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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 745 in total
Tue, 15 Mar 2016 #181
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

SAANEN 2ND PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 1984 (condensed )

K: One wonders if there is a "final question" at all, one question that will answer all questions ? ( How about: ) Is there, apart from the ordinary biological experiences , any necessity of ( inwardly gathering ?) experience at all? Does the human brain need ( to create for itself 'psychological' ?) challenges, crises, in order to keep itself awake? Because we live such a superficial life, and becoming (inwardly) rather mechanical (repetitive ?) and lazy, indolent. And to keep us awake we feel that ( overcoming our various ?) problems, pressures and so on, is needed to keep the brain alert. Can't the brain be alert, extremely watchful, without any drugs, problems, challenges, shocks? Could we enquire and find out whether our brain, which has been conditioned ( culturally ?) programmed for millenia upon millenia, , can that brain be naturally, without any effort, fully awake? And in order to find that out one must reject totally our ( search for new ?) "psychological" experiences. And so not depend on ( the incoming ?) pressures, impressions, stimulations. Unfortunately you are being (psychologically ?) stimulated right now by the speaker, which will ( subliminally) act as a drug. If one depends on these things as a stimulant to keep the brain alert, then you are merely sustaining the mechanical process. And the brain has become for most of us mechanical, repetitive.

So (this 'all-in-one' final question would be:) to live an (inwardly awakened ?) life without ( the need for) a single ( psychological ?) challenge, without a single demand, both outwardly or inwardly so that the brain is extraordinarily active. This action is not ( a spatio-temporal ?) movement. All physical and psychological (mental) movement, all thought is contained in the field of time. Right? And ( the directly perceptive ?) action is not of time: such "action" is instant, the very living of it immediate, instant.
We are talking of a human brain that has been so often shocked, so wounded. And to have a brain which is not capable of being hurt, psychologically, to have an (innocent) mind which is untouchable by circumstances is something extraordinary, and (getting to ) that is ( the primary task ?) of "meditation", not all the silly stuff that is going on. So we have asked: is there a question which would answer all questions, only one question ? We have answered it. Right?

QUESTION: Your statement that art is merely the product of thought and therefore not creation has troubled many artists, poets, musicians, including us who are here, and who think that they are "creators".

K: The speaker has said that ( a 'self- interest' based?) 'thought' can never be creative - since ( such ?) thought is always limited. Right? So we must enquire into what is thought and why it is limited, but first of all what is Creation, how the ( material) world has come into being, and we ought also to enquire into the "art of living", which is by far the greatest art, the supreme art.
So first let's enquire what is the "art of living"? Some of us who are not (professional ?) 'artists', may still have the ( necessary inward ?) sensitivity to look at the mountains, sensitivity to someone suffering, sensitivity to nature, to look at a tree. When you look at that beauty, or the beauty of a cloud, with sunlight on it, we have to also enquire then what is Beauty - right?
So this question implies a great many things, not just one thing. What is beauty, apart from the physical form, a clean cut face, healthy, with sparkling eyes and smile and sense of dignity? There is the beauty of a mountain, of a tree, or the running waters. But when does one ( really) 'see' such great beauty? Does it lie in the eye, in the heart, or in the mind? Or there is ( an inward sensitivity to ?) beauty when our 'ego' is not (around ) ? The 'ego' with all its problems, all its ( psychological burden of ?) confusion, uncertainty, misery, happiness, you know, the "self"-(identified consciousness ?) So is it possible to look at something, the tree, the mountain, the valley, your wife or your husband, or something without the (interference of this ?) "self", coming between that and your (direct ?) perception? You understand? Is it possible to appreciate that sense of great beauty? And that beauty cannot possibly exist when the self is there. You may be ( globally recognised as ?) a "great artist" but be tremendously egocentric, tremendously ambitious, grabbing money - right? And painting those extraordinary pictures...

So then we have to ask what is the "art of living"? - which is the greatest art on earth because then everything you do is "art". I believe the word 'art' means placing all the things in (your) life in their ( natural ?) order, not exaggerating any one thing. And to find out this "art of living" requires not only intellectual capacity but also a great ( inner ?) sensitivity, a total freedom from all our petty little worries, all our ( self-created ?) problems, fears and when there is this extraordinary sense of wholeness. That is, when "you are (inwardly as ?) nothing". ( Inwardly speaking ?) nothingness "is" wholeness. I wonder if you understand all this. Because we are always wanting to "be something".

To go (still deeper ?) into that ( inward nothingness ?) we must find out the nature of thought. Thought is born of ( our reservoir of ?) knowledge - right? - ( stured ?) as memory. Thought is ( the verbalised response of all our ?) memory, knowledge, experience. And our ( self-centred ?) thinking in any direction is (intrinsically) limited because ( the extent of our ?) knowledge is always limited whether now or in the future. And being limited there is a demand for more knowledge. And man ascends through knowledge, probably physically - better houses, better heating, better roads, better communication, better ways of killing man and so on. So thought being limited (and limiting ?) has created this world, this society in which we live. Thought is a material process because it is contained in the brain. So thought whatever it does is limited, its inventions are limited. One invents something and somebody comes along and invents the same thing much better and so on and so on and so on.
But what is Creation? This has been a question that has been asked by the ancient Hindus, the later Greeks, and to say "God has created all this" is a very convenient way out of things. But if one asks for oneself, putting all these assertions aside, what is Creation? Can it be born out of (our existing) knowledge - and therefore such creation is limited- ? or Creation (in the Universal sense ?) has nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge. You understand? Creation must be something limitless.

To find out whether the brain can ever be free from knowledge and the word, and keep knowledge in its ( right) place - driving, talking, writing a letter, various forms of skills and disciplines, there knowledge is absolutely necessary, otherwise you and I, the speaker wouldn't be sitting here. But the ( inward ) sense of Immensity, the sense of Creation which is not measurable by thought has no relationship with our 'knowledge'.

QUESTION: I would like to cry out for help but how can one be helped to freedom ?

K: Sir, there are moments and days, periods, when we want to be helped. We want to be helped when we go to a doctor, we want to be helped when we have a disease, by talking it over with somebody. And there are those who ( are supposed to ?) give you help, the priest, the vicar in the local village, the pope, and all those ( new age ?) gurus who say, "I'll help you". There are all those people in the world who are 'trying to help others' because people are wanting help. This is apparently a natural response to all their travail and to their misery, unhappiness. But who is to help one (to find freedom ?) ? To be ( actually) helped ( along this direction ?) means to become strong, not depend on anybody, to see things objectively, very clearly, non-personally. Most of us are (naturally) discontent, but don't ( always ?) keep that flame alive because it is too troublesome, it might bring about the destruction of one's own ( self-centred safety -aka: ?) 'pettiness', and so on.

So is it possible not to look to ( psychological help coming from ?) another and say to yourself, "I am going to understand myself, I am going to watch myself, see exactly what I am." - not get depressed ( by) seeing what you are, just to observe. And this ( direct inward ?) "observation" is very simple, if you (can) rely entirely on yourself, which means ( realising one's own ?) tremendous responsibility. And to have a deep understanding of this ( psychological) movement called the 'self', it can be perceived very clearly in the ( interactive ?) mirror of our relationships - in our everyday action, every thought, every feeling, then you have immense strength, then you don't rely on anybody because you are ( feeling) totally responsible for yourself and for your actions. But this demands a great deal of ( integrated inner?) energy, not wasting energy by chattering. And very few will do all this, unfortunately, because we are all rather ( psychologically ?) "slack" and we never go to the cause of things. Where there is a 'cause' there is a (possibility to ?) end it. ( Suppose that ?) one drinks a tremendous lot, and next morning you have a hang-over, headache, and to overcome that you take a pill, and the next day you carry on - you follow? This is the way we live. A highly sophisticated world we live in and asking for ( 'psychological' ?) help is to make oneself more irresponsible, more dependent. Whereas if you are feeling totally responsible for yourself, for everything that you do, you can stand on your own feet, with dignity and responsibility.

QUESTION: How can we educate our children to be intelligent and both free and responsible human beings in today's world?

K: Apparently this is a question that is asked by every parent in the world: How can we help our children to be intelligent and free and responsible human beings in today's world? ( But...) are the parents intelligent and free? ( and also are ) the teachers intelligent and free and responsible? Is the whole educational system (succeeding in ?) helping them to be free and responsible and intelligent? So we have to enquire, if you will, why are we being educated in mathematics, and biology, science, chemistry, history, and go through university, college, obtain a degree and get a good (or decent ?) job in this world where there is an immense increase of population, unemployment.

So we have to find out what do we mean by a ( holistic kind of ?) 'education'. Does it not mean educating the ( total ?) human being, not just acquiring techniques and skills, but educating a human being to live with great art? That means inquiring into the immense, (inwardly ?) limitless field of the 'psyche' and going beyond it, that is a holistic education - you understand?
So all this implies the educators and parents needs also need ( such ?) education, not just the children. How can there be intelligence when your brain is being conditioned by ( its mechanistic ?) knowledge on one side, conditioned by your own fears, a loneliness, despair, all the rest of the 'ugliness' of ( self-centred ?) human beings. And then on top of that, religion has nothing to do with your ( actual) life, and ( you get) committed entirely to earning a livelihood - this dichotomy is becoming more and more serious, this separation. And ( a 'holistic' ?) education is ( should be ?) something where there must be respect, love.

One heard a parent saying, "Must I sacrifice my life for my stupid little children?" And so the world goes on this way and it has been going on for millenia, because we as ( grown up ?) human beings, do not want to live a holistic, a complete life. We are ( inwardly ?) fragmented and (in such way of living ?) there is no intelligence, there is no compassion, there is no freedom.

QUESTION: What is your relationship to us? (Laughter)

K: I am ( first) reversing the question: what is your relationship with the speaker? What is the speaker's relationship with you, will be answered a little later but you have to ask first what is 'your' relationship with the speaker? That means, why are you (coming ?) here? What is it that you want? Are you here to be ( inspired or ?) 'stimulated'? To identify with a larger group? To find out the truth of what the speaker is saying? Or you are (subliminally ?) attracted physically by the ( looks and personality of the ?) speaker? The speaker has been saying this is not ( intended to be ?) a personality cult at all, the person doesn't matter. What matters is ( to grasp ?) what he is saying: doubt, question, ask.

So what is your relationship with the speaker? To put the question differently (meta-physically ?) : what is the relationship between 'light' and 'darkness'? What is the relationship between ( a mind living in ?) conflict and (one without ?) conflict? What is the relationship between the 'good' and the 'bad'? Is the good the ( optimised ?) outcome of the bad? If the good has its roots in the bad then it's 'partially good', therefore it is not ( 100% ?) 'Good' - right? (Eg:) Take 'violence' and to be 'free of violence'. Human beings are ( inwardly and/or outwardly ?) violent - one can trace back the biological origins of this violence, derived from the animals and so on . That is, human beings are violent, but they have 'thought out' not to be violent, they have created the opposite (goal) which they call 'non-violence', so this (cultivated ?) 'non-violence' is related to violence, therefore it is not ( being totally ?) free from violence - you understand?

So what is the relationship of a man who is ( inwardly ?) free and the man who (inwardly) lives in a ( self-created ?) "prison"? You understand? We make our own ( 'high security' inner) prisons and we live (+/- comfortably ?) in them - right? And what is the relationship of a man who lives in the prison to the man who is outside it? You understand what the speaker means by 'prison' ? ( The inward limitations created by ?) our fears, our anxieties, our thought, our loneliness, our dogmatic or superficial opinions and so on, that is our 'prison'. And what is the relationship between the man in that prison and the man who is outside the prison? Has the man in the prison any ( co-operating ?) relationship with the man outside it? Naturally not. But the man outside it has a relationship with the man in prison. Because you (have ?) love, compassion, you are intelligent, you are utterly responsible ( even though you are living ?) 'out there'.
We always want to have a relationship with something totally outside of us, with something immense. But ( the problem is :) that Immensity has ( an intelligent and compassionate ?) relation to us but we have no ( authentic ?) relationship to that. If we see the truth of it, then we will ( endeavour to ?) break the (inner) prison at any cost. (Realising that ?) we are really caught in a 'prison' our brain becomes subtle, quick.

( Recap:) A man realising ( the sad truth of living in a 'psychological' ?) prison is suffocating, crying, hoping, trying to break free. And if he 'prays' what value has it? It is like those monks and nuns the world over, praying for peace, while the other part of the world is ( producing sophisticated ?) armaments. You understand the absurdity of all this?
So there is a (co-operating ?) relationship with another only when both of us are free - right? But if one is ( comfortably living ?) in ( his self-created ?) 'prison' and the other is not, then we just waste our energy trying to be related to that. Either one is free or one is not. And to realise the depth of that freedom, the beauty of it, to see the immensity of that freedom there must be no 'self' (identification ?) , no 'ego' ( subliminally ?) hiding in the recesses of one's brain. Right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 16 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #182
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So, yes, with a more mature mind we will eventually discern the true 'essentials'. And this will probably happen sooner rather than later, even on a larger scale- how many 'mind games' can we play before getting sick of it all ? There was this British funny guy , Benny Hill, who, when asked why doesn't he live better with the money he's got, answered that no matter how rich you can be, you cannot wear more than one pair of trousers and one shirt at a time...

Hello John, for the first part, I do not know at all, one way or another in fact.the situation is for me opened, but both ways..

As to Benny hill, well , I did not know he was a wise man in his ways, so now when eventually watching some of his programs , I have most of them but somewhere hidden in the house, well I will have a different way to look at him....the tiny old man in his programs looks practically like my own grand father so it always makes it sort of weird for me to watch that...

here it is for a small anecdote..

cheers

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #183
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
for the first part, I do not know at all, one way or another in fact.the situation is for me opened, but both ways.

Well, Dan, I think that with age, it is no more a matter of "one way or another". When it comes to putting one's inner house in order , what is right is right and...what is wrong is wrong. Especially since we can be quite sure that no one will later sort it out for ourselves.

