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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 269 in total
Mon, 12 Nov 2018 #121
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ( reader friendly edited) K SEMINAR 'THE NATURE OF HOLISTIC LIFE'

K: We were enquiring into this question of what is a holistic mind and what you would consider a (holistically friendly way of?) life.

A.P.: Is it possible for us to understand the process by which we can have a glimpse into the (holistic) mind?

K: Is it that our intellect has become so supremely important that it has brought about a deep fragmentation (of the human consciousness) ? I am just putting that forward to be discussed, not as a theory. The intellect implies the whole movement (mental activity?) of thought, the cognitive understanding through thought ; and ( our self-centred) thinking, being essentially limited , has brought about this cleavage, this (inner) fragmentation of man.
( In a nutshell:) The (self-centred thinking ?) is not the movement of a (holistic) mind.

D.S.: But even a 'holistically friendly' mind needs to think.

K: Let me explain this  ( holistically?) : thought ( the self-centred thinking?) , as I said, cannot contain the (totality of the human consciousness or ?) 'mind'. Thought in itself being a fragment(-ary activity) , whatever it does will bring about further ( division & ) fragmentation, while a (holistically friendly  ?) mind is not fragmentary.

P.K. Sundaram: Knowledge must be considered essentially as 'transitive' - it always wants an 'object' – and in doing this, naturally it 'dissects'. Thought always dwells on dualities without which it cannot even live. So, a (holistically friendly) mind must transcend this duality between 'thought' and its 'object'.

K: I question whether this duality (really) exists.

S.P.: But we are living in duality. The thinking process itself functions in the duality (of the 'thinker' separating itself from its 'thinking')

K: Let me expand it a little more. Has the 'fact' an opposite?

S.P.: Will you say ( that the process of our self-centred ) thought is a 'fact'?

K: ( The process of man's self-centred) thought is a 'fact'. But what it has invented, apart from (the field of ) technology, is an 'illusion' (the 'gods', the 'rituals') - illusion being a perception with a certain ( psychological 'spin' or?) 'direction' ( dictated by self-interest?) , like a prejudice, or a fixation. We are saying that a ( psychological) 'fact', that is, anger or envy, has no opposite.

P.J.: I question this whole approach of 'duality' (in terms of the opposite of the ) fact. We could rather use the word 'illusion', since you have just introduced this word.

K: I used the word 'illusion' in the sense of a sensory perception of external (or internal?) 'objects', which is coloured, or distorted by beliefs, by prejudice, by opinion, by a conclusion. I would call this ( psychologically distorted perception of reality ?) an 'illusion'.

P.J.: But 'duality' is also refering to this ( self-created) separation which divides us, which brings into being the problem of becoming which moves away from 'being'. It is within this movement to become (better than one is now?) that all the other processes of comparison, opposites, want, not want, the more, the less, exist.

K: How do you perceive Achyutji (AP) , how do you observe him? If that observation is pure - in the sense, without any kind of (personal) motive, distortion, prejudice, so that there is nothing between your perception and the person or 'object' which you perceive - then that (holistic quality of) perception denies duality.

R.R.: We don't have this ( holistic quality of) pure perception.

K: That's the ( homework?) problem. To me (personally) there is only the 'fact'. A fact has no opposite. But we accept duality ( thinking in terms of opposites ?) : I am angry; I must not be angry.

R.R.: But in my visual perception I see Achyutji as a separate individual.

K: Which means what? Your perception is conditioned. Can you observe putting aside that conditioning?

S.P.: Would you say that so long as there is this (hidden ) conditioning there is duality?

K: I would.

S.P.: Then is not 'duality' a fact?

K: No. It is the ( 'fact' of the self-centred ?) conditioning that says 'there is duality'.

P.J.: You have often used the phrase: 'putting aside' . What is implied in it?

K: 'Putting aside' implies there is no 'you' who puts aside (the conditioning) . Let me explain. In the perception of ( the fact of ?) sorrow, the ( instinctual attitude of ) 'moving away' from that perception is (generating a modified) continuation of (the same) sorrow. That continuation which is the remembrance of a past incident which has caused sorrow, creates ( its own thread of thinking in terms of ) duality.
Now, can the observation be so 'complete' that there is no (division between) the 'observer' and the 'thing being observed', only observation? 'Putting away' means to be aware of this whole 'movement away' from the fact, which creates duality. Then there is pure observation in which there is no duality ( QED?)

D.S.: Are you saying that in the act of ( holistically?) seeing Achyutji, there is a (collateral) awareness of the ( subliminal act of self-) separateness?

K: Yes, that means, our (everyday ) awareness is conditioned by the past and tradition and all that, therefore there is duality.

D.S.: But is there an awareness of this whole movement?

K: Yes.

R.R.: What you have just said is a theoretical idea to me.

K: Why is it a theoretical idea?

D.S.: Because that is not (par of ) my ( actual) perception.

K: How would you get that ( holistically friendly?) perception - not 'my' perception, but perception? If you would examine that, then perhaps we could go into the question of (a meditative state of inner ?) 'non-movement' in which there is (the totally insightful ?) perception.

R.R.: Can you explain that ?

K. We are saying that when there is ( a quality of pure) perception without the ( all-controlling interference of the?) 'observer', then there is no duality. Duality occurs when there is (a subliminal inner division between the ?) 'observer' and the (thing being) 'observed'. The 'observer' is ( acting memory of ) the past. So, looking through the 'eyes of the past' creates a duality.

P.J.: The only ( iffy?) point in 'When there is perception without the observer,' you used the word 'when'.

K: Yes, because he says that it is a theory to him.

P.J.: That's why I ask: How is a ( holistically inclined ?) person to come to a state in which the 'when' has ceased?

Uma: When I am observing anything , I find that my (direct) observation is interrupted because I don't have the energy to be in that state of observation.

K: Why don't you have that energy?

D.S.: There is validity when she says you lose energy. But is it a question of losing energy or is there a more subtle commitment to creating duality? In other words, I am attached to creating him as a (stable) 'object'. It is something I need, a condition which satisfies me. That is where my energy gets dissipated. It is because in most cases it is a commitment to ( look at everything in a self-protective mode of) duality.

K: Not 'commitment'. It is your ( ages old perceptive ?) conditioning. Your whole outlook is that.

D.S.: It is much easier for me to create this duality because then I 'know' (who, or what I am dealing with?) .

P.J.: Still we have not come to the core of the problem.
G.N.: There is a core of ( subliminally self-protective ) memory functioning. We are trained in memory functioning and it is always in some way associated with knowledge, and when you have memory functioning and knowledge, duality occurs.

A.P.: I see very clearly that man can survive only as an indivisible whole, but the weight of my knowledge and the requirements of my daily living are stressing separateness, and separateness is so overpowering that it seems to eclipse the perception that man's well-being is indivisible. This (profoundly existential) problem is implicit in the present human situation.

K: What is the (inward) meaning of the word 'problem'? A (psychological) 'problem' is something not resolved, something which is bothering you, worrying you, that goes on day after day, for many years. He (K) is asking: Why don't we resolve something that arises as a problem immediately and not carry it on and on?

P.J.: Sir, there are many issues involved here. One of them is that it does not need Krishnaji to tell me that there is an (inward) source of (intelligent) energy and a holistic perception, which I have not ( yet) touched. But, on the other hand, without touching 'that' (innermost source) , this partial solution of the problem keeps on existing and keeps me within the framework of time, for eternity. I know that the very imperatives of the human situation demand that there must be a source of energy which, once touched, will physically transform our ways of thinking.

K.K.: Will that become an ideal, an idea?

K: What do you call an 'idea'?

D.S.: An idea is a thought that displays or presents a constructive perception. It presents or shows the way of ordering of a perception.

K: The root meaning is 'to observe'. Look up a dictionary; you will see it means 'to perceive', which means, to perceive that flower and not make an idea of that.

R.R.: It is not the sense in which it is generally used.

P.J.: Even if you take its present usage, an 'idea' is something which I move towards.

K. I hear a statement from you or from Dr. Shainberg. Why should I make an idea of it? Why can't I see a flower, that thing that is there and only observe it? Why should there be an idea?

S.P.: Are you saying you can see the form without naming?

K: Can't I observe you or you observe me without forming a conclusion, without forming a ( mental image or ) idea of me?

P.K.S.: That is totally possible.

K: We started out discussing the place of knowledge in (the context of a holistic way of ) life. Let us start from here again and move around. What is a ( holistically friendly ) mind?

P.J.: The first question that arises is what is the present (condition ) of the human consciousness.

K: So, what is human consciousness?

P.J.: The structure of human consciousness is thought, belief, movement, becoming, identity...

K: … and dogma. So, ( our temporal) consciousness is the whole movement of thought with all its ( psychological ) content. I am a Hindu, I believe in puja, I worship, I pray, I am anxious, I am afraid - all that is this whole spectrum of thought's (self-centred ) movement.

P.J.: What place has the word 'sanity' which you use in this holistic context ?

K: So, sanity means a healthy mind, a healthy body, a healthy inwardness.

P.J.: Are you saying that a consciousness which has all these ( self-centred) elements can never enquire objectively ?

K: That is what I am saying. If my consciousness is a bundle of ( compounded?) contradictions, hopes, illusions, fears, pleasures, anxiety, sorrows and all that. Can that consciousness find a holistic way of life? Obviously it cannot.

S.P.: You say sanity is necessary for the mind to start enquiry, but the (starting) consciousness which is enquiring is full of contradictions.

K: Such a mind ( 100% self-interest?) cannot even understand or even be capable of enquiry. So, I'll drop the enquiry into a ( hypothetical?) 'holistic' life, and enquire into ( the actual content of my self-) consciousness. Then my enquiry is sane, logical.

P.J.: In all the traditional ways of approaching this whole content of consciousness, it is symbolized by one word 'I', and the enquiry is into the nature and the dissolution of the 'I'.

K: All right. Then our enquiry is whether the 'self' (identified content?) can be dissolved (de-polarised?) . So I say: What is my consciousness? I begin from there and see if it is possible to 'empty totally' that consciousness.

P.J.: What is the nature of that 'emptying'?

K: I am doing it now. Can I be free from my 'attachment' to my daily rituals of 'puja' or from my nationalism? Can I be free from following some (guru's) authority? I go on (& on...?) and ( sooner or later?) my consciousness is totally stripped of its contradictions. I hope that silences you (for the time being...?) . Let us start enquiring whether it is possible to be aware totally, holistically, of our consciousness. If it is not possible (right now) , let us take fragment by fragment - but will that bring about comprehension of the total perception of consciousness?

P.K.S.: Will you not be open to the 'charge' of being too intellectual in your enquiry?

K: No. I put my heart into it. With my whole being I am enquiring. My heart, my affection, my nerves, my senses, my intellect, my thought, everything is involved in this enquiry.

R.R.: Sir, will you state the conditions of this enquiry?

K: You are a scientist. You observe and that very observation changes that which is being observed. Why can't you do that with yourself?

R.R.: Because my attention wanders.

K: Which means what? When you are looking, in spite of your ( instinctual drive for) acquiring (more self-) knowledge, you put that aside when you are watching. The very watching is the transformation of that which is being observed.

R.R.: Sir, I think it is a fact for me that my attention wanders.

K: Let us begin step by step. When I am watching myself, this 'myself' is a bundle of ( self-identified?) reactions. I begin with things which are very near to me, such as ( the traditional Hindu rituals of) 'puja'. I look at it, I watch it, and I don't say, `Well, it pleases me because I am used to it.' I see (that in terms of inner awakening ?) it is 'absurd' and put it away for ever.

R.R.: It does not seem to work like that.

K: Is it because of ( becoming strongly attached to ? ) your habit?

R.R.: Yes, that is right.

K: So then, go (deeper ) into ( investigating the nature of ) 'habit'. Why do you have habit? Why do you have a mind functioning in habit which means a mechanical mind? Why is it mechanical? Is it because it is very safe to be mechanical, secure? Is there any real security this repetition of 'puja' or have you invested security in it?

R.R.: I give it security.

K: Therefore, wipe it away.

R.R.: This is where the difficulty is. I can see my mind is mechanical or caught in habit, but that does not seem to lead to what you seem to suggest, to 'cutting it away'.

K: Because your mind is still functioning in ( the inward safety of its?) habits. Are there good habits or bad habits, or are there only habits? And... why are you caught in them?
So let us come back. We are saying, consciousness that is in turmoil, in contradiction, wanders from one thing to another. There is a ( constant inner conflict or?) battle that is going on. So long as that ( self- conflicted ) consciousness is there, you can never 'pure perceiving'. Is it possible (in one's meditation homework?) to bring about in one's consciousness a total absence of this movement of contradiction ( contradictory thoughts, feelings & desires ?)

S.P.: I can see the truth of repetitiveness, the mechanical action of puja, and it is out of my system. Speaking of other things, many fragments, the truth of them can be seen and negated. But even then the problem remains, which is the ending of the ( self-identified ) content of consciousness. There can be an ending of any particular fragment but the problem is that of ending the totality of consciousness.

K: Are you saying that you try to see them sequentially, fragment by fragment? Then you can never come to the end of the fragmentation.

S.P.: That is what we see after ten, fifteen years of observing.

K.: Therefore, you must say, is there a (holistic quality of ) 'observation' which is ( encompassing the) totality ?
( For instance?) I hear the K statement that a sequential examinination of the ( ongoing) fragmentation in my consciousness is endless, and it cannot be resolved that way. Have I 'listened' to it? Have I understood it deeply in my heart, in my blood, in my whole being, that examining fragmentation will never solve it? If I have understood that; therefore, I won't touch it. I won't go near a 'guru'. All that is out because they all deal with fragments - the communists, the socialists, the gurus, the religious people, everything is fragmented.

S.P.: Have I to see 'now' all the implications at this point or have I to work it out (later for homework?) ?

K: No, no. 'Working out' is a fragmentation. I can't see the whole because my whole being, thinking, living, is fragmented. What is the root (inner cause) of this fragmentation? Why has one divided the world into nations, religions? Why?

S.P.: The mind says it is the 'I-ness' which acts.

K: No, that is intellectual. I said to you, 'listen'. How do you listen to that statement? Listening with the intellect is frag- mentation. Hearing with the ear is fragmentation. Do you listen with your whole, entire being, or do you just say 'Yes, it is a good idea'?

George Sudarshan: I feel very stagnant when 'checkered' by your attacks on knowledge. It is not knowledge which is causing fragmentation but its (psychological usage?) .
So, let me go back to the question: What is a holistic life? It is cessation of the contradiction between causality and spontaneity. Most of the world around us is causal, but when you are in the 'spontaneous' mode of functioning, there is in fact no possibility of it being broken down. When you are happy, you are happy. But if you feel that you would like to continue this mode, then, of course, the mode has already ceased. When you want to maintain (or stretch ? ) an (excellent spiritual ?) experience which you already have in time, corruption has set in, and it is only a matter of time before it will come to an end. Therefore, the whole question of how to end fragmentation is wrong. We cannot logically conceive it, we cannot dictate the rules, we cannot legislate it, we cannot write a manual about it. Therefore, in a certain sense, when it comes, it comes by itself. That is, in fact, the only true mode of existence.

K: So, what do we do? Say I am fragmented and carry on?

G.S.: In the fragmented mode you try to ( meditate deeper & ) perceive.

K: Being fragmented, I recognise it and just leave it so ?

G.S.: Would you tell me how to end fragmentation, the process?

K: I will tell you, sir.

G.N.: No, not ending fragmentation by process, because once you say process, it can become mechanical.

K: Quite right.

S.P.: What Krishnaji is talking about is the ending of time as a factor to end fragmentation.

D.S.: One of the things that is emerging clearly for me is that something about the very framework of thought conditions and limits and fragments it.

K: Right sir, thought is fragmentary. So, what is the root of fragmentation? Can thought stop?

G.S.: Just 'stop'...?

K: Not 'periodically', 'occasionally',or 'spontaneously'. To me all these implies a movement in time.

G.S.: As long as you are thinking, that is movement.

K: ( The self-interest dominated?) thought is the root of (the inner) fragmentation. Thought is a 'movement' and so the 'time' ( its temporal agenda ?) is ( part of the same mental) 'movement'. So, can 'time' ( the 'psychological' thread of time ???) stop?

G.S.: May I make a slight distinction? You say thought is the cause of fragmentation. I ask, where did that thought arise - in the unfragmented state or the fragmented?

K: In the fragmented state. We answer always from a fragmented mind.

G.S.: Not always …

K: I said, generally. And is there a thinking which comes of a non-fragmented mind?

G.S.: I am not sure I am following your terminology.

K: We said thought is fragmented, that it is the cause of fragmentation.

G.S.: What I am saying is that we see fragmentation and thought together. To say that one is the cause of the other is not true.

K: Cause and effect are the same.

G.S.: So, they are aspects of the same ( psychical?) entity?

K: Thought and ( the self-centred ) fragmentation are the same movement, which is part of 'time'. It is the same thing, whether it is one or the other. So, I can ask, can the 'psychological' (habit of thinking in terms of?) time, stop? Can this whole (inner) movement stop completely? When there is a cessation of ( thought's continuity in ?) time, there is no-thing (left inwardly?) , which means (everything 'is' in that no-thingness ?), as Love is not of time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 14 Nov 2018 #122
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

3-rd & last ('reader friendly' edited) part of the K SEMINAR 'THE NATURE OF HOLISTIC LIFE'(Madras 1979)

N. Vasudevan Nair: What is the choice before mankind, sir? In the enormity of his grief, man faces the world, which is a very devastating experience. He crawls on all fours to catch a blade of grass, he suffers, he is lost. Can there be a complete rebirth or has he to undergo the pain of one birth after another?

K: Would you say that is a real question: What is the challenge for mankind in the present crisis? We all see, quite obviously, the deterioration of mankind not only in this country but in every country, and we have not only to stop it but also to bring about a re-birth - a totally different way of life. And we are trying to investigate what is the nature of a holistic way of life which is not sentimental, romantic, devotional. As Achyutji pointed out (man's blind faith in?) knowledge is destroying man, and to end that destruction, a new way of life has to be found.

P.K.S.: Earlier we came to the conclusion that a holistic life is the very antithesis of fragmentation. We spoke of two things which are mutually incompatible as far as I can see: One, complete emptying of the mind, and the other, the removal of fragmentation. But fragmentation is the opposite of totality. Totality is richness, not emptiness. This ( experiential paradox) I am not able to follow.

Prof. Sanjivi: There is another pertinent question which I also wanted to pose before you. Is 'emptying the mind' practicable? Is it possible, relevant, in day-to-day life?

