in man himself. God loves man. And man can look outwards to God, not inwards and then find love.

K: Madam, if you make your question very short then it will be possible to answer it. But if you make a long speech it is impossible to understand it even verbally.
So ( to recap) we are through the negation of "what is not love" to find it out (experientially ?) So I have to find it out in action, not just verbally. I see I am attached, I see the dangers of attachment, like fear, and I understand the nature of fear and I say, all right. Now am I responsible being free from attachment? Is then, I am asking, is responsibility necessary to love? You understand? Through negation of denying attachment, and I have found responsibility, and is responsibility part of this strange thing called love? You understand? Being responsible, not only to my wife, to my children, having the feeling of ( an all inclusive ?) responsibility. You understand what I am talking about?

Q: You make it sound like an obligation.

K: Responsibility is not obligation. Obligation is gone. If I am obliged to you, I can't love you. I am obliged to you because you give me money, you give me sex, you give me comfort - you know - then where is love in this thing? It is a "merchandise". Right?

Q: I think there is another danger: are we becoming indifferent, you know, to become casual? If you drop the attachment you may become indifferent. And that is another trap.

K: Oh yes, sir. That's is why I am examining all the traps. So I have realized that love implies responsibility (for all that is?) . Go a little further.
Now is that responsibility limited to my girl friend , wife, husband, or the feeling of ( global) responsibility - you understand?

Q: There is a centre from which responsibility comes into being.

K: Is this responsibility just to those few, or responsible for all human beings - you understand? Is 'love' (encompassing ?) this total feeling of responsibility? You go through this in yourself and work it out, test it.

Q: I test it every day and I think I test it too much sometimes. I think that as long as I experience attachment I am not able to be responsible to the rest of the human beings in the world.

K: Yes sir. Which is, do I feel responsible not only for the few, with whom I am associated, or is there the feeling of total responsibility for the earth, for the trees, for the mountains, for the water, for other human beings - you follow? Total feeling. And isn't that ( the responsability of unconditional ?) love? Don't say, yes, or no, unless you "do" it !
And also I find in my investigation that I like to possess. I like to belong to somebody- being ( selfishly ?) identified with something, identified with the nation, with the group, with a person, with an idea, but....I can't identify myself with the wind.

Q: We are brought up in this way.

K: Yes sir I know. I am breaking (through) my conditioning. I am breaking down what I have been brought up to.

Q: Sometimes this conditioning is very strong. You may be able to watch it, you may be able to be ( choicelessly ?) aware of it, but the conditioning is very, very strong.

K: Suppose I am ( becoming) aware that I want to possess: does that contain love - you understand? So I discover it does not. So I have found attachment is not love, possession is not love, nor the instinct which has been derived from the animal to the humans, the mother, the parents saying, "I love my baby" and then neglect them for the rest of their life - right? That is not love. So I have out for myself these things are not 'love'.

Q: What about being attached to the idea of independence, which is the other side of the coin? Aren't we often attached to the idea that we should be independent? This creates a problem also.

K: Yes sir. That means attached to the ( self-created ?) "image" you have about independence. So is jealousy love? ( If not, ) why am I jealous?

Q: Because I am frightened ?

K: Because I ( want to?) possess. Why do I (need to) possess her, or him, why do I hold on? Is it that I am ( inwardly feeling isolated and ?) lonely - you understand? Desperately, deeply lonely, separate?

Q: I think love is life. For example, now at this moment together, and the sounds out side playing on the tent, the water on the roof, the whole of life, that is love. I think so.

K: You have described what love is - right?

Q: Like for example, I think love is an instant internal perception of life.

K: But you haven't got that "intense perception of life". You people make a statement and let it go at that. I don't know what you mean by 'intense perception of life'. I am caught in this thing. You are giving some description of what life should be. I am not going to be caught in that trap of descriptions.

So (back again to square one ?) is jealousy love? And I am jealous, so I become aware of it. I go into it and I am seeing jealousy is not love, so I go into it, work it out, think it out, because my intention, my whole search is to find out this perfume. So I have put that aside.
Then I see that I have my ambitions, my beliefs, my dogmatism, 'me' first and her second - right? And I say, is that love? Which means when there is separation between that and this, is that love? Sir, don't just say, no. Go into it, look at it. Because if you don't, you will say at the end of twenty years, "You have talked enough, get away from here. Stop talking". Because you don't apply.

Q: This is the only difficulty: we don't apply; but perhaps there is something else that I don't know that prevents me to deeply see all these things and not develop annoyance (and frustration ?) .

K: Then find out what is impeding you. Go into it. Find out what is the barrier. Is it laziness, is it acceptance of things as they are and wanting not to be disturbed? Sir, go into it. Test it out, do something to find out. Don't say, "I have listened to you for twenty years, or fifty-two years, and I haven't changed". It is not my fault, it is your fault. Don't put the blame on me.
So (to recap:) I have discovered attachment in any form is not love. Jealousy is not love. Possession is not love, me and her, fulfilling my desires in her, or she in me. So desire - go into it carefully - desire is not love. Right? Desire, sexual desires, desire for comfort, desire for various forms of encouragement, Is that love? All this movement of desire, the becoming, the fulfilling, is that love?

Q: So, what shall we do with it?

K: Look at it, investigate desire. Why is the ( self-centred) mind, which is the result of the senses, the response of the senses with its desires, is that love? And as I am investigating all this I begin to see that everything that ( out self centred ?) thought has created, or desired, around this word, is not love. And in the perception of that ( an awakening of a non-personal quality of ?) intelligence is taking place - right? Right, sir?

Q: Is love the same as understanding?

K: No, sir. Love is not the same as understanding. Love is something totally different. You see I can use a Greek word, "agape", or French word, or Sanskrit word, but it won't convey the thing. The description in Sanskrit I can tell you, it won't (help you ?) . Or in Italian, or French, it is not that. So please sir, do it.

Q: But sir, you just talked about love...

K: I don't "talk about love". I am talking about ( removing ?) the barriers, the things that prevent this 'thing' taking place.

Q: Well, supposing "I" am blocking it. What shall I do? I mean, I want to love.

K: That's just it. "I" want to love. The very ( personal ?) desire of wanting to love is the denial of love.

Q: Well, then how shall I get rid of that desire?

K: I am not saying you should "get rid" of anything. I am just pointing out (the need) to investigate desire, to look at it. All right, I will show it to you sir. I have desire. I desire that woman, or that man, I desire to become something, I desire to be very healthy, I desire a better life, more money, I desire. And what is this constant urge for a better life, for enlightenment, what is this desire? P

Q: In order for the desire to transform into the passion to investigate, something has to take place.

K: Desire can not be transmuted into something else, it has to be understood. It has to be exposed to the "light of investigation".

Q: How do you "expose" it?

K: I went vary carefully the other day into what is the movement of desire. The ( thought optimised ?) response of the senses - right? The ( processed ?) response of seeing, the response, contact, sensation, then thought comes in and says, "I would like to have that shirt". So ( the self-centred process of ) thought, when it takes over the response of the senses creates desire. ( All your homework is just to ?) test it out (experientially ) .

Q: I need the passion that you have sir to see that ( movement of) desire.

K: So I see that love is not desire and if love is not desire then what is love? You understand? Love is not mere attachment to the baby, love is not attachment to any form, love is not jealousy, love is not me and my ambition, my fulfilment, my becoming, this constant division, the fulfilment of desire, which is pleasure, that is not love. So I have to found out ( by negating all these things ) what love is. It is none of these things. And as I understand ( through my own free will ?) these elements, I am free of them. You can't just say, "I understand intellectually, but help me to go deeper"- I can't. You have to do it yourself.

Q: How do you do it, sir ?

K: In examining all these things quite impersonally, objectively, as they 'are', I have got that quality of intelligence now. It is born out of this investigation, it is born out of this seeing the truth ( or falseness of ?) of each thing - right? And therefore out of that there is ( the awakening of a compassionate ?) intelligence.
So is this "intelligence" necessary for love? I am using the word "intelligence" in a totally different sense : ( when ) the seeing and the doing (are one) ; the seeing ( of the truth that ) attachment is dangerous and the "doing" of it, which is the "ending" of it, that is ( the action of the awakened ) intelligence. So there is now this intelligence and therefore it has that quality of love, which is Compassion. And compassion, love and intelligence go together. Without intelligence you can't have compassion, this is the 'Intelligence' of which I am talking.

Now we have talked for an hour and twenty seven minutes, have you tested it out? Have you freed yourself from this attachment and therefore having the total (inner) freedom of immense responsibility? Or will you say the day after tomorrow, "I listened to you, nothing else happened"? That very statement indicates that you have not investigated yourself, gone into yourself. You expect somebody to do something for you.

Q: Krishnaji, that may not be quite fair. I have listened to what you are saying and feel that now I must test it out.

K: Test it out. Do it as we are talking, don't wait until the day after tomorrow.

Q: Sir, as I reject every attachment, or desire, I still feel tremendously empty in myself, and I still can't see that 'intelligence'.

K: Sir, what is this emptiness,? Feeling lonely, separate, isolated, a sense of being cut off, not having any kind of relationship with another ? Is it the result of your 'meditation', of your acceptance of authority? Has that made for the sense of absolutely worthless, empty, lonely ? So at the end of an hour and a half nearly, have you got this quality of love and compassion? If not let us tomorrow talk about it, investigate it, go into it much more deeply. But don't say ever, "I have listened for so long and I haven't got it". You can listen to (the sound of ) that river endlessly, but the waters are not what you listen to.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 19 Jun 2016 #203
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


K: We talked about yesterday, the ( non-personal ?) nature of attention, care and love. So what shall we talk over together this morning?

Q (1): Could we investigate why it is so difficult for us to actually experience here and now all the psychological inhibitions we have that block us from loving?

Q (2) : How can the mind be free of cunning intelligence which society pushes on us?

Q (3) : What is the quality of the mind that observes silently? Is it something new to us, or is it something that we possess already but we have forgotten?

Q (4) : Could you say what is "intelligence"?

Q (5) : Is there a difference between voluntary isolation which obviously creates conflict and the 'involuntary' isolation, such as being blind?

Q (6) : Could we discuss the mechanical activity of the brain, it is shouting all the time?

K: Why does thought always occur, why is there not a freedom at any time from the movement of thought?

Q (7) : You often tell us that fear is produced by thought but I myself have experienced that fear manifests itself with thought and it wants to structure and limit itself, and escape from itself, by thinking.

K: You say fear is the result of thought, produced by thought...

Q (7): No, thought is the result of fear.

K: You are putting fear first and thought afterwards - right?

Q (8) : Could we talk about identification?

Q (9) : I find it extremely difficult to take part in these discussions because I am always in doubt whether it is a right or a wrong question. How can I find out myself, are there any guidelines?

Q (10) : Sir, why do you call the usual meditation which is sitting down with closed eyes, ( a form of ) self-hypnosis? I asked this question because I have the feeling that it is through that that I can understand when you say tht beauty is something entirely different, love is something entirely different.

K: Now which of these shall we take up? They are dealing with the nature of thought, the nature of the mind. What is intelligence, and what is meditation - right? So we have got two fundamental questions: ( our self-centred ?) "thought" with all its complexities, its mechanical habits, its constant activity, never a moment that it is quiet and what we talked about yesterday, "love, intelligence, compassion". Now which of these do you want?

Q: Love ?

K: One is rather shy of that word because it has been so spoilt - but if we could take that question and go into it very, very deeply then perhaps we can also enter into the field of what is "intelligence, love, compassion". And without those three , which are the essence of that love, the mind can never be totally free from all its self-deceits and dishonesty.
The first question I am asking, to put it very simply is : can the mind remain young, and not grow old, decay, corrupt, but keep its quality of "youth"? - youth being to have an enormous amount of energy, decision, action, and that sense of freedom. A mind that is extraordinarily clear, simple, having great energy, vitality and capable of instant decision and action. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: Now how can that (quality of ?) mind come into being? That is the first thing. You are following?

Q: Wouldn't you need to use your body intelligence and not your mind?

K: There is the intelligence of the body; it has its own intelligence if left alone, not destroyed, not corrupted by taste, by desire and all the rest of it. The body has its own intelligence, if you have observed it. But to go into it much deeper: our ( self-centred ?) mind is the result of ( the activity of) our senses - right? But we don't exercise all the senses together - we exaggerate (give priority to ?) one or two of the senses and so there is never a ( holistic) balance. One or two senses dominate and the other senses are in abeyance, or not totally functioning, and so there is always an imbalance in the activity of our senses - right?
So is it possible that all our senses work together totally, harmoniously? That is the first question, because our whole ( psycho-somatic ?) structure is based on senses, perception, taste, touch and all that. Now if there is imbalance in our senses, our brain, our mind is affected naturally. And from this imbalance there is a 'neurotic' (partial, lopsided ?) activity. So can we see the movement of the sky, the clouds, the shadows on the mountains with all our senses together? Will you do it as you are sitting there, observing yourself? Please, as I said yesterday, unless you actually apply, do it, you can sit there for the next fifty years you will do nothing. But if you 'apply' (yourself) , actually "work it out", then you will see that as long as there is imbalance in the (perceptive activity of the ?) senses, then that imbalance invariably creates disharmony - right?

Q: Could you give a concrete example of what you mean by the "imbalance of the senses"?

K: I am not good at giving examples. I think ( that giving ?) examples are ( holistically wise ?) wrong because if one gives an example that becomes a ( subliminally accepted ?) pattern (of action) . And then you say, "I must (try to) conform to that", or "No, that example is not good, give me a better example" and so on, we battle with examples. (However ?) I can think out an example: sex, drugs, various forms of sensory entertainments, where only the eye or the ear (or the sense of touch) functions, not the totality of all the senses.
So am I, as the gentleman pointed out the other day, just performing ? He said that, I am performing and doing an excellent (stage) performance, it is a rather unpleasant word but there it is. But this is (supposed to be an interactive ?) dialogue between you and me, so don't please become quiet and just listen.

Q: Can we explain the ( connexion to the ?) brain when we talk about the mind?

K: We are including in the ( generic term ?) "mind" all the activity of the senses, all the activities of thought, all the activities of emotions, whether imagined or real, romantic, sentimental, all that, the whole of our activity is the human "mind". That is, this "mind" (our consciousness ?) contains, holds, all the senses, all the emotions, all the romantic, sentimental attitudes, values, and also the enormous complexity of thought, the memories, the experiences, the hurts, the wounds that one has received from childhood, psychologically, inwardly, and the intention, the motive, the drive, the desires, all that is the mind.

Q: Is love part of the mind?

K: Is love contained in the mind? What do you say? A dialogue please.

Q: It is not in the mind.

K: Then is it outside the mind? Is love ( involved in the memory of ?) something that has happened and you (can) remember it? You have been kind to me, I remember it and therefore I have ( a certain ?) affection for you. Is love a remembrance? If it is not, is it then within the structure and nature of the mind? This is a very difficult question, please don't just 'slip it by'. That is why I want to go into this carefully.
We have defined more or less, the (sensory) nature of the mind, with all the senses ( working partially ?) and all this is dominated by (a process of self-centred) thought that controls ( and directs ?) the senses, exaggerates the senses, gives importance to a certain sense and not to the others, that creates images, conclusions, assertiveness. So thought predominates all our ( mental) activity, including the senses, dominating the intelligence of the body - you are following all this? So thought is the central factor that is constantly operating, controlling the whole of the activity of the mind, which is (predominantly ?) thought - right? Please discuss with me.

Q: All the senses are the same.

K: All the senses in the mind are equal to the (integrated ?) mind, but the (controlling) thought says 'this is better than that'. That is all we are saying.

Q: When ( the mechanical process of ?) thought is dominating the senses, the senses become dull.

K: Could we move from this - right sir? Now ( the self-conscious approach to ?) meditation is part of thinking, otherwise you wouldn't ( know that you ?) meditate - right?

Q: Is "meditation" (only) the activity of thought?

K: We are going to go into it. But first see that when you start meditating, sitting quietly, closing your eyes, it is an activity of ( our self-conscious ?) thought, because you want to 'achieve' something , or feel good in that position, doing something. So thought has brought this about through desire. I am sitting in that 'lotus' position, close my eyes because I have been taught, or I have read, or I have heard somebody that if you do this, you will have a marvellous experience.

Q: No sir, I do it in order to watch my own thoughts. What you are talking about is the 'practice' of meditation, but even within this practice ( the quality of an authentic ?) meditation can come about. Suddenly something else could happen. And what "happens" is real meditation.

K: Sir, when you are saying 'it happens' , I question the ( validity of the ?) whole thing.

Q: Sir, when we sit quietly to watch our minds, our eyes get naturally shut and we are ( getting inwardly) quiet. We don't sit with our eyes permanently shut so as to become quiet.

K: Sir, the speaker has played with all this. This is not something new you are telling me. I have been through all this: sitting quietly, breathing, repeating, hoping for something to happen! Nonsense.
You are not meeting my point: "why" do I meditate? Why does one meditate?

Q: Because we are agitated.

K: When you are agitated, nervous, anxious, crowded with innumerable problems, by sitting quietly you hope to get away slightly from that.

Q: Not forced sir, just quietly.

K: Yes, but you are missing my point of view, what I am saying, which is the origin all this ( endeavour ?) is thought, the origin is ( the self centred activity of ?) desire.

Q: Yes. But can thought not stop it because it sees it is stupid?

K: You seem to think madam, that I am opposed to "meditation". I am totally, completely opposed to the ( self-controlled ?) meditation that you are all doing because that is not ( an authentic ?) "meditation", because I have been through all this.

Q: Sir, if you are opposed to our (way of doing) meditation are you not creating a division?

K: Excuse me, I withdraw that word 'opposed'. ( But) what is ( generally) called 'meditation' is not meditation. ( An universally open ?) meditation is something much more complex, more etc. We say ( the commonly understood ) meditation begins with desire, with ( our self-centred ?) thought: you hear somebody coming from Tibet, from India, or from God knows whatever place, and he expounds what meditation is. He says, "Sit down quietly, I will give you a system to make you calm, restful, relaxed". So your ( self-identified ?) thought accepts it, desires to achieve it, and you sit in that position - right? This is so obvious, what are you objecting to?

Q: Would you say that because an idea started a meditation, all such meditation is ( circumscribed within the area of ?) your own ideas?

K: That's right. That's what I am saying differently. So (this) 'meditation' begins with thought - right? And ( my self-identified ?) desire says, "I must achieve that something which I experienced yesterday when I was sitting quietly, and I want that, I want it to continue". So I 'practise', I force myself to follow a system - all this being the activity of ( my self centred) thought. That's all. What are you. objecting to?

Q: Sometimes I meditate to go out from (my self-) identification.

K: I have meditated for a couple of hours, the questioner says, (in order ) to get away from myself - right? Is meditation an escape?

Q: A temporary relief.

K: Then take any other thing that quietens your nerves. Temporary relief, temporary excitement, temporary experience, temporary quietness, all that you call "meditation". My Lord, how that word has been misused. Could we get on with it a little bit?

Q: Could be you that force ( a different meaning of) meditation because you say that you want to be free and therefore you look at your problems.

K: I am sorry you have misunderstood. I am not doing that. We were asking, what is the nature of the mind? We talked about that. And that ( spatio-temporal) mind is dominated by thought. ( This self-centred process of ?) thought is perpetually in activity, when you are sleeping, when you are awake, when you are walking, when you are by yourself, it is constantly "moving". And eventually that creates a lot of strain - right? And to bring about a quietness, a sense of inner peace you try to 'meditate'. And achieve a little bit of (peace of mind) as you practise it, and you call that 'meditation'. I say please that is not Meditation, which is something much wider, deeper, that requires a great deal of enquiry, so please listen, exchange, not say, meditation is this, meditation is that, it appeals to me, it doesn't appeal to me. Then we stop discussing. Whereas if we say, look, let's find out - right?

Q: Krishnaji, I don't know what that Meditation is. Could we come to what (an authentic) meditation is?

K: Could we put it this way: when "you" (as a controlling entity ?) deliberately set about to meditate, it is not meditation - right? Because behind that deliberate act is desire, behind that is thought having come to a conclusion, pursuing that conclusion. We say that is not meditation since thought dominates - trying to force the mind to be quiet, all that is still the activity of thought.
And is love ( related to ?) the activity of ( a self-centred) thought? Does the activity of thought bring about a right relationship between two people?
Because unless you lay the foundation of 'right' relationship, having no conflict and so on, any form of meditation is just an escape into another series of illusions. So is "love" the activity of thought? I love you (all ?) . I really do. Isn't it strange!

Q: ...some of us do not know ( this kind of ?) love.

K: How sad it is. If somebody comes and tells you "I love you, old boy, I love you", you don't go on with your ( self-centred) "thinking" do you? You just "listen" to him. But ( here ) you don't. You are all so ( spiritually ?) infantile.
So we are asking, is love the activity of ( our self-centred) thought? Is love the activity of the senses? Is love the activity of desire- which is the activity of the senses? Please find out, investigate in your life.

