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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 91 - 112 of 112 in total
Tue, 03 Jul 2018 #91
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

Can the Brain be Free of its Own ( 'knowledge' created inner ) Limitations ?

( A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, 1980)

K: Apparently (the present ) human consciousness is ( entangled in ?) a mass of accumulated ( personal & collective) knowledge and reactions according to that knowledge. Now, if the ( 'thinking ) machines', the computers, are going to take charge of all ( the practical aspects of our outward existence ?) what then will the ( total consciousness of the?) human being be ? What is ( left of ) a human being if his sorrows and anxieties are all wiped away by chemicals or by some implanted electronic circuitry? And (not in the least?) what is the true function of a (holistic?) school then?

PJ: If you take a strong tranquillizer, your ( personal) anxieties are temporarily over. That is not arguable. But I don’t think we are getting to the central thing. There is something else also involved in this.

K: Look, Pupul, if my anxieties, if my fears and my suffering can be allayed and my pleasure increased, I ask: What then is a human being? What is our mind?

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): Do I understand that while on the one hand man has developed these extraordinary (technological) capacities, there is also a corresponding process of deterioration in the mind which is a side-effect of super mechanization?

K: I don’t think we understand the depth of ( the human challenge involved ). What is a human being when the computer—I am using the ( generic) word ‘computer’ to include the new brain chemicals and so on—takes us over completely and our brains will physically deteriorate. At present, the brain is being 'exercised' (stimulated?) through pleasure, through suffering, through anxiety—it is kept working because we have ( lots of unsolved personal & global) problems. But when the 'thinking machines & chemicals' take over, it will cease to work. And if it is not working, it will deteriorate. So let us inquire whether the human mind can survive at all if it is deprived of its problems either chemically or by the computer.

AP: I am not quite clear about one point. There is in each human being a feeling of an (inner) void, of emptiness, which needs to be filled. There is a strange (existential) void in every ( thoughtful?) human being.

K: Take a pill and you will never feel the void.

AP: At some point you have to see that there is something in the human consciousness which will remain untouched by (the flow of time ?).

AC: What if you don’t find that?

AP: Before you come to the finding of that, at least you must posit a need for that.

K: I am positing a ( very realistic) need : the chemicals and the computers are (eventually) going to destroy my brain.

AC: As a human being, I feel that there is something else ( in the depths of human consciousness) which I really want to find out. So the ( 1000 $) question is: How is man to create this new technology and yet not be destroyed by it?

K: The ( holistic quality of the human ?) mind is ( constantly) deteriorating because it will not allow anything to penetrate its ( materialistic?) values & its dogmas. It is stuck there. If I have a strong personal conviction or opinion, I am deteriorating (inwardly) . And the ('intelligent' ) machines are only helping us to deteriorate faster.
So what is a (sensible & thoughtful?) human being to do?

I think that is the root of it : what man seeks now, is ( to continue & optimise his/her ) pleasures in different forms. From times immemorial, what is the stream (the existential trend?) he has always followed? Pleasure.

AC: Pleasure, yes, but also the ending of (pain, insecurity & ) sorrow.

K: To avoid the ('less than pleasurable' things?) , but essentially to pursue pleasure.
We want pleasure at any price and suffering (or the existential malaise?) is an indication to me that I am not having ( the 'right' kind of) pleasure.

AC: What I am saying is that historically man has always pursued pleasure.

K: Which means—what? Go on, analyse it.

AC: The 'self' (identified entity) has pursued it.

AP: When you say the ‘self’, are you talking of the physical self or of the psychological self?

K: Both. I want to survive physically and psychologically, and to survive, I must do certain things, and to do certain things, they must be pleasurable. Sir, please look into this very carefully. Ultimately man wants pleasure. The pursuit of 'God' is ( a 'sublimated ' form of seeking personal safety & ) pleasure.
Is this ( same evolutionary trend) that is going to be encouraged by the (developpment of intelligent ) machines & (the new prescription ?) drugs? And will man be merely an entity that is concerned with pleasure? Is (our present existential) conflict resulting from trying to find a balance between the two? The conflict between 'good' and 'evil' has existed from time immemorial. The problem is to find a balance or a state where this conflict does not exist, which is pleasure (for ever & ever ? ) . But ( holistically -wise?) isn't pleasure the most destructive thing in life ?

AP: In terms of what you are saying, does the search for freeing the mind from ( its time) bondage fall in the realm of pleasure?

K: Let us get this clear between ourselves. It is a fact that human beings, historically, have always been in conflict; there has always been the conflict between the 'good' and the 'bad'. The spirit of the 'good' conquering pervades, which ends up in ( the myth of an endless ) pleasure. One can realize instantly (ASAP?) that the whole movement of man has been this - the whole of it, not only the physical but also the 'psychological' self-preservation is part of that movement. That is a fact. And isn't this a ( surreptitiously?) destructive (trend) for the human mind & brain?

RB: Whether you name it 'bad' or not, it can still be terribly destructive.

K: It can be very destructive, but the moment I have called it 'bad', it is something to be avoided—right? And then a ( secondary inner) conflict begins. But it is a 'fact'. Why do you need to call it anything else? Look, sir, the computer & the chemicals, are taking over man. This is neither 'good' nor 'bad'—it is happening.

Can we move to some other aspect ? ( The search for) pleasure is always happening within the (field of the ) 'known'. I have no pleasure today but the day after tomorrow it might happen. (man's instinctual search for?) pleasure is a (thought – sustained ) 'time' movement. Is there ( any search for) pleasure that is not based on ( our past ) knowledge? My whole life is (spent in the field of ) the 'known'. I project the 'known' into the future. The future is the present modified, but it is still ( in the field of ) the known. I have no ( solid guarantees of ?) pleasure in the Unknown. And the computer, etc., is (also functioning exclusively?) in the field of the 'known'.
Now the real ( experiential) question is whether there is freedom from the 'known'. That is the real question because ( in the known?) there is pleasure, there is suffering, there is fear. The whole movement of the ( self-centred) mind is (in the field of ) the known. ( The human mind may project the unknown, it may theorize, but that is not a measurable fact) . So computers, chemicals, genetic cloning are all ( operating in the field of) the 'known'. So can there be ( an inward?) freedom from the known? The ( living inwardly caught in the ?) 'known' is destroying man.

PJ: The mind of man at present is threatened, is being ( slowly) destroyed, because of the way in which it is functioning. A very interesting thing has struck me just now, namely, that the present functioning of the mind—as we know it—will be destroyed either by the machine which will take it over or by the other, namely, freedom from the known. So you see, sir, the challenge is much deeper.

K: You’ve got it ! Pupulji is saying is that the ( self-enclosing field of the ) 'known' in which our minds are functioning presently is ( slowly but safely?) destroying us. The known is also ( involved in our ) future (techological) projections such as machines, drugs, genetics, cloning; all that is born out of these. So both are ( concurring in) destroying us.

AC: But she was also saying that the other movement – the 'freedom from the known', will also destroy the mind as we know it now.

K: Let us be clear. Either there must be a 'new human mind' or the present thing is going to destroy the (old) mind. Right? But this 'new mind' can only exist actually, when (the thought-time continuity of our living in the field of) knowledge ends. So the question then is whether ( the inward time-binding continuity of) knowledge can end and not whether there can be ( a hypothetical) 'freedom from knowledge'.

AC: Action out of knowledge can end. Knowledge can’t end.

K: It can. You see, ( the holistic?) action is freedom from knowledge.

PJ: What do you mean when you say that 'knowledge ends'?

K: ( Our psychological ) knowledge has ( its continuity in the field of the ) known. Can (this psychological component of ) knowledge end? Who is to end knowledge? The ( virtual) 'person' who ends knowledge is still a part of knowledge. So there is no entity apart from knowledge which can end knowledge.

AC: So, sir, there is the tremendous (psychological instinct of) of self-preservation and there is the 'factual ' knowledge. And you are asking: Can (the psychological component of ) knowledge end ? Doesn't this amount to self-annihilation?

K: I understand what you are saying, but I am leaving for the moment, the ending of the self. I am just saying that both—the (artificially 'intelligent' ) computers and my life—are based on knowledge. And so long as we are (inwardly) living in ( the field) knowledge, our brains are being destroyed through routine, the new machines, etc. So the human mind is (solidly caught in the field of) knowledge. There is no question of itself saying that it must free itself from knowledge. There is only the mind which is (entangled in time binding) knowledge.

Let's move on from there. What is the state of the mind that is completely aware, or knows, or is cognizant that it is entirely ( functioning in the field of) knowledge?
Apparently knowledge is a (mental) movement. Knowledge has been acquired through movement. So knowledge is movement.

AC: And you are speaking of the state of mind when (its thought- continuity in ?) time comes to a stop ?

K: That is freedom (from the known?) . That means, ( mind's direct) perception is free from knowledge and its action is not out of (its past) knowledge. Unless this inner 'machinery' of the mind stops, we are going to continue destroying ourselves.
So is there a ( holistic) perception which is not born out of ( the field of) knowledge? Because when this ( knowledge -born ) movement stops, there must be ( a time-free ?) action.

AC: In other words, it is to act in the ( temporal) world, but nothing 'sticks', no ( psychological ) marks are left. Nothing takes root.

K: Which means—is there such a perception which is not of knowledge ? Of course; there is an (intelligent & compassionate ) perception which cannot be 'computerized' (computer simulated?)

AC: The question is: What is the mechanism of the mind, what is the structure of the mind which operates with ( a holistic quality of) perception, with insight, and with absolutely no accumulation?

K: Look at how long it has taken to come to that (fine holistic?) point, which is ( a direct) perception without ( personal) record ! And why? Because we function in time.

AC: What you are saying is that you don’t have to go through this ( time-consuming) process. ( But... on the other hand?) if we have come to this point, and do not act ( ending though-time ?) , it can be much more dangerous than not having a discussion at all.

K: That is what I am saying. It is a tremendous danger. Have you come to a point where you see what the human mind has invented— the computer, drugs, chemicals, cloning - our minds are as mechanical as that ? And we are acting always in that area. And therefore we are destroying ourselves. It is not the (e-) machines that are destroying us.

PJ: One can say at the end of it, ''Tapas, tapas & tapas'' - in other words ... we have not done our homework.

K: I am not sure if you are not back in time. You know, sir, a pianist once said, ‘If you practice, you are practicing the wrong thing’. I wonder if you realize that his is the real revolution (in the human Consciousness ?) .
So, sir, ( in a nutshell) the ( central) question is one of ending the (psychological time ) movement, and not ending ( the valuable factual) knowledge. That is the real question (left for meditation homework ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 05 Jul 2018 #92
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

Intelligence, Computers and the Awakening of a holistic Intelligence beyond the Mechanical Mind*

( a reader friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1982)

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): Sir, you are saying that ( the compassionate?) intelligence has nothing to do with thought, but ( for the time being the modern ?) man knows only the thinking process and the (computer) scientists call it a 'major (thought) attack on the unknown' in creating a machine which will perform like the human mind.
Now if they succeed in creating a (highly intelligent) computer which will perform like the human mind, then the present human mind will become obsolete. So if the human mind is different from a 'thinking machine', what is the difference? Is it creativity, is it intelligence, and if so, then what is creativity and what is intelligence?

K: Where do we start exploring this? Should we differentiate between the mind and the brain or would you only use the word ‘mind’ to convey the wholeness of the human mind?

AC: I am using the word ‘mind’ in terms of what a human being is (consciousness-wise) . He has a brain with thought, emotions and all kinds of reactions.

K: So you are using the word ‘mind’ in the sense that it includes all reactions, emotions, remembrances, confusion, desire, pleasure, sorrow, affection. If all that is the 'mind', then what is the relationship between that and the brain?

AC: What do you mean by the 'brain'?

K: Is it 'my' brain or the ( generic human) brain ( resulting) from this tremendous evolution?

AC: It is obviously the product of evolution.

K: So it is not my brain; it is not my thinking. It is thinking. Are you saying then that ( the capacity of) thinking is an integral part of the brain?

AC: It seems to be.

K: ( This survival oriented?) thinking has created all the human, psychological problems as well as the technological problems. And the same thinking tries to solve these problems and it finds that it cannot, because in itself is limited. Thought is the result of experience, knowledge, memory. Knowledge is never complete. All limitations must create their own problems and so, thought can never solve (globally or holistically any problem of a psychological nature ?) .
Thought is the result of vast (accumulation of human) experience (processed & stored in the personal & collective ) memory. You have seen how the computers are working. Thought is a form of ( 'self'-conscious?) computer which has had a great deal of experience, a great deal of knowledge, but still limited.

AC: In other words, you are saying that all new knowledge is essentially contained in the old knowledge and is a result of thought.

K: Of course. All knowledge is the result of thought.

PJ: The racial mind is the result of millennia of evolution. So in a sense, while all the options within it may still be limited, all the options of the memory of mankind are available to it.

AC: It may have more options, more memory than the computer, but essentially it is still doing the same thing—operating out of memory and knowledge.

K: Yes, sir, let's move from there : would you agree that the computer has a cause as the human brain has a cause? Then what has a cause, has an end. Now, is there something (Within the human mind?) which is causeless? If there is such a thing as a movement which is causeless, that is Creation.

R.R.: What you are saying is that there is an 'extraordinary' ( dimension of the human?) mind.

K: No I have not gone into it, yet. After forty or fifty thousand years, the computer reached this point - ( of becoming able to take over most of the practical thinking functions of ?) the brain. But it hasn't the perception of the human eye looking at the heavens and saying what a marvellous night this is. Is there an ( inner quality of holistic) perception which is not the product of thought?

P.J.: Sir, the problem seems to be that if the brain is working in a closed circuit only, then what Asit says is true. But the whole reason for our being here is, can there be an acceleration of the very capacity of the brain so that it ceases to be a process? Is the human brain (inwardly trapped in?) a closed circuit (of its own past experience & knowledge?) ?

K: Would you consider that the human brain has infinite capacity? I don't like the word 'capacity' because for us capacity is (the result of) educated knowledge and all that. But if I can use that word, the brain has infinite capacity. Look what it has done in the technological world, including the computer.

A.C.: You can't say that thought is limited and then say that the brain has infinite capacity.

K: The (self-interest based?) Thought has limited the brain, has conditioned the brain. ( if I am culturally conditioned as a?) Hindu, I believe in all the superstitions, all the nonsense. Now, if that conditioning is somehow freed, it has got..? Is there a (directly perceptive inner ?) instrument which is not thought? Thought is a worn-out instrument. I think it has reached its tether, because it has not solved the human problem. So, is there a way of inward looking which can instead of going 'out there' can turn inwards? That inward movement is the infinite.

A.C.: You are asking in other words what Pupulji was asking the other day: Is there a ( holistic) sensory perception without thought?

K: Will you listen to something? Our present life is a movement, going out and coming in, like the tide. I create the world, and the world then controls me. And then again, I react to the world. It is movement out and in, this is our life, action and reaction, reward and punishment. Can this movement (of thought) stop? Because as long as this movement exists, I am caught in time, that is evolution.

R.S.: Why not just say that this is the nature of human life, of evolution?

K: Yes, I am evolving. This movement gets better, worse, it is always movement. So, as long as this (interactive thought?) movement exists (inwardly) , I am mechanical (statistically predictable?) .

A.C.: I follow that.

K: If you accept this, then ( one can consider awakening the latent capacity of a non-personal ? ) intelligence - something totally different from thought.

R.S.: Now there is a certain kind of low level activity, what people ordinarily call intelligence, which perhaps we can better call 'ingenuity', where, in order to get something you want - but you may not be able to get it in a straightforward way - you may have to resort to some fairly original way, some new kind of competence and so on. There is a certain kind of ingenuity which is not purely mechanical. It may still come down to a certain mechanical set of desires and within that is the framework of certain inventiveness. So the framework may be one of action-reaction but within that we exhibit considerable ingenuity and inventiveness.

K: I would not call that 'intelligence'.

R.S.: Perhaps ingenuity or inventiveness ?

K: I would call that ingenuity and I say all that has nothing to do with ( universal?) intelligence. Intelligence is something totally different.

Q: Will you elaborate on what we call intelligence?

K: I don't want to 'elaborate'. Ingenuity, choice, cleverness, moving from one point to another, from one corner to another but within the same field, that is what we are doing.

P.J.: That is the 'field of the known'.

K: Yes, yes. I don't want to use that word for the moment.

A.C.: I was just wondering why we have evolved along that line ?

K: It is essentially based on (self-interest :) seeking a reward and avoiding the punishment.

A.C.: But I am asking what is the reason in particular that we have evolved like that? It must have had tremendous advantage (for our species survival in time) .

K: Of course, it is completely secure. Secure for the time being, but the 'time being' ( may also) create wars. So would you go along up to this point that this is not ( the authentic?) 'intelligence'?

A.C.: Yes...

K: Right. Then let us enquire what is Intelligence. If it is out of my ( self-centred thinking) system, that means the movement of reaction has stopped, and that is the movement of time. Agreed?

A.C.: When you say 'time', I don't understand.

K: Time in the sense I have evolved along this process. And that is unintelligence. As long as I am in this field there is no intelligence; it is adaptability.

A.C.: But one has to respond (using our thinking?)

K: We will find out. If this is not intelligence, then we have to go into something quite different (experientially) . If I totally deny, not verbally but actually, (seen that) this is not intelligence, then what happens to the ( thinking& feeling?) mind which has been caught in this? Do you understand my question? As long as we are functioning in time, cause - effect, action - reaction, which is this movement of the tide going out and coming in, as long as my whole attitude to life is that and I refuse to move out of that, there is nothing to be said (but...game over?) But if I see that my (self-centred approach) will not solve the problems of humanity; then I have to look in another direction.

P.J.: What is the nature of this (alternative) 'looking'?

K: My (mind's) eyes have always been seeing in this (outward?) direction only. And you come along and tell me, look in other directions. Now my (mental) eyesight has been so conditioned that I don't even ( consider the meditative option to?) turn around to look. So I must be first free of this (traditionalistic looking at everything with the 'eyes of the known'?) . I can't look in any other direction if I am not free of this.

P.J.: Can one see the falsity of it and end it?

K: Would you say this whole movement is the ( survivalistic) 'wandering of desire'?

P.J.: Yes. This (outward mental) movement is the wandering of desire.

K: Can this desire be seen as a whole, not the object of desire, but desire itself? Can it see itself as a movement of attraction?

P.J.: But...can the ( the thought sustained) movement of desire see itself in action ?

K: To understand if desire can see itself, one must go into ( the origins of) desire. (The time-binding?) desire exists only when thought interferes with sensation.

A.C.: This question is very important (experientially ) . We are operating in that field (of time-thought), anything operating in that field can never deny that field.

K: Of course. As long as I am in (inwardly caught in?) that movement, you cannot ask me to see it as the false and deny it.

P.J.: Therefore, where do I look?

K: You don't have to look (anywhere ) . Discover for yourself how to end this movement. Is that possible at all?

P.J.: It is just ( a matter of non-personal inward?) perceiving.

K: That is all. There is only 'perceiving'. There is no 'perceiver' perceiving - there is only perception, right? The perception of 'that which is false' (inwardly time-binding?) . What is (this intelligent?) perception without the ( interference of the ) naming process , without remembrances, perceiving something which one ( commonly ) calls 'intuition'? (I don't like to use that word, forgive me.) Perception is direct insight.

P.J.: Is the question one of being inwardly 'completely awake'?

K: Would you call that 'attention' (or 'totally attending'?) ?

P.J.: To be 'completely' awake is (experientially synonimous to) attention.

K: That is all.

P.J: That, the computers can never do...

R.R.: Can we ask you a ( bonus ?) question: What happens when we perceive with insight?

K: There is this ( inward flash-) 'perception of insight' and the brain cells themselves change. Can ( in the meditation context ?) your thought ever stop when your brain has been conditioned in time, in this movement... cause, effect, action, reaction and all that suddenly stops? Hasn't the brain undergone a radical change? Of course it has.

R.R.: I have refrase my question : as the brain cells change, what happens after perceiving it?

A.C.: Only the physical brain has changed, but I am afraid it dies...

K: That is why we are going into the question of 'consciousness'.

A.C.: Does this end with (brain's physical) death? Then all that will be different from the computer...

P.J.: The (next experiential ) question then comes in : How can man so accelerate the other to bring into being this new perception?

A.C.: One can only see this ( the falseness of that though-desire-time ?) movement and do nothing else.

K: That is all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 Aug 2018 #93
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

'THE BRAIN CELLS AND THE HOLISTIC STATE'
( A reader friendly edited K dialogue cca 1972)

DS: I wonder if we could discuss the question of the momentum ( of psychological registering?) - which created the 'thinker' and which produces the ( subliminal) identification with the 'thinker'? The fact is that ( in the everyday life) we are constantly faced with this inertial momentum ( generating the thought- time ?) movement. Could we examine that?

P: Could we go into the ( brain's entropic ?) energy which dissipates and the nature of (the mind-?) energy which does not dissipate?

DS: I question whether there is anyone who has actually thought about what 'energy' is in the 'psychological' sense. Do we mean a force that exists within the person, or is (the 'mind ) energy' something that is manifested in relationship, and if so, then it raises a whole category of (academic?) questions.

FW: You see, no ( respeted) physicist can define what 'energy' is.
Energy is a basic assumption in physics - that 'it is' there. We know
that without energy, no force is possible, no work is possible. And we can use the 'force', we can see the 'work' being done, but we can never see the 'energy'.

K: Is there ( within the human psyche?) an ( intelligent?) energy which is endless, without a beginning and without an end? And is there an energy which is mechanical which always has a motive? And is there an energy in relationship? I would like to find out.

P: Dr Shainberg asked what is it the momentum generating the arising of the 'thinker', and then the thinker giving himself continuity?

K: What is the drive, the force behind all our actions? Is it a
mechanistic energy ? Or is there an (intelligent mind-) energy which has no (internal) friction? Is that what we are discussing?

DS: What is ( behind?) the 'momentum' of this energy that becomes mechanical? Let us keep to the momentum of thought and desire and the creation of the 'thinker'?

K: You are asking what is the momentum behind desire.
What is the energy behind the desire that says, 'I must have a car'?

DS: Is it that 'you' desire a car or does the (momentum of?) desire that creates the 'I'?

P: Sir, is it only the object which creates desire?

K: It may be a ( desirable?) physical object, or a ( potentially rewarding?) non-physical object, a belief, or an idea, or anything ( like that) .

FW: In the first case, it has to be perceivable by the senses, because you perceive something by the senses, and you make an image of it, then you desire it. So, could one say that whatever can be desired has to be sensed (or thought projected ?) ? I can desire to find God.

P: ( Anyways ) it is 'desire' that maintains and keeps the world going. Can we take desire back to its roots?

K: What is the 'momentum' behind the desire that made me come
here? Is it my ( existential?) suffering? Is it my ( expectation for a superior form of ?) pleasure? Is it that I want to learn more about myself ? Put all these together, what is it that is behind all that?

DS: To me it is relief from what I am ( inwardly?) .

P: Which is identical with the sense of ( self-) becoming.

K: Becoming? What is behind becoming?

DS: To get somewhere different from where I am, and there also there is
desire.

K: What is behind the (brain's ) energy that is making you do that? Is it
punishment and reward? All our structure of ( psychological) movement is based on punishment and reward, to avoid one, to gain the other. Is that the basic drive that is making us do so many things? So is
the ( brain cells generated ?) energy derived from these two: to avoid
one and gain the other?

DS: That is only a part of it. That is at the level of ( our self-centred ) thinking .

K: No. Not only at the level of thought : if I am hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, my reward is punishment. Reward
and punishment. I think that is the basic, ordinary, common drive.

P: Reward and punishment to whom?

K: I have not yet come to that. What is satisfying I call 'reward', that which is not satisfying I call it 'punishment'.

DS : Is there not the 'I' saying: 'I must be satisfied', `'I am
hungry'?

K: When the 'physiological' (needs ) spill over into the 'psychological' field, the whole cycle begins there? I need food; food is necessary. But that same urge enters into the field of (the) psyche, and there begins a completely different cycle (of personal choice, desire & will ?) . But it is the same movement.

P: How does this further the question of the nature of this force which brings desire into being and then keeps it going?

K: Is it that this ( self-interest driven 'brain ) energy' is (expressing itself ) both biologically as well as psychologically? I am feeling hungry and psychologically I am feeling lonely.
Physiologically, the insufficiency is satisfied very easily, but (inwardly ) our 'psychological' (existential ?) insufficiency it is never satisfied.
( In a nutshell:) The physiological movement has entered
into the psychological movement and carries on. Isn't this so?

P: It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of wants begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the source of both beginnings, the
physiological and psychological? Both are structured in a force which then propels and this coming together of a number of things, is the centre, the 'I'.

K: Look. I don't posit the 'I'. There is a continuous (inward) insufficiency (and the need to satisfy it) . The more
intelligent I am, the more awake I am (inwardly) , the more dissatisfaction there is.

A: I suggest at this point that we may cut out the 'physiological'
insufficiency.

K: I am purposely insisting on that. It may be from the overflowing flowing of that, that we create all this ( existential?) misery.

P: What is the 'momentum' ( behind desire?) ?

K: Brain' s (survivalistic) need for satisfaction & security . Because it needs stability & it needs security. Therefore, it says: ' I thought I had found (the ultimate?) satisfaction & security in this but there isn't any. I shall find satisfaction and security in that, and again there isn't any'. And it keeps going on and on. I go to one guru after another, or one theory after another, from one personal conclusion to another.

A: Sir, I want to draw your attention again to the central feature
of physiological insufficiency, that every activity to fulfil that
physiological insufficiency leads to ( a momentary) satisfaction. That is to say, between the insufficiency and its recurrence, there is always a gap, as far as the physiological insufficiency is concerned; whereas
where psychological insufficiency is concerned, we begin a cycle
in which we do not know any gap.

K: Watch yourself. Isn't the whole of the movement our (brain's )
energy a drive to find gratification & reward? And ( further down the line?) this whole momentum of seeking satisfaction is captured by
the 'I' ( is made 'personal')

DS: Then it is there that the 'I' becomes manifest.

K: That's it. It ( the brain?) never says, 'satisfaction is being sought', but 'I' am seeking satisfaction. Actually it should be the other way: satisfaction is being sought.

DS: Satisfaction sought creates the 'I'.

K: So momentum is the urge to be satisfied.

P: Isn't the 'I' sense inherent in the brain cells which have
inherited knowledge?

K: I question that. I would say tentatively that there is no 'I' at all but only ( a self-sustained) search for pure satisfaction. (However, deeper down in the human psyche ) there is this whole (momentum of man's frustrations accumulated through ?) millennia of human endeavour, human suffering, human misery, confusion, millions of years. There is only that vast River - not 'I' and the vast river.

P: I would like to put it this way: When this 'vast river' comes to
the surface, it brings to the surface the movement of the 'I'.

K: Pupulji, ( for K personally?) the 'I' may merely be a means of communication.

P: Is it as simple as that?

K: No, I am just stating (a personal fact?) . It is obviously not as simple as that. That vast Stream ( of Collective Consciousness driven by self-interest ?) manifests itself in this ( particular) human being; the father gives to me a form and then I say : 'I' - which is ( brain's subliminal identification with the ) form, the name, the idiosyncratic
environment, but ( deeper down?) that Stream (of collective consciousness) 'is' ( not separated from?) 'me' . There is this vast stream
which is obvious.

P: The ( non-personal ) way you just put it does not really lead to the depth of oneself. The depth of oneself says, 'I want to, I will become, I will be'. This ( self-identification ) springs from the whole racial unconscious.

K: Can I ask, why is the 'I' there? Why do you say 'I want'?
There is only 'want'.

P: Still by saying that, you don't eliminate the ( reality of the?) 'I'.

K: No, you do eliminate that 'I'. But in what manner do you observe this stream (of collective consciousness?) ? Do you observe it as an 'I',
observing? Or, is there only ( a compassionate & non-personal) observation of the Stream ?

P: Are we still were talking of that nature of energy which brings about the momentum ?

K: I want to question whether the 'I' exists at all. It may be
totally verbal, non-factual. It is only an (emotionally charged?) word that has become tremendously important, not the fact.

FW: Isn't there a real imprint of the 'I' in the brain matter? Isn't
that an actuality?

K: I question it.

FW: But the imprint is there (in any human brain) . The question is: If it isn't an actuality, then what is it?

K: The whole momentum, this vast Stream (of self-interest?) is (expressing itself?) in the brain. After all, why should there be the 'I' at all in that?

P: Talking of the 'actual', it ( the temporal self-consciousness) is there.

K: It is there only verbally....

DS: It is actually there. In the sense that my identification with myself is the 'I'.

K: Sir, when are you conscious of the 'I'?

DS: When I want something, when I identify myself with
something, or when I look at myself in the mirror.

K: At the moment of ( directly) experiencing something, there is no (self-consciousness of the?) 'I'.

P: All right, we agree with you. But the 'I' (one's self-consciousness?)
emerges a second later.

K: How? Look, go into it slowly. At the moment of ( a directly challenging experience or ? ) crisis there is no (sense of the ) 'I' . Then, later, comes the thought which says: 'That was exciting, that was pleasurable,' and ( the subliminal recording of?) this ( concluding ?) thought creates the 'I' which then says: 'I have enjoyed it.' Right?

P: What has actually happened there? Is the 'I' a ( personalised?) concentration of (brain's intelligent ) energy?

K: No.

P: The ( 'steady state' of brain's total ) energy that begins to dissipates?

K: It is the energy that dissipates, yes. It is an energy that is being misused.

P: The 'I' itself is a (steady state?) concentration of energy that dissipates. Now is there a living at the height of that
crisis, all the time? Crisis demands total energy. Crisis of any kind
brings about the influx of all (one's) energy. Leave it for the moment. We
will break it up afterwards. At that very second, there is no 'I'. Now, I am asking: 'Is it possible to live at that height all the time?'

DS: Why are you asking that?

K: If you don't live that way, you will have all kinds of other (time-binding) activities which will destroy that.

DS: What is your point ?

K: The point is this: the moment ( the self-centred) thinking comes in, it brings about a fragmentation ( a dualistic splitting ?) of ( brain's total) energy. So, there is a dissipation of energy.

P: We do agree with you, but this does not answer the question as to why the 'I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered this question even though at the moment of crisis, the 'I' is not, the whole past is not.

K: That is the ( action?) point. At the moment of crisis, there is nothing.

P: Why are you saying 'no' to the 'I' being the mirror (image ) of our
whole racial past?

K: I am saying 'no' because it may be merely a ( very convenient?) way of communication (in a self-interest dominated world ?) .

P: Is the 'I' structure as simple as that?

K: I think it is extraordinarily 'simple' ( and very resilient?) .
But what is much more interesting (experientially) is that whenever ( our self-centred thinking) comes into being, then dissipation (the time-spreading?) of energy begins. So, is it possible to live ( and/or meditate?) at that height?' Moreover, if you and I left out ( the self-centredness?) then we would have right relationship.

DS: When you say 'dissipation of energy' , I immediately see myself take up the position of the ( thoughtful ) 'observer' and say 'that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be neutrally aware. There is a crisis and a dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of existence.

K: No.

P: K's point is, there is that, but the transformation which we are
talking about is to negate that.

DS: I question whether there is any such thing as (an once & for all) 'breaking out' of this. I think we remember the intensity of the energy of the crisis, and then we say I would like to 'keep it at its highest' all the time. Do you do that?

K: No.

DS: Then why ask the question?

K: I am asking that question purposely because thought does constantly
interfere.

DS: Not all the time...

K: All the time ! Question it, sir.
( In a nutshell:) The moment you have a ( major existential ?) crisis, there is no past, nor present, only that moment. There is no
time in that crisis. The moment ( thought & ) time comes in, dissipation begins. Keep it for the minute like that.

P: You talk of a 'holistic' position at the moment of crisis. Even to come to that, one has to investigate it very deeply, in oneself in order to know what this thing is.

K: You see Pupul 'holistic' implies a very sane mind and body, a
clear capacity to think, and also it means 'holy' ; all that is
implied in that word 'holistic'. Now, I am asking: 'Is there another ( quality of mind-?) energy which is never dissipated, which you want to draw from?'

P: What is the relationship of the 'holistic' position to the brain cells?

K: I want to be quite clear that we understand the meaning of that word
'holistic'. It means ( an integrated mind-energy which is ?) complete, whole, in harmony, no disintegration, no fragmentation. That is the 'holistic' life (energy) and it is an endless energy. The
non-holistic life, the fragmented life, is a wastage of energy. When
there is the feeling of (one's) wholeness , there is no 'I'. The other is the
movement of thought, of the past, of time; that is our life, our daily
life, and that life is reward and punishment and the continuous
search for satisfaction.

P: Sir, the non-holistic (mentality) is definitely held
in the brain cells because it is the stream of the past held in the
brain cells, challenged and giving momentum. I am asking what is
the relationship of the holistic to the brain cells and to the senses?

K: Your question is very simple. Our brain cells now contain all
the memory & experience & knowledge of the past and those
brain cells as they are now are conditioned to a non-holistic way of living. What takes place in these brain cells when there is ( an insight into ) a holistic way of life ?

I am going to answer ( holistically to?) this question : Does the holistic(ally friendly?) brain contain the ( memory of the ) past and therefore can the ( factual memory of the ) past be used holistically?
Because it is 'whole', it contains the ( memory) part, but the 'part' cannot contain the whole. Therefore, when there is the operation of the 'part' (thought operating in the field of the 'known'?) , there is dissipation of energy.

P: After going through all this, we have come to this point.

K: Yes. A marvellous point. Stick to it.

P: What is then the place (of this holistic attitude to life?)
in the brain and in the structure of the human mind?

K: We know only the 'non-holistic' way of living, keep to that.
That is the fact, that we live 'non-holistically', fragmentarily. That is
our actual life and that is a wastage of ( one's total intelligent) energy. Now, we are asking: 'Is there a ( holistically friendly?) way of living which is not a wastage of (brain's intelligent) energy?'
Is there a (non-entropic) energy which is not wasted? With that (64,000$) question let us investigate it to see if it is possible to end
this ( time-binding dissipative) way of living. Is it possible to live a
life which is not like that?

Q: Not always, sir...

K: Anything that 'comes and goes' involves ( thinking in terms of ) time. Occasionally, I may have a 'flair of (total inner ) freedom' but that flair of freedom is still ( circumscribed?) within the field of time. Therefore, that 'flair of freedom' is still fragmentary. Now, can the brain that is presently accustomed to a non-holistic way of living, can that brain so completely transform itself that it no longer lives the way of conditioning? That is the ( 64,000 $) question (left for further home study?) .

DS: My ( honest ?) response to that is: Here we are in a state of inner fragmentation, in a state of dissipation of energy. This is all we know and nothing else.

K: Yes. Nothing else. So, the ( earnest ?) brain says: 'I can see that, but is it possible to change all this?'

DS: I wonder whether the ( temporal) brain can ask it.

K: I am asking it. Therefore, if one brain asks it, the other brain must ask it too.

DS: How you can ask this question without ( subliminally ) seeking satisfaction?

K: It can be asked ( non-personally?) if the brain has realized for itself the game it has been playing.

DS: So, how is the brain to raise the question?

K: It is asking it, because it says, 'I am seeing through that (illusory existence?) .' Now, it says: 'Is there a way of living which is non-fragmentary, which is holistic?'

DS: Then, what brain is producing this question?

K: The brain which says: 'I see very clearly the waste of
energy'.

P: The very fact that the brain is 'seeing through' the whole problem of fragmentation (brought by the time-binding effect of self-interest?) ...

K: ... is the 'ending' of it.

P: Is that the holistic (action?) ?

K: The 'ending' of it, that is the holistic (right action ?) .

K: That is holistic. But you have asked a much more complex
question in regard to the 'holistic' brain which ( still) contains the
total ( mankind's experience of the?) past .
The ( psychological burden of the?) past is nothing, but such a brain can use the ( objective memory of the ?) past.