K: We are trying to examine a way of life which is non-fragmentary, which is holistic, whole, and perhaps that would lead us to a truly 'religious' (way of) life. We said that because thought (the self-centred thinking within the field of the known?) in itself is limited, all its movements are fragmentary. Thought itself is fragmented. Would you accept that?

San: Sir, there is one difficulty in accepting this. Even this thought is the result of a fragmentary thought. Is it not?

K: No. This is not a thought; it is a statement (of fact) .

G.N.: We have a lot of knowledge, and from that knowledge there is a way of functioning. What is the difference between knowledge and insight? What is the nature of insight? A holistic life, you say, is a sane life. There is some connection between that and insight which is not just knowledge, which is not a memory function. Is it possible to communicate this distinction?

A.P.: I would say that 'insight' is different from 'conclusion'. When there is knowledge, there is conclusion. When there is insight, it 'opens a door' , which is qualitatively different.

K: Are we trying now to explore what is 'insight'?

D.S.: We should also discuss the question of how a fragmented mind can (insightfully?) investigate .

K: First, let us see that the movement of thought must inevitably be a 'broken up' process, a fragmentary (mental) movement. The point and the question is, can ( the continuity thread of ) that fragmentary movement end? What do you say, sir?

D.S.: Krishnaji, even the question 'Can this end?' comes out of another fragment.

K: As one watches ( objectively?) his/her own life, in that perception one discovers that there is conflict, that there is fragmentation, and the need for change in herself. So, the essential point here is the (holistic perception?) of this whole movement of thought. Could we then discuss what ( the nature of this) perception is, and move on from there?

P.J.: Should we start the investigation into the holistic mind with the query, how can thought end?

San: I accept you suggestion that the solution to all ( our psychological) problems would be the cessation of thought, does one achieve that?

K: Sir, the 'ending' of all movement of thought a very complex (issue) . Shall we discuss that?

R.D.: One difficulty arises in almost all of us - that is, the 'I' (or the 'thinker' ) and (the process of) thought. When we use the word 'thought', we seem to externalize it as if it is there as a kind of object we don't perceive. On the other hand, insight is to see from within. Is it possible for one to see ( both the 'thinker' & its 'thought'?) from within?

K: (For starters?) do we all see or understand deeply, that thought (the 'thinker' thinking within the limited field of his available knowledge ) is a broken up (process?) ? (If yes, then?) the next ( experiential question that arises would be, is it possible to 'stop' (the 'psychological' thread of) thought, and if it is stopped, then what is one's activity in my daily life? Can thought be stopped, and 'who' is it that stops it? If there is an entity which can stop it, that entity is either outside the field of thought or is created by thought itself. If that 'agency' is ( assumed to come from) outside - 'heaven' or 'God' or whatever - then that is created by ( the same ) thought (trying to objectivise itself?) . So, our problem then is: Can thought realize itself as limited, and, therefore, being limited, limit itself to a certain ( practical &utilitary) activity in daily life?
Now, the next question is: Can thought become aware of itself, and in that very ( trans-personal ?) awareness put itself in its 'right place' as it were, and from there act (whenever it is necessary?) ? But...(given its self-centred nature ?) it can't.

D.S.: Let us look at it from another angle then. If I want to put a nail in the wall, I take a hammer and hit the nail. If I want to go rowing in a boat I use an oar and row. What happens to thought? Thought does not see itself in such a fashion. In other words, thought has a function like a nail to a hammer or an oar to a boat. What happens if thought arrogates or takes on more than it is supposed to take on? You were saying thought has a limited function.

K: Sir, my (impossible?) question: Can thought become aware of itself as being limited?

R.D.: Thought can perhaps agree intellectually that it is limited.

K: It is still another thought that says I am limited. So, let us move out of that ( conundrum?) for a while. Can your (self-) consciousness become aware of itself?

P.J.: What is the difference between thought becoming aware of itself and consciousness becoming aware of itself? Does consciousness itself have a capacity to reflect ( upon) itself?

K: Is there in our consciousness a (transpersonal ?) 'seeing' or an 'element' that observes itself as is? It is very important to find out if there is ( a direct?) observation. Is there an observer observing, or there is only pure observation?

P.K.S.: If consciousness can observe itself, then I think we are introducing another duality within consciousness itself.

K: Sir, consciousness is full of duality. I do, I don't, I must not, fear, courage - the whole of that is the (self-centred) consciousness. That's why it is so difficult. I say one thing, you say another. We never meet.

S.P.: Is the (self-) awareness of consciousness part of consciousness?

K: I would like to discuss it. Is there an ( quality of holistic) observation without the observer? If there is, then that observation operates on the whole of consciousness. It is important to discuss this question of observation. We are missing a very important (holistic experiential) thing, which is, there is only observation, not the 'observer'.
Why is there not pure observation? It is because you are ( subliminally?) introducing an 'observer' (mental interface ?) into observation. As most of us observe with (through?) the 'observer' ( in a 'psychologically safe' perceptive mode?) , we, therefore, have to examine what the observer is. I want to come to a point where I can carry this out in my daily life. How can I observe without the observer? Can I observe my actions, my wife, my husband, my children, the whole cultural tradition, without the observer? Who is the observer to whom you give so much importance?

P.K.S.: Sir, you seem to be dogmatically accepting the distinction between the observer and observation as though there is an observer apart from observation.

K: No. I said that we have established this ( 'fool-proof' perceptive mode?) in our everyday life - the 'observer', 'I' am observing, 'I' am looking', 'My' opinion is that, and so on. That is the (attitude ) build-up through generations (of survival oriented existence?) , the idea that the 'observer' is different from that which he is observing.
There is an observation of that thing called a tree and I say 'it is a tree', and so on. Now, here we are talking about the (inward) 'psychological' observation. In that observation, there is an (artificial?) duality - 'I' and the 'thing I am observing'. It is the ( subliminal identification as a separated?) observer who brings about this distinction. Now, what is the 'observer'?

S.P.: The whole collection of ( our personal & collective) experience and ( a subliminal self-) identification is the 'observer'. The observer has many depths.

K: That is, knowledge, the past; the 'past' being accumulation of knowledge, experience of mankind - racial, non-racial. The observer is the (self-identified memory of the?) past.

A.P.: With one addition - the observer is the past plus the sense of ( its temporal) continuity.

K: The continuity is the observer who is the past meeting the present, modifying itself and continuing the present.

San: The 'observer' has depths which are very difficult to fathom.

K: I know the 'observer' has ( its own personality & ) depth, the 'depth' being ( the background of one's ) knowledge ( accumulated for ?) of centuries.

P.J.: The nature of the observer is the ( knowledge related ?) field of our consciousness.

K: You ( K?) talked about totality of consciousness and whether there can be an observation without the observer. Now, when you say there are depths to the 'observer', I say the observer himself 'is' the field of ( the 'known') consciousness. The totality of the observer 'is' itself the field of observation. You can keep on expanding the ( knowledge field of the?) 'observer' endlessly.
Look, Pupulji. Make it very simple: Can I observe my wife or my husband without all the accumulation that I have had during my twenty years of life with her or him?

P.J.: I may say 'yes'...

K: That would just be agreeing. We are not meeting the ( action?) point. Can I 'observe' (now?) my wife or husband with whom I have lived, and about whom, during the course of those twenty years, I have accumulated knowledge, as she has about me? Can you observe your wife, husband, as though you are seeing that human being for the first time? Then your whole ( quality of) relationship changes.

S.P.: There is one (small experiential ?) difficulty. There have been occasions when one can see a husband or a friend without any ( interfering) movement of the past. So, one sees it is possible to see that way. But when you say that ''the entire relationship is changed for ever'', then the ( 'reality check' ?) difficulty arises.

K: All right. Have we communicated to each other that the observer who is the past and, therefore, time-bound creates the distinction between himself and his wife - dominating her, pushing her? So, the ( self-identified memory of the?) past is always operating . And, therefore, his relationship with her is based not on affection, not on love, but on the ( psychologically safe memories of the) past.

S.P.: We have affection.

K: I question it. Can we have ( an 100% authentic) affection if there is the ( all-controlling) operation of the past?

San: there is a way out ?

K: It is not ( a matter of) seeking a way out. All I am concerned with is how I approach this problem, because the approach is going to dictate the understanding of the problem.

P.K.S.: But is the 'observer' really capable to observe (objectively?) the ( all-controlling interference of the personal or collective ?) past?

K: That constitutes the ego, the 'I', the 'self', the 'me'.

P.J.: Is ( our question ?) ''Can the observer observe the past?'' or ''Is it possible for an observation to be there without the observer?''

K: This is the ( unsolved homework?) problem with all of us. Can I observe a thing without all the burden of the past? Because, if it is possible to observe totally, then that observation is not time-bound, it is not a continuity. The moment you do it, don't you fall into a new mode of existence; something totally irrevocable?

S.P.: At this ( critical) point, what does the mind do?

K: That's why I am enquiring into the process of observing the observer. The observer is the past. Can the observer see the movement of the past as it operates? Is there an observation of the past - the ( residual memory of a psychological ?) hurt, for example? Is there an observation of the whole cycle of hurt, psychologically, biologically, physically and so on, the hurt which involves resistance, agony, pain, all that? Can there be a (holistic?) observation of that hurt, that observation telling the story of the hurt, revealing itself? Is it impractical?

D.S.: Everything you see in some way is the action of the observer. So, every question arises in the condition of the 'observer' (controlled observation ?) .

K: If I tell you this simple ( Universal?) 'fact' : ''Love is not of time'', then (in seeing the inward truth of it?) the duality, the ( conflict btw?) 'observer' & 'observed' , everything ends.
Now, what is a holistic life? Obviously all the rituals, the puja, the 'gods', all that is out. Then what will it be? All that is thrown out, which means you are throwing out your (temporal?) 'self', the 'me'. So, the essence of ( a holistic way of life?) is the total ( leave of?) absence of the 'me', of the 'self-(centred consciousness)

San: What is it you mean by 'self'? Is it the 'ego'?

K: The 'ego', which means my ( time-bound?) characteristics, my desires, my fears.

A.P.: Would you accept it if I say that the ( temporal) 'self' (-consciousness?) is only an 'adhesive', it has the quality of making things stick to it.

K: The intellectual description is not the ( actual) 'self'. I want to see what the 'self' (really) is. Can the 'self' (centred characteristics ?) be washed off? Can I get rid of my jealousy, anger? As long as that is there - fear of this or that - I have no 'holistic' mind. The 'self' is jealousy, envy, greed, authority, power, position, domination, attachment. End it. And can you be selfless, can you live without self (centredness?) and live in this world? Is that what you asked?

San: Not exactly that. We left at the point that the solution of all problems is to stop thinking, stop the whole process of thinking. It will be more fruitful if we find a technique for this.

K: Sir, a 'mechanistic' ( repetitive?) mind can never have (free access to?) Love. Please see that any system will make the mind mechanical. If you see it intellectually, probe it further.

D.S.: Inevitably in the very nature of the 'observer' arise the questions: How can I be holistically minded , how can I be unselfish, how can I be this, how can I be that? Everybody is trying to 'get there'.

K: Yes sir, everybody wants to become 'something else'. So, all I say is: start where you are.

D.S.: You stick to that?

K: I do.

D.S.: But you talk of being 'unselfish'.

M.Z.: Envy, jealousy and all this is 'where you are'.

D.S.: In all that he has said, there is a subtle suggestion that you can get rid of jealousy, envy.

K: I am saying: Start near. Because, if you know this whole history of man which is 'you', it is finished.

D.S.: You don't have to change that ?

K: It is a book, a vast book, and I read it. I am not trying to change it. I want to read the whole history instantly.

S.P.:, How can you read it without ( the 'becoming' ) movement in time?

K: I just want to know the whole 'content' of myself. My whole consciousness 'is' its content. And you can investigate something when you are free (of the known?) , when there is no ( personal or collective?) prejudices, beliefs, conclusions.

R.D.: Then there is no investigation at all of the history. The history is the prejudice, and you are saying, 'Read it.'

K: Then it is finished. I have come to the end of the chapter.

R.D.: I can see intellectually that following a system (of psychological becoming?) will not end the problem at all. So, I don't seek it. Now the question is, what do I do? I am learning and observing, but my tool of observation is still the intellect. And here I am sitting and observing with you. The tool is inadequate - investigation through knowledge. I see this now; I see something very practical. I have denied systems, denied practice. Where am I?

K: If you have put away ( the following of all psychologically redundant ?) systems & practices, what is the quality of your mind? You have seen something false, and you have dropped it. Which mean that your mind is now sharper, more intelligent. The ( awakening) intelligence is going to observe & put away everything that is false.
When you put away something ( which is seen as) false, your mind is (getting) 'lighter' - like climbing a mountain and throwing away that (psychological stuff) which you don't need. ( And... when you've reached the mountain top...?) your mind becomes very, very clear. So ( at any point the 'holistically friendly' ?) mind has the capacity of perceiving that which is ( inwardly) 'true' and that which is 'false'.

So,( for more meditation homework ?) discard everything that is false, which is, everything that ( the ego-centric activity of?) thought has put together. Then the mind has no illusion.
Sirs, in oneself is ( holistically encrypted ?) the whole Book of Mankind, and I began with the first (1.1 paragraph of the first) chapter which says: ''Be aware of your senses''. And the next (1.2 paragraph) says: ''Human beings have ( for obscure reasons, used ?) their senses partially , by exaggerating one sense and ( mindlessly ?) denying the others''. The third (1.3 paragraph) says: ''See that all the senses can operate (in free harmony) ; that means there is no centre of a particular sensory operation''. And then (go to the next chapter ?) and so on & on...

( For obvious educational reasons?) I am not going to read the book for you. Read it ( for homework ?) and ( leisurely?) explore the nature of the 'holistic' (aka : 'religious' ) life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Nov 2018 #123
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

K Seminars Madras 1978

Sunanda Patwardhan: The present century is witness to tremendous advances in technology and the expansion of the frontiers of ( outward ?) knowledge, and yet this does not seem to have brought about a better society or happiness to man. It is in this context of the values in culture and in human consciousness that we have to search for the roots of 'an inner) regeneration and of human progress.

A.P.: The 'modern' society which developed during the last two hundred years has certain clear postulates - that the problems that affect human society arise from a lack of material resources, from poverty, disease, squalor; and that these can be remedied by (taking a firm) control over the material environment. This view persists in men's minds, particularly in countries like India where there is so much poverty. Now, it is becoming increasingly obvious that these postulates are a facile oversimplification. The misuse of Earth's natural resources are a peril to human survival, while science and technology by themselves have no defence against their own misuse. Today we question the validity of unrestricted growth of the gross national product as the index of economic well-being.
A ( still deeper &) wider question arises about whether the growth of knowledge itself is not equally irrelevant to the central predicament of modern man. Man is ( inwardly) tethered to a fragmented view of human development which aggravates the crisis. We are, therefore trying to explore whether the human consciousness is capable of a radical regeneration which makes possible a new perspective and a sane and humane relationship. We need to go beyond our present resources of knowledge to come upon that wisdom which is also compassion. As we treat (the temporal?) ego as a permanent entity, it appears that love is locked out and we live in a field of approximations. ( The holistic ) regeneration of man's consciousness is directly tied up with self-knowing, as no solution can arise out of a ( standardised?) social perspective.

P.J.: Can we indicate the challenges, which man faces today within and without? There is no answer to the problem of self-regeneration unless man comprehends the sense of his humaneness. I would suggest that it is only through discussion, dialogue, that the nature of our thinking can be laid bare. This could bring to light not only the predicament but also the solution.

K: I think that most thoughtful people have rejected ( relying inwardly on?) every form of system, or institution; I think man has come to a point where he feels that one must have a new quality of mind. I mean by 'mind' the activities of the brain consciousness, sensory perception and intelligence. Is it possible for human beings to bring about a totally different category or dimension of the mind?

P.K.S.: The crisis in human consciousness, so far as I can see, is an ever-recurring phenomenon in history and it is possible to find a general pattern in this crisis. One form is man against nature, man finding himself a stranger in a world which he perhaps considers inimical to him. Therefore, man has to fight against the forces of nature, and this brings about a crisis in his heart. Another form is much deeper and perhaps more significant for human history - man versus man. This arises because man considers another man as an objective phenomenon and, therefore, alien. That is, another individual poses a danger, a challenge to his own security, completeness. The third aspect of this crisis is man against himself. He does not know what is the inspiration of his own life, mind, thought. Very frequently, he carries on a battle in his own heart; there is a dialogue between the good and the bad, the moral and the immoral, the progressive and the regressive, the civilized and the uncivilized, the mechanical and the inspired. In my view the solution lies in the heart of man, which brings us back to the need for a regeneration of human consciousness.

K: Talking about consciousness, are we ( self-isolated ) 'individuals'? Don't we have a consciousness which is common, every man going through suffering, agonies of loneliness, the whole business of existence? It seems to me that our consciousness is the ( shared) consciousness of all mankind, because every human being goes through fears, anxiety and so on. So our consciousness 'is' the consciousness of the world. Therefore, I am the world and the world is me; I am not an individual. We are not individual in the real sense of the word. To me the idea of individuality is non-existent. Theoretically, we talk about individuals. It sounds marvellous, but actually, are we individuals or repetitive (thinking?) machines? When we look at ourselves, deeply, seriously, are we ( free?) individuals? If I may point out the key for a deep radical change in man lies in his consciousness. Can that consciousness be ( qualitatively?) transformed? That is the real question.

P.J.: In the actual state of one's consciousness, each one of us sees within us an individual consciousness separate from the consciousness of another. The experiential problem then arises: How does one come to the realization of whether one is an 'individual' or not? Does one proceed through knowledge or through the negation of knowledge? And if there is negation of knowledge, what are the instruments required for that negation?

K: One has to ask what is (the content of ) one's (self-centred) consciousness?

P.K.S.: Are you referring to the individual mind?

K: No, sir, I asked what is one's ( self-centred) consciousness. Apparently, in that consciousness there is a deep crisis. It may be asleep, pressurized or totally industrialized, as Dr. Illich suggests , by the guru industrialization, so that we are (conscience-wise?) just non-existent, we just survive? I would also like to ask, is one aware of the totality of one's own existence which is the result of society, culture, family, name? And what is the origin of all ( self-centred?) thinking? That may be the beginning of our ( time-bound  ?) consciousness.
What is ( the active or dormant content of ? ) my consciousness? My consciousness is made up of ( my familiar ) culture, ideas, traditions, propaganda, etc. Without this ( subliminally active?) content, there is no ( self-) consciousness. If there is ( a content-free consciousness?) , it is a totally different dimension (of being?) and one can only come upon that ( trans-personal dimension of ) consciousness when the ( psychologically active ? ) 'content' is wiped away. So one has to be clear about what one is discussing: whether one is discussing theoretically or by taking up one's own consciousness and investigating it. That is the ( K) 'Challenge'.