And of course, Benny Hill was definitely not a model of wisdom, although he had a lot of common sense. His ending was rather sad, after his programs being cancelled he was staying most of the time in his appartment watching TV- and that was that...As they say, better luck next time...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 16 Mar 2016 #184
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Well, Dan, I think that with age, it is no more a matter of "one way or another". When it comes to putting one's inner house in order , what is right is right and...what is wrong is wrong. Especially since we can be quite sure that no one will later sort it out for ourselves.

Alright , I thought that you were talking globally, but you were being personal . Then I understand now. There is no more one way or another indeed....

Sad indeed for BH...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #185
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Does the human brain need challenges, crises, in order to keep itself awake?

Hello John...

I just started reading this thread and this is for me such a good question, quite actual..

Not able to speak globally, for me there is an answer and it is yes, but I refute the word challenge, for me there is no challenge in life, but only problems to be solved...

what is a problem then..well it is about something vital which does not work and-or when there is suffering, both need to be fixed somehow...unless again one is masochist of course...

when the "weird bliss" is there, putting thought where it should be and has to be, there is no crisis like the ones created by the analytical process functioning is what I know, it seems that k had lived most of his life in this corner....

K wrote:
And so not depend on pressures, impressions, stimulations. Unfortunately you are being (psychologically ?) stimulated right now by the speaker, which will ( subliminally) act as a drug. If one depends on these things as a stimulant to keep the brain alert, then you are merely sustaining the mechanical process. And the brain has become for most of us mechanical, repetitive.

OK right.

John Raica wrote:
So to live an (inwardly awakened ?) life without ( the need for) a single challenge, without a single demand, both outwardly or inwardly so that the brain is extraordinarily active. This action is not ( a spatio-temporal ?) movement. All physical and psychological (mental) movement, all thought is contained in the field of time. Right? And ( the directly perceptive ?) action is not of time: such "action" is instant, the very living of it immediate, instant.

K here for me is describing what I call bliss,the other process, the deep bliss, where there is no comparison, no evaluation, no better, no small or big ,no calculation, no fear, no sorrow, no pain etc etc etc when the analytical process does not lead the brain anymore, he is not at all on our side but describing his side, hat he is living and I am not so sure that he understand our problems....he may have been ,as you mention sometimes, far being usual human condition from scratch , but he certainly had to go through heavy discontentment as us ,this can be read in many places of his work..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #186
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

krishnamurti wrote:
So we have to find out what do we mean by a ( holistic kind of ?) 'education'. Does it not mean educating the ( total ?) human being, not just acquiring techniques and skills, but educating a human being to live with great art? That means inquiring into the immense, (inwardly ?) limitless field of the 'psyche' and going beyond it, that is a holistic education - you understand?

Well...we are not there...a leading world Mafia( due to our division and most of us could be that Mafia) controls everything through money and food,violence and organised scarcity, formatting (education) included...we make machines and live like machines, ....there is tiny shortjoy to win and despair to loose, old age, utter sadness and next time better luck to paraphrase your own words...

krishnamurti wrote:
( Recap:) A man realising ( the sad truth of living in a 'psychological' ?) prison is suffocating, crying, hoping, trying to break free. And if he 'prays' what value has it? It is like those monks and nuns the world over, praying for peace, while the other part of the world is ( producing sophisticated ?) armaments. You understand the absurdity of all this?
So there is a (co-operating ?) relationship with another only when both of us are free - right? But if one is ( comfortably living ?) in ( his self-created ?) 'prison' and the other is not, then we just waste our energy trying to be related to that. Either one is free or one is not. And to realise the depth of that freedom, the beauty of it, to see the immensity of that freedom there must be no 'self' (identification ?) , no 'ego' ( subliminally ?) hiding in the recesses of one's brain. Right?

Then globally there is no hope right now for mankind in fact, are not we missing an opportunity right now, globally speaking, in k sense ..it really may be too late already...as to how will be the future present time, I do not know..some people around the world seem to imply that a radical global change is coming up..????

then today's quote seems to be quite interesting in the matter

[This] memory, which you call mind, is giving and imparting values, isn't it? That is the whole function of memory, which you call mind. That is, mind, instead of being itself intelligence which is direct perception, mind clouded by memory is giving values as true and false, essential and unessential, according to its cunning, according to its calculating fears and its search for security. Isn't that so? That is the whole function of memory, which you call the mind, but which is not mind at all. To the majority of people, except perhaps here and there to one rare, happy person, mind is merely a machine, a storehouse of memory which is continually giving values to the things it meets, to experiences. And the imparting of values depends on its subtle calculations, cunning and deceitfulness, based on fear and the search for security.

Dan..indeed then from that arises such thing as what we call competition but for me is non existent, there is in fact a process of elimination directly operating from our calculating brain, it is just right to built a house and physically live and criminal everywhere else where matter is not concerned... what happens is that the brain which evaluates,calculates etc ,always does that with itself as being the right value, I am my own value, I am god to my eyes !!! only itself is right , then there is no unity but separation, fight,business,war.......

OMG, it seems that if K is right by saying that there is no psychological evolution, I agree entirely, then some other question asked with Bohm is of high value...is mankind doomed for goodness so life as life was meant to be for us ??

Well the whole thing this morning does not make any sense to me..so I leave it alone....

Krishnamurti: except perhaps here and there to one rare, happy person, :-))

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Thu, 17 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #187
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

3RD Saanen Q & A MEETING (condensed) 1984

K: We have been handed over many, many questions, but before we go into that, how can one live totally honestly in a modern world becoming more and more complex and 'dangerous' ? What is honesty? Not to have any 'illusions'. The word 'illusion' comes from the (latin) root word 'ludere', to play. We are playing with 'illusions', which have nothing whatsoever to do with ( the 'facts' of ?) our daily life and cannot (intelligently ?) face this 'modern' world, which is fairly corrupt, and immoral, where money and power play an immense part, how can one live now, every day, with total honesty?

To go into that a little bit what is integrity? Integrity is the quality of a brain, or of one's existence, which is holistic, not fragmented. Our lives are fragmented; we 'imagine' something to be true and we triy to live according to that, which has nothing to do with the actual 'fact' ( with what our life really 'is' ? ) . And so there is always a ( multilevel ?) fragmentation going on in our lives. And that partly brings about dishonesty. The 'idealist' is ( psychologically speaking ?) a dishonest man, because he is living according to a 'preconceived' (pattern of ?) of life, which has nothing (or little ?) to do with daily life and so there is ( a subliminal ?) conflict that breeds hypocrisy.

So is it possible to live in this world with total honesty, integrity, a sense of 'doing the right thing' inwardly, to see that one's way of thinking is completely free of ( dealing with ?) illusions ? That requires a tremendous integrity, never saying anything that is not 'true' to yourself. And is it possible to have such ( inner ?) clarity, to see things exactly as they are, to have a clear, sane brain, that is not persuaded (or driven ?) by personal desires, motives and dependence?
As we were saying the other day 'time' is the ( active memory of the ?) past, all that one has accumulated, all the experiences and so on, which is ( creating our 'psychological' ?) background. That ( memory) background is ( subliminally ?) operating now, as you listen to these words you ( instantly ?) translate ( give ?) those words a certain 'meaning' which depends on your past ( experience and ?) knowledge and so on.

So ( what one is doing in ?) the present contains ( the implicit memory of all one's ?) past. And also the 'future', ( what one will be doing ?) 'tomorrow', is contained in the "now". If one is angry for whatever reasons, if ( the inner causation of ?) that anger is not understood and ( terminated ?) put an end to, I will ( very likely ?) get again angry tomorrow. So the "now" contains all time. The future, the past and the present is now. And the "now" is ( psychologically determined by the joint process of ?) "time and thought" - it is a movement, isn't it? From the past, through the present to the future is a constantly ( cyclically repetitive ?) movement. And can one ( meditatively ?) remain in the "now", without any ( mental ?) movement and have this sense of living 'totally' (whole-heartedly ?) in the now, without any movement, either of thought or of action ?
So ( in a nutshell:) integrity, honesty, and a sense of wholeness is a quality of brain in which there is no movement -except the brain's own natural rhythm. This is 'Greek' to you probably. But this is very serious because this constantly 'going round and round' not only makes the brain quite (unperceptive and ?) dull but also it breeds a 'mechanical' ('auto-pilot' ?) way of life which cannot have a deep abiding honesty. So, ( for having this inner ?) integrity or wholeness, one must discover a state of brain in which there is no ( 'thought-time' ?) movement at all. This, of course, is ( an essential ?) part of meditation.

And then, that ( awakened inner state of ?) 'non-movement' has its own action in life; where there is no ( 'thought-time' ?) movement there is a ( sense of ?) wholeness, and from that wholeness there is a (holistic quality of?) action which can never bring about conflict. Right? And if we could work ( it out ?) together, and 'see' this thing, it will radically bring about a fundamental change. For the ( 'programabled' ?) brain has lost its ( original ?) infinite capacity . Look what extraordinary capacity has gone into the technological world - computers, submarines, ( automobiles and ?) aeroplanes, the extraordinary things they are dong. But the brain has directed that tremendous capacity in one ( outward ?) direction, and not (applying it ?) inwardly. You understand? When both of them operating together there is something tremendous .

QUESTION: How can one come to this tent without a motive, a desire to come here, to listen to you, I must have a motive to come here. How does one 'live without motives'?

K: You have probably heard the speaker saying (that the self-centred ?) motives are very destructive, and you are merely repeating what he has said.
So let's find out together what is a 'motive', why we have motives. The ( dictionary ?) meaning of that word 'motive' comes from 'motion', to move. That is one comes to this tent with a 'motive', obviously. That is, the motive is to listen to somebody ( supposedly 'enlightened' ?) . Now, if you are not clear about ( your true ) desire and motive, then you have to enquire what is your intention in coming here. ( It could be ?) to be helped (out ?) from our pain, anxiety, misery, all the terrible things we live with. A motive means the brain has set a direction - right? "I want to understand this man", or criticize and contradict, "Oh, he is a stupid man, he doesn't know what he is talking about." all that is ( pre-) occupying your brain, therefore you are not (openly ?) listening - right? Listening is an art (in itself) , to listen to somebody with all your being, not to interpret what he says. And if you so listen, that is the greatest miracle. Whereas if you have an (open or hidden ?) 'motive' you can't listen - right? As simple as that.

And if one has an (irresistible ?) desire to come here. We don't ask: What is this desire?" I want to come to this tent because I will meet my friends, I haven't seen them for a year. It is a good opportunity for me to meet them, and I ( hope to ?) have a good time. And ( as a bonus ?) the K-talks will be thrown in! (Laughter) That is part of our ( sensory activity of ?) desire. So what is desire? To go into that one must ask: what is 'sensation' and how does it arise? Seeing a beautiful chalet and the lovely view - seeing it brings a 'sensation' (a global sensory response ?) . That's natural. And also then thought says, "I wish I lived in that chalet" . Which is what? ( Our self-centred ?) thought 'giving shape' to (creating an image of oneself living in that comfy ?) sensation. Thought giving an image of 'yourself 'in that house. Right? At that moment when thought brings the image about you in that house, at that second ( a 'personalised' ?) desire is born.

So thought 'shapes' sensation into (personal) desire. Thought creating the 'image' of you driving that car, you owning that picture, or seeing a 'beautiful' man, woman and so on, then thought creates a (desirable ?) image out of that sensation, at that second desire is born. This is quite simple to see and it doesn't require 'tremendous brains'.

But the ( experiential ?) question is: can 'sensation' and thought creating its (personalised ?) image that sensation, be kept apart for a while? You understand? Not immediately take shape. You have understood ? (Usually) there is no ( inwardly perceptive ?) 'interval' between sensation and thought giving shape to that sensation - right? Now is it possible to "keep them apart" for a while? That requires a great (accuity of ?) attention to see sensation and thought immediately taking over, giving a shape to it. To ( meditatively ?) watch the quickness of thought, and to 'slow down' that thought. So in that the slowing down, if one watches it carefully, desire ( finds its right ?) place - right?

Now ( similarly ) we have 'motives': to get rich, to be happy, to fulfil one's life, to identify oneself with something (worthwhile) . And the ( object and direction of our ?) 'motives' is always changing. Therefore 'motive' gives shape to our life - the ( personalised memory of the ?) past is giving shape to our life - right? Therefore we are (getting identified with ?) the ( memories of the ?) past. So we are ( 'psychologically' identified with ?) a whole series of ( 'sensational' ?) memories, a bundle of memories, and that is the self (-consciousness ?) , the ego.
So to break (-free from ?) this ( 'self'-identifying ?) cycle is to understand time. But as having ( these personal) 'motives', has become normal in our life, how can one live without a motive? And we have accepted motives. We never ( meditatively ?) go into this whole question of desire, motive and fulfilment - right? So that brings us to the point, can one 'listen' so completely to another, not only hearing with the ( outer ?) ear, but also hearing with the 'inner ear', as it were so that you are giving total attention. Where there is attention you don't ( need to ?) to have a (personal ?) 'motive' - right?

QUESTION: To begin with, most of us must consciously be attentive, but does this attention become a constant spontaneous state of action?

K: There is a ( personal ?) motive (involved ?) there: how can 'I' maintain this attention continuously. So let's enquire: what is 'attention' and what is 'not being attentive' ?

( First:) what is attention? What is the relationship of attention to ( the common ?) 'awareness'? We are aware of the tent, of the people and so on. (Interfering with ?) that awareness there is ( our personal ?) choice. Are there my friends here ? I wave to the friends and I don't to the others. And in that awareness I say, "She looks quite nice and intelligent. I am surprised she is here" (Laughter) So in that (common ?) awareness there is (involved a selective process of?) choice which prevents total awareness.