(Parting words :) I say: If you are capable of observing without the 'observer', the brain can transform itself. That is ( the true purpose of ) Meditation. The 'essence' is (to be found in distilling ?) the Whole. In fragmentation, there is no ( holistic ?) essence of anything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 29 Aug 2018 #94
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE FIRST STEP IS THE LAST STEP (an experientially friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1970)

Questioner P: Yesterday you said that 'the first step is the last step'. To understand ( the experiential aspect of this holistic) statement, I think we should investigate whether there is such a thing as a 'final' state of enlightenment. The confusion arises because our ( temporal ) minds are conditioned to think of illumination as a final state. Is it ?

Krishnamurti: We were saying yesterday that if we can (see  the inward truth of ? ) that, at whatever level of conditioning we may be , the perception of the 'fact', is at that moment the (first & the ) last step. (Eg:) take the example of a clerk in a little office, with all the (psychological) misery involved in it; the clerk 'listens' and at that moment he really sees (the truth regarding his inner condition?) . That seeing and that perception is the first and the last step. Because, at that moment he has touched Truth and he sees everything very clearly. ( Unfortunately ?) afterwards he tries to cultivate that ( blissful?) state (of inner clarity?) . The very perception is bringing about a liberation (from the thought-time process?) ; but now he wants to perpetuate it, to turn it into a ( mechanical ?) process. And therefore he gets again caught (in time?) and loses the quality of perception entirely .

Any ( self-centred mental ?) process involves ( a rewarding) finality. It is a ( redirecting of ) movement from the 'horizontal' to a 'vertical' one; the 'vertical' leading to a ( spiritual?) finality. And therefore we ( indulge in ) thinking that the ( realisation of truth) is the (ultimate rewarding?) finality; an (end-) point which has no movement. After all, the methods, the practices & systems ( of meditation) imply a ( progressive) process moving towards a finality. If there were no ( mental projection ) of Enlightenment as the ultimate  ?) 'finality', there would be no such process.

P: The whole structure of thought is built on the 'horizontal'
movement ( from 'yesterday' to 'tomorrow'?) and therefore any postulation of Eternity has to be on the horizontal plane.

Krishnamurti: We are used to reading a book 'horizontally' and we think the first chapter must inevitably lead to the ( happy ending in the ) last chapter. ( Similarly?) we feel all the (spiritual?) practices should lead to a finality; to an unfoldment. It is all a 'horizontal' reading (of life) . Is ( the realisation of?) Truth or 'Enlightenment' a final achievement; a final point beyond which there is nothing?

P: ( A state of total inner clarity ) from which there can be no slipping back ? I might for an instant perceive (an inner 'fact' directly) , and in the ( holistic) quality of that, I understand (the whole thing) . A little later, (the time-binding ?) thought arises again and (before I know it...) I am back in the old (conflicting?) state and I ( begin to) question whether that "touching of Truth " had any validity at all - I say to myself : if that ( original perception ? ) were true, ( the self-centred process of) thought would not arise (anymore).

Krishnamurti: Suppose that I perceive something that is extraordinary; something that is true. (Instinctively?) I want to give continuity to that perception - ( and bring its holistic clarity?) into the actions of my daily life. I think this is where our mistake lies. The mind has seen something true. That is ( good?) enough – my mind is again a clear, innocent mind. ( A new & serious psychological problem is created when ? ) thought wants to 'carry on' that perception through its daily acts.
If the mind has seen something very clearly, leave it there. The 'leaving of it' is ( allowing ) the next ( insightful ?) step. The ( intelligent ) mind is now ready ( free ?) to take the next step if it does not 'carry over' ( the conclusions of its previous spiritual experiences) . The ( fresh ) perception is not becoming ( time-binding ) knowledge.

P: The ( action of the?) 'doer' in relation to thought or to seeing has to cease.

Krishnamurti: 'Die' to (don't carry over?) the thing that was ( seen as) true. Otherwise it becomes a ( dead) memory, which then becomes ( a psychological goal of ? ) thought which says ''How am I to perpetuate that state ?''. If the mind sees clearly, and it can only see clearly when the seeing 'is' (simultaneous with?) the ending of it, then the mind can start a new ( insightful ?) movement where the first step is the last step. In this there is no ( 'thought) process' involved at all. The time ( element ) enters when, having seen it clearly, having perceived it, there is a ( mental) carrying over and the applying of it to the next incident.

P: The 'carrying over' (in time) is amounting to 'not seeing' (now)

Krishnamurti: So, all the traditional approaches ( to Enlightening) which offer a ( fool-proof?) process must have a 'finality' and anything that has a ( spiritual) 'finality' is not a living thing at all. Is Truth a 'final' ( state of Mind) which , once achieved, everything is over - your ( existential) anxieties, your fears and so on? Does it mean that once I'm on the train ( with destination 'Truth'?) I expect the train will carry me to my destination?
All these are 'horizontal' movements, but is there something ( in the depths of the human consciousness?) which is really timeless? And can (the meditating mind?) come upon this 'Something' which must have no time, no process, no system, no method, no way?
Can the mind perceive it for an instant? That (insightful) seeing is the first and the last step because it has seen anew.

Your question is : is such a mind ever free of ( further inner ) troubles? I think it is a ( a holistically) 'wrong ' question because we are still thinking in terms of ( reaching a ) finality,
and so we are back again into the horizontal process. When 'I' want to carry it over and apply it to 'my' daily living, the old conflict of duality is introduced.
So, can the (intelligent) mind, seeing something very clearly, end ( abstain itself from processing ) that perception? Then, here the very first step is the last step. The mind is fresh to look (anew at life ) . To such a mind, is there an end to all ( future?) troubles? It
does not even ask such (a time-binding) question. When ( a new trouble?) happens, it will see. Therefore the mind is never caught in (thinking of itself in terms of ?) time. Because I have
taken the 'first' step, I have also taken the 'last step' each time.

P: The ( inwardly perceptive) instruments used in what you are saying are the seeing and the listening. ( Now, originally?) these are sensory movements (activities) and it is through the sensory movements that conditioning also comes into being. What is it that makes one ( listening & seeing) movement totally dissolve conditioning and another to strengthen it?

Krishnamurti: How do I 'listen' to this question? First of all, I do
not know (the true answer, but?) I am going to learn – and when I learn without ( the subliminal intention of) accumulating ( superior knowledge) - which means perceiving without acquiring - the mind is always empty. Can a mind which is ( inwardly?) empty ever be conditioned ? A mind which is really listening is always in a movement of learning (holistically ?) . (Hint:) It is not a movement 'from' something or 'towards' something, but a learning movement without a beginning and an ending. It is something alive, never conditioned. ( On the other hand?) a mind that acquires knowledge (in order to function safely, can be ?) conditioned by its own knowledge.

P: Is it the same ( perceptive) instrument which is operating in both?

Krishnamurti: The mind which is full of images, words, symbols,
through that (psychological background?) it thinks, it sees.

P: Does it really 'see'?

Krishnamurti: No. If I have an 'image' of you ( as the Enlightened person?) and I look at you through that 'image', this is (creating a major perceptive ?) distortion. The 'image' is ( the projection of my cultural?) conditioning.
( In a nutshell:) It is still the same ( consciousness ? ) vessel with all the things in it, and it is the same vessel which has nothing in it. The ( psychological?) content of the vessel 'is' the vessel. When there is no such 'content', the ( perceptive ) vessel has no form.

P: So it can receive "what is".

Krishnamurti: ( The time-free ) perception is only possible when there is no 'image making' - no symbol, no idea, word, form, which are all creating the (self-) 'image'. Then perception 'is' light. It is not that 'I' see the 'light', but there is light. So this perception is ( illuminating mind's ) action. A mind which is full of ( previously recorded?) 'images' cannot perceive ( anything directly) . It sees through ( the screen of its own ) images and so it ( as well as its perceptions, are biased and/or?) distorted.
( Parting words:) In the (act of pure) listening there is no "I" ; while in the 'carrying it over' there is the "I" . The "I" is ( the active factor of ?) time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Aug 2018 #95
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE SILENT APPROACH TO INNER DISORDER

a (reader friendly edited) K dialogue (cca 1972)

P: Can we discuss (the nature of inner ) silence? Does it imply only the absence of thought? Does it have many facets or forms? How is it reached?

K: Shall we start by asking : is there a right approach to silence and if there is, what is it? And are there different methods by which to arrive at silence? What is the nature of silence? Shall we
go into it in that order? First, is there a 'right approach' to silence ?
What is the approach which is natural, reasonable, logical and beyond logic?

P: I would say that silence is when thought is not operating (in its familiar field of the known?) . Silence is generally defined as the absence of thought.

K: I can repeat some (special mantra) and go ( inwardly ) blank. Is that (the true ) silence?

S: How do you know what is true silence?

K: I would like to approach this question by asking: Is there
a 'true' approach to silence? There are people who have practised
silence by controlling thought to such an extent that the
mind becomes absolutely dull, stupid, but... silent. So I want to start with the enquiry from the point of right approach; what
is the necessity for ( inner) silence?

P: When a constantly chattering, constantly irritated mind comes to rest, there is a feeling of being refreshed. The mind is refreshed quite apart from anything else, so silence in itself is important.

B: And also there is no 'seeing' of colour, there is no 'seeing' of things unless there is a certain quality of silence.
S: Then there is a whole spiritual tradition that maintains that silence is important, is necessary and the various systems of pranayama, breath control, exist to ensure it.

K: Supposing you don't know anything of what other people
have said and why you should be silent, would you ask the
question?

P: Even at the level of the tranquillizer, we would ask the question.

K: So you ask the question in order to tranquillize the mind.

P: Yes.

K: Being weary, exhausted by the chattering of the mind, I ask myself, 'Can I, without the use of ( tranquiliser?) drugs, quieten the mind?'

S: There are many ways of doing it.

K: You all say there are many ways. I say, how can the mind do this without effort? Because 'effort' does not bring about ( inner) tranquillity, it brings about exhaustion. I can go into my meditation room and ( imagine to) be quiet. But is it possible to bring about
tranquillity in the mind without conflict, without (a self-imposed mental) discipline and without any artificial means? To me that is a central
issue. I would approach it that way if I went into this. I would
discard artificial controls - drugs, watching the breath, watching
light, mantras, bhajans - all these are artificial means and induce a
particular kind of silence.

S: Because they are external, motivated (by meditator's self interest?) ?

K: It is all part of it. What happens when you look at a (Swiss?) mountain? The greatness, the beauty, the grandeur of the mountains makes you silent. But that is still artificial.

S: Looking at (the beauty of ) a mountain is a non-dualistic experience. How can you then say that it is still not silence?

K: I would not call it silence because the thing is so great that
for the time being its greatness 'knocks you out'.

S: The 'me' is absent at the conscious level, but it is (on stand-by) there. So, you say that is not ( the authentic) silence ?

K: Any artificial act with a ( open or hidden self-centred?) motive , with a direction, seems to K a distortion which will not bring about the depth of great silence. I would consider them superficial...

Par: The state of your mind is already a silent mind.

K: May be, but what is bringing a state of natural tranquillity? If I want to 'listen' to what you are saying, my mind must be quiet - that is a natural thing. If I want to 'see' something clearly, the mind must not be chattering.

P: In that state lies all harmony.

K: I would say the basis for the depth of silence is the harmony between the mind, the body and the heart, a great (inner ?) harmony,
and the putting aside of any 'artificial' methods, including ( thought?) control. I would say the real basis is ( a holistic) harmony.

P: How does this solve the problem? The only thing I know is conflict. I don't know (this inner harmony, nor) silence.

K: Therefore, deal with ( the causes of this inner ) conflict, not
with silence. If there is disharmony between the mind, the body,
the heart, etc. deal with that, not with silence. If you deal with
silence, while being (inwardly) disharmonious, then it is artificial. This is so.

P: An agitated mind naturally seeks a ( certain) state of ( inner peace).

K: Then, be concerned with the agitated mind, not with silence. Deal
with 'what is' and not with what 'might be'. I would say that a complete harmony (of one's body , mind & heart?) is the (right) foundation for the purity of silence.

S: How does one know of this complete harmony?

K: Let us go into that. What is this harmony between the mind, the
body and the heart, a total sense of being whole without
fragmentation, without the over development of the intellect, but
with the intellect operating clearly, objectively, sanely; and the
heart not operating with sentiment, emotionalism, outbreaks of
hysteria, but with a quality of affection, care, love, compassion,
vitality; and the body with its own intelligence, not interfered with
by the intellect. The feeling that everything is operating,
functioning beautifully like a marvellous machine is important.

( In a nutshell:) Can the brain function efficiently, without any friction, any distraction? Can the ( awakening?) mind have the intelligence, the capacity to reason, to perceive, to be clear? When there is a ( thought-controlling) 'centre' it is obviously not possible, because the centre is translating everything according to its (self-protecting) limitations.

R: Why does this division arise between the mind and the body?

K: It arises through our ( traditional) education, where emphasis is laid on the cultivation of the intellect as memory and reason, as a function
apart from the everyday living.

R: That is the over-emphasis on the ( thought addicted ?) mind. But even without such education, there can be an over-emphasis on emotions.

K: Of course. And this is translated into devotion, into
sentimentality, into all kinds of ( emotional) extravagance.

Par: How does one differentiate between the accumulation of
memory for technical or day-to-day purposes, and the
accumulation of emotional memory?

K: That is very simple, sir. Why does the brain as the repository
of memory, give such importance to knowledge - technological,
psychological, and in relationship? Why have human beings given
such extraordinary importance to knowledge?

Par: Is it an innate desire?

K: It gives ( material) security - obviously. It gives you ( a social) status. The erudite person, the scholar, the philosopher, the
inventor, the scientist, are all concerned with knowledge and they
have created the most extraordinary things and the admiration, the
marvel at that knowledge is overwhelming and we accept it. So we
have developed an inordinate admiration, almost verging on
worship, of the intellect. This also applies to all the sacred books and their interpretations. In contrast to that, there is the opposite reaction to be emotional, to have feeling, to love, to have devotion, sentimentality, extravagance in expression, and the body gets neglected. You see this and therefore you practise ( hatha) yoga & pranayama .
This division between body, mind and heart takes place
unnaturally. Now we have to bring about a natural harmony where
the intellect functions like a marvellous watch, where the emotions
and affections, care, love and compassion are healthily functioning
and the physical body,which has been so misused, comes into its own. Now ( the 1,000 $ question is;) how do you do that?

S: If I may say so, we started this discussion with 'silence' and the various ways in which we arrive at it. You pointed out that
unless there is ( some basic inner ) harmony, we cannot ask what ( true) silence is.

K: How is the (ongoing) division (inner fragentation ?) between the mind, the heart and the body to come to an end naturally ? There is this gap between all of them. How is the mind to remove this 'gap' and be whole?

P: We are getting bogged down. We started with silence. We
don't touch silence; then you used the word 'harmony' and we can't
touch harmony.

K: Therefore let us deal with ( causation of this) disharmony and when there is the understanding of disharmony, from that may flow silence.

M: I observe my (state of inner) disorder but it seems to go on by itself.

K: Therefore there is a duality, a division in your observation, as the observer and the ( disharmony) observed. So we stop all that and ask: Is it possible to end disorder?

P: I see that it is manifested as thought.

K: I would like to go into it very carefully because
it is rather interesting. Why do I ( need to) call what I observe 'disorder'?
Which means I already have an inkling of what 'order' is. So I am
comparing what I have experienced previously as 'order' and thereby
ask what is ( to be done with the present inner ?) disorder.
(Experiential hint:) don't compare them, just see what ( are the factors of?) disorder. Comparison (of what was known in the past with what is now?) itself may be ( a major ) cause of (our inner) disorder.
As long as my ( self-centred ) mind is comparing, measuring (or evaluating itself according to the collective standards?) there must be disorder.

R: Even without comparing I look at myself and I see there is
disorder because every part of 'me' is pulling in a different direction.

P: You bring in words which I find very difficult to understand.
There is no conscious comparison by the mind which says, 'This is obviously a state of inner disorder and I want to end it.'

A: A sense of ( existential?) uneasiness ?

P: A sense of confusion, one thought against another thought. We all know this sense of inner confusion.

K: You only know the contradiction ( between conflicting thoughts & desires?) , which is (collaterally generating tehe inner state of ) confusion. The self-centred mind is in a state of confusion because it is contradicting itself all the time. Proceed from that.

P: Then I am bound to ask: Is it in the nature of the ( temporal?) mind?

K: Then what?

P: Then I observe myself (contemplating?) that question, and for the time being the activity of the ( time-bound) mind comes to an end.
There is an 'ending' ( of the time-thought process?) there. I now come back to my first question: In that ending is there still an
undercurrent ( of psychological time?) operating? When we talk of
different qualities and natures and dimensions of silence it comes down
to this. The traditional outlook is that the gap between two
thoughts ( of the 'thinker' ?) is silence.

K: That is not silence. Silence between two notes is not silence.
Listen to that noise outside. Absence of noise is not silence. It is
only a (temporary) absence of noise.
Pupulji, when you say 'disorder' I am not at all sure that you know ( by direct perception?) what ( the nature of inner ) disorder is. I overindulge in emotional nonsense, that is disorder...

P: Or I catch myself talking very loudly and that is ( also an indication of a certain inner) disorder.

K: So what is disorder? How do you know it is disorder?

R: It is not necessarily a recognition of disorder, because when
there is a conflict between the body, the mind...

K: You associate ( your state of inner) conflict with disorder ?

R: Well, the (ongoing) inner conflict makes one weary, as you say, and one instinctively feels that there is something wrong with it.

K: So you are saying that ( the presence of a) conflict indicates disorder.

R: Even when you don't name it.

K: Conflict 'is' disorder. 'You' (the all controling 'observer ' ?) translate it as disorder.

P: But what do I 'do' about ( this state of inner) conflict?

K: How am I to deal with conflict non-artificially? ( For starters?) You know nothing. You are listening for the first time. You 'look' (contemplate this whole issue?) . ( The next step:) is the mind capable of freeing itself from every kind of conflict? That is the only thing you can ask (right here & now)

R: Isn't the ( same self-conflicted?) mind which is asking the question ?

K: How can the ( inwardly earnest ) mind, knowing what conflict is
and what it does, end conflict? That is surely a legitimate question.

M: You assume that the ( average?) mind can do it ( ASAP ) ?

K: I don't know...( To recap) : This (state of inner) conflict is ( generated and sustaned?) by contradiction (between opposite threads of thought & desire ?) , comparison, imitation, conformity, suppression. Put all that into one ( holistically friendly ? ) word and ask whether your mind can be free of 'conflict'.

S: Of course it can be free of ( any particular) conflict, but the question arises: What is the nature of that (holistic) freedom from conflict?

K: How can you know it before you are free (of it?) ?

S: There is a 'knowing' of the state of conflict for the time being.

K: Is there a total ending of conflict (of all the inner struggle?) ?

M: I say there is no ending of conflict in the universe as we live
in it from day to day.

K: Don't include the universe. In the universe everything is
moving in order. Let us stick to our minds which seem to be
endlessly in conflict. Now, how is the ( spiritually earnest?) mind to end ( its inner & outer?) conflicts 'naturally', if every method (based on self-) control is out ? I say : the mind can be completely, utterly without conflict.

S: For ever?

K: Don't use the words 'for ever' because you are then introducing a word of time and ( thinking in terms of?) time is also a factor of (psychological?) conflict.

P: Can the mind be 'totally (immersed in its state of inner) conflict'?

K: What are you trying to say? I don't quite understand.

P: You see, I feel myself totally helpless in this situation. The
fact is there is conflict and the operation of the self on it leads to further conflict. Seeing the ( endless) nature of that, can the mind see that it is totally in conflict?

K: Is your mind 'totally aware' of (its inner?) conflict, or it is there a part of the mind which separates itself from the totality of conflict? If there is a ( subliminally?) separated fragment, then that fragment says: 'I must go beyond.' So this is a legitimate ( experiential) question.
Is your mind totally aware ( by total immersion?) that there is nothing but conflict or is there a fragment which steps aside and says, 'I am aware that I am in ( a state of inner) conflict but I am not in total conflict.' So, is (the state of inner) 'conflict' ( perceived as ) a fragment or is it total? Is there total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

R: If no 'light' were there, how could there be any (holistic) awareness?

K: Don't ask me that question. When there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is ( creating its own?) conflict. Is the (meditating) mind ever aware that it is (fully immersed) in total conflict?

P: I don't know anything about ( being in a state of ) 'total conflict'.

K: Therefore you know only partial conflict.

P: Whether it is partial or not, we know the fact that there is (an ongoing inner struggle or ) conflict and I asked : Can there be an (intelligent) refusal to 'move away'?

R: Sir, the very awareness of the mind indicates that there is a
fragment.

K: That is all. Therefore you are never ( completely in touch ) with conflict.

SWS: The totality of our inner conflict cannot (reveal?) itself unless there is something else (that is throwing some light on it?) .

K: We are going to go into that. When the whole room is full of furniture - I am just taking that as an ( experiential) example - there is no free space to move. I would consider that (inward condition) to be utter confusion. Is ( the inner space of my thought addicted ?) mind so totally full of confusion that it has no movement away from this? Then what takes place? That is what I want to get at. We are not discussing the partial this and the partial that. When the 'steam' is at full pressure it must explode, it must do something.
Could I use the word 'sorrow'? Is there such an inner state as being 'full of sorrow'? When you are completely full of this thing
called confusion, sorrow, conflict, it is no longer there. It
there only when there is a division. That is all.

R: Sir, then it seems to be a hopeless problem.

K: One has to remain with (& contemplate ?) the truth of the thing, not with the confusion of it. There is (a total insight into ) the truth of the thing when the mind is complete with something; then it cannot create ( any 'observer vs observer' ?) conflict. So I say, remain with the fact of that thing. Is my mind totally full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away till that is so.

M: There is one peculiarity about your approach. When you
draw a picture there is always a clear outline, the two colours don't merge. In reality there are no such clear outlines, the colours are merging with each other.

K: This to me is very clear : if the heart ( & mind?) is full of (Selfless ?) Love and there is no part of (jealousy or) envy in it, (my relational) problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is 'jealous', then the whole problem arises.

P: But when it is 'full of envy'?

K: Then remain with that envy fully - 'be' envious, feel ( the pain of ?) it!

P: Then I will know its total nature ?

K: It is a tremendous thing. If you say, 'I am envious, but I
must not be like that ', in a dark corner there lies the
educational restraint and then something goes ( dualistically?) wrong. But can I be 'envious' and not move away from that? (hint: 'moving away' is rationalizing, suppressing, all that) . Just remain with that (self-centred ) feeling. When there is ( a tidal wave of of ?) sorrow, be completely with it. This ( holistic approach by total immersion?) is 'merciless'. All the rest is playing ( time-binding ?) tricks. When you 'are' ( abiding totally ? ) with something ( of 'psychological' nature, a holistic ? ) action is taking place. 'You' don't have to do anything (as the integrated action is non-personal ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Sep 2018 #96
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

'BIOLOGICAL SURVIVAL AND THE HOLISTIC PERCEPTION OF INTELLIGENCE'
( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue)

Questioner P: In your talk of yesterday ( February 17, 1971) you posed the (homework ?) question whether the brain cells could strip themselves of everything ( of 'psychological' nature ?) except the movement of ( intelligent?) survival. And you seemed to suggest that before any movement in the new ( time-free ?) dimension could take place, this total stripping to the bare bedrock was essential.

Krishnamurti: We know both biological and psychological
survival. The biological ( organism lives based?) on survival, but the psychological factors ( born of self-interest?) have made that survival almost impossible (in the less fortunate places of the world?) .
Psychological fragmentation is destroying the beauty of survival (even in the fortunate places?) . Can one strip man's (consciousness?) of all the psychological factors?

P: Apart from the biological and psychological, isn't there any other element (within the human consciousness?) ?

Krishnamurti: (In the human consciousness?) 'as we know it', these are the only two (active) factors that operate.

F: Is there not a 'psychical' survival, apart from the physiological?

Krishnamurti: Which means the survival of the 'psyche' which is the result of environment, of heritage ? Last evening when we used the word "consciousness", we said that our whole consciousness 'is' ( expressing the psychological ?) content of consciousness. The (traditional psychological ?) content of consciousness ( as we now know it?) is conflict, pain; the whole of that is ( expressed in our everyday ?) consciousness.

D: But you have also said that 'Intelligence' is more than this (self-centred) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: We said that the understanding of the 'fact' of (this self-centred) consciousness and going beyond it, is ( the awakening of the holistic ) Intelligence. You cannot come to that Intelligence if your (everyday) consciousness is (entangled) in conflict. ( So, for starters?)
all that we know is the biological survival and the survival of our 'psychological' consciousness. What is the next question?

P: You implied yesterday that there was a necessity to
'strip it' so that nothing existed but biological survival.

Krishnamurti: In stripping the whole ( self-centred) content of ( the temporal?) consciousness that Intelligence is in operation. Then there is the biological (survival) and ( the holistic ?) Intelligence - there is no other.

P: You did not speak of ( the nature of this?) Intelligence yesterday. You said when there is this 'total stripping' and no other thing, that operation is the biological movement of survival and that perceives (the 'facts' of life directly) . Is there such a seeing?

Krishnamurti: The (directly perceiving ?) mind is not merely the survival element, but there is another quality in it which perceives.

P: What is that quality?

Krishnamurti: What did "K" say yesterday?
P: He said there is a stripping and there is only the movement of survival and 'that Silence' sees

Krishnamurti: Perfectly true. Now what the nature of this Silence?

P: That seeing is something which we can affirm. But there was
this other thing said, so that we cannot help asking if man is
stripped of everything which we consider the elements of the
human mind & heart …

Krishnamurti: Which is conflict, pain.

P: Not only that, there is also compassion...

.
Krishnamurti: Let us go back (to square one) . We want to survive psychologically and also biologically.

D: I say there is something else.

Krishnamurti: We will have to find it out. Merely to posit that
there is 'something else' has no ( experiential ) meaning.

P: When you say all this (self-centred psychological content?) is to be
stripped, what happens? Can we get the feeling of that ( holistic ) seeing?

Krishnamurti: We have said that Intelligence is beyond (man's temporal?) consciousness and when the mind is stripped of the psychological elements, in the very stripping there is the uncovering of this intelligence. Or rather, that ( compassionate?) intelligence comes into being in the very stripping. Then, there is the biological survival and intelligence. (Hint : ) Intelligence has no heritage, ( while the temporal?) consciousness has heritage. We are caught in the becoming within the field of ( the temporal) consciousness.
( For extra homework?) Let the (meditating?) mind empty itself of all that. In this very emptying comes intelligence. Therefore there are only two things left: the highest form of intelligence and survival which then, is entirely different from animal survival. Man is able to think, design, construct...

P: Do you mean to say there is a (quality of timeless?) Intelligence which manifests (or unfolds?) itself in this very stripping?

Krishnamurti: Listen carefully. My (self-focussed ?) consciousness is all the time trying to become better, modify, struggle (for success?) etc. That is all we know . And within that struggle (of our temporal becoming) we 'project' ( something of spiritual nature ?) beyond ( this time-bound) consciousness, but which is still within ( our temporal) consciousness because it is projected.
Now, the ( earnest human ) mind that really wants to be free from the wrangle, the back-chattering asks, can the mind strip "itself" of all the content of "itself"? That is all. (Pause.) And in that, Intelligence comes to be.

P: Is this 'stripping', the emptying (of the self-centred content) an endless process?

Krishnamurti: It is not an endless process.

P: You mean, once it is done, it is done (for good?) ?

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly. You must first understand intellectually ( the nature of this emptying?). My ( self-centred) consciousness is made up of all that we have talked about.

P: The emptying of it, does it take time or is it free of time? Is
it piecemeal, or is it an emptying of the whole (content at once?) ?

Krishnamurti: Is that the question?

P: Is there an awareness of a point of consciousness - such as
jealousy – or an awareness of the totality of all consciousness?

Krishnamurti: If you mean an awareness of all the implications
- in which there is no choice, no will, no compulsion, no resistance, obviously it is so.

P: So at any point this is possible?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

P: Yes, because that is the 'door (in the wall'?); the door of dissolution.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin slowly because I want to
go step by step. My consciousness is made up of all this. My ( self-centred) consciousness is part of the whole (consciousness of mankind?) , both at the superficial and at the deeper level and you are asking, is there any ( holistic?) awareness which is so penetrating that in that very awareness the whole is present? Or is it bit by bit - a looking in and an analysing?

D: The yogic ( philosophical) position is that Nature is a flowing river (of universal Life) . In that flow, man's physical organism comes into being. As soon as it comes into being, it has also the capacity to 'choose' (to make existential choices?) and the moment it chooses,
it ( illusorily?) separates itself from the Now, from the River of Life . Therefore, they say that the dissolution of choice may bring you to total emptiness and in that emptiness you see.

Krishnamurti: Right sir, that is one point. "P"s question was, is
this inner awareness, this process of stripping bit by bit, or does it empty the whole of consciousness?

P: And my second question was : where there is intelligence is
there stripping?

Krishnamurti: Let us start with the first question which is good
enough. Let us begin again (from Square One?)
My present consciousness is used to the process of time, it thinks in terms of gradualness, and through practice to achieve (the ultimate Liberation?) , which a process of ( thought & ) time.
Now I am asking : can this ( self-centred) consciousness go beyond this? Can we, who are caught in the movement of time, go beyond time?
That question, ( our temporal?) consciousness cannot answer.
It does not even know what it means, because it can
only think in terms of time and when questioned whether this
process can end – an ending in which there is no 'time', it cannot answer, can it?
Now as (our temporal?) consciousness cannot answer the question, we say let us see what is 'awareness' and investigate whether that awareness can bring about a timeless state? But this brings in a new ( experiential?) element. What is ( the nature of choiceless ?) awareness? Is it within the field of time, is it outside the field of time?
Is there an (inner) awareness without any ( personal) choice,
explanation, justification, or condemnation? Or is there the ( self-interest motivated ) awareness of the 'observer', of the 'chooser'? And if there is, is that ( a holistic?) awareness? So is there possible a (non-personal) awareness in which there is no 'observer' ( entity ) at all?
Obviously ; when I am just aware of this lamp, there is no ( personal) choice involved .
Is there a (holistic) awareness in which the observer is totally absent? (Hint : this is not not a state of 'continuous awareness' in which the observer is absent, which again is a fallacious ( misleading ? ) statement).

A: The word is 'swarupa shunyata'. The observer becomes
empty. He is stripped.

Krishnamurti: Now how does this ( observer-free) awareness to come about without ( our self-) consciousness interfering? Does it flower out of ( our temporal ) consciousness? Or is it free of it ?

D: It is obviously free of ( the time-bound ) consciousness.

P: I want to ask two things. Does it come about when I ask the
question "who am I? Or does the (holistic) awareness come about when one tries to discover the 'observer'?

Krishnamurti: No. The moment 'you try' (to be aware) , you are in time.

P: But what and where is the 'observer' ? We are taking for granted that
the observer "is".

Krishnamurti: Let us begin slowly. One sees what (the temporal ?)
consciousness is. Any ( self-centred ) movement within that field, is still a process of time. It may try to 'be' or 'not to be', it may try to
go beyond (its own limitations?) , it may try to invent something beyond consciousness, but it is still part of time. So I am stuck.

P: If I have to use my own ( available?) instruments. What is
the element in my consciousness which seems to be the most potent and powerful: It is the sense of the "I".

Krishnamurti: Which is the ( 'psychologically active' memory of the?) past.

P: I will not use your language. I would say the most potent thing (in our everyday consciousness?) is the sense of the "I". Now, can there be a direct perception of this "I"?

F: That is a wrong question. I will tell you why : the "I" is nothing but (the focussing of?) an insatiable hunger for experience.

Krishnamurti: Is the "me", the "I" an action of ( the temporal?) consciousness? Is that the central factor in ( one's everyday ?) consciousness?

P: It seems so. And then I said : let me see the "I", let me find it,
perceive it, touch it.

Krishnamurti: Is this central factor perceivable sensorily?
Is it tactable, to be felt, to be tasted? Or is it something which the senses have invented ?

P: That comes later. First of all, can it be perceived ( sensorially) ?
Is this "I" which is the central core of myself, is it 'tactable' ? As one observes both in the surface layers and in the hidden ones, as it unfolds, what takes place is a light within, an explosion, an extension within. Another factor that operates is that which has been exclusive becomes all-inclusive. So far I have been exclusive, now the 'world' movement flows in.

Krishnamurti: We see that.

P: And so I find this is not something which can be touched,
perceived. What can be perceived is that which has been, which is
a manifestation of this "I". I see I had a thought of this "I'' in
action, but it is already over. Then I explore - from where does
thought emerge? Can I find the springs of thought? Or where does
thought go? Can I pursue a thought? How far can I go with a
thought? How far can I hold a thought? Can thought be held in
consciousness? These are tangible things which I think the (spiritually earnest?) individual has to completely feel for himself ( for the meditation homework?) .

Krishnamurti: I thought we had (already) done all this...

F: I say all this is ( contained in our choiceless ) awareness.

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. One finds on ( one's meditative) investigation that the "I" is not ( directly) observable, touchable, hearable, and so on. So, have the ( thought aided activity of the?) senses created the ( self-protective focussing of the?) "I" ?

D: We were supposed to go into the nature of awareness. Now how does ( the choiceless) awareness arise?

P: I want to put aside ( the authority of?) everything Krishnaji has said and I find that the ( meditative?) investigation into the "I" creates
light, intelligence.

Krishnamurti: You are saying, that such self-enquiry brings about ( an inward ) awareness. Obviously, I did not say it did not.

P: And in this enquiry, the field of the 'without' and the field of the 'within' is illuminated. Now in this state of illumination, you suddenly find that there has been a thought, but that it is already over.

Krishnamurti: The self-centred thinking exists in the field of relationship and ( sensory) observation. It does not exist by itself. It exists in observing relationship - the lamp...

P: In this case, if you ask is there a partial or total stripping, the
question is irrelevant. It has no meaning.

Krishnamurti: Is our perception partial? I have investigated through the senses, the senses creating the "I", investigating the "I". This activity brings an inner lightness, a clarity. Is that clarity expandable?

P: The nature of seeing is depending on the ( perceptive) power of the eye.

Krishnamurti: We said ( the direct) perception is not only visual but also
non-visual. We said perception is that which illuminates.

P: Here I would like to ask ( a bonus question?) You have said that seeing is not only 'visual' but also 'non-visual'. What is the nature of this
'non-visual' seeing?

Krishnamurti: The 'non-visual' perception is the perception without the
( aid of the verbal) meaning, (and without the interference of?) thought.
Is there a ( silent ?) perception without thought? Now proceed.

P: This is not such a difficult thing. I see there is such (non-verbal)
perception. That perception can see close, can see far.
Now, where comes the partial stripping or the total stripping? We
started with that.

Krishnamurti: When there is (activated ) this 'non-verbal' perception, what are you asking further?

F: In any everyday perception, there is this 'non-verbal' element of direct perception, but there is also the psychological superimposition. The 'stripping' refers only to the psychological superimposition. Our ( second bonus?) question is : Is there a state of mind in which this superimposition does not occur and there is no need for any stripping?

P: That is right. We are asking is there a ( time-free?) perception in which the stripping ( of the psychological content?) is not necessary?

Krishnamurti: There is no such thing as an everlasting (state of holistic ) perception?

P: Is it identical with what you call Intelligence?

Krishnamurti: I do not know. Why are you asking that?

P: Because it is timeless.

Krishnamurti: Is there a ( holistic?) perception which is non-verbal, is it not also 'non-time', 'non-thought'? If you have ( experientially) answered this question you have answered that (regarding the psychological 'stripping' or 'not stripping') . Is there ( a holistic quality of ?) perception that is non-verbal and therefore not pertaining to ( the process of self-centred) thought? Then what is the question? A mind that is perceiving is not asking (academic ) questions, it is 'perceiving'. And each perception is ( a new) 'perception'. It is not carrying over perception.

P: Even the sensory perception is never carried into another thought. I see that lamp. The seeing has not been carried. Only the thought of it is being carried.

Krishnamurti: That is obvious. My consciousness is the result of my sensory perceptions, but it is also the result of ( our long evolution in) time. It is expandable, contractable and so on. And (the process of our self-centred) thinking is part of that. Now somebody comes along and
asks ( the ages old existential question?) "who am I?". Is this "I" the permanent entity in ( our temporal) consciousness?

D: It cannot be...