Q: We have to be aware of this activity then.

K: One has to be aware sir, but first know the ( time binding ?) nature of one's ( psycho-somatic ?) mind. Through awareness one discovers this, that means you have to look at it, look at your desires, the sensory desires. Wanting food, the taste of food, compulsive eating food of a certain kind because it tastes nice, exercising a certain ( directive ?) capacity of the eyes, optical, seeing something always, or the sensory responses of sex. These are the dominant factors in our ( daily) life and you are trying to move away from that.

Q: You asked the question, is love part of thought?

K: Yes, is love part of thought? Which means does ( our) love contain the whole ( self-centred) movement of thought? If it contains thought, is that love?

Q: I just wanted to ask you a question about meditation, if I may. I seem to have been under the delusion, that the best things I do has ( the quality of an ) effortless meditation. Now is this my illusion completely?

K: When you say, "I meditate effortlessly", what do you mean by that word 'effort' ?

Q: I don't make any effort to release the mind of the thinking process: it just happens.

K: Sir, when you 'know' (when you are self-conscious that ?) you are meditating, it is not "meditation". You don't see the ( anonymous ?) beauty of all this. You are just going on and on and on.

Q: I am trying to find out, sir.

K: Why do you meditate at all? You have never even asked that question. What you call meditation, why do you do it? Is it that they have brought it from India, from Tibet, from Japan and you like to play with it?

Q: Sir, for example, when I have been angry, or I have a problem, I am in conflict. If I do, we are both agreed it is not meditation, but just sitting down quietly to watch my thoughts.

K: Yes sir, that is just when you are angry, to examine it, to go into it, it is not meditation.

Q: It is not meditation, but it is useful.

K: Yes, sir, yes sir. I agree. But to be aware that you have been angry, to go into the whole question of anger, that is not the 'meditation' that you are talking about. I said "when you know you are meditating, it is not meditation". Swallow that pill and look at it!

Q: Can it not take me away from the realm of thought?

K: Meditation helps me to get away from myself, from my thoughts. Then go to a cinema.

Q: Can love take him away from the realm of thought?

K: It is a very good question. Can "love" free the mind from the activities of thought? The (thinking) mind is incessantly active, sleeping, waking, day dreaming, or sitting quietly. But if you have understood the (time-binding ?) nature of thought and thought finds its own right place, then you don't have to 'move away' from it, thought has established itself in its right place. You understand this? Love is not an escape, or (an opportunity for ?) moving away from thought.

Q: Is that (part of a right approach to ?) meditation?

K: Sir, as I said, when "you" know (or are self-conscious that ?) you are meditating, sitting in that position, breathing, repeating a mantra, and all that, when there is that activity, it is not meditation. All that is the ( sublimated ?) activity of desire and thought. Obviously. A guru comes along, I don't know why they do, unfortunately they do, comes along and he says, "Do this and you will have the most marvellous experience of God", or of enlightenment. "You will have extraordinary experience". And he lays down certain systems, methods, practices, and we being gullible, not having the quality of scepticism to question him, we say, "All right Swami," and we practice it. And in the very practising of it you have certain quietness, certain 'experiences' and that delights you. You say, "At last I have got something". Right? And I say that is ( still within the area of) the activity of desire, activity of thought, which has projected an image of something (one wants ) to be experienced. And that "image" (mystic vision ?) can be experienced only through certain practices, certain repetition of words, especially in Sanskrit, that sounds far better! So we repeat it. But it is still the activity of thought and desire. So unless you understand this, what is the nature of thought, what is the nature of desire, and thought gives itself its right place, you will be everlastingly battling with thought, with all the images that it has created. That is very simple. No?

Q: Is love denied by ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought?

K: When there is ( the all controlling process of ) thought is there love? No.

Q: Is psychoanalysis a form of meditation?

K: This is getting worse and worse! Do you know what psychoanalysis is? Investigating into the past. Psychoanalysis, either performed by the ( certified ?) professional Freudian, Jungian, Adlerian and innumerable names, or (still cheaper ?) you analyse yourself. ( But the hidden flaw is:) Is not the 'analyser' (a self-isolating part of what has to be ?) analysed? So he ( the self- analysing mind ?) is playing a trick upon himself. You don't see all this. So analysis, and the psycho-therapeutic (techniques) of various group therapies, you know all that is going on, various forms of psychotherapy, is not meditation. Good lord! Think what we have reduced meditation to.

Q: Sir, but isn't this process of ( self-) observation which you have been talking about for the last ten days, is that not also thought?

K: As we explained earlier there is only "observation", not the 'observer' observing, right? You know what that means madam? The absence of me. The absence of all the (active interference of the ?) past, just to observe without the word, without the name, without ( mental) association, without remembrance, just to 'observe'.

Q: Meditation is also a sort of process.

K: Look sir, the moment there is a ( time-binding) process for meditation that process is the result of thought. And thought has laid down the process in order to achieve something. You people don't listen.

Q: Then, how do you start meditating?

K: We have said, sir, that when 'you' ( purposefully) decide to start meditation, it is not meditation. When 'you' put yourself in the hands of another who will teach you how to meditate, it is not meditation. When you follow a system, it is not meditation. When you accept the authority of another who says, "I know, you don't know, I will tell you what to do", it is not meditation. And so on and so on and so on.

Q: Please when you go out walking you don't think about meditation, but when you see something very beautiful you have the feeling...

K: That's right. The lady says as you are walking in the wood, quietly not carrying all the burdens of your problems, suddenly you have a certain sensation, feeling, and you are 'watching', (but then...) thought comes over and takes charge and makes it into a memory, and wanting it more. All that is not meditation.

Q: Is it not love just to observe?
K: Is pure observation ( an act of intelligent ?) love? Look sir, have you observed that way, pure observation? To observe without remembrance, without naming, without a conclusion, just to observe.
( Conclusion ?) We have spent an hour and a quarter nearly, discussing verbally (intellectually) what is mediation, what is love. We haven't come to anything.

Q: Are we trying to get somewhere?

K: I am not.

Q: May I say something? (mostly inaudibe)

K: The gentleman says, in essence, that there is a thinking which is unconditioned. There may be, but I wouldn't call it "thought". Thought, as generally understood, is the process of ( self-centred ?) thinking. Thinking is the ( reactive response ?) of memory, of experience, movement of knowledge. The whole process of that is thinking.

Q: I would then ask: what does "intuition" mean to you?

K: ( Any personal ?) intuition can be projected by desire.

Q: Not necessarily.

K: You don't even listen. (To wrap it all up: ) We started out by asking: what is the relationship of ( our self-centred) thought to meditation and to love? We went into the question that our mind is the result of the senses, the emotions, sane or illusory and so on, the sentiments, the judgements, the evaluations, the memories, the hurts, the anxieties, all that, which is under the ( all controlling ?) umbrella of thought. Thought is the central factor. And when ( this self-centred ) thought says, "I must meditate, I must find out truth, I must achieve enlightenment", it is 'playing games' with itself. That is obvious. So ( an authentic) meditation has nothing to do with thought. When you sit down and deliberately meditate, it may be pleasant, it may give you certain relaxation, you may have certain pleasurable experience, but all that is ( the conditioned result of ) a deliberate action by thought and desire to achieve a certain result. Therefore that is not (an authentic ?) meditation.
And what is the relationship of thought to love? Love is free from thought. Love is not the (by) product of ( our self-centred) thought. If it is, it is still part of desire, obviously. So love is independent, is free from all the dishonesty of desires, sensations, sex. That is not love.
( In a nutshell:) Where Love is the 'me' is not. Obviously. The ( self-conscious) 'me', the 'ego', with all its arrogance, conceits, aggressiveness, pretension to humility, what has that got to do with love ?

So love is beyond thought. Then what is the relationship between meditation and love? When one deliberately, purposefully, actively participates in so-called meditation, that meditation leads to illusion, and that illusion has no relationship with love.
But there is a ( authentic quality of ?) "meditation", which is not deliberate, which has nothing whatsoever to do with desire. There is a meditation which must be totally undesired, totally free of ( our self-centred) thought. And to find that"meditation" you have to go ( non-dualistcally ?) into the question of ( sensory) desire, give it its right place, whether desire has any place at all, and also thought has to find its own place and remain there. Then meditation becomes something totally different from what you are doing (right now) .

One has to find out what is 'reality' and what is Truth. The 'reality' of these mountains, the hills, the groves, the meadows, the river, you can see it. But also ( part of our cultural ) 'reality' is all the illusions, like nationality, like your beliefs, your dogmas, your rituals, your Saviours, your Krishnas (or Buddhas ?) they might have existed - might - but what we have made of them is "illusion". That's also part of our 'reality'. Go into a church, into a temple, into a mosque, that is all the product of thought. Right? So this 'reality' has to be understood, seen. Reality, everything that ( human) thought has created, the atom bomb - the atom existed before thought investigated and created the 'atom' bomb- . Thought did not create Nature, but thought has used nature.
And ( the bottom line is:) truth has nothing whatsoever to do with the (man-made) 'reality'. To find "that" is ( the authentic purpose of) meditation. But to begin (we have to ) establish right relationship with human beings, not the everlasting terrorizing each other, destroying the earth and so on. If we don't stop that, what is the good of our meditation?

Sir, first you have to be "good" and by your ( intelligent and compassionate ?) goodness you can bring about a good society. But if there is not (this quality of universal ?) goodness in you, you cannot produce a good society. And without goodness in you, you can meditate until Doomsday, go to India, go to Tibet, visit various monasteries, and attend various gurus. It may amuse you but don't deceive yourself saying "That is meditation, I have meditated". Right? So if you have no love in your heart, your 'meditation' will be destructive

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 20 Jun 2016 #204
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K PUBLIC DIALOGUE SAANEN 1979 How to deal non-dualistically with our cultural conditioning ? (reader friendly condensed)

K: We have been talking about meditation, love, thought and other things, but we seem to be wandering away from the central issue all the time, which is the way we live our daily life and if we are becoming aware of our daily turmoil, daily anxieties, daily insecurity, daily depressions, the constant demand of our daily existence. Shouldn't we, I am just asking, be ( primarily) concerned with what we do, what we eat, what our relationships (actually) are, why we get so bored with our existence, why our minds are so mechanical, and so on, our daily existence. Could we talk about that?

Questioner: Yes.

K: At last!
What is our daily life, if you are ( becoming responsably ?) aware of it? Getting up, exercise (or not ?) eating, going off to the office, or to the factory, or some business with our ambitions, fulfilments, our relationship with another, intimate, or not intimate. What is the central issue of our life? Is it money ? Or to have a financially safe position, to feel secure, financially, psychologically, to be completely certain, unconfused? What is the main urge, demand, desire of our life?

Q: Joy of work ?

K: The joy of work? Would you tell that to the man who is turning the screw day after day on a moving belt - joy of work? Or to a man that has to go to the office every morning, be told what to do, typing, every day of one's life? Please face it. That is what we are asking: is it money? Is it lack of work? And having work, then the routine of work, the boredom of it, and the escape of it through entertainment, night clubs, you follow? Anything away from ( facing) our actual existence. Because the ( state of the ?) world is in a horrible condition. You must know all this. So as fairly intelligent, serious, human beings, what is our ( responsible) relationship to all this moral deterioration, the intellectual dishonesty, the class prejudices, the mess that the politicians are making. The endless preparation for war. What is our relationship to all this?

Q: We are all part of it.

K: I quite agree. But are we aware of it, that our daily life contributes to all this? And being aware of all this, what is our ( responsible) relationship to that, and what is ( inwardly wrong with ?) our life, which obviously is contributing to that?

Q: We would like to change it, but we don't know how.

K: We'd like to change the way we are living now, we don't know how to change it. Therefore we accept it - right? Why is it that we can't change it?

Q: Perhaps we wait for someone else to tell us (how ?) .

K: Are you waiting for some miracle to happen? Are we waiting for some authority to tell us what to do? There are people who think that through tradition it will all be solved. You know all this.
Now why can't we in our daily life change what we are doing? Let's come back: what is our daily life?

Q: It is not only we are contributing, but also we are active in what we contribute.

K: Yes. So I am asking if ( inwardly) we are part of ( the general mentality of our ) society which is becoming more and more destructive, degenerating, and as a human being is one also deteriorating?

Q: I think we don't (really want to ?) see it.

K: Why? Don't we know our own daily life?

Q: Yes, but our daily life is a kind of self-centred activity.

K: I know. And if that is so, and if that is contributing to the 'monstrous' (chaotic ?) society in which we live, why can't we change that central activity, egotistic activity ?

Q: We are unconscious of our own lives. Until we become conscious of everything that we are doing we can't change it.

K: So, can we become conscious, aware, know the activities of our daily life, what we are doing?

Q: Being a mother, and having ( to raise) children, it is very difficult.

K: All right. Being a mother and having children it is a very difficult life. Is that one of our problems? I have children, and are they growing up into ( psychological) 'monsters', like the rest of the world? Ugly, violent, self-centred, acquisitive, do I want my children to be like that?

Q: I would say it is not jobs in the big cities that are the problem, but I think that I have to wake up to the ( sad ?) quality of my conditioning in relationship with my children and everything around me. This seems to be my problem, not the outside conditions.

K: What shall we do together?

Q: Sir, to go to work everyday, most people just go to work and they don't carry on when they get out of work. In other words they go to work, it is learning all the time and when the bell rings and you are free to leave you can still learn. There is always ( the possibility of ?) a learning process going on, which doesn't seem to be happening at all. It is not just going to work and doing a job, it is going to work and learning. Then when you are out of work you continue this learning. How many people go home and try to learn more about their lives whether they are at work or whether they are at home ?

K: Having said that, where are you? Are we still dealing with what should be, what ought to be, or are we facing the fact?

Q: We are facing the fact there is a big separation between our work lives and our free time.

K: Sir, do I face the fact, that we are part of this society? We have contributed to it, our parents have contributed to it, our grandparents and so on, they have contributed to this, and one is ( still) contributing (passively ?) . Is that a fact? Do I realize that?

Q(1): Yes, we are contributing to it ( by looking at life) with eyes of our own past conditioning if we are still involved in it and don't see what is not right for our present position.

Q (2) : Sir, we must know how we are contributing to it, why we are contributing to it, the whole effort of what that contribution involves. How do we contribute to it?

Q (3) : If you analyse it, you must look at it, understand it, and say, "Look, I understand it, I won't contribute to it and I am going to go out of it." You can do it in an instant.

Q(4): Sir, I cannot "see the fact" because thought intervenes.

K: Can't you face the fact? When we say, "I am part of that society", what do we mean by that?

Q: I don't see ( the inner truth of ?) it at all.

K: Just begin slowly, please. What do I mean when I say 'I am part of that'?

Q: Sir, isn't the approach you are taking already setting up a ( subliminal) division between 'me' and 'society'? In other words is there such a thing as society, or is this here society, and not I and you society? When you said "this monstrous, horrible society" it is an abstraction that is different from the people in this room.

K: Sir, I am saying exactly that: society is not out there, society is here.

Q: Well then can't we all work together and lose our past conditioning of these ( over-generalising ?) words that you have been saying to us for all of these years, and begin to act in some form that is new and creative?

K: Madam, we don't seem to be able to do anything together, unless we are forced, unless there is a tremendous crisis, like war, then we all come together. If there is an earthquake we are all involved in it. But remove the earthquakes, the great crises of war, we are back to ( settling down in) our separative little selves, fighting each other. This is so obvious. I saw a woman some years ago, who was English, aristocratic, and all the rest of it, during the war they all lived in the ( London) underground, you know 'the Tube', and she said it was marvellous, "We were all together, we supported each other". When the war was over she went back to her castle and finished!
Can we just look at this (psychological) fact for a minute. When we say "we are part of that", is it an idea, or an actuality? - is it ( seen as an actual) fact, like having a toothache?

Q: I am that society.

K: I am that society. Then what is happening 'out there' to which I am contributing? Am I seeking my own security, my own experiences, involved in my own problems, concerned with my own ambitions - each one is striving, for himself - right? - as society exists now. And probably that has been the historical process right from the beginning, each one struggling for himself. Right? And therefore ( implicitly) each one opposed (or competing with ?) to another. Now, do we realize that? Do we say, "Yes, by Jove it is so". Then what shall I do as a human being, being part of this society, what is my responsibility?

Q: Try to do something about it?

K: I can only 'do something' about it when I am clear in myself - right?

Q: But is it not also possible that if we are 'clear and logical about it', we can be excluded from the society ?

K: All right. So let's find out how to be clear in oneself. How to be certain about things. Let's find out if one can have ( an authentic sense of ?) security both psychological and physical. So how is all that ( cloud of mental ?) confusion to be wiped away so that there is ( a state of inner?) clarity from there I can act ? That ( inner state of ) confusion has been caused by all these people, each one saying different things - right? So I am confused. So I say, please, I am not going to listen to any of you, I am going to see why I am confused. Let's start from there - why are you, as a human being, ( inwardly) confused?

Q: Because I accept?

K: No, look into yourself madam. Don't just throw out some word. Why am I confused? Let's begin with that. What is ( this inner ?) confusion?

Q: Contradiction ?

K: You say, confusion arises when there is contradiction, not only 'out there' in the world, but also within me. The world is me, therefore there is in me ( some latent ) 'contradiction'. Now what do you mean by that word 'contradiction'? I say something and do the opposite. Right? I think something and ( forced by outer circumstances ?) act contrary to what I think. I imitate ( the model of successful people ) because I am not sure about myself. I follow because I am uncertain. So ( in a nutshell) "contradiction" means conformity, imitation, saying one thing and doing another, thinking one thing and diong quite the opposite. I believe in God, and I "chop off everybody's head". Right?
Now let us start with this: are we aware of that within ourselves we are 'contradicting' all the time. And if I am aware that I am contradictory: say one thing on the platform, go home and do quite the opposite. (Personally I don't, if I did I would never appear on the platform). And I say, why am I doing this - you understand? I say one thing and do quite the opposite, why? Is it that ( as a politician or public celebrity ?) I say one thing to please you, to make myself popular, to have a reputation of having immense knowledge, and go home and ( when faced with major challenges ?) do everything contrary to that?
Now, when I ask, "why do I do it ?" am I looking for a cause? I may discover the cause through ( a self-introspective ?) analysis, but will the (intellectual) discovery of the cause finish the contradiction? (EG:) I have discovered the cause, why I contradict, because I am frightened, because I want to stay popular, because I want to be well regarded, I want public approval, and inwardly I do (or think) something else. The ( actual) "cause" may be that in myself I am feeling uncertain, I depend on you, or on something else, so in myself I am absolutely uncertain. So (now) I say one thing and ( later) I contradict myself - right? But (even if) I discover the ( obvious) "cause" this is not going to finish the ( deeper causation of my) contradiction.
The cause and the effect are never ( remaining ) the same, because ( in the dynamic of the 'psyche' ) the (old) cause ( gets modified and ) becomes the (new) effect, and the (new) effect becomes the ( futher) cause. It is a ( process of constant) change. I wonder if you see that. So ( eventually ?) I find it is futile to find 'the' cause. The (global) fact is I am uncertain, and therefore there is a ( a constant ?) contradiction, ( generated by my) wanting to be certain. Inwardly I am uncertain, and wanting to be certain, which is a ( generating a self-sustained cycle of ) contradiction. Right? So why am I uncertain? Uncertain about what?

Q: Have you not contradicted yourself?

K: The gentleman says I have contradicted myself. Where? I'd like to find out where I have contradicted myself.

Q: I don't know why I reacted to it but you said looking for a cause is running away from the fact, the fact of whatever you are looking at.

K: Quite right, sir. Looking for a cause is running away from ( facing) the actual.

Q: But then the next thing you say, is "why ?". Again looking for a cause!

K: I have explained very carefully that I am not looking for a cause.

Q: But you said "why".

K: I purposefully put that question, "why?" ( Commonly) when you use that word 'why', you are looking for a cause. But I explained that ( in our psyche) the cause and the effect are never ( staying ) the same, because the cause brings about an effect, and the effect becomes the (new) cause. So to enquire into that ( causal approach of ?) change is useless. But when we use the word "why ?" I am using it in a special way, which is I am enquiring (holistically ?), not 'seeking the cause'. See the difference ? If you don't like the word 'why ?', just say, "How has this happened?"

Q: Sir is it possible to ( holistically ) enquire verbally? I really would like an answer to this. I keep asking and you don't answer, and I feel it is because you want me to find my own answer. Is it possible to enquire into the ( truth of ?) problem, while ( intellectually) expressing the problem?

K: No, first of all understand the words we are using 'verbally' (intellectually ?) . We have spent forty five minutes and we haven't even gone into the way of our daily life. ( So back to understanding the nature of my 'confusion') I am asking myself, what am I uncertain about?