Can one be ( passively ?) aware without choice? Try it now as we are talking; to be so completely aware without choice is "attention" - right? Is that clear? If you are ( becoming ?) completely aware that you choose, that you have likes and dislikes, that you have ( a personal ?) motive, that state of ( non-personal ?) awareness is attention - right? That state of attention has no "me" in the middle of it. Choice always has a centre: 'you' choose , whereas if you observe (freely ?) and are aware without choice, that ( non-personal) awareness expands to total attention. In that attention there is no self, there is no 'me' (supervising entity ?)

So, now what is inattention? Is inattention (due to ?) 'distraction'? We are distracted by the noise of the (local ) train, and by various forms of (background ?) distractions. But why do we call it 'distractions'? There is only complete attention or 'not attention'. Would you call ( the state of ?) sleeping inattention? One goes for a walk, looks at all the trees, the mountains, the perfume on a sunny day of the pines, and the running river, the sound of it, that is all attention, if you are attentive. And why should there be "no attention", a ('time out' to ?) relax - you follow? ( Because ?) We want to 'be something' all the time, a continuity of something which we think is right. But that which has 'continuity' is not ( necessarily ?) 'right'. We want the continuity of ( our ) 'happiness', continuity of our 'relationship', continuity of so many, many things, which is what? The (constantly 'refreshed' ?) continuity of (our 'bestest & safest' personal ?) memory - right? And if there is no ( practical possibility for achieving this ?) continuity we feel lost, we feel 'empty'. But...why shouldn't we be empty for a while? Why shouldn't we ( inwardly ?) be ' nothing'? Even for a few minutes. But to us that ( meditative opening looks ) frightening because (all) we 'know' ( is built on the premise of our ?) continuity - right?

So ( to recap:) "attention" has no ( temporal) continuity. There is only attention (or 'no-attention' ?) . When one says "I must be continuously attentive" - then it is a ( 'will & desire' based ?) 'mechanical' process. Attention is something living, not ( the enforced result of ?) a conclusion that 'I must be attentive'. That becomes too childish - right?

QUESTION: Could you tell us something more (specific ?) about this vast Intelligence of which you speak? Is it an untapped capacity within the brain, or is it some 'disembodied force' to which we may become open?

K: Lovely question, isn't it? There is ordinary ( practical) intelligence, isn't there? You wouldn't be here if you hadn't that 'intelligence', would you? You took a train, you came by a car, and so on, which is the exercise of (your practical ?) intelligence to come here because you wanted to come. It is ( the same practical ?) intelligence that has put man on the moon, made the computers, missiles, the neutron bomb, and all the things they are investigating about cancer - you follow? That all requires intelligence. But that 'intelligence' is ( inwardly ?) limited because it is the outcome of ( our self-centred ?) thought - right?

Now, is there a (quality of ?) 'intelligence' which is not limited? How will you probe into this, knowing that thought has created an intelligence which is (intrinsically ?) limited. So is there an intelligence which is not 'additive' (cummulative ?) ?
Is it possible to probe into that ( universal quality of ?) intelligence which is not limited? That intelligence we don't 'know' - right? But how shall we ( experientially ?) come upon it? To enquire into it, I must probe into my own life: Obviously the first thing (to notice) is that ( in a mind ?) where there is conflict there is no ( quality of free ?) intelligence. And if ( become aware that ?) I am in conflict all the time with people, ( or ) with their ideas, theories, opinions, is there an end to this conflict and other (correlated ) problems ? If I see the truth of it, that very ( perception of ?) truth frees the brain from conflict. That is ( the highest ?) Intelligence: seeing the truth of something and let that truth act - right? So, if I see very clearly ( the inner truth that ?) as long as there is conflict in the brain it is not possible to see clearly, that very perception ends conflict - right? Because it is 'so' - ( like seeing that ?) a snake 'is' dangerous. There is no two ways about it. Right?

So ( if inwardly there ) is conflict, what is the root of this conflict? Is there a 'remedy' for it, a (non-dualistic ?) perception that frees the brain from conflict and therefore that brain is now living in quite a ( qualitatively ?) different state - right? And what is that state?
Very briefly : the 'analyser' is not separate from the thing he is analysing. I am analysing myself, suppose that I am 'neurotic', and then I say, "why am I neurotic ?" as though it was something outside of me - right? I am ( feeling) neurotic because the brain is neurotic, my whole being is 'neurotic', it is not I am different from neurosis. So the analyser 'is' the analysed - clear?
The next step: if the experiencer is not different from the experience and (therefore ?) there is no ( more inner) conflict and there is only the fact - right? There is only ( living with actuality of ending that inner state) of conflict. It is a fact: this brain is now without conflict - right? Because one has (diligently ?) looked at it in my relationships there is no conflict - with the woman, the man - right? Then when there is no more conflict in (our) relationship then what is it? Is it not "love"? When there is no conflict between you and me, you understand, there is a 'total' relationship with you and me. That is "love" and where there is love (s)he can do what (s)he wants but there is (a quality of unconditional ?) "love". Where there is love there is "compassion". And where there is love and compassion that is "intelligence". In that ( compassionate ?) Intelligence there is ( the sense of ?) absolute security, not relative security. And that quality intelligence is limitless, it is not 'yours', or 'mine', it is Intelligence. Yes sirs. That ( quality of intelligent ?) "love" may be for one or for the many, it is still "love". Where there is love there is no hate, there is no enemity. So that is intelligence. You can't talk endlessly about it unless you do it.

If you want to go into it much deeper , have you ever looked at a drum? A drum is tuned to its 'highest excellence' and when you strike on it, it gives the right note. So ( similarly when ) the brain when it is ( universally ?) tuned (-in) it gives the "right note", the right response. And it is not ( properly ?) tuned, like when the drum is not, when it is ( indulging ?) in conflict, it is "slack".

So to have the brain ( inwardly ?) "tuned". Not 'you' tune the brain, because 'you' are part of the brain. So is it possible, like the ( empty ?) drum to have the brain so tuned at its highest excellence that it gives the 'right note' all the time ? Yes sirs.

QUESTION: Why do the teachings you put forth have so little effect on us?

K: (Laughter) Why do the so-called (K) 'teachings' have so little effect on us? Many people have asked this question of the speaker. And the speaker says to you: why ( words of ?) truth have so little effect on you, on us, why? One can give a dozen reasons : ( psychological inertia ?) 'laziness', indifference, weariness, boredom, holding onto one's habits, being ( comfortably ?) 'conditioned', and saying 'It is awfully difficult to get rid of conditioning, what am I to do about it, tell me more about it, and so on" . You are never asking this question of yourself: why some of you who have listened to the speaker for years and years and years, why have you not changed?

The speaker is now 'reversing the table' on to you. He is challenging you - but that challenge is respectful, not impudent. So he says: why have you not, having read books , watched videos and all the 'bla', why have you not changed? Will more ( accumulations of ?) suffering 'help' you to change? We have suffered for a million years, a thousand years, or one day of suffering is enough. So will suffering help you ? Obviously not - right? More pressure? Obviously not, you have had tremendous pressures, 'hell and heaven' - threats. That has not changed us. Wiser leaders, better gurus , what will make us change? Nothing, except your own ( insightful ?) perception - right? Nothing from the outside can ever change us. If you do not rely on the outer then you have to rely entirely on yourself- which doesn't means you become more selfish, but on the contrary this demands great responsibility - you understand? That you are totally responsible for yourself whatever you do. It is no good blaming an 'ugly' (unjust ?) society, so I am caught in society - you follow? This demands that you 'work'. Realize how much we all work (outwardly) , but we don't ( put to ?) work even an infinitesimal amount of that energy inwardly. And (therefre inwardly ) we have become feeble, irresponsible. So we don't change because we don't ( really ?) want to - simply. If you want to do something you 'do it'.
Sirs, there are no questions at all, and therefore no answers. "You" are the problem. One is caught in this ( self-made inner ?) 'prison' and your work - to observe and all the rest of it- must come ( both ?) from your 'heart' and your 'mind', then you are a total human being, free. Where there is freedom there is no fear. And when there is freedom you don't need any ( man-made ?) 'god'. Right sirs ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 18 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 17 Mar 2016 #188
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
K here for me is describing what I call bliss,the other process, the deep bliss

Quite right, Dan, and it all seems quite 'logical'- since there is this sense of an integrated wholeness, why would one need 'stronger' challenges or experiences- like climbing the Everest and so on ?
But the reverse is also true- if one does not have 'that' , then of course one feels the need to create for oneself challenges that are worthwhile, and unfortunatelly, most of the planetary media are saturated with them- both with the 'successful' ones and with those that 'go bad'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #189
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Quite right, Dan, and it all seems quite 'logical'- since there is this sense of an integrated wholeness, why would one need 'stronger' challenges or experiences- like climbing the Everest and so on ?

when this "wholeness" is present, there is no thought of experiences issues from desires containing a craving for some absolute of some sort, because this is what takes place in such moments, wholeness or whatever word used to mention the blissful presence and state of the mind , is absolute contentment, but not the one that thought is capable to imagine at all....we clearly have two dimensions here, say my own moments.

John Raica wrote:
But the reverse is also true- if one does not have 'that' , then of course one feels the need to create for oneself challenges that are worthwhile, and unfortunately, most of the planetary media are saturated with them- both with the 'successful' ones and with those that 'go bad'

Well sort of yes, what happens it seems to me is that having no predator, thought goes wild and cuckoo, it is clearly not able for life as a whole....etc...then we enter here into the knowledge of one's own thought, which for me cannot at all be a fact by using thought...my moments say that too..

Richard and yourself, some other too I guess are mentioning this, (for me), still mysterious meditation, yet I understand what you both mean by that, what k meant too..

Because all our words are possibly interesting, but does this bring anything which is not of thought, so not of war ??I am not asking you, it is a general thinking on that..no need for any straight answer as usual.

If I take mine (words), yes it had effects on me ,still has and on my children too, last crisis is over as such and has led to a plan for the 17 years old, good one for me too as it will lead him to live to Spain where my small deserted place is to be found when I need to be all alone, if this can happen... one more will come but we'll see then.. I do not try to widen all that, for me it is not a time for such "thing"..

However as an entertainer with kids and children I am just totally useless....

As you know and say sometimes, for the global well........?? The human adventure still makes non sense at all ...

Going now for a rereading of last k words posted here..thanks

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #190
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
That requires a tremendous integrity, never saying anything that is not 'true' to yourself. And is it possible to have such ( inner ?) clarity, to see things exactly as they are, to have a clear, sane brain, that is not persuaded (or driven ?) by personal desires, motives and dependence?

thought cannot do that at all for me, eventually in practical matters it could, yet even there my opinion and success is what matters too........what is he talking about so without mentioning , if this is not about thought ??..of course this may be wrong, but the thing is vital to know...

John Raica wrote:
So, ( for having this inner ?) integrity or wholeness, one must discover a state of brain in which there is no ( 'thought-time' ?) movement at all. This, of course, is ( an essential ?) part of meditation.

when he says that, he talks from his own experience and knows? that there is such state as he had lived it (living it )...but when talking to someone who has not lived that...this is Greek as he mentions somewhere in this same talk..

John Raica wrote:
if you so listen, that is the greatest miracle....

again the usual so called me is now going to believe that he can transform itself....great danger here there is as another goal more fantastic is now set to be launched.

John Raica wrote:
And if one has an (irresistible ?) desire to come here. We don't ask: What is this desire?" I want to come to this tent because I will meet my friends, I haven't seen them for a year. It is a good opportunity for me to meet them, and I ( hope to ?) have a good time. And the K-talks will be thrown in! (Laughter) That is part of our desire. So what is desire? To go into that one must ask: what is 'sensation' and how does it arise? Seeing a beautiful chalet and the lovely view - seeing it brings a 'sensation'. That's natural. And also then thought says, "I wish I lived in that chalet" . Which is what? thought 'giving shape' to sensation. Thought giving an image of 'yourself 'in that house. Right? At that moment when thought brings the image about you in that house, at that second desire is born.

Long ago I fall in this k's trap to go on the analytical trekking side,that was a personal disaster....we could have the same dialogue with any expensive psycho blah blah is not it? cutting wood into small pieces forever..

there is no trigger here in such dialogue...no trigger for a shock leading to something not born of thought-desire-memory etc this being the very same bunch of thought program..

what is left? meditation, so it seems needed to say more about that....I do not mention my own perhaps useless approach you know for now, as apart from close people when they are in trouble , it does not speak, which for me as such is fine....

So k words can well be ONLY taken analytically leading to more troubles...?????

Well is all that not turning round in circles most of the time if not all the time, talking for me here ..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 18 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #191
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

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

Hello again John, I am just kind of keeping up to date with some post here...that one was some time ago ...

I want to say something here, personal from experience,as we all do in fact,yet experience is often replaced by opinions, analytical guesses, I do it of course often, not all the time ..this usually bothers people then we fight etc, but not here with you as "we" have created some sort of space where this is fine..

when the bliss is there, the "big huge one" if one can give and say such stupid evaluation not finding some proper words to say it as it should be, when it is there so the looking at EVERYTHING is entirely different BY ITSELF....it works on its own...

it is practically as if anything is invading your body mind....when for thought thought is trying to invade anything as a I...those are to entirely different movements I see.

Thought in its right place, comparison is gone, there is no value system, no hierarchy, no better etc...peace is down to earth then.. there is no more quest , no craving, no desire, no fear etc...with or without thought, those two lives have absolutely nothing in common when it comes to the state of mind, nothing.

If as someone who have not lived such moment, I take the looking at the tree analytically...well good luck to everyone then..I think that this is one problem I personally encounter with k ways of trying to convey....it can be for me only taken analytically without realising it..

Mind you, the analytical is for me the vital process which is going to light the spark somehow, but this drives us back to my own view on that....6 years of it may be enough..however no analysing = no living creatures...no k no John, no Dan etc

I admit that this can be wrong, but I am not willing to look at a tree like k suggests it here...I have done long ago, and again well.....

I am realising that without mentioning my pet topic, well.....I may stop writing in fact...

