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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 304 in total
Thu, 26 Mar 2020 #271
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

7-th ( unedited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

K: Where shall we start out ?

DB : Well, last time we began by discussing the action of truth and then you broke off for short and raise the question of 'mystery'...

K: Oh, yes...

DB : I told you yesterday about a quotation from Einstein : "The most beautiful experience that we could have is the experience of mystery" That's how he put it...

K: Right... All the religions – not the 'orthodox' saints or the 'orthodox' priests- they all said there is something mysterious -something so vast that the human mind can't grasp...

DB : And as I was saying last time, this quotation of Einstein shows this is behind the deepest part of the scientific research...I just remember that when I was in Berkley, California they were setting up a huge magnet to study the nucleus of the atom – in other words, they were probing something very mysterious, and a friend of mine came along and said : Every piece of iron of that must eventually turned into a battleship...( laughter) Which it did, as it became part of the Manhattan Project for the atomic bomb...

K: I wonder if there is anything mysterious -I'm just exploring, I don't say there is or there isn't... First of all, as a thing 'desirable', it is very inviting...

DB : I looked up at the word 'mystery', and it means basically hidden or secret – so some of the religions have some 'mysteries' at their center...

K: Yes, the Greeks had it, the Egyptians had it, and of course, the Hindus...

DB : Now the dictionary also says that 'mystery' is something beyond human understanding – which is not exactly the same. The first one was secret, but perhaps you could be initiated into the mystery- there was some understanding involved, but the Christians said : you can never understand it...

K: Understand it in the sense of 'experiencing ' it ?

DB : Well, to be comprehended rationally...

K: If one sets about to experience That, or to 'come into' That...

DB : I think that they used to say ' to participate in it'...

K: Participate in it. What is the nature of the mind that can 'participate' into something that is totally... mysterious ?

DB : And what is the nature of the participation ?

K: Yes, that's just it. You see, you were talking the other day, having read that Biography...I think we missed a point there...

DB : What was the point ?

K: The explanations which we gave, the reincarnation, the illness & all that ...I think that doesn't cover the ground totally...Because I've always felt there was 'something' so vast that all their mysteries, & initiations, had nothing to do with it. See, it can be either be so romantically idiotic, or it is something that ' is there'.... I don't know how to convey all this... Sir, how does science investigate this question of mystery  ?

DB : Well, I think that most scientists deny it...You see, it begins with some interest in something mysterious, with the hope of probing into the mystery, but gradually this slides over into another attitude in which people explain something and they begin gradually to replace the mystery by the structure they have explained, implying that that is all there is. All the scientists are always saying that a tremendous amount is unknown , but they generally imply that the unknown...

K: ... can be 'known' ?

DB : It can be known and set into the same kind of framework. But in the begining- I remember talking with Einstein and with other scientists that in the beginning there was something 'mysterious' . I mean, that was part of the energy that was behind our work...

K: Right....If as a scientist, you want to 'participate in it', how would you set about it ?

DB : You see, the ordinary way of going about it, - one way is to is to set up equipment which can probe the mystery- a telescope or a microscope... I know, I'm just explaining – like this tremendous magnet which particles have very high energy – the idea was that with very high energy particles one can probe the mysterious structure beneath...

K: I can see that...

DB ; Of course there is also the theoretical probe – with the theoretical insight or the imagination, speculation....But it seems that essentially those are the instruments science has used. Now, it's not clear to me how Einstein thought of it, because on one hand he was looking for a total explanation- but it seems to me there's a contradiction here -that science is committed to a total explanation and at the same time , if there is an explanation, there's no mystery.

K: Right, what is explained is not mystery...

DB : And if Einstein says that ''the most beautiful experience is the mystery'', if it is explained, it seems to me that all beauty will vanish, you see ? Perhaps he didn't believe that it can be explained...

K: Suppose you 'have participated' in that mystery and you want to tell me about it, or you want to help me, or guide me or 'push me' towards it : what would you do ? Would you say : settling all these things are necessary first ?

DB : Well, what are they ?

K: I don't want to use 'preparatory things' , but like a very sensitive body -not emotional, not sentimental, not mental, not neurotic, but 'sensitive', in the sense of having a quick insight and a quick comprehension – not a tremedous lot of explanations, auick grasp of something which is true. Would you say that would be necessary ?

DB : Well that would be necessary, but obviously it would be necessary for anything...

K: No... but that means a very sensitive neurological system and a 'psychological' clarity.

DB : Right...

K: Now, how does one have 'psychological' clarity? If we grant that these two are essential -a quick mind, a quick insight, a perception that is correct ; and suppose I haven't got it, then is there a method, a system, a practice, a way of washing out, purging all that ? Or there is no way at all ? Or, only the act of totally listening to what you say ?
For instance, when you say there is a mystery, to you it is the truth, the actuality, it 'is' . And if I haven't got the 'ears' to listen to you, I'll never capture it and I won't 'participate in it'...And my longing is to participate in it , because intellectually I see how important it is.

DB : But the longing is of no use...

K: Longing is of no use, but I 'perceive it', I 'see' with all my being how important it is to 'participate' in that mysterious thing which will give an enormous sense of beauty and all that. I see all this , but any effort I make will spoil it -any desire, any action, any volition is still within the field of reality. So, how am I to 'participate' into something which is so actual ? What would you as a scientist say to it ?

DB : Well, my science has not really confronted that...

K: I know...after all sir, they are looking at 'saucers', but that's not mysterious

DB : Well, they hope it is. It has been called a 'mysterious universe'...

K: Would you call that 'mysterious' ?

DB : Well, not as long as it's still part of the same structure of reality...

K: Reality, yes that's right.

DB : But when you say there is a 'mystery', we have truth and we have reality which don't mix, although reality can become aware of the action of truth...

K: Yes...Reality can bring about order into itself...

DB : ...so that it responds to the action of truth.

K: It might.

DB : Now something that occurred to me is that this cannot be the last word- they cannot be entirely separated, you see ? In other words that you could divide existence into two...

K: Reality and truth...Why not ?

DB : Well, I don't know why not, but simply, this division...

K: Ahh ! Is there a division ?

DB : Well, that's the question, but the way we put it it sounds like there is...

K: I know, but I'd like to question and find out whether division exists at all ?

DB : Yes, but in the beginning you insisted that they are 'separate' …

K: I know, but we are usually seeing them as two separate things...

DB : And what does the word 'separate' means ?

K: Divided.

DB : Can we say one is not related to another ?

K: We said that...

DB : Yes, which implies division and separation...and at a certain level that appears tho be the case...

K: Let's accept that for the moment.

DB : Once before, in a discussion on intelligence we raised the question whether there cannot be a source that underlies both, you see ?

K: Yes, yes, quite...

DB : And in that source there's no separation as truth and reality...

K: It's a common bed...

DB : A common ground or however you'd like to call that...

K: For the moment we're not talking about that...

DB : Now one could say that possibly this source is a mystery...because if you once once begin to characterise it, it either becomes truth or reality.
And another point where I was going wrong is that reality, although it is fragmented and incomplete, has a tendency to become complete, which in some ways is good, because it helps to organise reality in a more orderly way...
But then, in the attempt of thought to cover the whole...it goes wrong...

K: Of course...

DB : But thought is always trying to cover the whole – always trying to say 'this is the whole'- and in that way it is establishing a 'conclusion', a 'closure'...and that of course, becomes false... We were saying the other time that thought must acknowledge its own fragmentary nature, its limited nature, and at the same time it has the impulse to expand – and that's quite good as long as thought is not trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Quite, quite...I understand all that …

DB : Now it occurred to me that thought, in trying to capture the whole, is a barrier in trying to seeing this mystery...

K: Would you say, if thought is aware of its own limitations – not expand, not trying to include the whole – sees its limitation and therefore moves beyond that limitation ?

DB : Yes and we were also saying the other time that thought doesn't stay within its limitations ordinarily – if it finds its limitation then it tends to be out of it already...

K: We are saying thought is aware, attentive, totally aware of its limitation...

DB : Let's put it this way, thought is aware that there is something beyond the limited …

K: Ah, I would question it...

DB : Thought knows that it is limited but it is already implied that...

K: No, I can't make it ; this room is full...

DB : In the very structure of the word 'limit' it is implied something beyond that...

K: Thought is aware that it is fragmented, broken, limited ; it cannot move beyond its frontiers.

DB : Yes, thought cannot capture the whole...

K: Let's put it this way, yes. And it stays there, it doesn't try to 'capture' the whole or say 'I am the whole'...

DB : Yes, but then there are so many subtle ways in which thought is trying to capture it, not only by concepts, but also by feelings...and we have to watch them all...

K: I watch them all- feeling, desire, thought...and I won't move from there , because the moment I move it is still the same thing…

DB : Yes, I wonder why thought is trying to 'capture' the whole ?

K: Because it is aware of its own limited capacity as a 'fragmented' thing...

DB : Yes, but why does it want to go beyond that ?

K: Because of pain, suffering, or wanting greater experiences.

DB : But that's no explanation, because the suffering may be due to the desire to go beyond...My own feeling is that suffering comes when thought is trying to 'capture' the whole...

K: Aha ! I see what you're saying.

DB : Because that being impossible...

K...therefore it suffers ? No, I wouldn't put it that way....

DB : Why ?

K: Because suffering is produced by thought – not because it wants to capture something and therefore it suffers.

DB : Yeah...But that's one cause of suffering -if thought tries to achieve something which it cannot achieve.

K: But If thought cannot achieve why should it suffer ? If I can't become the Queen of England, then that's the end of it...
Is it possible for the thought that is operating in me – to say ''I am totally limited ? I'm limited, fragmented, broken up and any movement I make is still in the same area ''? Is that not possible ?

DB : Yes, well.... we'll have to be very clear...

K: 'I' am confined in this prison with its ache and I cannot get out...all that I include.

DB : But also, perhaps thought has seen that 'wholeness' is good and has got into the habit of trying to 'achieve wholeness'...In other words, thought has seen it's not wholeness and it is looking for wholeness...

K: That too, when I use the word 'limited' I include all that...

DB : And we can see why thought is in fact limited- because it is limited to 'reaction' and 'reflexion' – and it cannot reflect on the 'mystery', it can only reflect on reality …

K: That's right ! Reflect what is going on in reality...

DB : Yes, it can reflect and define and determine and measure...

K: And if thought realises this, there is no movement within that field...

DB : Yes, well, but still it may be because a lot of lifetime unconscious movements...

K: Allright...Let's go into that ! My unconscious desire for the whole - I watch it ! That's why I said I'm very sensitive to everything that is going on in me...conscious as well as unconscious.

DB : Now, being sensitive of the 'unconscious' – let's discuss that a little- because if you're totally unconscious you couldn't be sensitive to it. So we must be clear that it's 'relatively' unconscious. In other words, 'unconscious' may be only dimly aware of those movements...

K: Dimly aware.

DB : But not absolutely, totally unaware...

K: No, no...dimly aware.

DB : And therefore by being sensitive to all the hints and implications...

K:...dreams, to everything. To me the 'unconscious' is not really important...

DB : I don't think it is important, except that it may do things that may make a bigger fact...

K: My mind is very aware of all this – aware of the intimations of the 'unconscious' of the hints, the hidden motives, which if one is alert one can very easy to find out...

DB : All the various senses of pleasure and pain...

K: All that.

DB : But I think the 'unconscious' has the tendency to make the mind dull, to make itself less sensitive to all these things...

K: Quite, quite ! The 'unconscious' tries to make the 'conscious' not so active.

DB : It tries to anesthetise, to tranquilise it...

K: That's right ; therefore when I see all that I'm fully aware of the whole movement – the hidden motives, the desires, will & all that. That is, thought totally realises its own boundaries, that it cannot go beyond it.
You see, that's what the 'orthodox' meditation people do - trying to control thought - they don't realise the 'controller' is the 'controlled'- they're trying to control thought so that it has no movement.

DB : Yes, we've discussed that, but that implies some movement in the field of reality to control thought which may usually involve concentration, contemplation...

K: But it's still a 'movement' of thought...

DB : Now they have the assumption that there are certain 'movements' of thought which will bring quietness...

K: From what I've understood, they say ''thought must be controlled''...

DB : I'm not even sure all of them say this- some, like Maharishi, say it must be quiet- he doesn't call it 'control' – by concentrating on a word, and then drop the word and so on...

K: But it's still the movement of thought !

DB : Yes, but I think his assumption is that there is a certain movement of thought that can make thought silent and then the 'mystery' might participate. I'm not saying I accept this...

K: From what I've heard – not from Maharishi & his disciples- is that sound has a peculiar effect on the brain. And those sounds are given only to people who have lived with the master for a number of years, and the master has studied them -seen their character, their tendency & all the rest of it. Then, they give a certain mantra....

DB : Yes, who would be suited to that person...

K: To that person and to nobody else !

DB : Yes ; now assuming they do that, that 'sound' is still thought...

K: Yes.

DB : That's because it's defined in some way...

K: No, there's something much deeper. At first you repeat it aloud, then you repeat it silently...

DB : Yeah...

K: Then, you listen to the sound only.

DB : Hmm...And they believe that would be beyond thought ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you say it's not beyond ?

K: It's not beyond....

DB : Because the sound is produced from memory...

K: Yes. It's all part of the structure of thought – which is, a desire to achieve tranquility.

DB : Yes, so in the whole process is implicit the desire to achieve – it would be there even if it's 'dimly aware' …

K: Yes.

DB : And that desire would produce a distortion, a self-deception...

K: An illusion. So, being aware of that, any desire of 'achievement' must always produce an illusion. Thought then says 'there is no movement'.

DB : Yes, but when it says that, there is already a 'movement'

K: No....I mean, it realises, it knows, or it is aware it 'is' so ! That is the truth. Right ? The moment thought has said ' I cannot move' , that's the fact !

DB : Yes...that sounds a little troublesome, because you seem to be saying that thought has the truth...

K: No, no ! The moment it stops 'moving' then that 'is' so !

DB : Truth 'is', right ?

K: Yes. It isn't that thought has created truth. Thought comes to an end – as a movement beyond its limits...I wonder if I'm making it clear...

DB : Yes...when thought comes to an end...

K: Not as a means of achieving something, not by volition, by desire for tranquility, or for experiencing peace...None of that !

DB : That is, when thought is 'consciously aware' of its own limitation  it comes to an end when there's no need for it.

K: Yes. That's all I am saying.

DB : And that is truth, or would you say that truth 'is' ?

K: Yes... Then truth 'is', meditation 'is'. Can I put it the other way ? Can the mind, which is consciousness with its thought -all that we have discussed- can that 'empty' itself ?

DB : Now, what does that mean 'empty itself' ?

K: Empty itself of the 'things' that thought has created.

DB : What are these 'things' ?

K: Like achievement, desire, will, attachment...

DB : ...the 'center' ?

K: The 'center'...

DB : ...and 'time' ?

K: That's it ! Can there be an 'emptying' of all that?

DB : But when you say 'emptying', what you mean by that ?

K: I mean by 'emptying', seeing the 'reality' of thought - thought which is fragmented, broken up and whatever it does it is still limiting & so on...That's my consciousness – that is the 'field of reality' and thought is always active there.

DB : Yes, but I think that the traditional thought is always seeking to go beyond the field of reality...We pick up this tradition from the society. Now do you say that your thought is entirely without a 'center' ?

K: Yes...'center' being desire, achievement...

DB : But there is also the sensation of the 'center'...

K: ...sensation as 'being', in the solar plexus or in the heart.... No 'center', that is definite !

DB : I can see that the concept of the 'center' produces a reaction, produces a feeling – in other words the feeling of the 'center' is produced by the concept of the center, so it has no independent reality...

K: Quite...

DB : And it seems that that center is one of the basic causes of illusion, because once the 'center' is established, the next thought atributes itself to the center, therefore it becomes the 'truth'. In other words, thought then seems to have gotten itself beyond reality, into Truth...

K: If I see very clearly the 'world of reality' which thought has created...

DB : ...which includes the 'center', the concept...

K: Of course, and the concept feeding the 'center' and the 'center' feeding the concept...all that is the movement of thought.

DB : You see, just a matter of clarifying something : when I see something which is called 'objective reality'- is it correct to say that it is independent of thought ? For instance, the microphone, although made by thought is an objective reality. Now there is another 'reality' which is created and sustained by thought – the 'center'.

K: The 'center', that's right ! The 'center is created by thought...

DB : And sustained by thought. And it doesn't have the same kind of 'reality' as the mountain...

K: Of course...

DB : So, part of the confusion comes from our inability to make a clear distinction between that which is sustained independently of thought and that which is thought-sustained. And it occurred to me that when something happens, thought thinks something and the root of thought is not perceived, and suddenly the content appears as having a certain reality, which is then taken by the next thought as an existing independently...And we lose track of that, you see ?
Now I was going to say that if I didn't loose track of this, I would see that the whole of thought is one and there will be no illusion, no ?

K: That's right.

DB : So, as I've been watching all this for a while, I saw that I have a natural tendency of 'loosing track' and later it is built up systematically by the thought which goes beyond reality - the thought of the 'center'...

K: I think from what you said just now, that thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but it's still existing...

K: ...independent of thought. And the 'center' is created by thought...

DB ...but it doesn't exist independent of thought...

K: It is sustained by thought all the time. So, those are two factors.

DB : That's right. Now, I've asked myself how one could confuse one with the other and the answer is that thought -when it creates the 'center' - is not aware of itself creating the 'center' and suddenly the 'center' is there as is this microphone...

K: That's it...And takes that as reality !

DB : It takes that as independent reality. And after that it begins to atribute pleasure and pain to the 'center' and in the hope to maintain the pleasure it does not want to give up the 'reality' of the center. Because to give up the 'reality' of the center you would loose the possibility of pleasure from thought...

K: Quite. Let's get it clear : thought has created this...

DB : Yes, but I would like to make it complete : it measures and defines and determines, you see ? For example it might determine the mountain although it hasn't created the mountain ; it determines the mountain as an objective reality -which was there without thought ; the next step is that thought has made the microphone – which is put there with thought, but it still exists independently, then the third step is : thought has created a 'center' which does not exist independently of thought at all, but thought thinks that it does exist...

K: ...independently, and sustains that 'independence' through pleasure & so on...

DB : And then this becomes a trap, because the same mechanism that was thought to attribute reality to the 'center'- which then it seems to be something genuine and real, as if it were some objective reality, independent of thought. But then once thought has attributed pleasure to the 'center', it cannot avoid to attribute pain to the center and that creates suffering …

K: Quite, that's simple enough. So we got the picture clear. Now, one is totally aware of this - and therefore no movement as time and measure outside this. Because thought, as we said, cannot comprehend or apprehend the whole, and it is not a verbal acceptance, but an 'actuality' – thought sees as objectively as that.

DB : Yes, I understand, but I think there is still a slight residue, almost a physical movement which thought seems still to go on  ..

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Well, I can't explain, but there are still waves...

K: Aha... ! No sir, that's what I want to get at : when there is the realisation, or the comprehension, that thought is a movement in time & measure, how thought creates the center and sustains the center – thought created this as something objective, independent of thought...

DB : Yes, and thought recognises the objective independence of the mountain...

K: I am 'aware' of all that ! And thought has no movement 'beyond' – in which is included consciousness, semi-conscious, dimly conscious – everything. Because you know, - we have talked a little bit of this yesterday : thought is movement in time, action is without time...

DB : Yes, but that may be the point that remains to be looked at...

K: I don't want to bring it in yet, but when one is only living in 'acting' and not in the movement of time...

DB : And yet, the movement of 'time' is going on. You see, this is the point which we ought to discuss and try to make it very clear, because many years ago in chalet Tanegg we reached this point in our discussion – we were discussing the 'center' and being free of the 'center' and then came to the question of the 'timeless'. Now one of the things that were puzzling me at that time came to the question of 'time'. The thing that puzzled me at the time was that as I'm talking to you in time, you say you're not in time. Probably then there was a feeling that everything exists in time ; you see, this is something which is in every tradition and is very deeply ingrained...

K: Yes, everything is in time...

DB : Now suppose that one can reach the stage to see that the 'center' is nothing but a creation of thought ; but then there seems to be a movement – which almost seems to be an universal movement – the feeling that all over there's is a movement in which you exist. And that's probably communicated to us in a very subtle way by tradition – it's handed down...

K: Wait a minute ! I have no tradition …

DB : But supposing you have ?

K: I'll come to that lately....I have no tradition  - I'm not a sclave to society – psychologically - I have no burden of the thousand yesterdays – so there is no conscious or unconscious movement.

DB : I think tradition is the source of all this movement.

K: That's it !

DB : And the tradition – how it's handed down – I've looked up in the dictionary – that it's not only handed down verbally, but also by example, and that's much more difficult.... The point is that when the child sees the parents or the other children behaving in a certain way - which implies a certain way of thinking – the child begins to think that way...

K: Quite, quite, quite...

DB :...and it seems that he's picking it up as it were an independent reality, because it's not his thought, it's somebody else's thought – he doesn't see that all thought is one - it doesn't matter whose thought it is...But you see, when you learn from tradition somebody is guided by thought, but h's implying that it's not thought but it's the way things have always been necessarily & objectively so...

K: I don't know if you've seen that tradition has the same root as 'betrayal' …

DB : Yes, I was thinking that we need two words - there was something you were saying the other day- that you discovered something like Columbus did, and that other people might learn and not start from the same experience- so in some sense you are also passing something over , but not in the same way...

K: Not in the same way...

DB : In science it's the same way : you shouldn't hand it over traditionally, but rather, from somebody else's discovery you move on - although unfortunately, this has also become a tradition...

K: You see, sir, wait a minute ! Here there is no 'moving on' !

DB : Yes, but that's implied in what you said the other day : you are like Columbus - you discovered that ''Truth is a pathless land'' and you went through all sorts of painful experiences, which you say are not necessary for other people to live. Now let's say that somebody else can learn from your discovery, then the question is : what happens ? So, you're saying ''no moving on''... ?

K: No ! There's no movement beyond that.

DB : Yes, all right...Let's try to make it clear ; in science – as it has been practised- if there is a discovery and it's done right, then one learns and discovers something else...And that makes a series of discoveries which make a kind of progress...

K: Progress and knowledge, accumulate all sorts of knowledge & all the rest of it...

DB : Now let's try to make it clear : how you propose to do it differently ?

K: Here when you say 'truth is a pathless land' , it is final, it is so !

DB : Yes, all right , but you still said that when somebody may learn from your discovery , he can make his own discovery...

K; Someone says : 'Truth is a pathless land' , it is so ! There is nothing more to be said. There's no movement of somebody else coming over & saying 'Yes !'

DB : We'll have to make it clear : Let's say that in science someone makes a discovery- say, Einstein made a discovery; now somebody else may learn from that discovery -it doesn't mean that he'll repeat, but having learned from Einstein he may now discover something deeper...

K: Deeper, quite...

DB : Now is there any similarity ?

K: No !

DB : No similarity... Let's try to make it clear : there seems to be an intrinsic difference between science and what you're talking about, because I can't imagine science except by one discovery leading to another, otherwise it would be pointless...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So here is not the case of one discovery leading to another – I learn that Truth is a 'pathless land' because of what you said...

K: It 'is' so !

DB Right, it is so , and that acts ?

K: Right...

DB : But now you say there is a 'mystery' and we're not going to discover deeper into the mystery ?

K: No. When thought has no movement beyond its limitations, beyond its 'reality'...

DB ; When you say there is no movement – this requires some clarification... You say that you have no tradition, but I come from tradition …

K: Let's move on, that doesn't matter.

DB : Now, let's say that over many many years with my parents and friends and so on, I was communicated 'non-verbally' and by example, that I live in time, that time is the essence - in everything time is the most important and your life depends on time and time is flying and so on...

K: ...'time is money'...

DB : And you have only a limited time to live so make good use of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : So everybody has communicated in millions of ways how important time is from very early. And that communication was picked up as it were an objective reality, not what somebody told me as an idea, and therefore I experience it as an objective reality...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : It's the same as the 'center' which is experienced as an independent reality and theredore it is 'time'- because of that tradition...

K; Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that experience of the 'center' may not be so permanently strong, there is a sense of some movement going on all over - especially in the body- in other words, there is a 'stream of movement' in which I exist....Now, it seems to me that being free of that is much more than being free of the 'center'...

K: I see what you're leading at.

DB : Because I think this was the point, many years ago, when we had a discussion here in Gstaad, and now I think we've reached the bottom of that...

K: Aha ! Sir, forgive me if I talk about myself - I've never thought about time. Time has not entered into my being. I know there is time, I know that if I order something it would take 5 or 10 days...But the 'psychological' factor of time has never played any part ; that is, there was never been a question of 'becoming' something...

DB : Well, it's not maybe a question of 'becoming', but time comes under different forms, And I feel that through time one loses track of the oneness of thought. When you say 'All thought is one, and it's all limited', I understand that, but the 'actuality' of that gets lost...

K: Quite, quite ...

DB : And I can see at least one reason – it gets lost through time. Let's say that at one moment I am aware of what is taking place, the next moment comes along and suddenly it's another moment that is different – and therefore what appears the connexion between what is here and therefore the connexion what was done a moment before and what is done now is lost, you see ? Have I made it clear ?

K: Not quite...

DB : Let's try to make it clear : I think time introduces fragmentation, because time is one moment, and then another & another...Let's say that what is happening in thought now is one process and what has happened before is continuous and made us what we are now - in the whole of thought...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : Let's say that I have a sense of the 'center' now, but that was due to a concept I had a moment ago, and it takes a moment for the concept to produce a wave...

K: And also the 'ending' of it !

DB : Yes, but there's a sudden feeling that the connexion between the 'center' which exists now and the concept which I had a moment ago is lost, you see ? Lost to awareness, anyway...

K: I haven't got your meaning yet...

DB : Well, it's almost like saying : I understand certain things about thought, and there is a sudden feeling that this is a different moment - when it is not really different, you see ?

K: A-ha...

DB : For example if something surges up very fast and is very intense, there is an implicit thought- anything beyond a certain speed and a intensity is 'reality' and not thought.

K: So, what are you trying to say ?

DB : I'm only trying to say that this question of 'time' is more than just 'becoming' – it includes this sense of becoming something better & so on – but it also for me it has a tendency to loose track of the connexion. If I could see that all thought is one, I would not loose track of the connexion. You see, I've understood what you said that 'all thought is limited' but at one moment my brain looses track of that and says : ''OK, all thought is limited'', but this isn't thought - you see ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : And therefore this is allowed to go on in a limited way...

K: I see, or I perceive that 'all thought is one'. Therefore it is not 'my' thought or 'your' thought...

DB : Yes, but it has all sort of means by which thought is trying to present itself as non-thought...

K: I know, that's delusion and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes, and I think time is involved in all that.

K: Sir, wouldn't you say that if you perceived not verbally, if you really had an insight into thought – everything else in relation to thought is explained ? That is, desire, will, unconnected moments of thought...

DB : ...suffering and also pleasure and fear. I'll have to see the whole thing, but my point is that all my sense of time -which includes the separation of moments of time-
and when I say 'now' this is also a moment of though and therefore thought introduces a separation which is false, because the moment before has flowed continuously into this moment...

K: So, the word separates...

DB : ...the sensation separates...

K: There are intervals between thoughts which separates...

DB : ...and also changes in thought that separate...

K: All that is the movement of thought.

DB : Yes... But the point I was trying to make was that the movement of thought is very deceptive and has many aspects of which one has to be aware...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Now, one of the things that arises is that when one is trying to do something, or when you're in relation with somebody, thought rises to such intensity that it will mistake itself for a reality that is independent of thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore it looses track at that moments. You see, everything you say was understood, more or less, but at a certain stage thought looses track of what thought is.

K: Quite...I understand this...

DB : And one has somehow to keep the awareness of the connexion...

K: I'm not sure, sir, that all these things arise when you are really experiencing an insight into thought as 'movement in time'.

DB : Yes, I am sure that is so, but I'm trying to say...

K: An insight into the whole of that - what is implied ? Do we really 'see' the whole movement of thought as a 'movement' - have an insight into it and then describe all the details of it ? With me - I don't know if I am odd or peculiar - I 'see' and then explain ; not the explanation and then 'see'.

DB : Hmm...

K: Sir, are we saying there is always time, there is no ending to time ; it is a constant steady moving...

DB : That's the way it appears...

K: ...in which we live ; which expresses itself as yesterday, today & tomorrow, which expresses itself as the 'center' and acting from the center and the intervals between thoughts and the thought changing from yesterday's thought...

DB : ... as gradual change ?

K: All that is the movement of 'time' : attachment, detachment, all that is the movement of time. Now, can thought see that and stop ? Can 'time', in the sense of (thought's) movement, stop ? Time must have a stop...
You see, if there is no ending for thought there is no radical revolution. Right ? Then we just go on changing patterns and all the rest of it. That is, you see the truth that time must have a stop. Like 'truth is a pathless land', you see the truth that thought must have a stop. You are trying to convey to me, verbally, the movement of thought, 'center' and all that. And I listen to all your explanation and yet my mind is groping after the stoping of that 'time'...

DB : Hmm...

K: Because the fact that 'time must have a stop' is an extraordinary thing and I'm grasping after that. Unconsciously I want it. I realise I am becoming totally conscious of the whole content of my consciousness.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it like this : one can see the necessity of this - that time must have a stop. Once again we come back to dealing with the 'unconscious', because I see there are layers and they move in time...

K: A tremendous block !

DB : You see, in our whole tradition there are instincts in that direction and you are implying there are not...

K: For me they never were a major factor...

DB : Hmm....yes.

K: I'm not saying this with any...

DB : Yes... you also said that any explanations of you being ill and all we gave before were inadequate, so what else would you ask ?

K: You see, all those explanations did actually reveal something about 'that which was strange' -in the sense of mysterious...

DB : You mean, from the beginning ?

K: From the beginning...There are thousands of boys frail, vague and then gat conditioned and drop off, millions of them : this boy, why it didn't happen to him ? You follow, sir ?

DB : Yes...

K: I can give you half a dozen explanations, but I say, all those explanations are satisfying at a certain level but it is not a complete explanation. There is something totally mysterious and totally 'sacred' in this -if I can use that word without too much sentimentality or religiosity - that was taking place in him.

DB ; Even before he was discovered by (CWL ?)

K: I think the 'seed' of it was already operating, because when I saw that picture of the two brothers - the taller one holding the hand of the other one – I felt that there was something uncontaminated, something extraordinay that was happening to him already... I don't want to create a 'mystery' about all this – I have horror of it- but the explanations of what took place, I don't think they give a clue to it...

DB : Then could we say there were 'favorable' conditions to this thing, but they do not... ?

K: They were not favorable !

DB : They were not 'favorable', but the fact of being ill allowed him not to be affected by the conditioning...So you could say that a little later the mind was not so impressionable to be affected by it. But you say, that's not enough...

K: That's not enough ; there are millions of boys like that...

DB : But on the other hand, that tendency might have been fully favorable. So you can't just say, this is particularly good compared with that...

K: No, but I feel... Look, there's something more simple : millions of boys go through this illness - malaria, recover, being conditioned and go off -in the sense that they become ordinary, become normal or whatever you'd like to call it. Here was a boy who had that illness, who had malaria – quinine, doctor & all the rest of it, so mentally he was retarded, therefore he was unconditioned.

DB : Yes...until he was less impressionable. But I mean, beyond a certain age the conditioning doesn't hold ; for instance, children who don't learn a language until the age of seven may find it later more difficult to learn ; they are very easily conditioned up to a certain age...

K: That's right.

DB : And beyond that age they are not so easily conditioned ; therefore if a boy can escape conditioning in the first number of years...

K: Till fourteen, fifteen...

DB : ...then beyond that point his brain is resistent to conditioning - it doesn't take it...

K: Doesn't take - not 'resist' !

DB : ...doesn't take the conditioning, whereas at an early age impressions are made much more easily and they hold...

K: Let's take that.

DB : I mean, that's just one explanation, but as you say that might be slightly favorable...Now, can you say anymore ?

K: (Laughs) Can we talk simply, frankly ?

DB : Yes...We'd better record it, unless you don't want to... ?

K: He felt that he was 'protected'.

DB: I see...by what ?

K : Just a minute ; he felt always 'protected'.

DB : But I think many children feel protected...

K: Non, no, much later - I'm told.

DB : How old ?

K: Oh, till age twenty, thirty...

DB : And would that feeling continue ?

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, what sort of protection ?

K: ( silent pause)...'protected' in the sense you protect a tree to grow straight -against the wind and...

DB : Hmm...But why does (it protect) this one... ?

K: I don't know, but I wouldn't enquire into it...

DB : You think it's better not to ?

K: Yes ; I've gone into this very much with people like Lady Emily who's known me and others in India who know me and with Mrs Zimbalist & others - and for a certain number of years. When it comes to a certain point I feel I can't enquire. It sounds too damn silly to say there's something the mind, thought cannot penetrate. But the thing is there !

DB : Would you then say that somewhere within this 'mystery' there is an 'order' which involves all that ?

K: Yes !

DB : Which would imply the destiny of 'that' which is coming to mankind ?

K: Yes...

DB : And you don't feel it is wise to enquire ?

K: No.

DB : But of course – I mean, I'm not questioning it - but say, many people may have that feeling and they can be wrong...

K: Oh, I've gone into that ; many people can have it, of course... You see, sir, take that boy – ill, discovered, trained - in the sense to be clean - in those days in India at that time -not having a mother- the boys were trained to wash properly, all that - not 'psychologically' trained – because they said 'he is the vehicle of the Lord', therefore you can't interfere - psychologically. You follow, sir ? Now, he never went through all the things he talks about...

DB : What do you mean ?

K: Jealousy, never attached to property, money & all that. Never, never ! thought of a position , a status, a hyerarchical outlook...except when I get into Mrs Simmons ' 'roundover' I can look down and that is it, I have no feeling of looking up or looking down. Now, how does it all happen, without cultivating, or wanting it ?

DB : Yes, well, this idea has been common that there is such a destiny ; in fact the theosophists believed that this whole thing didn't happen by accident, but there is a hidden order, a mysterious order...

K: They would say there is the whole hyerarchical principle and the highest principle is the Lord Maitreya, etc etc...

DB : Let's say we discard the idea that some 'Principle' is ruling, but having discarded that you're nevertheless proposing that there is a ( higher) 'order' and things didn't happen by accident to this boy...

K: Yes, I'm trying to imply that, to be truthful (laughing) Truthful !

DB : Yes, and in some sense this 'order' is a mystery...

K: Yes. I think not a mystery in the sense of a ' Great Mystery'...

DB : Not secret or anything ?

K: Not 'secret'...

DB : But something which you cannot penetrate – in other words, you couldn't find the ultimate explanation of it...

K: Yes.

DB : But I mean, even if you could, it would only lead to another mystery, I suppose

K: I can't. Let me put it a little more simply : neither I want to, or can I.

DB : But you see, this raises another question : if you don't want to, would that be enough to show that you couldn't ? So it doesn't prove it can't be done – it only proves that you can't do it...

K: It proves that I can't do it and I don't want to.

DB ; But this may be the other way around : is it you can't because you don't want to, or you don't want to because you can't ?

K: I think I can, but I don't want to...

DB : I see, that's it...And your feeling is you can't explain that ?

K; No. I think it is something 'mysterious' in the sense we are talking, which you cannot penetrate by thought.

DB : Yes, but does that mean it cannot be penetrated in some other way ?

K: Maybe...but I don't think so.

DB : Probably not ...

K: After all, the Catholic church says there is a mystery and you cannot understand it and various religions have put it in different ways. But here we've come to a point : here is a man who sees all that and it's like picking up a flower, looking at the flower and tear it into pieces...and there is no flower at the end of it.

DB : I see... so you're saying that 'thing' of what we're talking about is not capable of analysis...

K: That's it !

DB : It is a 'whole' which is not analysable...But are you also implying that thought can only analyse ?

K: Of course !

DB : Yes...so if you don't analyse, all you can do is to participate in it...

K: And also there is the enormous danger of deceiving oneself.

DB : Yes, because so many people had this idea...

K: I've been through all that !

DB : I mean you could argue that the fact that so many people had thought this way doesn't necessarily prove it is wrong ; it may be that people get a glimpse of it and then they go astray because desire gets hold of it and...

K; No ! If they go astray I question whether they 'see' it.

DB : I didn't say they see it- but that they can get a glimpse of it...

K: I don't think they can 'get a glimpse' of it ! They 'think' they have a glimpse .

DB : Let's put it this way : that thought is not satisfied with the 'known' and therefore projects the 'mysterious'.

K: That's it !

DB : And at the same time if some people have perhaps seen it, that becomes part of tradition and so on...

K: You see, sir, that's why, in a way, I'm glad that Mary (Lutyens) has written that book, because while one is living, one can correct it - you know, answer these questions, that he wasn't neurotic, that he wasn't mentally disturbed ot drugged- you know all that kind of things...But the 'fact' remains that there is 'something' which cannot be explained.

DB : Yes, let's try to put it this way : these explanations involve some kind of analysis and this will escape analysis, or else, it will be destroyed by analysis...

K: It cannot be 'destroyed' ! Analysis can't touch it.

DB : It can't be touched by analysis...So the 'flower' is destroyed, but all that is possible is to 'participate'...

K: That's all I was going to say. If you have this thing, this 'mystery', I will 'participate' when I listen to you completely. You follow ? When you say, for instance : 'Truth is a pathless land' - it 'is' so for me ! Therefore no guru, no... the whole thing goes. The moment I 'hear' it, it's finished !
(Long silence...) What time is it ?

DB : About five o'clock...

K: I have never gone into these things as deeply as we have done... I have never told you that incident : I was staying in Bombay and I don't speak any Indian language. There's a knock on the door and there are three sannyasi who asked if they can come in, and Mrs Jayakar brought them into the room- I was in my room- and she brought in the three sannyasi who want to meet you. One was a very old man, he had lived eleven years by himself in the Himalayas and he was making a pilgrimage going south to the various temples. And he was so...I held his hand and he began to cry – because probably nobody held his hand. And we sat around and he said in Hindi to her : 'We were passing by, and we felt that there was a great man here and we wanted to meet him'. Whether he had been totd or whether it was a fact, I don't know....I'm skeptical about this kind of things... So we spoke to the various people in the room telling them the truth about themselves. Then he said : ''May I wash my hands, please ?'' So they brought him a basin and a jug of cold water from the ice box and towel and he washes his hands. Then after cleaning his hands the same water he washed himself he poured it into his hands and passed it to the others – that's the Hindu tradition that when a sannyasi offers his blessings, he does it that way - who touched it with the tongue and it went all around. And then he said again, may I wash my hands and again he passed it around and I tasted it because I was the last. The first time it was tasting like water, but the second time it tasted sweet. I said, is he playing a trick on us ? I haven't seen anything. And he left - but before he said to Sunanda : ''you're not married, you have no children. You want children ? If you do, take this''. And he gave her something, a nut. And he left. And after he left I asked the others : ''Did you taste that water , because it tastes like coconut water, or some sweet water''
And the others said 'yes' and I said, ''this poor old man he couldn't have put in it some sacharine or sugar...'' You understand, sir ? How did it happen ? Probably he was unaware of it himself ! There are strange things in the world, sir …

DB : Yeah...

K: When I used to live in the theosophical society compound because I was one of the heads there , there were several of us in the room and a man comes, a sannyasi, a so called 'religious' man comes along and talks to us of all kind of things and we were all sitting like this, and he suddenly levitates, flows across and sits over there. There were no strings, no ropes...

DB : Well, there are a lot of people talking of strange things... I think that our understanding of nature is limited anyway. But I think there are two kinds of 'mysterious' things : I mean, that ( levitation) thing may be a mysterious thing but it might be...

K: I don't think it is 'mysterious'...

DB : ...something unknown to us now, but it might be understandable later.

K: They explain thay by leading a certain kind of life, discipline...

DB : But I meant that it violates certain laws of nature - in that the laws of nature could be different. But that could still not be mysterious...

K: That's what I mean, that's not 'mysterious'.

DB ; Although it's strange...

K: That's why I want to differentiate the 'mystery' from the 'strange' … I have also seen a man sitting in the middle of a rose bed there (in India) and he asked for a newspaper , he said 'put it down at your feet' – he was sitting right across- and he said 'watch it, I'm not going to mesmerise you because you're a religious man, but watch it ' And you saw the paper smaller and smaller and disappear...

DB : Hmm...

K: I don't see the point of it...

DB : I mean, that's something strange, but which might be explained...

K: They explain it...

DB : But I meant there are different kinds of explanations...

K: I'm only saying this to show that 'strangeness' is not the Other...

DB : You're saying that what happened to this boy was not of that nature ?

K; Yes, that's all ! I don't know what happened but it's not of that nature.

DB : Is it your feeling that whatever happened there was behind it some destiny or order which was aimed at the transformation of man ? Hmm ?

K: Probably...we'd better stop...

DB : Right...

K: I go for a walk now...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 28 Mar 2020 #272
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

8-th ('reader-friendly' edited) K dialogue with David Bohm ( cca 1975)

David Bohm: I had a letter from David Shainberg, and he raised one major (experiential) question : "If thought is fragmented , inherently fragmented and yet thought has to be consciously aware of its own fragmentation, then could we ask whether the thought which is aware of its own fragmentation, is also fragmented?"

Krishnamurti: Shall we start with that ?

DB : Yes.

K: What is the real, basic reason for thought to be fragmented ? Why is ( the self-centred process of) thought limited, broken up ?

DB: Now, I've been considering for some time the nature of thought and one point about thought is that it is beginning as a 'reaction' and ( later on it is ?) becoming a 'reflection'. And on the basis of ( one's past ) memory thought creates an 'imitation' of certain actual things that happen independently of thought. For example it may imitate in your imagination the appearence of a feeling, or a sound, or something else. Now, it is not possible for a reflection to capture the whole of what is reflected, so that there is no need to create an abstraction ?

K: Yes, generally there is an 'abstraction', I can see that, but you haven't answered my question : why is it fragmented ?

DB: Any abstraction is bound to be a fragment, you see ?

K: You're saying : thought reflects memory...

DB : Yeah...It reflects the content of memory...

K: And therefore, as it reflects, it is ( making it into ) an abstraction... ?

DB : Because it doesn't reflect all...

K: ...and therefore it's fragmentary.

DB : Yes, it selects some things to reflect (upon) , and other things are not reflected...

K: Would you put the question this way : “Can thought see the whole?”

DB: Well, ''Does thought 'see' ?'', that's another question that David Shainberg raised : does thought actually 'see' anything ? We discussed the other time that thought can become 'consciously aware' of something, let's say there is an awareness which involves perception, but everything we’re aware of may go on into memory, is that right?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, when that (self-centred) memory responds we have thought...

K: Right.

DB: So, as I see it, this 'conscious awareness' is an awareness recorded in memory and then reflected, right ?

K: Right...So memory is fragmented therefore its reflexion as thought is fragmented.

DB: It's not the whole experience, and as some ( less obvious?) things are not contained in ( our already saturated ) memory - the essence of it may be left out...

K: Left out...I understand, now let's dig deeply into it : why is thought 'fragmented '?

DB: Partly because its an 'abstraction' as you’ve just said. But I think there is another (deeper) reason : thought is not fully aware of its own operation. Perhaps we can begin this way : the brain has no 'sense organs' to tell itself that it is thinking.

K: Quite...

DB: You see, if you move your hand, there is a sense organ that tells you that it is moving. If you move your head, the image moves but it is corrected so that the world
doesn’t spin unless something is wrong with your balance. On the other hand there are no such sense organs in the brain. You see, if you do an operation on the brain, once you pass through the skull there is no sensation- people may be conscious while they are operated, but it does not disturb them. And now, let's say ( an activity of ) thought is recorded, it's held in memory, in the cells of the brain, and the cells of the brain react to produce some image, a (mental) 'imitation' (of the actual reality) . Now, while they first react, there is no ( direct) sensation that they are reacting, but a little later you may sense the result of the reaction.

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB: But then, when thought becomes conscious of that result it may not realise that it has produced that result. And therefore it will atribute to that 'result' an independent existence.

K: So, thought is a reflection of memory, that's one point. The brain has no feeling apart for the sensory organs of the body, and therefore the brain stores up memory, and memory is partial, and therefore thought is partial.

DB: Yes, but also the process of thought is not fully aware of itself.

K: Now, is all that the 'complete' answer?

DB: Well I don’t know...

K: I don’t know (either) - we’re investigating .

DB: But to finish what I was saying, there is an inherent fragmentation here, because thought (the thinking brain) not being aware of itself (thinking) , and then suddenly becoming aware of its result further down the line, it attributes that to something which is independent, and also it 'fragments' itself because one part of thought has produced this result and another part of thought comes along and says ''this is something else''.

K: It's like this, quite...

DB: And therefore, thought has broken up into two parts ( the 'thinker' and 'its thinking'?) which are contradicting each other.

K: Yes, but I think there is something more, isn't there ? Why is thought fragmented? You can see what thought has done, all what it has reflected upon, what it has thought about,
what it has put together - are all 'fragments' (of one's total consciousness)...

DB: But that's (resulting ) from (processing our) experience - if we reflect upon our personal experience we see the fragmentary nature of the activity of thought.

K: Yes. Is there any deeper reason for why is thought fragmented? I was thinking about it the other day while walking, why is it fragmented? What is the nature of thought ?
What is thought? Not just the words, symbols, reflexions of memory, but what is actually the substance of thought? Isn't it a material process, a chemical process...?

DB: Well, I would say, yes...

K: All right, if it is a material process, why should it be fragmented? Isn't thought's (verbally assisted?) perception a fragmentary process?

DB: Why should it be fragmentary ?

K: If ( one's direct) perception is ( controlled by) the activity of thought, then ( this 'safe-mode' ) perception cannot see the whole.

DB: You see, thought contains some kind of 'imitation of perception', which we call 'reflection'...

K: Yes, so thought 'imagines' that it perceives .

DB: It 'contains' it, yes...

K: Or it supposes that ( it is knowledgeable what?) it sees .

DB: It produces a certain ( self-projected?) result which it supposes it 'sees'.

K: But yet, why is it broken up? I understand all these, but there must be a deeper cause , isn’t there? Isn't thought ( whether consciously or not?) seeking a result?

DB: Well, it may be seeking a result...

K: A (desirable) 'end' to be achieved, to be gained, something which it (hopes ?) can fulfil itself and feel satisfied...And why has civilisation, mankind given such terrific importance to thought?

DB: When you talked yesterday, you pointed out the issue of security. I mean, the security that thought gives in many senses - not only in the sense of psychological security, but also of material security.

K: Yes. But thought in itself is not secure

DB: Well thought cannot be secure – it is a reflection..

K: Therefore as it cannot be secure in itself, and seek security outside.

DB: But, why does it seek security, you see?

K: Oh, because in itself it is fragmentary.

DB: Yes but it is not well explained why something which is fragmentary should seek security ; we'll have to go more slowly...

K: Go slowly, yes. Why does thought seek security? Because thought is constantly changing. Constantly moving.

DB: Well nature is moving too.

K: Ah , but, nature is different.

DB: I know, but we have to see the difference – why nature doesn’t seek security as far as we can tell.

K: Nature doesn’t, but why does ( the self-centred process of?) thought seek security? Is it in itself uncertain, insecure, in itself is in constant movement.

DB: But that doesn’t explain why its not satisfied to just be that...

K: Why, because it sees its own perishable nature.

DB: But why should it want to be 'imperishable' ?

K: Because that which is 'imperishable' gives it security.

DB: So if thought were content just to say 'I’m impermanent', then it would be like nature. It would say : well I’m here today, and tomorrow I'll be something different, right ?

K: Ah, but it is not satisfied with that.

DB: Well, why not?

K: Is it because there is an   'attachment'?

DB: But then, , what is this 'attachment', you see? I mean, why should thought 'attach' itself to anything? Why shouldn’t it say ''well I’m just thought'' I’m just a reflection...

K: But your're giving to thought, considerable intelligence if you say ''I’m like nature I just come & go in a constant flux, you follow ?

DB: So, now you're saying thought is mechanical and that's why it is doing this ; but then we have to see why the mechanical process should necessarily seek security? I mean a machinery doesn’t seek anything in particular, you see, we can set up the machinery and it just goes on...

K: Of course, as long as there is energy it goes on working.

DB: And then it breaks down and that's the end of it.

K: Quite... so, why does thought seek security?

DB: Why should any ( biological?) mechanism want to be secure?

K: But does thought realise that it is mechanical ?

DB: No, but you see, now comes the point that thought has made a mistake, something incorrect in its content, which is, thought does not know it is (just a survival-oriented?) 'mechanical' (process) ; thought even thinks that it is not 'mechanical'...

K: Now wait a minute, let's come back : do I think I’m a 'mechanical' (entity ) ?

DB: I think in general thought does not think its mechanical, but does it definitely think that it is beyond the mechanism, does it think it is 'intelligent' in other words ?

K: Sir, a (purely) 'mechanical' thing doesn’t get hurt . It just functions. It may stop working, but that doesn’t mean it is hurt. Whereas thought ( is taking its own existence very 'personally' and...?) gets hurt.

DB: And thought has the factor of pleasure, pain and all the rest of it.

K: It gets hurt, lets stick to one thing. It gets hurt. Why does it get hurt? Because of the (identification with the self-) 'image' and all the rest of it. It has created the 'image' and in (its) continuity it is seeking security, isn’t it ?

DB: Yes, but it's not clear why it ever began to seek that kind of security, you see ? If it began as a ( survival-oriented mental ?) mechanism there was no reason.

K: Ah, but it never realised that it was mechanical.

DB: Yes, all right, but a mechanism doesn’t know that it is mechanical either, you see ? I mean, like a tape recorder : it just functions mechanically, you see, it 'doesn’t want to be hurt'...

K: A rather interesting (experiential question) : why does thought not realise that it is 'mechanistical'?

DB: Yes...

K: Why does it suppose that it's something different from a ( programmable 'thinking ) machine'?

DB: Because it may feel it is a living thing, rather than 'mechanical' ?

K: I think that's the root of it, isn’t it ? It 'thinks' it is a living thing and therefore it attributes to itself, the quality of 'non-mechanical' existence.

DB: Now , if a computer has been programmed with the (identitary) information that it was living....

K: Yes, it would say that 'I’m living'.

DB: And then it might try to react, or to respond accordingly, but why thought doesn’t do that ?

K: Thought is (a much more?) clever (process) , giving itself qualities which it basically has not.

DB : But to some extent you did not consider David’s question ; you were just saying that thought somehow can realises it's mechanical, which would imply that it had some intelligence, you see ?

K: Now let's see, does ( the self-centred process of?) thought realise that it is 'mechanical', or ( brain's holistic ?) perception sees that it is mechanical?

DB: All right, but then that would seem to be a change from what you said the other day...

K: I’m just investigating.

DB: So, if we say there is ( an insightful) perception which sees the mechanical & fragmentary nature of thought, I could say that any machine is in some sense fragmentary, it's not alive... It is made of parts that are put together and so on, now, if there is a perception that (the process of) thought is mechanical, then that means that some ( holistic) Intelligence is (implicit ) in the (very act of) perception .

K: Are we saying, sir, that thought ( or the thinking brain?) has in itself the quality of intelligence, perception, and therefore it perceives itself as mechanical ?

DB: Yes, that would seem strange...

K: Or, there is a ( global?) perception and that perception says 'thought is mechanical' ?

DB: Yes, and we can call that (perception) 'truth', isn't it ?

K: Yes, but here are two things involved, aren’t there ? Either (a) thought in itself has the sense of perception, a sense of intelligence and therefore realises it is 'mechanical'. Or (b) there is a (time-free quality of ) perception, which is 'truth'. And that perception says 'thought is mechanical'.

DB: Now, the first idea seems to be a contradiction.

K: Yes : can thought realise that (psychologically-wise?) it is (predominantly?) 'mechanical' (repetitive & predictable?) ?

DB: Well that's the question. But the answer is not clear, you see.... The other time you were saying there would be first a 'conscious awareness' of the nature of thought and thought would then come to realise it.

K: I want to go back to something: the 'things' that contains ( our time-bound ) consciousness, are put together there by (an ages old self-centred activity of?) thought. All the (psychologically active?) 'content' of that consciousness is the product of thought, in fact, ( one's self-) consciousness 'is' ( created by ) thought.

DB : Yes, it is ( generating ?) the whole process.

K: Does thought 'see' all this, or there is a pure ( insighful ? ) perception without thought which then says says : 'thought is mechanical'.

DB : But then, how does thought know what to do ? We were discussing also the other day that when there is a perception of truth...

K: ...action takes place.

DB: Action takes place, and thought becomes aware of that action.

K: Yes, that's right, that's right....Lets get at it.

DB: But in becoming aware of this (timeless) action (of insight) , is thought still mechanical ?

K: No, 'thought' (the holistically friendly activity of the brain?) then is not mechanical.

DB : You’d have to say then that thought changes its nature ?

K: Its nature, yes.

DB: Well that's the point (the experiential aspect ? ) we have to get hold of : that thought does not have a fixed (a 100% programamble?) nature, is that the point?

K: Yes, sir.

DB: Because in much of this ( intellectual ?) discussion one tends to imply that the word 'thought' has a fixed nature, but now, (you're saying that) thought can change ?

K: Yes, thought does change.

DB: But I mean, can it change fundamentally ?

K: Let's get at it ( by starting again from 'square one'?) : we said that total perception is 'truth', and that (this time-free?) perception operates in the field of reality, and therefore...

DB: Well, we didn’t say that the 'perception of truth' operates directly in the 'field of reality', we said the other day that it operates in ( the intermediary field of) 'actuality'...

K: Wait a minute, there is perception which is truth, and that can only act in that which is 'actual'...

DB: Yes...

K: 'Actual' being (an intelligent & compassionate?) 'care' in one's action in the field of reality, isn’t it ? Look sir, let's put it on the other way : ( suppose that) one perceives something totally, which is not the (result of the self-centred ? ) action of thought....

DB: Yes, that is a 'direct act'.

K: Yes, that is a direct perception, then that 'perception' acts.

DB: Acts directly ?

K: Directly.

DB: Without thought ?

K: That's what we have to find out (for meditation homework ?) ...

DB: Well, it begins without ( the interference of the self-centred process of ? ) thought, and that 'perception' acts directly ; as you said, the ( clear) perception of (an imminent?) danger acts immediately without thought. But later on thought may become aware of the act..

K: Thought then becomes aware of the ( insight's ) action and translates it into words...

DB: And into further ( mental ?) structures... ?

K: Right, we're getting at it slowly... (To recap:) there is a total perception which is 'truth' and that perception acts in the field of reality ; so, this action is not the product of thought. And because it is an 'action of the whole', thought has undergone a change.

DB: All right, now we have it : if there is an action in the perception of the whole (process of) thought (as being) part of the whole, therefore (the quality of one's thought) is being changed - is that what you're saying ?

K: No, no... when it sees the whole, that's the truth....

DB: So, thought's whole action is ( now qualitatively ) different ?

K: Because that perception is not 'fragmented'.

DB: ... it's one whole ?

K: One whole ('all-one'?) , yes, and it acts. That action is not put together by thought ; so then what is the relationship of thought to this ( newly achieved clarity of ) action?

DB: Well, there are several points, you see, one thing is to say that thought is a material process, based in the brain cells. Now, the action of perception will somehow act on the brain cells won’t it?

K: That's the point, it does...

DB: Therefore one's thinking must be different ?

K: Different, quite right. When there is a total perception and action, it must affect the ( functioning of the ) brain cells.

DB: Right, and in affecting the brain cells it may change the nature of thought ?

K: It is a shock, do you follow ? It's something totally 'new' to the brain.

DB: Yes. And therefore this perception which is being 'total', penetrates the physical structure of the brain ?

K: Let's be simple about it : if you see that (thinking in terms of?) 'division' (or living inwardly in the field of ?) 'fragmentation' is a tremendous ( existential) danger, doesn’t it affect your whole way of thinking?

DB: Yes, but this brings us to the next question, that thought has developed a way of preventing this 'affect' from taking place. ..

K: That's it ! That’s what I want to get at : thought resists.

DB: But you see, a ( purely mechanistic thinking ) would not resist....

K: No, because it has (created for itself a self-protecting screen of ) habits and it remains ( enjoying life?) in that groove, until another ( critical ?) 'perception' comes along and shakes that.

DB: Yes and then ( the process of) thought tries again to re-stabilise itself – by 'holding' ( or getting attached?) to another fixed point.

K: To greed, or to whatever it is...

DB: If we look at it this way, namely that thought hasn’t got a fixed nature, it may also be intelligent and…

K: No, I wouldn’t give that word 'intelligence' to thought, for the moment.

DB: But we were saying before, that thought may not have a fixed nature and needn’t be mechanical...

K: But ( the ongoing activity of ) thought 'is' mechanical, it functions in ( repetitive) grooves, it lives in habits, memories...

DB : Yes...

K: And a total perception ( of its time binding condition ) does affect this whole structure…..

DB: Yes, that's right, and as a result of this perception, ( the inner activity of?) thought is different, right ?

K: Yes, thought is different because...

DB: ... the ( timeless light of this) 'perception' has penetrated the physical structure of thought and made it different ?

K: That's right.

DB: Now, you don’t want to say it is ( becoming universally?) 'intelligent', but let us say that if thought were just a ( survival-programmed thinking ?) machine, it would not cause trouble, but for some odd reasons thought is trying to do more than behave like a machine

K: Yes, thought is trying to do more than a machine.

DB : And now, if we could look at it again, if there’s perception and awareness and this may be recorded in thought, there are two things : (a) if (a totally insightful?) perception affects the physical structure of the brain, and this 'affect' is somehow recorded in the content of memory and the memory takes hold of it, any such recording is a kind of 'imitation'. You see, every recording machine is (producing ) a kind of 'imitation', so, (the deeper problem) is not mainly that thought is mechanical, but it contains a process of imitation, to record information you see, like a tape recorder records some sort of 'imitation' by storing the structure of sound in a magnetic form, which again is recreated as ( the reproduced) sound is imitating the original sound.
You see, thought has the ( instinctive ) capacity to imitate whatever happens, because of this 'recording', right ?

K: Yes, that's right... But I want to go back a little bit : Suppose that you perceive totally something - like this total perception of greed, let's take this for the moment, and because of that total perception, your (thinking) activity is (becoming) 'non-mechanical' ; (Hint:) the 'mechanical' ( aspect ) being the ( blind) pursuing of greed as (a psychologically rewarding support for ?) thought. And if you perceive the ( time-binding ?) nature and the structure of greed there is the (actual possibility of) 'ending' of it.

DB: But isn’t there another part of thought which is mechanical, but which is necessary (for mankind's survival) , like for example, ( processing & using the ?) practical informations contained by thought ?

K: I’m just coming to that : what place has thought then?

DB: Well, it still has a mechanical place...

K: But you're not 'greedy' anymore. That 'momentum' (of greed) , that mechanical habit is over. Then, what place has thought?

DB: Well, thought has some place – like if you want to find your way home ?

K: I use it when I need (to buy a 'taylor made' new ?) coat - I get it, but there's no ( personal element of) greed involved.

DB: So if thought has not identified itself with greed, you have an (objective) thinking which is rational.

K: I don’t quite follow...

DB: Well, you see, 'greed' is a form of irrational (self-centred?) thought.

K: Yes 'greed' is irrational.

DB: But now there’s a 'rational' ( aka : a holistically minded ) thinking, like for example, if you want to figure out something, you know....

K: But when you perceived ( the whole truth about the self-centred movement?) of greed, something has also happened to 'you' (to the 'one who perceives'?)

DB: Yes... ? Are you saying there is no more thought?

K: But ( for the insightful perception ) thought is not necessary.

B: Well, then how do you find your way home ? How do you use memory?

K: ( For starters, inwardly?) I’m no longer greedy...( and secondly) I have no need for thought in the field of (direct ) perception and therefore thought doesn’t enter into it at all (QED...?)

DB: Not into perception, but it still has its place apparently. For example if you want to know the way from here to wherever you want to go…

K: I’m taking of 'greed'  - where there is a total perception thought has no place.

DB: In the perception ?

K: Not only in that perception, but ( the self - cetred activity of) thought doesn’t exist any more with regard to that (greed) . Or if you perceive that all (the psychologically motivated action of ?) 'belief' is irrational , there is a perception of this total structure of belief, and it's out - ( such) 'belief' has no place in your thinking , in your brain.

DB: But isn't there a ( subliminal) tendency that thought may interfere (again?) ...

K: No, it won't ; if I perceive the total nature of belief, then it's over. Then where does thought come into that ( psychologically active structure?) which thought has created? Look sir, if I perceive totally the nature of belief, with ( the related ) fear, all the rest of it involved ; because there is a total perception, ( the actual need for such psychologically motivated ?) 'belief' doesn’t exist in my thought, in my brain, nothing ! So, where does thought come into it ?

DB: Well, not at that part....

K: It's finished ! So thought has no place when there’s a total perception, Same thing with ( seeing the whole nature of) 'greed' or of 'fear'... Then thought operates only when there’s an (actual) necessity for 'food, clothes, shelter'. What do you say to that?

DB: Yes, that may be right... But let's look at what we started with , which was to understand why thought has done what it has done. In other words, when there is a total perception then there's no place for thought. You just 'see'. But when we come to practical affairs (in the real world?) , you could say that we don’t have a 'total perception' - we depend on the information which has been previously accumulated, and so on...and therefore we need ( to use ) thought.

K: There, yes. I need it to build a house, I need to…

DB: So, you depend on the accumulated information, you see ? You cannot directly 'perceive' how to build a house, right ? But for 'psychological' matters...

K: That's it. When there is a total perception, thought doesn’t enter (anymore) into the psychological process.

DB: Yes, it has no place in the psychological domain . Now, I’d like to come back to the other question raised by David Shainberg, which is: “Why has thought gone wrong, why has it done all these things, why has it pushed itself where it has no place”?

K: Could we say that thought creates 'illusion' (self-delusion) ?

DB: Why would it want to do this ? And even more deeply, what makes it happen, you see?

K: Because ( after millenia of survival-oriented experience?) thought has taken the place of ( direct) perception...
So, does it happen, sir, that when there is a total perception that perception having no ( need to rely on) thought and all that, such an (holistically friendly?) mind uses thought only where it is actually necessary and otherwise it is ( remaining) 'empty' ?

DB: I wonder if we could put it differently : such a mind when it uses thought, it realises that this is (just) thought, it never supposes it is not thought, is that right?

K: Yes, that's right, that it is thought and nothing else...

DB: But I think the danger is that the mind does not realise that this is just thought ; suppose someone has an experience of joy and enjoyment, but slightly later there comes thought which 'imitates' it by remembering it, and then – since it is a very subtle imitation, it treats it as the same (authentic experience) and therefore it begins to get caught in is own ( mental pursuit of) pleasure which it mistakes for ( authentic) joy and enjoyment.

K: Quite...

DB: Now after a while, it becomes a habit and when the pleasure is not there there's a reaction of fear and so on, and all this psychological trouble starts. So at some stage , there is this mechanical ( image-making) process which thought does not acknowledge, not knowing that it is mechanical...

K: Yes...Could we say that man never realised until recently, that thought is a 'physio-chemical' (brain) process and therefore it assumed a tremendous importance?

DB: Well, in general that is certainly true, it's only recently that science has shown the physical & chemical properties of thought. Now, if we go back to the past, would you say, that nobody realised it , or perhaps some people understood this, but in general most people did not ?

K: Did not. All the 'saints' functioned ( based ) on thought....

B: Well, what about Buddha?

K: Again, according to the Buddhist tradition, there’s the 'eightfold noble path', there’s 'right thinking'...

DB: Ah, but he may have meant 'thinking non-mechanically'…

K: That's it ! You can’t take ( the example of) anybody in the past.

DB: Why, because we can’t be sure...?

K: Can't be sure of what they ( actually ) meant.

DB: That was interpreted ( by countless generations of followers) and so on, and we can’t go and ask him what he meant...

K: (Laughing)… So, is that the reason, because thought said ''I’m the only important thing'' ?

DB: Yes, but how did it come to say that, you see?

K: Because there was no ( direct inward?) perception.

DB: No, but why wasn’t it there?

K: Man didn’t realise, or thought wasn’t told that it was just a physio-chemical process.

DB: Yes, well thought does not know it's a material process therefore thought mistook itself for the actual 'intelligence'. But suppose there's ( a timeless moment of pure ) enjoyment, and ( later on) thought creates from memory an imitation of all that...

K: But it didn’t realise it was 'imitating' !

DB: That's what I’m trying to say, it didn’t know it was imitating.

K: That's just it.

DB: Perhaps it was too subtle for thought to realise it was just an imitation.

K: That's it... And also because thought from the beginning said I’m the only 'god' .

DB: I wonder if that didn't come a little later, you see ? At first thought mistook itself for (both the provider & beneficiary of) joy and intelligence , goodness and so on..

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Then it realised its own impermanence and then it took the idea that there is a ( Higher ) Self which is always there, which produces (mindfulness) and truth, and perception and so... You can give as a (trivial) example : enjoying the sunset and there may be a small ( verbal) 'accompaniment' of thought which seems harmless in itself....

K: Yes, it 'flutters around', quite...

DB: Flutters around, but now, as it builds up by habit, by repetition , it gets stronger, and it becomes comparable in intensity to the original experience , and then thought does
not see this as an imitation and it treats it as genuine.

K: Are we saying that man has never been told, or he never realised that thought is just a 'physio-chemical' process ?

DB: That realisation is not enough, because science has been saying it long ago - that thought is physical and mechanical, but that ( scientific discovery) in itself hasn’t changed anything.

K: No, no, but if you 'perceive' (the inward truth of?) that… ?

DB: Yes, but it was not enough for science to know that thought is a just a mechanical process...

K: That's right, it's only recently... so the ( cultural) conditioning and the ( safe mentality created by ? ) habit has been to consider thought as the primary thing ( value) in life.

DB: Yes, and even when it was called 'non-thought' it was still thought, you see ? There was some indication that thought created ( very realistic ) 'imitations' of the primary things in life and then it said that itself is the primary thing.

K: That's right, yes...

DB: So, thought never knew that it was just a mechanical process and therefore never had any reason to suspect that what it created was not the 'primary thing' in life, because even if it could see itself creating it, it would not know there was anything wrong with it.

K: Quite, quite. So what are we saying now? Thought never realised it was limited. Thought never realised that which it created was a 'physio-chemical' thing. Is that what we are saying?

DB: Part of it, yes.

K: And we are saying also, where there is a total perception, a ( qualitative) change in thought takes place.

DB: And what happens to thought then ?

K: Thought doesn’t try to interfere, there is no 'psychological' entity which thought can use.

DB: Let's try to clear this up a little bit. Let's say there is a new invention - which we discussed before, and something new comes into thought, into the field of reality, but we say that might be a perception. And because of that perception thought is functioning differently, it remains mechanical but different.

K: Yes, that's exactly what we are saying.

DB: Yes, therefore the creativity is not in thought itself but in the perception.

K: Lets get it clear, thought has created the 'me' ( a virtual 'thinker' entity?) and this 'me' has become independent of thought, apparently.

DB: Apparently ...

K: And the 'me' being still part of the thought, is the 'psychological' structure, while ( the true ) perception can only take place when there is no 'me'.

B: Well we could try to go (deeper) into this and make it more clear. You see, the 'me', this imaginary structure, we know it's 'real', as the 'me' involves some sort of 'centre' doesn’t it ? This 'centre' is a very old form of thought, it is one of the most fundamental forms (of survival oriented thinking ) , it probably goes to the behaviour of the animals, most probably.