I.I.: Would you consider it disrespectful if I say that I have knowledge of you, but I don't know you ?

K: Can I ever say 'I know you' (once & for all?) ? I am using the words 'I know you' in a very simple way : I recognise you, because I remember having met you last year. But if I approach you with a sense of compassion, in the deep sense of that word, then there is no 'knowing', there is only ( communion and ?) sharing.

A.P.: But do we know ourselves? That is the ultimate question.

K: That's it, sir. Do we know ourselves, and what is the manner of knowing oneself?

A.P.: The problem here is our incapacity to know ourselves directly, to deal with it with a compassionate response.
And because we do not know ourselves, our relationship with the world also is a more distant relationship.

P.J.: Let me put it this way : What are the instruments of learning about oneself ? The deep-seated instruments of knowing are seeing, listening, feeling and learning. The probing into the ( holistic use and ) significance of these instruments may throw some light not only on the nature of the instruments but also on the manner in which these instruments have been perverted to block their real function.

K: Sir, ( for starters?) would you agree that instead of using consciousness as a (philosophical concept ) , we can use it (experientially in terms of?) a movement of time?

I.I.: I would accept it for ( the purpose of this) discussion, but a ( statistic) study found that nine out of ten words used by young people, are words which have been ( culturally?) programmed and only one is a personal word. Recently a lady was saying that she has taken credits for nineteen hours of 'consciousness'. I am just saying - everything in the ( standardised ) culture in which I live is the result of an additive ( mechanistic) way of education.

P.J.: That is really the problem of knowledge - the additive process.

I.I.: The danger of ( accumulating ) knowledge as an additive process, makes me ( inwardly) standardized.

K: Sir, what is the spring from which a thought arises? There is a sensory (or mental) perception, sensation, contact, then the desire and imagination involved in that.

R.B.: But for thought to become aware of itself as a ( time-) trap, is it necessary to see the origin of thought?

K: Yes. Then you would only register that which is absolutely necessary and not the 'psychological' structures. Why should I register your flattery or your insult? That ( personal) registration emphasizes the ego.

R.B.: Registering by long habit is so instantaneous. How can we slow down the whole process?

K: Have you ever tried writing down objectively every (intimate thread of?) thought, not just those which are pleasant or unpleasant ? Then you will find that you can slow down (the psychological activity of) thought tremendously. Sir, my question is, why do we register psychologically at all? Is it possible to register only that which is absolutely, physically, necessary and not build up the psyche through registration?

I.I.: I only know that by becoming older and working at it, one can cut down on registration.

K: That means it is a slow 'process'. Is it possible to accelerate the 'non-registering' process that does not depend upon age, circumstances, environment, poverty, riches, culture? Can one see, have an insight into, the whole question of 'psychological' registration and end it ( ASAP)?

I.I.: It seems to me that there are several schools (of thought ) each suggesting, a certain way.

K: And then we are back to systems.

I.I.: I would imagine that these offer us a 'ladder'. This is not for all, but for some people they are rather useful in the beginning. I can even imagine that they are useful in many instances - wisdom not to choose, not to search, during their whole life for the best ladder but to take one which does the job which luckily I have at my disposal.

K: But I question whether ( knowing oneself?) is a 'gradual' (linear?) movement. For instance, if one sees the necessity of 'factual' registration, and has an insight into the futility of 'psychological' registration, it is finished. It is as if you see an actual danger, a precipice, it is over. In the same way, if one profoundly sees the danger of psychological registration, then the thing is finished.

I.I.: Is it not possible that for some people enlightenment comes in several ways and for others it comes like sunrise, the sun comes out and there it is.

K: You tell me there are many various schools, degrees and I accept that. And another comes along and tells me it is not at all like that and I reject it because of my conditioning. Whereas, if I listened to him and to you, I can see with clarity in the very act of listening, the implications of both statements. Do you understand? The ( holistic ? ) 'listening' itself frees me from ( following?) both of you.

2nd Seminar Madras 14th January 1978

P.J.:Could we discuss the nature of inner regeneration, and if it is essential to man and society, then what is the place of self-knowing in this whole field?

K: I don't know what you mean by regeneration - to be made anew, made afresh? We are talking about the transformation of man, the ending of his anxiety – of ending this whole (egocentric) way of life and out of that ending, a new thing being born. Is that what we mean by (inner) regeneration?
If that is so, what is the relationship between ( self-) knowledge and regeneration? If the process of self-knowledge is additive, does it bring about ( an inner) regeneration? Isn't knowledge the very substance of the ( temporal) 'self' ?

Can we begin with the question, 'Can I know myself?' Not according to some philosophers, but can I know myself? I may have (lots of) knowledge about myself, limited knowledge, fragmentary knowledge, knowledge brought about by (the passing of?) time. But can I know myself fundamentally, irrevocably?

A.P.: This is where my difficulty arises. Even with regard to knowing oneself, verbalizing has a very important place. If that is taken away, will we have the capacity to know anything?

I.I.: I am asking the same question. An insight (into the truth or falseness of anything) which comes in a flash and can be interpreted logically later on, can be referred to in words; is that 'knowledge' in your terminology?

K: I would say that if ( the intellectual process based on ) verbalization does not exist, the ( temporal?) 'self' , the 'me', the 'ego' comes to an end. Can there be a 'knowing' (an inner realisation?) that the word is not the thing? And if there is no verbalization, then what is the 'fact', what remains? Is it still the 'self'?

G.N.: There are forms of knowledge akin to insight and some forms of insight which cannot be converted into knowledge through the additive process. The way one approaches it is very significant. Some types of knowledge have the taste of insight but they get reduced to knowledge.

K.: We said we understood the meaning, the significance, of ( an inner) regeneration. How is man to completely renew himself, like a Phoenix? Does it depend on his social & economical environment ? Or has regeneration as knowing nothing whatever to do with environmental pressures? We must go into that. We will come to a different kind of knowledge presently. Do we agree on the meaning of regeneration as a total, psychological, profound, revolution, in the sense that 'something new ' is born out of it?
Then is 'knowing oneself' the central factor of inner regeneration? If that is so, then how am I to 'know myself' - knowing that the verbal description is not the (actual thing) described? If there is no verbalization, then what next?
If you don't 'verbalize', you have cut away the whole area of morality, ethics. Take ( any psychological reaction of ) 'violence' ; if I don't use that word and am free from verbalization with all its significance, what remains?

A.P.: In ( the process of verbalisation) there is a big trap. For instance, in seeing the phenomenon of sorrow. I see somebody in pain, I can express that without feeling compassion in my heart. And from then on, I live on ( the rolling carpet of ) words. Therefore, words are my biggest protection and they also become a barrier to self-knowledge. The human brain stores images, creates images, symbols, etc.

K: We were asking, how is man to regenerate himself without any cause, without any motive, without any influence of the environment - social, political, moral, religious. I think we ought to settle that and then proceed. What do you say, Dr. Illich?

I.I.: I would like to ask you a question. Aren't the words also part of our environment?

K: Yes. The words are also part of my cultural environment and the words influence my thinking. If I am born in this particular part of the country, my whole cultural, development, progress, is based on this culture. The language itself is affecting me; it may also be a ( self-protective?) barrier between you and me. So, realizing that language can also become a barrier, I cut it. It is finished. I will use it only to communicate .

I.I.: Is there anything within me which has not been affected by language in the same way as my body is affected by breathing? Is there a point somewhere in me which the environment has not touched?

K: Do you see what is happening, sir? Your question, 'Is there something in this "me" which is not affected, touched, shaped, moulded by the environment' has already put us in communication. The ( ancient) Hindus say there is something. Dr. Illich wants to know if there is within 'me' something which is not shaped, moulded, contaminated, pressurized by the environment. As a ( very learned?) scholar, a 'pundit' - what would be your answer?

P.K.S.: Those parts ( of one's consciousness?) which are supposed to be affected by language, etc. are only the psychological 'me'. I think that something exists prior to the environment affecting it.

K: I don't quite follow you.

R.B.: Prof. Sundaram says there is a (psychical) 'substratum' on which thought builds the psychological, the empirical, 'me'. Therefore, logically, there is ( within human consciousness?) an area which is unaffected by thought.

K: So you are saying that there is in me, in my existence, in my life, an uncontaminated, unshaped state. Does that satisfy you?

I.I.: I accept your words and yet, since it cannot be affected by language, I can only speak in 'negative' terms. This particular spot, something which is light, and yet something about which there is no proof, that I can grasp. And when I speak about it, I dare to capture it in a word. Would you accept that?

K: May I put it differently? I don't even ask that ( metaphysical ?) question, 'Is there something in me which is not shaped by the environment?' All that I know is, unless a human being finds the (inward?) Springs of Regeneration, the New is not possible.
Regeneration is possible only when the influences from the outside or the influences which I am creating as a reaction come to an end. Then I can answer it (experientially) . Until then I can only speculate.

So I begin by (1) realising the absolute necessity ( for a holistically inclined?) human being to bring about a revolution in the whole ( psychological) structure.
(2) And when you tell me 'Know yourself ' I see that knowledge, when verbalized, may be the cause which prevents me from enquiring deeply into myself. So I ask, can my brain, my mind, my whole inner structure, be free of words? (Experientially-wise the ?) 'knowing myself' may not be accumulative at all.

A.P.: So, the very verbalization is the quintessence of intellectual knowing.

K: Can the inward enquiry be free of the word? Is that possible?

S.P.: Are you saying there is an enquiry without the word?

K: That's it. Dr. Illich's difficulty is that we are using an (experiential) language which he is not used to. To us 'knowledge' means something and to him it means something else. So we must first establish a linguistic, semantic communication.
So I come to the point that I don't 'know' the substratum, the foundation on which 'I am'. I won't pre-suppose anything; I won't accept any authority including that of my own hope. So I ask, how am I to enquire into myself, what is the movement of 'knowing oneself' (in real time ?), not to have (tons of?) knowledge about yourself?

P.J.: Could you explain a little more the fine distinction between 'knowledge of myself' and 'knowing myself'?

K: I can accumulate 'knowledge of myself' through observing my reactions, my feelings, through my responses to another in my relationship. I have been jealous, sensuous, angry. These are actual reactions, but what I 'know' is based on verbalization . When I say ; ''I have been jealous''; the word jealousy, with all its connotations prevents observation of that feeling which I have named as jealousy. So is it possible to observe it without the word 'jealousy' ? Can there be only the (pure observation of that painful?) feeling without ( using) the word, the 'word' being the ( standardising result of the cultural) environment?
( To recap:) In that 'feeling of jealousy' is ( subliminally involved?) the 'observer' ( who is trying to control the painful feeling ). In that there is division. But is the (all-controlling ?) 'observer' different from the ( painful feeling being?) observed? He (the self-identified thought process?) divides the two. ''I am different from the thing observed''.
So, in observing myself, if the word is associated with the (inner) 'thing' I am observing, it distorts the observation. So I ask, can I observe, be aware of the ( jealous) feeling, without naming it?

Can I just observe? Can there be only observation without identification with the word? If so, we remove altogether one of the traditional (dualistic) factors that this division brings about - 'me' and 'my jealousy' - and, therefore, the observation now is non-verbal; there is only (a silent?) observation.

A.P.: I have not come to that.

K: If you have not wiped out the word, how shall we communicate with each other? You have said verbalization is the barrier. How am I to tell you of that central factor in which there is no conflict, only observation?

P.J.: How does one 'wipe out' the word?

K: By realizing that ''the word is not the thing''. That is a deep understanding. When I say ''I love you'', it is not just a word; it is beyond the word. Therefore, I am not caught in the ( traditional connotations of the ) word. Words are necessary to communicaten but one eradicates it in oneself or it falls away when one sees that the observer 'is' (not separated from ) the ( inner feeling that is being?) observed, the thinker is the thought, the experiencer is the experienced. Division comes to an end totally and, therefore, (the 'thought-controlling' inner ) conflict comes to an end.

A.P.: It is like the halting of the traffic light. I say that verbal communication stops like the car stops at a traffic light and comes back again.

K: Are you saying, I see this for an instant but then I am back again in the old grooves?

R.B.: Can we put it another way? You mentioned jealousy. There may be a movement ( a 'surge' ?) of jealousy', and if one watches it without the word, at that moment there is an abeyance of that thing. In self-knowing, there is not only the movement of jealousy but of an enormous content which has been built up . How is one to catch the whole thing without the word?

K: Do you realize, actually, not theoretically, that the word is not the thing?

R.B.: I do realize it at certain moments.

K: That is not ( an authentic) realization. It is like danger, like a bus hurtling down on you.

R.B.: I can say that at this moment I realise that the word is not the thing.

K: No, it is an eternal truth. If that is so, and the word 'jealousy' is not ( confused with?) the actual state, can we look at ( the surging of) jealousy without the word and without all the (cultural ) association of the word? Can we look at it as though you were looking at it for the first time and not bring in all the associations connected with it? ( Needless to say that this non-verbal observation requires a state of great inner ) alertness & awareness. It has its own extraordinary discipline, it is uninfluenced.
( To recap:) We are concerned whether one can bring about this extraordinary quality of regeneration in his brain, his mind, his feeling.
To understand that deeply, you must 'know yourself' (in real time?) . So what is this 'knowing yourself' apart from ( gathering & recycling intellecual) knowledge? ( Hint:) You are already limiting it by saying, 'I know.' So, can I observe myself without the word, language, knowledge or recognition? Do you understand? I watch myself, and I am watching without analysis. I have this feeling of jealousy (or of anger, frustration, sorrow...) ; it arises. There is an instant reaction of ( the 'observer' aimed at ? ) 'verbalising' (and controlling) that feeling, which means I have brought into it the remembrance of that which has happened before and so I 'recognise' (and stay in control of ?) it. If there is no such recognition, then it is ( perceived as?) something new and that is the beginning of regeneration.

A.P.: At the arising of this verbal recognition, the word is giving stability to what I am observing ( as well as to the 'observer') because I am not different from that which I am observing.

R.B.: But Krishnaji is saying ( that without naming) there is no recognition because memory is eliminated and, therefore, the 'new' is there.

K: How am I to know myself (non-verbally) or observe what I am? Do I bring into that observation my past memories, the hurts, the remembrances, and with those memories look at myself? That is my point. If I bring in these memories, then I am not looking, the 'memories' are looking, my ( psychological) memories are in action.
Can there be a (silent interval of?) 'abeyance', can one put those ( knowledgeable?) memories aside and observe? That may be the (triggering) factor of ( inner) regeneration because in that observation there is a breaking away from the ( continuity of the?) past.

S.P.: Once for all?

K: That is ( observer's own reaction of?) greed.
(Re-recap:) I want to know myself because otherwise I have no foundation for anything. I know the limits of words. There is an observation of the word and an observation of the limits of knowledge. I see that when I use the words 'I know myself', I have already put it in a cup, blanketed it. So I don't use those words. Is there an observation of the movement of the
'self' (of the psychological responses of my self-centred mind?) without the word, without recognition, without the ( knowledgeable interference of my ) previous experience which in (the context of direct ) observation distorts what is happening?

I.I.: I can't, truly, humanly, look without being totally ( identified with) 'myself' in looking. And, therefore, I can put the word in abeyance. But at times I need 'crutches'.

K: The moment you use the words 'I need crutches', you will need them.

I.I.: Now and then I find myself using ( mental?) 'crutches', but I won't, for this reason, despair.

K: Achyutji, you were speaking of the red traffic light that stops you for the moment. Can all the ( psychological momentum of the?) past stop? But it is so strong that it comes back. Dr. Illich also says the same thing, that he needs crutches at moments.
(Re-re-recap:) I see the limitations of knowledge, I see very, very clearly that the very word 'know' is a dangerous word in the sense that it has tremendous associations with knowledge. So what have I left? I have understood the limitations of knowledge, I also see the danger of the word 'feeling' , because I can invent a lot of feelings and a whole lot of (emotional) froth. So I can also see the limitations of that. And at the end of this, where am I? Do I 'know myself'? For, 'myself' is (including) the limitation of knowledge, the feelings and the (all-controlling) 'entity' who says I have to get rid of this and asks, 'Who am I?' All this (psychological package?) is the ( temporal?) 'self', with its associations, with all the extravagant, fragmentary things involved in it. At the end of it, where am I?

I can honestly say that there is nothing ( not-a-thing) , which means not a single ( ego-centric?) movement of thought. So there is an ending, a stopping, to thought. Basically there is 'not a thing' ( created by thought?) . On that ( original state of no-thingness?) we have built all this ( psychological infrastructure) - my attachments, my beliefs, my fears. On this (inner) 'no-thingness', everything is. Therefore this is the 'Real'.
So I have found an (experiential) key to ( the inner) regeneration : emptying the mind of all the ( psychological residues of the ) past which is knowledge, the limitations of knowing, feelings and the content of my feelings. Would you call this ('emptying' ) meditation?

I.I : When I do it, yes.

K: Is that 'doing' progressive or immediate?

I.I.: It seems to be immediate and not progressive.

K: That is right, keep it there.

I.I.: But I agree there is a temptation to make it (cummulative & ) progressive, to transform it again into something you want.

K: One of our difficulties is that we see all this intellectually and then make an abstraction of it, which is an idea, a conclusion, and then (try to) work with the conclusion. Have I really understood deeply the limitations of 'knowledge' ? Is there an inner regeneration taking place in you ? We have all listened and say, this is true. I see that it is tremendously important. Have I captured it, tasted it, has it a perfume? Have I got it? If not, then what are we all talking about? Are we merely ploughing in sand and never sowing? Dr. Illich, are we in communication with each other even linguistically?

I.I.: I think so. When you asked the question, "Is there a regeneration going on ?" I wanted to answer! Now, I just listen very attentively to the crow up there on the tree.

K. Yes sir. I have also been listening to it.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 16 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Nov 2018 #124
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

3-RD ( 'reader friendly' edited) K SEMINAR


P.J.: Could we discuss the (existential?) 'sorrow' of man and the ( holistic?) nature of compassion and meditation? I feel we are caught in a (major psychologial bind?) trap: being in sorrow and not understanding the nature of Compassion.

K: May I ask, what are your personal ideas or concepts about sorrow, meditation and love?

A.P.: Sorrow seems an inescapable part of the human life when a significant part of humanity is forced to live a subhuman life, with no hope of change in their way of life. Unless one sees some affirmative process, one feels completely lost.

P.J.: You can't talk about the sorrow of others .

A.P.: But it is also my personal sorrow. When I witness the sorrow of another, I am part of that sorrow.

