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

What are actually the K-Teachings ?


Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 650 in total
Wed, 23 Mar 2016 #211
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #212
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #213
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #214
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #215
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #216
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #217
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #218
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #219
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #220
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #221
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #222
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #223
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #224
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #225
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #226
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #227
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #228
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #229
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #230
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #231
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 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 #232
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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 #233
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 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 #234
Thumb_2474 Dan McDermott United States 133 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
Thu, 31 Mar 2016 #235
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

1ST K PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING MADRAS 1981 (condendsed)

QUESTION: Without conflict or struggle in the sense of desire to improve, how can there be any progress, material or social in the world? The desire to change supplies the motive force for work towards achievement and progress. If you accept 'what is' then how can there be any kind of progress?

K: When you say 'self-improvement', what is the 'self'? Could we go into that? What 'are' you? You have a name, you have a physical appearance, but apart from that, what are you? All that you have been taught in school and what your ( cultural) environment has impressed upon your brain. ( And still deeper ?) you are your greed, your envy, your beliefs - you are all that surely. the whole movement of thought. So what is there to 'improve'? Or there is freedom from all this, not 'improving'. I can't 'improve' my selfishness or my sense of despair. What is possible is to 'be free' of all that completely. That's simple enough.

The next part of the question is: if there is no conflict, struggle, there will be no progress. Is there "psychological" progress at all? ( Such) progress means moving from what I 'am' and gradually change, or transform myself . But is there ( any validity to thinking in terms of ?) time inwardly? I need time to learn a skill, to become an engineer, carpenter, but does one need time to be free of violence? To ( hopefully ?) attain a state of 'non-violence' is a movement from 'what is' to 'what should be', that requires time. But does being free from ( my mentality based on ?) violence require time? You understand? Our brains are conditioned to (consider anything in terms of ?) time and now we are asking a question which is totally different from that conditioning : is it possible to be instantly free from violence ? That is, without ( any postponement in ) time. We are saying it is possible. Which is (related to ?) how you observe your violence. Are you the 'observer' and (the response of ?) 'violence' is something apart from you? Or you 'are' (part of that ?) violence ? Is (my reaction of ?) anger different from me? I am anger, it is not different from me. I am greed, greed is not different from me. Violence is me, I am part of that. So then, there being no division, hence no conflict, and the observer is absent, there is only that state. Then in observing it ( non-dualistically) with all your energy and it totally disappears. 'Do it' and you will discover for yourself.
So the progress outwardly, physically, exists, of course. But to understand the nature of our ( psycho-heritage of violence in our ?) relationship and the transformation in that relationship, does it require time? Or there is immediate perception, an ( timeless flash of ?) "insight" which transforms the conditioning.

Q: But does this transformation take place through the will of our thought, or through some other energy?

K: What is will? When you say, 'I will do that', 'I will be that', is it not the summation of desire? So let's find out together what is desire.

Q: Desire is the outcome of ( self-centred ?) thought.

K: May I go into it very simply? Do you consider desire part of sensation? Desire is part of sensation. And what is sensation? The ( natural ) response of the senses. So there is first seeing, touching, then sensation. That's normal, isn't it ? Then what is the next step which brings about "desire"? Then ( the 'self'-centred process of ?) thought says, 'I wish I had that house'. That is, when thought 'identifies itself' with ( the rewarding ?) sensation then desire begins and thought creates the "image" of (myself comfortably ? ) living in that house. So, when ( the self-centred thought process ) creates the "image" then ( the time-binding process of ?) "desire" begins. Is this clear? Through the explanation of the speaker you see ( as in a magic mirror ?) the movement of seeing, contact, sensation, then thought with its image begins the "desire".
Now will is desire. Does any ( authentic inner ?) transformation take place through desire? Or ( the process of self-centred ?) thought is coming to an end (is 'taking a break' ?) and only the ( pure) sensation remain. I see that beautiful tree, but I 'want' this ( same species of ?) tree to grow in 'my' land. So "desire" has (clicked ?) taken place. So, "desire" cannot possibly bring about (a radical inward) transformation because ( the self-centred ?) thought creates an "image" of what transformation is (supposed to be) , and "you" desire that.
Or you may say, well, it is not this ( kind of) 'desire' but some outside agency. Is there an "outside agency"? This you would like to know, wouldn't you ?

Q: That is ordinarily called "luck" (or "heavenly gift" ?) . Coming from outside.

K: Is there an "outside agency" which will help us to transform ourselves?
You have had all those gurus, the "sacred" books for millennia. Has that helped you to become transformed? Answer, sir.

Q: Yes.

K: Oh, yes, you have transformed? So that you are compassionate, that you love, that you are supremely intelligent? Sir, let's be factual and honest for God's sake. You have had all the pressures put on you to change. Have you?

Q: Are you not an "outside agency"?

K: I am not. I am not "helping" you (to change) . I say, "help yourself". Right? You have relied on leaders, authority for centuries, and you are what you are now - confused, uncertain, insecure, suffering, anxious. Therefore you have to find out a different method - not rely on anybody.

Q: Don't you point in a certain direction?

K: No. I am not 'pointing out' (a way to be followed ?) , I am only saying, "look at yourself".

Q: But that is "pointing".

K: No, sir, you can make everything ( sound ) ridiculous. You believe in God, most of you do because you are 'frightened' and ( in the belief in) God there is a great sense of security. Right? That 'God' you have made. You might say, then "who" created the Universe ? That's a ( psychologically ?) 'wrong' question. You see, is there an state (of mind ?) in which there has been no cause?

Q: Spiritually ?