How bad...

really thanks for this space here John..

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #192
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

when the bliss is there, the "big huge one" if one can give and say such stupid evaluation not finding some proper words to say it as it should be, when it is there so the looking at EVERYTHING is entirely different BY ITSELF....it works on its own...

No doubts about that, Dan, but what if that blissful state is not around anymore ? It happened even to better people than you and I...
So, basically it may well mean that we have to go 'back to school'.
This 'school of self-knowing' is unfortunately not located anywhere outside ourselves- so I guess that we're all here to learn what exactly we have missed up to now, both individually and as a species

Yes John ,that was secretly implied in what I was mentioning...not to forget that k speaks from bliss or recalling such moments to try to convey something, by all means really, well I think so

John Raica wrote:
. The hidden difficulty is that what we have actually failed to take into account was the 'accumulative' tendency of our material brain- for which 'more is better' ( as in the snowballing 'Donald Trump' mentality ! ) . So it was a quite elementary misstep from the very beginnings of our civilisation. Now, to trace it back in our own mind & brain is all the question. And as you seem to agree, the 'analytical' process simply cannot work (since it has the same cumulative process embedded) .

Well I do not know about D Trump mentality , I have stopped broadly and seriously inquiring about politics,economy, history and so on, yet so much more aware than most ,not a pride, a simple fact.

For the rest of it yes agreed...

John Raica wrote:
So, we have a large majority of those who really 'don't care', a self-selected minority of those who 'pretend to care'...but for a price... And all of a sudden we realise that we're literally on our own ! In which case one is either in a 'blissful condition' or...without it. Not too much choice, is it ? Anyway, if you care to check out the third Saanen 84 Q&A's which I've just completed , a global perception seems definitely possible, given that we the right amount of 'quality' work that we're disposed to put into it.

On our own yes. That is fine. But does not bring anything right away, it is just a fact, well, just writing that brought that any fact brings something as it wishes is not it?

You asked: "not too much choice" ? no not too much choice!

Not now as today is gardening day starting now , but out of much interest I will read the third Saanen 84 Q&A.....usually I do that early in the morning...I am the first on the bridge at home and this is my time for me...

talk to you soon then....

cheers

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 18 Mar 2016 #193
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 123 posts in this forum Offline

Hi,

My two cents on the "Trump Phenomena' here in the States...So many people here have lost jobs, houses, pensions etc from the shenanigans of the bankers, who are not held to account for their deeds. And problems of the growing inequity of wealth that also go unaddressed by politicians who get huge donations from the wealthy to maintain the status quo. Trump's stridency suits their mood better than the same old empty promises that never materialize from the career politicians. People want change and Trump certainly won't give it to them but as long as he keeps yelling, name-calling, promising them a "better country" a lot of them will go along just to see what ,if anything, happens.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Mar 2016 #194
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

BROCKWOOD PARK 1ST PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 1984 (condensed)

Before we go into these questions we ought to talk over together if we can ask a question or face a problem from an ( inwardly ?) 'integrated' outlook. You understand what I mean? Most of us are ( living a compartmentalised ?) fragmented, ( existence) - family life, bussiness life, religious life and so on and so on. And can we face a problem from a wholly different outlook, which is not fragmented at all?
Can we ask any question, or face any problem "holistically", from a point of total integration, integrity and ask questions.
Is it possible to meet a problem ( anew) without ( the interference of our old ?) brain that is already conditioned to 'solve' problems? Do you understand my question? You don't understand it. Neither do I for the moment! (Laughter)

So let's look at it. We go to school, very young, almost five, where all children are faced with a (huge education ?) 'problem' - mathematical problems, how to write, how to read, so from childhood our brain is conditioned to solving problems. Then one goes to college, there are again problems. And university, jobs, various functions, vocations and so on, problem after problem. Our brain is full of problems - right? And from a ( specialised ?) brain that is conditioned to 'solve' problems, we are always seeking a solution to ( our existential ?) problems - right? Now how can the brain solve ( these) problems if it is not free from ( its existing ?) problems?
And as the brain is conditioned to this problem (solving attitude ?) it is not ( taking time for ?) understanding the problem itself but ( tries to find ?) the 'solution' of the problem - right? So, is it because a conditioned brain, which is embedded in ( many material ?) problems can never solve ( the existential ?) problems? Isn't there a ( qualitative ?) difference between the 'solution' of problems and the ( holistic ?) understanding of the problem? In the ( global) understanding of the problem the solution may ( be found in dealing directly with ?) the problem itself: we all suffer we all have pain and anxiety, boredom, loneliness, despair. We don't tackle that but we want to 'solve' the problems that seem to have external causes - right?

The right ( experiential ?) answer can only be when we realise that as long as the brain is conditioned to a 'problem solving' (attitude ?) we will never find the right answer. So do I recognize this ( inner ) 'fact' that my brain is conditioned to solve problems ? Can you and I see the truth of it and not move away from that ? The ($$$ ?) psychiatrists, psychotherapists, ( personal coaches ?) and so on, are multiplying in the ('free' ?) world, like mushrooms. And they are not solving ( the root causes of our?) problems.

So we should consider together what is the "art of living". We have the art of poetry, painting, the art of ( TV ?) cooking, specially now, and so on. But we have never asked ourselves what is the art of living? Is there such an art? Or is it all just a ( matter of ?) biological chance ? If you are asked this question, what is the art of living, what would be your answer?
Obviously ( living a life without any inner?) conflict whatsoever - right? And as long as self-centredness exists there must be conflict because self-centredness is limited, small, petty. You may say that is not possible in this modern (brutally competitive ?) society to live without self-centrednes; but have you ever tried? Have you ever lived without self-centredness just even for an hour, and see what happens ? So if one can do it and see what happens, you can ( eventually) extend it. And it gives you a great sense of energy and passion to pursue something profoundly to the very end of things.

I haven't read these questions - this is the first time I am looking at them. So you are also looking at them for the first time.

QUESTION: What is attention if it has nothing to do with thought? Is it an activity of the brain? Is it a physical process? How does it come into being? You say we cannot bring about attention by an act of will? What must one not do in order to allow this attention to exist?

K: Do nothing! Sorry, I ( still) must answer it...
How does this attention come about? Can it come naturally, easily, without being 'trained' ? We are going to look at the ( implications of this ?) question, not (offering a ready made ?) answer. What is implied in ( the act of) "attention"? Not only the hearing of the ear but ( an inward listening ?) 'hearing' without the ear. And also attention implies seeing, perceiving visually, but also a seeing with the "inner eye", as it were - right? And also attention also implies learning - right? Seeing, hearing, and learning. Those three things are implied (in the act of attention) .

What is this ( inner) learning ? Is there a 'learning' that is not an accumulative process of knowledge ? In this ( knowledge-free ?) learning is implied (a quality of holistic ?) 'hearing', not only the words, the significance of the words, your reactions to the words, and also an (inner quality of ?) 'seeing' without the (cultural interference of the ?) words, without direction, without motive, without the "network of thought" blocking the seeing. Then learning is a limitless process. So "attention" implies all that, but ( experientially ?) the beginning of it is "being aware" - right? Are we ( non-personally ?) aware as we sit here, the extent of this tent, the great number of people accumulated here, and to look at all that without a single word. To be ( passively ?) aware. But in that awareness 'you' begin to choose: 'I' like that blue shirt better than what "I" am wearing - constantly comparing, judging, evaluating, which is ( my personal ?) choice; rather than (simply) being 'aware' - as we are talking will you do all this? If yes, then you begin to discover ( that this ) 'awareness' is entirely different from a ( mental) concentration. Concentration implies focusing all ( one's self-centred ?) thought on a particular subject and building up a resistance to every other thought, which then becomes narrow, limited - right?

So ( start with this ?) "awareness without ( 'personal' ?) choice", and from that move to a (quality of holistic ?) attention, which is ( coming ) naturallly . That is, you are telling me something very, very serious I am so eager, so attentive to understand ( the actual truth behind ?) what you are saying. Therefore 'I am all attention' - all my nerves, my whole being says "I want to understand what are you talking about" . In that attention there is no "me" (no self-interest involved ?) - which means all your energy is given to understand what you are saying, I am not thinking about myself, therefore there is no centre in me that says "I must attend" - right? I wonder if you get all this?

QUESTION: If the whole of life is one movement, with its own order, why is man so disorderly?

K: What is the cause of disorder in our life? First of all we must admit, whether we like it or not, that we live a very, very disordered ( careless inner ?) life. That is a fact, isn't it ? And how can a brain, which is so disorderly find out what is order? We have to go into this carefully. First let us enquire what is the cause of this disorder. If one can understand that and be free of that cause there is naturally order. First we have to enquire why this ( total lack of inward ?) discipline - in the schools, in our whole way of life, and what is discipline? The word 'discipline' comes from the root 'disciple'- one who is learning- so if you are ( inwardly ?) learning in the sense we are talking about, without accumulation then the very learning is (bringing ?) its own discipline - you understand?

Audience: I still don't understand what this 'learning' is because if one watches one's thoughts surely one is watching with one's thoughts. So I don't quite understand how you use 'learning'.

K: I have tried to explain it: first of all do we see the 'fact' that the knowledge we have accumulating all our life is very limited ? And therefore if we our action is ( based ) on that ( self-centred ?) knowledge it will always be limited and must produce disorder. That is, if the wife or the husband is ( constantly ?) thinking about her/his (personal) ambitions, progress, self- fulfilment, and the other man or the woman is also thinking of his/her (personal) progress - right? - they are ( eventually getting ?) in conflict obviously.

So we are beginning to discover that disorder comes where there is ( 'self'- ?) limitation. So we begin to learn, to have an "insight" - we are using the word 'insight' which is to observe something without ( the intervention of "thought and ?) time", without motive. To have instant insight into ( the nature of our inner ?) disorder, which is ultimately (the result of ) any ( self-) limiting action. Are we getting together on this a little bit? A fraction? And if it is a fraction, keep it and move with it, then you will see this (insight) begins to break up the self-centred process of living.

QUESTION: How can our listening be 'adequate' to the depth of what you are saying? What is the quality of mind that will allow the fullness of what you are saying to act in us?

K: The speaker is saying something which you yourself have not ( yet ?) discovered. He is merely acting as a ( psychological) "mirror" in which you, by listening, (may 'see' or ) discover for yourself. And if you are ( interactively ?) listening to what he is saying (as for instance:) "What do I feel ( regarding) what he is saying, or what is my reaction to what he is saying?", then there is a ( 2-way) communication between what ( the truth content of what ?) he is saying and yourself. ( An insightful ?) communication implies listening to what he is saying, to discover your (personal) reactions to what he is saying, and your ( active ?) response to his ( implied ?) subtleties, we are then "moving together". Then ( whatever you discover) it is "yours" not his. I wonder if you understand ?

Audience: No, you...

K: Please Madam, take a little time with what I am saying. Don't respond immediately, but see ( whether there is any significance in ?) what he is saying. First of all, he says he is not your 'guru' and you are not 'his disciples' ( supposed) to "live (according to ?) what he is talking about". What he is saying is not about your own deep undiscovered life - he is talking about your daily, monotonous, boredom, tiresome, fearful, sorrowful, lonely life. The violence, the chicanery, the dishonesty, the lack of integrity. Where there is integrity there is strength. Then you can stand by yourself. Then nothing affects you, then you are not influenced by anybody because you are then discovering what is true for yourself. Not according to you, or according to somebody else - a truth, which is not his, or yours, but something entirely outside the activity of the brain.

So we are together finding what is "truth". We are together finding out what is the art of living, what is the ( right) way to listen, what is the way to learn, what is the way of seeing. And if you "see" it, it is yours, then you need no guru, no leader, no book - you understand? We are now living on other people's knowledge. We have no insight into ourself, into our own existence.

QUESTION: Is there such a thing as 'good' or 'evil' in the world, or are these human concepts, values, projections?

K: What is the "good"? Try to look at it for a minute. What is your instinctive feeling to that word? And when you say the "bad", what is your response to it? A repulsion? So ( the first thing ?) to discover for oneself is our own reaction to these two words. Is the good related to the bad? If goodness is born out of that which is ( was ?) bad it is not 'good' - right? So they are two entirely different things, the one cannot become the other. Goodness is something totally divorced from that which is bad, but ( for ethical and moral purposes ?) we have mixed the two together and we say we must fight, or put away the 'bad' (qualities) in order to be (socially recognised as ?) "good" - you understand? So the goodness is always ( measured ?) in terms of the bad. And we are saying something entirely different. Goodness has no relationship whatsoever with that which is bad. For the goodness to exist the "bad" (qualities ?) must cease. That's all.

Now to come very near ( to our 'inner' ?) home: in us there are ( co-existing) these two opposing elements, this duality. Duality of aspiring for ( becoming ) something (better?), but ( the authentic inner ?) "goodness" cannot coexist with that which is bad. From the 'bad' you cannot possibly go to the Good. ( The transition ) is not a movement from 'this' to 'that'. It is not a process of time, going from that which is "bad" to achieve that which is "good" - right?
Now the question arises: what is 'bad'? You understand? I will know what is good only when that which is bad is not. Is it bad to be 'nationalistic'?

Audience: It might not be to some, but ( it may be ?) to us.

K: We are including all of us Sir, what is 'bad' ( potentially harmful ?), not according to me or according to somebody else. As long as there is ( the sense of 'divisiveness' ?) racial division, class division, religious division, those divisions ultimately will create conflict and war . Isn't that 'bad'?

Audience: Yes, yes.

K: Can't we be free of all that ( sense of divisiveness ?) first? Not belonging to any group, to any guru, to any religious organization because they are all divisive. That brings about another question: authority. Political authority, religious authority, the totalitarian authority - you understand? There is (the need for some ?) authority outwardly - keeping to the left side of the road (in UK) , or keeping to the right side in France and Europe. And there must be ( some respect for ?) authority in a school, in a college, but we are talking about ( the 'psychological' ?) authority in the deepest sense of that word is bad, is evil.

