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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 543 in total
Sun, 20 Mar 2016 #211
Thumb_original_avatar max greene United States 18 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 #212
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 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 #213
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #214
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #215
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #216
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #217
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 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 #218
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #219
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #220
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 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 #221
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #222
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 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 #223
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #224
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 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 #225
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 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
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #226
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
So then, our universal capacity of 'holistic intelligence' has still to prove that it can take care both our material and physical security simultaneously -and this in "real time".

Yes this came up in a talk with D.B.: K. was saying that there is only total security in 'no-thing' and why was that so impossible to get across and Bohm was saying, yes but that's hard to see how one's material needs would be met etc.and K replied that if there was no 'attachment' to anything that 'intelligence' would act and one would do what was necessary...so it seems a certain amount of 'faith' is called for.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 26 Mar 2016 #227
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Plus that I can wear a variety of 'masks' and use a large spectrum of tricks ( a million years of survivalistic evolution are not...nothing !) and almost instantly the whole background of all our past and present reality is engulfing us. Sounds more than 'safe'...except that there's nothing really new happening there.

I agree. Nothing short of a "miracle" is called for. (Or a bunch of 'mini-miracles') Well how many generations of our intrepid ancestors died freezing on those cliffs before one them realized that what they were sitting on was 'coal'?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Mar 2016 #228
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Malgré les exagerations de rigueur je crois qu'il y a quelque chose de vrai dans tout ça. Pour paraphraser un ex-syndicaliste polonais: 'Ce n'est pas pour demain, mais pour aprés demain"

Salut John, je ne sais pas....ce qui m'avait intéressé dans le film, c'est ce qui n'est pas dedans...qui est au delà....

Sinon demain c'est la mort du corps...trop tard donc.

Je ressens de + en + que il ne serait pas impossible que il n'y ait absolument pas d'approche globale possible des problèmes humains non pratiques....

Cela impliquerait de coopérer uniquement par choix conscient à la fois personnel et collectif, de ne forcer personne, et de partager parce que cela est le seul chemin....

nous n'avons pas cette dimension collective mentale du tout, quoique pratiquement on est obligé de l’être car seul personne ne survit et mème n'existe.. personnellement je l'ai ...comme je rejette le profit naturellement en ayant vu suffisamment de cela lors de moment privilégiés cela se trouvait être là, je n'ai pas chercher à le comprendre..

Alors c'est con d'un coté on refuse de coopérer et de partager, et de l'autre on est obligé d’être collectif pour survivre...mais là le partage dérape en guerre..

Plus con tu meurs !!

y'a du boulot si c'est çà !! Avec notre handicap c'est pas gagné du tout....

Bon assez de divagations du matin....

merci du partage...

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Mar 2016 #229
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

2ND Q & A MEETING OJAI 1983

K: One wonders why you all come. I'm just asking: what is the ( real ?) motive of your coming? Is it out of curiosity or trying to find out for oneself what it's all about our life, or you want to hear the speaker; or you want to gather what kind of person he is, either he is a hypocrite, or sane or rational.
If one questions not only what others might say, but be doubtful of one's own ( sujective ?) judgments, evaluations and if you could be very clear about your intention of our coming here, then that intention, if it is right and honest, has some depth in it. But if (the subliminal ?) it's merely to gather a few ideas, a few statements, I'm afraid that it'll have not much value.
So may we go on with the questions?

QUESTION: Why don't you be more practical and not so abstract in what you are saying?

K: The word "practical" means 'fit to act'. And when there are ( all kinds of ?) 'wars' going on, after many, many thousands of years, is that practical? Or we got so 'used' to that kind of ( competitive ?) way of living, and we accept that as the most practical. And the word 'abstraction' means to "draw away" from what one actually is; to separate it from what we feel we should be. That's an abstraction. So the questioner asks, why don't you be more practical and not so abstract in what you are talking about?

So are we ( holistically ?) "practical" at all? - Except (outwardly ?) in earning a livelihood, having a skill, being a good carpenter, good chemist- but being ( inwardly ?) violent: is that "practical"? Or we got so used to it and keep on repeating this ( pattern of ) action and reaction: you are violent, I become violent. You hit me, I hit you. This is the pattern that we have repeated through centuries.

You might say: but have you, the speaker, done anything which is not reaction; which is not just habitual response; repeated action ? We must be clear about what we mean by 'action': either one has an action based on some 'moral' (or ethical ?) values, aesthetic perception, and if another does something which is not correct, which is not moral, then you have a certain certain responsibility to act. That may not be habitual; a repeated action.
And the questioner also wants to know: why are you talking in abstraction. Is the speaker talking in abstraction? Or he is pointing out what we are all doing, each one of us; not judging or condemning but (just observing ?) watching . But if in this 'watching' of oneself and others there is not a quality of ( compassionate ?) silence, then from that watching you can make a (mental) 'abstraction' from what actually 'is', separate it into an ( abstract) 'idea' (or concept ?) . The original meaning of the word 'idea' is 'to observe.' Not make an abstraction of what you observe.

( Psychological Eg:) Suppose I am afraid (of something or other ?) . That fear is an actuality. But (making an) abstraction of that, which is to ( mentally) separate ( oneself) from the fact into, "I should not be afraid" or that "I must cultivate courage" is an abstraction. So this 'ideal', which we now accept, is something separate from the ( inner) 'fact'. Right? So we bring about a ( subliminal ?) division between the "actual" and the "idea" of it, and then pursue the "idea" ( or the 'ideal' derived from that abstraction) rather dealing with the 'facts'. That's what we are doing (on the global scale ) all the time.
(Outward Eg: ) There is poverty in the world. Now the abstraction of that is, what to do (practically about it) . And each one of us, or each group, or each political party, says this should be done, that should be done. So they are ( getting prioritarily ?) involved in ( organisational ?) ideas (rather than dealing directly ) with the fact- and that's only possible when there is a global relationship, not a political (or 'organisational' ?) relationship. And as poverty is increasing in the world, ( the root causes of ?) that poverty can only be solved ( holistically ?) by the realization that as long as there are all these various ( inner and outer ?) divisions this problem of ( misery and ?) poverty cannot possibly be solved. Right?

Then one says, as a person living in a country that's full of a 'patriotic' spirit, what am I to do? ( To realise inwardly that ?) as long as there is a "separative" action with regard to any human problem, that problem will never be solved (globally) . So what we are saying seems to be (holistically ?) 'practical'- in the sense that something can actually be done (but not necessarily ?) through our habitual (self-enclosing) actions and resisting everything else.
Is there ( any authentic) security in separation? In ( self-) division? We're "all one" as human beings, but we have separated ourselves into races, religions, and keep to that pattern, that programme. We have been programmed, like a computer, and we keep on repeating that. And that we call very "practical".
So is it possible to be somewhat different? Or I was just going to say, "impractical" ?

QUESTION: Most of my energy and time goes into the daily struggle to earn a living. Is it possible for me and those like me to be deeply unselfish and intelligent?

K: This is our everyday life. Those who are "lucky" (enough) have their own means and they don't have to work endlessly, while most people have to earn their daily bread from nine to five in a factory, office, labour, carpentry and so on, we spend a great deal of energy in all that. And the questioner says, I have very little time to enquire into this ( whole 'psychological area' ?) of selfishness and intelligence. My energy is dissipated in my work and I have not much energy (left). Is that so?

We really should enquire into how we waste our ( intelligent ?) energy; not, "all my energy is taken away through daily work", but into how we waste our energy; whether it's possible to conserve energy, and use it when necessary, and retain it when it's not. Am I making myself clear?
How do we waste our ( intelligent ?) energy - do we waste energy by (various forms of mental ?) 'chattering'? And is it a wastage of ( our intelligent ?) energy to be constantly in conflict - in the office; at home; and so on? Right? Is not the conflict (both within oneself and outside) a wastage of energy?

Not "how to be free of conflict ?", for the moment; but to observe how we waste our energy through conflict (due to ?) the concept or an illusion that we are ( isolated ?) 'individuals', and enclosing ourselves in a little, neurotic (self-conscious ?) state , building a ( psychologically protective ?) 'wall' round ourselves and so on. That's a great deal of wastage of ( of intelligent ?) energy. Right? And to pursue a (psychological ?) ideal rather than ( dealing directly and ?) ending of a fact, is a wastage of ( our intelligent ?) energy .

Suppose one is ( inwardly ?) 'violent'; you pursue 'non-violence', which is non-fact. The pursuit of ( an ideal of ?) non-violence is a wastage of ( our intelligent ressources of ?) energy. Whereas ( putting it to work in order to ?) understand the nature of this violence, to go deeply into the complexity of violence, and see if it is possible to end it, that's not a wastage of energy. But to pursue a non-fact, which is the ideal (of becoming less and less violent ?) is ( resulting in ?) a wastage of energy.

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.

( Recap:) One cannot possibly be ( holistically ?) 'intelligent' if one is selfish. Selfishness is part of ( the inherited mentality of ?) division; separation: I am selfish and you are selfish; so, in our relationship we are ( competitively ?) selfish. So by understanding the nature of this wastage of energy, not only 'superficially', but very deeply, out of that ( meditative ?) investigation, probing, questioning, one comes to a certain quality of (a holistically integrated ?) energy which is the outcome of Intelligence; not merely ( rationally ?) setting aside wastage of energy.

So, what is (the nature of this ?) Intelligence? Are those people who are very, very learned, are they intelligent? Is the very activity of thought ( generating this ?) intelligence? All the activities of human thought, including invention, putting very, very complex machinery together like the computer, like a robot, like a missile, or the extraordinary machine of a submarine, or these beautiful aeroplanes; they're all the result of tremendous activity of thought. And also the ( follow-up ?) activity of thought is how we use them based on profit, and various other forms of motives.