Krishnamurti: This "I" - is it ( the self-focussing of this time-bound ?) consciousness? This (point) is very clear : the "I" is that consciousness.

P: Still, "I" has a great reality for me till I investigate.

Krishnamurti: Of course. But after looking, observing, I
see that I 'am' the whole of this consciousness. I am the 'heritage'.
Now, is this ( temporal?) "I" touchable, observable, or is it the result of ( the self-focussing of all our cultural ) heritage?

F: It is not 'the result'. It 'is' the inherited.

Krishnamurti: And then she asks : is that "I" part
of consciousness, part of thought? I say ''yes''. Thought is the "I", except where thought is functioning strictly technologically, where there is no "I". The moment you move away from the 'scientific' field, you come to the "I" which is part of (our self-protective?) biological heritage.

F: The "I" is the working (& processing?) centre of ( the sensory) perception, an 'ad hoc' centre (of self-consciousness)

Krishnamurti: Be simple. We see ( that the collective heritage of our self-centred) consciousness is the "I". In the field (of inherited consciousness?) , the "I" is the centre.

P: In asking : What is the "I", what is its nature? One investigates that and in the ( self-revealing?) process of observation there is (an influx of inner light & ) clarity.

Krishnamurti: Full stop.

P: Clarity being not eternal.,....

Krishnamurti: But it can pick it up again.

P: (That's a big ? ) 'maybe' !

Krishnamurti: At the moment of ( a direct ) perception the ( duration?) question does not arise. However, the next moment I do not perceive so clearly...

P: If I am alert to see that I am not perceiving so clearly, I will
investigate ( what caused?) that.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) There is a (direct holistic) perception.
In that perception there is no question of duration. There is only
perception. The next minute I do not see clearly. There is no clear
perception. It is muddled. There is ( at any point the possibility of ) investigating ( the causes ) of pollution and so
clarity. Right? And again perception; move again; cover and
uncover - and this goes on (& on & on...?) .

P: A very interesting thing takes place. The very nature of this (holistic?)
awareness is that it operates on inattention.

Krishnamurti: Being aware of inattention, becomes attention. This (inner) balancing is going on all the time.

P: I observe the very nature of attention. It has its own action on (the deeper causes of) inattention. It would be incorrect thing for me to say "it lessens ( the span of) inattention" , but there is an action of attention on inattention.

Krishnamurti: Does this (subliminal?) action wipe away
inattention so that inattention does not come again?

P: I'll say that the nature of this ( holistic) attention is such that it operates on the brain cells. That which is dormant in the
brain-cells – and which re-emerges when it is exposed to attention, the
very nature of the dormancy undergoes a change. I would like this
area to be investigated.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin again (from the 'experiential square one'?) . Awareness - if there is ( any element of personal) choice in that awareness we are (ASAP?) back again in ( the old self-centred) consciousness. Awareness is non-verbal. Awareness has no relationship to thought. This ( non-personal ?) awareness we call attention.
What takes place when there is inattention ? In that ( inertial?) inattention there are certain ( fragmentary) actions going on. And they bring further ( psychological) misery & confusion.
So ( the first reaction is to ?) say to myself, I must be attentive all the time so as to prevent this disturbance taking place and I say I have to cultivate attention and therefore that very (self-interested?) 'cultivation' becomes inattention. The seeing of that inattention brings ( back the inner order of?) attention. ( The holistic nature of?) attention affects the brain cells. Now what takes place?

P: Is it not really that 'you' can do nothing about it?

Krishnamurti: I agree "P; hold on a minute. Do not say there is
nothing (to be done?) . We will find out. There is attention
and there is inattention. In inattention everything is confusion. Why
do 'I' ( the 'thinker-in-control'?) want to put the two together? When I put the two together, then there is an action of personal choice. I
prefer attention; I do not prefer inattention - so I am back again in
the field of ( the 'good-old ' self-centred ?) consciousness.

So what is the ( enlightening ?) action where the two are never brought together?
( Re-re-recap:)
When there is attention, thought as ( the mechanical response of psychological memory ?) memory does not operate.
There is no ( ego-centric ) thinking process in attention. There is only attention. I realise I have been inattentive only when my action produces discomfort, misery and/or danger. Then I say to myself, ''(By Jove?) I have been inattentive !'' and as ( this stretch?) of inattention has left a ( psychological) mark on the brain, I am ( back to 'square one' again?) concerned with the ( collateral darkness & inner ?) misery which inattention has brought about. Then in investigating that 'misery', attention comes again leaving no mark. So actually what is taking place? Each time there is ( an time-span of ?) inattention there is a quick, instant perception of ( the inner dis-harmony created by ) inattention. Therefore ( this insightful?) perception is not of duration, of time.
Perception and attention leave no mark. The immediacy of
perception is always taking place. (QED???)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Sep 2018 #97
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

'THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO INNER EXPLORATION'
( a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1971)

A: Can we explore the validity of the 'cause-effect' sequence in ( the context of ?) self-understanding ?

Krishnamurti: What does it mean to 'explore'? What is the state
of the mind which explores ? You're implying that all action has a cause and that cause affects our actions and without understanding (the primary?) cause our action will always be limited. So explore the cause, understand the cause and thereby bring about a mutation in action.

( For starters?) I may not know the ( original?) cause of my action. There may be obvious causes and other causes which are undiscoverable by the conscious mind. I can see the superficial causes for my daily action; but these superficial causes ( may?) have very deep roots in the recesses of one's own being.
Now, can the 'conscious' mind examine not only the superficial
but also uncover the deeper causes ? Can the conscious mind ever examine the deeper layers? And what is the state of the mind which
explores? These three questions are important. Otherwise the
discovering of the cause has no true meaning (in the holistic context?)

First, we asked what is the quality of the mind which is exploring? Brfore I begin to explore, I must find (or check?) out the state of the mind which explores. What is the quality of the mind that has the capacity, that can explore inwardly ? Obviously, it must be a mind which is free (from the known?) . Have you a mind that is free from any previous conclusions?

A: We may have some unconfessed postulates, but we can see and drop them (ASAP?) .

Krishnamurti: What you are saying is implying self-analysis. You are
analysing ( those postulates/ root assumptions ? ) step by step. But when you analyse them (intellectually?) , what takes place? There
is the ( 'unconfessed' duality between the?) analyser and the thing analysed. The 'analyser' must be extremely clear-sighted to analyse, and if this analysis is in any way twisted, it is not worth anything. Besides, this the (psycho-)analytical, intellectual process implies (lots of?) time (& money?) . By the time you have enquired the possible cause, other ( hidden) factors enter which distort the cause.
So ( from the holistic point of view?) the way of analysis is entirely wrong. So, there has to be a dropping of analysis.

J: I am feeling confused.

Krishnamurti: Yes, it is a 'fact' we are confused. We do not know
what to do ( regarding the active factors of 'what is'?) and we begin to analyse. It is difficult with the conscious mind to examine the
hidden layers. So I feel this whole 'intellectual' approach is wrong. I
say this without any disrespect.

A: We have only that tool - the intellect, as a means of (objective self-)
examination. Is our intellect capable of examination except to
collect, recollect, foresee & analyse? It is, but (our self-centred mind?)
only a fragment (of our total consciousness?) . Therefore, the examination by a fragment can only bring about a fragmentary understanding. So, what do we do?

Krishnamurti: You say the intellect is the only instrument one
has which has the capacity to examine (objectively) . But doesn't it examine only partially (according to its available knowledge?) ? If I see the (inward) truth of the fact that the intellect can only examine partially I am no longer using the intellect.

A: Even when the ( exploring) mind turns away from (psych)analysis, it may falls into other (mental) traps; so, with what instrument do we explore (reliably?) ? Our reason must corroborate what you say.

J: You arrive there by some path which is not analytical. We see
the logic of it.
Krishnamurti: I tell you analysis is not the way of ( the holistic self-) understanding and I give you the logical sequences using reason. That
is only an explanation. Why don't you see the truth that analysis is
not the way?

A: In his effort to understand environment, nature, outer
phenomenon man has developed '& perfected) certain instruments and here too we ( instinctively try to?) use the same instruments; but they are inadequate.

Krishnamurti: The 'analysis' process involves ( the subliminal continuity of the 'analyser' in?) time. As it involves (its own continuity in?) time, it must be partial. The 'partial' (aspect ) is brought about because the intellect is part of the whole structure.

A: Then, what is the available instrument to explore ?

Krishnamurti: If I am finished with analysis, this very ( negation of the analytical approach ) frees the mind from a ( holistically?) 'false' process altogether. So the mind is now much more (direct & ) vital. It
is like a man ( unknowingly carrying?) a heavy burden and all of a sudden that heavy burden is removed.

A: But with us that (subliminal?) burden ( of trying to fix that causality problem in terms of time?) comes back.

Krishnamurti: The moment you perceive something to be 'false'
how can it return? The moment you see that the snake is
dangerous, you do not go back to the 'snake'.

J: Is there some other way?

Krishnamurti: But this (time-free perceptive) instrument is now very sharp, very clear; it abstains from any partial action taking place.
Sir, the whole analytical process is finished.

A: When we have gone through this....

Krishnamurti: I am showing you how to explore (holistically?) . What you have done is you have used intellect and thought that was the complete answer. The intellect itself has become valueless as an (inwardly perceiving ) instrument functioning apart from other factors. I am asking myself : if my intellect is not the ( holistic?) instrument of examination, then what takes place?

A: One comes to believe in the need for support of some prop, when one comes to this point.

Krishnamurti: The ( truth of the ) fact is that our intellect cannot understand a 'total movement'. Then, if the intellect cannot explore, what is the ( holistically friendly?) instrument that can explore?

R: The Vedantic concept is that with the intellect you cannot
'see', but with the (Inner) Self or the Atman, which is of the very nature of ( holistic) perception, you can see.

Krishnamurti: What is the quality of the mind if ( it sees the truth that?) the intellect is not the (proper) instrument ? Therefore, we are asking: What is the quality of the 'mind' that can explore (holistically?) - mind being not only the intellect but the (integrated activity of the?)
brain cells, the biological, the physical, the nerves, the whole thing,
the total, the complete. What the nature of an (insightful?) perception that is 'total' ? It is only such a total perception that can examine. And
it may not need to examine at all, because that which has to be
examined is ( the result?) of the partial field - division, analysis, exploration.
( In a nutshell:) I am asking what is the quality of a totally (insightful?) perception?

R: It seems as if there is no ( readily available perceptive) 'instrument' because the instrument belongs to something.

Krishnamurti: What is the ( experiential) difficulty? When you look out of the window and see these bushes, how do you look at them? You are
usually thinking about something and at the same time looking. I
say you have to 'look' (non-dualistically ?) , that is all. ( In the context of a direct perception) I have no (need to evaluate or to ?) measure. I
do not ( have to) verbalize (either) . We said just now that a partial looking is no ( insightful?) looking at all, therefore, ( if my) mind has finished with the partial, when I do look, I 'look'.

R: The element of habit in ( the dualistic 'observer'/ 'observed') is so strong.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, the mind which is caught in habit
cannot explore (holistically?). So we have to ( take an experiential detour & ) examine the ( time-bound) mind which is caught in habit. We have to understand habit. Forget causation & (intellectual) analysis. Can the mind understand 'habit'? Let us tackle that.

R: What is the difference between direct perception and the( mental habit of verbal?) recognition? For us ( the everyday) perception is only there in the form of recognition.

Krishnamurti: You recognize through association (with what was known previously?) . Recognition is part of the ( mental?) 'habit' of association. So I am saying you cannot examine or explore (holistically) with a mind which is used to the habit (of verbal recognition?) . Therefore,
find out the 'mechanism of habit'. How have habits been formed? That is the 'door' (to the insightful perception ?) : why does the mind fall into
habits? Is it because it is the easiest ( 'no-brain' ?) way to
function? To get up at six am , to go to bed at nine pm. There is no
friction; I do not have to think about it.

A: I look at a tree. I do not have to 'think about it', but my mind says 'it is a tree'.

Krishnamurti: It (the verbalising process?) is an ( ages old mental ?) habit. Why does the (conscious) mind fall into habit? It
is the easiest way to live; it is easy to live 'mechanically'. Sexually
and in every other way it is easy to live that way. I can live a life
without any change, because in that ( 'playing safe' mental attitude?) I find complete security. In habit there is no self-examination, searching, asking.

R: I live ( comfortably enough ?) within the field of habit.

Krishnamurti: But ( these mechanical) habits can only function within a very limited field. Like a 'professor 'who is marvellous (in his own area of competency?) but functions ( pretty much?) like a monk who operates within a very small cell. ( In a nutshell?) The ( temporal?) mind wanting ( to optimise its inner ) safety & security, lives in patterns.
( Hint : ) This was a 'partial' analytical examination. But it does not free the mind from patterns. So what shall one do?

A: Then, how does the ( time-bound ) mind free itself totally from habit?

Krishnamurti: I am going to show you. If your mind is no longer going to examine the causes of habit, it is (ASAP?) free of the burden of analysis which is part of the 'habit' ( creating mechanism) . So you
have got rid of it (in no time???) .

R: Yes, yes...

Krishnamurti: It ( one's psychological dependency on habits?) 'must' go. Not merely verbally. Habit is not only symptomatic, but psychosomatic. When we have ( insightfully ?) examined ( the hidden mechanism of?) habit as we have done now, it is over.

A: Still, we are not free of (inwardly relying on?) habits.

Krishnamurti: Because you start out by saying "I know" (a little something about it, but I want to know more?) . There is a certain sense of (subliminal intellectual ?) arrogance. You do not say "I want to find out (the whole truth about it, from scratch?) ."

Then what is the totally (insightful?) perception when the mind is free from habit? ( Hint : The hidden mechanism of) 'habit' implies (relying heavily on personal or collective?) conclusions, formulas, ideas, principles. All these are habits. ( Functioning safely in habits?) is the essence of the 'observer' (mental entity) .

R: This is all that the ( temporal?) "I" knows.

Krishnamurti: That is where the ( traditionalistic ?) damage is done, ( relying inwardly on what ?) the other people have established, the Shankaras, the Buddhas and all the others. I prefer this one, I prefer the other one, and so on. I will not let go because that is my vanity.
Therefore, Sirs, ( an authentic inner) humility is necessary : I know absolutely nothing and I am not going to repeat a word which I have myself not found (to be true) .
I really do not want to 'know'. I know this is not the way. I do not
want to know anything more. That is all. The door which I thought
was real is not the door. What happens later? If I do not move in that
direction (of inwardly accumulating 'fake knowledge' ?) , I will (hopefully?) find out ( the experiential truth?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Sep 2018 #98
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

'HOLISTIC ORDER AND IDEATION'

A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue (cca 1970)

Krishnamurti: How do the 'professionals' ( of the traditional philosophy ?) regard the perception of the 'fact'?

R: In Vedanta, it is said that consciousness acts through the
sense organs. It sees an object. Consciousness takes the form of the
object. It is like water taking the shape of the vessel. That is (the basic mechanism of ?) perception.

Krishnamurti: And what is perception, the seeing, to you? For instance when you see this chest of drawers ?

A: There is the direct seeing, and immediately later the naming.

Krishnamurti: So, there is seeing, mental association, recognition and naming. I see you this morning. I saw you
yesterday and, therefore, there is a (subjective?) ) image of you. So that image 'is' ( subliminally associated with the real ) you. Isn't there a difference between the physical object of perception and the mental image of perception?

A: There is a difference between the two. One is purely an
image of a shape as in the case of a physical object, the other is an image created by (our personal) reactions, which are not merely form and shape.

Krishnamurti: The chest of drawers, the ( visual image ) and the naming of it, has formed a (virtual ) 'image' in the brain cells and they have been conditioned by a particular ( cultural) environment to call it a 'chest of drawers'.

A: The question is that the idea about the fact arises which may not necessarily be factual.

Krishnamurti: Are you saying that the naming of ( an intimate ) feeling does strengthen the (active memory of the?) past?

A: I meet my brother. He has quarrelled with me and I am on
my guard when I meet him next. So I am unable to see him at all. I
am only seeing the idea.

R: The brain cells do carry the 'image' of the hurt.

Krishnamurti: There is a violent reaction of anger. At the very moment of anger, there is no naming. A second later, I ( try to distance myself from it and ?) call it 'anger'. The ( dual purpose of?) naming that feeling as 'anger' is (a) to record that fact and ( b) to strengthen (the psychological content of my ) memory, which has recognized that feeling as anger.
Why do we say "I am getting angry"? Why is there
the need to put it into words? Is it merely a ( verbalising?) habit ?

A: A defence mechanism starts. The recognition itself is creating a situation which says "I do not want to get into conflict."

Krishnamurti: That is one part of it - naming as a process of self-defence. Why does one name a particular reaction?

A: If I did not name, there would not be continuity.

Krishnamurti: Why does the mind give it a continuity?

R: To feel that it exists.

Krishnamurti: Why has naming become so important? Naming strengthens the 'me' (the identity of the 'namer' ) . If I did not name, what
would happen? ( The 'personal' memory of that) anger would be over.
It may be part of ( brain's recording ) habit, a form of giving continuity to ( something pleasant or unpleasant that happened in the past?) and the not ending of it. All that indicates that the ( self-centred) mind needs occupation. Now, why is the mind demanding to be occupied with sex, God, with money? Why?

A: The ( temporal ?) mind needs to get ( physically, intellectually and/or emotionally?) stimulated all the time. If there were no such stimuli, the mind would fall asleep.

Krishnamurti: Is it so? Isn't this very occupation not putting the ( deeper capacities of the?) mind to sleep? The moment we begin to enquire why there is this necessity for any kind of occupation, the mind is already ( becoming inwardly more ?) alive.

A: Mere absence of occupation is not enough (for an effective inner awakening)

Krishnamurti: Of course, there are many (millions? ) who get duller and duller every day without any ( seriously motivating?) occupation. But the ( 100 $ psycho-analitical?) question is why does your mind want to be occupied? Is it fear of ( facing the painful sense of inner) emptiness that makes the ( self-centred ?) mind want to be occupied (with something rewarding) ?

In ( the meditative?) enquiry the mind will not go to sleep. It is
only the mind that is not occupied which can enquire.
( Unfortunately?) most of us fall into habits which prevent looking. But if I ask myself 'why ?' I open the door to enquiry.
So 'naming' may be part of this fear of not knowing what to do (regarding the real challenge of life ?) .

A: Fear of leaving the 'shores of the known' ?

Krishnamurti: That is all. So, can the (awakening ?) brain cells observe their own reaction called 'anger' , not name it and ( remain quietly with it?) so, be finished with it? In this (holistical approach?) , there is no carrying over. When next time the reaction arises, which I have ( previously ?) named as 'anger' or 'fear', it has quite a different meaning, a different quality.

A: Our difficulty is that we meet ( this disturbing reaction of anger through the buffering ) screen of ideas.

Krishnamurti: We see that ( the mental habit of?) naming is a ( self-protective) factor which gives continuity to anger. If I see the truth that by naming ( that instinctive reaction of anger ) we give it continuity ?) I do not name it . As I see the (immediate ) danger of the snake and do not touch it, I do not touch this also. So, if the habit of naming is finished, ( the vital energy expressed as ?) anger undergoes a (major qualitative?) change.

R: It seems as if during the moment when we are capable of
observing anger, anger disappears, and anger exists in the moment
when we are not capable of observing.

Krishnamurti: ( First, one has to ?) see the 'falsity' of naming. Then, what happens to the ( angry) response? This (quenching?) instantly happens and therefore, there is no (personal recording of the ) hurt at all.

Achyutji' s question was ''Why do we have ideas first and then perception, action ?''

A: Instead of one ( holistic) act of perception we have ( the response of ) our deep (self-protective) conditioning. All these together, the cultural, the sociological, the anthropological - are a ready-made frame of reference which give us a sense of (relative inner) security.

Krishnamurti: Do you not know why we do this? We know ( by experience) that economically and sociologically it is beneficial. Step out of the life-formulas, patterns of Hinduism, you will then see what happens.

Personally, I have no ('fail-safe' life ?) 'formula'. But (for homework try to ?) find out why you do have 'formulas', patterns, which give you safe conduct in ( your everyday) action. We lay down the line according to which we act and in (pursuing that line of safe-conduct?) there is safety ( and the occasional rewards?) . So fear of insecurity must be one of the reasons why we have ( life-) formulas & ideals. The ( self-centred) mind wants to be 'certain' (at all times ) . The brain cells function perfectly only when there is an ( inner sense of being in ) complete security. The brain cells function ( at their best ) only when there is perfect order. And there is perfect order in a ( fail-safe ?) pattern of life.

A: You mean that 'physiologically', we have an inbuilt desire for
order ?

Krishnamurti: If I do not have a certain type of ( inner) order, the physical organism rebels. Order is absolutely necessary, essential. ( And preset life?) formulas are the safest ( the 'no-brain'?) way to have order. Have you not noticed that before you go to sleep, the brain cells try
establish ( a 'feel-good' sense of ) order? "I should not have done this, I should not have said this." And when going to sleep, unless you establish order, the brain tries to create its own ( real or virtual?) order. These are all facts. The brain cells demand order which is ( projected in terms of survivalistic ) security. And ( society's strongly recommended 'life-) formulas' are one of the safest ways of conducting one's life without ( unnecessary disturbance &?) disorder.

(In a nutshell:) Formulas (of safe-behaviour?) are necessary for a ( self-centred) mind that hopes to find ( an inner sense of peace & ) order in tribalism – and if you step out of that, there is danger. Now, the brain cells demand order and they use ( borrowed cultural ) 'formulas' as a means to (achieve a sense of undisturbed inner ?) order. ( Unfortunately ) seeking for order through ( a preset) formula creates further division, disorder.
Once I see the real danger of this then what happens? Then I do
not seek safety in formula, then I enquire whether there is safety in
any other direction, whether there is such a thing as ( an endless psychological?) safety.

A: But the brain needs safety.

Krishnamurti: The brain must have ( a sense of inner) order.

A: Order is not safety ?

Krishnamurti: Order is safety, order is harmony, but the very
search for ( the perfect psychological ?) order ends in disorder. So, seeing this, I drop all ( such?) formulas. Dropping is ( an action of brain's natural ) intelligence. In the very dropping the mind has become very intelligent. Intelligence is order. I do not know if you see this. In enlightenment there is ( a time-free ) order. Therefore, the brain can function in perfect condition. Then relationship has quite a different meaning.

( In a nutshell:) The brain cells are ( instinctively) seeking order in (trying to adapt to the patterns of man-made?) disorder. They do not see the nature of this disorder. It is only when the brain cells reject ( the traditional paterns of?) tribalism and ( other ?) formulas , in the very rejection ( of the old there ) is ( the awakening of a new quality of ?) intelligence, which 'is' (generating its own ?) Order.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Sep 2018 #99
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

'HOLISTIC ENERGY AND THE CAUSES OF INNER FRAGMENTATION'

( A "reader friendly" edited K dialogue, 1971)

Questioner A: After listening to yesterday's talk, I wonder what is
meant by ( holistic) energy? When I heard your talk and looked at all the fields of my activity, I seem to know nothing but fragmentary energy.

Krishnamurti: These are ( part of a total ?) energy which is (constantly being compartmentalised ot ) fragmented as physical energy, intellectual energy, emotional energy, there is the energy of anger, of greed; they are all various forms of energy, like human energy and cosmic energy. They are all (apparently?) divided, but they are energy.

A: I listen to you (for many years ) , but I never seem to ( experimentally?) come upon (the actual truth of?) what you're saying .

Krishnamurti: It may be the traditional (knowledge based) approach that holds us to a particular pattern, to that (constant compartmentalisation of) energy. Yesterday did the (K) Speaker not say that all energy springs from one (inward ?) source of energy?

A: All that we seem to know is the fragmentary (energy) , and you speak of something else.

Krishnamurti: Then what will you do? How do you stop the
fragmentation of energy? How do the traditionalists, approach this problem of various forms of energy contradicting each other and
one form of energy assuming the dictatorship of the rest, trying to (keep everything under?) control, or even to suppress some of them ?

A: It is 'shunyata', or (inner) voidness. Having eliminated (the conflicts of interest between the various fragments ?) , what is left is an inner ( emptiness or?) void. In this 'void' is contained everything. Did you come to this spontaneously?

Krishnamurti: What do the professionals say?

A: Sankara says: "Acquire learning and the prestige that goes
with it, so what? Acquire wealth and the power that goes with it, so
what? Visit many countries, feed and entertain your friends, help
the poor and the sick, bathe in the Ganga, give alms in vast
quantities, repeat mantras by the million, etc., so what? All these
are of no avail unless the ( true nature of the?) Self is realized."

Krishnamurti: So, what was the question that we were trying to discuss, explore?

A: We only know the various fragmented expressions of (our total ?) energy. Is it possible to see the entire field?

Krishnamurti: If one fragment or many fragments exist, 'who' is
the entity that is going to observe the totality of energy? Are our
minds so ( ego-centrically ) conditioned that we cannot break ourselves from the conditioning?

A: We are so conditioned...

Krishnamurti: What is the problem? I have been seeing only
this fragment (pointing to a portion of the carpet) and you say this
fragment would not exist if there was no total carpet. There is this
little bit of carpet which is part of this whole carpet. My whole life has
been spent in observing ( and/or in dealing with the countless problems & complexities of the 'known'?) fragment. You come along and say this is part of the 'whole' (consciousness?) , this would not exist if the other did not exist. But I cannot take my (mind's?) eyes off this fragment. I may agree intellectually that ( the 'known' fragment?) can only exist because of the 'whole carpet' (of Mind?) but I have never, never ( took a step back & ?) looked (non-personally) at the whole carpet. I have never moved away from this. My attention has
been fixed on ( whatever is happening within?) this little bit of carpet. And I do not know how to 'remove my eyes' and look at the whole carpet. If one can look ( holistically?) at the whole carpet, one can see there is no contradiction, no duality. But if I say I must
suppress this or that fragment in order to see the whole, there is duality.

R: This ( holistic metaphor) is 'intellectually (-wise', exceedingly ? ) clear.

Krishnamurti: It is a very good exercise ( in the holistic approach to self-knowledge ?)- first, intellectually I have to understand what is being said But as the intellect is also one of the fragments within the carpet, if only the 'intellect' sees, ( the conclusion of the intellectual ) perception is back into (the field of the known?)
(In a nutshell:) And as long as our perception is ( subliminally controlled ) by the 'observer' fragment, there is no perception of the whole carpet. So, when you say ''I understand this intellectually'', you have already moved away (from the opportunity of a non-personal & non-verbal inner observation ?) .

R: (The self-centred 'observer' ) that is looking is also a fragment.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, ( for the 'holistic meditation' homework?) deny the fragment. (Pause)
You see, even our everyday thinking is a 'linear' (from A to B?) thinking. This ( thinking along a given direction?) is also a form of fragmentation. So, our ( holistically friendly?) question is : Is there a (non-directional ) perception which is not 'linear' nor 'vertical', and,
therefore, non-fragmentary?
What is the capacity of (the illuminating  ? ) perception that sees the whole structure of human life, the whole field, at a glance?

Look, there is the whole field of life, the physical, the
emotional, the intellectual, the psychosomatic existence; and in that
there are various ( conflicts of interest &?) contradictions, sorrows, anxieties, guilts, ambitions, pride, sex, non-sex, God, no-God,
- this is the whole fie1d of ( our temporal?) existence. Now, how des
the ( eyes of the?) mind see the whole of this field? If it does not see the whole field, but merely tackles one (isolated) problem, it will create more mischief. So, there is this whole field of existence, and there are other (hidden?) factors. Now, can one look at this 'whole map' at one glance? It is my ( 'homework meditation'?) job to find out. I see the beauty & sanity of it, but how am I to proceed (if the Holistic Teacher has 'left the building'?) You have this 'problem' left (for homework?).
What are you going to do? You must ( find experientially the ) answer (Clue :) What is it that prevents thetotal perception of this vast complex, human existence?

When I enter the 'room', one object catches my eye. There is this whole field of existence, but my eye catches that one thing. What is it that prevents the seeing of other things; what makes the other things shadowy, distant?

R: The 'observer' ?

Krishnamurti: Go slowly. Why is my perception attracted to this only?

R: It is pleasant.

Krishnamurti: Which means what? The element of pleasure. So what
happens? I translate the whole of the field of existence into (pursuing 'hot spots' of?) pleasure. And what (futher motivates?) me is the maintenance of ( surfing the waves of?) pleasure at any price.

A: Then, how comes that for most people life is painful ?

Krishnamurti: It is painful because we are thinking in terms of (not having enough) pleasure. ( Our instinctual search for safety & ) pleasure is the ( main active) principle, the factor which is preventing os from 'seeing the whole'. ( the 'wholeness' of life?)
I see this whole field of life only in terms of pursuing (various hedonistic?) pleasures. Doesn't that prevent a total ( non-directional?) perception?

R: It is a very complex ( psychological issue:) since the entity that is wanting pleasure out of this (already fragmented human existence) is also a 'fragment'.

Krishnamurti: I want pleasure ( & also to optimise my personal safety?) throughout life. Money, sex, position, prestige, god, virtue, ideas - pleasure through everything – but I do not see that ( this open and/or hidden?) search pleasure is the 'thorn-in-the-bush' . I do not see that . So, if in our everyday perception there is (lurking this subliminal?) guiding factor, how can I see the (truth about this ) whole field (of human existence?) which ( man's instinctual search for pleasure & safety?) has brought about? I want (my personal safety & ) pleasure; therefore, I create a society which will ( hopefully?) give me all that (or...not?) . And that society has its morality, and that morality is always based on the 'principle of (optimising safety &) pleasure (& minimising their opposites) ' .
What is the 'psychological' factor ( of seeking safety & ) pleasure? It must always be 'personal' - it must be 'mine', not 'yours'. I will ( optionally trade or ?) sacrifice my personal pleasure for the greater pleasure in the collective work (for a Glorious Ideal ?) , but it is still
pleasure. Pleasure is always personal ('mine' & 'ours')
So, look what we have done, life then becomes a (joint) 'movement' (a collective stream ?) of pleasure (And/or the collateral frustrations & sorrows?) .

A: The validity of everything is pleasure.

Krishnamurti: So, as long as the mind is pursuing pleasure ( self-focussing itself?) as the "me", how can this ''I'' see this whole thing?

So, ( in a nutshell:) it is important ( for the future of mankind?) to 'see the whole', not the 'particular' - and the 'particular' must always exist when there is the pursuit of pleasure. And ( as an experiential clue :) there must be 'understanding' of pleasure, not the cutting it off
by the intellect.

A: It cannot be 'cut off'.

Krishnamurti: What most ( organised) religions have taught is to cut it off with the (knowledgeable aid of the?) intellect. What tortures the 'saints' went through, the burning, the mutilating. That is the traditional way.

So, we can now see the central ( conditioning) factor : when one thing becomes all-important, then I do not see the whole of life. Why is there this pursuit of pleasure?

A: The pleasure principle is too strong (since it is acting) subliminally .

Krishnamurti: But why has man pursued pleasure at any cost?

A: Biological needs are so deeply ingrained in us.

Krishnamurti: There is nothing wrong in that - we all need good,
clean food & a clean floor to sleep on, what is wrong? But see what happens - I must have it tomorrow. Which means that today's biological need has been made into tomorrow's ( object of) pleasure; which is, thought has taken over. So thinking is the ( background?) factor one has to understand, not ( just the sensory ) pleasure.

A: We have come to see that pleasure is transferred in thought.

Krishnamurti: Now you have got it. So, ( for optional meditation homework:) before you do anything with pleasure, try understand your (own self-centred) thinking. The ( time-binding) movement of thought as (driven ) by pleasure has to be understood, since it is thought itself which sustains this.

A: We started with energy. At this point it becomes fragmented.

Krishnamurti: Thought in essence is the maker of fragments.
Tradition has always talked of suppressing thought.
( Parting holistic words) Act and forget it completely and do not carry it over.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Sep 2018 #100
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

FREEDOM FROM THE FIELD OF THE 'KNOWN '

(An 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue, 1971)

Questioner A: You were saying the brain cells themselves are (heavily?)
conditioned by their biological and historical past, and you
said the 'known' structure of the brain cells could change. Could we go into that? The brain cells seem to have an activity of their own?

Krishnamurti: Everything is recorded in the ( memory-field of the?) brain cells. Every incident, every impression is (consciously or not?) imprinted in the brain; one can observe the vast number of impressions in oneself. Are you asking how it is possible to 'go beyond' (the subconscious activity of recording/remembering ?) , in order to make the brain cells quiet ( free of their 'psychological' memories of the past?) ?

A: Most people think that the brain is a (faithful) instrument of the intellect.

Krishnamurti: But is not the intellect the (self-protective?) instrument of the brain rather than the other way?

A: Is it?

Krishnamurti: Let us investigate it. The capacity to reason, to
compare, to weigh, to judge, to understand, to investigate, to
rationalize and to act is all part of memory. The intellect formulates 'ideas' (self-protective and/or self-rewarding scenarios?) and from that there is action.
The brain cells are the repository of memory. The (knowledge based?) reaction of memory is thought. ( For obscure reasons?) thought can become independent of the (physical) memory (that generated it?) . It is like throwing a stone which is becoming independent of the
hand which throws it. But what were you trying to say?

R: That the brain cells and their ( memory based ?) activity are not the ultimate source of all this false movement (of thought)

A: You bring us to (see the necessity of action at the level of the brain cells ) . Now, they are all the time involved in ( generating temporal sequences of materialistic ?) activity. In discussing with you, we see ( that their time-binding?) activity leads to mischief.
To see this (major inner limitation?) is the beginning of ( brain's awakening to holistic?) action. Are we going to take it at the
level of the brain cells or at the level of the (psychical?) residue which triggers the brain activity?

R: The traditional description ( of the psychic residue?) is: I eat with my hands. There is a smell of food. I wash my hand, but (a subtle) odour still remains. So our experience during life leaves a residual impression. The body dies but some kind of ( personal) 'odour of experience' remains which seeks more experience.

A: You were saying the intellect itself is the result of the
activity of the brain. But even when the intellect sees this, the ( temporal) activity of the brain cells is in motion.

Krishnamurti: You are saying that the brain cells are
receiving all the time; they are ( sub-consciously) recording all the time, both in the waking state and during sleeping. That recording is an
independent movement (subliminal activity of the brain cells ?) which creates the capacity to think, to rationalize. The intellect can then (turn its awareness inwardly & ) observe the operation of the movement of thought. It even can observe how thought has created itself (within the field of the previously recorded memory?) . And that is again part of the whole structure of the brain cells. What is the next question?

A: How is the (thought based?) structure of the brain cells to change?

Krishnamurti: That is quite a different matter. The brain cells
are recording all the time - perception, design, colour, everything is
being registered. And these brain cells, receiving impressions all the time, consciously or un-consciously (sub-consciously?) , are building the capacity to think, to rationalize. The resulting instrument of this rationalization is the intellect. Is this capacity to rationalize independent of the brain cells or, being part of their ( basic recording activity?), can it ever be independent? You cannot rationalize 'independently', because the brain cells and the intellect are part of ( a time binding process of?) cause-effect. And can the intellect observe the background of
memory, which is the ( intimate functioning of the?) brain?
(In a nutshell:) If the intellect is the ( evolutionary) product of the human brain, it must always be conditioned by (brain's past ) memory, by knowledge. It is 'tethered' (in the field of mankind's past memory ) . The intellect can seek freedom, but it can be free only within the radius of its own tethering (within the known?). Obviously ( the authentic inner?) freedom must be something outside this field.
Now, what ( within us is becoming?) aware that the intellect cannot go beyond the range of its own radius?

A: The intellect itself can become aware of its ( own limits?) .

Krishnamurti: Realising that there is no authentic freedom within the field (of the known) the intellect says there must be freedom outside this field. It is still rationalization, and therefore its search outside is still within the field. Then what is it that is aware of the whole field? Is it still
rationalization?

A: No.

Krishnamurti: After having stated that (there is no authentic freedom within the field of the known?) what happens? ( The thinking brain?) sees that whatever movement it makes is within the field - it can extend the field horizontally or vertically but it is still (subliminally tethered?) within the field. Therefore it is always within a prison.
The intellect sees that, observes that, explores this (sad psychological condition?) realising that this is the (illusory?) movement man has been caught in. You are now asking how the brain cells are (planning?) to change (their time-binding condition?) ?