So, the 'bad' we said is ( implicit in ?) any kind of division. The division that says "We are a closed (self-selected community ?) , you can't come in here" - it all comes down to any form of 'individualistic' division - any 'organizational' division in the 'psychological) sense of that word. That's 'bad' (on the 'wrong' side of spirituality ?) . And can one be free of all this (self-enclosing tendency ?) ? Can't we end all that in ourselves first, in not the 'organizational' thing ?

You know that ( 'educational' ?) story which the speaker invented forty or fifty years ago ? There were two men were walking along on a street talking about various things of life. And one of them sees something on the pavement, picks it up. The moment he looks at it, his whole face changes, something tremendous has taken place in him. And he puts it in his pocket very carefully, in his inner pocket. And the friend says to him, "What is it you have picked up? Why have you become so extraordinarily... your face has changed." He said, "I have picked up truth". And his friend says, "By Jove, is that really so? I can see by how you look. So what shall we do about it? Let's go and 'organize' it".

So can we begin with ourselves first and (put an ) end (to) this division in ourselves? Then you can use organisations - you understand? But if you use oganizations to change the 'inner' you will never succeed.
So can we, each of us, put away anything that divides us from another? Of course you must have your own house, but 'psychologically', 'inwardly', 'subjectivel'y. Then you don't ( even ) have to search for the Good. Then ( the inward spirit of ?) Goodness flowers and the beauty of that Goodness is endless. It never can be destroyed by anything.

(Recap:) So ( for this inward flowering to happen ?) we must begin with ourselves, to penetrate this 'sheathe', this outward appearance, the (daily) outward show, to go deeply inwards, that journey (of learning ?) is endless, it has got such extraordinary beauty.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 20 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Mar 2016 #195
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 123 posts in this forum Offline

Hi John,
After reflecting a bit on K.'s phrase the "art of living", what one would have thought would be obvious, but I admit never occurred to me is that the 'logical' place to address certain divisive behaviors that we all share would be in the formative years of the young child. I was recently sent a video of a birthday party that my four year old granddaughter was part of and as the different children opened cards that were sent to them, I could see the worry on her face as other children opened their cards, that theirs would be prettier than the one she had received...'envy', something we all know, and would know all through our lives. Here it was beginning in this child's young brain and without it and all the other conflicts: fear, dependance, loneliness, depression, greed, boredom, etc., being addressed, and helping the child to 'understand' them in the right way, in school and at home, they would continue on through her life.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sun, 20 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Mar 2016 #196
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 12 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
. . . I could see the worry on her face as other children opened their cards, that theirs would be prettier than the one she had received...envy, something we all know, and would know all through our lives and here it was beginning in this child's young brain and without it and all the other conflicts: fear, dependance, loneliness, depression, greed being addressed in school and at home, they would continue on through her life.

That was a good observation, Dan.

Yes, the self -- and at such an early age! No teacher or parent to explain to her. Thousands of years of "me" and "mine" behind that show of envy. And there will be more of the "me" for the rest of her life, with the "me" growing stronger with each passing day.

Welcome, little girl, to the world we have created for you.

max

This post was last updated by max greene Sun, 20 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 21 Mar 2016 #197
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

BROCKWOOD PARK 2ND PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 1984 (condensed)

K: Before we begin to enquire into the questions, we should talk over together what is 'peace' and its relationship to 'intelligence'. What does it mean to live together peacefully? Apparently this is one of the most difficult thing in the world. One heard the other day about a man who was very good at writing, literary, he was doing quite well, newspapers, magazines and all the rest of it, and he gave up all that one day and he went off to some kind of ashrama that a guru collects round himself. And there what do you think he is doing? Pulling old nails out of old pieces of wood and he is 'perfectly happy and living peacefully', he says. Is that 'peace'? To forget any kind of (human) responsibility, put aside any kind of relationship with another and (vanish) into a 'community', or enter into a monastery ?

I am sure one has asked this question of oneself: to live completely peacefully in relationship to others, and not isolate oneself, that is fairly simple but also it has its own ( psychological ?) 'dangers': that you become more and more self-centred, or commit yourself to some symbol, a figure, or to some doctrinary concept, and devote all one's energy to that, keeping that to oneself and ( happily ?) working in a garden. And, as one is living in a world that is monstrously divisive, with every form of brutality, where does one find peace? Can a group of people live together peacefully? Does one look (to a 'happy community' ?) for (finding inner) peace? Or does one ( have the inner responsability to ?) bring about this peace? You understand? Does "peace" lie externally, or does one really want (to create this ?) peace?

So can one ( first ?) bring about peace within oneself living in this (pretty troubled ?) world? Can we wait ( spend ?) a few minutes for that? To "live in peace" implies no act of ( self-) divisiveness, and is that possible not only for oneself but living with a group of people. The speaker has been living for over sixty years with a group of people. In India, in America, here. And there there is always contention, always dissension, opinion against opinion, why shouldn't I think this way, you think your way, and so on. This process has been going on, not only now, always perhaps. And one wonders if it is at all possible to create "peace"- in your house, perhaps four of you, or two of you, in a family? Does one really want to live in peace? And if one does, what (psychological ?) 'price' do you pay for it? It is only in ( living in ?) peace that one can really flower, so, what will you do, what will you put aside ? It is very easy to say, "Yes, I am willing to live in peace. I will join your little community, or I will follow a guru and come and live (happily ?) in that community". that is very easy but... rather slack, indifferent to what is happening to the rest of the world. It is a form of ( self-) exclusiveness, an exclusive way of looking at life .

So we come to the point that if one wants really ( to find ?) peace in oneself and in one's family, or in one's group of people, this requires to be highly sensitive (and open ?) to nature, to other people's way of looking, their difficulties, which requires an enormous sense of yielding and watching, and observing, seeing what the other is: he may be brutal, he may be insensitive but help him to be sensitive, help him not to be... you follow? It is a constant sense of ( interactive ?) 'movement', not taking a stand at any time.
(Is that at all possible? Not only in a family, but in a group of people, like in this ('K' ?) school here and we are having a lot of trouble (brewing ?) there too. So this is a great ( unsolved ?) problem not only for those who are responsible here at the school at Brockwood but also responsible to ourselves and to our environment, to the way we live. Because ( creating a authentic spirit of cooperation and ?) peace requires a great deal of intelligence. You can't just say, "I must live peacefully. I must leave this place where there is conflict." and go somewhere else where there is no conflict. Such a place (simply) doesn't exist ( yet ?) .
So one has to enquire also what is this ( inward quality of ?) intelligence? Because to have that (inward ?) quality of peace which is unshakable, which has no shadow of disturbance in it, requires great intelligence. So we must ask ourselves: what is that intelligence? Is that intelligence the outcome of ( our self-centred ?) thought? Thought with its ( self-imposed ?) limitation has a certain quality of intelligence, otherwise we wouldn't be here. You need intelligence to travel, or to go to the moon, also the scientist, or surgeon, to operate requires great skill, requires some form of ( practical ?) intelligence- born of knowledge, born of experience, accumulated skills with their high discipline. But thought being (inwardly ?) limited, can it bring about peace? Or has this ( time-free ?) Intelligence nothing whatsoever to do with the activity of thought? Is there ( in ourselves ?) an intelligence which is not limited? One must ask (oneself) these questions if one wants ( to live in ?) peace: Can there be peace without love, or without a sense of compassion? And where does one find this intelligence, or come upon it? One cannot possibly ( thoughtfully ?) 'cultivate' that ( universal ?) intelligence. You can 'cultivate' the limited intelligence in the world of science, biology, mathematics, art , that can be cultivated carefully, day after day, until you have that extraordinary skill. But is compassion, with its extraordinary intelligence 'cultivable'? And as it is not, you cannot cultivate 'love' - right? So, if you want to live peacefully, deeply, without a single shadow of conflict between each other, what shall we 'do', or 'not do'? (Meditative clue: ) One has to go really very deeply into the question of desire, and the whole problem of pain and sorrow and death and meditation. So the speaker had better pick up the ( chosen) questions!

QUESTION: You spoke last time about Goodness. But I am still not quite clear whether the quality of goodness or evil is outside - is an outside agency, or force existing in the world, or only a projection of our thinking.

K: There have been wars for thousands upon thousands of years. There has been killing of human beings by the million and that killing has created an immense "sorrow". Is that ( collective reservoir of ?) sorrow ( really ?) separated from us? ( Not to mention that ?) we have our own sorrow, our own pain, our own anxiety, our own sense of 'goodness' and 'badness'. And as the questioner asks: is our sense of the 'good' and the 'bad' just our projection, our prejudice,? Or is there a 'Goodness' which separate altogether from human endeavour, human existence?
This is a very serious question this. It is not just a flippant question. People have talked about Goodness for many years. Aristotle, I believe, talked about it, Plato and the ancient Hindus. And still before them there was somebody else talking about it, enquiring. The same ( perrenial inquiry ?) as we are doing now. There are (still some 'bad' ?) people in the world, like the terrorists, the 'great conquerors' of the world from Ghengis Khan, Napoleon (and so on) . And there have ( always ?) been a great many ( anonymous ?) people who pursued Goodness, they were not famous people, they were people who said, "I will live a good life." And they have pursued that and the building up (reservoir ?) of that Goodness, though those people have died and gone, must exist (in our shared Consciousness ?) . Haven't you found when you entered a ( deserted ?) house one can feel if there have been quarrels in the house, there has been violence, there has been perpetual conflict in that house. One can 'feel' it. So it is also 'outside' - right? So there is a 'goodness' and also that which is called 'evil' , exists in the world apart from our own (personal ?) contribution to it. One can (eventually) become highly sensitive to all that and put an end to our (share of self-created ?) conflicts, divisions. But this requires a very careful ( inward ?) observation, perception of oneself, perception of one's own activities, behaviour.
( In a nutshell: ) Either one contributes to Goodness or to the so-called 'bad'.

QUESTION: Do your schools, here, or elsewhere, give the students an understanding of the total human problem, the immensity of human life and its possibilities?

K: The question has been put to the speaker (personally) , so take a rest! (Laughter) First of all the "speaker" helped ( to create these schools ?) in various countries, in India there are five schools and there are going to be other schools, and there is one school here at Brockwood, and one in California, at Ojai. They are not the "speaker"'s schools. They are the schools where not only the speaker and others have helped to bring it about. I know that K's name is used but it is not his 'personal' school. All these schools in different parts of the world come together with hundreds of people working for it. Their teachers, educators are human beings like you and me with their own "personal" problems, their own difficulties, and (on the side ?) the students come already conditioned by their parents, by their neighbours, by other children. And the teachers are also ( culturaly ?) "conditioned", unfortunately.

And you are asking a question if these schools are (bringing to the students) an understanding of the immensity of human existence and its vast possibilities. First of all, do the parents ( really ?) want this? Generally the ( paying ?) parents want their children to have some kind of degree, so that they can get a good job, settle down, marry, have children and carry on. And ( some of ?) these children do feel certain responsibility towards their parents, so, especially in the Asiatic world, they conform.
But in California, or here (UK) - some of the parents don't really care whether they pass examinations or not, so long as they relieved of their ( difficult ?) children. They send them off to boarding houses - you know all that - in England too. And they hardly have any ( direct) relationship with their children except in the summer holidays, or winter holidays. So the (workload of ?) 'responsibility' for the educator becomes immense. And to help them to understand the immensity of human life, the vastness of existence, not only one's own personal existence the nature, the animals, the whole universe, requires not only a capable mind, brain and enquiring into that, but also ( the ability of ?) teaching a particular subject - you understand? Because as society is (organised) now if you are a good engineer you get a better, good job. And the students also wants a 'good job', they don't want to become a salesperson in a shop. So their whole 'concentration' (main concern ?) is to getting a good degree, A level, O level and all the rest of it. And (also) there is the ( mentality ?) pressure of a society which you all have created.

And ( not in the least ?) the 'educator' needs educating, as the 'parents' need educating, so do the students. It is a process of living, working, co-operating, feeling together, which requires a great deal of ( good will and ?) energy.

QUESTION: Would you enlarge on what you mean by saying that "the future is now"? Is it that the seeds of the future are contained in the present? Or that the future already fully exists on a different time scale?

K: This is a very complicated question. Apart from the theories which the scientists have about 'time' as ( being a ) 'series of movements' and so on, apart from the demand that our own future be comfortable, safe and happy and all the rest of it, what is "time"?

You can see "time" as ( associated to ? ) a movement from point (A) to point ( B) - right? To go from here to your house there is a distance to be covered which will take 'time'. That's obvious.

But also ( the inward sense of continuity in ?) 'time' is ( generated by ?) the whole movement of past - right? - in which is implied all the accumulated traditions handed down from one generation to another - their knowledge, their books, etc. We 'are' (psychologically speaking this movement of ?) the past, a "bundle of ( personal and collective ?) memories", whether you like it or not. Without those memories, pleasant or unpleasant the "self (-consciousness" ?) would not exist.

So we are, each one of us (is having a 'psychological' existence based on ?) memories. Which is, ( an existence based on ?) the whole process of accumulation of knowledge, responses, reactions, judgements, condemnations, acceptance, and so on, this whole process which (our species' evolution ?) has brought about, not only biologically, subjectively, is what we are now. After forty, fifty thousand years, all those centuries, that vast sense (of continuity in ?) time, is ( ongoing ?) now. And that is also the future if there is no break. That's simple surely.

A very simple example: tribalism has existed from the beginning of time; the whole (cultural) accumulation of a group, or a tribe, or a nation, is the past. And after fifty thousand years of (homo-sapiens ?) existence on this marvellous earth, psychologically, inwardly, we are still very, very, very primitive - right?. You may pick up a telephone and talk to the other end of the world but what you say is still rather 'primitive'. "Darling how are you?" It is the same process that has been going on, much more difficult to achieve in past centuries, now it can be done in a second.