So we are asking a very fundamental question: whether intelligence is the root of thought? Thought is 'limited', because thought is derived from experience, stored in the brain as memory , and the reaction of that brain (stored memory) is thought. If there is no ( available ?) memory, there is no 'thinking'. Now, every little thing on this earth, the smallest little thing, must have the ( same basic ) quality of 'thought'- (aka ?) 'instinct'. But as human beings we have 'evolved' and our greatest instrument is ( a far more sophisticated process of ?) thought. But that thought is ( inwardly speaking ?) very 'limited'; because knowledge is always (creating its own linear time-continuity?) - "past, present and future" - will be limited. This limited thought can invent the 'limitless', but it's still the result of thought. Thought has divided the world into various religions and all the things that are in the churches, temples, mosques, are the inventions of thought. You can't get beyond that, that's a fact. And what thought has created, then we worship it. Marvellous self-deception!

So we were asking: is ( holistic ?) Intelligence (generated by ?) the ( highly industrious ?) activity of thought? Or it is totally outside the realm of thought and then can use thought. You follow, not the other way around!
So ( to re-recap ?) one has to enquire into the ( true ) nature of Intelligence. ( And also ?) one must very carefully (and non-personally ?) examine the only instrument apparently we have, which is thought. Thought includes the emotions, the sensory responses, and so on. All that is centred (collected and processed ?) in the brain, which is the whole ( mental ?) structure of human beings.
The speaker is not an "expert" with regard to the brain, but as one watches one's own reactions, one's own responses, hurts, illusions- when one watches "silently", without any ( hidden personal ?) motive, then that watching reveals a tremendous lot. One learns a great deal more in silence than in noise. Right? So are we ( now more ?) intelligent and therefore ( holistically ?) practical? Therefore never bring about a division.
We'll talk more about it when we talk about the significance of death, suffering, and the great question of Compassion.

QUESTION: You travel about a great deal in the world but I must stay with my family in one place and live in a limited horizon. You speak of a global vision. How am I to have this?

K: I'm sorry, I've never talked about "global vision". The speaker was saying that you cannot have peace in the physical world, if you have no global relationship. The fact is that we are divided, as nationalities, religions, sectarian, little groups, smaller groups - divided. And outwardly there must be a global relationship which means no national or religious divisions .
The questioner says "You travel about a great deal but I must stay with my family in one place and so my horizon is limited". Do you mean to say that while you are living in a small village one can't have a holistic approach to life? So, what does it mean to have a feeling that the whole human world 'is' ( inwardly one with ?) you?
The (shared consciousness of our ?) world has great troubles; great anxieties and miseries and confusions;(as well as ) various 'neurotic' activities. And one ( eventually ?) realizes that what you are (consciousness-wise ?) 'is' (also shared by all ?) the rest of humanity. That's a fact, if you go into it 'simply' and even if you (examine ?) it intellectually, it's a fact that our brains are not 'individual' brains. They have been evolving through thousands of years. And even when you observe from one's little village one can see what is happening in the world: wars, man against man; the eternal ( family ?) quarrels between people. All this could be ( easily ?) settled if you are somewhat 'intelligent'. And you cannot ask (another ?) "how am I to break through this limitation and have the feeling that you are the entire humanity ?". There is no 'how', psychologically. A 'how' means following ( someone else's ?) method, and when you practise it you're back again in the same old limited & dull (self-consciousnes ?) .

So it's not a question of how to get out of this limited way of life (in order ?) to understand the global, holistic way of perception, but to observe (non-personally ?) one's own limitations, prejudices, conclusions . The ( psychological ?) "walls" which we build round ourselves, that is the real problem: to become aware of all this, to observe them without ( any personal ?) motive; and that's very difficult for for a person who has concluded he is this, or the other person is that.
( Recap:) A global ( 'holistic' ?) relationship alone can solve our human problems, as war, poverty. And becoming aware of one's own limitation.

QUESTION: You have stated that if one 'stays with fear' and not try to escape and ( eventually) realize one 'is' fear, then the fear goes away. How does this come about, and what will keep it from returning on other occasions in a different form?

K: Please don't accept what the speaker has stated. That's the first thing. Doubt him, question him. Don't make him into some kind of stupid authority.
So, you heard that if one actually stays with fear, then that fear goes away. To 'stay with fear' means not to escape from it, not to try to rationalize it or to transcend it. To stay with it like when you look at the moon - to look at it. Right? Not say, how beautiful, how this, how that; but just to look at it; be with it. Then, it is stated, that fear goes away. And the questioner says, is that so? He wants further enquiry into it.

What is fear? Fear can only take place when there is time and thought. Time as ( the actualised memory of ?) something that happened yesterday or forty years ago, and that something you should not have done, and somebody is 'blackmailing' you about it - look at it. Right? Time is that ( actualised memory of something ?) which has happened, which you are threatened with, and afraid of that threat, because you are protecting yourself; and the 'future' is, ( hoping) not to be afraid. Right? So the whole movement of fear is the ( memory of the ?) past meeting the present creates the feeling, the reaction of fear - right - and it continues in the future. So that's a problem of time; right? Time is a factor bringing about fear. Right? I have a job now, but I might lose the job. The factory might close. It is not closed, but it might close, which is future. It may be tomorrow, or 20 years hence; but the fear it might close. That is, my thinking about the future which is 'time', creates the fear. Right? So thought and time create fear. That's simple enough. Right? One has done something wrong and you come along and threaten me with it. Right? And I get frightened. Clear?

Time 'is' thought. They are not two separate movements. Right? Time is is movement, isn't it? From here to there. I need time to go from here to that place. I need time to learn a language, and so on, so on. Thought is also ( the active memory of ?) time; because thought is based on experience, acquiring knowledge is time. Right? And memory is time, which is the past. So "thought" & "time" are together; they are not two separate movements. So that is the cause of fear. I might die; I am living, but the idea of ending, which is in the future, causes fear, the 'time- distance' from the living and the ending. Which we'll talk about another time. You understand? So, those thought-time is the factor of fear.

One has faced this quite recently. Right? We all do. We are threatened by some persons. This is happening the world over. Threatened by one nation against another - you know all that. Or one individual against another; threat is a form of blackmail; you have done... and so on, so on, so on. And to be aware when you are threatened, when fear arises, you just observe without any ( mental) reaction when there is an understanding of the nature of time and thought.

The questioner says, how does this happen? How does fear end when you understand its nature and watch. To escape, to rationalize, to sublimate it is a complete waste of energy. Because it's always there when you come back - from your football; from the church, it's always at home.
To analyze and gradually discover the cause of fear, either through your own self-analysis or the analysis of another, is also a wastage of energy. Because if you just watch, you can find out what's the cause instantly. Which is time and thought. Right? You see unfortunately, (our past ?) knowledge may be making us dull. We are saying, where there is a cause, there is an end. Obviously. If I have some kind of disease, and the doctor discovers the cause of it, it can end it. Or it cannot be ended. Where there is a cause, there can be an end to the cause. That's a fact.

So watching fear as it arises, and living with it, not escaping from it, you begin to see the fact, time, thought are the root of it. That's the cause. And, that very focusing of energy on the 'fact' of time, dissipates fear completely. That is ( the insight into the fact that ?) fear 'is' you. Fear is not separate from you. Right? We have separated fear from me. Right? Which is an abstraction, a division. Right? Or you say, (my) greed is separate from me so I then can act upon greed. If I, the 'thinker' is separated from my thought then I control(my) thought. Right? I try to concentrate and all the rest of it. But the thinker 'is' the thought. Thought has created the 'thinker', right?

So when one realizes the actual fact that fear 'is' you then the division ends. If you 'are' fear the inner conflict ends. I wonder if you realize this. As long as there is a (psychological) division in me, as the 'me' and 'my fear', and me and the greed, me and violence, there must be conflict. But the actual fact is, violence "is" me. Greed is me. Envy is me. So this division which ( the self- centred ?) thought has created between 'me' and 'fear' ends; and therefore you have no conflict and therefore there is great (release of the ?) energy (previously entangled in conflict ?) right? That's a fact. Can we go on from there?

I am not 'teaching' you; you are ( supposed to be ?) learning from your own observation. So you are your own guru and your own disciple. And the questioner also asks, what will keep fear from returning on other occasions in different forms?
Fear has many branches, many expressions; many forms: fear of the dark, fear of public opinion, fear of what I have done, fear of losing something- you know - fear has a thousand branches. And it's no good 'trimming the branches' because they'll come back. So one must go to the root of it; and not cut the superficial expression of fear; one must go to the root of the cause of fear; which is thought and time.
If one really sees the truth of it, and remains with it, not run away from it, then fear (ends ?) - for the speaker this is a 'fact'. You might say, what nonsense. You live in illusion. You have a perfect right to say it, but it's not so for oneself (as K ?) .

QUESTION: Is it some lack of ( psychical?) energy that keeps us from going to the very end of a problem? Does this require a "special" energy? Or is there only one basic energy at the root of all life?

K: The questioner says, when we go to the very root of the problem, that requires (a 'special' ?) energy to go to the very end of it.
So what is a 'problem'? ( A 'challenge' ?) 'thrown at you', something that you have to face, something different from ( what one is familiar with ?) . And from childhood we are trained to 'solve' (countless outward ?) problems: mathematical problems, how to ( spell correctly and ?) write, how to ride a bicycle, how to drive a car, how to live with another person without (other ) problems arising. Our brain is actually trained to solve problems. Right? That's a fact. So ( eventually) our whole life becomes ( to be regarded as ?) a problem to be solved (or optimised ?) . See for yourself how this ( problem solving mentality ?) operates? Then we can proceed from there.

And I am asking "why" do we have this (conflicting mentality ?) that creates problems? So another question arises from that, which is to live without a single ( psychological ?) problem. Not that there are not ( a lot of outward ?) problems, but to have no ( inward ) problems. And the questioner says, to go to the very end of a problem, does it require energy? Obviously. Not any 'special' energy, but just the ordinary (but focussed ?) energy of (a diligent ) investigation. Now to investigate ( one's own mind ?) very closely, very delicately, deeply, you cannot have a ( personal ?) 'motive'.