K: Yes sir, the family centre and so on...

DB: Yes, also the geometric centre, when people use the centre with the rays emanating out, it's a very powerful symbol, you see, the sun with its rays (etc) so the ( pseudo- holistic?) concept of a 'centre' has a tremendous affect on thought, you see...

K: Yes sir...

DB: And this 'centre' has the meaning of totality, you see, one point touches everything. In other words the 'centre' is a symbol of the contact with the whole, you see, and I think
that's how the 'self' 's considered in thought. It perceives , the self is perceiving everything. The self is determining everything...

K: So there is an (all-controlling?) 'centre', but is this centre independent of thought?

B: Well the centre 'is' thought, it is a basic structure in thought, we think in terms of 'centre', you see ? In physics for example each atom is (thought of as?) a 'centre'.

K: That's why thought is fragmented.

B: Because we think through the 'centre' ?

K: We think through the centre. Ah, we're ( finally?) getting at it !

DB: Well let's get it more clear : you see , one of the basic theories of physics is to think that the world is made of atoms, each atom is a 'centre', a force which connects to
all the other atoms, and of course the opposite view is that there is a continuous field and no 'centre', those are the two views studied and are pursued in two different forms. Now, if you 'think through the centre', there is going to be fragmentation. You'll say the atomic view is fragmentary ?

K: Must be ! You see, what were getting at is that the basic reason of fragmentation is that we function from a 'centre' .

DB: Yes, we must think in terms of 'centre' because that may be useful the sun is at the centre to the solar system. But psychologically (inwardly) we also function from a centre. You see, physically we are forced to function from a centre, because the body is the centre of our field of sensory perception. But psychologically we form an imitation of that, we have the thought at the centre which is probably I think Jung called an 'archetype', it may be millions of years old, going back to the animals.

K: Yes, to the animals, quite....

DB : Now that form is useful physically, but then it was extended psychologically, right ?

K: That's right, that's why ( consciousness-wise?) thought is fragmentary.

DB: Well, is there a thought which does not function from the centre?

K: It has to... Because thought is from a centre of memory.

DB: Well, let's explore why does thought have to be from a centre, you see, why couldn’t there be a (non-personal response of) memory without a centre ?

K: How can there be, just 'memory' like a computer?

B: Its not clear to me why there cannot be memory, you see, just as information. You see, its not clear to me why thought had to form a centre, and why 'psychologically' it gave this 'centre' such importance?

K: Because thought never acknowledged to itself that it is mechanical.

DB: Thought was unable to acknowledge that it's mechanical, but, why does that call for a 'centre'?

K: But thought has created the 'centre'...

DB: Yes, but the 'centre' was there just for practical purposes anyway, but thought used that idea, 'psychologically' for itself....now, why was it doing that?

K: For a very simple reason : thought said : I can't be (just a) mechanical (function) , I must be something much more.

DB: How does the ( concept of the) 'centre' make it more then?

K: Because that gives ( the thinking process?) a sense of permanency, as the 'me' ...

DB: Well, we should make that more clear : why ( thought's identification with?) this 'centre' gives it a sense of permanency.

K: Why? Thought has created this microphone, that is apparently permanent, relatively, and 'in here' thought created the 'me' as a permanent entity.

DB: Yes, but why did it pick up the 'centre' to be permanent?

K: Perhaps it picked it up ( from the empirical observation that?) the Sun is the centre of the universe, and this ( life-giving) 'centre' joins everything.

DB: Yes, it joins everything and gives a sense of unity.

K: Unity, the family/tribe/nation and so on, but ( inwardly-wise) this 'centre' (aka the 'observer' ) becomes totally unnecessary when there is a 'complete' perception.

DB: But it seems to be necessary, when there is no such 'complete perception'.

K: It is not 'necessary', but that's what is happening in the world...

DB: So, not being able to realise it is mechanical, thought began to create its own products and seeing their instability, knowing their impermanence, it tried to establish something permanent and it found the ( concept of an identitary) 'centre' useful for trying to do that, because this 'centre' made a connection with everything.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: in other words, you see, if it is a 'form' around which everything can be put together, and even if everything is 'falling apart' in one's life, thought can ( ASAP?) establish a stable 'centre' which holds it all together ?

K: That's right : 'my' family, 'my' house, 'my' country...

DB: And that's 'permanent' ; in other words, thought has hit on the idea of a permanent centre to hold everything together and in fact that's what we do all the time to organise our existence by having a centre around which everything can be organised.

K: That's right, like a company executive...

DB: That's what we do all the time to have a permanent 'centre' to hold it all together...

K: Now when one ( endeavours to) perceive something totally, this (all-controlling) 'centre' is non - existent and doesn't that ( transpersonal ?) perception includes everything?

DB: Right, but lets go slowly here...

K: Isn’t that the 'central thing' that holds, that connects everything?

DB: I see it differently : that the act of perception unites everything. And thought is imitating that by ( inventing the concept of ) a 'centre' that unites everything.

K: That's right...

DB: And thought attributes the actual perception to this 'centre'

K: That's right, to the 'observer' and so on..

DB: And also the 'thinker' attributes its own origin to that (virtual) 'centre' and attributes truth to itself.

K: That's right. Now, is there sir, a ( non-personal) perception of greed, of fear, or a total perception which includes everything ? So it isn’t just a ( fragmentary) perception of 'greed', perception of 'belief' (& so on) but the ( global) perception of all these things.

DB: Let's say there’s a ( holistic) perception of 'that which is', right ? And right now there is the related question which we might clear up, because we said truth is (the perception of?) 'that which is', right?

K: Yes...(when) there is only perception, not the 'perceiver'.

DB: There is no 'perceiver', but only the perception of 'that which is', isn’t it?

K: Yes, and the 'perceiver' is the (thought created) centre.

DB: Yes, thought attributes to the 'centre' the quality of being a 'perceiver', as well as a 'thinker' or an 'actor'. So, I think that it might be helpful to see that one of the functions of thought is to refer, or attribute, and thought can attribute anything to any 'thing'...

K: Yes, quite right...

DB: Therefore when thought has 'invented' the centre, then it may attribute various qualities to that 'centre', such as thinking, feeling , pain or pleasure, therefore it becomes 'alive'. Could we say that suffering arises there, when pain is attributed to the centre?

K: Of course, as long as there is a 'centre', there must be suffering...

DB: Because when there no 'centre' the ( psychologically motivated frustration & ) pain is merely in thought.

K: Merely physical...

DB : Either physical or in memory ...But if the memory of pain is attributed to the 'centre' then it becomes something big.

K: So, we are 'seeing' something : if there is a total perception, thought has no place in that perception.

DB : And yet, that perception 'acts' and thought might be its action. That's what we were saying the other day...

K: Yes...let's get this clear. When there is a total perception in that there is no thought and that perception 'is' ( generating its own simultaneous ?) action.

DB: Yes, and that (holistic perception?) will change the quality of thought, by changing the brain cells.

K: And so on.... we've been through all that. Thought has only a mechanical function.

DB: By 'mechanical' you mean more or less, 'not intelligent' ? In the dictionary it's given more or less the opposite thing. So, thought is not creative, it's not intelligent ?

K: No. It's purely mechanical. So if it is merely mechanical, then it can operate mechanically in everything, without (identifying itself with?) any 'psychological' centre.

DB: Well then it would be like this computer that...

K: Yes, like the computer, but if the computer is to hold all this as your (perceptive mental ?) 'bucket' ... and we said it's not your 'bucket', it has no emotional (content)

DB: Well it's merely contradictory information.

K: Merely contradictory information ; similarly here. So we are giving tremendous importance to thought.

DB: Well, thought is giving importance to itself...

K: Thought is giving to itself tremendous importance ; when perception takes place, and therefore thought becomes mechanical.

DB: Well, and when thought acknowledges it is mechanical...

K: When it acknowledges it is mechanical, then there is no (psychologically generated ?) problem.

DB: Yes, this was one point ; and the other was to understand fully how thought went along the 'wrong track'.

K: Yes sir, I can see how it's gone on the wrong track : the 'centre'.

DB: Well, I think even from the beginning, there was in the beginning thought mistook itself for something living and creative, and then it established the 'centre' in order to
make that (assumption) permanent....

K: Yes.

DB: ... and then that gave it tremendous importance, you see, the combination of the two.

K: The combination of… ?

DB: One, that thought mistook itself for something intelligent and higher.

K: That's right...

DB: And its own imitations, for enjoyment and for intelligence, and love and so on and then seeing this was impermanent, seeing it naturally wanted to make it permanent,
and therefore it found the 'centre' as the way to try to do it , because the centre was actually the practical way of trying to organise things 'permanently'.

K: Quite right sir, so now we have answered (David Shainberg's question ) ''why thought is fragmentary ?''

DB: Yes, but let's make it more clear, why is it 'fragmentary'? I mean it's gone wrong, but why is this fragmentation  still going on ?

K: Because thought has separated itself from the thing it has created.

DB: Yes, thought has a created centre which is separate from itself, whereas in fact it is the centre, it has created the centre and it is the centre.

K: It 'is' the centre.

DB: Yes, that's right, but it thinks of itself, attributes to itself, that centre, the property of thought, 'I am real' and so on, and that is a fragmentation.

K: That's the basic thing.

DB: And from there follows the necessity for the rest of the fragmentation of life, because in order to maintain that those two are different, thought must then break up everything to
fit that, do you see ?

K: Of course.

DB: It only introduces confusion, you see, either it separates things that are not separate, or it puts together things that are different in order to maintain that fiction that the 'centre'
is separate from thought and everything else has to be cut to fit that.

K: ... cut to fit that centre.

DB: Yes, you see for example, if somebody attributes to the 'centre' of being from a certain nation, he must then distinguish another nation, not belonging to the centre, he
fragments something that's one mankind in order to hold the centre together.

K: Quite right sir, that's very clear now.

DB: And therefore the entire world is fragmented, indefinitely shattered into fragments.

K: I want to get to something else to. Is perception from time to time, from moment to moment ?

DB: From moment to moment ?

K: I perceive the nature of belief, its finished, there’s a
total perception of fear, that's finished, and there is total perception of greed, that's finished, is that perception one after the other, or is there total perception of the whole ?

DB: Well let's go into that slowly, you see, if there’s total perception of the whole thing, then what would there be left to do ? See, this raises the second question that David
Shainberg brought in. He says: you put it in the last discussion at Brockwood, that it was like Columbus discovering America, that someone else doesn’t have to discover it again. But then, what does one do that is creative, that is corresponding to what you did, you see?

K: Now, just a minute , just wait a minute, first let me answer this question. “Is perception whole”?

DB: A whole, there's only one perception.

K: ….therefore it's cleared the field.

DB: The entire field is cleared. Then what does he do ?

K: Wait, wait, let's see that is so, he hasn’t got to go through greed, belief, fear, pleasure...the whole things cleared the deck.

DB: Well you're saying man may perceive the whole nature of thought, is that what you are saying, or is it beyond that?

K: Beyond, a little more... Let's take that perception which sees the nature of thought, and because it perceives the nature of thought, it sees all this, all the fragments.

DB: All the fragments are in there.

K: All the fragments.

DB: And that brings up the question I wanted to ask for some time, You see, in the Indian book, Tradition and Revolution, you mention towards the end of it, the notion of
'essence' – pointing out that (a totally insightful?) perception distills the 'essence - do you remember that?

K: No, I don’t remember, sorry, it doesn’t matter...

DB: In some way there is a notion that there is a total perception being ( the direct action of) intelligence, and out of that came the (spiritual) 'essence', distilled like ( perfume distilled from ) the flowers.

K: Yes, yes...

DB: Is that 'essence' anything like this 'wholeness '?

K: That's what that is, of course. Now wait a minute, I want to get this clear. Would you say there's is no perception of fear, greed, envy, belief but a total perception, of everything that thought has put together, and of the 'centre'?

DB: Well there is a phrase that people sometimes use, ''to perceive the essence and the totality'', does that seem appropriate ?

K: Hmm… I’m hesitating on (using) the word 'essence'...

DB: Well, let's say you 'perceive the totality' ?

K: Leave the word 'essence' for the moment. There is no (point in a ) partial perception of greed, envy and all that, there is a 'total' perception of all the things that thought has put together, and made itself separate, the 'centre'.

DB: Well now, we have to talk about 'total perception', we have to make it more clear, because 'total' may mean 'all these things', or it may mean something else... ?

K: To me is means something else.

DB: Well let's make that more clear.

K: Would a 'total' perception mean seeing thought attributing to itself certain qualities, thought creating the centre and giving to that centre certain attributes, and all the things from the 'centre' – the 'psychological' centre.

DB: Well that's the whole structure of thought.

K: The whole structure.

DB: Yes, that is part of total perception, seeing the whole structure.

K: The whole of that.

DB: The entire structure, that's what we call the 'essence', the basic structure.

K: Yes, all right, if you call that 'essence', I agree.

DB: Yes, and that structure which is universal, would you agree that its not just this thought or that thought or this problem or that problem or …

K: It is universal, quite. Now wait a minute, is such a perception possible? You said that is (a totally insightful?) 'perception' - nothing else - because you tell me ''I see that, I feel that, I see the truth of what you're saying, it is the truth, not mine or yours, it is the truth''.

B: Yes ; now if you say it's the truth, it is 'that which is'...

K: That which is, the 'actual'.

DB: Yes, well it's both... I’m trying to get it a little more clear, when we say there is 'truth' and there is 'actuality', the way we ordinarily use the word 'actual', is really the right way we use the word 'individual', it would seem to me that the (perception of) actuality is 'individual', you see, undivided.

K: Ah yes, quite, 'individual' is undivided, quite...

DB: Actuality is undivided, but there is one moment of actuality and there may be another moment of actuality and so on, but now, when we 'see the essence', we see the
totality, or the 'universal'. So, what is necessary is 'seeing the universal', right, then this (global perception) includes all that, right ?

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

DB: So the ( perception of) truth goes beyond that 'individual' actual fact because it 'sees the whole', it sees what is universal and the totality of the nature of thought.

K: The totality of the nature of thought, that's it.

DB: Right, so that every individual (particular) example of thought is in there.

K: That's right ; and when that is seen, thought is then seen as merely 'mechanical'.

DB: Then thought acknowledges that it is mechanical ?

K: No, no thought doesn’t have to acknowledge it... It 'is' mechanical !

DB: Thought has changed, so it ceases to attribute to itself the 'non-mechanical'.

K: Yes, that's right. I think that's what actually took place...

DB: When ?

K: Probably from the beginning of this boy ….

DB: Yes... ?

K: It was there...

DB: It was 'implicit' ?

K: Implicit, or whatever you’d like to say...

DB: Well all right, perhaps it was implicit in everybody when he’s born but …then it gets the position it takes ?

K: I question whether it was implicit with everybody...

DB: Well, now let's get this clear ; that's what we were discussing the other day here ; so we could take the two views and consider them both : one view is, that it's implicit in everybody, and then the conditioning takes hold in most people, then it's lost, right ?

K: That's a very dangerous view !

DB: Why is it 'dangerous' ?

K: Dangerous, because then you 'assume' there is something in you, which is unconditioned. It is an assumption to say that somebody was born like that, from the very beginning...

DB: All right, so to assume there is in the child something unconditioned, that may be 'false' ?

K: I think that is false...

DB: You are suggesting that the average child is born with some conditioning, perhaps hereditary... ?

K: ...the genes and the hereditary, and the society, it's already there,

DB: And then it gets added to ?

K: Added to, encrusted, and it 'thickens'.

DB: All right, so that's one view and you feel it is wrong ?

K: I wouldn’t accept it, because that's a theory !

DB: Now, the other view is that (in the case of ) this boy, as you were saying last week, that there was some destiny, some hidden mysterious order ?

K: Something much more, much more than the theosophists explanation of reincarnation, than the Maitreya, and the Brahmanical tradition of ''mustn’t kill, mustn’t do harm'' or (good) karma...

DB: Yes... ?

K: I think it's much more, something else...

DB: Yes, you say there was something else, now of course this idea has also occurred to people in the past, you see, there are people who also felt that some mysterious force was working in them, and they may have been fooling themselves, right ?

K: Absolutely...

DB: Yes, like, if you take Alexander the Great he thought he was a ( Greek?) 'god' and many people felt his ( charismatic) energy so much, that they were ready to do anything with him...

K: But his energy was spent in conquering !

DB: That's right, in conquering, so it was obviously false...

K: False, obviously, Napoleon felt that.

DB: Yes, Napoleon felt it, perhaps Hitler felt it, you know...

K: Exactly, Mussolini and Stalin...

DB: Yes, and first I wanted to put it, just to try to make it clear, that that feeling may liberate a tremendous energy either falsely or not.

K: Yes.

DB: Therefore it has a 'danger' ( of self-delusion?) in it, you see, which we must recognise, right ?

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

DB: Yes, but nevertheless you cannot just discard that because this energy may still be necessary inspite of the ( potential) danger in it. In other words if we recognise that there is danger in this notion, it doesn’t prove that the notion is false....

K: Oh no, of course not... It may be misused, quite...

DB: But suppose now that we look at it from the other side, when you say that something mysterious happened, and which cannot be explained, which is beyond the order we can include in thought...

K: Beyond all explanation...

DB: So, it may be that thought cannot grasp...

K: Thought did not create a 'centre'...

DB: Yes, it did not create a centre, but let us say thought is ordinarily conditioned to create a 'centre', over the ages...

K: Yes, perfectly...

DB: A person may be born according to you with the tendency to create the 'centre' ?

K: Yes...

DB: But now, in this case, thought did not create the 'centre', is that what you say?

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And you cannot say 'why' it did not, beyond this 'mysterious' action ?

K: No, I wouldn’t know...

DB: So, in some sense you say the boy was protected - it's what you said last time...

K: Protected, guarded, they did everything to guard him, first of all...

DB: Well, there was a combination of circumstances which helped, which were conducive to that...

K: Conducive, but it doesn’t explain …

DB: Now, there are several points that we could go on from there. You see, one point is to say : if ( an average) man is born conditioned then there is no way out of it, if that's all there is to it, in other words, from this conditioned mind there can be no way out. Therefore the only 'way out' is for somebody to come into existence who is not conditioned...

K: Yes, proceed...

DB: Therefore if there is such a person, we could say he does not have any 'personal' significance, that it's just part of the universal order.

K: Yes, that's right.

DB: And if I can give you an example in physics : in order to crystallise something that is (present) in a saturated solution - the sollution may be cooled far beyond the point
of crystallisation unless there is a small 'nucleus', around which it can ( start to) crystallise, otherwise it may remain in that solution uncrystallised, indefinitely.

K: Yes...

DB: And that 'particular nucleus' has no special significance other than, it was the place around which crystallisation took place.

K: Quite, absolutely !

DB: So you could say that perhaps ( the whole consciousness of?) mankind has reached a stage where it is ready, or has been ready for a change, right?

K: Yes, that's what they say...

DB: Many people have said that. Then this ( first 'crystal') would be necessary, you see, it cannot change from the conditioned state...

K: There must be a catalyst, ( like the enlightened presence of?) somebody, a nucleus...

DB: A 'nucleus', which is unconditioned.

K: Yes, quite, quite...

DB: I mean whether it's true or not, we'll have to discuss. Another question that a number of people began to ask is that until recently, you have not been talking in these (totally holistic?) terms, but rather emphasising a ( gradual?) 'awareness' of the conditioning and so on, while now it seems you are saying something more and different ; could you say why is it this time ?

K: Oh, I wouldn’t know, sir...

DB: I mean, why didn’t you discuss this point before ? This is what I’m getting at...

K: Ah, ( laughing evasively ) 'No lo so' ('Don't know' in Italian) ..... Sir, I am just going back, if there is total perception of the nature of thought and all it's activities, and therefore the total perception of the content of consciousness that used to be the 'centre'...

DB: Well, I think that the 'centre' is the (unifying mental) form around which all these things are placed. You see ?

K: Yes...

DB: They are attributed to the 'centre'

K: Yes, attributed to the 'centre'... Now, when the 'centre' is not (interfering ?) in a total perception – and total perception can only exist when the 'centre' is not (around?) , then ( the quality of human) consciousness must be totally different.

DB: All right, and what would you say about its nature then?

K: What would be its nature... ? See sir, the 'centre' as you pointed out, is the ( mental) factor of unification...

DB: This is what's attempted...The (empirical) way in which people have always tried to unite...

K: ...but it has never succeeded ; when the 'centre' is not, which is ( the result of a time-free ?) perception of the totality of thought, one's consciousness must be something quite different.

DB: But you see, the word 'consciousness' would ordinarily involve the idea that is it still ( a creation of) thought...

K: There’s no thought, can’t be !

DB: Then why do you call it 'consciousness' ?

K: I said : it must be 'something totally different'. The (self-centred model of?) consciousness which we have now is ( subliminally identified?) with this 'centre' and with all the ( psychologically active ) content, with all the process of thought, with all its (time-binding) movement, and when there is a total perception of (all) this, this ( centre) is not !

DB: The 'centre' is not, and the whole order ( of the brain?) is different ?

K: Different.

DB: Yes... And there is something I was going to ask  about what you were mentioning the other time : that it might involve the brain cells working in a different way?

K: I don’t know ( exactly how?) but I think (the brain) works differently...

DB: Yes.

K: Sir, may we discuss what is Compassion? Is the 'centre' (the self-identified consciousness?) capable of Compassion?

DB: Well, I’d say this ( self-conscious) 'centre' is not capable of anything 'real'...

K: No, but can't the 'centre' attribute this quality to itself and 'be compassionate'?

DB: It certainly can do that, yes...

K: ( Laughs) It can, yes, but if there is no such attribution at all, then what is compassion? Is the total perception ( the intelligent action of) compassion?

DB: Well, it has to be, and include the 'feeling for all'...

K: I should think one of the qualities of total perception is Compassion.

DB: Hmm... If the 'centre' can have feelings ( of empathy), which are generally attributed to it, so it would also have compassion for whatever it got identified with...

K: Of course....''I love you'' and... ''I don’t love others''...or, ''I love others'' but... ''I don’t love you'' ( both are laughing heartedly ) ..

DB: Anyway, it would have no (self-) understanding and therefore it would have no ( holistic) meaning.

K: Very interesting this... Ah, we have got somewhere ! How would you convey all this to somebody attending in this (1975 Saanen Gatherings ) camp? (S)He’s sentimental, romantic, wanting illusions, myths, fanciful imaginations, has problems of sex , of fear & so on, and you're telling him ( about this ) 'something', and he won’t even listen.... Here we’ve got (the necessary space of ) leisure, we want to go into it, we want to find out, because are ( trying to be) totally objective of oneself…. I think that's where ( the holistic Intelligence of?) Compassion operates.

DB: That's why it ( the true spirit of dialogue) is necessary...

K: That's right...

DB: Now considering what we were saying yesterday about the 'stream of human thought' and whatever is going wrong there - it is universal, it belongs to everybody, right?

K: Yes.

DB: So, one may see that something is going wrong, and generally thought attributes it to somebody else, but (as a holistic 'rule of thumb'?) whenever something is going wrong, it's going wrong ( primarily) in thought.

K: Yes, that's right...

DB: And therefore it's ( going wrong) in everybody, right ?

K: Yes.

DB: But there is no such thing as 'my' thought, 'your' thought, it's thought, and it cannot stop ; you see, the minute you are thinking, even if there is not by a (non-verbal) 'extra sensory' communication of thought, just by ordinary communication. The structure of your thought is communicated to me, and if it's the wrong structure, then I’m in the wrong structure of thought...

K: Yes, of course !

DB: Then my brain, my thought attributes the wrong structure to 'you', to another 'centre'....

K: Quite !

DB : ( Assuming that ) this centre is all right, or we’ll try to make it all right, and the other centre is wrong, so there can be no ( intelligent perception of) compassion, then I’m becoming hostile, thinking I must fight the other 'centre'... This centre is resisting the other centre, the 'good' is in this centre, and the 'bad' is in the other ( person's) 'centre' and therefore there can be no compassion.

K: Yes sir.

DB: But you see, if it's an 'all one' ( a holistically integrated) thought process, one Stream, then one cannot attribute this to a particular person and therefore, it seems you understand the nature of that (other person's) thought and that is Compassion...

K: Exactly. Quite right...

DB: Because you see that anyone thinking that way must be suffering. (Silent pause)

K: Yes sir.... We were going to talk, or discuss rather, about the mystery? What is the 'mysterious' ? You see sir, all religions, have made the cathedrals dark, the temples are dark, implying that God is ( something) mysterious, that there is something so mysterious that you cannot understand, and there have been secret societies, special initiations, you know all that which you went through in order to come upon the 'mysterious'. All that is not ( truly?) 'mysterious'.

DB: Well, that is just an imitation...

K: Imitation which thought, etc, etc. So, if there was no invention of the ( artificial) 'mysteriousness' created by thought, is there an (actual) 'mystery'?

DB: Well, if 'mystery' is that which cannot be explained, or grasped by thought, then…

K: Yes, and also the myths...

DB: Well, myths are an attempt to grasp it by thought, by poetic thought...

K: And apparently man has lived with those myths...

DB: Yes... again it's the same point we were discussing before that thought is attributing to itself, something 'mysterious'...

K: Mysterious … ?

DB: Not 'mystery-like' but the ultimate mystery, it produces something which then says it's not ( the invention of) thought but, the ultimate mystery.

K: Quite...

DB: In some (scholastic?) way people have said that myths were poetic means by which people grasped something true but at the same time, if you use (the term 'mystery' ) once ( in a while) as a metaphor, then (probably?) it could be helpful, while when you repeat it, then it becomes an (intellectual routine ?) - perhaps it would remain true in saying, '' That which is cannot be grasped in thought''.

K: That's right, anything but the 'mystery' of it !

DB: Yes...

K: We must discuss that ( educational aspect?) some other time.

DB: Well perhaps there isn’t time now, it's a quarter past five ...

K: We’d better stop ! We can go on this friday....

DB : It doesn't bother you as you have another (Saanen Group) discussion in the morning ?

K: The  (free) discussions don't tire me so much as (the thought?) 'sustained talk'... Maybe we can leave it open ?

DB : Right, but we'll have to be leaving Sunday or Monday, you see ?

K: Then we can do it on Sunday afternoon at 3 : 30. Bene !

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 28 Mar 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Mar 2020 #273
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

9-th ('reader-friendly' edited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

DB : Perhaps we should go on with what we wee discussing the other time and clarify some of these points. We were discusssing the action of truth and if I could sum up: in one discussions we were discussing whether the thought process – if it is 'straight & healthy' - may become aware of the action of truth and move in harmony with that ; and on the other hand, the thought process, when it is distorted and conditioned may not do that...

K : Yes, that's right...

DB : … but 'truth' connects physically in the brain cells to bring it back ....

K: Sir, would that (assumption?) be accurate ?

DB : You see, we're trying to go into it and perhaps we should discuss it a little while because it is a quite important point and is quite contradictory to the traditional scientific knowledge...

K: Nowadays, after reading that article on parapsychology...

DB : Perhaps not after reading 'psychology', because the scientific knowledge is changing too; but anyway, we could say the brain is material but it has an 'actuality' apart from thought altough we don't 'know' all of it ; in other words, the complete depths of matter are unknown to us and perhaps they'll never be known – you see, we can only know more & more about it , but we can never follow the depths from which thought arises, right ? And thought has become conditioned through the ages, partly from heredity and partly from tradition & culture...

K: ...tradition, culture, environment...

DB : ...environment & so on. And it has been conditioned to self-deception, to 'falsifying' from the start. And this is in the material structure of the brain. And one can say that this conditioning constitutes a subtle kind of brain damage...

K: That's right...

DB : You see, if we take a piece of delicate electronic equipment – such as an amplifier or a computer - if that (e-mechanism ) is overloaded there is distortion and if you keep overloading it, you may break down the parts, and therefore it will distort more. So we could say that the kind of conditioning we're talking about – the conditioning which gives the greatest importance to thought and to the 'center' - overloads & gradually damages the brain in a way that is perhaps too subtle to be detected by the scientific instruments – except when it's gone very far...

K: Ah, yes...

DB : ...but still it's there, you see ?

K: Yes... Are you saying, sir, that when the brain is 'overloaded' ( saturated ?) – by environment, by economic conditions, socially...

DB : And also by fear & sorrow...

K: ...sorrow and all the things that are going on in human beings, it does damage the brain cells ?

DB : Yes...

K: I think that is so ; that can be accepted...

DB : Yes, there is a physical & chemical damage to the brain cells and those damaged brain cells produce a thought that is really distorted ; therefore, as thought tries to correct that damage, because it is distorted it must make it worse.

K: Right, it makes it worse. Now from there, can there be a total perception which heals completely  ?

DB : Yes, that heals the brain cells... ? Now, one point is that the brain doesn't recognise this "brain damage" primarily, but atributes it to something else – for exmple it may atribute it to feeling uneasy due to some external circumstances...

K: It blames...

DB : ...it on anything else ; and I think that this kind of brain damage occurs in ( our cultural) tradition, you see ? It occured to me tradition is a form of brain damage...

K: Quite, quite...I agree.

DB : ...because any tradition – good or bad- what it does is gets people to accept a certain structure of reality, very subtly, without realising they are doing it by imitation or by example, or just by ( authoritative) statements – so very subtly the child builds up an approach in which the brain atributes the things from the tradition to a 'reality' that is there independent of this tradition...

K: Certainly...

DB :... and gives it a tremendous importance.

K: Yes, you can see this in the oldest cultures, like in India, this distortion & damage due to tradition.

DB : I think that's happening in every culture ; I was just reading about the people who originally lived in Australia, the aborigenes, and they have a very different tradition, which they call 'dream time' , while in that dreaming there is also another time, which is also before being born or after dying...

K: I see...

DB : ...and they have a tradition of getting in the 'dream time' by means of a series of initiations and rituals at a certain age of adolescence ; and in that 'dream time' they can function very differently, like they can go into the desert and live there under conditions intolerable to ordinary people. So you see, tradition has real effects of all sorts, which may be valuable in some way, but at the same time it conditions the brain to a certain view of reality which is fixed. They even say – I read somewhere- that people who don't share this 'dream time' are 'unreal' – you see ?

K: Quite, quite...(both laugh)

DB : Now the same thing happens in our culture – and that is the point I want to come : we'll have to discuss culture at great lenght- now in our culture we get a conditioning which may be different, but it is basically similar in structure : what is to be real and necessary and right ; what you have to make of your life, what is the kind of person you should be, what's the right thing to do, and so on. And all this is picked up (by the human brain) in tiny little indications that don't seem to be thought, but seem to be the perception of reality...

K: Quite...

DB : ...and therefore the brain is beginning to treat thought as some reality which is independent of thought, so that a person may look at it and say 'that's reality, I've got to keep my feet on the ground', but this 'ground' is created by tradition, by thought...

K: ...by thought, quite !

DB : But you see, that's (only a virtual) 'ground' – it has nothing under it at all !

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And is sustained by this ( very subtle) brain damage ; that is, it is nourished, sustained by this damaged brain which is unable to get out of this circle. But still, our culture also has valuable...

K: ...certain values...

DB : ...which cannot be discarded ; and one of the dangers that can arrive ( to the blind follower) is an un-critical look at what you say : that somebody wants to discard culture because that is not clear...

K: Sir, what does that word 'culture' mean ? To cultivate...

DB : The basic meaning of 'cultivate' is 'to cause to grow'...

K: Yes, that's what it is...

DB : So therefore we've got to be clear about the meaning of creation ; you see, there is a tendency to consider culture as a creation (of thought) ...And yet we cannot just discard culture and drop it.

K: No, you're quite right, I understand...

DB :...but there is some confusion around it.

K: So, what do we mean by 'culture' ? That which grows, that which is capable of growth...

DB : ...and which is passed on. You see, 'that which grows' is passed on from a generation to another. And the word 'nature' is the same root in Greek -the word is 'fysis', which means to grow ; so these are very deep concepts which were very general...

K: And the evolution from the savage living in a cave to the modern man, is called 'growth'...

DB : Yes, but the savage himself has his own 'growth' and some anthropologists say his culture is as valid as ours...

K: Yes, yes...What (existential ) benefits has culture ?

DB : Well, let's look at several aspects of culture – science, art, music, literature, technology...At the very least every culture has a certain technology with which it approaches reality – certain methods have been developped to grow things, or to approach reality...

K: Has thought created culture ? Of course it has …

DB : It has, yes. And some culture might be necessary for man to survive...

K: Yes...I wonder if (psychologically?) it is necessary.

DB : It isn't, but it appears to be.

K: It appears to be...Let's question it !

DB : Yes, but I wanted to go a little bit further ; you see, we take science as part of our culture, art is part of our culture, like music...Even you have often said (in private?) that you enjoy listening to good music – and that is part of our culture ...

K: Yes, sir...But I think there's a ( potential) danger of using it as a means to 'go beyond' or to penetrate into something else.

DB : Let's try to make that clear : let's take the example of music- Mozart or Beethoven, would you say that there was necessary some insight, or something beyond the mechanism of thought to create that ?

K: Yes, sir, I thought about it too...Now wait a minute ; suppose you're a musician...

DB : Well, let's say a composer, a person who creates new music.

K: A composer, and all the composition – putting (on paper) all the notes of music is the work of thought, isn't it ?

DB : Yes, anybody can do that...

K: That's what I meant- so that is the result of thought. And does he 'listen' to that music before he puts it down ?

DB : Well , I don't know what kind of ( artistic) imagination he's got... Beethoven was deaf, but I think he could imagine some of the music he wrote...

K: But he must have 'heard' it !

DB : He heard it when he was not deaf, but he also made new music when he was deaf – he never heard it...

K: So, you're saying the 'hearing' (with the mind's ear?) is not necessary ?

DB : Perhaps in the beginning it was, but …

K: In the beginning he heard it. And when he became deaf, he no longer 'heard' it ? Therefore, how did he capture it ?

DB : I don't know... it went through some kind of inner perception, which we usually call ' (artistic) imagination' or
he may have heard it 'inwardly'...

K: Wait a minute, let's go slowly...When you are speaking now, do you think it out and then speak ?

DB : No, you don't.

K: No. Why ?

DB : It's clear that there is a ( mental) formation of the meaning first. In other words, whatever I mean to say comes first...

K: How does that happen ?

DB : Well, I don't know if we could say exactly how... ?

K: I mean, when I get on the platform - fortunately or unfortunately - I ( just) talk , I don't 'think' – if I thought it out it would all go wrong...I've done that before – write down enormous notes and then make a resumé of it and then I would read it when they're written down...

DB : But sometimes it's valuable to make very rough notes...

K: No, wait a minute, and Dr Besant said to me  : 'Why do you bother with it ? Just say what you want to say...' First time I got really dithering about it and then gradually...Is there actually a 'thinking' when one speaks ?

DB : No, as a rule, the speech comes before thought...

K: The speech comes first...A-ha ! Let's see that- but the speech, the words...

DB : There is some scientific evidence of that as a matter of fact. People have watched what kind of mistakes they made : most mistakes are made when the whole paragraph or sentence is formulated at once...

K: Say for instance, Dr Besant was a great orator ; she said she used to 'see' the phrases (mentally displayed) in front of her.

DB : Well, that's one way, but...

K: Now, I'm questioning whether the speech comes before thought. I use English to tell you something – the use of English is ( based on) memory...

DB : Oh, yes, yes...

K: And I use that 'memory' in talking...

DB : You see, it's the same as learning to walk – to a certain extent that learning becomes part of you ; so in the same way, the speech becomes part of you...

K: So, you're saying that speech comes before thought ?

DB : Well, there is some evidence that it may...or else thought itself may be different from what we know – it may have a different structure from what is generally attributed to it...

K: So, we are talking about culture ; culture is growth – from childhood to manhood & so on. The expression of one's feeling must be through thought – putting down the words, notes & everything- and when you deliver a lecture you write it out or you express ( your ideas) as you go along...

DB : Yeah...

K: That means it must have been stored up inside.

DB : Well, not necessarily...That particular order in which it appears may be the result of a perception which you have at that moment...

K: Yes, that's what I want to get at...

DB : I mean, some of the material must have been ( mechanically) stored up, but the way it comes out depends on perception.

K: Perception of what ?

DB : That's what we want to find out...

K: If I may be a little 'personal', when I talk, I 'think' by talking from ( a state of inner) emptiness. I have talked for so many years – it comes now through long practice and the whole thing flows out. But if I think about it previously, it doesn't 'flow out'.

DB : But you may think a little, for example : at breakfast you have told me about 'thinking about something this morning'...

K: Yes, an idea happens – something you 'see' ; but if I think about it previously and store it ( as in Letters to the Schools?) then it goes somehow ( mechanical ) & messes up. But I 'see' something, then let it 'come out' as I talk. So, is there not a state when thought is not in operation & all the rest of it where perception is going on - that's where (truth's intelligent ) action takes place. Now, would you call it (direct ) 'perception' ?

DB : Insight 'is' perception. When you understand something you 'perceive' the meaning?

K: Sir, is it possible to say something without the operation of thought - except the (mechanical) usage of words... ?

DB : Wouldn't it be possible that the movement of words might be just another movement ? You see, when you perceive an object and you start to move toward or away from it, it needn't involve thought except the storing up of information about the object, but it needn't fundamentally to think about it...

K: No.

DB : Could we say that when we talk the vocal chords respond in a similar way as it might to perceive the object ?

K: But it must be much more than that...

DB : Yes, it's more than that, but the action...

K: Either you 'see' the words and you read them...

DB : I don't do that...

K: You don't do that... Or, when you have talked for so long, as I have talked for so long, it becomes a ( 'copy-paste' memory) habit...

DB : It becomes a skill ; there's a certain skill in it, but the whole thing takes place without a 'conscious' (premeditated) direction.

K: Yes, but that doesn't answer it...

DB : Yes...It may be more relevant if we come to the 'unconscious' mind as well, since a part of this process seems to be 'unconscious' ? I mean, it may be just that 'unconscious' ( subliminal activity of the?) mind which must be only dimly lit or suppressed ? You have said at one time that you're 'sticking with the unconscious'...

K: Yes...

DB : ...which is a different kind of 'unconscious' ? And I just remind you something that perhaps you already know, that people studying the brain have found that the two sides- the left and the right- primarly one side is merely 'verbal' – I think it's the right hand side - and the other side is primarily 'non-verbal' - and they call that 'unconscious' ...When they are properly 'cut' ( separated?) one side doesn't know what the other side is doing and one person might say in words that he doesn't know anything about this, while the other side might see something & respond to it, which is 'the un-conscious movement' – but if you ask him he would say that he doesn't know anything about it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And so they have said that perhaps that part of the brain is 'unconscious' while the other side - the verbal side - is 'conscious'. But then, obviously there is a still deeper part of the brain, the 'base' , which is common to both ; that's the part where the 'feelings' are, and that's the center of attention and the center of emotion and so on, which probably connects both sides...

K: Right...

DB : Now, would you say that perhaps there is an 'unconscious' mind which is not really 'forgot' or 'repressed' and which works when you talk ?

K: Look : you make notes and you read them – that's one way- and if you have done that for a number of years, you get a certain ( 'holistic' oratoric?) skill – that's one skill ; then, the skill in talking...but we said that is not the answer...What takes place ?

DB : You see, whatever you say does not purely come from the 'verbal' part of the brain...from the trivial ; now whatever may come, must come from the deeper part, of which you are not conscious...For instance there was this case when ( a part of the pacient's) brain was cut out and they say that the perception of music is in the other side – which is the opposite of the word or the perception of visual things & so on...and there seems to be a function of the brain which is non-verbal. Now, that may be still a 'thought' of some kind, which is much less defined, a 'non-verbal' thought, that can be conditioned and memory may be still in it...Now, what we are doing is to make a connexion of these two, so that the words can also express the 'non-verbal' (perceptions)

K: Sir, is there in the human brain - a part untouched by culture, by anything ?

DB : Well, that is a question which science at present cannot consider and which is beyond what anybody could do (in that field) , because we don't know what that would mean from the material point of view... In other words, in the present material structure of the brain there is no way in which we could tell – the present way of looking at it is too 'crude', you see ?

K: If I say something about it, would you 'listen' - not discard it, or throw it out ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: We said consciousness 'is' ( directly influenced by its psychological ) content and if that content be 'emptied' - in the sense of being no longer conditioned - is there a part of the brain which nothing has touched – nothing has made an imprint on it ?

DB : You're talking of a particular part of the brain ?

K: Not only of a particular part of the brain, but of a (time-free ) part of consciousness which is not this consciousness...

DB : Another (dimension of?) 'consciousness' ?

K: Another consciousness.

DB : Which may be another function or in another part of the brain ?

K: No... let's look at it : my brain is conditioned – by tradition, culture, heredity...

DB : Would that mean it's damaged ?

K: Damaged, and it has healed itself completely...

DB : So, you're saying that it was damaged but it has 'healed' itself ?

K: I'm taking my brain ; it healed itself (holistically) , and is now 'unconditioned'.

DB : Yes, but the question is : how can it heal itself ?

K: Healed itself through having an insight, a ( non-verbal inner) perception which is not a perception of the damaged brain …

DB : I understand ; so, you're saying that the human brain is not totally damaged, and there's still a ( deeper) function that is not damaged, right ?

K: That's right. And, is there a (creative dimension of human ) consciousness which is totally different from this (time-bound) consciousness - which ( may also ) function or operate when I am a great composer – and has that perception ?

DB : You see, let's discuss the case of the (inspired?) 'composer' – for instance Bethoven has that perception although he is deaf - his brain is damaged , and also he's disturbed mentally...

K: Disturbed mentally, poor chap !

DB : Yes, and we say that there is a part of his brain that could work anyway, despite that damage...

K: Despite that damage...If it was really damaged he couldn't have been a musician !

DB : Not damaged deeply. So you're saying that in general this damage – even if it's only 'cultural' - is not that deep ? It may appear 'deep' but in fact it isn't ?

K: Yes, I think it is not too deep. Would you say that ?

DB : Yes, I mean it works only at a certain level...

K: Of course, even if my brain is damaged in (following a particular ) tradition, I can 'step out' of it ! The ( holistically friendly?) brain says : rubbish !

DB : Yes...then the damage is only in certain 'functions' of the brain which are based on memory ?

K: Yes...and you can put it aside.

DB : So it is not in a really deep function of the brain ?

K: No.

DB : But it may appear, or present itself, as 'deep' ?

K: That's right !

DB : It attributes it to itself as being 'deep' …

K: If I am a ( mildly conditioned?) Catholic and you talk with me & show all the... it's finished, I'm out !

DB : Well, in principle, I think it's right, a person may see this, but then a part of this (psychological) damage attributes to itself the property of being very deep and beyond thought, therefore it escapes this 'insight', you see ?

K: Quite... right, right !

DB : You see, it doesn't mean that the damage is deep, but the damaged part attributes to itself a great 'depth'...

K: Yes, quite.

DB : So afterwards, a person who is a 'Catholic' you might explain it to him and he might see ( the inward truth of) it at that moment, but...

K: Ah, wait a minute ! Suppose for instance that I'm attached to my wife or to something else and because I respect you and I listen, I am fairly sensitive to what you are saying, then it's finished ! It's over - I'm never attached anymore !

DB : Well, it doesn't commonly happen that way, you see...

K: Why ?

DB : Well, that's what we want to find out ( as introspective homework?) ...Supposing one reason is that this conditioning attributes to itself some significance which is very deep and not merely ( at the level of) your memory and thought. You see, suppose I am a Catholic, and I have grown up in the Catholic tradition I've been exposed to it non-verbally & subtly, it has left a mark and when I become a little bit frightened ( of life challenges?) - it all seems so real, you see ? And therefore I simply 'forget' what you said …

K: Of course, of course...But that's too easy...

DB : But this is what actually happens...

K: But I think there's something deeper than that ; let's go into it a little bit. If I 'listen' to you – because you are serious, you have 'detached' yourself and you show it to me, and you say : Look, listen ! And because I respect you, because I listen to you, because I'm attentive, what you say has a tremendous meaning and it is (actually seen as) true, the (inward) truth of what you're saying acts.

DB : Yes, even if there is a tremendous conditioning in this tradition to resist that truth... ?

K: Ah, I'm not resisting it ! Because, first of all, I want this transformation - that's a basic necessity for me, as a human being...

DB : Yes, but then there is another basic necessity of ( material) security, you see ?

K: You show it to me that through this transformation there is ( the actual possibility of ) a tremendous security ; you point out to me that if I transform myself totally, then you will be eternally safe, secure & all the rest of it, because you have 'seen' it, because you have got it. And when you say that to me it's a shock- I 'see' it ! But if I haven't (the actual desire to be ) transformed, if inwardly I am a 'phoney' (or simply a... 'jerk'?) , then whatever I say...

DB : Right... But then how do you account for the fact that you've been talking for so many years and it has had so little (transformational impact) ?

K: I think that basically, people won't 'listen'.

DB : Yes, and then it comes to 'why not?'...

K: Why not ? Because I don't see they're ( vitlly) interested. Why should they be interested ?

DB : Well, because life is such a mess...

K: Ah, but they have those 'little harbours' where they are sheltering themselves...

DB : Yes, but that's a (very realistic?) 'illusion'.

K: You say it's an illusion, but to them it's not !

DB : I know, but why does the brain resist seeing this illusion ? You see, very often people would get shocked when shown that something is wrong, but then...

K: ...they go back.

DB: They go back ; so we still have to go into this (natural) tendency ( of the human brain?) to 'go back,' because whatever the 'shock' may be, the brain will go back, even if -let's say- we listen to the person who 'sees' and there is a shock but then the brain will go back later (to its psychologically safe habits?) ...

K : You are asking : why does it go back ?

DB : Yes...

K: Oh, that's because of ( the inertial force of?) habit, this tremendous years of tradition & all that...Habit !

DB : Yes, but then that's still within the same circle. You see, the only answer which is adequate is the one which will stop it. As I see it, an explanation which doesn't end this thing is not a full explanation...

K: I said 'habit' , but that ( 'holistical' statement?) doesn't get us anywhere...

DB : No...

K: So what brings about to the damaged brain a total...

DB : ...not going back ?

K: To not go back. Hmm... ? A man sees that any 'spiritual movement' is useless and he drops it instantly – never goes back to it, never cultivates it, never organises it – now what has taken place in that man ? He perceives the truth of it, hmm ?

DB : Yes, but let me say something : you said that this young man was not deeply conditioned in the first place. But we'll have to consider another man who was deeply conditioned in the first place. You see, the man who was not deeply conditioned in the first place has seen the truth & dropped it – so for him that was fairly easy because he was not deeply conditioned...

K: Yes. But the other man is conditioned...

DB : Yes, much stronger...

K: ...much stronger and he may temporarily 'see' it and then goes back to it ?

DB : Perhaps unconsciously he 'slips back' ?

K: Can that man be ( psychologically?) 'shocked' ? I'm not talking about electric shocks... Can you 'shock' me psychologically ?

DB : Well at other times you said 'shock' is no use...

K: I know, I'm just asking...I can shock you but you may go back...

DB : It will only work for a while...

K: I know...Now, what is this thing that makes me 'see' (the whole truth of it?) end it and not go back ? See sir, because we have not been able to do this we say ''it's only for the few''...

DB : Perhaps the brain has been damaged too much... ?

K: Too much.. I don't quite agree with that – it's too easy (an explanation)  ! ( both laugh)
( To recap:) You 'see' ( the falseness of?) something and it's finished ; I don't 'see' it, but you point it out and then for a few months or days, I 'see' it...And then suddenly ( the perceptive clarity of?) it disappears and I'm back (in thought's time-proven 'self-protected' mode ) ...

DB : I think that it's better to say that it 'slips out'...

K: Slips out... ?

DB : Slipping into the old habit...

K: Old habit...Now, what is the thing that makes it (not slip out )  ? Sir, is 'attention' a conscious process ?

DB : Well, apparently we can say it's not...

K: Yes...

DB : That may be the 'un-conscious' ( action) that we talked about ?

K: If it's not a process of time, not a conscious or unconscious process of thought, is there another kind of (holistically friendly?) attention which 'acts' and it's over ? I'm just trying to find out...

DB : Would you say, as we said the other time, that it's something beyond this 'attention' that acts ?

K: Yes, that's what we're trying to get at...If you explain me rationally, logically my attachment, I listen to it, but it's still within the field of thought. And within the field of that thought, whatever thought does cannot produce a radical transformation. Right ?

DB : Yes...

K: Now you say, ''That is not enough ; you won't change if you remain there, you'll go back to it'' And you point out to me, 'Don't control, don't resist, just 'listen' ! In this (transpersonal?) 'listening' you're not appealing to the normal rational process ; you are appealing to something that is beyond thought, beyond my usual (temporal) consciousness. You're appealing to something much deeper in me ; you are 'touching' something - which has nothing to do with the (self-centred?) movement of thought. Would that be right ? You are appealing to me at a level of which I am not 'conscious'. You are appealing to me at a level which may be called ( the holistic intelligence of?) 'compassion', which is not at the level of thought. If you appeal to me at that level (and I am actually listening?) I can't go back to thought, to my habits – I can't go back ! Is that possible ?
Sir, is Love the factor of profound change ?

DB : Hmm... ? Is it (the holistic action of?) 'Truth' ?

K: Truth.

DB : But is there a distinction ?

K: No, of course not...It's (part of?) the whole thing. Truth 'is' love and compassion, everything. I just want to see if that is so. Can you, out of your compassion, out of your love , touch something in me (within my psyche?) that transforms me ? Because to you that is the Truth ; you see truth and you live in the feeling of all that...And from 'that' you speak.
As you just said : 'You've tried to do it for fifty years and you haven't done it'...And to that the ordinary answer is : perhaps the average human brain is too damaged  (too coarse?) ; therefore there are very few brains that are not ( psychologically) 'damaged' and perhaps you can affect them...But ( obviously?) that is not the complete (final ?) answer...Therefore we go back to the (good-) old thing : ''it's only for a few''...

DB : Well, one ( constructive ) view of this is that these 'few' will spread it (further) ... But you are not accepting that ?

K: That ( implies going ) back to the whole 'bussiness of tradition'...And there you are (getting further) damaged... This is what actually takes place.

DB : Are you saying that if we are using ( the conventional channels of) culture to bring ( a holistic ) order to the mind, then this will further damage the brain ?

K: Yes.

DB : But then for what can we use ( the achievements of mankind's ) culture ? Can we use it technically, or you can 'enjoy' it - you said that you are 'enjoying the music'... ?

K: Just a minute, sir : what shall we do ? You speak out of the depths of that 'immense something'. And I listen to you and you affect me at that level, but it's only a temporal affair...And then I go back to my own (psychological ) 'damage'. You 'heal' me – not completely, but partially - and then the old damage takes over, or can you 'heal me' by talking to me at such depth that your very listening is ( doing ?) the whole thing.

Now...why doesn't it happen ? You tell me very clearly 'Don't be attached' ; you explain it to me, and your explanation is out of that compassion, out of the perception of truth and I 'see' it, I have an insight into it, but I loose that (the inner clarity of that ) insight...

DB : You see, I think that maybe there is some clue in the nature of this 'brain damage' – the whole thing depends of a correct perception, right ?

K; Yes...

DB : Now, this brain damage can produce what appears to be an (insightful) perception, but the (experiential) difficulty is that it comes in slowly and perhaps...'unconsciously' …

K: But you are appealing to something much greater (within my psyche) and I respond to it for a few days or for a few months and then... it's gone...Or I say : ''Please remind me of it (more often) '' or ''Let me read (all your) books & keep on (diligently processing) all that''...You follow ? And I loose (the living spirit of) it ! Is it sir, that my brain refuses to see anything 'new', because whatever you say might lead me to such (psychological) 'danger' ?

DB : Well, the brain may project (an actual or an imaginary ?) danger into that situation...

K: So, you talk about fear, you're talk about (thought's endless pursuit of) pleasure, you talk about (the ending of ) 'suffering' … And you say, ''for God's sake please listen to this out of your heart !' And I ( really try to) listen to you, but...I go back !

DB : You see, (thought may choose to) continue within ( the familiar field of) your 'culture', which brings it back . You see, in any relation within that cultural frame of 'reality' that ( subliminal continuity of?) thought ( aka: 'time'?) is already there...

K: Quite, quite... every 'thing' is already there. I wonder how this operates.. ? Are you talking to my 'conscious' (temporal) consciousness ? In that 'consciousness' there is no answer. Or are you (simultaneously?) 'talking to me' at a much deeper level ? And it may be that I am not used to (listen at ) that level ?

DB : Yes, that could well be the case ...

K: I think, sir, that it is more like it. I have always gone to the Well ( of Truth ?) with a little bucket and you say : ''Look, that little bucket won't do anything ( on the long term) - it will quench your thirst only momentarily !'' So, you're not talking to me at the level which I'm used to ; you are talking to me at a deeper level which I'm not used to. And I may get used to it while you're talking to me. But the moment you 'stop talking' to me...it's gone !

DB : It's already (brought back in the field) time – either at that moment or later...

K: Is it, sir, that I – the brain - wants to reduce everything into 'habit' ? What you say I see it at a deep level, but I have reduced that into a (time-proven?) habit and therefore I lose it...And although you tell me that at that deep level there is no time, there is no habit and you can't capture it by your brain – your brain will ( try to) make it into a new habit, into an (updated form of) tradition, into another damage. So you said  : Don't do that !

DB : ( As a simple 'rule of thumb'?) thought seems to accompany everything that happens, by making a (very realistic) imitation of everything that happens, which later builds up and... that ( 100% 'fool proof' mental ?) habit becomes the same as the original (if not... better?) ...

K: Right... but you tell me (as parting words?)  : 'See the whole structure of thought, be tremendously aware of it !'

DB : And it seems to be part of our tradition that there should be some ( continuity of) thought, in other words, don't let thought stop...

K: Yes, yes !

DB : ...and in fact every tradition does demand that thought doesn't stop.

K: Yes, of course, quite ! The tradition is that.

DB : I was thinking that when young children are brought up into tradition you can see that when they follow it they say 'Yes, that's right, you're good & so on' and when they don't follow it, ' You shouldn't do this, it's bad' – so that the child begins to feel very secure in tradition - he feels he's a good boy...

K: ...good boy !

DB : ...and when he's not following it he's a 'bad boy' ... Therefore there may be a ( whole mentality of ) habit in going on with the tradition – either with the momentary one, or with the old one ; and also thought becomes disturbed of moving out of the tradition – the security of belonging to a community which decides what is 'real', is much deeper than any personal gaining...

K: Of course, of course...

DB : Because the community gives a ( particular) 'meaning' to what is true and right and good and when you're in it, you feel it's all settled & safe and therefore getting out of it might mean 'inviting chaos' , you see ? And I think it's not generally realised how ( spiritually) significant it is to be out of tradition – people may say 'I'm free of tradition, I'm not a Catholic anymore !' but tradition goes back to that feeling of belonging to a family and being 'approved of' because you are not only doing what you're supposed to do, but 'believing' in what you're supposed to do, or in believing what is 'real'...You see, this 'tradition' includes the belief that we have a 'correct consensus' as to what is real – in other words, that we don't create our 'reality'...

K: Yes, quite, I understand all that...

DB : ...but in fact we do, you see ? Now all of that (psychological damage) goes against what we were to talk at the deep levels...

K: Yes, it goes against all that !

DB : ...and this ( momentum of tradition?) works in very subtle ways and when you start working you got to reach all of that...

K: Sir, just a minute  - you, the speaker, are talking to me from that (timeless) depth and I have an insight into it, I feel it, I know it... Can you 'help' me to sustain it ?

DB : You see, there is no tradition of 'mystery', or of 'rationality' ; in other words, man's old tradition was one of mystery, but then came the modern tradition of 'rationality' and no...

K: ...no mystery...

DB : But to be free of all tradition...

K: Yes, sir, that's what you are asking me ( as contemplative homework)  ! You say, look at every form of tradition...

DB : But at first sight you my feel that your (traditional) culture gives you the chance to look at these things...

K: ...it also gives you the safety, the security, a place in your community...

DB : And also an order of the mind & so on...Now the point is that all this is causing some ( subliminal) 'damage & distorsion' into the brain, you see ?

K: Yes, you've explained to me all that as clear verbally, intellectually -in every way you've made it perfectly clear to me, hmm ? Fear is involved, pleasure is involved, security is involved, tradition , if I leave it...

DB : Yes, and all this (ongoing) distortion is making me believe in whatever would make me feel better...

K: Yes, all that....And you say : I'm not talking to that ( level) because if I talk to that, you'll merely go all around in circles...You are not talking to me at that level at all. You're talking to me at that ( transpersonal?) level which is not this...

DB : So, you're saying there is a function, or a part of the brain, that is not conditioned to this ?

K: There is a 'depth' ( of human consciousness?) which is not touched by the 'traditional brain', by the 'damaged' brain, by the brain which is conditioned & all the rest of it...A depth, a dimension which is not touched by thought. All that you've said about tradition – everything is a process of thought and that process of 'time' has not touched this...
You talk to me, and if there is an action of that, the brain cannot be damaged again.

DB : Hmm...

K: It may be that your talking to me at that level 'heals' the brain completely.

DB : You were saying last time that there is a 'direct action' on the matter of my brain.

K : …of my brain...I think there is something in it...

DB : Now, is this the only way ? You see, this seems to depend on someone who is not conditioned...

K: If you are 'healthy' you can talk to me.

DB : Yes, but I mean, if there are only conditioned people, they will never find a way out …

K: Absolutely no ; how could a damaged brain... ?

DB : You see, this goes against the modern tradition that we must observe and discover and find the way out. Now if it's a brain that is not damaged, it could do that, but if it is damaged , then it cannot do it … ?

K: Ah, that's it ; you realise that you cannot do it ! Therefore you stop.

DB : You stop, but it needs one that is not damaged to communicate this...

K: Yes, yes....but wait...I realise by listening to your talk that whatever action a damaged (psychologically conditioned?) brain would do, whatever it does, will still be in that area...

DB : Yeah...But there is also the tendency in this (psychologically?) damaged brain to come to conclusions and present them as 'facts'...

K: Therefore I realise all the tricks that the 'damaged' brain does.

DB : Yes, and one of the (favourite?) 'tricks' is to say that nothing can be done...

K: Yes! Quite, quite...

DB : ...or else, I'll keep on working at it...You see, there is also the feeling that even if the brain has been physically damaged you can't do anything, but we actually don't know, right ?

K: We don't know...but if it's completely damaged, you can't do anything...But here we are talking of a fairly 'not too damaged' brain...

DB : But even then, we cannot know whether the 'damage' can be healed or not...

K: Yes … so you explain all this and you say : whatever the (psychologically) 'damaged' brain – which is the result of tradition & all the rest of it- whatever it does will produce further damage. So because you pointed out that, I realise that. That is the first necessity – and I realise it. Then after I realised it, you talk to me at a depth which thought has not touched. You see, you planted a seed (of Truth) – and my question is : if I have an insight into that depth, I perceive that depth, can I ever go back to the other ? Will not your 'seeing' act as a tremendous jolt ?

DB : Well, there is this point which we have been discussing, that a damaged brain can get used to any shock or jolt ?

K: Yes, I know, therefore you have to be very, very clear of the structure of thought & all that. Absolutely clear ! Otherwise the 'depth' becomes the ( new mental) habit !

DB : Yeah...

K: So, in your pointing out to me the whole activity of thought – because I'm very seriously concerned- thought does stop. And the 'feeling of the depth' can never become a habit. Because when this 'depth' is becoming a (mental concept ) it becomes tradition & all the rest of it- fear of losing it & all that. Now, is that 'depth' within ( the temporal) consciousness ?

DB : You said before that there is another kind of 'consciousness'...

K: That's it ! It is not in that ( ego-centric ?) consciousness. That's what I want to get at.

DB : Perhaps we could say it's neither in the left side of the brain, nor in the right ?

K : I don't know about the 'right' or 'left', but it's not in the area of thought.

DB : Hmm...

K: Thought cannot 'capture' it !

DB : Now, if you say this is another consciousness, is it still another function of the brain ? Something that it's going on in the brain ?

K: Now, if you said 'brain' in the sense that it is a product of time...

DB : Well, I don't know it's a product of time, or not...

K: ...a product of evolution, the product of great...

DB : You see, we still haven't made some of these points clear ... If we said nature is continuously growing then wouldn't you say there is a ( work of ) Creation in nature as well ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, would you say nature is the product of time ?

K: It is and it's not...

DB : That's what I'm saying... Because the brain is also part of the 'natural' things...

K: Aha ! Yes, yes...

DB : So, if we take the natural evolution of all sort of living things & animals, that seems to happen in time, no ?

K: Yes...

DB : One animal is born it dies, and the next one and the next one ? So you have growth...

K: Generation after generation of instinct, growth...

DB : But there is also 'change', there is a mutation and another growth occurs & so on... Now, wouldn't you say that's also a (work of) Creation ? I mean, by 'creation' we mean what causes to grow...

K: Yes, creation in the sense of 'cultivate & growth'...Then what are you trying to say ?

DB ; That the brain has also grown as a result of in such a process...You see, we have to get clear about this 'time', because there were these various mutations in monkeys & other animals and there apeared creatures with bigger & bigger brains producing finally the modern man. Now, all this has taken ( a long span of) time, you see...

K: Yes. Yes, it seems to have taken time...

DB : I don't know if you would agree on that ? You seem to say that it has and it hasn't...

K: I'm just asking myself, because in one sense it has ...

DB : Yeah...

K: The brain is not only the product of culture in time, but is there also a part of the brain, or maybe outside of that, which is not of time ?

DB : Well, that's the thing we want to come to, because you see, there is a ( mental) structure of the brain that has evolved in time...

K: ...in time, I grant it.

DB : And that structure may go beyond thought, you see ? For example it may involve attention, awareness...

K: Aha ! I see what you're trying to say. You're saying the brain evolves in time, and in that time there is a growth in its capacity for awareness, attention...

DB...beyond thought …

K: But it is still in that area of time.

DB : Yes, as all sort of species have appeared in nature ; so in some sense it seems like some sort of Creation does exists in nature, which appears to involve time...

K: Yes.

DB : Although perhaps in a very long time...

K: Yes, I understand this. Now, is attention...

DB : At least, the brain which can give attention to it, took time to evolve, right ?

K: Aha...

DB : That is, the brain which is able to have attention. You see, let's take a much smaller brain, of a smaller animal ; now its attention is somewhat less than it's possible to man. Would you agree ?

K: Of course...

DB : Now, the difference between these two - it took time to evolve...

K: Yes.

DB : So, the capacity for attention depended on time.

K: Yes, yes...But is there an attention that is not of time ?

DB : Now, is there, you see  ? The attention itself may not be dependent on time...

K: Yes, attention itself is not of time.

DB : ...but the ability of the brain to have attention is dependent on time...

K: Yes, the capacity, but the attention itself is not of time.

DB : But it may be taking place in the brain, not outside of it ...

K: That's right ! Attention itself is out of time, but the capacity to have attention involves time...

DB : ...it involves growth, culture...

K: Yes...

DB : And also you have also said that as the brain grows older, it gets more mature – so its capacity, in some way, improves – so, in some way, time is involved in producing the capacity...

K: Capacity means time...

DB : Yeah...But now, something might happen within that capacity which is not of time...

K: Yes, that's right : attention in itself is not time. But the (development of brain's ) capacity to have attention may involve time...

DB : It depends on growth – the young child may have a different capacity...

K: Right... so, we are saying : growth is time, time is necessary, but attention is not, right ?

DB : Yes, truth is not in time...And if that (intelligence of 'compassion' ) 'or' truth may operate on the material structure of the brain – its time behaviour is changed physically ...

K: Yes...

DB : So, something new is introduced into time...

K: Yes, that's right.

DB : But I mean, while we are at it, we should get more clear on 'creation', because 'creation' means 'to cause to growth'...Now you say, 'perception is creation'? - is that right ?

K: Perception is a 'cause to growth' ? No...

DB : No, but I'm trying to get it clear - you say that creativity is perception...

K: Yes...

DB : But we have to be clear about it ; because the ordinary meaning of the word 'creation' is 'to cause to growth' – you see, nature is 'created' because it causes new species to grow & so on...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, in what sense is man 'creative' ? Let's say Beethoven had an 'insight' which gave rise to a new music , so in that sense, it caused a new music to grow...

K: Right...

DB : But I want to be more clear about Creation...

K: But sir, the 'depth' which produced that music, that 'depth' is not of time...

DB : No, and perhaps we could say that the nature of what produced that depth is not about time . The mechanical exploration of nature is limited it doesn't cover everything...

K: Agreed...

DB : So the creation of new forms in nature must also be beyond time...

K: Yes, it may be...

DB : May be, we don't know, but...

K: But in the human mind one can see for oneself that ( the perceptive Intelligence of) Compassion is out of time, Truth is out of time...

DB : Yes...

K: And the depth from which comes that Compassion is out of time.

DB : Yes...

K: And therefore it's not 'cultivable'.

DB : No; it cannot be 'made to grow'...so we say that the origin of Creativity does not grow – is that what you're saying ?

K: That's right.

DB : But this 'creativity' may cause something to grow in the field of time...

K: Yes, that's quite right.

DB : Because that's what we have in mind that a new perception should cause the growth of a new ( human) society, of a 'new' man...

K: Of a 'new' man, quite...

DB : But creativity itself, in essence doesn't grow, right ?

K: In essence, no...

DB : It is not 'created' …

K: (laughing) Yes, it is not 'created' ! That's right...But out of 'that which is not created', there can be a 'new man' , a new society.

DB : Yes, I mean, this creates a 'new' brain that is not damaged...

K: Sir, to go back to the point : Why do I 'loose it' ? I have an insight into that profound thing and it's lost after a few days or a few months...Or it is not lost at all, but it comes empty because all my ( cultural) tradition says : Hold on to it, make into a habit & all the rest of it...How subtle all this is !  

DB : Yes and that's why it's made into another tradition...

K: That's right, sir... 'Die' to all things that thought has built as 'creation'. ( long pause...)
Now, you speak from that 'depth' and I listen to you, and you explain all the movements of thought as 'time' – and that I understand very easily - and you say ( the process of psychological) 'time' must have a stop, otherwise there is no ( truly creative ) depth. So I hunger after that & all the rubbish ; but if I see the truth of what you say – the ( timeless action of) 'truth' being the 'total perception' of what you say - I can only do that against all the pressures of tradition, and of everything that says 'Don't do this !'...

DB : Or which also says 'Do it !' but absorbs it into the (field of reality ?) ...

K: 'Do it, in order to get something else !' - so I'm back...
What you tell me, I have to understand the subtlety, the depth of that actuality - that thought is...etc... But you see, I won't 'listen' to you when you go to such extreme - you follow ?

DB : Yes, it's hard to listen if you propose the banning of all tradition, all culture, of everything...

K: Exactly !

DB : And the brain may say 'All right' , but it still rejects it...

K: Or 'For God's sake, stop it !'...Yes, sir...

DB : You see, the ancient Chinese are reputed to have said 'All the barbars that came in, they all become Chinese '…

K: (laughing ) Yes...

DB : All the new things become tradition, you see ?

K: That's what the Hindus did with the Moguls...

DB : And I think that's the most subtle feature – that the tradition absorbs the 'non-tradition'...

K: But you see, sir, I have to 'listen' to you or 'read you', or 'be entirely with you' on this, but...'I can't because my wife is getting angry' or...you follow ? Everything is against this ! I have no ( time for contemplative ?) leisure...