K: I wonder what do we mean by 'sorrow', grief, ( or psychological) pain? Every human being goes (sooner or later?) through their (personal experiences of ?) of sorrow. Some people ( give it a 'positive spin' by?) thinking that it is a cleansing process (eventually leading to?) enlightening . Some ( indulge in giving rational) explanations - you did something wrong in the past, you are now paying for it (cash) Strip away all these concepts, what remains is the actuality of this feeling of sorrow. My ( beloved brother, or my ?) son dies, and there is a tremendous feeling ( of loneliness & personal loss ?) . Is that sorrow?

P.J.: It is sorrow.

K: In this (personal sorrow?) is involved self-pity, loneliness, a sudden realization that I have lost somebody (on which I could rely?) and I am left alone, or I may suffer because he has not lived as long as I have lived and so on. But the root (causation ?) of this enormous sorrow is what mankind has carried through countless centuries.

P.K.S.: As a preliminary definition of the word 'sorrow', what is actually felt when you are (engulfed?) in sorrow? I think there is some sense of privation, a ( frustrated expectation ?), and this produces a ( sad & depressing) state of mind which is called sorrow. In it is a sense of one's ( existential) limitation, finitude, helplessness.

A.P.: If I may suggest, we human beings know physical pain. Physical pain is a condition which we have to accept; we can, or we cannot do something about it. Sorrow is the inner equivalent of that - ( in the aftermath of a psychological shock?) we are totally unable to do anything about it. We have to just take it (wisely ) and be with it.
K: Sir, when you see the poor people living next door, you have great sympathy for them. Perhaps you may feel guilty because you get used to their poverty, their endless degradation. Perhaps you may have great affection for them. Would you call the fact of man living in this appalling way, sorrow?

I.I.: I know that there are different kinds of sorrow in my life. One of them is the (compassionate?) sorrow of which you speak. But also the ( sorrow of guilt involved in ?) taking the jet plane from Madras to Delhi for my benefit, in which I will grab out of the atmosphere more oxygen than a little herd of elephants from birth to their death can breathe. I will be co-responsible for an exploitation of many thousands of Indians, each one who in a sensible way pays his taxes and lives in a world dominated by the planes so that some of us can have that sense of importance of flying in a jet today. This is the kind of sorrow about which I would want you to enlighten me most.

K: We will discuss it ( later?) , sir. As you said, there are different kinds of sorrow. There is your kind, what you described; then there is somebody losing a son, a father and mother; seeing appalling ignorance, and seeing that there is no hope for man in a country like this. There is also the sorrow of how man treats ( other living creatures ?) and there is the ( existential?) sorrow of realizing you are nothing. and so on. Now, is there a global end to ( the inner causation of all this ) 'sorrow' or is it an everlasting ( human condition?) ?

Before we can discuss that question, could we ask what is Love? Perhaps it may solve this question of ( holistically understanding) sorrow . The word 'love' is misused, vulgarized, sexualized, anything you like. Perhaps we can have a dialogue about this feeling of authentic love.
Do I actually love my wife? Is my love for my wife biological?

R. Krishnaswamy: Yes.

K: I am not being personal, but then you are reducing love to a purely sensory reaction.

K.S.: Yes, it begins like that and then we begin to verbalize it, romanticize it.

K: Yes, it begins there and then you build up the picture, the image. Is that it?

K.S.: I think that is true. The primitive man, the hunter, did not have any of these problems which we are facing now. Is my love for my child also part of an extreme form of selfishness, because we want to perpetuate ourselves?

K: I want to find out whether Love exists at all apart from the sensory (responses) , apart from desire, attachment, jealousy and, therefore, hate. Is that love? We have reduced love to such a limited, ugly thing. Therefore, we don't (know what ?) love (really is?) .
Love implies a great (sense of inner) beauty. It does not rest in the woman I love, but in the very 'feeling of love', which implies a ( loving ?) relationship with nature, love of stars, the earth, stones, the stray dog, all that, and also the love of my wife. If you reduce it to ( the conditioned responses of?) desire and sensation, then it becomes a tawdry affair. Your wife treats you, and you treat her, as a biological necessity. Is that love? So I am asking, is desire, pleasure, love? Is sexual comfort love?

I.I.: Isn't love a 'communion'?

K: How can I commune with another if I have created an 'image' of her?

I.I.: An 'image' may be an obstacle to communion?

K: Can I be free of the 'image' I have of you, of my wife, of the professor, doctor and so on? Only then is there a possibility of ( a loving) communion. I don't have to use words.

I.I.: Then love is a 'free communion'?

K: I would not say so, yet. We will come to it presently.

P.K.S.: In a fundamental sense, love is the opposite of desire. What I mean is, desire insists on getting. Love insists on giving.

K: Sir, if I have a wife, what is my relationship to her apart from sexual, apart from attachment, apart from all the rest of the traditional meanings of relationship? Am I really related to the lady? Relationship means to be in contact at all levels, not just the physical level which is desire, pleasure. Does it not imply, when I say, 'I love you,' and I mean it, that you and I meet at the same level, meet with the same intensity, at the same moment?

I.I.: Yes.

K: That happens apparently only sexually, at the biological level. I question this ( utilitarian?) approach to life, a life in which there is this immense thing called 'love'. Does not your heart, mind, say that you have to find out ( the real thing?) ? Or, is everything reduced to a verbal level?

N.T.: The sense of ( compassionate ?) Love is universal, not moved by desire.

K: All right sir, have you got that love, or is this just a theory?

N.T.: It does not usually arise in the (time-bound) human mind.

K: That is verbalizing it. I want to know as a human being, do you love anybody? You are a monk; I come to you and say, please, for god's sake, let me have the perfume of that which is called love.

N.T.: Love in the 'absolute' sense is present in all human beings.

K: Is it there when Stalin kills twenty million people, when India fights Pakistan? If there were love in every human being, do you think India would be like this - held in poverty, degradation, dishonesty, corruption? What are you all talking about?

Prof. Subramaniam: Sir, if 'love' means being related to another person at all levels, how is it possible to love another when I am not relating at all levels to myself ? When that is so, I realize that I am not related to another person, whether it is my wife or another, at all levels.

K: So, as a human being, don't you want to come upon this (holistic sense of unity with All That Is ) ? Unless you have ( free access to?) it, I don't see the point of all these (endless) discussions, pujas, and all that is going on in this country.

R.B.: The point is that when there is no (holistic) relatedness inside oneself, when there are warring elements within oneself, there can't be Love. But we started the dialogue with the question of 'what is sorrow' and you followed it up with the question of 'what is love'. Could you tell us what is the relationship between these two questions?

K: If you haven't got Love, how can you regenerate anything? If you don't look after the plant that you have just put in the earth, if you don't give it water, air, proper nourishment, affection, see that there is plenty of light, the plant won't grow. Let us leave 'love' for the moment. Shall we go into what is meditation?

P.J.: Without comprehending sorrow and love, we cannot know what is meditation.

R.B.: But is that itself not the problem? Millions of people are not even asking what is Love.

I.I.: S somewhere at the very deepest level, the marvellous, glorious thing which makes for Love is that, your life and my life at that moment are both made sacred, the renewal of a mutual 'presence'.

K: I would say: When there is ( the Presence of?) Love, there is no 'you' or 'me'.
I.I.: There is no 'you' and there is no 'me', but on the other hand, there is more of you and more of me.

K: Sir, when there is ( a sightseeing of) great beauty like a mountain, the majesty of it, the beauty of it, the shade, the light, 'you' ( your self-consciousness?) doesn't exist. The beauty of that thing drives away the 'you'. Do you follow what I am saying?

I.I.: I follow what you are saying.

K: At that moment, when there is no 'me' because of the majesty of the mountain , there is only that sense of great wondering glowing beauty. So, I say: Beauty is when 'I' am not present , with my ( personal) problems, with my 'gods', with my 'biological love' and all the rest of it. When (in meditation?) 'I' am not ( there ?) , the 'Other' is.

I.I.: And yet at that ( blissful?) moment the transparent flame is burning higher and the stream of life is clearer, fresher, and the renewal of this world goes on.

K: At that moment there is a (spiritual ?) 'rejuvenation' taking place, if you like to put it that way. I am putting it this ( holistically friendly ?) way : that there is the (Presence of?) an 'Otherness' in me.

I.I.: Yes. And that 'Otherness' implies... ?

K: The 'Otherness' is not the opposite (of selfishness?) .

P.J.: May I then ask, what is it that makes the (inner) spring (of Love) flow?

K: I have seen the birth of the great river right in the hills. It starts with a few drops and then collects, and then there is a roaring stream at the end of it. Is that ( the case of ?) Love?

P.J.: But what is it that makes that 'Stream' flow fully?

K: ( Suppose that) I come to you and say, ' I don't know what Love is, please let me learn what Love is.' I ( K?) say , attachment is not love, the mere biological pleasure with all its movements, with all its implications, is not love. So can you be free of ( your psychological ) 'attachments' , negate them completely? Through the negation ( of the false?) you may come to the 'positive'.

P.J.: What is the relationship of sorrow to love? Is there any relationship?

K: You must relate sorrow, love and death. If you 'end' (die inwardly to your) attachments and also end jealousy, greed. Do not argue, but 'end' it, which is ( the 'soft' version of?) death. Both biologically and psychologically the ending of something is ( the action of?) death. So, will you 'give up', your ( 'psychological' attachment to social?) status, position, attachments, beliefs & gods? Can you ( metaphorically?) 'throw them into the river' and see what happens? Will such 'renunciation' help you understand the (inner) beauty of Love ?

P.K.S.: The renunciation (born?) of selfishness certainly won't bring Love. One can be a monk, take vows and yet not have love.

K: So what am I to do? You are a philosopher, you teach all this. Philosophy means 'love of truth'. Are you helping me to understand Truth?

P.K.S.: From your observations we have got certain characteristics of love. One of these is unselfishness, the other is non-possessiveness. These are very positive aspects, but in the human nature there is also ( a tendency for self-interest?) jealousy and greed.

K: Right, sir. Suppose that I come to learn ( about Truth?) from you because you are a ( wise?) 'philosopher'. I am fighting for a breath of this. I am drowning. What am I to do?
(For starters : I can see that inwardly?) ) nobody can help me. No guru, no book, nothing, will help me. So I discard the whole thing; I won't even touch it. Then I ask, what is Love? Let me find out because if I don't have that flame, that love, life means nothing; I may pass examinations, become a well known 'philosopher', but it is nothing. I must find out.

I can only find out anything (experientially) through the negation (of the false) . Through negation (of what Love is not ?) I ( will hopefully ?) come to the 'positive' : Love is not merely a biological thing. (Therefore) I put the biological movement of sensual desire, in its right place. Is love (to be found) in the ( pleasurable?) pursuit of a (happy?) incident which happened yesterday, the memory of that and the cultivation of that? Pleasure implies seeing the beauty of the world, seeing the beauty of nature; I put that also in its place. Then love is not attachment, obviously; it is not jealousy, possessiveness, domination; so I discard all that.
Then I ask, what place has (the self-centred process of?) thought in relationship? Has it any place at all? Thought is remembrance, the response of knowledge, experience from which thought is born. So thought is not love either.

In this ( mindful negation ?) there is a denial of the (false psychological) structures which man has built. As a result my relationship to my wife is no longer based on thought, sensory desire, biological demand and/or attachment; it is totally 'new'. Now I ask, what is Love? It is ( to be discvered in?) the ending of every ( self-isolating?) thing that man has created in his relationship with another - country, race, language, clan. Doesn't this 'ending' (of the self-centred attachments?) mean 'death' ( leaving the shores of the known ?) ?

P.K.S.: It is knowing the completion of life.

K: The ending of ( self-centred) thought in relationship. Is not that ( the psychological version of ?) death (while one is still alive ?) ?

I.I.: Sir, could we not say I have never loved enough until the moment of my death?

K: So ( inwardly-wise?) 'death' means an ending (of the thought-time process ) . I got attached to my wife and Death comes and says, look, that is all over. Ending means death; ending of attachment is a (soft?) form of death. The ending of jealousy, of one's attachment to biological demands, is also death, and out of that ( ending) may come the ( transcendental?) feeling called Love. We are (conditioned) to believe that death is something at the end of our life. I am saying 'death' is ( or...should be?) at the beginning of (starting a new?) life, because death means ending of my ( good old?) selfishness. Therefore, out of this comes that extraordinary ''Phoenix bird'' called Love. If one has that sense of Love ( Unity with All That Is?) , it doesn't ( really...?) matter if I take the bullock cart or an aeroplane ( to get ASAP to New Delhi ?) , but I won't deceive myself. I have no illusions.

I.I.: Is it also the end of sorrow?

K: Yes. Sorrow is (involving) passion. I know most human beings know what lust, biological pleasure and all the rest of it is. Are they actually aware ( of what the spiritual significance of?) sorrow is? Do I know sorrow at the moment my brother, my son, my wife, dies? Or is it always in the past?

I.I.: Would it not be wise to learn to act with sorrow and, therefore, keep sorrow also in its place? If I have the courage to act with the sorrow which I understand, then at the very same time, I will progressively eliminate from my life all those things which cast a very long shadow of sorrow.

K: Sir, why should I carry sorrow? Right action may vary in different things, but it is always right. We are using the word 'right' – in the sense of true, non-contradictory, not the action of self-interest; all that is implied in that word "right action". What is my right action in my daily life? Right action will come about when the mind is not concerned with the 'me' ( with the 'I-me-mine'?)

P.K.S.: Can I ask for your definition of meditation? Is it constant awareness?

K: Would you agree, sir, that the basic principle, the essence of all the ( currently practised) meditation is ( thought) control? So, is meditation the control of the mind, or thought, and, therefore, control of action? Control implies choice. Choice implies no freedom at all. If I choose, there is no freedom.

P.K.S.: Control is an important element in meditation.

K: So you are saying control is part of meditation. Then who is the 'controller'  which are all put together by thought? Now, can I live a ( meditative ) life without control?

I.I.: Sir, for the purpose of this conversation, could we not say that meditation is the rehearsal of the act of dying?

K: Why should I have a rehearsal?

I.I.: Simply because one day I will be 'called upon' for a last time, and before I could really engage in that supreme activity which is to die...

K: So why not die now (to the 'known'?) ?

I.I.: Now, if it is the ( spiritual significance of ) dying, I will be happy to put it that way. Only if I say to somebody that meditation means dying, and if I say that tomorrow morning I will have breakfast with you, people won't understand me; that is the reason I suggested the term 'rehearsal' .

K: Is not ( the highest purpose of) 'meditation' to come upon something sacred, not put together by thought which says, 'This is sacred'? I mean 'sacred' in the sense of something that is not contaminated by time, by the environment, something that is 'original'. Is meditation an enquiry into that?

I.I.: If I said the same thing in different terms: Meditation is the ''readiness for a radical surprise'', will you accept it?

K: Yes, I accept it. But I must be very clear that there is no (subliminal) search for reward or punishment, which means there is no direction. Illusion comes into being when there is ( ( a direction of ) desire, when I want something.
( In a nutshell:) The mind in meditation must be tremendously aware that it is not caught in any kind of self-created illusion. So part (a) of meditation is to wipe away the illusory machine. And (part b) if there is control, it is already directed. Therefore, it means, can I live a daily life in which there is absolutely no censor, saying 'do this, do that'. All our life, from childhood, we are educated to control, to suppress, to follow. So can I live a ( meditation friendly) daily life, not an abstract life, with my wife, with my friends, without any (thought) control, without direction, without movement?
That is (only) the beginning of meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 19 Nov 2018 #125
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline


Activating the total intelligent energy of the Brain

K: The human brain and the computer: are they similar or intrinsically different? (Outwardly ?) there is very little difference as far as I understand. The brain which is the storehouse of ( all man's past?) memory & knowledge, is programmed according to a particular culture, religion, economic conditions and so on. The computer is also programmed by ( highly knowledgeable ?) human beings. Then, what is the essential difference between ( computer's artificial intelligence?) and that of the brain? Or is there a ( largely ignored and ?) totally different activity of the brain which is not comparable to the computer?

Q: There is a fundamental difference between the two : no computer has (authentic) feelings as there is a difference between animate matter and inanimate matter, and no computer has a consciousness.

K: There are ( holistically inclined ?) people who say the human brain has a quality which is totally different from the computer. I accept it, and if I may explain it a little more, our brain works on the basis of ( its past ?) experience and knowledge, and (upon it) thought has created ( a safe inner habitat, the ?) 'psychological' world. So the brain and the 'psyche' are the same essentially but ( for obscure reasons?) we have divided them (as the 'thinker' & its 'thought', or as the 'observer' & 'whatever is being observed' ? )

Thought has created the 'psyche' ( the time-bound self-consciousness?) with all 'psychological' problems. Knowledge is the basis of all this. And the computer can (model & ) reproduce exactly the same thing.
Could we for the moment examine the (workings of the ) brain in ourselves - how it operates, what is the relationship between the capacity to think and the 'psychological' structure ? I have this ( survival oriented ?) brain which has been cultivated through millennia. It is not 'my' brain; it is the brain of humanity. Therefore, it is not 'I' who am investigating (from a personal point of view?) There is no 'me' at all. I don't know if you have come to that point.

A.C.: Sir, ( for better or for worse?) our brain is the only instrument we have for investigation. This brain as you have said is limited - it is good only with its memory (based) responses.

K: Which is generally called 'intelligence'.

A.C.: Once you see the similarity between the brain and the computer, it is very easy to see the limitations of the brain. But the human brain is the only instrument we have. How can it possibly investigate what is beyond it?

K: First let us recognise that the brain has evolved (in time) from the primitive up to now. It is not my individual brain; it is the (evolutionary) brain of humanity. Therefore, the idea of the 'me' is imposed by thought to limit itself to a ( personally controlled way of ) action.

A.C.: The idea of the 'me' as an ( isolated?) individual?

K: To limit itself ( to a self-centred mentality?) because it cannot possibly conceive the totality of humanity. It can conceive this in theory but in reality it cannot 'see' the wholeness of it. So, the self-centred thinking has created and cultivated the 'psyche' as being more important than the other operations of the brain.
According to the ( Webster's?) dictionary, the 'psyche' means the 'soul', the ecclesiastical concept of an entity which is not material. For me, ( K ) the brain with all the activity of thought born of ( the previously accumulated personal & ?) knowledge has created the 'psyche'.

A.C.: And you are saying that the brain is also the seat of emotion?

K: Of course, the seat of fear, anxiety, etc. The brain with all the activity of thought, born of knowledge, is part of the same ( Life-energy?) movement as the 'psyche' and thought has created the ( self-protective image of the?) 'I', the 'me', as being separate from the rest of humanity, and made the 'me' ( the 'I-me-mine'?) more important than anybody else.