Suppose I have a problem ( personally I haven't, whatever happens happens, I'll deal with it. But I am not going to have any problems. It is stupid to have problems, for myself I am saying). And I need ( some free inner ?) energy to go into it very, very carefully, never coming to any conclusion, moving, moving - you follow? But if you are ( inwardly) "attached to a tether" you can only go that far, whatever the length of that rope is. So there must be ( an inner sense of ?) freedom from any conclusion, any motive, to investigate. That's clear. Obvious. Like a scientist (in the outer world ?) , he may have (access to ?) a great many hypotheses, theories, but he puts them aside to investigate. And then he says that theory is true; but he doesn't insist that that theory is true before investigation. Right? But we do!
So you need ( some free inner ?) energy to go to the very end of a problem. Take any problem that one has - what?

Q: Loneliness ?

K: All right, let's take "loneliness". Why are you ( feeling) lonely? That is, feeling separated, divided. You may be married, have a great many 'friends' but there is this sense of deep loneliness of human beings. How does that "loneliness" come about? Isn't it brought about by our daily self-centred activity. I must be a great man, I must be a successful man, I must meditate, I must do this, I must do that. "I" am the most important person. So when you emphasize all day long this limited ( self-limiting ?) state of mind, it must inevitably lead to a ( deep) sense of loneliness, which is to have no (authentic ?) relationship with anybody. Right? Which is brought about by our daily activity of ( self-centred ?) thought and action. And then you say, I am lonely, therefore I am going to a night club, or whatever you do. Or hold on to your wife, hold on, cling, because you are afraid of being lonely.
So, you can see the cause of it, which is very simple and (then try to ?) to hold the whole thing together and not use the word 'lonely'. Because the ( actual) 'fact' is not the word. And the cause of the fact is this constant thought of oneself: 'I' am hurt, 'I' want to be great, 'I' want to be this, 'I' want to be that. When you use the word 'lonely' it has its associations with the past. So you can live with that feeling (of loneliness ?) afresh only when you see ( have a total insight into ?) the ( actual) cause of it - daily concern with oneself.
(Recap;) If you want to understand a way of living which is totally different, then you have to look at all this very closely, and ask 'fundamental' questions. You can only ask fundamental questions by doubting, questioning, asking.

QUESTION: Could you go into the nature of intelligence which manifests itself when (an insightful ?) perception takes place and is this the only true source of action?

K: We are always seeking security in ( 'psychologically' getting identified with ?) the part: 'my' property, 'my' country, 'my' wife, 'my' god . So we have always cultivated the 'part' and the (associated activity of that ?) part is the intellect. And in this 'intellectual' comprehension, we think there is security. Don't you know all the ( fame & fortune ?) world of Professors, Scientists, all the writers, they become "great people". That is, ( the intellectual ?) 'part' means the superficial, right?
Now, is our "perception" only by the intellect or only emotions or only a sensory response? Or ( the insightful ?) perception implies a seeing totally, not partially. Do you understand?

( Eg:) One perceives the (actual) cause of fear not verbally, intellectually, emotionally. ( The insightful ?) perception is an action of seeing the whole of nature of fear - right - not the various branches of fear but the whole 'movement' of fear. The 'movement' (generating ?) of fear is time, thought. When you see something wholly, completely, what takes place is something quite different: the brain has been 'unconditioned' from the old pattern. Do you get this? The moment I perceive ( for myself) the truth of what you have said , the very insight into what you have said brings about a radical change in the very cells of the brain . The speaker has discussed this matter with scientists. Some of them agree with this, but the others say, it's pure 'romanticism', etcetera.

But the fact is : I have been going north. You come along and say, that way leads to danger and ( if ?) I listen to you, discuss with you, I may have quick insight into what you are saying and I see the truth of what you are saying. So I (instantly ?) 'move away' from (the mental patterns associated to my ?) going north. I go south or east or west. That very insight- contrary to the old habit- has brought about a radical (qualitative ?) change in the brain itself. Because you 'understand' (the truth involved ?) the (old) pattern will be broken. When the pattern is broken, there is ( the awakening of ?) something different. An insight is a quick, instant perception of what is true. But most of us aren't capable of that because we are not (inwardly ?) sensitive. And this (catch 22 ?) situation cannot be changed if there is not an insight into ( the nature of that ?) conditioning.
Now the questioner asks, when ( this insightful ?) perception takes place, there is intelligence and is this intelligence the source of action ? Do you understand? When there is a perception that our (particular form of) 'tribalism' is the most destructive element in life, bringing wars and so on, if you have instant insight into it, that insight has its own action. It's not 'insight' and then 'action' but that insight itself 'is' action. There is a (subliminal ?) action that wipes away your particular form of 'tribalism' - your (personal attachment to ?) belonging to a group. Right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Mar 2016 #230
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

paul daniel wrote:
Avec notre handicap c'est pas gagné du tout....

Certainement pas, Dan, mais on devrait plutot le prendre du bon coté Deja, si ça marche pour nous, dans notre proche entourage on crée un nouveau type de relation. Je crois que ce fut aussi l'argument principal de K- de commencer a mettre de l'ordre dans notre propre maison

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sun, 27 Mar 2016 #231
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
mais on devrait plutot le prendre du bon coté. Déjà, si ça marche pour nous, dans notre proche entourage on crée un nouveau type de relation. Je crois que ce fut aussi l'argument principal de K- de commencer a mettre de l'ordre dans notre propre maison

tout à fait John, en ce moment j'ai pas mal de travail avec les enfants bien sur, les ado à gérer, ça le fait car je sais être celui qui dirige si il le faut et plus, mais plus raisonnablement avec moi même..j’ai un boulot plein temps ....ça tombe bien je ne travaille plus pour "gagner" ma vie..globalement chez nous je dirais que "on" avance...vers ou je ne sais pas, mais on y va quand même...à la fois boutade et sérieux...

bon @+

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 #232
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

SAANEN 1ST K PUBLIC Q & A MEETING 1983

QUESTION: I understand that in order to have a "deep insight" thinking must stop; ( but then ) for thinking to stop there must already be a deep insight. Where does one start? In this isn't the brain working to achieve something and thus preventing insight?

K: Do we clearly see that our brain has become mechanical? We repeat, we live in the ( routines and memories of the ?) past and the reactions we have are obvious (predictible ?) . And the question is: where does one start to understand the whole problem of ( our mechanical ?) existence? If we could start from the (realisation ?) that our brains have become mechanical and then investigate deeper and deeper, then we will ( eventually ?) come upon something which may be not mechanical.
( Just an example :) When you insult another, the other insults you. Action, reaction and from that another action, and so on, like a tide going in and out. And that is ( psychologically speaking ?) a "mechanical" process - right? Or I have an exciting experience, it has brought about several rewards and I cling to that, which then becomes mechanical. If I am getting attached to a person, or to an idea, or to some kind of experience then that ' attachment ' becomes mechanical, you repeat over and over again the same thing. Sexual and every other form of repetitive action is "mechanical".
The human brain has been ( culturally ?) programmed to be 'mechanical' because it is seeking security in this constant repetition and the question is whether this mechanical process can stop.

Suppose one has a habit, either smoking, drugs, alcohol, sexual, or the habit of belonging to a group of people who also think alike. And ( engaging in ?) this mechanical process gives one a sense of security. So, in the daily existence one finds the brain keeps on repeating the same things over and over again. So our brains have (inwardly ?) become mechanical through long evolution, through innumerable experiences, and the brain has accumulated a great many memories and keeps on repeating the ( personal and collective ?) memories. And in this mechanical process it seeks (and generally finds an inner sense of ?) security. We all want security, both biological, physical, as well as 'psychological'. And when a brain becomes 'mechanical' one thinks there is security. That is clear.

Now, even before we go into the problem of "insight", the (first experiential ?) question is whether this mechanical process can come to an end? This mechanical process brings about a deterioration in the (inner sensitivity of the ?) brain. Do we see this ? The brain needs challenging, questioning, doubting, asking, demanding. But if it is ( getting settled in a ?) routine it stops being sharp, clear and so gradually it deteriorates. You can see it all around, from teenagers to old age. I wonder if one is aware of one's own brain ( slowly ?) deteriorating by constant ( pattern ?) repetition. You may revolt against the old and fall into another pattern and then repeat that. "I am no longer a Christian, but I am a Buddhist". "I am no longer a (mere) Buddhist but a Tibetan Buddhist " - you know the game one plays all over the world.

So the ( intermediary ?) question is: whether the brain can stop deteriorating? That is really a very, very serious question. ( Not) as long as we are living ( psychologically anchored ?) in the past, which we are, because we live (in the 'known' ?) , we 'are' memories, and this is all we do (psychologically) : the ( memory of our ?) past meeting the present, modifying itself and then proceeding further. But it is still the "past" in movement, isn't it?

So we have come to that point where one asks: why does the brain depend so much on the past, on being (individually or collectively ?) 'programmed' ? We were saying that this repetitive action gives (the brain a sense of ?) great security. Freedom doesn't give security - right? We will come to that a little later. So ( brain's need for ?) security is the basis of holding on to the past. And we are asking whether the brain can perceive its own mechanical process and that very perception brings about a challenge to move away from it. You have understood? I perceive that my brain is mechanical and I perceive it, not as an idea but actually - right? That very perception is in itself a challenge - like when I perceive a dangerous snake. I have to do something about it otherwise that poisonous snake will kill me, so an (instant ) action takes place when there is perception - right?

( Take a Swiss- friendly example: ) When one is climbing a mountain and you see a precipice, the precipice is a challenge, isn't it? Either you are very capable and so go on, or you get dizzy and hold on to a rock and crawl back. So in the same way when you perceive, when there is ( the 'critical' ?) perception that your brain is ( getting ?) mechanical, being 'programmed' ( both collectively and individually ?) , and in ( living) that 'programmed' (existence) there is no ( authentic) security, because the brain is becoming dull, deteriorating- when there is perception of this (potential ?) "danger", that very (clarity of ?) perception brings about the ( intelligent ?) energy to end that repetitive action - right? I wonder if you get this? Whether you are a ( well paid ?) philosopher, scientist, or businessman, whether you are following some (prestigious ?) 'guru', whether you belong or not to some religion, this whole mechanical process is going and the brain must (eventually ?) deteriorate because the brain needs to be tremendously active. It is active in mechanical processes - right? But it is not active in freedom. Therefore only in freedom the brain doesn't deteriorate. Can we move from there?
As long as the brain is being programmed, repetitive, there is no (inner sense of ?) freedom, and therefore it must deteriorate- like a human being living in an (invisible ?) prison. And if is no freedom there, not only biologically, organically, and also mentally, the brain deteriorates gradually. Now let's move from there.