DB : And also to communicate about this with people who use the traditional mental frame...which takes over...

K: It struck me this morning when I read that article on 'parapsychology'...

DB : Yes, I have read it the other day...

K: That's a new game they are going to go into...

DB : Yes, but it has already been absorbed into the 'new tradition'...

K: 'New tradition' – I was thinking of that this morning !
You know, sir, how can you tell these (hapless?) students all this, so that they will absorb the ( living spirit of ?) truth of what you're saying ? I'm probably a teacher there and I see the absolute truth of what you're saying and I want to tell them about it. I want them to be 'non-traditional' in the (holistic) sense... They come here conditioned, ('psychologically) damaged' and the teachers are also 'damaged' - so...what can you do ?

DB : You see, the student, or the child lives in a society with its own traditions and which determines its own 'reality' and perhaps it's ( thinking) like this Australian student for whom what you're saying was 'unreal' …

K: ( Laughing ) Yes...the 'tradition of reality', quite right !

DB: To him the 'real thing' is what he's doing with his friends and how they're getting together, their relationships and what he is going to do afterwards in ( the real) society, so probably this must have seemed 'unreal' to him when he came first...It doesn't fit his 'reality' …

K: Of course, but that's my ( educational ?) 'job' : to see that they understand this ! Everything is against it ! Sex, pleasure, money...everything !

DB : All those things which people think are really important in life and so on... You see, it may seem to someone who first listens to all this, that it is some sort of abstraction that is very distant from ( the everyday) reality...

K: Of course...

DB : Unless he feels really unhappy with this 'reality'...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Mar 2020 #274
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

10-th ( 'reader-frindly' edited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

DB : One thing that we should try to do is to wind up this discussion up by answering those questions that would raise in the reader's mind. I have looked into some of these questions and at the very end I could prepare a summary and perhaps you would comment on it.

K: Good...

DB : Now, one of the points we discussed in several of our discussions was something that you call the 'process' and I would like to clear up a few points about it, which have arisen in talking with several people. I think you made it clear that each person has his own suffering and he must stay with that until the end, then everybody it will be different - is that what you mean to say ? In other words, it was not necessary for other people to go through, but in saying that arose a few other points which have to be made clear. Let me bring them up one by one : the first point was : you made the ( holistic?) analogy of Columbus discovering America, saying that it was not necessary to repeat that discovery, now you can buy an airplane ticket and go to America. I feel this analogy may be a little misleading because it suggests that everything has been made very easy...

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, what would you say ?

K: No, I wouldn't say anything like that...The analogy is rather misleading, you see...But how should we begin this thing properly  ?

DB : Let me bring up two more questions along the line of what you've been saying : in one of the discussions, comparing with the discovery of America - you said that others can carry on your discovery to discover something more. That's what you said. But in a later dialogue you seemed to deny that – you brought up the analogy with Newton & Einstein – Newton made a discovery and the fact that Einstein made another discovery, it doesn't mean that he built it just by denying a great deal of what Newton said, but still he went further...

K: Yes, sir...

DB :...now, in some way, you seem to deny that approach in this ( psychological) field...

K: I think that's right, sir, I deny that.

DB : Yes...although in another dialogue you seem to confirm that , because you said that others can carry on this - so in some way it becomes complex...

K: Yes, let's go into this... First of all, sir, I really don't know -basically- what's happening about this 'process' – that was your first question - whether it's imaginative, an induced state, a traditional acceptance of something which has been said, or ill health, or something that is natural ? So these are the points...
I've gone into this question of whether it's imaginative - very carefully because I don't like personally to imagine anything about myself, or about anybody - I have no visual imaginative powers...

DB : Well, I'm not so sure, since some of your descriptions...

K: I see it and write it – that's quite different from 'imaginative' in the sense that I don't like to 'imagine' (things) about myself...

DB : But would you ever 'imagine' something else ? In other words, would you use imagination to help you to figure something out – for example suppose you work in science, you might find it useful to imagine a certain state of affairs...

K: Might be, but I am not a 'scientist'...

DB : Yes, but I meant : would you ever do such a thing ?

K: To imagine ?

DB : Not imagine something about yourself – but say, to arrange the furniture in your room...

K: You were there when we discussed this afternoon the furniture in the dining room ?

DB : Yes...

K: It wasn't imaginative ; the room was all so crowded. You were there this afternoon when I was discussing it with Mrs Simmons...

DB : But isn't that a form of 'imagination' ?

K: Is that imagination ?

DB : It is , because you 'imagine' the parallel state of affairs …

K: No, I was describing to her the way I see it so that there is more room... That's not 'imagination'.

DB : Well, it's a very delicate point , because many people would call it 'imagination'...

K: I would't call it 'imagination' ; I said look, wouldn't it be more confortable to put that chair there or here ?

DB : Yes, but wouldn't you 'imagine' how it would look like in doing that ?

K: Ah, no, no...

DB : You wouldn't ?

K: No, I can't do that.

DB : I see...

K: So I 've gone into this question whether I imagined the whole thing, an illusion which I have perpetuated to give me importance, to give me the feeling of something abnormal – not oly in the religious sense- because I've had that all life. I went into this and I don't think it's 'imagination'. Also, I don't think it's a traditional acceptance of this whole question of 'kundalini' & all that. And I don't think it is ill health, because I'm very aware when it happens...

DB : Let me comment on that, because some people said it may be a form of ill health, because some people with ill health report similar happenings...

K: No... On the contrary, with me it begins only when I am completely rested...

DB : Hmm... ?

K: When all the environment is right- when there is quietness and my body is completely at rest...I would really like to discuss this with you and say, Shainberg...

DB : Well, Shainberg has said that some of his pacients he observes have to go through something similar to what you described in being cured... You see, perhaps not exactly ....And other persons have said that some of the things you described might have been such 'symptoms' which disturb people...You see, Shainberg works with mentally disturbed people...

K: I may be 'mentally disturbed'... ?

DB : I'm not saying that, but we should make it clear what the difference is...

K: Yes, quite, quite...

DB : Now, when I was asked about this difference I said that perhaps there may be some similarity but the 'mentally disturbed' people do not come up with a perception of truth...

K: Yes, quite...

DB : So that the difference is more important than the similarity...

K: (laughing) Quite ! So they end up in a hospital, but I don't !

DB : Right...they may have an occasional flash of insight, but the whole of it is very confused, you see...

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB : So I say that there must be a fundamental difference...

K: I think there is a great deal of difference between mentally sick people and this person ! Not 'difference', but it is a totally different thing...

DB : That's what I meant- a fundamental difference- although there are some superficial similarities or physical...

K: You see, the other day, after the gathering and everything has quietened down – the whole house was quiet and I went to bed...and it began, very acute...

DB : It still goes on as before ?

K: Yes... Very acute and by the next morning it gradually disappeared. Because this could only happen when the body is perfectly relaxed, when it's in very good health and the environment is 'right' – in the sense of 'quiet', not disturbed – it must have a certain sense of beauty and all the rest of it...
So I've gone into these questions – whether I 'imagined' it or it is a traditional acceptance & all that or whether it is a form of mental illness or a disease...

DB : Or at least a disturbance...

K: I don't think it is.

DB : Hmm... ?

K: And if you ask me what is it actually ? I can't tell...

DB : But do you feel it would be proper or likely that other people would have this...or that they will have to have it ?

K: People have come to me and said  'we had exactly the same thing as yours'. And I said, what do you mean? They said 'How kundalini is being awakened ; we are doing this practice & that practice' and I said : it is not the same thing...

DB : Well, let's take another case - like David Shainberg says that the word 'kundalini' is not important...

K: The word is unimportant.

DB : ...but that it is possible that some of his pacients in the process in which they are being healed, may be going through something a bit similar …

K: I wouldn't know ; say for instance a man came to see me in Gstaad who said he has had similar experiences. And I watched him very carefully and he was a rather coarse man, rather dull, and with a tremendous sense of self-importance . I told him I'm very doubtful and when he left he said : 'Is that all ?' Let me put it this way : I think this thing  can happen only when there is no 'self(- centred') consciousness involved) in the matter...

DB : But you have no idea why there should be such acute pain ?

K: I couldn't tell...There are various theories about it, but I wouldn't indulge in those theories – I really don't know...

DB : Now, the only thing I could think of is that there is some sort of 'intensity of energy' that strains the nerves at a certain point...

K: That may be it !

DB : ...and if you are ready to stay with that pain then it would go on, but if you resist it...

K: I have never avoided it...

DB : I understand that, but the general condition is to avoid the pain, but if you could have avoided it then perhaps the whole perception would never happen...

K: That's right...I wouldn't do anything to hinder it...

DB : ...or invite it. But let's say it may turn out be an inevitable by-product of a very intense perception.

K: May be an inevitable by-product or... you want to know all that ?

DB : Since this is eventually intended for ( a distant future ?) publication, it should be make it clear, so that people do not have questions in the back of their mind...

K : Or, this is what happens :  I wake up in the middle of the night very often, meditating- it's a peculiar form of meditation because it is totally uninvented - how shall I put it, un(pre)meditated – I couldn't have imagined that such a thing 'existed'...

DB : You say you wake up in that state of meditation - is that right ?

K: Yes...and that comes (spontaneously?) before or after this ( 'process') pain.

DB : Yes, and would you think that this state may be going on in your sleep as well  ?

K: Oh yes, most definitely !

DB : So this state is in your sleep and you wake up – I think you mentioned that somewhere...

K: Yesterday morning it happened ; I never talk about this (in public ?) ....

DB : And that state does not imply anything near a loss of consciousness or anything like that ?

K: A little bit.

DB : A little bit...the ordinary kind of consciousness is somewhat reduced, is that what you're saying ?

K: It is not 'unconscious'...

DB : No, but in some way it is not quite the ordinary state of consciousness ?

K: No, it is not...

DB ; Maybe in some way the conscious mind is giving too much attention to the ordinary 'things' of the everyday reality – that's what I mean...

K: I don't quite understand...

DB : Perhaps I'm putting it wrongly, but is it something that somebody could think of as a 'total loss of consciousness' ?

K: I have lost consciousness – I was unconscious at least for three weeks...

DB : When was that ?

K: In Ojai, in the beginning...

DB : But after that, you didn't?

K: If given the right environment and no work, talks, and writing letters, perhaps it might happen again...

DB : Yes...in other words, being involved in the world of reality helps holding you in what we call 'consciousness', right ?

K : That's right !

DB : Therefore by not being totally involved in the world of reality , you might 'drift away' from it...

K: Drift away, right...I used to go for long walks in Ojai and I would would go on and when I deliberately made a (mental) effort to turn back and go home , I was completely lost...And it happened here several times...I go for a walk and I have to be very careful …

DB : So, you loose track with the ordinary reality...

K: I have to be very careful and say 'I must go back home'...

DB : You see, we have to make it very clear, because some people whose minds may be disturbed would do the same thing, but here there may be a difference...

K: It is quite different !

DB : It's quite different, because as I said before a disturbed mind may not produce anything interesting...But still the point I want to make is that when a person is seriously disturbed he might find the ordinary reality broken up...

K: Broken up...

DB ; While going into this might also 'break it up' in a very different way...

K: Quite...

DB : And you may have to face something that ordinary people might think of as a 'break down' of the mind, but it's really not the case...That was the point I was trying to get at, really. But it might be that people approaching this might have gotten a little bit frightened, thinking that their mind is breaking down , you see ?

K: I have no fear !

DB : No, but it could very readily induce fear...

K: ...after all these years I'm pretty sane, physically normal, I've got plenty of energy & so on... I think it is something out of the order of being 'abnormal'...

DB : Yes, but I think that when we were discusing 'reality' we said that our consciousness of reality is essentially based on thought and if we 'stir it up' we're bound to have that sort of thing if it's just stirred up violently psychologically by a violent reaction, but it may be necessary to 'stir it up' in an orderly way.

K: Yes …

DB : Now, before we get outside of our present 'motor consciousness'...

K: You see, also - if I allow myself, I can read people's thoughts -which I don't like to do because it's like reading a private letter - and I can very easily become 'clairvoyant' and I've done a great deal of healing, so it's all involved in all that - which is not 'abnormal' state.

DB : I don't want to say it's something abnormal, but it's not an ordinary state people are used to. But this may be neither 'normal' or 'abnormal'

K: Right, if we accept the word 'ordinary'...

DB : In the sense of the everyday consciousness – something people are used to...

K: But also I don't like to say it is 'abnormal'

DB : No, it might be that anybody who got free of conditioning might get into that area ...

K: Might be, that's right...

DB : Let's come back then to this question of suffering. I wanted to suggest : is it related to what we generally mean by 'suffering' ?

K: You see, sir, I won't call it 'suffering'...

DB : No, but that's just the point that I wanted to make here. You see, there is a total intensity of a pervasing pain that penetrates the consciousness and 'stills' it and I ask what is the relationship of this physical suffering to passion ? If we stay still with this energy of passion then this may lead to the 'emptiness'. Now, I have one more question : let's say that there is an intense pain which fills one's consciousness. Now that may come for someone who is suffering because he sees that his world is broken up. Would you say that the pain which comes with seeing the world has no meaning can be in the beginning the perception of truth  and this perception of 'truth' acts as pain ? I mean, you suggested this thing by saying '' You 'are' the world'' , I mean the perception of truth may be something painful in certain cases...And otherwise I would like to know why this 'total' suffering takes place?

K: Wait a minute, sir. There is a physical pain, that is, I can get hurt in an accident - physical pain...

DB : Also, there might be a very intense physical pain under some conditions...

K: ...which are not the result of an accident, not due to a physical incident or... ?

DB : Let's say we come to the point when somebody who was close to you dies. And the person seeing this might feel some intense pain, right ?

K: That's a different pain.

DB : What kind is that ?

K: Suppose my brother dies ; that's quite a different kind of 'psychological' suffering. Then this pain which happens...

DB : I understand that, but what I was suggested is that when this pain happens, it fills your consciousness, and insofar as you don't avoid it...

K: I don't avoid it, I don't invite it...

DB : Yes, now insofar as you don't do anything about it, the mind is in order, because it has to stay with that tremendous pain - this is what is meant by 'not escaping' the fact ; is that right ?

K: Yes.

DB : So the mind which stays with that pain has a tremendous energy...

K: Yes, that's right !

DB : And therefore it may go very deep...

K: Yes.

DB : Whereas, if it began to escape...

K: Of course, then it (the energy of passion) is gone.

DB : I think we understand this situation. Now let's consider the other one, when somebody dies. The way I look at it is that the same person perceives the fact of death and of the loss – and for the moment there is a very intense pain, right ?

K: Yes.

DB : In general he doesn't have to stay with that pain, but this first pain we can call it the 'action of truth', you see  ?

K: Aha !

DB : And in that, there is some similarity...

K: Yes, I understand ...Facing 'death' without escape and therefore remaining with that total suffering brings a totally different kind of energy which is 'passion'...

DB : Yes...

K: That I understand. About this uninvited pain in the (back of the ) head, I really can't tell...I didn't go into it, then we'd go into guesswork...

DB : I understand that. But the thing that really interests me is : why there is such a total involvement of one's consciousness ? You see, the suffering people are 'totally involved', much more than with pleasure or...

K: Yes, much more ! And when that happens, they 'escape'...

DB : Yes. But I wanted to ask the first question : why it is so total ?

K: Ah, that I think is because it 'paralyses' your whole nervous system...

DB : Yes, but why does it do that ?

K: Ah, 'why' it does ? I think I know : it is like receiving a great shock...

DB : Yes, but the shock has to do with something of a total significance to you...

K: Yes, it is of a total significance ; you loose somebody whom you love, you loose somebody on whom you depended, the whole involvement with that person...

DB : Yes, so you have an intense shock. Could we compare this intense shock with this intense pain ?

K: I don't think so....definitely the two are totally different.

DB : All right, so it's good to clear that up....But anyway in the case of ordinary suffering there is this intense shock and the person begins to 'escape' by thinking of more pleasant ideas so he has to keep on 'running away'. Now, if he doesn't run away, then this will give him energy...

K: Yes.

DB : But still, there seems to be some similarity : this pain is also giving him energy ; or do you think otherwise ?

K: This pain, if you don't escape from it, gives you great energy...

DB : Which pain ?.

K: Of losing... of the death of someone. There is compassion & all the rest of it. Now you're talking about the 'other' (pain of the 'process' ) that gives you great energy. It only happens when you have ( a good level of) physical energy...

DB : What is it ? I didn't understand...

K: When the body is rested, it has its own energy, its own vitality, its own health, then only it happens....

DB : Hmm... ?

K: And in that 'happening' it's not a further energy.

DB : I see, it's part of the same energy...

K: Yes.

DB : So we can't regard that as a form of suffering...

K: That's right, it is certainly not 'suffering' .

DB : All right, so if anything, it might be a by-product of that intense energy you suggested. But now let's go into this question of suffering ; you said that when your brother died you had intense suffering.

K: That's right, that was about fifty years ago when he died - the man who was in the cabin with me when the telegram came – Dr Besant told him to remain with me, and not leave me - described to me what happened – otherwise I don't remember. But he did say one thing : that when it happened, at the end of it, he said he (the young K) never asked any help from anybody...He just remained with death, with that pain or suffering, with that total 'fact'. And I think that's probably one of the things that played probably an important part. So I think that 'suffering' which the human beings generally go through – when they are faced with that total fact, they seems to be incapable to remain with it – they escape, they avoid it, they do all sort of things...

DB : Yes, and that's really part of a deep conditioning …

K: Yes, that's a part of a deep conditioning.

DB : Now that brings us to this point : that we have to be very clear about this depth of conditioning, because you said that for various reasons you were not deeply conditioned

K: No.

DB : And we said this deep conditioning might be the result of self-deception, of running away from sorrow - which is also a form of self- deception. Now the question is that you had some conditioning, including this 'sorrow' at the death of your brother, right ?

K: Yes, surely...

DB : But you say that was not 'deeper'?

K: You see, if I am very fond of you, that's not ( necessarily a psychological) conditioning...

DB : No, but I meant that the 'feeling of sorrow' which comes...

K: Wait a minute, sir : if I'm very fond of you – in which there is no form of dependency or attachment – that's not conditioning – and when that 'physical' entity ends, there is a shock...

DB : Yes...but why is there a shock ? Let's get it very clear.

K: Because he was part of me, part of my existence...

DB : All right...

K: That is not 'conditioning' ...And when that ends there is a sense of 'total aloneness' - let me put it that way - of total isolation – which is not ( generated by one's psychological?) conditioning.

DB : Hmm...So, if there is any (residual) sorrow after that...

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : Then that would be a conditioning  ?

K: That's it ; a rememberance & the whole bussiness.

DB : Yes, and would you say there was absolutely none ?

K: I would not say 'absolutely', because when I 'came back' (after several hours of fainting ?) I felt that he wasn't there but very quickly the whole thing was over.

DB : So, let's say there was some 'conditioning' but...

K: ...not deep.

DB : But ordinarily it is so deep that the person 'escapes' (from dealing with ) it for years...

K: Yes, because when that happens, you could have become very bitter, hmm ? You could have become 'accepting' reincarnation, or accepting all kinds of things... But he didn't become any of those things ; he didn't accept anything...

DB : Hmm...

K: On the contrary he didn't accept the whole system of their belief.

DB : Yes ; so now we have this boy or this young man who was not deeply conditioned – and you said before that all the explanations about it are inadequate...

K: I don't think they are adequate.

DB : ...and that fundamentally it's a 'mystery' - you said it might be a hidden destiny that allowed this boy not to be conditioned …

K: Yes.

DB : Which would be the beginning of...

K: Sir, like Mozart, Beethoven or Einstein...

DB : Yes...

K: And it was 'there', you know... ? Or it might be yourself...

DB : Yes...So, let's clear one more point then : just for the sake of the record, I think you once said that all these ( TS) stories of the Masters , you didn't take it like some kind of fairy tale, but that it could have some core of mystery...

K: Sir, I think there is a 'simple' explanation : he was a young boy rather vague, moronic, uncertain not totally ' all there' – he was told so he repeated it !

DB : Yes, like a child being told a fairy story...

K: Yes.

DB ; But sometimes even in a 'fairy story' there is some part of the story which is right - like the 'morale', right ?

K: (laughing) Yes ! I think - to go in the question of Masters, you know the whole theosophical idea...

DB : Yes...

K: Not really 'theosophical' – it is really a westernised Hindu, Tibetan tradition. They made it (sound) so 'materialistic' : the 'Masters' lived in such & such a house, you know, all that kind of idiotic (myth making). I've never talked about it...may we go into it ?

DB : Oh, yes...

K: Would you accept that there is an 'evil' (in quotes) that exists in the air, in the atmosphere... ?

DB : All right, I understand that, if you say it exists in the environment, in society...

K: That's why I'm very careful... All right, let's put it this way : this constant killing, this constant violence, the brutality is part of our (psychical) environment...

DB : Well, that's a view you could take – I mean, it's not commonly accepted, but one might say that, because of the subtle properties of matter, unknow to us...

K: Yes, put it that way... 

DB : ...this could be somewhat 'recorded' in the environment...

K: Yes, recorded in the environment, as 'goodness' can be recorded in the environment...

DB : Yes, but would you say that's more than a speculation ?

K: Yes, I think it's more than a speculation...

DB : Why do you think this ?

K: I don't know if you have noticed, if you're going into an ancient temple – I have been into several of them- I've tested this out : you go there during the day there are pilgrims, the worship & all the noise, garlands, incense, cockroaches & all that, there's a (pious?) atmosphere ; and if you go there when there is nobody, there is a totally different atmosphere, a sense of 'danger', a sense of - I don't know if we could call it 'evil' - I'll put it in quotes - a sense of 'threat' …

DB : Hmm... ?

K: This has happened very often to me, when I go into woods by myself...

DB : Going into woods... ? Why should the woods have that sense ? Is it because what people have done ( to nature ) ?

K: It my be ; there is that feeling of 'We don't want you here !'

DB : Hmm... ?

K: And after a few days of going there that feeling is dissipating. It may be some superstition, but I've tested this out very often... So, there is that ( residual presence of?) 'evil' in the air, in the atmosphere …

DB : Yes...People wrote of this metaphorically in literature as a 'sense of darkness foreboding the atmosphere'...

K: Yes, yes ! Foreboding...

DB : But usually we take it as that's the way it struck the writer …

K: Now, if that thing is constantly added to, it becomes something 'real' !

DB : Hmm...That's providing that there is in matter some way of recording...

K: Yes.

DB : Would you say also that maybe what we call 'spirit phenomena' – somebody who lived in a house for a long time , his 'psychical vibrations ' would be recorded in the house  and then somebody else would pick them out ?

K: Yes. So there must be (remaining) in this house – the (psychical) recording of violence, brutality & selfishness, and in another 'house' the recording of goodness... hmm ? And the (psychically gifted?) people who come in, may describe (or feel?) both things even 'physically' !

DB : I mean, these are ( a subtler) part of our 'physical' environment, right ?

K: Yes, and they reduced it to all kinds of things...

DB : And how is that related to the Masters ?

K: That's what I'm saying : they reduced them to that... Goodness was represented by the Masters.

DB : I see...And 'evil' ?

K: And 'evil' by all those (bad spirits) who are basically selfish...You must have come across in an Indian village – in the old days I've seen it when I was there- they take clay, mold it in the shape of man, and they put pins into it  and then affect that human being ; you must have heard of that...

DB : Yes, I have heard of that...

K: Like the 'Voo-doo' - there are all kinds of it - this is one of the superstitions- it may be real or not real...

DB : Yes, but I think that part of the story of the Masters is that at some stage, some 'person' comes who is going to be the World Teacher, right ? I wonder if you couldn't say that in the whole story of the Masters there was a great deal (of stuff?) which is fanciful, and possibly some core which is right, but became very distorted over the years ?

K: I agree...

DB : And possibly it gets more distorted with time, and people change it and eventually it comes out very confused, but the core, which might be right – we have discussed this in Saanen - is that somebody appears which is not pre-conditioned for reasons which are difficult to probe and which becomes the nucleus or the core of a world transformation (of human consciousness?) ...

K: Of course...That is part of the Indian ( spiritual) tradition : that there is a manifestation of that Goodness & all that, which happens very rarely.

DB : What do you feel about that tradition ?

K: I don't know what that tradition actually implies, but I feel there is such a thing happening...

DB : So that may come either from the Masters or from that (gathering of human ) 'goodness' by good acts of the past ?

K: No, no...

DB : Or, it may come from some ( higher spiritual) source that is totally 'unknowable'... ?

K: Unknown – I think so, that's what I feel...

DB : That is beyond what we can fathom...

K: You see, because I tried to go into it myself, by talking with you or with others, especially in India where I go for about fifty or sixty years - but...I can't get to the root of it...

DB : Hmm... ?

K: ...so I don't even try to penetrate it.

DB : I think that the only thing I tried to do here is to clear up some 'impressions' that people have about it. And the other point is  : let us say that when this ( World Teacher entity ?) comes to one individual who is not deeply conditioned - for reasons which we cannot probe and he could communicate to others the truth …

K: The truth, right...

DB : This Truth operates and so on....The next point to clarify is your analogy with the discovery of America – it is not as easy as one can take it. Let's go into it more carefully, because ( if one takes it at its face value) one can get the impression that there's nothing much left to do ...

K: (laughing ) You know, you can't run ( these 'holistic' ) analogies to death !

DB : No, but I mean, you said it in one of the discussions here...But the point is : is there something creative (action left ) for each individual to discover ?

K: You see, when you use the word 'each individual' or person...

DB : All right, so in other words we put the question wrongly when we say ' one individual' to whom it happened, so then it may happen to another...

K: Yes, that's wrong...

DB : Well, as it is not (100%) correct...Now, let's see if we can put it another way : Truth does not belong to an individual, right ?

K: Ah, it does not !

DB : But in an (authentic) communication, that may be acting ; is that right ?

K: Yes, yes...If you have 'seen' it, you can communicate it to me verbally or non-verbally... But still I have to work at it, I can't just say ' I've got it' ! …

DB : Yes, that's what we have to get hold, because the second person may think that there are two people : one who has 'seen the truth' and who may communicate it, and all the other person has to do is 'listen' to the very end ?

K: Yes, quite...

DB : So, then he has to work it out... ?

K: He's got to 'live' it !

DB : Live it, right...

K: Otherwise it's 'just once'...

DB : Right...so he's got to perceive in his own life all that is implied, right ?

K: Yes sir, that's right.

DB : Now, you see, I'm trying to ask another question that David Shainberg raised...

K: Just a minute, before we go to Shainberg...You 'perceive' (the living truth of it) and I don't ; so, I have to listen to you...

DB : Yes... ?

K: ...read or listen, and when I listen to you I have the feeling that this is the absolute truth, is something 'real' – more than 'real' – it is so clear, obvious and so penetrating – I feel that. But then, what happens generally is that I want to 'work that out' in my life...

DB : Yes...

K: What I've heard you say, I want to 'work it out'... !

DB : Yes... ?

K: ...and I think that's wrong : I hear what you're saying and I see that what you say is 'true' and I have to work it out in my life, not...

DB : Yes, that's right...But it seems like a verbal contradiction because you said before that one has to work at it...

K: I know... I hear you and what you say is truth ; but it becomes ( a 'living?) truth' to me only when I have washed away (dumped?) all my 'selfishness', when I put that away. It is not that I accept or that 'I become' your truth...

DB : Yes...so let's get it right : my own 'self-centred' structure has to wash away...

K: That's right !

DB : So, in some way the 'truth' won't do that, won't it ? You see, ''what do I have to do ?'' - that is the question...

K: A–ha... I see what you mean : I 'hear' you and that truth is so penetrating and as I'm a 'serious' man, that ( inward exposure to?) truth washes away all my selfishness...That's one point.

DB : Yes...

K: I hear you and I see what you're saying is 'true'...but I am still 'selfish', hmm ? Will the hearing of you, seeing the truth of what you, said help me to wask away my 'selfishness' ? Or does truth reveal my 'selfishness' ?

DB : Right...and if it reveals my selfishness, then what ?

K: Then, if I ( contemplatively?) stay with that, then it's washed away, right ?

DB : Yes, so then each person has to 'stay with it' ?

K: Stay with – not with the word , not with the (verbal) description, not with the person, but stay with that penetrating truth.

DB : So then, it's the same as remaining with sorrow ?

K: Exactly, that's what I said, it's the same thing !

DB : But then we come to the next question : why one doesn't (do it) ?

K: Ah, that's very simple why he doesn't : it's too much ! The world is too much for him ; his wife nags him, he's got his appetites...you follow ?

DB : Hmm...

K: He sees it for the moment and can't remain with it !

DB : Yes, but if there are these two people : one sees the truth and the other is 'listening' and you say the responsability of the person who listens is to stay with this, then the person who sees the truth, it is his responsability to communicate it inspite of the 'resistance' …

K: Of course, yes !

DB...so that he can't accept that the other person 'runs away' from it ….

K: ( laughing) Right...If one stays with suffering as we talked , this brings a certain passion if one stays with the perception of truth...

DB : But even staying with that suffering it's the same because the ( direct perception of?) truth shows that the entire structure is 'false'...

K: Ah... ! If truth shows me that the entire structure is false, does it bring suffering ?

DB : Not in the beginning, but if I 'escape' …

K: If I see completely that what you say is true, I have no suffering : it is so !

DB : I understand that, but let's try to develop it in another step : it may happen that I see it as something quite far and there is a movement of 'escape' right ?

K: Yes, there is a movement of escape...

DB : Now that movement will bring about some suffering …

K: Of course...

DB ; ...and that 'movement' will be like a thorn...

K: ( The direct perception of) truth will be like a poison ; like a thorn, yes...

DB : In combination with the 'escape' some suffering comes about, right ?

K: That's right. I see what you have said is true, but my 'selfishness' is much too alive...but that perception is imbedded in my consciousness...

DB : Yes...

K: And that's 'poking a pin' all the time...

B: Yes and the other consciousness is resisting and that produces suffering …

K: Yes.

DB : So if that is the case, to stay with ( the fact of?) that suffering is what is needed, right ?

K: Of course !

DB :... but you see, our whole tradition is that we should not stay with suffering, but rather we should find a way out of it...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : ...and seek 'happiness'. Shainberg's question also emphasised the importance of suffering but with some important differences ; I don't quite understand the Christian doctrine regarding suffering - it seems they regard it as as necessary too, but not exactly as...

K: What exactly is the Christian view of suffering  ?

DB : Well, the only thing I could understand is that Jesus Christ saved mankind through his suffering...

K: How can somebody 'save me' from my suffering ?

DB : Let me put it the way : I think it means  He was free of suffering, & faced all this pain without running away from it and in a certain way – some people say ''you must live in the imitation of Christ''- but I've talked to many people who said that Christ has suffered in order to save them...

K: Save them from what ?

DB : I don't know...to save them from 'sin', or from whatever it is, from the state of man which we were discussing – you know, from this wrong state of evil...

K: Which is, you see the truth and you 'are' that ; you convey it to me, and if I can remain with that without any movement...

DB ; Yes, I see it is very different from the Christian doctrine.

K: Yes, so do I...

DB : There are some superficial similarities as both are emphasisising the importance of suffering but some...

K: Hasn't the Christian idea of 'sin' got into it ?

DB : Well, it's not clear what is meant by 'sin' in the Christian doctrine – they may say that 'sin' is the cause of this suffering...

K: Yes...

DB...but it's not clear what they exactly mean by 'sin' – they may say probably that the 'original sin' was Adam's 'eating the apple' ...

K: ...of knowledge ? So, first you invent 'sin' and then you say 'someone must free you from that sin'...

DB : Well, you could also say that the 'sin' was the going away from the correct action and therefore man suffers and finding no way out of that suffering, Christ came to 'redeem' him. And only when Christ came there was a 'way out' of suffering ; that's what I understand by what's said- I can't say that I understand it deeply but I think one can see there are some important points of difference and they are very basic because what you're saying implies 'staying with suffering'...

K: Yes, that's it !

DB : But you see, the similarity I was trying to get at is : you are saying that you are not in a special role because you're a special individual- but you came first to communicate a few points, and one of the points you communicate is 'staying with suffering'. Now, they say that Christ also came at a certain point in time and he was able to communicate in his nature. Now, this is the similarity, but the difference is that we don't know in fact what he was trying to communicate or even whether he actually lived, but at least from what's written -which may have been different- it was not made very clear the need or the importance of 'staying with the suffering' ; while the idea that got across is that 'by going through suffering' you improve...

K: (laughing) Right...that you 'improve' !

DB : There may be some of the early people saw this but it was lost...I don't know... Anyway, I think that makes a few points clear ; it is something for each people to do, it is not just a question of 'sitting and listening' to what you're being told...

K; No, but would you say that if I listen to you as a human being listening to another human being who has seen truth, if I listen so completely, the 'miracle' takes place in me...

DB : Yes, that's the point : if the listening were total, there's no need for anything ; it would be exactly like for the first person : it would be a ( heavenly?) 'miracle' like for the first one  - it 'happens'...

K: That's right !

DB : It's part of the same thing, because if it didn't happen for what the first one did, it wouldn't happen for the second one...Now, on the other hand, because there is 'resistance' and selfishness & so on, then comes the suffering and then comes the need to 'stay with it', do you see ?

K: Yes, quite, quite...The need to stay with it or 'escape' from it and keep on with this endless suffering ...Would the Christian doctrine say this endless suffering is put an end by believing in Christ as the Son of God who 'is' truth ?

DB : Well, I can't speak for the Christian doctrine, but my impression is that they say that if you believe in Christ, you will be 'saved' – which means more of less that. Now, on the other hand I've talked with some people who say that is only the 'official' doctrine, and there are other Christian saints & mystics who didn't think that the 'belief in Christ' was the important point...

K: No, no !

DB : Therefore you can't actually define this thing very well - there are different versions of it...

K: Which is, sir, if one lived in some village, far away from all the Christian bussiness, he would have the same problem - must he believe … ?

DB ; Yeah...but the only point about Christ is to say that Christ communicated the truth – some people look at it that way – for all we know...

K: Yes, for all we know, quite...

DB : ...and therefore , perhaps, that would have been all right, you see ?

K: If the priest didn't come into it, quite...

DB : The only weak point is that all the information we have about Christ comes from other people, over the ages and we don't know how accurate it is ; and therefore that makes the whole thing a little doubtful...
I have another point then : we don't think that this - whatever it is that we are talking about - is an 'individual' creative act … ?

K: No, no, no.. !

DB : And this point is important …

K: Absolutely. It is totally impersonal, totally non-national, it has nothing to do with the human being...

DB : But it does put us in this position : the person who 'sees' it and the other who doesn't...Now we have the person who doesn't 'see', but has the feeling that there is some truth in it , and he can't begin with 'faith' but with (the perception of) truth ; he must see it for himself...Let's say the person who doesn't 'see' it has to 'listen' and live the whole thing – to listen completely - he should not begin with belief or faith ...

K: Oh, that destroys it...

DB : In other words, he can say : here's something that looks very interesting and may be the truth, it sounds right...

K: ...and 'let me listen'...

DB :.. and see if it's the truth - and if it's not the truth, I must drop it... and if it is the truth, then I must 'stay with it', is that right ?

K: Of course.

DB : So it is not a question of faith or belief at all...

K: Yes sir, that's right …

DB : I think this more or less clears the subject, as far as I can remember. Now, I have another point : we once discussed 'intelligence' and obviously it is in some connexion with truth and with wisdom...I think that somebody told me once that ''wisdom is the daughter of truth and intelligence is the daughter of wisdom''...

K; Yes, yes...

DB : So it might be good if we could discuss that a while...

K: What time is it ?

DB : A quarter to five – perhaps we might discuss this another time ?

K: Yes, let's do that next saturday...

DB : Right...

K: You see, sir, the other day I've received a letter from a man who's been practising 'transcendental meditation' ; he came to the talk and he wrote that thing  : ''You know nothing of transcendental meditation - you deny it, but I have experienced what it does''...And that is the case with what's happening all over the world- not only TM, but various forms of 'going out of the body' – that is, you practice certain states, till you can 'slip out' of the body and carry messages 'astrally' from one person to another, & all that kind of stuff...You see, what we are trying to say is : ( the direct perception of?) truth is not a (personal) 'experience' …

DB : Yes, it is 'that which is'...

K; You see, that I think is really quite important in this matter...

DB : I think it is very clear that ( the perception of) truth is not a (personal) 'experience' – we should discuss some other time what is an 'experience'- I don't know if we have time now – (the perception of) truth is an 'action' – an action which in some sense is more real than 'reality'...

K: Yes... ! I think some (famous revolutionary?) has said 'Anybody who is not with us is a reactionary'. I feel that anybody who is not with truth, is a reactionary (laughing )

DB : I mean, ( the perception of) truth is something which does not belong to an individual – it is not 'particular' – and it acts - you see, we don't have such a good word for it -  but I would like to say it is 'global' and universal...

K: Yes, universal.

DB : ...and of the 'essence' - I think you put it somewhere that ''( the holistic) perception is ( revealing?) the essence of the world'' …

K: Yes, that 's right, sir...

DB : And it is both perception and action – in a way it is both that which perceives and that which is perceived... I think we should discuss truth & wisdom - I think that for myself wisdom is quite important …

K: Very important, quite. What does 'wisdom' mean ?

DB : I think the main meaning in the dictionary is ''the capacity for sound judgement''... and I would add to that 'clear perception' and the third point I would add is the 'ability of thought to know its own nature, and to take it into account'... In other words, that the 'judgement' – which is thinking - is 'sound ' only when the judgement has found its own...

K: ...limitation, quite, quite...

DB : You see, we need some ( sound) 'judgement' in every phase of life, but within that limited area where judgement applies.

K: Did I ever told you about a man I met once met in India – he was a judge – and one morning he woke up and said '' I'm passing jugement on people - sending them to jail, punishing them for doing this or that thing- but I really don't know what Truth is...Otherwise, if I don't know what truth is, how can I judge others ?'' So he called his family and said : I'm finished with all this, I'm going into the woods, disappear and find out what Truth is...And he'd been away for twenty five years – this is a fact, it all happened to him – and somebody brought him to a talk about meditation- and next morning he came to see me & said 'You're perfectly right, I have been for twenty five years mesmerising myself into a ( contemplative) state, thinking that it will reveal truth''... You know, for a man to acknowledge after twenty five years that he was deceiving himself …

DB : Yes...

K: ...and trefore he said ''I must wipe away from my mind every idea of what Truth is''. And I have never seen him again...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Apr 2020 #275
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

11-th ('reader-friendly' edited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth & Reality

K: What shall we talk about ?

DB : Last time, I suggested to discuss these three topics : truth, wisdom & intelligence and possibly their relation to 'experience'...

K: Where does the word 'wisdom' come from ?

DB : Well, I looked in the dictionary and 'wisdom' has the same root as 'wit', and has the same root as 'seeing' – like the latin 'vide'...

K: Ah...but has it any root with 'veda', the sanscrit word ?

DB : Yes, and 'wit' has the same root word...

K: 'Wit'...oh yes...

DB : ...witness probably, and...'wisdom'. 

K: First of all, how does one approach it (holistically )  ? Can 'wisdom' be learned ?

DB : Well, it can't be learned in the usual way, but the (experiential) question is : is there any way of 'imparting' wisdom, or of conveying it ? One of the dictionary definitions that's stuck into my mind was 'the capacity for sound judgement' …

K: Oh... capacity for 'sound judgement'... ?

DB : That's one of the phases of it, in this area where thought can properly function and thought be capable of 'sound judgements'...But I made a mistake regarding the roots of the word wisdom : it comes from the aryan word 'wid' meaning to see, or to know...The same root as 'vide' in latin , or 'idea' in greek...and for 'wisdom' the dictionary says 'the quality of being wise' – that's not of much help... ( laughter), sound judgement, sagacity- and then the second meaning, archaic, is learning knowledge & science, the wisdom of the ancient – you see, there is the meaning of accumulating wisdom, but that's probably not what we mean …

K: Is it a ( cultural) confusion between knowledge and wisdom ?

DB : Well, there has been such a confusion during the ages, but clearly from the meaning of the word it means not so much knowledge, but the act of 'seeing' ...

K: That's it, the 'act of seeing'...

DB : The 'act of seeing' – that's the basic root, but it also came to me as the capacity to make sound judgement, which depends on perception...

K: Yes...

DB : In other words, a 'judgement' which is not made from thought...

K: ...but from accumulated knowledge ?

DB : No, but from perception ; You see... ?

K: A-ha !

DB : In other words a 'sound judgement' is the expression in thought of a (holistic?) perception...

K: Yes...

DB : 'Judgement' means originally 'to divide' – the german word ' urtail' originally meant division – you make a distinction or discrimination – so a 'sound judgement' is a perception, not according to knowledge or tradition...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, the traditional judgement is to divide between 'good' and 'evil', 'right' and 'wrong', 'true' and 'false', or it means simply to divide, in a 'technical' way, between cause and effect, between relationship and non-relationship ; you see, for example, even you made a division saying that 'truth' and 'reality' are not related – which is a (qualitative?) judgement...

K: Ah, I see...

DB : The form of thought is a judgement, but if that's just based on knowledge you have no (holistic) meaning...

K: Quite, quite...

DB...but if that 'judgement' expresses or communicates the perception...

K: And also 'discerning' – to discern between 'essential' knowledge, and 'non-essential', 'truth' and 'false' and so on...

DB : That's right, that's a 'perception'...

K: Is perception 'dualistic' ?

DB : No, but the way of expressing it is 'dualistic'.

K: Ah, that's it !

DB : You see, this is a point which is hard to explain : our language inevitably divides...

K: Language divides, yes...

DB : And if it wants to express something which is whole, the capacity of 'sound judgement' is dividing, but it is nevertheless one. This is the way I had it in mind : our thought has to give an intelligible account of the perception at work...

K: ...of perception, quite...

DB : And part of the 'intelligible account' is in the form of judgements . But as you were saying, ''the description is not the described'', the account is not what is accounted for...

K: Right...So, is wisdom ( related to ) the perception that (the judgemental) discernment exists when there is duality ? Would that be wisdom ?

DB : Yes, but why is there 'duality' ?

K: When there is ( the value based?) discernment.

DB : Yes, but there is a certain area where 'discernment' is called for, which is, in that area where thought really belongs...

K: Yes, in the area where thought belongs...and to see where thought (properly) belongs is (also part of) 'wisdom'.

DB : Yes...that's the key to wisdom, really...

K: Yes !

DB : ...if thought can see, or it is aware of where it belongs, then it will make 'sound judgements'...

K: Yes, 'sound judgements', but that's not wisdom. If thought knows its right place and functions within its own limits, then that is still the operation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's not wisdom, but we have to make it clear, because that is generally one of the signs of wisdom...You see, it's not necessarily the essence of wisdom, because that may be the outward form of the action of a man who is wise, hmm ?

K: Quite...So would you say that 'wisdom' is the (holistic) perception of the limitations of thought and of its (proper) operation in that limited area ?

DB : Yes, that's the essence of wisdom – to perceive the limitation of thought - therefore the act of such a man will take the form of a 'sound judgement' , you see ?

K: A-ha ! Quite, quite... You see, about 'discernmnt' – you must have heard of Shankara, the Indian philosopher ; I believe he lays a tremendous emphasis on this 'capacity to discern (between what is true & what is false?) '...

DB : Yes, the dictionary says this is the capacity to make a jugement 'sound'...

K: It can be a very logical, sane, clear thinking that can make a sound judgement...

DB : Yes, but if thought goes outside of its proper area, you won't have that...

K: No, of course not, but very few realise the (intrinsical) limitation of thought...

DB : Yes, that's the point, but if you merely put it in outward terms, it's misleading. You see, the 'sound judgement' is merely the outward manifestation of wisdom, and if you emphasise that, then it's already wrong...

K: That's right, quite...

DB : Because then you're treating it as it were the 'essence' (of wisdom) ...

K: Quite...

DB : ...but its 'essence' is the perception which allows one to see that thought is limited, and also the readiness of thought to 'move' with that perception – the way I put it is : 'to give a correct account of its limits' and to take that account into its 'movement'. This is something I was observing : let's say there is an (insightful) perception, then thought may give a (verbal) account of that perception, but that is not the actual perception...

K: No...

DB : But still thought has to give the account...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : In some sense you can compare thought to the 'witness' of what is observed ; and if the 'witness' gives a correct account of what is observed, that's good, but if he puts it in terms of 'its own thinking' as part of the account, then it's wrong, you see ? The difficulty is that this 'witness' is always putting forth its own conclusions, its own ideas as if they were actual perceptions...

K: It is distorting...

DB : ...distorting, because it is not putting them by saying 'this is my conclusion' but by saying ; 'this is what I see'...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's not 'wisdom'...

K: And what's the difference then between 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : That's what we wanted to come to, you see, these are very different words and one wonders if there is not some different shade of meaning between these terms. You see, there are these three (closely related) words- 'wisdom', 'intelligence' and 'truth'... Now, we have discussed 'intelligence' once before and at that time I think we have treated it as containing 'wisdom' and 'truth' – you see, using one word to cover the whole...

K: ...and now we have separated it – 'truth', 'wisdom' & 'intelligence'... ?

DB ; Yeah...Now, you see, ( the direct perception of) 'truth' is first, and from its 'truth' may flow 'wisdom' and from wisdom 'intelligence' – is that it ?

K: Sir, would a man who perceives 'truth' behave 'foolishly' ?

DB : No, 'foolishness' is the opposite of 'wisdom', but you see, there would be no point that truth would not lead a man into following it , right ?

K: No. If one sees what is 'true', he acts according to that...

DB ; Yes...

K: And that action, wouldn't it be a 'wise' (holistic) action ?

DB : It would inevitably be a wise action...

K: Yes, and therefore not 'foolish', and therefore it's an 'intelligent' action...

DB : Yes. But we want to see why you use two words 'wise' & 'intelligence' – either one of these two words is 'superfluous', or there is a different 'shade of meaning' we'll have to explore, right?

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now we say there is a difference between 'truth' and 'wisdom' : we said truth is 'that which is', right ?

K: Yes...

DB :...now 'wisdom' seems to be something more limited – as being primarily the perception of the limitations of thought, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : ...so that thought is not doing anything 'foolish' - I mean, if thought doesn't know its limitation, then it does all sorts of 'foolish' things, right ? So the perception of 'that which is' seems to me, goes far beyond the perception of the limits of thought...

K: Why have we divided 'truth', 'wisdom' and 'intelligence' ?

DB : Well, it may be part of tradition, of our culture, but there may be some reason behind that...I think we have to look at it...

K: Quite...

DB : Now, it seems to me that 'wisdom' has emphasised the true perception of the limits of thought. Now what is 'intelligence' ?

K: The dictionary meaning of the word - according to the dictionary - is ' to read between' …

DB : But it also has many other meanings – 'legere' means also to pay attention, it could be the same as 'reading' , it also means to 'gather' or to 'collect' and also it means 'to choose', you see ?

K: A-ha... ! You see, we come back to  : is 'intelligence' ( direcly related to) the capacity to choose?

DB : Now, the point is to see what is (behind) this 'capacity to choose' – as somebody could say, it's either arbitrary or he might choose intelligently...

K: But 'choice' ...?

DB : Choice itself, you see, in practical things you would choose one thing over another with the help of ( your practical) intelligence ; now, what kind of 'choice' do you have in mind ?

K: Is there in (a holistic) 'perception' a choice ?

DB : Or in awareness, or in attention...  ?

K; In awareness, in perception, in attention, is there any (personal) choice ?

DB : You see, that's the same as to say there is no 'discrimination', right ? That is, if there is no (measurement based) 'discrimination' there is no place for 'choice' to operate, right ?

K: That's right, if there is 'attention', would there be 'choice' ?

DB : No, there wouldn't be ; but many people may think that it would...in our tradition there may be a wide spread belief that attention would contain choice ?

K: I know...(But in the holistic ?) attention, awareness, perception – in that there is no ( interference of personal) choice at all – you just 'perceive '! And 'act' accordingly !

DB : Now, if somebody thinks that we actually perceive with discrimination, then that awareness contains choice...you see ? I'm trying to say : what ( psychological) mistake allowed people to come to this belief that there is ( a necessity for personal) 'choice' in awareness ?

K: Is it the outcome of the feeling, or of the idea that when there is ( the opportunity of) choice, there is ( outward) freedom ?

DB : That's a part of it, perhaps , but (inwardly-speaking ) the idea of choosing between 'good' and 'evil' is one of the favourite choices...

K: Yes, take choosing between good and evil...

DB : Now, you wouldn't be able to choose between good & evil unless you could discriminate between the 'good' and the 'evil' – right ?

K: But for a man who 'perceives' ( this non-personally ) , there is no choice...

DB : No choice, but doesn't he also 'discriminates' in that perception... ?

K: No ! And therefore he acts acording to that 'perception'  …

DB ; Yes, but that 'perception' contains the 'whole' as I see it...and the implications of seeing which is the necessary action are all undivided, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : And therefore it is not necessary to say 'this side is evil and this side is good', so I (will choose to) go to this side...

K: The 'good guys' and the 'bad guys'...right !

DB : So, you see, there is some confusion in our (cultural) tradition about the ( personal or non-personal?) nature of perception...

K: (A totally insightful ) perception implies a choiceless action...

DB : Yes...

K: Not (a thought controlled ? ) 'discriminating' action or a 'choosing' action – just 'perception' !

DB : Yes, although the ( verbal) description may make it look like a (personal) choice...

K: The description, yes...

DB : A person may see the whole of the 'good and evil' (involved) and take the right action, but when describing it he's saying that took the 'good action' and (not) the 'evil action' – but that's only a (post-facto ) description, you see ?

K: Description...and the description is not the described and all the rest of it...

DB : So the point is that in the description we only use a 'dualistic' language in order to communicate something that is not dualistic...

K: So, let's begin (back to square one:) to 'see' is to 'act', and in that action there is no choice...and that perception 'is' (occuring in the light of?) truth...

DB : The perception that (inwardly speaking ) there is no choice.

K: And that is the (perception of) 'truth' ; now in translating that into words, does it necessarily imply that it is dualistic ?

DB : No, it doesn't – the words are 'dualistic' in form, but the 'actuality' is not dualistic. You see, in the mere perception that 'that is true' – there is an (apparent) dualism in the way you use the words, because it would imply that that is not false or wrong & so on...You see, I'm trying to say that there is some ('measurement' based ?) background in the common language which has 'dualism' built into it...

K: Of course...

DB : But nevertheless, knowing that this is the case, it is possible to 'communicate' free of dualism  ?

K: Quite, quite...Can one communicate 'love' without the implication of jealousy, anger, hate ?

DB : Yes, as long as we realise that the words are only a description ; that it's part of the language that 'love' is not ( a feeling associated to ) 'hate', and perhaps one can see that one has nothing to do with the other...

K: Is 'wisdom' the negation of its opposite ?

DB : The opposite of 'wisdom'  is 'folly', you see...

K: Folly...

DB : You see, 'wisdom' is of course the denial of 'folly', but that denial doesn't need opposition...

K: Quite...

DB : But in that 'denial' we have to be very careful, because to actually 'deny' means that the other is not there at all...

K: At all, quite...

DB : Not that it 'opposes' it.

K: Is 'intelligence' different from 'perception' ?

DB : Well, it can't be really different from ( the sensory) perception...

K: Why has man (traditionally) divided 'truth', 'wisdom', 'intelligence, 'perception' , 'good' & 'evil' and all the rest of it ? Why ? How has this division come about ?

DB : Well, are we really clear that there is no use for this division at all ? You see, 'Intelligence' might have many different shades of meaning...

K Would a man who perceives 'truth' have this division in himself ?

DB : There would be no point to it...

K: ...no point to it. So, who has divided it ?

DB : Well, it's clear that thought has divided it...Thought appears to divide anything – we have different words and in some sense they may mean something different...

K: Thought has divided it, or we have been educated to do it ?

DB : Yes, but through thought. Thought has been conditioned to divide -to use different words and to give different meanings & so on...and even to give 'intelligence' the meaning of some sort of 'skill in thought' …

K: ( laughing) 'Skill in thought'... ! Quite...

DB : People now talk about 'artificial intelligence'...you see, when they talk about computers that will be an 'artificial intelligence'...I was talking to a man who works with computers and he finally saw that it would be an 'artificial thinking', not an 'artificial intelligence' …

K: Right... Then what are we trying to do ? We are trying to find out what is the relationship between 'wisdom' and 'truth' , or between 'intelligence' and 'wisdom' and all that...

DB : Now, maybe we could explore whether there is any meaning of 'intelligence' that we haven't looked at ? Or do we say it's all contained in 'truth' ?

K: Yes, I was just beginning to question that...

DB : What ?

K: Whether in the word 'truth', all these are not included... We said the other day that there is 'reality' and 'truth'. Reality is all that thought has created, all that which choses, which discriminates and functions within that field...We said all that is 'reality'...

DB : I would try to put that it's not only what thought has done, but there is also an 'actuality' which thought can only describe ; you see, the tree can be described as part of a 'reality' where thought discriminates, but the tree exists independently of thought ; thought only 'knows' the tree and can recognise that form...

K: Yes, thought 'knows' the tree, but the tree is not thought...

DB : Yes, the tree is not thought - it is an 'actuality'...but still, 'reality' is not only what man has produced or what thought 'knows', but also all the 'unknown' reality which it could know – like what's going on on Mars, which still would be known to thought.

K: Yes, yes...

DB : So everything that could be known for thought, is (in the field of) 'reality'..

K: We went through all this...

DB : Yes, that definition may just cover everything.

K: Yes, that's right...Can a thoughtful man be a wise man ?

DB : What do you mean by 'thoughtful' ?

K: Thoughtful in the sense of a man who sees the world is degenerating, who sees that various form of 'revolution' are taking place, and says : 'I must find an answer' and relies on thought to find that out...

DB : Now, you see, aside from all the criticism you can make about the lack of (direct) perception the major point here is that thought is moving outside its proper area...

K: But he says 'I only know thought and I know nothing else'...And since thought has created this awful confusion relies on thought to find an answer...

DB ; Yes, that's one of the points : that wisdom is to understand that thought cannot possibly find an anwer to that which itself produces – when thought produces contradictions it cannot find an answer...

K: So a 'thoughtful' man is not (necessarily?) a 'wise' man...

DB : Well, if he depends (only) on thought, he is not wise.

K Of course ! A thoughtful man is not a wise man. Nor is he an 'intelligent' man...

DB : No...

K: We are condemning a 'thoughtful' man ( laughing) !

DB : Well, if that's what you mean by 'thoughtful', but very often 'thoughtful' also means 'wise'... The words can be used differently, you see ?

K: I know, but a 'thoughtful' man is not a wise man !

DB : Not in the sense in which we defined it...

K: Would you take a 'thoughtful' man - even if you wouldn't define it - as a 'wise' man  ?

DB : Not if he depends on thought, you see ? But sometimes by the word 'thoughtful' you mean something different : the person who is not 'thoughtful' usualy is not (critically) observing his thought...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, there is a great degree of ambiguity in the common language and words are used in different sense, but one can see that if a man depends exclusively on thought, then he cannot be 'wise'...

K: Let's limit it to that, yes...the man who 'depends entirely' on thought is not a wise man...

DB : Yes...

K: Then, what is the 'wisdom' which is not a movement of thought ? Is it a living thing or is it an accumulated experience ?

DB ; Well, it's clear that it is a living thing, but since you brought in the word 'experience' we must also discuss it, because that is another one of this ambiguous words...Now, the word 'experience' has many meanings, but one of the meanings is 'to put to the test' and another meaning is 'to go through it' . But it seems to me that there are two aspects of 'experience' : if you are working in a practical domain you need some experience to get the work done ; now we're saying that 'experience' is (the processed activity of) thought - basically- and there was one one interesting definition of 'experience', given by some philosopher - Immanuel Kant. He said that ''experience is a combination of sensation and thought'' – which seems good to me, and this 'thought' is of the basic category of 'discrimination' ; in other words, you not only have 'sensations' but there is an immediate thought about what is seen, in which there is a 'discrimination' or a 'categorising' -like 'cause and effect' , good and bad', 'pleasant & not pleasant' and therefore you could say that is experience. In some sense, experience is the contact with reality – I mean, proper experience in practical affairs – is what is generally meant by 'experience'.

K: Can you experience 'truth' ?

DB : No, but you can experience 'reality'...

K: Ah, quite, quite !

DB : That's what I wanted to say ; 'reality' is what can be experienced – and the 'sense of reality' is important in experience. You see, you have a sensation, or a contact with reality gives the feeling of 'reality' – this is real, I am real and all this thing is 'real'... Now, on the other hand, if you try to experience 'Truth' or 'Love' or Beauty, then it has no meaning ; so, the 'experience' goes wrong when thought tries to go out of its place...

K: Out of its limits...

DB : You see, you could say you experience pain or pleasure, or experience desire - 'experiencing' desire would be a case of thought goes out of its limits , hmm ?

K: Quite... So, to 'see' the whole of that- the operation of thought, the limitation of thought and seeing the inter-relationship between intelligence, wisdom and truth – seeing all that would you call that 'wisdom' ?

DB : I don't know if you could call that 'wisdom' or you can call it 'truth', but to me the notion of 'intelligence' gets across something more detailed, in the sense of meeting the individual situation. In other words, we could say that 'truth' meeting the actual individual situation is intelligence- I don't know whether that makes sense... ?

K: Aha, aha...

DB : In other words, truth is universal or global and it is all-one, but it occured to me that when it meets the 'actual' situation, we call that 'intelligence' . In other words, intelligence is what keeps everything in order...

K: ...in order, quite...

DB ; It's not really different from ( the perception of?) 'truth', but it is calling attention to a different action, to a different way of looking...

K; Seeing the whole is wisdom, is truth...

DB : Seeing the whole is truth...and I think that the action of the man who is 'seeing the whole', or of the 'wise' – as I'd like to put it- the very root of 'wise' is based on 'seeing' – that's the original meaning in the dictionary : 'wise' means 'seeing'- the same root as 'vide' – and intelligence is also 'seeing' - I think it is merely giving different names to the actions of truth, emphasising what they are dealing with. Intelligence it seems to me is dealing with the actual case, from the 'seeing' and not from memory or from knowledge...

K: That's right...

DB: People might think that 'wisdom' consists in accumulating a great deal of knowledge, and that it gets so much knowledge that it could deal with every possible situation. But that's obviously wrong...

K: So, knowledge is in the field of reality, and we are skilfully operating in it or not...

DB : Yes...in using experience to acquire knowledge..

K: Then has (this) knowledge any relationship to 'truth' ?.

DB : Now, at first sight it might have, but actually...

K: ...actually it has not.

DB : You see, to say that it has no relation is a very 'hard' way to put it – this comes to a question we were considering some time ago, ''where did thought go wrong ?'' and we suggested thought did not know its limitation – when thought first appeared in man, it did not know it was limited, you see ? It tried to behave in the 'unlimited'...and before realising it was limited it had already created so much chaos...Now, it's very hard for thought to discover ( or acknowledge?) that it's limited – not only because of all this chaos, but also because there is an inherent difficulty in language, in thought to express its limitation – there is a paradox there : if you are trying to say that 'thought is limited' – thought first of all establishes its limits – all limits come from thought : you see, the very word 'determined' has in it 'to terminate' , or to limit – so if we say 'thought itself is limited', that becomes difficult to say it's not paradoxical because thought not only makes limits but it also transcends every limit it makes..

K: Yes, yes ! It draws a line and goes beyond the line !

DB : That's right. It's the character of thought to set a limit an then try to 'transcend' the limit. So, if one said 'I am limited' ; it will instantly try to transcend the limit ; then perhaps it hasn't done the right thing ! Therefore there is another way to put it : by saying that the whole process of setting up the limit and then 'transcending' it – which is ( the activity of) thought – doesn't have any bearing whatsoever on truth.

K: Obviously.

DB : It doesn't matter that it's limited or unlimited but thought has nothing to do with this...

K: Right ; thought has no (interacting?) relationship to 'truth'.

DB : Yes, it has no relevance to truth, no bearing to truth or anything ; therefore it cannot even state that 'truth is unlimited' or anything like that...

K: No, no...

DB : And therefore when thought sees that, it's obvious that the right action for thought is to 'not attempt' any of those questions where it has no bearing, you see ?

K: Yes. I was looking at those TV pictures of Sacchara where they show those extraordinary ancient buildings -three thousand years old – it was (all) put together by thought...

DB : Yes...

K: Thought became an instrument of perception.

DB : Why do you say 'an instrument of perception' ?

K: I'm just enquiring... The architect who (conceived) them he had the 'imagination' to see what those buildings should look like ...

DB : Yes... that brings us back to what we discussed last week on 'imagination' - you said you don't 'imagine' anything...

K: Yes, I don't personally...

DB : Now let's take an architect – he has plans and he has to 'visualise' what this looks like – what would you say about that ? Suppose you want to make a building from your drawings, you'll have to 'visualise' ..

K: Yes. But I can't do it...I can only do it if I see an architect drawing a plan - then I can say 'this is not right' – but I can't draw it like this...I can only correct what is wrong...

DB : Why is that ?

K: I have no visual capacities to see something 'solid'.

DB : You mean, no imagination ?

K: No imagination...

DB : Is this any peculiarity of yourself ?

K: May be a peculiarity...

DB : Or does it mean something more, in the sense that there is something wrong with 'imagination' or... ?

K: I don't think 'imagination' plays a part in meditation, in (the direct perception of?) truth....

DB : I agree with all that – but I'll say imagination may have a limited part to play – let's say in visualising some buildings like these...

K: Yes, of course, and in painting...

DB : But one thing that occured to me is that 'imagination' also contains the 'imaginary' (self-image ) of the person who is looking – like in a dream, the 'dreamer' is not there...But there might be another kind of dream in which you're not identified...

K: Yes...

DB : But could that be some kind of 'imagination' when you compared this to Columbus discovering America, there is an 'image' there...

K: Yes...

DB : Now, there was no 'image maker' , but the 'image' was merely a visual expression of a certain perception...Somebody might call this a kind of 'imagination'...

K: No, that's a 'statement'.

DB : It's a statement, but there is also an 'image' in there – the image of Columbus on his boat going ...

K: I didn't imagine that.

DB ; Yes, all right, but to some extent it communicates that...

K: But I mean, that's a fact – Columbus did discover America – if previously it had not been discovered by vikings - but apparently Columbus discovered it – that's a fact !

DB : Yes, it's a fact, but I think it's a matter of language – there is a kind of imagination which is 'fancy' or fantasy...

K: Fantasy, yes...

DB : And in this may appear as a thing which is being looked at and which is taken as one is actually looking at it – and that's an 'illusion' . But a person might have an image – like this thing, Columbus discovering America is a metaphor and I think that you used others ; that use of imagery is like the use of language...

K: I understand... So in the field of reality there is imagination, there is the artist, the musician...

DB : ...and they may use the images in a constructive way rather than as a pure fantasy...

K: ...yes, and so on. Now, can a musician or an artist see 'truth' ?

DB : Not as a 'musician' anyway...As a human being he might see truth, but there is no reason art would make a person more perceptive to truth than...

K: That's it !

DB : Although among artists there is a wide spread belief that it could...

K: I know...

DB : ...that culture could put things in order. In other words that by means of a good culture the mind is brought to a certain order which will be helpful.

K: Which means, throught time, order.

DB : Yes, that's really it. And I think it's a wide spread belief, you see ?

K: Yes, of course ; through evolution there is 'order'...

DB : Yes, or through cultivation, or...

K: Yes ; which means- through time, order...

DB : Yes... even the Egyptians who thought more timelessly - they believed that through cultivation of the mind they would bring a certain order - I mean, it's obvious that they did try it...So that I think this is a case where thought has gone beyond its proper limits, you see...

K: Yes....

DB : ...when thought tries to put the brain in order -as it were- or to put the mind in order...and therefore trying to do what it could never do...

K: Of course...But you see, the whole (endeavour) of the political field and the economic bussiness is to bring about order in the field of reality...

DB : Yeah...

K: ... and they can never do it !

DB : No...so it would be important to see why not...

K: Oh, that's simple...

DB : ...because they are all too limited ?

K: It's not global...

DB : ... it doesn't go into the deep source of the human actions.

K: Yes, quite...So ( laughing) we are 'eliminating' altogether the artist, the musician, the archaeologist, the politician, the economist...

DB : Yes ; none of these can bring about (an authentic) order...science also cannot bring order in the field of reality, because whatever knowledge it gains, it depends on the human beings, of what is done with it...

K: Yes...so only those who perceive truth can bring about order...right. Did you read about the 'revolutionaries in America'?

DB : You mentioned it to me...

K: All of them are saying the present structure of society is distructive ; it is not giving man the opportunity to be free, to be happy & so on...And all these 'revolutionaries' want to upset what they call the 'capitalism' and bring about a 'world state', or a state in America where all the big corporations are not in power.

DB : Yes...

K: All that is in the field of thought...

DB : Yeah...

K: ...and they have a tremendous appeal...

DB : Is that what the article said  ?

K: No, no ; I'm saying it. They have a tremendous appeal ; because of what is taking place in India - putting the cap on everything (in the hope) to bring order...So, the revolutionaries want to bring order, the Communists want to bring order ...everybody is trying to bring order in the field of reality...

DB : Yes...

K: And we are saying that's impossible.

DB : Yes and that might discourage lots of people...

K: I know...but I mean : it's a 'fact' !

DB : It's a fact, yes...

K: Would this 'revolutionary' accept this as a 'fact' ?

DB : Not as he is now...I mean this 'revolutionary' doesn't see this fact...

K: Yes, but then what relationship has the one who perceives truth has to the 'revolutionary' who says ' We must change the world' ?

DB : Well, it's again the same point : that truth has no relation to this 'reality', you see ? So, the only possibility would be to find a way to communicate...

K: Yes ; therefore this man says : 'you have no place in this, you are irrelevant'..

DB : Yes, the revolutionary says 'you are irrelevant' unless you find a way to communicate with him

K : Ah, but you can't communicate with him because he's enclosed himself totally within the field of 'reality' !
So, what place has the man who perceives truth in this world of 'reality' ?

DB : Well, it's clear that his perception of truth has no place in this 'world of reality'...

K: I'm not sure...

DB : Well, let's see what place he would have, other than communicating to break through this 'field of reality' ?

K: If the man in the world of reality is a real 'revolutionary' – I don't mean the 'blood-bath revolutionary' – but the man who has the strong feeling that this corrupt society must be changed- could the man who has perceived truth talk to him ?

DB : Yes, that's what I meant, that all he can do is to 'communicate' truth with him - if this 'revolutionary' is not completely engulfed in the field of reality, but he's still able to 'listen' because he sincerely wants a better society and therefore if the other man can put the thing rightly, in the right way...

K: Can this 'revolutionary' ever see truth ? Or must he realise the limitations of thought ?

DB : That's what I mean- this must be 'communicated'...If this man is able to listen to something, then he may be able to 'listen' the fact of the limitation of thought, if it's put in a way that 'gets to him' …

K: Yes, I understand that...

DB : ...although he may start to resist it very quickly, but that means that the other fellow has to be very fast and very succint & so on...

K: So, (to recap:) , we are saying  that in the world of reality there is 'choice' – every 'thing' is in the field of reality- and the man who perceives truth can only operate or function upon reality...

DB : Well, what we said is that he can't actually...