A: The Buddhists say that anything that has come into existence with a cause, has also an end and the perception of ( this universal truth?) is (bringing the thought process?) to a 'dead-end' (experiential situation) . Buddhism maintains that the ( insightful?) perception of this 'dead-end' (they use the word 'pudgala') is to see that in this there is no permanency, and that any (personal) 'rebirth' is the rebirth of the (mind living in the ) ignorance of this process. So when you 'see' this process as impermanent, it must create absolutely no attachment to this process. All that is given to you ( for homework?) is to 'see the impermanence' , and seeing this, there is no attachment to this: and this is the 'dead-end' (of the temporal mind) . Contemplate this.
The Buddha saw only once - ( the noble truth of suffering brought by ) disease, old age and death. Seeing it once, he never turned back. The Buddha said, 'see the impermanency' of ( the time-binding existence?) - and in that (timeless seeing?) , there is no effort at all.

Krishnamurti: Then what is the ( next experiential) question? How are these (tiny?) recording instruments with their own capacity, their own
movements, how are they to 'switch off' (from the 'survival mode' ?) and enter a different dimension (of holistic consciousness?) , even for a short period?

A: We come to the point where the intellect realizes that
whatever it does is within the field ( of the known?) and then, what?

Krishnamurti: The intellect itself says, this movement is within this field. Is a movement other than this movement? Otherwise there is no freedom. A thing that functions from a centre within its own radius, however wide, is never free. (Deliberating Pause)
I know this is a prison. I do not know what freedom is.

A: Faced with this ( profound existential) question, I have absolutely no instrument now to deal with this...

Krishnamurti: No, you have the instrument of rational (objective?) thinking , the intellect. I am asking, if there is no freedom within this field, then what is freedom?

A: The intellect can never know.

Krishnamurti: Do not say it cannot know. Intellect can only
know freedom within the field, like a man knowing freedom within
a prison. It then asks what is ( the authentic inner ?) freedom? If this is not "it", then what is freedom? Is there such a thing at all? And if there is no such thing, let us make the best of this - more toilets, more hangers,
more rooms, make the interior perfect.
The intellect rejects ( the idea that) that there can be no ( total inner) freedom because it seems inconceivable that there is no way out of this prison. I am asking myself : is (a holistically friendly?) mind everlastingly condemned to live within this field? What is the point of it all? ( Deliberating Pause)

I have got it: I see that my (intellectual) concern about freedom is not leading to any (inner) freedom. Then the mind says if this is not, then what is freedom? Then it comes to the insightful realisation that 'I do not know'. And it does also see that in that 'non-knowing', there is an expectation to know. That means the mind is still waiting for something ( extra-ordinary?) to happen. I see that and I discard that. (Pause)
So now I really 'do not know' ; I am not hoping that some answer will come from an outside agency. I am not expecting anything.
There it is. There is 'the' clue for ( any authentic meditation?) .
This ( innocent state of ?) 'not-knowing' is the freedom (from the invisible inner prison of?) 'knowing'. I do not know what is going to happen 'tomorrow'. Therefore I am free of the past, free of this ( inwardly illusory?) field of 'knowing' .
The ( psychological continuity of ) 'knowing' of what happened yesterday is the prison. So, the mind that ( mindfully?) lives (inwardly) in a state of 'not-knowing' is a free mind.

( For extra homework meditation?) Can the ( holistically open?) mind say ''I do not know'', which means that ( carrying thr psychological burden of?) 'yesterday' has ended?
It is the knowledge of continuity which is the prison.

A: To pursue this requires ruthlessness.

Krishnamurti: It requires a tremendous inner ( integrity & ) delicacy. When I said I really do not know, I really do not know. Full stop. See what it does. It means a real humility, a sense of (inner) austerity. Then,
'yesterday' has ended. So the man who has 'ended yesterday' (died to the psychological continuity of 'yesterday' ) is really beginning again. Therefore he has to be 'austere'. I really do not know; what a marvellous thing that is ! Therefore there is no point of carrying any (personal?)
'conclusions' (judgements & prejudices?) at any time, which means, never to have any burden. The burden is the knowing.

A: Can one come to this point and stay there?

Krishnamurti: You do not have to 'stay there' .

A: The mind has a way of switching back (to the 'all-knowing' state) . There is no room for switching back ?

Krishnamurti: Go slowly . When I say 'I really do not know', it does not mean I have forgotten the ( useful knowledge of the?) past. In the "I do not know" there is not a ( undiscerning ?) discarding of the (practical memory of the?) past, nor a utilization of the past. All that ( the holistic intelligence?) says is, in the past there is no freedom. The past is
knowledge, the past is accumulation, the past is the intellect. In that
there is no freedom.
( In a nutshell?) In ( seriously ?) asking himself ''Is there freedom at all ?'', the man who says (or rather 'sees the redeeming inner truth' that ?) "I really do not know". He is ( ASAP?) free of the known.

R: But doesn't the structure of the brain cells remain the same ?

Krishnamurti: They become ( or 'learn' to be) extraordinarily flexible. Being ( inwardly alert & ) flexible they can reject, accept; there is a (time-free?) 'movement'.

A: We see something as (inner) 'action'. So far we only know (outward) 'activity'. We can never reject the ( material) activity. It goes on. But in laying down bare activity, it ceases to be a barrier to ( an insightful way of ) action.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is the (time-free ?) action of a man who 'does not know'? The man who 'knows' is acting from knowledge and his action, his activity is always within the (inner) prison (of the known) , projecting that ( life in?) prison into the future.
What is action to the man who says 'I do not know'? He does not
even have to ask it , because he is ( inwardly awake &?) 'acting'.
So, what is ( the holistically integrated?) action? There is one (practical aspect of ) action ( in the field ) of technology, of mechanical action, but every other action is non-mechanical.
Otherwise I reduce relationship into turning the wheel (of Time?)
That is why we have denied ( the Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love.

A: Can we examine our relationship with nature?

Krishnamurti: What is my relationship with nature - the birds,
sky, trees, flowers, the moving waters? That is my life. It is not just
relationship between man and woman, but all this is part of my
life. I am talking of relationship to everything. How can I be
attached to the forest, to the river? I can be attached to the word,
but not to the waters. You see, we miss the ( beauty of the ) whole thing because we confuse the word with the thing.

A: Is it a question of re-awakening sensitivity?

Krishnamurti: No. The question is what 'is' ( a holistic?) relationship? To feel being related to everything. Such ( responsible) relationship means care; care means attention; attention means love. That is why relationship is the basis of everything. If you miss that, you miss the whole thing.

( Parting words:) Yes, Sir, this is the (invisible inner ?) prison. To 'know' is the prison and to live in the ( field of?) 'knowing' is also the prison.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Sep 2018 #101
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

TESTING OUT A HOLISTIC WAY OF INNER OBSERVATION, FREE FROM THE MATRIX OF TRADITION ( 'reader friendly' edited, cca 1971)

Questioner B: In Buddhism they mention three categories of
people in the world: the ordinary worldly man who has his
pleasures, pain, etc; the 'path-winner', who has a glimpse
of the direction; then the 'arhat'. The worldly man might perform
rituals but he is still a worldly man till he has an (insightful inner) experience, a glimpse of the direction. The 'path-winner' wanders away but always comes back, till such time when there is no more going
back to the first stage.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking how the worldly man is to have an (insightful ) glimpse (into Truth?) ?

B: What kind of operation or movement is involved in this stage?

Krishnamurti: Shall we approach this problem in a 'simple'
way, which is: one lives in a dualistic state in which there is pain, sorrow, conflict and all that. That is an (ongoing inner?) fact. That is from where I would start (the inquiry) . We are not concerned here with the conclusions derived by specialists. We are only discussing about a man who is in conflict and is discontented with that conflict. How does he get out of it?

C: The traditional concept is that man attains ( the non-dualistic state) by negating ( the false?) and resolves by ( right?) knowledge.

Krishnamurti: Proceed step by step. I am ( caught ) in ( a subliminal inner) conflict. Now, how do I 'resolve' it? You say by knowledge. What is this 'knowledge'?

C: The realization of ( one's inner) conflict is ( in itself an experientially acquired ?) knowledge.

Krishnamurti: To know that I am in conflict, is that knowledge? Or do you call 'knowledge' what I should do about that conflict? What is the sanskrit equivalent of that word?

C: 'Jnana'- and it does apply buth to the nature of ( this inner) conflict and to how it arises.

Krishnamurti: To know the cause, the structure and the nature of ( your existential?) pain ? Do you call that knowledge?

C: Sir, 'jnana' has been divided as that which pertains to the
phenomenal world and that which refers to the non-phenomenal
world.

Krishnamurti: ( For starters?) What do you mean by conflict?

C: 'Dwandva' is the conflict between two opposites - hot and cold, pleasure and pain, happiness and sorrow.

Krishnamurti: So let us proceed: I am (finding myself entangled?) in ( a state of compounded inner?) conflicts – ( for instance : ) I am feeling (inwardly insufficient or?) unhappy and I want to do something which makes for ( a long lasting?) happiness. Will this knowledge free
the mind from conflict ? Obviously it does not.

C: Well, the 'right knowledge' which will resolve conflict is the kind of
knowledge in which there is no duality.

Krishnamurti: I was angry with my wife and so on, and she
has left me. I have accumulated lots of knowledge about ( the actual causes of?) it, but does this knowledge free me from the fear of living alone without her? I was jealous because I have tried to possess her and I tried to possess her because I am afraid to live alone - are you saying, that this ( analytical) knowledge is going to free you from (your existential?) loneliness . Does it? As long as there is this intellectually (acquired) knowledge, you are not free.

C: 'Jnana' is not ( supposed to be?) an intellectua1 process.

Krishnamurti: So you are saying there is another factor which is
beyond intellect, ( the insightful?) knowledge ?

C: Which enables the mind to see, to discriminate.

B: How is any ( experiential?) knowledge acquired? Let us take the first step.

Krishnamurti: I have been on that road many times and I have
acquired knowledge. I have seen that person often and I have
talked to him. He has been friendly, or non-friendly. All that is (the common dualistic experiential ?) knowledge, accumulated through (personal) experience, or through ( introspective ) analysis, or through (mentally processing various?) incidents, informations.

C: What makes possible this ( personal ) experience & knowledge?

Krishnamurti: ( Any recorded 'personal' ?) experience is possible only when there is the 'experiencer'. You hurt me, that is ( recorded as a personal?) experience. You said something about me
which I did not like, and that 'hurts' me. Then (after a mental processing?) this 'experience' becomes ( my experiential?) knowledge. Will that kind of knowledge end (my inner) conflict?

C: No. But how do I know I am the ( dualistic?) experiencer?

Krishnamurti: Because I have experienced this kind of personal hurts me before. The previous knowledge makes me the (well seasoned ?) 'experiencer'.

B: How about seeing a beautiful sunset ?

Krishnamurti: Having seen the sunset once and seeing it day
after day, the ( subliminal?) accumulation of that makes the
'experiencer'.

C: They postulate a (superior intelligent) 'entity' which does not experience (personally?) .

Krishnamurti: It is fairly simple and clear. First I am becoming aware that I am ( in a state of confusion & ) conflict. Analysis, observation,
watching, have given me ( lots of dualistic?) information - which is my
knowledge: And that knowledge apparently cannot get rid of it. Then what will get rid of it? Do not invent a Higher Self – (since) you know nothing about it: I know only my (state of inner confusion & ) conflict,
and I see that my dualistic knowledge does not get me rid of conflict.

C: Traditionalists consider that the (non-dualistic) knowledge is made possible by the 'atman' which sheds light, and without this ( inner light?) the ( holistically integrated perception?) cannot function.

Krishnamurti: The ( bottom line) fact is that the brain cells are the material (support) on which every incident leaves a mark, every
experience, conscious or unconscious. All the time the brain is receiving ( & recording our sensory impressions?) . I see that flower, it has
already registered; I see you, it has already registered. A constant
recording (of every incoming challenge ?) is going on. It is (all 'holistically' stored ) there the racial inheritance, personal inheritance; all this is leaving a mark on the (memory field ?) brain.
So our brain is the repository of all recording - sensory, nonsensory.
That is the (recording) 'tape' which has been collected for centuries.
That is ( the memory substratum of any ) knowledge. ( However, this personal & collective accumulation of ) knowledge does not necessarily free the mind from ( the 'observer-observed' ?) conflict.
Right? Do we see that ? Then what will free the mind without the
introduction of the 'atman' ( or intelligence & insight?) which has become part of the ( dualistic) knowledge which we have acquired (or just 'borrowed' from others?) ? Thinking about them is still within the field of thought. The man who thinks about 'atman' is still within the field of thought.

C: The man who talked of 'atman' never thought he realized that (by personal efforts?) . The only experience which they cite is that you have a sound deep sleep and you 'wake up'. How do you remember that you had a sound sleep? In deep sleep the ( self-conscious) mind does not work.

Krishnamurti: The ( recording activity of the ) brain cells is going on day and night. Only when you get up the next morning, you know that you are tired or you have had a good sleep, etc. They are all the (material) functions of the brain.

B: Can you explain the substratum of any personal experience ?

Krishnamurti: I see the flower, I name it. There is a naming of
it, the form, the verbalization; verbalization is the memory, because
the brain has seen it before and says 'that is a flower'.

B: Does it operate if I close my eyes?

Krishnamurti: Of course, shut your eyes, close your ears, you
can still 'think'. The moment I say 'there is God' , the thinking about it
is ( creating a mental representation of it ?) within the field of thought.
The ( ignorant?) man who has not thought about it at all, to him there is no 'God'. But the 'ancient ones' thinking about something superior, wanting something greater, said ''there is God''. That was the product of
thought. So that was brought within the field of knowledge.

C: Not much importance is given to 'God' in the Upanishads.
According to their conception God and Brahman (the Universal Mind?) are the same.

Krishnamurti: You see, someone comes along who is not a
Hindu and says God (is 'Our Father' of whom speaks ?) Jesus. What is the difference? He has been brought up in his culture, and you in this culture say 'atman'.

C: We say both. 'God' is personal, 'Atman' is not personal.

Krishnamurti: They are all the product of thought- we have accumulated knowledge about suffering and suffering does not end, and not knowing how to end it, thought says 'there must be some other factor'. So it invents the 'atman'. But 'Atman' (aka : Intelligence?) does
not end it either, because it has become part of ( the 'memory bank' of) knowledge. Knowledge about suffering has not ended suffering.
The atman does not end suffering either.

C: But 'atman' is experienced by them. It is their personal
experience.

Krishnamurti: When they say they experience atman, what does
it mean?

C: They say it cannot be described.

Krishnamurti: Of course it cannot be described , but it is part of thought.

C: To them it was not part of thought. They 'realized' it.

Krishnamurti: How do I realize anything? I must recognize it first
must I not? What do I recognize?

C: 'Realisation' means directly seeing a thing without the process of
thought.

Krishnamurti: I recognize you because I have met you
yesterday. If I did not, I would not know you.
Now, take the (directly observable inner) fact that I suffer ( a deep existential anxiety?) , and I say "I want to end this suffering". So, why do I need to bring in the 'atman' ? It has no ( experiential) value at all. It is like a man who is hungry and you describe food to him.

C: I agree that whatever they have said does not help.

Krishnamurti: On the contrary, they have destroyed the mind by
introducing a factor which does not help.

C: Yes...

Krishnamurti: See it. So, how can the human mind resolve the factor of sorrow? It can only resolve it by looking at it without (free of its previously 'known' ?) knowledge

C: Is this possible?

Krishnamurti: Try it (for homework meditation?) Test it out. The
other you cannot test. Put ( the 'known') away completely. Then what how do I look at suffering - do I look at it with the 'eyes of the past' and therefore, translate everything in terms of the 'past' ( of what we knew before?) ?

B: We obviously cannot use the ( 'knowledge bank' of the?) past as a means to free ourselves from ( our existential) suffering.

Krishnamurti: When you 'see' (non-verbally) what this ( existential) 'suffering' really is, you are directly in relationship with suffering, not as an 'observer' observing suffering. I look at suffering without the 'image' and this 'image' is (created by the dualistic experience of?) the past. If the mind can look at this 'sorrow' ( free from its dualistic knowledge accumulated in the ?) past, it has a different meaning altogether. So, I have to test it. Can the mind look without ( the subliminal background of its) past memory? Can I look at that flower without past knowledge?
Test it (out as 'meditation homework' ?) ; you can do it or not do it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Sep 2018 #102
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

A ( 'reader friendly' edited ) K DIALOGUE ON

HOLISTIC PERCEPTION & THE FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN (cca 1971)

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we could discuss this morning what ( an integrated 'mind & heart' holistic ?) perception means. Is it just
a ( lucky strike ?) psychosomatic state or is it something entirely different? The mind takes in much more than the eye does. Doesn't the (optical?) eye see in a linear ( 'face value' ?) dimension?

SW: Is the visual, sensory perception of the eye uniform? We come to this room, I see the design of the carpet. Very soon I am seeing and not seeing. There must be some factor other than the visual contact of the object and the senses in (an authentic ) awareness of what we see.

Krishnamurti: ( For starters ?) there is a visual perception of you sitting there. Then there is a (fast sequence of associated ?) images (aka : 'conclusions'?) which the sensory perception plus the intellectual capacity of thought holds. That is what we generally call ( a knowledgeable?) perception, is it not?

A: What is the meaning of "perception"?

Krishnamurti: All the sensory impressions that are recorded , both the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious' ones , plus the various (personal expectations and collective ?) images, conclusions, prejudices, all that is involved in perception.
So, there is ( a direct?) visual perception and the various (personal) 'images' that our previous perceptions, associations & prejudices, have built up. And then I see you and I have another series of images, and so thousands and thousands of images are recorded, and held in the ( 'psychological' memory of?) the brain cells.
And when I meet you next time I turn on ( my attention to the 'known' ?) and the 'images' emerge. This is the ( often ignored ?) machinery that is in operation in our common "perception''- is it not? Now, what is wrong with it?

A: Isn't the 'sensitivity' factor a vital element in perception? My
perception of squalor is different from that of yours. Can you
separate perception from the degrees of ( inner) sensitivity?

Krishnamurti: When I have all these ( self-protective mental screens of?) accumulated images, conscious and/or unconscious, my mind is obviously 'loaded' with them ( and is constantly busy in updating & processing them ?). Where is the place for any holistic sensitivity?

A: Obviously, if I look through the ( 'fool-proof' screen of my ?) ideas there is no direct perception.

Krishnamurti: The mind which is crowded with ( its previously accumulated?) impressions and information about the object, 'sees' (as through a tainted window?) . The mind, the brain, the whole
structure is never empty. It is 'full' and through this 'burden' (of constantly recycled memories?) it looks at you with its ( mental ?) associations and/or with ( its 'personal' reactions of?) jealousy, pleasure, pain. What is wrong with that?

R: I am never 'face to face' with reality . I see there is the sensory perception, then the ( superposition of previously stored ?) images, then the like, dislike; those are 'facts' also, but which usually I do not realize.

Krishnamurti: They are real 'facts', as much as the fact that you are sitting here. Then what takes place? Each time I see you through a ( self-protective ?) screen. What is wrong with that? Is it not a 'natural' process?

SW: In that state I do not really 'see' at all.

Krishnamurti: First I want to be clear that there are thousands of (previously recorded & processed?) impressions, thousands of sensory perceptions - let us cover the whole of that by the (holistically shorthanded ?) word "conclusions". Through these (personal ?) 'conclusions' I look , and by looking through these ( self-protective screens of ) 'conclusions', they may thicken or become faint, but they never disappear. (As an elementary 'rule of thumb'?) each succeeding sensory perception thickens the same ( mechanism of self-protective?) perception. This is the ( time-binding?) process which is going on all the time, all through life. So ( the subliminal mechanism of ) 'image-making and conclusions' is (the compounded result of our experience accumulated in the ) past. while the sensory?) perception is immediate.

Sensory perception is immediate and the ( overlapping screen of personal & collective ?) 'conclusion' is the ( mechanistic?) response of the past. So, I am looking at you through the 'eyes of the past'. That is what we are doing. So, what started with perception is ( ending up by not being an authentic ) perception at all - all our visual perception is translated in terms of (personal expectations or?) conclusions. That is the very nature of tradition?) The brain cells retain the memory of
the past because in that there is safety - in the biological processes
as well as in the psychological accumulations. In that there is
tremendous safety.

SW: How is there safety? Am I really safe?

Krishnamurti: Do not question it yet. Look at it. Otherwise you
would not know your name, you would not know how to go to
Bangalore, recognize your husband or wife. In that tradition,
knowledge, experience, conclusions, there is nothing new,
therefore there is nothing disturbing, therefore there is a ( subjective?) feeling of complete safety.

SW: Because ( living in the temporal safety of the 'known'?) there is nothing immediately disturbing ?

Krishnamurti: Anything new is ( potentially a ) disturbing ( factor) and as the brain cells need order they find order in their (sanitised memory of the?) past.

A: But to come back to your question, what is wrong with that?

Krishnamurti: There is nothing wrong in that and this is how the (temporal) mind operates; there is safety in the 'images' & conclusions of the past. All that is ( part of our cultural & genetic?) tradition. In the (sanitised memory of the?) past there is ( a feeling of) complete security. The brain demands ( a sense of overall protection & ) order because in this order there is security.

SW: That is perfectly clear.

Krishnamurti: In ( following the ways of) tradition, in this (temporal) continuity there is order. The brain seeking order creates a harbour where it feels safe. And someone comes along with 'revolutionary' ideas and tells you, this is not (an authentic Cosmic ?) order, and so there is a ( subliminal) conflict (of interests?) between you and him.
You ( instinctively?) reduce the new in terms of the old and there find safety, security.

A: We have still discovered something here - that the moment I see
something new which creates a disturbance, ( the intellectual) perception is the instrument by which I convert the new into the old.

Krishnamurti: That is ( becoming ) a biological necessity for the brain, because in that ( position of 'no inner questions asked'?) it finds the most efficient way of working. Now, unless the brain cells themselves understand the danger of seeking security in the past, they will not (be ready, willing & able to ?) see anything anew. If they see something new ( which is potentially disturbing) they will translate it in terms of the 'old' (of what they knew previously?) . Therefore, the brain cells themselves have to see the immense danger ( of inner decay & fragmentation?) involved in what they consider ( a fool-proof?) security in the past.

A: Which means a total change (...in no time?) .

Krishnamurti: 'See' the beauty of it ? This is the truth and that is why it is beautiful. How is the human brain which is insistently demanding security ( at all levels?) how is that brain to see that in ( living inwardly in the memory field of?) the past there is no ( authentic) security, but always in ( being open to ) the new?
The brain cells are ( subliminally or openly?) seeking ( a temporal) security, both in disorder and in order. If you ( the 'psy-coach' or 'guru'?) offer a (psychologically rewarding) system, a methodological order, the brain accepts it (no questions asked?) . That is the whole biological process. That is the whole traditional process - security in the (static order of the?) past, never in the future, never in the present, but the absolute security in the past. And that is ( achieved by constantly gathering & upgrading?) knowledge: both the technological
knowledge and the ( subjective ) knowledge which has been gathered through (personal) experience. ( Living in the field of?) knowledge there is security and knowledge is the past.

SW: But there is a modified continuity in this process. This creates
a feeling of 'progress'.

Krishnamurti: The moment you have ( some basic) knowledge it can be
continued, (upgraded or?) modified, but ( experientially-wise?) one is still living within the field of the 'known'.

SW: All that you say is factual. However, there is something radically wanting in this.

Krishnamurti: What is the something which is not quite right? I will show it to you : the mind is always living in the past. So the human mind is always ( the 'conscience prisoner' of Time ?)
What does such a (conscience?) prisoner talk about (besides the endless global chattering & 'fake news'?) ? Freedom? He knows his ( high safety inner) prison is not freedom, but he wants (or aspires for the ultimate ) freedom, because his present life is a repetitive, mechanical continuity, while in (his rare moments of authentic inner ) freedom there is joy, there is Beauty, there is something (new) happening... So, he has to invent a 'heaven' .( Hint ) There is ( a sense of ) safety ( not only in the lingering memories of the past but?) also in ( projecting a better?) future. Right? So he invents 'God', 'Truth' or 'Enlightenment', but even as he invents them, he is always
anchored to the (subliminal memory mechanisms of the ) past. Biologically, this (temporal) anchorage is necessary. But can the (awakening?) brain see where ( its physical & technological) knowledge is essential and can the same brain (cells) see the danger of ( the 'psychological') knowledge which brings about the ( 'observer' – 'observed') division? Isn't ( the self-interest based ?) knowledge the factor that divides?

SW: Yes, of course...

Krishnamurti: Do not 'agree' (with me) but 'see' ( the truth of?) it ! Can the ( holistically friendly?) brain cells seek security in (their practical) knowledge, and also be aware that in (their traditional addiction to) knowledge there is a danger of ( inner fragmentation & ) division?

SW: To see both at the same time is (kind of?) difficult...

Krishnamurti: "See" it at the same time. Otherwise you will not "see" it.

A: Knowledge divides what?

Krishnamurti: ( Inwardly living in the field of?) Knowledge in itself is divisive. The 'known' and the 'unknown'. 'Yesterday', 'today' and 'tomorrow' . Knowledge is the "I know you''; my 'image' of you divides us: Knowledge is ( subliminally creating its own temporal) security; and
can the brain cells seeking security in knowledge know that
knowledge at one level is necessary and at another level is divisive
and therefore dangerous? The dividing factor is the building of the image. So can the brain cells see where their (past ) knowledge is really necessary in being physically secure? And can the same brain cells see that ( their subjective) knowledge derived from (personal) 'conclusions' is divisive? Then what is the next step ?
The ( holistically friendly ) mind now sees that ( in its indiscriminate accumulation of ?) knowledge is involved (a subliminal ?) 'bondage of time'. But (to their credit?) the ( newly awakened ?) brain cells also realise that in this (paradigm of living in the fild of the 'known') there is no ( authentic sense of?) freedom, and ...they want ( an inner sense of timeless ) freedom. In this freedom (from the 'known'?) ther may be a super-security. That is why ( the spiritually inclined ?) man has from immemorial times talked of Freedom. He has (generally) thought of an outside freedom, but we are saying that freedom is (in) here, not outside, right?

SW: I can see that freedom is not outside – this is only a projection. And yet there is no ( sense of) freedom inside myself .

Krishnamurti: So thought enquires where is freedom? It seeks it somewhere where it is perceivable, where it is not projected, not formulated, not invented, where it is not the projection of the past which is still knowledge. Freedom must be somewhere.

A: We can only see that whatever thought produces is not freedom.

Krishnamurti: Is there security in the ( self-interest motivated ) thinking itself? I have assumed there is security. I see the wars, the divisions, the yours and the mine, the we and the they, my family, your family - is there ( an authentic ?) security in all this? The brain cells have to see for themselves ( the truth that) that there is no security there. It is a tremendous discovery for me ! So thought says, what next?

Is there an ending of "myself" ( of my ego-centric attitude?) without ( any personal) effort? In this (meditative endeavour?) is ( involved) a quality of (holistic) sensitivity. To come to this point (can thought end by itself?) requires a tremendous subtlety, which is sensitivity.
All this has needed great attention, great awareness; the moving
step by step, never missing a thing, that has its own discipline, its
own order. The brain now is completely orderly, because it has
followed step by step, seeing its own logical attitudes, searching
into ( the fallacy of) things that have no security, seeing that it has sought security in division. Now it sees that in division there is no security, therefore, every step is a step in order and that order is its own
security.

So, ( the authentic inner ) order is ( to be found in the ) perception of things as they are. Perception of what you are, not (tainted by ?) my ( personal) conclusion of what (I may think ?) you are.
( To recap:) The true perception is 'seeing things as they are' , but I cannot see things as they are if I have ( arrived at ?) a 'conclusion'.
Thought has sought security in ( creating tons of self-centred?) conclusions which has spread disorder. Therefore ( realising its mistake ) it now rejects ( further creating personal 'images ' and/or ) 'conclusions' immediately, because, it wants ( a time-free inner ?) security. Therefore, thought functions now in the field of practical knowledge only where it is necessary but nowhere else because everywhere else the function of thought is to create ( divisive?) conclusions & images. Therefore, (time-) thought (process) comes to its (natural?) ending.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Sep 2018 #103
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE HOLISTIC STABILITY OF 'NOT-KNOWING'

( a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, 1971)

Questioner SW: ( When I try to perceive anything directly, for instance )  a tree, an 'idea' (or verbalised image ?) arises from my memory which says : 'this is a mango tree'. This 'idea' comes in the way of my looking at the tree and so I am not able to see the actual beauty of the tree. The 'screen of ideas' interferes with the present and there is no real perception.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is the relationship between the 'observer' and the 'observed' ? What does it mean to be directly in contact with anything (one) perceives ? Relationship means to
be related: the relationship between two people; the relationship of the one with the many; ( and deeper inwardly ? ) the relationship
between the 'thinker' and its 'thoughts' and also with the (silent) interval between thoughts; the relationship between one's present ( self-centred existence ?) and the (one's unknown?) future as 'death'; the relationship between the world and myself. I think 'relationship' implies all that.

A: We always think of relationship in ( the context of our self-) isolation, not as a ( harmonious) part of the whole.

Krishnamurti: Can there be a ( holistic?) relationship if there is a (self-conscious?) 'observer' ? When this 'centre' feels it is related to something, is that ( an authentic?) relationship?

A: It has been pointed out that it is only because I feel ( personally ) related to something that the ( self-conscious?) "I" is strengthened. This 'centre' assumes an (all controlling?) cohesive character (over and?) through its fragmented parts.

Krishnamurti: Where do we begin (the holistic exploration of ?) this vast ( & deep?) subject?
(For starters?) what does 'relationship' mean to you? When you
look at me, at her, in what way are you related to me, to her? Are
you really feeling 'related'?

A: I think so.

Krishnamurti: Let us examine it (critically) . What is our present relationship? Is there a relationship at all except an intellectual relationship?

R: There is a feeling of authentic relationship when there is a 'movement together' towards something.

Krishnamurti: If both of us are moving towards (achieving a common ) ideal, is that relationship? Can there be an authentic relationship when each one is (consciously or not, living inwardly?) in (self-)isolation?
If I have built a ( self-protective mental?) 'wall' around myself, in order to feel secure, in order not to get hurt, to be safe, is there any (direct)
relationship at all? Do look at this : if I build around myself an (invisible?) wall of defence, of "I know, you do not know", to feel completely safe from being further hurt, what is my actual relationship to you? Is there any ( authentic?) relationship?

A: Does that means that when the 'centre' is there, there is no direct human relationship at all ? There is still an ordinary 'goodwill'.

Krishnamurti: What is my goodwill towards you? I am polite. I keep a distance. I am always (safely operating from?) inside the wall.

SW: Even in the life of an ordinary man, there are some
relationships which are not always from 'behind a wall'.

Krishnamurti: You say that I may be acting in the interest of the other; is that so? I follow the ( providential?) 'leader' who hopes to revolutionize society, inwardly and outwardly, and I commit
myself to a course of action, which both the 'leader' and I have
agreed as necessary. Is there a (freely creative?) relationship between me and the leader who is working for the same end?

A: Well, the crux of this kind of relationship is 'utility'.

Krishnamurti: Our ( everyday) relationship is based on a 'utilitarian' relationship.

R: I see that if you apply this ( authenticity?) test, that there is no relationship.

Krishnamurti: You are still not answering (adressing?) the deeper issue, which is, as long as there is the (self centred 'thinker' or ?) 'observer' who is committing himself to a course of action, is there any (authentic?) relationship between you and me?

A: Is there no ( authentic?) relationship between two people?

Krishnamurti: ( Inwardly-wise?) Iit is really an enormous problem. As I said, what is the relationship between one thought and another, one action and another? Or is our daily action a continuous movement (of our self-centred thought, projecting itself in time ?) , and therefore with
no ( holistic?) linking ? Look, Sir, am I ( truly?) related when I look at that tree? My actual relationship is (through a psychological ) distance between me, the 'observer' and the tree. The physical distance may be 5 feet or a 100 yards, but where there is ( the imponderable degree of psychological separation?) between the 'observer' and the (object or person that is being) 'observed' , is there any possibility of ( holistic?) relationship? I am married and I have built a (working model?) 'image'
of my wife and she has built a similar image of me. This 'image' is the
( subliminal?) 'distance' factor. Is there any relationship with my wife except on the the physical level ? We may co-operate in order to do something (or other) and this does bring us together but as I have my own (material problems & ) worries and she has her own ( existential?) agonies, are we actually related ? We both have a common motivation , but you and I are (inwardly?) separate human beings. When I look
at a tree, there is ( an imponderable psychological) distance between me and the tree , created by ( my self-centred) knowledge.
Therefore what is the (subliminally active?) factor of division?

SW: Images in one form or another divide.

Krishnamurti: Go slowly. There is that tree. I look at it. The
physical distance between me and that tree may be a few yards, but
the distance (felt inwardly?) between me and that tree is vast. Though I look at it with the physical eyes, my 'mind & heart', is very very far away ( thinking of other things?) . That ( self-separating?) distance is incalculable. In the same way, I look at my wife and I am very far away. In the same way I am 'very far away' in co-operative action.

SW: Is the word, the image, interfering in all this?

Krishnamurti: There is the (verbal recognition?) then the
'image' (surging from the known?) , but what is actually dividing us is the ( personal) 'goal' ( projected by our own self- interest?). Your 'goal' and my 'goal' are separate; they have divided us.

SW: I see one thing, where two people come together for the
joy of something, that is different.

Krishnamurti: When two people come together out of
affection, love, joy, then what is action which is not divisible,
which does not divide? I love you, you love me and what is action
out of that love?

A: When two people come together in affection it may produce
a result but they are not coming together for the result. Therefore,
in any such coming together there is no division. Whereas if two
people come together with a goal (to be achieved in time?) , that is a divisive factor.

Krishnamurti: We have discovered something : when people come together with affection when there is no ( personal?) goal, purpose, or utopia - then there is no division. Then all 'status' disappears and I will ( eventually?) sweep the garden, if that is part of the needs of the place.

( In a nutshell:) As long as I have ( committed myself to?) a 'goal' ( generated by an individual or collective 'self-interest' ), this ultimately divides ( me from other) people (who have their own personal goals ?) . Therefore, it (this 'fake' cooperation?) is finished. Then I ask myself how I am to live or work with you without a 'goal'?
I see that such ( 'self-interest' free?) relationship means to be in close contact so that there is no (psychological) 'distance' between the two.
And I see that in the relationship to the tree and myself, the flower and myself, my wife and myself, there is a physical distance and there is a vast psychological distance. Therefore, I see ( the sad existential truth that?) I am not related at all. (So, the general reaction is that ?) I try to identify myself (to find my true identity?) through action. I am moving into peripheral commitment. What happens to my mind when it moves on the outside all the time? The family becomes very important, the
action to which I have completely given myself over becomes all
important...but what has happened to the mind that has externalized the whole movement of relationship? What happens to your mind when it is occupied with the external, with the periphery?

SW: It has lost all sensitivity.

Krishnamurti: So, as a reaction to the externalization, you withdraw into your own conclusions? It is another world. Instead of one world, you create another world which you call the 'inner world'.

SW: This mind is still not free.

Krishnamurti: Is that what has happened to your mind? The inward commitment to an inner world of mystical experience. The ( dualistic) mind first externalizes its activity and then withdraws and acts (inwardly) . What happens to the brain which is withdrawing and externalizing, like a tide going out and coming in. What happens to this mind going out, coming in?

A: It becomes mechanical ?

Krishnamurti: It is a mind that is completely without any
bearing, completely unstable, a mind that has no ( intrinsical) order. It becomes neurotic, unbalanced, inharmonious, destructive, because there is no stability in the whole movement.

A: It is becoming restless...