Q: I find myself listening to many people, and this must (inevitably) bring confusion in myself. So I know that all I have to do is to listen to myself. But what I am saying is, how can I listen (only) to myself ? I must listen to my parents, everybody else, and so there is my problem. Who should I listen to?
Myy parents say one thing, you say another thing.

K: That is what I said. The parents say one thing, you say something, the philosophers say something else, the politicians - right? They are all saying something different, each one. Each guru is competing with the other guru, saying something entirely different. Now this is brought about by the constant ( mediatised ?) pressure of other people - right? The pressure of the politician, the economist, the philosopher, the guru, the priest, the parent, the grandparent, and your own - right? So please proceed. What am I confused about?

Q: About the future.

K: About the future. I am uncertain about the future, the future being what I have been, what I am now, what I might be - right? That is the future. The future is physically uncertain, psychologically uncertain. So my mind is seeking certainty - right? Being uncertain it wants to be certain - right?

Q: You asked, what are we uncertain about. At one point I thought we were uncertain about different things, then the problem is not to ascertain "what we are uncertain about" but the fact of that, which I think arises from our unclearness about the composition. And if we look at it and see the composition, then the uncertainty would disappear.

K: We are doing that, sir. Let's begin this way: are we certain in our relationship with each other? Certain in one's relationship to one's husband, wife, girl, boy? Please answer this: what is ( the quality of ?) your relationship with another?

Q: Very poor.

K: Poor? Sir, look, when you look at one's relationship with another, is there any quality of ( temporal ?) 'certainty' in it? . You might think at the beginning of that relationship there is certainty but gradually ( the psychological weight of ?) that certainty peters out. So in relationship there is no certainty. Why is there uncertainty in our relationships? Pursue that, please stick to that one thing and work it out.

Q (1): Lack of engagement?

Q (2): We are selfish?

Q (3) : We do not know what we really want ?

K: I can (try to ?) explain it, but will you see the actuality of it? That is, sexually one is attracted to the opposite sex. Then gradually the fascination of sex, the excitement, and all that, peters out. But there is a (psychological habit ?) attachment formed. And the attachment causes fear (to lose it ?) - right? And when there is fear love has gone overboard - right? So there is constant division between you and the other, constant division. You dominate and she yields, or the other way round. So there is always this "contradiction" in our relationship, which is a daily fact.
Now, how is it that this comes about? Is it because each one is ( grossly or subtly ?) concerned about himself - right? Is it because we are ( culturally ?) conditioned that way, we are educated that way, our whole environmental, social pressure is that way - you understand? So then, can one "break away" (or break free ?) from that? Break away from this self-centred (collectively accepted pattern of ?) relationship. How is that (breaking through) to be done - right? Now let's stick to that.
That is our daily life, and therefore why is one, one human being, so terribly self-concerned? Is it his nature? Is it his biological necessity? Because when one is primitive one has to look after oneself, or one has to look after the few. And from that one may be so conditioned one is carrying onright? Can that ( self-isolating ?) 'conditioning' be broken, finished?

Q: We have projected the animal instinct into the psychological field, and that has created the 'me'.

K: Yes, we have said that before. Now one has come to the point that in our (everyday) relationship can this conditioning be broken down, changed?

Q: Don't we have to understand it first ?

K: All right - what do you mean by "understanding it"?

Q: See the whole thing.

K: But I can't 'see the whole thing' because my mind is ( seriously ?) conditioned, I have been brought up that way - right? My parents, my society, my gods, my priests, all have said, "You first", your success, your business, your happiness, your salvation, you. Now, can that ( mentality of ?) conditioning be broken, changed? I want to go into it, please follow this, step by step: (a) How do I know that I am conditioned, first? Is it that I am accepting the (K) words and then imagining I am conditioned? Or is it a "fact"? Look sir, I 'think I am conditioned'. I think. But I don't 'think I have pain' when somebody hits me. See the difference? Do I similarly see that I am conditioned? Or do I (just indulge in ?) thinking that I am conditioned? The thinking "I am conditioned" is not a fact. But the conditioning is a "fact".
So (b) I am only dealing with the fact is I am ( seriously ?) 'conditioned'. Now (c) In what manner do I look at the fact? That is very important - in what manner do I observe the fact? In observing the fact do I say, "I must get rid of it"? Or do I say, "I must overcome it, I must suppress it" and so on? In what manner do I look at the fact? You have understood? How do you look at it?

Q: With fear ?

Q: I "am" it, sir.

K: Please follow this: is the 'fact' (considered as being ) separate from me who is observing the fact? Do I look at it, the fact, as something different from me? Or that conditioning "is" part of ?) me? Please go slowly. Do you look at it as though you were separate from the fact? Or you say, "Yes, that fact is me"?

Q: At first 'you are involved' in it ?

K: Look, madam, is ( a reaction of ?) 'anger' different from "you"? Obviously not. So is "your ( cultural ?) conditioning" different from "you"?

Q: No.

K: That's it. So you are now observing the fact as though it was (undissociated from ?) you, you 'are' (remaining with ?) the fact. So what happens?

Q: We observe the fact that we are living in the field of (mental images and ?) ideas.

K: Sir, your minds are not 'trained'. Your minds are vague, moving all over the place. Here is a (simpler) problem, look at it: anger is you. You are not different from the anger. When you are (getting) angry, you 'are' that, then thought comes along and says, "I have been angry". So ( your self-centred ?) thought separates (the momentary reaction of ?) 'anger' from ( the permanent ?) 'you'. You understand?
So similarly, you are ( culturally ?) conditioned, and ( at the moment when this cultural conditioning reacts ?) that conditioning 'is' you.
(EG:) The speaker's skin is a little brown, but when he says, "I must change it to something else because white people are (looking) better", then I am in conflict (with what I actually am ?) . But when I say, "It is so", what has happened to ( the perceptive quality of ?) my mind?

Q: It is "clear" ?

K: Please don't jump to things which you don't 'see' actually. The mind now is not (engaged ?) in (self-) contradiction. That is all I am pointing out. It is no longer saying, "I must do something about it". Get it?

Q: Yes.

K: So the mind now is free from the (cultural) conditioning (saying) that "I must act upon it". Right? So (d) the mind is now 'free to look'. The mind says, not 'my mind is conditioned', but the whole thing is conditioned. Now (e) it says, "Observe (non-personally ?) that conditioning". And what takes place when you observe? There is no "observer" because the observer is not different from the ( cultural conditioning being) observed, there is only observation. Right?

Q: Yes, sir.

K: Are you following this? Then (e) what takes place when you observe purely, not give it a distortion ? There is no effort made. Then (f) what takes place? The 'thing observed' purely undergoes a change. You won't (get it ?) , unless you 'do it'. Unless you apply (your mind to it and ?) , do it, you will say, "I don't see it."
Look, under a microscope you can watch the cell. If you watch it carefully, without saying, "It is a cell, it must not be this, it is that", you will see then the cell is undergoing change. But if you come to it with an idea the thing is not moving. You understand? The moment you come to it fresh and looking the conditioning is changing. You get it? If you observe "purely".

Now to come back (on earth ?) : One observes one's relationship in daily life, to observe it "purely". Can you (non-personally ?) observe your relationship with your wife, husband, whatever it is, without the (inerfering) images, without the idea that it is my husband, my wife, and all the rest of it, without the remembrance of sex, and all the rest of that, just to observe your relationship with another? Will you do it? Or your (sexual ?) attraction to the other is so strong that it is impossible to look. I see what is happening here: holding hands, hugging each other, all that is going on. So those people cannot obviously observe (their daily relationship non-personally ?). So if you observe very closely, without the "observer" the (quality of the ?) thing (observed) changes. My relationship with you, or with another, husband, wife, if I observe it quietly, without any pressure, direction, it changes and (g) out of that Love is. You understand? Love is not the product of thought.

Q: What is wrong with 'holding hands' sir?

K: Oh, for god's sake! You have such infantile minds.

Q: When you look at this thing under the microscope, without thought, the thing is changing, but the thing is changing even when you are not looking.

K: Of course, but ou see what you have done sir ? You don't say, "Look, I am going to apply this. I am going to watch this. I am going to watch (non-personally ?) my relationship with my wife" - or husband. The 'fact' (to be obseved here ?) is we are separate. He is ambitious, I am ambitious, he wants this, and all the rest, separate. I am watching this ( inner fact of ?) separation. I don't want to change it, I don't want to modify it, I don't want to push it aside because I don't know what is going to happen. So I just observe. ( Or rather ?) not 'I' observe, but there is "observation". Do it, sir.

Q: Sir, the problem is when 'I' want to observe, the ( interfering ?) thought is there.

K: No, sir, I have explained it. I can't go back to it sir.

Q: But it is a problem for us.

K: What is the problem?

Q: That we can't observe (non-personally, purely) , we don't know how to do it.

K: I (was just ) showing it to you.

Q: We don't live it.

K: Then you are not "listening".

Q: I am listening.

K: Sir, food is put before you. Either you eat it, or don't eat it. If you are (spiritually ?) 'hungry' you will eat it. If you are not hungry you will say, "Well that doesn't mean anything to me". Are you 'hungry' to find out a way of living without conflict?

Q: Yes.

K: I am 'pointing it out' to you. So there is a way of living in which there is no confusion, when the mind is able to observe (transparently ?) without direction, without motive (which is the interfering movement of thought) just to (purely) observe. Observe the roof of this tent, the height, just to observe it. In the same way , if you can (afford to ?) observe your whole psychological movement, then the (intrinsical quality of the ?) 'thing' itself changes radically. You don't have to practise anything, gurus, you can throw all that aside (and also save a few bucks ?) . Right sirs ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Jun 2016 #205
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


K: The speaker would like to talk over with you a question which perhaps might be of vital interest : Why is it that two people are not able to 'think together' (non-personally ?) ? You understand the question? They do think together (in a coperative way ?) when there is some kind of physical catastrophe, they forget their 'personal' prejudices, judgements, their own problems, and face it together. And also if there is some impending danger, they again come together in their thoughts, in their feelings. You must have noticed all this. But why is it (that in normal conditions ?) when we have no catastrophes, physical dangers, or something threatening us, we are not able to 'come together' and think the problem together? Is it (only) when two people they like each other, or love each other, then there is a possibility of thinking together? Isn't that so?
Can we this morning spend a little time on this ( ages old ?) question? Perhaps this will help us to understand the confusion and the misery of our daily life. Because we have not been able, so far, in all these discussions and talks, to meet actually together. Is it that we don't love (have affection for ?) each other? I think that if we can 'think together' and investigate more deeply into our personal lives, into our confusion and face the (actual state of our) world with its horrendous (psychological) degeneration, then perhaps we might investigate together how to bring about a "good" society, a "good" way of living (together) . Can we go into this? Can we 'think together' (non- without authority, without a belief, without a (major) crisis ? What we mean by 'thinking together' is to meet at the same point, meet at the same level, with the same intensity, which is not possible if you hold on to your own particular opinions. So can we, this morning, somehow put aside our "personal" beliefs (convinctions ?) , experiences, judgements, points of view, and meet together?

Q: Can we be open enough?

K: I wonder in what way you are using the word 'open'? Because that is rather a difficult word. I may think I am open (minded) but I am really closed inside. So can you and I put aside our particular point of view, our particular opinion, our experience? I met the other day a man who said, "You will solve all these problems if you are ( becoming) a vegetarian" - you understand? All your problems will be solved. He was absolutely 'hooked up' on it - to use a modern word. And most of us are like that, only (that the real problem ) isn't vegetarianism, bananas, or something but our (deep attachment to our ?) (personal) conclusions which we have come to, for various reason. Can we let all that go, at least for this morning, set it aside and meet together? You understand my question? Can we do it?

Q: Let us try.

K: Not 'try', but to do it! I don't say, "I will 'try' to climb the mountain", I climb the mountain. So can we, this morning, go into this question: is it possible without any pressure, without any kind of ( charismatic ?) persuasion, without any (expectations of ?) reward or punishment, say, "Look, let's 'come together' and think about it" - can we do it? If we can then we can investigate ( by sharing ?) our own personal problems, our own personal lives, together. Would it be possible to talk over together whether it is possible to bring about a 'good' society ? The intellectuals throughout the world have already given up that idea, saying that it is hopeless (an Utopia ?) . They are taking about existentialism, all new kinds of philosophy, or go back to the bible, the new gods, and all the rest of it, but nobody - as far as one knows - is concerned with bringing about a good society in which we can live happily, without fear, without terror, without all the horrible things that are going on in the world. Can we do this, this morning? - not ( creating) a good society in the future but now? Please this is very important because around us morally, physically, intellectually there is disintegration. You must have observed this. And any serious person being concerned with all this, he must demand not only of himself but of others whether it is possible to lead a good life and therefore bring about a good society. You have understood?
Now let's begin.

Q: What means a 'good society'?

K: We will find out what is a 'good' life if we are able to 'think together'. If I define or describe what is a 'good' life, then you will disagree, or say, "That is not good enough, we must add a little more to it". And we shall be wandering off. That's simple.

Q: Could we, sir, look at the obstacles to leading a good life?

K: We will come to that sir. Let's find out whether we can 'think together'. The speaker is not persuading you to think in any particular direction, but if you and I see the the absolute necessity of a group of people , thinking together. ( However ?) 'thinking about' something is not ( necessarily ) 'thinking together'. You see the difference? Thinking 'about something' involves (sharing our personal) opinions, evaluation and there will ( certainly) be divergence of opinions and points of view, if you are thinking about something. But here we are not 'thinking about something' but ( sharing the capacity of creative ?) thinking together. I wonder if you see the difference?

Q: We don't see the "urgent necessity" of doing this. The question is, why?

K: I know why. Because we are not ( vitally) interested.

Q: ( So you want us to ?) investigate together ?

K: Before you investigate together you must ( learn to ?) think together (non-personally ?) .

Q: Thinking is really the barrier.

K: Look sir, if you and the speaker "loved" each other we would be ( sharing our ?) thinking together, wouldn't we?

Q: The problem is that we don't "love" each other.

K: Just a minute sir, please, let us consider this. If I could 'think together' with you, then our (creative) thinking is common. But if you and I were "thinking together about something" it is not common. This is clear, isn't it?

Q: This is clear. But is it possible to think without the 'object' and the 'subject'?

K: Of course you can. But how difficult it is to be able to feel the common necessity of being together, to act together - right? So, would you kindly (listen and ?) learn what it means to 'think together' ? Learn. We have discussed (previously) the art of listening, the art of seeing, the art of learning. And now we are going to learn about the "art of thinking together" You don't (really ?) know what it is to 'think together', so we are having a class in a school and the speaker happens to be the Teacher. And he says, please you come here without 'knowing' what it means, you are going to learn because you are curious to (learn or ?) to find out what the teacher has to say, so... are you prepared to learn ? Here the speaker is the professor, and you are the students, but the professor is not authoritarian, he wants to teach you about whatever it is. So ( the right attitude is:) you don't know but you are going to ( listen and) learn. Are in that position?

Q: Yes, do please go on.

K: If we are in that position then the professor says, do you know anything about thinking? He is concerned only with the capacity and the energy and the vitality of thinking. Does your thinking differ from the other's thinking? Even in the western world your thinking is apparently different from your fellow western being. Now he asks a question, which you must answer: how has this come? The whole technological development (of the western world) has come from the idea of measurement. Without measurement you can't build a bridge, you can't build a boat, submarine, ( make this videorecording ?) and so on. And the East has said, measurement is necessary but through measurement you can't find the immeasurable - you are following all this? So they said, thought is necessary, but that process of thinking will never find that which is ( inwardly ?) inexhaustible, immeasurable, timeless - right?

Q: Professor, as I am a 'student' I say, tell me what you know.

K: I am telling you what I know.

Q: The teacher/pupil relationship is to ask, tell me what you know. It is very simple. Does it happen that you 'keep something back'? Are there secrets, or are you as a person totally available? We are not talking about mathematics, but about life. If you are the professor, please tell me what you know.

K: I am telling you sir.

Q: May I ask a question? Does it happen that you are keeping something to yourself, keeping it back? Are you totally available?

K: Available for what?

Q: To give me (your ) 'secrets'.

K: Sir, look, I have just told you.

Q: You are 'acting', you are not really giving answers.

K: I am not acting, I am not performing, I am not keeping any "secrets".

Q: Never, or now?

K: Of course not, I said I have no secrets. It is not never, or now. I have no secrets.

Q: Then, why don't you talk about the "otherness"?

K: Perhaps we can talk about that at the end of this, which doesn't mean I am avoiding, which doesn't (really ?) mean I am keeping it "secret". You cannot possibly talk about the "otherness", you cannot if you have read that book.

Q: Are you not "keeping something back"?

K: Please sir, I am not keeping anything back. I am ( at least theoretically ?) "approachable" .
Now, we have been distracted, perhaps rightly, but let's come back. So these two 'movements' (two thinking attitudes?) have taken place in the world. The western movement is gradually conquering the world, technology, measurement, precise thinking and so on and so on. And do our thoughts measure equally? In what manner has this division taken place in their thinking? Is it education - you follow? Is it one group of people go from public school to college, to university and a good job, and therefore their thinking is different from the man who has not been educated so well, who labours, and there is the man who, educated, puts himself into the business world, and the man who is a scientist with technology and the man who thinks entirely differently if he is educated to become a military, or the man who has been educated through a seminar to become a priest, his thinking is different from the thinking of a businessman, or from that of the scientists and so on . Is this the origin of this 'breaking up' ( extreme specialisation of our modern ) thinking? You understand?

Q: You want to say that in this world every one of us has another kind of measurement?

K: Yes, partly. So I say: is that ( specialisation) the reason why you and the professor can't 'think together' (holistically ?) , because you are trained to think in one way, business, scientist, philosopher, or technician, and therefore we are all thinking differently. But the professor says, please, let us think together, not according to your way, or my way, or the scientist's way, but together.

Q: That would imply that we all have to be 're-educated' to think in exactly the same way ?

K: No. No, sir. Suppose the (university ) "professor" has been (highly) educated in (the field of ?) mathematics, and you come along and say, let us think together. It doesn't mean I drop my (knowledge about) mathematics, I put it aside (my specialised thinking) and see if I can 'think with you'. Thinking together does not mean uniformity - right?

Q: It does seem that professional differences do make it difficult for people to communicate but it is much more their deep attitudes to life that prevent people from thinking together.

K: Madam, when you have learnt all the professor has to say, at the end of the class, you can ask him questions. I mean if you want to learn something you have to be quiet. If you want to learn how to play the violin you have to follow the teacher, the violinist, put your finger there, there, practise. But you are not doing that.
So thinking together does not imply conformity - right? Thinking together does not mean that you subject your own selves, put aside and copy somebody - right? You understand, sirs, we are learning. Learning to find out how to think together, which doesn't mean that we lose our - whatever it is we lose. Right? Can we proceed from there?
So thinking together, the professor says, implies that you and the professor, put aside all they have acquired (in the field of knowledge) and let's meet. That's all he is saying. Can you do that?

Q: The problem is 'putting it aside'... Could we possibly look at "how" we put it aside.

K: All right sir. But first, do you know your 'particular' way of thinking? That you believe this, that you think this is right, this is wrong, and this should be, my experience tells me it is so. Are you aware of this fact (of cultural conditioning ?) and what does that awareness of the fact mean? Is that awareness a "judgemental awareness" , or just being aware of it? Not saying it is right, wrong, should be, must not be, just "yes I have prejudice".
Are you in that position now? That you know you have (personal and cultural) prejudices? Right? Then "why" do you have these prejudices? Is it your family, your education, your desire for security in a belief, in a point of view ? So are you aware, that you have prejudices ?

Q: We are but ( unfortunately ) most of our prejudices are unconscious.

K: I am making it conscious now. And one is helping each other to become conscious of (the racial and cultural background of our ?) thinking which has produced this prejudice. Right? So are you aware of these prejudices? And aren't these "prejudices" that are keeping us apart and prevents our thinking together. Right? So can you see the ( true ?) "necessity" of thinking together, and say, "All right, I won't have prejudices"? Because ( the human sharing of our ?) "thinking together" becomes all important, not your prejudices, therefore prejudices you put aside - right? Are you doing it?

Q: My (personal) prejudice is: I feel that you "pretend". Can you help me out of it?

K: He has a prejudice (a gut feeling ?) that I am pretending. I don't know what I am pretending about, but that is irrelevant. So he says, "I have a prejudice. Help me to see that it is (only my) prejudice and if I see that thinking together is most important, therefore I will drop my prejudice" - you understand? The dropping of the prejudice is not important, what is much more important is thinking together - right? And ( in a sort of pseudo-circular logic ?) you cannot think together if you have a prejudice.