K: I am asking you a question which is very "serious", if you are interested in it. What has a cause comes to an end. Right? But is there a "state of mind" in which there is no cause, and therefore is"eternal"? Investigate it, sir. For us there is always a cause. I do "this" because I want "that". I compare myself with you who are intelligent, who are compassionate, who have some "flame" in you. And I want to be like you, or go beyond you. But if I don't compare what happens? I am 'what I am'. From there I can proceed (my own inward journey ?) . But if I am saying to myself, I am not as clever as you, and I must be as clever as you, then I begin to ( intellectually ?) 'compete' with you. So I want to find out if it is possible to live in this world without a sense of "comparing" myself with somebody. With Ramakrishna, or with the Buddha, or with the Christ, or with some guru, why should I compare myself? When I don't compare at all I am beginning to understand myself. You understand? I am beginning to see what "I am". A rose doesn't compare with a jasmine. It "is" a rose.

Q: Is it not due to a feeling inadequacy?

K: All right. So, if one is ( feeling) inadequate, insufficient, inwardly what do you do? I feel empty, I feel all kinds of ( depressing ?) things, insufficient. So what happens? I (will instinctively ?) try to fill that insufficiency with words, with images. But how do I know I am insufficient? Because I have ' subliminally ?) compared myself with you who appear to be self-sufficient. But if I don't compare ( yourself with anybody ?) what takes place? You ( can directly ) "meet" this insufficiency. Right, sir?

QUESTION: Tell us seriously what should be done to help this country and the people of the country, for no philosophy, no books, no talks, can solve these problems.

K: If you are serious, and you say, none of these will help, and you are clear about it, that nobody can "help" you to bring about a radical change in the structure of this country, moral, ethical, social, then what will "you" do? You know you cannot rely on any politician, or on the people who write books about something beyond the mind- they don't know what they are talking about. Right? So what will 'you' do?

Q: Look at the problem ?

K: Please, madam, we can easily see the problem. The problem is overpopulation, the division in class, the lack of right education, tradition, and we have become so depended on 'leaders', one after the other you have had. Right? And the country, the people, have not changed. What will you do, sir, when you realize this?

Q: You have to take the responsibility and behave properly.

K: Are you accepting the responsibility for yourself to see that you behave properly? Or again is that just talk? Sir, do you know what is happening to this country, do you all realize? The speaker has been coming to this country every winter for the last sixty years. You have advanced technologically, you are as clever, as inventive as anybody else. But (inwardly ?) as a human being, you are slowly dying. The culture that this country has had, gone, finished, torn apart. Everyone is living for himself. He is not concerned about his son's future, his grandson's future. You are not concerned for your neighbour. You follow? You are not concerned at all about another except about yourself. The country is breaking up , the family is breaking up. And there is no "new flame", you are just repeating. When you repeat there is certain 'dead' (form of) security, and you are in that state now. What are we going to do? Education, you know what it is in this country, it is at the lowest ebb, there is violence hidden, it may explode at any time. So the country is facing a tremendous crisis, your country, the land on which you are living, and you don't seem to "care". So you let it go down the drain?

Don't look at me, sirs. Look at the land that you are despoiling, the beauty of the country. Will you undertake the responsibility for what you are, what you do, what you think, what you feel, behave honestly, with integrity ? That's the only thing that is going to change this country. If there are a group of people who are really concerned with the future of this country, if you seriously undertake that responsible for yourself you will be generous, you will not be corrupt. Then you will probably help the country to become something totally different than it is. It is a beautiful country, vast space, marvellous rivers and trees and mountains. Somebody said the other day, 'It's a lovely country except for the Indians!' Yes, sir, face it.

QUESTION: What is sorrow?

K: What is sorrow, the questioner asks. Aren't you in sorrow when you see all that's going on in this country? Or is sorrow only when you personally are affected? So, what is ( the personal ?) sorrow? Tears, pain, self-pity, the loss of somebody whom you love - if you love, which I doubt - you are 'attached', love is not attachment. Is sorrow (only) 'personal', or there is the "sorrow of the world", of which you are. You follow? We have reduced everything to a small limited 'me' - my pain, my sorrow - we don't see the sorrow of man, of which you are. Sir, have you ever realized historically for five thousand years there have been wars, practically every year, and how many women, men, maimed, shed tears, the loneliness, the brutality of all that. You understand, sirs? Isn't that a great sorrow? Isn't it a sorrow that the poor man round that corner will never have clean clothes, isn't it a sorrow to realize such a (sad) state exists?

So the ( global ?) understanding of sorrow is the ending of ( one's individual ?) sorrow. Sir, this requires a great deal of investigation into sorrow. Probably you have never never actually suffered, felt the intense pain of it, because we are always ( pro-actively ?) seeking comfort, escape from sorrow. You have got dozens and dozens of explanations for sorrow, and ( dozens of practical modalities ) to escape from sorrow. But a man, or a woman who realizes the depth of sorrow, (has only 2 choices: ) either he remains ( stuck ?) with that sorrow, becomes cynical, bitter, angry, violent, or he "goes beyond", he is free from sorrow. And it is possible to be free from sorrow, only when there is "love".

QUESTION: What is the nature of freedom? Why does it happen?