So ( psychologically speaking ?) the past is now, is ( embedded in?) what we are now after forty thousand years (of our species' evolution ?)
You understand ? - ( our long evolution in ?) time has not changed us (inwardly) - right? Be honest to oneself. We have made incredible progress technologically, but inwardly- at the core- we are still 'primitive' - right?
So, please listen: time has not changed us. Our ( safety oriented ?) evolution has not changed the ( core of our ?) 'psyche'. On the contrary it is making it more and more strong. The 'psyche' being the (subliminal identification with the ?) whole accumulation of memories - racial, national, tribal, religious divisions. After all this ( cultural ?) 'evolution' we are still primitive.
(Inwardly ) 'time' ( repeating the cultural patterns of our past ?) is going on. Time is a movement. So our 'future' is ( determined by ?) what we are now - right? We will (still) have wars, hate each other, compete with each other, seeking sexual fulfilment, or different forms of fulfilment. So the 'future' is co-present ?) now, not just the 'seeds' of it, the (inward ) actuality of it.

Is it possible to radically change all that? Not allowing ( inwardly the mentality of ?) 'time' at all - you understand? ( The inner mentality based on ?) 'time' has not changed us, evolution has not changed us, suffering has not changed us.

If one looks to 'time', to 'tomorrow', to bring about a ( sensible inner ?) change then it is futile hope - right? That's clear. Therefore you have to enquire: what is the ( nature of a ?) change in which there is no time (involved) ? Is there a possibility of 'ending now' (this) something which has been (going on for millenia ?) , now ? Suppose I am greedy, envious - I can (keep it under control it by ?) rationalizing it, say it is natural, it is the cultural (the global trend) , part of the commercial process of gaining and losing and all that stuff. Man has been ( envious and ?) greedy from the beginning of time - right? And time has not changed us inwardly at all. Because through our ( knowledgeable ?) greed we have created this appalling society, both commercially and through envy, which is comparison, we have ( psychologically ?) destroyed each other. This is an ( ongoing) fact.

So, can that ( self-identified process of greed & ) envy end instantly, not " gradually" - you understand my question? Is there a (coming to an ?) "ending" and not a continuity? A continuity implies time, so can one not allow 'time' at all to enter into the (process) of (inward ) change? That change means 'ending'. Ending ( psychologically 'dying' ?) not knowing what will happen because 'what might happen' is still (along the continuity of ?) time and so on. Is it possible to end ( the 'personal' involvement in ?) envy, instantly, completely, so that it never exists any more? Yes, Sir! That's why it is very important to understand the ( 'slacking' ?) nature of ( an inner action in terms of ?) time. ( The inner sense of a continuity in ?) time is a ( constantly updating memory ?) movement, like thought. And ( the linear, cummulative order of ?) time is necessary to learn a language, to acquire a skill, to go to the moon, or to put a ship together. But psychologically, inwardly, if we think ( of a qualitative change ?) in terms of time there will be never such a change. See what is happening ( in the political world ) you have had the League of Nations, now you have United Nations, and another 'blow up' will bring another United Nations. But it is the same process - reordering the same misery in different forms.
So is it possible (inwardly ?) not to have ( not to rely on ?) tomorrow? To live an (inwardly time-free ?) life which has no 'tomorrow' at all?

You see, understanding this thing, 'time' implies enormous things. A 'drum' is tuned carefully, and because it is tuned, because inside it is empty, when you strike on it it gives the "right" note. And if you have that inward quality of a highly sensitive "no-thingness" , you have something extraordinary. The speaker is not ( subliminally ?) enticing you into doing something. ( In the context of right meditation ?) there is no 'reward' or 'punishment'.

QUESTION: Why do you not find value in prayer?

K: I don't know why you accuse me of not having any value in prayer. You know that there are a whole community of monks who are perpetually praying. One group finishes praying, another group takes it up. And we also pray when we are in difficulties. When there is a great crisis in our life we want to pray, or say, "Somebody help me, please". You know that joke of a man hanging onto a cliff? He says, "Please, God, save me" and God says, "Have faith and jump!" (Laughter) And the man who is hanging on to the cliff says, "Isn't there somebody above that still?" (Laughter)
Does prayer answer our difficulties? In some cases when you are praying silently, without words, perhaps you might 'get an answer' because your whole brain has become quiet. And in that quietness, in that stillness of the brain without the movement of thought, you find an answer. And then you say "I should pray more ". Which is, you have gathered some experience and that experience has brought certain result and you like (to optimise ?) those results and so you keep this going! Then it becomes a habit and you have lost everything.

But why do we pray at all? (Suppose) one is in great difficulties. There is great crisis, pain, sorrow, insoluble. And at that moment we look to somebody to help. And this 'somebody' is not my husband, wife, children, or my neighbour, because I know them too well, and they are also in the same position as myself. And so I turn to some "outside agency"- God, Christ, or in India it is another deity and so on. I pray on my knees because I can't solve this problem at all. I cannot ( inwardly ?) resolve my own sorrow, my pain, my loneliness, and so I gradually begin to depend on something externally. Either it is the doctor, the psychiatrist or God. They are all ( on) the same (psycho-logical level) , the moment I want to be 'helped'.
So - it may sound rather cruel, but it is not- the person who is always asking for help becomes ( inwardly ?) weaker and duller - he then becomes utterly dependent on something, either on drugs, or on people, or on ideals, ultimately of his concept of 'God'.

Now we are asking ourselves: is it possible to solve my own (psychological ?) problems without a single aid from another? This requires a great deal of stamina, energy, to go and say, "Now, (taking for instance ?) this problem of envy, what is envy, it is just (the result of ?) comparison, or a little (deeper) than comparison, the craving, the want. Can that 'end' without time?" Then I don't have to 'pray' (...just 'meditate' ?) . Then the person who is like that is totally free from all contamination (psychological interference ?) of (one's own self-centred ?) thought. So it requires to be able to stand completely on your feet. But this ( self- integrating opportunity ?) is slowly being denied by all that is spreading in the (modern) world - ( the largely commercialised illusion of an ?) 'easy' way to live without any (need for self-) understanding.
It (this problem of our psycho-dependency ?) is much more complicated than merely the ( holistic ?) statements of the speaker (since ?) we are all so (collectively inclined to be ?) 'small minded'. But if we could step out of that (group mentality ?) , not 'tomorrow', but "now", then life is something that is endless, immense.

QUESTION: When you are no longer physically with us what are those of us who "understand your message" (even if only intellectually) to do? Do we continue working on ourselves and forget the rest of the world? Or try to spread your teachings as we see it?

K: When you are no longer ' physically' with us - why add 'physically'? Need I answer this question? (Laughter)
Sir, ( if you understand yourself ?) it is 'your' message, not mine. It is your book, not mine. If you live in the way we are talking about, "timelessly", that is - your very living is the 'message' . It is one absolute, irrevocable fact fact in life, that we are all going to die. But (as ) the future is now, the (opportunity of a 'psychological'?) ending is now, not in ten years time, or fifty years time. So, if one lives that ( time-less ?) way your very living 'is' the message, it is not K's message, it is "yours". Then your very living, the way you live, will spread 'that' which you are living. Not spread that which someone else has said. You understand? So be very, very simple (about) this: ( the message of ?) beauty is ( to be ?) "yours", not somebody else's.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 23 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Mar 2016 #198
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

Krishnamurti: in this school here (brockwood) .... we are having a lot of trouble there too. So this is a great problem not only for those who are responsible here at the school at Brockwood but also responsible to ourselves and to our environment, to the way we live. Because peace requires a great deal of intelligence. You can't just say, "I must live peacefully. I must leave this place where there is conflict." and go somewhere else where there is no conflict. Such a place doesn't exist .

Well John, that is interesting, troubles , problems in the sense probably mostly unsolved as I feel it here etc..even with the presence of k, let us say we may consider him as a potential strong catalyst to go beyond that by solving anything occurring and needed to be solved somehow, not by war, somehow else etc

and no....you and I have been visiting brockwood ..after k for me..

Having not solved enough amount of our personal urgent and crucial problems, for all of us what ONLY matters is that...it possibly most of the time is not even perceived as such....all running away from oneself, using all what is there to achieve that, like an unstoppable running horse in total fear , what's about others, nature, animal, deep life....when two false myth are running our outer life, the myth of competition leading to the myth of the best, as if those were absolutely true, we actually have then the most perfect world possible...all the time ,at each second...then Napoleon, Adolph and today's invaders ( guess who ??) , were and are the best of their time too...etc following this mad false logic. But what happens in so called competition being in fact elimination....final result will be one winner exactly like in this monopoly game...our world tends to that utter insanity ..

when they are just insane and murderers...and we work for them...

this does not help right away , but as a fact I think again and again is good not to forget..

Well right and so what ???

I have this feeling that to be concerned with oneself before everything is needed, so much for the fight against this so called ego :-)) yet of course being aware that alone I do not exist nor survive, implying that what is vital is the global environment , like nature , people, animals, land etc etc unity comes first , without that there would be no matter at all, nor me, you etc

thought is not of that united world, thought is a hammer , a tool, a jigsaw, a computer , a car etc nothing more and nothing less, for survival it is vital.......

we know that yes.

thought drives us mad, like slaves, or masters, professional killers, etc

there is huge pain in this world ,mental one as well as physical due to our violence for some ...

then what ???

k's view : And the 'educator' needs educating, as the 'parents' need educating, so do the students. It is a process of living, working, co-operating, feeling together, which requires a great deal of energy.

Yes as simple as that....but the mind being like a running horse...what it does best is destroying others and himself sometimes too....

There is so much "work" to be done in this corner..as when not too destroyed by man, this planet is really a good place for a good life and death is not it....

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 22 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Mar 2016 #199
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
there is huge pain in this world ,mental one as well as physical due to our violence for some ...
then what ???

Pain is a subject only in order to try to escape from it....in times of heavy trouble I went into that with my own children, and they have learnt something for themselves, it has solved deep problems and left something like " well not feeling good today, I must be careful with that etc" ...

what if there is no choice with that but live it, meaning mental pain must win all the time , it has to...in fact pain does not win anything at all, as well as there is no challenge at all in life , nor competition, etc it just is the end of the analytical process resistance to ????? whatever.....

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 22 Mar 2016 #200
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

thanks for this all interesting post John...

John Raica wrote:
My personal take of this very real fact, Dan, is that there's not much to do there. It seems that a New Consciousness is to be born starting 'here and now' and I would prefer to look forward to it rather than looking back to the sad cumulative results of an ages old survivalistic 'struggle in darkness'

Well exactly, because we actually thoughtfully "do" where we should not ,then all those appalling effects arise from contradictory thinking in the wrong place

starting here and now , yes indeed.

Looking back to facts only can eventually have some right effect "as it wishes" but when it is to moan about it even more than usual....self pitying oneself....it brings more problems to all already existent problems....the right subject being again me and my painful life and the attempt to run away from it, from me...me escaping from me so ? impossible task...the good old "the observer is the observed" of course...one item , where thought sees two items ...

Even if previously I mentioned the global , the Unity etc as the vital "pool" where the particular finds its right place...what I know for myself as a matter of personal experiences says that of course both subjects must live together at the same time...

when I do not suffer because it is solved ,even only partially it affects so much the brain-mind and what I do, like I do not hurt anyone and find myself naturally cooperative, yet I (global-personal I) now know how to respond to any thread too when it occurs, not according to any method or set up pattern but right when it happens then it is playing by ear each time ...well ..then I get a life or close enough to it to be a sort of "good life" ...and not only fights..and all what goes with that..

cheers..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 22 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Mar 2016 #201
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
this seems to be the main difficulty, namely that our global consciousness is in a greately disturbed and confused state and practically 'there's no pilot in the plane' ...Or perhaps they are too many who assume they know what to do, with the result that each is pulling in different directions.
So, what is there to do in this rather critical condition ?
Speaking personally, any 'redeeming' can take place only through a constant process of 'learning' and this 'selective reading of the K texts' is in a great learning opportunity for myself in the first place- and whether it may be also useful for others it is not for me to tell...

What is there to do ? Globally, as long as business and more important all what hides behind down to the root in the analytical process is, apparently nothing much can be done globally....but as this is what the self proclaimed elites in money want us to believe without questioning, well it may be more open that we think-believe. As if the system was totally triumphant there would be no more lies and permanent propaganda all the time, everywhere on all subjects, when it is actually the case + the use of deadly and organised frightening violence where needed for them...

Personally ,although the outer of course is affecting the inner by constantly bringing up insecurity on purpose etc, well what to do I guess remain the same ....

I agree with the constant needed aspect you mention, no way to by pass that, one or two major event in goodness, even absolutely deep are not enough at all....one discovery seems to attract more or at least needs us to go for more, somehow..

I think it is, of course!, good that this work with k brings all that to you..

the way k has worked for me is different, something beyond what we know happens then I check in his work , so far as such I discover nothing as of course, which is logical and not surprising, but all what was discovered for my own life , is in his work....but I insist to say , not at all in the obvious but with bits and pieces here and there like a sort of puzzle...so possibly the need to read all his work...this is what I did some long time ago..

unlike you it did not work by reading his work at, but more like a sort of support as a sort of exchange....but for some reasons since young I had never been a good reader at all ,even when I have too, that is the way it is...I seem to often lose-loose myself when trying to read anything in fact..even writing is not at all my cup of tea...

well that is fine...without diversity , there would be no life...but the analyser does not want that...

one single "me" shall triumph in this system...that is the inevitable end from the beginning if staying on that road...any attentive observer of the monopoly game knows that...

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 23 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Mar 2016 #202
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
I think it is, of course!, good that this work with k brings all that to you..

