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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 61 - 64 of 64 in total
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #61
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 177 posts in this forum Offline

 3RD SEMINAR MEETING (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: Shall we go on discussing, talking over together, the question of fear? Is it really possible to be completely free of fear, both physiological as well as psychological? One may be afraid of death or face something dangerous physically, but to meet it 'healthily', not neurotically, with fear. So there is both physical fear and psychological fear. Perhaps they are interrelated, one giving emphasis to the other and so on. Can we go into all this?

Questioner: I had always thought that the way of dealing with fear, was the way Mrs Simmons spoke about it yesterday, ( but then, you said) that there might be another possibility of it.

K: I mean, if one is afraid (of something or other) , does one want to go really deeply inside the whole business of it, and be free of it ? Or we don't know how to deal with ( our psychological) fears and so we avoid (facing them) and explain them away. We never ( endeavor) to go into it and completely dissolve it. So, ddo we really want to go into it so that our minds are completely free from it? That is the first question I would like to suggest to ask (oneself)

Q: I think that we'd rather go from solutioning one fear to the solution of the the next fear, rather than to go into the ( whole issue of) fear.

K: That's it, we want a ( temporary) solution of it, rather than the finding out the whole movement of it, the whole contents of it, the nature of it. Is that what we're trying to do?

Q: But right here we are also looking for 'the' solution, too.

K: Are you looking for a ( once & for all ?) solution for fear? Or investigating, exploring, finding out the whole nature of it, and ( eventually?) when one really has a (total) insight into it, it's gone.

Q: Doesn't it have something to do with the immediacy of our response  to fear ?

K: Let's be clear. Do we want to control it, and remaining in the meantime in (the shadow?) fear. Or we want to go into the whole problem, into the nature and the structure of fear, into the movement of it and resolve it completely ?

Q: But you were saying that if we want to look at fear in order to get rid of it, then we won't discover anything. So, what would be a correct reason and therefore a correct approach to looking at fear? Dr Bohm just said that we have to be free of fear before we can even be 'serious'.

K: Oh, no... Then I'll wait till Doomsday. To put it the other way: do you want to investigate it, or do you want somebody to say, 'Do this, and you will be free of it'.

Q: No, we all want to investigate it and find out the whole structure, nature, mechanism of fear. I want to open up the whole subject, that's all I can say.

K: That's all. All of us want to do this?

Q: Yes.

K: Avanti ! Do we, each one of us, recognize our fear, know that we are frightened of something or other, and ask what we actually do with that fear? Or we (are subliminally trying to) control it, accept it as part of life and drag on with it for the rest of your life? Are we aware of this? That's what I'm asking.

Q: I think we're probably all aware of the fact that we 'drag on'....

K: Why? We are investigating, opening up the whole Pandora's Box.
Are you ( responsably?) aware of your ( psychological?) fears, and of your reactions to that?

Q: Krishnaji, I think part of it is because we maintain a facade of ourselves that we present to others, and we want to continue to maintain this. And if we begin to face the question of fear, we will have to deal with this facade.

K: Apart from the 'facade', why do we try to (keep it under ) control , run away from it, or wait for some ( providential?) incident to resolve it. Why do we go through this ( linear time based ?) process? You understand my question?

Q: Could it be because we don't know how to deal with it otherwise?

K: You don't know any other way? Is that it? Suppose I am afraid (of something that might happen to me now or in the future ) . I know I have controlled this ( 'virtual' fear) and I ask myself, 'Why am I doing this?'

Q: Somehow that fear seems to threaten something ( very real) inside you.

K: Threat to what? Threat to loosing my house? Threat to my relationship? Threat to my whole (safe & comfortable) way of living? And I said, why do I go through the cycle?

Q: Because the whole thing will be threatened. In other words if I stop doing this, I don't want to give that up, that structure will be threatened, the solution will be threatened.

K: Do I know that my whole ( psychological) structure, which I've built up, will be destroyed? Or am I projecting an idea that it might be destroyed? And I ask myself, what am I being threatened about? A threat to my whole existence? To my way of my life?

Q: Yes, that 'you' won't exist.

K: You see, I don't know.

Q: You don't know what ?

K: You've already projected what might happen. But I don't know. You see the difference? By projecting it, say what might happen, it might destroy my house, my relationship, I'll lose my job - all that adds more fear. But it may not be like that at all. You follow? Threat implies that you have a certain (well settled) standard of life and it may be broken up. Therefore, you say, 'My god, I won't go into this problem at all'. You have made a picture of what might happen, and so you carry on as usual. Right? You understand?
So I'm asking, if you do not project, the idea of what might happen, but say let's investigate ( how thought is creating that ) fear, not the ( particular projection of the ) future fear. Is that clear?

Q: Yes.

K: The surgeon tells me I must be operated. And I'm frightened, because I might not survive. And so the fear of not surviving adds to my already greater fear of the operation itself . But if I have no fear of what might happen, I can face that ( prostate?) operation. But now I've introduced a double kind of fear: the future, what might happen, and the actual fear of being operated. So I see the silliness of it, the foolishness of it, so I say, 'All right, I won't project (my psychological fears into the future) .' Is this clear? Can we go on from there?

Q: Yes.

K: So I ask now, why am I doing this?

Q: It seems I'm ( subliminally?) holding onto something.

K: You're holding on to what? Do look at it. What are you 'holding on'? Your relationship? Your money? Your way of life? Your profession, your career, your - whatever, a dozen things. Are you ?

Q: All that, yes.

K: What is 'all that'? To your life?

Q: All my ( 'psychical'?) structure.
K: The way you are living - let's put it that way, it's simpler. The (temporal continuity of ) of 'your' way of life, you're holding on. And, in that ( habit ridden) way of life, fear is involved. So you're holding onto ( the very causation of) fear. Right?

Q: Krishnaji, that I think that it's more than just holding on to this (self-identified psychological ) structure, but ( to the assumption) you don't have the capacity to deal with it.

K: That's the whole point. Is it that I've been discouraged that I cannot do it by myself - by the organised religions, ''Jesus will save you'', ( or by thinking that an ) outside agency will save you, go to an analyst, professor, this, that, they will resolve it. So society, education, has 'helped' me to ( become 'psychologically' dependent and ) have no capacity to deal with it. Would you agree to this?

Q: But I might think I can do it myself.

K: I can say I will solve it, which ( might be?) another ( form of egocentric) vanity. So, now I am free from that educated conditioning. Are you?

Q: Are you?

K: Am I?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes. I wouldn't talk otherwise, I wouldn't be a 'hypocrite'. Sir, we said at the beginning of this discussion, that (in order ) to be a light to oneself, are we free of this educated conditioning which makes us ( feel inadequate & ) incapable? The 'intellectuals' have made us ( feel) incapable - the intellectual structure of religions, the whole intellectual world of knowledge - all that says (tacitly?) , ''You can't do it, old boy, we will do it for you''.

Q: It seems this 'educated conditioning' has a life of its own.

K: Of course it has, but are you aware that you have (subliminally adopted?) this 'educated conditioning', which destroys (corrupts?) your ( inner creative ) capacity, and therefore you put it aside ? Which means, you're no longer (psychologically) dependent. That's all I'm trying to get at.

Q: But even if one were free of this intellectual conditioning, surely that in itself would not be enough.

K: No, just the beginning, that's part of it. Of course not, sir. So, Dr Shainberg raised the question that most of us, have not the capacity to deal with it.

Q: I did not say we didn't have it, I said, we 'feel' like it.

K: So we are investigating why we don't 'feel capable', and we don't because of this. So are we free from that, because we can't investigate further if you are not free of that.
You see, this is different from (psych-) analysis. I must make it quite clear. When one is observing (holistically) this whole movement, there is no 'analyzer' and the 'analyzed'. We are just observing ( non-personally the 'what is') . So, if you reject the 'intellectual' mentality, what have you come to?

Q: To the insight of this?

K: Which means what?

Q: You are free to learn, you are free of this conditioning.

K: Which means what? How did you get that freedom, how did you have that feeling of being free?

Q: By doubting.

K: By doubt, by questioning, which means what? That is you have (awakened a time-free ?) intelligence, haven't you now?

Q: Yes. Your own intelligence.

K: Not 'your' own. You have ( access to a quality of 'holistic') intelligence.

Q: Yes.

K: Which is 'capacity' ( of being a light for oneself?) . I wonder if you see this.

Q: There's a 'quality' there. You used the word 'happen'. I think that's exactly it, that you become 'a happening'.

K: Yes, there is ( the awakening of a holistic) movement, which is intelligence, not that intelligence which is yours or mine, it's 'intelligence'.

Q: Which is not a ( natural) function of the brain?

K: You have used the brain to see what ( legions of opportunistic?) intellectuals, priests, philosophers, Freudians & all the rest have done – that they have made you 'dull' (inwardly unperceptive) . And this very seeing is ( triggering the awakening) movement of intelligence, it's not 'your' seeing or 'my' seeing, ( but the non-personal seeing of) the fact that 'it is so'.

Q: I can see that they have stopped me from enquiring (inwardly) .

K: Sir, in Christianity you mustn't question (too much?) . You can question up to a certain point, after that, it is a mystery. So you are never encouraged to question, ask, demand, find out. Now are we in this together, so far? Have you ( awakened or liberated ?) that (quality of holistic) intelligence?

Q: Well, the actual experience of ( our existential) fear is so tremendous and to have that (ready to use, holistic?) intelligence at that moment is...

K: Not at that moment.

Q: No, but in examining. When you are fearful and you examine it, you come to that perception with extreme difficulty.

K: We haven't finished with ( facing & ending) fear yet. So I'm saying the next step is...

Q: Sir, I question whether one has totally rejected all that. I have the feeling that it will be just another verbal game.

K: It's not a verbal game with me. Are we serious enough, having the strong intent to go into this whole movement of fear ? If you have the intent and the seriousness of it, you cannot remain on the verbal level.

Q: Sir, it seems at this point that ( the psychological) fear itself hasn't been dealt with. All you've done is put aside incapacity and the intelligence has been awakened. Once that's awakened then it can start dealing with fear. The fear is still there.

K: Of course. Sir, I'm going to deal with - we're going to go into it.

Q: Can I raise another point? Having cleared the space, so to speak...

K: ...cleared the decks.

Q:... and got the intelligence, doesn't one need some kind of ( higher) motivation, some sort of passion - doesn't one then need 'that' to continue the process? Or are you including that in the ( generic term) 'intelligence'?

K: I think that the passion, the drive is inherent in this intelligence.

Q: It has its own momentum ?

K: It has, yes. So as Professor Wilkins points out, doesn't one need passion, interest, a drive to bring about this ( quality of compassionate?) Intelligence, or to 'awaken' this Intelligence. I say, by observing, by looking into this whole movement of fear, if I have (another fit of 'existential' ?) fear, I'll go into it , with all that intelligence, energy, and drive.

Q: Could I return to your point about the man having the ( prostate?) operation? He decides to have the operation and run the risks of what might happen afterwards...only if he's sufficiently dissatisfied with his past life before the operation. Is this it?

K: You're quite right, sir. Are we (really?) dissatisfied now with our ordinary, ( materially safe but sadly ?) mediocre, 'dull' life, part of which is the fear (of what might happen to us tomorrow ?) Am I aflame to resolve (ASAP?) this thing? Which immediately makes me (temporarily?) 'non-mediocre' - not that it gives me vanity. I'm out of that group.

Q: I think there's a real fear of getting out of the groove, because it puts you into a whole new space.

K: So now there is this ( non-personal) Intelligence operating, which is (generating its own insightful ?) 'capacity'. And I come to the ( 'reality check' ) point : I am (suddenly becoming ) aware of ( an existential) fear. Fear of what?

Q: Of the future ?

K: Or, afraid of ( facing my) loneliness, afraid of losing my job, having no status in society, afraid of death, afraid that I might physically get hurt? Go on, sir, please, what is it that you're afraid of?

Q: Practically of all those things. I'm afraid of just letting everything drop by and (just drifting ?) …

K: 'I'm afraid of all these things'. What does that mean? That I'm afraid of that, afraid of that, so you have separate fears. Right? Or is it a central movement of fear having different expressions ?

Q: It seems to enter into practically everything.