K: What is the nature of freedom ? You have had ( political ?) freedom in this country since the British left, what have you done with it? So, what do you mean by "freedom"? The freedom to do what you like ? Which is what you are doing. Freedom from anxiety, freedom from pain ? There is a "freedom from something", which is not freedom. I can be free from ( a certain) attachment- that's fairly simple. But that's not actual freedom. I am free from a ( particular ?) burden, but what is "freedom"? Will you 'know it' ( will you be conscious of it ?) when you are "free"? When you are happy and you say, 'How happy I am', is that happiness, or is it only after it is gone? You understand my question? Can you ever "recognize", or "experience", complete freedom - not 'from anything' - freedom? When 'you' say (for the record ?) , 'I am totally free', then you are not ( necessarily ?) free. Right? It's like a man who says, 'I know', then he does not ( really ?) know. So "freedom" is something, sir, that "you" cannot ( self-consciously ?) experience. Like enlightenment is not to be experienced, because where there is ( the self-consciousness of having ?) an experience there is an "experiencer" who must recognize ( and label ?) the experience otherwise it is not a (memorable personal ?) experience. So "freedom" is a state of being, not ( a subject of 'personal' ?) becoming.

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

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Apr 2016 #236
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
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 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 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 energy. But if you release some kind of little energy then you do an infinite harm in others - right?

Hello John, the kthing as far as I know seems involuntary..if it is random and scarce , it does not make deep global sense to me...when I was "contacted" like some people I met after, in a real telepathic talk with words between two brains....it seems to me that it is the other person who initiated this "talk" as she told me that I will not be able to reproduce it....of course I tried...it failed...the all story mean that somewhere, somehow, some people know how to handle that and more...for me this is another dimension where we clearly are not...it gives much a serious ground to truth to k early statement on masters and more...

So k said he has gone through all this and more..and he treats this as not necessary...You know, what happened is fact so why not tell....? You can't prevent anyone to take that as a new age doctrine, a new philosophy, etc, it will not produce anything anyway....

Now it brings us to : 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.

then: 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 energy.

I leave it for now...with that :" A kind of release of ( psychic ?) energy so that that energy is inexhaustible, that is the meaning of that word.

Good way to say it, it is precisely the sensation it gives..a bit like a mental ejaculation a good comparison as physically it starts the same way at the same physical location!! in a different direction of course..

John Raica wrote:
Are you accepting the responsibility for yourself to see that you behave properly? Or again is that just talk? Sir, do you know what is happening to this country (India), do you all realize? The speaker has been coming to this country every winter for the last sixty years. You have advanced technologically, you are as clever, as inventive as anybody else. But (inwardly ?) as a human being, you are slowly dying. The culture that this country has had, gone, finished, torn apart. Everyone is living for himself. He is not concerned about his son's future, his grandson's future. You are not concerned for your neighbour. You follow? You are not concerned at all about another except about yourself. The country is breaking up , the family is breaking up. And there is no "new flame", you are just repeating. When you repeat there is certain 'dead' (form of) security, and you are in that state now. What are we going to do? Education, you know what it is in this country, it is at the lowest ebb, there is violence hidden, it may explode at any time. So the country is facing a tremendous crisis, your country, the land on which you are living, and you don't seem to "care". So you let it go down the drain?

John Raica wrote:
Will you undertake the responsibility for what you are, what you do, what you think, what you feel, behave honestly, with integrity ? That's the only thing that is going to change this country. If there are a group of people who are really concerned with the future of this country, if you seriously undertake that responsible for yourself you will be generous, you will not be corrupt. Then you will probably help the country to become something totally different than it is. It is a beautiful country, vast space, marvellous rivers and trees and mountains. Somebody said the other day, 'It's a lovely country except for the Indians!' Yes, sir, face it.

that could be said for any place in the world right now..replace Indian by whoever lives there...Corruption at all level global material,personal etc is destroying us, modern machines is our only glory left, not mine , I think that was the wrong way..may be I am the one to be wrong here ??....what is next I don't know...I had a clear vision of that "today" when 12, I have none about what is next...logic here say two things...the vision was incomplete, or the vision says that from now there cannot be any prediction...so it would be opened both ways, the tragic way or the other way.....I don't sense anything at all..

John Raica wrote:
So the ( global ?) understanding of sorrow is the ending of ( one's individual ?) sorrow. Sir, this requires a great deal of investigation into sorrow. Probably you have never never actually suffered, felt the intense pain of it, because we are always ( pro-actively ?) seeking comfort, escape from sorrow. You have got dozens and dozens of explanations for sorrow, and ( dozens of practical modalities ) to escape from sorrow. But a man, or a woman who realizes the depth of sorrow, (has only 2 choices: ) either he remains ( stuck ?) with that sorrow, becomes cynical, bitter, angry, violent, or he "goes beyond", he is free from sorrow. And it is possible to be free from sorrow, only when there is "love".

Well John ,this time it is you who brings my "pet" subject as you say...

K:
Aren't you in sorrow when you see all that's going on in this country (planet)?

Most are not is what I see, as long as there is fuel for cars etc, who cares if it is tainted with the blood of millions...some feel it ,at first it destroys you....

But more on that some other time, k's words here are spot on..when you add this

k: See the map of sorrow not with
the eyes of memory. Listen to the
whole murmur of it; be of it, for you
are both the observer and the
observed. Then only can sorrow end.
There is no other way.

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 01 Apr 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Apr 2016 #237
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But my intimate feeling is that a new dimension of mankind's consciousness has been already 'born' or ' 'got activated' (K might have been only the 'speaker', the 'porte-voix' for it) ..

Well John, I see that as a real possibility...

John Raica wrote:
It is like the next ( inward quantic level) but its access has a 'sine-qua-non' condition - to discard our obsessive emphasis on self-interest. So, any way we'd look at it- rationally, sanely etc etc...- it may all come down finally to 'a leap of faith'- no matter how many books you've studied on swimming, you still have to eventually jump in the water... willingly or not

Yes, this is the taste given by, not only, let's say properly dealing with one's sorrow...sorrow having many roots but one symptom....I say, start with the symptom..and see...!!