Krishnamurti: Therefore, there is no ( authentic ) stability. ( Hint : the
brain cells need order, order means stability). It tries to find ( the sense of harmony & ) order 'out there' in ( the worldly?) relationship and does not find it; so it withdraws (inwardly) and tries to find order within and there again is caught in the same ( dualistic?) process.
So, a mind that is not stable, in the sense of firm, deeply rooted
in (a holistic?) order goes from communism to the guru, to Yoga Vashista, to Ramana Maharishi, it is ( getting) caught in the cult of the beautiful, the cult of devotion, (in various schools of) meditation and so on.

( Now, the 64,000 $ question is?) How is this mind to 'be' completely still (inwardly?) ? From this ( holistic?) stillness, one's action is entirely different. See the beauty of it ?

A: That is the 'dead-end' of the ( time-bound ) mind.

Krishnamurti: I am asking myself, how is this mind to
be completely still, with an inner stability that is flexible. A mind that is completely stable, firm, deep, has its roots in Infinity.
Then ( if this is the case?) what is the relationship with the tree, with the family, with the (K?) 'committee'?

( To recap:) I realize ( the sad truth that?) my mind is (inwardly) unstable and I understand now that ( my whole psychological ?) movement is born of instability. I now (realise?) that and so I negate that (by 'standing still' ?)
And I ask what is ( brain's authentic inner) stability? I know the nature of inner instability with all its ( compensating ) activities, with all its destruction and when I ( mindfully ? ) put all that away completely, I realise that I do not know what ( holistic ?) stability is.
The 'not knowing' is the stable.

The man who says "I know" and therefore, "I am stable" has led us to this chaos. The people who say we are the 'chosen ones', the vast number of teachers, gurus have said "I know".
( For extra homework meditation?) Rejecting all that, rely on yourself. Have confidence in yourself. And when the mind has understood
what is not stable and that it cannot 'know' what is true stability,
then there is ( the awakening of?) a movement of flexibility, of harmony, because the mind (has seen the inwardly liberating truth that it?) 'does not know'. This ( Noble?) 'Truth of Not-knowing' is the only factor from which one can move. The Truth of that is the stable. A mind that 'does not know' is in a state of learning. The moment I say 'I have learnt enough' , I have stopped ( the inner dynamic of ) learning and that stopping is ( resulting in a static) stability of division.

So, the ( first & last experiential?) truth is : "I do not know". And ( the realisation of) that gives you a quality of ( living & ) learning and in this there is ( a timeless) stability. Stability is in the "I am learning'', not ( in what) ''I have learnt". See what it does to the mind ? It completely 'unburdens' the mind (from its 'psychological' knowledge ) and that is freedom; the freedom of 'not-knowing'. See the beauty of it ?
The 'not-knowing', therefore, ( the instant) freedom .

Now what happens to the brain which functions ( extensively & intensively) in ( the field of its past?) knowledge? It has found tremendous security there and biologically that security is necessary.That is its ( survivalistic?) function, is it not? To function from memory to memory. Otherwise it cannot survive. Now, what happens to the ( mediating?) brain that says I really 'do not know' anything except the biological knowledge of survival? What happens to the ( inner quality of the ?) brain? The rest of the brain before was 'tethered' (within the field of the known?) . Now it is ( holistically wise ?) 'not occupied'. It will act but it is not occupied.
This ( holistic quality of the?) brain has never been touched. There is a 'new brain' being born as the 'old brain' is purged (inwardly) of its (time-binding?) occupations

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Sep 2018 #104
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

AN EXPERIENTIAL APPROACH TO COSMIC INTELLIGENCE

( 'reader friendly' edited K Dialogue , 1971)

Questioner P: Krishnaji, at one level, your teaching seems very
materialistic because it refuses to accept anything which does not
have a (directly observable?) referent. It is based on "what is".
Now in terms of this, what is your attitude to God?

Krishnamurti: Do you understand clearly the word "material "?

P: That which is measurable ?

D: She probably means the 'material energy ' . Energy and matter are convertible, but still measurable.

Krishnamurti: That is, you are saying (that in the physical universe?) matter 'is' energy and energy 'is' matter. You cannot divide them to say this is 'pure energy' and this is 'pure matter'.

F: What we call 'matter' is ( considered in modern Physics as ?) nothing but energy. It is only ( a persistent 'standing wave' of?) energy
as apprehended by the senses of perception.
.
P: You see Krishnaji, if we go into any aspect of your teaching,
it is based on that which is observable. The instruments of hearing,
of seeing, are within the field of sensory apprehension. Even
though you may talk of 'not naming', that which is observable is
through the instruments of seeing, listening. The instruments of the
senses are the only instruments we have with which to observe.

Krishnamurti: We know sensory seeing, sensory hearing, sensory
touching and the intellect which is part of the whole structure. Now
what is your question?

P: In that sense, (K's ) Teaching is 'materialistic' as opposed to the
metaphysical. Your position is a 'materialistic' position.

F: If you want to stick to facts, the only instrument we have is
the brain. Now, is the brain everything or is it an instrument in the
hands of something else? If you say there is only brain, it will be a
materialistic position. If you say the instrument is materialistic then
the Teaching is not materialistic.

P: So, I'm asking : "What is your view of God ?". I feel it is a very legitimate question.

Krishnamurti: We have explained energy and matter and now you ask what we mean by God? I never use the word "God" to indicate something which is not God. What ( our self-centred?) thought has invented is not God. If it is invented ( or conceived?) by thought, it is
still within the field of time, within the field of the 'material'.

P: Thought says 'I cannot go further'...

Krishnamurti: But knowing its own limitations, it tries to invent the 'limitless' which it calls 'God'. That is the position.

P: Even when thought sees its limitations, it is still aware of an
'Existence' beyond itself...

Krishnamurti: One can only 'go beyond ' ( transcend its limitations ?) when (the self-centred activity of?) thought (in the f'ield of the known'?) comes to an end.

P: Seeing the limitations of thought is not the 'knowing' of thought.

Krishnamurti: When you say 'seeing the limitations' , does thought (the totality of the thinking brain?) realize it is limited or does the 'thinker' (the thought-controlling entity?) realize that thought is limited? You
see the point ? The 'thinker' (entity ) is a ( self-identified?) product of thought.

P: Why do you draw the distinction?

Krishnamurti: (The self-centred process of?) thought has created the 'thinker' (controlling entity?) . If thought did not exist, there would be no thinker. Does the 'thinker', observing the limitations, say "I am limited" or does thought (the thinking brain?) itself realize its limitations which are two different positions. Let us be clear in all this : the (thinking ? ) 'thinker', observing its own thinking sees (through an intellectual reasoning which is the material?) that its energy is limited. In the realm of thought (in the field of the 'known'?) , the 'thinker' thinks this.

D: When the 'thinker' says that his thinking is limited, both the thought
and the thinker become question-marks.

Krishnamurti: No, not yet. Thought 'is' (undissociable from) memory, thought is the response of knowledge. Thought has brought about this ( personalised thinking interface?) thing called the 'thinker'. The
thinker then separates itself from thought; at least it thinks it is
separate from thought. The ( holistically minded?) 'thinker', looking at its (powers of perceiving & ?) reasoning, at the intellect sees that it is very very limited. Therefore, the 'thinker' says ''my thinking is very limited'', which is ( a self-inflicted?) condemnation. Then he says there
must be something else beyond this limited field. That is what we are doing right now. Does the thinker think that thought is limited or does
thought itself realize it is limited? I do not know if you see (experientially?) the ( qualitative ) difference ?

P: Thought can never feel ( accept that?) it is (really?) limited.
( However, in the context of?) meditation thought can end - through what reason, do not ask. There is no real reason but thought can end. But how does thought feel it is limited?

Krishnamurti: That is my ( experiential?) point. Does the (self-conscious?) 'thinker' see (s)he is limited or does thought (the thinking brain?) say, I cannot go any further? You see the point?

F: Why do you separate the 'thinker' from the (totality of?) 'thought'? There are many thoughts, and the' thinker' is also another thought.
The thinker is the guide, the coordinator, censor; he is the most dominant thing (within the field of the known?) .

Krishnamurti: Thought has gone through all this (realisation of its own impermanency?) and established an (identitary?) centre which is the 'observer', and this (self-conscious?) 'observer' looking at (its?) thought says 'thought is limited'.

D: In fact, it can only say "I do not know".

Krishnamurti: It does not say that. You are introducing a nonobservable
fact. First of all, thought is the response of (all mankind's accumulated experience & ) knowledge, and thought has not yet realized that it is (intrinsically ) very limited. What it has done in order to have security, is to put together various ( self-rewarding ?) thoughts which
have become the 'observer', the 'thinker', the 'experiencer'.

F: We know only a (dualistic) state of a 'thinker thinking' thought .

Krishnamurti: That is all we know. Therefore, the (self-conscious?) 'thinker' invariably says '' Imust go beyond thought''; therefore it questions: Does God exist?

F: You seem to be giving existence to the 'thinker' instead of thought.

Krishnamurti: The 'thinker' (entity) is not a permanent (timeless?) entity as thought is not permanent, but the 'thinker' is constantly modifying ( updating & upgrading ?) itself . I may be mistaken, but it is ( experientially very ) important to find out whether the thinker sees it is limited or whether thought thinks it is limited.

Now, if thought itself ( the objectively thinking brain?) realizes it cannot go beyond its own 'tether' , beyond its own roots (in the memory of the ) brain cells - the brain cells as its material (support), as
the root of thinking - if thought realizes that, then what takes place?

P: You see, Sir, that is my whole point. If you were to leave
your teaching at this point, then there is a totally ( materialistic) consistency and logic; but you are always moving, going beyond this and ( unfortunately) you cannot use any words (to describe what Is there) Therefore the feeling of ( of an Universal Mind or ?) 'God' is introduced (implicitly)

Krishnamurti: I won't accept the word "God". ( But when one sees that ) the thinker 'is' the thought, we can push our inquiry further...

P: Into an ( non-verbal?) abstraction ?

Krishnamurti: I realize that thought and the thinker are very
very limited and I do not stop there. To do so would be a purely
materialistic philosophy. But they are always tethered (within the 'known'?) , and being tethered, they may expand but remain tied to an (invisible material ?) pole which is their (previous self-centred?) experience, their 'beliefs'.
Now, if I can answer ( experientially?) this question of thought itself realizeing the limitations of itself, then what takes place? Knowing thought is the past, thought is time, suffering, then what takes place? It (the meditating brain?) realizes that any movement of thought 'is' ( within the temporal ) content of consciousness, and without the (existing self-centred?) 'content' there is no (dualistic ) consciousness. Then, what takes place? Is that observable or not? I do not (have to) invent God.

P: I never said you invent 'God'. I say up to this point your position is materialistic rational, logical; and suddenly you introduce another ( extraneous) element.

Krishnamurti: No. Look at it (experientially?)  : when thought itself realizes that any movement it makes is within the field of time, what happens? Then thought (the the thinking brain?) becomes completely silent - this is an observable, testable fact. This ( living?) silence is not the result of ( self-imposed ) discipline. Then what happens?

P: Sir, let me ask you a (trick ? ) question. In this ( silent) state the registering of all ( the outward ) noises goes on ; what is the 'machinery' which registers?

Krishnamurti: The brain.

P: The brain is the material. So this ( subconscious ) registering goes on.

Krishnamurti: It goes on all the time, whether I am conscious or
unconscious of it.

P: So, if thought ends, is 'my' (sense of) existence wiped out ?

Krishnamurti: On the contrary. ( One's intelligent?) life goes on but without the "me" as a ( self-conscious) 'observer'. Life goes on, the registration goes on, memory goes on, but the "me" which thought has brought about, which is the (active) 'content' of (the self-centred) consciousness, that "me" disappears; obviously because the "me" (-tethering ?) is the limiting (factor) . It does not mean the body does not go on, but ( thought's self-focussing?) activity as the self, as the "me", is not (operational?) . It ( brain's natural intelligence?) realizes it and it drops away.

F: When this happens, why should I name what is going on as thought at all?

Krishnamurti: I am not naming anything if I realize that thought
is the response of the past.
( In a nutshell:) The "me" is made up of various (sticky) additions of thought which have created the "me", which is the ( time-binding memory of the ) past. The "me" is the past. The "me" projects the future.
This whole phenomenon is ( seen as ) a very small affair.
When thought realizes all this it 'stops' . Now let us proceed further.

P: I want to ask you another (experiential  ?) question. If thought as the "me" has ended, what is the new instrument of investigation?

Krishnamurti: We have come to a point where there is no
movement of thought. Investigating into itself so profoundly as we
are doing now, so completely, thought has ended. What is the new factor that comes into being which is going to investigate or what is the new instrument of investigation ?
It is obviously not the old instrument. The intellect, its sharpness of thought, the quality of thought, the objectivity, thought that has created tremendous confusion; ( in the context of the meditator-free meditation?) all that has been denied.

P: If in one's consciousness, there is ( a silent ) movement where there is no word and meaning, there is something else operating. What is this?

Krishnamurti: If you see clearly thought's limitations, then what is happening?

P: A ( holistically integrated ?) state where all the perceptive instruments are functioning ?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely.

P: If there is one instrument functioning at a time, then it is
tethered to thought. But when all the sensory instruments are
functioning, then there is nothing to be tethered to. That is the only
thing one can know. That is 'existence'. Otherwise there would be
death.

Krishnamurti. We agree, then what is the next question? What
is perception then? What is investigation there? What is there to
investigate? What is there to explore?

P: We were trying to investigate God, Truth, but as thought has
ended, there is no point towards which there can be (an investigative) movement.

Krishnamurti: Go slowly ; do not say anything categorically. All
that you can say is that there is no 'forward' movement of 'thought and time'. When you really you deny (all directional) movement, outward or inward, then what takes place?

Now begins a (holistically friendly ?) investigation of a totally different kind. First of all, the mind, the brain realizes it wants order, security,
safety to function sanely, happily, easily. That is its basic demand.
Now the brain realizes that any movement from itself is within the
field of time and therefore, within the field of thought; then is there ( the awakening of?) a totally different kind of movement, qualitatively different, which is not related to time, to
process, to the forward or backward movements?
Now we are asking, is there any other movement? Is there
something which is not related to thought & time? This
question is put by the ( total intelligence of the?) brain, when the brain
realizes that any movement in time 'is' (sooner or later ending up in frustration & ) sorrow. So it abstains from any such movement, naturally. Then it is asking itself if there is any other movement which it really does not know, which it has never tasted?

That means one has to go back to the question of (intelligent?) energy. There is human energy and cosmic energy. We have separated energy as
human and cosmic. I have always been looking at human energy as
separate, limited, incomplete within its limited field. Now the
battle is over. Do you follow what I mean? Do you see it? I have
always regarded the movement of energy as being within the
limited field and separated it from cosmic, universal energy. Now
thought has realized its limitation and therefore, one's (intelligent) energy has become something entirely different. The division between the Cosmic and the human ( intelligence?) - is created by thought. When the ( causation of this) division ceases, another factor (of Holistic Intelligence?) has entered. To a mind which is not centred within itself,
there is no division. (Intelligent Life-) Energy has no division.
Then what takes place? We started by asking if thought is
materialistic? Thought is material, because brain is ( living ) matter; thought is the result of the material; thought may be abstract but it is the
result of the material. Obviously it is. Few have gone beyond...

P: It is that which is the difficulty, because (one's self-identification ) is the most difficult thing to negate. But if you proceed as we have just done, that is (or... may be?) all that is necessary.

Krishnamurti: Now, what there is to discover ? What is the 'movement' which is neither inward nor outward? The brain exists - the part which is registering goes on, but there is the whole (mind ?) , which is totally quiet.

P: It is a fact that we use only a tenth part of our brain.

Krishnamurti: The old brain is very limited. The entire brain is
the 'new' which has not been used. The entire quality of the brain is
new; thought which is limited, functions in a limited field. The old
brain is not active because the limited (self-consciousness?) has ceased.

F: I have an objection. Even if the entire brain is used fully, it
will still only be a tremendously enlarged consciousness.

Krishnamurti: Depending if there is a 'centre' (of self-interest?) .

F: Now if you move into the other, how do you know that the new consciousness has not a focalizing tendency?

Krishnamurti: ( Self-) focalizing takes place when thought operates as
"me" and 'my' pain, despair, success,. When this "me" is silent, where is ( the self-isolating?) consciousness?

F: You are becoming very narrow. I am still legitimately
questioning the point that ( personal sorrow & ) frustration is the only point of focalization.

Krishnamurti: I included everything (all the psychological content) existing in the field of time. The old brain becomes quiet. The
noise of the ( self-centred consciousness?) has ended and that is the 'silence of limitation'. When thought realizes that, then the brain itself, the whole brain, becomes quiet.

P: Yet it registers...

Krishnamurti: Of course. Noise is going on.

P: One's existence continues.

Krishnamurti: Existence without any continuance. Then what?
The whole brain becomes quiet, not the limited part.

F: It is the same thing to us...

P: If the 'other' ( holistic consciousness?) is not operable,
what becomes quiet for us is only limitation.

Krishnamurti: Therefore, that quietness is not 'quietness'. (
(For homework meditation?) Stop first the movement of thought, then see what happens.

P: I want to ask one ( bonus?) question here. You have said that the
ending of the limitation of "me" as thought, is not 'the' silence.

Krishnamurti: That is the beauty of it. When thought with its limitations says it is silent, it is not 'silent'. ( The true?) Silence is when the total quality of the brain is still; the total thing, not just part of it.

F: Why should the 'total brain' become silent?

Krishnamurti: The total ( energy matrix of the human ) brain has always been quiet. When thought's ( self-centred) chattering comes to an
end, then there is a feeling of silence but that is not Silence. Silence
is when the total mind, the brain, though registering, is completely
quiet, because ( the totality of its intelligent?) energy is quiet. It may explode but the basis of energy is quiet. (Pause)

Now, (back to the initial question?) there is ( an explosion into) passion only when sorrow has no movement. Have you understood what I have said? Sorrow is ( a temporally -bound intelligent ?) energy. When (in meditation?) there is no movement at all in sorrow there is an explosion into passion. Now the same ( inwardly explosive?) thing takes place when there is no movement - outward or inward ( within the time-bound energy ?) which the limited "me" has generated (in its desire ) to achieve something more. When ( in the meditating mind ?) there is absolute silence , total silence, therefore no movement of any kind, when the mind is completely quiet, there is a totally different kind of 'explosion' which is......

P: Which is ...'God' ?

Krishnamurti: I refuse to use the word "God" but this state ( of Cosmic Consciousness) is not thought's invention, because thought is completely ( suspended ?) without movement.
That is why it is important to ( approach 'negatively' such major existential questions?) by exploring ( and negating the intrinsical limitations of our own ?) thought and not (by using thought to grasp?) the "Other".

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Sep 2018 #105
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

ENERGY, ENTROPY AND LIFE-ENERGY
(a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, 1971)

Questioner D: The other day we discussed energy and you spoke of the (intelligent) 'human' energy and the 'Cosmic' energy. The human being generally moves with an entropic energy and, therefore, decays. The problem is therefore: How can man, being aware of this, be part of the (Universal?) movement of (intelligent ) energy that is anti-entropic?

Krishnamurti: One can see quite simply, that anything which is functioning 'mechanically' wears itself out, given a certain time.

D: Unfortunately, this (mechanistic ) energy, the ( thought-time?) movement of entropy, dominates the world today. How do we get out of its grip?

P: This is a very important point. If there is (a possibility of awakening an inner ?) movement of ( intelligent?) energy which does not dissipate itself, which does not end, or decay, then from the point of view of the scientist as well as man, it is probably the answer to all the problems of the world.

Krishnamurti: So what are you asking? How is (the human mind) who is presently caught in a ( survival oriented) movement of mechanical decay, how can that process of decay be brought to an end? Or is there a contrary movement (of the non-entropic life energy) ?

D: What is the nature of that 'contrary' movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us put that question in a more 'simple way ' . Man is
caught in the 'mechanical' ( time-binding movement of ) energy; he is caught by technology, by the movement of thought - you get the key to it?

D: Not really...

Krishnamurti: There is the whole field of technological (& everyday's practical) knowledge and in a (string of time-binding activities ?) within that( field of?) knowledge; that is the 'field (of the known') in
which the modern man lives, and which has a tremendous influence on him, which is really taking him over, absorbing him.
Scientists also say that there is an (anti-entropic) movement of energy, a 'creative' energy; the real human energy which is non-mechanical, non-technological. Now, what is the question?

D: The modern ( holistically minded ?) biologists say that all the species has developed up to man from the smallest cell and in man there is now
an emergence of consciousness; man as an entity can become conscious
of the whole evolutionary process.

P: Chardin even says that the next 'leap forward' will come by "a process of seeing" which is the same as the traditional (Indian concept of ) 'pashyanti'.

Krishnamurti: We will ( hopefully?) come to that if we can examine the
decaying processes; the energy which is mechanical, which is
entropic. We are also trying to find ( how to awaken within our consciousness ?) that (dormant source of ) 'life-energy', which is nonmechanical. What is this energy?

A: The biologist's approach is very tentative when he comes to
'consciousness'. Whenever he speaks of life-energy, he does not
speak with the same precision as the other. There is a recognition
that the 'anti-entropic' (life-energy) is the ''unknown', the 'un-definable'. So, even after having said that there is "the other", "the other" is still unknown. So, let us take the movement of life-energy as something
unknown to us ; we cannot manipulate it, but in the measure that man becomes conscious of the entire evolutionary process in himself, he becomes aware of Consciousness.

P: The observable thing is that man is born, lives and dies. This (entropic) phenomenon of a cyclic movement of energy having a beginning and an ending of, is visible ( everywhere in nature) and is also deeply structured in our ( temporal) consciousness - the 'emerging' and the 'disappearing' , the two manifestations of ( the material) life energy. Is there energy which is not concerned with emerging or disappearing?
K: Do we accept this (concept) that there is a 'beginning' and an 'ending' of energy ?

F: Individuals may begin and end, but Life does not. It creates.

Krishnamurti: There is ( within the human consciousness?) a movement of energy which is mechanical, which is measurable, which may end, and there is a ( substratum of intelligent ?) life-energy which you cannot manipulate; it goes on infinitely. We see that in one case there is
wastage of energy and in the other there is non-wastage of energy.

F: I do not see the 'other' as a fact.

Krishnamurti: All right. There is (in any form of material life) an energy which reaches a height and then declines. Is there any other form of energy which can never end, which is not related to the energy
which begins, continues and withers away?

F: That is a legitimate question.

D: Is there ( in the human consciousness?) any form of energy that will not decay?

Krishnamurti: How are we going to find it out (experientially ) ? I've got it ! What is the (nature of the life-) energy that decays?

P: Material energy decays. Why does it decay? By friction?

Krishnamurti: It decays through friction. Is there any other form (or quality?) of energy which does not decay?

D: Any ( material) 'life energy' has the biological capacity to overcome resistance, but it dissipates itself in this process.

Krishnamurti: Like in a machine. So is there an energy which has no (internal) 'resistance' at all, an energy which has no friction in itself?
The human organism is a field of (intelligent life) energy, and in this whole field, there is the energy brought about through resistance, through conflict, through violence, through growth and decay, through the process of time. Now we are asking, is there ( within the human psyche?) any other energy which is not of time, which does not belong to this field?

F: You are asking whether there is (an intelligent?) energy which is irresistible?

Krishnamurti: (For starters?) we only know the (entropic) energy which is in the field of time. It may have a span of ten million years, but it is still in the field of time. That is all we human beings know. And as ( presumably intelligent?) human beings we are now enquiring if there is an energy which is not in the field of time? Man must have asked this
question for centuries upon centuries, and not being able to ( experientially) find an answer he said there was (a spark of Divine consciousness in each of us?) and therefore ( brought the concept of ) 'God' into the field of time. And therefore all that is part of (our temporal) consciousness which decays. It decays because it is of
time, it is 'divisible' (it is 'dividing' or 'separating' itself from the Whole?) . And my mind which is divisible, wanting to
find a timeless energy, proceeds to formulate a ( transcendental?) energy which it calls God and worships that. All that is happening within the field of thought-time. So I ask, is there (within the human consciousness?) any other energy which is not of time? You understand?

D: Yes...

Krishnamurti: Now, how do I find it out (experimentally?) ? ( For starters?) I reject ( the traditionalistic concept of?) 'God', which is
within the field of our thought-time. I reject the (man-made concepts of?) Higher -Self, Atman, Brahman, the 'Soul', 'Heaven,' for they are all within the field of time. Now I ask, is there (within the undivided human consciousness a source of intelligent?) energy which is timeless? Yes, Sir, there is ! Shall we 'go into it'?

D: Certainly, but... 'how' ?

Krishnamurti: How do I find it out (experientially?) ? ( For starters, the temporal ?) consciousness must 'empty itself' of its ( psychologically active?) 'content'. Must it not?

D: The practical question is : I am 'sitting on a chair', which is my condition of existence ( my temporal consciousness  ?). I cannot 'throw away the chair'.

Krishnamurti: You cannot throw away the chair, but you can
throw away the (psychologically active?) content which time has created which one calls consciousness. This 'content' makes ( its own self-centred) consciousness; otherwise there is no such 'consciousness' .

P: May I ask you something. Is this 'total emptying' of consciousness
not the same as 'seeing the totality' of consciousness?

Krishnamurti: It is. Agreed. There is the fact of totally emptying consciousness and there is the seeing the whole field of (thought & )
time - now what does that 'seeing' mean?
Is that 'seeing' different from the field of time or has that seeing
separated itself from the field of time and then thinks it is free and
looks at the field of time ?

D: Right, Sir. This ( subliminally dualistic ?) perception presupposes a 'perceiver'.

Krishnamurti: So a ( new experiential) question arises : what is involved in this 'total' ( holistic ?) seeing ? To comprehend ( in a flash of insight?) the whole consciousness of man, the whole of it. The whole of it is the ( psychologically active?) content of it, and this active 'content' ( of self-interest?) has been accumulated through ( millions of years of evolution in?) time, which is ( imbedded in our) culture, religion, knowledge. Whether it expands ( outwardly) or contracts (inwardly) , it is still within the field of time. When it expands, it
includes 'God', 'nationalism', etc, etc . This is the whole movement of human consciousness within the field of ( material) time. It 'is'
time itself. What do you say, Deshpande , consciousness 'is' (a process of ?) time?

D: I have no other (perceptive) instrument but this consciousness.

Krishnamurti: I see consciousness is time because the (psychologically active?) content of it has been accumulated through centuries upon centuries.

D: ( Man's time-bound?) consciousness is (caught in all kinds of ) conflicts & frictions.

Krishnamurti: Now, how can my (potentially intelligent?) mind look at this total field of ( thought -) time and not be of the field? That is the ( Daily Double ?) question. Otherwise, it cannot look. Total perception must be free of time. Is there a ( holistic quality of perception and seeing which is not of time? What do you say?

D: This was our initial question...

Krishnamurti: And if it is not of (thought-) time, then perception 'is' the (anti-entropic?) life-movement. Perception itself 'is' the ( holistic action of that ?) life-movement.

A: Can we just assume that this ( holistic) perception is the ( anti-entropic) movement of life? I do not know anything about it.

Krishnamurti: Can our mind, being the total result of time, dis-associate itself from that field? Or is there a (new quality of ) perception which is not of time and therefore sees the totality?

P: I would say that Achyutji is right ; I just cannot posit the "other".

A: The moment I posit it, it becomes like the God of the Upanishads. But seeing that all my consciousness is within the field of time, I can remain with it. I am "it".

Krishnamurti: You are "it". Then, somebody comes along and asks : is
there a ( holistic ?) perception which 'sees' the totality of consciousness (as a dynamic process of thought & ) time? Is there such a perception? This is a 'legitimate' question (to contemplate for meditation homework?) ...
( To recap:) The 'observer' and the 'observed' are
within the field of time. That is all I know. That is a fact. But
knowing that, somebody comes along and asks: Is there a
movement which is not of time? Isn't that a legitimate question ?

P: I do not know...

Krishnamurti: You can put it to yourself. The (holistically friendly ?) putting of it is legitimate : Can the mind see the totality of itself? Can the mind 'see itself' as the (battle ?) field of ( thought & ) time – but not as a (self-separated?) 'observer' seeing the 'field of time'? Can the mind itself become so totally aware that it sees 'consciousness' as ( a self-centred movement of thought & ) time? ( For a contemplative mind...?) it is fairly simple: I 'am' the totality of (my) consciousness.

P: When I am observing ( the inner process of of time-) thought, I see it as a movement : I wake up to an ongoing thought, then of the next thought and so on . Then I put these (discrete) observations together and say there is a thought-time movement. But when Krishnaji says "perceive the totality of this room", it is in the active present.

Krishnamurti: What is it that you are trying to say, "P"?

P: Your statement of the perception of consciousness as a
movement of time is not ( experientially) valid (for us?) . If we do not get the 'concreteness' of the direct seeing, we move into the field of the conceptual.

Krishnamurti: If there is ( direct) perception, there is no ( thought-) time. I 'look' and there is no time.

P: I want to examine your (holistic) question, "Do you see consciousness as the whole content of time?"

Krishnamurti: My ( thinking) mind is the result of time - memory,
experience, knowledge. My ( self-centred) consciousness is within the field of time. How can I see that the whole 'content' is within
the field of time? Is it an (intellectual) conclusion, or I see it as a 'fact' and not as a conclusion?

P: How would you distinguish the two?

Krishnamurti: One is a (verbal) formulation, a conclusion, a statement, the other is something that I am finding out right now .

P: When you're saying that my consciousness is the product of time, is it an abstract statement or is it something that I can actually see?

Krishnamurti: Is it either a statement with intellectual meaning, which I accept (logically ) , and therefore it becomes a conclusion , or it is (seen as) an actual fact : that the whole of my ( temporal) consciousness is (the expression of) this enormous field of (mankind's evolution in ) time? Is it as concrete as that?

P: How can it be as concrete as the other?

Krishnamurti: I will show it to you in a minute. ( For starters?) I can see that any (intellectual) conclusion is not a 'fact' , because thought accepts it ( ''sanely & logically'' ?) and makes it into a ''formula'' and
remains with that formula. This (subliminally adopted ) formula is an abstraction created by thought and therefore it is the cause of ( further ideological?) conflicts. It is the very nature of conflict. I see that very clearly.

Now, is there a (direct, non-verbal) perception which is not of the total field of time ? ( Thought-adopted ?) 'formulas' are (inwardly-wise) the most deadly things.
( In a nutshell:) Such 'formulas' and 'concepts' are products of thought and, therefore, are all within the field of time.

P: Why is it necessary to make this absolute statement at all?

Krishnamurti. I will show you in a minute. I am enquiring into the
field of time. Time, we said, is (deeply embedded in our ) consciousness - the (psychological) result of centuries upon centuries of ( survivalistic ) experience. That is my consciousness, and the consciousness is made up of all the content.
I hear you state that and thought picks it up and makes a ( fail-safe?) formula of it. I see that ( subliminally accepted) 'formula' is within the field of time, that very formula is '( eventually becoming ) a
factor of ( ideological?) friction. So I do not touch it. But... have I actually negated it? Or am I just thinking, or feeling that
I have negated it?

I am finding something - when ( the self-centred process of ?) thinking operates, it must operate within the field of ( past-present-future?) time, therefore it must come to a 'conclusion' ( that might be helpful in the future) and this 'conclusion' is ( becoming a defining) part of my consciousness; that is all.

( Now regarding the direct, non-verbal perception?) When I
come to this room, I (just look around & ) 'see' . The moment ( my self-interest based?) thought comes in, the ( intellectual conclusions drawn from the first ) perception come into the field of time.

So, is my mind deceiving itself by saying "I have no formula", but is still (subliminally ) entrenched in (its previous) formulas which are already part of my (temporal) consciousness? Or is there a ( spontaneous & holistic ?) perception ( aka: insight?) which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought?

Therefore (to recap:) whenever thought comes into being, it must create a 'formula' , and this formula is within the field of time.

So, when you are saying : ''the whole of our consciousness is ( a process of?) time'', is it a ('sane & rational' K ) formula, or is it a (direct perception of the?) fact - the 'fact' being that there is a (direct)
perception of the total inner movement of (time-) thought?

P: You see, Sir, these are ( holistically encrypted) words which you often use - ''the total movement of thought'' - but what is meant ( experientially) by those words? If you ask whether I have accepted it as a 'formula', I have neither accepted it as a formula, nor did I see it as a fact. It is neither of these.

Krishnamurti: But by listening, by examining, by investigating,
you may see that ''it is so''. Is that "it is so", the (result of a subliminal) acceptance of a 'K idea', and therefore still within the field of time?

P: What can I answer?

Krishnamurti: You know nothing about it. I want to find out whether the (intellectually trained) mind that is the result of time, hearing that statement, does accept it (subliminally) as an ( ultimate ?) statement and therefore remains ( inwardly stuck?) in time, or it 'sees the truth of it' , sees the 'fact'. Then what takes place? One is aware of this room without any interference of 'time' ( of the 'thought-time' process?)

P: At this very instant what are you 'aware' of?

Krishnamurti: (Makes a gesture brushing one hand over the
other) Nothing. That is it ! Absolutely nothing, because it (the source of holistic perception ?) is not of time. This is the ( non-entropic) factor of life-energy.

P: I want to ask a (last bonus) question. You say that 'there is nothing' . But is there a 'movement'?

Krishnamurti: The (life sustaining ?) movement of "nothingness" is not of time, therefore not measurable. But it has its own (Creative) Movement which you cannot possibly understand unless you leave the 'movement' of (thoughts continuity in ?) time. That (innermost) Movement ( of Creation ?) is infinite.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Sep 2018 #106
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

INTELLIGENCE, THE NEW HOLISTIC INSTRUMENT

( A 'reader friendy' edited K dialogue, cca 1971)

Questioner P: There are many ( experiential) aspects which we have discussed during the last few days. Can all these questions converge into one question?

Krishnamurti: I think so.

B: To you it is a very simple thing. You have an amazing
capacity of converting diversity into a single thing. This
convergence has not taken place in us. Could there be some action
which would make all questions melt into one question?

P: Or, if it were not possible to simplify all questions into one question, is there an instrument and what is that instrument which will make this possible? Under 'whose' command do the brain cells function?

Krishnamurti: I thought "K" explained yesterday that it is 'intelligence'.

D: Yes, but...how does it happen? Mankind's creative intelligence functions in various areas: the artist, the philosopher, etc use their own (specialised skils &) intelligence, but that is certainly not the 'Intelligence' you are talking about.

Krishnamurti: Intelligence is that ( holistic ?) quality of mind which can use (factual) knowledge in the vast field of practical knowledge, but not use knowledge in another field.

F: The difference that exists between me and you, is it just a matter of degree of intelligence or is there another factor operating in you?

Krishnamurti: Can we tackle this question (holistically?) ? Can the ( meditating?) mind , 'empty itself' of the mechanism of (time &) thought that functions all the time? Can the mind empty itself of all the ( depressing 'psychological' memories of the past ?) not only at the conscious level but at the deeper secret chambers of the mind? And from this 'emptiness' can knowledge operate and not operate?

B: So, the key question would be 'emptiness'?

Krishnamurti: 'Emptiness' in the sense of the mind being 'as nothing'; an 'emptiness' which has its own ( intelligent ?) movement, which is not measurable in terms of ( thoughts continuity in ) time. A movement in emptiness that can operate in the field of knowledge and science ( in which there must be a certain direction, an operative function, a
design ) and not operating where there is no place for ( the self-centred ) thought and its 'will (-power') . ( Man's vast accumulation of ) knowledge helps him to live more comfortably (physically & ) environmentally , while his (vastly ignored accumulations of psychological ) knowledge brings ( its own toil of) inner misery, confusion. That is a ( totally verifiable ) 'fact' . Then you and I ask : is it possible for thought not to create (the psychological?) misery? That is all. Keep it as simple as this.

F: My answer to that is the ( ages old) 'roots of misery' are not known to me...

Krishnamurti: We began with the superficial layers. Now we
will ( have to ) go ( deeper ) into the secret chambers of the mind.

P: But Sir, the moment you speak of a place where thought
can operate legitimately and a place where thought has no
legitimate place you are postulating the 'other' - a state which is nonthought. If ( according to your generic statement ) ''Consciousness ( as we know it ) is only its content'', then what is the 'other'?

D: Can we say that man's consciousness is nothing beyond thought? I would question this.