K: Do you want to get rid of those particular expressions of fear, or of the ( central movement of) fear that creates them ? You follow? Desire creates many 'objects' of desire. I want a house, I want to be famous, I want to be known, I want to have money. But it's still desire. So, though fear has many expressions, their common factor is fear. So here we are dealing with not the various objects of fear, but with fear itself. Do we see the (holistically friendly approach?) and can we move from there?

Q: Don't these fears indicate that one is actually afraid to be left alone?

K: Yes, sir, ( of our existential) loneliness. Loneliness, isolation, building a wall round oneself, being hurt from childhood, building a wall round yourself and (trying to stay clear of?) anybody who might hurt you .

Q: There's also a fear secondary to building the wall....

K: Of course, of course. You build a wall and then feel isolated and say, 'My God, why am I so isolated?'

Q: I take it there is a deeper fear.

K: Yes, yes, of course.

Q: Could we take a look at the ( thought) process by which a single fear arises, by which, you know, fear comes into being? And take a look at it from that point of view ?

K: Take it, sir, go into it, take one fact, if you're afraid of something, take that and go into that one fact. What would you like? Loneliness?

Q: Fine.

K: So I am afraid of this (sad ) feeling of ( my own existential) loneliness, which is : I'm frightened of being (rejected &) isolated. You want to take that?

Q: Could we start just before that though? I'm sitting down, walking around and I'm not afraid. And then suddenly this ( surge of existential) fear arises.

K: Arises.

Q: Can we look at that?

K: I'm doing that. We'll see how it comes and then we'll see how the before and the after. I am (feeling) lonely. Now ( after exhausting all the possible escapes ?) I want to find out why this ( depressing sense of ) loneliness has come into being, how is it that I'm ( feeling so?) lonely? Is it ( the result of my self-centred?) way of life? Acting for myself all the time, in my most intimate relationships, or business, whatever it is, I'm always acting from a 'centre' (of self-interest) . So what happens? I'm all the time emphasizing by my actions, by my thought, this inner void in me, this emptiness, this sense of loneliness. I go to the office. There I am battling with my superior, and I want his job, more money and so on. I'm acting there, emphasizing myself, me first, and all that. I come home and there's my wife and I go though exactly the same process there. Right? So through all my ( self-centred) actions I'm bringing about this sense of ( existential) loneliness. And suddenly, walking in the woods or sitting in my room suddenly one feels tremendously lonely, isolated, having no relationship with anything. Don't you know all this? I'm not inventing all this.

So I have done everything to avoid (facing) it. And now instead of running away from it, I say, all right, old boy, let's see what it is about. What is the state of the mind that is lonely, this sense of tremendous isolation.
( Experiential warning :) If you don't resolve it, and you know you can't escape from it, then ( the chances are that) you become 'neurotic'. Because that (pain of loneliness) is the only thing you have left. Before you escaped, before you did all kinds of tricks with it, now you realize that you can't do anything - so you're stuck with it. And if you don't resolve it you become a very neurotic human being. No? Don't be deceived by the (verbal clarity of the ) description, it's a 'fact'.
So what shall I do with this (existential) loneliness? The same 'I' who has created the loneliness, the isolation, now says, 'What shall 'I' do?' I wonder if you see this ?

Q: Yes. In the very act of trying to solve it, you're back in ( its initial cause ) .

K: Of course. Because I've put the wrong question when I say, 'What shall 'I' do?', (since ) I'm still isolating myself. So the ( holistically correct ?) question is : Is that loneliness separate from me? Or I 'am' (both the cause & the effect of) that (loneliness) ? Is that loneliness different from the ( self-conscious) 'actor' who says, 'I' must do something about it. Or the 'actor' himself 'is' that. I wonder if you see this.

Q: He has sustained it artificially.

K: Yes, so the observer 'is' the observed. This ( non-duality point?) is difficult for most of us to get. The actor is that, because he has created it.

Q: That seems particularly difficult.

K: Of course, because our ( ages old cultural) conditioning was to keep the two separate. Our conditioning is to 'act upon it'. But when you see ( the inner truth that ) the actor 'is' the action, your mind is quite different when you see that.

Q: May I ask, how different ?

K: Is the division (observer-observed) a fact? Is that not a ( highly sublimated mental ?) illusion? Though we accept it as a fact, is that not an illusion?

Q: Krishnaji, I can see (intellectually?) that it is an illusion, and that there is not a division.

K: Be careful - how did you come to that (realisation) ?

Q: In listening to what you said and in seeing the ( self-conscious) 'entity' that felt the loneliness, and the loneliness itself, came from the same source that felt it. So I could see in my way that I was (not separated from my) loneliness.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: But that doesn't give me any ( liberating) insight yet into...

K: That's the whole point. If you see that, then there is no ( further sense of) division. He says he has jumped to that (realisation) . And it may be still a (self-created) illusion, so ( here's the clue :) when the observer is the observed, there is no (further sense of inner) conflict. Is that a 'fact' to you, there is no more conflict ( with your ) loneliness?

Q: It's not a 'fact' for me.

K: And therefore that jump is not what we're talking about. You see, (it is the existence of various conflicting ) actions, in our daily life, which has brought about this loneliness.

Q: Yes, sir. The continual operation of the 'I'.

K: That's all. So I'm asking : do I realize the ( self-created mental) illusion I've been living in, where I have separated loneliness from me, and therefore 'me' can act upon 'it'. Do I see that my loneliness is the ( karmic result ?) of my (own self-centred) thinking which has brought about this division ?

Q: If I might just enlarge on that point, Krishnaji, the ( action related ) question which the 'I' is asking, is born so fast that you can't get hold of it.

K: Of course, of course, because it is part of our illusion. ( To recap) Have you seen that you are escaping from loneliness?

Q: Yes.

K: Which means 'you' are ( subliminally trying to act) upon your loneliness. Next, you say ''now I'll not escape''.

Q: What if the 'escaper' continues to escape (in many other ways?) from its loneliness ?

K: Then we have to investigate why our ( presumably serious?) mind will not face the 'fact'.

Q: Yes. That's it.

K: Will not face the fact that it is (acting) silly. Why can't we face the 'fact' - fact, not 'what I think about the fact' ?

Q: I don't accept being lost (in a totally unknown teritory?)

K: Wait, wait. To face a 'fact' I mustn't run away from it, obviously. But my whole education has been to run away from it. Why can't I face the fact? Is it because I don't know how to look  at it (non-verbally?) ?

Q: Supposing you looked at the fact that you are isolating yourself. You've already seen that (intellectually) . How come you can't see (the truth of ) that fact? What happens?

K: I'll tell you how I do it. Not through ( a sequential) observation of escapes, controls, and all that. I say, loneliness, isolation ( is the 'fact' of ) my daily life. So my daily life changes completely.

Q: Yes, but isn't that a jump. You asked first , what am I going to do about loneliness. Yes ? So, you yourself skipped that (step of 'personal' action) .

K: No, sir. I ( was expressing ?) the question of others. I am not lonely. I won't go through that. Cut me out as a ( 'lonely' ) person.

Q: Ok, forget your case .

K: You may go to the movies, but when you come back home, ( your existential loneliness ) still there. So can you face the 'fact' ? Which means, can you look at it without any ( personal) motive. Take a more obvious fact. Fact, that one is (psychologically ) violent. You know what violence is -like getting (really) angry and trying to be something when you are not, is violence.

Q: You see, we're used to working through comparison, what I see as inner violence with what I see as outside as violence. And so we work in the world of ideas. That's one of the chief difficulties.

K: Look, sir, can you just look ( non-verbally) at a fact and keep looking at it?

Q: Most people would find this very difficult.

K: That's right, sir. Most people find it most difficult to look ( non-verbally) at a fact; look at the fact that you're jealous, look at the fact that you're violent, or simply to look in the mirror and not compare yourself with somebody else who is more or less (handsome) . So what happens? Can you look at that (sense of existential) loneliness, without any ( personal) motive, just look? Now this is most difficult, because ( the common way of ) observation is ( backed by) the movement of thought, which is a 'deviation' (is putting a personal spin on the thing onserved) . I wonder if you see?

Q: Well, then it is all coming down to the observation of thought.

K: No, I don't want to enter into that for the moment - purposely, because it's (been) complicated enough. Can I observe my loneliness (non-verbally?) and hear all the inwardness of it - observing means also 'listening'. Can I do that? It might tell (all about ) its content if I know how to look, if I know how to listen to the thing that I call loneliness. It may be the most extraordinary factor involved in it. But if I run away, escape, it's not revealing its (true) story.

So you may find it awfully difficult to face ( the truth of ) a fact -for instance face the fact that I've told a (white?) lie. And not say I told a lie because this, protecting somebody else , you ( could blackmail &?) frightened me. You follow? But the fact that I told a lie. See how extraordinarily difficult it is, sir, isn't it? Why? Answer me, sir. Why? Why is it so difficult for most of us to face a fact?

Q: It's only difficult when it refers to oneself. If it doesn't refer to oneself it's easy enough.

K: That's right, sir. Can I face the ( truth of the ) fact that ( psychologically?) I am absolutely nothing. That's the key point. Can you face the fact that you're absolutely nothing? You know that is really ( a major Meditation theme left for homework ?)

Q: Then...all the ( personal) problems are solved.

K: No problem, but there is something much more when you come to that point. (Seeing the inner truth of ) the fact that you're nothing (not-a-thing) , with all your ( smart) clothes you've got, ideas you've got, beliefs you've got, experiences, all those are words, words, words.

Q: What makes it difficult is that you are always comparing ?

K: No, sir. I cannot face the ( truth of this inner ) fact that I'm absolutely nothing. All the ( self-centred mental) structure that you have built about yourself, tremendous knowledge, a violinist, pianist, all this is what - what are they?

Q: You mean not just nothing, but a 'miserable' human being?

K: Yes, sir. That's why we never face the fact that I'm that, as he points out, I'm a miserable human being. My quarrels are petty, my relationship with my wife is so tawdry, misery, confusion, I never face it.
So, why is it so intolerable to face ( the truth of such ) a fact? If you tell me that I'm really an ignorant fool, actually you tell me that, and I say, all right, let me look. I am not frightened, I want to find out if I am an ignorant fool, or it's your reaction which makes you say that to me. I want to find out. Which means I've got intensity as passion, because I'm not just satisfied with things as they are, in myself.
So ( to recap) can I face the fact that I'm frightened, and not do a thing about it, just face it ? If you do face the fact, then a whole series of ( meditative) enquiries begin, real enquiries, not intellectual, verbal enquiries. That is, I'm facing the fact that I told a lie last year and I'm frightened that you might discover that lie, because I've got a reputation to keep up, that I never lie. But I have told a lie and I don't want you to discover it. Can I face that fact without any sense of guilt, without any sense of saying, it was right, I should have lied because of this, that and the other? Just to look at it. See that gives you a tremendous (inner) vitality. Has it given you that vitality, that sense of drive, with passion? Say, I've faced the fact, it's finished. I may have lied but that's over, you can tell everybody about it. And I'm out of ( the karmic repercussions of) it. So we meet again on Saturday. Shall we go on with this fear question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 27 Apr 2018 #62
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 177 posts in this forum Offline


( a'reader friendly' edited) 4TH K SEMINAR MEETING

Krishnamurti: May we go on with what we were talking about the other day : how difficult it is to face 'facts', facts being that which is actually taking place now. That's what we came to in our talk the other day. Shall we go on from there?

Q: Sir, you said something the other day which I hope you'll go into a little bit more. You said, thought is a 'deviation' which had many implications in seeing the actual fact...

K: That's right. ( For instance ) can we face the fact, the actual reaction which we call (' psychological) fear'  without the interference of thought, which naturally distorts or deviates (our inner attention) from that which is actually taking place ? And is there the division between 'that which is happening' inwardly, and the 'one who is observing' what is taking place? That's the question we must seriously go into, because where there is ( this subliminal perceptive ) division between the 'observer' and the 'observed', or the thinker and the thought, there must be ( a hidden, or an open ?) conflict (created) by the observer imposing what he thinks is right according to his values, his tradition, his ( cultural) conditioning. So we must really understand this question very carefully and deeply, whether there is such a division between the actual ( 'gut?) reaction' that is going on within us, like fear, and the ( self-conscious entity?) who says, 'I am afraid,' and so there is ( a subliminal) separation from ( the actual fear) and the entity or the thinker that says, 'I am different from fear.'