John Raica wrote:
So this may be what K is calling 'ending of time' or ...'dying to the known' And even rationally speaking it makes only sense that in order to get somewhere else...you first have to leave the place where you 'are...

I sense that since some recent time...as it must happen that way....and you can sense a part of what has to be lived....and this step , it is a conscious one somehow , seems to require something "special"...to be found by oneself..

John Raica wrote:
Psychologically it would amount to an 'immersion into the unknown' and I sincerely can't see this can be happening except in the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation...

precisely.

John Raica wrote:
And I re-iterate the personal conviction that the truly creative , 'non-preaching' parts of K's public talks and interviews are actual 'meditator-less' meditations which he often calls 'thinking together' or 'inquiring together', etc...

As it happens yes and in my view too by recalling factually some of the past and conveying that somehow, is my feeling not certainty of course....the analytical program being then properly used for that matter....as a faithful transcription of what still is in memory and somehow is still "alive" in the present....

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Fri, 01 Apr 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 02 Apr 2016 #238
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

2ND PUBLIC K QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 31ST DECEMBER 1981

K: Most of us, if I may respectfully point out, are more or less ( inwardly ?) asleep. Our brains are not functioning at their highest level because we work and think in a routine, habit, mechanically living and so gradually our brains become atrophied, naturally, like an old car that has lost its vitality. So ( this being said ?) we may proceed with the questions.

QUESTION: What is the place of 'right action' in one's quest for self-knowledge?

K: Now, ( inwardly speaking ?) the 'right action' is freedom from the past and not projecting ( to do something in ?) the future and acting according to the ( expectations involved in that ?) 'future'. When there is right action, it is 'right' under all circumstances, wherever you are. You know what that means? One must have tremendous (inward) strength, like a rock, immovable, because that's "right action".
And "self-knowledge". I can only 'know' ( everything about ?) that which has already happened. But a for a flowing water, a stream, a river that is rushing by, I can't say, 'I know it'. The moment I say, 'I know', I have stopped ( the movement of ?) learning . Therefore the cultivation of ( gathering stuff in our ?) memory is not "learning". I may go to a university, school, college, and I have accumulated a great deal of information. That has become my knowledge which I use skilfully to earn a livelihood, or unskilfully. But the moment I have accumulated a great deal of information, and act according to that information, according to that knowledge, my "skilled action" is ( becoming) limited. But if I am learning all the time, what does it mean "knowing myself "?

(Eg:) I become aware that I am "angry" (or frustrated ?) . That's part of my being, that's part of "me". Why do I use the word 'anger'? Because I remember the previous "angers" which have been named. So when there is a new reaction of that emotion ( in order to safely deal with it ?) I 'name' it. Which means that I like to think it is different from me because then I can keep it under control , I can "rationalize" it, but it is part of 'me'. That's a fact. And I have named it, as "anger". Because ( using ?) that word is part of my ( cultural) tradition, part of my inheritance. The (cultural significance of that ?) word has become important, not ( dealing directly with ?) the actual feeling. So am I capable of looking at that new emotion without the word, without 'recognizing' it as ( something that happened to me in ?) the past? You understand? That is, we are always living (according to our experience acquired ?) in the past. Right? And this ( cultural background of the ?) 'past' is a series of memories, words, symbols. So when a new reaction takes place I immediately name it. Which means I have brought it back into my old cultural tradition (which either condemns or justifies my anger) . Whereas if I could look at that new reaction without the word, without (thought taking control and) saying, 'I know it's anger', I can meet every reaction afresh. That means my brain is extraordinarily alive, sensitive, not just caught in the old repetition .

Will you do that (for homework ) ? That is, to become aware of this whole movement of some reaction, and how the very naming of it strengthens the past, and so we are strengthening 'anger' (and its 'observer' ?) by repetition of the word. Clear?
The ancient Greeks and the ancient Hindus have talked about ( the importance of ?) self-knowledge, of knowing oneself. That is, if I don't know myself I am just a leaf in the wind. So if I want to learn about myself, I can dispense with all the ( psychological ?) authority of what other people have said about 'me' since I have to discover it for myself. 'Myself' is a living thing, so is there a 'looking at myself' as though for the first time? Not with my previous ( background of accumulated ?) "knowledge about myself" ? That is, to learn about myself anew because I am a living thing, not a dead thing. ( Psychologically speaking ?) you may be 'dead', because you are so caught up in ( the virtual world of ?) memories, which is 'dead'. So it becomes extraordinarily vital and energising if you can 'look' (non-verbally ?) at that tree as though for the first time, at your ( 'personal' ?) reactions, your sensations, rather than ( quickly ?) name them, which is to catch it in the ( mental) 'net of the old', so that every time it's ( seen) anew.
Do it, sirs and you will see what extraordinary vitality one has, an energy that has an extraordinary quality of freshness, of something totally new.

Q: Why are we not able to do this?

K: Because you don't want to (pay the 'price' for it ?).

Q: I want to.

K: Sir, how many hours of the day do you spend in an office, or in a factory, or how many years you have spent to learn a skill ? Now this (direct way of learning about oneself ?) requires not one day, you have to be aware, watching, watching the trees, the moon, the birds, and also inwardly watching yourself 'like a hawk', to see that not even one ( self-centred ?) thought escapes (your diligent observation ?). So, how much time will you give to that? Or you ( might meditate and ?) deny 'time'.

QUESTION: Even though I am able to bring about order within myself, the disorder and pressure of the world around me constantly affects my daily life. Is it possible to remain (inwardly ) unaffected?