Krishnamurti: So we have to go ( again?) into the question of ''what is consciousness'' ?

B: You used the word "intelligence" in a different way. That word is the ( experiential) key... if we could only know what (this 'intelligence' ) is.

P: But this also a very valid question - if the active 'content' ( of our consciousness?) is thought, and if all our consciousness 'is' (completely polarised by its ?) content, then cutting away 'thought' , will it
solve the problem?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: Then... what is the "other" (largely ignored part of human consciousness?) ?

F: Intelligence is different from consciousness. We must
distinguish between the two. Intelligence is much vaster than
consciousness. We can have an 'unconscious' (intuitive?) intelligence.

P: What is 'consciousness'?

Krishnamurti: There is a waking consciousness, there is hidden consciousness; the consciousness of the superficial mind, and a lack of total awareness of the deeper layers of consciousness.

P: I would say, Krishnaji, that there is an area of our total consciousness in which thought operates, then there is a ( deeper level of ) consciousness where attention is and where there is seeing; and a (still deeper level of) consciousness which is unconscious (independent?) of ( the self-centred process of thought. I see these three states as they operate in me.

Krishnamurti: Three states which are : (a) the operation of memory as thought, as (spatio-temporal) action; then ( b) a state of (pure?) attention
where there is no (personal identification with the all controlling?) 'thinker'.
P:...and ( c) a state of being 'sound asleep' when one is are not aware of
thought nor of attention.

Krishnamurti: ... a state in which there is neither attention nor
thought, but a sense of being ' deeply asleep' ? All this is what you would call 'consciousness', right?

F: This is a 'patchy' thing. The point is : consciousness is not a
continuous phenomenon.

Krishnamurti: Can we start this way? There is this (whole field of human ?) 'consciousness', wide or narrow, deep or shallow. As long as
there is a ( self-identified) 'centre' which is conscious of itself, this centre may expand or contract. That centre says 'I am aware' ( of some parts of my consciousness) or not aware (of the deeper parts) . This ( self-conscious?) 'centre' can ( very bravely?) attempt to 'go beyond' the (self-protective ?) 'limitations' which ( for survivalistic reasons) it has placed around itself. This 'centre' ( of self-interest) has its deep roots in the 'cave' ( of our collective consciousness?) and operates 'superficially' . All that is ( the 'as is' condition of human ? )consciousness. In all that there must be a 'centre'.

P: May I ask you a very personal question? Would you
say there is no operation of ( this self-centred ) consciousness in you?

Krishnamurti: That is not the point (of this objective exploration ?) .We will come to that presently (or... not?) .

A: I wanted to ask whether there is such a thing as an (original) matrix ( of intelligent consciousness?) in which there is not even a ''centre'', because it is out of that the centre is formed?

Krishnamurti: Are we (indulging in intellectual ?) speculation?
Look, let us begin very 'simply'. When are you actually 'self-conscious'?
Either through sensory reaction, through a sensory shock, a sensory
resistance, a sensory danger, a conflict in which there is pain/pleasure.
It is only in those when I am (personally?) challenged, when there is an (emotional) impact, when I say ''I am conscious''. This whole phenomenon (of one's self-consciousness) is going on, whether there
is a deliberate awareness or not, this thing is operating all the time.

P: You mean there is no 'photographic' consciousness ?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells are receiving all these (sensory) impacts. The (sub-conscious) mind is registering everything, but 'you' are seeing it. (Personal) impacts of pleasure, pain, conflict, sorrow,
conscious, or unconscious, are going on all the time and there may
be an awareness of all that at one moment, and at other moments
there may not be. But it is going on all the time. So what is the next
question?

B: What is the nature of the 'unconscious' ?

Krishnamurti: It is still ( created in ) the same (way) . Only that it is at deeper layers.

B: Why are we unconscious of the deeper layers?

Krishnamurti: Because 'superficially' ( outwardly?) we are being very active all the time.

B: So the density of the superficial layer prevents our being
conscious of the deeper layers ?

Krishnamurti: It is like swimming on the surface (of existence?) . So what is my next ( experiential) question ?

P: You have said that thought is part of all that. Then what is the rest?

Krishnamurti: All that we have described, thought, memory, everything, is ( our spatio- temporal?) consciousness. And thought comes into operation as the ( process controller or?) systematizer.

P: Is thought only a part of it or is thought all?

Krishnamurti. Go slow. I do not want to say something which is
untrue.

P: In everything K says (about the right place of thought) the "other'' ( 'timeless' dimension of human consciousness?) is posited.

A: Isn't there within our consciousness a 'space' which is not covered by thought?

Krishnamurti: I don't say you are not right. So, go on.

A: I say there is (an inner) space in our consciousness which is not ( occupied by) thought and that is part of the human heritage. It is there.

Krishnamurti: I do not think that within ( our temporal) consciousness there is any ( thought -free ) space.

P: I want to put another ( bonus?) question to you. When I perceive you
and listen to the whole thing operating, there is no movement of
thought, but I am 'totally conscious'.

Krishnamurti: Why do you call that 'consciousness'?
Wait, go slow. "A" says there is space in consciousness. We have to answer that question : do we see that ( a free inner) 'space' cannot be contained within a boundary, in a ( self-centred) circle.

A: It is not space, if it is held within a circle, a square, a
rectangle. In one sense, of course, it is space.

Krishnamurti: Do not call that 'space'. Space in the sense in which
we use the word, does not exist in ( a self-enclosed) consciousness. That space ( of inner emptiness) is something else.

Our next ( experiential) question is : Is there a state of mind
when there is no ( dualistic thinking ) at all? If I say how marvellous that lamp is, it is finished. But when thought says I wish I had it in my room, then there is duality. See what has been found ? That when there is the simple functioning of thought without any motive, there is no duality.

P: This is rather difficult ( to put into practice) , since thought is always based on a personal motive.

Krishnamurti: Not (necessarily?) . What is ( the internal mechanism of?) thought? I see that marvellous sunset. It is recorded, and at that moment, (that experience is technically ) 'finished'. But ( a few moments, hours, days, or years later ?) thought comes along and says ''I wish it would happen again''. In that (second thinking the personal ) motive operates.

D: Yes Sir. When you first look at that sunset, ( the personal?) motive is irrelevant.

P: Sunset is an impersonal thing, let us not take that. I am
jealous. There is a movement of jealousy as thought. You see
Krishnaji, this is in some subtle way connected with the (active) content of our 'space - time' consciousness.

Krishnamurti: "P", you just now said jealousy. Jealousy is the
factor of duality - that is, my wife looks at another man, and I feel
jealous because I ( assume that I ) possess her, she is mine. But if I am
aware that she is not mine from the beginning, then the factor of
jealousy does not enter. She is a free human being as I am a free
human being. I allow her freedom.

P: I understand that. But we were talking about the structure of
thought as it arises in our consciousness. In itself there is no
duality.

Krishnamurti: There is duality only when there is the operation
of ( a self-interest based) motivation, measurement and/or comparison. In the (spontaneous) observation of a lovely sunset, in seeing the light, the shadow, there is no duality. But the moment I say 'I wish I
had it again', begins the ( time-binding?) dualistic process. That is all.

P: We have somehow moved away...

Krishnamurti: I will come back, which is, ( the temporal) consciousness is (including) perception, hearing, seeing, listening, learning and the (processed) memory of all that and the next response according to that memory. All that is ( our generic) consciousness, whether or not focalized. In that consciousness is ( subliminally embedded thought's continuity in?) time in which there is duality, non-duality, the conflicts - I must, I must not - the whole of that field is ( our 'known' ) consciousness. And in that there is no space at all because it has
boundaries, frontiers, which are limitations.

A: There is another factor which I would like to have included.
There are the collective perceptions of all the people in the world How can we ignore this process by which all this is syphoning into
me? The movement of the "I" as thought is something that is
constantly being fed and renewed by that. Unless I see ( the impact of) this ( unconscious?) process, I do not understand.

Krishnamurti: The whole field of our consciousness is the movement of contraction and expansion - all that is happening in our global environment, is part of me: I 'am' (the result of) the ( global socio-cultural) environment and the environment 'is' ( inwardly not separated from?) me. In that whole field (of our global consciousness) there is the ( personalised ) movement of the 'me'. I like (my people ) and I do not like the (other guys) - within this (global) consciousness, this ( issue of personal choice) creates the mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like".

A: Therefore, the problem is the (self-) identification which gives this weightage to the "I like" and "I don't like", that it builds around it.

Krishnamurti: Sir, I am all that, the past and the present
and the projected future; I am born in India with all the culture of
5000 years. That is what I call 'my consciousness'.

A: It is wider; it includes America, the whole world -

Krishnamurti: But 'choice' arises when you say you are a Hindu
and I am a Muslim; when there is focalization through
identification, there is then choice.

P: You have been stating that it is legitimate for thought to
operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it
operates in other fields then it brings sorrow, pain, duality. The
question is: Is the ''other state'' which you are talking about, is it
also ( part of our total) consciousness

Krishnamurti: Let's stick to your first question for the moment. Thought
has a legitimate field of operation and if it impinges into other
fields then it brings pain, suffering. That which operates in this
area, is it still consciousness - consciousness as we know it with all
the things we have put into it? The 'other' is not.

P: The 'other' is not... what?

Krishnamurti: It is not ( occupied by?) thought.

P: But is it consciousness? I will open it out a little more. The
sensory perceptions operate. Seeing, listening operates, therefore
why do you say (that the 'other' ) it is not 'consciousness'?

Krishnamurti: I am saying that it is not in ( our present) 'consciousness', in the sense that in it there is no ( dualistic) conflict.

P: There is no conflict in ( the totality of human) consciousness. There is only conflict when this consciousness operates as self-centred thinking in the field where it has no legitimate place. Why should there be (any internal) conflict in a ( holistically integrated ) consciousness when thought is not operating?

Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there.

P: Then what is it that operates there?

Krishnamurti: Is (the holistic ) intelligence ( contained within the self-centred) consciousness? Intelligence 'is not' ( part of the self-centred) consciousness.

P: Now we come to a stage where we just 'listen'...

Krishnamurti: My mind has followed all this. It has seen as "A"
pointed out, the whole content of consciousness as the past Indian
tradition, the whole human heritage and that I 'am' all that.
Consciousness is all that. Heritage is consciousness. And this consciousness as we know it ( dominated by self-interest ?)
is ( caught in dualistic) conflict. And my chief concern is
to end that conflict, conflict being sorrow, pain. In examining that,
there is a discovery that it is all a process of ( self-centred) thought. There is pain and pleasure and from that the (holisically intelligent) mind says it must operate in the field of knowledge and not here.
What has happened to this ( conflict-free ?) mind? It has become
pliable, soft, alive. It 'sees', it 'hears'. It does not have the quality of
conflict in it, and that is ( factor of holistic?) Intelligence.
And this is ( obviously not the same quality of ?) consciousness.
Now this Intelligence can use ( holistically brain's thinking ) to operate ( sanely & objectively) in the field of knowledge and therefore its operation is never dualistic.

D: Then, the language of intelligence must be different from the
language of thought ?

Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no 'language' (since it can perceive non-verbally?) , but it can use language. The moment it has (acquired a standardised ) language it is (ASAP) back again in the field (of the known) . This ( insightful ?) intelligence having no language is not 'personal'. It is not mine or yours.

P: It may not be personal but is it focalized?

Krishnamurti: No, it only 'appears to focalize'.

P: When it moves (in the material universe?) , doesn't it have to focalize?

Krishnamurti: Of course, it must, but it is never ( living ) in focalization.

P: It is never held?

Krishnamurti: It is like holding the Sea in the fist: it (the water ) is part of the Sea, but it is not the Sea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Sep 2018 #107
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

CRASH COURSE ON 'HOLISTIC ATTENTION'
( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, 1971)

Questioner P: In your last public talk you asked whether ( in the context of holistic meditation?) the brain cells could 'strip themselves' of everything except the pure biological necessity which makes the organism exist and seemed to suggest that before any movement in the new ( conflict free ) dimension ( of consciousness ) could take place, this 'total stripping' to the bare bedrock was essential. Isn't this bringing man back to a 'materialistic' position ? If you strip man of every psychological element except the urge for physical survival, how is he different from the animal?

Krishnamurti: We know both the 'biological' and the 'psychological' survival, but the ( vast accumulation of ) 'psychological' ( self-interest) have made ( for many people a decent ) physical survival almost impossible. Psychological fragmentation is destroying the beauty of survival. Can one strip man of all these 'psychological' factors?

P: Apart from the 'biological' and 'psychological' ( temporal ) factors , isn't there anything else within man's total consciousness ?

Krishnamurti: As we know it now, these are the only two factors
that operate in ( the everyday consciousness of ) man.

F: Is there not such a factor as 'psychical' survival, apart from the physiological?

Krishnamurti: Which means the survival of the ( temporal) 'psyche' . Last evening we said the whole of our consciousness 'is' ( dominated by ) its ( 'psychological' ) content. And the ( deeply embedded ? ) content of this consciousness is conflict & pain; the whole of that is (displayed in the self-centred ) consciousness.

D: You said also that 'intelligence' is more than this consciousness.

Krishnamurti: We said that in understanding the 'fact' of ( the whole truth about this) consciousness and going beyond it, is (triggering the awakening of a holistic  ?) Intelligence. You cannot
come to that intelligence if your consciousness is in ( a self-sustained inner state of ?) conflict. Now all that we know is biological survival and the survival of our 'psychological' ( personal?) consciousness. What is the next question?

P: You implied yesterday that there was a necessity to 'strip it'...

Krishnamurti: Can you (wisely?) 'strip' ( let go?) the (subliminally active?) psychological 'content' of consciousness ? In ( the very?) stripping, that (holistic) Intelligence is ( coming ) in operation. So then there is only the biological survival and Intelligence- there are no other ( 'psychological' factors of self-interest ?).

P: You said yesterday and this (newly awakened) intelligence 'perceives'. Is there such a ( holistic?) seeing?

Krishnamurti: There is another quality in ( the conflict free mind?) which 'perceives'.

P: You said yesterday that there is a ( inner quality of ) silence which 'sees'...

Krishnamurti: Perfectly true. Now, what is the nature of this silence?
When (the 'observer vs observed' inner) conflict (along with its collateral?) misery & pain has ended......

P: When you say that all this ( conflictual content) is
stripped, what happens? Can we, in going (experientially) through this, get the feeling of that that 'seeing'?

Krishnamurti: We have said intelligence is beyond ( the self-enclosed?) consciousness and this (holistic) intelligence comes into being in the very stripping. Then there is the ( objective thinking ensuring our ? ) physical survival and intelligence.
Intelligence has no heritage, but our self-centred consciousness has (its own ) heritage (of self-interest) , and therefore it is caught in (a subliminal process of self-centred ) becoming within the ( total) field of our consciousness. ( Meditation Clue:) Let the mind 'empty itself' of all that. In the very emptying comes the highest form of intelligence and then our physical) survival is entirely different from animal
survival since we can all think (intelligently?) , design, construct.

P: Do you mean to say there is ( a higher ?) Intelligence which manifests itself in stripping?

Krishnamurti: Listen carefully. My consciousness is now all the time
trying to become, change, modify, struggle, etc. That is all we know (at this point of our species' evolution) : ( the endless problems of biological survival and the ('psychological' endeavour to be & to do better ?) . Everybody operates within these two. And even if within this inner struggle we project 'something beyond' ( our 'time bound' ) consciousness, it is still within ( man's self-centred ) consciousness because it is projected.

Now, can the (holistically responsable) mind that really wants to be free from its (dualistic) wrangle & back-chattering , ''strip (or empty ?) itself" of all its (conflicted) content ? That is all. (Silent Pause.) And in that, Intelligence comes to be.

P: Is this (psychological ) emptying ( supposed to be?) an endless process?

Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Because then I am caught in ( a circle created by?) the same phenomenon.

P: You mean, once it is done, it is done (forever?) ?

Krishnamurti: Let us go slowly. You must first understand ( the inner logic of this 'emptying' ) verbally ( intellectually?) …

P: Does the 'emptying' ( of the psychological content) take time or is it free of time? Is it piecemeal, or is it an emptying of the whole content (at once) ?

Krishnamurti: Is that the question? The piecemeal and the
whole?

D: And if all these go (down the drain?) what remains?

B: Only 'awareness' remains. But is this 'complete awareness' the (perception of the ) whole?

P: Is the awareness of a ( particular) point of consciousness - such as
jealousy - is the awareness of that one thing, the totality of all
consciousness?

Krishnamurti: If you mean being aware of all the implications, a (transpersonal awareness?) in which there is no choice, no compulsion, no resistance - obviously it is so.

P: So at any point this (total emptying?) is possible?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

P: So that is the door (to holistic intelligence?) ; the door of dissolution ?

Krishnamurti: Hold on. You are asking, is there an (inner) awareness which is so penetrating that in that very awareness the whole is present? Or is it bit by bit? Is there a search, is there a looking in, an analysing?

D: The ancient yogic position is that Nature is a flowing river. In that
flow, man's organism comes into being. As soon as it comes into
being, it has also the capacity to choose and the moment it chooses,
it separates itself from the now, from the river. This is a process of
separation from the flow and the only thing which brings this into
being is choice. Therefore, they say the dissolution of choice may
bring you to total emptiness and in that emptiness you see.

Krishnamurti: Right sir, that is one ( excellent?) point. But "P"s question was : is there an end to ( this psychological )stripping or is it a constant process?

P: And the second question was where there is intelligence is
there any need for stripping?
Krishnamurti: Let us start with the first question which is good
enough. What do you say?

P: It is one of those extraordinary questions where you can
neither say "Yes" nor "No".

D: It hangs on ( thinking in terms of) 'time' or of 'no time'.

P: Even if you say it is not a question of time, five minutes later it (this subliminal psychological content?) will emerge again. So this question cannot be answered.

Krishnamurti: My ( self-) consciousness is a process of time.
Now I am asking : can one's consciousness go beyond this (intrinsical limitation ?) ? Can we, who are caught in the movement of time, go beyond time? That question, ( the time bound ) consciousness cannot answer because it can only think in terms of time and when questioned whether this process can 'end' in which there is no time, it cannot answer, can it?

Now as ( the time-bound) ) consciousness cannot answer the question, we say let us see what is ( the nature of non-personal & choice-free?) awareness and investigate whether that ( such holistic?) awareness can bring about a timeless state? But this brings in new elements. Is this awareness within the field of time (of the 'known'?) , or is there an awareness in which the 'observer' is totally absent?
(Not a continuous state of awareness in which the observer is
absent, which again is a fallacious statement.)

A: The word is 'swarupa shunyata'. The 'observer' becomes
empty.

Krishnamurti: Now, how does this awareness come into being in which
there is no observer? Are we meeting each other?
How is this awareness to come about without ( the self-) consciousness
interfering? Is it free of the ( thought controlled) consciousness?

P: Where is the observer? Aren't we taking for granted that the ''observer'' is (always present there) .

Krishnamurti: Any movement within the (consciousness) field (of the known) is a process of time It may try ( attempt ?) 'to be' (or to become something) or 'not to be', it may try to go beyond, it may try to invent something beyond consciousness, but it is still part of ( the field of thought &) time.

P: Can we investigate if the "me", the "I" the ( self-focussing ) action of our consciousness ?

Krishnamurti: Is the 'I' the central factor in consciousness?

P: It seems so...

Krishnamurti: Now, is the 'central factor' tactable, to be felt, to be tasted? Or is the "I", something ( a virtual reality?) which the ( thinking brain along with the ) senses have invented ?

P: That comes later. First of all, is it 'tactable' ?

Krishnamurti: When I have asked the question, "who am I?",
one must also question who is investigating, who is asking the
question "who am I?".

P: I have asked that ( roundabout ) question over and over again. We have discussed 'choiceless awareness' endlessly. Is this "I" which is the
central core of myself, is it tactable? I observe it in the surface
layers, in the depth layers of my consciousness, in the hidden
darkness and as I unfold it what takes place is a light within, an
explosion, an extension within. Another factor that operates is that
which has been exclusive becomes inclusive. So far I have been
exclusive, now the world movement flows in.

Krishnamurti: We see that...

P: And I find this 'I' is not something which can be touched,
perceived. What can be perceived is that which has been,
a manifestation of this "I". Then I explore - from where does (the self-centred thinking) emerge? Can I find the springs of thought? Can I pursue a thought (or a train of thoughts?) ? Can a thought 'be held' in
consciousness? These are tangible things which I think the ( earnest)
individual has to completely feel for himself (as... basic homework?) .

Krishnamurti: I thought we had ( already ) done all this (for homework?) So, is the "I" ( or the 'observer' a real entity ) within the field of the (thought & ) senses? Or have the senses (backed by the survival oriented thinking ) created the "I"?

D: We are going into the nature of (a holistic) awareness. Now how does this ( transpersonal?) awareness arise?

P: I find that the very investigation into the (reality or unreality of the t?) "I" creates ( inner) light, intelligence.

Krishnamurti: You are saying, the very enquiry brings about
awareness. Obviously I did not say it did not.

P: And in this enquiry the field of the without and the field of the within is illuminated. Now in this state of illumination, you suddenly find
that there has been a ( passing) thought, but ( by that time) it is already over.

Krishnamurti: ( The self-centred process of ) thought exists in the field of relationship and observation. It does not exist by itself. It exists in observing one's relationship with (for instance?) this lamp.

P: In this outward observation the 'stripping' question is irrelevant. It has no meaning.

Krishnamurti: Wait a minute. I am not sure. Isn't (the self-centred) perception partial? A holistic perception is not only visual but also
non-visual. The (holistic quality of ? ) perception is that which illuminates.

P: Here I would like to ask something. What is the nature of this
'non-visual' seeing?

Krishnamurti: It is 'non-visual' ( in the sense of) 'non-thinkable'. It does
not pertain to the word. It does not pertain to thought. The non-visual perception is a direct perception free of the ( verbalisation & processing ) of thought. Is there such a direct (thought-free?) perception ? Now proceed.

P: That is not such a difficult thing. I see there is such
perception. Now that perception can see close, can see far.

Krishnamurti: We are talking only of perception. Not the duration, length, size or breadth of perception, but of an (inner) perception which is non-visual which is not 'deep' perception or 'shallow' perception. ( The evaluation of ) perception as 'deep' or 'shallow' perception comes only when thought interferes.

P: Now in that ( non-verbal inner) is there a partial stripping or total stripping?

Krishnamurti: When there is this 'non-verbal' perception ( working) , what are you asking further?

P: We are asking whether is there a (stage of inner) perception in which stripping is not necessary?

Krishnamurti: There is no such thing as an 'everlasting' perception.

P: But isn't ( a holistic) intelligence, timeless ?
Krishnamurti: Why do you ask? Is there perception that is non-verbal and therefore not pertaining to thought? A mind that is perceiving is not asking ( academical questions) , it is perceiving, and each perception is a new perception. It is not carrying over ( the conclusion of its previous?) perception.

P: The sensory perception which are not linked with thought is never carried into another thought. I see that lamp. The (verbal conclusion of my) seeing has not been carried. My thought is only being carried.

Krishnamurti: That is obvious. My consciousness is the result of my direct sensory perceptions ( compounded with of mankind's experience accumulate in?) time, evolution, growth. It is expandable, contractable and so on. And ( the self-centred activity of my ) thinking is part of that.
Now somebody comes along and asks (the classical 'trick question'?) "Who am I?". Is the "I" a permanent entity in man's ( time-bound )consciousness?

D: It cannot be.

Krishnamurti: This "I" - is it ( a self-focussing of the temporal ) consciousness? Of course it is. The "I" 'is' (the self-identified expression of ?) that consciousness.

P: "I" has a great reality for me till I investigate.

Krishnamurti: Of course. But after looking & observing, I can
see the 'fact' I 'am' the whole of this consciousness. I am all this human heritage. Now, is that "I" touchable, or the result of mankind's (collective) heritage?

F: It is not just 'the result'. It 'is' ( the impersonation of ) the inherited.

Krishnamurti: And then she asks who is that "I"? Is that "I" part
of consciousness, part of ( the self-centred) thought? I say yes :
thought is ( expressing itself as?) the "I", except when it is functioning technologically, where there is no "I". But the moment you move
away from the scientific field, you come to the "I" which is part of
the biological ( genetical & cultural?) heritage.

F: The "I" is the 'working centre' of perception, an 'ad hoc' centre and the other is an effective centre.

Krishnamurti: Be simple. We see consciousness 'is' the "I". In the whole field (of the known human experience ) the "I" is the centre.

P: I want to tackle it in a new way. What is the "I"? What is its nature? One investigates that and in the very process of observation there is clarity.

Krishnamurti: Full stop.

P: Clarity being not eternal.,....

Krishnamurti: But it can pick it up again.

P: Maybe... isn't it a question which legitimately arises in this state?

Krishnamurti: In the state of ( holistic) perception it does not arise. It only arises, exists when I ask, is this process eternal, everlasting?

P: And... what would you say?

Krishnamurti: 'You' should have to answer this question (for yourself) .
( To recap:) At the moment of the (holistic) perception the question
does not arise. The next moment I do not perceive (do not see inwardly & outwardly) so clearly.

P: If I am alert to see that I am not perceiving so clearly, I will (have to spend some extra meditation time and ? ) investigate that.

Krishnamurti: So what am I doing? There is perception. That is
all.

P: But the "key" (or 'passepartout'?) of the doorway is in this (time-free ) questioning.

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple about this. There is perception.
In that ( blissful?) perception there is no question of duration. There is only perception. The next minute there is no clear perception. It is muddled. There is investigation of pollution and so clarity. Right? And again perception; move again; cover and uncover - and this goes on (& on & on....) .

F: Is it a movement of time?

Krishnamurti: This ( thought free ) balancing of attention and inattention is going on all the time. Then being aware of inattention which becomes attention.

P: When one observes ( non-personally) the nature of ( this holistic) attention, one can see is that there is an ( 'enlightening' ?) action of attention on inattention.

Krishnamurti: Does the 'action' of attention on inattention wipe away
inattention so that inattention does not come again?

P: I'll say that the ( illuminating) nature of this ( holistic) attention is such that it operates on the brain cells. The ( psychological content?) which was dormant in the brain-cells re-emerges when it is exposed to attention, the very nature of their ( inertial) dormancy undergoes a change. I would like this area to be investigated.

Krishnamurti: Let us begin again ( from Awareness 101 ?) Awareness - if there is choice in that awareness we are back again in consciousness. Awareness is non-verbal. Awareness has no relationship to
thought. That ( holistic ) awareness we call 'attention'.

(Suppose that) one is ( un-consciously becoming ) inattentive ( for various reasons) , and in that ( long span of) inattention there are certain ( lots of fragmentary ?) actions going on which bring further misery, confusion, trouble. So if I say to myself, I must be more attentive or cultivate ( the virtue of holistic ) attention, this (time-binding ) cultivation becomes inattention. The seeing of this ( primary cause of ?) inattention brings attention. ( The holistic action of) attention affects the ( internal activity of the ) brain cells.
(In a nutshell:) There is attention, and then inattention. In inattention there is ( a building up of inner ) confusion, misery, and all the
rest of it. Now what takes place?

D: Dispelling of inattention has gone down in the unconscious ?

P: Is it not really that 'you' ( the 'one-who-attends') can do nothing about it?

Krishnamurti: Do not say there is nothing to be done. There is 'attention' and there is 'inattention'. In inattention everything is confusion. But why do 'I' want to put the two together? When there is the urge to put the two together (assuming that 'attention' will overcome the 'inattention') , then there is a (time-binding) action of will as (a result of a personal) choice. I prefer attention; I do not prefer inattention - so I am back again in the field of ( the conflict ridden ) consciousness.

What is the ( holistically friendly ?) action where the two are never brought together?
( Hint:) When there is attention, thought as ( the personally biased ) response of one's memory does not operate. There is no thinking process in attention. There is only attention. I am only aware that I have been inattentive when my ( dualistic ) action produces discomfort, misery or danger. Then I say to myself, I have been inattentive and as ( that long span of ) inattention has left a mark on the brain, I
am concerned with the ( snowballing inner ) misery which inattention has brought about. Then in ( holistically ) investigating that misery, ( an influx of pure ) attention comes again leaving no mark.
So actually what is taking place? Each time there is ( a choiceless ) awareness of ( one's inner ) inattention there is quick, (holistic) instant perception of inattention. Therefore perception is not of duration, of time.
( In a nutshell:) (Holistic) Perception and attention leave no mark. The immediacy of Perception is always taking place (...one instant at a time?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Sep 2018 #108
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE CREATIVE ACTION OF A HOLISTICALLY INTEGRATED PERCEPTION

( A "reader friendly" edited K Dialogue, 1971)

Questioner P: So far these discussions have been related to the mind and its problems. What we have not discussed is the movement of the heart.

Krishnamurti: I am glad you have raised that.

P: Is the 'movement of the heart' a different movement from the
'movement of the mind'? Are thesev two movements in fact, one movement?

Krishnamurti: Let us begin. What do you mean by 'movement'?

P: Any emotional response which we call 'love', affection, goodwill, or compassion, seems to move from a focal point which we identify as the 'region of the heart'. The (emotional) responses affect the heart, make it physically beat faster.

Krishnamurti: Which is the physiological response of the nerves, the heart, the brain -of the whole psychosomatic organism. Now, is the
'movement of the mind' separate from the movement which is
generally called the 'movement of the heart' - (such as our strong ) sentiments, angers, jealousy - all these emotions that make the heart throb and beat faster. Are the movements of the mind and heart separate or their division is artificial ?

P: While we have been discussing with you, there has been a
silencing of the brain cells, there has been tremendous clarity, yet
there has been no response from the heart; there have been no (emotionally charged ) ripples.

Krishnamurti: But are they ( really ) separate? And if they are not,
then when the mind is empty of ( the conflicting content of the self-centred) consciousness, what is the (holistic ) quality of the mind that 'is' (or has?) love, empathy? Let us begin by asking
whether the 'movement of the heart' is separate. Is any movement
separate?

P: 'Separate' from what?

Krishnamurti: Isn't ( the body, mind & heart a?) movement which is unitary, like all ( our life-) energy is unitary, though we may divide it up, fragment it? All (our life-field ) an unitary movement. One has broken
movement up as the movement of the heart, the movement of
different categories; but ( deeply within?) aren't the mind, the heart, the brain, one unit? And from that unit, the movement ( of life) flows; a
movement which is unitary, (although traditionally we chose to) divide ( the noble ?) emotions, sentiments, devotion, tenderness, compassion, enthusiasm from their (socially undesirable ) 'opposites' ...

P: ...as 'evil', 'cruelty', 'vanity'. But there is also a purely intellectual
movement which is neither one nor the other; the pure
technological movement.

Krishnamurti: But is this 'technological' movement different from the
movement of the mind? We said just now that compassion, love,
tenderness, care, consideration and politeness are one movement and its opposite movement is (the animal heritage of?) violence and all
that. So ( as we move outwardly  ?) there are now three movements : the movement of the mind, the movement of affection, love & compassion; and the movement of violence. Then there is the ( all-controlling) movement which says 'this must be' or 'this must not be'; so now we have the fourth movement – the 'coordinator'. So there are now four
movements and every one of these movements has its own
subdivisions - each subdivision is in contradiction with its opposite.

So ( as of now?) our psychosomatic organism has got dozens of (internal conflicts &) contradictions, simultaneous contradictory
movements, 'multitudinous' (fragmentary) movements and there is the 'coordinator' trying to arrange things so that he can operate.

F: Isn't this 'coordinator' the selective mechanism, which ( choses &) picks up and calls it thought, mind, heart and so on??

Krishnamurti: Coordinator, chooser, integrater, selecter, call it
what you will, they are all ( fragmentary movements ) in contradiction with each other.

F: Why do you say they are in contradiction ? At any given point if one is active , the others are not.

Krishnamurti: Contradiction is not when one is (active) , and the other is
not, but when the 'coordinator' says I would rather not have this but
have that; then begins the contradiction, the ( conflict of ) opposites, as ( the result of our personal) choice.

A: If I am full of resentment, envy, etc., I cannot take two steps beyond (my fragmentary condition) . But our ( holistically friendly?) question was is the movement of the heart distinct from that of the mind? Or does it have its own ( intelligent?) quality ?

Krishnamurti: Let us get the meaning of the words clear. The ( psychosomatic ?) response to various forms of stimuli we call 'emotion'. Is ( the holistic?) perception an 'emotion'?
Now you ask, are there two movements with their own subdivisions, or are they really (part of an unitary movement?) which we do not know?

P: Take desire. Which category would you put it in - emotion or
thought?

Krishnamurti: 'Desire', 'hate' , 'love' are both emotive and
mental movements. You ask, are they really separate or is it all one
movement? I am not saying it is or it is not so.

P: I think that is not an (experientially) valid question. The real question is, as they are now two separate movements, is it possible for them ever to come together? Or is it the very cause of our misfortune that we
have kept them separate?

Krishnamurti: We know only these two movements - one is the thinking, the intellectual, the rational movement; the second the feeling of kindliness, gentleness, that is all. Are they ( deep down in the human consciousness?) two separate movements, or we have traditionally accustomed ourselves (indulged in ?) considering them as separate - the 'body' and the 'soul' - till somebody ( more holistically minded?) says it is an (artificial subdivision of an unitary ) psychosomatic state and I say "yes", I understand.

P: But how can you neglect the ( deeper ) fact that an emotional intensity brings a new quality of being, a complete experience of what the other person feels; a sense of unspoken understanding?

Krishnamurti: Do not bring in that ( 'spiritual' aspect ?) yet. We are asking, are these two movements separate? Or because we are so habit-ridden we have ( assumed & ) accepted that they are two separate movements? If they are not, what is the one unitary movement that includes thought as the movement of the brain and the movement of the heart?
How do you investigate this question? We can only investigate it from fact to fact. I see the 'fact' of ( sensory) perception. I see the 'fact' of ( my self-centred) movement of thought.
And I ask when there is no ( self-centred) movement of thought, or ( rather) when the movement of thought comes to an end without
any compulsion, is there not ( the awakening of ) a totally different ( holistically intelligent?) movement which is not that or this?

P: That is so, Sir, and I am saying this very very hesitantly.
There is a state ( of Grace?) as if an elixir is released, when one is
overflowing; a state in which the ( intelligence of the?) heart is the only thing that is there and there can be action in that state, doing
in it, thinking in it, and everything in it. But there is also a state when
thought has ceased and the mind is very clear and alert, but the
elixir is not present.

Krishnamurti: Let us stick to one thing. What is the factor in
us that divides the emotive movement and the movement of intellectual thinking? Why is there the (division between the?) soul and the
body?

A: As far as my inward experience goes, when the verbal movement
ceases, there is an (integrated ) awareness of the entire body as pure feeling.

P: In the tradition there is a word called 'Rasa' (meaning) the ( spiritual ) essence that which permeates our being.

Krishnamurti: Keep to that word 'essence'. Essence ( from lat. 'essere'?) means 'what is'. So what happens? In observing ('holistically ' or 'non-dualistically'?) the whole movement of thought, in observing the (active) content of our consciousness, the 'essence' comes out of it. And in ( holistically) observing the movement of the heart, there is the same essence. The essence is the same whether it is this or that.

A: That is what the Buddhists also say.

Krishnamurti: When you use the word "essence", it is the
essence of all the flowers that makes the perfume and the quality.
In perceiving the whole movement of thought as consciousness -
consciousness with its content which 'is' ( expressing itself as self-centred ) consciousness - in that very observation is the external refinement which is the essence. Right? In the same way there is the
perception of the whole movement of the psychosomatic body, of love & joy. When you perceive all that ( with a compassionate intelligence) , there is the essence and in that there are no two essences.
Essence has to come into being. Now how do you produce it?
Distil it? When the flowers are distilled, the essence of the flowers
is the perfume.

F: What do you actually mean here by 'essence' ?

Krishnamurti: I have watched what we have been doing during these discussions. We have observed the 'movement of thought' ( generating our temporal ?) consciousness; the ( memory) 'content' of this movement 'is' consciousness. ( If) there is ( a holistic?) perception of this (time-thought movement?), this very perception is (operating) the distillation of that essence which is 'pure intelligence'. It is not 'my' intelligence or 'your' intelligence but it is ( part of an universal?) Intelligence, ( the spiritual) essence. And when we observe the
movement of love, hate, pleasure, fear, which are all emotive movements , as you perceive (them holistically) , the ( pure spiritual?) essence comes out of that. There are no two essences.