Because, if this division exists, then the 'doer', the 'actor', the 'observer', the 'thinker' can operate on 'that which he is observing' – by controlling, shaping or altering ( 'what is' going on) . And that's what, traditionally, we have been doing. And (as of ?) now, this division between the observer and that which is actually going on, (has become a solid?) reality. We have made it into a reality because it's become our ( thinking) habit to divide, 'me' and the 'not me', we and they, my belief and your belief and so on. Now, can't the actual fact, 'that that which is happening', be observed ( directly & non-verbally?) without the 'observer' who says, 'I should do something about it.' Then if ( this perceptive duality ?) can be (un)done, then one's mind will ( be able to?) remove entirely and completely the whole question of conflict between 'this' and 'that'. Please don't ( just sit back & ) listen to me, but let's - each one of us - find out ( experientially) the truth of it.

Q: Krishnaji, when something ( totally unexpected) is happening, like I have a (momentary) inclination to hit someone, that inclination, (by the time I try to ) observe it, has already happened, the actual 'fact' has already happened.

K: It's already happened and therefore the 'observer' ( is already processing ?) it. But we are discussing about the direct observation of the 'fact' as it is happening, not 'after' it has happened or 'before' it will happen, but actually as it is happening.
Sir, if we are concerned with the question of struggle, conflict, then we must find out if it is at all possible to eliminate in ( our everyday) life every sense of conflict, in oneself, in one's relationship and so on. Is that possible? I say it is possible only when the psychological division between the ( all controlling?) 'observer' and 'that which is actually going on', when there is no such division, then you eliminate altogether conflict. As long as this division (is active) , the observer then can ( take time to thoughtfully ) analyze that which is happening, and go into the whole process of analysis and so on. But if there is no such division, then 'that which is happening' undergoes a radical (qualitative) transformation. That's all my point.
When in our observation there is ( this subliminal ?) division, then ( the self-centred ) thought is in operation. Thought then can say, 'I will control it, I will run away from it, I will suppress it, I will analyze it,' and go through all that process. When there is no ( interference of the ) 'observer', who is the very essence of the past, then there is only actually the 'what is happening'. Can that 'actuality', the 'fact', be observed without the movement of thought? If the movement of thought takes place, then you're acting from the past, and therefore distorting it, deviating it, run away from it and so on. (In a nutshell:) when ( looking at what is actually going on inwardly) there is no ( interfering) operation of thought, there is pure observation. And in that ( holistic?) observation the (inner) 'thing' which is being observed undergoes a change, a mutation.

Q: I think you're wrong there. I think there is a 'pure happening' and this is followed by observation. But the 'pureness' is in the happening, not in the observing.

K: What is it you don't agree with?

Q: I think that the happening is the primary thing, and observing is something that follows on

K: I see. In the actual happening, at the very moment of anger, there is no observer. The 'observer' comes into operation only a moment later. Obviously. Then the operator, the doer, the thinker acts upon it, and the whole problem of ( the dualistic) conflict arises. Now can't you observe that ( thing as it is) 'happening' without the whole rigmarole of thought coming into it? Suppose I am (getting) angry - there is ( a sudden reaction of) anger. Is there a (direct & non-personal?) observation of that ( gut) feeling, of that (violent) reaction, without the whole movement of thought coming into it? That's all my question.

Q: Sir, for most of the time there is the ( sudden reaction of) anger and then the observer looking at that anger, and thinking that it's separate. So could we take a look at the process by which we move from that state of the observer being different from the observed, to where the observer would be the observed. In other words, ''the observer being the observed'' is not our normal state, is not the normal frame of mind, is not the normal consciousness. So could we take a look at how that could come about?

K: Would you consider for a moment that which is happening now, just to observe. Can you do it? Can one observe (one's subliminal response of) jealousy as it is taking place, (unfolding as) a flower blooms, just to watch it ?

Q: But the very moment you said 'Can one observe it ?', there's a ( subliminal) duality implied.

K: Agreed. But try it (for homework : ) . You are jealous sometimes. Can you just watch that state of mind, not say, 'I must be more clear, what he's talking about,' just watch it, see.

Q: There seems to be a 'physical' resistance...

K: Are you saying there must be certain ( psychosomatic) relaxation in order to observe (oneself clearly?) ?

Q: No, I meant some disturbance that you feel in the body, a physical reaction to this (strongly recommended inner) watching.

K: Why should there be a ( discomforting) physical reaction to watching (oneself) ? Maybe, I don't know...

Q: I would have thought the reason is because the ( self-conscious) mind always seems to want an answer to a problem instead of just observe it unfolding.

K: There is a certain sense of resistance to the intensity of watching ?

Q: Perhaps, yes.

K: Is it because we're not used to watching anything intensely? The moon, the sky, the trees, whatever it is? To 'watch'...
Now, can we put the ( experientially friendly) question : why should thought interfere with anything, psychologically? Is there an observation - the moon - without the interference of thought? Can you watch the moon without thought 'drawing a curtain across it'?

Q: Occasionally.

K: All right. Can you watch the movement of a cloud, occasionally? Now can you watch your ( mental) reactions in the same way? Just to watch something without any movement of thought ?

Q: There can be and there sometimes is, but it's infrequent.

K: Sir, may I ask another question. Has it ever occurred to you, whether it is possible to live without any conflict?

Q: That's totally different question.

K: No, it is not . I'm asking this question related to what previously we talked about, the conflict of duality - have ever asked yourself whether it is possible to live without this ( 'observer' vs 'observed' ) conflict. Have you? Between yourself, and somebody else and also without any inner conflict within yourself. Have you ever asked it yourself?

Q: Not until you suggested the other day (that ) it was possible.

K: So, I suggested it. All right. Have you found out whether that is possible or not possible?

Q: It is possible.

K: No, then you've blocked (the inquiry into ) it . Or if you say it's not possible, you have blocked it. But to find out whether it is possible to live without conflict implies there should be no ( observer-observed) division.
Now, was this division artificially created by thought or is it actual? If the division is actual, then I must live for ever in ( a mentality of) conflict. If the division is not factual, then the very thing which is being observed undergoes a change.

Q: Sir, what one is observing is often ( the self-centred activities of our ) thought itself, so are you saying that the change comes about in thought itself?

K: Yes, sir. Can thought observe itself?

Q: We can acknowledge (some) thoughts going through our minds.

K: I'm asking a ( holistically friendly ?) question which is, is there an observation of thought by thought? Or can (the thinking brain) itself become conscious of its own movement? Usually, one (controlling segment of) thought can say, I'll watch the other thought as they are moving. And therefore try to control them and so on. But I'm asking a different question, which is, can thought become ( objectively ?) conscious of itself as a movement?

Q: Are you saying that the whole ( process ) of thinking is becoming conscious of itself ?

K: That's right.

Q: Yes, but usually we are conscious only of one part of our thought.

K: Of course ? One thought is part of the whole. So can thought, which is our whole (mental activity) , be aware of itself?

Q; That raises again the (duality) problem - thought is always fragmentary.

K: Yes, sir. Can thought which is (usually ) fragmentary, can that thought be aware of itself? Say, you have a particular thought - can that thought become conscious of itself ? Not another ( prioritary ) thought becoming conscious of it ?

Q: That thought as it moves, cannot be conscious of itself. It becomes another thought.

K: Let's leave out thought. Can ( our ) consciousness become aware of itself? Consciousness being the ( 'real-time' display of the ) whole content ofthought.
Your ( self-) consciousness is made up of its content. This (psychologically active ?) content is your ( personal) jealousy, anxiety, fear, love & hate, sexual demands, ( plus) the whole of human endeavour, struggle, pain, pleasure, sorrow, death, and so on. The whole of your consciousness is made up of all these little parts. Right? Can ( the totality of ) this consciousness become (silently) aware of itself?

Q: You mean that consciousness must be aware of itself (as a whole) , not of a particular aspect of it ?

K: Yes, put it that way if you like.

Q: What does that mean?

K: What does it mean to you? Don't ask me.

Q: To me it means a confused ( self-conscious) entity (trying to) look at itself.

Q: Krishnaji, isn't this first a matter of seeing something 'false' which is going on in the mind and after this ( false perceptive attitude ) coming to an end, only then there is the possibility of something else (to happen?) ? If I think now about being aware of my whole consciousness, and I make effort to be aware of my whole consciousness, that has no (experiential) meaning.

K: You know we began by asking ''Can we observe a fact ?''. That which is actually taking place (right now within oneself) . Not ' what has happened' and then its (effects) being observed. But the very happening itself. So that is the central issue that we're trying to talk over together - whether it is ( experientially) possible to observe ( without the duality observer-observed ?) that which is actually taking place.

Q: Krishnaji, would you just say it's a simple thing to do? This is how it looks to me. One thought comes into the mind, that's the fact, there's no ( verbal processing) movement, nothing, just to be aware of the fact.

K: It's more than that, sir.

Q: Is this what you're saying, that there must be a form of immediate apprehension ( of our instinctual reactions) in observation which precedes thought?

K: That's right. Can you as Professor Wilkins pointed out ''apprehend that which is happening'' ? Why does it seem so extraordinarily difficult ?

Q: Because in my mind there is so much (mental) movement which rarely tells what is happening ?

K: Sir, look, we have all been envious, haven't we? You know what the feeling of it is. Is there an observation of that ( personal reaction of) envy as it arises, just to observe (non-personally) that which is happening ?

Q: To stay with that ?

K: That's it, stay with that.

Q: No 'observing'.

K: All right, I'll use another word - 'stay with that'. As we were talking about fear. Is there a (non-personal) observation of fear as it is happening? That's all.

Q: Well, the funny thing is, as soon as I try to observe it, it seems to go away , it disappears.

K: Now does it disappear so that it doesn't return, because you are observing with attention and it goes ?

Q: Yes.

K: So fear comes only when there's inattention.

Q: Very much so.

K: So, then what is that attention?

Q: You have simply taken the ( mind's) focus off the sensation of fear and are re-focusing it into something called 'attention'. Therefore the (energy that initially fuelled the ) fear diminishes.

K: As this gentleman pointed out, Maria, when I ( fully) attend to that fear, it disappears. So this indicates that when there is attention, fear is not. So can I attend fear, or that which is taking place, with ( a non-personal quality of loving) attention ?
Suppose I am feeling confused. And I 'attend to' that confusion, look, attend, give (some loving?) attention to that (inner) confusion. For the moment it is not. So I've learnt something, which is, when there is ( a selfless loving ?) attention, confusion is not.

Q: You put the finger on something important there, which is not just ( an intelligence switch) ''when there is attention, confusion is not'', but equally there is something ( else involved ) there that is not thought, in other words, there's a new state.

K: That's all, sir.

Q: But sir, what is (also involved) this most extraordinary thing, this 'attention' - I don't know what it is, I can't find out, but I know it is an extraordinary thing. I do not know what it is.

K: Let me put the question differently. When there is an (abyssmal existential of) fear, is there a (quality of loving?) attention of that fear, attention ? When there is ( this quality of loving) attention, will there be fear? So does this ( holistic ) attention contain or hold thought?

Q: Krishnaji, there is implied when you say can there be attention there, that there is no ( further) movement of thought. So...

K: You have to find this out (for homework?) sir. I'm asking, is there in that state of ( loving) attention any ( residual) movement of ( the self-centred) thought?

Q: It merely seems to me that this attention doesn't belong to me...

K: It is not yours, I agree. It's nobody's.

Q: But Krishnaji, here is the ( material ) brain, say it's feeling fear or whatever the emotion is. Now the attention comes about. What is going on when the brain is looking at it ?

K: When there is ( this loving) attention, you're asking , what is going on in the brain. Don't you want to find out what goes on?

Q: Does this ( intelligent energy of) attention use the brain?

K: Is 'attention' to be learnt (from somone else), practised and repeated?

Q: No. It's there.

K: I attend, there is a full attention about something and that thing disappears. Then I say, 'By Jove, I've learnt something, I'll attend, I'll keep on attending, and practise attention'. And then, it's gone. So, Maria asks, what is the quality of the brain, when there is total attention ?