G.N.: And you're saying that ( thought's self-centred identification?) makes the brain mechanical?

K: All knowledge is mechanical. Knowledge is a mechanical process of acquisition. By 'mechanical' I mean a repetitive (mental cycle?) , which is : ''experience – knowledge – thought - action''. From that action you learn and you are back again. This repetitive process is mechanical, my brain is mechanical. Now is my 'psyche' also mechanical?

Q: Why are you making the division between the 'psyche' and the 'thinking brain'?

K.: Thought controls the psyche - 'I must not feel this.' 'I must become that.' So the becoming is the psychological process invented by thought. And so the whole process is mechanical.

A.P.: There is a mystique about human existence.

K: I have no 'mystique'.

A.C.: I think the crucial question is why the brain, the psyche, is mechanical.

K: They (the behaviour scientists?) have also found that the brain, when it is in danger, produces its own 'mechanical' (neurological?) reaction which will protect it. These are material processes. So, thought is a material process. Do you agree? Do you agree that the 'psyche' ( the time-bound self-consciousness?) is a material process? That is the crux.

A.C.: I think what he is saying is that when the brain sees the totality, then ( the self-centred thinking) ceases, the 'I' ceases.

K: I don't think the brain can see the totality. That is the point. The brain is evolved through time, time being knowledge, from the most primitive to the highly sophisticated. There is evolution in time, in knowledge. That is a material process. That thought has created the 'I' with its psychological mess. I am not saying it is mystical and all that. Would you agree?

SAT.: Now, what could be the 'non-material' process?

K: That ( 'mind' energy?) which is non-matter, that which is no-knowledge, that which is not of time, that which has nothing to do with the ( temporal) brain. But... it is speculation for you. Let us start with something factual.
So, do we admit that all thinking in any form is a material process, whether we think of the eternal, of god or the supreme principle, it is material process? If you agree, then we can proceed. It takes a long time to come to this: The psyche, the brain, the I, are all a 'material' process ( of a subtler nature?) .

A.C.: I want to know where you are taking me.

K: I am going to help you to take the first ( experiential) step . The brain has evolved in time (through accumulating & processing) knowledge. And as everything in the field of thought & time is in constant movement, the brain cannot stand this constant movement. See how the brain rejects the idea of constant movement ? Watch it in yourself. You want a place where you can rest. So its ( inner 'home base' ?) becomes the 'I'. Sir, even if I am a wandering beggar , there must be some place where I can rest, some place where there is ( some physical) security. Can the brain accept the constant, endless movement within the area of time, knowledge.

A.C.: Is it a question of 'accepting'?

K: No. See how the brain works. As a child needs security, the brain says, I can't keep this eternal movement, I must have some point where I can stay 'quiet', a fixed point - a house, a belief, a symbol, an 'attachment'. So, whether it is illusory or actual, it needs a 'fixed' point.

A.C.: Then what?

K: There is ( a hidden ?) danger in not accepting the constant movement which is life. See physically what happens. Can you accept life as a perpetual movement within the area of time and knowledge? Verbally you can, but actually can you say life is constant movement?

Q: Is the brain itself responsible for this constant (survivalistic ?) movement?

K: It is. The ( material ) brain is (constantly generating ?) thought, knowledge and the 'psyche'. It is (constantly involved in mental ?) movement.

Q: The natural instinct of the ( animal) brain is to move towards security; and it is this instinct to avoid danger and to attach itself to ( something which is providing?) security which makes it fix on something.

K: Of course. Would you accept ( the working hypothesis that) this whole ( mental) movement within this area ( is an intelligent life-) energy caught in movement ? And this (time-bound?) energy is a material process. Realizing this constant movement, it seeks security, a movement where it can be sure. That is all I am saying.

A.C.: How is this important?

K: It is ( experientially?) important to establish that the 'I' is ( brain 's 'home ) centre' where it finds ( a certain sense of?) security. Then it begins to discover it is insecure, and, therefore, it finds another security. There is only search for security. Take a child with a toy, and the other child says I must have that toy. The ( instinctual) attachment to that toy and the pleasure of the toy is the beginning. The beginning is from the beginning of man.

A.C.: The question is how can you open the door in which (the intelligent?) energy is trapped? Are yon making a distinction between energy and thought?

K: No. The whole thing is energy trapped. Thought is energy, knowledge is energy, the whole movement is within the 'known' area of ( constantly acquiring & processing?) knowledge and ( projecting its own continuity in ) time. That is all I am saying.

A.C.: Then the next question obviously is...

K: ...can the 'psyche' have no existence at all? If there is no ( personal 'memory ) content' to the psyche – daily worries, past hurts, attachments, fears, pursuits of pleasure, which makes the 'psyche', which are all the products of thought - then what is one's life?

A.C.: Which is the product of energy?

K: Which is the product of energy trapped in time.

A.C.: I am still not clear about energy and thought. It appears that you were saying that thought is limited but energy is not.

K: I said ( the life sustaining ?) energy is trapped. I didn't say any more than that.

A.C.: You're saying that this energy is now trapped, but if it is not trapped, it would be different ?

N.S.: Are you saying there is an ( dormant source of intelligent ) energy which is not trapped in thought?

K: This question can only arise when we have seen this in its completeness.

A.C.: Then our next question is : is there an opening for that trapped energy?

K: ( As it is now?) it is trapped. I don't say there is an opening.

A.C.: Does it not imply that?

K: 'In here' thought is trying to create order, but that very order becomes disorder because ( the self-centred) thought is limited. Now, does the ( natural intelligence of the?) brain realize that whatever it does is within its own limitation (within the 'known'?) and, therefore disorder? Is this a theory or an actual realization?

A.C.: How can the brain realize it actually?

K: Realize its limitation ? Do you, Asit, realize it in the sense that you realize ( a physical) pain? Does the brain see ( the pain of) its tremendous limitation?
Is there a different ( quality of holistic ) perception which doesn't belong to any of these three ( hearing, seeing and intellectual?) Through these media, the act of understanding is a material process. Get the point?
Now, is there any other perception which is not a material process?

Sriram: Therefore, that is not part of the ( material) brain.

K: I don't want to say that yet. Go step by step: Intellectual, audio, visual, optical, then touching or gestures, all these are material processes. Then I am asking myself, is there a perception which is not this? There may be or may not be, so I am asking you . Answer it.

A.C.: I can't answer it.

K: Don't say you can't answer it, because by saying that you have already blocked yourself.

A.C.: In order to 'see' (the truth or falseness of ) something you have to be outside of it.

K: Look, so far we have said this ( knowledgeable sensory perception?) is the only medium through which we understand. Is that the only medium through which I understand? Punishment, reward, all that is implied in this intellectual, optical, audio... all these are the factors that help my brain to say, 'Yes, I understand' (what you're talking about ? ) It is all within my ( known experience) . I see this is a material process and as my brain comes to that ( can't do it ?) point, it stops. Because it is questioning (experientially?) . It has questioned all this and ( it realised the intrinsical limitation of ?) the material process of the brain.
Now you come along and say : let us enquire (holistically?) if there is any other process. And I say, 'This is the only process I know. There may be no other process. Show it to me.' So, you are (honestly?) stuck. Remain stuck there.
See what this ( wise abiding with 'what is' ?) has done? It has activated the ( totality of the?) brain to a tremendous extent.

Alan Hooker: Taking the brain to its limit ?

K: Yes, we are taking it to its very limit. So, it is a tremendous thing. Now you can answer it.

A.H.: What exactly was the question?

K: Is there a ( holistic) perception which is not of time? ( The knowledge assisted ?) perception so far has created disorder in our (inner) life. Is there a ( holistic inner) perception which will clear all that? Which means, is there a perception out of ( thought & ) time? I am asking you.

Q: At this ( experiential 'check) point'... we got stuck.

K.: I wish you were... When 'you' (the knowledgeable 'thinker' ) are really stuck, another ( holistic quality of ) perception is taking place.

Q: But we are generally trying to get out of (that totally confused inner ) state .

K: No, that is still ( a response of?) the same old process – which means that 'you' are not stuck.

Sarjit Siddhoo: In listening to you, there has been a great movement in the brain, but as you have brought us to this point, this movement seems to have stopped.

K: Is that it? Movement means ( the active memory of the past projecting itself in ?) time. Is there no ( such?) movement in the brain? You get my point? When you are 'stuck', it means all ( mental ) movement has stopped. Do you 'see' it? It is like being stuck in quicksand - the you can't move on (or else...?) .
Therefore you have come to the point when ( the intelligent energy of?) your brain is being so 'tremendously activated' that you can't go any further, you can't move back or forth.

A.C.: Only one question remains. Have you activated the brain?

K: Are you asking whether K has activated the ( total energy of the?) brain, the brain which is not 'yours', nor 'mine', nor 'his'? What do you say? Yes, we have activated it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Nov 2018 #126
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline



K: Asit and I have been talking about the relationship of the human mind to the computer and our conversation has been going on for several years. So I thought this morning we should meet and go into this matter.

A.C.: Since more and more mental functions are going to be taken over by computer, the ( quality of the ) human mind is going to deteriorate even in ordinary functioning. How does one face this problem in a world which is moving in this direction?

P.J.: Is it not a problem of what is humanness? What is it to be a human being apart from all this?

K: Apparently, a human being, as he is, is a mass of accumulated knowledge and reactions according to that knowledge. Would you agree to that? And as the machine, the computer is going to take charge of all that, what then is the human being? What is the function of a ( holistic?) school then? Think about this. What is a human being if his sorrows, his anxieties are all wiped away by chemicals or by some implanted electronic circuitry? I don't think we get the fullness of it.

P.J.: Even now , if you take a strong tranquillizer, your anxieties are temporarily over. That is not arguable. But if you can clone people , you can do anything. We are missing something in all this. I don't think we are getting to the central thing. There is something else also involved in this.

K: Can we start with the assumption that these things are going to happen, whether we like it or not? They are happening, unless we are blind or uninformed. Then, let us enquire if the mind is deprived chemically of its problems or by the computer, whether it can survive at all.

A.P.: I am not quite clear about one point. There is in each human being a feeling of an (existential ) void, of emptiness, which needs to be filled. There is a seed that is groping.

A.C.: Can I understand ( the nature of the compassionate?) intelligence and how I going to preserve that against all these dangers?

K: Asit, let us take for granted that chemicals & the computers are going to take man over. And if the brain is not exercised as it is now being exercised with countless personal & collective?) problems of anxieties, fears, etc., then it will inevitably deteriorate. And deterioration means man gradually becoming a (culturally programmable?) robot. Then, the human being who has survived several million years, is he to end like this? It may be so - and probably will (unless ...?) .

A.C.: It seems to me that the movement of this technology is a very evil thing because there is a certain goodness which is being destroyed. So the ( major holistic?) question is how is man to create this technology and yet not be destroyed by it.

K: That is right. The ( quality of the human) mind is now deteriorating because it will not allow anything to penetrate its values, dogmas. It is stuck there. If I have a strong conviction or opinion, I am deteriorating. The machine is just going to help us deteriorate faster. That is all. So, what is a human being to do if he has no ( existential?) problems and is only pursuing ( entertainment & hedonistic ) pleasures? I think that is the root of it. This is what man seeks now, in different forms. And he will be encouraged in that by the machine, by the drug. The human being will be nothing, but involved in the pursuit of pleasure.

A.C.: And the computer and television will provide the pleasure right in his home. We are saying there are not only computer scientists but there are also genetic scientists and multinationals engaged in entertainment electronics and they are going to converge to a point where man will end up either by destroying the capacity of the human brain or as a human being in a constant state of pleasure without any side-effects.

K: Perhaps no biochemists, no computer experts have gone so far as yet but we have to be ahead of them. So, what is it that man has pursued all through his existence? From time immemorial what is the stream he has always followed (physical safety & ?) pleasure? Now, ( his search for safety & ?) pleasure is always (creating its own time binding threads within) the (field of the ) known. I have not enough ( material safety &) pleasure today, but I like to think that tomorrow it might happen. See what I mean ? ( Thought's search for material safety & ) pleasure is ( projecting its own?) time movement. My whole life is ( rooted in) the known. I project the known into the future modifying it but it is still the known. I have no pleasure in the Unknown. And the computer is in the field of the known.
So, the real question is whether there is freedom from the 'known', because pleasure is there, suffering is there, fear is there, the whole movement of the ( temporal) mind is the known. So, can there be ( inwardly a?) freedom from the known? The known is destroying man.

P.J.: A very interesting thing struck me just now. The present mind of man, in the way it is now functioning, is threatened. It is being destroyed. Either the machine takes it over and it is destroyed, or the other freedom from the known will also destroy its present functioning. The ( existential) challenge is much deeper.

K: You got it.

A.C.: She is also saying the mind of man has always moved in the known, in pursuit of pleasure. That has resulted in technology which will destroy it. Then she is saying that the other movement, which is freedom from the known, will also destroy the mind as we know it now.

K Wait. The 'freedom' (from the known) is not ( a movement away?) from something . It is ( the natural result of?) an ending. Do you follow?

P.J.: I say that the human mind is functioning in a particular way. This ( temporal) mind is now put under pressure by the technological advances. This freedom from the known, also is totally destructive of this ( temporal) function of the mind. Therefore, a new mind - whether born of ( the pressures of?) technology or one which is free of the known - is inevitable. They are the only two options; the present position is out.

K: Let us be clear. The new mind can only exist actually, not theoretically when ( the time-binding continuity of psychological?) knowledge ends. ( Outwardly) knowledge has created the (e-) machine and ( inwardly) we live on knowledge. Therefore, ( living inwardly enclosed in the field of?) knowledge is destroying us, not the machine. So, the question then is, can ( the psychological living in the field of) knowledge end? This action is freedom from knowledge.

P.J.: What do you mean when you say ''all knowledge ends'' ?

K: Knowledge is ( brain's mental operation within) the known. Can ( the psychological operation of) knowledge end?
( The experiential conundrum is?) 'Who' is to end the ( time binding activity of psychological) knowledge? The (controlling entity?) who attempts to end this (thread of) knowledge is still part of ( the field of) knowledge. So there is no 'entity' apart from knowledge, which can end (the self-sustained continuity of psychological) knowledge.

A.C.: So, inwardly there is this tremendous momentum of self-preservation and when you are asking whether it can end , doesn't it sound like a self-annihilation?

K: I understand what you are saying. I am leaving now, for ( homework study ?) the ( job of?) 'ending the self'. I am just saying that so long as we are ( predominantly ) living in (the field of our past ) knowledge, our brain is being destroyed through repetitive routines, by the ( AI ?) machines, etc. So, there is no question of ( academically) saying that ''it must free itself from knowledge'' ; the mind 'is' (caught in) knowledge.
I am going to tell you something : you have blocked yourself by saying that it is impossible. If it were impossible, you couldn't have invented the computers. Move from the (fact that as it is presently ?) whatever the ( 'self' centred ?) mind does is within the field of knowledge. So (the next experiential step is : ?) what is the state of the mind that is completely aware, or is cognizant that it is entirely (stuck in its past?) knowledge?
I have moved. Don't you see it? Now what has taken place? Apparently knowledge is a 'movement' ( a directed mental activity?) . Knowledge has been acquired through movement. So, knowledge is movement. So, time, all that, is movement.

A.C.: You are speaking of the state of mind when (thought's self-projected ?) time comes to a stop ?

K: If 'time' is ( a virtual inner ?) movement (created by gathering, processing & applying knowledge ?)  can ( the psychological thread of?) this movement stop? That is really freedom. This means that our perception is now free from knowledge and action is not out of knowledge. ( Hint :) Seeing the actual danger of snake 'is' generating an instant action - ( an instinctual) perception based on centuries of conditioning about the snake. ( Inwardly there is the psychological danger of?) living in the field of knowledge all the time. This is the destructive (factor), and unless this ( ages old?) 'machinery' of the ( all-knowing ?) mind stops, we are going to destroy ourselves.
So, ( the holistically friendly step is : ?) is there a ( quality of direct ) perception which is not born out of knowledge? Because when the ( knowledge based?) movement stops, there must be ( a time-free?) action.

A.C.: In other words, it is to act in the ( real) world, but no (psychological?) marks are left. Nothing takes root.

K: Which means a perception which is not of knowledge. Is there such perception? Of course, there is ( quality of holistic) perception which cannot be computerized.

A C.: It doesn't matter whether the computer can (eventually?) do it or not. It is essential that we do it (ASAP?) .
The question is then , what is the ( alternative?) mechanism of the mind which operates with perception, with insight, with no ( psychological) accumulation.

K: Look how long it has taken to come to this point of a 'erception without ( psychological) recording. Why? Because we function in time.

A.C.: You are implying is that you don't have to go through this process. ( On the other hand?) if we have come to this point, and do not ( know what to do, or how to?) 'act', it can be much more dangerous than not having a discussion at all.

K: It is a tremendous danger ( 'Pandora's Box' ?) Have you come to the point where you see that all ( that our knowledge based ?) mind has invented in the outer world - the computers, drugs, cloning, is of the same mechanistic quality as our minds. And we are acting always in that area. And, therefore, we are destroying ourselves. It is not the machine that is destroying us.

P.J.: One can say at the end of it, tapas, tapas, tapas. It means we have not done our (meditation?) homework.

K: I am not sure if you are not back in ( thinking in terms of of) time. You know, sir, a pianist once said, if you 'practise', you are practising the wrong thing.

P.J.: It is not a question of practice.

K: Pupulji, there are all the 'teachers'. What are they going to do? We are handling a (psychological 'time?) bomb'. It may go off any moment. I don't know if you realize ( the immediacy of?) this. So, the question is ending the (psychological time  ?) movement , not ending ( the practical aspects of mankind's ?) knowledge. This is the real question.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Nov 2018 #127
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

3-rd ( 'reader friendly' edited ) K SEMINAR RISHI VALLEY 1980


K: Would you accept that ( the holistic ?) intelligence is not the product of thought? If intelligence is the product of ( the 'self' -centred) thought, then such 'intelligence' is mechanical. Thought can never be non-mechanical.

A.C.: The computer scientists actually believe that Intelligence is the product of thought and they want to know ( how is actually working) the thought process. So do we have to enquire into what is 'thought' and what is (the holistic?) 'Intelligence' ?

K: If you once admit that ( the holistic) intelligence is not the product of thought, then the 'thinker' has no importance.

A.C.: You are going too fast. If intelligence is not the product of thought, then (our self-centred) 'thinking' has no importance. But negatively, it is important because, without understanding it, intelligence cannot come about.

K: Yes. Thought is a mechanical process; therefore, keep it in its right place. But you want to find out what is that Intelligence is which is never touched by thought?