Well, Dan, it worked both as a 'total challenge' - when almost everything in the life around us is bringing just an endless series of superficial challenges- but also the extra-ordinary oportunity of an interactive ( 2-way) 'learning' since merely reading or verbally processing K 's work is of no practical value whatsoever (except of course for oportunistic egos). And also, since for the casual reader or on-looker, K's work is very much like a beautiful...3-D 'hologram'- looking beautifully real and true, but when you want to get a grip on it...all you get is just 'thin air'- the true value of interacting with the 'spirit' of Teachings consists in the 'tuning-in' of one's own inner perceptive instrument. Once you've got the 'right' resonance, whatever you understand or have an insight into, is yours and not 'his'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Mar 2016 #203
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
merely reading or verbally processing K 's work is of no practical value whatsoever (except of course for opportunistic egos).

Yes parroting k may bring some apparent "wise man" to show off , I find the simplicity of his words and sentences remarkable and see that they could be used even by a cunning businessman as well, or a politician etc in order to cheat others even more...

John Raica wrote:
but when you want to get a grip on it...all you get is just 'thin air'-

Agreed, this is what happened to me some 27 years ago, parroting too..that was a disaster..of course

John Raica wrote:
the true value of interacting with the 'spirit' of Teachings consists in the 'tuning-in' of one's own inner perceptive instrument. Once you've got the 'right' resonance, whatever you understand or have an insight into, is yours and not 'his'.

Yes....to end with that for now, a pity, for me, he did not mentioned more about some more than weird aspects of what had happened to him, because the dimension(s?) we miss is so beyond our common life in possibly all fields....not only mental Universal health but much more than that, quite trivial in k's vision yet real!! ....like telepathy in real time using an unknown language that one can understand and "speak" as well, knowing how to use all that out of the blue between two brains is a reality and so much more totally incredible stuff.....all this cannot be reproduced at will ... leading thought means nothing happening at this level too...all this would impact physical health too ..etc etc ad libitum ..

I know that as I had a very deep taste of it, it is gone now as thought mainly leads my brain...but the "work" must continue, as long as there is no goal as such, well it can be done because then there is only the frustration of what is wrong which can be solved and not the frustration of an unachievable goal which kills you. Each such solving brings a remarkable state of peace and energy, not the deep weird one, but it has the same taste..

well this is good for you then, I mean it of course.

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 23 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 23 Mar 2016 #204
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
The Buddha is only pointing the Way, it is you who have to do the walking'

Well I quoted only that but I go along with your all post with witch I "agree",but what I meant was not clear,

in fact whatever happened to k, for me he could have said all of it,(as you said he said more to some) just telling his own story, own series of events etc etc...

I am myself still stuck 20 years later by an event which happened to my wife's ex friend...he was so right to say..it brings, like some of mine and others, towards what is impossible yet is..

and gives a much wider view of what we are missing....

that was k's choice....well this is a personal "moaning" in fact....

we mainly know k the man talking to people all his life, talking little about suffering and lately a lot of what may be taken only in an analytical way and this , sometimes or most of the time gives the impression that thought is going to do the needed job..

when it is not that at all in what I know...

thought has one last job to do yes, a vital one beyond practical matters where it is in charge and where it is not that great when we take all what is on earth...nice machines, nice killing...last job being to "see" its defeat and a light telling itself to stop...to shut up...then here we go !!

thought cannot watch itself for me , nor observe, nor be aware of thoughts etc etc etc...thought works because it is set up and out of desires to force it to work, desires now have taken controls of the all brain using all what it finds there, from memory ...to whatever else...

our problems directly lie within the analytical program itself...this is why it must go wrong at some stage for me, otherwise it is too powerful to ever change..and here I am totally in tune with k words..self knowledge, the knowledge of the analytical program is vital ..but this knowledge is not at all the one we know...

but this is another subject of course..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 23 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 24 Mar 2016 #205
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 1ST K PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 1983

QUESTION: What is the role of the artist in life and what is the significance of music, poetry, and all art in our relationship to each other and the world ?

K: First of all, we must be clear what we mean the word 'art', The etymological meaning of the word 'art' from Latin, is to join; to adjust; to put things (in their right place ?) . Art implies, doesn't it, a flowing melodious 'manner' (inner sense ?) of space, weight, grouping together words, sentences, or a painting on a canvas or a sculpture or a poem, or literature. Do you agree to this at all? If you see a painting by the really great painters, there is a sense of space. The figures are grouped together in a certain way; there is a certain depth to it, in colour; in the sense of movement, and it must be 'melodious' , having a depth of colour, proportion, a sense of harmony. And that would be great painting.

So we are asking: What is (the inner sense of ?) beauty? When we look at a mountain there, when you see those mountains, those hills: range after range, blue in the evening, and early morning when the sun touches it before everything else, there is an enormous ( open ?) space, between you and that; and for an instant you become silent. The very beauty, the very grandeur, the majesty of the mountain keeps you, makes you absolutely quiet. The shock of that beauty drives away for the moment all your ( personal ?) problems. There is no self (-consciousness ?) worrying, talking to itself, there is no ( self-conscious ?) entity, the 'me' looking. At that moment when the self is not, there is ( this sense of ?) great beauty. And the questioner asks, what is the role of art in our lives? The greatest art is the art of living; the not the paintings, the sculpture, the poems, and the marvellous literature. That has its certain place, but to find out for oneself the art of living, that's the greatest art, it surpasses any role in life.

Some of the great artists had very, very disturbed lives, like Beethoven, and others, very disturbed. And that disturbance perhaps may help them to write great music. But one may also lead an 'aesthetic' life - 'aesthetic' is the capacity of (clear) perception- which means one must be extraordinarily sensitive. And this 'sensitivity' comes from the depth of silence. It's no good going to colleges and universities to learn how to be sensitive. Or go to somebody to teach you how to be sensitive. As we said, "aestheticism" is the capacity to perceive; and you cannot perceive if there is not a certain depth of silence. If you look at these trees in silence - there is a communication which is not merely verbal, but a communication, a communion with nature. And most of us have lost the (direct ?) relationship with nature: with the trees, with the mountain, with all the living things of the earth.
And ( bringing that same ?) sensitivity in our relationship, to be aware of each other, is that at all possible? That's the 'art of living': a relationship that is not conflict, that's the flow of a "melodious manner", of living together without the whole cycle of human struggle.

This "art of living" is far more important than the art of great painters. It may be that through music, through going into all the museums of the world and talking about them endlessly we may try to escape from our own troubles, anxieties, depressions. So can we live an "aesthetic life" of deep perception? This requires a great deal of ( silence and ?) observation of oneself; just to watch the way we walk, the way we talk, the noise, you know all that goes on. Then out of that comes the art of living.

Art, as we said, is "putting things together harmoniously"; to observe the contradictions in oneself, one's desires that are always so strong, just to observe the fact and live with the fact. It seems that's the way to bring about a "life of melodious harmony".

QUESTION: Is not the 'observation of thought' a continuing use of thought and therefore a contradiction?

K: When you observe that tree, are you looking at it with all the memories of trees that you have seen, with the shade under the tree under which perhaps you have sat, and the pleasure of a morning; sitting quietly under a tree looking at all the beauty of the leaves, the branches, the trunk, and the sound of the trunk. When you observe all that, are you observing through words, or through your remembrances? Or the memories of those pleasant evenings you have sat under a tree or looked at a tree, then you are looking through the structure of words. Therefore you are not actually observing.
So, are we aware that we ( usually ) look at everything through a ( mental ?) network of words? So is our observation a ( direct ?) perception, or a process of thought? Let's find out what we actually do. Can we look at a person with whom we have lived for a number of days or years without all the past remembrances and incidents, and the pleasures or the antagonisms, can you observe ( him/her ?) as though you are meeting the person for the first time? That sensitivity is not possible when there is our memory of the past projecting itself all the time.
So from that one asks a ( non-personal ?) question: can thought be aware of itself? This is a rather complex question: can the whole process of thinking be aware of itself, or there is an ( all-controlling ?) 'thinker' who is aware of his thoughts? Is this becoming difficult for you? Are you interested in all this?

Questioner: I wonder if the group might find it a little more interesting if you could address some of the striking statements that are in your tapes and books that I have read. In one tape you refer to marriage as 'that terrible institution'. My question would be, could you elaborate?

K: All right, sir. Let's have some fun. Let's answer that question; we'll come back to this. One may live with another person and take the entire responsibility, both of us, and continue with that responsibility, not change when it doesn't suit you. Or, you go through 'marriage', go to church and the priest blesses the couple, you know, and there you are tied legally. And that tie, legally, gives you more the feeling of being more responsible. What's the difference between the two? Either it is a responsibility based on law, either the responsibility of convenience, necessity, comfort, and all the other demands - where is love in all this? Please answer this question for yourself.

Is love the pursuit of desire? Is love pleasure? Is love attachment? And if one negates (or sees ?) intelligently that attachment is not love, the stored-up memories, the pictures, the imagination: through negation, you come to the positive. But if you start with the ( asserting the ?) 'positive', you ( may ?) end up with negation. So, this gentleman asked why doesn't the speaker talk about all that? Sir, what is 'important' in life? What is the root or the basic essential in life? As one observes more and more, in television, and literature, magazines, and all the things that are going on, our life is becoming so superficial and 'vulgar'. If one may use that word without any sense of derogatory or insulting. It's all becoming so superficial and rather childish.
So what is the fundamental, basic thing that is really of the utmost importance in one's life?

Q: Do you want us to answer?

K: You can answer, sir, if you want to.

Q: The answer is 'compassion'.

K: When you use that word, are you again using that word superficially or there is compassion in you? You understand? When you say, yes, compassion, you have already "stamped" it. The word compassion means "passion for all"; and you cannot have compassion if there is not complete ( inward ?) freedom. And with compassion there is intelligence. So if you say compassion, love is the root of all things in life, in the universe, in all our relationship and action; to come upon it, to live with it and act from there then you are no longer a (self-centred ?) "individual", there is something else entirely different from one's own petty little self. Right, sir?

( Returning to our previous question ) we asked: can thought be aware of itself? (The practical difficulty being ?) that thought has created the 'thinker' (controlling 'entity' as ?) separate from his thought. "I" must control my thoughts, I must not let my thoughts wander.
Now, is this 'thinker' different from thought? Or the (very process of ?) thinking has created the 'thinker'. You understand the question? This is rather important to find out why this duality exists in us; has not thought created the thinker?

Q: I can see it 'logically'.

K: Verbally (or intellectually ?) I can see very clearly that there is this division between the thinker and the thought, and thought has created the thinker. So the 'thinker' is ( identifying itself with ?) the past, with his memories, with his knowledge, all put together by our thought's (need for safety and stability ?) . Why do we say I understand it 'intellectually'?

Q: It seems obvious.

K: Is it not because we never look ( directly ?) at the whole thing ? We only look at something 'intellectually' (in the safe-mode ?) . The speaker explained very carefully, logically, the (artificial division between the ?) thinker and the thought. And you accept that 'logically'. Is it that our intellect is developed much more than our sensitivity of immediate perception ? Because we are trained from childhood to ( mentally) 'acquire' (facts and skills ?) , to exercise a certain part of the brain, which is to 'hold' what has been told, informed, and keep on repeating it. So when you meet a new challenge , you say, I (can safely ?) understand it 'intellectually'. But one never meets the "new" (challenge) totally- that is, intellectually, emotionally, with all your senses awakened; you never receive ( the impact of ?) it completely. You receive it 'partially'- and this is the 'intellectual' activity. It is never the whole of our being observing (in total immersion ?) . You say, "yes, that's logical". And we ( safely ?) stop there. We don't ask ourselves , why is it that only a part of the senses are awakened?

( To recap:) Intellectual perception is ( the result of a ?) 'partial sensitivity', partial senses acting. In putting a computer ( program) together, you don't have to include all your emotions and your senses, so you have become ( mentally ?) mechanical, and repeat that. So the same process is carried when we hear something ( challenging and ?) new, you say: I ( can safely ?) understand it....intellectually. We don't meet it entirely. So the ( new challenging ?) statement has been made but we don't receive it totally.

So we never meet anything with all our senses highly awakened, especially when you see a tree or the mountains, or the movement of the sea,. Why? Is it not that we (got used to comfortably ?) live in a limited sphere, in a limited space in ourselves. It's a fact. So if you will, look now at those mountains with all your senses; when that act (of direct perception ) takes place, all your senses - your eyes, your ears, your nerves, the whole response of the ( psycho-somatical) organism which is also ( including) the brain, looks at that whole thing entirely. When one does that there is no centre as the 'me' who is looking.

So we are asking, can thought (the 'thinking' brain ?) be aware of itself? That's rather a complex question, because this requires a very 'careful' (diligent ?) observation. One can ( objectively ?) see what thought has done (in the outer world) , right? So thought can be ( non-personally ?) aware of its own ( dualistic ?) action, so that there is no contradiction (no conflict of interest ?) between the thinker and the thought; between the observer and the observed. When there is no such ( active ) 'contradiction', there is no ( need for inward ?) effort. It's only when there is contradiction (a conflict of desire ?) , which is division, there must be effort. So to find out whether it's possible to live a life without a single shadow of ( inward ) effort, or contradiction, one must investigate this whole (dualistic ?) movement of thought. So to find out what's the activity of thought, to watch (non-dualistically ?) it - that's part of 'meditation'.

QUESTION: You have often said that quietness, silence, comes unsought. But can we live in ways that will allow it to come more readily ?

K: Have you ever enquired into what is silence? Or into what is peace? What we call 'peace', it's ( the relatively 'peaceful' interval ?) between two wars. Now, ( inwardly ?) what is silence? Silence must mean (creating some free inner ?) space, mustn't it? I can shut my eyes, put a wall round myself, and in that (exclusive inner space?) there can be certain amount of peace, certain amount of silence. Right? I can go into a 'quiet room' and sit there; but the ( inward ?) space in my brain is very, very limited.
Now, is there an (inner) 'space without a centre' and therefore with no borders ? You understand? As long as (the inner space is occupied by thinking about ?) 'me', my problems, my selfish demands, it's very limited. That limitation has its own small space. But that little space is ( created by ?) a self-protective wall, (in order ?) not to be disturbed, not to have problems, not to have - you follow - all the trouble and so on. So, for most of us, that 'space of the self' is the only space we have. And from that space we are asking what is silence.
Am I making the question clear?