K: ...in the sense it can 'communicate'.

DB : Yes...so he doesn't 'communicate' with reality...

K: Ah, no, no...He cannot communicate 'truth', but he can 'communicate' with this man who is in the field of reality – he can say : look, see the limits of that...

DB : Yes, so he can 'communicate' by showing the inconsitencies, showing the limits & so on...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : So, within the field of reality – if the man is not totally engulfed, there is certain area where he can accept it...

K: Sir, why is it that all the leaders of the world are dominating this world of reality ?

DB : Well, because nobody has any (clear) idea in that world of what to do...You see, I think we made it clear that nothing can be done and probably deep down there is a sense that nothing can be done, so we leave it to somebody else to do it – I mean, if we knew what to do, we might try to do it, but the other fellow seems to know (better) what to do, perhaps we can go along with him...You know, that's the sort of thinking that might go on...

K: One of the ( holistically minded?) 'revolutionaries' says : order your own life...

DB : Yes, but then we're back in the same story – what is going to order it ; you see ? In my view it's important to 'communicate' this in different ways and to see if this thing will come across...My own feeling is that the 'communication' itself has to be very orderly, both verbally and non-verbally...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : But the 'order' of the communication itself is part of the communication...

K: If there is a perception of the truth, that truth will bring order in words...

DB : Yes, that's it, and that brings us to a point that we were discussing before – it would bring order in words and also a non-verbal action. And that order itself would be seen by that man- not only the content of what you say, but the whole order of it would be seen, and that (shared?) 'seeing' already will be beyond the field of reality ...

K: Quite...

DB : We were discussing about 'words' a few days ago and one question that rose was that it's not clear how words are formed : you can't see yourself making the words and suddenly start saying them. Without any visible account, you can't account for what comes about...

K: No...

DB : And one of the questions that occurred to me is that I could see two ways of forming words : one would be from memory, from habits - all stored up phrases would just come out from the record and be combined in various ways...

K: Isn't the English language very confusing  ?

DB : Well, not when you get to know it, I suppose...

K: Like the word 'see' – seeing with the eyes, seeing with the mind, seeing with the intellect, seeing with feeling, 'seeing'...and when you use the word 'see' all these are implied...

DB : Yes ; but I think that most languages...

K: Is it so in Sanscrit ?

DB : I don't know Sanscrit, but most of languages like Italian or French, probably do much the same...

K: But I believe in Sanscrit there are different words for them...

DB : Well, as you know, Sanscrit was a language specifically constructed for philosophical and religious purpose...

K: The word 'Sanscrit' means ''that which has been made perfect''...

DB ; But it is so that in our common language – I think the word 'prakriti' means common language - it is the same as our language here, it has always some confusion...And we had the same trouble here in trying to see what words like 'intelligence', 'wisdom' , and 'truth' & so on...But I don't think that language is our main trouble ; I mean, a confused language is probably the product of a confused mind, but...

K: Yes, quite ; the language is not the main problem...

DB : But I am interested in the way the language forms and the other idea of how the words are forming is what we once discussed of the drum vibrating from the emptiness within : so the words can form directly from the 'emptiness' ( of truth).. .

K; Yes, yes !

DB : So, you're not 'thinking' the words and in that case you're saying that truth can act directly on the physical structure of the brain in some way...

K: Yes, that's right !

DB : Now, one thing that occured to me is that if you say that, then you must say that at its depths (the living ) matter is non-mechanical, you see ? It may be 'mechanical' in a certain way, but...

K: Matter is not mechanical... ?

DB : Because truth could not act on that matter if it would be just mechanical...

K: Quite.

DB : So you'll have to say that the 'mechanical' aspects of matter are circumscribed to a certain area of matter which thought can handle - and thought is also material...

K: I think there is a part of the old tibetan and indian tradition that matter is living...

DB : Yes, and that's also implied in what you're saying...

K: Yes.

DB : Because if truth can operate in matter, then matter must be intelligent somehow in the way we're living - intelligible …

K: That's what I was saying - that he who perceives truth can operate on the consciousness, or on the mind, or brain of the man who is caught in the world of reality.

DB : Yes ; that's a very interesting point, but we have to see this very clearly : first of all, truth operates on his own brain...

K: Yes, of course...

DB : ...clearing away the confusion ; sometimes it occurred to me the idea of a fog which could be cleared away either by the sun or by the wind or a storm – in other words, rather than trying to arrange everything with thought, it's all cleared away, so all the questions arising in the fog are irrelevant...

K: Would you say, sir, from that 'arising', that when you remain totally with suffering, that's the 'storm'

DB ; Yes, that's the storm that clears away the 'fog'...And it's like a real, material storm ?

K: Yes...

DB : ...not 'real', but actual or genuine ...But I think that we should look a little bit at this notion that (living) matter is fundamentally non-mechanical...

K: Not mechanical, quite...

DB : But it has a 'mechanical' area...

K: Yes.

DB : Which is also what thought can handle. So we could say that is a right area for thought – which is also mechanical, and thought itself is 'mechanical' which can bring order in other mechanical areas but it cannot bring order into itself...

K: And thought is trying to go beyond it...

DB : Yes, it tries to transcend its limits. Because when thought tries to transcend them it does not know that there are some areas it cannot go into, and therefore thought tries (to transcend) those limits too, you see ? Either it tries to understand the 'truth' or 'spirit' or 'love', or it tries to take over the brain matter and keep it in order, but it cannot reach these depths...

K: So, we are saying that the human mind is not 'mechanical' ?

DB ; Yes and also that ( the brain cells') matter is not mechanical, although it has a 'mechanical' part or side...

K: Yes, that's it. Therefore, Truth can touch the non-mechanical part in the matter of the brain.

DB : Therefore we are saying that ( the perception of) Truth operating in one brain can clear that brain and then, being communicated, it may clear another brain...

K: Quite, quite !

DB : Now, when that brain is clear, it can operate in order...

K: Quite...

DB : Then you could say the brain is both 'material' and 'non-material'... ?

K: That's right.

DB : The 'mechanical' side will operate in order only if Truth keeps it clear, in other words, some 'non-mechanical' thing is needed to keep the 'mechanical' clear...

K: Yes...

DB : Otherwise it will be pushed from the past in that 'mist' or 'fog' …

K: Are you saying that in man, or in matter, there is intelligence ?

DB : I'm trying to proceed from where we started – that truth operates in the brain- if it does, then it follows that there must be something like 'intelligence' in matter – at least, something 'non-mechanical', you see, which... ?

K: Then we'll have to be awfully careful because we are ( implying?) that ''God is in you''...That's what I want to avoid...

DB : We don't say that, but we got to be careful because thought is here trying to transcend its proper limits...

K: Right...( laughing ) We'll catch Him that way !

DB : We are not saying that God is anywhere , but we are questioning whether matter is mechanical or not and all we could say is that matter can respond to intelligence -as it were. Whether there is intelligence or not we don't know  - one view is that in some sense it might be- but I think we can say that we got to the point where matter is not (fundamentally?) mechanical, and it is capable of responding to intelligence. Whether it actually has this 'intelligence' or not, we don't know, but it has a property that I would call 'intelligentibility' which may have some relation with 'Intelligence' - the possibility of being 'acted upon' by Intelligence...

K: Why has religion always been associated with Truth ?

DB : Well, in a way it is natural if you think of the deeper meaning of the word religion : apparently the best meaning this dictionary gives is 'to gather together' or to 'pay attention to the whole ' - so, if 'religion' was originally 'gathering the whole', then 'truth' is that too , you see ?

K: Yes. That's what I want to make clear. That's right.

DB : But then, when religion became corrupted by being defined as 'reality', then it went wrong...

K: Quite...

DB : If one reads the Bible – the old Testament – the hebrews were constantly falling into 'idolatry' by making God 'real', you see ? Making 'images' which were turning Truth into 'reality' …

K: Like last night ( on TV ?) there was a Roman-Catholic priest talking about devil he said : ''I actually believe that there is Devil'' …

DB : Yes, if he believed there is God...

K: ...who now has been having a marvelous time ! (both laugh)...

DB : It seems only 'natural' - if you believe that God is real, he must believe that Devil must also be real...

K: Sir, we are saying something which is terribly 'revolutionary' , right ?

DB : In what sense ?

K: Revolutionary in the sense we are denying 'evolution' in the field of thought's 'reality' -

DB : We are denying that 'evolution' has anything to do with 'that which is' in the field of reality. I think that we can put it carefully that in the field of reality you may observe evolution taking place, like an animal becoming bigger and so on. But that is only in the field of reality, not even at the depths of matter, much less at the depths of Mind.

K: Yes. We are now saying that whatever is in the field of reality - a conclusion, or thought moving beyond its limit and creating another reality, is still within the field of reality – all of that we say, is unrelated to Truth.

DB : Yes...

K: And Truth is something that is only perceived when the mind acts as a whole.

DB : Yes...but in addition you're saying that truth acts about this 'wholeness' by dissolving in the brain the 'mist of reality', the 'confusion', or whatever we may want to call it...

K: That's right.. The other day we were talking at lunch about the 'emptiness' having a great energy, hmm ?

DB : Yes...

K: You were saying that (the empty ) 'space'...

DB : Yes, I was saying that according to modern Physics, the 'empty space' is full of a tremendous energy which is inaccessible ; people don't take it very seriously, but if you actually do the calculation there is an unlimited (unmanifested?) energy in each part of Space.

K: You see, the other night – you know I have a peculiar kind of meditation : I wake up meditating- the other night I woke up with this feeling of a tremendous energy in 'emptiness' …

DB : Yes... ?

K: This whole brain was completely 'empty' and therefore there was an extraordinary quality of energy... And when you said at lunch time that according to scientists & according to you, in the empty space there is a tremendous energy...

DB : Unlimited...

K: Unlimited, I felt the same thing. So, mustn't there be (an inward space of ) 'emptiness' - which is 'no-thingness'- for the perception of Truth ?

DB : Yes, but the point about this energy is that the perception of Truth 'is' the action of this energy...

K: Yes, that's it !

DB ; You see - you may find this interesting- the way modern Physics treats the atoms and the particles of matter is to say they are created out of 'empty space' and dissolve into empty space and a particle is a 'manifestation' of that 'energy of the whole', a form which is transient...do you see what I mean ?

K: Yes, I understand.

DB : And you could say that thought is perhaps a similar 'form' of matter as we know it -the mechanical side of matter – but Physics disregards the energy itself and pays most attention to matter and tries to ignore the rest of the energy ; but that's what thought does, it only pays attention (to the material aspects of life ?)

K: From this arises the question : how is a man to empty his mind ? How is a human being who sees the world of reality and knows its limitation- how can that man perceive this immense thing ? They have tried in the religious field – as little as I know about it- they have tried every method to get to this...

DB ; Yes, one can see the problem with 'methods' – that every method is part of the conscious content of thought...

K: ...of thought, quite.

DB : ...therefore in using a method you're not 'doing it' !

K: But that has become - not only the fashion- but that seems to have been right from the beginning : ''Do something to get That''...

DB : Yes, that again is thought not seeing and trying to transcend its limits. In other words 'That' is something in which thought cannot be...

K: Then, how can one communicate or awaken this extraordinary energy of 'emptiness' which is truth and all the rest ? If you as a professor & scientist who has gone into the question of space, time , matter, energy and if you perceived that truth, how would you communicate to me, both verbally & non-verbally  ? Through verbal communication I will never get it, because the description is not the described & all the rest... If it is my serious concern to understant that ( inward dimension of ?) 'emptiness' , how would you 'help' me to come to that extraordinary 'emptiness' ?
This has been one of the problems of a man who 'sees' it and wants to tell somebody about it...

DB : Yes, somehow I see the problem as...

K: In telling it, 'that' (living quality?) is destroyed.

DB : It is destroyed because thought takes it over …

K: And the 'priests' get into it, and then the whole thing is gone !

DB : The point is to communicate it to thought so that thought doesn't move outside its field.

K: But I only know thought !

DB : We know that, but it's not entirely so- if we consider this (holistically minded revolutionary ?) we said that there is still something in him more which …

K: But there are very few really profound 'revolutionaries' – most of the 'revolutionaries' are only concerned with changing the environment... And therefore they say : a Guru is necessary – you follow ?

DB : Yes, but I mean, it's of no use...

K: Of course not...He is supposed to help me to realise 'That' – which is impossible. So everything has been made so corrupt, so impossible...
So you who have access to that 'emptiness' and you want to show it to me, what do you do with me ? (... long silence...)

DB : You see, I think maybe we're going a little too fast, in the sense that there is a great deal of things we haven't yet gone into, that may be getting in the way...

K: I have jumped to That, sorry...

DB : You see, the point is that there is a tremendous (subliminal?) movement of thought involved in self-deception and thought does not handle the whole of what it produces...you see, it produces a lot of (mental) movement and it tries to stop only a little bit of it...

K: (laughing) Quite !

DB : It is incapable of getting to its own root and stopping it all...

K: And that's why they said : 'Control it!'

DB ; Yes, but that has no (holistic) meaning because...

K: That's right...

DB : Then there is the question of 'time' : in other words, we see that chronological time has been invented by thought and that it is useful and correct and gives us insight into matter, and then it has been extended to 'psychological' time...

K: That's right, ( the concept ) that 'psychologically' we evolve .

DB : 'Evolve' to become better...Now, in the beginning thought did not invent time – it did not know that time is limited – it only started to extend it chronologically and just using it 'psychologically' as well because it didn't know any reason not to....

K: Sir, could I say something  which may be totally irrelevant : in that 'emptiness' there is no time...

DB : There's no time there, but you see, 'time' appears when a 'center' is produced ( by thought) with the memory of the past and the expectation of the future - and the attempt to make the future better & so on. Now, there is the belief – due to our whole tradition and background and experience, that 'time' is a solid & genuine reality. In other words, it appears to be so in the world of matter and it appears to be so 'psychologically'...

K: Yes, for the small plant to become for tree …

DB : Yes...and it seems that 'psychologically' we must also exist in time. Now, the point in trying to communicate this is that there is no 'fact' of psychological time – it is entirely 'imagination'...

K: ... imagination is the work of thought.

DB ; The work of thought : the person 'imagines' this whole stretch of time and this 'imagination' produces a real result in the brain, which it takes as a proof that the thing is there...So this 'thing' has no real ground beyond thought, it is an imprint in memory. Now, the thing is that this 'time' is not actually observed – it is only imagined and we imagine that we observe time ...you see, that's what I was trying to say by an imaginary 'observer' imagining that he observes time ...so if it didn't imagine that it observes time, then we would see it for what it really is - only thought. You see, in the imagination that we are observing- that's where some of the confusion arises...

K: Yes, quite right...

DB  You see, if thought is going on , if you realise it's thought then you evaluate it and see if it is at its place or not and then there's no problem ; but if you think that it's perception, then you take it as truth...The same thing happens in 'experience' - when you experience the 'reality' of psychological time, because the sensations which are supposed to be connected with 'time' are imagined to be real and independent of thought, you see ? So apparently you're experiencing the 'reality of time' and have knowledge of the correctness of 'time' , and so on...Now, you see, none of this is a 'fact' …

K; None of this is a 'fact', that's right. There is no 'tomorrow'...

DB : ....'psychologically'. There is no 'next moment'...

K: No 'next moment', that's right...

DB : ... and there is no past 'psychologically' – it is all memory – what is 'present' now is memory and an expectation in thought...

K: Yes... and all reactions from that is only mechanical.

DB ; And memory is also mechanical, because it's in the brain ...the only difficulty is that memory is given an importance of something transcendent- it's your own existence- so the reaction from this is enormous, if you see what I mean...

K: You see, all that is in the 'world of reality' and there is no relationship between this and 'truth'. To abandon all this can only take place throught suffering – is that it ?

DB : Well, that can be only a way – I can't see this as the only possibility - in staying with suffering...

K: That's what I mean.

DB : But this whole process creates suffering...

K: Yes, this whole process creates suffering.

DB : And must do so. Now if you 'escape' (facing) this suffering, you are not actually perceiving the process . So you see, you have have to stay with suffering because suffering does...

K: You have to stay with its 'reality'.

DB : You have to stay with its reality, and this reality is very unpleasant when you stay with it...

K: You have to stay with reality ; you are staying with the limitation of thought and not move from that...

DB ; But suppose you find that you are nevertheless moving ? Then what ?

K: Then still it is thought moving. The perception of all that is 'truth'.

DB : Yes...

K: But people can't perceive that... Therefore, the word is not the thing...and so, there is no understanding...

DB : Well , I think there is a certain understanding, but the trouble this - many people are listening to this and understand up to a certain point, but the difficulty is that the whole of thought produces a 'movement' which is beyond what thought can be conscious of and therefore this 'understanding' is applied to a partial consequence of thought. In other words there is a typical experience that most people have when they are listening to you: they say : 'all this is very clear, but... it doesn't quite work', you see ?

K: Quite...

DB : I think there are quite a few people who want it – up to a point...

K: Up to a point...

DB : Then the question is : if you find that you are going only up to a point...

K: ...it isn't good enough ?

DB :...it is not good enough, but the reason is probably that one is escaping (facing one's loneliness & ) suffering ; you see, if they go a little further they might come to this 'suffering' …

K; Thought is so extraordinarily subtle ...it 'thinks' it is still, it 'thinks' that it knows its limitation, but it is always 'putting out a tentacle', waiting, waiting, waiting...

DB : Yeah, it's always ready to transcend itself...I wonder if you could not look at 'desire' - that there is a (subliminal form of ?) desire in thought to do all this ?

K: Yes, of course ! Desire being sensation and thought.

DB : Yes, sensation and thought, along with an 'instruction' to carry out what it wants to achieve. You see, if you get a pleasant sensation, then thought says ''That's a very pleasant sensation'' and sets an 'instruction' to get hold of it and if it's unpleasant, then get rid of it....
But of course, desire has this sense of longing and craving or yearning- something which is very powerful and overrides any other understanding...

K: The other day at the talk, a man came up to me and said : 'If I have no desire, I can 't have sex !'

DB : Yeah...

K: You follow what he's related ? Desire, sensation, thought and...sex.

DB : Yes...  sensation, thought and achieving the satisfaction of the desire...
K: Of course....But is it posible – I'm putting a most 'absurd' question- not to have any (psychologically motivated?) desire at all ?

DB : That's what we're coming to : what is desire and why do we have to have it ? You see, I was trying to find out what is the 'real' object of desire – because it is often very hard to know because it changes...

K: It is desire, sensation, thought – it is still in that 'field of reality' .

DB : Yeah, and it seems to me that what desire is trying is to achieve basically better a state of consciousness. And that is inherently meaningless...

K; Yes, in the field of reality.

DB ; ...in the field of reality, because it is trying to do something where thought has no place. Thought 'thinks' that it can improve into a better state of consciousness by some activity  - that goes back to the ancient times when thought didn't know its limits - so one of the things thought thinks it can do, is to make an improved state of consciousness...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Possibly because it has the feeling that ( self-) consciousness is the essence of our existence. You see, we are taking 'reality' as the essence of our existence, or as the essence of our consciousness ; and then thought is trying naturally to 'improve' it - you see ?

K: Quite, naturally...

DB : ...and now it experiences a 'desire' – I mean, an intense sensation, a wish or a longing to carry out that 'improvement', which it can never do...

K: Consciousness is in the field of reality.

DB : Yes, that's what we are trying to say, but tradition says that it's not, you see...

K; Right...And 'Truth' is not 'consciousness'.

DB ; No, truth is not consciousness ; the (time-bound) consciousness is not the essence of our 'being', right ? But if anything, 'truth' is.

K: Yes... Would you say that the 'self' is the essence of (one's temporal) consciousness ?

DB ; Well, that's a question. Certainly our consciousness as it is now...

K: I'm taking it 'as it is now', not as something 'glorious' or anything... As 'it is now'.

DB : Well, the very word 'self' – I've looked it up and one of its meanings is 'quintessence', you see ?

K: Quintessence... ?

DB : Like the 'essence of all essences'...

K: Right, the 'self' is the 'essence' of consciousness .

DB : Yeah...

K: And 'truth' is the essence of 'non – (temporal ?) consciousness'.

DB : Or the essence of 'that which is' … ?

K: Yes...

DB : But then, why would you say 'non-consciousness' ?

K: The 'self' is the essence of consciousness, as we know it ...

DB : Yes, 'as we know it ', but one of the other times, we have also discussed another kind of (spiritual essence of ?) 'consciousness' that might not be conditioned, right ?

K: Yes, but can that 'consciousness' ever be conscious of itself ?

DB : The other kind ?

K: Yes.

DB : Oh, I see...

K: if it is, it cannot come to Truth.

DB : Why is that ? Because in being 'conscious of itself' , it must be dividing itself, right ?

K: Right, you got it !

DB : Yes...now we said there is another kind of consciousness which is without thinking and it is unconditioned ? In some of you writings you imply there is another kind of thought or 'something like thought'...

K: Like thought...but it is not thought...Keep to this for the moment ; the 'self' is the essence of (the temporal) consciousness – and this 'consciousness' is in the field of reality...

DB : Yes, it's an activity of the brain...

K; And is an activity of the brain which has been conditioned...

DB : Yes...

K: With memory and all the rest of it...And we said : that ( self-centred) 'consciousness' can never come upon Truth.

DB : No 'real' structure can give Truth, you see ?

K: Of course. So, this is in 'nothingness' ...

DB :  ( The state of inner) no-thingness is Truth... ?

K: Nothingness 'is' Truth. Not-a-thing !

DB : Yeah...

K: And in that ( empty inner?) space (of Truth?) there is a tremendous energy, there is peace and is not identified with any consciousness...

DB ; Not even with a 'higher' consciousness... ? You see, we discussed this kind of 'unconditioned' consciousness and I wonder if we can make this thing clear ; first of all we could say that we have thought which is a conditioned activity of the brain and which is only a very small part of the operation of the brain...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : Then we have the whole operation of the brain, which includes attention and awareness and we can say this 'other (dimension of) consciousness' is there ?

K: Would you call that 'consciousness' ?

DB ; Well, you did it at one stage... ?

K: I know, that's why I want to make it clear...

DB : Well, I don't quite get it, but I can see this much : thought, which is only a small operation of the brain, and when it gets out of its sphere it tends to be 'everything'...

K: Sir, did you not say the other day at lunch that in (the empty) Space there is tremendous energy ?

DB ; Yeah....

K: That (intelligent?) energy is not 'conscious' of itself.

DB : Let's say 'it does not know itself'...

K: That's it...

DB : But that energy 'perceives'... ?

K: It is not the perception of the 'self' .

DB : Yes ; let's get that clear, because as we said, this energy may perceive and that perception is action , and this perception can take its own action into account – you see, it is not confused by that, (essentially) it doesn't do that by seeing itself acting.

K: It is not self-conscious !

DB : It is not self-conscious but it is conscious of action – including its own action, right ?

K: Yes. I don't want to use the word 'consciousness' here...

DB : The term ' self-consciousness' involves the notion that this consciousness has a (spiritual) 'essence' – and that may be a false notion. In other words, when this consciousness discovers that it is rather 'changeable' , the whole of thought reacts seeing these changes by saying 'there must be some essence beneath it' ; you see, that's a very basic form of thought ; so when we see how changeable this consciousness is, we say : there must be a (purely spiritual) 'essence' which produces this consciousness and which is permanent. But then, that may be entirely false, you see ? In other words this 'essence' will be called the (higher?) 'Self'.
Now what you have said is that ( the temporal) consciousness is only its content , and therefore it is not some movement taking place in the essence, and therefore it is only memory acting – there is no other 'essence' behind it acting, which makes it rather trivial thing ...

K: What is the nature of this ( timeless?) energy behind 'nothingness' or 'emptiness' ? Has it any 'self-consciousness' – as we know it ?

DB : Well, let's try to put it : ( our

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 01 Apr 2020 #276
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

(continuing the above dialogue )

DB : Well, let's try to put it : ( our temporal) consciousness - as we know it - may begin by becoming conscious of a certain content – like a book or this microphone, and later it begins to think about itself and (eventually it) begins to think about its 'essence' ; now, if this consciousness did not attempt to 'think' of its own 'essence', then would it be another kind of consciousness... ?

K: Yes, put it that way, but I don't like to use the word 'consciousness' because it implies 'self-consciousness'...

DB : Yes, it generally does, but if there is no 'content'...

K: ...if there is no 'content' there is no 'consciousness' - as we know it-.

DB : But why do you put in the phrase 'as we know it' ? You see, that's puzzling because it implies that there is another kind of consciousness...

K: When the content is not, there is no (self-) consciousness...

DB : Yes...I mean, that is very clear  - when we 'think' about something beyond consciousness is it is still consciousness...You see, when we think about the 'content' of this microphone, that content can bring us in contact with the 'actuality' of the microphone, but when we think about the essence of consciousness there is no 'actuality' behind it – there is only 'content'...

K: Yes...and when you 'empty' that content...

DB : So, now it's becoming clear : you 'empty' that content...because when you put it the first time it sounded crazy, because one may say 'I must have a 'content' to get on with life' – you see ? Now, besides the 'practical' content -like the 'scientifical' or technical content, we say : there is a content of the 'self' , an 'essence' which includes the 'psychological time' – since we think that the essence exists in 'psychological' time...

K: Yes...

DB : Now we say (the temporal) consciousness may have a content, but no essence.

K: ( laughing) Quite !

DB : There is nothing but appearence, you see ? It is nothing but 'moving memories'...I mean, with instructions to act & so on...

K: There is 'nothingness'.

DB : Yes... ?

K: In that 'nothingness', everything is contained.

DB : Yes...Now we should go into that a little – in what sense is it's contained ?

K: Is 'reality' contained in that ?

DB : That's the question...Let's try to put it : you say truth acts in matter, right ?

K: Yes...

DB : So (the world of) matter is 'contained' in it ?

K: That's right. Keep to that !

DB : And thought is nothing but a form...

K: ...of matter.

DB : It's an empty form of matter – a very, very unsubstantial form of matter which may be useful in certain domains...

K: You see, in this (inner nothingness) there is no division.

DB : Yes, this becomes very clear and it possibly it will tie up with with some scientifical ideas. We say in truth and emptiness is energy and this contains all matter – but of course, this energy may go beyond matter, as we know it...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, in matter is the brain, and in the brain is a form, a very 'unsubstantial' form called 'thought'...

K: Thought, quite...

DB : ...which is also matter. All that is the truth...

K: Yes...In 'nothingness' everything 'is' .

DB : Yes.

K: But that is a difficult (to grasp) statement...

DB : I think we can understand that and we can say thought operates as something 'real' in the brain...

K: You see, thought thinks it is 'independent'...

DB : Yes, the self-deception, or the illusion, is that thought thinks it exists independently of matter ; and that thought again does not know its relationship with matter – that was one of its weak points, so it begins to think it is independent and eventually it could think it is the essence of everything.
Perhaps the young child when it first begins to think, he may think that he creates everything by thinking, because all the forms of everything appear in consciusness through thought...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And later he learns that he doesn't create everything, but he doesn't learn it properly...He sort of denies that idea in some part, but he does not deny the whole of it...

K: You see, I've been told by the Indian 'pundits' – Indian scholars- that they have said this...

DB : Said what ?

K: In (this state of inner) 'nothingness' everything 'is' (contained)  ; which put in vulgar terms : In God, everything 'is'. You see, in itself that statement is wrong...

DB : Let's try to see exactly what is wrong with it : I think that the trouble with that statement is that thought is trying to transcend its limits which is a form of ( expanded self-) consciousness– in other words we form a 'picture' – this is also a problem in which philosophy gets into – which is to give an explanation for everything...

K: Of course...

DB : Which is still only thought, and once you take that as an explanation, then the whole thing is wrong, because then you're saying : the essence is this which I'm thinking about...

K: Quite, quite...

( What time is it?)

DB : Twenty past five...

K: Oh, oh oh...

DB : Perhaps we should finish it at this stage and next time I'll try to make a summary of what we were doing...

K: Not a 'summary', but we'll perceive & go on...

DB : Perhaps just going over the basic ideas and then go on, right ?

K: Yes...You see, when one says '' In nothingness everything is'', that's a wrong statement.

DB : Yes, and how would you put it then ?

K: I don't put it ! ( both laugh) You see , the man listening to that statement ''In nothingness everything is'' says ''In me is God, so I am God'' and he's lost ( the living spirit of?) it.

DB : Yes, because he is thinking...

K: I think in the Judaic religion it is said ' Just don't name It !'

DB : Yes, but that doesn't help either...( both laugh...)

K: Of course not, (thought's) imagination went rampant...

DB : I think there is a point here to see the limits of philosophy ; you see, every thought is limited and even that thought is limited – and therefore if we take that description or as an indication of something...

K: Of course...That's why it is very important to see that thought can not transcend itself. That is the basic thing.

DB : You see, thought has this tremendous impetus to 'transcend' itself...

K: Of course, that's the root of it !

DB : ...and thought is trying to reach for...

K: ...reach for Heaven. Quite....We'll go on the next time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 03 Apr 2020 #277
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

12-th ( reader-friendly edited) K-DB Dialogue on Truth and Reality

K: You said you would sum up the whole thing... ?

DB : Well, I'd say the essential point about what we were discussing is that thought tends to move out of its own area, which is in some way limited, but you can't express its limits precisely. But roughly, thought should not try to get into the area which is called 'spiritual', or 'truth', or 'beauty', or 'love', or the attempt to control the equilibrium of the brain, of the nervous system...

K: Yes...

DB : And it would be difficult of course to define it more exactly beyond that...And we said by one stage that perhaps the trouble began when man began to have increased this capacity to think, but thought did not know that it was limited in this way and therefore it tried to think beyond its 'proper' limits- for example, to try to control the brain in order to make it always 'happy' or you know, to...

K: Do you think they didn't know, or they wanted to find something more than thought ?

DB : Well, it was both, but thought did not know that it could not find something more than thought...But also it thought that it could control the state of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : In other words the brain could get disturbed at times, in various ways...

K: But they have also have said - haven't they, sir ? - that 'meditation' is a form of ( bringing inner peace & ) silence...

DB : Hmm...

K: ...which comes when thought is completely under control.

DB : Yes, that came later, but what I had in mind was that the thinking that man evolving and at some stage the brain must have become much larger ; say it was the monkey & the chimpanzee, and at some stage, maybe a hundred thousands years ago, man appeared and he had a 'new (a larger) brain', but it didn't know how to use it and he still does not know how to use it...

K: Quite, quite...I understand...

DB : And that's probably where the trouble began. And what we are discussing now is probably how the brain should operate...

K: Yes, quite...

DB : Now, this question of 'meditation' seems to come much later, when man tried to deal (holistically?) with all this...And he came up with the idea of trying to control the brain, or to control the mind, but thought didn't know what we thought it was an important point, was a material process.

K: Quite...

DB : Only recently we came to know that fairly reliably... Some people may have suspected that a long time ago, but there was no firm knowledge. And therefore thought could think there was a 'spiritual' thing which contained truth...for example if we're going into the question of 'good' and 'evil', thought could think that it would try be good and avoid evil, and there is the story – now, everybody knew that the (human) brain or mind was in disorder , but they 'explained it' by saying that Adam 'disobeyed' God and had eaten the 'fruit of knowledge' - the knowledge of 'good' and 'evil' in particular, and therefore he was driven out of 'Paradise' and therefore you could say that was the 'sin' - as it was some spiritual sin of chosing 'evil' instead of 'good' - and that explanation would tent to misled people because then he ( the local guru or priest?) would say : 'your problem is that you chose 'evil' instead of 'good'...and you can't do it of course ...

K: You see, sir, as far as I understand- I'm not a Hindu scholar or anything of that kind - but they said thought can control matter...

DB : And that would put it as a 'spiritual principle' beyond matter...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : Now, we were discussing the other day that thought is...

K: ...matter...

DB : not only matter, but a (stationary wave?) 'form' on the matter of the brain, you see ?

K: Yes, yes...

DB :... and matter itself is a (stationary wave) 'form' in the 'emptiness' - which has infinite energy. Therefore we could say thought is an extremely 'tenuous ' thing because matter itself is (existing) on the 'emptiness' and thought is a very tenuous form within matter and therefore it would be hopeless to think that thought could completely control matter, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : It might control it in some ways – and now we know scientifically that we can control matter in certain ways – like in producing atomic energy – but thought can not control the matter of the brain - that was the point I wanted to get across. In other words, thought may be able to control airplanes and space ships and atomic power plants, but it cannot control the brain's (living) matter it may think it can, and first of all it will not be able to control it directly by trying to use its 'will-power' . You see, thought may think that by will power it can control the brain...but it can't.

K: I wonder if some of the traditional 'orthodox' hindus would accept that ?

DB : I don't know, you see, but I would want to finish this point, then we can discuss it. The other point is that on the scientific side some scientists are studying the structure of the brain and they might imagine that by their scientific study we can bring the brain to order. But I think that is also hopeless, because you could say that fundamentally the trouble is that brain seeks self-deception instead of correct thought...Now if you say  that some electrical pattern in the brain represents a thought pattern that you could measure, then how could you find within that pattern the difference between 'truth' and 'falseness' ? There would be no hope scientifically in making that distinction. Therefore, all the avenues by which thought might hope to control the brain matter are impossible...

K: Quite, quite, I understand...

DB : I just wanted to finish that point, but now, of course, the Christians and the Hebrews probably didn't even imagine that thought was a material (process) as they had a problem with the 'original sin', that is, why man chose the wrong thing...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : But now, if you come to the Hindus, there is another view – I don't know it exactly...

K: I'm afraid I couldn't say that I know a lot about the Hindus, except that before Buddha – I was told that and I may be totally mistaken – there was a system of ('neti-neti'?) philosophy which denied everything, even thought...

DB : Yes... ?

K: And so, there was 'nothingness'...

DB : In that sense, you would agree with them, wouldn't you ?

K; Yes, yes...a little bit...

DB : Up to some extent...But of course there must be some difference between what you say and what they said... ?

K: I'm afraid I don't know fully what they said, but I was told that Buddha followed that system of going beyond all thought and 'nothingness' – it's called 'sankhya philosophy' or something similar...So, what we are saying, sir, is this : that the brain in itself produces 'incorrect thought' …

DB : Yes, the brain produces incorrect thought and perhaps the trouble is that thought began by not knowing its own behaviour, its own nature...And if thought could 'see' its own nature, and give a proper account of its own nature, perhaps it could think correctly .

K: Yes, yes...

DB : That's the proposal, you see ? But since it has not began by seeing its own nature, it began to 'go off' the correct action and became more & more confused and tangled up...

K: Yes. So the brain itself cannot 'see' the correct action...

DB : Well, let's say that it has not yet been able to see it.

K: Yes, or see what is the 'illusion', or that it can deceive itself …

DB : Yes...the brain engages in ( a subliminal process of) self-deception, in order to try trying to make itself feel better – that's basically what happens, you see ? The brain somehow moves and creates a disturbance in the way it is operating and wants to 'feel better', but it does not (really) know how and finally it ends up in self-deception...

K: Quite.

DB : ...and that of course creates more disturbance and it gets worse .

K: And can this (self-) deception come to an end ?

DB : That's really the question, you see...I don't know if any of us can say how the ancient Hindus arrived at this – perhaps there were some people among the ancient Hindus who actually understood this, but the whole thing is so poorly documented that we can never say. And even with regard to Christ, one can't never tell exactly what he said and so on...

K: I know...

DB : But we also said that at present time we have at least one point in our favour- that there is a very clear knowledge that thought is a material process – we said this sometime in the past...

K: Yes...

DB : Which is something very firm which would remove the speculation that thought might be all sorts of things...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : Now, that's one point...

K: You see, according to what Buddha had taught this is the 'right thinking' …

DB : Yeah...but that's somewhat ambiguous, because it could mean just a prescription for the 'right way' to think – now everybody says : We want 'right thinking' people - what they mean is they want 'people who think like us'...

K:(laughing)...like ourselves ! Quite...

DB : But Buddha probably didn't mean exactly that, is that it ?

K: I shouldn't think so – it was much too alive, much too...So this is the question we are asking : can the brain free itself from all self-delusion ?

DB : Yes...and also from ( its ages old) self-centredness, selfishness...It's all that involved...

K: All that...

DB : You see, I am still sumarising in a way by presenting the situation...So in going on from there, we said that thought , trying to bring the brain in order - and also trying to reach the Highest Principle - it began to hold the brain in order by organising a 'center' just as it organises the centre of the 'family' or of the tribe in order, so thought is trying to bring the brain in order, you see , perhaps that came even before the order of a family...Perhaps even an animal has that to some extent. Now, one of the points that occured to me in considering that was that maybe there is a 'functional center' which comes in operation in order to do something and then it retires...

K: It can be 'dormant'...

DB...dormant... You see, a 'functional center' which operates only from time to time, as needed...

K: And what happens when it is dormant ?

DB : I don't know what happens, but let's first consider what went wrong when thought tried to organise a 'center' to control itself, first of all, it forms the 'image' of an 'center' inside – which might be felt in the solar plexus or in the head or somewhere and also the sense of some broad expanse outside. That is, one gets the impression that there is some sort of a 'periphery' and a 'center' – and the two are in some way related - what happens in one, happens in the other...

K: Quite...

DB : Now, is it our (whole) 'being' which has both an outside and an inside ?... There is the 'mental' being and we have our 'physical being' – there is a mental being and a physical being - the body and the visual perception which sees the body. And we know that what happens in the 'visual' perception happens in the body- they are actually the same, though we describe them as different...And there was a kind of extension of that, to form a 'mental body' and a 'mental' eye but that got tied up with this temporary center. In other words, this little 'game' now producing the image of the 'center' , was tied up with the actual 'functional center'...

K: In our relationship ( with reality) we create a 'center' …

DB : An artificial, an 'imaginary' center...

K: A 'center' which is imaginary – made of 'images' – which is necessary to 'live happily together' .

DB : Which we 'think' it's necessary...But in addition there is another center – a functional center which works and retires. And this 'imaginary' center would call up the 'functional' center in order to do what the 'image' says it should be done...And therefore the 'image' center obtains an apparent ...

K: ...'reality' ?

DB : An 'effectiveness' as if it were a real being, by taking control of the 'functional center', because if it were just a (mental) image, we would soon discover that it was really quite weak or empty...

K: Sir, would you say – as all life is relationship - that thought creates the 'image' for convenience...

DB ; In the beginning for convenience of function...

K:... and that creates the 'center'...

DB : That calls up the center of activity.

K: ...of activity, yes...

DB : Yes...so there is the 'image' of the center which calls up the 'center of activity' which then becomes ( an identitary ) 'centre'

K: So there is the 'image' in relationship and the (self-) 'image' which calls upon other series of images to function.

DB : It may even call for the actual brain center to function - in other words, there are in the brain some 'mechanical' centers and it may call on one of those, you see ?

K: Yes...

DB : Now, let's say that this image-making may be useful functionally or technically ; say, if you have to go from one place to another – then I form an 'image' of myself being here and the image of the place being there, then that 'image' helps to direct my function and my activity of going there but then this gets extended to the 'image' which tries to control the whole state of mind, or which tries to control the human relationships …

K: Yes, I understand... But sir, if there was no self-deception, would there be any need for a ( self-) image at all  - except in the pattern (of temporal) action ?

DB : Yes, but there is an image even in the pattern of the functional action insofar as it's 'conscious' – if you can think about...

K: Why should there be a 'image' (making ) in ( one's daily ) action ?

DB : Let's say first why it seems it should : say it's a very simple action – like that of a man who wants to make a tool or who wants to take a journey : so he 'imagines' the tool he wants to make, or he 'imagines' the journey that he wants to make and then he makes his preparations and carries it out ; now, let's say that to make this journey he might make a series of preparations and so on...

K: I know it, unfortunately...

DB : (laughs) ...now he may form in his mind the 'image' of that journey as a series of 'pictures' of what it's like...

K: No, no...

DB : Maybe he is wrong, but this is what he probably does ; I'm not saying it's right , I'm just exploring...

K: Quite, quite...exploring...

DB : Now therefore he begins to function that way by thinking of the 'image' of what he's going to do and carrying out according to that 'image'...

K: Would you call it 'image' or the 'necessity' of doing something, of preparing...I'm leaving the day after tomorrow (and) I have to pack and get all the things together & so on... There is 'image' forming at all. These things have to be done...

DB : Yes, but when the time comes to decide what has to be done...– to go back to the primitive man – he has to take a long journey through strange places and he thinks of where he's going and what he may need and so on...Now some images may appear there - I expect such & such a countryside, I need such & such clothing & so on...

K: Why do you call it 'image making' ?

DB : Well, merely because even a photograph is an 'image' – you refer to a photograph of the place you are going to , and that will help your preparation, right ?

K: Just wait a minute...I would like to see – I'm going to California...

DB : Well, you know it already and other people know it...But suppose you've never been to California...

K: Then some other people will tell me : you need to take this & this...

DB : But suppose nobody knows exactly – if you are an explorer for example, you'll try to prepare for the exploration...

K: Yes, yes.

DB : And you don't know exactly what to expect but people might imagine what is the nature of the country and what you may encounter so that you can prepare accordingly. Or also you may have a (Google interactive image ?) of that country, which will give you some idea of what to expect, right ?

K: I see that the word 'image'...

DB...the word 'image' has a general meaning based on the same limitation ; then I said there are different kind of 'images' – there are photographic images as in television and so on...

K: I see...

DB : Now, some of them may have a 'factual' content and some images do not, you see ?

K: Yes, the 'images' that have a 'factual' content we can leave those aside .

DB : That's right ; however we are using 'technical images' quite frequently – which have a factual content and the mind begins to 'extend' these images - the 'image making' faculty – into other areas where there is no factual content …

K: Yes, quite...so we come back to the question – if we can leave aside the 'factual' images with their content & so on – that's very simple & clear...

DB : Yes... but the image of the 'self' also seems to have a 'factual' content ; but you're saying that it has not... ?

K: It has none !

DB : Yes, but if you ask most people, they'll say it has, you see ?

K; Of course...

DB : So, we'll have to understand how this confusion and self-deception came about...

K: Aha …

DB : You see, it was one of the basic things where mankind got caught - to form these 'images' which have no factual content but which seem very important and once that was formed...

K: Why does that 'self' become important ?

DB : Yes, that's our question ; I think the beginning was to form the 'center' which tried to take control of the whole process – and an 'image' was basic in forming this center …

K: Or, would you say the 'center' was formed because everything being in flux, everything being in movement ?

DB : Now let's go slowly here ; you see, this movement ( in the field of reality) implies uncertainty – the question is why is thought unwilling to stay with uncertainty ? Why doesn't it accept the 'fact' of uncertainty ? See, it's already a distortion, a ( source of self-) deception.

K: There begins the deception.

DB : Yes... But why does it get caught in the deception ? You see, there may be thought which is functional, which is correct and so on …

K: That's simple...

DB ; Now, if the thought is functioning correctly, then if there is the fact that there is uncertainty, then it would just say : life is uncertain – it doesn't try to pretend or make an image that there is 'certainty'.

K: One can't live ( forever?) in uncertainty !

DB : But let's go slowly, you see, because you say : first of all, my knowledge is uncertain...

K: Yes, that's right...

DB : And I say : exactly, I can't live in uncertainty ; but now, there's some confusion there, you see ? Because you are also saying : ''You have to live in uncertainty'' in some way...

K: Of course !

DB : But why did thought come to this 'false' conclusion ? You see, if it was functioning correctly it would have said 'life is uncertain'...

K: Wouldn't you say that in that there is a great (un-conscious element of) fear ?

DB : I understand that, but where would this fear arise ? See, if thought is functioning correctly it would not produce fear ?

K: But ( inwardly-wise?) it is not functioning 'correctly' !

DB : Then this was aleady off because it was already functioning in a different area, you see ? In other words, thought began not knowing its limits, so it was already trying to do things which it has no place to do ; it was trying to provide security...

K: See, it entered in an incorrect direction when desire, sensation & thought became prominent...

DB ; Yes, that's just the point I was coming..

K: Sorry !

DB ; But that's good. The point is that thought is moving into a 'wrong' area in trying to provide a (general feeling of) 'security' which it cannot provide. The question is : what is the motive power behind this incorrect action ? And I think there arose this question of desire. Let's try to put it that thought moving in a correct area may set a goal and you will try to achieve it ; but thought can project another goal – to achieve a better state of mind, to 'feel better'...

K:...to feel better, right.

DB : ...if I feel bad it would be natural that I should feel better, and what can I do to feel better ? And of course, if you're ill, you go to a doctor & so on, but if you feel bad 'psychologically', (loaded ) with sorrow & so on, it's not so clear...So, when thought said ''I want to feel better'', it anticipated some kind of feeling & tried to achieve it - that being a (thought sustained ) 'desire', right ?

K: That's right, a desire...

DB : Now, it seems to me that desire is the basic source of self-deception...

K: Yes, of course, obviously...

DB : And it is very clear, because thought cannot do anything to the brain matter in order to feel better, but of course, it can do something to disturb it... Now, when it tries to make the brain 'feel better', all it can do is to influence thought - to look for ( upbeat) thoughts that can make it feel better …

K: Quite...

DB : So, thoughts which are incorrect are accepted as 'correct' and you begin to go into distortion and self-deception just because it makes the brain to (momentarily) feel better...

K: Right...That is, if 'desire' is sensation & thought, then that very desire is a distorting factor.

DB : Yes, because that sensation coupled with thought is giving to the brain for a better sensation, and it distorts thought in trying to make it better -inevitably, you see ? And then, of course, nothing can satisfy fully that desire - because of its contradictory nature - so it changes from one to another 'route' and eventually several different desires are already there... I have observed one thing : that when another desire comes in, does not know how to stop the first desire...

K: But sir, isn't all desire the same, but the 'objects' of desire change ?

DB : Yes, there is a superficial change of object, but the basic process is one and the same, it is confused, contradictory & self-deceptive... Now, desire includes 'belief' and 'hope' – belief means accepting something as correct because you desire it to be so ; for otherwise you have no proof, you see ? And 'hope' is just simply the belief that what you desire is going to be realised...So all three are one and the same : I think that 'belief' is even more deceptive than plain desire...

K: So, can ( the activity of thought-sustained?) desire be totally understood and therefore there's no more distortions taking place ?

DB : That is the point we have to get to, because desire is so self-deceptive that it deceive itself about its own existence – you may desire to believe that there is no problem & so on...

K: Yes...but haven't all religions – I don't know about Christianity, but certainly the Hindus- said 'control your desires', because that is the very root of self-deception

DB : Yes, I understand that all religions have implied or said ' Control desire' because they have understood very correctly that desire is (potentially) destructive - but desire cannot be 'controlled' because when you try to control desire there will merely be one ( controlled) desire against another...

K: And because it cannot be 'controlled' they said : identify yourself with something greater …

DB : Yes, but that's still ( another mind- trick of) desire...

K: Of course !

DB : And that may become a form of self-deception : I believe that I am something greater because I feel better …

K: Right. Then the problem arises : Can desire - which cannot be controlled – because the 'controller' is part of desire …

DB : Yes, that's a key point and perhaps it should be brought up - that as you try to control the desire, the point is that desire in itself is not an 'object' but a 'movement', sending a set of instructions' to the brain in order to get something and the one who sends the instructions is himself controlled by the instructions...

K: Quite, quite...

DB : And therefore there's no separation between the 'controller' and the 'controlled'. It's not the same as some external object which can be separated from the brain, but desire is the very movement...

K: And, as desire breeds illusion, can the ( holistically friendly?) brain relegate desire to the 'functional' activity ?

DB : Well, it's not clear that it can, as desire itself is deceptive, it is not clear if we can keep desire at its place

K: I think it can. Let's go into it.

DB : You see, I thought that one point could be added : desire may often be confused with 'passion', although they are obviously quite different ; one of the ways by which desire maintains itself is to create self-deception by saying it is 'passion'...

K: You've heard last night on television that the Conservative Party was 'passionate' …(both laugh)

DB : Now let's look into the 'functional' area – would you say there is a place for desire there ?

K: I doubt it...

DB : But you seemed to imply it was so before...

K: I know, but I just brought it out because I question it altogether...I think that if one can understand the whole movement of 'desire' an see whether it can be 'dissipated' , then in the 'functional center' there is no desire...

DB : You see, that would make more sense to say that the 'functional centre' would operate without desire and does what it has to do...

K: Yes, I had to go to California the other day, now it's finished...

DB : Because I think that if desire enters anywere it's going to produce self-deception that would spread everywhere...

K: So the question is whether desire can be totally dissolved so that there is no possible deception at any level -at the 'functional' center and at the 'psychological' and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes...

K: Otherwise, one lives in a 'fool's paradise' - because your belief in Heaven or Hell is totally unreal...

DB : Yes, I mean the point is : we can't go on with desire, and if we do, our society will be destroyed...

K: Quite, as the world is....So can desire have no place in action ?

DB : Or no place anywhere...

K: No place...We admit that, but how can this desire be dissolved ? What is the 'action', what is the process, what is the 'insight' or the intelligence that will dissolve this desire ? Can the brain 'see' the nature of desire or the 'truth of (about) desire' and therefore...

DB : What you really mean is the actual 'fact of desire' ?

K: Yes...I have watched it several times – I like fast cars : their shape & the whole bussiness of it...There is the sensation, thought, and the desire arising. Can there be only sensation, thought and no ( thought enforced?) desire ?

DB : That's the question...You see, it's 'rational' to say that we sense something and we think from that and see what to do, but desire arises when that thought includes the 'thought of the self' – it is something that the 'self' needs or is missing...

K: Like the sense of power, sensation & all the rest of it...

DB : But when that sense of power extends to be the essence of your consciousness, then it creates some sort of overwhelming power -which we call 'longing' or 'yearning' or 'craving' & 'hankering' & so on, in other words...

K: The root of all that is desire !

DB : That is the one thing, given different names, but I think the root of this is a certain mistake of thought which is in the wrong area – which is trying to think of the essence of your consciousness – or it is trying to think that it can do something in that area...

K: Yes, yes ...but we said the other day that the (psychologically active) 'content' of consciousness is ( generating one's self-centred ? ) consciousness...

DB : Yes , but then one mistake is that thought tends to think that it is not ; in other words, thought tends to think that 'one's consciousness' is the manifestation of a (spiritual) 'being' or of an 'entity' who is deeper...and who is not only thinking correctly - more or less - but who is also 'seeing' – its thinking is often described as 'perception' – and who is also 'experiencing' . I think that's important – because that gives the sense of reality – that this 'being' is the 'experiencer' who is experiencing the sensations...

K: Quite...

DB : And all that makes this thing look very real - a 'reality' independent of thought...You see, if all that would not be present, the sensations would not be regarded by thought as all that important...You see, thought is trying to produce a different set of sensations in order to make you feel better…

K: Better sensations... more & more sensations...

DB : That's right, 'more & better' , that's what is worse !

K: (laughing) Yes...

DB : Now, that's an inherently crazy activity, you see, because the only point of sensations is to give you 'factual' informations ; if thought tries to make them 'better' , then the senses could no longer give you the true information, you see ? And the whole thing anyway is self- contradictory because that very attempt cannot be kept under control and so on...

K: So, I'll come back to the point : the ( psychologically-active ) 'content' of one's consciousness is the product of desire - apart from the 'functional' knowledge , the rest of it, is the movement and the accumulation of sensations and desire.

DB : It is like some sort of imprints which contain the records of all that and the instructions to produce them again and their memory becomes stronger and stronger...

K: Can that ( thought sustained) movement of desire come to an end ? Should it come to an end ?

DB : Well, it seems from what we said that it should...

K: But all the religions of the world they say this...yet they become monks in order to identify with...

DB : You see, that's the self-deceptive nature of desire : one thing that the brain begins to say when it sees the destructive nature is : I'd rather not have desire....and it begins to desire a state of 'non-desire' ...

K: Yes, that's it - to desire a state of 'non-desire'...

DB : ...therefore the whole thing is becoming silly because desire has such a self-deceptive nature that I can desire 'not to be conscious that I have desire' ; and it's becoming part of the ( active) content of my consciousness- that I have no desire...

K: So, our question is ; can desire which brings illusion, self-deception and all the complications of objective complications the objective changing desires  ; can the root of desire be dissipated ? I think it is happening only then that you see what is 'truth' …

DB : I mean, that is very clear to me, that as long as there is ( the thought enforced movement of) desire, nothing can be done...

K: ...nothing can be done, that's right....You see, sir, this is very difficult, because most people think that desire is necessary to live - that's part of our tradition... As this boy said to me after the talk : ''I like sex, but without desire, how can I have sex ?''...So, our conditioning is so strong that desire is part of our 'necessity to live'...

DB : Yeah, otherwise you might just become a 'vegetable'...

K: ...a 'vegetable' ; Now, let's see : is it possible to eliminate all (psychologically-motivated activity of?) desire ?

DB : You see, just simply to finish the other point- that if we distinguish 'desire' and 'passion' – because without ( the self-centred movement of) desire there is place for real passion, so there is no 'being a vegetable', but rather this has far more energy - because desire wastes a tremendous energy because of its contradictions ; it is always moving in many directions and it's wasting energy...

K: That's right. I was talking once to a monk and he said ''I have totally rid myself of all wordly desires'' ...

DB : Hmm, but what other thing he got left ?

K: ...and therefore I've taken to calling mysef by a different name, put on a robe, I have only one meal a day so the worldly desire is completely out of my system ; but I do desire to reach God or whatever it is. He said, ''You cannot take that away from me because it's my life ! That is the very root of my essence''.

DB : Yes, that's what I was saying before, that thought is going into the wrong sphere and tries to guarantee its essence in some way, by 'thinking' ...You see, desire is the attempt of thought to make its essence right...

K: When I desire, I 'am'. You follow ?

DB : I think that's clear, rather than what Descartes was saying 'I think therefore I am', it's 'I desire, therefore I am'... desire is ( the action of?) thought, of course, but I don't think Decartes had that kind of thought in mind...( both laugh)

K: You see, when you deny ( the psychologically motivated activity of ?) desire, 'I' am not !

Db : Yes...I was thinking of a remark you made once in some talk, that '' Desire is the bedrock of the ego''...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, it seems very solid, something which is not that easy to break up...

K: Yes...Now how is this desire, which is the bedrock on which all our civilisation, all our 'individual' aspirations & all our culture are based, how can that be 'dissolved' ; without 'control' – because then the 'controller is the controlled'- without any 'effort' - because 'effort' implies desire, without any 'goal' – which also implies desire, without any 'ideal'... ? The very question that the 'self' is based on the bedrock of desire and therefore self-deception, suffering  & the whole thing that follows, would you say that if there is no ( thought sustained movement of) desire, there is 'nothing' ?

DB : Yes...

K: ...and therefore that (state of inward ) 'no-thingness' is a frightening thing ?

DB : Well, I would try to put it slightly diffently : desire is already implicitly ( generating) fear...

K: Yes, of course !

DB : ...because desire is the sense that ''I need something for ( sustaining) my essence'' and if it's not there then it would be very frightening ...

K: That's right !

DB : The very essence of desire is fear, it is sorrow, and it is violence – because if I don't get what I want, I become violent, you see ?

K; Yes, sir....How am I to 'dynamite' ( laughing), 'explode' this tremendous bedrock which society, tradition, everything sustains it, boosts it, makes this 'bedrock' more solid ?
When one sees that desire implies conflict, desire implies duality, desire is in itself 'fragmentation' … ?

DB : Yes... ?

K: When one 'sees' that factually, is there desire ?

DB : Well, what you say is correct, but the difficulty is in 'seeing' this because it is such a fast & violent process. I think that desire has been built up by tradition to such an extent that it pervades every movement of consciousness...

K: I know... the desire to reach ... the desire to be good...

DB : ... the desire for the 'highest' , the desire for this & for that...The desire for security is probably a major one...

K: Would you say that knowing that there is no security, the desire is for something else... ?

DB : Well, the desire for security works entirely in a field of fancy imagination...

K: Yes...

DB : ...and that gives the apparent perception of the thing desired, or of the thing which we have to reach... Without imagination I don't think there would be desire...

K: The other day on TV, the host was saying ''This is my blood and flesh, eat of it !'' That's pure imagination !

DB : Yeah, it's fancy...

K: ...fancy and yet millions (still?) accept it !

DB : Yes, because that's 'belief' - whatever suits your fancy, or makes you feel good , you 'believe' it ; and every different persons, has a different 'belief'...

K: So, realising all this, examining and exploring all this, can we narrow it down and ask whether it is at all possible to live without ( the time-binding activity of) desire ?

DB : Well, I'll say it's absolutely necessary...

K: It is, but now we come to the point where we both see it is essential that we exist without desire , and it's in the very structure of my brain cells that desires to live, that desires to be happy, that desires to get rid of fear & all the rest of it- how can that brain, which is (openly or subliminally?) conditioned by desire, to uncondition itself?
Do we ever ( have the leisure to?) ask this question ? And if we ask it, will it not ( give birth to) another form of desire to get rid of it ?

DB : Well, there is the danger of falling into that trap...

K: Of course ! But do we have to go through all this ( time-binding) process ?

DB : Well, I mean, all of those things will not get us anywhere...

K: What prevents one from having an insight, a real insight, that is 'seeing the truth' of ( the thought-sustained movement of?) desire and therefore 'end' it ? Is it that we have never asked this question ? Or we dared to ask this question - if it is possible to live totally without (free of?) desire ? I think it is a marvelous question that needs ( being considered with?) a tremendous intelligence – because one's actual 'needs' and ( the psychologically-motivated activities of?) 'desire' can they be kept separate ?

DB : Well, if it's a genuine need...

K: I'm talking of genuine need …

DB : Desire is a 'fancy' need in itself …

K: But there comes the 'pride' of posessions, vanity...

DB : That again it is an 'imagination'...

K: Of course ! So, can 'need' and 'desire' be kept separate ?

DB : I think they can...

K: They can, but that requires that (enlightened quality of ?) intelligence that 'sees' that desire has no place... Would you say the essence of ( holistic) intelligence is to be without desire ?

DB : Yes, we could say this is the essential requirement for intelligence...I wouldn't say it is the essence of the whole, but the essential requirement for intelligence is non-desire...

K: So a man caught up in ( the time-binding movement of) desire - however subtle, however noble - is unintelligent !

DB : Yes, not basically 'intelligent'...

K: Of course ! Now, can one's needs be absolutely correct ? Never desire touching them ?

DB : That would mean no ( selfish?) thought for yourself ?

K: Of course...So consciousness becomes something totally different.

DB : Well, let's go into that a little bit : when there is no thought of the 'self' or desire...The thought of the 'self' is desire, or at least a sustaining force...

K: Yes ; and therefore, what is the nature of a ( holistic) consciousness that is not put together by desire ?

DB : But there is still an action of knowledge...

K: But that's 'function' – we'll keep that – it's understood we've locked it up...

DB : Now you're asking for an action beyond that?

K: Yes, of course...

DB : Could you say it's the whole function of the brain ?

K: Sir, what is the (true?) 'function' of the brain if there is no desire ? What happens to the brain if it has no desire ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Does it receive a shock with this question ? Is it something startling ?

DB : Well, not exactly 'startling' ; but surprising certainly …

K: Surprising, therefore it is facing something totally new....

DB : Yeah...

K: 'New' in the sense that if has not put this question ever -although others may have put it to ourselves....

DB : Like Buddha... ?

K: So, what happens to the 'movement' of the brain when there is no desire at all ? Unless we understand its (holistic) function and leave it totally, this question may be terribly disturbing to the brain...

DB : You mean, the brain can't handle it ?

K: Yes, it is too immense !

DB : Well, the brain tends to leave it go, if it can't really deal with it...

K: You see, you were saying the other day at lunch – if I may repeat it again – that in (this free inner) space ( of no-thingness) there is a tremendous ( potentially creative & intelligent ? ) energy...

DB : Yes...

K: Now we said desire wastes this energy...

DB : Yes, that's correct...

K: Now, when the brain has no (psychologically -motivated activity of ) desire...

DB : Then it will have ( access to) all that ( creative) energy ?

K: That's right !

DB : Yes, I've observed that if you keep on watching desire carefully, you'll find that the energy goes up...

K: That's what I'm trying to get at  !

DB : … so, there is a major waste of energy in desire.

K: But you see, this is the 'danger' – the energy is going up - therefore control desire and make it an 'industry'...

DB : Yes, to 'keep it up'...

K: Keep it up and gain twenty millions of dollars of it...I don't know if you saw it the other day in the Herald Tribune : Transcendental Meditation is a twenty million dollars industry...You follow ? This is what would happen...

DB : Hmm ...what does the 'industry' produce ...

K (laughing ) ... more cars ! It's very interesting this...

DB : Now, I think that it's useful to observe that this does actually happen, but definitely not to pursue it...

K: Now, wait a minute, sir : if I function 'rightly' – that means having a life that is really orderly- righteous, virtuous, unselfish and all that, then only I can put this question legitimately... Otherwise I'll use the arising of that energy for mischievous (self-centred?) purposes and the politicians ( of the future?) will play havoc with it ...Therefore I think it's essential that you must have that really religious, virtuous life – otherwise you can't come to the 'other' . Would you say that ?

DB : Yes...

K: Then we can ask : what happens to the brain that has no (personal attachments to) desire whatsoever. Which means no self-deception, no striving, no 'achievement', no 'going or coming'...nothing ! Totally 'no desire'. Therefore, if it has no desire, there's no ( selfishness ?) 'content'...

DB : ...except the functional content.

K: Therefore it's empty and as you said the other day, it has access to a tremendous ( source of highly intelligent) energy. Then, what's the point of my having no desire ?

DB : That I'm free of self-deception... ?

K: Alright, I'm free of self-deception and then, what ?

DB : Well, I think that's not the end of the matter...

K: That's just it !

DB : Freedom from self-deception is the essence of a (holistic) revolution in consciousness...

K: Revolution in consciousness...Would a (holistically minded person) accept such a psychological 'revolution' which brings tremendous energy to operate here ? So, at the end of it, what is the point of all this ? Say, one has come to this point – no 'desire' whatsoever...

DB : And a tremendous energy... ?

K: Not just a 'tremendous' energy'- it's something incredibly 'wild'- without limitations, without frontiers...it is 'infinite' – if I can use that word without being limited by that word, hmm ? If you have access to 'that' then... what's the point of it ?

DB : All right...it has no place in the present order of things...I mean, except possibly to help to transform it...

K: Suppose you and I come to this – not as Dr Bohm and K – but two people have come to it. Then, what is their relationship to the 'world of reality', the world of function, the world of relationship and so on... ?

DB : That is really the world of self-deception created by desire...

K: To come to this point we have to 'live right' and ... who will 'listen' ?

DB : Well, I think there are different kinds of people - some are dis-inclined to listen and some are not, you know ? I can see that most people won't want to do that - they may say they haven't the time, but they haven't answered the question of 'what you do against self-deception ?'

K: They may say, this is a self-deception and that is also a self deception, but the human consciousness will gradually improve...

DB : Yes, but if somebody once admits it is self-deception I think they cannot go on with this... At least this is the way I see it that if we can make so clear this point - that ( desire) is a movement of self- deception and the person can get out of it...

K I was talking once to a Catholic in a train in India and he said  to me: 'Oh, you are a Hindu...' I said ''I am sorry I am not a Hindu''...He said ' All they have got is a set of beliefs -in Krishna, in Rama, etc - a whole set of superstitious nonsense & all that ' I said : ''What about yourself, sir, your belief in Christ ?'' And he said ''Ah, that is 'real' ! ''…. You follow ?
That's what I want to get at : If two people have got this mind that has no sense of (thought-induced) desire – what a marvelous thing that is, hmm ?

DB : You see, I think we discussed something relevant to this before- when you compared the young man Krishnamurti to some sort of 'nucleus' which would help to transform the consciousness of mankind...

K: …the consciousness of mankind, quite right !

DB : Any person who is (free of?) desire is such a 'nucleus' ... Isn't that right ?

K: That's what I want to get at : it does affect the totality of human consciousness here...

DB : Yes, because let's say, if there is one and he does affect it, then two will have more effect. But as the human consciousness is 'all-one' – it is flowing like a stream, and every person has some mixture of this consciousness...I think we once used the notion if 'ideosyncrasy' - Which I looked up and it means 'private mixture'...

K: 'Private mixture'...(laughing) yes, that's good !

DB : And everybody has his own 'private mixture' of the general consciousness of mankind – he draws everything out of this general consciousness. So, there is no such thing as an 'ego', which is 'individual', you see ? Every 'individual' (consciousness) is a 'private mixture' of the ingredients of the general consciousness of mankind .

K: Quite...

DB : Now, that means that the total consciousness of mankind is continuously flowing in a stream, into and out of each individual and if there is ( an actual possibility that the ) 'truth' that flows into the other person...

K: ... affects the total consciousness of man ?

DB : Yes...first only potentially and later on, actually, you see ?

K: Yes...It affects man.

DB : It affects (the whole consciousness of) mankind, right  ?

K: Yes... Sir, when you 'hear' (with mind's inner ear) a statement of that kind : 'brain without desire' , doesn't the brain undergo a revolution, a transformation  - like that very word 'compassion' is a word that has got a tremendous vitality... When you hear words like that, doesn't that ( listening to their truth-content ? ) affect your whole organism & so on ?

DB : Why is it such a 'mystery' ?

K: It is a 'mystery' because it is so changing, it's never the same and therefore it is an extraordinary 'mystery'...

DB : When you raised this question of the 'mind without (free of) desire', I think that it begins to open up the whole thing...You see, at first it may seem like an insignificant change, but actually it is very significant...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Apr 2020 #278
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

What Is Time?

( An 'experintially-friendly' edited) K Dialogue with Pupul Jayakar & Asit Chandmal (cca 1983)

K: Can we be (inwardly) simple and go as deeply into the nature of 'psychological' time as possible? We know a whole series of continuous movements in time both the (physically measurable) time (involved in covering the distance between here and there) and the 'psychological' time of becoming - the (thought created?) interval between the ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ . Now, is the physical time related internally to the psychological time?”

P: Knowing the 'physical' ( measurement of) time by the clock, one applies (the same mentality of) 'time' in the inner (world ) by introducing time in its attempt of shaping of the structure of the within, (superimposing it on) the real movement of physical time.

K: When the (chronological order of the outer ) movement is ( thoughtlessly?) extended to (one's ) 'psychological' states, the (very realistic) illusion of 'time' enters. The idea of growth ( quite valid ) in the (outer world) extends to the inner. The movement of 'becoming' builds itself up from illusion to illusion. The ( self-centred ) mind ruminates : ‘What will happen then ?' Anxieties & fears are part of its structure. I am questioning this illusory mentality that ultimately conditions the brain. The brain gets accustomed to the ( apparent safety of this ) movement of (self-) becoming. The human brain has evolved in time, and so it looks at everything in terms of time : ‘ I was, I am and I will be.’ Now I ask, is that so? Is there a 'tomorrow' in the psyche?

P: We know there is a physical tomorrow, therefore thought's projection of a 'psychological tomorrow' seems inevitable...

K: That is ( creating the illusion of thought's temporal ?) continuity.

P: I exist (now) ; therefore there will be a 'tomorrow'...But why do strong feelings of fear get entangled in the projection of the tomorrow?

K: ( Inwardly speaking?) there is no time...Even the physical time we know as 'movement'. There is no way of measuring physical time without (measuring the planetary?) movement. If there were no thought movement in the ( inner world of the ) 'psyche', the 'wheel of time' ends.
( In a nutshell:) Movement 'is' time. ( Inwardly speaking, the time-creating ) movement is ( the self-sustaining creation of ) thought. And...thought is a material process. That is simple.( QED?) Can you accept this ( highly synthetic explanation ?) even logically?