A.C.: Yes, but how does one enquire into what is (this) Intelligence?

K: Not by using ( the self-centred?) thought to enquire. If you use thought you are blocking yourself.

A.C.: If you say, don't use thought to enquire, then what else can we use ?

K: That's just it. Let us go into it. But let us be quite sure that thought cannot produce ( a holistic & compassionate?) intelligence.

A.C.: I accept that you cannot use this tool - the thought process - to enquire into intelligence. But then... how do you enquire?

K: Yes The (ancient ) Indians have tried to control thought.

A.C.: Why would they do that?

K: Because they feel if thought stops, the 'other' may exist. Meditation to them is that.

A.C.: That means they had an insight into this 'other' thing?

K: Perhaps the Buddha may have seen that intelligence is not thought. The others have spoken of how to suppress thought, control it. To them that is ( a major part of ) meditation. Which ( for them) means that if intelligence cannot be found through thought therefore, suppress it.

A.C.: Couldn't they have some insight into this whole thing? If someone told you, to contain thought, wouldn't you feel that the person had some insight into it?

K: Thought is as the child of a barren woman. Which means what?

A.C.: That it's not creative ? The computer scientists are trying to create a computer like the human brain, but they can't do it because they don't know the thinking process. I wonder whether Indians who are supposed to have investigated for five thousand years into the human mind, Nirvana and the 'other', could get together to create this.

K: Which two could get together?

A.C.: The Indian mind and the mind of technology.

K: Listen, the Buddha might have said there is ( a source of compassionate?) intelligence that has nothing to do with thought. The rest of them heard it & translated or repeated that.

A.C.: So, there is no meaning to their investigation ?

K: It is the 'original' man who said, 'Look, I don't know what it is all about, but I'm going to find out.' That is research.

A.C.: So, you are saying the computer scientist is approaching it wrongly; he is approaching 'intelligence' through the thinking process and he can never find it ?

K: Which means, the thinking process is mechanical.

A.C.: Yes.

K: Ah, be careful. Because thinking is based on ( our already available?) knowledge. And this knowledge is limited.

A.C.: So we come back to the question: How does one enquire into intelligence?

K: You can't because your enquiry is with the brain. The brain is conditioned to think. Is this clear?

A.C.: Then, is there any approach in this enquiry into intelligence? Intelligence 'is', it exists.

K: There may be a part of the brain which is not mechanical, but we can leave that for the moment. Intelligence is not the product of the brain as thought. So, what have you left when you are no longer using the (thought addicted?) brain to enquire?

A.C.: When you talk of 'seeing' and 'listening' (with all one's senses?) , would you call it the use of the brain?

K: ( The capacity of a direct, non-verbal) seeing is not the use of the ( knowing?) brain. But (until now) I have seen the world through my (self-centred) thinking. And we have seen what it has done in the real word – both good things & bad things. But that is not ( the product of a holistic ?) intelligence. Then what is the instrument which is not thought that can perceive, investigate, look into intelligence?

A.C.: Seeing? Observing?

K: Try to use your own words. Then it will have more clarity.

A.C.: ( As the human brain is operating now ?) there is nothing else except thought.

K: That's it. Now, is there any instrument that will see what intelligence is - or is there no instrument at all? Do you understand what I am talking about? I have so far used the instrument of thought to investigate. Now we have discarded that. But I ( the 'thoughtful thinker' ?) am still searching for an instrument to investigate. That means I am still ( inwardly functioning) within the same groove.
Now, what is it ( in the human mind?) that is not contaminated by thought, that has no past, no future, no 'time' element in it? ( Hint : the time element is thought) . The quality of mind that is not of time, not of tomorrow, not of yesterday, not of memory - that mind is an intelligent mind.

A.C.: Why do you call that 'intelligence'?

K: I will show you in a moment. First of all we have given up thought, and there is no ( available mental) instrument that can investigate. Once you admit that, then what has happened to your brain? What has happened to your enquiry? The moment you 'deny thought' totally, that ( newly awakened perceptive quality?) is Intelligence.

A.C.: I don't know what intelligence is.

K: Why does one think one doesn't know? Because you are (assuming that) thought must 'know' (or be able to recognise?) what Intelligence is. But thought can never 'know' it .

A.C.: Why not ?
K: Because 'knowing' means feeling, accumulating, acting.

A.C.: I see that.

K: If you follow that, there is no ( 'known' ?) instrument of enquiry. Therefore, that ( original?) state of the mind that has put away thought (has the perceptive clarity of?) insight. To ''see something instantly'' has nothing to do with time.

A.C.: So, you are saying that 'intelligence' or 'insight' - that ( holistic ?) state of mind - does not exist if you approach it through the thought process?

K: If you are (inwardly) clear - as clear as in knowing that a cobra is 'poisonous' – of the fact that ( the 'self'-centred) thought can never under any circumstances reach (a holistic?) intelligence, you wipe away all enquiry. These 'science people' are using thought to create the artificial intelligence. They are creating a brain which will be like ours, which will be mechanical. They are using their brain, with their tremendous knowledge of the brain, to produce (or to clone?) a brain which is based on thought.

A.C.: In fact, they are using the model of the present human brain to copy it.

K: Which is thinking. I follow that. Do you see this as a fact - that thought under no circumstances can have ( access to?) the 'other' ? If thought is no longer the instrument of enquiry, then then what is that ( quality of) Intelligence, that is not based on enquiry? Look sir, if I want to enquire into Truth, I have to discard all the past. I want to find out what is supreme intelligence - not the casual intelligence. We want to find out what is supreme intelligence. So, can I discard everything that I know? The thinking which can produce the (artificial) intelligence is on the same level as the ( inwardly blind?) thinking that has produced war. Therefore, it is not (a holistic) Intelligence. So, I must be absolutely clear about this . If I am not clear, then ( consciously or?) unconsciously, thought is going to interfere.
Thinking, and all the, 'instruments' thought has invented to investigate into that - meditation, various types of silence, various types of self-denial - are out. The technologies won't accept that but true enquiry is that. And they haven't found it. They are anchored to Jesus or to the saint, which is thought, and from there they move through thought. They won't accept that thought can under no circumstances come to that. Then what have I left to see that thought, under any circumstances, can produce intelligence?

A.C.: I understand that. But it is not enough to see that thinking is not intelligence.

K: That is fairly simple, but ( to see ) the inward implications of it...

A.C.: When you say that intelligence is not the product of thought, it is clear. But this does not mean that thought has found its proper place. To see something is not enough.

K: To see that you don't 'know' - we all think we know - to see that thought cannot produce an intelligence which is non-mechanical, you didn't use thought. You accepted (acknowledged?) the 'fact'; there was no thinking; you understand ?

A.C.: I understand. My problem is slightly different. It is not enough to see that thinking is not intelligence.

K: To accept that is fairly simple, but the ( experiential?) implications of it?

A.C.: That's what I want to know.

K: If you pointed this out to the computer scientists, what would their reaction be? They would treat it as mystical. Yet, these are the people trying to find out ( the workings of artificial) intelligence.

A.C. : But even the other people with whom you have been talking, are also trying to find that...

K: They haven't. They react with thought. You have to apply ( the totality of your ?) brain to see that you 'don't know' - they all say they know. Progress in the last twenty years has been so rapid. They 'know'; they wouldn't accept ( that inwardly-wise ?) they don't know. I want you to see this.

A.C.: The person who has listened to you, who sees what you say, does not become intelligent. I am talking of myself.

K: But you don't have to investigate (it mentally) ; it is all there. They want to investigate the point they want to reach. Their minds want to investigate where they want to go. When you see that thought is not the instrument, what will produce intelligence? Are you seeing the whole of it? Or are you seeing only in one direction? That means, can the brain observe something as a whole without any kind of ( mental) fragmentation? ( The holistic) intelligence is not fragmentation. The ( knowledgeable?) brain that investigates is fragmented, broken up. Whatever words you use, it functions in a very small field of knowledge, so it cannot see ( wholistically ?) . Do you really feel this in your blood?

A.C.: What does that mean, sir?

K: That means that if you are approaching it through reason you don't have the insight (the inner clarity?) to see that is wrong. So, when you are using reason, logic, you are turning to thought and through thought you come to a conclusion. Can you have insight which says without logic : 'this is wrong'? And having seen that it is wrong, use logic then?

A.C.: I follow that.

K: In the same way, sir, thought cannot do this. We may have discussed it, gone into it, but you are still following the same way of thought - logic, reason, conclusion. Do you see that?

A.C.: In order to see that...

K: First see that clearly and then it comes naturally. Don't put it the other way round. Don't say, to live like that I must do this.

A1.C.: To 'see' needs the right environment. If I am with you, it's different. If I am not with you, it's totally different.

K: This is our environment. Wherever you are, that is your environment. If you are in a hotel room in London, that's our environment.

A.C.: The ( holistically friendly?) environment is different.
K: No, not the environment. Here I am (gently but firmly?) 'pushing you' you to look. ( Out?) there no one is pushing; they are all thinking the same way.

A.C.: So, it becomes very important, and that is the psychological trap: to have to be pushed.

K: It is very important to go to the 'right doctor'- if I can find him. I am stimulated. When the stimulation is one you are back to what your ( everyday) environment is. To 'see' ( in the freedom from the known?) is no stimulation. Either you see it or you don't see it. We have discussed this for over an hour and we are beginning to see the nature of it. If you had another couple of days here, steadily working, thinking, you'd be in it.

A.C.: That's what I meant when I was talking to you, that's what I meant by (a holistically friendly) ) environment.

K: But if you treat it as a ( stimulating) drug...

A.C.: Of course, I see that when I am with you it is different from when I am not with you. When I am away, it is completely overwhelmed and overpowered, but it does come back when I am with you. What can I do to see that it 'stays' ?

K: As you have other things to do, I would meet you very often till you are soaked in it, soaked in the sense that you understand what I mean, not just repeat what I say. You are born in it.... Would your ( computer friendly ? ) associates listen to you?

A.C.: No, they won't listen. This research into artificial intelligence will go on and they are going to produce a super computer better than 'most people's brains'. They will do it and they will end up creating a world which will make the human mind obsolete. That is the ( existential?) threat to the human race.

K: Will they consider that they have reached the ( holistic?) mystery of intelligence then?

A.C.: Yes. They will be able to reproduce anything that is mechanical, reproduce the thought process. But what is most exciting is to investigate the ( inward) nature of this intelligence and what can happen then. And I have been asking why in this environment ( K's presence?) I can feel a total change taking place.

K: Suppose we were to discuss every day, could you stand it?

A.C.: I could stand it, but to carry it out is the problem. The problem is when I go out of the door.

K: That means you haven't seen the (inner limitations & the ) danger of the whole mechanistic process of thought  ; seeing the inwardness of it is the very source of Intelligence.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 22 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Nov 2018 #128
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline



Asit Chandmal: For the last two and a half years we have been talking about computers, the way they are progressing and the impact technology could have on the human mind and, therefore, on the human species. So what I want to ask you is this: If they succeed in doing this, then as I see it, the present human mind has to eventually die out, so what is our response to this? Then again, if the present human mind is different from merely being a (culturally programmable?) thinking machine, what is the difference? Is it creativity, is it intelligence, and if so, then what is creativity and what is intelligence?

K: Fore starters, would you differentiate between the mind and the brain or would you only use the word 'mind' to convey the wholeness of the human mind?

A.C.: I am using the word 'mind' in terms of what a human being 'is'. He has a brain with thought, emotions and all the reactions.

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

A.C.: What do you mean ?

K: Is the human brain an individual brain, or a result of the entire evolutionary process of the human being?

A.C.: Physically, it is a separate brain. But are you saying that the cells in my brain or someone else's brain have the same content?

K: Is it 'my' brain or the brain of this tremendous evolution?

A.C.: It is obviously ( the result of our species' ) evolution.

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

A.C.: It seems to be.

K: That is, our ( self-interest dominated) thinking has created all the human problems as well as technological problems. And this thinking is trying to solve those problems and finds that it cannot. All limitations must create problems and thought is limited because of ( quality & quantity of its available?) knowledge.

A.C.: Is it limited at any given point of time?

K: Of course. So, ( inwardly ?) knowledge must always go ( hand in hand?) with ignorance.

A.C.: As you are saying that all knowledge is limited, I have to ask this question of 'creativity' as we know it. Today, if somebody composes a new symphony or writes a new equation in physics, would you say that it is not creativity in the true sense?

K: I won't call that 'creativity'. I may be wrong. I am not laying down the law.

A.C.: In that case, sir, you are in fact saying that our minds, as we know them and as they operate in our daily life, are entirely mechanical. The computer scientists are saying that we can put a much vaster storehouse of knowledge in the computer by networking computers, etc. Now, superficially, that is true; no human being can remember everything in the encyclopaedia. So, outwardly, the memory of the computer is much better. In a much deeper sense, since it does not have subconscious or racial memories, the human brain can have much more access to knowledge and more memory, but it is still the same thing - access to more memory.

K: Yes, sir, move from there. Would you agree on one point - that the computer has a cause as the human brain has a cause? Then what has a cause, has an end. Now, is there (in the human mind) something which is causeless? If there is such a thing as a movement which is causeless, that is creation.

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

K: ( Or rather?) is there a perception which is not the product of thought?
R.S.: There is no doubt that many things human beings make exceed human capacities, but there is a limit. Machines can do many things which human beings can't do. Nevertheless, they are the products of human beings and it seems to me unlikely that in any sense these things would supersede (the natural intelligence of) human beings.

P.J.: If the brain is working in a 'closed circuit' (within the field of the known) 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 (mechanistic) process? Is the brain a closed circuit?

R.S.: I disagree with the assumption, firstly, that the brain is a closed circuit. Secondly, that it works entirely mechanically or chemically or electrically and so on. We have a theory of life which says that living organisms are nothing but machines, and then we have a theory which says it has nothing to do with machines. Why can't we model them by machines?

K: May I ask a question, sir? Would you consider that the human brain has infinite capacity? (I don't like the word 'capacity' because for us capacity is a matter of educated knowledge and all that). But if I can use that word (in a holistic sense) , the brain has infinite capacity. Look what it has done just 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: I am going to come to that. ( The self-centred  functioning of ) thought has limited the brain, has conditioned the brain.

A.C.: You are separating (the function of ) 'thought' and 'brain' ?

K: No ; I want to find out if the brain can ever be free from its own limitation of self-centred thought, knowledge & emotion. All right, ( we'll ) call it 'thought'. If its conditioning is somehow freed the brain has got (an extraordinary potential) - you have been to the moon, the brain has created cruise missiles, it has had extraordinary technological movement. Agreed?
Now, is there a ( perceptive?) instrument which is not ( dependent on) thought? Is there a ( holistic) way of looking which can instead of going 'out there', is turning inwards? ( Once integrated & activated?) that inward movement is the ( Door to the?) Infinite.

Q: Your question is: Is there anything other than thought which could be an 'instrument'?

K: Yes, and perhaps, that instrument can look both outward and inward, and that is infinite.

Q: Psychologists try to discover what is within; at least they profess to do this.

K: I know, sir, what they say is all mechanical, thought tries to resolve these problems has made things worse. It is so obvious. So I am now asking, is there 'something' which is not ( the product of self-centred) thought, which is not 'mechanical'?

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

K: Yes. Will you listen to something? Life is a movement, going out and coming in, like the tide. I create the world, and the world then controls me. This is our life, action and reaction (based on) reward and punishment. Can this movement stop?

P.J.: You have to move out of the closed circuit of the computer to even face that question.

K: As long as this ( self-centred mental) movement exists, I am ( inwardly) caught in time, and that is evolution. This movement gets better, worse, it is always movement. So, as long as this movement exists, I am (my self-consciousness is ?) am 'mechanical'.

Q: Only mechanical?

K: Yes, I see a woman and I want her: I see a garden, I want it. It is action and reaction, reward and punishment, punishment and reward. Where is ( the holistic) intelligence in that? As long as you are caught in that, this intelligence is out; it is a mechanical intelligence: You hate me and I hate you back.

A.C.: I follow that.

K: If you accept that, (then holistic?) intelligence is something totally different from thought.

R.S.: Could we say instead of 'mechanical' that it is determined by cause and effect, action and reaction ?

K: Yes, yes.

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. There is a certain kind of ingenuity which is not purely mechanical. It is subsumed 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 (a holistic?) intelligence.

R.S.: No. But in ordinary language it is often called intelligence. An intelligent businessman is one who would think of ways of getting more of what he wants (and...getting away with it?) .

K: Yes. I would not call that intelligence.
R.S.: I would call it ingenuity or inventiveness.

K: Call it inventiveness. I won't call it intuition because that is a different thing.

R.S.: No, ingenuity.

K: To be 'ingenious' (in one's area of competency) is solving problems of God, problems of Heaven, problems of painting, ( or just problems of $$$) ?) etc. It is within the same area - I may move from one corner another corner of the same field (of the known) and call that 'ingenuity', but all that has nothing to do with ( the holistic?) 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 corner to another but within the same field (of self-interest?) , that is what we are doing (on a regular basis) .

P.J.: That is, constantly operating within the 'field of the known' ?

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

A.C.: I was just wondering why we have evolved like that.

K: It is essentially based on ( optimising our survival in terms of ) reward and ( avoiding) 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.

K: Of course, ( in the eyes of the beholder?) it is completely secure - at least for the time being - but this ' time being security ' eventually creates ( its own frustrations, conflicts & ) wars. So we don't have to elaborate. Would you go along up to this point that this is not ( an universally open?) Intelligence?

A.C.: Yes.

K: Right. Then let us enquire (experientially) what is intelligence. The ( self-centred thread of the ) movement of action-reaction is the movement of time. Agreed?

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

K: Time in the sense I have evolved in this process.

Q: That is the movement of our life.

K: Yes. And that is un-intelligence. Therefore, don't call it intelligence. So, what is Intelligence? As long as I am in this field there is no intelligence; it is adaptability.
Then we have to go into something quite different. If I totally deny, not verbally but actually, this is not Intelligence, then what happens to the ( time-bound) 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 more to be said. But if I see that this ( self-centred way of life ) will not solve the problems of humanity; then I have to look in another direction.

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

K: My eyes have always been seeing in this direction only. And I can't look in any other direction if I am not free of this.

P.J.: I want to ask you a ( bonus?) question. Can I look at my own instrument? Can perception look at its own instrument? Can perception, which is a flow, see itself?

K: Can perception see itself ( in real time) as it is perceiving? Then it is not 'perception'.

P.J.: You see, you have often posed this question : ''Can I see the falsity of it and end it?'' I have always thought that a wrong question. It can never see that because perception is self-contained.

K: Would you call this ( inner-outer ) movement of perception, the 'wandering of ( thought-sustained ) desire'?