P: The great Masters of ( spiritual) alchemy were called rasa-siddhas- they who are established in 'rasa', that is, those who have
attained, who have their being in that (Essence) .

Krishnamurti: Therefore what is this 'essence'? Is it a refinement of our existing feelings & emotions, or is it totally unrelated to the self-centred consciousness? (I am taking it that ( for homework?) one has observed
this consciousness )

There has been a perception of the movement (of our temporal consciousness, as ( self-centred) thinking , and in the very observation of that, the 'flame' ( or passion?) of observation distils. Right?
In the same way the flame of ( the holistic) perception brings the essence of the 'emotive movement' . Now having ( created ) this ( purely spiritual ? ) essence, what relationship has it to that and to this?
None whatsoever. The (distilled ?) 'essence' ( of the perfume) has nothing to do with the flower (from which it was extracted?) .
Though it is part of the flower, the essence is not of it.

F: Even grammatically this is not sounding right: ''although it is part of
the flower it is not of the flower''...

Krishnamurti: Look, Sir, the other day I saw they were taking
the bark of a tree to produce some kind of alcohol; that ( high grade spirit?) 'essence' is not the bark.

D: It is realized because of the heat.

Krishnamurti: ( So, the passionate ) 'heat of perception' produces the ( 100% intelligent energy?) essence. So is this ( spiritual?) essence related to ( the temporal?) consciousness? Obviously not.
So the whole point in this is the 'flame of perception' and this flame
of perception 'is' the essence.

D: It 'creates' the essence and it 'is' the essence.

Krishnamurti: ( Or, put in 'absolute' terms ?) it 'is' the essence.

P: Is this ( holistic) perception (originating in) the moment of Creation?

Krishnamurti: When we ( generally ) use the word 'creation', to create something different, to create a statue, to bring into being, what? Bringing into being something new or bringing into being (something new within) the mould of the known ?

P: Creation must be bringing into being the 'new', not ( recycling or upgrading) the old (stuff) .

Krishnamurti: Therefore let us be clear. Bringing into being
something totally new. At what level? Watch it. At the sensory
level, at the intellectual level, at the memory level; where?
Bringing into being something new; where? So that you can visualize it? The man who invented the 'jet engine' was already familiar with the the internal combustion engine, so, was that invention totally new? So when you say bringing into being something totally new, at what level?

P: At the sensory level.

Krishnamurti: Can you bring into being something which is not self-expression? It is not 'new' if it is self-expression.

P: If Creation is something unrelated to any self-expression, then probably all physical manifestations will cease.

Krishnamurti: What I wanted to get at is this ; the man who
discovered the jet engine - at the moment when he discovered ( the new principle behind?) it, there was no (question of) self-expression. He translated it into self-expression when he put into a ( pattented?) formula.
( Back to our discussion?) I only know that the flame of perception has brought about the 'essence', and now the question is, has that ( purely intelligent?) 'essence' any ( material form or ) expression? Does it create anything new?

D: It creates a new perception.

Krishnamurti: No. The flame (of holistic attention?) 'is' the
perception. The flame (of spiritual creation?) is ( spiritual) 'flame' all the time. One moment a 'pure flame of perception', then forgotten, and (hopefully there comes ?) again another 'pure flame of perception', then
forgotten. Each time the 'flame' ( of holistic perception?) is new.

D: When ( Creation's pure?) perception touches matter, there is an explosion and there is a mutation. Now that which emerges out of it, you cannot postulate. It is like the discovery of the jet engine.

Krishnamurti: Let us put it this way : that (creative holistic ?) 'essence' is not concerned with self-expression. It is concerned with action. And its action then is 'total', not partial.

P: I want to ask one more ( bonus ) question. When the manifestation of
this (holistic essence) has a contact with matter...

Krishnamurti: ...there is ( Creation's?) 'action'.

A: Up to ( distilling action of ) perception we go with you...

Krishnamurti: No, Sir. You have gone further. There is a (holistic)
perception which is (acting as the) flame (of attention) , and which has distilled the 'essence'. Now this ( purely intelligent?) essence may
act, or may not act (in the physical world?) , but if it acts, it has no frontiers ( psychological limitations ?) at all. There is no "me" acting. Obviously.

P: This is ( the timeless action of) Creation. Creation is not something apart from its action...

Krishnamurti: The very expression of that ( holistic ?) Essence is 'creation in action'. The essence 'is' (not separated from its physical ?) expression.

P: Then ( the holistic) perception 'is' ( the truly creative) action ?

Krishnamurti: Of course. See what has ( already) taken place in you ?
Perception without any ( personal?) 'qualification' is acting like a ( highly energetic) flame. It distils ( its own 'essence' from ?) whatever it perceives. Whatever it perceives it distils because it is the 'flame' (of attention) . (Hint : It is not a sensory perception !) When there is this ( non-dualistic) perception which distils at every minute, and when you say I am a fool, to perceive ( the truth or falseness of?) that - and in that perception there is the ( regeneration of a holistic ?) essence – and this
'essence' acts or it does not act, depending upon where it is; but in its action there is no "me" (no factor of 'self-interest' involved) , there is no ( 'personal') motive at all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Sep 2018 #109
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE ULTIMATE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO INNER INTEGRATION

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1978)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Could we inquire into some of the terms that you have been using over the years with different meanings?
For instance, you use the words ‘consciousness’ and ‘mind’ in various ways. Sometimes you use the word ‘mind’ as synonymous with ‘thought’, and sometimes you seem to suggest that the ‘mind’ contains thought but that it is, itself, not thought.

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Shall we begin with the word ‘consciousness’? What does the word 'consciousness' and the ( experiential) content of this word mean to you?

PJ: It means the sense of existing, of being. It means the sense that one is.

K: So, you are using the word ‘consciousness’ as synonymous with 'existence' ? If I may point out, I am using this word ‘consciousness’ to include the (inner conflicts & ) turmoil in our existence - all the mischief, all the worries & and anxiety, all the fear, the pleasure, the sorrow, the love & hate, and the hurts that one receives—all that is implied in that word consciousness.

PJ: Yes, but this is mankind's existen(tial) condition . Existence means the total content of one’s life.

K: Now, is one aware of the total content of one’s life?

PJ: No, not in a 'total' sense.

K: So is one aware of the total content of one's consciousness, or only aware, at different times, of different parts of his/her consciousness? ( For instance at a certain point in time?) one is (painfully ) aware that one is hurt psychologically for a day or two and then one moves away from that 'hurt' to ( a more) pleasurable ( pursuit). So, you see, we are never concerned with the totality of consciousness; we are only concerned with ( optimising or minimising some ) parts of it.

PJ: Because that is how it reveals itself – our consciousness reveals itself in mind's (awareness) as a ( particular) fragment.

K: Is it that ( since self-centred thinking) is in itself a fragment, we can only see the fragments of our consciousness? Let us be clear about this.

PJ: I don’t quite follow that, Krishnaji.

K: Wait, wait. I am hurt psychologically. Somebody says something brutal to me and I am ( feeling) hurt. ( The psychological recording of) this hurt is ( becomming a ) part of my consciousness.

PJ: Yes, it is.

K: Let us go slowly : ( the process of 'time-) thought' is also a (more central?) part of our consciousness. Thought is itself a fragment, a limited movement. Now that limited movement, that fragment, says, ‘I am hurt’. (QED:) Thought being in itself a fragment, it cannot see the whole.

PJ: Sir, when thought says, ‘I am hurt’...

K: No, thought doesn’t say, ‘I am hurt’. I ( the 'thinker') says, ‘I' am hurt, ‘I' am jealous’, ‘I' am anxious . The ( 'thinker' entity ) ‘I’ is put together by thought.

PJ: Yes....

K: ( Through a subliminal identification with?) the name, the form, the attributes, the qualities, the characteristics, thought has put together that (identitary) structure—which is the ‘me’, the ‘I’—has been put together by thought.

PJ: Yes.

K: So, it is the 'I' that says, ‘I am hurt’; thought doesn’t say that.

PJ: Who says, ‘I am hurt’?

K: The 'thing' ( self-conscious entity) that thought has put together as the ‘me’. Let us say, for example, that X calls me 'a fool'. I don’t like it ( as it is staining my self-image, so ?) I am (feeling personally?) hurt. In ( introspectively ?) exploring that hurt ( a more objective & non-personal operation of) thought comes into operation; and in ( pursuing the holistic?) exploration, one discovers that thought has built the ‘me’ (as a personalised pro-active shield ) .

PJ: Yes.

K: So thought is never directly aware that it is hurt. Thought 'thinks' : ''I am hurt'', ( assuming that) that the ‘I’ is different from it. Thought actually thinks that it is different from the structure which it has built.

PJ: The (self-identified psychological  ?) structure which is feeling hurt ?

K: Which is (feeling) hurt, yes. So, thought can never be aware of the total content of consciousness (since it is creating both the 'thinker' and its ' rational capacity of thinking'?) . Therefore, it can only be aware of the various fragments (of one's total consciousness) .

PJ: Then, what is the 'total content' of consciousness?

K: We are going to find it out (eventually ?) . ( For the moment?) I am ( just) looking for an (experientially friendly?) word that will give a 'holistic' meaning to our consciousness. Do you understand?

PJ: Can you put it within a 'holistic' situation?

K: I think one can. First of all, what is the ( active and/or subliminal ?) 'content' of our consciousness? The 'content' is everything that ( the ages-old process of ) thought ( & time?) has put there. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: And thought, in examining ( its?) 'consciousness', can only see the various fragments.

PJ: Yes.

K: So, ( the dualistic process of ?) thought cannot fundamentally perceive or comprehend the 'totality of consciousness'. That’s simple enough ?

PJ: Yes...
K: Now, when someone like me uses the word ‘consciousness’ (in the holistic sense), it means an (awareness) of the totality of Life - not only of 'my' life, but of the life of the animal and that of the tree; ( a global awareness which) encompasses the whole; it encompasses the totality of all that.

PJ: So, you are now using the word 'consciousness' very differently ( holistically?) .

K: Yes, I know; I’m sorry I’m moving away from what I said before.

PJ: So, you're now saying that Consciousness is ( encompassing?) the totality of Life ?

K: It 'Is' the totality of life.

PJ: So it includes the insect, the bird, the leaf...?
K: They have their own feelings and I have my own—you follow? You see, Pupul, I think that the term 'consciousness' is global but still limited.

PJ: Global but still limited?

K: Yes. Nobody jumps on me here ? I won’t go into ( the Universal Mind?) for the moment.

PJ: What you have said just now is very, very new and I’d like to pursue it. You have always emphasised that ''consciousness is its content''.

K: Yes...

PJ: The content (of the 'temporal' consciousness?) is ( obviously the result of mankind's past experience?) . Now you are saying that Consciousness ( aka 'Mind'?) is total, that it 'is' the totality of life .

K: Yes...

PJ: Which is very different from my experience of life.

K: What do you mean by ‘your' experience of life ? Your experience of life is the experience of every human being.

PJ: Yes, but I have many experiences which are 'mine' . But you are implying, now, that the totality of all life...

K: There may be different colours, different sounds, but they are all in the same direction.

PJ: You are implying that what is (going on) ‘within’ may be the experiences of man.

K: Yes. Your life is the life of humanity. Right?

PJ: Yes. ..

K: So, basically, your (existential experience is?) not different from that of humanity. You might have different coloured hair, a different face, name, but basically you 'are' humanity; your ( temporal?) consciousness 'is' the ( temporal) consciousness of mankind.

PJ: Yes, but ( only a few moments ago) you have said something different, Krishnaji.

K: Wait a minute. I’m coming to that; ( At this point in time the global consciousness of?) Mankind goes through all kinds of travail, all kinds of ( inner & outer?) troubles. Every human being goes ( consciously or not?) through the most terrible times.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, doesn’t ( the consciousness of) everything else go through it also? Insects, birds, every animal and tree—all nature goes through various kinds of 'turmoil' - I am using the word ‘turmoil’ in the sense of ( a major existential ?) disturbance.

PJ: Do you mean by this, Krishnaji, that (the holistic ?) consciousness is ( encompassing?) the whole phenomenon of life?

K: Wait a minute.. I’ll have to go awfully carefully here. What do you mean by the word ‘phenomenon’?

PJ: The phenomenon is that which can be perceived by the senses.

K: By ‘perceived’ you mean touched, tasted, and so on ?

PJ: Yes, available to the senses.

K: But that’s only (the visible?) part of it, isn’t it?

PJ: What is the other part?

K: All our accumulated ( self-centred) knowledge & experiences, all the psychological agonies of man, which you cannot ( physically) 'touch', or 'taste' . This (invisible but nevertheless real?) 'psychological turmoil' may affect the body, and the whole organism tastes this pain of (existential) anxiety.

PJ: Yes, it is the anxiety of all mankind.

K: Yes. So it is a global (psychological process) .

PJ: You are using the word ‘global’ in a special way...

K: I know. It is 'universal', it is the 'fate of man' ; it is what is happening in the ( present consciousness of the?) world.

PJ: Why would you then object to the word ‘cosmic’?

K: Because the word ‘cosmic’ (consciousness) means order—the 'cosmos' as opposed to 'chaos'.

PJ: But after all, sir, the 'cosmic' (consciousness) is the totality of this; it’s not a fragment.

K: If we use this word ‘cosmic’, we have to be very careful because, you see, the word ‘cosmos’ apparently means order. And the human mind ( as of now?) is not in(tegrated in a cosmic ) order.

PJ: Yes, but now—apart from the superficial, fragmentary movements (activities) of the human mind—you have brought in many other (imponderable) elements - the whole of our racial past, the whole of this cumulative movement ( of man's self-inerest) .

K: Yes, ( the time binding movement of ) tradition.

PJ: You see, sir, you have brought in centuries and centuries which, when seen together...

K: But I wouldn’t say that (mankind's collective consciousness?) is 'cosmic'. ‘Cosmos’ means total order; and our minds are (presently entangled ?) in ( a generalised condition of disharmony ?) disorder. Our consciousness is in disorder. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: So it cannot be called 'cosmic'.

PJ: The human mind cannot be called cosmic, but...

K: I am talking about ( the present condition of the ) human consciousness; that’s all.

PJ: But you have gone much farther beyond that in what you have said about this consciousness - that it is not just the individual confusion...

K: You see, I question whether there is ( a self-centred) individuality at all.

PJ: Well, remove the word ‘individual’. But when you talk of the totality of life...

K: My starting point was: Can thought be aware of the totality of consciousness? That’s what we said.

PJ: And we said that it cannot be aware.

K: Yes, it cannot be. So, now, what is the ( next experiential) question you are raising?

PJ: We started with what is the distinction between consciousness, the mind, the brain and thought ...

K: Right. We have now, more or less, understood what we mean by 'consciousness'.

PJ: Yes. And what we mean by 'thought' also.

K: Now, if ( the dualistic process of) thought cannot be aware of the total content of consciousness, then 'what' is it that’s going to perceive the totality? There must come into operation a ( holistically perceptive ) factor that sees the totality of consciousness. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: So, what is that factor? It certainly is not the ( material) brain.

PJ: Now, when you say that it is certainly not in the brain, you certainly mean not in the brain cells - as they exist now .

K: Wait, let’s proceed slowly. I’m not a ( world acclaimed ?) brain specialist, but I think that we can be sure when we say that the brain  cells carry memory. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: And their memories are a basic part of ( the thinking process) . Therefore the ( thought dominated) brain that we are currently using cannot perceive the totality of consciousness.

PJ: Yes.

K: Right. Then, we come to ( the holistic potential of?) the 'mind'. What is this (holistically friendly?) 'mind' ?

PJ: Yes, what is this (mysterious) 'mind'? I really would like to know.

K: You see, we now have find out whether there is an (inner) state beyond ( the time-bound) consciousness. Do you follow?

PJ: Yes. That’s basically the reason for our inquiry.

K: I don’t think that the brain, as it is now, can (do it) . So, we are asking: Can the ( holistically friendly ?) mind perceive the totality of consciousness? From that question follows: What is this 'mind'?

PJ: (In the last 50 years) you have used the word ‘mind’ in several different ways...

K: Yes, I know. Is the ( holistically friendly?) 'mind' the intellect? The intellect is part of it, of course, but can the 'intellect' alone perceive the totality of consciousness? Obviously not. Because the intellect (has developped as part of our self-centred) thought and the usage of thought whether brilliantly or negligently, or efficiently or loosely, is all on the same level .
So, the intellect is part of the 'mind'. So are our sentiments, emotions, feelings. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, can our sentiments & emotions (alone) , perceive the totality?

PJ: No, but I would like to ask you whether the 'mind' is an instrument or whether it is a 'field' (of refined intelligent energy?) ?

K: Wait a minute, Pupul. ( Back to square one:) The mind includes the intellect.

PJ: Yes.

K: The intellect is part of thought.

PJ: Yes.

K: Feelings, emotions & sentiments are also a part of thought.

PJ: And the senses ?

K: The ( joint activity of the?) senses are not; but thought identifies itself with the ( activity of the ) senses.

PJ: What part do the senses play in all this 'mind' ? I mean, we know the process of sensory perception, sensations, and all that.

K: I don’t think that sentiments, emotions and sensation can ever offer a perception of the whole.

PJ: So you would rule out the ( activity of the ) senses as such?

K: No, no. I don’t 'rule out' the senses. The senses do exist. I feel a physical pain when you stick a pin...

PJ: Are they being wrongly used?

K: As I said, when thought identifies itself with the senses, then the ( field of sensory?) sensations becomes ( a strong psycho-somatic support for ? ) the ‘me’.

PJ: Yes, because then they are directed outwardly ; there is a movement (of thought ) towards ( all kinds of sensory rewards) .

K: Towards, yes. ‘I want this’, ‘I don’t want that’, and all the rest of it. So, I’m just asking whether 'love' is part of a ( holistic ) 'mind', which includes the brain, thought, the emotions, the intellect...? Is love part of the mind?

PJ: See, the moment you bring in the word ‘love’, sir, you have (reshuffled all the cards?) ...

K: We’ll go into it, because ( the feelings of ) 'love' are part of our ( self-centred) consciousness.

PJ: As we know it, 'love' is also part of our ( time-bound) consciousness.

K: Yes, 'as we know it'. So, what we call 'love' is ( an emotion) based on sensation, desire, pleasure, with its jealousies, antagonisms, quarrels, and all the rest of it, is part of consciousness.

PJ: But here you didn’t use 'love' in that sense. Because if you did use it in that sense, then it would be no different from any other emotion.

K: So, is there a ( holistic) quality of 'love', an (intelligent & affectionate?) movement which is not part of (the time-bound) consciousness? (…....Silent Pause.....)

PJ: You see, you have only discussed the (activity of the ) senses as identified with desire, which go to build up the structure of the self. My ( bonus?) question is: Have the senses any other role?

K: Yes. I think I have got the ( experiential?) kernel of it : When you observe with all your senses (harmoniously integrated?) , there is no identification with a particular sense. Can one look at something with all the senses awakened ?

PJ: Isn’t it, sir, a question of whether you can look and listen in the same instant, the same moment, of time?

K: You see, the question is whether it is possible to observe with all your senses, and whether, in that state, there is a single movement of thought. When there is an (interfering) movement of thought, then it is a particular sense operating.

PJ: Yes...

K: Let us pursue this further because ( in a holistically inclined) human being there is a natural curiosity, a natural urge, to find out if there’s a totally different dimension which is not the dimension of ( a self-interest dominated) consciousness - as we know it now. Right?

PJ: Yes... You see, you have examined and negated all the known instruments that we have and with which we operate. The only thing which you don’t totally negate is the holistic quality of ( an integrated ) sensory movement which is quite independent or, to put it this way, that having the capacity to contain in it no illusion...

K: The illusion is created by thought.

PJ: Yes. So, that having in itself the capacity to be free of illusion...

K: That is possible only when there has been an awareness of the whole nature of thought. Then the ( integrated activity of the ) senses do not produce the 'psychological' structure as the ‘me’. That’s all.
Now, Pupul, to come down to earth—as a ( decently serious) human being, one perceives that one’s consciousness is in total disorder. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: And any ( conscious or un-conscious) 'movement away' from that disorder inevitably leads to illusions. Now my question is: Is it possible to bring about ( an authentic inner ?) order because I see the actual necessity of order. Order means harmony. The question is: Is it possible to bring it about?

We’ve discussed consciousness; we’ve discussed thought; we’ve discussed the mind, the feelings, and so on. What instrument or what quality is necessary to move out of this enchaining circle of ( a self-enclosing?) consciousness?

PJ: You see, sir, this last question seems more valid (for a person of action) . The previous statement, namely, that I want to bring about order, is one of the things I have never understood.

K: Just a minute, Pupul, I can realize that there is disorder in my ( inner) life and therefore, there is misery, confusion, uncertainty, quarrels, and all the (sad?) things that go on in everyday life. So, ( a different inner) order is necessary. Now, who is to bring that order? That’s my point. Will the ( self-centred) mind bring order? Will feelings, sensations, imagination—all that—bring order? Will thought bring order? They cannot...

PJ: Because all these are fragments ?

K: Yes, fragments. So, what will? Let’s go into it.

PJ: That is why I say, sir, that there is only one instrument that you leave free of the ( self-interest) taint.

K: The senses?

PJ: Yes, the senses. You have blocked every other instrument...

K: Yes, we have blocked every ('loop-) hole' that the human mind has invented. Have we also blocked the ( 'hedonistic usage' of the?) senses?

PJ: Yes, I can see that when the senses identified with thought operate, they only strengthen the ( ego-centric) structure which is the basic cause of confusion.

K: So, is there a ( wise ) separation between thought and the senses, so that thought is not active but only the senses?

PJ: Krishnaji, isn’t the nature of seeing quite different from the (verbally assisted) optical perception which says, ‘This is a tree’? There is ( a natural quality of) 'seeing' or 'listening' per se, independent of what is seen or what is heard. If I may put it this way, sir, these natural instruments are not corrupted (by self-interest) . They get corrupted when they gets identified with thought.

K: That’s right. It gets corrupted when it is identified with opinions, with judgements, with evaluations. So, listening correctly, listening accurately, is incorruptible. Yes, that is so. But is that the instrument that will help human beings like us bring about order?

PJ: If you deny all instruments...

K: I must be careful here. What do you mean by an ‘instrument’?

PJ: Well, the brain can be good perceptive instrument, thought also is an instrument... Perhaps you would deny ( their holistic validity?) .

K: Yes, I deny it. Because this very instrument has become corrupt and that which is corruption cannot bring about something which is incorruptible.

PJ: So, you imply that there is the ‘other’ ?

K: Oh yes, definitely. So, if one rejects all that totally, completely what is one to do?

PJ: ( Another bonus question?) What is actually meant by ‘being a light unto yourself’?

K: Actually it means: Don’t look to another; don’t depend on another; don’t ask another to help you (in doing your psychological homework?)

PJ: Is the word ‘light’ at all significant?

K: ‘Be a light to oneself’ in the sense: Don’t live in the shadow of others. Don’t be a second-hand human being. Don’t rely on anything, on anybody. But I can rely ( inwardly) on the common intention (holistic aspiration?) of man to find something beyond this chaos, something which is not the priest’s invention. This is not the reliance on another, but is a cooperative inquiry; it is not a matter of personal salvation. You see, Pupul, ‘personal salvation’ is so silly.
So, to come back: What is to be done? We have abolished the ( self-centred) mind, we have abolished the activity of thought, we have abolished the activity of the brain which, as we know it now, is limited. We also have denied all ( psychological?) pressures, and we ask: How are we, as human beings, to discover the ‘other’?

PJ: So, you are saying that the moment I need ( a holistic) instrument in order to reach the ‘other’, this does not deny the energy which it holds; and that energy is an unlimited energy.

K: Ah! You are theorizing, Pupul.

PJ: No sir, forgive me; I am not theorizing at this moment. I cannot deny the ( integrated activity of the) senses which in themselves are not corrupt.

K: Yes. The senses in themselves are not corrupt. When the senses do not identify with thought which builds the ‘I’—psychologically—then those senses are natural; those senses are healthy; those senses are normal. Now, will those senses which are healthy bring about a different dimension?

PJ: I don’t know, because the way one operates now , they are never ( or very rarely?) in that ( harmonious?) state.

K: Therefore is it possible for thought not to identify with the senses? It is possible, obviously. I see a beautiful object—human or non-human—and I can observe it without saying, ‘I must have it’. Of course I can; there can be mere observation.

PJ: Yes, it’s like having a discussion with you; then all the senses are operating. So there is an actual possibility of such a situation.

K: Oh yes, there is the possibility, but I am not interested in possibilities. Pupul, as a human being, my only problem is this: how to get out of this disorder. What is it necessary to happen to move from this dimension to a totally different dimension which is not the invention of thought? That is the ( 64 K $) question. Right?

PJ: Yes, that is the question, and can we have a clear picture ?

K: Yes, we are very clear now—at least I hope so. So, what is the action or ( the inner state of ?) 'non-action' necessary to move from this to that? (Pause) This has been an age-old problem, Pupul; so, what shall we do?

What is the action which ( meditation-wise?) is ( 'non-action' or ) 'inaction' that will negate, completely, this disorder? (Pause) Is there a total negation ( at once?) or do I negate attachment, then negate jealousy, then negate all the hurts, and so on? You see, that ( sequential) way is ( pretty much?) endless. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: So, is there a total ( 'at once' ?) negation of ( the very causation of this?) disorder? (...Silent Pause...)

Q: Sir, you are speaking of an action—but that ‘action’ cannot be a movement, because movement implies time.

K: Yes, a negation of disorder which does not entail a ( subliminal expectation of a blissful?) order, which does not have a (thought-desire) movement towards' order. Do you understand what I am saying? Can one deny ( the causation of the ongoing) disorder 'totally'?

Q: Is it a matter of getting completely still (inwardly)?

K: Look, sir, I am in disorder as a human being. I can separate(try to divide & conquer my inner ?) disorder. Right? And in the very denial of the various parts, there is a certain type of order. Right? But that is not a total (time-free?) order. So, I can ( orderly) deny the parts, but those denials are never the whole. So, I’m asking: Can there be a total denial of disorder?

Q: Are you asking if there is any action that can lead to that ?

K: No, no; I am speaking of ( a negative approach of ) 'denial', and not of ( a positive) action.
Do you see that a 'partial denial' ( the 'me' deleting its temporal files?) is no denial at all?

Q: Yes.

K: Is there a 'denial' which is not partial? Is there a denial of the whole ( ego-centric) content of consciousness which is generating the disorder?

PJ: Sir, for us this 'total denial of disorder' is a concept.

K: (Forcefully denying) ( For me???) It is not a concept.

PJ: ( But for the inner) disorder as it operates within me, yes.

K: Disorder as it operates in you—is that operation partial, fragmentary?

PJ: Each ( expression of) psychological disorder as it arises ( in my consciousness ) is fragmentary. Sir, (my point is that) the disorder is not fragmentary; but the way 'I' meet it is fragmentary.

K: And all my life I’ve denied fragmentarily. Right? We say that this partial denial is contributing to ( the ongoing inner) disorder. From there we ask: Is there no partial denial at all and, therefore, total order?

PJ: The ‘other’, namely, total order, one cannot even think of; so let us put it aside. Let us talk about whether it is possible to totally deny, that is to deny 'non-fragmentarily'.

K: All right, let’s stick to that; it’s good enough. When the (self-centred) mind, using the intellect—which is itself fragmentary—says, ‘I deny disorder’, then it is still ( a residual) disorder. Right? Because they are all fragments. The intellect, the reasoning—they are all fragments. Now what is the action or (meditative?) 'inaction' that will say, ‘No partial denial at all’?

PJ: You use the word ‘inaction’ (contemplative non-action ?) . Is it that one is incapable of this 'inaction'? Isn't the (time-bound mind?) incapable of 'not doing a thing' about it?

K: Yes. That’s what I’m trying to get at. We have done everything possible to clean up the ( time-bound) consciousness. Right? We pray; we fast; we beg; we follow; we sacrifice; we deny. There is this constant ( subliminally ego-centric) activity to bring about order. Right?

PJ: Yes, sir...

K: Now, the question ( left for optional 'meditation' homework ?) really is whether there is a ('thought & time' free approach to inner) action which is ( 'the' holistic ? ) 'non-action' ? That is only possible when I really, totally, completely, negate everything.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Sep 2018 #110
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

BRAIN, MIND & (INNER) EMPTINESS

A 'reader & experientially friendly' edited K dialogue (cca 1983)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, is there a 'within' of the human mind—call it what you will— an (inwardness ) of all living things, whether of man, of the tree, of nature, an inner space without ending, a mirror image of that vastness which exists outwardly ?

K: Are you asking, whether there is - or whether there can be - a space without end, an 'eternity' (beyond the limitations of thought & time) within the human mind, a (creative?) movement which is not of time but which is eternal?

PJ: How do you start the ( experiential?) inquiring? Do you start by examination or by posing the question?

K: We’ve posed the question : Can the human (mind& ) brain realize the truth as to whether there is Eternity or not? Now, how do you begin to feel, gently, hesitantly, your way into this fundamental (existential) question? Whether (the consciousness of?) mankind is bound to time forever or whether the human brain ( & mind?) can (discover within) itself a state of 'eternity' , is a question that has been asked for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.

PJ: You seem to make a (qualitative) distinction between the brain and the mind. Could you, please, elaborate?

K: First, we are saying that the human brain - at least ( the survivalistic) part of it- is conditioned by its own knowledge and ( experiential) memory. And as experience, knowledge and memory are limited, thought ( the resulting self-centred 'thinking') is limited to function exclusively within the area of thought ( within the mental field of its previous experience & knowledge ?)

PJ: Yes...

K: And to discover something new, there has to be, at least temporarily, a (silent interval) when thought is not ( engaged ) in its usual movement ( within the field of the known?) , when thought is in abeyance.

PJ: But for centuries the operation of the brain has been ( polarised by ) the operation of thought.

K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that part of the brain which has been used—is conditioned by thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to ( think in terms of duality & ) conflict. A consciousness which has limited itself must create division (and/or conflict)

PJ: What is the ( holistic  ?) 'mind' then?

K: The 'mind' is a wholly different dimension (of our total consciousness) which has no contact with ( the self-centred process of) thought. As long as that part of the brain ( dominated by self-interest) remains (active) there is no entire communication with this ( universally intelligent ) mind.
So, when ( brain's survivalistic ?) conditioning is not (active) , then the ( holistic quality of the ?) 'mind' ; which is totally on a different dimension (of a Cosmic consciousness?) communicates ( freely) with the brain and acts ( as 'transpersonal' ) thought .

PJ: So, you’ve already posited state ( dimension of our consciousness) which is outside the realm of thought ?

K: That’s right—outside. And, therefore, outside the realm of time.

PJ: So 'time' seems to be the essential core of (man's e problem...

K: Time and thought.

PJ: Thought is a by product of time (and it projects its own continuity in time) so, in a (holistical idiom ) thought 'is' time.

K: That’s it, that’s the real point. So, where do we start ( the experiential investigation ) ?

PJ: Perhaps if we could look into this flow of ( thought &) time, we could figure out at what instant its 'interception' is possible... ?

K: The ending of it ?

PJ: I was going to use another word, but you could also use the word ‘ending’. ( The 'psychological' continuity of 'time & thought' is coming from a past immemorial, projecting itself into a 'future', which seems endless .

K: In terms of thought. (Emphatic) The 'future' is conditioned by the 'past' — in what concerns the human psyche.

PJ: Yes. So, unless the human being ceases to be...

K: ... to be conditioned, right?

PJ: Yes, thought's ( temporal) content will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Now, let’s put it this way. Thought is the chief 'instrument' we have ( readily available). Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: And thousands & thousands of years of various (thoughtful ?) efforts and (other dualistic) actions have not only made this instrument dull, but ( metaphorically speaking?) that instrument has also reached the 'end of its tether' - ( the self-centred thinking dominated by time) is limited, conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of turmoil. Now, can all that (self-conflicting activity ) end? That’s 'the' central question ( left for optional meditation homework? )

PJ: Now, (in order to intercept thought's) movement as the ( personal memories of ) yesterday projecting themselves into ( a fabulous 'tomorrow'?) ...there is still the (passage of) ‘today’?

K: The ‘today’ is the ( impact of the 'present' events of life onto the thought-streaming of our personal & collective  ?) memory. We 'are' ( driven inwardly by ?) a 'bundle' of (active personal & collective) memories.

PJ: That is very true, but the actual contacting (and/or ending) of this ( subliminal streaming of) 'time-thought' is possible only in the present , isn’t it?

K: Are you asking: What is the ( holistic action?) ‘Now’?

PJ: It’s the ‘interception’ ( of the time-thought' streaming ) that I’m talking about.

K: All right, all right; ‘interception’, but I don’t quite understand...

PJ: Interception means ( making eye?) contact with the 'fact'.

K: May I put it in the way that I understand it? The past, the present and the future is a ( continuous inner) movement of time-thought. How do you come to see the truth (or the falseness?) of it, the 'fact' of it? How do you come into contact with this fact that I 'am' (subliminally driven inwardly by ?) a whole series of memories which is ( the collective streaming of ) time-thought?

PJ: No, let us be more concrete. That I am going away this afternoon, and that I may be leaving you, is a factual thought, but out of that there is a certain ( existential?) pain of leaving you, in which the emotional, psychological elements come to cover up the fact. So, what is to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away... but this (imponderable existential) pain.

K: Now, this ( existential sadness or ) 'pain' of centuries (of self-centred existence) —the pain of loneliness, sorrow, grief; the agony, the anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate...

K: It 'is' ( an active part of?) me. (Emphatic)

PJ: Now, how do I touch it? It’s only in the ( transpersonal awareness of the?) present...

K: I see what you mean...

PJ: It is only in the ( active) 'present' that the whole of this edifice rests.
K: That’s what I said (in many previous talks & interviews?) The ‘Now’ contains the past, the future and the present. The present ( moment) is ( containing) the whole past and the future.

PJ: Yes...

K: This ( time-bound) 'present' is the 'me' ( my temporal self-consciousness compounded ) with all the ( residual) memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years are being modified all the time. All that is the ( temporal?) ‘now’—the (psychologically active) 'present'.

PJ: But this ( time-vector of the ) 'present' is not static. It’s over before...

K: Of course, of course. The moment you’ve said it, it’s gone.

PJ: It’s gone. So what is it that you actually have to observe (holistically ) ?

K: You actually observe the (inner truth of the?) fact that the ( active) 'present' is ( containing) the whole movement of time and thought. You, actually, 'see the truth' of that. ( In other words?) you have a (full) insight, a ( holistic?) perception, into the fact that in the ‘now’ is (contained) all ( the continuity of) time and thought.

PJ: Does that ( time-free) perception ( of truth ) emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is an insight which has nothing to do with time and thought.

PJ: But it arises within the brain?

K: Or does it arise outside the brain? That is your question, right?

PJ: Yes, this point is very important.

K: That’s why I want to be clear . Is it ( occurring) within the sphere of the brain or is that insight comes when there is freedom from conditioning, which then, is the operation of the 'mind'?—That is the ( perception of the ) 'supreme' intelligence , you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t quite follow...

K: Let’s be clear. The human brain (as it is functioning now?) is conditioned by time and thought, 'time-thought'. As long as this ( subliminally active ?) conditioning remains , (the 'total' ?) insight is not possible. You may have occasional 'insights' into something, but not a 'pure' insight, which means the ( non-dualistic) comprehension of the totality of things. That insight is not of time-thought, but a (holistic?) perception of 'completeness'. Therefore that insight is part of that ( transpersonal?) brain which is in a different dimension.

PJ: Without sight there cannot be in-sight. Let us take the word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’...

K: Having an 'insight into' or the 'comprehension of the totality of something', is possible only when there is the cessation of ( the subliminal continuance of?) 'thought and time'. Thought and time are limited ( to the material world?) ; therefore such limitation cannot have ( a total) insight (into anything) .

PJ: Now, this 'insight' cannot arise without attention.