Q: Can I express another possibility? Can we look closely at one point that you are saying? You say that thinking causes division. I think that only thinking can create again a unity. You don't agree with that I think because of your "secret". I don't think we understand entirely your secret, which is "love". You say if one has love, which a being like you has, then with this love one can (naturally) think together. I think as a western audience we cannot grasp this kind of love (in the same degree ) as you can. One has to discover that through thinking together. But this ( quality of ?) love, which you can have, I think it can only be an illusion.

K: You are saying that the speaker is able to love and therefore is able to think together. And since the western mind, doesn't know what (that universal quality of intelligent and compassionate ) "love" is, therefore it is impossible to think together. So we have come to the point that as long as we do not love each other then thinking is not possible together - right?
Now, if I love you and you are full of prejudices, however much I may offer my open hand to you, you will reject it because you have your own (self-) importance, your own knowledge, your own conditioning and you say, "Sorry" (Thanks, but... no thanks ?) . That is what is preventing us. And if we don't meet there we cannot possibly create a good society. And the speaker says if we do not create a good society we are ( eventually ?) going to destroy ourselves (as civilisation) , whether you are in the western technological world, you are going to destroy the world, if you have not this communication of love. That's all.
Now can you, after "listening" to all this, naturally put aside your prejudices, because (of seing that) "thinking together" is important? The greater puts aside the lesser, obviously. Can you do it? Does your ( main) interest lie in bringing about a good society, knowing the whole intellectual, religious organizations, intellectual, philosophical, deny all this - you understand?

Q: If we want to bring about a good society we have to understand what you say. But I feel there is no ( shared) understanding between you and I.

K: How can I help you to understand what I am saying? It is very simple if you "listen".

Q: What I am trying to say, sir, is that unfortunately I am not listening. I am trying to work out (analytically ?) why I am not listening to you.

K: Look, let me put it this way. The speaker wants to create a good society.

Q: So does the listener over here.

K: I want to create a good society and nobody will listen to me. What am I to do? Jump into a lake?

Q: I feel this as well, sir.

K: A "good society" is not ( to be created ?) some life in the future. It must be a good society now because I am living here. I want to live peacefully, without danger, without terrorism, without being kidnapped, without being bombed.
And I say to you as I want to create a good society now, will you join me?

Q: That's why we are here.

K: To join me, the speaker says, put aside your prejudices, your nationalistic (mentality ?) , your 'gurus', your this and that, and let us come together. And apparently you don't want to. That is the problem. Either you are too old, or being young you are caught in something else, sex, drugs, your own gurus, this or that. So you are not (actually) interested in creating a good society (here and now ?) . Right?

Q: We (may ) want to create a good society. You are saying we can only create a good society if we think together. You are saying we can only think together if we have love. The only kind of love we can get in order to think together is the kind of love which most of humanity, particularly western humanity, has to spend ten, twenty, thirty years in the ( study of occult ?) Mysteries. They had to 'die' to get this love. Sure, you might have it but that doesn't help us. That is the point this man is making, and you must respect us enough to think that we are sincere.

K: I understand sir. The gentleman says that the western world has to evolve, go through a number of years and 'die' to their own prejudices and all the rest of it. That means the western world has to go through a great deal of evolution before it can come to this.

Q: We can only get a good society if we think together, that is true. And the only way we can think together is if we have love. I am saying that your "secret", is that you may have this (quality of universal) love. But what I am saying that as a western man...I don't have that love.

K: I understand sir. Are you the "western man" who represents the whole of the west?

Q: No, I am saying generally. Of course there are exceptions. There will always be exceptions.

K: Can we sir, if I may most respectfully point out, can you drop that conclusion?

Q: If you like. But I want you to prove that you have love, right now.

K: One of the questions that gentleman asked is that he thinks all my life is a pretence. I don't see how I can answer that question. I don't think I am pretending. So that is the end of my answer.
So let's come back. As we said, neither the east nor the west knows what love is. Both are caught in this (loveless ?) world. Both have to live in this world. And knowing that we don't ( have this ?) "love" let's find out why, and if it is possible to love. It is only then you can create a good society; without that it is impossible. Various Greek (philosophers) and others have postulated what a 'good' society should be: justice, equality and so on, but all that is ( a project to be achieved sometimes ?) in the future. The very word 'should be' implies time. And the speaker says that may be another ( major collective ?) illusion you are caught in. Whereas a "goodness" born out of love can be born only now. But instead of going into that, we are dispersing our energies all the time , we don't just stick to this one thing.

So we have come to the (crucial) point, can we 'think together' because we 'love each other'? That's all. Do you love anything, your children, your husband, your girl, your boy, your wife, do you love them? Or is it 'me' always the first, and you the second? You understand? And where there is this division, 'me' first and 'you' second, it will never produce a "good" society. And therefore a good society can only come if you are ( holistically ?) "good"; which means you don't belong to any category of religion, of knowledge, of conclusions. You say, look, I want to become a good man. Will you do it?

We have had seven talks and this is the fifth discussion, and the last. What have you learnt from all these seven talks and five discussions? What is the "treasure" that you are going to carry out when you leave here? You understand? Have you found a jewel, an imperishable jewel so you can go off with it, or you are going away with a lot of words? You understand my question, sir? So the Professor says at the end of the talks, "What have you learnt?" Is there, out of (listening to ?) all these talks and discussions and dialogues, that "flame" that lights the world, that lights our own (inner ) life ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Jun 2016 #206
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING BROCKWOOD PARK 1979 (reader-friendly condensed)

QUESTION: Is it possible ever to be free of (our) self-centred activity? Is there a real "self" apart from the self created 'image'?

K: If you ask somebody what is the "self" ( the self-consciousness or the "psyche" ?) , they would say, "It is all my senses, my feelings, my imagination, my romantic demands, my sense of having a house, a possession, a husband, a wife, my qualities, my struggles, my achievements, my ambitions, my joys, and so on" - you can add more words to it but the essence of it is this ( ID ?) "centre", the 'me' and from this ( all controlling ?) centre all our actions take place - all our aspirations, all our ambitions, our opinions are centred in this ('personality' core ?) . Not only the "conscious self" acting outwardly but also the deep inner ( background of our collective ?) consciousness which is not open, obvious - right? So all this is the 'me', the I, the ego, the person, the different levels of consciousness - right?

Now the questioner asks: is it possible to be ( inwardly) free of this 'centre' (of identified self-interest ?) ? And one realizes where there is (this psychological) division there must be conflict - the Hindu and the Muslim, the Jew and the Arab, the American and the English, the French and the German, -all this is physically obvious. And that has brought about in the world tremendous wars, great agony of people, brutality, violence - right? This (core of) self (-interest ) identifying itself with noble ideals, and fighting for that ideal. But it is still the same "ego trip" - right? It is like those people who go to India and putting on a different fancy dresses and saying, "I am going to find spiritual things there". They have only changed the garb, the clothes but they are essentially the same "me" which is operating all the time, struggling, deeply attached to one's experiences, to one's ideas, to one's opinions, to one's longings. Right? And as one lives, as one observes this ( cleverly hidden) centre (of self-interest ), this me, is the essence of all trouble, and also all pleasure, all fear, all sorrow.

So is it possible - the questioner asks- to be really free(of it) , absolutely not relatively, which is fairly simple. One can be a little unselfish, one can be a little concerned with social welfare, with others and so on, but the centre is always there biting hard, brutal. So is it possible to be free of that "centre" ?
First of all the more effort is made to be free of this "centre", that very effort only strengthens the self - right? Like those people who go off into meditation of various kinds, trying to impose something upon each and that me then captures that, identifies with that and says, "I have achieved" - but he is still (subliminally identified with ?) that centre - right?
So we are trying to understand whether it is possible to be free without (any mental) effort - right? Which doesn't mean doing what one likes.

So you are not making an effort if you see the truth of it: that it is the self-(cantred consciousness ) that is making an effort to be free of itself, imagining that it will be free, etc. etc. But it is still ( a devious part of ?) the activities of the centre, me. Then what is one to do?
Before we go into that, is there a real "self" apart from the self created by thought with its images? - the questioner says. Many people would feel that (yes ?) . The Hindus have said there is the "highest ( spiritual) principle" which is the Higher self.
But the moment we use the word 'Self' to describe "that" (timeless spiritual essence ?) which is beyond the "me", ( such assumption ? ) is still ( part of one's old?) self.
So, ( experientially-wise) to be free of the "self" means: it possible to be totally free from attachment? That is one of the (sticky ?) qualities of the "self" - I am attached to my reputation. I am attached to my name. I am attached to my experience. I am attached to what I have said and so on. So is it possible to be free from all ( such) attachments?
( For homework:) Work it out sirs: if you really want to be free of the "self", no attachment. Which doesn't mean you become 'detached', indifferent, or shut yourself away, which is still the same movement of the self (but in the opposite direction ) .

( To wrap it up:) if a person is serious, really concerned because the ( consciousness of the ?) world is divided (fragmented ?) in the me's and the you's , we and they. We 'British' and they the 'Irish'! The black and the white and the brown. So is it possible, without ( a mentality based on ?) effort, to be free of ( the 'psychological' ?) attachment, to your wife, to your children, to your name - not to be identified with anything, and therefore when you are really deeply basically not attached then from that deep sense of no attachment comes the sense of ( a global ?) responsibility. Will you do it? That is the question. We can talk (about it ?) everlastingly, but when it comes to "testing" it, to "acting", we don't seem to (really ?) want to do it. And so we prefer to go on as we are, status quo, slightly modified but carry on, with our quarrels, you know all the things that are happening in the world.

So it is "possible" ( only ?) if you 'go at it'. And this ( change of mentality ?) doesn't take time. When you see (the truth that) one of the major factors of the self is "attachment" and you see what it does in the world, and in your relationship with another, separation and all the ugliness of relationship, if you actually see the "truth of attachment", then you are free from it. Your own perception (of this truth) sets you free. ( But...) will you do it?

QUESTION: Will the practice of Yoga as it is being done in Europe and America help to bring about a spiritual awakening? Is it true that Yoga will awaken a deeper energy, which is called "Kundalini"?

K: The so-called (practical ?) Yogas were invented about the seventeenth and eighteenth century (BC ?) , the exercises, in order not only to have a very good body, healthy body, through force, you understand, through discipline, control, in order to awaken the so-called "higher energies" . But the real Yoga, which is called Raja Yoga, ("King of Yogas") , is to lead a highly moral life - not morality according to circumstances, according to culture, but true ethical activity in life - not to hurt people , not to drink, not to drug yourself, right amount of sleep, right amount of food, clear thinking, and acting morally, doing the right thing. They never mentioned, as far as I understand after talking with a great many ( Hindu ?) scholars, they never mentioned about "exercise". They say exercise normally, walk, swim, all that, but their emphasis was a very moral life, a mind which is active.
The root meaning of the word "Yoga", is "to join", join the higher with the lower, or the lower with the higher. But the modern Yoga - I don't know why they call it yoga, it should be called just ( 'Pilates yoga'?) exercise but that wouldn't appeal to you! You have to pay money to learn yoga, to breathe properly and all that. You can practise yoga, the exercises of different kinds, the speaker has done some of it for years, taught by the experts, fortunately they didn't charge, because they also thought I was an expert!! I am not an expert and so I deserted them.

Sirs, you can do this kind of ( Pilates ?) 'yoga exercise' for the rest of your life, you won't awaken spiritual insight, nor will the awakening of a higher energy come into being. You know in the east they have a word for this called Kundalini, but none of them, please believe me, none of them have awakened this thing. I have discussed with them very seriously and what they are talking about is a certain form of increasing ( one's inner?) energy to do more mischief. By eating the right food, by control, by breathing properly, etc. etc. etc., you have more ( psycho-somatic ?) energy, naturally. And that gives you a sense of ( spiritual ?) superiority, and you are enlightened and so on.

But there is a different form of ( awakening of one's spiritual energy ?) - but that can only happen when the "self" (- consciousness ) is not (around ?) . Then there is a totally different kind of energy to keep the mind fresh, young, alive, but... that can only come when there is absolutely no sense of the "self". Obviously ! because the self-(identified consciousness ?) is in ( a state of ?) constant conflict - wanting, not wanting, creating dualities, opposing desires, this constant struggle that is going on. As long as that struggle is going on there is a wastage of ( our intelligent ressources of ?) energy obviously. When that struggle is not, there is a totally different kind of energy taking place (awakening ?) - right?

( Short story time:) There is the story of a man, a philosopher, or a patriarch, who was a well-known teacher. And a disciple came to him and said, "Master teach me to meditate'. So he sat up in the right position, you know, and closed his eyes and began to breathe very deeply, trying to capture the 'higher vibrations' and all the rest of it. So the Master picks up two pieces of stone and rubs them, keeps on rubbing them. And the disciple opens his eyes and says, "Master, what are you doing?" He said, "I am trying to make out of these stones a mirror so that I can look at myself" and the disciple says, "Master you can never do that". He says, "In the same way, my friend, you can sit like that and breathe like that for ever but you will never get it"

3rd QUESTION: Can there be absolute security for man in this life?

K: This is a very serious question because we all want security, both physical and principally psychological. But if you are (feeling ?) 'psychologically' secure, certain, then we might not be so concerned with physical security.
The questioner says: is there "absolute security" for us, for human beings? We will answer that at the end but follow it step by step.

(a) We must have (some basic sense of?) security - right? Like a child hanging on to its mother, the child must feel secure otherwise something goes wrong ( within himself ?) . If the mother and the father don't pay enough attention to the baby, give it all affection, it affects the brain, the nerves of the baby and the child. So it must have security, physical security.

But ( b) why do we demand "psychological" security? Do you understand the difference between the two? The 'psyche' demanding security and the 'physical' demanding security. Now is there ( a temporal ?) psychological security at all? We want ( a long term ?) security in our relationships - 'my' (certified ?) wife, my children, and (a global ) a sense of family unit. So one is ( getting) attached to the wife, or to the girlfriend - right? So in that attachment there is ( a sense of) security, at least we think there is security. And when there is no (more) security in that person we soon break away from it and find it in another (relationship) . And we (also) try to find security in (belonging to a cultural ?) group, in the 'tribe' - that glorified tribe is the nation - right? So all these are forms of demanding ( psychological) security, as one demands physical security - right? And in demanding this 'psychological' security we have divided (separated) ourselves - the Hindu, the Muslim, the Jew, the Arab, the Christian, the non Christian, believer in Jesus, the believer in something else - in all this there is the demand for security. And this (kind of) security has been founded in ( collectively shared ?) illusions - right? Being secure in Catholicism, hold yourself tight. In Buddhism, in Hinduism, in Judaism, Islam and so on - you follow? That has created an illusory ( sense of group ?) security because they are fighting each other. I wonder if you see this? The moment you "see it" you don't belong to anything (inwardly) .

So (our brain's basic ?) demand is for security. It may be found in an illusion in superstition, in a ritual, in a dogma, in a nation, in an economic system, in being secure economically. So this ( blind ?) desire for security not only creates illusions, because it is a (psychological form of ?) illusion, isn't it, to belong to a tribe, or belonging to some church, so one finds security in illusions, in 'possessing' a furniture, a house, or in (getting attached to ?) a person. None of these, as you observe, give man ( a durable ) security, because you have had two terrible wars. You want security (for your own people) but you create wars, which ( eventually turn around and ?) destroys your own security.
So when (and if ?) you see the truth that the (self-centred) mind, or thought has sought out security in illusions - right? - the very (insightful) perception that you are seeking security in ( getting hooked on ?) illusions, that very perception of that brings you ( a different quality of ?) intelligence - right?

To see that they are illusions is ( the action of a holistic ?) intelligence. It is like seeing danger. A man who is blind to a danger is an 'idiot', or there is something wrong with him. But we don't see the danger of this - right? And the man who sees the danger, intelligence is in operation. In that intelligence there is absolute security. You get it? Do you understand this?
That is, the human mind, thought ( in its demand for ('permanent' forms of ?) security has created various forms of illusions, national and class divisions , ( the mentality of ) 'me' and 'you', the extraordinary religious superstitions that pervade the world, in all that one has sought security. And one doesn't "see the ( psychological) danger" of this (instinctive need for ?) security, of this illusion.

When one sees this (psychological) danger as an actual fact, that ( newly awakened timeless ?) intelligence is ( providing) the supreme form of absolute security. Right? Are you intelligent? (Laughter) Otherwise we miss it. You may say, "I don't believe in any religions, I have no beliefs, I have no this, I have no that" - but the 'me' is in operation, which has created all this and you are opposing all that by another words, another beliefs, another ideas.
So there is ( a profound sense of ?) absolute security, when we "see the truth in the false". I wonder if you see this?

QUESTION: Emotions are strong. Our attachments are still stronger. How does "looking" and "seeing" reduce the strength and power of these emotions?

K: Trying to control, suppress, or sublimate our emotions and attachments in no way reduces the conflict, does it? But are we generally aware of our emotions? Do you know that you are strongly 'attached'? And are your emotions so extraordinarily strong that they act ( before the conscious mind is getting aware of them ?) ? So first one has to be conscious, aware, know, recognize, see that your emotions are strong. And know also, be aware, recognize that you are attached. When you are so "conscious", what takes place? (Eg:) I am conscious of my attachment, or my strong emotions of hate, jealousy, antagonism, like and dislike, Now do they, being so strong, overshadow, or ( surreptitiously) control my actions, acting as barriers to clear thinking, to clear action, to unconfused thinking. So am I aware of them? Or we say "Yes, I have very strong emotions, I am terribly attached, but it is part of life. I don't mind struggling. I don't mind having quarrels with everybody".

Now when you say you are ( becoming) aware, what do you mean by that? Is ( the self-centred) thought recognizing the attachment? You follow? You say, "Yes, I am attached" - is it the activity of thought (making it into an ?) idea? Or is it (seen as ) an actual fact, like this microphone, it is a fact. I can touch it see it - right? So is my attachment an (intellectual) concept? A conclusion? Or is it a 'fact' that I am attached? You see the difference? And when you are observing is this fact different from 'you' (the self-conscious 'observer') who are observing the fact?

So I am not 'verbalizing' ( and/or intellectually processing ?) the fact : is my attachment, something different from 'me'? Or that is part of 'me'? Attachment 'is' (the very essence of ?) the 'me'. If I have no attachment there is no ( self-conscious ?) 'me'. So your emotions and attachments are part of your nature, part of your (ego-) structure. So if you are looking at yourself and there is no division, or no 'duality', as 'me' and 'my attachments'. There is only "attachment": the feeling, the emotion, the possessiveness in attachment. That is a fact. So that is "me" (the infrastructure of my psyche ?) .
And what am I to do with this "me"? I try to could control it, I could say, "No, I mustn't be attached", or suppress it, or do something about it all the time - right? Which we (often) do. But if it 'is' me, what can I do? I can't do anything, can I? I can only ( be with it and ?) observe. Do you see the difference? Before I acted upon it. Now I can't act upon it because it is me, it is my arm, it is part of me. So all that I can do is to observe (and learn about it at first hand ?) - right? So ( the quality of non-personal ?) observation becomes all important, not "what you do" about it. You see the difference?

So there is "observation", not "I" am observing. There is only observation and in (this non-personal) observation there is no "choice" (no "choser" and "nothing to chose" ?) , there is no direction, just pure absolute clear observation. Then the thing that is being observed ( completely unfolds itself and ?) "dissolves". So, now in that observation all (one's ?) energy is centred. It is only when there is the lack of ( such integrated ?) energy there is attachment. I wonder if you see this?
That is, when there is a "complete observation" without any interference of thought. You are observing ( 'live' ?) . Why should ( the whole apparatus of ?) thought come in? You are just observing the 'fly' the (living) thing that you call the fly, just observe. In the same way to observe so completely your ( flying ?) emotions, attachments - there is a gathering (a spontaneous integration ?) of all energy in that observation. Therefore there is no ( need for any psychological ?) attachment.

( In a nutshell:) It is only the 'unintelligent' (mind) that is (getting) attached. It is only the people who do not see the full implications of ( psychological) attachment that are attached. But... they pervade the world, they are the stronger element in the world and we are caught in that (strong undercurrent ?). But when you begin to examine this closely, look at it, then you are no longer caught in that, so you are no longer dissipating energy in something which has no meaning, naturally. So your energy is now centred completely ( active ?) in observation, therefore there is total dissipation of 'attachment'.

( For homework:) Test it, "do it" and you will find out. But you have to go step by step, don't jump into something or other, you have to examine the thing very, very closely so that your mind is absolutely clear in the observation - right? It is only the unaware that "jump over the cliff". The moment you are aware of danger, move (away from it ?) . Attachment is a (potential 'psychological' ?) danger because it breeds fear, anxiety, hate, jealousy, the sense of possesivity - the whole of that is a tremendous danger. And when you see danger you act ( or rather ) there is ( a liberating ?) action.