Q: It's highly active. The brain is highly active in that state of attention.

K: I don't know, we're going to enquire, sir, we're going to - don't let's state anything definite. What do you say, Dr Bohm, and you Professor Wilkins , you're all experts at this. What is the quality or the state of the brain when there is total attention?

Q: Doesn't the brain become ( naturally?) quiet?

K: The brain, you suggest, becomes 'quiet'. Does attention spring from this quietness or (it's the other way ?) What is the state of your brain, the brain, when there is complete attention?

Q: I think we must say that, the ( 'science) people' who do research on the brain don't understand ( the nature of holistic?) attention, and they admit it openly.

K: This is important to discuss : what is the quality of your brain when you are totally attentive.

Q: Don't we have the most evidence for inattention? I think we can look at inattention, because we don't (always ) have ( this quality of loving) attention.

K: All right, look at your inattention.

Q: Are we talking about focussing our attention on inattention, or are we just talking about something without focus called 'attention'?

K: You are listening now to me, which means, I hope, you're attending. What do you mean by that word 'attending'? We both of us know English, therefore you are able to understand the words, but you also know the words are not the ( real) thing that he is trying to convey. So you're not caught in words. And your whole nervous, physical organism is alert, listening, watching. Right? Would you call that attention?

Q: Well...that's it, that's a rudimentary attention, it seems to me. In your verbal description is left out what to me is the whole of emotion...

K: When you listen totally, is there ( any verbal) registration?

Q: Is the first stage of attention one of a positive, open-minded receptiveness?

K: Yes, sir.

Q: Then there is a sensory sensation, and then the words take a quite different place.

K: Sir, I'm asking, do we ( intelligently & lovingly?) attend to anything ?

Q: If we were so 'attending' now, we would understand what is being said.

K: You'd understand what attention means, not what I mean by attention. Do you know what attention is? Maria says, attention implies ( mind) focusing. You are focusing on what I am saying, and therefore you think you are attending. I say that is not 'attending' ; when I listen to something that you are saying seriously, there is no 'registration' ( no verbal processing?) – just an immediate understanding.

Q: I think perhaps our problem is that our (self-centred thinking) is so quick, it comes in so quickly.

K: I know...

Q: And in a way that seems to be ( part of ) the problem, it's so quick.

K: Is it that we don't (fully) 'listen'? I'm making a statement: is there an observation of that which is actually taking place ? Do you listen (directly, non-verbally?) to that? Or do you say, 'What does he mean by attention, what does he mean by fear,' wait - 'what does he mean by observing.' So you're off.

Q: Yes, that's what happens...

K: Whereas, can you listen to ( the living truth of) that statement, and the impact of that statement, in that ( total) attention is there any registration at all?

Q: You made a statement. Now I've got to understand the ( experiential meaning of your) statement.

K: When I say to you, ''I love you'', do you say, 'Just a minute, let me understand what you mean by that ? When there is a statement made like that (and is expressed ) with full meaning 'I really love you,' - do you go through all this ( registering & verbal processing?) ?

Q: No.

K: I don't know, probably you do (it subliminally?) . So, how do you listen to a man or a woman who tells you from his heart and means it, that ''he loves you'' ? What takes place? Do you 'register ( and file'?) that statement? And say, 'Yes, I remember ( that right now) you told me that you loved me.'
So I'm asking, in ( the timeless quality of loving) attention, is there any registration at all? When there is ( such) attention, there is already a focusing (of one's total energy) , but it is not the focusing of (self-centred) concentration.

Q: Does it help at all to draw a parallel between this 'giving out of attention' and the 'giving out of love'?

K: Aren't they both the same, sir?

Q: Yes, that's what I'm getting at.

K: Yes, aren't they both the same? When a man or a woman comes to you and says, 'I love you,' because he's so tremendously (in love), do you say, 'Yes, jolly nice, but tell me all about it.'

Q: This is why I'm much more interested in the lack of attention, because that's the problem.

K: That's the problem for all of us . So, if your own responses, say, 'How very nice of him - he's a nice man, he's a beautiful man, I'm so glad (he sait he loves me) ' But you haven't received ( the essence of) what he has told you.
As Mr Wilkins pointed out, attention may be (an act of) love. And when there is attention which is equal to love, do you 'register ( the verbal content for futher use?) ? Now, as most of us are 'inattentive', not attentive, can we make inattention by some miracle, turn it into attention ? Or we can simply become aware of that inattention, and that very awareness is ( regenerating ?) attention. Capito?


K: You see how we refuse to face a ( potentially destabilising 'psychological?) fact' : that ( deep down) we are frightened human beings ? Now, can we look (with a quality of compassionate intelligence ?) at this ( abyssmal existential ) fear? Can we pay ( a holistic) attention to that fear? Can you observe that (surge of irrational ) fear as it is taking place?

Q: It seems to me that there was this kind of attention when you said what you said, but it seems to me that that's there were the actual fear is, right like when you said, 'I love you', a thousand things that happen and might be there in directly facing the fear.

K: Look, Dr Shainberg, my ( experiential) question is very simple : can you look at your ( deep existential ) fear and 'stay with it' not ( trying to operate on it with (your professional?) thinking deviating ( your attention?) from that fact, the "fact" being that which is happening now, the actual. Can you can you observe that thing without any ( mental) movement, both physical and non-physical.

Q: Sir, the difficulty is, as soon as I do that, it disappears.

K: We've been through that. It disappears because you're attentive at that moment (or just because the 'observer' is regaining full control?)

Q: Then what happens?

K: Then, does that (abyssmal existential?) fear recur, come back? Then 'you' (the 'thinker-in-command' ?) say, (next time) I must be (more) attentive and it will disappear. So you play this ( hopeless 'cat & mouse'?) game. So we have learnt a trick for the moment, that being attentive to that thing, it disappears. You have learnt the trick, so you practise that trick, but (the deeper causation of) that fear hasn't gone.

Q: Right...

K: Which means what, you have merely learnt another 'mental trick'. However, if one is at all 'awake & intelligent', is it possible to be free of ( the deeper causation of that) fear altogether, not ( indulging) in (playing) this superficial trick of attention and disappearance and coming back and so on, that's all too - I want to ask you a much more serious, fundamental question which is, can fear disappear altogether, never to return. Otherwise I'm playing games.

Q: You automatically enter into the field of desire, I think.

K: Of course desire has it's own fears. There are many forms of fear, desire and so on, but we're talking of fear at its very root.

Q: To me the (professional) answer is 'no'.

K: Then what will you do, just live in fear?
Q: I don't know.

K: When you say, 'I don't know' (and...I don't care?) , the thing goes on, under you, like you're standing on a bridge but the water of fear is flowing. Now can you stop that 'water of fear', ( understand its causation & ) end it ?

Q: But that is something we can't attain ( using our conscious mind ?) .

K: You see, you're talking of 'attainment' but I want to understand the whole movement of fear, how it arises, what is its structure, nature, the 'whole works' of fear, I can't stop it, because who is the entity that's going to stop it?

Q: Being attentive twenty four hours a day ?

K: I never said that (is realistically possible) sir.

Q: I am saying that, and this will end the trick, because then it won't come back.

K: So 'be attentive' the whole twenty four hours...
(To recap:) One is afraid, there is a great deal of fear in our ( daily & nightly) life, of many, many kinds. We are not dealing with the many kinds, but ( with the very causation of) fear itself. Just a minute. And what is this (recurring) fear, how does it come into being, whether it is possible to 'end' it, - not 'I' stopping it – but is it possible to 'end' it. That's my whole question. How does it arise, what is the root from which it springs. Right? What is it's beginning. I know what the end (result ) is, living in darkness & all the rest of the ugliness of (our irrational) fears.
So, is it possible to find out the root (causation?) of fear ? What do you say is the root of fear?

Q: The sense of ( my individualistic) identity ?

K: No, the mental process ( of self-identification) takes place when there is fear. Because I'm afraid afraid of this ( root cause of fear ?) , I must cling on to something which will get rid of it (or... cover it up?) .
I'm asking : what is the beginning of ( my existential) fear? is the root of it the desire for security? The (irrational desire?) to find some indestructible (temporal) security? And as there is no such thing, what is the beginning, the root, the source of fear?

Q: Thought ?

K: Have you found this out for yourself? Or are you repeating what this (K) person has said (... repeatedly ? ) ? Look, Dr. Shainberg, what is the beginning of it? Like a river - where it begins, what is the source, where does it begin?

Q: Fear comes with 'time', (thinking in terms of our personal & collective) continuity in ?) time.

K: Is that so? I've stated it many times , that the whole movement of fear comes through ( our self-centred thinking?) which says, I must have ( my temporal) security, I must be attached (to something durable) otherwise I'm lost, and invents beliefs, gods, Jesuses, Christs and the Buddhas, you follow? So we're saying , the root of fear is thought. Can you show us (the truth of it?), sir ?

Q: Well, my personal perception is that you can say that to me (endlessly) , but it doesn't add one inch to my illumination – unlike when you say to me, 'I love you'...

K: No, you're not listening to this. It is ( a total Insight ? ) as potent as 'I love you.' It is as vital as the other. Which is : 'thought is the source of fear'. Do you listen to it (with a selfless & loving quality of attention ?) ? No. You've all kinds of ( all-purpose mental) conclusions.
I may be wrong, but even in order to show me that I'm wrong, you first must listen. And you can't 'listen' if you just say, ' I disagree ( or I totally agree?) with you'...

Q: It is the lack of love which precedes the ( fear-generating) thought, rather than the other way round.

K: All right. If it is the lack of love, then how am I to get it?

Q: That's perhaps a ( Heavenly?) miracle.

K: I don't think it's a ( Biblical ?) 'miracle'. Mankind has not been saved by any Jesus -es

Q: But it seems you are suggesting that here there is the actual possibility of a (psychological) 'miracle'...

K: There is, but we don't capture it, we don't listen to it. I'm saying, the source of fear of every kind that human beings have is born from ( our self-centred?) thinking. Will you 'listen' to ( the truth involved in) that statement, as you will listen when I say 'I really love you'? Or your (thoughtful?) mind immediately says, 'No, that's too damn simple, that's not it, it is much more complicated than that'.

Q: Actually my mind says : the causation of my ( existential) fears may be more complex.

K: Yes, but I'm interested to find out the source of it, not the river that is flowing, the source.

Q: In thought being the source, it implies behind that is (our species') desire for self-preservation.

K: Self-preservation, all right. Now, is it possible to have complete physical security? Never to be ill, never to have to go to doctors, the organism functioning healthily all the time, which is to have ( a life-long) complete physical security. Is that possible?

Q: That's what thought is trying to do all the time ; but thought fails.

K: That's right, sir - thought says that - and if I listen to it with great attention, without any ( intellectual ) abstraction. Then I'll see how extraordinarily complex it is, ( while getting entangled ) in the complexity of it, I may lose ( the contact with its original) 'simplicity'.
So ( in a nutshell) , thought ( our egocentric thinking) is the (root cause of all psychological) fear. Thought 'is' (both the creator & the beneficiary of ) fear. Thought 'is' ( the creator & the beneficiary of ? ) time. Thought is ( constantly evaluating & ) measuring. I have had no ( tooth drilling) pain, now I'll go to the dentist and have pain. It has ( acquired the habit of) measurement ( of comparing the before & after?) , and therefore I'm frightened. And thought is ( creating its own agenda of ) time , because I've had tooth pain yesterday and I hope to god that tomorrow I won't have it. Time. ( Still deeper) I'm afraid of death, which is, I'm living now, but death may happen. Or I'll 'invite death and live with it', life and death, I can play all those kind of ( highly sophisticated mental ) tricks. But it's still ( under the supervision of my self-centred) thought. Thought has invented all the churches, the rituals, the dogmas, everything. And in the Christian world, Jesus will 'save' you. But if I'm afraid that Jesus may not exist, who's going to save me? You follow? Thought has built the most marvellous Christian cathedrals, and the most absurd religious illusions inside.
So, show me that (our self-centred thinking is the root cause of fear) I may be totally wrong, show me that I live in illusion - I'm willing to examine it. Or if this is true, why don't you take ( the truth of?) it ?

Q: I think that what you say is the truth . What's the next step?