P: What does it mean to accept such a statement 'logically'?

K: To realise that any psychological(-ly motivated mental ) 'movement' is ( sustaining the ( time-binding) process of 'becoming'. Now, is there an (dimension of human consciousness ?) where no time exists? (For instance :) if you sit (& meditate ?) quietly in a dark room, without (any ) movement of thought, is there (any sense of the passing ) time? This is also true in the ( world ) within. When there is no thought (- projected movement?) in time – the outer & the inner are the same movement.

P: There may be a momentary 'ending' of all physical movement in the brain, but (the background) action of ( thought-)time as duration, as continuity, is an activity that operates in every cell of my body. It also acts in the brain. Therefore the action of (thought projecting its own continuity in) time seems inevitable.

K: The human brain is a physical 'thing' which slowly grows old and deteriorates. The ( holistically correct?) question is whether the brain needs to deteriorate?

Q: If it is just a material process, as material as the fact that my hair grows gray—it must deteriorate. How is it possible that one part of the physical) organism can remain unaffected?

K: To me, the brain need never grow old...

P: How do you distinguish between the brain and other organs? How can the brain alone have the capacity for renewal?

K: Are we clear what is meant by 'time'? It is the same 'movement' in the outer as in the inner, they are not separate. And this ( time-binding) 'movement' has continued for countless millennia. The ( experiential) question ( for further homework meditation ?) is : can that movement stop? That (time-binding) movement is ( bringing its own ) decay, is the central factor of deterioration, both organically and in the (inner world of the?) 'psyche'.

P: The human brain constantly receives (all kinds of) physical stimuli, so it will always respond as ( a survival-oriented response?) to the environmental challenges...

K: There is (obviously this life sustaining process of) action and reaction—otherwise the brain is ( declared clinically) dead. But ( consciousness-wise?) that action in itself has little significance.

P: The brain cannot be wholly still. Does aging arise because of movement or friction?

K: ( The self-centred) movement, as we know it, (is the deteriorating factor due to internal ) friction. Any ( psychologically motivated) movement in the brain physically wears out the brain. It is the ( self-centred) psychological process that affects the body and the brain. It is not the other way around.

AC : Can't there be a movement without friction?

K: If there is no ( self-centred) 'psychological' movement, then (brain's activity) is as in absolute space, there is no friction... When this 'psychological' movement is not operating, 'time' as ( a thought-projected process of) becoming is not. (Otherwise?) one can sit meditating very quietly in a dark room for twenty years and the brain will go on aging— for ( the thought-time process of) becoming, continues to operate. But when (the totality of the thinking brain?) is quiet, without movement, then the 'psyche' has no (sense of) time.
If there is no ( self-projected ) movement of thought, there is no 'becoming'. Becoming creates ( the 'observer-observed' perceptive ?) duality. Therefore there is conflict, deterioration & time.

( In a nutshell:) ( Thought's subliminally projected 'psychological ) time' is the barrier, is limitation. If the (internal) friction (involved in thought's projection of) psychological time, stops, is there a factor of deterioration?

AC : Then, when the brain is quiet, does the body function naturally?

K: Yes, the (physical) body has its own intelligence. So, can the ( holistically minded?) brain ever be without movement except for its own natural movement? Can this psychological movement stop? That in turn implies, can there be no 'accumulation' of any kind?”

P: How is one aware of (thought's self-centred continuity in ) time?

K: One can be aware of it when there is a ( vital ?) challenge.

P: But in most (life challenging) situations the brain reaches out, looks backwards or forwards, and asks questions.

K: That is ( part of its time binding?) movement.

P: But when the brain is not seriously challenged, it plays mind games with itself. It throws up memories...

K:The brain 'is' (constantly processing & updating its 'psychological' ?) memory : remorse, guilt (along with projecting further rewarding experiences ?) are a constant movement in the brain, as memory. The brain 'is' (constantly living in the field of) memory, a movement from the past through the present to the future.

AC : That is (providing a deep sense of temporal ) continuity.

K: The brain (also) survives through memory...

P: What is actually the 'movement' that must stop? And in the ending of this movement, does a new ( anti-entropic) movement come into being, which makes it feel totally secure? Is there a movement outside time?

K: As the heart functions naturally, so the brain has its own (natural body & mind coordinating ) movement on which it has superimposed memory. For instance, the heart beats (spontaneously) without 'remembrance'. The brain can function without ( the mental) movement, if allowed to do so by thought. The heart doesn’t pump because of its previous knowledge.

Q: To draw (such 'holistic'?) similarities between the heart and brain is not correct. The physical brain has evolved out of memory, out of man’s capacity and experiences and it can only survive in time through hoping & seeking ( new ways to optimise its) survival.
Now, is the brain we know built exclusively out of memory? There is also a part of the brain one is not aware of. When the wholeness of the brain operates, it has no limits.

K: The human brain has always sought ( to optimise its physical & psychological ?) security through knowledge... But ( its indiscriminate gathering of ) knowledge has made ( the 'consciousness?) ground' of the brain very limited. Eventually this ( highly knowledgeable) brain realizes its foundations in ( the field of memory & ) knowledge are very weak.

AC : Can it see that there may be a different 'ground' altogether?

K: As it functions now, the human brain can never let go of the past. All its movement (in the field of knowledge) is 'time' (binding) . So I ask, does one remain in the old house?

AC : When ( mentally) I don’t 'move' there is no ground on which the 'old house' can arise. To move away from the unstable ground creates the new ground... ?

K: Any 'movement' ( within the field of the known?) means duality.

AC : If there is no movement, there is no time. But... what I say is ( seen only) at the intellectual level...

K: If ( inwardly) there is no (mental) 'measurement' and the brain is silent, the 'Mind' operates and that is the Intelligence of the Universe.

P : Is this 'intelligence' a faculty of the brain?

K: Intelligence is that which 'sees' (thought's) movement of ( self-centred) continuity as an (entropic) process of aging. The ( 'Compassionate ) Intelligence' that sees this, is outside the (physical) brain.

AC : But if the brain cannot reach it, who or what is it that sees the limitation of the brain? To see this, the brain must have contact with that...

K: The brain in its (natural) functioning has its own intelligence. But the ( knowledge-?) limited brain has no relationship to the 'other'.

AC : Then what is it that can stop the ( time-binding) movement of the brain?

K: ( The holistic ?) perception of its own inadequacy. Would you accept that such global 'insight' is the operation of the whole brain?

P: So, the operation of 'insight' is not connected with the narrow operation of the brain?

K : An insight into the operation of ( thought's) limitation frees the brain from limitation. ( However, such a total ?) 'insight' can only arise when there is no ( 'psychologically motivated' interference of ?) memory, and so no 'time'. Then the whole brain is operating free of the past. ( In a holistic nutshell:) Insight is Mind operating on the brain.

P: But if the brain is limited ( by its own knowledge) , how can the Mind operate on the brain?

K: ( As a case in point?) K has watched carefully, without ( any personal ?) 'motive'. In that ( transpersonal?) watching there is tremendous (intelligent energy of) attention. It is like ( a spiritual 'flash-)light' which is focusing. At its depth this attention, is (joining ?) the ( Universal) Mind. This ( holistic ally perceptive ) 'attention' focuses ( an intelligent ) 'light' on the limitations of the brain. ( This spiritual light of ) Love is (coming from?) outside the brain.

(Parting words:) This Love is not a sensation, Insight is not a sensation, nor is it a reaction.... We have come to an ending (of time ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Apr 2020 #279
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

A mature approach to holistic education

A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue in India (cca 1980)

K: How is Narayan actually going to help his (holistically minded educators & ) students to awaken Intelligence and also communicate what it is to ( meditate?) at great depth?

N: I am going to meet them every day in smaller groups, both teachers and students...

K: Merely talking to them or having discussions is not going to bring this about. How will you help them (become inwardly?) sensitive, alert? There has to be a different element in it all. ( For starters?) there has to be a 'good' (holistically minded human ?) brain, not only capable of sustained argument and with a ( quality of) great affection, love, but there must be in him something totally 'unworldly'. How did (the young ) K happen to get it?

P: You have often asked this ( rather puzzling ? ) question, but I have never understood the relevance of it. It is not known (even to) K how he came upon it, how could we know whether it can happen to some of us?

K: Is K a 'biological freak' (a psychological mutant?) ?

P: I can’t answer that (although... ?) it may well be so, but I find that you are pushing (the holistically minded educators?) much deeper. Is it that you have reached a new 'milestone' in your teachings? You used (in older times) to say, ‘If you (realise that metaphorically speaking you ) were 'traveling North ', can you change direction and 'travel East '?’ but now you ask, ‘Can the mind of Narayan, or the mind of Sunanda, be basically in the same state as Krishnaji’s mind?’

K: Can we give to the young boy or girl a basic sense of freedom and the feeling that they have a special role in life ? I am trying to find out what is the catalyst, or the 'thing' that changes the quality of the ) whole brain. Can there be a quality of 'otherness'? Can there be ( a spiritual opening to) the 'other' dimension so that the brain is quick & the senses alert, so that there is never a ( static) point at which the brain 'rests' (settles down?) , but is moving, moving, moving? If I would like this ( holistically minded  ?) student to have ( access to ) such a ( timeless) movement, I would discuss with him, walk with him, sit silently with him in order to kindle this thing in him. But will he 'move'? Or his material brain is so 'slow' that it cannot follow quickly, run quickly? Is it possible for Narayan, who is a 'student (teacher?) at Rishi Valley, to be an extraordinary being so that he isnot only aware of the trees, has the feeling of the earth, but also have a brain that is extraordinarily (inwardly perceptive & ) quick? Can he 'listen' (non-verbally?) to something that is true? Can there be an (inward) breakthrough so that there is a sense of vitality, energy, drive? And is it in my hands at all? Or is it that the Door (of direct Perception?) needs to be opened by both of us? I have a feeling that there is 'something' waiting to enter and is only waiting for you to open the Door, and ( hopefully...?) it will come. So I'll say, Narayan, do all these things ( for homework ?) : sit quietly, see how you behave, how you look at a tree, at a woman, go through all that. But that is not (quite) enough. There is a 'sense of benediction' in waiting, and we are not moving towards it. What you are doing is 'necessary', but it is not good enough...

R(ajesh) : “What is the state of the mind which realizes that what it does is not enough?

K: It is obvious, sir, that millions have meditated – the Catholic (& Buddhist) monks, the sannyasis, etc - but they have not brought about that 'benediction'. So, there is another quality which is ( humbly?) demanding (That) something, and that ( highly intimate) demand is not to be found in his (in K's ?) talking, discussing, seeing. So... the benediction does not enter.

N(arayan) : When you say the Door has to be opened, can you say what it is?

A(chyut) : Perhaps there is something from our side (of the Door) which is blocking us. There is an inexpressible boundless quality in you, and I feel that we are not 'putting out' our hands...

K: You do 'put out your hands', but it is not taking place. It may be that we are ( collectively  ) 'condemned '(karmically speaking ?) and so ( as of now?) it is only for the very, very few. Even with the Buddha there were only two after fifty years (of public speaking?) —Sariputta and Mogallanna—that may be the lot of man...

A: Is there any quality of 'renunciation' necessary?

K: I don’t think it has anything to do with 'renunciation'. Man has starved; sat alone in the mountains; he has done everything to have that 'something'; but apparently it does not happen that way. So perhaps he should go quickly through this ( time-binding inward ?) watching and end it (ASAP?) . And I ask, what is the most important thing? Is it ( gathering & integrating one's inner) energy? Or there has to be the negating of 'everything' ( that man tried in his desire for reaching 'that otherness' ) - has all that to be dropped? I am the 'saint' or 'monk' who says, I will fast, I will deny all sex, I have finished with all that, my mind is the human mind which has experimented with all that and yet has not come upon this benediction. Therefore I won’t touch all that. It is out.
Do you understand what I am saying?

R: I am just listening...

K: That is not good enough. I don’t have to sit quietly the rest of my life. The Trappist monks have already done that, why should I do it? Because they have done it, my brain is part of that doing, I don’t have to go through it all. Is it possible to negate it with the same urgency as the man who studies ( holy books) , takes vows? Is it with the same urgency you see this and negate it? And after negating it, does urgency rest?

P: It may be, sir, that when we negate (the efforts of traditional truth seekers?) , we are also also negating the 'urgency'. What remains at the end of an (authentic ) negation?

K: From the beginning of time mankind has tried everything to get this 'blessedness', the Unnameable. But now I see I can’t do anything about it...

P: But you have also through the years spoken of self-knowledge, of the flowering of ‘what is. You have said watch, examine, investigate. Now you seem to be getting to a point of negating all that ?

K: Doesn't this 'negation' indicate a tremendous (spiritual ) maturity? Is it real maturity to say that all the things man has done (in the spiritual field?) have not brought about benediction and so I am not going to go through it all? Isn't this sense of great maturity that is missing? The man who says, ‘I have tried all this and negated,’ he is 'moving'. But if you do not move or move in a narrow circle and spend your time comparing what K says with what the Buddha says, at the end of that, what is left?
( In a nutshell:) We have to deny ( the spiritual ) knowledge (of the past)...Narayan, my student (- educator?) at Rishi Valley, can I show you this act of total denial?

P: Does that mean I deny you?

K: Yes, you have to deny me...You cannot deny 'truth', but you have to deny everything else that man has sought, in order to get this. Is this lack of a total denial the reason why the Door is not open?

A: In my younger days, when you broke away from the TS order and you said truth is pathless, I really felt very confused. I am getting the same feeling now because I feel that no path will lead to it...

K: We started by asking whether the teachers of Rishi Valley, Rajghat, could (holistically?) communicate with students and help them to be 'awake'. Narayan said he would discuss with them, talk with them, would sit silently (meditating) with them, watch birds, be sensitive. But I see it does not bring that 'perfume' (of the living Truth?) . See what the monks and other ( religiously minded) human beings have done to get this extraordinary intelligence, and they have not got it. So why should we go through it? So if I deny all the things that man has tried to do in order to get it, my brain, is free from (the desire to further ) 'experiment' (along this line?).

P: So you are saying the ( meditating) mind has to be in a state of no direction in which to turn, no enquiry which thought has pursued ?

K: See what the brain is (doing ) in that state ? It is no longer (caught in the desire ) of experimentation or self-investigation. It is not a 'blind' denial. This (holistic) denial has a tremendous logic behind it : ( freed from the desire to 'experiment' Truth) the brain is now totally mature. Are you in that state? This is ( K's ) challenge and ( eventually?) you'll have to answer it. Is it this total denial that is necessary to help the ( holistically minded?) student to 'see and jump out' of it (of the Stream of Time?) ? Then the brain is absolutely steadfast, because it is not looking in any 'direction'. It has turned its back completely on all direction (of self-becoming) What do you say, Narayan?

N: The lack of strength of the body and the mind creeps in...

K: If you cannot so deny, I say to you, why can’t you deny?

N: Do you come back to self-knowledge, discussion, etc.?

K : That is a triviality. My concern is to see that the ( holistically minded?) student does not go through all this struggle, that the mind is ( becoming?) mature, alive. If one can do this with ten students , you are then bringing about a group of (minds) who are totally different.

N: No educator has succeeded in doing this, but I will certainly study the question...

K: Study, practice abstinence, celibacy, take vows; do all that, but it does not lead you anywhere. Why should I go through all that? I am part of the human consciousness who has done all that.

A: I feel, sir, that all these ( collateral) things have their own limited effects, but they will not lead me to That. You do look after your body with vigilance, there is a great balance. I understand that there is needed a total negation, but all that has a place. There is a great diligence....

K: That 'diligence' does not come through any of this. If my brain 'is' the brain of humanity, it means that it has already done all this and I don’t have to go again through it all... I think ( that by this act wholistic negation) we are opening the Door... slightly. Do you see what we are doing? We are beginning to move (in the right direction?) . This ( wholistic educational ?) 'chapter' has not been (fully?) studied so far. K has not gone through all these disciplines. Why should he?

N: Then... from where do you get your insightful perceptions?

K: By not doing any of this.

N: So, by 'not doing any of this', will I get it?

K: No... But if the ( natural intelligence of the ) brain itself says that it won’t remain (forever stuck in the field of ) knowledge, do you see what has happened to a (mature) human brain that says, ‘I am humanity, and what humanity has done, I have done’? It has moved out of its ( vicious) circle. Do it now ! Move out ( ASAP?) of that ( 'self'-protecting mental) circle which man has woven around himself.
Now, if you can do this with the ( young or adult ?) student, will you not create a (Wholistic?) 'School' that has never existed before?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 06 Apr 2020 #280
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

A ( reader-friendly edited ) K  discussion on the nature of Dialogue and its role in freeing the brain from time. (cca 1980)

K: We will talk about time and dialogue as between 'holistically minded' people. - in the sense of people who are (inwardly) free from the authority of tradition, from all systems. In such dialogue there is a questioning and an answering; the answering provokes a further question; and so the question is 'kept rolling'. In such dialogue there is a state of listening where the participating people 'disappear' and only the ( truth of the?) question remains.

P: Essentially, the meaning of dialogue seems to be a probing into something through a listening and challenging situation. For instance, one can see that all problems that arise in the brain are born of time. They arise because of the need to change ‘what is.’ The ( mental) movement of the brain which wishes to change ‘what is’ into 'something else' creates 'time'.

K: Physical time is (involved in sun's apparent movement between ) sunrise and sunset, or in the covering of the distance from one point (A) to another point (B) . Psychologically, ( the illusion of) 'time' is (created by the desire ) to become something. Time is involved in the whole process of evolution, both the 'psychological' and 'physical'.
My question is, is there a totally different (dimension of?) time? Time as non-movement? Time as we know it is ( involved in any physical or mental) movement - the movement of the past, through the present, to the future. ( Inwardly?) time is (involved in ) thought's movement of becoming or in thinking about something and acting. This interval is time.
I am asking, is there another (dimension of the 'Now' ?) time that does not belong to any of these categories ?

P: You're saying this ( diferent dimension of) 'time' which does not belong to the category of 'movement'. Does it belong to the category of 'matter '?

K: Not as I understand it. I have been told 'matter' is ( a form of) manifested energy.

P: The brain is (living) matter. In that matter, evolution must exist...

K: Of course. We were monkeys; after millions of years we are (supposed to be?) Homo sapiens.

P: And usually , we link ( our brain's physical ) evolution with a (qualitative) evolution in ( the field of thought & ) memory.

K: Has ( man's 'psychological) memory' evolved through a process of evolution?

P: The problem arises when we take this content of the brain which is memory and feel that there is an 'entity' that can change that content. The whole process of ( self-) becoming is based on that. That is creating the 'time of the within'.. .

K: But all evolution implies time...

P: We apply the concept of evolution, which is inherent in the brain substance, to its content. Is there evolution in the 'time within'?

K: No. The brain itself is a product of time as evolution. But is the content of the brain, which has been a gathering of experience through millennia, identical with the nature of the brain stuff itself?

P: It is simple to understand that (thought's desire of ) 'becoming' is an illusion. But you imply that besides the outer time of the watch and the inner time of becoming, there is another (dimension of ) time that does not belong to these two categories...

K: Time is ( involved in any form of ) manifested energy. The very manifestation is a process of time... Inwardly one can see that the 'future' is the ( uncomplete memory of the?) past modifying itself in the present. That is (the inner mechanism of ) time. I will do—I will become. Now, is there a (time free ?) action that is 'perception—action' without interval?

P: Can we examine that (timeless) instant when the( qualitative) modification takes place?

K: Suppose that I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow. 'Tomorrow' is ( thought's projection of 'what is' in the ) present and ( the memory of 'what was'?) yesterday. So the present moment , the ‘now,’ is (containing) both the past and the future.

P: Does ( this time-free ?) perception in the present negate both the past and the future?

K: This (totally insightful ?) perception requires an ending of the past. Perception is timeless. Right? But if you are full of prejudices, knowledge, conclusion, beliefs and with that you look at the present as it is is modified by the challenge, you might alter ( the course of) it, but you remain in the same field.

P: Yes, this is a state where there is no point of (insightful ) perception. But to understand the ( other dimension of) time which does not belong to this stream is obviously to understand the ( direct) perception of the ‘now’ . What is the ‘now’?”

K: I will tell you : the (timeless ) ‘now’ is ( containing) all time as past time, future time, and present time.

P: What is the experiencing of ( the 'Now' as containing ) all time?

K: 'You' cannot experience that as an 'experiencer', who is experiencing 'time'.

P: Therefore, when you say the ‘now’ is (containing) all time—what do you actually mean? Isn't necessary an actual contact with the ‘now’? Only a direct perception or revelation can bring it about in the present, so, how do I come to the ‘now’ of experience?

K: Your brain is conditioned to 'experience' anything ( in terms of its past ) knowledge. It is conditioned to measurement through words. But this (timeless perceptive moment ) cannot be approached that way. The 'religious' ( holistically friendly ?) mind has wiped out (all its past ) theories and is dealing with 'actualities'.

P: So, is it possible to probe into this ( 'Now'dimension of ) time you speak about ?

K: It is possible in the sense that you may use words, but words are not the thing.

S: You cannot divide 'past', 'present' and 'future' with words?

K: Yes. But the question (of the timeless Now) remains...

P: The question remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain... ?

K: Yes, the ( thought addicted?) 'questioners' cease to exist...

AC : What does the 'question' operate upon?

K: Let us enquire (holistically?) We know thought's process of (self-centred) becoming and non-becoming and usually we proceed along these lines all our life. Then someone comes along and asks, ‘what for?’ He has left me with that 'question'. Now ( if we have the leisure to?) ponder over it  we can see there is ( an interval of) time between seeing, thinking, and being. That interval is in the field of time. You also see that all time is contained in the present. Pupul then asks, ‘Can we explore into this 'present'? I say, ‘No, because as you try o experience it, the 'experiencer' is the (self-identified response of the?) past and the 'experience' itself is of time.
So, what is the state of the brain that has put away all (its past ) theories and conjectures? What is the ( holistically friendly) state of the brain that 'sees' 'perception and action' as one? It sees that there is no interval between them and so no time. Such (direct) Perception is free of time. So, what is the ( timeless) state which is the ‘now’? The ( time-free moment of ) Perception is the ‘now.’ This perception has no 'perceiver'. Perception is ‘now’—therefore it is timeless. Therefore the ( creative) action born of this perception is timeless.

P: Therefore, in that ( all time is 'Now'?) perception, thought's movement from the past to the future is totally annihilated? In other words the listening, the taking in of that perception wipes out past and present.

K: You see, it is happening now. ( The non-verbal) Listening is not of time. If one (actually) listens, it is ‘now.’ Listening has no time. Therefore there is no horizontal movement of (thought projecting itself in ) time.

P: Is it possible to probe into it ?

K: I say, yes. ( Providing that ) in this (non-verbal ) 'probing' the mind rids itself of all its ( personal?) hopes & desires. It is now in a state of ( perceptive) purity. In that state you can enquire. Suppose I tell you (a profound Truth) , ‘Love is not of time.’ How do you listen? What is your response? Can you listen to the (inward) truth of that without (the interference of) words?

AC : I try to listen, but do not understand it ...

P: If I may suggest : how do you listen? Isn’t that the crucial question? In a dialogue with Krishnaji you 'listen' without ( the knowledgeable interference of) thought operating, and yet ( sometimes you?) comprehend (the inward truth of) what he is saying. There is a listening at such depth, that it 'opens up' the question...

K: We have all been trained to be highly intellectual. A poor man who does not seem bright, he will ( perhaps?) understand such a simple statement. So, you tell me, ‘Love is not of time.’ (To K that is a tremendous fact.) I say I really don’t understand it, and you tell me you won’t understand it, the way you expect to understand it - through the intellectual process, through argument, through a verbal process of reaction. And you say, ‘That is the only instrument I have.’ But K says there is a totally different (perceptive ) instrument. You say, ‘Tell me more about that ( holistically perceptive ) instrument.’ I say, ‘Put aside your 'knowing' capacity, your knowledge that is time.’

AC : Are you saying, ‘Put aside your intellectual instrument,’?

K: Of course not...I said, ‘Put aside ( the mentality of?) knowledge.’
( To recap:) Is there a comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception, without the word, without bringing all your past knowledge into it? I say, 'yes'. Can there be a state where there is pure perception of something and ( for homework ?) can you ( meditatively) probe into ( the depths of) that perception?”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 09 Apr 2020 #281
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

An ( 'experientially-friendly' edited ) K seminar on 'Time' (cca 1984)

George Sudarshan  (GS): The question has been raised by our friend ( Mrs Pupul Jayakar ) on the functioning of different kinds of time. That is, is there another ('now' dimension of) time which comes into operation, which functions even when ( the process of thought's psychological) 'becoming' ceases to be? That (can happen only ) when the normal process of causation, of memory and expectation, anticipation—all the (karmic?) background accumulated over one’s lifetime or even before that—have been given up. Is this 'Now' still a dimension of time in which events unfold?

P: Krishnaji also spoke of the arising of the ( totally insightful) perception which simultaneously 'negates' (the false ). So, what is the nature of time in relationship to the (timeless ) ‘now’?

K: We have said that ( thought's 'self'-projecting in ?) 'time' is not only active in (the psychologically motivated) becoming, anticipation, hope, but also in the sense of accumulating knowledge and living with that knowledge. And we asked : Is there any other time-free movement? ( Experiential Hint :) The (time-binding activity?) of thought is a material process, so, 'time' & 'thought' are similar. We are now asking a ( transcendental ?) question: ‘Is there an (inner state of?) non-movement when one has stepped out of this 'psychological' time? Is there a movement which is totally different from the movement of time and thought?

GS : Do you speak of the brain ceasing to function, or the mind ceasing to function?

K: I would like to separate the ( physical ) brain and the mind. The brain is conditioned. The 'mind' (aka : the 'human consciousness'?) is outside the brain. ( The natural intelligence of the ?) 'mind' is something totally unrelated to the conditioned brain and therefore something which is not measurable by words or by thought. Whereas the brain activity and the wastage of the brain activity is (entropical & ) measurable ( in terms of $ &?) time. Now any ( mental or physical) function arising from ( brain's) accumulated knowledge is ( going on within the field of ) the 'known'—as my self-centered activity. Is it possible not to be self-centered? Can one be free of ( thought's unconscious identification with the?) self, entirely? The ( temporal) 'self', the ‘me,’ is the product of ( mankind's survival-oriented?) evolution in time and it is (implicit in the (time-binding) activity of the self-centered brain as my social position, my ( 'executive'?) power. It is the ‘me.’ And as long as there is that ( self-centred ?) ‘me’ (mental entity ?) which is accumulated knowledge, memory, experience, there is the limitation of time...

Jagannath Upadhyaya (JU) : One may speak of 'time' in whatever way one likes—time as thought, time as movement, etcetera. There is time as the coming into existence and time as ceasing to be, which is the process of becoming in which we live. But behind it, is there within the mind (a time-free consciousness?) in which there is no arising and ending? If (as you seem to imply) it is outside us, one cannot do anything about it. We can’t act upon it or investigate it... ?

K : No, we can’t – as long as this constant process of self-becoming is ( creating its own continuity in) 'time'.

JU : Not only 'becoming' but 'being'...

K: What do you mean by 'being'?

P: The sense of ‘I am,’ of one's existing.

K: The moment you acknowledge that 'you are existing' , you set the whole process of the (temporal?) self in operation.

P: No, with the 'ending' (of the self-identified process of thought?) , the (process of self-) 'becoming' ends. But that state is not a dead thing. It is a state of existing.

GS : When you talk about ( one's sense of) living or Being, to the extent that there is no separation of a 'knowing' entity, there is no separation between you and anything else,” said Sudarshan.

P: Why do you ( Buddhists) deny 'being'? Being in the sense that something ‘is.’ Do you say there is nothing?

JU : There is no difference between ( the self-conscious?) 'being' and 'becoming'. When becoming ends, being ends.

K: Yes.

JU : Where there is becoming and being ( in the background?) there is the 'self' with all its activities, etcetera, and when it ends, that also ends. But when there is the ending of all this - of thought, etc - isn't there something in which everything is sustained?

AP: Panditji says that what you call 'intelligence' is unrelated to intellect. Only when this intellect recognizes that it is fragmented and is limited that it ceases and intelligence is born. But I would like to go into becoming and being a little more. Being is a state of non-differentiation.

K: Why do you differentiate between being and becoming?

P: There is a state from which things arise and into which things disappear. In that state of ( transpersonal) attention, or awareness, what is there?

K: In attention there is no self (-consciousness?)

P: Then what is the nature of attention?

RB : Are you asking what is the nature of attention or whether there is a ground or stratum from which attention springs?

K: Attention has no background.

GS : There are two kinds of functioning in the physical universe. One is a functioning which is labeled by discrete events in which you have a chronology, you have a sequence of things, and then you can construct laws connecting the events. (Like when) you say the wind is caused by differences in temperature, and you find one event causing another event which is causing another event, and you are able to understand a number of things. Then there is another kind of functioning in which you don’t differentiate, for example, an object which is moving freely; you don’t ask why it is continually moving; you attribute it to the nature of things, you say that it is the nature of physical objects to move. A 'complete' system has no history, has no events in it. Events come when you are putting them within the matrix of something wider. So the chronological time of unfolding takes place when you have an incomplete system, incomplete in the sense that you can measure the actual performance of the system against theoretical ideals, then you talk about events taking place and chronology. But when the system is complete within itself, it is not featureless, but its functioning has no chronology, there are no 'events' within the system. Perhaps these two possible kinds of 'unfolding' may be useful as models for this discussion. There is one kind of time—physical time in which events take place, in which the law of cause and effect takes place – and another (dimension of) time in which you cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect, because there is no breaking up of events with regard to that.

K: When does that take place?

GS : When the system has no 'ideal' (behaviour) to compare itself with.

K: Which means what?

GS We refer to it as a 'complete' system...

K: In all ( self-enclosed?) systems – scientific or religious – isn't there an inherent decay, entropy?

GS : Yes.

K: So, as long as the brain is 'collective' (not holistically integrated ?) , it forms a ( self-enclosed) system.

GS : Quite right.

K: So, inherently in the 'collective' (self-centred mentality of the human brain ?) is a process of decay, degeneration takes place?

GS : Krishnaji, I am concerned about your attention to the brain. The brain is also part of the physical system and I do not have to pay much more attention to my brain than I do to trees or to birds...
K: No...

GS : So, why should I be too concerned about what the brain is doing?

K: As long as my brain is conditioned, the brain becomes very limited. The human brain has an infinite capacity, and that capacity is being denied by its own (personal & collective?) limitation. You have acquired a tremendous amount of (second hand ?) knowledge and have occasional insights into something, but you keep adding to it. (At the psychological level?) this 'addition' is the factor of (one's self-centred) conditioning. Therefore the brain becomes limited and that addition is (feeding?) the (temporal?) self. As long as the self is there, the 'self' is ( creating) a closed system, and is a factor of brain's deterioration.

GS : That is what we call the 'self' - with a little ‘s’- rather than the big ‘Self’ …

K: I am using it only in one context, the small ( temporal?) ‘self.’ But for me (personally?) , there is no big ‘Self'...

RB : I'd like to going back to what you said before that 'attention has no background'.

K: Here is a scientist. What is 'attention' to you, sir? Be simple.

GS : Well, I would say ( the holistic ) attention is when there is no separation, when there is no identification of anything else; including the perception of any ( self-centred) entity. Attention is one, in which there are no anticipations and there are no memories.

K: Which means what? There is no (psychologically motivated ) background?

GS : No background. I feel that that is the simplest statement. In attention there is no background because background assumes a ( knowledgeable mental ) matrix, an 'ideal' . In attention there is no comparison. Attention is one without the second,

K : When there is attention, there is no ( psychological?) background. We were discussing time. I say ''Love has no time''. Love is not the ( time binding) activity of desire or pleasure. The activity of desire and pleasure involves time. Love has no time.

P: This is a mighty ( holistical?) leap...

JU : It is a Brahmastra. It is a ' mind-weapon' which annihilates everything...

K: It is approachable ; I don’t (like to?) put something on a pinnacle and then say it is unapproachable.

P: Has this Love an arising and an ending?

K: No. If there is an arising and ending, it is not Love.

JU : Then it is beyond any academical discussion...

K: What is a 'dialogue'? A dialogue is (a selfless holistic interaction ?) —you question and I answer; so, 'you' and 'I' are forgotten. We don’t exist (as 'self-conscious' entities ?) . Only the ( living spirit of the ) question remains. And if you leave the question (to itself open up?) , it flowers, it has vitality, it provides (its own experiential) answer. Has Panditji (JU) understood my answer?

RB : He accepts what you say—that there is a question and an answer flows, but he says, ‘What has this to do with Love?’

K: I make a (holistic) statement—‘Where Love is, time is not.’ You listen, you question it, and I reply. There is a connection, both verbal and non-verbal, and the question remains, the fact remains. If you (inwardly abide with it ?) , it begins to move.

P: You say Love has no time...

K: See the beauty of it.

P: It is a fine question and no response arises to it, but there is still the question...

K: Then remain with that. Pupul, take a lotus (flower & spend some quality time to ?) look at it.

RB : In 'looking' at it there is no (further) question...

K: Or ( we can take another in-class example) “Death has no time.”

GS : Out of kindness for us, could you make these leaps a little shorter? Because already Panditji is saying that he is finding it difficult to respond to your (holistic) statements, which he may completely identify with... I think Panditji is saying that he does not know how to respond, not because he disagrees with you—not that what you say is a Brahmastra, the ultimate weapon which destroys everything including the launching pad—but how is he to respond to your earlier question that the dialogue has a vitality of its own?

K: Have you understood it?

GS : Yes.

K: Then explain it to Panditji (JU) .

GS : I think Krishnaji is saying that the purpose of the dialogue is not for a person to ask ( the right?) questions and for the other person to answer them , but for the question and answer to come around, and in a sense 'move' by itself between people. So it is not one person giving information to another person, but it is a case of the question answering itself, using people’s voices as the instrument. But usually we have the feeling that it must be in terms of a 'catechism'—a question and its answer. Krishnaji is saying that if there is a (gap of) time when the question ceases, that is a very valuable time (of contemplating its truth ) , which shows an 'echo' of what he was talking about earlier—namely, is there a 'being' at this point or is there a 'becoming' or is there something which is other than the two? Looked at from another point : when all questions cease, then who is there to ask any question, who is there to understand? That ( contemplative ) 'holding of the question', is in itself in a dialogue (with its inward truth?) - a meditation in which no words are spoken because it is a state where words do not reach.

K: Yes. So, let us talk about (the timeless aspect of) death. What, according to the Buddhists, to Nagarjuna, is death?

JU : By whatever cause life came into being, by the same cause life comes to an end; that is ( the Buddhist explanation of?) death.

K: I exist because my father and my mother met, and I was born. I live eighty-nine years and at the end I die. There is a (physical) causation and the end of causation. Is that what you call death?

JU : This causation is not at the (physical) level of 'things', that is, at the biological level; but it is at the memory level, at the thought level. Nagarjuna says in that (thought) movement are contained all past, present and future.

K: If you say that past and present are contained in the ‘now,’ that 'now' is death. Becoming (in time) and dying. Is that death?

JU : Yes.

K: If it is an intellectual concept, that doesn’t interest me at the moment I'm actually dying.

JU : At every moment there is the (meditative opportunity of thought's ? ) ending; each moment is separate. There is a 'death' all the time...

K: But ( supposing ?) I have a son who is dying and I am in sorrow, I shed tears. I am lonely, depressed. You come along and speak of causation. But I am in pain. What are you going to do about it?

JU : Whatever comes into being ends from moment to moment. None of the Buddhist teachings have dealt with death, except as a rising and ending.

K: I was with a dying man, sir, some years ago. His wife came and said, ‘He is asking for you.’ I went to him, sat next to him, and held his hand. And he said, ‘I am dying, don’t preach philosophy to me. I am dying, and I don’t want to die. I have lived a fairly good life, a fairly moral life, I have got my family, my memories, all the things that I have accumulated, and I don’t want to die. But I am dying.’ What is your answer to that?

JU : The answer is, he has to die...

K: Oh, God! Is that what you say to your son, to your wife, or to your husband? Of course (s)he has to die. (S)he has got tuberculosis, or a (viral?) disease and he says, ‘Help me to understand (the spiritual significance of death?) ’

JU : But death is part of life...

P: Panditji, are you saying there is no ending to sorrow?

JU : Unless the cause of sorrow is eliminated, it cannot end...

K: But the man who is dying hasn’t eliminated it. You have to deal with this man who is dying. Nobody has held his hand. So I hold his hand and he has the feeling that there is Love. I do not talk to him about a beginning or ending.
What is the ( experiential?) difficulty here? The question is not whether our brother is dying, but it is also 'we' who are in sorrow, and he wants consolation. But I am not giving him a thing. We cannot give him life. He who is dying is not dying outside of himself, he is dying within himself and it is his problem.

GS : Is the question how you deal with the dying person?

K: No, it is how you deal with death.

GS : In this process there are involved two things. One is my feeling that my friend is dying and that he is afraid, he is unhappy and unwilling to die. The other is what can I do to give him help at this point. Which of the two aspects are we discussing?

K: Both. I want to know about death. I am going to die. I’ll be eighty-nine in May—and probably I will live another year. I am not frightened. I have lived with death and life together, all the time, all my life. Because ( materially-wise?) I don’t own anything, I don’t possess anything inwardly. I am dying and living at the same time. There is no separation for me. But my friend is dying. Nobody has loved him and he has loved nobody. What the Buddha said, does that help? He wants somebody to love him, be with him. Somebody who says ‘Look, we are together in this. You are lonely and what does it mean when death comes?’ I see him utterly lonely, separated from anybody else. And there is a dreadful fear ( facing the Unknown?) . And you come and speak of beginning, ending. I say, for God’s sake!”

JU : If I ( have access to Universal Compassion & ) Love, can I give it to him? Is it something which can be given?

K: No, he is ( going through all this?) with me, not that I give him love. It is not something I give.

JU : Because he is ill and is going to die, and he does not want to die, how do we give him love? Love cannot transcend causation; it cannot be outside cause and effect. However great or deep my compassion may be, it cannot be independent of causation...

K: Sir, he is not interested in your philosophy. He is not interested in what the Buddha said. He is dying. Don’t tell him of (thought's) arising, and ending. He is not interested in that. We go to the dying with a lot of words and these words are like ashes to him, including Buddha’s words. He is dying and says, ‘My God! What of my life? Don’t talk to me about all this.’ Can one come with 'nothing' and just hold his hand? Can one say, ‘My friend, when you die, a part of me is also dying. So... we both are going to die today. I know what it means to die. I have lived my life dying and living, never separating the two. Each day I die.’ So I say to my friend, ‘Let us die. I understand your fear.’ Then death is not ( surrounded by) fear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 11 Apr 2020 #282
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

CONSCIOUSNESS & THE HOLISTICALLY INTEGRATED INTELLIGENCE

(A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue cca 1971)

Questioner P: I wanted to ask you Krishnaji, if there is one
question which needs to be asked by the individual, which would
open the door to Reality ? Or if it were not possible to simplify all questions into one question, is there a (holistically perceptive?) 'instrument' which will make this possible?

Krishnamurti: "K" explained yesterday that it is
'Intelligence' - that quality of mind which can use thought to operate sanely & efficiently in the whole field of knowledge when it is necessary and not to operate in (the psychological) field where it brings chaos & misery

F: The ( qualitative) difference between me and you, is it in the
degree of intelligence or is there another factor operating in you?

Krishnamurti: Can we tackle this question differently? Can the
(meditating?) mind empty itself of the ( self-centred) mechanism of thought that functions all the time - not only at the conscious level but at the deeper secret chambers of the mind? And from that 'emptiness' can knowledge operate and not operate?

B: The key ( experiential) question then would be ( this state of inner ) 'emptiness'?

Krishnamurti: Let us see. Can the mind empty the whole
content of its ( psychologically active memory of the?) past, so that it has no motive? Can it empty itself and can that emptiness use knowledge, pick it up, use it and drop it, but always remain 'empty' - in the sense of (inwardly) 'being as nothing'; an emptiness which has its own (intelligence) which is not ( dependent on?) the movement of time, and which can operate in the field of knowledge and nowhere else ?

P: Are they two movements?

Krishnamurti: "K" has divided knowledge and freedom from knowledge. You can see thought operating always within the field of knowledge. This knowledge (applied inwardly) brings (its collateral confusion & ) pain and the same knowledge helps man to live more comfortably environmentally. That is a fact. Then you and I ask, why does thought create misery inwardly ? Is it possible for thought not to create misery?

F: My answer is that the roots of ( mankind's psychological) misery are not known to me.

Krishnamurti: We began with the superficial layers. Now we
will (try to?) go into the secret chambers of the mind.

P: Surely you are not positing a state of consciousness where
thought will operate at the technological level and at the day-to-day
level of action where it is necessary, and if by some kind of (mental) trick, all other activities of thought were to be wiped away? We are not postulating that surely ?

Krishnamurti: Of course not...

P: But the moment you speak of a place where thought
can operate legitimately and a place where thought has no
legitimate place, you are postulating a state which is 'non-thought'...

F: Can we honestly say that the human consciousness is nothing beyond thought? I would question this.

Krishnamurti: So we have to go into the question of 'consciousness' ?

B: You used the word "intelligence" in a different way. That word is the key, if we know what it is.

F: Intelligence is different from consciousness. We must
distinguish between the two. Intelligence is much vaster than
consciousness. We can have an unconscious intelligence...

P: What is (your view of ) 'consciousness'?

Krishnamurti: There is a waking consciousness, there is hidden consciousness; consciousness of certain parts of me, of the superficial mind, and a lack of total awareness of the deeper layers of consciousness.

P: I would say, that there is a consciousness in which
thought operates, then there is a consciousness where attention is
and where there is seeing; and a consciousness which is
unconscious of thought. I see these three states as they operate in
me.

Krishnamurti: Three states which are the operation of
memory as 'thought', as action; then 'attention', a state of attention
where there is no thinker....

P: ... and a state of being asleep when you are not aware of
thought nor of attention...

Krishnamurti: ...a sense of being half asleep ?

P: Half awake, half asleep.

Krishnamurti: All this is what you would call 'consciousness', right ?

P: In all these states whether consciously or unconsciously, the
sensory perceptions are in operation.

Krishnamurti: Can we restart this (in a holistically friendly?) way? There is consciousness, wide or narrow, deep or shallow. As long as
there is a centre which is conscious of itself, that centre may
expand or contract. That centre says I am aware or not aware. That
centre can attempt to go beyond the limitations which it has placed
around itself. That centre has its deep roots in the 'cave' and operates superficially. All that is ( the average self-centred) consciousness. In all that there must be an (controlling?) centre.

P: May I ask you a personal question? Would you say there is no operation of ( this self-centred ) consciousness in you?

Krishnamurti: We will come to that presently. Let us begin very
simply. When am I (self-) conscious? Either through a sensory reaction, through a sensory shock, a sensory danger or a conflict in which is pain & pleasure are involved .
It is only in those moments that I say ''I am conscious'' - when I am challenged, when there is an impact, conflict, pain, pleasure, then I am 'conscious'. This whole phenomenon is going on, whether there
is a deliberate awareness or not, this thing is operating all the time.
That is what we call 'consciousness'....

P: You mean there is no photographic consciousness ? Like when I see a
dust-bin....

Krishnamurti: But 'you' are seeing it. The mind is registering it.
That is, the brain cells are receiving all these impacts - as pleasure, pain, conflict, sorrow, conscious, or unconscious, and there may
be an awareness of all that at one moment, and at other moments
there may not be. But it is going on all the time. So what is the next (experiential) question?

B: What is the nature of the unconscious?

Krishnamurti: It is still the same. Only it is (going on at) the deeper layer.

B: Why are we unconscious of the deeper layer?

Krishnamurti: Because superficially we are very active all the
time.

B: So the density of the superficial layer prevents our being
conscious of the deeper layers ?

Krishnamurti: I am making noises on the surface. It is like
swimming on the surface. So what is my next question?

B: Is it possible to integrate the various layers?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: What is the relationship of thought to consciousness?

Krishnamurti: I do not understand this question because thought
'is' (sustaining & controlling?) consciousness.

P: Isn't there anything else but thought?

Krishnamurti: Why do you put that question?

P: Because we started with speaking of a region where thought has a legitimate place and a region where thought has no legitimate place - and yet you say thought is consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Let us stop here. Consciousness 'is' ( generally displaying the activity of) thought - pain, conflict, registration, memory, remembrance. Thought is all that.

P: Thought is a part of all that. Then what is the rest?

A: All this is the field of ( the temporal?) consciousness. Thought comes into operation when the "I" wants to focalize.

Krishnamurti: That is right. Thought comes into operation when I am
interested in a part of this. The scientist is interested in the material
phenomena, the psychologist in his area, because he has limited the
field of investigation. Then thought comes as a 'systematizer'. But thought is not something separate from all this (temporal consciousness?)

P: Is thought only a part, or is thought (occupying) all of it ?

Krishnamurti. Go slow. I do not want to say something which is untrue...

A: Isn't there in one's everyday consciousness a 'space' which is not covered by thought?

Krishnamurti: I am not at all sure. I do not say you are not right...

A: I say there is a (free inner) space in consciousness which is not occupied by thought and that is also part of the human heritage. It is there.

Krishnamurti: I do not think in ( the thought-generated?) consciousness there is any space.

P: When I perceive you and listen to the whole thing operating, there is no movement of thought, but I am totally conscious.

Krishnamurti: Why do you call that 'consciousnes's? Wait, go
slow. Achyutji says there is ( a free inner) space in consciousness. We have to answer that question. We do not see that (mind's free?) space cannot be contained in a frontier, in a boundary, in a circle.

A: Even if it is held within a circle, a square, a rectangle, in one sense it is a space.

Krishnamurti: Where there is a border there is no ( free inner) space.

D: According to the scientists, time and space are bound
together.

Krishnamurti: But when we say consciousness has space, then
consciousness has time. ( Free inner) space in the sense in which
we use the word does not exist in ( a time-bound) consciousness. That space (of the Mind?) is something else. Leave that for the moment. Now what is the next question?

P: What is the relationship of thought to ( the totality of our) consciousness. Is thought contained in consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Put the question this way : Is there a state of mind
when there is no ( acummulative?) learning at all?

P: You have left us far behind now....

Krishnamurti: I want to go slowly, please. (The self-centred process of ) thought is ( generating the temporal ) consciousness and learning is also part of this consciousness. Listening, seeing, learning, hearing and memorizing and reacting to that memory is part of all this.

P: When this (psychologically active content) is operating, this is (generating one's daily) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: And when thought is operating in any specific field, there is no ( observer-observed) duality. When thought compares that particular operation to another then there is duality. (Eg: 1) I say how marvellous that lamp is. It is finished. But when thought says I wish I had it in my room, then there is duality. See what has been found ? When there is the simple functioning of thought without any ( selfish ? ) motive, there is no duality. (Eg: 2) I have a memory of that
sunset - I see that sunset. It is recorded at that (enchanting?) moment, it is finished. But thought comes along and says : I wish it would happen again. In that, motive operates.

D: Agreed, when you look at that sunset, motive is irrelevant.

P: Sunset is an impersonal thing, but let us take the movement of jealousy sustained by thought...

Krishnamurti: Pupulji, jealousy is implying duality - that is, my wife looks at another man, and I feel jealous because I possess her, she is mine. But if I observe it (non-personally) and realise that she is not 'mine' from the beginning, then the factor of jealousy does not enter. She is a free human being as I am a free human being. I allow her the freedom (of choice?) .

P: I understand that. But we are talking about the structure of
thought. When a thought arises in consciousness , in itself there is no
duality...

Krishnamurti: There is duality only when there is the ( thought-controlling?) operation of motive, measurement, comparison. In the observation of a lovely sunset, in seeing the light, the shadow, there is no duality. But the moment I say 'I wish I had it again', begins the (time-binding) dualistic process. That is all.

P: We have somehow moved away...

Krishnamurti: I will come back : (one's temporal) consciousness is ( generated by sensory) perception, hearing, seeing, listening, learning and the memory of all that and the (thinking process) responding according to that memory. All that is ( thought's temporal) consciousness, whether or not ( self-) focalized. In that consciousness there is duality, the various conflicts - I must, I must not - the whole of that field is consciousness. And in that there is no ( free inner?) space at all because it has (self-protective) boundaries, frontiers, which are limitations.

A: There is another factor which I would like to have included.
There is a movement of ( mankind's collective consciousness) going on – all the perceptions and experiences of the world are syphoning into my consciousness and the movement of the "I" as thought is constantly being fed and renewed by that. Unless I see this process,
I do not understand the totality of human consciousness .

Krishnamurti: Sir, the whole of this field of human consciousness is in a constant movement of contraction and expansion, a 2-way
movement of accumulating information, knowledge, registration of knowledge, motivation - all that is happening in the environment, is part of me: I 'am' the environment and the environment 'is' the me. And in that whole field there is the movement ( of my personal choices?)...

A: In this wide canvas we see thought is syphoning into this
focus which we call ( our individual) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: All that is ( the time-bound ?) consciousness. Consciousness creates the mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like" and I am a witness to this because that is part of this movement over which I have no control at all.

A: But the problem is (thought's self) identification which gives this weightage to the "I like" and "I don't like", that it builds around it.

Krishnamurti: Here I am born in India, with all the environment, all the superstitions, the riches and poverty, the sky, the hills, the economic, the social, the whole of that is me.

A: And something more - the entire historical and the pre-historical past. If you include all that, then ( one's psychologically motivated ) choice disappears.

Krishnamurti: Sir, I 'am' all that, the (active memory of the?) past and the present and the projected future... That is what I call 'consciousness'.

A: It is wider; it includes America, the whole world -

Krishnamurti: But when there is ( a self-) focalization through identification, there is then choice.

P: All this is ( our temporal) consciousness and it is also a fact that when thought operates, thought 'is' consciousness, listening, seeing is
consciousness...

Krishnamurti: ...and all the cultural heritage which "A" brought in is also
consciousness, past, ancient, present and all that.
P: Now, you have been stating that it is legitimate for thought to
operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it
operates in other fields then it brings sorrow, pain, duality. The
question is: The 'other' ( timeless ) state of which you are talking about, is it also a part of our consciousness?

Krishnamurti: What do you say?

P: I say it is ( part of a wider field of) consciousness because 'seeing' is an integral part of our consciousness.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) Thought has a legitimate field of operation and if it impinges into other fields then it brings pain, suffering. That which operates in this area, is it still part of our (temporal) consciousness - as we know it - with all the 'things' that thought has put into it. The 'other' is not.

P: The 'other' is not... what?

Krishnamurti: It is not ( generated by) thought.

P: But is it ( a valid part of our) consciousness? The
sensory perceptions operate. Seeing, listening operates, therefore
why do you say it is not the 'consciousness' (as we know it ) ?

Krishnamurti: I am saying ( content-free?) 'consciousness' in the sense that there is no conflict.

P: There is no conflict in (this holistic) consciousness. There is only conflict when thought operates in the field where it has no
legitimate place. Why should there be conflict in consciousness
when thought is not ( 'me') operating?

Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there. Let us go slowly.

P: Then what is it that operates there?

Krishnamurti: Is ( the Compassionate ) Intelligence ( part of the temporal) consciousness? This 'Intelligence' is not consciousness.

P: Now we come to a stage where we just 'listen'...

Krishnamurti: My mind has followed all this (non-personally) . It has seen, as Achyutji pointed out, the whole content of ( mankind's time-bound) consciousness as the whole human heritage and that I 'am' all that. And our (temporal) consciousness as we know it, is (constantly in a state of ) conflict. So, my chief concern is to end that conflict, conflict being ( manifested as existential) sorrow & pain. In examining that, there is a discovery that ( self-conflicting consciousness) it is all a process of thought. There is pain and pleasure and from that (insightful realisation) the ( holistically inclined?) mind says it must operate in the field of knowledge and not here. What has happened to my mind? It has become pliable, soft, 'alive'. It 'sees', it 'hears'. It does not have the quality of (thought-induced) conflict in it, and that is Intelligence. And that is not ( the same quality of ) consciousness.
( In a holistic nutshell:) Intelligence is not heritage whereas consciousness is heritage. Now that ( quality of holistic) intelligence can use thought to operate in the field of knowledge and ( nowhere else?) therefore its operation is never dualistic.

D: The language of intelligence must be different from the
language of thought ?

Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no ( particular) language, but it can use
language. The moment it has a (specialised?) language it is back again in the field (of the time-bound consciousness ? )
That intelligence having no language is not 'personal'. It is not mine
or yours...

P: It may not be 'personal' but is it focalized?

Krishnamurti: No, but it appears to focalize.

P: When it moves, does it focalize?

Krishnamurti: Of course, it must, but it is never ( functioning ) in focalization.

P: It is never held (in a particular consciousness?) ?

Krishnamurti: It is like holding sea water in the fist: it is part of
the sea, but it is not the real Sea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 12 Apr 2020 #283
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE BRAIN CELLS AND THE HOLISTIC STATE

( an 'experientially-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

K: Is there (in the human psyche an inner source of?) energy which is endless, without a beginning and without an end? And also the (entropic) energy (of thought) which is mechanical which always has a motive? I would like to find out.

P: But first, Dr Shainberg asked what is it that gives thought its ( self-centred) momentum. Is this 'momentum' ( of thought & desire  involved in ?) the arising of the 'thinker', and then the thinker giving himself continuity?

K: What is the drive, the force behind all our actions? Is it (just survival oriented &) mechanical? Or is (in-)there an energy, a force, a drive, a momentum which has no friction?

DS: My question was about this momentum of 'thought and desire' and its mechanical nature. What is ( the energy behind?) the momentum of this energy, of thought, desire and the creation of the 'thinker'?

K: Go on, sir, discuss it.

DS: We can see ( the movement of) thought (being driven by ) sensation, then desire, and its fulfilment – this whole drive with a little modification goes on & on... So, that is the momentum.

K: You are asking what is the momentum behind desire. ( Suppose ) I desire a car. What is the urge, the drive, the energy behind the desire
that says, 'I must have a ( fast motor-)car'?

DS: Is it that 'you' desire a car or does the car come up as a desire and then creates the 'I'? Is the 'I' created by desire?

K: If I didn't actually see the car, didn't feel it, didn't touch it, I
would have no desire for a car. But because I see people driving in a
car, the pleasure of driving, the energy, the fun of driving, I desire it.

P: Sir, is it only the 'object' which creates desire?

K: It may be a physical object, or a non-physical object, a
belief, an idea, anything.

FW: But in the first place, it probably has to be perceivable by
the senses, because you perceive something by the senses, and thought
makes an 'image' of it, then 'you' desire it. So, could one say that
whatever can be desired has to be sensed? And so from your
question I ask: Anything which can be desired, has it first to be
perceivable through the senses? One could, of course, speak of
'God'. I can desire ( to reach?) God.

P: It is desire that maintains and keeps the world going. Can you
take desire back to its roots?

K: What is the (psychical) momentum behind any desire? What is the energy that makes me desire? ( As an example in point:) What is behind my being here? The desire to discover something other than my usual rush of thought. Now, what is behind the desire that made me come
here? Is it my ( deep ) suffering (of loneliness?) ? Is it that I want to learn more about myself ? Put all these together, what is it that is behind all that?

DS: To me it is a relief from what I am...

P: Which is identical with a sense of (psychologically motivated self-) becoming.

K: Becoming? What is behind ( thought's desire for ) becoming?

DS: To get somewhere different from where I am.

K: What is behind thought's energy that is making you do that? Is it (the time-proven principle of ?) reward & punishment ? All the structure of our ( psychologically motivated) movement is based on punishment and reward, to avoid one, to gain the other. Isn't that the basic drive that is making us do so many things?

DS: Yes. That is part of it. That is at the level of thought.

K: Not only at the level of thought : if I am getting hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, (I get a ) punishment.
I think this ( elementary principle) is (behind the ) ordinary, common drive.

P: Reward and punishment for whom?

K: I have not yet come to (the personal aspects of ?) that. Whatever is
satisfying I call 'reward', that which is not satisfying I call 'punishment'.

DS: Yes.

K: So, is there not (yet?) the 'I' saying: 'I must be satisfied'... Doesn't the physiological ( needs) spill over into the psychological field and the whole ( psychological) cycle begins there? One needs food - food is necessary (to survive) . But that same urge goes into the field of psyche, and there begins a completely different cycle. But it is the same movement (of survival & its optimisation) .

Singh: Sir, where is all this process going on? Is it in the brain? Where do I find this pleasure – pain need?

K: Both at the biological level and at the psychological.

Singh: If it is the brain, then there is definitely something,
which one may call a 'twilight (zone') between pleasure and pain. There are some responses in the brain which are in between reward and punishment.

K: You mean there is a gap between reward and punishment?

Singh: Yes. Where one merges into another.

P: If I may ask, how does this answer the question, how does this further
the question of the nature of this force which brings it into being
and then keeps it going? Basically, that is the question.

K: Are you asking, what is it that is pushing one in the direction
of reward and punishment? Could it be (one's natural desire for)
satisfaction, gratification, which is pleasure?

DS: But then, what is the state of being when you are aware that
there is freedom from hunger?

K: It is very simple, isn't it? There is hunger, food is given, and
you are satisfied. But the same thing is carried on and it is never
ending. I seek one satisfaction after another and it is endless. Is it
that this (time-binding) energy (of desire ) , is both biological as well as psychological? I am hungry and inwardly I feel lonely. Physiologically, the insufficiency is satisfied very easily. Psychologically, it is never satisfied.

Par: At what point does desire go from the physiological fulfilment to the thought process?

K: Sir, it may be that the physiological movement has entered
into the psychological movement and carries on.

P: It is not a question of personal choice. It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of wants begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the source of both beginnings, the physiological and psychological?

Q: One word 'insufficiency' should be enough...

P: It isn't. Both are structured in a force which then propel us. That coming together of a number of things, is creating the 'centre', the 'I'.

K: I don't think it is the 'I'. It is man's endless (existential?) insufficiency.

P: Can there be insufficiency unless there is someone who is feeling
insufficient?

K: I don't posit the 'I'. There is a continuous insufficiency. The more
intelligent I am, the more awake I am, the more dissatisfaction
there is.

P: What is the momentum then?

K: The brain is ( instinctively) seeking satisfaction.

P: Why should the brain seek satisfaction?

K: Because it needs ( a sense of temporal) stability; it needs security. Therefore, it says: I thought I had found a lasting satisfaction in
this but there isn't any. But I hope I'll find satisfaction and security in that, and again there isn't any'. And it keeps going on and on. That is so
in daily life. I go from one conclusion after another.

Q: Sir, if the physiological spill-over is ever to continue
in the psychological field, then this cycle of insufficiency and
sufficiency must continue.

K: Examine yourself : You are constantly seeking satisfaction (in the field of reality) . Everybody is. If you are poor, you want to be
rich. If you see something beautiful, you want that and so on and on. We want continuous satisfaction.

A: Sir, I want to draw your attention again to the central feature
of this insufficiency, that as far as the psychological insufficiency is concerned, we begin a cycle in which we do not know any gap.

K: Forget the gap sir. Isn't (behind) the whole movement of one's
energy a drive to find gratification ?

DS: I think what is coming out of this model of the physiological reward-punishment scheme is definitely so. I mean that is the whole way the (temporal) me' functions, whether it is logical or not.

K: And this whole momentum of seeking satisfaction is captured by the 'I' ( by our temporal self-consciousness?) .

DS: Then it is there that the 'I' becomes manifest. The (physiological momentum) of seeking satisfaction creates the 'I'.

K: So momentum is the urge to be satisfied.

P: Isn't the slfconsciousness of the 'I' inherent in the brain cells which have inherited knowledge?

K: I question that.

P: I am asking whether the 'I' comes into existence as a manifestation of seeking satisfaction, or whether the whole matrix of one's memory, is creating the 'I' sense ?

K: You are saying that the 'I', the 'ego', is identifying itself with the ( memory of the ) past, acting as knowledge ?

P: Not just identifying itself. But the 'I sense' is the expression of whole memory of the past.

K: You said at the beginning, does the brain contain the 'I'? I would say investigating (non-personally?) , there is no 'I' at all but only the search for pure satisfaction.

P: Is the whole racial memory of mankind fictitious?

K: No. But the moment you say ''I am the (memory of the ) past'', that 'I' is fictitious.

S: Is the past itself saying that 'I am the past', or only a part of the ( active memory of the ) past is saying that it is the past?

K: You see you are raising a question which is ( experientially) very interesting: Do you observe the past as a (self-conscious?) 'I'? There is this whole (psychological burden of the memory of the?) past, millennia of human endeavour, human suffering, human misery, confusion, millions of years. There is only that vast river (of mankind's time?) - not 'I' and the vast river.

P: I would like to put it this way: When this vast river comes to
the surface, it brings to the surface the movement of the 'I'. It gets
identified with the 'I'.

K: Pupulji, ( for K?) the 'I' may merely be a means of communication.

P: Is it as simple as that?

K: No, it is not as simple as that...

S: Sir, at one point you said the manifestation of the Stream of Time is
the individual consciousness . When this vast stream of sorrow manifests itself as the individual, is the 'I' present or not?

K: That vast Stream (of collective consciousness) manifests
itself in a human being; the ( genetic heritage of the mother & ) father gives to me a form and then I say 'I', which is the form, the name, the cultural environment, but that stream is (expressing itself as ) 'me'. But deeper down there is this vast stream ( of collective thought-time) which is obvious.

A: I am saying that we are looking with our
existing knowledge at the stream and identifying ourselves with the
stream. The identification is done post facto, whereas it really starts
with the momentum.

P: You see, the way Krishnaji puts it ('holistically'?) does not really lead to the depth of oneself. The depth of oneself says,'I want to, I will become, I will be'. That depth springs from the (active) memory of the past, which is the whole racial unconscious.

K: Can I ask, why do you say 'I want'? There is only want.

P: Still by saying that, you don't eliminate the 'I'.
K: No, you do eliminate the 'I'. But in what manner do you observe this stream? Do you observe it as the 'I' ( as an observer) observing? Or, is there only a (holistic) observation of the stream ?

P: What one does in observing is a different issue. We were
talking of the nature of that energy which brings about the momentum (of thought & desire) And I am saying this momentum is the very nature and structure of the 'I' which is caught in becoming.

K: I want to question whether the (temporal) 'I' exists at all. It may be
totally non-factual. It is only a word that has become tremendously important, not the fact.

FW: Isn't there an imprint of the 'I' in the brain matter? Isn't that an actuality?

K: No, I question it.

FW: But the imprint is there. The question is: If it isn't an
actuality, then what is it?

K: The whole momentum, this vast stream is in the ( consciousness matrix of the?) brain. After all, that is the ( collective matrix of the ) brain, and why should there be the 'I' at all in that?

P: When you are talking of the 'actual'...it is there !

K: (For K ?) it is there only verbally.

DS: It is actually there. In the sense if you and I are together,
there are two parts to it; my identification with myself and the 'I' which is the relationship with you.

K: Sir, when are you conscious of the 'I'?

DS: When I want something, when I identify myself with something, or when I look at myself in the mirror.

K: But at the moment of actually experiencing something, there is no 'I'.

P: All right, there is no 'I'. But then the ( self-consciousness of the ) 'I' emerges a second later.

K: Let's go into it slowly : There is ( a real life ) experience. At the moment of crisis there is no 'I'. Then, later, comes the thought
which says: 'That was exciting, that was pleasurable,' and that ( self-centred thinking) creates the ( virtual image of the?) 'I' which says: 'I have enjoyed it.' Right?

P: What has happened there? Is this (temporal) 'I' a concentration of
energy?

K: No.

P: The energy that dissipates?

K: It is the ( total) energy (of the brain) that dissipates, yes. It is one's total energy that is being misused.

P: So, the 'I' itself is a concentration of energy that dissipates. And as the body wears out, this (temporal) 'I' in that sense has the same nature, it gets old, it gets stale.

K: Pupul,just listen to me. At the moment of ( a major existential) crisis, there is no 'I'. Is it possible to live at that height all the time?

DS: Why are you asking that?

K: If you don't live that way, you have all kinds of other (time-binding)
activities which will destroy that. The moment thought comes in, it brings about a fragmentation of ( brain's total) energy ; then it is a dissipation of energy.

P: But still that does not answer the question as to why the (identification with the ) 'I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered the question even though at the moment of crisis, the whole memory of the past is not.

K: That is the (key experiential) point. At the moment of crisis, there is nothing. I think it is extraordinarily simple. But what is much more demanding, is the realisation that whenever thought comes into being,
then dissipation of energy begins. So, I say to myself: 'Is it
possible to live at that height?' If you left out the 'I' and I left out the 'I',
then we would have the right relationship.

DS: When you say dissipation of energy, I immediately see myself take up the position of the observer and say 'that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be neutrally aware. There is a crisis and a
dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of existence.

P: K's point is, there is that, but the ( time-free inner ?) transformation which we are talking about is to negate that.

K: Question it, sir. The moment you have a crisis, there is no past, nor present, only that moment. There is no time in that crisis. The moment time comes in, dissipation begins.

P: At the moment of (a major existential) crisis, many things happen. You talk of a holistic position at the moment of crisis. But for coming to that position one has to investigate it very deeply, in oneself in order to know what this thing is.

K: You see Pupul, 'holistic' implies a very sane mind and body, a
clear capacity to think, and also it means holy, 'sacred'; all that is
implied in that word 'holistic'.A holistic way of life is one in which there is no dissipation of energy. A non-holistic way of living in dissipation of energy. Now, I am asking: 'Is there a (timeless inward source of) energy which is never dissipated, which you want to draw from?'

P: What is the relationship of this 'holistic way of living' to
the brain cells?

K: I want to be quite clear that we understand the ( inward ) meaning of that word 'holistic'. It means ( inwardly being) complete, whole, in harmony, no disintegration, no fragmentation. That is the holistic life. That is an endless energy. The non-holistic life, the fragmented life, is a wastage of energy. When there is a feeling of the whole, there is no ( sense of the ) 'I'. The other (the non-holistic way of life) is the movement of thought, of the past, of time; that is our life, our daily
life, and that life is based on reward and punishment and the continuous
search for satisfaction.

P: Sir, the 'non-holistic' (mentality) is held in the brain cells. It
is the whole stream of the past meeting the challenge. Now, what
relationship has the holistic ( way of life) to the brain cells and the senses?

K: Your question is very simple. Our brain cells now contain
the past, memory, experience, knowledge of millennia, and those
brain cells are conditioned to a non-holistic way of living. What takes
place in the brain cells when there is ( an insight into the ) holistic way? I am going to answer that question (by another one?) . As the holistic brain does still contain the memory of the past, can this memory be used holistically? Because it is whole, it contains the part, but the part cannot contain the whole.

P: After going through all this, we have come to this point.

K: Yes. A marvellous point. Stick to it.

P: What is then its place in the brain which is the structure of the human mind?

K: We know only the non-holistic way of living, keep to that.
That is the fact, that we live non-holistically, fragmentarily. That is
our actual life and that is a wastage of energy. We see also that in it
there is contradiction, there is constant battle. All that is a wastage of
energy. Now, we are asking: 'Is there a way of living which is not
a wastage of energy?' And with that ( major experiential) question let us investigate it to see if it is possible to end this (entropic ) way of living.