K: Aren't you (psychologically speaking ?) 'under pressure' all the time? The newspapers ( subliminally ?) telling you what to think, and what not to think, you have also the pressure of your parents, and your family. You are under pressure of your own desires. In fact you are constantly "under pressure". Are you aware of this? So don't say there is 'order' in us: as long as you are conforming to that pressure there is disorder. You understand, sir, life isn't a game. Life demands that you be serious.
Is not the 'self' in itself ( part of this ?) disorder ? Because there is ( an ongoing ?) contradiction in myself: I want, and I don't want; I am bad but I want to be good; I am envious and where there is contradiction there cannot be order. And our consciousness is (in a state of ) total disorder. You look doubtful ? All right, I'll explain.
Our ( self-centred) consciousness is ( based on ?) greed and non-greed, the bad wanting to be good, I have anxiety, and I am lonely, all contradictions. That's my consciousness. Right? And in that consciousness there is the desire to be orderly, which is ( creating still ?) another contradiction. So even as you say, 'I am able to bring about order', "you" (the self-centred entity ?) are bringing about greater disorder. But if you (want to) understand what is (the nature of this ?) disorder - I say one thing and do another, the 'modern' (way of life) and the 'traditional', which is disorder, obviously. Either you are conscious of it or you are unconscious of it.

Now (an authentic ?) order is not born out of ( optimising the existing ?) disorder because if it is born out of disorder that ( imposed ?) 'order' is still part of disorder. I wonder if you see that only when there is no disorder I am orderly. The "art of learning"- can you learn about your (existential ?) disorder? The way you treat your wife, and the wife treats you, the disorder of ( inward ?) contradictions. To learn about it, sir.
So order is not ( following) a blueprint. It is a living thing.

QUESTION: You once said, "give your life to understand life", what does it mean?

K: Sir, have you "given your life to anything"? Your whole being to something? Have you given something generously, completely (if you believe in God) to God? Or we are always giving a little, but withholding a great deal. ( In the same way) to understand life, which is myself, the world around me, you must 'give' something to it, 'learn' (non-accumulatively ?) from it. Obviously. Will you? Or is there always a "string attached" to it? If you are rich, do you give generously, or you always have a motive behind that generosity ? I watch people who are very rich, how extraordinarily miserly they are (inwardly ?), and... they build temples. It's a crazy world.
Sir, to understand life one must be extraordinarily committed to life. To live it, to understand the beauty of living without conflict. And to understand conflict you have to go into it, search it out, work (bearing in mind that ?) nobody is going to help you. Therefore you have to have an extraordinary "strength". We are brave but not strong. Right?

Q: Isn't there an intense effort needed to love?

K: No, sir, to love somebody, does it require effort? To be kind to somebody, does it require effort? To give what little you ( may ?) have to somebody, does that require effort?

QUESTION: I am a twelve-year old boy. I am constantly afraid of death. How shall I get rid of this fear?

K: The other day in Rishi Valley a boy asked the same question. He was probably still younger. He must have seen death, a dead bird, or he has seen in his family somebody dying, and all the people weeping, weeping for their own self-pity, for their own loneliness. It is a very complex question, what death is, and its fear. I am asking the forgiveness of the boy who has put this question, if he is here, please come Saturday or Sunday we will ( try to ?) answer it.

But, see sirs, what have you done to your children? You have many children, overpopulation, what have you done to them. You marry them off, or you send them off to schools, if you are rich enough, to boarding schools, residential schools, and at home you are constantly scolding them, do this, don't do that, be like your father. So you are all the time bullying that boy. And he grows up to bully others. We don't see that it is our responsibility to create a "good" human being; neither the educator, nor the parents see that we ought to create a new society, a new human being. Right? We don't feel the responsibility of that. And it is very difficult to have "good" teachers too. They pass some exams, get a title, and if can't get a better (paid) job, they turn to teaching. And you entrust your children to somebody who is not ( deeply ?) interested in ( educating ?) your children, as nor are you interested in your children. And they grow up in fear, in solitude, in anxiety. ( In a nutshell:) There is no love at home, no love at school.

Please see your ( individual ?) 'responsibility' for God's sake. ( An authentic ?) education is to bring about a "good" human being who will know what affection is, who will care, who has love, consideration, sympathy, generosity. Will you see to it for your own children, demanding the right teacher, (and...paying him) ? You see, you don't. So we are 'creating' a generation of people like ourselves; dull, insensitive, superstitious, and very clever at business, getting money, and so as a parent you are interested that you should get a degree, and get a good job, and wash your hands of him completely. Right? That is, every parent in the world is concerned with that. Get him a good job, get him married and settle down. Settle down to what? To ( a life of 'psychological' ?) misery ?

QUESTION: Kindly give a "straight" reply. Does God exist, or not? Yes, or no. If yes, how best to realize Him in this life?

K: This is a lovely question, isn't it. Man throughout history from the ancient Greeks, from the ancient Summerians, had this idea of God. I am not at all sure whether in the Upanishads they mention God at all. Or is it a later ( cultural) invention? A 'God' who is omnipotent, omniscient, eternal, merciful, all Goodness. That's your 'concept' of God. And if you say, he has created us, then we are part of him. That is, we are omniscient, generous, loving and eternal. Right? Are we? Or we just 'think' we are? So if you examine very closely, you have created ( the concept of ?) "God". In India there are about - I was told - about 300,000 "gods" and more ( to come ?) . You understand?