K: Dr. Bohm asked if that is so, that is, thought is the source of all fear - then what is the next question ? The next ( experiential) question is, can this movement of time as thought, and thought as movement of time, can that come to an end? Not 'how can I stop thinking ?', but if you see the truth that thought is the root of all ( existential) fear, then your next question would naturally be, can this movement of 'thought as time', (or of ) 'time as movement of thought', can this whole movement come to its (natural) end, unwind itself?

Q: I find myself asking another question : how does thought begin?

K: Oh, that's fairly simple, sir. What is the beginning of thought. You can watch yourself (for homework?) : a pleasant or unpleasant ( sensory?) experience is registered is registered in the brain ( then processed & stored for further use ? ) So all ( conscious or subliminal mental ?) registration is the beginning of thought.

Q: Yes, but I keep registering.

K: No, therefore you ask, is it possible to end ( the 'self-interest' component of ?) registration.

Q: If thought is always time or future, if you only operate in the actual, you're not actually beginning (the 'self'-related) thought. But for me the problem is that I am continually up against this ( almost subliminal ) registration.

K: Sir, is this statement, ''the root of fear is thought'' valid ? ( Apparently) you haven't found that out for yourself. Am I imposing it ( subliminally?) on you ? If you don't accept, and say, ' Is that so?' ( the next step is :) Go into yourself, find out.

Q: Shouldn't one distinguish between different types of fear, psychological fear and other types of fear which may be natural like actual survival-related fears - of fire and that kind of thing?

K: I said ( thought related ) fear. If ( a random act of) violence comes tomorrow and hits me, all right, I'll take it. But to be afraid that it might ( disturb my psychological well-being ?) ... Dr. Shainberg, if you agree with it, all your psychanalytical (infra)structure collapses. Forgive me.

Q: I don't have anything to say...

K: I must stop now because I said we must stop at one o'clock and now it's past one. We'll continue tomorrow, but this is really an important question – that ( all psychological) fears come from the beginning of thought – which is 'registration', the ( brain's conscious & sub-conscious ?) registration, the ( collective) memory collected through millennia, or the (personal) memory gathered through the last few days, from that arises thought.
Then the ( next experiential) question arises, is there a possibility of not registering the 'psychological' (the 'self-interest' related?) events?

I'm asking a ( very subtle experiential ?) question - ( so, for homework) you have to 'think about it', you can't just say 'yes' or 'no'. It is like ( a working hypothesis that) a (new age ?) scientist puts forward, he puts it out for you to study ( the truth or the falseness of ) it.
( In a nutshell ) I've just stated one 'simple' fact: as long as ( the self-centred) thought 'moves' (projects itself in time ?) psychologically, there must be fear. That's the root of it. And thought is ( based on the memory accumulated through ) the whole ( conscious & subconscious?) movement of 'registration' ( which is going on?) in the brain. So I'm asking a ( very challenging homework ?) question - is it possible not to register, psychologically, anything?

Q: That can only happen if you have understood (what the 'psychological' registration is and how it actually works?)

K: No, not 'if' you have understood.

Q: When ?

K: No. Just to see the truth of it. Either it's the truth or it's a falsehood. Then from ( seeing the whole truth about it) you can explain it ( logically or...holistically ) , but it will always be true, while if it is false your explanation will be also false ( misleading ? )

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 28 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 29 Apr 2018 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 177 posts in this forum Offline


5-TH K SEMINAR MEETING 1978 (reader friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: I think we began by asking ourselves, in the first dialogue we had here, whether one can be a light to oneself. And that problem was never touched upon . Then from there we went to the question of relationship and we went into that question rather briefly and then we talked about fear, and what is the root of fear. But somehow I feel we are not facing the ( experiential aspect of the?) problem : to observe the fact, the 'what is happening now', the ( subliminal creation of) attachments, the fears. I'm afraid we've never gone seriously into this ( major experiential ) question, whether it is possible (in real time?) to observe what is actually taking place, whatever that happening is. We never stayed ( long enough?) with that question.
So can we go into that this morning? Can we face, for example, the problem that we're ( emotionally?) attached ( holding on) to some belief, to some experience, or some person ? Can we watch, stay with that fact that we are attached and watch it ( telling its story?), letting the ( content of our) attachment reveal itself ? Can the whole story of our attachments be revealed by observing it ? Because from which arises the fear for what I might lose. And from that loss, I feel wounded, jealous, anxiety, the whole nature of attachment. Can you remain, watch that, and let the story involved in that reveal itself? (pause)

Q: Krishnaji, I think one of the difficulties with ( directly) watching our attachment in relationship is that the relationship (to which we got attached) is is always there to run back to. You can always hide in the relationship, it acts like an umbrella, under which all ( daily) experience occurs.

K: Under that umbrella of relationship, isn't there attachment?

Q: Yes.

K: Now can you, can one ( spend some quality time?) and watch it without any ( personal) deviation, and let the thing that you are watching tell its story, rather than 'you' tell it what it should be ? Can one do that ( as 'meditation homework') ? So that it reveals everything - like when you watch a flower, very closely, you see everything in its detail and the beauty of the whole thing. In the same way, if we could watch ( non-personally?) this burden of attachment, it may contain an extraordinary 'beauty' in it, and from that move on ?

Q: Sir, could we go into just what's actually happening in this (pure ) observation? It seems to me that there is an (subliminal ) interference of ( the all controlling process of) thought, taking it in, examining it, seeing the different parts, the different actions of it. Now that is the destructive aspect of thought. Because to watch the action one has to feel it, one has to see it working.

K: Maria, you watch a flower in the bud, then as it blossoms fully, and then a few days later it dies. In the same way, if we could watch this sense of attachment, let it ( unfold itself & ) flower...

Q: Then, if I understand you correctly, 'thought' is acting as a sort of censor coming in.

K: Yes, the 'censor' is coming in - put it that way.

Q: So, there is something else involved in that seeing.

K: No 'feeling', no 'thought' ; just observing.

Q: But what if you're observing isn't a static outside thing, like a flower, you look at it and it's there. Here we're looking at a (subliminal) 'movement of attachment' going on in the human mind (for ages) . Now is that thought or not?

Q: Krishnaji, I think Mary is raising an important point. If you are ( personally) involved in that attachment, who's going to do the watching? If I'm attached ( to a person , idea, etc) then all my inner life is organized around that attachment, how am I going to watch that (non-personally ) ? There's always going to be a piece that's going to 'get away' (escaping my observation) , as long as I am in that situation of attachment. So, ( one can see it objectively only ) if you stop the ( sublimated mechanism of) attachment, when that's removed. but as long as the attachment is ( the active element ) there, I don't think you ever see it, because you're 'attached'.

K: Are you saying, sir, the very (psychologically sticky nature of ?) attachment prevents you from observing?

Q: That's it, in simple terms. It seems to automatically & habitually rush in.

K: How do I know that I am attached? I discover I'm attached through pain through jealousy, through anxiety, then I realize I am attached. Right, sir? I have realized that I am attached, which means I know ( for fact that?) I'm attached.

Q: I think that the experiencing of pain, jealousy, and anger is a ( post factum) reaction, not ( a real-time) awareness, you're reacting the moment that you have lost the (object of your) attachment.

K: How do I know I'm attached, sir? Let's begin with that. You (K ?) may tell me, as a friend, 'Look, be careful, when you get ( personally) involved with tremendous attachment, you're going to pay for it.' ( However, usually) I don't pay too much attention to you, because I like this attachment. I like this feeling of possessing and being possessed. And there is a sense of gratification in that. So, how do I become aware that it is ( just a psychological) attachment? The actual fact, not the word. I don't know the actual fact till something happens in that relationship or when there is some kind of discomfort, some kind of pain, some kind of...

Q: Insecurity?

K: Insecurity. Now it's only then I say, 'I am attached, this is coming from that.'

Q: But Krishnaji, I think what Dr Shainberg is saying that what you're seeing is not the 'attachment', you're seeing how you are reacting.

K: The reaction I have as pain (is exposing my subliminal ) attachment. So is there an 'instant observation' of this whole ( sticky) thing, as it is this happening, ( a non-personal) seeing of the actual state and the nature of it, instantly? Or must I go through years and years of (mixed joy & ) pain and I at last ( decide to) give it up ? Now (starting with the actual ) fact that there is pain, which is, the reaction to ( the downside of) attachment, does one realize all the implications of attachment by observing it, not letting thought wipe it away or distort it. Why is it we can't 'see' the whole implications of attachment instantly, and finish it ? Where is the difficulty in this?

Q: Are you saying that we see it from its consequences, and therefore we infer the (existence of an) attachment, or that we might see the attachment unfolding from the bud.

K: Through its consequences we realize attachment.

Q: But on the other hand, are you suggesting that we see it from the inception?

K: That's what I'm asking. Why can't we see the whole nature of it, instantly?

Q: From the point of its inception ?

K: From the point of inception, the whole story of it.

Q: It seems only logical that if we become aware of it from its consequences, we don't go to it directly , we go to the ( temporal) solution of it .

K: Yes, sir. Either through consequences we realize we're attached, or we have instant realization what ( our psychological) attachment implies and end, finish it. Which is it we do? And why don't we see the nature and the structure of attachment instantly, all its ( psychological) implications. That's apparent, we can't do it. But what we generally do is ( rationally dealing with its) consequences, realizing I'm attached and therefore pain.

Q: And then try to 'fix it up'.

K: Yes.

Q: I think pain is the obstacle in every direction, because surely we became attached in the first instance because we felt 'here is one person who's not going to hurt me'. And then when we feel we've lost that, we're going to be exposed to other hurts, we've got no refuge.

K: Yes, sir, but can you watch ( non-personally?) your attachment ?

Q: This implies that we have to learn to 'watch'.

K: Do it now, sir, not ( learn first and then watch) - this learning implies, doesn't it, that you accumulate (skills & ) knowledge and then watch with that ( well seasoned?) knowledge.

Q: Are you suggesting that there's another kind of (holistic) learning where you 'listen, observe and learn' ( all in one) ?

K: Yes. You see, sir, what is happening now? We are dissipating ( our directly perceptive energy) by talk & explanations, so we're not actually saying, 'Yes, I am attached, let me look.'

Q: Krishnaji, when I 'try to do' that, my ( intellectual) mind immediately brings an abstraction of what it is, and then I find myself looking at that (mental image) , not looking at the real thing.

K: Which is, that you're making a (mental concept of your) attachment and (by the same stroke avoid dealing with?) the actual fact. Isn't that what you're doing? 'Attachment' is just a (comforting intellectual) idea for you and you're not looking at attachment.

Q: That's what is happening but perhaps we could go into how can one 'step out' of that ('status-quo' solution)

K: Let's first ( try to) watch it ( unfolding) and then see whether it continues or whether it stops. Let's first 'remain with that fact' and let the fact tell its whole story. Gosh, how difficult this (exercise of 'live meditation' ?) is .
Suppose I am attached to a (compounded memory of ) psychological wounds (aka: sorrow?) . It gives me some ( identitary) anchor around which I can worry, I can fuss around, you know, carry on the game. Can I watch that 'wound -pack' which I have received from childhood and let the whole thing flower, without ( subliminally?) holding on to it. ( Just ) let that 'thing' (also called personal sorrow ?) flower and... see what happens.

Q: It's a very painful thing to do.

K: Is it? I said, let it tell its story, not 'you' saying 'it is painful'.

Q: I just got the ( gut) feeling of 'pain'.

K: Pain is the consequence ( or the 'effect' ) of your (subliminal) attachment (to those childhood wounds) . So when you say 'it is painful', are you watching the thing, or you have assumed that 'It will be painful'.

Q: Isn't there a ( Karmic) chain in all this, the attachment is arrived at as a defence against another previous pain, or whatever it is, so that there's a series of attachments.

K: Yes, but - please, can you remain with the 'fact' ?

Q: We are attached to so many things. So, I don't even know which 'fact' to stay with.

K: I am trying to ask (holistically?) whether the mind can remain quietly observing (contemplating ) the fact of 'what is'. What is the ( experiential) difficulty in this ?

Q: It was our first question, Krishnaji. You asked 'Why don't we look at a fact ?'

K: That's all I'm saying.