Q: Why does the mind so readily accept trivial answers to such deeply felt problems?

K: The questioner says, why do I accept trivial explanation when a deep problem is concerned? Why do I live in ( a mental environment of ?) words? That is the real problem. Why have words become so colossally important? ( Eg:) I suffer, go through great agonies. And you come along and give me ( comforting) explanations- there is God, there is reincarnation- and in these verbal explanations I seek comfort since they give me comfort when I am in agony, in anxiety. So ( do the ?) explanations (offered) by 'philosophers', by psycho- analysts, by the priests or by the yoga teachers - explanations - it is on that we live, which means we live secondhand. We are secondhand people and we are satisfied with that. So the 'symbols' (of hope ?) become extraordinarily important, like the flag. Why does the mind do this? Is it because we read a great deal of what other people have said, we listen to what other people have said, we see in the cinema what is taking place - others? Always somebody else out there telling me what to do. So my mind is 'crippled' (psychologically handicapped ?) by this. So I am always living secondhand.

But we have never asked ourselves ( the fundamental question ?) : Can I be a light to myself? 'Being a light to oneself' is ( an inner light ?) never put out by any artificial means, by circumstances, by sorrow, by accident and incidents. Can one be that (spiritual light ?) to oneself? One can be that only when your mind has no ( need for any awakening ?) 'challenge' because it is so fully awake. But most of us need ( to create or accept such ?) challenges because most of us are (inwardly ) asleep - we have been 'put to sleep' (sedated or hypnotised ?) by all the philosophers, by all the saints, by all the gods and priests and politicians - right? We have been 'put to sleep'. And we don't know we are asleep, we think this is normal. So a man who wants to be a light to himself has to be free of all this. And ( being a ?) "light to oneself" can only take place when there is no "self" (centred consciousness ?) . Then that light is the eternal, everlasting, immeasurable light - right sirs ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 24 Jun 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 Jun 2016 #207
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING BROCKWOOD PARK 1979 (reader friendly condensed)

QUESTION: The "speaker" has said that going to an office everyday from nine to five is an intolerable imprisonment. But in any society all kinds of jobs have to be done. Is K's teaching therefore only for the (lucky ?) few ?

K: I don't know how you feel about it. Probably you like being in ( the safety of a psychological ?) prison, probably you like your jobs from nine o'clock to five o'clock, rushing, rushing back and all the rest of it. To the speaker he wouldn't tolerate ( the routine of ?) it for a single minute . I would rather do something which would be pleasant, helpful and necessary to earn enough money and so on (such as... ???) . But most of us accept this prison, this routine and nobody has ( really ?) questioned this (since this economical model still works ?) . We say it is normal, it is the way of society, it is the way of our life, it is the way we must live. But if we all see together that such an imprisonment, which it is actually intolerable (psychologically) , we would actually (try to ?) do something about it (and threfore) we will create a new society ? We will if all of us say we will not tolerate for a single day this routine, this monstrous activity of nine to five, however necessary, however good and pleasant, then we will bring about not only psychological revolution but also outwardly.

We may (theoretically) agree about this but will we do it? You might say, "No, I can't do it because I have my (material) responsibilities, I have children, I have a house and mortgage, insurance" - thank god I haven't got any of those! And so you might say, "It is easy for you to talk about all this." But it is easy for the speaker to talk about it because he refuses to go (living) in that pattern. From boyhood he refused it.

Now if we all consider that such a 'psychological' ( mentality ?) revolution of this kind is necessary then we will (start ) creating this (new) society - won't we? You want others to create the society and you can then 'slip into' it. That is what we are all waiting for. A few struggle, work, create, and refuse to enter into this rat race and the others say, "Yes, after you have constructed what you think is right society, then we all join you" - but we don't do it together. That is the whole problem. Right? If we all had this (perception of the ?) fact, that to spend our life from "nine to five" for every day of our life we would do something about it. As if you refuse to have wars - killing other people in the name of your country, of your god, whatever the ideal is, if you all refused to kill another there would be no wars - right? But we have built a society based on violence, armaments, each nation protecting itself against other nations, and so we are perpetuating wars. And in the same way we support, maintain this (collective acceptance of 'job) imprisonment'. It may be pleasant for those who have an agreeable (and rewarding ?) job but those who refuse to enter this game they will act, they will do something.

So the problem is, do we see the importance, or the necessity of this change? After all the human mind is not ( meant) to be merely occupied with a particular job, pleasant or unpleasant. The human mind has the quality of other things which we ( collectively chose to ?) disregard. We are concerned with the whole of life, not just a career, nine to five, how we live, what we do, what our thinking is, whether there is affection, care, love, compassion. All that is part of life. But we are so conditioned to this idea that we must work and create a structure of a society that demands that you work from morning until night. The speaker refuses to play into that rat race. It isn't (just ?) that he has got certain gifts or that somebody will look after him, but he refuses to enter that. I wouldn't go for a single day from nine to five for anybody, for anything. I might die but I wouldn't do that. In the same way I wouldn't kill another human being whatever the circumstances. I know what you are going to say - 'What if your 'sister' is attacked?' - you know all that game. Because violence produces more violence. You are seeing that in Ireland. But we are all so frightened, anxious (worried about our future ?) , we want security which we think we have, which we haven't got. So will you go into this and find out if you can (psychologically ?) free yourself from that 'rat race' (mentality ?) and to find out one must exercise capacity, intelligence, not say, "I won't do it". You don't do it because you are intelligent, not because you are told, or you have read in some book, or some philosopher. I think it is very clear.

And also the questioner asks: are K's teachings therefore only for the few? This is one of the questions that is asked over and over again. The speaker says it is for everyone -if it 'is for the ( upper middle class ?) 'few' it is not worth it. But ( Mr. or Mrs ? ) 'Everyone' is not serious, has not got the energy because he is ( happily ?) dissipating it in various ways. And so gradually there are very few left - you follow? So we say it is only for the few. If you apply (yourself) , go into it seriously with the spirit of investigation and wanting to live a different kind of life, it is for everyone. There is nothing ( really ?) 'secret' about it. But ( still) there is great mystery if you go beyond the limitation of thought. But we don't do any of these things, we don't test it out, we don't apply, we don't eat this 'food' that is put before us. And the few that ( would) 'eat it' , they actually are not the elite, they are only the serious people that have applied, (seriously) thought about it, gone into it, seeing that it affects their daily life. It is only then that one can create a different kind of ( no '9 to 5' ?) society.

QUESTION: Isn't "insight" (synonimous to ) intuition? (If not, then ?) what do you mean by "insight" and is it a momentary thing or can it be continuous?

K: In the various talks the speaker has used the word 'insight'. That is, "to see into things", to "see into" the whole movement of thought -like, for example, to see into ( the truth or the falseness of ?) the whole movement ( inner activity ?) of jealousy. Or to perceive the nature of greed, or to see the whole (sad ?) content of sorrow. Not (through) analysis, not by exercising your intellectual capacity, nor is it the result of (our existing) knowledge - 'knowledge' being that(active memory) which has been accumulated through the past as experience, stored up in the brain, therefore knowledge always goes with ignorance. There is no complete knowledge, therefore there is always knowledge and ignorance, like two horses tethered (to the same cart ?)
So then what is "insight"? If the (in-sighting?) observation is not based on knowledge, or on intellectual capacity of reasoning, exploring, analysing, then what is it? Is it intuition? This word 'intuition' is rather a tricky word because the 'actuality' of ( our wordly ?) intuition may be the result of desire. If you go into it rather deeply you may find that it is ( subliminally ?) based on desire, on fear, on various forms of pleasure. So one is rather doubtful about that word, specially when it is used by people who are rather romantic, who are rather imaginative, sentimental and wanting something. And they would certainly have intuitions but it may be based on some obvious self-deceptive desire. So for the moment we can put aside that word 'intuition'.

And if that is not so, then what is "insight"? That is, to perceive something instantly which must also be true, logical, sane, rational. You understand? And that (inwardly perceptive) insight must act instantly. It isn't that I have an insight and do nothing about it. If one has an insight into the whole nature of thinking that is that thinking is ( more often than not ?) the response of memory. Where do you live? What is your name? There is an immediate response. ( In a nutshell ?) thought is the (mechanical ?) response of our accumulated experience, knowledge as memory. ( So far...?) that is simple.

But this (thinker-contolled ?) thought is limited because it can never be all inclusive. It must always be partial, limited, based on ''knowledge and ignorance'. Therefore it is everlastingly confined, limited, narrow - right? Now to have an insight into that means an (intelligent non-personal ?) action which is not merely the repetition of thought ( of what was known before) - to have an insight into say "organizations", let's take that exaple . To have an insight into ( the truth or falseness of ?) it means that you are observing without ( the mental interference of) memory, remembrances, without argumentation, pro and con, just to see the whole movement and the (psychological) demand for (belonging to a spiritual ?) organization. Then you have an insight into it, and from that insight you act. And that action is logical, is sane, healthy. It is not you have an insight and then you act the opposite, then it is not (a total ?) insight. I wonder if you are getting all this? Sorry to be so emphatic. That is my way of doing it.

To have an insight, to take another example, into the wounds, hurts that one has received from childhood. Most people are (getting) 'hurt' psychologically for various reasons, from childhood until we die there is this wound in us, psychologically. Now to have an insight into the whole nature and structure of that "hurt". You are hurt, aren't you wounded psychologically? Play the game with me. The ball is in your court. You may go to a psycho-analyst, psychotherapist, and they trace why you are hurt, from childhood, your mother was this and your father was that. But by merely looking, or seeking out the cause the hurt is not going to be resolved. It is there. And the consequences of that hurt is isolation, fear, resistance, and (the desire) not to be hurt more, therefore self-enclosure. You know all this. That's the whole "movement" of being hurt. The ( cause of the ?) hurt is the "image" that you have created about yourself. right? So as long as that image remains you will be hurt, obviously. Now to have an insight into all that, without analysis, to see it instantly and in the very perception of that insight, which demands all your attention and energy, the 'hurt' is dissolved. And therefore when it is dissolved there is no further (possibility to be ?) hurt. I wonder if you get all this?
If one may ask most politely, you have heard this, have you got that insight that will dissolve your hurt completely, leaving no mark, and therefore no more hurt, nobody can hurt you. You understand? Because the ( self-protecting) image that you have created about yourself is non existent. Are you following all this? Are you doing it? Or are you just merely verbally paying attention to the words?

Questioner: I don't really understand what you mean when you say "we have created this hurt".

K: First of all, "who" is hurt? You say, "I" am hurt - consciously you are aware of it or not. Now what is that 'me'? It is the ( self protective mental ?) image you have about yourself. If I have an image about myself, I am marvellous, spiritual, blah, blah - eh? - and you come along and say, "No, you are a silly ass" - I get hurt. (Laughter) That is, (the self-centred activity of ?) thought has created an image about oneself and that image is always comparing itself : my ( self-) image is better than your image, and so on. So as long as one has this ( subliminal ?) "image" about oneself it is ( eventually ?) going to be trodden on by somebody. And that is called hurt, wounds, psychologically.
To have an insight into that means to see the whole movement, the cause and the image and therefore the very perception ends the ( mental identification with the ?) "image".

QUESTION: You say that organizations will not help man to find what we Christians call "salvation". So why do you have your own organization?

K: In 1925 the speaker was the head of a very big vast organization. He was the head of it and they looked up to him with devotion - you know, all that stuff, candles and all that! And it was considered a spiritual organization, a religious organization. And in 1925 - or was it 28 or 29, I have forgotten, it is not important - that organization called 'The Order of the Star' was dissolved by the speaker, because he said that any spiritual organization of any kind is not spiritual. And he dissolved that organization, returned the properties, the whole works of it.

Now there are several (K) Foundations, one in India, one in this country, America and Canada. In India there are five schools, in different parts of that country, with a great deal of land. And they are schools, they are operated under the K. Foundation, which is responsible for the land, to see that the schools are more or less in the right direction - less perhaps than more! And here also there is a Foundation with a school and we are hoping the school will keep in the right direction. And the Foundation is responsible to gather all these talks, tapes, publish and so on and so on. And it is the same in America and in Canada. There is nothing 'spiritual' about it. Right? They merely act as function. They are necessary, the law demands (allows ?) it. And to publish the books - you know, all the rest of it. And to see that the teachings are kept fairly pure. That is the only function of these Foundations - right? It has no other function. They are not 'spiritual' (thinking ?) bodies which you can join and attain Nirvana, or Heaven or whatever. It is very simple, very clear. Is that all right? So don't please next time ask about why do you have organizations. It is very simple: there are schools, they publish, tapes, arrange talks wherever I go and some of them look after the speaker physically, because the speaker has no ( personal ?) money. When the speaker is in India they look after him, here they look after him, when the speaker is in America they do the same. Full stop.

QUESTION: Is sex incompatible with a religious life? What place has human relationship in spiritual endeavour?

K: First of all why have human beings, right throughout the world, made sex so important in their life? Go on sirs, answer it; we are sharing the question together - right? You are not just listening to a Delphic Oracle, but together we are investigating. It is your life. We are looking at it.
There are those ( sex ?) gurus, and there is a whole philosophy called Tantra - part of it - is based on sex. That through sex you can reach God - whatever that god be. And that is very "popular". And there are the monks, the Indian Sannyasis, and the Buddhist priests, who have denied sex because they have all maintained that it is a waste of energy, and to serve God you must come with all your energy. So you have the (totally) permissive, and the so-called religious suppression. And those in between who enjoy everything, both sides, they have one foot in this and one foot in the other! Then they can talk about both things and see if they cannot harmonize the two together and find god - or whatever you want to find. Probably you will find at the end of it a lot of nonsense!
So we are asking: why has man, woman, made this sex business so important? Why don't you give the same importance to compassion and love - do you understand? Not to kill? Why do you give only such immense value to sex? You are following what I am saying? Your wars, terrors, national divisions, the whole immoral society in which we live, why don't you give an equal importance to all that and not only to this? You are following my question? Why? Is it because sex is your greatest pleasure in life? The rest of your life is a bore, a travail, a struggle, a conflict, meaningless existence? And this at least gives you a certain sense of great pleasure, a sense of well being, a sense of - you know - what you call relationship, and what you also call love - right? Is that the reason why we are so sexually crazy? Go on sirs, answer it for yourselves. Because we are not free in any other direction? We have to go to the office from nine to five, where you are bullied, where your boss is over you - you know all that happens in an office, or in a factory, or in another job where there is somebody dominating you. And our minds have become mechanical - are you following all this? - we repeat, repeat, repeat, we fall into a tradition, into a groove, into a rut.

So our minds have become 'slaves' to various ( safe ?) patterns of existence - right? So it has become mechanical. And even if sex may be 'pleasurable', gradually that too becomes mechanical. So if you want to go very deeply into it, one asks: is love ( synonimous with ?) sex? Go on, ask it. Is love pleasure? Is love desire? Is love a remembrance of an incidence, which you call sex, with all the imagination, the pictures, the thinking about it, is that love? Is love a remembrance?
And the questioner asks: what place has ( this kind of ?) human relationship in spiritual endeavour? You see what it's been reduced to? Human relationship is pleasure, sex, conflict, quarrels, divisions, you go your way, I'll go my way - you follow? That is our relationship, actual relationship in our daily life. And what place has ( this kind of ?) human relationship in (terms of our ?) spiritual endeavour? Obviously the present relationship has no place whatsoever, obviously. We are jealous of each other, we want to possess each other, we want to dominate each other and so there is antagonism between each other, one is sexually unsatisfied therefore you go to somebody else, and in that sexual relationship there is ( always the background of ?) loneliness - right? And always seeking your own pleasure, is that 'love'?
So you disregard that (timeless ?) thing called "love", perhaps that is the most wonderful thing if one has it, and are so caught up in this vortex of one's own desire, of one's own pleasure - right? And we are always wanting not only sexual satisfaction but gratification in every direction, which is based on pleasure. And that we call 'love'...

So why has man, woman, given this one thing such extraordinary importance? Is it because we have lost the creative capacity, to be able to see, to be a light to themselves, not to follow anybody, not to worship any image, illusion, belief. When you put aside all that and you have understood your own petty little desires, which is your own sexual demands, gratifications, then when you see all that, have an insight into all that, then out of that comes "creation", that sense of ever freshness, having a mind that is fresh, young, innocent all the time, not burdened with all kinds of memories, dissatisfactions, fears - when you have lost all that there is a totally different kind of mind. Then sex has its own place.
Apparently we don't have that quality of (enlightened ?) scepticism - you understand? To be sceptical about one's own demands, to question, doubt (the spiritual validity of ?) these innumerable 'gurus'. Now, this doubt also becomes rather dangerous because if you don't 'hold it' then you doubt everything and then there is no end. It is like having a dog on a leash, you must let it go occasionally, or often so that the dog enjoys himself, runs about. In the same way doubt must be ( wisely) 'kept on a leash' and also allowed, take away the leash, so the mind is - you know, the mind being your heart, your brain, your emotions, everything active, not just directed in one direction which is sex, sex &... sex.

QUESTION: Can thought be aware of itself as it is taking place? Or does the awareness come after the thought? Can consciousness be aware of its whole content?

K: Most of us are ( becoming) aware after the happening - right? - after the incident, after an action. Then we say, "I should have done", "I shouldn't have done". The questioner asks: can thought be aware of itself as it arises? - not after, which is fairly simple, which is what most of us do. But the question is: can there be awareness of ( the self-centred process of ?) thought as it arises? Do you understand the question? Can you be aware of your thought? That is, ( rewording it non-dualistically ?) Can thought be aware of itself, as it arises? You understand the question? That is, one's whole life is based on thought, thought recognizing the emotion, the sentiment, the imagination and so on, thought is 'recognizing' (and therefore controlling ?) all this - right? Now thought is our only ( reliable ?) instrument of all action - right? Therefore there is no ( sense of a free ?) spontaneity. If you look into yourself seriously spontaneity can only exist when there is complete, total freedom, psychologically.
So can your mind be aware of itself as thought arises? That is, is there an awareness when you begin to feel angry? You follow all this? Can there be an awareness as jealousy arises? Can there be an awareness as greed comes - be aware of that? Can there be? Or you are aware (a posteriori) that you have been jealous, or that you have been greedy or that you have been angry? That is fairly simple, most of us do that. But to be aware so attentively that you can see for yourself the (reaction of ) anger coming in, the adrenaline and all the processes, the whole movement of anger. You can see greed come into being: you see something you want and - you follow? - reaction. To be aware of that. Of course one can see it as it arises- and it is fairly simple .

Now the question is a little more difficult, more deep: Is there an awareness of thought itself? You are thinking now, aren't you? Now as you are 'thinking' find out if that thinking can be aware of itself. Not 'you' becoming aware of ( your) 'thinking' . That is, when you are thinking about something, about your dress, how you look, what people have said, whom you are going to meet, and this and that - thinking is there. Now take one ( single sequence of ?) thought and see if that thought can know itself. (Eg:) You are thinking about the dress you have had, or you are going to buy. Can that thought say, "Yes, I see myself" and not "you" observing that thought because 'you' are also ( part of the same process of ?) thought. Do you understand? So not 'you' are aware as a thought arises but ( that) thought itself is aware as it comes into being. I wonder if you see this. That is one question.
The other is: can consciousness be aware of its whole content? Do you understand? ( Our self - ?) consciousness, to put it very briefly, 'is' (generated by ?) its (cultural ?) "content", isn't it? Your belief, your name, your nationality, your prejudices, your opinions, your conclusions, your hopes, your despairs, your depression, your concern about yourself, your anxieties (or worries ?) , your fears, all that is the content of "you" - right? Your sexual demands, your urges, your pleasures - all that 'is' (the ongoing content of ?) your ( self-) consciousness, and can that "consciousness" be aware of its own content, as a whole, not just a part? You get the point? This is ( a central part of a ?) "real meditation", you understand? Now the questioner asks: can your consciousness be aware of its whole (ongoing ?) content? That means: is there an observation of the whole thing? One has to go very deeply into this. We haven't time but we will go briefly into ( the complexity of ?) it.
That ( self-centred ?) consciousness is "put together" through time, through what we call 'evolution'. You have had incidents, accidents, remembrances, racial, national and so on, family, all that is a ( compensatory ?) "movement" contained in consciousness - right? And is it ever possible to be completely free of ( the limitations brought by ?) that "content". This is really very important because otherwise we are always acting within the "field of the known" - the "known" being the ( also the things ?) 'unknown' its ( imponderable ?) ignorance. There is never freedom. That is, a man always living ( anchored ?) in the past, as you do. You may project that ( knowledge of the ?) past into the future as an ideal, as a hope and so on, but it is still the movement of the past, modified through the present - right? So a man who is more or less 'living ( anchored) in the past', what is ( the quality of ?) his mind ? He may have (or acquire) new techniques, new opportunities to learn other forms of skills but it is essentially, in himself, his consciousness is the ( self-compensatory ?) movement of the past. Right? So a man who is living (subliminally anchored ?) in the past, what happens to his brain, mind? It can never be free.