So, sirs, we have created ( the concept of ?) 'God'. See the irony of it ? Thought has created 'God' and then thought worships the "image" which thought has created. Which is ... to worship ( a magnified image of ?) oneself and call it 'God'. You understand all this? The better part of you is God. Right? I wonder if you understand this. First of all, let's be clear. Have you created god? The local "gods" round the corner, or the local 'gods' in Rome, or wherever, you have created them, haven't you? You are so very uncertain, aren't you, so frightened (of the Unknown ?) . Out of your fear you want safety, you want to feel there is somebody looking after you because you are afraid, so you create that ( god-image ?) , and then worship that. Just see what you are doing: Going to Tirupati and putting all your money in the bag - do you think the gods want your money ? Sir, look at it: you have nothing to offer but money, garlands, prostrations, rituals. Right? You have nothing else to offer. Have you realized the tragedy of this, sirs?
It is very easy to "love God" because it is an abstraction, but if you ( have ?) "love" (in your heart ?) , that very love is God, that very love is sacred. You won't go outside to look for God. You understand all this, sirs ?

And the questioner wants to know if I "believe in God". I don't. Because God is not something created by man. ( However ?) there is such a thing as "Eternity", which is to be outside of time. Right, sir. But for ( an inward opening to ?) "that" you must have a mind, a heart that is completely free from all the ( time-binding ?) burdens of (our daily ?) life: from your (intellectual ?) arrogance, your ( 'natural' ?) selfishness, you follow, sir ? And if we say, "we are not capable of it, tell us what to do", you are back in the ( 'guru' ?) cycle, somebody to tell you what to do.

Sir, ( psychologically speaking ?) you are in a 'jungle', and you have to walk through it by yourself. And for that you need vitality and vigour and strength. Not "belief in God" - "belief" has no place where Truth is concerned. Right?

Q: Then what is "atman", sir, the "conscience inside" each of us ?

K: You think there is "something" (eternal ?) inside you which is permanent, which is the light of God, which is Nameless - call it atman, soul, light- that there is inside you, in your conscience, in your brain, in your mind, something which is not worldly, which is not of thought. You "believe" that, don't you?

Q: I don't believe in it.

K: Why?

Q: There is no such thing.

K: How do you know?

Q: I believe there isn't.

K: Just belief, belief, belief. What kinds of brain have you, sirs? Don't you want to find out? Don't you want to investigate into the truth of this matter, whether there is a "soul", "atman", whatever you like to call it ? If you 'believe' , what value has it in my daily life ? I am miserable, I am confused, I'm lonely, anxious, in agony, what's the point of my having a "belief in atman"? (On the other hand ?) if I am free from all that, completely, then I shall ( be able to ) find (it) out.
Sir, would you forget all these ( saintly) people, including Ramana Maharishi, or whoever the other gentleman was. Would you forget them? What value has their life to you? You have your life to live, not their life. And when the people say they have "attained" how do you know?

Q: Then what do you mean by "timeless eternity"?

K: I have said it, sir. Don't 'believe' it! Truth is something you cannot "experience", it cannot be told to you, the word is not "It". I can describe "eternity", blah, blah, but the word is not "that" (living spirit of Truth ?) . But we are satisfied with the ( sound of that ?) word. Right, sir? You love with your heart, with your mind, with everything that you have, and you tell me of that "love", and I (intellectually ?) accept the ( inspiring ?) words but the "perfume" isn't there.

( Recap:) If you realise that you are literally in a ( psychological) "jungle", where you have to make your own way out, there is nobody ( around?) to lead you, then you forget all the 'examples', the 'books', everything, because you have vitality, ( the inner) "strength" to go through. Once you realize it in your heart, not just 'intellectually', you are a human being who is free to "walk straight". It is so simple when you think of it all...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Apr 2016 #239
Thumb_picture0122 Daniel Paul. Ireland 229 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Truth is something you cannot "experience"...

Well John that is one out of some sayings by k which for me brings many problems

during this kthing I was told by my "contact" that " you cannot have it back, cannot reproduce it"..meaning the analytical process, thought, is not of it...that is all....

In the facts, when the amazing energy was so deeply present putting the analytical at its right place, there is experience taking place, something is taking place...then who cares what or who is living that as it is happening, there is experience...a momentum...yet agreed it is not what we usually know as it is beyond thought

I don't expand more, but this saying can be very dangerous I think..because it does not say enough, and far from it, it is far too short to convey the right thing...my view...

and to me what is said after does not clarify that point at all..

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

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Sun, 03 Apr 2016.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 03 Apr 2016 #240
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 580 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 1ST PUBLIC QUESTION & ANSWER MEETING 4TH MAY 1982( condensed)

QUESTION: Our children are aware through television and other ( media) means of the threatening world they live in. The violence of crime, wars, nuclear danger. How do we help them to face this?

K: How do "we" face the problem, rather than the children? Because after all the parents are (should be ?) the really deeply responsible people to teach them. So, what is our responsibility? How do I or you meet this terrible world? Do we accept things as they are (trying to) adjust ourselves to things as they are, modifying our lives but accepting the status quo ? Or, if we do not accept them, let's find out together how do we face (and tackle ?) these problems.
If I am a parent and I have several children, and I see the things that are going on in the world, how shall I educate him to face this life? First of all, how do I as a parent face these problems? Do I take the total responsibility of what is happening in the world?
Is it possible for me as a parent, and so a ( potential ?) 'teacher', is it possible for me to break away from the usual mediocre tradition? I am afraid most of us are ( comfortably ?) mediocre and I leave it all to the teachers and let them educate my children? Not undertake the responsibility of educating them at home as well as in their holidays and so on.