Occasionally, one may have a flair of freedom but that flair of
freedom is still ( circumscribed?) within the field of time. Now, can the brain that is conditioned to a non-holistic way of living, can that brain so completely transform itself that it no longer lives the way of conditioning? That is the (64,000 $) question.

DS: I wonder whether the average human brain can ask it...

K: I am asking it. Therefore, if one human brain asks it, the other brain
must ask it too.

DS: Could you say anything about how you can ask this question without seeking further satisfaction?

K: It can be asked because the brain has realized for itself the game it
has been playing.

DS: So, how is the brain to raise the question?

K: It is asking it, because it says, 'I am seeing through that.'
Now, it says: 'Is there a way of living which is non-fragmentary,
which is holistic?'

DS: That is what I am having trouble with - where that question
comes from. What brain is producing this question?

K: The brain which says: 'I see very clearly the (pointless ) waste of energy'.

P: So, the very fact of your saying that the brain is seeing through
the whole problem of fragmentation...

K: Is the ending of it.

P: Is that the 'holistic' action ?

K: The 'ending of it', that is holistic.
For (this holistically minded brain ) the past is nothing, but such a brain can use the past.
( To recap:) My concern is with ( transforming) this fragmentary,
stupid life. And I say : Can that ( thought-time) structure end itself?
If you are capable of observing without the 'observer' (and of meditating without a 'meditator'?) , the brain can transform itself (in no time?) . That is (the true significance of) meditation.
(Parting words:) Sir, the essence is the whole. In fragmentation, there is no essence of anything

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 15 Apr 2020 #284
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

REGISTRATION THE MOVEMENT OF MILLENNIA

( an experientially friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

P: Krishnaji, you have spoken about holding in consciousness the quality of any strong emotion, without the verbal process.
Could we probe into that approach ? The wiping away, whether it is a hurt, fear, anger or any other (active zone of?) darkness within one, seems only possible if what you are talking about takes place. But how can we recover the passion of feeling, which goes behind all these ?

K: What does it mean to hold the feeling of whatever 'is' (going on inwardly) without the ( naming process)? Is this possible?

FW: And what is happening to the energy in the body or in the whole being if there is no naming?

A: Inner clarity for most of us means naming. When we want to probe into a strong feeling, or a disturbance, we want to 'know' precisely what it is, we don't want any self-deception. So, even before we have been able to grasp it completely, we have named it. So, naming is both our instrument of clarity and a cause of confusion.

K: Is the ( verbal clarity) different from the ( direct perception of the ) fact, from 'what is' (actually going on ? Obviously, the word is not the actual thing (it is supposed to describe) .

S: The question arises, then, can one ever indicate the 'actuality'?

K: We are going to find out. Without the word is there ( a direct perception of the ) actual fact ? Isn't the word 'fear' different from the actual feeling of fear and without naming it, is there that same feeling?

R: (Naming ) is ( the natural activity of?) thought...

K: So, the words are the medium through which thought expresses
itself. Without the word, can thought express itself? Of course it
can : a gesture, a look, a nod of the head, but only to a very limited extent. When you want to express something very complicated in terms of thought, the (usage of) words is necessary. But the word is not the actual state.

A: Here's one experiential difficulty: we perceive with the senses. The process ( of sensory perception) ends when there is naming. With the naming, a number of complicated things begin in my brain. Now, suppose I see this and wipe out the naming process . When I
have wiped out the name, I have not wiped out the feeling.

K: I am not quite sure, Achyutji. Pupulji was asking, what is the
quality of the mind that without the word can 'hold' (abide with ?) that feeling without any movement, right?

P: If I may say so, there are many things going on in one's consciousness which arise prior to the word – take tenderness, or joy for instance.

K: Can you observe something without the word? Can you
observe me, the form, for the moment without the word?

P: Yes.

K: You can. So, you have removed the word 'Krishnaji' and you are observing the form.

P: There is just ( a non-verbal) observation , and the 'form' is part of the whole observing field. I am observing, not only you, I am observing.

K: Pupul, let us keep it simple. There is (a surge of psychological) fear. I want to find out whether the words have (provoked and/or sustained) that ( sense) fear. Naming it (implies ) the recognition of a ( particular) fear that has gone on for many years - ten years ago I was ( actually) afraid (of something) and that (particular) fear was registered in my brain along with the word. When ( a similar feeling ) occurs again today, immediately the recognizing process sets in, which is the word, and so on. So, the word encourages the feeling & stabilizes the feeling.

R: Sustains it ?

K: The word 'holds' the thing by recognizing it, by remembering it and so on. Now, without using the word fear, how do you know you are afraid?

FW: I have been afraid before, so I know that feeling. And as it
comes again, I recognize it.

K: If you don't 'recognize' it (by naming ) , what is the state of your mind ?

P: There is (still an emotional) disturbance. If I may say so, fear is not such a simple thing that you can say, if there is no naming of it, fear is not...

K: Of course, there is a lot of complexity involved in it.

S: Psychologically something happens even before naming
takes place. If we accept only the position that the word creates fear, that means there is no content to fear at all.

K: I am attacking it quite differently. Suppose that you insult me because I have an image. There is an immediate registration taking place. I am asking: Can that ( process of) 'registration & remembering' come to an end when you insult me and so there is no recording at all?

S: That is a totally different process...

K: It is exactly the same thing. Is it possible to observe the new feeling, whatever it is, without bringing the (psychologically loaded memory of the ?) past into action?

Rad: There is a feeling of recognition before you actually call it fear.

K: No, look : ( Suppose) I insult you. What takes place? You register it, don't you?

Rad: I register it when I recognize it initially. That itself creates
a momentum.

K: Therefore, stop that momentum. Can that momentum be
stopped? Let us put it much more simply. You are
hurt. Aren't you? You are hurt from childhood for various reasons
and it has been deeply registered in the mind, in the brain. The
instinctive reaction is not to be hurt any more. So, you build a wall, withdraw. Now, without building the wall, can you know that you
are hurt, can you be aware of it and the next time a process of hurt
begins, not register it?

FW: What do you mean by 'registering'?

K: Our brain is ( functioning like ) a tape recorder. It is registering all the time, there is like and dislike, pleasure and pain. It is moving, moving. I say something ugly to you and the brain immediately takes charge, registers it. Now, I say: 'Can you stop that registration, though it has registered? And next time if there is any insult, do not register it at all. You understand what I am talking about? First, see the question. Is the question clear?

FW: That means not to form any image of it right away.

K: No, no. Just don't introduce the image for the moment. That
becomes yet more complex. Can you recognize the word but not
register it? I want to keep it very very simple. First, see this. The
brain is registering all the time. You call me a fool, that is
registered for various reasons. That is a fact. The next question is:
Can that registration stop? Otherwise the mind, the brain, has no
sense of freedom.

P: The brain is a live thing. It has to register. Registration is one
thing, but the cutting of the momentum is the movement away
from registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

S: Aren't you speaking of two things: one is the stopping of the
momentum and the other stopping registration altogether.

K: First, get what I am talking about. Then you can question.
Then you can make it clear.

P: When you say do not register, does that mean the brain cells
come to a stop?
K: Look, Pupulji, it is very important because if
there is no possibility of stopping registration, then the brain
becomes mechanical.

A: I want to question this, because you are oversimplifying the
matter. Actually, our state of receiving anything is without our
knowing that there is either a preference or an aversion, and fear is
in that cycle. It arises from the past, and is not directly related to what I perceive. But it is that which perceives.

K: As long as the brain is registering all the time, it is moving
from knowledge to knowledge. Now, I am challenging the word (the naming process) . I see knowledge is limited, fragmented and so on and I am asking myself whether registration can stop.

GM: Can the brain answer that question?

K: I think it can, in the s
ense the brain can become aware of its
own registering process.
P: There are certain fears which you can deal with in that way.
But fear has been the cry of man for millennia. And you are that
cry.

K: I know. The brain has been registering it for millennia. Therefore, The brain has become mechanical. I say: Can that
mechanical process stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped it
becomes merely a machine, which it is. This is all part of tradition,
part of repetition, part of the constant registration through
millennia. I am asking a simple question which has great depth to
it, which is: Can it stop? If it cannot stop, man is never free.

Par: May I ask you a question? Why do we register at all?

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The registration is
to give the brain a certain sense of security.

P: Isn't the brain itself involved? It has evolved through
registration.

K: It has evolved through knowledge, which is ( based on this) registration.

P: What is the factor which makes you say 'stop'?

K: Someone comes along and says: Look, through millennia
man has evolved through knowledge and at present you are
certainly different from the great apes. And he says: Look, as long
as you are registering, you are living a fragmentary life because
knowledge is fragmentary and whatever you do from that
fragmentary state of brain is incomplete. Therefore, there is pain,
suffering. So, we are asking at the end of that explanation, can that
registration, can that movement of the past, end?

P: I am asking you this question: Is there something in the very
quality of listening?

K: Yes, there is. That's it.

P: And that listening ends, silences this registration.

K: That is it. That is my point. You have come into my life by
chance. You have come into my life and you have pointed out to
me that my brain has evolved through knowledge, through
registration, through experience; and that knowledge, that
experience is fundamentally limited. And whatever action takes
place from that limited state will be fragmentary and therefore
there will be conflict, pain. Find out if that momentum which has
tremendous volume, depth, can end. You know it is a tremendous
flow of energy which is knowledge. Stop that knowledge. That is
all.
FW: May I ask you a question? Much reference has been made
to the tape-recorder which just goes on registering, and it can't stop
itself. It has to be stopped. But then, can the brain stop itself?
K: We are going to find out. First, face the question, that is my
point. First, listen to the question.
S: Is the whole of my consciousness only registration? In the
whole of my consciousness, is there only registration going on? K:
Of course.
S: Then, what is it that can observe that registering?
K: What is it that can observe this registering or can prevent
registering? I also know silence, - the silence that is between two
noises...
S: Is the silence which I experience also registered?
K: Obviously.
S: You can't use the word `registering' for silence.
K: As long as there is this registration process going on, it is
mechanical. Is there silence which is non-mechanistic? A silence
which has not been thought about, induced, brought about or
invented. Otherwise, the silence is merely mechanistic.
S: But one knows the non-mechanistic silence sometimes.
K: Not sometimes.
Raj: Sir, is it possible for a non-mechanistic silence to come?
K: No, no. I am not interested in that. I am asking something
entirely different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole o
consciousness is the past. It is moving. There is no future
consciousness. The whole consciousness is the past, registered,
remembered, stored up as experience, knowledge, fear, pleasure.
That is the whole momentum of the past. And somebody comes
along and says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end that
momentum? Otherwise this momentum, with its fragmentary
activity, will go on endlessly.
Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't
hang on to it.
K: No, the momentum is you. You are not different from the
momentum. You don't recognize that you are this vast momentum,
this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, the
so-called individual assertions. If there is no stopping that, there is
no future. So, there is no future if this current is going on You may
call it a future, but it is only the same thing modified. There is no
future. I wonder if you see this.
P: An action takes place and darkness arises in me. The
question arises: Can consciousness with its own content, which is
darkness...

K: …end ? Can can the brain hold this momentum ? If it is not a (thought-projected?) idea, a 'conclusion', then the (meditating?) brain is directly in contact with this momentum. It is watching & not allowing it to move. Look, you 'are' the vast movement (of thought projecting itself in time) . Find out ( for homework?) if this momentum of the past meeting the present - a challenge, a question- and ending there. Otherwise, there is no end to the suffering (of time) . Man has put up with suffering for thousands upon thousands of years. That momentum is going on and on. Can that momentum come to an end without (thought's) control? If it does not stop, then there is no ( sense of iner) freedom, then our action will always
be incomplete. Can you see the whole of that, see it actually?

P: What does it mean to register the fact? Obviously, if my listening is directed to the words I register. But if the (mind's) eyes and the ears are 'seeing' and 'listening', then they take in without any registration.

K: So, you are saying that there is a quietness in listening. There
is no registration, but... most of us are not quiet.

P: We can't answer that question of yours: 'Why should one register? The way you put it, you are suggesting two alternatives: it is either
to register or not to register.

K: The (brain) is registering all the time. I want to find out whether this vast 'stream of the past' can come to an end. How can it end?

P: I guess that we'll have to focus (our attention) to the actual registration of the brain cells ?

K: So, the brain cells are constantly registering and in that momentum the brain finds its safety. Right?

P: There is only one movement which is the movement of the past, touching the present and moving on.

K: The past meeting the present, moving on, modifying - the brain is conditioned to that and it sees that as long as that stream ( of thought & time) , it is perfectly safe. Now, how is the (holistically minded) brain that this momentum of the past in which the brain cells have found enormous security and well-being is ( psychologically speaking) a most dangerous movement? So, to point out to that brain the 'danger' of this momentum is all that matters. The moment it sees the actual danger, it will end it (ASAP?) . The brain has been conditioned to it because in that there is complete safety, in meeting the present, learning from it, modifying it and moving on. To the brain, that is the only safe movement it knows, so it is going to remain there. But the moment the brain realizes that it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it because it wants ( a time-free ) security.

(To recap:) Without naming it , would that thing called 'fear' exist? The naming is (part of ) the registration process. Then, something totally new arises. That new, the brain refuses because it is a new thing; so, it immediately says it is 'fear'. Now, for the brain to
hold the momentum of that, wait, watch. Give a gap between the
movement of thought, without interfering with the actual
movement of feeling. The gap can only happen when you go very
deeply into the question that the word is not the thing. Immediately, you have stopped the momentum (of thought's recognition) . I wonder if you see this.

P: I still want to get the thing clear. Is it possible to hold a
quality of feeling without the word, whether it is hatred, anger or
fear ?

K: Of course, you can hold the feeling of anger, fear, without
the word; just remain with that feeling. Do it!

P: But what do you do exactly?

K: When fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it,
without any momentum (of the past) without any movement of thought.

P: What is it then?

K: It is no longer the thing which I have associated with the past
as 'fear' . I would say it is 'energy held' without any movement. When energy is held without any movement, there is an explosion. That ( time-bound consciousness ?) then gets transformed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 16 Apr 2020 #285
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE ENDING OF RECOGNITION

( An experientially friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1972)

P: Shall we discuss the question of consciousness and what is the
relationship of 'consciousness' to the brain cells? Are they of the
same nature or is there something which gives them separate
identities?

A: The brain is a vast conglomeration of cells, a
forest of cells and yet each cell is dependent on all the others although in fact every brain cell can act by itself. So we may ask: Is brain's 'consciousness' the co-ordinating factor? And also, what is primary and what secondary? Does consciousness come first and then the brain, or does the brain come first and then consciousness?

K: Let us start from the beginning: What is 'consciousness'? What does it mean to be conscious of something ? (The process of) naming begins; then follows ( thought's rsponse in terms of) like and dislike. So 'consciousness', means to be aware of, to be cognizant of sensation, cognition, contact.

A: I feel that our consciousness is prior to sensation. It is (encompassing the whole field of 'what is' ) and at any one time I am aware of some part of it through sensation; I feel that our consciousness is much more vast. So, I do not want to restrict consciousness to something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: Pupul asked what is the relationship between the brain and consciousness. What is that relationship?

P: When K says ( rather cryptically that ) the 'content' of consciousness 'is' consciousness, it seems to imply that the (memory) content of the brain cells is ( generating its everyday ? ) consciousness. Now, the major difference between your position and the Vedantic position is that you are sing the word 'consciousness' in a very specific sense. The Vedantic position is that ( a timeless) Consciousness is that which exists before anything exists.

A: Basically, they say that the source of any existence is a vast, incomprehensible energy which they call 'Chaitanya', a (timeless) Source of energy, which they speak of as 'Chit'. The Buddhist position does not say anything about this at all. 'There is no such thing as consciousness in general. Ignorance has no beginning, but ignorance can end. This ignorance is ( generating its own time-binding) consciousness.' The Vedantins will say that this (inward) Source which you also refer to as 'ignorance' is of the same nature of 'Sat, Chit & Anand'. It is constantly renewing itself, it is constantly coming into being; and the entire process of man's birth, death, or decay is a movement in it. So, a man who does not accept the Buddhist position, will not immediately accept what you say, that the beginning is ignorance and that it is a self-sustaining process.

K: We simply say that ignorance has no beginning; one can see
it in oneself, see it within the field of (one's own self-centred) consciousness...

P: If it is within this field, then has it an existence apart from the brain cells which contain the memory about it? The current scientific position is that the brain cells and their operation are measurable, consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two are not synonymous.

K: So, you are saying that the brain cells and their 'movement' (their memory based activities ?) are measurable, but consciousness is not measurable ?

A: Consciousness is something about which one cannot say that it is measurable or immeasurable. Therefore, Consciousness is something about which one cannot make any statement.

K: Consciousness is not measurable, but what Pupul was (implicitly) asking is: Is there outside our consciousness - as we know it- a state which is not pertinent to this consciousness?

P: Is there a (dimension of one's consciousness?) which is not knowable, not available, within the ( memory based activity of the ?) brain cells?

K: Have you got it Achyutji? Not knowable, in the sense, not
recognizable; something totally new. To keep it very simple, the content of (mankind's temporal) consciousness is the known. Now, is
there something outside this, something which is 'not known',
totally new and which does not already exist in the brain cells? If it is outside the known, it is (experientially ?) available only when thought's 'recognizing and experiencing' process comes to an end. ( In a nutshell:) outside the ( temporal ? ) brain, is there anything else? I say there is. But (brain's) process of verbal recognition & experience, is always functioning within the field of the known and any movement of the brain cells is still within the known.

M: How do you know that there is something beyond the ( survivalistic ?) brain ?

K: You cannot 'know' it, but there is a ( time-free) state where the mind does not (mentally) 'recognize' anything. There is a state in which recognition and experience, which are thought's movement (within ) the (field of the ) known, totally come to an end.

A: In what way is it differentiated from the usual process of recognition & experiencing?

K: You see, when in (meditation context ) the ( thought-projecting activity of the ) brain cells, come to an end, there is a different state ( of consciousness ) altogether.

P: When you say that all the (mental) processes of 'recognition & experience' come to an end, and yet it is a living state, is there a sense of existence, of being?

K: The words, 'existence' and 'being' do not apply.

A: How is it different from deep sleep  where the processes of recognition and recording are also put in total abeyance ?

K: That is quite a different thing.
( To recap:) any (such mental) movement is within the field of the known. Therefore, when the content of (the temporal ) consciousness with its experiences, demands & craving for something new, including its craving for freedom from the known, has completely come to an end then only does the other quality come into being. So, can the ('knowing' ? ) mind come to an end (in the context of ) meditation ? Then the 'other' thing is there.

M: In the present situation do you know that?

K: Of course ; the senses are in operation, ( the sensory) recognition is in operation normally and yet the 'other' (dimension of consciousness ) is there. It is not a duality.

A: I think ( any verbal ?) communication about this 'otherness' is not possible. But I am trying to understand the state of the mind of the man who talks to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something else ?

K: The ( experiential?) basis for that is: when there is no movement of
recognition, of experiencing, of motive, the freedom from the known
takes place.

M: That is pure cognition without recognition ?

K: You are translating it differently. This (mental) movement ( within the known) has to come to an end for the time being; that is all.

M: Where does the 'time' element come in? Is it another ( dimension of) time?

K: Let us begin again. The brain functions (in a 'safe thinking' mode ? ) within the field of the known; in that function there is recognition & ( the desire for rewarding experiences?) . But when the
brain is (inwardly) completely still, this 'stillness' is non-recognizable, non-experienceable. And something (New) comes out of it. It is there for the man who understands the ( limitation of thought operating in the?) 'known'. It is there and it never leaves; and though he (K) 'communicates' it (verbally) , he feels that it is never gone, it is there.

M: Who 'communicates' it ?

K: The brain cells who have acquired the knowledge of
the language. It is the brain cells that are communicating.

M: Now, what is the relationship between that ( timeless consciousness) and this?

K: Tentatively, I would say there is no ( two-way ?) relationship. This is the fact: the brain cells hold the (whole field of the?) known, but when the brain is completely stable, completely still, there is no (need for) verbal communication - then, what is the relationship between the brain and that?

M: By what means does the state of a still mind make a permanent bridge between the brain and 'that' ?

K: If one says 'I don't know', what will you answer?

M: You have inherited it through some good karma or somebody has
given it to you... ?

K: (Even if) it is a (rare gift ?) 'exception', can it happen to you?

M: But...what can we do?

K: I say 'you' (the temporal sef) can do nothing - which does not (actually) mean 'doing nothing'!

M: What are these two meanings of 'doing nothing'?

K: I will tell you the two meanings of (the inner state of 'no-thingness') : the first refers to one's (holistic ?) desire to experience 'That', and yet to 'do nothing' about 'That'. The other sense, is to 'see' or to become aware of (thought's self-identified movement within) the (field of the ) 'known'.

M: So, you're saying , 'Do nothing, just observe' ?

K: Put it that way if you want...

M: It brings the ( spiritual) enlightenment to ( the directly perceptive) action...

K: You must touch this (consciousness of inner) 'no-thingness ', very lightly and as the body and the senses become very 'light', you'll see there is a dying ( & a new creation happening ) every minute. Have I answered the question?

P: You have not answered specifically...

K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call 'That' the infinite (Mind) energy and 'this' ( thought's entropic) energy generated by (mental) strife and conflict - 'this' is ( qualitatively ?) entirely different from 'That'. When there is no conflict at all, the infinite energy is constantly renewing itself.
Now, this ( entropic mental) energy that 'peters out' is all that we know... So, what is the relationship of 'this' energy that peters out, to 'That'? There is none, ( but, fortunately enough, there can be an intelligent & compassionate relationship from 'That' to 'this' ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 17 Apr 2020 #286
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE TIMELESS 'MIND ENERGY' AND THE CULTIVATION OF THE FIELD

( A 'reader-friendly ' edited K Dialogue cca 1972)

P: Could we discuss one of the chief blockages to (a holistic) understanding, that is, the factor of self-centred activity?

K: Can we say, where there is a ( 'self'- identified thinking ) centre there is a (self-protective ) boundary and all one's action must be within the circle of self-centred activity.

P: What are the 'boundaries' of the self?

K: As long as there is a centre (of self-interest) , there is a periphery, a boundary, even if that boundary can be stretched indefinitely...

P: Does it mean there is no limit to this 'stretching'?

K: When we talk about self-centred activity, what is implied is that all action takes place within that circle and its centre (of self-interest) may
expand itself, but it is still within that boundary. From the centre you can stretch your action as far as you like, through social service, democratic ideals & tyranny, everything is within that area.

A: Is any human action possible which does not nourish a centre?

K: Or, can there be no ( psychologically motivated identification with this ?) centre?

A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
with a (self-protective) 'centre' and every activity, including breathing, seems to nourish that centre.

K: The point is this: the energy that is expanded within the
circumference and the centre is a limited energy, a mechanistic (entropic?) energy. Do you realise that where there is a 'centre' (of self interest?) , any action that takes place within that area is limited, fragmented and therefore a wastage of ( mind's total) energy?

VA: To realize the 'self (-centred' identification ) in ourselves would be the first problem.

K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish entities,  identified with the nation, with the belief in God, identification with some ideal and so on...

Apa: I think the question that Pupulji asked was whether there is there an (inward source of) energy which can gush out, which will silence it or make this 'centre' irrelevant, make it seem a shadow?

K: I don't quite follow this...

P: It is really like this: we have done everything to understand
the nature of this self-centred activity. We have observed, we have
meditated, but the centre does not cease, sir.

K: No, because I think we are making a mistake. We don't
actually see, that any (psychologically motivated ?) action within the ( field of the known ) from the centre to the periphery and then from the circumference to the centre, is a wastage of energy which ( sooner or later?) must bring sorrow. Everything within that area is (a potential source of?) sorrow.

P: Sir, it seems to be a central part of the working of the brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples which are in a sense our self-centred existence...

K: Pupul, the brain needs two things: security and a sense
of permanency.

P: And both are 'provided' by the self-(centred activity) .

K: That is why (the self-centred thinking) has become very important.

Apa: Sir, the brain is a mechanistic physical entity (rooted ) in its ( survivalistic) habit of seeking security or continuance. Now, how do you break out of its mechanical operations?

K: Is there an (inner) movement which is not self-centred?

P: We know states when it appears as if the 'self' is not, but then, if the seed of self-centred activity is held within the brain cells, it will repeat itself again. So, I say to myself there must be another energy, there must be another quality which will wipe it out. Now, sir,
what is the (source of this) energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it exterior, is it interior?

K: Our brain is programmed (for millenia?) to function from the centre to the periphery, from the circumference to the centre, to this back-and-forth movement (thought-projected in time) Can this momentum, can this ( survivalistic) programme of the brain, can that stop? Now, is there an (inner) source of energy which is not (polluted by?) the self-centred movement, an energy without a motive, without a cause, an energy which without these would be endless?

P: Is it possible to investigate that energy?

K: We are going to.

A: So, attention is the only instrument we have.

K: Can the brain which has been so conditioned for millennia to act from the centre to the periphery and from the periphery to the centre, can this (sub-conscious mental ?) movement stop? When the ( holistically minded ) brain itself sees the necessity of the movement ceasing, it stops.

Q: Yes, but it starts again...

K: No, sir, if I see the truth of the 'fact', there
is the cessation of this ( self-centred mental ) movement. (Hint :)  It is not a continuous stoppage. When you want it to
be continuous, it is a time movement.

Apa: The (insightful) seeing then is without movement. That seeing, is it still a movement of the centre?

K: Seeing, observing the whole (back & forth) movement of the centre to the circumference ( between 'me' and the 'non-me') that movement is 'what is'.

Apa: But that seeing is without any centre ?

K: Of course.

Q: So, sir, this 'seeing' is in a different dimension altogether.

K: There is a perception (of truth) when you are aware without any
choice. Just being aware of this movement. Pupul's question is: Is
there an energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation,
and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?

VA: That is the energy of death.

K: What do you mean, sir? Death in the sense of 'ending'?

VA: A total ending of what I know as 'myself'.

K: Just listen. The total ending of this ( mental) movement is a psychological form of dying. Then, is that the energy which is causeless?

VA: It is causeless, sir.

K: Which means what? That there is no more 'centre' from which you
are acting?

VA: During that period when that energy (of ending) is present . There is a sense of timelessness at that time.

K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?

VA: Then... thought comes back because one gets afraid of that particular thing happening again because it is like total death.

K: It has happened without your invitation...The other question is what Pupulji raised about an endless journey. You want to discuss kundalini?

P: Yes, sir.

K: Sir, first of all, would you forget everything you have heard about it? Can you start with a completely empty state?
Then you have to enquire, really not knowing anything about
kundalini.

Q: We just want to know whether there is a special energy that can
wipe out conditioning.

K: So long as self-centred activity exists, you cannot touch it.
That is why I object to any discussion on kundalini because we don't
lead a life of correctness - we just want to add something new to it
and so carry on our (daily) mischief.

P: Do you know of an energy when self-centred activity ends?
We assume that this is the source of this endless energy. It may not
be.

K: Are you saying the complete ending of (the self-centred mental movement ) - is ( allowing) the release of that energy which is limitless?

P: Sir, if we are going to examine it, let us see how it operates in
one. Traditionally, the awakening of kundalini is linked to certain 'psychic centres' (chakras) located at certain physical parts of the body. My first question is whether that is so?
Has the release of this energy, which has no end, anything to do
with the psychic centres located in the physical body?

K: Pupulji is asking about the standard acceptance of the power of this ( psychical) energy going through various centres and the releasing of energy and so on.

P: I take it that when one asks this question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks.

K: Unless your daily life is a completely nonselfcentred
way of living, the other (timeless energy) cannot possibly come in.

P: Most people go through a great deal of psychic experiences in the
process of self-knowing. One also understands your point that all psychic experiences when they arise, have to be put aside.

K: Is that understood? ( The desire for) psychic experience must be totally put aside.

P: The real problem is to what extent is one's life totally
changed. I mean is there a totally new way of looking, a new way of living, a new way of relationship ? As it is understood,
kundalini is the wakening of certain psychic energies which exist at
certain physical points in the human body, and that it is possible to
awaken the 'psychic' energies which as they go through these various 'psychophysical' chakras transmute consciousness, and when they finally break through, they pierce through self-centred activity. I am just asking Krishnaji whether there is such an energy which, on awakening completely, wipes out the centre.

K: I would put it the other way. Unless the self-centred
movement stops, the 'other' can't be.

P: As it does not seem possible to proceed with this discussion, may I put a (bonus) question? What is the nature of the field which needs to be prepared, to be able to receive 'that' (energy ) which is limitless?

K: Are you planning to cultivate the soil of the mind, in order to receive it?

P: I understand your question, but I can neither say yes nor no to it.

K: Then, work at it (for 'meditation' homework) : Find out ( first) if there is an of the whole of human sorrow and (then) enquire into the nature of compassion.

P: What is the nature of this 'soil of the mind' which has to
be cultivated to receive the 'other'? For starters I realise I am suffering and I see that this life of conflict and suffering has no end.

K: That is all. If it cannot 'end', then wanting to
awaken the 'other' (psychic energy) in order to wipe out (this mess) is a wrong process. It is asking an outside agency to come and clear up your (inner) house. I say that in the process of 'clearing the house', there are a great many ( strange) things that are going to happen : clairvoyance, 'siddhis' and all the rest of it. They (may or not?) happen. But if you are caught in ( using) them (selfishly ?) , you cannot proceed further. If ( on the plus side?) you are not getting caught in them, the 'Heavens' are ( hopefully?) open to you.
( So, to recap:) Is there ( within the human psyche?) an energy which is non-mechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most definitely. But the body must be very sensitive. Then the ( psycho-somatic ?) body then has its own intelligence, not the ( calculated) intelligence which the mind dictates to the body. Therefore, the body becomes extraordinarily sensitive per se.
Then, what happens? There is (the spontaneous awakening) of an energy which has no beginning and therefore no ending. It is an eternal movement. I say there is. But...what (practical) value has it
to the (earnest?) listener? Will you go off into that and (happily skip the ?) clearing up the (inner) house?

P: It means, sir, that the ending of suffering, is essential ?

K: The only ( starter's) job. 'That' is the most sacred thing,
therefore you can't 'invite' it. Now, clearing (one's inner) house ( of the darkness of sorrow ?) demands a tremendous (self-) discipline (brought by) attention. When you give your complete attention, you will see a totally different kind of thing taking place, a (spontaneous) energy in which there is no (mechanistic) repetition, a (quality of) energy that isn't coming and going. However... it implies keeping the ( meditating) mind empty? Then, there is that energy. When there is (free inner) space, it is empty and therefore full of energy. So, in cleansing or in 'ending' the things of the house of ( the darkness of) sorrow, can the mind be completely empty, without any motive, without any desire? That 'is' meditation.

P: And the ( creative) nature of that is the transformation of the human mind ?

K: You see, as Apa Saheb was saying, we are programmed by centuries of ( survival oriented ?) conditioning. When you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't function any more. When the (egocentric) movement of the mind from the centre to the periphery stops, time stops. When there is no (time-binding ) movement of selfishness, there is a totally different kind of 'movement'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 #287
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

A ('reader-friendly' edited) K DIALOGUE ON TIME AND DETERIORATION (cca 1970)

Questioner P: The (experiential) key to your teachings appears to be in the understanding of ( psychological ?) 'time'. The very structure of the brain cells have come to their present state with an in-built sense of time – as (a self-centred continuity from) 'yesterday', to 'today' and towards 'tomorrow' ; and it is along this axis that one's (temporal ) mind sustains itself. You (managed to ) 'break through' this process, and therefore give the mind a new 'time-free' state.
The Buddha (aka: 'The Enlightened One' ) also talks of the endless cycle of births and deaths and the liberation from this cycle. Now, how is the (karmic) 'cycle of time' to end?

Krishnamurti: What is 'time' ? Is it the movement of the (personal & collective memory of the?) past through the present to the future; not only in terms of physical movement in space and time, but also inwardly from the (memories of) yesterday, to (what we are) today and towards ( what we wish to be) tomorrow? So, because there is ( an obvious chronological continuity of ) time as yesterday, today and tomorrow, ( we assume that we ) will be able to change ( upgrade ?) our ( inner condition ) & become ( better off?)

P: It is easy to see that 'time' does not bring perfection. But the whole dynamic of thought is based on its self - projection in time. I question the validity of the distinction you make (between the physical & chronological time)

Krishnamurti: I know that the physical (measurement of) time exists. Even if I do not think about 'tomorrow', there would be a (new day of ) 'tomorrow'. But I am asking myself if (inwardly ) there is any ( validity of thinking in terms of) 'time' at all. If I do not think about (myself ) becoming ( safer & better off tomorrow ) is there time?

P: Certain 'measurements' (anticipations in terms of time) have to be made...

Krishnamurti: I need only the (chronological) measurements , not (necessarily the  ?) 'psychologically (motivated') measurements. It is only when I want to change 'this' (condition) into 'that' (condition) , that there is time. I (K) have no such desire. I know only physical time and I do not know any other time.
And why do you have any other 'time' (temporal continuity ?) except the physical ? What is really involved is ( the thought-sustained movement of ) desire ( projecting itself in?) time - I have been (this) and ( hopefully?) I will become (that) . If there is no ( psychologically (motivated desire of) 'being' (or 'becoming' anything?) , is there 'time'? ( One's self-centred thinking) always associates the 'physical' (objective) time with 'psychological' (subjective dimension of) time, and therefore we say: (tomorrow) I will be ( safer, stronger & wiser ?) . But what happens when you don't (mentally project all?) this ?

P: What would have happened if man did not have this movement of becoming as time?

Krishnamurti: He would have been destroyed. So (originally) the (thought-sustained ) movement of becoming was a movement of (physical) protection.

P: Then, this ( mental) movement of protecting (one's physical survival in ) time, was obviously necessary.

Krishnamurti: Agreed ; but is there any other form of protection?

P: Once you admit the need of (total) protection against (viruses & other real or imaginary dangers ?) , the other kind of 'protection' ( in a world dominated by self-interest ? ) is of a very similar nature.

Krishnamurti: I actually need only ( a decent level of?) physical protection - food, clothes and shelter - and (just) thinking ( how to achieve this ) 'physical protection' requires time. But why should there be ( a fool-proof?) protection about something which may not exist at all? How can you protect me (inwardly ) ?
So, (to recap:) inwardly there is no (real need to think about ) 'tomorrow' ; but there is ( a need of objective thinking about?) 'tomorrow' because we all need food (& clothes & shelter?) .

P: If one (actually) 'sees' this ( fine delimitation ?) is this what you're calling the 'ending of time' ?

Krishnamurti: This is it. Shall we investigate it further? ( Our self-centred) consciousness is made up of ( lots of survival-oriented ?) 'content'. This ( psychological ?) 'content' is made up of ( thought's projections in ) time. This (self-identified ?) consciousness 'is' (both the cause & the effect of ) time and that is what we are trying to protect.
And we are using ( the objective capacity of thinking in ) time to shield ( a psychological movement of) time as a conditioned state. (Hint : ) We are trying to protect something which has no ( real?) existence. If ( for meditation homework?) we 'look' at the ( time-binding ?) content of our consciousness, we would find ( personal & collective ) memories, fears, anxieties & (beliefs ), which are all the product of time. But thought says : as this is the only thing I have, I must shield it against every possible danger. So, what (exactly) is it that thought is trying to protect? This movement of thought (born) of the (memories of the ) past cannot bring about a radical change in the human consciousness . Therefore, thought is deceiving itself all the time. If one really understood this, then one's whole activity would be entirely different. Then one would protect only the physical and not the 'psychological'.

P: Wouldn't this lead to a meaningless state of (inner) emptiness ?

Krishnamurti: If I only protect the 'physical' and nothing else,
obviously it (looks) like an (empty) glass which is being protected. But if one sees the (inward truth regarding this ) whole thing, there is a ( dimension of creative) 'emptiness' which is tremendously significant.

S: What is the texture of this 'psychological time'?

Krishnamurti: We live (inwardly) between (high) hopes & ( still higher disappointments and/or ? ) 'regrets' . If there are no such (psychologically motivated mental ) movements backwards or forwards, then what is ( left of 'psychological'?) time? If ( in the context of a meditator-free meditation?) there is no ( self-centred) measurement, no backward or forward movement, no height and depth, actually no movement at all, is there 'time'? And...why do we give such extraordinary importance to time?

P: Because time is also related to old age, decay & deterioration... 

Krishnamurti: I see this body, young and healthy, getting older & dying, the whole (physical) mechanism unwinding. That is all I know. Nothing else.

P: The mind also deteriorates...

Krishnamurti: (Only) if I brutalize the mind in order to achieve, to succeed, which are all factors of unnatural deterioration. Then what have I left? The body grows old. The whole psychological struggle comes to an end and I am frightened....

P: Doesn't old age diminish the mind's capacity to see, to perceive?

Krishnamurti: No, if you have not spoilt it by scars, memories &
quarrels.

P: If not?

Krishnamurti: Then you are going to pay (cash?) for it ...

P: So, there is no possibility of redemption... ?

Krishnamurti: At any point the first step ( in terms of insightful perception?) is the last step.

P: So ( this whole process of 'psychological) time' can be wiped out at any point ?

Krishnamurti: Any (holistically inclined person?) who says "let me be aware of this whole movement" and perceives the totality of it for one second, the mind becomes young again for that ( timeless?) second. ( But...unfortunately?) the ( temporal ?) brain tries to 'carry over' that ( timeless experience ?) ' and...again deteriorates.

P: This 'carrying over' is ( the very essence of) 'karma', as karma is ( the active ingredient of the process of?) time.

Krishnamurti: ( Inwardly-wise) the cause is never a static thing. There is a constant movement ( of the 'thought-desire' process ?) undergoing changes all the time.

P: So, the 'psychological time' has its own ( karmic?) reality.

Krishnamurti: But... is it the 'real'? When you look (& see it inwardly ) it ceases. So, in here I can change the effect.

S: How can the effect be changed in terms of 'psychological' action?

Krishnamurti: Suppose you have hit me – either physically or by using (very mean?) words. Now, what is my response ? If I try to hit you back, the movement (of collective violence) continues. However, if I do not react when you hit me – because there is observing, watching - I am (ASAP stepping?) out of it.

P: So, if one observes (it in real time?) the ( karmic) process has ended. This act (of Compassionate intelligence?) is going to affect others ?

Krishnamurti: It will ( eventually ?) affect your family, the world around you, and others.

P: So, that is karma : a certain ( wave of selfish) energy has been released (by pure ignorance ? ) and it will work itself out ( in a chain of causes & effects ) until it meets other ( holistically-inclined) minds to quench it ?

Krishnamurti: The wave ( of personal & collective karma, aka : 'psychological time' ) can only 'end' when both of us 'see it' at the same level, at the same time, with the same intensity – which means, with the (Compassionate intelligence of?) Love. Otherwise you cannot end it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 Apr 2020 #288
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE HUMBLE NATURE OF INWARD EXPLORATION (an 'experientially friendy edited K dialogue) 1971

Questioner A: Our whole life is living between various causes & effects and trying to control them. However, part of our experience is that even when we know the cause we cannot operate on it. Buddha (is supposed to have) discovered the 'cause of suffering' and was liberated from suffering. Now, you (K) point out that in this unbroken chain of cause and effect, time is inescapable. But even after listening to you, the psychological impact of (thinking in terms of) causality and operating on cause has become an integral part of one's thinking. Can we go into it?

Krishnamurti: So...what is the question?

A: To explore the validity of the cause-effect sequence in
respect of self-understanding.

Krishnamurti: I may not know the ( actual) cause of my action. There may be obvious causes and other (hidden) causes which are undiscoverable by the conscious mind. How can the conscious mind uncover and examine the deeper layers? And what is the state of the mind which explores?
For starters, what is the quality of the mind which is exploring? Obviously, it must be a (knowledge-free) mind free. Have you a
mind that is free from any conclusion? Otherwise you cannot
explore.

A: In the effort to understand his environment, nature, outer
phenomenon, man has developed certain mental instruments and here too we try to use the same instruments; but they are inadequate (for inward exploration) It is very clear that one's intellect is partial and cannot 'see', but thought starts using it through habit.

Krishnamurti: If one sees that analysis is not the way, that frees the mind from a false process altogether. So the mind is much more vital. It is like a man walking with a heavy burden and the heavy burden is removed.

J: Then, is there some other way to investigate ?

Krishnamurti: When one realise that one's intellect is an incomplete instrument and cannot understand a total movement, what is
the new instrument that can explore?

R: The Vedantic concept is also that with the intellect you cannot
see, but with the Self or the 'atman', which is of the very nature of
perception, you can 'see'.

Krishnamurti: So, what is the quality of the 'mind' that can explore – this 'mind' being not only the intellect but the brain cells, the biological, the physical, the nerves, the whole thing. This mind then asks what is the quality of a total ( observer-free ?) perception?

R: It seems as if there is no other instrument available ...

Krishnamurti: What is the ( experiential) difficulty? We never 'look' (non-verbally) If I 'look' I do not verbalize.

R: The element of habit is so strong.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, a mind which is caught in habit
cannot explore (holistically) . So we have to examine the mind which is caught in habit and not exploration. What you thought was the door is not the door.

R: What is the difference between direct perception and verbal recognition?

Krishnamurti: You recognize through (a process of verbal) association. Recognition is part of a mind which is used to ( function in the fool-proof field of) habit. Therefore find out ( what's wrong with this) mechanism of habit. How have habits been formed? This is the ( front) 'door' (to direct perception) . How is it that the mind falls into habit? Is it because it is the easiest (& thoughtless?) way to function? Sexually and in every other way it is easy to live that way. One can live one's whole life without effort, or change, because in that I find complete security. In (living in the field of) habit there is no examination, searching, asking. However, habit can only function within a very small field. Like an university professor who is marvellous but functions in a very small field.
( In a nutshell) The mind wanting safety, security, no change, lives in patterns (of habit) .

A: Having seen this, how does the mind free itself totally from habit?

Krishnamurti: If you don't go back to the habit of (self-) analysis, the mind is free of the burden of analysis which is part of ( the whole mentality of) habit. So you have got rid of it.

R: Yes... ?

Krishnamurti: It must go. Not merely verbally. Habit is not
only symptomatic, but psychosomatic. When we have examined
habit as we have done, it is over.

A: Then how comes that we are still not free of habit ?

Krishnamurti: Because you are still insisting the door ( to everlasting happiness & safety) is there. When we start out by saying "I know", there is a certain sense of arrogance. You do not say "I want to find out (the whole truth about it) "
So, what is 'total perception' when the mind is free from habit?
(Experiential Hint:) Habit is the very essence of the 'observer' ( or of the 'thinker') . Therefore, ( an authentic inner) humility is necessary. I know absolutely nothing and I am not going to repeat a word which I have myself not found. I really do not want to 'know'. What happens later? If I do not try to move in that direction, I will ( eventually be able to ?) figure it out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 Apr 2020 #289
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE 'OBSERVER' AND THE NON-DUALISTIC OBSERVATION OF "WHAT IS"

An 'experientially- friendly' edited K Dialogue, 1971

Questioner P: The problem of duality and its ending cannot be
understood unless we go into the nature of the (division between the?) 'thinker' and ( brain's process of) thought. Can we discuss this?

Krishnamurti: How do the Hindu thinkers & philosophers deal with this problem?

P: Patanjali's ( yoga textbook:) 'Yoga-Sutras' postulate a state of liberation which has anchors (in the field of the known?) , and a state of liberation which is without such anchors. In the first one, the thinker is the prop (the tether?) In the other, there is a state where everything including the thinker has ceased.

The Buddhists talk of ( the 'Now' ?) instant, total and complete in itself, where the 'thinker' has no ( time-binding) continuity. The Advaita philosophers talk of the cessation of duality and the attainment of non-duality. Sankara approaches the state of 'non-duality' through negation (neti, neti). As for Nagarjuna, the Buddhist philosopher, the negation is absolute; if you say there is God, he negates it; if you say there is no God, he also negates it. Every positive statement is negated.

B: Buddha says that ( inwardly-wise ?) 'you' are the result of your thoughts, and what actually exists is the "Solitude of Reality" (aka : the state of inward no-thingness?) .

P: Generally speaking, the brain cells operate in ( the field of knowledge & time and are caught in time. Though the 'negation' (of the false ? ) and the concept of a 'non-dualistic' ( consciousness?) have been posited for millenia, there are no ( experiential ?) clues to apprehend these states. Can we discover what would trigger a non-dualistic ( 'observer'-free?) state?

S: Is brain's perceptive mechanism which records the technological (facts) , the same mechanism which "sees, perceives"?

Krishnamurti: The 'technological' (brain) cells, the recording ( brain) cells and the ( directly) perceptive ( brain) cells...

P: And together they create the "ego" (aka: the 'thinker' or the 'obsever' ?)

Krishnamurti: Only the 'technological' and the 'recording' fragments - make up the 'ego'. Not the ( directly) perceptive brain cells.

P: Anyway, the ( self-centred) core of human consciousness never seems to get affected. The basic duality between the 'thinker' and the thinking process continues.

Krishnamurti: Do you think this duality actually exists or only
"what is", the fact?

P: When you ask a ( holistic) question like that, the ( totality of one's ) mind stands still and it says "yes, it is so"...

Krishnamurti: Why not stay there? Is it due to the very nature of thought's (time-bound ) conditioning (aimed at) surviving , functioning and so on. Why bring that (same mentality) when we are looking at the ( inward truth of the?) 'fact' - whether there is or not this (observer-observed) duality ?

P: You're saying that it may be a just a 'reflex action' of the ( survival oriented?) brain cells?

Krishnamurti: We are (mentally speaking) the result of our ( socio-cultural) environment, the result of all our interactions (within the field of reality) . That is also a 'fact' ( to be seriously considered)
I am asking if this ( mental) duality arise when I move away from "what is"? Does the thinker create a duality when he is ( remaining) completely with "what is"?
( Personally ? ) I never 'think' when I look at a tree. When I look at you, there is no division as the "me" and "you". The (dualistic mentality) somehow not rooted in me. So, if the mind remains in "what is" (like when ) it remains with the sense of (one's existential unhappiness or?) suffering - that is "what is". So, where does ( the inner conflict of) duality arise ? When the mind says, "I must be rid of ( my existential) pain. I have known previously many states of 'non-pain' and I want to be in a state of non-pain" (Pause). So, is there a basically dualistic state or ( thought is automatically creating it) when the mind moves away from "what is"? This 'movement away' from it, is duality. The 'thinker' is ( created by thought's identification with the desire of ?) moving away. Then the thinker says 'this (inner state of existential unhappiness) should not be (there) '.
First see the fact that the movement away from "what is", is the
movement of the 'thinker' who brings in duality. In observing the
fact of pain, why should there be a thinker in that observation? The
thinker arises when there is a movement (away) , either backwards or
forwards. The thought that I had no pain yesterday - in that duality
arises. Can the mind remain with the pain, without any movement
away from it, which brings in the 'thinker'? Is it not as
simple as that?

P: Not really...

Krishnamurti: I think it is, but this implies a non-comparative
observation. Comparison is dualistic : The pain of today, is ( sub-consciously?) compared with the non-pain of yesterday.
So, (inwardly) there is only one 'fact': that which the mind is going through now. Nothing else exists.

Is it that the mind does not know how to deal with the (unpleasant or disturbing ?) facts of life in the non-dualistic sense, and therefore it 'moves away' and brings duality into being? Can the mind caught in this ( mental) 'time-trap' of the backward and the forward movement - can it deal with "what is" in a non-dualistic way? Can't "what is", be transformed without dualistic activity? Can there be a state of 'non-thinking' (a thinker-free thinking ?) ?

P: What you say is right. But there is a lack of something within us; it may be strength, or (not sufficient intelligent) energy ? When there is a ( major existential) crisis, its impact can plunge us into a state where there is no movement away from the crisis; but in ( the illusory safety of ?) everyday life, we have very few such challenges.

Krishnamurti: If you really understood this, you would meet (adequately ) even these 'little challenges'.

P: For instance, in (the routine of our ) everyday life, we have the erratic movement of the 'thinker' operating with its demands. What does one do with that?

Krishnamurti: I do not think you can do anything with it. That is
the denial : (seeing that) it is irrelevant.

P: But this is what our minds are doing most of the time - the erratic part. And one does not have the capacity to negate that.

Krishnamurti: Listen, there is a lot of noise outside. I cannot do
anything about it. ( So, for homework try to ?) settle the primary factor - to observe pain ( or any other feeling?) without moving away from it - that is the only ( experiential approach to the ) non-dualistic ( 'observer'-free?) state.

P: Let us speak of the ( constantly) chattering mind instead of pain, because that is the 'fact' at this moment. The (mentally generated ) inner noise of our chattering mind, that is "what is".

Krishnamurti: But when this ( background) noise of the chattering mind has faded away, one's ( unsolved existential) pain remains. To go beyond ( this much deeper) pain non-dualistically; that is the ( real homework?) question. So, if one can observe "what is" (going on inwardly ) without the dualistic movement (of the 'observer') will that ( not help to qualitatively) transform "what is"?

P: Isn't this leading to a dissolution of "what is"? One can see in oneself that when there is no movement away from pain, there is a dissolution of pain.

Krishnamurti: What happens when there is no movement away from
pain? Not (necessarily regarding ) the dissolution of pain but what happens to the ( mental) mechanism that operates? Pain (-wise) it is simple – it is generated by the movement away. There is no pain where there is only listening (to 'what is' going on inwardly  ?) . There is pain only when I move away from the fact and say this is pleasurable, this is not pleasurable.

( To recap :) The non-perception of "what is" (brings in?) the 'thinker', which is dualistic action. So, when the mind falls again into the trap of dualistic action, this is the "what is" and one has to remain with - for any movement away from that is ( starting ) another ( time-binding chain of) dualistic actions. And (when remaining with ) "what is", the 'fact', needs no transformation because it is already "the beyond". Therefore, when the mind has a non-dualistic perception, it does not act from memory. The next time (when any other psychological reaction) arises, that is "what is" and the (holistically integrated?) mind is always dealing with "what is". You have to be simple. It is the mind that is not clever, that is not cunning, that is not trying to find substitutes for its dualistic action, that can understand (itself) . The 'non-dual' (the 'observer'-free approach ?) means really the art of (inner) listening. The mind that remains with "what is" and never moves away from it, has no (psychological) 'marks'.

P: And even when such (psychological) 'marks' may take place, one act of ( 'observer'-free?) perception removes the 'mark' ?

Krishnamurti: Quite right. That is the way to live (timelessly?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Apr 2020 #290
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE FUSION OF THE 'THINKER' AND HIS THOUGHTS

(An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1954)

He had spent many years in search of Truth and he had also stopped here to inquire. Bronzed by the sun and made lean by his wanderings, he was an ascetic who had renounced the world and left his own faraway country. A ( natural ?) scholar, with ready quotations, he was good
at argument and swift in his conclusions. He had learned Sanskrit, and its resonant phrases were easy for him. All this had given a certain 'sharpness' to his mind, but... a mind that is made sharp is not (necessarily) pliable or free.

K: To discover Truth  must not the mind be free ( of the 'known'?) from the very beginning? This ( inner ) freedom is not a goal in itself ; it must be ( present ) at the very beginning, must it not? A mind that is disciplined, controlled, is free (to think) within its own (mental) patterns; but that is not "freedom". The end (-result ) of ( any self- imposed ) discipline is conformity; and its path leads from the known to the further known, but the mind living in the field of the known is never the free. ( Besides, any self-imposed ?) discipline is ( sustained by) the greed of (personal) achievement.

Q : I was beginning to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with all these (spiritually motivated?) disciplines. Though I have spent many years in trying to shape my thoughts to the desired pattern, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: The 'means' makes the 'end' – if the mind is being shaped in the beginning, it must be conditioned at the end; and how can a conditioned mind ever be free? The means ( are generating?) their own end(-results) , they are not two separate processes. It is a (common ) illusion to think that through the wrong means, the truth can be achieved.

Q: I've always had a vague feeling of the inadequacy of (self-imposed) disciplines, even when I practiced them and they are now an 'unconscious' habit. From childhood my education has been a process of conformity, and most of the books I have read, and all the gurus I have been to, prescribe ( the self-) control in one form or another, and you have no idea how I went at it. So what you say now is really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have all these years been wasted?

K: They would have been wasted if your 'practices' would have prevented the receptivity to Truth. But your very urge for understanding (what is wrong with them?) is the beginning of freedom. So, what is your problem?

Q: I am seeking truth, and I have made disciplines and practices of various kinds the means to that (desired) end. My deepest instinct urges me to seek and find (the Truth) , and I am not interested in anything else.

K: Is (the inward light of) Truth something to be known, gathered and held? Is not your intimation of it a ( wishful thinking?) projection of the past and so no truth at all, but a ( psychologically loaded?) remembrance? Search implies an (active) out-going or inward (-going) process, does it not? But must not the mind be ( meditatively quiet & ) still for Reality to be?

Q: But is not an effort of some kind essential?

K: Let us inquire into the truth (regarding the process of ) search. To seek, there must be an 'entity' separate from that which he seeks. But is the 'thinker', or the 'experiencer', separate from his thoughts and experiences? Without ( some quality time spent in contemplatively ) inquiring into this whole problem, one's ( spiritual endeavour in the field of ) meditation has no (holistic) meaning. So we must try to understand the process of the 'self'(- identified ?) mind . What is ( behind) this ( self-centred ) mind that seeks, that chooses, that is fearful, that denies and justifies?

Q: I have never approached the problem in this way, and I am now rather confused; but please do proceed.

K: What is ( the origin of) thought? Through sensory perception and ( visual) contact there is 'sensation'; from this arises ( the process of ) desire – the desire for this and not for that. Desire is the beginning of ( thought's self- ) identification, the ‘mine’ and the ‘not-mine’. So, thought is ( a mental process of ) verbalized sensation; thought is the response of memory (in terms of one's ) past experience & images. ( By its very nature?) the process of thought is transient, changing & impermanent, and constantly seeking (a sense of temporal ) permanency. So (by a subliminal process of self-identification ?) thought creates the 'thinker', who then becomes the 'permanent' (entity ) who assumes the role of the censor, the guide, the controller, the moulder of thought. This illusory 'permanent' entity is the product of thought, of the transient. This entity 'is' ( the impersonation of) thought; without thought 'he' is not. The (thought's) controller 'is' ( the central part of ) the ( thought-process whichis being) controlled, he is merely playing a deceptive game with himself. Till this false (mental entity ) is seen as 'false', ( the enlightened perception of ) Truth is not (possible?)

Q: But then who is the entity that says, ‘I understand’?

K: ( The 'live' perception of) Truth is not something to be remembered, recorded, stored up, and brought out ( at will by the 'thinker' ) . What is accumulated is not ( the living spirit of) truth.
(For further homework study?) it is (thought's) desire to experience that creates the 'experiencer' (entity) , who then (continues to) accumulate ( further personal experience & knowledge?) and remember it ( when necessary) . It is the desire to become, to experience, to be more (good?) or to be less (bad?), that makes for the division between the 'experiencer' and the 'experience'. ( The non-verbal ) awareness of the ( convoluted) ways of ( the thought-sustained) desire is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

Q: How can there be a fusion of the 'thinker' with his thoughts?

K: Not through an action of will (power) , nor through any form of mental effort, self-control or concentration, nor through any other (traditional) means. The use of any (dualistic ) means implies a (willful) actor who is 'acting', does it not? As long as there is a (separate) 'actor', there will be a division. This fusion takes place (naturally) only when the mind is utterly still. There is this (complete ) stillness, not when the 'thinker' comes to an end, but when the thought ( process) itself has come to an end.
There must be freedom from this (ages old) response of ( mankind's survival-oriented?) conditioning, which is thought. Each ( psycho-motivated?) problem is ( ASAP?) solved only when the ideas & conclusions of thought are not (produced by ) the ( self--centred) agitation of the mind.
( Experiential hint:) Earnestness must be tempered with the swift play of spontaneity. So, if you have actually 'listened' to all that has been said, you will find that truth will come in moments when you are not expecting it.

(Parting words:) Be (inwardly ) open & sensitive, be fully aware of 'what is' (going on within & without?) from moment to moment. Don’t build around yourself a ( self-protective) wall of impregnable thoughts. The Bliss of Truth comes when the mind is not occupied with its own ( self-centred?) activities and struggles.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 29 Apr 2020.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 May 2020 #291
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

 1ST (experientially friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH IRIS MURDOCH cca 1984

IM: I have a lot of questions, and I will just start with one about the word 'experience' which you sometimes use in your writings as representing the notion of preconceived attitudes or dogmas or beliefs, which impede a kind of being which you would connect with a 'creative present' existence. I don't entirely understand this. It seems to me that it is impossible to discount entirely or escape from experience. But perhaps there is a particular sense you want to attach to it, it seems to describe the continuity of consciousness which is simply characteristic of being human. Perhaps you could say something about that.

K: I don't know quite what you mean by 'experience'. One can experience (life?) according to your ( cultural) conditioning. If I am a devout Buddhist, I can experience the state of that ( dimension of ) consciousness which was supposed to have been Buddha's.

IM: Well this is a rather special sort of experience, isn't it?

K: Yes... I can also experience ( a reaction of) anger (& so on...) Is there a difference between the 'experience' and the 'experiencer'?

IM: Well, the word 'experience' in English is fairly vague. It can mean either, ''I had a strange experience yesterday'', or it can mean (experiencing the ) continuity of your conscious life and your relationship to your past. Or it can mean experiencing something momentarily... But you generally describe 'desire' as an experience, whereas 'love' is not an experience.

K: Love cannot be 'experienced'.

IM: Could you just explain more clearly what is the distinction  ( between something that can be experienced and something that cannot be experienced) ?

K: Could we go into the question of 'who' experiences anything ?

IM: You mean, who is the 'experiencer'?

K: Who is ( the entity that is) experiencing?

IM: Well if one were to ask a passer-by in the street he would say the 'individual'.

K: Yes, 'I' am experiencing. I had an experience of an accident this morning in a car. I experience so many things...

IM: But then, if one were to pursue the matter beyond that kind of ( superficial) answer, one must distinguish between different kinds of experiences, and I can think of three kinds immediately: (1) there is the experience of my past life, (2) you say of somebody, "He is an experienced man" meaning he has a lot of experiences of some kind or other, and (3) you would say that experience is just the continuity of my consciousness, going a long way back into the past.

K: (Experiencing the temporal ) continuity of one's consciousness. Now, what do you mean by the word 'consciousness'?

IM: Well, our ( degree of) 'consciousness' differs at different times. And even the word 'experience' would differ whether you were talking about just of one's ordinary life. Let's put it this way: you are sort of imposing yourself on the ( surrounding ) reality and say "I am doing this", "I am doing that", and this would be perhaps (your 'personal' ) experience. But also there could be an experience where 'you' aren't really present (as a self-conscious experiencer?) .

K: That's just it ! When the (self-conscious?) 'experiencer' is (momentarily 'on leave' ?), is there a (personal) 'experience' which you can then remember and say "This was it" ?

IM: Well, many people have what I would call a 'selfless experience' when - well for instance when they are looking at a great work of art.

K: Yes.

IM: Or, they could say this if they are with somebody they loved very much, perhaps. I think these two cases are very different. But what do you think?

K: I would like to go into this question of 'who' is experiencing all this? Whether it is (in the field of) the ordinary things, or in the most complicated forms of experiences - the so-called 'spiritual' experiences. Who is ( the self-identified entity ?) that is always experiencing? Is this (self-conscious?) 'experiencer' different from his 'experience'?

IM: Well, we would normally say so, because one may believe in the continuity of one's individual 'personality'...

K: Yes, that is what is commonly held. Now we are going to 'question' that (collective root assumption ?) . Is the 'thinker' different from 'his thoughts'?

IM: Well again, we would usually say so, because one could say : "I order my thoughts". This assumes that 'I' am deciding, 'I' collect my thoughts.

K: But this 'I' who orders his thoughts, is he really different from his thoughts (or images) ? He may be able to control them, he might say, "This is right", "This is wrong", "This must be done", "That must not be done", but is the controller, the person who brings order, is he different from the things which he is ordering about?

IM: Well, let's make a distinction here between the ordinary language where somebody is ( held) responsible for something he has (said or) done. He can't just say, "Well, I am now a different person now" or (re-write history?) . But leaving that aside, one doesn't have to be philosopher or hold a religious view to realise that one is (inwardly speaking) a divided person.

K: That's it.

IM: And there are times when one part of you disapproves of another part.

K: In this dualistic process, is there a difference between the 'good' and the 'bad'?

IM: Well, this seems to me the nature of the real world.

K: I know. In the 'real world' we have divided the 'good' and the 'bad', and also also the 'experiencer' from the 'experience'.

IM: Yes, and it would follow that if you condemn yourself for doing something ( not so good ?) then you are (inwardly) divided ?

K: ( Thinking in terms of) 'I should not', 'I must', 'I will become', and all the rest of it, breeds division in oneself. So, is the experiencer different from the thing he is experiencing or is the thinker different from his thoughts?

IM: Well if this is an appeal to how I think about myself, I would say : sometimes yes, and sometimes no. I mean that sometimes one is consciously judging oneself, dividing oneself, sometimes there is nothing except a single something or other...

K: A single 'movement' ?

IM: A single 'being' or something (like that) .

K: So is not the 'experiencer' the same as the 'experience'?

IM: Well, it sometimes seems so.

K: But when we say. "I am envious", then there is a (psychological) division and I try to control my envy, or rationalize my envy, or justify, or suppress and so on, but the I 'is' ( the very impersonation of?) envy, not separate from it.

IM: Well, it is and it isn't. There are two things which you seem to say and I don't understand how they connect or harmonize. One of the things which I liked very much, you said that if I think that I am envious, the word 'envy' suggests something which is bad so one wants not to be envious. If I see this I must start, not in a kind of selfless way that doesn't exist, but in my real being which is the envious person. I feel great sympathy with this. But then, you also say that there is no process (of transition) , I must 'be' good, not become good, the idea of 'becoming good' is in some way an illusion.

K: That's right.

IM: Perhaps you could explain this.

K: For me there is no psychological becoming at all.

IM: Well this is what I don't understand...

K: Let's go into it. First of all, we have divided the 'good' and the 'bad' – right?

IM: But you don't object to this...?

K: I am just looking at it (holistically?) . Is the 'bad' related to the 'good'? Or they are not related at all ? If they are related the good is still part of the bad.

IM: Well, I am not sure. Generally we think of bad weaving into the good as if it were a spectrum, with 'goodness' is here and the 'badness' there. But if we think of Goodness as perfection, being really outside the world altogether...

K: Are they opposite? Or they are totally unrelated , they have no relation?

IM: Well, there is a very clear difference between a bad man and a good man. So in that sense they are very different. On the other hand in a human being good and bad grade into each other, and sometimes you don't know which is which.

K: Now, that is what I would like to discuss with you. To me the good is totally divorced from the bad, like love is not related to hate.

IM: Yes... But in the ordinary, 'fallen' human condition, love often occasions hate.

K: Of course, of course.
IM: Whereas when you say Love is not related to hate, that it is an entirely different kind of concept...

K: Love has no feeling about hate, it has no relation to hate, it is not encompassing or embracing hate.

IM: Wait a minute. Let me ask a supplementary (bonus?) question. Would you say the same about 'love' and 'desire'?

K: Yes, I would.

IM: So, you regard desire as something connected with the psychological becoming?

K: Yes.

IM: And Love is...

K: ... something entirely different.

IM: Well now, how does this 'different' thing come to one? What am I to do about it?

K: It is simple enough : desire always brings ( an inward our outward) conflict, but Love can never bring conflict. Love has no sense of conflict.

IM: Yes, you are using the word 'Love' in an ideal sense, which is unusual.

K: If you really want to go into it, the brain is the entire centre of ( thought-sustained ) desire, feeling, anxiety, pain, loneliness - you follow? The ( psychologically active content of our ?) consciousness is all that : the beliefs, the fears, the sorrow, the loneliness, the anxiety, the whole - you know...

IM: The psychological (stuff ?) ....
K: Yes. The psychological structure, confusion. That's the ( temporal consciousness of the human ?) brain. And 'Love' is not part of the brain because it is something outside.

IM: So this comes back to your saying that you don't 'experience' love in the way in which you 'experience' desire.

K: I can't experience something which is so (totally true?) .

IM: I mean, in ordinary parlance we speak of 'jealous love' but that is not what we are talking about. One's talking about some sort of 'absolute' (selfless) Love ; but then if I say I dearly love somebody in a good way, as it were, would you want to say this is not part of any psychological process?

K: No. I would say: if there is any tinge of attachment, any tinge of jealousy, any shadow of conflict, then it is not the 'real thing'.

IM: All right, I can see in that in Christianity there would be an idea of 'divine love', or perfect love, which perhaps is something that we don't normally achieve at all (in the temporal life) .

K: I don't see why not. Because if there is no sense of ( psychologically motivated? ) attachment to another person, this doesn't mean lack of love.

IM: Well, in the ordinary parlance we would call a 'virtuous love', not hurting anybody else by loving this person, and when you are not possessive, unreasonable and there is no attachment. I mean particularly if the (beloved?) person dies...

K: Now that is a different question. But why are we attached to anything? If I am attached to this house...

IM: I would take a different view : it seems to me that 'becoming good' is a matter of purifying one's desires, having good desires, desiring something which is good. But in loving somebody I would have felt that the element of desire was present...

K: Let's look at desire. What is the origin, the beginning of desire? Why has desire become such an extraordinary important part of our life?

IM: Well desire is certainly connected with time, because I desire something which now is absent. I might desire to be frightfully rich, or I might desire to study a subject and become good at it.

K: Good at the piano...

IM: Well, let's say good at mathematics, to acquire knowledge and I might say that I love my subject, I love what I am studying.

K: But what I am asking is: what is desire? How does it come? Why does it control us so strongly? And after all, a monk, or one of the Indian sannyasis, their whole idea is to suppress desire, or transmute desire.

IM: Well, I would rather use the word 'transmute'...

K: That is, there is an entity who wants to transmute it.

IM: Yes. And there is a process of transmuting, a discipline or a training, or something like that.

K: Yes, which is not only a subtle form of suppression, a subtle form of organizing desire, or saying the desire for (reaching) God is good and the desire for possessions is bad. We are not discussing the ( validity of the) objects of desire, but what is desire? How does it take shape in us?

IM: Well, I am not sure whether there can be love without desire. But if one thinks perhaps of some kind of 'perfect love' the notion of desire would have changed so much that perhaps you would have to exclude it. But at a more ordinary level, if I desire to become well educated or something (similar) then this is implying a tension between a condition which exists and a condition which does not exist.

K: I am asking about the origins of desire itself.

IM: I don't see how one could explain what desire was without thinking of different kinds of desire.

K: I may desire for a house or I may desire for this and that, so many desires. But what is the movement of desire, the origin of it ? Because the desire for (reaching) God, or the desire for money, it is still desire. So, (the inner process of) desire is important to understand, not good desire and bad desire.

IM: All right.... I think that there might be some kind of desire which does not involve time but only where you are completely united with the object of your desire. I think this again is something in Christian mysticism, you might say, that if you desire God and if you become united with God, then your desire is fulfilled and becomes perfect Love.

K: I want to understand the movement of it, the process of it, the intolerable burden of it, or the pleasure of it.

IM: Well, it is not always a burden, is it? I mean if you desire something, for instance if you are hungry and you know that you are going to have a good meal shortly, the intention of desire is pleasurable.