It is not (a question of ?) "how to stop thinking", or how to "break the routine" but (just to ?) see the ( truth of this ?) fact that (inwardly) clinging to (repeating the ?) experiences which you have had and so on, is one of the major factors of deterioration. If you see (the actual danger of ?) that then you have brought altogether a different ( quality of ?) action - is this clear? When there is a perception of danger, physical danger, you act. But (inwardly) you just 'go on' because you don't see the fact that routine is deteriorating the brain. If you 'saw' (the inner danger of ?) it you would act.
Now let's go into it further. What is the cause, or causations of our 'thinking'? What is the root of ( your) thinking? When you are asked a familiar question: "what is your name" or "where do you live ?", you immediately answer. Why? Because you are familiar with your name, you are familiar with the road and the house that you live in. And so by constant repetition, you reply instantly. Right? Suppose one asks a little more complex question, there is an interval between the question and the answer. In that interval you are searching into your memory, you are looking. So there is an time (delay) or interval between question and answer. Suppose one asks some very complex question What is the (exact ?) distance from here to Mars? You say, "I don't know" - right? So this whole process of ( answering) a question which you are familiar with, or a question which demands time, or when you say "I don't know", all that is a (memory search and retrieve ?) process of thinking. ( Similarly ?) thinking along a particular line, if you are attached to a particular experience and you hold on to that experience, your thinking then is ( centered ?) around the ( memory of ?) that experience - right?

So, (the process of ?) thinking is based on ( the available ?) memory. And that memory is gathered in the brain (and organised as verbal ?) as knowledge. (Sensory, emotional or intellectual ?) 'experience', ( organised as ?) 'knowledge', ( stored in the brain as ?) 'memory', ( and its mechanical response as) 'thought'. Now, since our (personal) 'experience' is always limited, whether you are experiencing pleasure, pain, sorrow, loneliness, depression, anxiety, all that is limited, therefore all ( such) knowledge is limited.
( In a nutshell:) Thought is the child of memory, and since ( the available experience stored in ) memory is limited, when one is 'thinking' about oneself, which most of us do, such (self-centred thinking ?) is very limited. And this (core ?) 'thinking about oneself' is also very divisive. Right? If you are thinking about yourself and I am thinking about myself in various ways, it brings about a division, therefore in that division there is ( a potential for ?) conflict - whatever is (self-) limited must bring about conflict. This is very important to understand because all our lives are based on this ('thinking-about-oneself') limitation - right? And therefore we are ( living) in a perpetual conflict- in our relationship, however intimate, national division, economic division, social division, religious divisions, there must be conflict, struggle, war. This is a law, ( like ?) the "laws of Moses".

So seeing the truth of this, what is the action? Not "how to stop thinking". There is the perception that ( the pychological component of our ?) thought has created this division. You perceive the (truth of this ?) fact. Does the very (perception of the ?) fact free you? Or does the ( understanding of this ?) fact merely remain (stored in memory for later?) as an idea?
So seeing the fact and the perception of the ( truth about that ?) fact in itself brings about a ( perceptive ?) "movement" which is not thought. So, the questioner asks: what is "insight"? How does this "perception and action" instantaneously take place? Is there an action which is not based on (our) past memories, past experiences and therefore on ( our self-centred ?) thought? That is the question. And he (K) says, that is insight. You understand? Seeing something clearly and acting - right? If we don't see ( the inner danger of ?) something clearly, we take time, and during that interval other changes take place, so our actions are always ( time-delayed and ?) confused. So, please ask this question of yourself: is there an (inwardly perceptive ?) movement, an action in which the past, thought, doesn't enter at all.

( Recap:) Thought as an 'instrument of action' apart from the technological field, has created havoc in the world. Thought has built marvellous cathedrals and thought has put all the things in the cathedral, the ceremonies, the rituals, the mass, all the dresses they wear, all that is the product of thought, and not 'divine' revelation. ( Inwardly ?) that movement is ( self limiting ?) limited, therefore must create conflict. Thought has its right place, technologically, but thought may not have a place at all "psychologically".
So find out for yourself whether there is an action which is not based on thought. And the speaker says that there is such an action which is not based on thought. (Be sceptical please, question what he is talking about.) Hasn't it ever happened to you in your life, to see something (as) true (or false ?) and "act" without the process of thought, without the process of rationalization, without remembering, it must have happened - right? Every person has moments of this. Clear perception without any movement of thought, action taking place at the same time - no? Some call it "intuition", but this word intuition is rather a 'dangerous' (slippery ?) word. since you can "intuit" ( the projection of ?) your own desire.

So there is a "movement", ("movement" here is refering to "action" ?), there is a movement in which thought doesn't interfere at all. I will show it to you. Love is not ( the result of ?) thought - love is not desire - right? Love is not ( related to one's?) pleasure. So through the "negation" of what "love" is not, the positive ( aspect of love ?) is. So love is an "action" in which desire is not, and from that (quality of being ?) any action taking place is not the movement of thought.

(Re-recap) To put it round the other way: can the brain see the "fact" that it is operating from the past, and see the consequences of that, and seeing the ( sad ?) consequences of it not depend on the past - right? And therefore there is an (opening for a holistic?) action which is not of memory, an insight which is not born of remembrance. Insight is not of "time" - right? Time is ( related to the process of ?) thought - memory, experience, knowledge- and as long as ( inwardly ?) we depend on ( this process of thought and ?) time, which is divisive, there is conflict; so to perceive the actuality of this, then only is there an "insight" into it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 28 Mar 2016 #233
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

Seemed to me after reading this very powerful talk, that it 'all' comes down to this: either the 'brain' sees that it's repetitive behavior, based on the past, which has been conditioned into it for millennia and continues in each one us as a (false?) means of 'security'... either it sees the destructiveness in that mode of operating and sees that it is a "deteriorating" factor to itself and ends it...or it does not see it and it does not end it.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Mon, 28 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Mar 2016 #234
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
It is not "how to stop thinking", or how to "break the routine" but (just to ?) see the fact that (inwardly) clinging to (repeating the ?) experiences which you have had and so on, is one of the major factors of deterioration. If you see (the actual danger of ?) that then you have brought altogether a different action - is this clear? When there is a perception of danger, physical danger, you act. But (inwardly) you just 'go on' because you don't see the fact that routine is deteriorating the brain. If you 'saw' (the inner danger of ?) it you would act.

Well John, so far for me this is not good enough. So far this sounds too analytical or analytical only and I am more than reluctant to use that tool here as the disasters it brought in my own life are still acting as a protection against its predominance..,even though it is of course still functioning on its own mechanical background, automatically then, all the time, most of the time doing its usual yakety-yak, for me...not saying it is as such, but my perception of k words is that one, I see a danger for me in his words here..where I already have been lost some 35 years ago, not twice then.

John Raica wrote:
( Recap:) Thought as an 'instrument of action' apart from the technological field, has created havoc in the world. Thought has built marvellous cathedrals and thought has put all the things in the cathedral, the ceremonies, the rituals, the mass, all the dresses they wear, all that is the product of thought, and not 'divine' revelation. ( Inwardly ?) that movement is ( self limiting ?) limited, therefore must create conflict. Thought has its right place, technologically, but thought may not have a place at all "psychologically".

for me a right sentence could be , I find that thought has built marvellous cathedral....k brings his own feeling to be absolute,when it is not, my perception is that there is nothing absolute when it is about any man's realisation, some will like others won't...

John Raica wrote:
So there is a "movement", ("movement" here is referring to "action" ?), there is a movement in which thought doesn't interfere at all. I will show it to you. Love is not thought - love is not desire - right? Love is not pleasure. So through the "negation" of what "love" is not, the positive is. So love is an "action" in which desire is not, and from that (quality of being ?) any action taking place is not the movement of thought.

with or without the analytical process, it is all about?....the analytical process as far as I am concerned seems incapable to go into that properly, kind of : not your business here, for me we have warnings but we do not listen..later on those warnings growing up and up are becoming painful in case that we then will listen to them...but we don't...!!

those warnings for me are some catalyst too, they must be left untouched is what I learnt.The analytical process seems definitively stuck in practical matters only "by trade", using some innate analysing program, comparing,evaluation, elimination, etc etc..its vibrations do not mix with what is not itself....the analytical program only seems to look at itself using all what it finds in order to do so..it goes from looking at a dawn to using people and war..always with a goal in sight...I want all possible goodies, I need to feed on that....more more more....pain pain pain...

k is obviously talking from his own momentum, his own experiences in the matter...we all do that all the time too but our own past seems quite different, but it mainly can be lies, imagination, illusion too etc etc

he is willing to bring us?? into that field somehow....

today's quote may help or not

-Where there is choice there can be no discernment, for discernment is choiceless. Where there is choice and the capacity to choose, there is only limitation. Only when choice ceases is there liberation, fullness, richness of action, which is life itself. Creation is choiceless, as life is choiceless, as understanding is choiceless. Likewise is truth; it is a continuous action, an ever-becoming, in which there is no choice. It is pure discernment.

Choice is analysing, the analytical process job, where needed..from going west or south in the forest to avoid falling from the cliffs, drowning into the river, burning the hand in the fire up to whatever etc etc etc...this is vital, remove it all living creature is gone in my feeling.

So it is there...for me I have seen that this process will not work or too little to do the job without incentives to work....here enters into being the needed desires...cravings but self congratulation, self reward too ( I am so wonderful) etc etc etc....all this is pure programming, all set up.....we all get some sort of Linux OS then....Why Linux? because like what we all get from Nature it is free of charge..all this needs memory to work too...

And so what ? Why want more or different...??

more because such program is entirely automatic, mechanical, and whatever is happening it keeps on and on and on and on ...ad libitum..I had the vision of that...it randomly, constantly, seeks for its own food..under the form of goals, hopes, desires, cravings..where some absolute contentment are meant to be found..

this never is.

different ,because all this hurts, but I start with nothing at all....I have tried all books, all methods, all drugs, all escapes, and nothing has worked to bring me what I am craving for..