P.J.: Yes. This movement is the 'wandering of desire'.

K: Can this ( thread of thought & ) desire be seen as a whole, not only the object of desire, but desire itself? Can it see itself as a movement of ( sensate?) attraction?

P.J.: Even without bringing in 'attraction', can ( the self-centred thread of) desire see itself?

K: To understand if desire can see itself, one must go into (the nature of) desire. Desire exists only when thought comes into the field of sensation.

A.C.: This question is very important. We are all operating in that field (of sensory responses) . So, anything operating in that field...

P.J.: ...can never deny that field ?

K: Of course. As long as I am ( 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 ) . The thing is, stop this movement. Find out, (or meditatively?) discover for yourself how to end this movement. Is that possible at all?

P.J. I think it is possible to (operate a temporary) 'cut'.

K: Be careful when you use the word 'cut'. Who is the 'cutter?'

P.J.: Without the 'cutter'.

K: Then what happens? If there is no 'entity' who can cut, or stop it, then...

P.J.: ...the mind is just perceiving (holistically)  ?

K: That is all. There is only ( time free?) 'perceiving'. There is only perception, right? The perception of that which is false (or true?) .

P.J.: The (non-dualistic) perceiving throws light on the false. There is only perceiving.

K: Then we will enquire into what is 'perceiving'. What is the perception without the word, without naming, without personal remembrances, perceiving something which ( in the past) one called 'intuition'? I don't like to use that ( ambiguos ?) word, forgive me. That perception is ( providing a ) direct insight (into the truth or falseness of the thing perceived ) .

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

K: Would you call that (holistic) 'attention'?

P.J.: To be (inwardly) completely awake 'is' (the very nature of) attention.

K: That is all.

P.J: Something that the computers can never do.

K: Asit, is there an end to ( the psychological thread of thought-) time ?

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

K: In the perception of ( a total?) insight, the ( functioning of the ) brain cells themselves change. When the brain that has been conditioned in this ( time-thought) movement... cause, effect, action, reaction and all, when that suddenly stops, hasn't the brain undergone a radical change? Of course it has.

R.R.: I have to ask you my (bonus) question again : If there is such a seeing that the brain cells change, what happens ( to one's consciousness?) after perceiving it?

K: That is why one ( should ? ) go ( for a bonus homework ?) into the question of 'consciousness'.

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

A.C.: One can only see ( the psychological redundancy of) this ( time-thought?) movement and do nothing else.

K: That is all.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Nov 2018 #129
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

1st ('reader friendly' edited) K PUBLIC TALK in Madras (1959)

On Inner Freedom

It seems to me of the most importance that we do listen in order to learn. Perhaps you have never noticed the difference between the mind that really learns ( directly for itself ?) , and the mind that merely gathers knowledge. The mind that is accumulating knowledge is always translating what it hears in terms of its previous experience, in terms of the knowledge which it has already gathered; it is caught up in the process of accumulating, of adding to what it already knows, and such a mind is incapable of learning. It is because we are never capable of learning that we pass our lives in sorrow and misery, in conflict and calumny; and hence the beauty of life, the vast significance of living, is lost. So it seems to me very important that we commune with each other quietly, in a dignified manner, and for that there must be a listening and a learning. When you commune with your own heart, when you commune with your friend, when you commune with the skies, with the stars, with the sunset, with a flower, then surely you are listening so as to find out, to learn.

I would like to consider with you, the vast and complex problem of freedom; but to inquire into that problem, to commune with it, to go into it hesitantly, tentatively, requires a very sharp, clear mind, a mind that is capable of listening and thereby learning. If you observe what is taking place in the world, you will see that the margin of ( man's individual's ) freedom is getting narrower and narrower. Organized beliefs, organized ideas, the economic and social struggle, the whole process of competition and nationalism - everything around us is narrowing down the margin of freedom, and I wonder if you are at all aware of this extraordinary compulsion to belong to something - to some political party, to a certain group or organized belief; you are committed to a particular way of thinking or living, and that surely denies freedom. I do not know if you have examined this compulsion to belong, to identify oneself with a country, with a system, with a group, with certain political or religious beliefs.

We are going to commune with each other, to inquire together into this question of what is freedom, and how to come by it. And thus to inquire, there must obviously be ( a basic ?) freedom right from the start; if your mind is tethered, held by some commitment, whether political, religious, social, or economic, then that very commitment will prevent you from inquiring, because for you there is no freedom. So we cannot proceed together unless we comprehend from the very beginning that to inquire there must be freedom (from the known?) . There must be the abandonment of the ( psychological burden of the?) past, a complete letting go.
If we are to learn and understand what freedom is, if we are to delve deeply into its unfathomable dimensions, we must from the very start (learn to?) stand alone. And this is a very difficult thing to do. A mind that wants to inquire into freedom and discover its beauty, its vastness, its dynamism, its strange quality of not being effective in the worldly sense of that word - such a mind from the very beginning must put aside its (psychological) commitments, the desire to belong, and with that freedom, it must inquire.

What is the state of the mind that is free to inquire? What does it mean to be free from commitments? Surely, where there is love there is no ( need for any psychological) commitment; to be sensitive to another, to have that pure feeling uncorrupted by the intellect - surely, that is Love. I do not know if you have realised that when the intellect interferes with that pure feeling, then mediocrity sets in. To know the function of the intellect, and to be aware of that pure feeling, without letting the two mingle and destroy each other, requires a very clear, sharp awareness.

I do not know if you have observed what an enormous part the intellect plays in our life. So there is the intellect with its capacity to inquire, to analyze, to reason and come to conclusions; and the pure feeling, which is always being interrupted, coloured by the intellect. Will these two reveal what is true? Or is there only ( an holistically integrated?) perception?
To me the immediate perception of what is false and what is true is the essential factor - it must sometimes have happened to you that you have seen the truth of something immediately without analysis, without reasoning, without all the things that the intellect creates in order to postpone perception. It is entirely different from 'intuition', which is a word that we use with glibness and ease. And it has nothing to do with (our survivalistic?) experience which tells you that you must belong to something, otherwise you will be destroyed, you will lose your job, or your family, or your property, or your position and prestige. But (for instance) if you perceive the truth that the individual must stand completely alone, then that very perception is a liberating factor; you do not have to struggle to be alone.

To me there is only this direct perception (aka : insight?) - not reasoning, not calculation, not analysis. You must have a good, sharp mind in order to reason; but a mind that is (inwardly) limited to reason and analysis is incapable of perceiving what is truth. To perceive immediately the truth that it is folly to belong to any religious organization, you must be able to look into your heart of hearts, to know it thoroughly, without all the obstructions created by the intellect. If you commune with yourself, you will know why you belong, why you have committed yourself; and if you push further, you will see the slavery, the cutting down of freedom, the lack of human dignity which that commitment entails. When you perceive all this instantaneously, you are free; you don't have to make an effort to be free. That is why ( the insightful) perception is essential.

All our efforts to be free come from ( an ignored state of?) self-contradiction. We make an effort because we are in a state of contradiction within ourselves; and this contradiction, this effort, breeds many (mental schemes & ?) avenues of escape which hold us everlastingly in the treadmill of ( psychological ) slavery.
So it seems to me that one must be (inwardly) very serious - I do not mean 'serious' in the sense of being (psychologically) committed to something in order to achieve their own ends, in order to enhance their own position or prestige. Such people I do not call 'serious'. The ( holistically ?) serious man is he who wants to find out what is freedom - is a precious fruit ( of wisdom?) without which you lose human dignity. It is ( the intelligence of ?) Love, without which you will never find God, or Truth, or that 'Nameless' thing. Do what you will - cultivate all the virtues, sacrifice, search out (ingenious?) ways to serve mankind, without freedom, none of these will bring to light that Reality within your own heart. That Reality, that 'immeasurable something', comes when there is the total inward freedom which exists only when you are able to stand completely alone. Only such a 'mind & heart' is capable of receiving that which is immeasurable.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Nov 2018 #130
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K PUBLIC TALK IN MADRAS 1959 ('reader friendly' edited )


This evening I would like to talk over with you the rather complex problem of sorrow. Sorrow is not just a matter of ( a personal frustration due to?) wanting something which one cannot get. It is deeper and much more subtle than that, and to understand it requires a great deal of inquiry, penetration. As I was saying the other day, ( an experiential ?) understanding is not the result of intellectual perception. If I want to understand it by merely reasoning about it, seeing different aspects of it, and coming to a ( final) conclusion, will never bring about the 'total' understanding that liberates the mind from sorrow.
It is only when your whole ( intelligent?) being invites sorrow, when it is open to the inwardness, the subtleties, the purity, the extraordinary movement of sorrow - only then, I feel, is there total understanding. If one is capable of ( such holistic?) listening to sorrow & learning about sorrow, then I think the miracle of being free of sorrow ( can?) take place . But we very rarely give our 'hearts' to a problem; we give only our ( thinking ) mind, but this will not help to free the mind from the turmoil and entanglements of sorrow.

I do feel that sorrow can be ended, and this ending begins with the understanding of ( the deeper causes of?) sorrow. Most of us are held in some kind of sorrow, whether it be the petty little sorrow of a schoolboy, or the equally petty sorrow of an adult who is caught in the conflict of his wants, his anxieties, his hates, his fears, his ambitions, his frustrations and fulfilments. Being caught in all this, we think in terms of a beginning and an ending; we do not see that in the very beginning of the understanding of sorrow, is the ( beginning of the?) ending of sorrow. I think that if we actually see that in the beginning is the ending, if we feel the truth of it with all our being, then we shall understand sorrow and not merely escape from sorrow.

After all, sorrow is ( a psychological ?) state of a mind which is in contradiction with itself - the ( temporal ) mind struggles in the grip of ( its personal or collective ?) ambitions, with its ( collateral?) fulfilments and frustrations. There is a constant state of self-contradiction; and the tension, the pain, the turmoil of this self-contradiction is what we call 'sorrow'.
We are ( becoming fully?) aware of this state of contradiction in ourselves  only when it reaches a (profound existential?) crisis. Then we want to find a (quick?) way out of it, but we are not aware of our everyday state of self-contradiction - the life we lead, socially and economically, is not the life we would like to lead. In our relationships there is an element of compulsion, and we are subject to innumerable ( conflicts & ) contradictions. I do not know if we are aware of all this. If we are aware of it, we bring it all to a head, and act. But if we are not aware of this state of contradiction in ourselves, it goes on quietly smoldering until a tension is built up which eventually bursts into flame and either drives us into a neurotic state, or forces us to find a temporary solution. Or there is a total understanding of all the hidden wants, a grasping of the whole significance of self-contradiction, and hence the ending of it.

I do not know whether you are even aware of your self-contradictions. Your tradition of centuries as a Hindu by meeting the pressure of the modern world, creates a contradiction in you. You want to lead a spiritual life and at the same time there are the ( material) demands of your daily life, and you are inwardly torn by innumerable desires. We must all have tasted this extraordinary ( complex?) contradiction in our lives but unfortunately we never bring it to a crisis, and for a very simple reason: because a crisis would mean action, something would have to be done about it. We are not willing to bring our self-contradiction to that boiling point when we have to act, and so we lead tortuous, contradictory lives, pining away for some haven where we hope we shall be at peace.

I have said that sorrow is a state of ( an inner ?) contradiction which becomes acute when something 'vital' happens in your life – as when your son dies, or when your wife or husband turns away from you (etc, etc...)
Now, why does this ( inner state of self -?) contradiction exist? I want something, and I cannot get it. Don't you think contradiction exists because the ( 'desire' driven?) mind is capable of choice? ( Hint : the way of action I choose is for the purpose of self - fulfilment). I have a compulsion to fulfil myself as a writer, as a poet, as a singer, or through the family, begetting (many?) children. ( Unfortunately ?) in that very process of choosing, there is the ( frustrated desire for its ) opposite.
Has it ever happened to you that you have performed an action in which there is no ( psychological element of) choice at all? Doing something totally, completely, without ( the interference of self-centred ?) thought; your whole being is there. At such moments you know action in which there is no choice, hence no contradiction, and therefore no ( afterthoughts of?) sorrow.
( Experiential hint:) Do not ask, "How am I to reach that choiceless state (of transpersonal awareness) ?" as the very question "How?" creates another (time-binding?) contradiction.

I am just pointing out that there is no (verbal) answer to sorrow; what matters is to perceive (holistically?) the ( complex?) ways of sorrow. Out of ( the desire driven ?) choices there is ( self-) contradiction, (a multitude of inner & outer?) conflicts, and therefore ( the residual accumulation of frustration &?) sorrow. After all, if we would have (nothing?) to choose, if there were no conflict (of opposite desires?) , we should not have the problem of sorrow. Choice implies the lack of ( a holistic) totality of action. Whenever you give to something your mind, your heart, your whole being - it is only then that there is no ( residual?) sorrow, because there is no contradiction.
It (the ending of the causation of sorrow?) is not a state to be arrived at by meditation, or through awareness, or through self-knowledge, or through quoting various texts. The whole process of sorrow has to be understood by ( a non-dualistic inner?) perception – and such perception is a timeless state. As long as the mind is as it is now - the result of time, the residue of many thousands of yesterdays in relation to the present - sorrow cannot be understood (and /or transcended?). The ( thinking) mind is the result of time, it is the instrument of time, and with that instrument we are trying to understand or to dispel a problem which is itself the product of time.

We all feel the shadow of sorrow, so we find ways and means to get rid of it, to escape from it. We say "Let us reason about it, let us bring together all the facts", and so on. This is the process of the ( thinking) mind, the intellect, which is obviously the result of time - time in the sense of what one has learnt from what was (previously) experienced. With this instrument, we are trying to dispel sorrow. But sorrow itself is the product of time. You say: "To understand sorrow, I need time to think about it. I must grow in understanding. To be free of sorrow, I must practise a (meditation) system until I arrive at a state in which my mind will no longer be disturbed". These are all steps in time, are they not? And through this process you are trying to dispel sorrow, the product of time - which is impossible.

You need a totally new factor, a different quality, another dimension, and that is ( a holistic ?) perception – a perception in which there is no ( factor of thought & ) time at all. You see ( the truth or falseness of?) it instantaneously. But that requires astonishing attention, it requires all your vitality. The mind, being totally gathered (together?) , precipitates itself upon the problem and sees the depth, the width, the beauty of the problem. Unfortunately, I do not think you have ever given complete attention to anything. If you had, you would not be doing what you are actually doing. You would not be a clerk wanting to become the manager, or a politician wanting to be the governor, or some other glorified person. You would not belong to any group, to any nationality, to any party, to any organized religion.

So I would suggest that the 'ending of sorrow' is not a matter of gradual evolution, a matter of ( personal) development. The 'truth' about sorrow is to be perceived in the immediate. ( Hint :) You might have occasionally perceived something which has struck you so forcibly that it has altered your whole way of thinking. That 'something' you have ( completely) seen (& understood?) is the truth - and the truth brings its own action, its own revolution. You do not have to do a thing about it. That is why it is very important to perceive the truth of any problem.

Our (beginner's) problem is not so much sorrow and the ending of sorrow, as it is the fact that the mind is caught up in tradition, in the ( time-binding ) ways of mechanical thinking. Once the mind is free from all that, then one can look at sorrow. I wonder if we are at all aware of how the (temporal) mind is bound by tradition? Social tradition is very superficial, and one can throw it off as one throws off an old garment; but there is also a ( psychological) 'tradition' which is much stronger, much more profound, and that is the tradition of ( one's past personal) experience. I do not know if you are aware of how experience shapes the mind. And what is this 'experience'? Surely, it is the reaction of the ( active memory of the?) past to the (various challenges of the?) present. The present is a challenge, and I respond according to my conditioning, according to my culture, according to my education - all of which is the past.
We are all familiar with the idea that ( some ?) experience is necessary in dealing with mechanical things - to drive a car, to work at a technical job. I can't do these things without experience. But is ( one's past) experience necessary for a mind that wants to perceive ( directly?) ? Take a simple example. One wants to know what is Reality, God, or Truth, that 'something' which is not measurable by the ( time-bound) mind. And everybody repeats what their gurus, or the saints, or their leaders have said. In this matter they have said, "You must grow in experience; you must practise this discipline, follow these teachings, and ultimately, in the long distance of time, you will attain the truth". To me it is all nonsense, because through time you are hoping to capture the ( living dimension of the ) 'timeless', which is an impossibility. You have to go beyond and find out how to liberate the mind from the enslavement of 'experience'. It is only the innocent mind, the mind unclouded by experience, totally free from the past - it is only such a mind that can perceive what is Reality. If you see the truth of that, if you perceive it for a split second, you will know the extraordinary clarity of a mind that is innocent. This means the falling away of all the (psychological) encrustations of memory, which is the discarding of the past. But to perceive ( the truth of) it, our mind must not be distracted by the desire for a (quick?) answer. Such a mind is not an attentive mind.

As I said earlier, ( "The first step is the last step", or:) - in the beginning is the seed of the ending of that which we call 'sorrow'. The ending of sorrow is realized in ( directly dealing
with ?) sorrow itself, not away from sorrow.If you give it your complete attention, which is to be attentive with your whole being, then you will see that there is an immediate perception ( of it?) in which no time is involved, in which there is no effort, no conflict; and it is this immediate perception, this choiceless awareness, that puts an end to sorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 01 Dec 2018 #131
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ( 'reader-friendly edited') K PUBLIC TALK MADRAS 1959


It would perhaps be worthwhile to talk over together the rather complex problem of (what is a holistic way of ) action - not a specialized action in relation to a particular problem, but action as a whole. We are not here concerned with political action, or with whether you should choose a particular job, or with what you should do under certain circumstances. I think such an approach to the problem of action is (psychologically?) invalid, because we always seem to get lost in the part and are therefore incapable of tackling the problem as a whole. So if it is possible, I would like to consider, rather hesitantly, this question of action, of 'What to do ?'. Are we not faced with this problem, all of us, in different ways? But we unfortunately translate it in terms of 'what to do' in a particular set of circumstances, what to do when a challenge arises, but our problem is how to capture the (inner) significance of a total action, and not be caught in a particular form of action demanded by society.

So, what is the 'total action'? It is the action in which there is no (self-) contradictions, is it not? Such action must obviously come about without effort, because effort is the result of contradiction. I would like to go into this problem and understand it as much as possible within this given hour.