Q: Well, we're not getting any closer to seeing 'why'.

K: I think, sir, that we are ( subliminally?) trying to avoid the issue, because there is a sense of ( personal) apprehension about 'what might happen' - which prevents you from looking at the fact.

Q: Are we saying that fear prevents us from looking at facts then?

K: It may be ( a subliminal) fear (of opening Pandora's Box ?) , or it may be that you're not really concerned about such watching ( you simply like the 'comfort zone' in which you are.) Don't disturb me, for God's sake. I may be attached, I may be wounded, but don't disturb that because I got used to it, and gives me a certain sense of (my identity & ) security. You follow? Don't disturb that security. Is that what is happening (surreptitiously ) ?
If not, then why can't we look, without all this 'verbiage' ?

Q: One problem is, it's very difficult to see the 'attachment' here, in this room. In this room the attachment is ( on stand-by or maybe just ?) sleeping.

K: Throw out ( the 'scholastic' example of) 'attachment', sir, you have something or other, why can't you take your own ( 'gut) feeling' of anger, jealousy, whatever it is, just watch it.

Q: It's the same problem, you're ( safely installed ) in the room, and the attachments are ( happening) outside, when you go out.

K: You see, you're not 'watching'.

Q: I don't think we can get at it by going from (seeing its) consequences (to the rational ending of our attachments) . It seems that there has to be another kind of watching.

K: There is, and I think the watching ( motivated by analytically examining the dire ) consequences has no ( truly experiential) meaning.

Q: That is an (intellectual) deviation in itself.

K: Yes. Now please ( can we learn how to ?) watch (live the inner ?) facts, because if we can understand this very seriously and integrally, the thing that we call fear may 'disintegrate' through its own flowering.
Look, sir: ( suppose that I am getting really ) angry. At that very second of anger, there is no ( personal ) identification (in watching ) it at all. A few seconds later the thought that 'I' should control it' arises. But in watching it without any ( inetrfering) movement of thought, that (violent reaction of) anger flowers, blooms, expands, and withers away. That is what I want to get at. So instead of ( trying to) suppress it, which makes it (and the 'observer' ) stronger, by watching it, it expands, the chapter (of 'anger') comes to an end, (and eventually?) the whole Book ( of our whole heritage of violence ) comes to an end.

Q: But as he said, we can see that 'anger' as an abstraction - but we are not (really) angry.

K: No, I took that as an ( scholastic?) example.

Q: Yes, but it's the same for whichever ( scholastic) example you take.

K: Yes. What are you trying to say, sir?

Q: That right here & now we are not feeling 'angry', here we are not feeling 'attached'.

K: Then, why are you (coming) here? ( …) Absolute silence.

Q: To understand oneself.

K: Comment?

Q: Pour se comprendre soi-meme. ( in plain English ) To know oneself?

K: Is that why you're (coming) here?

Q: To learn.

K: Learning implies that you listen, that you're sufficiently curious, sufficiently intense, sufficiently eager to find out ( the truth for yourself) . But apparently you're not learning (anything) ; we're telling each other what each one of us thinks.

Q: So we are ( surreptitiously) attached to 'what we think'. And also to what you think.

K: I haven't told you what 'I' think.

Q: Oh yes, you have.

K: All right, sir – then please think it out, why are you here. You're free (people, so why have ) you came here - why? Mr Maroger said, to learn about oneself. Have you learnt anything about yourself?

Q: Yes.

K: Learnt at what level ? At a superficial level? Have you learnt about all of yourself, not just about one layer of yourself - the whole 'content' of yourself. We're coming back to the same thing - can you watch the whole ( psychologically active) 'content' of yourself? Can I know myself totally - all my anxieties, fears, sorrows, pain, my psychological wounds, my attachments, my hopes, my fears, my longings, my loneliness, the whole of it ?

Q: Can you? It seems so ( impossibly) difficult.

K: You said you came here to learn about yourself. I say, have you learnt ( and finished with?) anything? Or have you just scraped the surface and say, yes, I've learnt a little bit. That's ( certainly) not good enough.
So I'm asking in return, can you learn all about yourself ( right now?) not over the years, the months and days till you die. Can you learn about yourself completely now, as you're sitting here ?

Q: Perhaps we could go into what happens ( insight-wise) when you ask that question.

K: Ye I've asked a question, sir. Do you want to learn about yourself (once & for all?) 'completely'?

Q:... Do we want to learn ( all ) about ourselves (right here & now?) . My response to that is, how is this possible?

K: If I say 'Yes', what will you do?

Q: That I still don't know (what you are talking about?)

K: Learn whether you can have a (total) insight into the whole nature of it.
Then you can learn (instantly about) the whole movement of 'yourself'. That's why we have come together. Right, sir?

Q: Yes...

K: Now, who is going to teach you? The ('K' ) man sitting here?

Q: No. I have to learn it for myself.

K: Remain with the question for two seconds. Is that so? Or you want me to do all the work and then you listen to it, and then you take it home with you or not.

Q: And in that way we make it into another set of 'ideas'....

K: Yes, so, are you depending on me?

Q: Yes, I think we are...

K: Why? Is it a ( cultural) habit, to depend on ( the spiritual 'light' of?) another? Is it what you have been educated to accept (another person's authority) to help you to understand the totality of yourself?

Q: Sir, it's a state of ( spiritual) immaturity .

K: Immature? Yes, if you like to put it that way. But, sir, who will 'teach' you (to become spiritually more mature?) Or the whole ( teacher-taught) question is wrong ?

Q: What you're really saying is, that no one really wants to learn (totally about oneself) .

K: That's all. Nobody wants to.

Q: I would like to ask whether this whole ( sequential) approach is wrong - approaching things one by one, because there are so many things, you know, one can go on and on in this way. Or whether there is a stage where one prepares oneself to learn how to question (holistically) learn the 'art' of questioning, to learn how to approach things, to learn how to 'see' ?

K: Yes, looking at something holistically, as a whole. Is that what you are trying to say?

Q: I'm asking whether there is something that happens before that, one prepares oneself for that.

K: No, there's no preparation (for a total insight?) Do I actually want to know myself irrevocably, implying that you are so completely committed (to finding the whole truth about myself ?) .
( If so, then) what is there to learn about 'myself'? Nothing. There's absolutely nothing to learn about myself, because 'myself' is nothing (not-a -thing) . I've put lots of things on it, on this 'being as nothing' I have (Ph D's in ) education, science, philosophy, all the things, you follow? - piled it on, plus all the things ( the organised?) religions have said - they have put all these (cultural things) on me, on this '( being) essentially nothing'.
And we're still struggling about these (identitary) 'things', changing from ( being) one thing to ( being) another.
( So, making a very, very, long story short?) What have I to learn about 'myself'? That I don't think straight, that I'm vain, arrogant, proud - what does it all mean? Words, ( images, personal & collective ? ) memories & 'ideas'. Have ideas any content, except what thought gives to that idea? I wonder if you capture all this. No, this is too radical, as you said.

Q: Sir, when you say 'nothing', I have the feeling of ( being just) an empty room.

K: Oh, sir, you know the meaning of the word 'nothing'? Not-a-thing.

Q: If we were not attached to 'things' there would be no problem, but being attached to all these 'things'...we don't learn (about the deeper levels)

K: If you understand, sir, the whole of 'my' ( known?) existence, the whole content of ( my self-consciousness?) , is put together by thought. Right? And thought is ( the response of?) memory. I am a whole ( virtual ) structure made by memory. And it is totally unreal, living on memory.
This is too 'radical', so I won't go into it.

Q: Sir, the interesting question is how I have made the illusion that I 'am something'. You see, it appears in ordinary life, to each person, he is really something. And one creates ( and sustain?) that illusion.

K: Yes, the illusion is created by thought – that I am something. When that (self-identified) 'thing' is not, I am ( as ) nothing. ( And even when I say I'm nothing, it is still another thought. It is not an actuality.)

Q: Because there is this ( very realistic) illusion that thought is always creating.

K: So, why do we accept ( the reality of) this illusion, about which we must learn. Spend years, spend money, books – for what? No, this is too radical, I won't go into this, much too...

Q: It's not too radical, we want to go into it.

K: You don't understand it, then. To understand what it really means one has to ( seriously meditate for homework upon?) rejecting , psychologically, everything that thought has put together. And since that's ( sounding) too radical, you won't, I mean - it feels like '' By Jove, there's something in it !'', but one has to go into ( meditating about?) it very, very deeply.

So ( to recap:) We asked the ( rhetorical?) question, ''why are you all here ?''. To learn, about oneself. And have you learnt anything about yourself, while you're here? (Holistically?) have you learnt anything? Or are we all playing (mental) tricks with each other?

Q: Sir, when we say we come to learn about the nature of the self, we are really learning about the nature of illusion.

K: Sir, I am asking a question. Why are you here? I'll tell you why I'm here. I want to tell you something which is tremendously important - K knows exactly what he wants to do. Are you ( so holistically) clear? Or you've got innumerable ( open & hidden?) motives ?

Q: Innumerable contradictory motives.

K: Yes, that's it - innumerable contradictory motives - so how can we communicate with each other ?

Q: Krishnaji, I feel that the basic difficulty is that our ( sublimally self-centred) learning process is twisted, so if we continue in this twisted process we won't be able to learn (anything straight)

K: All right, now, can we take up ( what is the holistic approach to) learning, go into it completely, what is implied, and actually find out what it means to learn ? What does it mean, the art of ( holistic) learning? The 'art' of it, what it is, you know, the whole business of it. Do you want to learn? If you want to learn, if you want to learn the 'art of learning' what price do you pay for it? What are you willing to pay, not in coins, not in paper money , but actually, to say, 'Look, I'll give everything to find out.' Nobody has said that to me, here or in India or anywhere else. ( On a second thought...) Perhaps one or two have. But I'm asking what do you pay for something which is unpayable ; how much are you giving to find out for yourself, ( and learn the contemplative art of ) staying with the fact. To stay with a falsehood, with an illusion and don't call it an illusion, to stay with the fact that one is caught in some ( self-projected) ideal, you follow? What amount of ('passion') energy are you giving to stay with one fact.

If you want to go into the question very deeply then ( the holistic approach to?) meditation is to remain so completely with the fact, with 'what is happening' , so that it is totally dissolved, every reaction allowed to flower, wither away, so that there is no more 'psychological', inward reaction to any challenge.

Q: To become totally aware of one's (inner conditioning?)

K: Yes, sir, can you, can I or you be aware totally of our conditioning, not bit by bit, bit by bit ( nationalism, superstition, the beliefs, the educated, sophisticated self) but of the whole thing.

( Any students & staff questions?)

Q: Implied in staying with the fact ( there is still another fact) that the illusion itself is trying to survive.

K: No, illusion survives because you are strengthening it by fighting it, by saying I must be free of illusion. But if you say, yes, what is an illusion? What's the root meaning , sir?

Q: The root word is 'ludere', to play, to have a 'false play' really.

K: Now I'm asking, what do you call illusion? Those of us who have been brought up in this religion, Christian religion, with their symbols, with their Saviour, with their Virgin Mary, with their rituals, etc., etc., is that not a (very well organised) illusion? Would you say anything ( the self-centred) thought has created, psychologically, is illusory ? Can one remain with that fact, and not let thought move away from that?

Q: But it seems at first sight that our self-consciousness is something touchable, that it has its own reality.

K: If I remain with that 'fact' of my ( self-) attachment, see how quickly it withers, sir? I wonder if you see this, if you actually 'do it'.

Q: I wonder if there's a problem, you see, it's clear what you mean by watching something outside but in a sense it's not so clear what you mean by watching something inside.

K: Dr Bohm is asking, there is the watching something outside of you, and watching inside of you. Isn't there a ( qualitative) difference? Now how do you watch something inside yourself, how you observe it, hear the music of it, the story of it. You understand the question, sir? It is easy to watch ( objectively ) outside - like the moon, the trees, the birds, or your wife, your husband - it's easy to watch. But is it as easy as that to watch what is happening inside? Suppose that psychologically I've been hurt. And ( the memory of) that wound is still recorded there even though you haven't thought about it.

Q: Even though it hasn't come awake.

K: Yes, that's right. The moment you 'think about it', it becomes alive. If you don't think about it, it is dormant. Now, can you see that psychological wound as it is now? Is that wound a 'reality'?