So a man who enquires into this very seriously has to find out whether this whole ( self-) consciousness with its content can be seen at once, which is to have total insight into this. I don't know if you have ever considered ( the opportunity of ?) looking at anything "wholly": to look at your wife, or your girlfriend, or your husband, whatever it is, "wholly" (objectively, non-personally ?) , looking at the "whole quality" of another human being. And one can only do that when the 'you' is not - do you understand? When you are not centred as the 'me' (-who-observes) . This 'me' is very small, very petty, because the 'me' is the (all-controlling response of the ? ) accumulation of all this.
So to enquire whether it is possible to "see the whole content", the ( dynamic) movement of (one's) consciousness, which means the whole structure of the 'me'. That requires (a quality of) pure (non-personal ?) observation - do you understand? Not your direction, prejudice, like and dislike and all the rest of it, but just purely to observe the vast structure, very complex. Because of its very complexity you must come to it very "simply" (free of what you 'knew' before ?) . Right?

QUESTION: I have tried all kinds of meditation, fasting and a voluntary solitary life, but it has come to nothing. Is there one thing, or one quality that will end my seeking and my confusion, and if there is, what am I to do?

K: You understand this question? Are you in that position? That is, one goes to Japan, Zen Buddhism, Zen meditation, the various forms of Tibetan, Hindu, the Christian, and all the innumerable meditations man has invented. And the questioner says, "I have been through all that. I have done yoga of various kinds, fasted, led a solitary life trying to find out what is truth. And at the end of it all I have found nothing". Do you understand the tragedy of it ?
Is there one thing, one quality that will end my seeking and my confusion? If there is, tell me what to do? You understand the full meaning of this question?
( Short 'story time':) I met a man once, he was a very old man, (I was quite young, grey hair), almost dying. And he heard one of the talks and came to see me afterwards and he said, "I have spent twenty five years of my life in solitude, in meditation. I have been married and so on, but I left all that, and for twenty five years I have meditated. And now that I have heard you, I see that I have lived in an illusion. I have deceived myself." You understand? At the end of twenty five years to say that. Which means a wasted life ( which you are doing anyhow, even without "meditating" for twenty five years !) .
And he asks what is the one thing, one action, one step that will dissolve my confusion, the end to my ( hopeless ?) search. Are you in that position, any of you? You have come to the 'end of your tether'. You have read, you have meditated, you have longed, you have sacrificed - you understand? Probably you haven't done any of those things. But if you have, then what is the one thing that will resolve all this?

First of all: Don't seek ! Because if you ( know what you ?) 'seek', you will find what you have already sought. What you will find in your search is what 'you' have projected - this 'you' being ( the known tradition offered by ?) your priests, your gods, your Professor, your guru, your philosophy, your experience. That, projected in the future (and updated ?) , ( is what ) you will find, therefore a wise man doesn't seek. And the questioner says, what is that "one thing" (that will end his confusion )? For ( finding) "that one thing" there must be total freedom from all ( forms of psychological) "attachment", to your body, to your exercises, to your yoga, to your own opinion, judgements, and persons, and beliefs, complete freedom from all attachment - right? Don't make it ( look like ) a sorrowful thing, it isn't. There must absolutely no "psychological" fear and the mind having understood the nature of sorrow and therefore freedom from sorrow. These are only (inner road ?) indications, not the final thing, but if these (two basic requirements ?) don't exist the "other" final thing cannot be (accessed) .

You understand the point? A man who has spent years and years searching, seeking, asking, demanding, so-called (self-) sacrifices, taking vows of celibacy - you follow? - and at the end of it all he says, "My god, I have nothing. I have ashes in my hand". (Even though they think they have in their hands Christ or Jesus or the Buddha, it is still ashes !) And such a man asks: what is the "right action" in my life, the right action which doesn't vary from time to time according to culture, according to education - right, precise, actual.
When all this is clear, that your mind is totally "unattached to itself "- to its own body and no fear, and "the ending of sorrow", then that "one thing" is Compassion. You understand? Out of all this (inner work) comes compassion, then that Compassion is not 'ashes in your hand', it is not the compassion that does social reforms, social work, the saints, it isn't the compassion of the saints, compassion of the people who go out in the war and heal people, "doctors ( without borders") and so on and so on. It is not that ( traditionally accepted compassion ?) at all. It is the "one answer" that is true under all circumstances, because (that universal quality of ?) Compassion goes with Intelligence. If there is no the "intelligence" which is born out of Compassion then you get lost in trivialities. And the world then accepts those trivialities as being extraordinary acts of compassion. They become (celebrated ?) 'saints', they become (mediatic ?) 'heroes', they become all kinds of idiotic recognitions of silly people. So there is one act, one quality that is supreme and that is Compassion with its Intelligence. And out of that intelligence there is "right action" under all circumstances.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 29 Jun 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Jul 2016 #208
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


Understanding the nature of 'psychological' contradictions

Q( 1) : Often I am subjected to insults and feel really hurt. And you were kind enough to say that an innocent mind is incapable of hurt, but I cannot understand innocent.

Q (2): What is the difference between sleep and meditation? Can sleep be converted into meditation?

Q (3) : Seeing the content of the consciousness is not the emptying of the consciousness? And if it is so why has not the essence come into being?

Q (4) : In the life of the usual man there is dilemma in the form of 'I', the separative self-sense. Its dominant activity in consciousness serves to contract everything else in consciousness, or severely distort it, most unfortunately the heart, the metaphorical heart. It seems to me that traditional methods have failed, and theories have failed to bring about a lasting release of this contraction, or dilemma because they are in themselves only contracted. My question then is, sir, can we this morning find some movement, some natural event in consciousness to bring about the cessation of that (self-centred process of ?) thought, or thinking, which is the separative self-sense?

Q (5) : Sir, what do you mean by pursue thought to the very end?

K: Sir, forget "what I mean", because it's your life, not my life. How do you live your life, what does it mean? You have a number of years to live in which there are so many complications - jobs, ( the huge ?) pressure of overpopulation, all the vulgarity, the noise, the brutality that is going on in the world - what is your life. Shouldn't we first understand our daily life, what it means, why we live the way we are living?

Q (6) : We are fed up with (this ) 'daily life'.

Q (7) : Sir, I want to know a how to prevent the problem of poverty.

K: If you don't mind, I would like to put you this question, and please be good enough to answer it: what are you, each one of you sitting here, concerned about? Seriously. What are you concerned about in your everyday life?

Q (1) : My own happiness.

Q( 2) : What is the purpose of life?

Q( 3) : I think we are only concerned about ourselves primarily.

K: The ( first) questioner says he is concerned primarily about himself. Isn't that a "fact"? Aren't you all concerned about yourself?
So please would you kindly listen, try to find out what I am asking you. What is your chief concern in your daily life, going to a factory, office, business, law, and so on ? Just think about it, don't answer it immediately.

Q: Relationship.

K: Don't invent something, sir. Apparently it is one of the most difficult things for you to pin down and find out what you are deeply concerned with in your daily life. Is it sex? Is it money? Is it relationship? Is it that you are unhappy? Is it that around you there is so much poverty, so much degradation? And are you concerned with searching, or trying to find out what truth is? What are you concerned about?

Q: I am concerned with my life.

K: Concerned with your life, yes. What do you mean by that?

Q: I am concerned with my 'dharma', duty.

K: Apparently you have never asked that question of yourself: what is my deep problem while you are living in this world ? Are you concerned with death? Are you concerned with living a life that is righteous, that is honest, that is sane? What are you concerned about? Just carry on as you are?

Q: Sir, I feel I am concerned with sorrow.

K: You are concerned with sorrow, and is it possible to be free of it ? Would you answer that question: are you concerned with sorrow, all of you?

Q: Yes.

K: Don't say "yes" so quickly!
Q: No, sir, we are not concerned with sorrow all the time, while we are sitting here. There is a lot of misery everywhere. All the time everyone is seeking pleasure. But I recognize the whole movement of my life is distorted, not truthful, not real.

K: Yes, sir. So the questioner says, I see my whole life is distorted, dishonest and I'd like to lead a life which is correct, which is honest. Is that right, sir?

Q: That is correct.

K: Is that what you are all interested in?

Audience: Yes, sir.

K: Just listen, sirs. Don't you know that one leads a terribly hypocritical life: say one thing and do another, go to temples and cheat somebody, talk about god, this, that and the other, take vows and go to Tirupati, or some awful little temple and lead an ugly (sad ?) daily life, that is contradictory, that is a way of hypocrisy. Are you aware of this? Which means unless you lead an integrated life you live a life of hypocrisy. So we are going into how to live a life that is whole, that's not broken up, that's not hypocritical.
We know, as that gentleman pointed out, that one leads a very dishonest life. That one has contradictions in oneself. So can we start from there?

Q: Start there.

K: We are starting from there. First, are you aware, conscious that you lead a double life?

Q: Many of us know this.

K: All right, if you 'know' it what will you do about it? Just put up with it, carry on everyday leading a double life like this? Just talk about it? Don't you want to break ( free fom ?) it, live a different way of life?

Q: I don't actually understand that I am a hypocrite, although I can see it intellectually.

K: Now what do you mean by that word 'intellectually'? Verbally?

Q: I see what you say but when I am ( getting personally) involved I just react.

K: I may intellectually understand that there should be brotherhood - intellectually. But actually, in daily life you contradict that. Now when you say, 'I understand intellectually', you mean you understand verbally what is being said. You don't feel it, you don't live it, you accept that idea and say, yes, that's a marvellous idea. Is that what you are all doing? That you verbally accept certain facts, but actually you have no relationship to it at all. You just repeat the words and live quite differently. Are you aware of this?

Q: That is so.

K: Right. If that is what is happening, don't you want to break that ( outwardly safe ?) pattern of hypocrisy? You understand? All your tradition says, carry on. Right? Carry on, go to temples, do puja, it doesn't matter what kind of life you lead daily. So we are now reversing the process and saying: look, what matters ( inwardly) is how you live daily. So are you seriously concerned in the change of your daily, miserable, contradictory, hypocritical life? Then if we are, then we can discuss, then we can go into it and help each other to 'break it down'. So I want to be quite sure that you are really interested in what we are talking about, in the question which that gentleman raised. He said, my life is distorted, untrue, not straight, and I would like to change the pattern of that so that I lead a life that is true, that has no sense of contradiction, that is whole. Isn't that right, sir?

Q: Correct.

K: So can we go into that ?

Q: Yes.

K: Don't casually agree, but find out if you really deeply want to go into this problem because it means changing your whole life. If you say, I want to live the way I am living, complete callousness, brutality, indifference, without any affection, hypocritical, then you are perfectly welcome to live that way. I am not saying you shouldn't. It's up to you. But if you want to find out a way of living in which there is no contradiction, which is not hypocritical, which is whole, then it's worthwhile talking about it. We will help each other.
So, why is there (this central ?) contradiction in our life ? Please tell me.

Q: Because we listen to other people, and then we get confused ?

K: Keep it at its simplest level. Why is there this ( living in ?) contradiction, opposing desires, opposing wants, opposing purposes, why?

Q: Possibly because we have desires, and at the same time we have an idea that we should not have desires ?

K: Why do you have opposite desires? If we could understand this one thing then perhaps it would clear up a great deal. You know what "desire" is, don't you. Wanting a shirt, wanting a car, wanting a woman, wanting pleasure, wanting to have a better position in the world - desire. Now, please listen: how does "desire" arise? Not for a car, or for good clothes, but desire itself, how does it arise? I am not asking abut the objects of desire, but what is the source of desire?

Q: Could it be by comparison ?

K: That is not what I am asking, if you will forgive me. I am asking, how does desire arise itself, not for a something, not for a big house, but what is the beginning of desire?

Q: It is sensation that brings desire.
K: Just a minute, sir, go slowly. I'll show it to you, there is nothing complicated about it. First there is ( the visual) perception, then there is sensation, then you 'touch it', ( the mental or sensory ?) contact. I see a car, touch it, like it, sensation; then from ( that rewarding ?) sensation thought says, "I like that, I want that, I'd like to have more of it". So the whole process is: seeing, contact, sensation, ( thought formulating it ?) into a ( specific) desire. Right? That's very simple, you can watch it in yourself: You see a nice house, then there is sensation, from that sensation identification with ( the desire for ?) that object and you say, "I would like to have it". That's very clear. Right, sir?

Q: Can a blind man see?

K: A blind person doesn't see but he touches, from the touching he has sensation, from sensation the feeling of like and dislike and all the rest of it, ( mentally formulated into a specific ?) desire. So desire arises, seeing, perception, contact, sensation, then ( our self-centred ?) thought comes in and says, I like, I don't like and so on and so on. Have you got this simple fact?
Now why is there an opposing desire? Please answer me, all of you: is desire in itself contradictory? Or the objects of desire vary, desire is not contradictory in itself but the objects of desire vary. You understand my question? That is, I see a car, I see a woman, I see a man in a good position, power and so on, so the objects vary. But ( the basic movement of ?) desire itself doesn't vary, it is "desire". So the contradiction come with comparison, change of objects, one is more attractive than the other, but it is desire. So we discovered this extraordinary fact that "desire" in itself is not contradictory. Desire can never be contradictory, but the objects of desire can be contradictory. Right? Is this clear?

Q: Not clear.

K: There is this fundamental (inner fact) that one has to understand: that desire in itself is never contradictory. That's a marvellous thing to discover for yourself.

Q: Sir, perhaps if you would explain the 'why' of desire , perhaps it would be clearer.

K: The "why"?

Q: Yes, the 'why' of desire, not the 'how'.

K: The 'why' of desire ? Our whole nervous organism, everything is "geared to sensory perceptions", and from sensory perceptions desire arises. We went into that.

Q: I'm sorry. I cannot put that together logically. There is some other element that I cannot touch.

K: No, there is no other element, sir. You see a big house - let's take that. From that there is sensation, isn't there, the seeing, there is sensation, a natural sensation, like putting a pin in your leg it hurts. So there is seeing, sensation. Right? Then there is contact, either you touch it, or sensory (mentally ?) touch it, then from that desire arises when thought says, "I'd like to have that".

Q: But "why"does thought say that?

K: Why ? Because all our (animal ?) conditioning is to ( instinctively ?) identify ourselves with what we want. "I" want that big house. So ( the basic movement of ?) desire is "identifying itself" with the object of desire.

Q: Sir, in the child who has not yet been fully conditioned into the desire for a car or a house, or any of that business, there is still the activity of desire.

K: Of course, sir.

Q: How does it arise?

K: The (movement ) of desire is (basically the same) : you give a toy to the child and the child immediately 'possesses' it, 'It's mine', and ( if his desire is challenged ?) he will fight for it. This is very simple, sir, there is seeing, contact, sensation. Then from ( that rewarding) sensation there is the image-building (mental processing ?) , if you want to go much more deeply into it, and then the "identification" by thought with ( the rewarding image of ?) that big house: this is the whole movement of desire.
Now I am saying that (this movement of ?) desire in itself is not (necessarily ?) contradictory. But you have many ( objects of ?) desire. You have sexual desires, you have desires for money, position, and so on. So ( from the subliminal splitting of the movement desire ?) there is contradiction. Right, you follow this? (Eg:) ( In your desire ?) to serve God you (assume that you ) must become a sannyasi, but (the movement of sensory desires occuring in ?) daily life is much stronger than the other, so you have a contradiction (right there) . Right? Now do you accept ( to follow) the ideal of a sannyasi - which is actually non-existent. What is factual is your daily (sensate) desire, not "to serve God" . So I only deal with the fact, the actual, not the ( cultural model of a ?) 'supposedly' ( higher ?) way of living. The actual 'fact' is that one is burnt up with desire. Right? Therefore deal with that and not with the other. The other makes you (live inwardly in a field of endless ?) contradictions ( and/or the associated hypocrisy ?) . I don't know if you follow this.
(Recap) The (spiritual) tradition in India has established for thousands of years that to find Enlightenment, to find God, to find whatever it is they promise, you must "renounce the world". Right?

Q: We are full of desires.

K: That is the fact and not the other. So you have (culturally ?) invented something opposite from your daily life and therefore there is a contradiction. Whereas if you say, look, I am only concerned with desire and dealing with facts, then there is no ( sense of self- ?) contradiction at all. Suppose I am violent, angry, jealous, and all the rest of it, why can't I deal with ( the actuality of ?) that without having the opposite of it? You understand my question, sir? I am ( instinctively ?) violent but all of your gurus and "mahatmas" say, live a way of life which is "non-violent". The way of non-violence is fictitious, it is not real. What is real, actual, is I am violent. Right? I have to deal with that, not with non-violence. But your whole tradition says, deal with a fictitious non-violence. I wonder if you understand this? That's simple, sir, isn't it? So you have eliminated the contradiction. So you are only dealing then with facts. That is, I am violent and my mind is free ( to deal with this actuality without introducing the cultural ?) "conflict of the opposite" because I am only dealing with what actually is going on. So I have eliminated ( a very basic ?) contradiction. I wonder if you see that if I live ( inwardly) in a "world of non-facts" (aka: 'illusions' ?) , as most of you do, then there is contradiction. As most of you live in a world of ideas and not with facts there is contradiction. I wonder if you see this. A simple fact. Right sir? Can you eliminate all (psychological ?) ideals, which are fictitious, which are not real?
(Eg:) Suppose I am violent and I have ( wisely ?) put away all ideals and deal only deal with the 'fact', which is the actual sense of violence, I have eliminated altogether an (illusory) thing which brings about contradiction. Therefore I see very clearly that any form of interference of ideals distorts, or makes me escape from the fact. Then I have no contradiction. See the beauty of it, sir ? Now I am concerned only with the actual happening of violence. That is, a feeling has arisen because you have called me a fool, and I have named it, that reaction, I have named it as violence Is there an observation of that feeling without naming it?
( For homework: ) Try and do it, sir. ( Or better ?) Do it as we are talking. That is, not to (react and label ?) that reaction as 'violent', because the moment you use the word 'violent' it has a great many ( 'negative' cultural ?) connotations, associations. Which is, you mustn't be violent, you must be kind - again unreal. So can you observe ( non-verbally ?) that feeling without calling it violence? This requires a ( quality of non-personal ?) observation, not (as a self-imposed ?) 'discipline', just observation. Are you doing it?

Q: (Inaudible)

K: First see the problem as a whole, then we will deal in detail. That is, desire in itself is not contradictory. The objects of desire vary and therefore the contradiction lies in the ( subliminal identification with its ?) objects. So that's one point.
The second point is, contradiction exists when we are not dealing with what is actually happening. Which means elimination completely of ( psychologically based ?) ideals. Which is very difficult because you are conditioned from childhood to have ideals - ideals of non-violence, ideals of nobility, ideals of a sannyasi, you follow, ideals. So can you see the falseness of ideals and therefore they have no value, not fight them. Seeing that they make life extraordinarily complicated, false, can you see the truth of it and therefore let it disappear. Like when you see a cobra, you know it is dangerous, it's finished, you don't play with it. So in the same way ( the 'psychological') ideals are fictitious, they have no reality. What has reality, what is actually happening, is( dealing directly with ?) the fact.

So, suppose you call me "a fool" - the word 'fool' has many, many (negative cultural) associations, and I get angry. There is anger. And the word 'violence' is ( immediately) applied to that feeling. Therefore in that very word there is contradiction. I wonder if you see his. Right, sir? So is there an observation of this arising of a sensation of reaction, but not naming it? Then you are dealing with actual fact, not with the (secondary reactions related to by that ?) word. I wonder if you see that.

Q: It is not easy...

K: Don't say, it is "difficult". You are ( just culturally ?) "used to it", you are habituated to it, you are conditioned to it. To a ( wealthy ?) capitalist, the word "communism" is something terrible. So you are (subliminally ?) a slave to ' words'. Your mind functions with words and you are used to a certain set of words. So ( for homework ?) find out whether you can observe (directly and ?) without the (cultural conotations of the ?) words. That is (for starters ?) can you observe a tree without the word? Find out. Then you will see that you can observe a woman, a car, a tree, a sunset, without (using) the word.
Sir, let me make it really simple. The word 'tree' is not the actual tree. So (at this level ) the word is ( obviously) not the thing. I can describe it ( poetically ?) , but (even the best ?) description is not the actual.
Now most of us are (culturally inclined to get ?) caught in descriptions. In the word. So you ( in the psychological field we can now ?) eliminate the description, the word, and look at the fact. You see then (by one stroke) you have eliminated so many contradictions and there is a possibility of observation without the word. That means you have learnt a tremendous lot, that your brain is now active without the word. So you move into a different dimension altogether.
So (to recap:) first please see how important it is to see for yourself that ( inwardly dealing with ) the word is never (dealing with the actual ?) the thing. So I am asking please "learn" to observe how the (desire created conflict?) 'thing' arose, how the thing comes out. Which is, we have contradiction only when we are not dealing with what actually is going on. Right? Because we don't know how to deal (inwardly ) with "what is going on" we invent the "ideals" (the 'wishful thinking' approach ?) , which is an escape from what is going on. And if you want to change 'what is' going on don't have contradictions - then you have the ( intelligent ressources of ?) energy to deal with 'what is'. The word is not the thing, therefore there is only that (inherited ) reaction. The moment you 'name' it, you are strengthening it, by associating through that word ( with all the cultural conditioning of ?) the past, therefore you are giving it strength. But if you don't name it, it ( eventually ?) soon dissipates. You have got this? There can be no right action as long as you have ideals. Right, sirs?
Have you learnt something this morning?