By nature, by inheritance we are violent people: aggressive, competitive, arrogant, and we have come to that, through various biological demands and necessities which have become habitual. And we create a 'violent' (and/or disorderly ?) society and can I educate my children not to be violent? Come on, answer! If I have taken the responsibility to help them understand this cruel world; I may talk to them, but at home I tell them one thing, and when they go outside they are being "gregarious", wanting to follow the tradition, not to be abnormal, different from others, they become like the rest of them, mediocre, cruel, thoughtless; you know what is happening. So, what shall I, as a parent, do?

(a) Can I give up ( the attachment to ?) my pleasures? I am in the habit of smoking , drinking, taking marijuana and I tell my children not to do it; they won't believe me. They'll say, you're a hypocrite. So will I give up all those things for ( the sake of educating ?) my children? I have heard several parents in Europe and elsewhere say, " Why should I give up my pleasures for my blasted children? They will have to face the ( real ?) world; and if we make them 'soft' they will be destroyed. So we must make them hard".

( b) Can I, as a parent and a teacher of my children, "(re-) educate myself" as well as my three or four children? That means I have to break up the ( habitual ?) "pattern" in which I have been living. If I love my children, I have to educate them not live in the same old pattern; the same old habits of past generations and amusements and pleasure. Obviously I must give them up (in the first place ?) . This has been a problem with which the speaker has been (having in his "experimental schools" ?) for the last 60 years. Not only the biological sexual problem of an adolescent; but also the (pressure of ?) society is so brutally strong, the outward environment; you may (try to ?) bring them up very, very carefully, but the structure of society is so powerful.

(c) From this arises rather an interesting question: As ( the present ?) society does not demand people who have this sense of integrity, the sense of wholeness in their life, a profound religious life, can we as a group be those people? Do you understand my question? It is a very interesting point. Then we'll have such a person, such a human being, who has such strength, such vitality in himself. And such a group becomes essentially important. They are like a light in darkness. So are there such parents who will be that?
Please, sirs, this is a very, very serious question because ( willingly or not ?) you are bringing about a new generation of people. If that generation is merely the continuation of what you are, with all the violence and all the stupidities of war, society will then become more and more ( self-) destructive. So, as a group of ( responsible) parents, is it possible that we demand of ourselves the highest excellence in behaviour, in conduct, so that we educate our children in a totally different way ?

QUESTION: Great teachers have been on earth; Buddha, Jesus. Do you think there will be less conflict, more understanding when you also depart, or is the world moving in an unalterable direction?

K: The Buddha, two thousand five hundred years ago talked about love, conduct, and so on, not to worship anything. But his followers made ( culturally convenient ?) "images" of him, and so destroyed him (his teachings ?) . There are various ( Buddhist) scriptures written down from memory, but the 'disciples' always (have a natural tendency to ?) exaggerate, distort, or extol; and lose the real depth of his teaching. And the Christian world has also made up ( the image of ?) that person into something incredible. And probably when the speaker "kicks the bucket", there will be the same phenomena going on.

All this points to something extraordinary: the ( culturally transmissible ?) "symbols" have become far more important than the truth of any of those people who have said things which are utterly true. Why do we want 'mediators' between that truth and yourself - the priests have existed from the ancient of times to "interpret" or "come between" you and " That". Why can't we not look to (getting help from ?) anybody? Because the whole history of mankind, his suffering, his agony, his desperate uncertainty, loneliness, it's all in the "book" which we are. We are the ( living ?) history of mankind. And if we can ( learn to ?) read that "book" for ourselves, we will need nobody outside to help.
Now, to read that "book" we need a careful ( meditative ?) observation of every movement of thought, feeling, reactions; and we don't do it because we want an easy way to everything. And as long as we depend on others, whether it be Buddha and so on, we shall always (continue to ?) live in conflict, our life will become "hypocritical". So, is it possible to be totally, completely free from all dependence, to have one's own deep abiding unshakeable integrity; which involves no fear and so on. Otherwise we create 'gods', 'saviours'.

QUESTION: My behaviour indicates that I am afraid. Yet the actual perception of fear is elusive. How do I reach and deal with this deep-rooted but unconscious emotion?

K: This problem of fear has existed from time immemorial. And man has lived with it; both consciously or hidden deep down; its roots very, very deep. And either we have (tried to get rid of it ) through logic, through psychoanalysis, through any form of entertainment that helps us to avoid coming directly into contact with it, and holding it; or we have 'suppressed' it (swept it under the carpet ?) . And one knows the consequences of fear. The physical shrinkage, a tendency to be 'hypocritical' (hiding under a mask ?) , an avoidance of the fact that one is really afraid (of the 'unknown' ?) .

So what is the ( central ) root of fear? One knows various forms of fear: fear of death, old age, fear of insecurity, fear of not being loved, fear of loneliness; fear of loss, fear of not having anybody to rely on, and so on. There are various forms of fear; the fear of the dark, the fear of light. So do we want to deal with fear superficially, which is intellectually (analytically ?) or going to the very root of it: what is the root of fear? Is it ( the ongoing process of ?) "time and thought"? Thinking about the future, thinking about the past; thinking of what might happen, or what has happened. The ( memory of our personal and collective ?) 'past' modifying itself in (updating itself in ?) the 'present' and moves towards the 'future'. Thinking about a (previous) incident which has caused fear, and thinking about the future (occuring ?) of that incident is awakening the new fear - you are following all this? So there is a 'horizontal' ( "past-present-future" dimension of ?) fear and a vertical (dimension of ?) fear ( of the 'now' ?) . Right? One is afraid of the past, the present, and the future: it is a (thought -out) movement. Right? This is not something that is static, it is a movement. And as any movement means (involves ?) time; getting from one point to another point means time. So we are asking if ( thinking of oneself in terms of ?) 'time' is one of the factors of fear. Isn't (our self-centred ?) thought also the root of fear? I think that I will be unemployed tomorrow. Thinking about ( what might happen to me ?) 'tomorrow' is also the beginning of fear. Right, you are following? Thinking about the actual moment of life in which there is such tremendous ( material) uncertainty, ( taking very personally that kind of ?) thought breeds fear.