K: Yes, that's understood.

IM: But there is something behind what you are saying which I can't get...

K: I will go into it : desire exists only when there is ( thought's) identification with sensation.

IM: And by 'sensation' you mean... ?

K: I see a lovely house, I want it, there is a desire for it.

IM : You image yourself in the house, or something like that ?

K: ( The pleasant overall?) sensation, then thought is creating the 'image' of my owning the house, then desire begins.

IM: Yes, so there is a kind of sensory aspect...

K: A sensory aspect, and thought gives that sensory aspect a (desirable) 'image'.

IM: Well, if one desires to be educated, it doesn't mean you are thinking about it all the time, or having sensations about it.

K: Of course not.

IM: You are carrying on with your life, but there would be moments when you have a sensory experience of desire, perhaps when you imagine what it would be like when your education is better.

K: ( So, in a nutshell:) the moment when the sensation has given shape by thought, then it becomes ( a psychologically active) 'desire'. That is all I am saying.

IM: Yes and you were saying that love is different from desire... ?

K: Love is not a desire from pleasure.

IM: Yes, all right. I would think of that love as purified desire.
And this introduces another topic : I think desire is a source of energy. Good desire is a source of good energy, but let's take your idea of love being different. There seems to me a contrast between a process and something which is not a process.

K: It is not a process.

IM: It is not a process. But ( in your talks) you have used some words like 'creative being', which is to do with the present. And you would connect this with the possibility of (accessing) love and truth ?

K: Yes.

IM: Whereas desire is something restless which is outside.

K: Restless. But Love doesn't mean it is static.

IM: No, static is probably the wrong word here. What would you say?

K: It's alive, it isn't just a...

IM: It is creative and...

K: ...it is not exclusive. I may love you but I also have this feeling of (universal) Love which is not just identified with one person.

IM: But the feeling of love is quite a different feeling from the feeling of desire ?

K: Naturally.

IM: But you are not excluding the sensory aspect ?

K: Wait a minute. Let's go into it slowly. As we said the (physical) brain is part of the senses, part of reactions, action, responses, beliefs, faith, fear, all that is centred here (in the brain) , which is my consciousness. The ( active) content of my consciousness is all that, (plus) God, no God, my knowledge, my failure, my depression, my anxiety & all that (psycho-stuff?) . Now in that there is a great deal of confusion, contradiction, fears, and all the rest of it. Is Love also part of all that ?

IM: I don't know. You tell me.

K: To me, personally, it is not.

IM: But then if this love is a human condition, I mean there is this state of 'creative being' which is love and a person is sometimes in this condition, are you suggesting that at that moment all the 'psychological stuff ' which that person consists of and has collected, is somehow absent?

K: Absent. Yes.

IM: But still, he must know what the object of his love is.

K: Just a minute. I might love you, but this love is not exclusive, it is not limited.

IM: Yes, though in a sense it is and it isn't, because if one loves a person, you love that person and not another one. But it doesn't mean that you exclude anybody.

K: Love is not exclusive.

IM: No, but it is 'selective', if one can put it that way.

K: No, that word 'selective' then becomes the...

IM: One doesn't love everybody. Perhaps God does...

K: No, I don't want to atribute love to God or to somebody...

IM: I am using 'God' as a figure of speech. Perhaps there is an ideal love ?

K: No, I wouldn't use the word 'ideal love'. I see definitely that love has no relationship to hate, to jealousy, is not 'attached', it is not desire, it is not pleasure.

IM: To ask a very simple minded question : let's say that you are interested in another person. After all, lots of people come to see you...

K: I 'care'. I 'care'...

IM: Yes. But there are certain times in one's life when one 'is in love'? Should this 'being in love' exist in every moment of one's life?

K: I am not at all sure that it can be all the time there...

IM: Yes, good, good. And you think...

K: The real question is : can Love exist where there is self-centred interest?

IM: No, that would be an imperfect love. Let's leave out imperfect love which is not Love.

K: All right, so when there is self interest can the 'other' (quality of Love) exist? It obviously cannot because self interest is something very, very small.

IM: You won't let me use the word 'perfect' or 'ideal', so, I'll use Love in your sense then. This Love then excludes self interest ?

K: Where there is self interest the 'other' is not.

IM: Well this is something that I very much want to find out, and everybody (in this neighbourhood?) wants to find out, is 'how to change', or how to become (trully loving ?) or how to move out of the situation of being envious.

K: There is no difference between 'I' and 'envy'. I 'am' envious & envy 'is' me.
'I' cannot act on 'envy', because it 'is' ( an intrinsical part of) me.

IM: Yes, but ( with age?) you can become 'less envious'.

K: But it is still ( a part of) me.

IM: Yes.... Go on.

K: So there is no question of transmutation, or escaping from it, it 'is' me.

IM: Then, what do I do next?

K: If it is ( an intrinsical part of) me I watch it very, very carefully : watch it, not try to act upon it !

IM: So, isn't there a 'you' who is watching the 'envy'?

K: No, in watching (it imspersonally) , there is no 'you'. Like when you are watching a bird, there is no 'you' - just the watching of the bird.

IM: Well watching a bird is quite different from the other kind of watching.

K: That's just it. Is there a ( holistic quality of inward) watching without the word, without condemnation, rejecting, or resisting ?

IM: Well, there can be such watching, but it is rather difficult when oneself is envious. Then one is not aware of (what one called) 'envy' but just watching ?

K: Watching.

IM: Or 'being it' - to put it in another way. Consciously 'being' your envy. Would you accept that form of words?

K: You 'are' envy.

IM: But when you 'enviously' do something, you are not ( inclined for such ) watching. Or perhaps only for a moment... ?

K: That is what I am saying : Look, like when you are watching a very intricate jewel. Then you are (marveling?) at the extraordinary delicacy, the bright light and the beauty of the jewel.

IM: Yes, yes... but in this case you are looking at envy.

K: I am doing exactly the same thing. Then I 'see' ( in real time) the whole movement of envy, which is ( involving?) comparison and so on...

IM: Yes, yes...

K: So one watches it without any thought interfering with the pure act of watching. ( Experiential Hint:) That requires a great deal of real attention in which the 'self (-identified' consciousness ?) is not (in operation )

IM: But are you not making a judgement?

K: No.

IM: You are watching without judgement...

K: Oh no, I have no ( ethical standards of ) value. I don't say you must or must not have envy, it is immoral, or anything of that kind, since the human beings have lived ( +/- happily?) with envy for thousands of years.

IM: And the result of this ( thought-free?) attention is that envy disappears?

K: Yes, because in this attention there is no 'self' at all.

IM: Yes, good, good. I can understand this state of being.

K: You can watch it (for homework?) , you know. It is great fun.

IM: I mean, this connects with my question about how do I change? Is not this (selfless watching) - to use old fashioned language - a spiritual discipline ?

K: Discipline means really 'to learn'. To learn by watching, not memorize (the skill of) watching, but to 'see' (in real time?) the whole (psychological) implications of envy, comparison, and all the rest of it.

IM: And this state of attention happens only when you are 'meditating', or should it happen all the time?

K: All the time, if you are ( learning by directt) watching. That is, (the holistically watching mind) not let a single thought 'slip by' without knowing what it is.

IM: Yes, but would this watching co-exist with doing whatever one's job is in your everyday life ? Wouldn't the idea of living at different levels, or different states, come in ? There would be a constant state of being which was this constant attention ?

K: Yes, but you have also you introduced the word 'meditation'.

IM: It is a word that you use yourself.

K: I use that word, but you see, this meditation is a very complex business. In this meditation there is no 'meditator' at all.

IM: Yes... ?

K: But what we do now is, "I must follow a system to mediate". "There must be practice", which is all ( self-centred activity of) desire which wants to achieve a certain state.

IM: Yes, but this seems to me in a sense unavoidable. I have been taught such a system of meditation, a long time ago, and I have practised it to some extent, but it seems to me that there is something which is 'trying to do it better'.

K: When you use the word 'better' that means more, therefore it is measurable (by thought) , more and more...

IM: 'More' even in the sense that in meditation there is no duality, there is no subject ?

K: Absolutely not.

IM: I would say that something like this happens in the experience of art.

K: The moment you say 'experience' you are already (in the field of duality?)

IM: Well, I mean that if I am looking at a great picture, if I am really looking I am not there. Only the picture 'is' there .

K: That's all. When you are really looking at something there is the absence of the self.

IM: And this would be a good image of ( the unselfish ) love too, wouldn't it?
If you would be really selfless in all that you are doing, there would be love in that doing...

K: Of course. Of course.

IM: But if the self would not be present, the object of attention would be absent. But it seems to me you have to try (for it?) You have given me the end but not the means.

K: The means 'is' the end. The two are not different.

IM: May I just quote a remark made by Kafka to the effect that there is no way, there is only the end. What we call 'the way' is just messing about.

K: Yes...

IM: Yes, but I see and I don't see it....

K: Let's try something else. You see, change implies the future, as you pointed out - right? From this to that.

IM: Yes, imagining the future.

K: What is this 'future'? This ( thought-projected) future is a continuity of the past, modified through the present, it is an (imaginary) 'movement'.

IM: Yes, all right...

K: Right? So this 'future' is (already contained ) in the present. Now, inwardly, subjectively, (thought's psycho- memory of the?) 'past', which is 'me', my memories, my experiences, all the past, is being modified in the present and proceeds to the future - right? This is the whole ( time-binding) movement of our evolution, of our psychological well being, or not well being, and so on. So what I am now, will be (pretty much the same?) tomorrow, unless I change now - right? So the 'present' moment contains the (personal & collective memory of the ) past, and the 'future' is now. Right? Now, the present is 'what I am' - my (past) memories, all that. And there is no ( true ?) future if I continue (along thought's projected time line) . Is there an end to that?

IM: You mean, is there an alternative state of being?

K: Yes. In ending this whole (time-binding) movement of ( self-centred) becoming, struggling, achieving.

IM: Yes, the philosophers have always been worrying about the ( subtle) difference between 'being' and 'becoming', and in Platonism, and even in the Christian theology, 'being' is real and becoming is unreal. And I feel something of this in what you're saying. I am trying to picture what you are speaking of would be like. Let's say you are spending your time learning a language and you don't know the irregular verbs today, next week you will know the irregular verbs. And this is human life and unavoidable and proper and quite right. However during this time you are also attending to everything that you have to do...

K: Of course, I am paying attention to everything I do now – so the 'now' contains all ( one's past, present & future) ?) time.

IM: I mean, you are picturing a possible ( time-free) state of the human (consciousness?) ?

K: No, I am just saying : see what has happened to the human psyche: it has always moved along this direction ( of self-centred 'becoming') past, modifying the present and the future. This is the ( karmic) chain in which we are caught.

IM: Yes, the word 'caught' suggests there is ( a perspective of) freedom – a ( dimension of inner) freedom which is connected with truth and with love.

K: Yes.

IM: And so somebody comes to you saying, "Well I am in a (thought-created  mental ?) trap, how do I get out of the trap?"

K: If you are in a trap let's ( spend some quality time & ) look at what is the (nature of this) trap before you want to get out of it.

IM: Well, suppose I want to achieve a state of being which is selfless.

K: Yes, which means what? You desire for it. You have a 'concept' ( a subliminal thought projection ) of the future.

IM: Yes, I know that now I am not selfless but I would like to become selfless.

K: Therefore let's understand what the (temporal) 'self' is. You can't change the self without understanding the movement of the self.

IM: But in the situation where one was looking at one's envy, for instance, we agreed that one result of this attention would be that the envy would disappear. So the ( old selfish?) self is changing.

K: What matters here is not the 'ending of envy', but (the observer-free quality of) attention matters.

IM: Well supposing I just attended to my envy and went on behaving enviously but with complete consciousness of what I was doing. Would that be a good state?

K: Then see that 'you' being conscious - is still part of the self.

IM: Well one is not postulating a kind of condition which is totally unlike the human condition. One is imagining a state in which human beings would actually be.

K: Yes, we are ( thinking ) human beings. We live in this constant conflict, pain, sorrow and all that - right? This is our life. This is our condition. But you come along and tell me, look, there is a different way of living, not be everlastingly ( stuck ) in this business. And if there is a ( shared learning ) relationship between the speaker and yourself, you 'listen' to him & find out (the whole truth) .

IM: Like now, I am asking you, of course.

K: So you (Mr X) tell me that envy is not love, so, ( as meditation homework ?) watch it, look at it, see it and let it unfold - give your whole (undivided?) attention to it.

IM: But would this not result actually in my inhibiting it?

K: No.

IM: Well why not? Wouldn't it be good for me to inhibit my envy?

K: No, it will come up again some other time if you inhibit it .

IM: All right, but in the meanwhile it might be better.

K: Ah, I don't want 'meanwhile'!

IM: You seem to me to exclude the element of training oneself. I mean you don't like the word ( self-) discipline.

K: Discipline, comes from the word 'disciple' – one who is learning. Learning (about oneself in real time) not memorizing. Learning to see the beauty of that jewel. I haven't looked at the jewel. I have always condemned it, rationalized, etc., but now there is only watching that jewel.

IM: Yes but what you are watching in this case is something precious, but when I am looking at my envy it is the opposite of a jewel, it is something bad.

K: No, ( in the observer-free observation) there is no spirit of condemnation, or judgement, or evaluation, just watch it.

IM: Looking at a picture is a good example for me at any rate in trying to understand what your fundamental idea is here. But what still troubles me is that you are ( subliminally?) suggesting an ideal mode of being, a real mode of being in which you are (non-dualistically) connected with reality. But there remains the fact that one is not in this state, one is sunk in illusion, one is full of illusion.

K: That's all. So, I live in illusion. My thinking, my faith, is illusion. Now the word illusion comes from (the latin) 'ludere' - to play. I am playing with illusions.

IM: But then, why shouldn't I just watch my envy and be amused by it and continue to behave enviously?

K: All right. Carry on. But there is ( a potential?) conflict in it. There is a certain sense of ( existential?) agony in it, there is pain.

IM: And if you saw somebody that you loved in a state of illusion, wouldn't you wish for that person to change?

K: I would go and talk to him.

IM: Well, when you are suggesting that he should change, you are suggesting some new moral values.

K: No, I would say to him, look, why do you have these illusions?

IM: Well to call them illusions is already to make them...

K: Don't even call it illusion. You believe in God, somebody believes in some other thing.

IM: Well let's stick to the case of envy because that's fairly straight forward. Somebody is consumed with envy : "Oh, he's got that, he's better than me", and so on. You watch somebody like that and say, "Look why waste your energy and your anxiety on something which is not deeply really important. And you should not be doing it."

K: If he is willing to 'listen' to it. The moment he is willing to listen to you you have already...

IM: But you have taught these (local teachers & students ) something.

K: Ah, no. No, no ( personal?) pressure. I don't want ( to impose ) him to change.

IM: Well, I know all good teachers refuse to call themselves 'teachers'. But supposing somebody has lots ( psychological flaws as) envy, jealousy, angry, couldn't he become successful in everything, would you say that this was impossible?

K: No, you can't be harmonious while with your right hand you are kicking (the poor) and with the other hand you are being harmonious on TV...

IM: Yes, many people would assume rightly that an evil man is ( living ) in a ( concealed) state of inner conflict and that a good man is harmonious.

K: A good man has no ( inner) conflict.

IM: Yes, and an evil man has conflict. Well this then suggests that there is something that there something unreal about what he believes about the world. So what you propose to produce a harmonious personality?

K: Is it possible to end all conflict within oneself? That is the real root of the question. All conflict.

IM: And you would be prepared to drop the words 'good' and 'bad' then, and use the words 'harmony' and 'disharmony' ?

K: I wouldn't use harmony, or disharmony, because the moment when there is no conflict you are ( feeling) whole. There is a holistic way of living.

IM: I think we are reaching the end of our (VCR) reel.

K: Yes, we have.

IM: Well I think I would like to go on with this.

K: Would you like to after lunch?

IM: Yes, perhaps we have to stop now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 May 2020 #292
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH IRIS MURDOCH cca 1984

IM: You seem to shy away from the idea of (having a spiritual ) 'duty' ?

K: I feel (the sense of holistic?) 'responsibility' is better than duty', because (for me ?) responsibility implies care, affection, a sense of communication with the other person, not doing something because you feel obliged to do, or told to do, just being 'responsible'.

IM: There would be no limits to this responsibility. But if we take telling the truth, that's something more fundamental.

K: Telling the truth is ( an implicit) part of my ( educational ?) responsibility. I wouldn't be dishonest to myself.

IM: Would you regard the decent moral continuity of a society's life as being essentially different from what we were talking about this morning, from the 'real thing', and from 'love'?

K: Yes, yes. I would consider it different.

IM: But I don't see where the division comes between what we would ordinarily call 'goodness', or 'moral behaviour' and this fundamental thing.

K: Could we startwith (examining) why are we (inwardly) fragmented? Why do we look at our life and actions as being 'broken up' as business, religion, love, hate? Why do we do this?

IM: Well ( because the different aspects of our daily ) life have to be dealt with ( specifically) every day.

K: Yes, but why should I accept life to be dealt with in this (fragmentary) way?

IM: Then, you feel that we should have some sense of completely 'unitary selflessness', which then isn't divisible ?

K: Yes, if there is (a selfless sense of ) 'love' there is truth, there is beauty.

IM: Yes, if one is looking at life in a philosophical sense...

K: No, in the actual sense, I mean if I really love, there is beauty in it, one can't be dishonest.

IM: Yes, but what worries me is the point of connection between the truth which is love, the fundamental truth, and the ordinary life conceptions of truth as in 'tell the truth'.

K: Suppose I have lied. And I record (the fact) that I have lied, or of having been angry. That is honesty. That is the truth in the ordinary sense of the word. I don't cover up my lie with lots of phoney stuff. I think we are so trained to cover up all this kind of things - to 'escape' ( the responsibility of) being totally honest to oneself.

IM: Yes, well how does this ( outward honesty) connect with overcoming (one's inner ) conflict, or ( one's existential ) separateness , and so on ? This would imply that you make a clear distinction between desire and love, for instance, and you then bring 'truth' into the centre (of your being) by saying that 'love is truth' ?

K: Yes of course.

IM: But this doesn't seem to me to connect very easily, and this is where my idea of purifying desire would come in. This doesn't connect very easily with ordinary moral life. It looks as if one would have two judgements of morality, you would say he is a good man in the ordinary sense of the word, but is an imperfect man in (the holistic ) sense of the word. And isn't it important for you, as someone wishing well to men, isn't it important for you to make more clear these ( subtle) connections (between the inner & the outer world ) ?

K: Yes, I would first ask this (holistically minded?) friend : why are we fragmented ?

IM: Oh, you would ask the metaphysical question first ?

K: Of course, from there you have to start (with the right foot) .

IM: So, this is your intimate feeling that we must be ('holistically) right' from the very beginning ?

K: Yes, all the time.

IM: Yes, I like this too, that what you want (to start ) is something new, that is not the collection of what one has culturally acquired, but something 'new'.

K: I mean I have asked the ( local?) students in many of our discussions: why is it that we are ( so mentally) 'fragmented', so broken up , what has gone wrong with us? After millions of years ( of survival oriented evolution?) we are still fighting each other, killing each other, so antagonistic. You know what is happening in India, the Sikhs and the Hindus, etc ? Why do we accept this way of living?

IM: Well, yes but I think there is a kind of empirical, ordinary answer to this that we can try and stop it by doing all sorts of things, like people do when they talk to other people.

K: But Madam, the fact is that we haven't stopped this division. I mean, what am I to do if they are fighting?

IM: Yes, so what you want to communicate is something which would have practical effects in politics ?

K: It ( the integrated holistic mentality ?) has practical effects (on long term?) in politics, religion, daily life.

IM: Yes... ?

K: (If?) one would say : look, let's start with why we human beings right throughout the world are so broken up, so divided now, so...

IM: But it seems to me this is a sort of 'metaphysical' question, which in a way can't be answered.

K: I think the answer is fairly simple : Is it because thought (the self-centred thinking ?) itself is fragmented?

IM: Well thought itself is fragmented, but it seems unavoidably so. I mean what we are doing now, using a natural language and concepts and using words, which we both understand and so on, this is something which depends on spreading out of interest to the world in many, many different ways. I mean, the word 'discursive' carries this notion that the intellect has to spread itself out, it has to emerge into ( a more accessible experiential ) language and so on. And you don't seem to me to allow the ( quick) 'redemption of the world' by bringing the ( consciousness of the ) world into Goodness, into Truth & Love.

K: I say, yes it must be done...

IM: Well yes, but then one can't get rid of all ( one's inner) fragmentation. One has got to 'redeem it', if you see what I mean, to get rid of fragmentation.

K: All right, let's (try to) redeem it. Why are the human beings like this? Why is it that there is such conflict, such violence?

IM: Well again there are many historical reasons. But you are thinking of much deeper things ?

K: Much deeper things, naturally.

IM: Well, I can't answer the metaphysical question but what I can say is why ought it not to be so. We all have a conception of goodness from which we spread, as it were, all kinds of thought and action into the world, hoping that gradually we can make the world better and remove conflict in the superficial sense, and in the deeper sense too.

K: We have lived on this earth, for least two or three million years, (our brains ) have evolved, but... we are still at it.

IM: Yes, we are...

K: I mean just look what is happening.

IM: And who can say what the future holds?

K: The 'future' is ( the temporal continuity of) what we are ( thinking & doing) now. If we don't do something 'now' (in the psychological field?) , we will be exactly the same ( or... worse?) tomorrow.

IM: Yes, but what we can 'do' now is something very limited really. We can 'do something' to ourselves and (at best?) to a small number of people.

K: Yes, but ( inwardly ?) 'ourselves' is the ( consciousness of the ) world.
I 'am' the rest of the world, because my ( self-centred) consciousness is like the rest of mankind.

IM: Yes, so you mean that if you can do it other people can do it ?

K: If I change, ( homeopathically ?) I affect the ( shared consciousness of the ) rest of mankind

IM: Well there is also the fact that one has a very limited amount of time in which to achieve this ( holistic) insight.

K: That's why I don't let ( the procrastinating mentality of ?) 'time' interfere with this ( timeless?) question. I am a human being. My ( self-centred) way of life, my ( self-centred) way of thinking & action, is like that of the rest of mankind. They may have outward ($$$$?) differences, but deeply I 'am' (sharing the collective consciousness of ? ) the rest of mankind. I 'am' mankind.

IM: Well, except that you (Mr 'X') are a very unusual person. But leaving that aside.

K: No, no. I am ( sharing the consciousness of) mankind because we all go through a hell of a time. So I am humanity. That is the real 'Love'.

IM: I mean, you may be showing us what is (the holistic) human potential.

K: Come and join me !

IM: Yes, well.... ?

K: Let go your petty little 'nationalistic' (mentality) and all the rest of ( self-centred mentality ?) , and join me, let's be ( inwardly) free and look at the world differently, rather than always being in conflict with each other. Madam, this ( pro-active selfish mentality ?) is happening every day of one's existence.

IM: Yes, but I can't help putting the problem in terms of how much ( homeopathic ?) influence can one have. And if one is going to teach ( the holistically minded) people in order to bring about the ending of this (pretty sad?) period of conflict, they have to involve themselves in persuasion, in politics. And many ( action-minded) people would say, don't worry about ( redeeming ) your own soul and whether you are selfless or not - it is a waste of time, you must simply go (out there ) and stop them suffering.

K: Do you see what is happening with those people who are helping and those people who are helped ? Buddha said too, mankind suffers, there must be an end to suffering. And look what they have done: the (consciousness stream of collective) suffering is going on.

IM: When you speak of overcoming conflict, overcoming suffering...

K: Not overcoming, 'ending' it !

IM: Is this 'ending' anything like what a Buddhist would think of as Nirvana?

K: Apparently 'Nirvana' means a state (of timeless consiousness?) in which the 'self' is not. Come to that ( experiential) point ( as a meditation homework ?) and ( hopefully?) you will find out.

IM: I would understand it as meaning that one is in a selfless condition and the denial of the world is seeing the meaningless of all these other things.

K: That is what they have done - 'denied' the world. I don't say 'deny the world'. On the contrary, you have to live (& act responsibly?) here.

IM: Yes... one thinks of Plato's ( metaphorical) image of the cave where you are in darkness and then gradually you move out into the light. He also speaks about 'coming back into the cave', by which I think he means that after you find some kind of liberation for yourself, then you have to liberate everybody else as well.

K: That's the whole sense of Bodhisattva and all that, but if you change fundamentally, won't it affect the ( total consciousness of) mankind?

IM: You will affect a certain number of people.

K: No.... ( The generous ideals of) Christianity have affected millions....

IM: Yes certainly. The ( idealised?) image of Christ has changed people's lives

K: And Buddhism has also affected the whole of Asia.

IM: Yes, all right, but nevertheless...

K: I say let a few of us work at this, then we will change the ( global consciousness of the?) world.
IM: I think we have had great teachers who have had a great deal of influence, who have advocated a kind of 'selflessness' which is not unlike what you are speaking of.

K: Yes, freedom from the 'self'.

IM: What is one to do?

K: What is one to do requires sitting down, talking about it, going into it - right? And breaking down the (self-protecting) barriers between us.

IM: We have come perhaps onto a slightly different kind of question: a question about (your psychological ?) 'influence' and...

K: I don't want to 'influence' anybody. But if you see something for yourself it is clear.

IM: Well yes, that again is something which we agree about, that you have to do this whole thing by yourself. This is something which I think theologians are realizing now that you can't have God 'thrust upon you'. I mean whatever the spiritual life is it is something you have to discover for yourself.

K: In the 'spiritual world' there is no authority.

IM: Well I don't myself see any answer to the problem of how one's ( inward) discovery of spiritual truth can change the world. You perhaps have more hope for the world than I have.

K: No, but I see that unless there are a few of us radically change the psychological structure we are going down the hill all the time. That's all.

IM: Well I agree with that too. If the world lost people who are concerned with what you are concerned, I think that it would lose its centre.

K: Yes, that is what I mean. But there are very few people who are concerned to be totally free from all this....

IM: But, to put it sort of bluntly, you want to be more of such people, but at the same time you reject traditional methods, for instance ideas of duty, ideas of asceticism and so on, which have been, as it were, part of the training of people who achieved perhaps this state.

K: Why should I be 'trained'? If I see something to be true I stick to it !

IM: Yes, but you have probably had a gift of ( Divine) Grace which a lot of people haven't had. What you have achieved easily would be very, very difficult to achieve for the majority of people.

K: That might be. But if you use the word Grace, to be in a state to receive it, don't be selfish, don't have (inner) conflicts (of interest?) & have some kind of inward silence.

IM: Yes, I agree entirely, entirely with this. I would feel it is perhaps important to try in certain ways to influence one's surroundings, but I know that this ( endeavour) is full of difficulties. So, I would rather stick to the question we were working at this morning, though I don't quite see how to find the way of enlightening myself on this subject of time and fragmentation.

K: To be ( inwardly) free of time, that means no ( thought-projected ) movement forward.

IM: Free of time and living in the (light of) truth, and love... Would one, if one had this kind of insight, would one know that one had it?

K: I think one wouldn't 'know' it but it would show in your actions, in ( the holistic quality of) your daily life.

IM: But you do accept then that there are two entirely different planes. And I am wanting to connect the two.

K: No... There is the physical plane.

IM: ...and there is the 'psychological' plane also. That is what we are talking about.

K: Psychological plane, but why should there be a division there? Why should there be a superior and a lower level ?

IM: I mean some kind of redemption of the psychological hurly burly of one's mind. I am all the time trying to discover just where this divide is between that life and the life of truth.

K: Ah, that is totally different.

IM: Well, it seems to be a metaphysical remark to say it is totally different.

K: I know. And after all the self is a very subtle, cunning thing. It can hide (even) under prayers, under every little action by thinking it is noble : I am helping mankind, I am influencing for the good. So to understand what the self (really) is, it requires a daily looking at it, not just say "I am free at one moment" but it requires such attention to everything that you are doing ( or thinking & feeling ?)

IM: So you would think that if somebody is getting entirely absorbed in the outward action, it wouldn't be in Truth.

K: That is a most (psychologically?) dangerous thing.

IM: So a certain amount of inner quietness, couldn't it be compatible with leading an active life ?

K: ( Providing ) that 'silence' is not the ( calculated ) product of thought.

IM: Yes, OK....

K: This ( inner spaciousness of) Silence is not to be ( thought-) cultivated and in it there is no ( mental) movement.

IM: And this would connect with 'living in the (eternal?) present'?

K: You know, Meditation is an extraordinary thing if one can do it without a conscious effort.

IM: Yes, I think any means that one adopts towards 'goodness' is likely to become a barrier.

K: Absolutely.

K: I have talked to people who have spent many years, like this old man came to me and he said, "I have spent twenty five years in the jungle wandering over and I have deceived myself all along.

IM: Well he should be congratulated, because most people don't often admit.

K: To be really quiet is something you can't cultivate, you can't get it by practise and all the rest of it.

IM: It comes as a gift perhaps ?

K: No, in one's daily life madame, otherwise what is the value of your quietness, if your daily life is not affected, if your daily life isn't without conflict?

IM: Well, of course, this connection of meditation with one's daily life is a fundamental idea. I mean if somebody claimed to have this quietness but behaved badly in ordinary life I would be sceptical.

K: I know, so am I...

IM: So, although my own thoughts on this subject are influenced by Plato, I feel perhaps that something that you are insisting on, which he also insisted on, is the absolute separateness of the timeless and eternal from what we ordinarily think of as 'goodness', which is a kind of idolatry.

K: Yes, idolatry.

IM: And he uses the images of destroying idols. If you destroy images you destroy idols... But of course he does picture life as a pilgrimage in a way in which I think you don't.

K: No. If I have no 'images' in myself about anything...One has to be careful of that because the ancient Hindus believed there is 'atman' inside and that you given him a chance, peel off your ignorance and then you will be like that! That is an assumption. I don't want to assume anything.

IM: I wouldn't call it assumption because it is something I agree with.

K: It is an idea. It is a concept which has been cultivated for many centuries , which has been traditional, and that ( nowadays it) has no ( spiritual) meaning, because I may have this concept that 'God is in me' and I still can go and kill somebody.

IM: Well, yes, this idea of a 'God' ( within oneself) is of course already in a sense an idol.

K: That is all I am saying. We are idol-worshippers, whether it is handmade or made by the mind.

IM: Yes. But the absoluteness of the division between the ordinary process of life and this being in the 'Truth' , you must insist on it being quite separate from the worldly idols.

K: Absolutely, of course. After all man's (spiritual) search has been for eternity. But the (modern creators of myths) make an idea of it...

IM: Well, thanks to ( the ideas of) Plato I come to a deper understanding of what you have been saying... Thank you very much !

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 05 May 2020 #293
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

SPIRITUAL TRADITION AND INNER FREEDOM

( a 'reader-friendly ' edited K Dialogue, cca 1971)

Krishnamurti: Should we enquire into what all this human existence (presently ) engulfed in conflict & sorrow, means ?

R: What is it all about and also what is our fundamental answer to life?

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we could find it out. It is like going to a well with tremendous thirst, wanting to find out ( the whole truth about ?) everything. Do it that way, then I think it will be profitable.

SW: (For starters ?) how can I be absolutely free?

Krishnamurti: Break all the ( self-protecting ?) 'windows', because wisdom has no frontiers, it is totally impersonal. Do not be satisfied by just a few words. Dig deep.

SW: How did you came to it yourself?

Krishnamurti: You see, sir, he ( the young K) apparently never went through any practice of self- discipline (in order to end ) jealousy, envy, ambition, competition, wanting power, prestige a fame. He ( simply) did not want any of these. Therefore there was never any question of giving up. Most of the traditional teachers go through giving up (their worldly possessions & desires) , through practicing thought-control; then they sit under a tree and ( eventually) come upon ( enlightenment or inner) clarity.

A: You may have had nothing to 'give up' and therefore no need for self- discipline, but what about people who have something to give up?

Krishnamurti: You know the story of how the boy was picked
up (by the clairvoyant CWL who saw his selfless aura ? ) – and although he was born in a most orthodox Brahmin family; he was not (psychologically) conditioned by the Hindu or by the theosophist tradition nor by any other factors through life - it did not touch him. First of all, I do not 'know' why it did not touch him...

SW: So, ( the young) K just came by it. He is not able to explain how, but it is a wonder to the listener how without any (spiritual preparation) he has come to it and yet it 'comes' and the ( earnest?) listener finds beauty, joy. It is in his heart.

Krishnamurti: Would you say, sir, that it would come to any person who is really non-selfish ? I think it would be the most 'logical' answer.

SW: Or is it that you saw the misery of mankind and then 'got it'?

Krishnamurti: No. To answer this (profound experiential) question
completely, there was the quality of 'speaking from emptiness'.

SW: Yes... ?

Krishnamurti: There is never any accumulation ( of experience or knowledge) from which he speaks. Now, your question, "How do you say these things?," involves a much greater question : whether wisdom or ( the spiritual enlightenment?) can be contained in any 'particular' consciousness or it is beyond all particular consciousness?
Sir, if there is no ( psychologically -active ?) content in one's consciousness, there is no ( 'personal') consciousness - in the sense of the limited. When 'it' happens, the mind is completely empty. This does not ( necessarily?) mean that you become a 'medium'.

SW: I derive from this, that ( the Compassionate Intelligence of ) Infinity is full of beauty & rationality in its expression.

Krishnamurti: So, what do you want to find out? You have the capacity, you have read a great deal, you have practised and meditated - from there, ask.

SW: ( One's ) consciousness is ( in a condition of temporal?) bondage. Only from ( a state of inner) emptiness can one have entry into it.

Krishnamurti: So you are asking how can a human being empty
the mind?

SW: There is a traditional idea of the 'adhikari', the person who
can learn. And that there are levels or differences in the persons who can receive (truth) or learn (about it) . There are three levels : sattva, rajas and tamas. Those who belong to the first category - 'sattva' - can have the (instant?) understanding of Truth just by 'listening' to an (enlightened ?) Teacher. The 'rajas' ( intermediate) category have to listen and recollect it when they face a challenging problem of life. The 'tamas' cannot really learn because their minds are too gross – and in order to make the mind subtle, there are many ( traitional ) methods, 'upasanas'. For instance, in yoga they start with breath-control, standing on the head & so on... But they say these 'asanas' are only meant as a
cleansing. And meditation-wise, it is said, whatever you do, be ( mentally alert but ?) passive and observe "what is".

Krishnamurti: You say, as the human beings are now constituted, there
are gradations of ( spiritual) receptivity because they are not through with ( thought's) 'becoming' process – so, for such people, how is it possible to come upon this?

SW: That is just one part of it. The other is that most people, have moments of ( holistic?) understanding, but ( more often than not) … they 'slip away' and then it is a constant struggle (to recapture this sense of inner clarity) . What is such a person to do?

Krishnamurti: Is it possible to 'cut across' these levels?

A: Or, are there processes by which we can transcend those levels?
I can see that my life is a life of 'becoming'. When I come and sit with
you, and you say (that inwardly-wise ) 'time is irrelevant', it is all clear, but I am back again in the ('reality ) field' of time, effort, etc., this -( largely subliminal ?) thing which I feel I understand, slips away.

Krishnamurti: The question is fairly clear : when I 'listen', I seem to understand, but when I go away it's gone (with the wind...?)
And the other point is, how is one who is not ( holisticall-wise?)
'rational', to break through his conditioning and come upon It (Truth?) ?

SW: My answer from experience, is that you have to do some ( homework?) meditation by which the mind is made much more alert.

Krishnamurti: First of all take a mind that has no ( holistic quality or ?) capacity - how is it capable of 'seeing' or 'understanding', without the ('thought -) time' process? Without ( thinking in terms of) time, how is
such a mind to come upon this? ( Hint:) when you allow ( the thinking in terms of ?) time, there are other ( distracting) factors entering during the ( spiritual) voyage so that before I reach there I see something
beautiful and I am carried away. The ('pathless'?) way (to Truth) is not a straight path on which I walk. Innumerable ( collaterally distracting) factors are happening. These incidents, happenings, impressions are going to change the direction of ( one's inward) movement. And that (Ultimate?) thing which I am trying to understand is not a fixed point either.

A: This point that Truth is not a fixed thing should be explored (for homework) .

Krishnamurti: Suppose that my mind is confused, or seriously disturbed, I do not understand ( what my life is all about?)
And if you tell me to understand it by doing these ( preparatory) things, you have (implicitly) established the understanding of Truth as a fixed point, while it is not an (universally?) fixed point.

SW: It is not a fixed point... ?

Krishnamurti Obviously ! But (even) if it were a fixed point, and I (may like to think of ) going towards it, there are (many) other ( distracting) factors which enter in my journey towards ( my spiritual end) and these factors are going to influence me much more
than the end.

A: That 'end' is a ( wisgful thinking?) projection of the unknowing mind.

Krishnamurti: So, that's not the way at all. First see (that the living spirit of Truth?) is not a fixed point, and it can never be a fixed point; therefore, I say that is a false ( approach ) altogether. Then, since you
are denying the whole thing, you have wiped away a tremendous
field of ( spiritually aimed) practices, meditations, all such knowledge. Then I am left with the (ground zero) fact that I am confused, that I am dull. Now (looking at this real life 'fact' holistically ?) how do I 'know' I am dull, how do I 'know' I am confused?
Only through comparison (with a presumably 'enlightened' person ?) , because I see that you (Mr X?) are very perceptive and through comparison, through ( aself- evaluating) 'measurement', I see that
am dull. So, through ( my subjective mental ) comparison. I have reduced (condemned?) myself to ( being stuck) a state which I call 'dull' - and now I see that is not the way either. So if I reject comparison, am I still 'dull' then, if I do not compare?

So ( to recap:) One has rejected the (self-becoming) process which (the collective thought of mankind) have evolved (projected) as a means of reaching 'enlightenment' through time.

SW: Does it mean, that the (inward) understanding of Truth is not a matter vitally connected with capacity at all?

Krishnamurti: What has happened to ( the holistic capacity of ) my mind ? In this very denial (of what was seen as 'false' ) , the mind has become less dull. ( In a holistic nutshell:) The rejection of the 'false' (statement that truth is a fixed point) makes the mind clear; and the rejection of (the psychologically motivated) 'comparison' which is also false, makes the mind sharp.

So, what have I left now? The mind I have called 'dull' is not dull. It is "what it is". So, where am I? I start from the ( very ) beginning. I know nothing about enlightenment & truth understanding as a process of self- becoming. I have thrown them away (into the paperbasket of mankind's spiritual history) . I do not 'know'. This ( psycho-motivated) 'knowledge' is the means of getting hurt and if I do not want to use that instrument, I start with ( an inner state of) complete innocence, with a mind that is incapable of being hurt.

Now, I say to myself, do I flower in Goodness through comparison?
Can ( the authentic) humility (of not-knowing) be gained through time & practices? Obviously not....

( Parting words:) Why have human beings imposed upon human beings something which is not true? ( Lots of spiritually minded?) human beings have castigated themselves to get ( to the ultimate state of) Enlightenment as though Enlightenment was a fixed point. And they have ended up ( 'truth- ) blind'.
That is why I think that the so-called 'man of error' is nearer to Truth
than the man who 'practises' (sophisticated methods) to reach Truth.
(Simply because the ?) man who 'practises' ( 'strongly recommanded' systems of meditation to reach) Truth becomes impure, unchaste.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 06 May 2020 #294
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE ORIGINAL FEEDOM OF DIRECT PERCEPTION

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1971)

Questioner B: According to the philosophy of Buddhism the 'worldly' person might perform endless religious rituals and still remain 'worldly' unless he has an (insightful) glimpse of the right direction. In the next stage, the (lucky?) 'path-winner' keeps wandering away and coming back till there is no more 'going back' to the first stage and he finally 'settles down' and reaches the state of being an ( enlightened person or ?) 'arhat'.

K: Are we asking how the worldly man is to have a glimpse of Truth ?

B: They say it's better to go through a (long period of) 'sadhana' ( self-discipline ?) but they do not guarantee that you will reach it through sadhana. The Buddhist tradition says that the man ( engulfed ) in sorrow has a glimpse of this. Then he is becoming a 'path-winner' and then he works out his ( own spiritual) salvation and ( eventually?) becomes an 'arhat'. What kind of operation is involved in the second stage?

Krishnamurti: Shall we approach this ( very delicate ) problem in a simple way, which is: one lives in a ( self-centred) 'dualistic' state in which is ( involved an existential) pain, sorrow & conflict. And ( realising the sorrow involved in this psychological condition ?) man says, how am I to get out of it? (Unfortunately ?) he does not know how to do it although he might have read about it, but it's only second-hand information with no ( true experiential) value. So, this is where I would start (my inward inquiry) : I only know a 'dualistic' ('observer' & 'observed'?) state in which there is sorrow & pain. That is the ( starting) 'fact'.

C: Some ( open minded) people do realise this (inner condition of ) conflict and misery and also that the dualistic state is the cause of the trouble. So they want to get rid of it (ASAP ?) . Other (less motivated truth seekers) feel discontented and read , and they start imagining this 'non-dual' state.

Krishnamurti: We are not concerned here with the man who (uses or)
supplies 'conclusions' ; we are discussing about the man who is really discontented with his existential condition . How does he get out of it?

C: The traditional way is to explore the issue through reading ( serious reference ) books and ( attempting to) resolve ( his/her own psychological ) by ( applying the newly acquired  ?) knowledge.

Krishnamurti: So, if I (realise that my inner life is presently stuck in a state of inner ) conflict, how do I resolve it? What do you mean by 'knowledge' ? To know that I am in conflict, or knowing what I should do about that conflict? What is the sanskrit equivalent of this word?

C: 'Jnana' – and it will apply both to the nature of this inner conflict and how it arises.

Krishnamurti: To know the structure and the nature of ( one's existential?) pain. Do you call that knowledge?

C: Jnana has been divided into the knowledge which pertains to the
phenomenal world and that which refers to the non-phenomenal
world.

Krishnamurti: So let us proceed: I am (living inwardly in a cvasi-perpetual state of) conflict (Eg:) I am unhappy and I want to do
something which makes for happiness. I acquire knowledge about
it by ( self- introspection ) - seeing the cause, the nature, the structure of this (inner) conflict and having this knowledge, you're saying it will free the mind from ( the thought- generated state of inner) conflict ? Obviously it does not (work this way ?) As long as there is this (ongoing process of) intellectual knowledge, you are not free (of the intrinsical limitations of thought?) .

C: Jnana is not related to the intellectua1 process.

Krishnamurti: So you are saying there is another factor which is
beyond intellect, knowledge ?

C: And which enables the ( totality of one's ) mind to see, to discriminate.

Krishnamurti: Do they say it is that entity who has gathered this
knowledge that will end conflict? If so then there is a superior
entity.

C: They postulate an entity which does not 'experience' (dualistically) .

Krishnamurti: This postulated entity is an opinion which I have acquired from somebody else. Do not invent a Higher Self – as you know nothing about it- (for starters?) you know only conflict, and the (superficial) knowledge acquired through (self- introspective ) analysis. One can see that this knowledge does not get rid of (one's inner) conflicts.

C: Traditionalists consider that knowledge as gathering of
experience, memory, belongs to the realm of manas and buddhi,
but this is made possible by the 'atman' (the inner soul?) which sheds light, and without 'atman', the manas cannot function.

Krishnamurti: The fact is, the brain is 'material'; and its cells are the material on which every incident leaves a mark, every
experience, conscious or unconscious. All the time the brain is receiving (and recording a wide range of sensory & mental impressions ?) . A constant recording is going on (superposed on ) the racial inheritance, personal inheritance; all this is leaving a ( conscious or subconscious) mark on the brain. So brain is the repository of all recording - sensory, nonsensory - ( brain's collective) memory which has been collected for many centuries.
That ( memory) is (processed & used as) knowledge. If you did not know where you lived, you could not go there. Because you have been there, you know it.
(However, this kind of) knowledge does not necessarily free the mind from ( its often ignored state of inner ) conflict. Then what will free it ?

C: The man who talked of 'atman' (aka : one's higher Self) never thought he realized that. The only experience which they cite is that you have a sound deep sleep and you wake up. How do you remember that you had a sound sleep? In deep sleep the mind does not work.

Krishnamurti: ( Talking about ?) 'atman' is within the field of thought - therwise, you would not use that word. We are saying (the concept of)
'atman' is part of the brain.

C: But they have said the 'atman' is outside (the field of sensory) experience.

Krishnamurti: The moment I say 'there is God', my thinking about it
is (already) within the field of thought. The man who has not thought at all, to him there is no 'God'. The ancient ones thinking about something greater, said there was 'God'. That (holistic concept ?) was the product of thought. So that was within the field of knowledge. Look, how ( self-) deceptive the ( self-centred) mind has become, when
it's caught in words !

C: But 'atman' was their personal experience.

Krishnamurti: When they say they experienced atman, what does it mean?

C: They say it cannot be described.

Krishnamurti: Of course it cannot be, but it (the concept has become) part of thought. I recognize you because I have met you
yesterday. If I did not, I would not 'know' you.

C: That is not the process by which you recognize 'atman'.

Krishnamurti: Be simple. I must recognize a new experience. What is the process of recognition? Like this yellow flower - I could not
recognize it if I had not seen it. So ( the verbal) recognition of an experience is (based on what ) has already been experienced. Therefore, ( the mental concept of ) 'atman' has already ( been recorded) within the field of experience.
The fact is (that caught in my state of inner conflict) I suffer. And if I really want to end this ( endless condition of inner conflict & ) suffering" the 'atman' ( concept) has no value at all. It is like a man who is hungry and you would describe the food to him.

C: I agree that whatever they have said does not help...

Krishnamurti: On the contrary, they have destroyed the ( native quality of direct perception of the human ) mind by introducing a factor (concept?) which does not help.

C: Yes... 

Krishnamurti: So, how can the mind resolve the factor of sorrow? By looking at it ( non-verbally) without (its previous) knowledge.

C: Is this possible?

Krishnamurti: Test it out ( in your meditation homework ?) . Put away completely (the 'knowing' mentality?) . Then what happens?
When you ( actually) see what this 'suffering' (actually) is, you
are directly in relationship with suffering, not as an 'observer'
observing ( his existential) suffering. ( Hint : generally ) we look at our suffering with ( a mental) 'image' which is (already stored in the collective memory of the ) the past. This ( self-projected) 'image' of the past may be ( one's own self-image or the (objectivised concept of ?) the atman. Test this 'image' as you would test it in an (inner) laboratory.

( In a nutshell:) when I am looking at this sorrow with (all the previously) gathered knowledge from my past experience, this ( self-centred ) experience divides the 'past' from the 'present' and there is duality. The 'present' is ( my ongoing state of inner conflict and/or ) sorrow and when 'I' am looking at it through the (eyes of the ) past, ( my thinking brain ?) is translating it in terms of the past.
However, if the ( directly perceptive) mind can look at it without the past, there must be a different meaning altogether. So, I have to test it. So, can the ( holistically inclined) mind look (free of its) past memory? Can I look at that flower without (naming & recognising it through my ) past knowledge? Test it ( as part of the contemplative homework ?) - you can do it or not do it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 May 2020 #295
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE BRAIN CELLS AND THE 'PSYCHOLOGICAL MUTATION

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue 1971)

Questioner P: We have not dealt so far with what seems to be the
essence of your teaching and that is the problem of time, the
silencing of the brain cells and whether it might be possible for us to understand the nature of a (psychological) mutation in relation to the brain cells.

Krishnamurti: I understand...

P: My first ( personal ?) question is what triggered it in you? The brain cells of "K" which were ( operating in terms of ) time, underwent some kind of (psychological) mutation.

Krishnamurti: I will show you very simply. The 'cultivation' of any human brain takes time. ( Vast amounts of human ) experience, knowledge ( along with personal) memories are being stored up in the brain cells. This is a biological fact : the brain is the result of ( a long evolution in) time. Now this man at a point 'breaks' the ( thought-time) movement and totally different kind of movement takes place, which means, the brain cells themselves undergo (a qualitative) mutation. And "P" asks : you must tell us what took place; otherwise what happened was merely chance.

S: Two traditional explanations are possible. One is the theosophical
explanation that the Masters were looking after "K" and so he was
untouched by experience. Another explanation is that of reincarnation.

Krishnamurti: Let us investigate it together. Begin with perception; is the 'seeing' (of the truth or falseness of anything ?) involved with time?

P: What happens to the brain cells in the process of this ( insightful) seeing?

Krishnamurti: They either respond ( from their past memory) in old terms or they hold themselves back in abeyance without the ( memory of the ) past.

P: You say that in ( the insight-based ) perception which is instantaneous, the brain cells hold themselves back. If they are not operating, do they exist?

Krishnamurti: They do, as the storehouse of memories, experience, knowledge which is the past. That is the old brain. In ( the non-verbal) perception, the old ( knowledge formatted ?) brain does not respond.

P: What operates then?

Krishnamurti: A totally 'new brain'. The 'old brain' is full of (previously accumulated) 'images', ( personal & collective) memories & responses and we are used to responding ( to the challenges of real life) with this 'old brain.' We say that (the insightful ) perception is not related to the old brain. This ( 'flash?) perception' is (occurring in ) the ( silent) interval between the old response and the response which is new, which the old does not yet know. In that ( silent) interval there is no ( thought-projection of?) time.

F: Even in the context of modern psychology, the sensory responses are direct. But in the interval between sensation and thought's verbal acknowledgement, all kind of collateral memories jump in and distort. So sensation is timeless but this interval is time.

Krishnamurti: Let us get this clear : when you ask me a practical question, the 'old brain' responds according to its previous knowledge; But if the old brain has no ( such ) knowledge there is an interval (of non-thinking ) between the question and answer. And in this (interval of ) not- knowing, there is a state (of empty consciousness) in which time does not exist. The moment I 'know', the 'knowing' is ( bringing the thinking brain in the field of ?) time.

P: What has happened to the old brain (in the interval of not-knowing) ?

Krishnamurti: The old brain is quiet.

P: So, when the new ( brain) exists, the old brain , does not ?

Krishnamurti: Perfectly right. The 'old' ( collective brain of mankind?) has, through centuries, collected all kinds of memories, has registered every ( kind of temporal ) experience and it will function on that level all the time. It has its (thought-projected ?) continuity in time. If it has no ( full assurance of its temporal ) continuity, then it may become ( generally speaking ?) neurotic, schizophrenic, imbalanced. It must have a sane, rational (sense of temporal ?) continuity. However, in the ( field of thought-simulated ) continuity, it can never find anything ( creatively ) 'new' because it is only when something ends, that there is something new.

F: Continuity of what?

Krishnamurti: It (thought's continuity in time ?) is not static - it is constantly accumulating ( stuff?) & adjusting (to a constantly changing reality). So, let us first see this ( time-binding) continuity as a mechanistic ( recycling & updating ?) of thought's old (behavioural patterns) . At a given point of time I call it a new (response to a new challenge ?) , but it is still an (addaptative response of the ? ) 'old' (brain) We hanker for 'new' ( exciting experiences) and invent the new within the (field of the known)

P: What is the 'new' which is not the invention of the old? Is it
recognizable, is it perceivable?

Krishnamurti: It is perceivable but not ( 'experiencer'-) recognizable.

The ( self-centred human ) mind which has become mechanical craves for something 'new'. But this 'new' is always (sought ) within the field of the known. We want the new (but safely conditioned?) in terms of the old.
Pupul's s question was about what happens to the old ( collective) brain - which is the result of time, experience, knowledge - when there is an insightful perception which is new, in which there is no 'observer'; in which perception is not ( translated into a personal) experience
to be stored up and remembered and therefore to become (part of brain's psychologically active ?) knowledge ?

F: As you just said, the old brain does not respond.

P: Perhaps something of vital significance is happening here, but we have still not got the feeling of it. In that ( silent) state of attention there is a timeless creative movement. But what has happened to the whole
weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: It is fairly simple (to explain it verbally?) . The old brain's (memory of the ) past is in continuous operation; it is registering every incident, every experience, everything that is pouring in, the sound, the seeing.

P: So, these ( recording ) brain cells are acting independent of whether 'I' am conscious or unconscious (of their background activity)

Krishnamurti: Yes. So, when that ( survival-oriented old) brain is in operation, it is always acting from ( its memories of the ) the past.

P: If you observe it, it is like ripples being thrown up, thought as
ripples, and suddenly I am attentive and there are no ripples.

Krishnamurti: In that state of ( spontaneously occurring) attention, there is perception. That state of attention 'is' perception.

D: When I see the fact that my brain is registering everything
and I suddenly realize that it is going on without the 'observer', that
annihilates 'me' (the self-conscious thinker) .

Krishnamurti: It is like a recording machine that is registering
everything. You have just heard the noise of that car horn blowing.
The brain cells have registered it (impersonally) . There is no resistance or acceptance.

D: Isn't there more to it ?

Krishnamurti: If you come along and ( do personally) challenge the old brain, it will respond in terms of like, of dislike, you are a danger and she is not a danger. In that instant is born (re-born?) the "me".
But the registering (in itself) is (a vital) function of the brain. ( A subliminal) registering of every experience, whether conscious or unconscious, every sound, word, every nuance, is going on irrespective of the thinker as a separate entity. But resisting a noise which is unpleasant, or listening to some flattery, out of this ( personal processing of the ) 'registration' emerges the "me".

P: When the registration takes place, I am (becoming ) conscious of the sound.

Krishnamurti: Which is what? ( 'you' are becoming conscious?) that it is pleasant or unpleasant. But at the very moment of experiencing (the incoming sound) , there is no "I" in it at all.
So, here comes the 'new' ( perceptive?) action. One registers that noise (objectively?) but there is no ( subjective?) response to it. The
moment there is ( a personal) response, this response is (becoming part of ) the "I" and (the intensity of ) that response increases or decreases according to ( our expectations in terms of) pleasure, pain, suffering.
Now, Pupul's s question was how is this ( collective human) brain which is doing all this automatically, mechanically, all the time, how is that brain to see (anything new) without the 'registerer' or 'registration'?

P: I want to take it further from there : when one actually 'listens', the sound passes through you . There is a state of (timeless?) attention in whic for a split second, the horizontal movement of thought & time has come to an end. What has happened to the 'old brain'?

Krishnamurti: It is still there (on stand-by?)

P: What do you mean it is still there?

Krishnamurti: Let me put it differently. What is the essential need of any human brain? Must it not feel safe, secure, to function?
One sees the brain needs ( a deep sense) of security. But when some (existentially challenging) event happens the brain sees the ( inward truth of the ) fact that to have presumed that there was ( an everlasting) security & comfort is not true.

D: What is brain's basic query?

Krishnamurti: I will tell you. The brain cells need security,
protection, safety to survive. They have survived for millions of
years. Now what takes place? In its ( indiscriminate ?) search
for security, it ( eventually) gets stuck and has to be rooted out.
Because the basic thing is that it wants safety and survival and
therefore it has invented a 'time sequence' of survival – horizontal (yesterday-today-tomorrow) or circular ( the everyday routines). Now, when our basic necessities are granted, what happens? Isn't the
perception in terms of security not entirely different?
The 'new' ( holistically minded ) brain says : survival, yes, but not at the price of (accepting to live in time binding?) illusions. It does not invent beliefs or ideals for in them there is no (authentic) security at all ; so, it wipes them out ( ASAP?) because they are illusory.
Therefore ( the 'new' brain) it is completely secure; not in anything, but in itself it is secure. Before it sought security through ( getting safely attached to something?) – family, competition, or through seeking ( the Ultimate Truth) .

( Hint:) Security 'through ( being dependent of ) something else is the greatest insecurity. It discards that. Therefore it can perceive (free of self-created illusions ?) . Because it does not seek any (psychological illusion of ?) security, it is ( inwardly becoming?) completely secure. The mind is then free of illusions; illusion not
in the sense of Sankara, but just the illusion that I will find security
in family, in God, or in (collecting tons of second hand ?) knowledge which is the (result of mankind's) accumulated (experience of the?) past.
Now, it is perceiving.

F: Unfortunately, we are at the mercy of ( a very vulnerable & aging) psychosomatic body and there we are feeling very insecure. There has
to be a different approach to this (human condition) because our bodies are so fragile.

Krishnamurti: So I will protect the body. There is no egotism
involved in it.

F: But our vulnerability is often connected with the 'ego'.

Krishnamurti: We ( like to ?) think that we protect the body through the "I". But once we grant deeply the necessity for complete safety for the brain, we will solve all the other problems. Let us put it in this way: Is perception related to the brain cells which demand security at any price?

P: My mind does not function in this way. These (hypothetic) questions of security or of non-security have no relevance. At this moment if I
raise these questions I am lost. I am here to understand this movement of ( thought's projected) time and see whether there can be a state of the brain cells ceasing to function (along this time-binding direction) .
I am 'listening' to you and in that state, where is the weight of the past?

Krishnamurti: When you say I am attending, giving complete
attention, is there time in that?

P: Because there is no thought's response, how do I measure?

Krishnamurti: When there is (an undivided?) attention, there is no time, and because there is no 'centre', there is no ( self-centred ) measurement (either). The next question is, what has happened to the 'old brain'? ( In this new quality of integrated ) attention, the whole psychosomatic organism is attentive, which is also ( including ) the brain cells. Therefore, these ( newly awakened?) brain cells are exceedingly
quiet, alive, not responding with their old (memories) . This ( holistic quality of ?) attention is silence, and out of that (inward state of) silence, innocence & emptiness, the brain can operate - but not as a 'thinker' in terms of seeking security in something.

P: Does it mean the whole brain has undergone a (qualitative?)
transformation?

Krishnamurti: What has taken place is ( a psychological?) mutation. The (self-identified?) 'observer' is not (there anymore?)

P: But aren't the brain cells still the same ?

Krishnamurti: Watch it in yourself. This attention means complete attention – the body, the psyche (the soul?) , the cells; everything is there with life, alive. In that state (of transpersonal consciousness ?) , there is no 'centre', there is no (thought-projection in ) 'time', there is no observer as the "me". There is no 'time' in terms of the ( continuity of the psychological memories of the?) past but yet the ( objective memory of the?) past exists because I speak the language, I have to go to my room.
So, what happens to the brain cells? They are still registering ( what's going on) but there is no "me". Therefore the ( self-centred ?) "me" which was part of the brain cells is 'wiped out'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 17 May 2020 #296
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

FREEDOM FROM THE SELF-CENTRED MOVEMENT OF DESIRE

( "reader-friendly" edited excerpts from a K-DB Dialogue, 1975)

DB : (…) Historically speaking thought began by not knowing its intrinsical limitations , so it was (instinctively) trying to do things which it has no place to do  - like it was trying to provide ( an inward sense of endless) security...

K: It (the collective consciousness of mankind ?) entered in an incorrect direction when desire, sensation & ( the ego-centric activity of ) thought became prominent...

DB: And what was the motive power behind this 'incorrect action' ? I think the point was that there arose this question of desire, when thought projects ( brain's psychologically motivated) goal – to achieve a better state of mind, to 'feel better'. And of course, if you're physically ill, you may go to a doctor, but if you feel bad psychologically, with ( lots of accumulated frustrations & ) sorrow, it's not so clear...So, when thought said 'I want to feel better (about myself) ', it anticipated some kind of ( a positive ) feeling & tried to achieve it - that being a 'desire', right ?

K: That's right, a desire...

DB : Now, it seems to me that desire is the basic source of self-deception...

K: Yes, of course, obviously...

DB : And it is very clear (that besides its self-projected wishful thinking) thought cannot do anything to the brain matter to feel better, but of course, it can do something to disturb it... Now, when it tries to make the brain 'feel better', all it can do is to look for (highly stimulating) thoughts that can make it feel better ; so, thoughts which are incorrect are accepted as 'correct' and you begin to go into distortion and self-deception, because (momentarily) it makes the brain feel better...

K: Right...That is, if 'desire' is ( a psychological combo of?) 'sensation & thought', then that very desire is a distorting factor.

DB : Yes, because that sensation coupled with thought is giving the brain the desire for a better sensation, and it distorts thought in trying to make it better - inevitably, you see ? And then, of course, nothing can satisfy fully that desire - because of its contradictory nature- so it changes from one to another 'route' and eventually several different (threads of) desire are already there... I have observed one thing : that when another desire comes in, thought does not know how to stop the first desire...

K: But sir, isn't all desire the same, but the 'objects' of desire change ?

DB : Yes, there is a superficial change of object, but the basic process is one and the same - it is confused, contradictory & self-deceptive... Now, desire includes 'belief' and 'hope' – 'belief' means accepting something as correct just because you desire it to be so - for otherwise you have no proof, and 'hope' is just simply the belief that what you desire is going to be realised...So, all these three are (arising from ) one and the same (source of thought ) ; and I think that 'belief' is even more deceptive than the plain ( sensory) desire...

K: So, can ( the self-deceptive movement of ) desire be totally understood and therefore there's no more distortion taking place ?

DB : That is the point we have to get to (experientially ) because desire is so self-deceptive that it deceive itself even about its own existence – you may desire to believe that there is no problem & so on...

K: Yes...but haven't all religions said : Control your desires, because that is the very root of self-deception ?

DB : Yes, I understand that all religions have implied to control desire because they have understood very correctly that desire is destructive - but desire cannot be 'controlled' , because when you try to control desire there will merely be one desire against another...

K: And because it cannot be 'controlled' they said : identify yourself with something greater …

DB : Yes, but that's still desire...

K: Of course !

DB : And that may become a form of self-deception : I believe that I am inwardly becoming greater (or wiser?) because I feel better …

K: Right. Then the problem arises : can desire -which cannot be controlled – because the 'controller' is part of desire …

DB : Yes, that's a key point and perhaps it should be brought up - that as 'you' ( the thoughtful thinker?) try to control the ( various pursuits of) desire, this 'desire' in itself is not (just trying to attain its ) 'object' but a ( more complex mental ) 'movement' , sending a set of instructions to the brain in order to get something, except that the ('thinker'?) who sends the instructions is himself controlled by the instructions. Therefore there's no separation between the 'controller' and the 'controlled'. It's not the same as with some external object which can be separated from the ( mental activity of the ) brain, but desire is the very movement...

K: And, as desire breeds illusions, can the ( holistically minded?) brain relegate desire to its 'functional' (objective ) activity ?

DB : Well, it's not clear that it can, as desire itself is deceptive, it is not clear if we can keep desire at its place...

K: I think it can. Let's go into it.

DB : You see, desire may often be confused with 'passion' - one of the ways by which desire maintains itself (going) is to create self-deception by saying it is a 'passion'...
Now let's look into the 'functional' area – would you say there is a place for desire there ?

K: I question it altogether...I think that if one can understand the whole movement of 'desire' and see whether it can be 'dissipated' (inwardly integrated?) , then in the 'functional center' there is no ( psychological interference of?) desire.

DB : Perhaps that would make more sense to say that the 'functional centre' would operate without ( any personal) desire and do what it has to do, because if desire enters anywere else it's going to produce self-deception that would spread ( a cloud of confusion?) everywhere...

K: So the question is whether ( the psycho- activity of ) desire can be totally 'dissolved' so that there is no possible deception at any level - at the 'functional' center and at the 'psychological' and all the rest of it...

DB : Yes... ?

K: Otherwise, one lives in a 'fool's paradise' - because your belief in Heaven or Hell is totally unreal...

DB : Yes, I mean the point is : we can't go on with desire, and if we do, our society will be destroyed...

K: Quite, as the world is....So can desire have no place in one's everyday action ?

DB : Or no place anywhere ?

K: And if we admit that, how can the (self-centred ) process of desire be dissolved ? What is the inwardly perceptive action, the 'insight', or the ( action of holistic ) intelligence that will dissolve this desire ? Can the brain 'see' the ' inward truth (regarding) desire' and therefore...

DB : You mean, seeing the actual fact of desire ?

K: Yes...I have watched it ( within in myself) several times – I like (driving ) fast cars : their shape & the whole bussiness of it...There is the ( anticipated ?) sensation, thought, and the desire arising. Can there be only sensation, thought and... no ( personal) desire ?

DB : But you see, the problem is that desire arises when that thought (sustained desire ) includes the thought of the 'self' – it appears as something that the 'self' needs or is missing...

K: Like the sense of power, the (exciting driving ?) sensation & all the rest of it...

DB : But when that sense of power extends to be the essence of your consciousness, then it creates some sort of 'longing' or 'yearning' or 'craving' or 'hankering' & so on. In other words...

K: The root of all that is desire !

DB : That is one thing, given different names, but I think the root of this is a certain mistake of thought which is (operating) in the wrong area : trying to think of the essence of your consciousness, or trying to think that it can (personally) do something in that area...

K: Haven't we said the other day that the content of consciousness 'is' ( generating its own?) consciousness...

DB : Yes , but generally thought tends to think that this (self-) consciousness is the manifestation of a 'being', or of an 'entity' who is deeper and who is not only thinking correctly - more or less - but who is also 'seeing' – its thinking is often described as ( personal) 'perception' – and who is also 'experiencing' (with the objects of desire) which is giving the sense of its own reality – the 'experiencer' who is experiencing those ( very real) sensations...

K: Quite...

DB : And all that ( self-identified thinking?) makes this whole thing having a 'reality' independent of thought...You see, if all that would not be present, the sensations would not be regarded by thought as all that important...You see, thought is trying to produce a different set of sensations in order to make 'you' (the experienced 'thinking entity') feel better…

K: Better sensations... more & more sensations...

DB : That's right, more & better , and that's what is worse !
Now, that's an inherently 'crazy' activity, you see, because the only point of sensations is to give you 'factual' informations ; if thought tries to make them 'better' , then it could no longer give you ( that kind of) information, you see ? And the whole thing anyway is self- contradictory because that very attempt cannot be kept under control and so on...

K: So, I'll come back to the point : the (psychologically active) 'content' of one's (temporal) consciousness - apart from the 'functional' knowledge - is (created by?) the movement and the accumulation of sensations and desire.

DB : It is like some sort of 'imprints' which contain the records of all that and the instructions to produce them again and their memory becomes stronger and stronger...

K: Can this (psychologically motivated?) movement of desire come to an end ?

DB : Well, it seems that it should.

K: But all the religions of the world are saying this, yet the become monks in order to identify with...

DB : You see, that's the self-deceptive nature of desire : the brain begins to say, when it sees its destructive nature, is : I'd rather not have desire, and it begins to desire... a state of 'non-desire' ...

K: Yes, that's it - to desire a state of 'non-desire'...

DB : ...therefore the whole thing is silly because desire has such a self-deceptive nature that I can desire 'not to be conscious that I have desire' – because it's ( recorded in ) the content of my consciousness- that I ( should) have no desire...

K: So, our question is : can desire which brings illusion, self-deception and all the objective complications  of changing desires - can the ( psychological) 'root' of desire be dissipated ? I think it is only then that you see what is 'truth'.

DB : I mean, that is very clear to me, that as long as there is desire, nothing can be done (inwardly) ...

K: ...nothing can be done, that's right. You see, sir, this is very difficult, because most people think that desire is necessary to live ( a balanced life?) - that's part of our cultural tradition...So, our conditioning is so strong that ( the self-centred) desire is part of our 'necessity to live'...

DB : You see, if we can distinguish ( the subtle delimitation between) 'desire' and 'passion' – because without desire there is place for real passion, which has far more energy - because desire wastes a tremendous energy just because of its contradictions ; it is always moving in many directions and it's wasting ( one's ressources of intelligent?) energy...