Audience: Yes.

K: Not 'memorized' ! See the difference between memorizing and learning. You memorize by listening to what I have said like a schoolboy learning mathematics. But that's your part of your ( cultural) tradition: everything turned into memory, and repeat, repeat, repeat. Whereas if you are listening and learning (non-verbally ?) , you are not accumulating memory, you are learning, you are moving. So if I may ask, have you learnt something this morning?

Q: Learnt to think.

K: I am very glad if you have 'learnt to think' . If you have learned to think, sir, you won't belong to any ( particular ?) society, to any group.

Q: I am a Theosophist.

K: Then drop it.

Q: Sir, may I ask a question. You have said when I look at a flower and I see the flower, I am conditioned to say, flower, and that's what I end up seeing, not the flower. So you have said if I recognize that I have done that, just see the flower without saying flower, then I see the truth, I am dealing with facts. The fact is in my case that I am conditioned to respond always with the word 'flower', or whatever it is, and I can see that and say, 'Ah, I see that I am saying, flower'. You see the problem?

K: I understand. That is, we are ( subliminally ?) conditioned by words. We are conditioned by environment. Right, sir? One is conditioned by the culture one lives in. Now is one aware of this conditioning? Do you know (realise ?) that you are ( culturally ?) conditioned? When you call yourself a 'Hindu', you are conditioned. Right?

Q: We don't 'know' that.

K: You don't 'know' ( realise ?) it because it has become such a (thinking ?) habit. It's like repeating, repeating, repeating, like your name, it's a habit. And the gentleman says, I cannot go beyond this habit. First be aware that if you have (projected ?) the ideal that 'you must go beyond it', then you have ( established a still subtler ?) contradiction. Right, sir? So remain only with the (truth of the ? ) 'fact' that "you are conditioned (culturally ?) ". Now, how do you observe that fact? Do you observe it with the desire, with the motive that you must be free of it? Then if that motive, that desire is to be free of it, you have just created a new contradiction. So can you be free to observe without a ( desire generated ?) motive? The moment you have a motive, that motive is born out of your conditioning.

Q: I see that I am always conditioned.

K: Watch it, sir, we are dealing with facts. See that clearly. So are you free of motive?

Q: No.

K: Therefore you did not see for yourself (the truth ?) that when you have a (personal ?) 'motive' (in the inner observation) you are introducing a (distorting ?) factor which is non-actual.

Q: I am conditioned to have the motive, though.

K: The word 'motive' ( ethymologically) means "to move".
Now let me go into it myself and perhaps you'll see it better. (a) I realize I am (culturally) conditioned- because I was born in India, as a Hindu, as a Brahmin and all the rest of it. Now that is an actual daily 'fact' that I am conditioned. Now the result of that conditioning is, I am ( thinking of myself as being ?) separate from ( the consciousness of ?) humanity. Right? I may know ( see intellectually ) why such conditioning is 'dangerous', but it is still descriptive. So can I look at my conditioning without any kind of ( personal ?) motive, which is to be free of 'rationalizing' it, just to observe it without any ( personal ?) motive ? Unless I do that I will only move from one ( level of ?) conditioning to another conditioning. So the importance is to find out if it is possible to observe without ( the distortion of any personal ?) motive. If you say, that's impossible, then you give up and walk away. But if you are serious, if you want to find out the truth of it, then you have to find ( or figure ?) out if you can live (inwardly ?) without a ('personal' ?) motive.
So when you have no motive then you are free (of the self-centred 'motivation' ?) to observe. You understand sir?

Q: I understand.

K: The very ( personal ?) motive is ( introducing ?) more conditioning. So when you live ( inwardly ) in (the area of personal ?) motive you are ( introducing a self-created ?) conditioning.

Q: It is too difficult.

K: Ah, never to use the word 'difficult' !
It's nine o'clock. I would like to ask, if I may, most respectfully and politely, whether you have learned anything this morning ? Which means, have you really understood in your heart that ( any desire created ?) contradiction exists when you are not facing facts. If you learn that one thing you have learnt a tremendous lot. That means you have eliminated in your life the "conflict of opposites"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Jul 2016 #209
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline


K: Could we this morning take one problem, or one issue, and work it out in great detail completely and fully: could we do that this morning? So would you kindly say what kind of thing you would like to go into freely.

Q: Sir, there is an 'intellectual' understanding of all that you are talking about but there is no fundamental understanding therefore it doesn't produce a transformation of my life. Could you please go into that question ?

K: The questioner says, 'intellectually' - I think he means really 'verbally' (on the verbal level ?) - we understand more or less what you are saying, but after hearing you somehow we don't seem to be able to 'go very deeply into ourselves' and transform ourselves completely. Would you like to go into that question?

Q: Can you teach us about the 'wholeness' you speak of in daily life?

K: Yes, not 'teach' you but I will go into it. The question is, is it possible in our daily life to live a whole, complete full life. The word 'whole' means healthy, first; healthy body, healthy mind. Then it also means sanity; a sane mind, a mind that is capable of reasoning logically, objectively and so with clarity and therefore sanity. The word 'whole' means also "holy". All this is implied in that word 'whole'. And the gentleman wants to know how to live a life that is whole. Now which do you want to discuss? Which is the real problem to you, sir, but an actual daily problem in your life.

Q: We should take the first question: we understand what you say 'intellectually'.

K: Everything is covered in that question. So shall we go into that? We understand what you are talking about, intellectually or verbally, but somehow it doesn't seem to affect us very deeply. Somehow it doesn't penetrate widely and deeply our entire life. That's the question. So we are going to discuss that, talk it over together.
When you say, we understand what you are talking about 'intellectually', is that a fact?

Q: Not for me. I would like you to say something in a 'definitional' sense about the words you use, 'brain' and 'mind' and 'consciousness'. You use those three words and I would like you to say something about the words 'brain' and 'mind'.

K: We will go into it perhaps. But I am asking, when you says, "we understand you intellectually" are you understanding what the speaker is saying, or are you trying to understand yourself, using the ( words of the ?) speaker as a 'mirror' in which you are seeing ( the truth about ) yourself? So which is it we are doing?

Q: We try to apply what K is saying.

K: Yes, but before you (try to) apply something the speaker is saying, do you know what he is saying? He is saying, "use the speaker as a mirror, and then look at yourself". Now, do you "see yourself", or do you see the ( verbal) 'picture' that the speaker is painting? If you are hungry, any amount of ( verbal) descriptions of food will not satisfy you. Right? So are you "hungry", or are you merely satisfied with the description of food, because you have already eaten (other stuff ?) ?

Q: I am really hungry.

K: Are you hungry intellectually, deep down, are you hungry?

Q: Yes, sir.

K: And from whom are you going to get the 'food'? From the guru? From your books? From your culture?

Q: From everybody I have ever seen.

K: First of all, let's be very clear what we are talking about. You are searching. Right? You are searching, you go from guru to guru, from temple to temple, or from philosopher to philosopher, and you happen to come here this morning and say, 'Please help us to find truth in ourselves '. So first of all, are you clear what you are searching for? What is it you all want in this: happiness, contentment, peace, love ?

Q: Everything.

K: Everything. Are you capable of receiving everything that you want ?
If your capacity is very small, it's like going to the well with a small pitcher and be satisfied with what you collect in that little pitcher. Is that what you want?

Q: I need a vessel that will take in everything I can hold.

K: Sir, if you are seeking "everything", that is, happiness, contentment, enlightenment, wisdom, ending of fear and so on, you must have a ( mind ?) vessel that can contain the enormity of life.

Q: We don't know what we are seeking.

K: Yes, sir,but I am taking one example, one factor, let's go into it, sir, and then spread it out. Are you seeking 'contentment'? If one could go into that one question, that will perhaps open a great deal. But you won't even go into that. Are you asking, because I am discontented, unhappy, I find no satisfaction in anything, so I am greatly discontented, disturbed, and I would like to be free from that disturbance, from that dissatisfaction, insufficiency, and find some place, or somewhere where I can be completely contented. Is that what you want?

Q: We want to know what we are.

K: One of the factors of what you 'are' is discontent. Through ( examining this) one factor, and opening (it up) , going into it very deeply we may cover the whole field. You understand, sir? So if you will kindly find out for yourself whether you are so discontented with life, with your job, with your environment, with your culture, with everything, discontented. Is that a fact?

Q: Yes, sir it is a fact.

K: So you want to find a way out of this discontent. Now who is going to help you out of this? Now, is it a discontent with something - with my husband, with my wife, with my girl friend, or is there discontent by itself? You understand my question, sir? Now which is it?

Q: It is a discontentment with (or about) something.
K: That's all, sir. So let's be very clear that you are discontent with something. Do you want that discontent smothered, put down, - die down, let it wither away? Or do you want that 'flame of discontent' to burn, to burn everything round out? Why shouldn't you be 'dissatisfied' with what you are - narrow minded, jealous, anxious ? So, which is it: discontented with things outside, house, husband, or discontented in yourself with regard to what you are?

Q: Only rarely am I discontented with myself.

K: So you are very rarely discontented with yourself, with what you are. Mostly we are discontented about the world outside of us. Now just a minute, just a minute, go slowly: is this 'outside' (world) different from you? Are you not (sharing a collective mentality which is ?) the product of this society, of this culture? Of your economic condition? So you 'are' the outside, which you think is separate from you. So don't divide the ( outer ) world and the 'me'. ( Consciousness-wise ?) you 'are' the world: the result of your society, your are the result of your conditioning, you are the result of your tradition, you are the result of your father, mother, who believe and so on and on. All that is the outside world, and that outside world has made you. So you are not only dissatisfied with the world but what the world has made you. So you "are" the world and the world "is" you. So you are discontented with what you "are", which "is" the world.

Q: I am unable to see that.

K: You are unable to see that ? Aren't you ( mentally ) conditioned by the religion in which you have been brought up? And that religion has been passed from father to son, to son, to son. Generations of superstition. Right? So ( psychologically wise?) you 'are' the result of that superstition. Right?

Q: And education.

K: Education, the culture, the Vedas, the books, you are the result of all that. So (if) you are 'discontented with yourself' therefore you are discontented with the ( mentality of the ?) world. So you 'are' the world. Right? A ( practising ?) Christian is conditioned by the propaganda of two thousand years, as you are conditioned by propaganda of five thousand years or more. Right? So when you say you are discontented, you are discontented with the world, which 'is' you. Now, let's proceed from there: to what depth is this discontent? Is it just superficial, or does it go very deep?

Q: It is rather superficial.

K: So why is it on the surface? You see poverty round you, people deprived of everything, degradation of poverty, you see this round you, dirt, squalor, misery, confusion. So is it that ( inwardly ?) you are not sensitive ? Which means you are so self-centred that you are not sensitive to the beauty of the trees, you are not sensitive to the beauty of the sky, you are not sensitive to that starved dog, the poverty. You are just sensitive to yourself, about yourself. Why are you not (responsively ?) aware of what is taking place around you? The untidiness of your own house, the way you eat, the food, everything, why aren't you sensitive to all that?

Q: Because I am bothered about what I am going to be all the time ?

K: Yes, you are all the time concerned about your own future. So your discontentment is a very short little affair. Isn't it? So I am asking: when there is so much agony around you, so much misery, how can you possibly be 'superficial'? That's one point.
Now, when you say, ( my discontentment ?) it is not superficial but very deep - right - now what do you mean by that word 'deep''? Is it ( a 'depth' that is ?) measurable? The whole ( shared mentality of the ?) western world, from ( the ancient ?) Greece said (assumed that) measurement is absolutely necessary. That's why they have developed technology to its utmost extent. Now the ancient Hindus said, "measurement is a very limited (attitude ?) " - so to find the immeasurable (inwardness of being ?) you must be free of ( a mentality based on ?) measurement. Which means, you must be free of that ( outward) capacity to compare, to measure, the more and so on.
So ( existentially wise ?) there are these two approaches to life: measurement, or the 'going beyond' the capacity to measure, because measurement is very limited. Now which is it when you say, "I am deeply discontented", is it that you have compared, measured (evaluated mentally ?) and therefore you use the word 'deeply'; or you merely say, "I am totally discontent", not (even) using the word 'depth'? Does somebody follow all this?

Q: What is this 'discontent'?

K: That's what I want to know: are you totally discontent, or measurably discontent? Which is it?

Q: Totally.

K: Be careful, sir. When you say, "I am discontented with the world" and also you see that you are the result of all that, have I have compared my (personal) discontent with other people's discontent or I am totally, completely discontent? You see the difference? So which is it?

Q: Totally.

K: Be honest (to yourself) , you don't have to be dishonest with me because it doesn't matter. So are you totally or partially discontent?

Q: If you are totally discontent, it means that the ( measuring) centre is not there.

K: Yes, so you are totally discontent. Are you actually? Or is it just words, totally?

Q: We are in a trap.

K: Yes, you are in a ( mentality ?) trap. The trap of the ( competitive ?) "rat race", the trap of what humanity is doing - talking about peace, prepare for wars, armaments. Talking about 'non-violence', go to temples, do everything to prepare for war. So when you say, "I am discontented totally" - why?

Q: Because there is no transformation (in myself ?) .

K: Is it because I want deep satisfaction? Is it because I have ideas what the world should be? Is it because I see that it's monstrous to have a poor country in a world where there are rich(er) countries? So why is it you are discontented?

Q: Unlimited wants, while the means are limited.

K: Yes, sir, that's why I said at the beginning of the talk, of this discussion, are you going to the well with a little pitcher, or you have ( free access to ?) the well itself? So with what energy, with what capacity, with what spread of your arms do you go to the well? You are doing that now. You understand? You are coming to the ( inner ?) well. How are you coming to it and why are you coming to it? Both are important: what is the motive, what is the urgency, why do you want to go there? And if you are there can you drink enormously the waters, or you just slake your thirst? You understand my question? So which is it you are doing?
Look: I want to meditate, so I go from one guru to another, to try to find out how to meditate, but "my mind and heart" is ( self-enclosed ?) like a little peanut. Right? And I say, 'By Jove, with that little mind how I am going to meditate'. Your meditation then becomes the same size as the peanut. So in the same way, are you coming to the well with a little pot, or with a tremendous thirst?

Q: Have we all got the capacity to transform ourselves totally?

K: Sir, I am not talking ( yet ?) of a 'total transformation'. I am talking about how you come to the (inner ?) well which will perhaps quench all your discontent. And you are asking the question: has each one of us the capacity ? It's up to you. If your discontent is tremendous then you go to the well with a tremendous vessel. If your discontent is the size of a peanut, then you go to the well with a little vessel. And I am afraid that's what most of us are doing.

Q: The desire to change, is that also not measurable?

K: Of course it is. So you have to find out what you mean by "change". ( A radical ?) change from the 'known' to the 'unknown'? Or change from one corner of the field (of the known) to another corner of the (same) field? So please be good enough to find out for yourself why you are discontent, and whether you go to the ends of the earth to find the water that will quench completely the whole discontent.
Isn't this ( mindful ?) "discontent" like a flaming that is burning? And if you smother it you just become a bourgeois little entity. But if you keep that flame burning, burning, burning, not be satisfied with anything... now, what is it you are doing? This is very important to find out, is it not ?

Q: It is important to have the energy.

K: Yes, sir, the importance of energy. Is not ( one's total ?) energy part of this ( holistic ?) discontent ? But if you are discontented with little things, that energy is ( getting) dissipated in little things. Right, sir? Aren't you doing that? When I ask you that question you all become silent.

Q: If one has discontent you reject everything.

K: You can't reject 'Krishnamurti-ism' because he (K) is talking about yourself. It means you reject "yourself". So please, for your own sake, don't waste your life. Right? You waste your life when you are ( getting) satisfied with little things. Bigger car, better house, better garden, better this and that. So don't waste your life. If you ( really ) want to find out what ( the truevalue of ?) "meditation" is, give your life to find out.

Q: Is it useful to be 'always burning'?

K: What do you mean by 'useful'?

Q: Burning also means wastage.

K: This is quibbling over words. Sir, may I ask a question to all of you? Aren't you wasting your life? Aren't you? And (if this is the case ?) what are you going to do about it?

Q: That's is what we want to hear from you, sir.

K: That is, I am becoming your guru ? I refuse to be your "guru". Followers destroy the gurus, and the gurus destroy the followers.

Q: Then, how do we know if we are wasting our life?

K: Sir, that's what I am asking, sir, please find out. You have got another half an hour to find out whether you are not wasting your life. You have only this life - the "other life", the "future life", may be ( available ?) , or may not be, but (if ?) you have got only this life - thirty years, forty years, fifty years, or whatever it is, aren't you wasting such a precious thing?

Q: The concept of "wastage" presupposes some kind of goal.

K: Not in the least. I'll show it to you, what I mean by "wasting", there is nothing presupposing a goal. Am I not wasting my life by following somebody? Because when I follow somebody ( the authority of ?) that "somebody" is created by me. So I am 'following myself'... in the name of the guru. Isn't that a waste of your (inner ?) life? You see you become silent.

Q: We have to have a 'goal' or...

K: No, no, no, not 'goal'.

Q: Can you please explain that?

K: I will, I will. First of all our life (on earth ?) is very short.

Q: Life is not so short.

K: It may be relatively short or a little bit longer, but ( metaphysically speaking ) it is still 'short'. And it matters enormously how we 'spend' that life: whether we are sane, whether we have got a very good body and keep it healthy, where you have got a good clear capacity to think. And it implies a life that is not merely superficial. And also when you are talking about whole, is your life sacred ? That's what I mean, your life is not sacred if you are not sane, with a capacity to think clearly, objectively, not ( just) about yourself, all the time, and also to have a good body, good mind, good brain. And also that implies to love, to love, to have compassion. All that is ( holistically ?) implied when we say, "your life is very short, are you wasting it ?"
So I am asking you, if I may, is your life sacred, holy? Are you acting rightly under all circumstances? So (holistically speaking ?) if you are not, you are wasting your life. That's why I said it is very important to find out whether your life, which is not (just) 'your' life, because you are the representative of humanity: you suffer like the man who suffers in America, or in Russia, your anxiety is ( pretty much ?) like (that of) the man in living America, or Russia - he is full of sorrow, anxiety, pain. Right? He is like you. So you are actually the representative of humanity and if you really "understand" (have an insight into ?) that, not 'intellectually' but deeply, then isn't your life sacred? And because if your life is "sacred" you affect the ( whole) Consciousness of mankind. You understand? Your consciousness is the (shared ?) consciousness of all humanity and if your life is changed radically, if you life is ( holistically ?) sacred, you affect the consciousness of man.
So that( holistic ?) discontent has no 'depth', it is not a 'discontent with something' but the flame of it. Then that energy of discontent- which is so tremendous if you don't run away from it- that energy will find the right action always.
Well, sirs, now at the end of an hour and a quarter, where are we?

Q: Do you want us to face reality even if it is evil. The problem is how to face it.

K: I don't want you to do anything. If you say, help me to understand this, we can then, but if you say, tell me what to do, then I become your guru, I become your authority which I absolutely refuse.

Q: Can we together find a solution?

K: We are doing it now. Are you aware that you are wasting your life? And I said, "wasting" implies that this ( quality of holistic ?) discontent, if you are running away from it, or try to find such deep satisfaction that discontent disappears. I consider that a "waste" of life, just to run away from discontent.
And also I said, is your mind sane, clear, objective, not concerned all the time about your little self ? And also I said, if you are in constant battle with yourself, struggle with yourself, that's a waste of life because you are wasting energy. Didn't you hear what he said the other day at the talk? ( Inner ?) facts have no opposite. When you have (created the mental image of ?) the opposite then you are in a (self-created ?) conflict.
So ( for instance if ?) there is an observation of the 'fact' of this reaction named as 'anger', by observing it without distortion that which you have named as anger undergoes fundamental transformation. Experiment, test it, don't agree with it: can you observe the fact of that reaction which you named as 'envy' without the word, just to observe it? Then, as I was explaining, when you look at something through a microscope, if the observer is conditioned by his hypothesis, conditioned by his desire, then the object at which he is looking through the microscope, it ( such observation ?) doesn't do (change ?) anything. Whereas if he looks through it without any distortion the thing (psychological reaction ?) which he is observing undergoes a change.