I am a failure...this is pain....

Again ,alas can I say or not say, I do not see why changing if there is not some sort of pain....pain being then like desire an incentive, forcing us to do a very precise "thing"

Pain does not allow you to be analytical with it...if one keeps that way, it is more pain and the need for more and stronger escapism....to hide it, to ignore it...etc

When one sees the horror brought by mankind and not only focusing on the few machines he is mechanically self proud of it....if that was seen and lived, the change begins right now and we already should have sufficiently for some and entirely for some transformed ourselves so society...

this is not at all taking place now.

this does not take place....

I do not mind as such if people ignore pain and have no clue what to do with that....alas this could be a major and fundamental mistake..personal as well as global of course...

back to the Buddha's words on dukkha then , not as followers but as a testimony that this is a vital key ???

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 29 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 29 Mar 2016 #235
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

SAANEN 2ND PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 1983

QUESTION: Is there such a thing as right education?

K: If you have children, this is 'the' question, is there such a thing as right education? Either a parent has put this question because he has many children and knowing what the world is, the extraordinary brutality and vulgarity and all the terrible things that are happening, what is their future? Any parent ( should be ?) concerned not only with his own children, but with the children of the world, because those children are going to contaminate my son, my daughter. So this a question which we must very carefully enquire into. Why are we being educated? What does education mean? The ethymological meaning is "to draw out" - ( from latin) 'educare'. It means to help the child to grow, to understand, to comprehend the whole process of living. And he goes to school, there he is taught, he learns to memorize really. So he gradually builds up a whole structure of memories along a particular line, doctor, engineering, philosophy, psychology, physicist and so on. And ( eventually) the computers are taking the place of teachers. So, why should he carry all the encyclopaedic knowledge about one subject or the other and retain all that in one's brain? Is that "education"? We can look up a book, an encyclopaedia and work from that. Or, if one is (studying to become ?) a surgeon you have to naturally know a great deal of the human anatomy, it may take ten to fifteen years. And also technologically to have extraordinary understanding of the whole world of the technique. And that is what we are cultivating more and more and more.

But we are also neglecting totally the whole 'psychological' world, the whole world of the "psyche" - right? This is what is happening. One side you have an extraordinary development in technology - whether it is science, biochemistry or genetic engineering and the other (inward ) side of the human being, which is far more important is neglected, denied, you say it is not important. There are some friends of mine who say "what matters is not the psyche but the environment. Change the environment fundamentally and then you will change man"- which can never take place.

So both in the 'Democratic' world and in the 'Totalitarian' world, and the 'Religious' world obviously, education means academic training, academic excellence. To be able to argue, to learn a job, to become a professor, and live in a world of your own in that particular discipline and so on. And the 'psyche', which always overcomes the outer - you may have a marvellous government, rules, laws and so on, but ambition, the drive for power, position, all that overcomes the other - right?

And if if I was a parent that would be my tremendous concern: what is one to do in a world like this? You understand my question?
So what is a "right" ( balanced ?) education? Is it not both the cultivation of a brain that can function excellently in the world and also psychologically understand the whole meaning of our existence,the ( human) psyche? You understand? Couldn't these two go together - like two well trained horses trotting along harmoniously together ? And apparently one 'horse' is highly developed, the other is still a baby, a foal. And right education seems to be not only academic training, because we ( all ?) have to have a job - you may have a job and work only for two hours if the computers become more and more important you will have more and more leisure. That is taking place already. And that leisure is going to be exploited by the "entertaining industry". You can see it is happening now. So how does one, apart from the academic affairs, how does one become a good human being ?

So how am I, having a few children, knowing they are going to be conditioned by other children, knowing that they are going to be ( subliminally) conditioned by the newspapers, the magazines, the books, the history books, my country opposed to your country, my kings are better than your kings - you know all that nonsense that goes on. And how am I, as a parent, to bring about a 'good mind', a 'good' human being - not sentimental, not romantic, or just having a sloppy brain, what am I to do?
First of all "good" means correct action, precise action, talking precisely, clearly, communicating to another what he wants to say, not mumble, you follow, all the rest of it. And also "good" means 'whole' or "holistic". I would like my children, daughter and son to have a 'holistic' view of the world as a whole. You understand? The whole of the human world. And also to have a "good" relationship with nature, not to destroy things, the birds, the animals, the whales - you understand? Not to destroy. And to have a great sense of ( inner) beauty, and a great sense of affection, love, compassion.

Now how am I as a parent and therefore a teacher - teacher is not merely in the school but also being a parent I am a teacher also - so how am I to help him to have this? You understand my question? Please answer this question: how are you, if you see this is the (right) way to live, this is the way to act in relationship and so on, how are you going to bring this about in a student, in your child?
If you are ( trying to be ?) an "example" as a parent, you want him to copy what you are and so you deny him freedom to work, think, act. But the child is conditioned not only by you or but by the language you have used, by the climate, the food, the social environment, the other boys. So the child is being gradually conditioned, (his consciousness being ?) "narrowed down".

How am I as a parent to prevent that? Is it possible for me in talking with my son to realize I am conditioned, I realize also that he has been conditioned. So I tell him "Look, I am conditioned and you are being conditioned. Let us talk about it, let's see what it does in the world. Let us see if we can be free of it." - you understand? ." I will go into it with him, day after day, in different ways, not to bore him. But the pressure from the outside is much stronger and probably he will ( temporarily or permanently ?) succumb to it, as most children do. There are very, very few exceptions.

So it is a (matter of ?) constant ( interactive ?) observation, constant helping, guiding -and this can only happen if there is love between us. If he respects me and I respect him. But... do you ( have love and ?) respect for anybody? And if you don't what is the good of talking to a child to have respect? Isn't respect part of love ? In ( having an authentic affection or ?) love there is generosity, there is sympathy- but sympathy is not (necessarily ?) love - right? So have I love in my being when I talk of love to him? Or is it just a word? You understand what I am saying? Don't you see nthat unless we lay the ( right) foundation in our own life you can't go very far. You may sit endlessly in a certain posture, meditate. So do we love anything at all? Do you love your wife, and husband, or your girl-friend, or whatever it is? If every parent in the world loved their children, do you know what would happen naturally? You wouldn't allow anybody to kill him or him to kill others. But the governments all over the world are based on ( infrastructures of ) power, position, status, and therefore to protect all that...(they also have ?) guns. You know all the rest, I don't have to go into that.

So (to recap:) right education seems to be not only to have an academic training so it will be excellent in that direction, but also to be a good whole human being, unfragmented, not broken up and contradictory, living in a ( constant) battle with himself and with others. That requires a great deal of enquiry into the (workings of the human) "psyche", not according to Jung or Freud or the speaker, but to ( non-personally ?) watch one's own responses, one's own actions, one's own behaviour. And out of that comes an extraordinary sense of freedom. And "freedom" has the root meaning in "love".

QUESTION: Could we speak about the brain and the mind ? Thinking takes place materially in the brain cells. If thinking stops and there is a perception without thought what happens in the material brain? You seem to say that "mind" has its place outside the brain but where does the movement of pure perception take place if not somewhere in the brain? And how is it possible for mutation to take place in the brain cells if pure perception has no connection in the brain?

K: It is a good question, so please listen to it. I am listening to it too. Let's begin with the 'brain' and the 'mind'. The 'brain' is a material function. It is a (thinking ?) 'muscle' - like the heart. And the brain cells contain all ( our personal and collective ?) memories. I am not a 'brain specialist', but I have lived a long time now and I have watched a great deal, not only the reaction of others - what they say, what they think, what they want to tell me, but also I have watched how (my own ?) brain reacts and so on. .

So this human brain has evolved through time - from the single cell, taking millions and millions of years, until it reached the ape and go on another million years until it could stand (walk on 2 feet) and so ultimately the human brain. The human brain is ( physically) contained within the skull - right? But ( mentally ?) it can go beyond itself - right? You can sit here and think of your country, or your home, and in ( your) thought instantly you are there. The brain has extraordinary capacity - right? But that (same) brain has been ( culturally ?) conditioned by the limitation of language, by the climate it lives in, by the food it eats, by the social environment, the society in which it lives, and by million years of ( survivalistic ?) 'experience' , and by the accumulated ( collective) knowledge based on that experience, which is tradition.

( In a nutshell:) The brain has an extraordinary capacity (potential ?) but it has been conditioned and therefore limited - not in the technological world, but it is very, very limited ( inwardly) with regard to the 'psyche' (to its 'psychological 'content ?) . ( Many ) people have said, "Know yourself" - from the Greeks, from the ancient Hindus and so on but the ( well paid modern) psychologists, philosophers and brain experts, never study themselves.They study the 'psyche' in another or they study the rats, the rabbits, the pigeons, the monkeys and so on and so on and so on, but they never say, "I am going to look at myself. Am I ambitious, greedy, do I compete with my neighbour, with my other fellow scientists ?... " - you follow? It is the same 'psyche' (self-centred mentality ?) that has existed for thousands of years, though technologically you are ( a) marvellous (outwardly oriented ?) person. You understand? Inwardly we are still very primitive - right? And can that 'limitation' (or self-centredness ?) be 'broken through' ? Can that limitation, which is the 'self' (centred consciousness ?) be "wiped away"? Which means the brain then is ( getting) unconditioned, it has no fear. Now most of us live (inwardly) in fear- frightened of what is going to happen, frightened of death, you know, ( openly or subliminally ?) "anxious".