K: That's right. I was talking once to a monk and he said : I have totally rid myself of all wordly desires and therefore I've taken to calling mysef a different name, put on a robe, I have only one meal a day so the worldly desire is completely out of my system ; but... I do desire to reach God. He said, ''You cannot take that away from me because it's my life ! That is the very root of my ( spiritual) essence''.

DB : Yes, that's what I was saying before, that thought is going into the wrong sphere and tries to guarantee its ( spiritual) essence in some way, by 'thinking' ...You see, desire is the attempt of thought to make its essence 'right'...

K: When I desire, I 'am'. You follow ?

DB : I think that's clear, and rather than what Descartes was saying : 'I think therefore I am', it's 'I desire, therefore I am'... desire is thought, of course, but I don't think Decartes had that 'kind of thought' in mind...( both laugh)

K: You see, when you deny desire, 'I' am not !

Db : Yes...I was thinking of a remark you made once : '' Desire is the bedrock of the ego''...

K: Yes, yes...

DB : You see, it seems something very solid, which is not that easy to break up...

K: Yes. Now how is this bedrock of desire, which is the on which all our civilisation, all our 'individual' aspirations & all our culture are based, how can that be 'dissolved' ; without 'control' – because the controller 'is' the controlled, without any 'effort' - because 'effort' implies desire, without any 'goal' – which also implies desire, without any 'ideal' ? Seeing the (inward) truth that the (temporal) 'self' is based on the bedrock of desire and therefore on self-deception, suffering  & the whole thing that follows, would you say that if there is no desire, one is (inwardly as?) 'nothing' ?

DB : Yes...

K: ...and therefore is that (state of inward?) 'no-thingness' a frightening thing ?

DB : Well, desire itself is implicitly ( generating this sense of?) fear...

K: Yes, of course !

DB : ...because desire is ( creating ) the sense that ''I need something for my essence'' and if there is 'nothing' there then it would be very frightening ...

K: That's right !

DB : The very essence of desire is fear, it is sorrow, and it is violence – because if I don't get what I want, I become violent, you see ?

K: Yes, sir....How am I to 'explode' this tremendous 'bedrock' which society, tradition - everything sustains it, boosts it, makes this 'bedrock' more solid ?
( Hint:) When one sees that (inwardly wise) desire implies conflict, desire implies duality, desire is in itself 'fragmentation' . When one 'sees' this factually, is there desire ?

DB : Well, what you say is ( holistically?) correct, but the difficulty is in 'seeing' this, because it is such a fast & violent process. I think that desire has been built up by tradition to such an extent that it pervades every movement of one's ( everyday) consciousness...

K: I know... the desire to reach, the desire to be good...

DB : ... the desire for the 'highest' , the desire for this & for that. The desire for ( achieving a material & psychological ?) security is probably a major one...

K: Would you say that knowing that there is no ( such everlasting) security, the movement of desire is (shifting) for something else... ?

DB : Well, the desire for (the perfect psychological) security works entirely in a field of fancy imagination and that gives the apparent ( reality ) of the thing desired, or of the thing which we have to reach... Without imagination I don't think there would be desire...

K: So, in examining and exploring all this, can we narrow it down and ask whether it is at all possible to live without ( the psychologically motivated activity of?) desire ?

DB : Well, this seems something absolutely necessary ( in the context of a holistic way of life) ...

K: It is ; so now we come to the ( critical check-)point where we both see it is essential that we exist without ( the limitations of self-centred ) desire - how can that brain, which is conditioned by ( living for millenia in the field of thought & ) desire to 'uncondition' itself?
Do we ever ask this question ? And if we ask it, will it not be another form of desire to get rid of it ?

DB : Well, there is the danger of falling into that trap...

K: Of course ! But do we have to go through all this (time-binding analytical) process ?

DB : Well, I mean, all of those things will not get us anywhere...

K: What prevents one from having an insight, a real insight, that is, 'seeing the truth' of desire and therefore 'end' it ? Is it that we have never dared to ask this question - if it is possible to live totally without (free of?) desire ? I think it is a question that needs a tremendous intelligence – because if I desire a pair of shoes and I need it I, won't call it 'desire' – so 'need' and 'desire' can they be kept separate ?

DB : Well, if it's a genuine need...

K: I'm talking of genuine need …

DB : Desire is a fancy need in itself …

K: But there comes the 'pride' of posessions, vanity...

DB : That again it is an 'imagination'...

K: Of course ! So, can 'need' and 'desire' be kept separate ?

DB : I think they can...

K: They can, but that requires ( the quality of timeless?) intelligence which 'sees' that desire has no place... Would you say the essence of ( a loving & compassionate) intelligence is to be without desire ?

DB : Yes, we could say that the essential requirement for intelligence is 'non-desire' ( a desire-free state of mind?) ...

K: So, ( in a holistic nuthshell:) a man caught up in desire - however subtle, however noble - is unintelligent !

DB : Yes, not basically 'intelligent'...

K: Of course ! So, can one's needs be absolutely correct ? Never desire touching them ?

DB : That would mean no (selfish) thinking for yourself ?

K: Of course...Sothen, ( the quality of) one's consciousness becomes something totally different.

DB : Well, let's go into that a little bit : when there is no 'thought of the self' or ( self-centred) desire, the 'thought of the self' is desire, or at least a sustaining force...

K: Yes. And therefore, what is the nature of a consciousness that is not put together by desire ?

DB : There is still the practical actions of knowledge...

K: But that's ( thought's objective) 'function'...

DB : So, you're asking about the whole function of the brain ?

K: Sir, what happens to a brain which is desire-free  ?

DB : Hmm... ?

K: Does it receive a ( wake-up ?) shock with this question ?

DB : Well, it's certainly surprising …

K: Surprising, therefore it is facing ( an existential challenge which is) totally new....

DB : Yes... ?

K: 'New' in the sense that if has not put this question ever - What happens to the ( self-centred) 'movement' of the brain when there is no ( pushing or pulling of) desire at all ?
( Experiential Hint:) This question may be terribly disturbing to the brain...

DB : You mean, the brain can't handle it ?

K: Yes, it is too immense !

DB : Well, if it can't really deal with it , the brain tends to leave it go...

K: You see, you were saying the other day at lunch that in ( the emptiness of inner ) space there is a tremendous (amount of unmanifested?) energy...

DB : Yes... ?

K: Now we said : ( the self-centred activity of) desire wastes this energy...

DB : Yes, that's correct...

K: Now, when the brain has no desire...

DB : Then it will have ( free access to?) all that energy ?

K: That's right !

DB : Yes, I've observed that if you keep on watching (the joint movement of thought & ) desire carefully, you'll find that the (level of one's inner) energy goes up...

K: That's what I'm trying to get at  !

DB : So, there is a major waste of energy in ( the time-binding activities of?) desire.

K: But you see, this is the ( commercial) 'danger' – the energy is going up - therefore control desire and make it an 'industry'...

DB : Yes, to 'keep it up'...

K: Keep it up and gain twenty millions of dollars of it...I don't know if you saw it the other day in the Herald Tribune : Transcendental Meditation is a twenty million dollars industry...You follow ? This is what would happen...

DB : Hmm …and what does the 'industry' produce ?

K: (laughing ) ... more ( luxury) cars !

DB : So, it's useful to observe that this does happen, but definitely not to pursue it (in a lucrative goal?) ...

K: So, if I function 'rightly' – that means living a life that is really orderly- righteous, virtuous, unselfish and all that, then only I can put this question legitimately... Otherwise I'll use that watching of desire – the arising of that energy – and use it for mischievous purposes. Therefore I think it's essential that you must have that really religious, virtuous life – otherwise you can't come to the 'other' ('desire free' dimension of consciousness?) . Would you say that ?

DB : Yes...

K: Then we can ask : what happens to the brain that has no ( psychologically motivated?) desire whatsoever. Which means no self-deception, no striving, no 'achievement'...nothing ! Totally 'no desire'. Therefore, if it has no desire, there's no ( psychologically motivated?) 'content'... Therefore when it's 'empty', it has (free access to?) a tremendous (reservoir of Univesally intelligent) energy. Then, what's the point of all this ?

DB : On is free of self-deception.

K: All right, I'm free of self-deception and then, what ?

DB : Well, this freedom from self-deception is the essence of a revolution in the human consciousness...

K: Would a (holistically minded revolutionary ) accept this kind of 'revolution' wich brings a tremendous (universally intelligent) energy to operate here (in the field of reality)  ?

DB : Well, the ordinary ( opportunistically minded ?) revolutionaries would not, because they won't accept they are caught in self-deception. On the contrary, they feel they 'know' what has to be done...

K: Of course...So, sir, at the end of it one has come to this point – no 'desire' whatsoever...

DB : And ( has free access to) a tremendously intelligent energy... ?

K: It's something without limitations, without frontiers...it is 'infinite' – and if you have ( free access to ) 'That' then... what's the point of it ?

DB : All right, it has no place in the present order of things, except possibly in helping to transform it...

K: Suppose you and I have come to It. Then, what is their relationship to the 'world of reality', the world of ( technological) function, the world of relationship and so on... ?

DB : That is really to the 'world of self-deception' created by ( the joint movement of thought & ) desire...

K: What is their relationship ?

DB : You see, if you define all that as being the ( actual state of the?) 'world' then there is no relationship except to communicate, to get through that, you see?

K: To come to it we have to 'live rightly', but ... who will 'listen' ?

DB : Well, there are different kinds of people - some are dis-inclined to listen and some are not, you know ?

K: But that means ( in terms of meditation homework ?) going into oneself at great depth, and watching everything like...

DB : Well, I can see that most people won't want to do that - they may say they haven't the time...

K: Therefore they (the oppoerunistically minded revolutionaries?) say to me :  ''That's only for the 'elite', so get the hell out of here !''

DB : Yes, but they haven't answered the question of 'what you do against self-deception ?'

K: They say, ''that's man's nature, it must go on''...

DB : Yes, but what will he do with the 'self-deception' ?

K: It begins with ''this & that is deception, but it will gradually improve''...

DB : Yes, but they won't admit that it's ( a devious form of?) self- deception... You see, if somebody once admits it is self- deception, they cannot go on with this... So, if we can make so clear this point - that it is actually a ( global mentality based on) self- deception and that ( any holistically minded?) person can get out of it (ASAP?) ...

K I was talking once to a Catholic in a train in India and he said  to me: 'Oh, you are a Hindu...' I said ''I am sorry I am not a Hindu''. He said ''All they have got is a set of beliefs - in Krishna, in Rama, etc - a whole set of superstitious nonsense & all that''. I said : ''What about yourself, sir, your belief in Christ ?'' And he said ''Ah, that is real ! ''…. You follow ?
That's what I want to get at : If two people have got ( free inward access to) this sense of a brain that has no sense of ( self-centred ) desire – what a marvelous thing that is, hmm ?

DB : Yes...

K: Then, what is the point of it ? It's like living in a ( human) desert !

DB : You see, I think we discussed something relevant to this before- when you compared the young man Krishnamurti to some sort of 'nucleus' which would help to transform the total consciousness of mankind...

K: …the consciousness of mankind, quite right !

DB : Any person who is without ( free of self-centred) desire is that 'nucleus'... Isn't that right ?

K: That's what I want to get at : I think it does affect consciousness (in) here...

DB : Yes, because the human consciousness is 'all-one' – it is flowing like a stream, and every person has some mixture of this consciousness - we once used the notion of 'ideosyncrasy' - Which I looked up and it means 'private mixture'...

K: 'Private mixture'...(laughing) yes, that's good !

DB : And everybody has his own 'private mixture' of the general consciousness – and he draws everything out of this general consciousness (of mankind) . So, every 'individual' ( consciousness) is a private mixture of the ingredients of this general consciousness.

K: Quite...

DB : Now, that means that the human consciousness is continuously flowing in a stream, into and out of each individual and if there is (a perception of ) 'truth' – truth as I said is 'truth in action' - that flows into the other person...

K: Yes...So the point is that ( eventually) it affects the total consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...first only potentially and later actually, you see ?

K: Yes...It affects (the global consciousness of) man.

DB : It affects mankind, right  ?

K: Mankind, yes...

DB : And obviously, if that man would be entirely isolated, it wouldn't actually affect other people, but once he is in contact, that potential effect becomes actual.

K: ( To recap:) A man who is here, in the world of reality, listens to you who say : As long as there is desire  there is deception and therefore there is no solution to society or to the individual. And that is only possible when there is no ( self centred activity of) desire whatsoever. Then there is a total revolution and that will affect the consciousness of man.

DB : Yes...

K: Now as he is (living) here, in the world of reality, and he listens to you, he says : All right, I accept the logic of it, the reason of it, the explanation of it – I 'see' it. Now, how am I to move from the 'world of reality' to this ?

DB : You'll have to go into that and point out that any systems...

K: But they haven't time, they want everything quickly...

DB : The whole thing can be presented in such a way that it is becoming transparent that any system is all self deception...

K: But also for this man living ( body & soul?) in the 'field of reality', everything is against him ! His education , his upbringing, his family – everything is against him !

DB : Couldn't we say that no man is entirely (trapped) in the field of reality ? It seems to me that somebody may get a moment of clear perception , but then as thought comes in, it begins to tangle it up...

K: That means that even for that moment of (clear ) perception there must be leisure, he must have a time to listen , a time to read ...

K: Of course, but I think that the man who is without desire affects the total consciousness of human beings.

DB : But is there any possibility that this (subtle holistic) effect will bring about the total 'revolution' ? You can't say, eh... ?

K : ( As long as?) we don't put this question to ourselves really, what an extraordinary thing it is for the brain to be without (or free of?) 'desire' …

DB : Have you put it ?

K: Putting that very question (to oneself) has possibly opened something which was probably there. But the passion of desire and the passion of 'non-desire' are two different things...

DB : Yes...Could you say that the passion of desire is some twisting up of the brain's energy and the 'other' energy is entirely different ?

K: You see, here (in the field of reality?) intelligence has been the tool of desire : we say 'he's an intelligent man', he works 'intelligently', etc...So, desire is identified with intelligence in our daily activity here, but when there is no desire at all, that ( Universally compassionate) Intelligence can also function here (holistically ) .
Sir, if I may ask you without being too 'personal', when you heard that statement ''Can the brain be totally without desire'', what effect had that question ?

DB : Well, I think the question was there implicitly but it sort of 'opens up' the brain...I mean, to make it more 'explicit', as in our modern culture it would be very unlikely to put this question to yourself even if you have felt it implicitly...

K: Yes, they have always said : 'control desire' ...

DB : I think that in the modern age it says 'don't even control it ' !

K : Of course, in the 'modern age'... So, is there a (holistically?) perceptive 'action' that keeps the brain completely pure or uncontaminated... ? You see, when you 'hear' a statement of that kind : 'brain without desire' , does the brain undergo a revolution, a transformation  - like ( the universal intelligence of?) 'compassion' - is a word that has got a tremendous vitality...and When you hear that, doesn't that affect your whole organism & so on ?

DB : Well, I think we use these words so frequently that they cease to affect us...

K: I know...And I think that's why this word 'Compassion' is remaining  such a 'mystery...

DB : Why is it such a 'mystery' ?

K: It is a mystery because it is so changing, and it's never the same. It's really timeless...And therefore it is an extraordinary 'mystery'...

Better stop, don't you think ?

DB : Yes. But when you raised this question of the 'mind without desire' I think that it begins to open up this whole thing...You see, at first it may seem like an insignificant change, but it actually is very significant...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 May 2020 #297
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

THE FUSION OF THE 'THINKER' AND THOUGHT

K: To understand, to discover, must not the mind be free ( from the known?) at the very beginning? A mind that is (thought?) controlled is free (to function) within its own pattern; but that is not freedom. The end (result ) of disciplining ( one's self-centred thinking ) is conformity; its path leads ( from the known?) to the known, and the (self-enclosed field of the) known is never the free. ( The thought imposed ) discipline with its fear is the (result of the?) greed of achievement.

Q: I am beginning to realize that there is something fundamentally wrong with all these ( spiritual) disciplines. Though I have spent many years in trying to shape my thoughts to the desired pattern, I find that I am not getting anywhere.

K: It is an 'illusion' (a self-delusion ?) to think that through a wrong means the ( direct perception of the?) true can be achieved.

Q: I have a vague feeling of the inadequacy of these ('spiritual) disciplines', even when I practice them they are just an unconscious habit.
Most of the ( spiritual) books I have read, and all the local gurus prescribe self-control in one form or
another, and you have no idea how I went at it. So what you're saying is really a shock to me, but it is obviously true. Have my years been wasted?

K: They would have been wasted if your (psychological dependency of these ) had prevented the receptivity to truth. Your very urge to understand is the beginning of freedom. So, what is your problem?

Q: My deepest instinct urges me to seek and find Truth and I am not interested in anything else.

K: Is ( the free spirit of) Truth something to be 'known', gathered and held ? Must not the mind be still for Reality to be? Search is ( a self-centred) effort to gain, it is a form of acquisitiveness; and as long as one's mind is the focus of ( inner) conflict, can it ever be still? Can the mind be still (at peace with itself?) through ( any mental) effort? It can be made ( to stay?) still through compulsion; but what is made can be unmade.

Q: But is not (a spiritual) effort of some kind essential?

K: We shall see. Let us first inquire into the truth or fallacy of ( one's self-centred ) search. In it there the 'seeker', a (thoughtful?) 'entity' separate from that which he seeks. But is this 'thinker' ( entity) , or 'experiencer' , really separate from his thoughts and experiences? Without inquiring into this ( tricky ?) problem, one's meditation has no ( holistic) meaning. So we must understand the (self-centred activities of the thinking ) mind. What is ( behind?) the mind that seeks, that chooses, that is fearful, that denies and justifies? Is it ( the self-centred process of?) thought ?

Q: I have never approached the problem in this (analytical) way, and I am now rather confused; but do please proceed.

K: Thought is ( a mental extension of) sensation, is it not? Through sensory perception and contact there is sensation; from this arises ( the process of) desire, desire for 'this' and not for 'that'. Desire is the beginning of (thought's self-) identification, the ‘mine’ and the ‘not-mine’.
Thought is (also) the response of one's memory (including?) the naming and the image (making process?) . ( However, the self-centred process of ) thought is transient, changing, impermanent, and it is seeking permanency. So thought creates the (psychological identification with the ) 'thinker', who then becomes the permanent (entity ). This illusory 'permanent entity' is the product of thought, of the transient. This ( mental) entity 'is' thought; without thought he is not. The controller 'is' the controlled, he is merely playing a self-deceptive game with himself. Till this 'false' (self-identified mental entity ) is seen as 'false', Truth is not.

Q: Then who is the 'seer', the entity that says, ‘I understand’?”

K: As long as there is the ( self-conscious?) 'experiencer' remembering ( all its past ?) experience, ( the direct perception of?) Truth is not (possible?) . ( The living spirit of) Truth is not something to be remembered, stored up, recorded, and then brought out. The desire to experience creates the 'experiencer', who then accumulates ( his life experiences) and remembers (them) . It is desire that makes for the separation of the 'thinker' from his thoughts; the desire to become, to experience, to be more or to be less, makes for division between the experiencer and the experience. Awareness of the ways of desire is self-knowledge. Self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation.

Q: How can there be a fusion of the thinker with his thoughts?

K: Not through the action of will, nor through self- discipline, nor through any form of effort, control or
concentration, nor through any other means. This fusion takes place only when the mind is utterly still without trying to be still. There is this ( inner peace &) stillness, not just when the 'thinker'
comes to an end, but when the thought (process) itself has come to an end.
There must be freedom from the response of (time binding?) conditioning, which is 'thought'. Then each ( human) problem is solved only when the mind is not agitated by the ( self-centred) ideas & conclusion of thought, is the agitation of the mind. ( Experiential hint:) Earnestness must be tempered with the swift play of spontaneity.

( Parting words) You will find, if you have 'listened' to all that has been said, that Truth will come in moments when you are not expecting it. If I may say so, be open, sensitive and fully aware of 'what is' (going on inwardly & outwardly) from moment to moment. The ( visiting?) bliss of truth comes when the mind is not occupied (inwardly) with its (endless self-centred ) activities and struggles.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 May 2020 #298
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

 How Deep Can One Travel (In Meditation) ?

( An 'experientially-friendly ' edited K dialogue)

P: Sir, how deep can one travel (in one's 'meditator-free' meditation?) ?

K: You are asking whether the human mind - which is generally living superficially ( within the collective stream of thought-time?) can penetrate to a great depth? ( For starters?) I'd say it needs a certain 'build-up' of ( compassionate & intelligent?) energy, drive, and... how is this energy to build up?

P: Yes, how is this (holistically integrated ?) energy to be built up ?

K: How is this to be done? Can ( one's self-identified ) thinking which 'is' time, which is the ( response of the memory of the ?) past - can it penetrate into this profundity? ( Hint:) 'depth' means here a timeless, measureless quality, an infinite (inward?) movement without ever reaching the bottom. Can ( the self-centred process of ) thought penetrate into this 'depth' (of inner 'no-thingness' ?) , since thought is the only instrument I have?

R: Then how does one come upon this depth without using this (holistically obsolete ) instrument?

K: Thought in its ( survival oriented ?) function, has created this ( man-made?) world which is superficial in which I live, of which I am. Now, is it possible for the ( holistically friendly?) mind, without the usage of thought, to touch something which is fathomless? Not just some moments in my sleep or when I am walking by myself, but to 'live' there and be aware of that strange fathomless depth of something which is 'Unnamed'.

P: So, into what does one penetrate, delve? Can one delve into ( the limitations of of) thought?

K: We have been into that. Thought is time, thought is measure, thought is the response of memory, thought is knowledge, experience, past, therefore the past is time. That ( reality-directed?) thought must function always superficially. That is simple : thought cannot penetrate it.

P: As it is the only readily available instrument that measures, can one penetrate ( through the limitations of) this instrument?

K: No, I am concerned with depth, not with thought's verbal machinery of measurement, which is fairly obvious, I don't have to delve into all that.

P: Then, into what what dimension (of consciousness?) does one penetrate without thought?

K: There is no question of 'penetration'.

P: We must have the adequate language to deal with that dimension and we must also have the tool to communicate it: what is the new tool?

K: Are we concerned with verbal communication or are we ( experientially?) concerned with the touching of that depth (of inner no-thingness ) ?

P: You said that you don't use the existing instrument which we all have, which is ( the introspective action of) thought.

R: I think Krishnaji has pointed out that it is not a question of occasionally feeling that, but how to 'be' in it, to 'live' in it.

K: Leading a superficial life, as most human beings do, I say to myself I would like to find that (timeless inner) depth, where there is great width and beauty, something immense. What is the nature of the (perceptive?) movement that must take place when thought is not functioning? Can the (meditating?) mind remain without ( thought's opportunistic capacity of ) measurement ?

P: So, our ( meditation related?) question then is: Can that ( holistic?) state come into one's being where there is no measure?

K: That is all. All your life you have known (thought's operation in terms of) 'measure' (verbally comparing, evaluating, etc ?) . Now, I am asking you: Can the ( meditating ?) mind be ( inwardly free of thought's natural tendency to ) measure?

P: If I were to ask you 'how', you would say ''There is no 'how ''. So, the only thing left for us is to observe ( non-personally the activities of ? ) our own mind...

K: Have you done that ? Has your mind observed its ( time-binding?) movement and measurements and ending them ? Then what?

P: Then there is stillness.

K: You say the movement of ( thought's ego-centric ? ) measurement has come to an end. Would that be right? Can you honestly, really say the movement with measurement has come to an end?

P: Just now it has come to an end.

K: That is not good enough. Good enough means that right throughout one's life ( thought's psychologically motivated?) measurement has to come to an end.

P: How can I know it?

K: I am going to find out (experientially) if my mind, which has been conditioned (to live inwardly in the field of thought's self-centred) measurement - comparison, imitation, conformity, a mental resistance which safeguards it from 'non-measurement' - can this mind say: 'Now I have understood the whole movement of measurement and I see where its legitimate place is and where it has no place at all' ?

P: How is that understood by a mind in which there is no ( operation of?) thought?

K: It 'perceives'. I will show it to you : when it has seen the whole movement of measurement, the very perception of that movement is the ending of that movement. In the very perception of (its inward falseness ?) , the seeing 'is' (both) the acting and the ending. Seeing that this movement is time, is measure, seeing the whole map of it, the nature of it, the structure of it, that very perception acts in 'ending' it. So, the seeing is the ending ( of thought's habit of self-centred measurement ?) and there is no (perceptive) effort involved in it all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 May 2020 #299
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

1ST ( 'reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH PROF. BOHM, MR. NARAYAN AND TWO FINE BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (cca 1978)

Dr Rahula : I'd like to mention very briefly a few essential aspects which are common between Buddha's teaching and your Teaching. Buddha begins his teaching on the ground that human life is in a predicament of suffering, in conflict, sorrow the cause of this conflict & suffering, is due to the selfishness created by the wrong idea of my 'self', my 'atman'. And then Buddha says that when one is free from this (subliminal) attachment to the 'self', he is free from suffering, he is free from (most of his inner & outer?) conflicts.
Then the 'realization of Truth' is to see things as they are; when you see that, you see the ( limitations of thought's constructed?) 'reality', you see the truth and you are ( again?) free from that conflict. Also the Buddhist thinking differentiates between the 'conventional' truth, and the 'ultimate' truth, by saying that you can't see the ultimate truth, or the absolute truth without seeing the 'relative' truth. On a more 'personal' level, you have always said that one must not depend on anybody's ( spiritual) authority, on anybody's teaching. You must see it for yourself. This point is summarized by the Buddha in two lines in the Dhammapada: "You should make the (liberating) effort, the Buddhas only teach (give the guidelines?)".
Another very important thing is the emphasis on awareness or 'mindfulness'. In the last month of his life, at every point wherever he stopped and talked to his disciples Buddha said always : cultivate 'mindfulness'. It is called the 'presence of mindfulness'. Then another interesting small point I want to mention: how your teaching and the Buddha's teaching go together. I think in your book 'Freedom from the Known', you say that control and outward discipline are not the Way, but nor has an undisciplined life any value. When a Brahmin asked the Buddha, "How did you attain to these spiritual heights, by what precepts, by what discipline, by what knowledge did you attain?" Buddha said, "Not by knowledge, not by discipline, not by precepts, nor without them"
.
I find that between your teaching and the Buddha's teaching there is hardly any difference, only that you say the same things addapted for the man today, or rather, for tomorrow's man. I would like to know what you think about all this ?

K: May I say, sir, with due respect, what is the necessity of comparing? If you were not a scholar of Buddhism, knowing all the Sutras (public talks ?) , and the sayings of the Buddha, how would it strike you reading the (K books ?) , without all that cultural background ?

R: That I can't tell you because I was never without the Buddhist cultural background. Therefore I don't know what would be the position.

K: If I may point out, doesn't ( the psychologically motivated accumulation of ?) all this knowledge condition human beings - knowledge of scriptures, knowledge of what the saints have said and so on and so on, the whole gamut of so-called 'sacred books', does that help man at all?

R: All our knowledge conditions man, there is no doubt about it. But I should say that this all ( spiritual) knowledge is not absolutely unnecessary. Buddha has pointed out this very clearly : if you want to cross the River and there is no bridge, you make a boat for yourself and you cross with the help of the boat. Going to the other shore, if you think, oh, this boat has been very useful to me, very helpful, I can't leave it here, I will carry it and you put it on your shoulder, was that man acting rightly? No. Then what you should do is to say, '' This boat was very helpful to me but now that I have crossed the River it is not any more use to me, so, I'll leave it here for somebody else to use''. That is the Buddhist attitude to (the spiritual ) knowledge and learning. Buddha says, even the moral virtues are also like the boat and they have only a relative value and conditioned value.

K: I would like to question whether the feeling that you 'know', the (psychological?) weight of knowledge - doesn't that strengthen the ( temporal) self? Does the memory of the past help (the direct perception of truth) ?

R: All the knowledge of the 'past' disappears the moment you see the Truth.

K: But can a mind that is burdened with knowledge see the Truth?

R: Of course if the mind is crowded with knowledge...

K: It is, generally. It is. Most minds are crippled with knowledge. I am using the word 'crippled' in the sense of 'weighed down'. Can such a mind perceive ( the living spirit of?) truth? Or must it be free from knowledge?

R: To see the truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.

K: Yes, so why should one accumulate ( spiritual) knowledge, then abandon it, and then seek truth? You follow what I am saying?

R: I think that even in our ordinary life, most of the things are useful at the beginning, and for instance, as children at school we can't write without rules, but today I can write on plain paper. So, the self- discipline is necessary at the beginning ; for all those people who are on their way to Truth but who have not yet arrived, all those disciplines, precepts, and all those things that are good and bad, right and wrong. But an 'arhat' – the man who has realized the Truth has no (need for self-) discipline because he is beyond that.

K: We must go into it very carefully, sir, because all religious attitudes are caught up in ( a mentality of) time, of evolution - I will be better, I will be good, I will eventually blossom in goodness. Right? I am saying in that there is a root of untruth in it...

Dr Schloegel : I entirely agree with you for the very good reason that ever since human beings have existed as far as we know, we have always known in our different context that we should be good. If it would be possible to progress by something like this we would not be the human beings that we are nowadays. We would all have progressed sufficiently.

K: Therefore why should I accumulate knowledge - psychologically avoid it, not technologically.

R: Even psychologically, how can you do that?

K: ( For starters?) can the ( holistically friendly) mind be free 'psychologically' of this idea of ( its spiritual?) progress?

R: It can be...

K: So psychologically can there be a revolution?

R: Yes. Certainly.

K: Which means what? No (psychologically motivated thinking in terms of?) time.

R: There is no time involved in it. The moment you see that it (the mind) has no time, it is an entire revolution and that is the truth.

K: Now, how is a man, or a woman, a human being, to break this ( self-centred thought ) pattern without time?

R: It is only by 'seeing'.

S: I am not a Buddhist scholar but I come from the practical side and as a one-time scientist, I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that 'I blind myself' - as long as 'I', with all my bundle of (psychological) conditioning, am here, I cannot see and act.

K: So what are we talking about at the end of this?

N: There seems to be one ( hidden) difficulty in this. Knowledge has a certain fascination, a certain power, one accumulates knowledge, whether it is Buddhist, or scientific, and it gives you a peculiar sense of (inner) freedom. But after years of study one finds it very difficult to get out of this ( field of knowledge) because you value it, although it hasn't got the ( timeless?) quality of what you might call 'Truth'. And the difficulty with all ( spiritual) practice seems to be that when you practice it you achieve something; and this achievement has got a certain power, a certain fascination, a certain capacity, maybe a certain clarity.

R: By that you get attached to it.

N: Yes... And to break away from it is much more difficult than for an (absolute) beginner who may see something more directly than a man who has so much of 'acquired wisdom'. Is it so?

R: That depends on the individual. You can't generalize.

K: Sir, if I may point out, one can generalize as a principle.

R: As a principle, in which way?

K: I mean, we are all caught in this (mentality ) of progress. Right?

R: Humanity accepts the fact that ( our material) progress is a gradual evolution, so we apply the same theory to 'psychological' things.

K: Now, is that the truth ?

R: I see what you are questioning. I don't think it is the ( ultimate) truth.

K: So, if a human being sees the falseness of it, actually not theoretically, then it is finished.

R: Absolutely, that is what I tell you all this time.

K: Then why do I read the Buddha?

R: That is what I told you, because we are all conditioned (to accumulate all kinds of knowledge) .

Bohm: Could I ask a (very personal) question: do you accept that you are conditioned?

R: I accept it. To be (to exist the field of?) time is to be conditioned.

B: Well, Krishnaji has said in some of our ( intimate) discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned in the beginning and that therefore he had a certain insight that would not be common. Is that fair?

K: I may be a 'biological freak', so leave me out of it. But can we admit ( contemplate ?) the truth that (inwardly speaking?) there is no movement forward ? Do we as human beings see the truth or the falseness of what we have done?

R: You mean, the human beings generally?

K: The whole ( collective consciousness of the ? ) world.

R: No, they don't see it.

K: Therefore when you are telling them to read what the Buddha said, or what Christ said, they are full of this accumulative instinct which ( they hope?) will propel themselves into Heaven.

B: When you say ''we are all conditioned'', how do we know that we are all conditioned?

R: That is a very complicated question. As far as our society is concerned, all are conditioned. There can't be anybody who is unconditioned because he is within ( of the time-bound ?) type.

B: If we say we are all conditioned there could be two ways to look at it : . You see, one way could be to accumulate knowledge about our conditioning, to say we observe the common human experience, we can look at people and see they are generally conditioned. Right? The other way would be : do we directly see in a more direct way that we are all conditioned ?

R: Of course, there are people who 'see' that.

B: The only point I was trying to make is that if we say ''we are all conditioned '' then I think there is nothing else to do but some kind of disciplined or gradual approach. That is, if you begin with your ( given) conditioning.

K: Not necessarily...

B: Well let's try to pursue it. If we all begin by being conditioned...

K: ...which we are...

R: The freedom from conditioning is to 'see'.

B: Well, the same question, how do we see?

R: Of course many people have tried various ways.

K: No, no, there are not 'various ways'. The moment you say ''a way'', you have already conditioned him.

R: That is what I say. And you are also conditioning by your talks, your lectures are also conditioning him.

K: No, no, I question whether what K is talking about conditions the mind. I doubt it, I question it...

R: The question is how to 'see' (the truth of?) it - is that it?

K: No, sir, there is no ( methodological ?) 'how'. First let us see this simple fact, sir: ( consciousness-wise ?) I represent the whole world, because I suffer, I go through agony, etc. and (eventually?) so does every human being . So do I, as a human being, see the falseness of the step human beings have taken, moving from the biological field to the psychological, with the same mentality of 'progress' ? Do I see the 'mischief' ( educational damage?) that human beings have created, moving from there to this?

S: Yes, if I see it as clear as I see this table then it is not a theory any more.

K: It is a fact. But the moment you move away from (dealing directly with ?) the 'fact' then it becomes ( a thought construction of ? ) knowledge, and the pursuit of it.

S: And it has further and further pictures ( mental images?).

K: Further away from the fact. (To recap:) it is a (directly observable) fact, that there is biological progress, a little tree to a gigantic tree, from a baby and all the rest of it, boyhood, adolescence. Now, we have moved with that same mentality into the psychological field and create there the ( illusory?) fact that we also progress (psychologically) , which is ( creating ) a 'false' (illusory ?) movement? Why have we done this?

S: ( Because inwardly) I want to become something (qualitatively different from what I am now ?) ?

K: Which is you want ( to optimise) satisfaction, safety, certainty, a sense of achievement.

S: I do not like to see (the truth about the inner facts?) . I fear it.

K: Therefore you are living in an illusion.

S: Naturally. I want to be something which I fear at the same time not to see. This is where the divide is.

K: You have a false fear, there is no fear. No, madam. when you see what you have done there is no fear.

S: But the fact is, that I usually do not see it.

K: Why don't you see (yourself) living in this false ( self-centred?) structure, and then people come along and say, be unselfish, be this and all the rest of it – why?

S: All human beings have a very strong irrational side .

K: Because we are living not with 'facts', we give importance to knowledge, ideas, theories, philosophy, and all the rest of it.

R: You don't see at all that a certain development, an evolution, even psychologically?

K: No.

R: Don't you agree that a criminal in the accepted sense, you meet a criminal like that, you explain to him the wrong way that he lives, and he realizes what you have said, either because of the ideas he has realized, or because of your personal influence, or whatever it be, he transforms himself, he changes himself ?

K: You can pacify him, you know, give him a reward and this and that, but an actual criminally minded man, will he ever listen to any sanity ? The terrorist - you know, sir, the terrorists - will he listen to you, to your sanity? Of course not.

R: I don't know... I am not at all positive about it.

K: Wait a minute, sir. A ( more thoughtful?) 'bad' man who tells lies, who does cruel things, and so on, probably one day he realizes it is an ugly business, and says, "I'll change and become good", but that is not Goodness. Goodness is not born out of 'badness'. Is love the opposite of hate?

R: If you ask me, when we talk of 'good' and 'bad' we are talking in the dualistic level. You can't talk about the absolute in terms of good or bad, there is nothing called absolute good, or bad.

K: Is courage the opposite of fear? That is, if ( one's thought-projected?) fear is non-existent is it 'courage'? Or it is something totally different?

S: It is something totally different.

K: So what are we talking about when we say, "I will move, change, from my conditioning, which is bad, to the freedom from my conditioning, which is good"? This 'freedom' is the opposite of my ( inner state of) conditioning. Therefore it is a reaction to the prison, which is not freedom.

R: I don't quite follow....

K: Sir, could we consider for a minute: is love the opposite of hate? If it is then in that love, there is (a subliminal residue of) hate, because it is born out of hate, out of the opposite.

R: I don't know. That is what you say...

K: But it is a fact, sir : anything born out of its 'opposite' contains its own opposite.

R: How's that ?

K: Sir, if someone hates you and then says I 'must love', that ( thought-projected empathy or ?) 'love' is born out of hate, because (the ethical 'thinker') knows what hate is and he says, "I must not be that, but I must be that". That is how we live (our inner life) sir - caught in this corridor of opposites. And I question the ( reality of this?) whole 'corridor'. I don't think it exists. We have invented it, but actually it doesn't exist.

S: Personally from where I stand at this moment, I claim no possibilities either for the truth of it, or something else ; it is a working hypothesis. I see this channel of opposites as a humanizing factor (but having a downside:) we are caught in it.

K: Oh no, that is not ( really?) a humanizing factor. It is like saying, 'I have been a tribalistic entity, now I have become a nationalistic entity , and then ultimately I'll be 'internationalistic ' - it is still ( the same mentality of) tribalism going on.

S: That I quite agree, but I see it as a really barbaric stage, ( as a Viking?) I could have laughed when you had broken your leg, nowadays I could not laugh any more.

B: I think both of you (R & S) are saying that we do in some sense make progress, in the sense that we are not as barbaric as we were before. Right?

S: That is what I mean by the 'humanizing factor'.

K: I question whether it is ( truly?) humanizing.

R: I don't like to think in extremes.

K: This is not extremes, these are just facts. Facts are not extremes.

B: So, you're saying that this is not a genuine ( spiritual) progress. But you see, in the past people were far more barbaric generally than they are today, and would you say that that really doesn't mean very much?

K: ( Inwardly speaking) we are still 'barbarous'.

B: Yes, we are, but some (more thoughtful?) people say we are not as barbaric as...

K: Not 'as'...

B: Let's see if we can get it straight. Now would you say that this (ethical progress) is not important, that is not significant?

K: When ( inwardly?) I say ''I am far better than I was'' - it has no ( spiritual) meaning.

B: Perhaps we should try to clarify that.

R: In the relative, dualistic sense I can't see that. But in the absolute, ultimate sense there is nothing like that.

K: I won't even accept that word 'ultimately'. I see how the 'opposite' is born in my everyday life : I am (naturally?) greedy, that's a fact. And trying to become ( reasonably greedy or even ) 'non-greedy', is non-fact ; but if I remain with the 'fact' that I 'am' greedy, then I can do something (of a holistic nature?) about it actually, now. Therefore there is no (need to project an ) 'opposite'. Sir, you know violence and non-violence. Non-violence is the opposite of violence, as a (humanistic) ideal. So non-violence is non-fact. Violence is the only fact. Right? So I can then deal ( experientially?) with 'facts', not with non-facts.

R: So what is your point?

K: My point is, there is no (need to think in terms of) duality even in our daily life. It is the invention of all these ( socially standardising?) philosophers, intellectuals, who say there is the opposite, work to achieve that. So, if the fact is that (inwardly speaking) 'I' (the self-identified thinker?) am violent, let me deal with that. And to deal (directly) with it (in real time?) don't invent 'non-violence'.

S: The question now is: how am I going to deal with it, having seen the fact that I am (inwardly) 'violent' ?

K: Then we can proceed, I'll show you ; (For starters?) don't run ( away?) but remain with the fact. Can you do it?

S: It is part of our Zen training. That is precisely the point.

K: Of course one can do it (in no time ?) . It is like seeing something dangerous and you say, "It's dangerous I won't go near it". Running away from the fact is (psychologically speaking?) 'dangerous'. You ( remain with the 'fact' and don't run away. This doesn't mean you train yourself not to run, you just don't run.

R: There is no running away. If you 'see' (the psychological danger of something?) there is no running in it.

K: I am saying : ''Don't run, then you see''. But we generally say, "I can't see (the danger of it) because I am caught in that".

R: I quite see that, what you say I see very well.

K: So there is no ( need to think in terms of) 'duality'.

R: What is 'duality'?

K: Which is the ( cultivation of the?) 'opposite'. Violence and non-violence. The whole of India has been practising 'non-violence', which is nonsense. There is only ( the fact of thought's subliminal ?) violence, let me deal with that, not with ( cultivating) the ideal of 'non-violence'.

R: We agree, if we see the (inward truth of the?) 'fact', we must handle this.

K: Therefore there is no ( need to think in terms of psychological ?) 'progress'.

R: That is simply a (socially convenient ?) word.

K: No, sir, when (thought has identified itself with?) an 'ideal', to achieve that ideal I need time.

R: So?

K: So no ideals. Only 'facts' and to look at facts ( the factor of psychological) time is not necessary. Therefore if time is not necessary I can see ( the inward danger of?) it now.

R: Yes, agreed.

K: Why don't you?

R: Why don't I ? That is another question.

B: If you take it seriously that ( the postponement in) time is not necessary then right now one could perhaps clear up the whole thing.

R: Yes, but that does not mean that all human beings can do it, there are some people who can do it...

K: If I can see it, you can also see it. So can you abandon ideals?

R: It is possible.

K: Ah, no, the moment you use the word 'possible', ( the procrastinating mentality of) time is there. Do it now, do it sir, not - forgive me, I am not being authoritarian - when you say 'it is possible' you have already moved away.

R: I mean to say that everybody can't do it.

K: How do you know?

R: That is a (statistically observable ?) fact.

K: No, I won't accept that...

S: I can perhaps come in with a bit of a concrete example. I think that we can possibly come together on that. If I stand on a high springboard over a swimming pool and I cannot swim, and I am told just jump in and relax completely, the water will carry you to the surface . There is nothing that prevents me to jump except I am frightened of doing it. That is I think the point in question : Of course we can do it, there is no difficulty but there is this basic fear which does not stand to reason that makes us shy away.

K: Please forgive me, I am not talking of that. But if one realizes that one is greedy, why do we invent 'non-greed'?

S: I wouldn't know because it seems to me so obvious that if I am greedy then ...I am greedy.

K: So they have always cultivated this idea of the opposite through tradition, through (the exemplary model of ) saints, the whole gamut of it, cultivated this Right? I say that is an escape from this and it won't solve (radically?) this problem (of human greed & violence ?) .

S: It hasn't.

K: It hasn't. So to deal with (in real time with?) this problem, remove (the opposite) . I can't have one foot there and one foot here. I must have both my feet here.

S: And if both my feet are here? Suppose I see I am (inwardly) greedy, or I am violent.

K: Now we have to go into something entirely different. How can a ( holistically minded?) human being be free of greed now? That's the question. Not 'eventually'. You see, I want to be free of sorrow, pain, now. So I have only this fact, I am greedy. Now, the very word 'greed' is condemnatory. The word has been in my ( collective) mind for centuries, and using that word 'greed' immediately condemns the fact. Now can I look at that 'fact' (of greed) at all its traditional content ? Look at it (non-verbally) . You cannot understand the depth and the feeling of greed or be free of it if 'you' (the 'observer'?) are caught in words. Can one look inwardly at something like greed, without the word?

R: That is really 'seeing the fact'.

K: Then only I can see the fact.

R: Yes, without the ( naming) word.

K: Therefore it is finished. This is where the ( dualistic?) difficulty lies, sir : I want to be free of greed because my whole upbringing, my education, everything says be free of that ugly thing. So 'I' (the thoughtful 'thinker' ?) am all the time making a ( dualistic ) effort to be free of that. Right?
Thank God, I am not 'educated', along those lines. So I say, all right, I have only this (inherited ) fact that I am greedy, but I want to understand (by direct observation?) the nature and the structure of that feeling. What is the ( verbal?) nature of that feeling? ? If it is a (cultural) remembrance I am looking at the present greed, with past ( collective) remembrances which have said 'condemn' it. Can I look at it without past remembrances?

S: Exactly.

K: I am going to show you : (For starters?) our past (collective) remembrance condemns this (animal instinct of greed) and therefore strengthens this (by keeping it under a lid?) . But if it is ( looked at as being ) 'something new', I won't ( bother to) condemn it. It is ( actually something) new, but it is made 'old' when I condemn it by remembrances, by memories, by my past experience. So can I look at it without the ( condemning?) word, without the ( collateral) association of words? That doesn't need ( any self-imposed?) 'discipline', that doesn't need ( lots of homework?) 'practice' ; just to say, can one look at it without the word. Can one ( spend some quality time to?) look at that tree, woman, man, sky, without the ( verbal recognition of the ) words and find out (the timeless Art of Looking & Listening ?) ?
Do we stop now?

N: Yes, sir, I think we can stop now.

K: By Jove, we have been talking for an hour and a half !

R: It depends on you. I am very much interested, I am not tired at all.

K: We had better keep it for tomorrow morning and afternoon.

R: There are several other things that I would like to ask you tomorrow morning and afternoon.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 May 2020 #300
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 524 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ( experientially friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM, MR.NARAYAN AND TWO FINE BUDDHIST SCHOLARS

Dr Rahula: This morning and afternoon I want to ask you to clarify one or two things. In the Buddhist terminology there are three levels of knowledge: one is that we get wisdom, self-knowledge through learning, reading the books, or listening to the teacher; then there is further development, the wisdom that you get by thinking, meditating according to that, your knowledge, still within words, it is still within language; but the highest wisdom goes beyond words, which means that you see the thing without a word. I think that is what you meant when you said, when you see the thing, all our reflections & accumulated meanings disappear. That is how I understood it.

K: You have also said you would like to ask some other questions.

R: That's right. In the Buddhist terminology, the term 'arhat' is used for one who has realized the truth, who is (inwardly) free. And the question was put to the Buddha by his disciples : what happens to an 'arhat' after his physical death? "Does he exist after his death?" The Buddha said, "No." "Then he does not exist ?" The Buddha said, "No. None of those terms 'exist' or 'does not exist', can be applied to that (timeless?) state." This same answer is found everywhere, in many places where he was asked these questions, and what do you say to this?

K: Could we talk over together of what is living and what is dying, and what is the state of the mind that is in the process of dying?
( Thoughtful?) human beings right throughout the world have always enquired into what is death, is there life after death, is there a continuity, and if there is no such continuity what is the point of living at all? (The time-bound) life is such a dreadful affair anyhow with a lot of trouble, anxieties, fears, and so on, if there is no ( after-life) reward for living properly, correctly, what is the point of being good, kind, noble, etc? Could we approach your question from that point of view? Or do you want to ask what is the state of a mind that has no 'self' whatsoever?

R: I think that is a good approach, because that is an arhat who has no 'self (- centred' consciousness?) whatsoever.

K: So what is the 'self' ? The name, the form, the body, the organism, thought identifying itself with the 'me'. All the (personal) characteristics & tendencies are identified by thought as the 'me' – including one's personal experiences, and that which one possess - property, house, furniture & books. All that, plus the (the inherited trends of) violence, the ( pursuits of ) pleasure, the fears & conflicts constitutes the ( temporal?) self.
So, is the root of the ( temporal) self this whole process of identification – with my house, my name, my possessions, the position, the prestige – (in a nutshell?) thought's identification (with all these?) is the essence of the (time-bound) self. If there is no identification is there the self?
Now, can this (self-) identification (process) come to an end? (Hint:) this identification is the (direct result of the?) 'movement' of thought. Thought says , that is 'my' ( name, form, house & ) furniture, and 'death' is the (compulsory?) ending of that movement. Or is death a ( modified ) continuity of that ( self-centred ) movement into the next life?

R: Quite...

K: Arhat, or the ( inwardly) liberated man, why should he wait until the end, till he reaches the (physical) death? When we realize the very root of the (time-bound) 'self' is the 'movement' of thought in time, (along with) all the ( collateral) conflicts, miseries, confusions, created by (one's self-centred thinking) , when ( the self-projected continuity of) thought comes to an end, that is a ( 'psychological') form of death while living.

R: Yes...

K: Now, can ( this self-identified continuity of) thought come to an end? To bring that about we practice, we are aware & we go through all the tortures (discomforts?) of the so-called 'meditation'. Right sir? Would you agree to that ?

R: In the popular religion.

K: No, no. If I may point out, the ordinary man (of his times) is not even interested in all this, due perhaps to a wrong ( non-holistic?) education, socio-economical conditions & various environmental influences. So I wouldn't say 'popular'. It is the whole human tendency that we are talking about. Every human being has identified himself and so conditioned himself with something or other. Now while living can that ( psychological form of?) death, which is the ending of (the self-identified movement of thought?) take place? Not at the end of one's life which then is a 'graveyard renunciation' which has no (true spiritual) meaning.

R: I agree that it is not necessary to wait until the end of one's life and Buddha pointed out the same thing. When this question was put to him, the question was asked also what will happen to the Buddha after his death. He asked the disciple, "What is Buddha ( an enlightened consciousness?) ? Is it this body, name & form ? And the disciple said, 'No'. ''Then if you can't pin-point the Buddha even now, living, then how can you say ( what happens to him ) after death?

K: Sir, if I may ask, why do we bring in the Buddha? As a ( thoughtful?) human being I want to know what happens after death. Or what is the (spiritual?) significance of death. Or whether one can live in daily life without the 'self' (identification?) ?

R: My question was what happens with the ( enlightened) person who has realized the truth, who has become liberated & ( time-) free ?

K: I would never ask that question (to somebody else?) , because he might say this happens, or that happens, or nothing happens. Then it becomes a theory to me, which is an idea.

R: I wanted from you a little more than that...

K: Ah, if you want it from this person, you have to enquire ( into this question in real time ? ) as he is enquiring (namely) whether is it possible to live in one's daily life without this (process of thought-) identification which brings about the structure and the nature of one's ( temporal) self ? Can this ( subliminal) movement of thought ( come to an) end while one is still living? That is the question, rather than what happens when I die. The (temporal) 'me' is merely a ( self-identified) movement of thought. So can a human being, live free from this (ego-centric) movement of thought, which is the essence of the ( temporal?) self? Suppose I say, yes, it can be done, but what value has it to you?

Schoegel: Once that identification of thought is really broken...

K: Ah, no, not 'broken' - when you break something it can continue. It is an 'ending'. Suppose this person says, yes, it is possible. What value has it to you?

S: That is what personally I hope we can discuss.

K: I am coming to that. If you want to enquire and say : let's find out - not as an idea but as an actuality in daily life. Right?

Narayan: Dr.Rahula, what is the value of all those (self-preparatory ) things that are mentioned in the Buddhist literature - meditation, the practice of mindfulness. which is practised as a very important thing in relation to the ending of (the self-centred movement of ) thought?

R: Mindfulness, or rather the 'presence of awareness', has many aspects, but the most important thing is the mindfulness, awareness in everything that one is doing) . Even now what we do here is the deepest sort of meditation, called 'dharmapassana', to see, or to be mindful of whatever you do, eating, drinking, or going about, talking, everything is mindfulness. And all that leads to ending the thought process of (temporal ?) 'self'.

K: Sir, I personally ( don't remember of ? ) having read all these things. They may be correct, or not correct, or they may have been put together by (thoughtful?) disciples. So I have no ( need for their) authority. I look at all the mankind's (existential) suffering, going through ( all kinds of ?) agonies, mischief and terror, and in enquiring into all this (human condition?) , I come to this ( main experiential ) point, which is (ending the self-identified process of) thought. That's all. I don't have to know all the ( spiritual) literature in the world, which will only condition my further thinking.

R: I fully agree with you and that is my attitude as well. I am talking to examine it.

K: You see I only start with what is a 'fact', for me - I suffer, I have fear, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my (inner) life so utterly miserable & unhappy. From there I start, with something which is common to all of us : I suffer and I want to find out if this (pretty sad inner condition ?) can end , or must I carry on for the rest of my life. So (eventually?) I come to see that the root (cause ?) of all this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort, is the 'self' (centred consciousness?) , the 'me'. Now, is it possible to be free of ( thought's subliminal identification with ) the 'me' which produces all this global chaos, both outwardly, politically, religiously, economically and all the rest of it, and also inwardly, this constant struggle, constant battle, constant effort? So I am asking, can thought end? So that (the self-centred consciousness?) which ends has a totally different ( new) beginning, not the (good-old) 'me', ending and picking up again later.
So, in what manner can thought end? So here I am, a (holistically minded?) human being who has observed what the ( present situation our?) world is going through and says, "I 'am' (directly or indirectly responsible for this state of ?) the world ", how is it possible for (the self-centredness of my?) thought to end? So somebody like me comes along and says, ( making a mental) effort (to end it) is ( part) of the very essence of the self. Right?

S: You mean that the very effort that I make to come (& face my temporal self?) , that in itself is already contributing to my delusion?

K: To the maker of the effort, who has already itself identified with something greater, and is making an effort to reach it. It is still the movement of thought.

S: So, it is still a bargaining - if I do this, or if this happens, then I will get that.

K: So how do you 'listen' when a person like me says, effort of any kind only strengthens the self ? How do you receive that statement?

S: I am entirely in agreement.

Bohm: Do we listen in the same way we have made ( our self-centred) identifications, that is listen through the ( memory screen of the?) past, through our previous ideas, through what we (assume that we?) know?

S: One can open out (one's mind) and just listen.

K: Can you listen ( non-verbally?) without the idea of receiving, or accepting, or denying - just listen to that statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just 'listen' to it. Can you do it?

S: I would say 'yes'.

K: Then if you so listen, what takes place?

S: Nothing.

K: No, madam... How do we listen to the inward truth of that fact that thought is the root of the self? Is it seen as an idea, an (intellectual) conclusion, or is it seen an absolute, irrevocable fact?

R: If you ask me, I see it is a fact.

K: Are you listening as a 'Buddhist' ?

R: I am not identifying myself with anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or as a non-Buddhist.

K: Aren't you listening as a person who has read a great deal about the Buddha, and what the Buddha has said and so comparing - and so you have gone away from (the pure act of?) listening. I am not being 'personal', sir, but are you listening to the ideas, to the words and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of 'verbal' comprehension and you say, yes, I see the absolute truth of that?

R: That is what I said.

K: Do you?

R: Yes.

K: Then it (one's inner process of self-centred thinking ?) is finished. It is like seeing something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don't touch it (again) .

S: Why you don't 'touch' it?

B: It seems to me that ( when thought functions in 'safe mode' ?) there is a (natural) tendency to listen through the (self-protective screen of ) words and that ( thought's self-) identification still goes on while one thinks one is listening. This is the problem. It is very subtle.

R: In other words, you're using ( the verbal) 'listening' instead of 'seeing' ?

K: No, sir, I 'listen' (non-verbally ?) . When you're telling me about what the Buddha has said, I say (to myself:) he is just quoting from what Buddha has said, but he is not saying something that I want to know - what 'you' think, not what Buddha thought, because then we are establishing a (directly communicating ?) relationship between you and me, and not between you, Buddha and me? Probably you are quoting him correctly, but you are not revealing yourself to me, while I am revealing myself to you. Therefore we have an (indirect) relationship through the ( words of the?) Buddha, not a direct relationship.

S: So, you are looking for our personal experiential response ?

K: Your 'personal' experience is also the experience of everybody else, it is not personal. If you and I suffer it is 'suffering', not my suffering and your suffering. But when there is identification with suffering thn it is 'my' suffering and I say, I must be free of it. But as human beings in the world we suffer (are sharing a transpersonal suffering ?) .

B: It seems to me that this question of ( thought's 'self-) identification' is the main one, and it is very subtle, because in spite of all that you (K) have said (in countless public talks & dialogues?) , the identification still goes on (in your thoughtful listeners?) . It almost seems to be inbuilt in us.

S: And this raises the ( fundamental) question whether ( the thought-projected continuity of?) that 'identification' can be ended - if I understood rightly ?

B: Identification prevented listening freely, openly, because one 'listens through' ( the self-protective screen of) this identification.

K: What does ( thought's self-) identification mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something - my car, my house, my wife, my children, my country, my god... Why?

S: To 'be something', perhaps ?

K: Let's enquire 'why'. Not only identify with outward things, but also inwardly identify with (all one's past) experience and say, this is my experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time?

B: At one ( earlier) stage we identify with our sensations, for example, our senses, and this ( self-centred identification) seems very powerful. What would it be not to identify with our sensations?

K: When I listens, am I listening to identify the facts about which he is talking, or there is no identification at all and therefore I am capable of listening with a totally different ( holistically minded ) ear and hearing with a total (undivided) attention? You understand sir? Or, my ( self-centred ?) mind is wandering off and says, "Oh my goodness, this is rather boring, and what is he talking about?" - and so I am off. But can I attend so completely that there is only the act of listening and nothing else, no identification, no saying, yes, that is a good idea, bad idea, that's true, that's false, which are all processes of ( thought's verbal) identification, but without any of those movements can one 'listen' ( in the thought-free mode?) ? When one does so listen, then what? The inward truth of the statement that ''thought is the essence of the self'', and the self-identified ('thinker') creates all this misery, is finished. I don't have to (further) 'meditate' (on this fact) - it is over when I see the danger of (thought surreptitiously doing?) these things. So can we listen so completely that there is the absence of the 'self'? Can one observe something without the ( self-identified consciousness as ?) 'my' country, I love that ( open British?) sky, it is a beautiful sky - and all the rest of that.
So ( to recap:) the ending of thought, which is the ending, or cutting at the very root of the self (- centred thinking) when there is this non-identifying attention, then does the 'self' exist? So, this ( holistically integrated?) active listening implies also listening to whole sensory movement. I mean you can't stop the ( activity of the?) senses, then you would be paralysed. But the moment I say, "That was marvellous taste, I must have more of that", begins the whole ( process of thought's ) identification (aka : the 'experiencer')

B: It seems to me that that is the general condition of mankind, to be identifying with the senses. Now how are we going to change that (ages old psychosomatic conditioning) ?

K: That is the whole problem ( of any holistically friendly education) sir. ( The colective consciousness of?) mankind had been conditioned for millenia to identify with everything - 'my' house, 'my' god, 'my' country, and all the ( psychologically motivated ?) horrors that go on.

B: You see with each one of those, there is a ( personalised?) sensation.

K: It is a ( thought-sustained?) sensation, which you call ( 'my' personal) experience.

R: Shouldn't we come back to the point we began with ?

K: When the (time-bound) 'self' ends, what takes place? Not at the end of my life, not when the brain becomes deteriorated, but when the brain is very, very active, quiet & alive, what takes place when the 'self' is not? Say, (Mr) 'X' has ended the 'self' completely, and says, yes, there is a totally different activity which is not the self. It is a different (perception of the?) world altogether, a different dimension ( of human consciousness ) something totally different.
Can I, as a ( holistically minded?) human being, living in this economically, socially and morally ugly & violent world live without the ( thought created shield) 'self'?
If I want to find it out (experientially?) I begin to enquire : why is there this ('gut?) identification' with the physical form, ( and/or ?) with the ( family name, (& nationality, etc). So (for optional homework?) you ( may want to?) examine this ( subliminal identification?) very, very carefully and not (try) to identify yourself with anything, with sensation, with ideas, with a country, with a (transcendental?) experience. Can you do it occasionally but with passion & intensity ? (In other words?) this means ''to put everything in its right place''. ( Eg:) I need to have (some decent?) food, but I don't have to identify myself with that or that (taste for) food, I eat the right kind of food, and therefore it has its right place. (However ?) there are all the other 'bodily demands' (such as) sex, put them in their right place. And who will tell me how to put it them the right place? ( Hint:) The ( experiential) key to it is the 'non-identification' with ( the pleasurable ) sensations. ( In a nutshell:) Thought's identification with ( desire & ) sensation makes the self. If I really see the ( inward) truth of it then sex, money, everything has its right place (in the context of a holistically integrated existence ?)

R: In other words, you must see without self- identification ?

K: Seeing the (elementary inward?) truth that the identification with sensation, (or optionally?) with this, or that (particular thing?) , builds the structure of the self. Is that seen as an absolute, irrevocable, lasting truth? . One must have ( some ?) money – which gives me the freedom to travel & all the rest of it. But ( pay attention the psychological ) non-identification with money.

B: Does that mean the ending of one's desire for money or for other things ?

K: No, ( but when everything is put in its right place?) desire has very little meaning.

B: Are you saying that thought's identification (with the senses) gives desire excessive meaning?

K: Of course. So this 'putting of everything in its right place' happens (spontaneously) when I have seen the whole truth of the (self-identifying habit of thought) so everything falls in its right place.

R: Right. I see what you're saying.

K: Then what place has thought (in one's inner life?) ? Has it any place at all? Obviously when I am talking I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so on and so on, so there is some thinking involved there – but... not with me, there is very little thinking as I am talking. So thought has its right place when I have to catch a train, when I have to go to the dentist, or when I go to do something else , thought has its place. But it has no place psychologically when the ( instinctive self-) identifying process is taking place.

N: Are you implying that because there is no thought the identifying process has lost its strength?

K: We said just now, that having the key, or living with the fact, living with the truth that identification brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which creates all the innumerable (psychologically motivated) problems, seeing the truth, living ( in the light of?) that truth of that, thought has its right place, same with money, sex....

S: Everything falls into its place providing this insight, the ( perception of?) this truth, is powerful enough...

K: No, it is not 'powerful' - you can't use those words (in the holistic context)

N: But if it has no strength, thought will assert itself again....

K: No, no, it is not ( a matter of?) 'strength'.

B: You are saying that it's (the inner clarity of seeing that thought's self-centred ?) identification makes thought do all the wrong things ?

K: That's right. Identification has made thought do the wrong things.

B: It would be all right otherwise ?

K: Otherwise thought has its ( proper) place.

B: But when you say 'no identification', you mean the 'self' (centred consciousness?) is empty, that it has no content, doesn't it?

K: There are only ( sensory, emotional & mental?) sensations.

B: Sensations, but they are not identified ?

K: Not identified.

B: Which are just going on, do you mean?

K: Yes, sensations are going on.

B: Outside or inside ?

K: Inside.

N: And you are also implying there is no 'slipping back' ?

K: Of course not. When you see something most dangerous, you don't 'slip back' into it - it is dangerous ! So then is this ( the liberating aspect of the 'psychological' ?) death? That is the question we began with.

R: Yes, yes...

K: ( The physical) death as we know it, is the brain cells & the body deteriorating, there is no oxygen and all the rest of it. So the brain dies and the sensations die with it. Right? Now, is there a way of living with the senses fully awakened - but thought's non-identifying with sensation wipes away the self. So, is it possible to live a daily life with ( the psychological) death, which is the ending of the self?

B: Would you say the insight ( into non-attachment?) transforms the person?

K: The insight transforms not only the state of the mind but the brain cells themselves undergo a change.

B: Therefore the brain cells being in a different state behave differently, it is not necessary to repeat the insight.

K: Be careful, sir, don't - either it is so, or it is not so. So I am left with the question of 'what is ( spiritual significance of?) death ?'. Is it the ending of the self ? In the ordinary accepted sense of this word, it is not, obviously, because the blood is circulating, the brain is working, the heart is pumping, and all the rest of it.

B: The physical organism is still alive.

K: It is alive but ( thought's identification with?) the 'self' is non-existent. This is a tremendous thing. Non-identification with anything, with one's ( personal or collective?) experience, with a belief, with a country, with ideas, with ideals, wife, husband, love, no identification at all. Is that (the spiritual significance of ?) death? People are generally afraid of (inwardly) being nothing. But this ( state of inward?) 'no-thingness', which is ( being?) 'not–a-thing', is quite a different state of mind. Now that is ( the spiritual significance of?) death : no ( self-centred) identification and is that Love? This 'dying while living' is ( opening the door to a selfless ?) love in which there is no attachment.

R: That is so.

K: So when there is that ( Universal sense of?) Love, that love is not ( just for) the person whom I love, it is global love. I wonder if you see ?

R: Yes.

K: And what relation has that quality of Love with Compassion? Or is compassion the same as love?

R: (In the Buddhist philosophy?) in Love, there is no discrimination, whereas compassion is directed towards those who are suffering.

N: You make that distinction between compassion and love ?

R: Yes.
N: What is it in the Buddhist language?

R: Karuna is compassion and love is Maitri, it is more than compassion.

K: Sir, does one Love without identification, which implies no self, no attachment?

R: That is the true Love.

K: I am asking you not as a Buddhist, but as a human being without identification with your senses and so on and so on, do you have ( this sense of selfless?) love for a woman or a man, or a child, or for the sky, or for a stray dog without identifying? They all suffer - the woman suffers, the man suffers, the dog has a terrible life, a stray dog, chased and kicked. And when there is no identification do you love that dog, or do you have compassion for that dog? Or is your compassion an ideal - I must have compassion for the suffering, for the poor, for the demented?

B: I still think ( a bonus?) question is : is there love for somebody who is not suffering?

K: Suppose somebody is ( feeling perfectly ) happy, because (s)he writes good thrillers books, or and gets a lot of money, & says, jolly good luck.

B: I didn't mean that exactly. You could say that (s)he was suffering underneath.

K: That's what I am questioning.

B: But would there be love if mankind were to be free of suffering?

K: Are you saying that a human being must go through suffering to have love?

B: Well , not necessarily... One point is : could be love whether there is suffering or not ? And the other point is : compassion, the way the Buddhists use it, is that is only for suffering ?

K: I question that.

R: In Buddhism there are four supreme qualities : maitri, karuna, mudita, upekkha. Maitri embraces the suffering and the not suffering; karuna embraces only the suffering, mudita is the sympathetic joy directed towards particular people and 'upekkha' is equanimity. These four qualities are called the Brahma Viharas, the supreme, divine qualities. But when you use (holistically) the word Love, it is much bigger.

K: No, I haven't come to compassion yet, sir. I just want to know as a human being, do I (have selfless ) love for somebody - the dog, the chimney, the clouds, that beautiful sky, without identifying? Not as a theory but as a fact.

S: As long as I feel the 'I' is acting as 'self', I cannot do it.

K: We said the ( ultimate?) truth is that (thought's subliminal ) identification (with senses, emotions or ideas ?) breeds the self which causes all the trouble, miseries.

S: Only if (the inward truth of ) that is seen...

K: I said that, (for Mr X) it is an absolute, irrevocable reality, it is in my blood, I can't get rid of my blood, it is there.

S: Then I cannot help but Love...

K: You are all too quick. Do you see the (inward) truth that ( thought's ) identification is the root of the self ? That is an absolute fact, like a cobra, like a dangerous animal, like a precipice, like taking deadly poison. So there is absolutely no more (self-centred) identification, when you see ( its psychological) danger. Then what is my relationship to the whole world, to nature, to my woman, man, child? When there is no (self-centred) identification is there indifference, callousness, brutality ?

R: That would be a very selfish position...

K: I am asking, sir: is this ( noble principle of) 'non-identification' a (nice sounding) ideal with which I am going to live and therefore all my relationship becomes very superficial & casual ? It is only when the whole truth (is seen about the falseness of thought's self-centred ? ) identification and it is absolutely 'cut out' of one's life, there is no more ( politically correct ?) callousness - because that ( totally insightful perception ?) is 'real'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 271 - 300 of 304 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.)