Q: So, (in other words ?) you act if you have no choice, if you have a choice don't act.

K: Sir, why do you (need to ?) choose 'psychologically' at all? Doesn't choice come when you are not clear? When I know the road to Madras, there is no need for choice, I just go. Where there is ( perceptive ?) clarity there is no choice. It's only the confused mind that chooses. You won't accept all this. So before you choose be free of your confusion, then it's finished. Can you be free of your confusion? What are you confused about? Whether to choose one politician or another, one group of politics, congress, this, that. Do you know the facts about these gentleman - politicians the world over are a strange people. Right? This is so obvious. So where do you choose? Do you go all round the world and say, 'I am going to marry the most beautiful girl' and so go round the world and choose. Come on, sirs, when you use the word 'choice' what do you mean by it? Choose between various gurus? One guru better than the other guru, one god better than the other god? So when there is choice it indicates a mind that is utterly confused. We think because we choose we are free, which is a fallacy. A free man doesn't choose, he is clear.
Well, sirs, if I may ask, what have you learnt this morning? You understand my question? What have you gathered? Will you be the same tomorrow? The same dull, stupid, traditional, repeating, repeating - will you be (inwardly) the same tomorrow? You have spend an hour and a half listening, what have you gathered which is yours, not mine?

Q: I understand my life better.

K: When you use the word 'better', the better is the enemy of the good. Right? Either you are good or not good, either you flower in goodness, or you don't flower

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 Jul 2016 #210
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 700 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE, OJAI 1978: The Beginnings of Meditation ( reader friendly condensed)

Krishnamurti: What would you like to discuss or have a dialogue about?

Q : Could you talk about meditation ? You have said that to observe you have to be free, but isn't it also true that to be free you have to learn how to observe. So could you comment on that and also perhaps on the context in which you use these words which might have created an apparent conflict between those statements.

K: Would you like to discuss observation, ( direct) perception, seeing without introducing words with their associations? Do you want to discuss that?

Q: Yes.

K: Are you deeply interested in this, does it mean anything in your life? Because if it does then we could discuss it seriously.

Audience: Yes.

K: You are quite sure? Isn't one of our difficulties when you listen to a statement to make an abstraction of it, to make an idea of it - isn't that a fact that one listens to a particular statement or opinion or judgement or evaluation and immediately there is a conclusion ( drawn) from the actual statement, making an abstraction of a fact into an idea. So when we talk about observing, is that observation an (intellectual ?) abstraction or an actual perception, seeing? Or one wants to discover (experientially ?) the actual purity of observation.

So, what is the actual 'act of observation'? Do we see anything without the ( verbal ?) 'image' coming in between, without the interference of thought, the thought being the ( naming using the ?) word, the word awakening the ( mental) associations connected with that word therefore in that process you never ( purely ?) observe. So does one observe those flowers without naming them (because) the moment you name them there comes the (personal or cultural) association of like and dislike, that they are 'carnations' and I like that colour,and all that interferes with the actual 'seeing'. In the same ( non-verbal ?) way, can I look, observe my friend, my wife, without the interference of the various imaginative, thoughtful (mental ?) associations that I have had with that person? It is a very complex problem this because for most of us observation is always ( backed up ?) through an association, through memories, through images.
Then the ( experiential ?) problem arises: is it possible not to create these (self-protective ?) 'images', because they interfere with the clarity of perception ? You understand?

Q: Up to a certain point there is clarity of observation but some mechanism at some certain time takes over and ( the perceptive) clarity disappears.

K: That's right. At some time the mechanism of thought, the mechanism of image-making , takes over and clarity disappears. That's what you were saying, sir ?

Q: My ( mental) condition is that these associations are (always) there, one is becoming aware of them all the time. Then what is an observing without association?

K: Can we go into this very slowly and carefully, in detail ? First of all there is the visal perception through the optical nerve and so on, and then you see. Now, in your relationship with another intimate, or not, when does the mechanism of creating an image about that person take place?

Q: Possibly when the mind first recognizes something and creates part of the relationship and brings it back into the foreground, that's when the images may take over, or ( the associated) memory.

K: Sir, let's keep it very simple: one meets a person, is introduced to that person, then when you meet that person next time that recording says, you are "Mr so-and-so", I met you the day before yesterday. That's this whole mechanical "process of registration", which interferes with perception. ( Which also has a "psychological" component : ) you insult me, it is registered, and when I meet you next time I am a little bit nervous, withdrawn; or you flatter me, it is registered, and I say, 'we are friends'. So this kind of ( background) registration is going on all the time and interferes with ( any new ?) observation. Now the (transformational ?) question is: is it possible to observe ( purely, non-personally ?) without this whole mechanical process of remembrance interfering?

Q: It should be possible.

K: It 'should be'... if you are hungry you 'should be' able to eat, but there is no food!

Q: What I meant is that you should be able to learn how to do that.

K: We are going to find out.

Q: Sir, it seems to me that as long as we are concerned with ( optimizing ?) the accumulations surrounding the perception, we cannot.

K: Sir, some of you are married, haven't you images about the other person? Don't those ( subliminally active ?) images interfere with your actual relationship with that person? Obviously. Now we are asking, this (image making ?) mechanism which is constantly operating, can that mechanism stop - even for a few seconds ?
So one sees there is a ( natural process of ) 'registration' taking place when the name is remembered, the face is remembered, the particular association with that person is remembered. Right? That goes on all the time, pleasant or unpleasant, dangerous or safe and so on. So we are asking, can ( the psychological component of ?) this mechanism come to an end (momentarily ?) so that I can look?

Q: It seems impossible to observe without making a judgement, or naming it, and accept it for what it is.

K: No. Isn't it possible to observe without judgement, just to look at 'what is' - we are exploring that (option ?) . Why does this ( recording ?) mechanism constantly operate, creating images, conclusions, opinions ?

Q: If we don't pay attention then the mind starts to move ( instinctively in that direction ?) .

K: Yes, sir, but we are saying, why does this mechanism function instantly?

Q: Only when I have a strong emotional reaction - if I hate someone or admire someone, or am afraid of someone - then the 'image' persists. Otherwise if there is no ( 'personal') reaction, that person is new to me every single moment. Now if I ask myself why do I have these (gut ?) emotions, I have to ask myself why do I have hands and feet. I have them, they are just there.

K: Why? We have ( accumulated a lot of ?) emotions of anger, hatred, resistance and so on and so on, why? Is it ( a mental pattern ?) inherited from the anthropoid apes, right from the beginning? Or is it a temporary passing thing?

Q: Is not ( our capacity to ?) 'love' a faculty equal to hands and feet which we have allowed to atrophy?

K: Sir, we are talking about perception; love is something which we have to go into it, perhaps after this question.

Q: But sir, I am answering your question. You asked why, where does it begin, where does the ( image making) mechanism begin. I say it began when love was atrophied.

K: Yes, it began when love was denied, was 'dead'.

Q: I don't think it is dead.

K: Atrophied, all right, it is 'paralysed', any other word you like to use. Are we answering that question, sir, if I may ask, why does the mind, the brain create images? These 'images' are very active.

Q: From fear.

K: Fear, which means what? As this gentleman suggested it may be because in remembering, in association, in the 'image' (making process ?) there is great security. Somebody has robbed another of his things, that is registered, the next time you meet that person you are very, very careful, which is ( the basic instinctual demand for ?) security. So is the brain registering all these things in order to have security?

Q: Sir, if I establish myself on a basis of something, if I have my security involved in a thing which somebody can rob me of, am I not already lost?

K: Yes, sir, probably. But we are asking why does the brain 'register' at all (psychologically ?) . This is very important ( to explore experientially ?) because we are always 'living in the past' and the (mechanism creating this ?) 'past' is the ( image ?) registration movement. So do we all understand clearly that this ( mechanical ?) registration takes place because the brain can only function properly, clearly, efficiently when there is a sense of security. Right?

Q: I am not sure I understand that. Security...

K: When it is safe, when it is not damaged, when it is not hurt.

Q: Physically you are saying?

K: Both physically as well as psychologically. But if ( you are getting ?) 'hurt' then you behave neurotically, if it is damaged in any way all its actions will be deformed. So the brain says to itself: there must be security. Right, sir?

Q: But isn't that very desire for security that is being hurt ?

K: Of course. But first see how the brain demands that it should (feel) completely secure, whether it is secure in actuality or in an illusion, in a fancy or in ( directly dealing with ?) 'what is'. So the brain - have you watched a child, it wants security from its mother and so ( all the way back) from the original ( thinking ?) 'ape' the instinct is to be protected, to find safety, to have somebody (or a tribe ?) to hold you so that you are comfortable. You have seen all this in a baby. Now what do we mean by being ( psychologically ?) secure? Has it found such security physically?

Q: It probably hasn't.

K: Not your 'particular' brain, your particular brain is the result of millions of years of evolution, growth, it is not your particular brain, it is the brain of man, of any human being. And it needs security, it must have security, but has it found it ? It has said there is security in belonging to a tribe. Glorified nationalism is the continuation of the tribal instinct. Now when there are nations separate from each other and each group belongs and says, I am safe here, then is there safety? There are wars, so you are not even physically safe.

Q: There is just an idea of safety.

K: That's what I am coming to. So is there any safety at all in what we are doing? The 'rich' and the 'poor'. The whole social structure, does it give you safety, not for your particular period of life, it may be thirty years, of fifty years, or a hundred years, but for the brain of a human being, of humanity, of which you 'are' (consciouness wise ?)

Q: Sir, we are discussing, I believe, the fact that the brain wants self-preservation.

K: Yes.

Q: Then I have briefly security. But also the brain, I believe, strives more than this, and that is self-perpetuation. (So our basic need for safety ) is coupled (compounded ?) with the problem of acquisition, wanting more.

K: Self-perpetuation, because in perpetuating itself in another, separating itself and thinking it is separate and perpetuating in another, that idea (mental attitude ?) gives it safety.
Now we are asking, is there safety in what our society, politicians, economics, etcetera, etcetera, is creating around us - which "we" have ( collectively ?) created in our desire to be secure ?

Q: I wanted to ask is there security, psychological or physical, because what we are doing all the time is creating these images which are at variance all the time. Our life is (getting a ) false ( sense of) security from illusions.

K: I understand. Look, madam, is it an 'illusion' when you have got a husband and a wife and each person seeks security in the other? Actually face it. Do you call that 'illusion'? So we are saying the human brain needs security. It has found security in religion, in conclusions, in concepts, in ideas, in images, which prevent seeing clearly. Right? That is our question.
Now can this urge to be secure stop for a few seconds even?

Q: How can we answer that question without it already being a conclusion from a previous experience?

K: Sir, can you observe that flower without naming it? Can you observe your girlfrend or your boyfriend , the politician, the priest, whatever it is, can you observe without some kind of ( interfering ?) opinion, reaction, judgement, evaluation, jumping in your observation?

Q: It seems to me that all we are concerned about ( in our relationships ?) is stimulation.

K: Yes, sir, it is part of simulation. We all agree. But would you please consider this for a few minutes this (challenging experiential ?) question: can you observe without the past? That is, can you observe your friend, your husband, your wife, or your man, without all the remembrances of the past interfering with your observation?

Q: Without the ( memory of the ?) past I wouldn't be able to understand a word you are saying.

K: May I put it differently ? The ( self-conscious ?) 'observer' who looks, is not this 'observer' the ( result of the ?) past? The 'I' who says, "I am observing", is not that (szlf-identified mental interface ?) made up of all the images, of all the remembrances, of all the insults, of all the pleasures- is not this 'observer' the ( controlling action of the ?) past? That's simple. So the past is looking at the flower and saying, that is a chrysanthemum, that's a rose, that's pink, that's violet and so on, so the past is always observing the present. Right?
So, when one sees that this 'observer' is the (active knowledge of the ?) past, which interferes with perception, then one asks, is it possible for this 'observer' ('recognition based' mentality) come to an end? I have asked the right question therefore it must be the right answer, you will get it in a minute. So can that observer 'come to an end' so that there is clarity of perception? It can come to an end only when the observer (the observing mind ?) realizes that what he is observing 'is' the observed.
Now how do you listen to that statement? The speaker said just now, the observer is the observed. Right? It is an (experiential ?) statement. When the speaker makes the statement that "the observer 'is' the observed", how do you listen to that, how do you approach that statement? How do you listen to some statement or some fact which you have never heard or listened or seen, how do you come to it, how do you receive it?

Q: I am trying to form a (mental ) "image" of something which is this 'observer'.

K: Therefore ( experientially-wise ?) you have already come to a conclusion. Therefore you are not (purely) listening.

Q: I don't know what this 'listening' means.

K: May I put it in a different way: how do you approach a question which you have not heard before, a ( challenging ?) statement which you have not listened to before?

Q: Sir, it seems a little odd to look for an answer.

K: What is your actual approach, because your approach is going to dictate the answer. Right? So you must find out for yourself what's your approach to a statement like, "the observer is the observed"?

Q: One is on the same vibration with the thing observed ?

K: Look, sir: when you observe your wife, how do you observe her? You are observing ( mechanically through ?) the 'image' that you have created about that person. So the observer 'is' ( both the creator and the user of ?) this image, ( in short ?) he 'is' the picture. So the (memory of the ?) past (incidents in that relationship ?) has created the present 'image' of the wife or the girlfriend or whatever it is. ( Not to mention that ?) All the churches are filled with this (kind of thought progected images) . The past has created all that and when 'you' observe the (the whole memory of the ?) past is observing. So the observer 'is' (undissociated from ?) the 'images ' he has created. So ( when the truth of this statement ?) "the observer is the observed" (is actually seen ?) there is no longer the (dualistic separation ?) between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. Right? So you remove the conflict and the division. Is this clear?

So we have found something extraordinary: we have removed the (inner) cause of conflict which arises when there is ( the "observer-observed") division - when the observer realizes that which he is observing is ( part of ?) himself. Right? So we are left now with the fact that ( in the context of inner observation ?) the observer 'is' the observed. Right?

Q: So what takes place with the 'observer'?

K: I ('d rather ?) ask you this question, if I may, what happens to the 'observer'?

Q: He becomes ( one with ?) the observed ?

K: You have a girl friend and you have an image about her and the image is the past and this observer is the past : now, if this 'observer' is seeing himself as ( not being separated from ?) the ( 'image' of the girlfriend ?) observed. Then what happens actually? For the first time you are seeing (non-dualistically ?) a 'fact'. Wait, go slowly, what happens?
Look, let's move in another direction for a second. ( Take the similarly holistic statement ?) "the thinker 'is' the thought". Before it divided thought and the thinker. Now there is no division between the thinker and the thought; there is only "thinking", not a 'thinker (- who-thinks)'. Or ( take this other statement ) "the experiencer 'is' the experience". Most people are thinking that the 'experiencer' is different from the 'experience' (he's having) . But we are saying, "the experiencer 'is' the experience". ( Proof:) The experiencer can only recognize and explain the experience according to his past memory, so the ( memory of the ?) past 'is' (assessing the ?) the experience. Right? So if the "( desire of the ?) experiencer is ( projecting ?) the experience" there is no (point for ?) seeking further experiences.
Before you 'went out' seeking ( new sensory ?) experiences, or went to India, followed the gurus, thinking that was ( the highest spiritual ?) experience, but when you realize that the 'experiencer' who is the (impersonation of the ?) past, with all the memories, goes out there, he 'recognizes' the guru or the experience according to his conditioning, the past. So that which he is "experiencing" is the past (experience of mankind ?) . So the mind then says, I have seen this, I am not asking any further 'experience'. This is a tremendous thing if you discover this. Then you are a 'light to yourself '
So ( to recap:) when one realizes the observer 'is' the observed then what takes place?

Q (1) : No more 'images' ?

Q (2) : I become the "observed".

K: Then what takes place?

Q: The tension of accumulation round the observation ceases to be added to.

K: So what does that mean?

Q: When this happens to me, my mind just 'relaxes'.

K: Please, have you realized it , as you realize pain, hunger, or sexual demands, the actual ( truth of the ?) fact that the observer "is" the observed. Then what takes place?

Q: I see this fact, but ... I don't know what to do with it.

K: You see, you have ( again) separated yourself and said 'I' don't know what to do with it. So you are still acting as the 'observer'.

Q: When you say, the 'observed', you mean (the self-created ?) image?

K: Yes, sir. We said from the beginning, sir, that the "observer" (the dualistic mentality ?) is made up of the past memories, past hurts, past insults, the image that you have made about your wife, etc . And when 'you' observe her , those 'images', those ( pleasant or painful ?) remembrances are observing, so the 'observer' is that. Right? Now, if that is absolutely clear then what happens?

Q: I feel alive.

K: Who is 'you' feeling alive?

Q: There is aliveness ?

K: Look, is the (very) beginning of meditation, the 'vital' (part) of meditation, and if you don't understand this you can go off into all kinds of illusions and silly nonsense. Because we are eliminating totally the ( perceptive ?) division between the 'observer' and the 'observed' who creates conflict ( both inwardly and outwardly ?) : 'me' and 'you', 'we' and 'they'; so we are eliminating totally all that (conflicting attitude ?) if you see ( that ) the observer is ( not separated from ?) the observed. So when you see that one is (culturally) conditioned you are observing it (non-dualistically ?) . So what happens ( inwardly ?) when "the observer is the observed" is the elimination of all conflict.

Q: Doesn't the mind become ( naturally ) quiet?

K: I don't know, sir. You have to find it out ( for homework ?)

Q: At this moment there is the feeling that one must experiment with this more.

K: There is no 'experiment'. May I go into it a little bit? There is only the (truth of ?) the fact that "the observer 'is' the observed". Before the 'observer' tried to do something about the ( thing) observed, 'he' tried to control it, 'he' did everything to conquer it one way or the other. Here there is none of that because 'he' realizes ( the inner truth that ?) the observer is the observed. So the central point of conflict has been eliminated. Therefore what has taken place? Through conflict you have wasted energy. Right? In that division energy has been wasted through conflict. When there is no conflict what takes place? There is no wastage of energy. So then there is only "pure observation" not the 'image observing itself'. I wonder if you see all this.

Look, sir, when there is no 'observer', there are no conclusion, no opinions, just ( non-dualistic) observation. And when there is that ( purely non-personal ?) observation 'that which is being observed' undergoes a change. Look, sir, take a very simple example: suppose that I am greedy. So far my (cultural) conditioning has (postulated that ?) 'I' am different from my greed. ( Implying that ) I should "control this greed", or say, "what's wrong with being greedy ?". But when there is the realization that the greed "is" me, then what takes place? There is ( a non-personal ?) observation of that feeling, of that reaction which has been ( traditionally ?) termed as greed. I don't name it now, I just observe it. In this (holistic quality of ?) observation that feeling is undergoing a change. So the 'thing' that has been called greed is non-existent (is transcended ?) . The very thing that is being observed undergoes a radical transformation if there is 'no observer'.

We did not change fundamentally as ( authentic ?) human beings because we have divided the observer different from the observed (making the inner observation 'personal' ?) . But there is a ( possibility for a ?) fundamental change at great depth when the observer is the observed and there is only pure observation. When there is that pure observation that which is being observed undergoes a radical change because there is no (intelligent energy dissipated in ?) naming it, no escape, just observe. Have you got this?
Let me put it round still another way: we are used to self-analysis or professional psycho-analysis. Right? Now is the 'analyser' different from the ( person or feature being ?) 'analysed'? This is a fundamental question even the ( more sincere ?) psycho-analysers must ask: Is my greed different from me? Obviously, if I "am" greed, then who is it that is examining? Right? So I don't ( have to ?) 'analyse' (myself) . There is pure observation of that (feeling ?) which before was being analysed. Then what happens to that reaction which I called "greed"? When there is this clarity (of holistic ?) observation that feeling undergoes a radical change. Have I made this clear? Therefore you are out of this ( hopeless inner ?) conflic between 'greed' and 'non greed', the ( mental) battle that goes on inwardly all the time.
So when this takes place there is always ( a natural quality of ?) clear observation without any motive, without any conclusion, just to observe.

( Try for homework ?) to observe a flower without naming it, to observe the person whom you think you love (without the 'loving image' ?) , to observe. Perhaps the lady or the man won't like it because you have suddenly brought about a radical transformation in yourself (and therefore you see the 'actual' relationship ?) .
Now to observe without ( verbal or mental ?) associations is part of meditation, as is the removing of the 'observer' ( mentality ?) who seeking enlightenment, seeking, fighting, fighting, fighting. So then meditation comes (as naturally ?) as you live .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 641 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.)