Can all this ( self-centredness ?) be completely "wiped away" so that the brain is ( conditioning- ) free ? Then its relationship to the "mind" is entirely different. ( However the practical difficulty is that ) the 'self ( interest' ?) may hide itself in many ( ingenious ?) ways: it can hide ( even) in 'compassion', looking after the poor people, because the 'self' is ( getting identified or ?) 'attached' to some ideal, some belief, you understand? - which makes me ( feel) compassionate because 'I love Jesus' and I ( hopefully ?) go up to heaven. The "self" (-interest ?) has many, many "masks" - you understand? The "mask of meditation", the mask of "achieving the highest", the mask that "I am enlightened" and all this "concern about humanity" that is another (trendy ?) mask. So one has to have an extraordinary "quick" (and insightful ?) brain to see where (its 'self-interest' ?) is hiding. It requires a great ( non-personal quality of ?) attention, watching, watching, watching. But probably you are all too 'lazy' ( inwardly asleep ?) , or too 'old' and say, "For god's sake, all this isn't worth it. Let me alone." But if one really wants to go into this very deeply one has to watch like a ( seriously motivated ?) 'hawk' every movement of (one's) thought, every ( 'personal' ?) reaction, so the brain can be free from its ( 'self-interest' form of ?) conditioning.

So when the brain is completely free of its 'self' (-centredness ?) and therefore no longer conditioned, then we can ask: what is the mind?
The ancient Hindus have enquired into the ( Universal Consciousness or ) 'Mind' - right? And they have posited various statements. But wiping all that out, not depending on somebody however ancient, however traditional, what is the "Mind"?

There are two things involved in it: our brain now is now constantly in ( an inner state of ?) conflict therefore it is indisorder and how could such a brain understand what the Mind is? The Mind that has created the universe, the Mind that has created the living cell, that "Mind" is pure energy and intelligence. So when the brain is free (of its self-centredness ?) , that Mind can have a relationship to the brain, but if the brain is conditioned it has no relationship. So Intelligence is the ( living ?) essence of that Mind- pure order, pure intelligence and therefore it is pure compassion. And that (Universal ?) Mind has a relationship with the brain when it is free.

Now I could go lots more into this but ( as usually ?) I won't. Look sir, the sea is in constant movement -the tide is coming in, the tide going out. This is its 'action'. And the human beings are also ( actively engaged ?) in this ( process of ) 'action - reaction', so when there is this ( mental ? ) movement back and forth there is no ( inward ?) quietness naturally. In that "quietness" you can hear the truth or the falseness ( of anything) - not when you are (mentally going ?) back and forth'- right? At least see it "intellectually", "logically" that if there is (this) constant (mental) movement you are not listening, how can you listen? But only when there is absolute silence you can listen - right? See the logic of it. And is it possible to stop this ( 'self'-centred ?) movement back and forth? The speaker says it is possible when you have "studied yourself", when you have "gone into yourself" , "understand yourself"- then you can say the movement has really stopped.

And the questioner also asks: as the Mind is not contained in the brain, but outside, how can this ( 'insightful' ?) perception- which takes place only when there is no activity of thought- how does it affect the brain cells (which are a material process) and bring about a mutation?
Sir, this is a very, very complex question but we must begin very simply to understand something very vast. So let's begin 'simply'. Traditionally you have pursued a certain 'path', a certain 'direction' all your life. You (K) come along and say, look, the ( self-centred ?) way you are going leads nowhere. It will bring you much more trouble, you will have tremendous economic difficulties . But you say, no sorry this is "my ( fail-safe ?) way" of doing things. And you keep going that way. Most people ninety nine per cent of the people keep going that way, including the 'gurus', including the 'philosophers', including the 'enlightened' people. And you come along and say, "Look, that is a ( spiritually ?) 'dangerous' path, don't go there. Turn and go in another direction entirely" And you ( verbally) show me the reason, the sanity of it and I ( eventually ?) turn and go in a totally different direction. What has happened to the brain? The brain cells have themselves changed (their priorities ?) . You understand? If I listen to find out what you are saying if it is true or false, if I want to know the truth of the matter, therefore I listen with all my being and I see you are quite right. I have 'moved' - right? In that (awakening ?) 'movement' there is a ( qualitative ?) change in the brain cells. It is so simple if you could only look at this thing very simply. There is a ( qualitative ?) "mutation" in the very brain cells, not through any effort, not through the will, or through any motive, when there is (such an insightful ?) perception. Perception is when there is a (quiet ?) observation without a movement of thought, when there is absolute silence of (our past) 'memory', which is 'time', which is 'thought'. To look at something without the ( memory of the ?) past. Do it (now) sir. Look at the speaker without all the remembrance that you have ( subliminally ?) accumulated about him, not his ( looks and ?) gestures, but watch him without any past ( personal ?) remembrances and hurts and all that. When you so watch without any prejudices, then there is freedom from "that which has been".

QUESTION: I long to be loved. And it is a constant anguish. What am I to do?

K: What is the root cause behind wanting to be loved? Is it that I am (feeling) lonely? Is it that if I am loved I feel I can flower, grow, be (forever ?) happy and all that? Is it that in myself ( I feel that I ) am nothing but when you love me I become something? This is your life, not my life. So please listen to this. So there is a cause which makes me say, "I want your love" - right? There is a cause, there is a motive, there is a background which says, "I must have that" - right? So this is one of the causes. I am desperately lonely, depressed, isolated, feel desperately unhappy, and if you love me I will say, "By Jove, everything is so beautiful". So my demand, my desire, my longing, is based on loneliness, demand for companionship, with whom I can talk, unfold and all the rest of it. So there is a cause: I am ( feeling) lonely. This sense of being totally isolated comes into being as long as I am ( openly or subliminally ?) self-centred, thinking ( comparatively ?) about myself, I am 'unhappy'. I have reduced all my life, which is such an extraordinary thing, to a small affair, that you love me.

See the tremendous complexity of a very simple question ? I want to be loved and I am not loved therefore I am full of anxiety. And when the brain is caught in such such anguish, it can't think clearly, can it? Right? It can't even listen to its own sense of desperation. Now can there be a (silent ?) 'interval' in which you listen (to it non-personally ?) A short period in which you say, "Tell me all about it" - then will you listen? Or will you say, "No, I don't want to listen because without that sense of ( self-created ?) anguish you ( feel that you) are nothing. That sense of anguish keeps you 'alive' (inwardly) - no? Oh come on sirs, this is all childish psychology!

So as we were saying the other day, if you really listen with your heart, with your mind, with all your being, then you have ( some inner) space, your brain becomes quiet, then you listen. Then that very ( quality of non-personal ?) listening is like a "seed" (of truth ?) that is being sown, then 'you' don't have to do a thing, it then grows, multiplies. And when you understand love is not something to be 'asked for' you don't stretch out your hand to be loved. If you are asking to be loved by another, it means you have no ( an inward opening to ?) love in yourself. It is so obvious. If you have love, you don't ask anybody that you be loved. You see, we are making ourselves into ( psychological ?) "beggars". That is what is happening. When you go to church and pray, when we want somebody to help us, or when we depend on books we are beggars. It may ( or not ?) be all right to be a "beggar" but see the consequences of it: you are always depending on somebody else. And there are all those people who will ( offer to ?) help you 'fill your bowl' with their rubbish.
So see what has taken place when we (silently ?) listen to this question: "I want to be loved, what am I to do?" That means one has no love in oneself. Then how can another love you - you understand? If you have no love and you are incapable then of receiving love - you understand? Love is not a vacuum, a sense of emptiness. On the contrary. If you have that tremendous feeling, quality, depth, (inner) beauty, then you don't ask anybody for love. It is like a cup being full. And if you have listened to this very carefully, then the problem is gone.

QUESTION: I once hurt someone very much. Why is the feeling of guilt such a deep tenuous one that endures in spite of every effort to be free of it?

K: Don't most of you here have "guilty consciences" about something or other - no? Or are you "all pure" human beings? What does the word 'guilt' mean to each one of us? Having, doing something one feels one shouldn't. Psychologically hurting another, and the other commits suicide and you feel my god, what a terrible thing I have done. Right?
Or, some people can (actively try to ?) make you "feel guilty", that is one of their ( manipulative ?) 'tricks'. Because ( if that works ?) then they can do what they like with you. We have all been in that position, all of us. Somebody (like Rajagopal ?) bullies you and you feel you have done something terrible and then they have you by the neck, blackmailing you. I can understand why you make me feel guilty because you want power over me. Even nationally they do it - you understand? You have hold of the whole government because you are going to fast (for 40 days ?) - you know all the tricks they are playing...

Guilt is like a wound never healing because we are always remembering it and that ( could possibly ?) destroy our life. However, if one has done everything possible, yielded, lied (???) , given (away the copyrights ?) , but the "bully" wants more, the responsibility is not yours but that of the "bully" - right?

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 30 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 #236
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

Well John, I read some of this last quote.....hard one..hopeless...

In my case, knowing that possibly I come from a sort of ape, does not help anything at all...

for me any science which is thought is in the way of oneself encounter....I don't need to know all that, like one cell up to a brain for millions years or less or more...I don't personally care..at all!

Goodness is there for all potentially or there is no goodness...this is my point..

I was very good at analysing and discovered with a pretty good IQ, and so what ?? That is good to have for me when we are together....I do this, others do that, we are together ,we share, cooperate etc but this world does not exist on earth....

But I'll make it short for once, between my own time alone this night , this reading and a quick view on the world affairs not on any major media of course that would be stupid and false , this constant "idea" comes up again and again....

Each time I want out of perverted desires, or-and projecting an ideal world of mine tomorrow, this is wrong all the time as my favourite pet subject most of the time under a very mild form I now immediately recognise , meaning I get the signal of wrongness at his birth sometimes...it is often mixed up with old signals still alive and so stronger, not seen , not used to clear what is wrong which remains so...etc

This is getting terribly complex in a world of constant war between us under one form or another like we do live..

Back to children....recently one had troubles with the law, nothing dramatic ,but he was really defeated, too upset..we went ,my way which he accepted to go into, into that and now what comes out of that is that he is going after one year of hospitality training in the college to live at the foot of the Pyrénées mountain in the south of France..doing whatever job he can get in Lourdes where he still has good friends.....and see...he has changed radically at some levels ...

this has worked a bit like using suffering as a catalyst does...it works for any subjects, even practical subject too somehow...by not thinking..until one plan comes by itself out of the blue, the thinking can be used..

I can't go away from that "pet" point...so I leave it as it is not the topic of this last interesting talk..

again thanks anyway..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 30 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 #237
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 312 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
And some of them even pointed out that after this 'certain point' the division 'observer-observed' has to be seriously considered and resolved, since it represent a very serious limitation.