Q: Yes, it's real.

K: Yes. So can the mind watch this 'reality', and let that ( active memory of the?) wound flower, just watching it. Can you watch that thing and let the wound tell you all its story, from the first word to the last chapter.

Q: Don't we watch that also with the senses?

K: Sir, that brings a very interesting ( metaphysical ?) question (left for homework study ) The 'psychological' state (a.k.a. the 'psyche') , is it the result of senses at all?

Q: What do you mean - it's not clear.

K: That is, have the senses put the ( 'Psyche' or the 'Soul') there, or it lives apart from the senses.

Q: Perhaps it lives in memory.

K: I don't want to go into it for the moment, it's too...

Q: It is a part of the senses - the psychological state is a part of the senses.

K: I'm sorry forget what I said - let's go back to this. Sir, I want to find out how to look ( holistically) at my ( psychological) wounds, since the more I try to do something about them , the more the wound survives.
Now can I watch that ( painful memory of the ) wound, which ( my self-centred) thought has (recorded & stored) - therefore has become is a reality, as real as the things that exist in a church. Right, sir? So can I watch the reality of the wound.

Q: Sir, I can bring that feeling up inside me, but you talk about going a stage further, where you've 'read' ( the whole chapter of ) it from the beginning.

K: Watch it, take time. If you watch it , doesn't it grow, flower? Doesn't it tell you how it came into being, how it...

Q: It certainly doesn't have the same power, it doesn't hurt so much, just by the fact of being with it.

K: This is ( the secret of ) all the flowering, because I'm watching it (with loving care?) . And all its story which is being told by watching the wound, how it arose. It arose because I had a ( very good) good 'image' of myself, and that 'image' the 'idea of myself' has been hurt. By watching (affectionately & non-personally) the wound, the wound is telling me the whole thing. One is giving it freedom to open itself up, and because of that( affectionate) freedom, it opens and withers away. So ( at the end of the chapter?) there is no more wound. I wonder if you see it ?

Q: So the wound is there because one has inhibited it from 'flowering'.

K: The wound is there (for various reasons) , but you have never looked at it saying 'Look, old boy, I'm hurt, let me look at this hurt.'

Q: I think you underestimate the fact that even approaching the wound hurts itself. There is tremendous pain on approaching the ( protective shielding of the ) wound.

K: Of course. That's why I talked previously, I said how do you approach a problem, do you come to it ( lovingly & ) freely or with a ( dry mental) prejudice, a conclusion. Then ( the approach is right) the problem is like a wave that breaks down, withers away.

Q: Yes, but even if you want to stay with the fact, the fact is that when you approach it there is tremendous pain.

K: Is it?

Q: I think it's more than pain.

K: The very approach awakens ( a subliminal reaction of ) fear. I say, is that so? Or I have an idea that it might cause pain and therefore I'm afraid. Therefore I'm not approaching it ( holistically ) at all.

Q: Isn't that what fear is all about, the idea that I will have pain?

K: Yes, that's an ( emotionally charged?) idea.

Q: Let's stay with this issue of the ( psychological) fear on approaching the wound.

K: All right. I am psychologically wounded, if I am. And what is my approach to that wound. What's your approach to the wound that you have, if you have any? Come on, sir, tell me what's your approach?

Q: There is no approach, that's just it. We simply run away from it.

K: It's not a (holistic) approach, I agree, but the fact is you run away from it.

Q: We also can 'think about it'.

K: That's your approach. How do you 'think about it'?

Q: There's is an (observation) process but after a while it stops and is a stumbling block and it won't go further.

K: So your approach is that you have a block. That is - keep it there. Your approach is you can't approach it, because you have a wall.

Q: And then I am no longer able to see it.

K: So, ( to sum it up) your approach is with conclusions, another is with ideas, the other is to run away from it. So our approaches are preventing you looking at it. Right? Now if you want to look (holistically) at it, want to observe the fact that you're wounded, then you have to be free of your conclusions, you can't run away from it, you can't approach it with an idea. Can you approach it 'freely' ( just for the fun of it?) ? It is like when you are reading a detective thriller, if you know the whole plot before, you'd throw the book away, but if you don't know it, and it's rather exciting, you go through the whole book.
Here in the same way, you're hurt, and you really want to ( listen to its story ?) and find out what happens. To find out you must come to it with the same curiosity, with the same eagerness, if you read a good book, a novel, then you watch it and see what happens. You don't (see the actual fun of?) that. Because then you may totally eliminate altogether conflict. That means, having a very sane ( & creative ?) mind.

Q: So is it that we are not afraid of the wound itself but of what happens if the wound disappears.

K: Partly. Because the ( knowledge of that) wound has given me some (sick) sense of my identity . You follow? With a (+/- glorious?) wound I am somebody, but without (my pet ) wound, I'm a 'nobody'.

Q: Can it be said that the wound was caused because we wanted in the first place to have a pleasant image of ourself ?

K: About yourself...(We'd better stop ).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Apr 2018 #64
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 177 posts in this forum Offline


( A "reader friendly" edited version of the 6-th K seminar meeting, BPk 1978)

Krishnamurti: Can we now go back to observing actually what is taking place in our everyday relationship, whether it be husband and wife, girl or boyfriend, etc . Or, do you want to go back to what we were talking about the first day, which we haven't really touched on at all - to be a light to yourself, and not depend on anybody else ( when it comes to spiritual matters) ?

Q: Aren't they both related?

K: Maybe.

Q: Could we discuss both of them?

K: Can we remain with the ( inner) facts without the (all controlling?) interference of our accumulated memories of the past, which is 'thought' (our self-centred thinking) , to observe what is taking place without all that, the past, thought acting as a barrier in observation ? Then we can can we talk over together the question if it is possible to be a light to oneself, not to dependend (inwardly) on anybody. Is that possible, to be so completely, totally free from all influence, from all (ideological) propaganda, from all the tradition man has built, superstition, every form of ( psychological ) influence, both external and inward? Then only it is possible to be free from all psychological pressure, and discover what it means to be a light to oneself.

Q: The actual problem (here & now) is ( our mutual) relationship, obviously.

K: Let's start - are we each one of us aware of what is our actual relationship with another ? What is involved in it, what are the reactions, pressures, you know - whole interaction between people. Are you aware of it? ( Conformity ?) domination, attachment, the fear, the pleasing another and the other liking to be pleased and so on, the whole area of our ( mutual) relationship. Are we aware of it?

Q: Well, deeper down it includes the ( existential) loneliness of our own life and the desire for companionship .

K: All that's implied. Are we aware of all the implications and the consequences of our relationship ? Do you know exactly what is ( the condition of) our relationship with each other?

Q: I think we are superficially aware, but we're not deeply aware of all the implications.

K: All right, are you aware that your relationship is confused, mixed up, one moment ( expecting) this, next moment, that - it's a kind of, you know...

Q: I think to that extent we are aware.

K: Let us begin with this simple thing. Are we aware, each one of us, that in our ( mutual) relationship there is a great deal of confusion going on ? Would you accept that (for fact )?

Q: I'm aware of that at some moments but most of the time I'm not aware of it.

K: Now, sir, are we aware that our relationship is so mixed up, so unclear, so confused, so there is never a (total) clarity in it. Could we say that?

Q: Yes. I'm not totally aware of what is going on .

K: Which means that inwardly you are confused.

Q: That's right, but I don't know I'm confused because I'm not aware of it.

K: All right, but can one become aware of it now? I told you, this is really a very serious subject, and you may not want to enter into all the complexities of it, the fear of what might happen.

Q: Are we looking at the whole ( existential ) problem of relationship, or relationship with our fellow man in a certain closed environment

K: No, Maria, are you (choicelessly aware of) what your relationship is actually?

Q: My relationship to whom or to what ?

K: To your husband, son, wife, boy friend or girlfriend.

Q: In other words, with other human beings?

K: Of course, I said that at the beginning.

Q: And is that encompassing only my close relationships or...

K: Close, intimate, personal, extended, far, near - all that is involved in relationship. What's my relationship when I go to India, or America, and, the whole problem of it.

Q: It seems to me that I do see all this but still it goes on, it doesn't prevent the difficulties.
K: Now what is the common factor in relationship?

Q: Everyone seems to admit that there is at least some confusion.

K: You're very clear that you 'love' a woman or a man. And in that love you ( are becoming dependent?) on her, you're getting attached to her. In that, isn't there ( a vast potential of ) anxiety, disappointment, hurt? She might get rid of you one day and your heart is 'broken', and you cry over it. Right? Do you want to live ( forever?) in that kind of relationship? To know what it is to live that way and to pursue it is the essence of neuroticism. No?

Q: Sir, the question that comes up is, how can a man and wife, if we're talking about that relationship, be related in any other way?

K: If this is not the right way to live, in a relationship involving fear, attachment, all that - why don't you drop it?

Q: That's easily said.

K: Is it easily said? If you see that a certain ( course of) action leads to pain, and you keep on acting in that way, what does it indicate? If you like to act that way, that's perfectly all right. But here we're trying to be serious, to find out (the truth of the matter) You follow?

Q: We may think there is more ( disturbance & ) pain in trying something else.

K: But that's again not facing what actually is going on. You project what might happen and therefore be afraid of what might happen and pain and all that. You don't say now, this is my actual relationship with another. I'm attached, I depend on her, physically, morally, sexually, you know - depend on her, so I am attached to her. And in that attachment the ( next) sequence of that thing is pain & all the rest of it. And this is the actual fact.

Q: Isn't it that we are unable (or unwilling?) to face the 'fact'?

K: That's just what I'm saying - we are unable (or unwilling ?) to face something actual (and potentially disturbing?) . Why? If I have great ( prostate?) pain and it may be cancerous, I must do something about it.

Q: Krishnaji, I think that my relationship is functioning to protect me from (my loneliness) pain. And then it creates more pain.

K: So what do we do? Wait till that person leaves us, till a calamity takes place? Psychological earthquake?

Q: Well, with the pain always comes the pleasure, and I think that because there's pleasure involved in it, we accept the pain as part of it.

K: I see. In this relationship there is greater pleasure than pain, and so you accept it (as it is) . Is that a fact, that (for the time being) there is greater pleasure and not so much fear ? But eventually the greater pleasure does end up in ( frustration, pain & ) fear. Obviously !

Q: Why is it so 'obvious'?

K: Because you are giving another great pleasure, and therefore he holds on to you. Right? He won't let you go, he wants to possess you, he says, 'she's mine'. And even if you both like this thing, one day it's going to (fizz?) - you follow?

Q: What can a person do if he finds he is ( unconsciously?) unwilling to face the problem ?

K: His own intelligence, observation of what is happening must show him this.

Q: But Krishnaji, David has raised a good point, because if I could say, the drug addict goes down to the corner and takes some heroin, his consciousness is blurred to see what he's done, he's just getting a kick out of it.

K: So ?

Q: The same thing with relationship.

K: All right. Are we in that position that ( the holistic qualiy of ) our brains is affected ? Maybe - sir, don't deny it so quickly. May be.

Q: Personally, I am not.

K: That's one of the most difficult things to say, 'I am not'. I may be...
How can I comprehend the wholeness of relationship and the extraordinary beauty of the totality of that feeling, unless, if I'm not clear at the beginning, of what it actually is now ? You follow? . Not avoid it, not dodge it, not push it away or run away, just face it. And then see what happens (inwardly) when you face the fact that your intimate relationship which actually is based on attachment ? Then see what takes place.

Q: Perhaps the question, Krishnaji, is that we actually know what our relationship is, if we're very honest. But we also have the idea that it really shouldn't be that way, and in that way we 'falsify the evidence'.

K: We say, 'Yes, it should not be that way,' and just carry on ?

Q: Quite.

K: So I am saying, face the fact that it should not be that way and 'look' at it.
Sir, have you ever watched an ant, or a bee, closely? You must have. There you're not telling what the bee should do, or what the ant should do. Just watching. Can you have the same (quality of non-personal observation ) about your reaction in your relationship with another? Just watch it without any ( mental) interference. Apparently, that's one of the most difficult things ( for the 'thought-time' geared mind ?) .