So ( in a nutshell:) "time and thought" are the major factors of fear. And as in reality they are, what is one to do? We have the (intellectual ?) habit of ( instantly ?) making ( verbalised) abstractions of a fact. I have made an abstraction of what you have told me; "time and thought are the root of fear"; and how am I to carry it out in my daily life. The speaker says, please don't ( bother to ?) translate it into an idea, but ( experientially ?) find out the truth of it, the actuality of it. That is, to see that I really am (horizontally ?) afraid of ( a 'future' that I have projected from ?) the ( subliminal memory of my ?) past. Also I am ( vertically ?) afraid of the "present", because the things are so incredibly ( chaotic and ?) destructive around me. So, I see the (truth of this ?) fact that "time and thought are the root of fear" ? Now what shall I do?

Then if you have gone that far, the ( following experiential ?) difficulty arises, who is the 'observer' who says, "yes, I see the truth of it"? Is this 'observer' different from what he sees? You understand my question? When I say, yes, I (intellectually ) see the truth of what you have told me, I have already played a ( subliminal mental ) trick, which is: I see the truth of it; that means I am different ( I am distancing myself ?) from the (actual fact ) .

Let me put it much more simply. When I am ( actually ?) 'angry', is that anger different from me? At the moment of anger, there is no difference. There is this tremendous reaction. A few seconds later I say, "I have been angry", therefore I have (safely distanced ?) myself as the 'me' who has been ( momentarily) 'angry'. So, (similarly) when you have told me the truth, the 'fact', that "time and thought are the factors of fear", I listen to it very carefully and I say, yes, I see the truth of it; and the (intellectual processing of that direct ?) perception of that truth is ( split subliminally into ?) 'something out there' and the 'me' watching it. Or, there is no 'observer' but only the 'fact' ? So, when I (actually) see the "truth" of what you have told me, there is no division between the observer and the observed. There is only the truth of it, not, "I" see it. And that (insightful ?) perception, which is holistic, frees the mind from ( the root-cause of ?) fear completely. Have you got this?

Putting the same question still differently: can the (subliminal) conflict of me controlling my fear, can this conflict ( come to an ?) end? Why is there this ( mentality of ?) division? Is the division actual? Or, not being able of dealing directly with the problem, thought has divided itself as the 'me' and the 'fear' ? You probably have never thought about all this, but it is important to resolve this conflict, because we live in duality; I am this, I should not be that, I should be that. So there is always this "duality" which brings about conflict. Now, can this (ongoing ?) conflict end? Is there an 'opposite' to fear? Or, there is only the 'ending' of (the root-process of ?) fear, this ending being (an inner state of ?) "no conflict"? To ( psychologically ?) "end" something, there must be no 'me' who is ( surreptitiously ?) trying to end it. Right? Is there an (direct) observation of this reaction called "fear" without the past interfering with that observation? The (active memory of the ?) past, can it abstain from looking at the fact with the memory of yesterdays?

Look, sir; suppose that I am married, I meet my wife every day. Every day, rather boring, every day. So, I begin to know her; I know how she looks, what her gestures, all the rest of it, words, so gradually I have built up a ( huge amount of ?) 'knowledge' about her, and whenever I look at her all the knowledge comes out. This ('psychological ) knowledge' is the ( active response of the ?) "past". Right? So (in that 'known' relationship) there is nothing new. You understand? The remembrance of the accumulated memories, which is knowledge about my wife, has separated as the 'me' and her. Got this? The past has brought about this division. Now, similarly, the past remembrances of fears, past remembrance of accidents of fear, the happenings of fear, is stored in the brain. And that brain is remembering the past and so when the present reaction, when it comes, you name it immediately as fear, and record it as fear.

Is this clear? No.... don't tell me this is not clear! I can't help it, sorry. I've tried to put it in three or four different ways...

(Re-re-recap:) The ( controlling memory of the ?) 'past' is ( personalising itself as ?) the "observer". And so the "observer" says, yes, I know it's "fear", because I have had it so many times. So, the moment it recognizes, it's ( becoming ) part of the ( dead memory of the ?) past.
So, is there a (non-verbal) observation of that 'fear' reaction, without the past? And when there is an observation without the past, you are looking it afresh. Which is, when you observe fear from the past, you are using a ('mechanical' perceptive ?) energy which has already been employed ( in dealing with outward challenges ) year after year. That's a wastage of energy (when used inwardly ?) . Is there a "new ( inwardly perceptive ?) energy" that meets this fear without the past? You understand the question now? Oh, for God's sake!

( Final recap:) One sees the truth that ( the joint psycho-process of ?) "time and thought" are the root of fear. Fear exists when there is inattention, when there is no ( inward) attention. If I give complete attention to this (root-process generating ?) fear, it (the 'psychological' fear) doesn't exist. But my brain has been conditioned not to (pay much ) attention to this ('subjective') reaction. Whereas if you give your total attention to ( the root-process of ?) it, which means giving your whole energy to look- when you do it , fear is not.
The mind that has ( not dealt with its own ?) fear is a destructive, aggressive, neurotic mind. Whereas a mind that is utterly free of fear, psychologically, is an extra-ordinary mind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 211 - 240 of 650 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

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