K: No, wait; don’t introduce yet the word ‘attention’. Stick to the 'fact' that ( the timeless light of ? ) insight cannot exist as long as time-thought plays a part.

PJ: But which comes first - attention or insight ? In my (experiential) approach to this, I can’t start with insight. I can only start with observation.

K: You can only start by realizing the truth ( regarding the process of thought-) time. The ( joint ) psychological (process of) 'time and thought' is always limited (as operating within the field of the known) . That’s a 'fact' ! (Emphatic) Start from that. Start from the ( transpersonal intuitive ?) realization that time-thought is always limited and, therefore, whatever it does will always be limited and therefore contradictory, divisive and giving rise to endless conflict. That’s all I’m saying. You can see the 'fact' of that (right now, or for extra homework) .

PJ: You can see easily the (truth of this) fact outside of yourself.

K: Wait, wait. You can see the limitations politically, religiously. All through the world it is a fact that 'time and thought', in their ( ego-centric survivalistic) activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s an (easily observable outer) fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So, now the ( holistically responsable?) question is: Can that limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the time-thought area?

PJ: What is the relationship of the brain cells and the seeing of the ( inward truth of the) fact that time-thought is limited? How does one see that? It’s like telling me that (psychologally speaking?) 'I' am an illusion.

K: No, you are not an illusion.

PJ: No sir, it’s coming down to that, when you say that the human 'psyche' is a a psychologicallly (active) movement of 'time and thought' and which is limited’...

K: Yes, it is limited, and whatever it does is limited.

PJ: Now, the move further : it is not enough to feel that it is limited, but there must be an actual 'ending' to it.

K: I say that there is (such an ending) .

PJ: What is the nature of this ending?

K: What do we mean by ‘the ending’? (For starters?) To end ( the continuance of a simple psychosomatic) 'attachment' such as ( the addiction to?) smoking . To put an end to it.

PJ: The flow ( of addictive habits?) ceases to flow ?

K: Yes, if you like; yes. (Similarly) the (psychological addiction to the self-conscious inner ?) movement of 'thought and time' ceases. What is your difficulty? Aren't you making (such?) a 'simple' thing terribly complex ?

PJ: No, sir, because there is a missing 'point of perception' – the actual point of insight. In what ( inner dimension of?) time-space do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let’s be ( 'holistically?) simple'. Time-thought has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a (pretty obvious outward?) fact. Can’t you see the fact?

PJ: As I look at the outside world, I can see it

K: No, wait, wait. Don’t just look 'outside' (of yourself) . This is...
PJ: ( Inwardly...) I don’t see the (actual) fact.

K: What do you mean ‘I don’t see the fact’?

PJ: Because if I really saw the (truth regarding this subliminal inner ) fact...

K: …you would stop doing that kind of thing ?

PJ: It would be all over.

K: That’s all I’m saying...

PJ: Therefore, it is not such a 'simple' thing— because it has such devious ways...

K: No. (Emphatic) That’s the whole point. If you have a (holistic) insight that the movement of 'thought-time' —at whatever level, in whatever realm, in whatever area— is a movement generating endless division & conflict...

PJ: Yes, you can see it when it’s a matter outside you.

K: Now, if you can see what misery it has caused in the outer world, inwardly the same movement is ( going on within?) the 'psyche' ; the ( temporal consciousness of the ) 'psyche' is ( generated by the same?) movement of 'time-thought'. This inward movement has created that. (Pointing outside) Simple. This (self-) divisive 'psychological' movement has created the 'external' facts. ( If I am identifying myself as?) a 'Hindu', I feel secure in the feeling that ( at least...?) I belong to 'something'.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen them as a product of this movement of time-thought. But it’s not quite enough...

K: What is your difficulty?

PJ: There is, deep down within it all, a sense of ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point. (With emphasis) You don’t realize that the psyche 'is' that ! ( the self-identification process got that deep?) .

PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of the problem...

K: Why don’t you ( consider it non-personally?) ? Because you think that the 'psyche' is something other than a (temporarily?) conditioned state. You think that there is something in you which is timeless, which is ( from?) God, and that if only you can reach 'That' ( unity?) everything will be all right. That ( may be?) part of your ( cultural) conditioning. Because you are ( feeling inwardly) uncertain, or confused, (thinking about That?) gives you ( an inalterable sense of inner) safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.

PJ: Then...what is the nature of the Ground from which insight springs?

K: I’ve told you. Insight can only take place when there is freedom from 'time and thought'.

PJ: You see, it’s so sort of unending...

K: No. It is not. You are complicating a very (holistically?) simple fact, as most of us do. To live in Peace is to flower; it is to understand the extraordinary world of Peace. (This) Peace (of Mind?) cannot be brought about by thought.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, it is the ( 'time-thought' addicted?) brain which listens to that statement.

K: Yes, and if it really 'listens', and then what happens? It is getting quiet (also inwardly) . It’s not 'going on' (thinking or) rattling. It’s quiet.

PJ: Yes, it’s quiet.
K: Wait, wait. When it really, actually, listens, and there is this (spontaneous) quietness that is not induced, then there is 'Insight'. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the limitation of thought. (You just see that) It is so.

PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that ( assigned for meditation homework?) ?

K: Oh God, there is a great deal more ! Is listening only possible when it is connected to a verbal sound, or is there also a listening to something, for example, to what you are saying, without (paying attention to?) the 'verbal sound'? I say that if there is only a verbal (mental listening to the ) sound, I’m not listening (completely) , but only understanding ( following logical sequence conveyed by the ) words. But you want to convey to me something much more (deeper) than the words. If the ( intellectual meaning of the) words is making a 'sound' in my hearing, I cannot deeply understand the depth of what you are saying. So, I want to find out something much more—which is what we started with, namely, the ( 'action' in the living) present.

PJ: Yes.

K: The ( temporal) ‘now’ is ( subliminally giving continuance to) the whole movement of time-thought. But if the ( inwardly active) structure of 'time and thought' ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘Now’ then is ( containing) 'no-thing' (not-a -thing) . And this ( newly activated state of inner ) 'no-thingness' contains all (everything) .

PJ: Yes...

K: But we are afraid to be ( inwardly 'as ) nothing'.

PJ: When you say, ‘Contains the all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all the Consciousness of humanity, the environment, nature and...

K: Yes, yes.

PJ: And the 'cosmos' as such?

K: There is no-'thing' (material?) . The ( temporal) 'psyche' is a bundle of ( recycled personal & collective?) memories, and those memories are the outcome of past experiences, which have gone. I 'am' a (the temporal self-consciousness 'is' a virtual projection of the ) movement of memories. Now, if I have an insight that there is no-'thing' (but pure Consciousness ???), then (the temporal) ‘I’ doesn’t exist.

PJ: You said something about ( a meditative inward) 'listening' ... ?

K: Yes, listening without sound. You see the beauty of it?

PJ: Yes, it is possible when the mind itself is totally still.

K: Don’t bring in the mind for the moment. When the brain is absolutely quiet, there is no ( mental recognition of the ) sounds made by the words. That is real listening (to the inward Truth of things ?) . Pure ( listening to?) Sound can only exist when there is space and silence. Otherwise it’s just ( material) noise. (Pause)

( To recap:) I’d like to come back to the fact that all one’s education, all one’s past experience and knowledge, is a movement in ( self- centred ) becoming—both inwardly and outwardly. Becoming is the accumulation of memory—more and more and more memories which constitute knowledge. Now, as long as that ( time binding ) movement exists, there is ( a generally ignored subliminal ?) fear of 'being nothing'. But when one has an insight that ( inwardly) 'there is nothing', when one really sees the fallacy, the illusion of ( one's psychological?) becoming—which is endless time-thought and conflict—then there is an 'ending' of that. That is, the ending of the ( time-binding ) movement which is the psyche, which is time-thought. The ending of that is to 'be (inwardly) nothing'. This (holistic ) 'no-thingness' then contains in it the whole universe—not my petty little fears, petty little anxieties and problems, and my sorrow with regard to dozen of things. After all, Pupulji, this (inner) ‘nothing’(ness) means the ( Inner Door to the ) entire World of Compassion. Compassion is 'not a thing'. And, therefore, that ( inner state of) no-thingness is supreme intelligence. That’s All There Is.

PJ: Yes...

K: So, why are human beings—just ordinary, intelligent human beings—so frightened of ( inwardly) being nothing, frightened to see that what they (like to think they?) 'are' ...are verbal illusions, that they are nothing but ( living?) 'dead' memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I am memories. If I have no (personal attachments to this) 'memory', I can understand the whole ( recycling) 'movement' of memory, which is time-thought, and see the fact that as long as there is this movement, there must be endless conflict, struggle, pain. And when there is an insight into that, ( being inwardly as) 'nothing' means something entirely different. That ‘being nothing’ is ( living in ) the Eternal Present, and it’s not a ‘varying’ Present.

PJ: Not a 'varying present'.. ?

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That ( inner state of) 'nothing'(ness) is not of time. Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, if ( for extra- meditation homework ?) one is trying to understand the (Cosmic Consciousness of the?) Universe as part of the human consciousness, there must be no shadow of 'time and thought'. You see, Pupul, that after all is the ( purpose of) real meditation. That’s what '??nya' ( or the 'Inner Void'?) means in Sanskrit.
So, we have to grasp (the experiential Truth ?) that in ( inwardly being as?) 'nothing' is contained all (the Consciousness of the ) World.
So, having listened to all this what’s your response, what’s your reaction, what have you realized? Do you say, ‘By Jove, ! I’ve got the perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, don’t ask me that question. As you were speaking there was That immensity.

K: Yes. I could feel it, and you could. There was the tension of that, but is it a temporary (visitation?) and then it’s gone (with the wind?) , and the once again the whole business of remembering it, capturing it, inviting it?

PJ: No, no. I say that one has moved from there ? But one realizes is that the most difficult thing in the world is to be totally 'simple' (inwardly) .

K: Yes, if one is really 'simple' (being inwardly 'as nothing' ? ) , one can understand the enormous complexity of things. ( Unfortunately) we have trained ( and/or standardised?) our brains to see (and deal with ) the complex (aspects of human) existence , and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of life, of ( life's true) facts rather.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Sep 2018 #111
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

THE HOLISTIC SHORTCUT TO ETERNITY  ?

A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I would like to start this dialogue with the observation that all problems of the human brain are born of time.

K: Very simply put, all (material) movement involves time. There is ( the objectively measurable ) physical time and a ( largely subjective?) 'psychological' time. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, this 'psychological' time is the time ( necessary in order to ) become something (different from what one is presently) - ‘I am now 'this' but (I hope ?) to become 'that' ( a better person  in a near or distant future)

PJ: Yes...

K: ( On the other hand?) 'time' is also involved the whole process of our evolution—both psychological and physical. Now, my question is: Is there a ( different dimension of ) 'time' outside this movement which we now call 'time'? That is, is there an 'time of non-movement'?

Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it is (intimately associate to any material ) movement. The whole movement ( of any form of material life ) from the past, to the present, to the future is generally acknowledged as Time. Right? The whole movement of mankind's evolution, of growth, of achievement, of fulfilment, of becoming something—involves time. ( And also inwardly ? ) the interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting (upon it?) is time.

My ( experientially challenging ?) question is whether there is an (inner dimension of) 'time' which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: When you use the word ‘time’, but say that it does not belong to the category of 'movement', does it belong to the category of 'matter'?

K: 'Matter' as I understand it is a 'solidified' ( crystallised form of ? ) energy; matter is manifested energy. The ( physical) body is a manifested 'life energy'.

PJ: You see, sir, the human brain is also material.

K: Yes, and thought (brain's thinking ?) is also a material process.

PJ: Now, in any living species a certain evolution in time must exist.

K: Of course. We were ('smart'?) monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became the ( technologically skilled ?) 'Homo sapiens'—what we are now...

PJ: Let me put it this way: there is a ( time-binding ?) content in the brain cells.

K: Which is memory. The human brain which is material , has certainly evolved...

PJ: And within the (memory of the human ) brain is the ( recorded) content of a million years.

K: Yes, millions of years of ( survivalistic ?) memory. So, ( the knowledgeable response of) memory is a process of time.

PJ: Yes. So, we have (an innate tendency?) to apply the ( same ) evolutionary (principle) to the (psychological ) 'content' stored in the brain. My question is: Is there (inwardly-wise an?) evolution in time?

K: Evolution 'is' time.

PJ: You see, we all know that the 'psychological becoming' is ( a very realistic mental ?) illusion. That is very simple to understand. But there seems to be something else (within the human consciousness?) when you ask: Is there another time which doesn’t belong to these two categories?

K: That’s my ( 'challenge' ?) question.

PJ: Now, time cannot exist without ( a material) manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into. Is there a ( transcendental dimension of ?) time which is not manifest?

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): Are you saying that in the very Ground (of Creation) from which all manifestation arises there is another dimension of time?

K: Probably...( For instance : ) Love is not of time.

PJ: The moment you use the word ‘Love’, you have cut the ground from under our feet.

K: Why?

PJ: Because it is an 'absolute' (holistic) statement. And with such absolute statements, no discussion is possible.

K: Wait, Pupul. That’s rather an unfair statement. We are trying to find out what ( the non-temporal dimension of) 'Eternity' is. We are trying to find out an (inward ) Reality which is not of time, a state of consciousness or a movement which is beyond Time. Which means, is there (in the unfathomable depths of our consciousness?) a 'timeless' ( creative) activity which is 'infinite' and 'measureless'?
( Unfortunately?) such 'absolute' words ( as Love, Timeless Eternity, etc) have become part of our traditionalistic thinking and with the aid of those words we are ( trying to ) 'measure' a state (of consciousness?) which is not measurable, ( ignoring the detail that ? ) 'That which is not measurable' is not of time.

PJ: So, let us go into it . What is your perception of ( this timeless dimension ) which is the only Reality?

K: In the 'timeless' action, that is, in the 'perception-action' there is no time interval (involved). Go into it slowly , if you want to understand it.

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what is our memory's action which is ‘constantly modifying itself in the present’.
K: What is this 'modification in the present'? That is very simple. ( The self-centred process of?) thought : 'I' (my self-centred mind?) am afraid of the ( consequences of my actions in the ?) past and ( with this apprehension ?) I meet the 'present'. Thought modifies itself and goes on, but (the fear ) is still there.

PJ: But can we examine (experientially) the very instant where this 'modification' takes place?

K: Yes. I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow, but 'my future' (time-bound state of mind) is ( contained) both in the (updated memory of ) 'today' and in that of 'yesterday'. Let’s make it very clear. The present, the ‘now’, is ( containing both?) the past and the future.

PJ: But a (transpersonal?) perception in the present negates both the ( karmic memory of the?) past and ( its projection in) the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But ( this insightful?) perception requires a state (of mind) without the past. ( The holistic) perception is timeless. That’s it.
(Suppose I realise that my mind is) full of prejudices, knowledge, conclusions, convictions, beliefs, and with that (prejudiced mentality?) I look at ( what is going on within myself in the ?) present. And ( the 'what is' in the ) 'present' is modified by the challenge—I might (opportunistically?) alter certain ( outdated ) 'beliefs' but I still remain (safely anchored) in the same field (of the known?) . The ( temporal) 'present' is modified, and so the 'future' is ( including?) the (updated) modification.

PJ: Yes, but is this the state where occurs the (holistic?) point of perception...

K: There is no point of perception here.

PJ: So, when you speak of a (different dimension of ) time which does not belong to these two—the past and the future—it is obviously the essential element of this perception of the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that ( totally insightful?) perception is not of time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the ( psychological memory of the?) past.

PJ: What is the ‘now’?

K: The ‘now’ is all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Now, you see, you can experience past time, and you can experience future time because you project, but what is the experiencing of ‘all time is now’?

K: 'You' can’t experience it (dualistically?)

PJ: You see, this is exactly what I am trying to get at—the past you can experience...

K: ...and you can project the future and experience (or have a preview of?) it without going through it.

PJ: Yes; but you were saying that this experience of ‘all time' (is present Now?) is not a (personal) 'experience'.

K: Yes, I am saying that, because a (personal ?) 'experience' implies the (presence of a subjective ) 'experiencer' who is 'experiencing'. This ( self-conscious?) 'experiencer' is ( the result?) of time (of mankind's survival oriented existence).
PJ: Therefore when you say that the ‘Now’ contains the past and the future, what does it exactly mean? How do you contact it? What I am trying to say is, we can use words to describe this ( inner approach?) .

K: Ah-ha ! (Denying) You are using the word ‘contact’ in the sense of 'me' contacting 'you'.

PJ: No, I am not. You were saying that the past, the present and the future are all contained in the ‘now’. I ask: What is this ‘now’?

K: I’ll tell you what the ‘now’ is. But listen to the ( implications of your?) question first. Is it an idea, is it a ( working) theory or do you see the whole implications of that? Do you have an 'insight' into that?

SP: Normally we don’t get this kind of insight...

K: Therefore you are talking theoretically.

PJ: So, (we should be asking experientially) whether there is an (eternal dimension of?) time which is not the linear time of the outside or the time of becoming.

K: That’s all.

PJ: The only, at least to me, perception where the revelation of this or the insight into this can come about is in the 'present' . So, how do I come to this ‘Now’ of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it (as a self-centred 'experiencer') .

PJ: Yes. 'You' cannot come to it—then ...?

K: See what is happening : you ( realise that 'you') can’t 'experience' it , but your brain is conditioned to experience. Your brain is conditioned to ( gather & use?) knowledge, is conditioned to measure ( or evalute any experience?) in words. But This cannot be approached that way. And this is where the (truly) religious ( holistic?) minds meet, after having wiped away the ( man-made) theories, they ideas and concepts. They deal ( non-verbally?) with the 'actual' state, And his is ( exactly) where the authentic 'religious' (aka : 'holistic'?) inquiry begins. But if you are inquiring (the safe-way) into (the validity of your old) theories and so on, you will play around with it infinitely.

PJ: Then, is it possible to 'probe' into this ( eternal dimension of?) Time which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is 'possible' - in the sense, you may use words, but ( being fully aware that) the words are not the thing. You can’t measure 'this' with words.

PJ: Because there are no words, the moment words cease...

K: ...but the 'question' remains.

PJ: This is something quite extraordinary, because if the ( transpersonal?) 'question' remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain...

K: Yes. The question remains and the 'questioners' don’t exist ( remain silent?) .

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): What does the 'question' operate upon?

K: I said: ( the holistic or transpersonal?) perception means that there is no 'perceiver'. See what the implication of that is. The 'perceiver' is the (acting memory of the?) past, but this ( holistic ) perception is ( operating) now. Therefore it is timeless just as action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that perception, the past and the future are totally 'annihilated' (or...reduced to silence?) .

K: ( This) listening is not of time. If I 'listen' , it is now. The (resulting state of holistic ) 'attention' has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time.

AC: I understand, but that ( holistic) state what is there a perception of? Who or what is listening or inquiring into that state?

PJ: Out of the listening itself the 'question' arises.

K: Careful, Pupul, careful; theories and speculation don’t enter into this at all. I am saying that perception is timeless.

PJ: Yes, then I asked you a ( counter) question: Is it possible to probe it ?

K: I say, yes. But before we probe, the ( listening) mind has rid itself of all concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of ( time-free inner ) clarity. In that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.

AC: I still don’t understand...

K: Look, sir, suppose that I tell you : ''Love is not of time''. How do you 'listen' to (the inward truth of?) this (holistically encripted statement?) ? What is your response to that? First you hear the words—those words have a certain meaning and those words are interpreted according to your (cultural) background, according to your intellectual capacity, your emotional feelings of affection, and so on. You hear all this. But can you 'listen' to the ( transpersonal ) truth of it? Do you understand what I am saying?

AC: I don’t think I can listen this way . I am listening to the words. How can you separate the words from the rest of it?

K: Oh yes, you can. ( By realising the basic experiential truth : ) ''The word is not the thing''.

AC: Yes, but can’t listen to the 'thing' said. How can it be done?

K: Sir, don’t you understand the 'simple truth' of it? ''Love is not of time''.

AC: For me it does not have an ( experiential) meaning.

K: Now, have a dialogue with me. Don’t categorically state that it has no meaning.

AC: Sir, the next question is: What do you mean by ‘love’? What do you mean by 'time'...

K: We can go into all that (some other time …?) . But we must remember that the verbal description is not the fact.

PJ: How do you 'listen' (to the inward truth of K's holistic statement) ? Without translating everything into memory. In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully what he is saying. It is in listening at such depths that the 'question', the ‘what is’—opens up, and it tells you (all you need to know) ; there is no other action.

SP: Pupulji, what is the ( holistic) comprehension of this ( holistically encripted?) statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no (intellectual) comprehension. You take it like a perfume...

K: Let's have a 'dialogue' regarding that. Here is a ( holistic?) statement K makes: ''Love is not of time''. Do you understand the beauty, the depth of it? Have a dialogue regarding that.

SP: I can understand that love is not attachment. I understand that where jealousy is, love is not. But, in spite of all this ( 'negating the false'?) dialogue, this state of love which is not of time...

PJ: Sunanda, you can never use words to 'open up' this ( kind of holistical?) statement. Forgive me for saying it.

K: You are using your intellect. You are not using a totally different ( holistically perceptive) capacity. We all have been trained to be highly intellectual. The (simple minded ?) man who has not passed exams and secured professorships, will understand (the inwardness of a ) 'simple' statement like this. At least I think he will...

AC: Sir, may I come back? Can there be an inquiry into the state of ( holistic) perception?

K: I will show it to you. I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous 'fact'; it is the ( living) truth. But you won’t 'understand' it through the intellectual process, through (logical proofs &) arguments, through a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way.
You might say that that is the only instrument you have, and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different ( inwardly perceptive?) instrument, and I will tell you what that instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight of your knowledge which is ( the result of man's materialistic experience ) of 'time’.

AC: Do you put aside your 'intellectual instrument', or your knowledge?

K: I said 'knowledge'. Knowledge is ( the subliminally compounded - objective & subjective - result of all our temporal) evolution.

AC: So, you are saying that the intellectual instrument...

K: ( In a nutshell) : Is there a (holistic ?) comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception without bringing all your ( past) knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir...

AC: I understand that (possibility) .

K: So, there is a state (of holistic attention) where words have lost their meaning, but where there is a ' pure perception' of something, then ( for optional 'meditation' homework : ) you will have to probe into that 'perception'.

AC: How can I inquire into that state?

K: I will show it to you ( or...maybe not?) .

PJ: Can you discuss that ?

K: You can’t discuss it.

AC: So, this state is the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the end of ( thought's ) inquiry, do you stop there? The brain—does it 'see' this? Did you get to the point where the brain says, ‘Yes, that’s finished’?

AC: No, the brain cannot maintain that high level of energy—it lapses.

K: On the contrary !

AC: Sir, as long as there is ( an awakening of that holistically intelligent ) energy, there is no further inquiry or question.

K: I agree.

Madras; 28 December 1985

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #112
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 257 posts in this forum Offline

The Psychological Significance of Death

A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue ( 1981)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, one of the questions which I feel is at the very depth of the human mind is ‘the coming to be’ and ‘the ceasing to be’. Life and death. The whole of man’s life revolves around the wonder of birth and the fear of death. All his urges, his demands, his desires, his fears, his anxieties, rest between these two poles—birth and death.
At one level we understand birth and death, but I think that our intellectual understanding is only at the superficial level. Unless we understand, at depth, the whole problem that lies in the ending of anything, the fears and the darkness which surround that one word ( 'death' or ) ‘ending’ will always be with us.

K: Why do you make the interval between birth and death a problem?

PJ: By themselves birth and death are facts, but the temporal mind clings to one and rejects the other.

K: Why do you use the word ‘problem’?

PJ: It is a ‘problem’ for everyone because of the shadows that surround the word ‘death’. There is the joy and splendour of what we see as life and the demand to hold on to it at any cost, avoiding to deal with its ending. This 'is' a very real human problem, since out of it arises fear, sorrow, all the demands...

K: So what is the question?

PJ: How do we explore it ? How can we be free of the darkness that surrounds the word? How can our minds look at death with simplicity and observe it for what it is?

K: Are you concerned only to find out what 'death' means, or also with understanding this life struggle, conflict, misery, etc., to which we cling in our avoidance of the other ? Are you ( holistically?) concerned with the whole movement of it?

PJ: You see, there is this whole movement of human existence in which life and death are a part. But if you make the scope so wide, I don’t think you can get to the anguish and the sorrow of ending. And I want to investigate into the sorrow of ending.

K: Are you inquiring into the sorrow of ending or are you inquiring into the whole process of living and of dying, which includes sorrow, fear, and all the rest of it?

PJ: What you say is ( holistically) correct— our existence is the whole movement of living and dying. I talk of that fear, that anguish, which is the sorrow of ‘something which is’ ceasing to be...

K: What is ‘ending’?

PJ: In the very nature of ‘is'-ness’ there is the sense of the ending of that; there is the disappearance of that for eternity.

K: Why do you use these words ‘for eternity’?

PJ: Because there is an absoluteness in that ending. There is no tomorrow in it.

K: Now just a minute—the 'ending' of what?

PJ: Ending that which sustains ( man's physical existence) . There is the sorrow of something so marvellous ending.

K: This (physical) person—K—is going to end some day. To him it doesn’t matter; there is no fear, no anguish. But if you look at that person and say, ‘Oh my God, he is going to die’, it is ( a projection of your personal) your anguish : I’ve lived with that person; I’ve loved that person. He dies, and I’m feeling alone & lost. I think it is really important to understand the ( spiritual significance of ? ) ending, because ( inwardly) there is something totally new when there is an ending to everything.

PJ: Is it not related to (the ending of?) sorrow?

K: ( For starters?) It is a tremendous (personal) sorrow, I am filled with ( a deep existential) anxiety. But my ( deeper) question is : Why does man carry the burden of this sorrow? Because I’ve never really understood deeply what is ( the psychological significance of?) 'ending'. I’ve lived for forty, fifty, or eighty years and during that entire period I have never realized the meaning of ending (my attachment & dependency ) to something which I 'hold dear'.

PJ : What makes the ( temporal) mind incapable of ending?

K: It’s fear (of loosing the safety of the known?) of course. Let’s take an example that is common to all of us—'attachment'. Can one end (one's psychological) attachment to one’s past experiences, knowledge, & memories? After all, the ending of (the attachment to one's existence in the field of ) 'knowledge'—that’s what is going to happen when death comes. ( One's psychologically addictive ?) knowledge is what one is clinging to (either consciously or not?) . Now, to end totally, absolutely, the memory of all that, is ( the psychological challenge of?) death.

PJ: You have often said (metaphorically) : ‘While living, to enter the house of death’.

K: Yes. I have done it.

PJ: But, what exactly is meant by that?

K: Let us say that there is a (personal ) memory of an experience that I cherish, that I hold on to because it has given me great delight, a sense of depth and well-being. I cling to that memory (in a subliminal way) . I may go daily to the office, I work, but the (emotional content of that) memory is so extraordinarily enduring and vital that I hold on to it (it becomes part of mysef) ; therefore I never find out what it means to end ( the attachment to) it.
I think there is a great deal (of diligent work involved ) in ending, every day, ( one's psychological dependency to?) everything that one has psychologically gathered.

PJ: You can 'end' (any particular) attachment, but that is not ( the real?) 'death'.

K: What would you call 'death'? The physical organism coming to an end? Or the ending ( of the personal ?) 'image' that I’ve built about 'you' ?

PJ: When you reduce it to the ending of a particular attachment , I’d say that it is the ending of the 'image' which you have built about someone; but there is much more to death than that.

K: Of course. I’m talking of the ending of that image. The mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of any (inwardly sticky?) memory of anything. Because that ‘Other’ (Holistic Consciousness ?) is timeless. That other dimension is eternal and if the ( meditating?) mind has to enter into That, it must not have any element of 'time' in it. To understand—without ( the distracting interference of 'thought- time' That which is Everlasting, the (meditating?) mind must be free of all that one has gathered psychologically, which is (of) time. Therefore, there must be such an 'ending'.

PJ: Is there no exploration possible of this ( psychological) ending?

K: Oh yes, there is. What is ending the ( time-binding) continuity of a particular thought, or of a particular desire; it is ( the snowballing of?) these that give our life a (very realistic sense of?) continuity. Between one's birth and death, there is a deep continuity, like a river, but we cannot see the beauty of the River because we live ( swimming with the sharks ?) on the surface of this vast river of life, and we cannot see the beauty of it because we are always ( temporarily caught) on the surface. And the ending is the ending of this ( survival oriented swimming on the ) surface.

PJ: The ending of it is the ending of the surface (movement of time & thought?) But the... what dies?

K: All (my attachments to ) whatever I’ve accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. I’ve built up a good business which brings me a lot of money—nice house, nice wife, nice children, nice garden. And my (time-bound) life has given a continuity to it all.
To end this (very 'realistic' illusion of continuity ?) .

PJ: Sir, are you telling me that with the death of the body of K, the 'consciousness' of K will end? Please, ( no 'detours' ?) I’m putting a lot of weight in this.

K: You have said two things: The 'consciousness of K' and the ending of the 'body'. The body will end through accident, or disease. That is obvious. Now, what is the 'consciousness' of that (K ) person?

PJ: An enormous, unending, abounding compassion.

K: Yes. But I would not call that ( K's personal) 'consciousness'.

PJ: Then, how about ‘the mind of K’ ?

K: The ( active) 'content' ( of our temporal consciousness) is the whole movement of thought. Language, specialization, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, pain, loneliness, desperation, etc. If this (time-binding) movement of thought ends, consciousness as we know it is not.

PJ: But thought as a (time-binding) movement does not exist in the mind of K. Yet there is (a charismatic presence or?) a 'state of being' which manifests itself when I’m in contact with him. It manifests itself even if you do not reduce it to ( the self-centred movement of) thought.

K: No, no. ( The average self- ) consciousness -''as we know it'' - is a movement of 'thought & time'.

Therefore, when thought, after investigating it, comes to an end in the psychological world, the 'self-centred consciousness' as we know it, is not (present) .

PJ: But there is a 'state of being' ( a charismatic presence?) which manifests itself as K.

K: Yes; you are perfectly right. Let us say that through a real meditation, you’ve come to ( a holistic state of consciousness ? ) that is 'absolute'. Now, through my contact with you, I can feel this immensity. But of course, it is not you (Mr K) having it. It is 'there'. It is not yours or mine; it is there.

PJ: But it is there because of you.

K: It is there , but not because of me. It is there (for everyone) .

PJ: Where is it actually ?

K: It has no ( fixed?) 'place'.

PJ: I can accept what you say only up to a point...

K: All right... First of all, it is not yours or mine.

PJ: But it is 'manifested' in the person of K. Therefore when you say that it has no place, I cannot accept it.

K: Naturally, because you have identified ( the physical name & form of) 'K' with that.

PJ: But K is that.

K: Maybe...  But it has nothing whatsoever to do with ( the mind of?) K or with anybody else. It is there. (The) Beauty (of Universal Creation ) is not yours or mine. It is ( here, there & everywhere?) expressed in a tree, in a flower (or in K's charismatic personality)

PJ: But, sir, the healing and the compassion in K is not 'out there'.

K: But that is not 'K'. That is not this. (Pointing to the body)

PJ: But it will eventually cease to be manifest...

K: I question that.

PJ: What do you mean ‘I question that’?

K: It may manifest (right now) through 'X'. But 'That' ( Loving & Compassionate Intelligence?) which is manifesting now, does not belong to 'X'. It has nothing to do with ( the physical ) K.

PJ: I accept that it does not belong to K. But K and ‘That’ are inseparable.

K: All right, but when you identify ‘that’ with the person, we enter into a very delicate thing.

PJ: Take the Buddha. Whatever Buddha's -consciousness was, or whatever was manifesting through him, has ceased to be.

K: Let’s be very careful. You're saying that the consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away, right? It manifested through him and he was ‘that’ and when he died you say ‘That’ disappeared ?

PJ: I have no knowledge of saying that it has disappeared. I only say that it could no longer be contacted.

K: Naturally not.

PJ: Why do you say ‘naturally not’?

K: Because he meditated, and all the rest of it. He was illumined, and he came to it. Therefore between him and ‘that’ there was no division. But I, his ( beloved?) disciple, say, ‘My God, he is dead and with his death the whole thing is over’.

PJ: Isn't it over ?

K: I say it is not. That which is Good can never be over. The ( Cosmic Consciousness of the?) Good exists and has always existed, but not as the opposite of 'evil'. The evil has in itself continued.

PJ: And you say that it does not disappear ?

K: Good can never disappear.

PJ: I’m talking of that great 'Illumined Compassion'. Now I can contact it.

K: But you can contact it even if that (K) person is not (around) . That’s the whole point. Its (contacting?) has nothing to do with a particular person.

PJ: Is 'being a light to yourself' connected with the contacting of ‘That’ without the ( charismatic intermediary) person? When you say that ‘It’ can be contacted without the person...

K: Not ( dualistically) ‘contacted’. It can be perceived, lived; it is ( deep down?) 'there' for you to reach out and receive it, when (the time-bound ) consciousness - as we know it now - has to come to an end, for ( the ego-centric process of ) thought is really the enemy of that. Thought is the ( personal?) enemy of Compassion, obviously—right? And to have that flame, it requires an awakened ( compassionate?) intelligence, an intelligence which sees the ( intrinsical limitations of the?) movement of thought. And the very awareness of this ( self-identified) movement of thought 'ends' it. That’s what the real Meditation is (good for?) .

PJ: What significance has death (for you personally) ?

K: None. It has no meaning because you are (inwardly speaking ) 'living with death' all the time. It has no significance because you are 'ending' ( the psychological attachments to?) everything all the time. I don’t think we see the ( holistic) importance and beauty of this ( inner) ending.
We see only the ( temporal ) 'continuity' (of human existence) with its waves of ( sorrow & ) beauty and all its superficiality.

PJ: I drive away tomorrow. Do I cut myself completely from you?

K: No, (but if you are remaining psychologically attached to K ?) you cut yourself from ‘That’ ( Cosmic Mind or ) Eternity with all its compassion, and so on.

It’s simple. I meet the Buddha. I listen to him very carefully. He makes a tremendous impression on me and, then, he goes away. But the ( living spirit of the?) Truth of what he has said is abiding. He has told me, very carefully, ‘Be a light to yourself so that the ( living seed of ) truth is flowering in you . So, he goes away, but the seed of Truth is flowering - and this is the important thing : that this 'seed of truth' will flower. That seed which has been planted by my intense listening, that seed will flower. Otherwise if only X has this extraordinary 'illumination'—I’m using that word as a (poetic metaphor for an inner) sense of immense compassion, love, and all that—if only that person has it, and he dies—what then?

PJ: May I ask a ( bonus?) question, please? What, then, is the reason for his (K's) being?

K: To manifest ‘That’, to be the (temporary?) embodiment of ‘That’. But as I said, 'It' is there for anyone to reach and to hold.

So ( to recap : ) death, like birth, is an extraordinary event. But ( the physical) birth and death are so far apart, while (inwardly) the (endless) travails of ( ego-centric) continuity is the misery of man.
But if ( your psychological?) continuity can end each day, you will be 'living with death'. That is ( signifying a ) total renewal (of the psyche?) ; that is the renewal of something ( of a compassionate intelligence) which has no continuity. And that is why it is important to understand the meaning of 'ending' ( one's psychological attachment) to what has been previously experienced and remains in the mind as ( a time-binding) memory.

Could we go (for homework?) into the question of whether a human being can live without (the interference of psychological) time and ( its residual) knowledge?

PJ: Isn’t 'living with ending', implied in the very nature of this question?

K: Yes. But all this may be just a lot of words ?

PJ: No, sir. But I am getting to something which is rather different. Do you think that there can be a 'learning how to die' in order to face the ultimate ( challenge of one's physical ) death?

K: What is there to learn about Pupul?

PJ: The mind must receive it without agitation. Then, perhaps, when ( the real?) death ultimately comes there will be no agitation.

K: Yes, that is right. And that is why ( understanding the significance of 'psychological ending' or ? ) 'death' has an extraordinary beauty, an extraordinary vitality.

This post was last updated by John Raica 1 day ago.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 91 - 112 of 112 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.)