Q: As Dr Shainberg said, many relationships ore painful but we stick to then because we are trying to cover up another (still deeper) pain, like our own ( existential) inadequacy.

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: It seems we should perhaps give attention to that first inadequacy.

K: So, you are trying to cover up other pains? And establish ( a safe psychological) escape through relationship?

Q: But that seems to be how most relationships came about.

K: Now, just a minute. (As an 'in class' example ?) What is your actual relationship to the ( K) person who is speaking here, on the platform - you must be related somehow, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So what is your actual relational with this person?

Q: Well, I've told you, sir, I've reached a (psychological) block, I come to a position where I cannot experience it.

K: There you are and here I am, two people. Dr Shainberg, you and I have met for years, talked to each other a great deal etc,. Now what is your relationship with this person?

Q: I have a feeling of 'working together' in some ( obscure?) way...

K: I am asking you, before we do something together, what's our relationship?

Q: There are no words for it.

K: No, come off it, you're full of words, Doctor, come off it. (Laughter) Don't say there's no word for it.

Q: Can I try to answer it for myself ? I have come to get something from you.

K: Yes, So - that's good enough, sir - that's good enough. You want something from me. Right?

Q: Yes.

K: I come to you to get something from you, whether it is - money, sex, psychological freedom, etc. Then what is that relationship?

Q: Attachment and dependency ?

K: No, Tunki, be simple. It's a 'merchandise'.

Q: An utilitarian relationship ?

K: I want something from you, I'll give you this, and you'll give me that.
Why don't you ask me what is my relationship to you?

Q: Ok, sir, we'll ask that question: what is your relationship to us?

K: No sir, this becomes too serious. I'm not going to play games with you. What's your relationship to the man that's speaking here? Is it a transaction, is it a business thing, that you give me this and I give you that, you have something and I want that something from you?

Q: You ( presumably?) don't want anything from us - we haven't got anything to give, but if he says he wants something from you, then surely his relationship to you is one of depending on you.

K: That's just what I'm pointing out. Am I willing to face the fact that when I want something from another, that brings about the ( time-delayed ? ) pain of psychological dependence, which we are unwilling to look at ( as long as the 'pleasure' or 'hope' factor is predominant ? ) .
So how can one be a 'light to oneself' if there is any kind of (psychological) dependence? Now, which is more important, 'being a light to oneself' or (the rewarding sense of) dependence? Which is more vital, energising, passionate?

Q: Are we trying to distinguish which one is going to give me the more pleasure?

K: Yes, put it like that - which is more ( instantly rewarding & ) pleasurable, to be a light to oneself, ( with the demanding implications of that, which haven't gone into ) , it is a tremendous thing, being a light to oneself, will that give me greater pleasure than the other?

Q: Can I say until I'm being a light to myself?

K: Therefore, what will you do. You want to find out, don't you, if being a light to oneself,( the implications of which most of us don't understand) will that give me greater strength, greater energy, much more vitality and passion, than ( indulging in any psychological?) dependence. Will dependence give me vitality? Deep abiding strength? Or it's going to waste away my energy? So, if I think ( that my complex network of psychological?) dependences may have the greater ( potential for?) pleasure, I will pursue that ( well trodden path?) till I am being awakened to ( the illusory nature of ?) it through pain. Then I say, 'My God, I must struggle to be independent,' or that ( fake spiritual ) person is not right, I'll go and take on this person. Right? ( But relying on ) this person is in the same field as ( relaying on ) the other, because ( my subliminal attachment) is going to cause the same problem.

So I'm asking, does dependence give great pleasure?

Q: If one realizes the limitations of that dependence, then it stops.

K: Do you realize the actuality of ( your psychological) dependence and see the whole consequence, seeing step by step what is involved. Not forecast what might happen, but actually see the truth ( regarding that) dependence, having an insight into dependence ?

Q: I may not see the full extent of it, but I certainly do see that I am dependent on others.

K: All right, then don't you see that in that (condition of psychological) dependence, that there is a great potential of ( time-delayed) pain? Though it may be pleasurable for the time being, in that pleasurable state for the time being, can't you see the ( subliminal accumulations of frustration & ) pain going on at the same time ? So, why don't you drop it ?

Q: I'm afraid that all my (real world?) relationships will stop, if I drop it.

K: If you ( would actually) drop it, there may be a different kind ( quality) of relationship. You follow ?

Q: Sir, what on earth do you mean when you say, 'Drop it' ?

K: It's very simple (in the physical world ?) sir. Don't you drop something when it is dangerous, drop, that is, put it aside, avoid it.

Q: But inwardly, what does it mean, to 'put it aside'? I don't understand at all.

K: All right. I see (that any psychological) dependence implies ( a time-delayed accumulation of frustration & ?) pain. Right? Do I want continuous pain for the next thirty years?

Q: I think this is a confusion of words, Krishnaji. When you say 'can we drop it', we're probably thinking 'can we drop the relationship itself  ?'. You are actually asking : can we drop our psychological dependency to it ? .

K: Yes, can we drop it - in the sense of being (inwardly) free of it.

Q: But then, what does it actually mean, 'to be free of it' ? What do you mean by being free of?

K: Free of, in the sense, if you have a physical pain, you try to get rid of it, don't you? By going to a doctor or dentist, whatever it is. So in the same way, psychologically dependence breeds ( an accumulation of frustration & ) pain. Do you see ( the 'absolute' truth of) that? Can you face (the psychological fact ) that in ( any attachment & ) dependence is ( involved a gradual accumulation of frustration & ) pain ?

Q: This is what I can see.

K: See it, feel it, know that it is an irrevocable law. If you like to hold on to that ( potentially painful) attachment, then it's perfectly all right ( for the time being?) . But if you see that it is useless, it's not worth it, don't you naturally let wither away ( your addiction to psychological) dependence?

Q: I think there's a step missing, you see, that a person may stick to something ( even if sometimes ) it is painful if he feels that he has a ( long term) necessity for it. One does not always drop the ( momentarily) painful thing because one may feel one has to have it, one needs it (for a higher purpose) .

K: I see. One needs pain?

Q: Not the pain, but one needs the (physical relation of ) dependence ( even if) that produces the pain.

K: I understand. I need to depend on the postman, on the dentist, and on this corner petrol station, I depend on it. Now psychologically...

Q: A person may be convinced that he is too weak to stand alone, for example.

K: You see, when you say ''one is convinced that one cannot stand alone'', How do you know that you can't stand alone (or that eventually you may have to ) ? How do you know you can't stand alone?

Q: Experience seems to indicate that.

K: Whose experience ?

Q: Well, of our own.

K: Has your ( life) experience told you that 'you can't stand alone'?

Q: In a sense, yes.

K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, we are ( all ) afraid to stand alone. Right? And that ( abyssmal collective ) fear makes us rely on another. Right?
Now, what tells you that you can't stand alone? Is it our education, our organised religions, our society, your mother, your father, say, 'You can't, you can't, you can't, you must depend.'

Q: All those things....

K: Yes. Therefore, what do you do. Don't you test it out? Why should - sir, the churches have (assumed?) that man can't be a light to himself, and must depend on Jesus. Why do you just accept that statement, why don't you test it out?

Q: Sir, could you deal with the fact of being alone, what happens when you are ( finding yourself all-) alone.

K: Is it because you are afraid that you cannot stand alone, that you (instinctually choose to) depend ?

Q: It's not right to say that you're afraid of standing alone, because we've all stood alone at various times. What happened in that state...

K: All right, what happens in that state when you have occasionally stood alone, can you 'face' ( inwardly contemplate?) that fact and see what happens?

Q: But you've got to 'want' to stand alone. And this may not happen until you really dislike and are uncomfortable with your condition of dependence.

K: Not until you have pain, then you - madam, I'm not being personal - but haven't you had ( that kind of) pain?

Q: Yes.

K: Then why can't you 'stand alone'?

Q: I think I'm starting to stand alone. Because I don't want any more of that particular pain.

K: Is that it, Maria, if I depend ( materially) on you, therefore I am incapable of examining that dependence. Is that it?

Q: More or less...

K: I won't (accept it) I don't see the reason of it.

Q: The reason is that any action that could upset that ( my safe dependency ) is ( subliminally) perceived as a disaster or a worse danger.

K: You're going back again, you're not facing the fact, you're projecting what might happen.

Q: Right, but that is the ( irrational) nature of the dependence.

K: Therefore I say, face the fact (holistically?) even if facing the factof that dependence means pain, ( try to) look at it (with a quality of non-personal affection?) and get in total contact with the fact (of your psycho-dependency ?) And this (K) person is saying that if you (finally manage to?) do this (your existential) conflict totally ends, completely, in your life. You can test it out (for homework?)
Now if ( for some obscure reasons?) you enjoy living in (a generalised state of inner) conflict and say, 'Yes, all nature is in conflict, the trees are in conflict with other fellow-trees seeking light,' - that's a different ( existential) argument altogether.

All right, let's leave that. Let's face the other fact : What does it mean to be a light to yourself? Why is Dr Shainberg, not throwing his whole ( psychiatric bussiness ?) away and say, 'Be a light to yourself. I will help you to be completely free from all these (inner conflicts) , so that you stand alone.
( Clue:) Nobody is going to help you (along this 'narrow path'?) . Wipe away all this (kind of expectations) and say : ' Look !'. Can you do that?

Q: When you stay stay with that fact, there is no thought.

K: No, sir, look : ( the total consciousness of?) man historically, politically, and even religiously said, 'I must be free.' Right? There must be an individual freedom in life who is not controlled, shaped, driven. Man has always sought freedom, from the most primitive till now. So, nowadays many are rejecting the churches, all the rest of it. ( But inwardly this ) freedom means to stand alone. Which means, freedom from the known.

Q: Which means that you stay with the fact, no words involved. You're with the fact.

K: Yes, sir. The 'fact' being that there must be freedom from the known. The known is all the ( content of our personal & collective ) memory. The (stored memory of the ) past, which is ( expressing itself in terms of?) knowledge, that is the ( mental space of the ) 'known'. Now, ( in order) to become a light to oneself, or to 'stand by oneself', the ( conditioning influence of the?) 'past' with all its tradition must totally vanish.

Q: So you stay with the fact and its implications, totally.

K: Which means, sir, that what has been registered on the 'magnetic tape' of the brain, that ( mechanistic ) registration of the past must end and no present or future registration must take place. Sir, you don't know what this means, you see, this is one of the most...

Q: I really want to know what it means, I'm interested to know what it means.

K: I'll tell you what it means : (for starters?) find out for yourself how tremendously important it is to 'stand alone' ( as 'All-One') , which means to live a life without any ( psychological) pressures from outside or inside. Find out ( for homework) whether it is possible for a human being, who is the representative of all humanity (you are the entire consciousness of) humanity. And this ( survival oriented consciousness of) humanity has said, 'I must depend on God, on this local deity, on the 'book', on this or that. So our ( collective cultural) conditioning is ( based on) this tremendous dependence. And to be completely free of that conditioning, means that you're really a whole, undivided individual. One has to face that 'fact' of what one has been imposed upon through education, through constant repetition of the Mass ; to see the absurdity of it and wipe it out. Then you ask, is it possible to be a light, not only to 'yourself', but because you are (the consciousness of the whole ) humanity, therefore to be a Light to Humanity (the 'Light of the World'?) . You follow? I don't think you captured this (point of one's 'total responsibility' )

Q: There's one important thing you said, you switched over from saying 'can I be independent', to saying 'can ( the holistic) consciousness of any man be free'. Making it universal.

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Therefore, as long as you say, 'Can I be free?' you're ( getting personally ) stuck ?

K: Of course. That's why I said that - as a human being- I am the rest of mankind. When I said, 'can I be a light to myself' , I am saying, can I as a representative of humanity , be a light globally, not for my petty little backyard light. My backyard light is just ( a local dispatch of ) electricity which can be switched off and switched on from the Main Dynamo. But I'm not talking of such a thing.
I don't know if you have gone ( in your 'meditation homework') into this at all : to be free of ( the 'institutionalised' mentality of all ?) political, religious & economic institutions. Otherwise how can one come upon something which the Truth, the irrevocable Truth. How can one perceive that ( timeless dimension of?) Truth if one is not (inwardly) free ?

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 30 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 64 of 64 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.)