Yes absolutely, again it comes by itself,well as it seems; the division observer-observed is all what it is about at the very root when there is suffering, then we may say that division made by thought is suffering, this may be considered and resolved somehow ? again yes..

John Raica wrote:
Well, certainly one's cumulative 'suffering' could always be a great catalyst...Otherwise, why bother to change ?

John Raica wrote:
In other words, the 'frustrated' and 'conflicting' energy contained in sorrow has to be , well...recycled into 'passion' and put to good 'understanding' work.

Agreed..

John Raica wrote:
Therefore, up to a point sorrow is acting as a catalyst, but from there on some 'transformational' work is definitely required

again yes ,absolutely..

John Raica wrote:
Now this can be done in the quiet comfort of one's inner laboratory ( in an inwardly open 'space of meditation') or simply in 'taking the bull by the horns' - which was probably the "k school Brockwood Park England" general approach and- and at least 'on paper' (or 'on video' ?) it does look so feasible and simple: you get personally engaged in, say, 'education' and...you are learning along with your students by constantly watching 'in the mirror of relationship'...

Well, I leave the mirror, it still does not speak to me...meditation, since young I do a sort of observing, inquiring, often using:" yes it is a fact", "not it is not" and I don't know most of the time....this is how came the idea when 12 ish in time of heavy trouble not to escape from that but to even go into it, then I could see that it was working...this is the time of the kthing, long ago..and more, so not an actuality, yet still interesting in itself, still sort of helping somehow,at least that I know for myself as you do, that what k talks about exists...is real..

so a sort of space of meditation yes ....

John Raica wrote:

paul daniel wrote:

Goodness is there for all potentially or there is no goodness..

You just said it 'potentially'. 'Potentially', at any point in time we can all be free of the psychological burden of our own past. The hitch might be that this is true only in a time-free inner environment. As soon as we try to 'stretch it' in terms of time we are starting a 'compensative' process like a train beginning to accumulate delays (or... 'sorrows' ?)

Yes, I find that important. Time free inner environment for me (and you?) is when thought does not lead, something else which is not the frightened me then take the leadership..thought being divisive, comparative , hierarchical, giving values - and +, mechanical, fearful, etc ..the missing process is not that....it is clear that here now when this is not the main process, that man has now a chance for a "good" life...

I find the image of the train interesting, it speaks quite well.

as you said: at any point ,potentially, we can be free from this burden of the past transforming itself and invading the future.....it basically is a quest for personal heaven....

In fact at some stage what seems to come up by itself is a sensation, practically a vision that what has to be done is really a sort of voluntary abandon of the pre-eminence of thought , of the analytical program....without having any clue of what will take place....This is possible when "I" am really and entirely fed up with what is going on in one's life and for that one needs to be very sensitive-aware to one's suffering-sorrow, WITHOUT reaching the dangerous moment where "I" totally drown into its own self pitying ,leading to what you know..which is one of the worse nightmare of course..

this is where-when I locate a major difficulty, (it is the same principle with suffering by the way)....you never know if it is going to work....at some stage all what is is suffering or in what I say here all what is is me being factually total fed up with a nonsensical life...then here my experiences says that thought can for once stop believing itself for an undefined time,thought must do the last step renouncing under too much weight to its glory....as long as there is any hope, this won't work..this is why it is hard as for an undefined time all what will be will be sorrow, or abandon( fed up with my life) and nothing else WITHOUT reaching the dangerous moment where "I" totally drown into its own self pitying...what may happens after that is ready not anymore into the hands of thought, something new takes place..as fa as I know , it seems totally unpredictable... living the circumstances without replacing what they are by what I want is producing what is impossible for thought to take place.....bliss, understanding, the other process etc is somewhere there as it wishes....

there would be more to say, but that is enough for now..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Wed, 30 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 #238
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
after this 'certain point' the division 'observer-observed' has to be seriously considered and resolved, since it represent a very serious limitation.

This will be the brain's responsibility. To simply dissolve that which it has placed between itself and the 'outer' world by a total "non-action". To redirect that energy that keeps the "interface" that it has created in place and that keeps it psychologically apart from the rest of creation. That will be the realization of the observer not being separate psychologically from what is observed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 #239
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 549 posts in this forum Offline

SAANEN 3RD PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 1983 (condensed)

K: There are several questions here and one wonders how you "approach" a problem. The word "approach" means to draw near, to 'come close to'. And the root meaning of the word "problem" is 'something thrown at you', a ( personal ?) challenge. Now, how do you receive that challenge? If we approach a ( psychological) problem with a "trance of tradition" then you will never solve the problem. On the contrary the problem remains and you introduce into it more problems, which is what is happening in the political world and so on. Or if you approach a problem, come near, draw near, with some ideological conclusion, belief, then again the same thing continues - right? So, we are going to answer these questions without any "personal" motive, without the deadening weight of tradition, or having a particular bias, prejudice - right? So that your brain is free to look at the problem. I hope it is clear: to understand the ( true significance of any ?) problem the brain must be free to look at it afresh, otherwise you just repeat (or...parrot ?) and that becomes rather tiresome, boring and useless.

QUESTION: What is desire? And is desire awakened ( only ) by external objects?

K: This is a very good question. It requires a great deal of enquiry into this. So first let's look together: what is desire. Desire in our life has become extraordinarily potent. We desire so many things. We desire heaven and (spiritual ?) liberation; or you desire a car, a woman or a man, or you desire a lovely garden, to have plenty of money and so on. So the object which is outside, awakens the desire to possess it.

But we are asking ( a deeper ?) question: is there desire without the 'object'? If there was no car, no woman, no man, no house, or the desire for power - it is all the 'outside' which then awakens the desire and then you fulfil that desire and you are satisfied, until ( comes...) the next desire, which is another object, not a car but something else. So we are asking: is there desire without the external object? That is one question.
Second is: you may create for yourself an 'image' which is externalized and you want to fulfil that image, therefore there is a desire to achieve that which the thought has created - right? You are violent and you create ( an idealised image of 'non-violence') which is a 'non-fact', and then you desire to become 'non-violent'. So there is not only an outside object which awakens desire but also inward ideologies, symbols, psychological images; having created it then you desire (to achieve it ?) . So external objects or internal objects are both the same (psychologically - wise ?) because they both awaken desire.

Now we are asking a very serious question, seeing this, is there a desire which is so extraordinarily strong, without an external object or an object created by the psychological process of thought?
So we are going to enquire together why has 'desire' become such an extraordinary potent power in our life? We desire so many things, from the most trivial to the sublime - right? So one has to enquire what is desire? How does it come into being and whether it can be controlled? Then if you are controlling it, who is the 'controller'? The 'controller' is another form of ( prioritary ?) desire - you see this? So ( both) the 'controller' and the ( desire supposed to be ?) 'controlled' are the activities of desire. We are trying to (have an insight into ?) the extraordinary movement of desire, look into it. When one ( non-dualistically ?) understands the whole movement of desire then you will see something else take place.

So what is desire? How does it come into being? There must be a cause. And we are going to discover for ourselves what the cause is.
If I may go on with this 'simile', you see a car, the latest Mercedes, and the seeing, the sensation, contact, sensation - right? That is the process: seeing, contact, sensation. Then ( your self-centred ?) thought creates the ( rewarding ?) image of 'you' sitting in the (latest Mercedes coupé) car and driving it. So there is a ( certain) time interval, or gap, between the actual sensation and ( almost ?) instantly thought creates the image of 'you' in the car and driving it. The instant that thought ( takes over and) creates the image, that is the beginning of "desire". The ( actual) thing is so rapid, so quick, but if you "slowed it down" and watched (in slow-motion ?) the movement of contact, sensation, then the image created by ( the self-centred ?) thought, at that second desire is born. Right?

So the question is not of 'controlling' this process of desire , but ( as ) the process slows down, to watch all this process slowly, carefully, step by step - right? So can we 'slow down' this whole process so to watch every step very carefully? When you so watch it, then you find there can be a 'gap' between sensation and the moment when thought takes it over - right? . So ( the next experiential step is ?) to extend that gap. That is, I see the blue shirt in the window, go inside, touch it, see the quality of it and... "wait", so that the ( self-centred process of ?) thought doesn't immediately enter and take over. That requires a very careful watching of all your reactions so that there is an interval between sensation and the activity of thought with its 'image'. Extend that ( silent ?) gap and then you will see that "desire" has very little potency. So then desire becomes not the 'master' but ( the emphasis falls on ?) the 'slowing down' of the sensation and (its taking over by ?) thought. So that you are ( desire-free but ?) extraordinarily alert. It is the ( inwardly ?) "inattentive" that are (psychologically -wise ?) "slaves to desire" - right?

(Recap:) The 'object', the visual seeing, ( the sensory) contact, and the ( rewarding ?) sensation awakens the "desire" to own it and then the ( mental) 'battle' - do have I the money ? and/or the ( very personal ?) frustration of not to have it and so on. But when you understand that desire is not only for the object outside but also from the projection of a (psychologically rewarding ?) image, Nirvana, Heaven, that is also from the inside but it is projected outside. So if we can ( slow down and ?) observe this whole process totally (non-personally ?) you can look at a car and you will have no ( greedy ?) reaction, unless you...(really need ) it - you understand?

QUESTION: You said it is necessary to have no opinions about anything. But I feel it is necessary to have ( responsible ?) opinions about such serious things as Nazism, Communism, the spread of armaments, the use of torture by governments. One can't just sit (back) and observe these things taking place. Mustn't one say something, or perhaps do something?

K: You are not going to 'catch me' ! I am not saying it is necessary or not necessary, but "why" do we have opinions? Not that they is not spreading of armaments and the use of torture by ( some ?) governments. And you may have strong opinions that this should not happen. And what are you going to do? Join a group, demonstrate, shout, be beaten up by the police, tear gas? Now, has your opinion brought about a change? The "armaments thing" has been going on for centuries - right? They all say we must not and yet big business, great industry says we can't exist if we don't sell armaments. No government is free of it, whether it is more subtly, more obviously, but it is going on. Now what is one to do? You may be strongly opposed to Nazism. Germany was a most civilized country in Europe, they studied philosophy, you know, inventions, they were great at one time. Those very cultured people were taken over by a "lunatic".