Q: Sure. You are saying we've got to have (some inner) space, so that we can have an understanding of silence. We can't enjoy. or understand silence or have silence without space.

K: Of course. Space to understand, space to enjoy. But always that space is limited, isn't it? So where there is limitation, there cannot be vast space. That's all. And (having an inwardly open ?) space implies silence. ( But with ?) all the noise that is going on in towns, between people, and all the noise of modern music, there's no space, there is not silence anywhere, just noise. It maybe pleasant or unpleasant, that's not the point.

So ( back to basics:) what does it mean to have ( this inner sense of ?) space? (The silent interval or ) 'space' between two notes on the piano; that's a very small space. Or silence between two people who have been quarrelling, and later on resume the quarrelling is a very, very limited space, so is there a limitless (inner) space in ourselves, in our whole way of living, having the actual feeling of a vast sense of space ?
Now, you may say, yes, I understand that 'intellectually'. But ( in the context of a 'meditator-less' meditation ?) to receive that question entirely, with all your senses, then you will find out if there is such a vast (open ended inward) space which is ( silently ?) related to the Universe.

QUESTION: Is there such a thing as a true 'guru'? Is there ever a right use of 'mantra'?

K: I think it is necessary to understand the ( original) meaning of those two Sanskrit words, guru and mantra.' Guru', the root meaning is ( someone who has spiritual ?) 'weight'. And also it means, 'one who dispels illusion' and/or the 'one who points'.
And the original meaning of the word "mantra" means "to ponder over ( on) not becoming", or put away all self-centred activity.

And the questioner asks, is there a true guru? (Basically ?) nobody can ( inwardly) teach you anything except yourself: nobody can ( insightfully ?) teach you about yourself: you are the teacher and the disciple, there is no teacher or a disciple 'outside' you. And this ( non-dualistic ?) "learning about oneself" is infinite. Not learning about oneself from books, which has certain ( intrinsical) limitations; there is no complete knowledge about anything, even the (highly knowledgeable ?) scientists admit it. The outward knowledge is ( obviously) necessary but (we have traditionally assumed that ?) this same 'wave' continues inwardly, that we must 'know' (all about ?) ourselves. The Greeks - and (others ) before the Greeks they said 'know yourself'.

Now 'knowing yourself' doesn't mean go to somebody and find out ( the actual facts ?) about yourself. It means to watch (non-personally ?) what you are doing, what you are thinking, your behaviour, your words, your gestures, the way you talk, the way you eat, 'watch'. Not say "this is right or wrong", just watch, And to watch there must be ( an inner space of ?) silence. And in that ( non-dualistic ?) watching there is learning. And therefore when you are ( so) learning you also become 'the' teacher. So you are both the teacher and the disciple; and nobody else on earth.

I do not know if you have noticed that in the (modern ?) world, there are ( mushrooming ?) institutions, foundations, associations, for various things, outwardly and inwardly. Foundation for 'right action', for 'right thinking', and so on, each holding on to his own little Foundation. You might just say, then why do you have (the K ?) Foundation? I'll tell you. This Foundation exists merely to maintain schools, ordinary schools, both in India, where there are six schools, in England, and here at Ojai. And to publish books and to arrange the talks, and nothing else! No "spiritual" - I ( personally?) dislike that word - no 'religious' content behind it .

So when one ( eventually ?) understands the (original ?) meaning of the word "guru", and "mantra", they become very, very serious. "Mantra" means to dissolve the whole structure of (one's 'psychological' ?) becoming. So it means there is no ( temporal ?) 'evolution' for the 'self', for the 'psyche'. That's very complex, I won't go into that. And there is nobody outside yourself that can ( set you ?) free except one's own inward integrity, great humility to learn.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 25 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Mar 2016 #206
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

k:
So from that one asks a question: can thought be aware of itself? This is a rather complex question: can the whole process of thinking be aware of itself, or there is a thinke' who is aware of his thoughts? Is this becoming difficult for you? Are you interested in all this?

k:
( Returning to our previous question ) we asked: can thought be aware of itself? that thought has created the thinker separate from his thought. I must control my thoughts, I must not let my thoughts wander.
Now, is this thinker different from thought? Or thinking has created the thinker. You understand the question? This is rather important to find out why this duality exists in us; has not thought created the thinker?

k:
So we never meet anything with all our senses highly awakened, especially when you see a tree or the mountains, or the movement of the sea,. Why? Is it not that we live in a limited sphere, in a limited space in ourselves. It's a fact. So if you will, look now at those mountains with all your senses; when that act (of direct perception ) takes place, all your senses - your eyes, your ears, your nerves, the whole response of the organism which is also the brain, looks at that whole thing entirely. When one does that there is no centre as the 'me' who is looking.

k:
to find out whether it's possible to live a life without a single shadow of effort, or contradiction, one must investigate this whole movement of thought. So to find out what's the activity of thought, to watch it - that's part of 'meditation'.

Hello John, it seems to me that the creation of the analyser and analysed added with capacities like evaluating, comparing, calculating, memorising etc of course must be, without that there would be no thinking program functioning , no "us"...well see the result what is the point of such appalling creature really ?? not in my best form this morning ,this may explain this brutal assertion, well nevertheless I find it quite true so far..;-)

Up to some point this program yes knows and can see what it is doing...but the all system is more complex than that due to many other factors like the unconscious that I met many times, I had to, somehow, for some problems to be solved of course, like the fact that desires act by themselves, so cravings etc....all this is more a random and automatic machine than anything else I see.

Without pain I have not one single reason to change , desires with no pain is sort of how we try to live, the pain is there but we pretend to ignore it....and here we go..life is satisfaction of all desires as much as possible.....desire a fragment of the analytical process which is an incentive to make it work takes it all over, takes control of the brain using all what is there from memory to whatever else...

is memory itself autonomous ? this I do not know ...

I would see all that more like a global program with many aptitudes and hardware as well as software...

desire taking control, as it is loaded with pain....well here we go, the disaster has started...I would tend to sense that pain is not at all a coincidental event but a needed one,"the ground of all things loaded it on purpose", the voluntary glitch to push us were we have to go...so pain is part of the program too..it is a function, it has a function....

etc of course

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 25 Mar 2016 #207
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 666 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
, it seems to me that the creation of the analyser and analysed added with capacities like evaluating, comparing, calculating, memorising

Indeed, Dan, if this 'dualistic' atttude can be quite rewarding and productive outwardly, why should it not be inwardly ? So, the human brain made a 'natural' extension of the same logic- and it can actually be a very rewarding activity ...for those who are 'smart' enough to materially benefit from it- all these 'psy's, 'motivational speakers'...(et j'en passe).

Now, speaking individually, the same 'analyser-analising' attitude is also helping to create some free inner space, to remove some obvious inner or outer conflicts. But inevitably the same attitude will reach the end of its 'tether'. Now a regular 'psy' or 'guru' may as well settle down in this 'extended' space and start creating a 'profitable bussiness ' out of what it has learned. Of course it's not a 'totally honest' attitude , but then ...what is totally honest in the modern survival- oriented bussiness world ? And I'm afraid that a large part of our 'global culture' has been -and is still being created by such 'ego-artizans'

paul daniel wrote:
desire taking control, as it is loaded with pain....well here we go, the disaster has started...

Yes this is what is usually happening, but here comes the qualitative advantage brought by these timeless K -Teachings, namely that the 'ways of desire' are also reversible so that very precious energy that got stuck in its 'temporal' projections can be retrieved, 'recycled' or 'integrated' intelligently and put to good work. And as soon as our ancestral tendency of self-centredness is removed, a new human consciousness and a new culture can commence its natural growth.

So, the individually-true solution of our present 'metaphysical & psychological' (stuck in time ?) impasse is extremely simple, except that there are a lot of other interfering 'priorities' ( some very real, others quite illusory) so the human brain would definitely need a 'time-out' to contemplate and reconsider its...'choices'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #208
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
. Now a regular 'psy' or 'guru' may as well settle down in this 'extended' space and start creating a 'profitable business ' out of what it has learned. Of course it's not a 'totally honest' attitude , but then ...what is totally honest in the modern survival- oriented business world ?

hello John, the base of our relation is competition, imposed or chosen or both, few reject it naturally out of understanding, the word competition is in fact hiding elimination, that is the base of our imposed or accepted or both culture, nice is not it ?? basically we all are war...

....I know that for me since revealing time about the analytical program,revealing about that which has now stopped for now or for good...

in clear and short this program being its own reference,( I am a genius) it sees itself and its desires and craving only, it potentially have the entire universe to invade....multiplied by 7 billion today, same 2 or 3 000 years ago..

John Raica wrote:
here comes the qualitative advantage brought by these timeless K -Teachings, namely that the 'ways of desire' are also reversible so that very precious energy that got stuck in its 'temporal' projections can be retrieved, 'recycled' or 'integrated' intelligently and put to good work.

Well I do not know ..

John Raica wrote:
And as soon as our ancestral tendency of self-centred is removed, a new human consciousness and a new culture can commence its natural growth.

I am not sure that this is a fact...and seen man's conduct we may as well have some sort of dogs as ancestors having seen the way we behave...I do not buy anything in that matter under the form of "I don't know "( for me only)....this is what the actual powers make us think with no proof at all( not talking about the last 3000 years as we basically are the same but about much older time of man...there is nothing to prove one way or another that "they" started like we are now....I doubt it myself, if there were wise men they possibly would not have left any big monument to their glory behind them what would be the point ????...then something UNKNOWN went wrong..,

the actual powers in order to try to self forgive themselves.... so they know their insanity, the one of their wars, mass killing, stealing etc.... by saying, man had always been like us, that is natural ,there is no alternative (TINA) , etc again we go back to the neocons doctrine...not to forget that a lot of neocons previously were from eastern Europe , not long ago...but this is a different controversial and very long historical topic..

All this blah blah only based on deep sensation so nothing concrete at all, no proof, of mine to say that , like k has mentioned and I agree with that that there is no psychological evolution and in fact instead of a new human and a new consciousness which gives a bit of hope we may well be degenerating and heading towards a huge disaster, this can not be rejected...

K words :*There is no psychological evolution.
So one may ask: time may be the enemy of man, psychologically. There is no psychological evolution. If you and the speaker are the result of forty thousand years or more, and we have come to this peculiar state that we are in, will we, give me another forty thousand years, change? You understand the question? It seems so absurd, nonsensical. Which is, I am violent; through time, through evolution, I will be without any violence. And if I am eventually going to be non-violent, the end of violence, in the meantime I am violent.
Collected Works, New York 1st Public Talk 9th April 1983*

I see nowhere,but how would I know all of what is happening? no serious sign of any deep change at all, but mere small adaptive arrangement with our actual cruelty to each other and oneself..

John Raica wrote:
So, the individually-true solution of our present 'metaphysical & psychological' (stuck in time ?) impasse is extremely simple, except that there are a lot of other interfering 'priorities' ( some very real, others quite illusory) so the human brain would definitely need a 'time-out' to contemplate and reconsider its...'choices'

I don't know...or the other forum some say that sorrow is a simple matter, and yet nothing changes...

so I don't know is my actuality right now..

thanks again for the sharing...;-)

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 26 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #209
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 190 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
As for some of my 'unrealistic' statements, their truth content can be actually validated or invalidated in the context of a 'meditator-less meditation'. As 'food for thought' I agree that they can be pretty hard to digest...So, this is again one of the many reasons I'm deleting ASAP my 'personal' posts,

Absolutely fine by me John.

John Raica wrote:
while the K texts ( even if seriously edited ?) seem to speak for themselves.

Usually yes..

John Raica wrote:
So, at best, they are 'psychological propositions' rather than 'timeless insights'. And, as I am not getting 'attached' to them it is all becoming part of a creative form of 'insight sharing'

Some can well be timeless insights too, here would you agree to say that an insight brings with itself something special, unmissable as such ?? ....then you're sharing it , that is what I try too mostly but not only with facts, but sometimes guesses , logical analysing ,impressions etc , well that is fine for me...k does that too with logic..not that I copy but just to say..

talk to you soon...

J'ai pensé que ceci pouvait t'intéresser ou pas, peut être connais tu.....dans ce film il y a des résonances pour moi même....il y a hum...quelque chose... dirais je donc !!

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sat, 26 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #210
Thumb_de4 Dan McDermott United States 123 posts in this forum Offline

K. "So ( step 1 would be ?) to find out for oneself 'how' we waste our ( natural ressources of intelligent ?) energy. And the greatest waste of energy is to be concerned with 'oneself'. Because by being ( psychologically ?) concerned with one's own problems, one's own achievements, your energy is ( getting ?) limited. But when there is freedom from that there is ( an inward opening to an ?) immense energy. To be free from that ( obsessive ?) concern with oneself and with one's (past) hurts and (subliminally ?) wanting to hurt others; that concern with oneself is bringing about great chaos in the world. To seek one's (personal ?) enlightenment, following your own particular little guru, is such a wastage of energy. So is it possible not to waste ( one's ressources of intelligent ?) energy along all these lines?
And if you have ( eventually tapped into ?) that energy, what will you do with it? So in the discovery ( or negation of ?) how you wasted your energy, there is the beginning of ( an awakening of ?) Intelligence. That intelligence is not wastage of energy. That intelligence is (non-entropic and ?) extraordinarily alive."

Through 'learning' about oneself, a shift of 'attention' takes place...when a habit is dropped, or fear drops away from situations where previously it was present, it's possible to see the huge amount of 'energy' that it consumed and that kept it in place due to a lack of 'intelligence'(?) Could you say that our 'self-centered' consciousness is NOT intelligent? That they, intelligence and self-centeredness, are mutually exclusive? It would seem so.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Sat, 26 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 745 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.)