Now ( psychologically speaking ?) what is an "opinion"? "I am against all this". What value has that opinion? What can I do with my opinion? Will it affect selling up armaments, will it prevent Nazism, will it prevent torture? Or the (psychological aspect of the ?) problem is much deeper than opinions ? A more serious question: why is man against another man? Ask that question, not whether my opinion is justified or not. Why, after all these centuries of civilization and "culture", man is against man? Why? To go into that requires a much more serious enquiry than holding on to opinions or (having) no opinions, then we will enter into an area where we might 'do' something.
So we are asking a much more fundamental question, deeper issue: why is man against man? Go on sirs. Aren't you ( biased ?) 'against' somebody? Aren't you ( openly or subliminally ?) violent? And you 'are' ( inwardly a representative of ?) the whole of humanity. I know we like to think we are separate individuals, separate souls - I won't go into all that - because you are not. You are (inwardly like ) the rest of mankind because you suffer, you are lonely, you are depressed like all the rest. So you "are" basically (sharing the collective consciousness of ?) mankind. And if you 'are' humanity, and in the global sense you "are" (that) whether you like it or not, and if (inwardly ?) you are antagonistic, violent, aggressive, 'patriotic', then you are ( tacitly ?) helping to torture people, because where there is division there must be conflict and all the rest of it. So are you acting "whole"-ly or is it the small little "me" acting?

QUESTION: From what we read you have had strange and mysterious experiences? Is this 'Kundalini' or something greater? And we read that you consider the so-called "Process" that you have undergone to be some sort of expansion of consciousness. Could it be instead a self-induced, psychosomatic thing, caused by tension? Is not K's consciousness put together by thought and words?

K: I wish you would be simple about all this. K apparently has had various experiences. They may be psychosomatic, induced by tension, or pleasurable projection of his own desires, and so on. In India the word "Kundalini" has a great meaning. They have written books about it and several claim they have "awakened" it. Don't be mesmerized by this word. A kind of release of ( psychic ?) energy so that that energy is inexhaustible, that is the meaning of that word.

The fact is to awaken the energy and to let it function completely. And the so-called "Process", one is able to read other people's thoughts. They have experimented with this in Duke University in America, they have proved (statistically ?) that telepathy exists, that thought can control matter and so on. . Perhaps K has done some of these things but is this all important? It is like after a hot day having a good clean healthy bath with clean towel and good ( sandal ?) soap, but at the end of it you are "clean". K has been through all this. He knows a great deal about all this. But he treats all this as "not necessary". There is the ( same ?) energy which has been 'misused' by us in conflicts , in quarrels, in pretensions; so it is far more important to enquire why human beings behave as they do now, and to find out sanely how you waste your energy by conflict, by quarrels, by fear and pretension. When all that energy which is being wasted is not wasted, you have ( free access to ?) all the energy in the world. As long as your brain is not deteriorating through conflict, through ambition, through strife, fighting, loneliness, depression, when the brain is free of all that, you have an abundance of ( psychical ?) energy. But if you release some kind of little energy then you do an infinite harm ( in misguiding ?) others - right?

And also the questioner says: is not K's consciousness put together by thought? Your ( self-centred ?) consciousness with its ( active ?) 'content' of fear, belief, loneliness, anxieties, sorrow, saying "my country has the highest culture" and all that business, it is part of your consciousness. It is what you 'are' - right? And if you are ( breaking ?) free of that then you are (living inwardly ?) in a totally different dimension. It is not an 'expansion of consciousness'. It is the denying (negating ?) of the 'content' of consciousness - right? Not expanding, becoming more and more ( sophisticated ?) self-centred - right?

QUESTION: What does death mean to you?

K: What does life, the living and coming to the end of it, what does it mean to you? If you believe in "reincarnation" and if you have lived rightly, correctly, happily, your next life you will have a better chance to reach the higher ladder - right? You understand? But ( even) those people who believe in reincarnation live like any ordinary people, fighting, quarrelling, aggressive, vicious, violent. So, why do we give so much importance to what happens after death? Is it not far more important ( to deal with ?) what is happening during the long years of living, struggling, pain, anxiety, depression, suffering, loneliness, that you all go through - right? Isn't that more important to consider, whether all that can be 'changed', or 'ended', rather than go on talking about what happens after death? You understand?

Suppose I am attached to my wife, my children, my house, my furniture, and death comes along and says "you can't take it with you" - right? You have understood? Death means the 'ending' of all my (psychological attachments ?) and is it possible to end all that while living? You have understood? While I am living is it possible not to be attached to a single thing? To my furniture, to my house, to my experience, to my books, to my reputation ? To end all that (personal attachment ?) instantly. That is ( the spiritual significance of ?) death. Right?

Audience: That is wonderful...

K: It is wonderful if you "do" it. If you don't do it, it is just a lot of words.
So what we are saying is this: the death of the body, with all the accumulated memories, comes to an end. So is it possible to end all my ( personal ?) attachments while I am living, to be free entirely of it ? Attachment to your ideas, experiences - right? Because that is what death is going to do (anyways ) . So while living, the ending (of all personal attachments ?) means 'living with death'. You understand what I am saying? Like when you have a habit of smoking and you end it, though the body demands nicotine and all that kind of stuff, end ( your dependency to ?) it. Because ( grosso modo ?) that is what is going to happen when you die. End your clinging to some experience, to some memory so that your brain is new, fresh, clear, not burdened with all this rubbish, garbage. So to "live" (free of the past ?) is to live with death all the time. You understand? "Do it" sir!
( For homework:) Take one thing that you hold most precious and end ( your attachment to ?) that. Not "how an I to end it ?",or "tell me the way to end it", (just) end it, because death means that. So it is possible to live a life of freedom, and therefore a life of love ? Because a mind that is burdened with all kinds of stuff, a brain that has all kind of problems is not capable of (free ?) affection, love.
Understand, sir, the beauty of it: living and ending the 'things' you are attached to, so that you really understand the ( spiritual ?) depth of freedom.

QUESTION: After listening to you and thinking about these matters on my own, how am I to really not just solve my problems but radically bring about a change in my life?

K: To put it very simply, the question is: "what am I to do or not do to bring about a radical mutation in my whole existence?"
First of all, are you aware that your brain is conditioned? Sir, that is not difficult to be aware. When you say, "I am a British" - you are ( culturally ?) conditioned. So, are you aware of your ( cultural ?) prejudices ? Are you aware of your own 'laziness', of your pretensions that you are something 'extraordinary' you have reached? Are you aware of all this? And the moment you become aware of all your reactions, trying to correct your reaction implies an ( controlling ?) 'entity' who is also reacting ; this very entity that is observing is part of that conditioning.
To put it another way: the "observer" is not different from the (conditioned reactions being ?) 'observed'. The thinker is not different from his thoughts - the "thinker " is ( a virtual entity ?) separated ( empowered ?) by thought as being a little more 'knowledgeable', and that entity is 'observing'.

So apparently nothing external or internal changes man - right? You have tried ( charismatic ?) leaders, you have tried various 'philosophers', you have tried various religions, and yet ( inwardly ?) we remain as we are, indolent, indifferent, callous, without any spark of love. What will make us change? Nothing! No-thing from outside, nor your own 'desire' to change. So start with that 'fact' that nothing , no inward or outside (factor ?) is going to change you. Start with ( seeing the truth of ?) that fact - then you start with something actual, something that is real, as nobody outside is going to help you (change inwardly ?) . The 'Buddha' hasn't helped you, all the 'Christian' religions haven't helped you. Start from there. No thing from outside, or your own desire (to change ) is going to change you (inwardly ?) .
So then you start and say, " Do I really want to change, basically?" (clue: most of us don't !). But if you really want to change, it is ( holistically speaking ?) "simple": You deny totally every form of "outside agency" (including ) your own ( self-centred ?) desire ( wisely ?) put aside all that, then you start from ( considering ?) what you "are" and see if that 'thing' cannot be changed radically. It is up to you.

QUESTION: What is a spiritual life?

K: Would you say a "spiritual" life is a life of "total freedom"? Freedom from sorrow, freedom from fear, freedom from all the conditioning - right? To "be free". Most of us are ( 'psychologically' ?) in 'prison' - ( a virtual ?) 'prison' of our own ideas, or of other people's concepts, their own prejudices, their own experiences, they are like bars that hold us in prison. Most of us are 'slaves' to tradition, slaves to some kind of belief, or to ( our own past ?) experience. To be totally, completely free of all that. Freedom implies love. If there is no freedom there is no love. You cannot possibly achieve that ( total inward ?) freedom through some symbol, person, idea. Freedom means the ending of the self (-centredness ?), of the ( self-protecting ?) 'images' I have about myself. Then when the brain is free, only then is there that supreme Intelligence. Not all the rituals, sitting in a posture, meditating, breathing, you follow? That is not "spiritual". That is all the movement (the calculated activity ?) of memory and thought.

So we have "reduced" our life into a very small petty little affair. To be free of that entirely. And it "is" possible. Don't accept my word for it. I say it is possible. Find out. Do it. So in that spiritual life, there is no division between you and another. You won't kill another. The world is your country. The world is your religion. And living a spiritual life, a life that is holy, is not something for the "elite", for the ( self-selected ?) few, but (if you think ?) that is what is necessary work at it, not "pretend" and all that nonsense.
(In a nutshell :) a "religious" mind (requires?) a brain that is functioning with truth and therefore with great intelligence and compassion.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 31 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 30 Mar 2016 #240
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 120 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
All in all, a pretty tricky thing...

Yes tricky, The brain has allowed, gone along with, perpetuated all these 'attachments' and now 'I' am challenged to let them all go...and 'I' can't so that brings about "guilt": 'I'm not up to the task, 'I'm too weak etc. but it's the brain's decision to hang on and to accumulate all these things...and to resist any fundamental change. Tricky,yes. And who takes the rap, who takes the 'blame': 'me'. (And 'I'm not even 'real', just a "bundle of memories"!)

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Wed, 30 Mar 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 543 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.)