But before we go into the question of total action, must we not ( take a small detour &?) inquire into the present action of the individual in relation to society, in relation to everything that is going on about us? What is the action of the individual at present, and what can he do when society is crushing him, perverting his (independent?) thinking, so that he has no ( sense of inner) freedom? The more society is organized, the more ruthless it is with the individual - and it is essentially the same with the organized religions. So the encroachment of society upon the individual is constantly increasing, and his margin of freedom, his clarity of thinking, is becoming very narrow. I do not know if you are aware of this ? And being aware of it, what are you to do? I am merely putting this question so that we shall begin to think it out together. What is the individual to do, under present circumstances, in his relationship with the family, with society? What is he to do with regard to religion? Most of us are just swallowed up, because to struggle against the pressure of society would involve a great deal of personal discomfort and uncertainty; it would mean a revolution in the life of the individual. To break away from the habit of belonging to something, requires immense clarity in thinking, because clarity in thinking is character. Without such clarity, there is no character, no ( authentic) individuality.

I think that there are two ways of action: one is the action from a centre (of self-interest?) , and the other is the action which has no such centre. Most of us act from a 'centre' which is made up of ( personal & collective?) knowledge & experience, and which is conditioned according to the culture, the religion, the economic status in which we have lived. That centre can be controlled, it can be strengthened or weakened by a carefully organized society. All self-conscious exertion to achieve ( $$$ & fame?) arises from that centre, which is also made up of ( personal?) ambition, fear, envy, hate, and also of (one's sincere?) desire to be good. This 'centre' is a process of ( time-locked?) thinking according to a certain pattern, thinking according to our conditioning, and as long as that centre is functioning, obviously there must be innumerable contradictions, conflicts, there must be fear, hope, ( frustration &?) despair. Out of the desire to fulfil ourselves, and to avoid frustrations, we invent many illusions, myths, which we (may eventually?) dignify with such words as 'God', 'Truth'.

The ( self-centred 'thinking?) centre', from which most of us function, is made up of knowledge in different forms - knowledge as technique, knowledge as experience, knowledge as tradition, knowledge as memory of the things we have been told. It is essentially a centre of habit, a centre of authority. That centre is authority itself.

So I think we should ( take another short detour &?) examine the whole process of 'knowledge and authority'. A mind that is a (psychological?) slave to knowledge, is bound by authority. The mind that has accumulated knowledge of what to do, what to think, or how to think; the mind that has merely acquired the technique of a professor, of a mechanic, of a priest, of a bureaucrat - such a mind is obviously a 'slavish' mind, bound to its own knowledge. It is never free. The mind is free only when it is aware of its authoritarian knowledge, and puts it aside. Then it can use knowledge without being enslaved by knowledge.
Now, this is an extremely difficult thing to do. Knowledge gives us a sense of functioning in society with stability, with clarity; it gives us a feeling of certainty, a sense of security; so knowledge breeds authority, and we worship authority. We worship the (very knowledgeable?) professor, the Guru, the (famous?) writer, and so on. And if you observe your own mind in operation, you will see how extraordinarily difficult it is to be free of past experiences, previous thoughts, established habits. Essentially it is based on the opinions & ideas of others - on what the Buddha, Christ, Marx, or Stalin has said. This ( active memory of what we knew?) yesterday has already set going its own momentum, and unless this ( time-locked?) momentum is understood, you are ( psychologically?) blocked in (terms?) of self-knowledge.

Knowledge is a peculiar thing, is it not? We not only know the past, but we also ( pretend to?) know the future, because the past projects itself through the present into the future.
Now, realizing that our minds are not free either from the past or from the projected future, should we not ask ourselves whether there is an action which has no 'centre' (of self-interest?) an action which is not partial, which is not the outcome of (our past) knowledge but something entirely different ( qualitatively?) - which means, the action without a centre, It must have happened to you (spontaneously) to have done something without calculation, without the cunning machinations of thought, without thinking of what has been or what may be, (in short?) without ( personal element of?) choice. But to understand ( experientially of?) this kind of ( transpersonal?) action requires a great deal of 'self-knowledge', which is ( based on?) the comprehension (in real time?) of the workings of one's own mind. (Hint : it is so easy to deceive oneself and say, "I have acted without a centre & without the process of thought" - which is ( pretty?) immature, for what is functioning ( subliminally?) is one's own hidden desire. Whereas, action which is total, and which has no centre, requires ( a non-dualistic?) exploration into oneself - & going into the whole process of thinking, into the whole mechanism of the mind, without a (personal?) end in view, inquiring just to find out what is actually taking place.

To study (live the Book of?) Yourself is to see what is actually the state of your mind - why you think and do certain things, why you go to the office, or to the temple, why you talk in a certain way to your wife, to your servant, why you read the sacred books, ( not to mention?) why you attend these talks. Such learning is a movement of the mind in which there is no accumulation. A mind that gathers (psychological?) knowledge through learning, is driven by the desire for safety, security, or is out for some profit. Whereas, in the movement of learning there is no accumulation - and that is the beauty of learning. Just to see what you 'are' - the vulgarity, the fears, the hopes, the anxieties, the ambitions - without judging, without evaluating, without condemning or accepting. If the mind can observe and comprehend itself in this way, you will find that out of such observation and comprehension there is the (inner clarity?) of an action which is total, which has no self (-identified ) center.

Sirs, do try it (here or for homework?) . Do not attempt to cultivate a particular kind of action, but ( wisely?) inquire into the whole problem of action - which you cannot do as long as you are merely seeking a (final ?) answer to the problem. It is because we give so little ( free thinking?) to these things that our lives are miserable, petty, narrow, sorrow-laden.

A (holistically friendly  ?) mind is one that has delved into the profound depths of itself and has understood its own processes, its hidden motives, its 'untrodden' paths. And because it is living, moving, never coming to a ( verbal?) conclusion, it is discovering all the time what is Truth. Truth is not static; it is moving, dynamic, it has no abode, and the mind that is incapable of following it swiftly can never understand the immeasurable nature of Truth.

( To recap:) Without perceiving the significance of knowledge and authority, it is impossible to know the totality (the wholeness?) of an action in which there is no ( hidden?) contradiction, an action without the sense of compulsion, and therefore without regrets. Surely, such (timeless way of) action is wisdom. Wisdom comes only to the mind that perceives what is true, and when perception is total. ( Bonus hint:) Wisdom comes only when there is no (inner) conflict. You will understand what is 'total action' only when you begin to inquire into the whole process of the mind; and then you will also know how to act in any particular situation, what to do today, or any day. Through the part you can never understand the whole; but when you perceive the significance of the whole, out of that comprehension you can understand the part.
To go into all this requires an 'understanding of' (a non-verbal insight into ?) the ( time-locked?) process of one's own thinking. And the beauty of this inquiry lies in the ( lost & found?) 'innocence' of a mind that is free to 'see anew' the skies, the rivers and the rich land. Only a mind that has understood itself is capable of receiving this benediction ( of innocence?) which has no ending.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Dec 2018 #132
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

4-th (reader friendly edited ?) K PUBLIC TALK MADRAS (1959)


I would like to talk about the effort to 'change' ( inwardly?) , because I feel that there must be a fundamental change in the quality of the mind itself, and that the mere outward adjustments of a cunning mind seeking its own ( self-interest?) , will lead us nowhere. Such a mind can never really know the quality of inner peace (as it) cannot possibly be aware without choice, or be in that state of 'creative reality'. If one is to go very deeply into this question of change, one must approach it by understanding what (one's own ) 'consciousness' is - not the (concept of?) 'consciousness' about which many people have certain theories & conclusions, but the consciousness (which is) operating in oneself. That is surely the only point from which one can start and be able to uncover the ways of our own thinking, understand our (inner) conflicts and why we do certain things.

In trying to understand (experientially?) what we call 'consciousness', I think we must be aware of certain things :
(a) the (holistic) examination of our 'consciousness' is not a process of analysis intended for self-improvement. There is no (spiritual?) improvement of the 'me'. It is only the 'mediocre' ( and/or 'materialistic'?) mind that says, "I must be much more clever, much more intelligent, much more erudite".
(b) If we do not understand in what manner to look at consciousness, we invariably try to control it, and this effort further limits our consciousness. It is the very nature of ( self-centred) effort to create a centre as the 'me' from which to control (one's own ) consciousness. I do not know if you have noticed that the moment you make an effort, you have already an objective, and this objective limits your vision. And if you observe, you will realize that from childhood on we are conditioned to make an effort. In our 'education', in all the work we do, we struggle to improve ourselves, to become something. Everything we undertake is based on effort; but ( unfortunately?) the more efforts we make, the duller the mind becomes (inwardly) .
c) You obviously cannot find out what is true and what is false, with a mind which from childhood has been taught to conform, to imitate, to follow. So you have to begin by inquiring into the ( actual) state of your own mind. Surely, that is the beginning of any inquiry into consciousness. You are observing to find out if it is possible for the mind to function, to live, to act every day without ( making a 'psychological') effort. You see, sirs, a mind that is in a constant state of contradiction, effort, is wearing itself out. It is never fresh, innocent. And surely, you need a fresh mind, an innocent mind, a good, clear mind to perceive the truth or the falseness of anything.

We are inquiring into this thing called 'consciousness', which should be a total entity, a fully integrated state. ( But unfortunately?) there is a ( subliminal division between the ) part of our consciousness which is in 'darkness' ( the hidden part of our mind, with its motives, its desires, its intimations of an inner struggle ) and the superficial ( self-conscious part of the ?) mind which goes to the office, quarrels, and/or wants a better job. The whole of that is our 'consciousness ': everything we think, feel, smell, desire - all the sensations, and behind the sensations, the desires of wanting and not wanting. We cannot go into too many details, but we can see that all of this makes up the totality of our consciousness. In this consciousness, there is (a deep existential?) contradiction; though at certain moments live may know a state free of contradiction, it is merely a reaction.

Let us approach it differently. There is the 'conscious' (part of the?) mind that is 'educated' ( culturally standardised ?) in modern society, with all its personal demands, compulsions, hopes and fears. This ( all-controlling?) conscious mind, having been educated ( for instance in the values of ?) communism, continues to function within that pattern, just as a Catholic, a Hindu, or a Buddhist, functions within his particular pattern. It is this 'conscious' mind that acquires the 'technique' of how to run a ( top of the line ?) motor car, or learns from a guru what to do in order to become more 'spiritual', how to suppress 'this' ( set of desires?) and cultivate 'that' (other set of values) . It is this ( self-) conscious mind that acquires (tons of ?) knowledge, and that adjusts itself (opportunistically?) at the superficial level. Then there is the so-called 'unconscious' mind into which most of us (never bothered to?) look into. Are we now capable of looking into it (holistically?) ? The only (readily available?) instrument we have for looking into something, is the 'conscious' mind, which is 'learning' (in terms of?) acquiring knowledge, and which is always 'positive' in its approach – can such a mind inquire into the unconscious?

As an (simple 'in class'?) example, suppose that I want to know why am I envious? The conscious mind can understand (intellectually ) and (glibly?) explain why it is envious. ( However, when it does this , it ( subliminally ?) creates the opposite ( quality ) and says "I must not be envious". So then there is (born a new existential ) conflict to become 'this' and not to be like 'that'. (But in the 'real world') envy implies competition, comparison; it implies wanting to become 'someone' - to be the prime minister, to be the most famous scholar, to be the biggest lawyer in town, and so on. So envy is very deeply rooted (in the desire of self-becoming ?) ; it is not a thing that can be pushed aside by saying "I must not be envious. "

Now, to inquire (holistically ?) into 'envy', to go down into the unconscious where its deep roots are hidden, you require, not the conscious mind that has been educated, but quite a different mentality, an entirely different state of mind. So what is the 'conscious' mind to do? To understand something of which it knows nothing, except vaguely, the conscious mind must surely be completely 'silent' , it must be in abeyance, which is to be in that state of attention where there is no positive or negative ( mental) responses.
Look here, sirs, supposing I am trying to tell you something of which you do not know (anything at 'first hand'?) , except what you have heard of it, or read about it in books. You have never felt the beauty of it in your hearts & in your minds. What is the state of a mind that 'listens'? The 'conscious' mind must be open to the intimations of the unconscious; it must be in that state of attention which is really a total 'negation' (of what it knew previously ?) . The conscious mind must be capable of total attention, which is total negation - and that is the 'totally positive' state. When the conscious mind is totally attentive, it can look into the 'unconscious', which is something that it does not know.
The unconscious, surely, is the racial inheritance, the traditional values which have been given to you for untold ages. The unconscious is the accumulated experience, not only of the individual, but also of the family, the race. It is the result of man's effort to be, to become, to grow, to survive. So this consciousness, which is the outcome of ( self-motivated?) effort, is limited. For centuries we have 'done good' in the wrong direction by assuming that we must 'be this', we must 'not be that', and so on, which only creates further conflict.

So how is such a ( knowledge oriented ) mind to be free? That is the next question ( lft for homework ?) : is there a possibility of freeing the mind totally? This problem, like every other human problem, has no ( quick?) answers. If one really goes into it, it is found to be tremendously complex, and it would be silly on my part to say "This is the ( ultimate ) answer". Therefore you are left with the problem. But if you have deeply followed all that has been said, the problem is no longer a ( personal ?) problem, because you will already have perceived the totality of it; and a mind that perceives the totality of any problem, is free of the problem.
(In a nutshell:) What is required is ( a holistic?) perception, and not this constant trying to find an answer to the problem.

(To recap:) ( Making a 'psychological' ) effort ( to change oneself inwardly?) always limits the ( inner freedom of the ?) mind. If you see the truth of that, it is enough. That very perception will operate; 'you' ( personally ?) do not have to do a thing. To 'see the truth' of something, is the only liberating factor. It is only when you 'do not see the truth' of any problem that you ask "what am I to do?" If you see how your ( time-bound?) mind has been conditioned for centuries, and how that conditioning from the past is projecting itself through the present into the future; if you see how you are constantly adding to your conditioning through ( seeking higher ?) 'experiences' born of that very conditioning - if you see all this very clearly, then ( the inner) liberation comes without your seeking it, and one's life is then something entirely different.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Dec 2018 #133
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

5TH ('reader friendly' edited) K PUBLIC TALK IN MADRAS 1959

What is it that you are seeking and why do you seek?

I think it would be worthwhile to find out for ourselves why the (time-bound ?) mind is so restless. It is as restless as the sea, never stable, never quiet; though outwardly it may ( appear to ) be still, inwardly it is full of ripples, full of grooves and every kind of disturbance. It seems to me of the utmost importance to go deeply into this ( profound existential?) question of why the mind is everlastingly seeking something, and having found it, is not satisfied, but moves on to something else - an unceasing movement from satisfaction to disappointment, from fulfilment to pain and frustration. We must all be aware of this endless ( repetitive ) cycle of pleasure and sorrow. Everything is passing, impermanent and there is no place where one can be quiet, especially inwardly, because every recess of the mind is disturbed. So I would like to suggest to probe into ( the causation of) this restless activity of our minds.

We shall begin by asking ourselves why there is this longing to achieve, or to become something. What is it that you are seeking? And why do you seek? If we can 'open the door' by means of this (double) questions, then we may perhaps have a glimpse into something which is not illusory, and which does not have the transient quality of that which is merely pleasurable or gratifying.
So, what is it that you are seeking, and why do you seek it? Does not this very seeking instigate ( an inner state of) restlessness? But before we go into the more complex aspects of our inquiry, it seems to me important to find out what you and I, as individual human beings, are seeking. Obviously, the superficial answer is always to say "I am seeking happiness, fulfilment". We long for 'self-fulfilment', or for 'satisfaction' without looking to see if there is any reality behind these words. We give to the ( magic?) word 'happiness' different connotations at different times. We translate it in terms of what we call (inner) Peace, God, truth; we think of it as a heavenly abode where we shall be completely fulfilled, never disturbed, and so on. That is what most of us want, is it not? That is why you read the Shastras, the Bible, the Koran, or other religious books - in the hope of bringing ( harmony & ) quietness to our restless mind.

Seeking implies having an 'end' in view, does it not? There can be no search for what is unknown. You can only seek something which you have known and lost, or which you have heard of and want to gain. In a peculiar way, you already know what happiness is. You have tasted the flavour of it, the past has given you the sensation, the pleasure, the beauty of it; so you already know its quality, its nature, and that memory you project. But what you have known is not what is (now); your projection ( from the memories of the past ?) is not what you really want. Unfortunately, in our search for happiness & (self-) fulfilment, there is an endless struggle going on.
What is the compulsion, the urge that makes for seeking, not only outwardly, but inwardly? Surely, if you go deeply into yourself, you will see that you are seeking because within each one of us there is a ( painful?) sense of isolation, of loneliness, of emptiness, an inner void which nothing can fill. Do what you will, that (sense of inner) emptiness is still there, a void which cannot be filled, a loneliness which nothing can take away. That is the ( deepmost?) cause of our endless seeking, is it not? And if the ( meditating?) mind can go into this void and 'understand' it (non-dualistically?) , then perhaps it will be resolved.

At one time or another, perhaps while you were walking, or while you were sitting by yourself in a room, you must have experienced this sense of (total) loneliness, of feeling cut off from everything - from your family, from your friends, from ideas, hopes - so that you felt you had no relationship with anybody or anything. And without penetrating into it, without actually living with it, understanding it, the mind cannot resolve that ( deep existential?) feeling. One has to actually experience ( by full immersion?) this sense of complete isolation. And if one is capable of ( lovingly?) experiencing it, this sense of loneliness is a pure feeling, uncorrupted by the mind. If one is simply aware of this loneliness, if one lives with it, then it has the quality of pure feeling. (Experiential hint : have you ever really observed a flower? The very naming of the species, the very smelling of the flower, causes in you a certain reaction of memory, and therefore you never really look at the flower at all. Just try sometime looking at a flower, at a sunset, at a bird, or what you will, without any interference on the part of the mind ; it is only then that there is the complete perception of anything.)

This loneliness, this pure feeling which is a sense of total isolation, (should?) be (holistically?) observed as you would observe a flower: with complete attention, which is not to name it, or try to escape from it. Then you will find, if you have gone so far in your inquiry, then there comes a (choiceless ?) awareness, a state of complete negation.
I do not know if you have ever thought about the (inner) nature of Creation. It is in the state of negation (of the known?) from which all creation takes place. Whether you spontaneously write a poem, or smile without calculation; whether there is a kindness without a motive, or a goodness without a cause, it is all the outcome of this extraordinary state of complete 'negation' , in which is creation. But you cannot come to it if you do not understand (what is involved psychologically in the ? ) process of seeking, so that all seeking completely ceases. The understanding and cessation of (the psychological )seeking is not at the end, but at the very beginning. If you begin to inquire into yourself and perceive 'why' you seek, and 'what' it is you are seeking, you can capture the whole significance of it instantaneously; and then you will find that there is a complete transformation of the mind. It is only then that truth comes into being.

Truth does not come to a mind that is burdened with experience, that is full of knowledge, that has gathered virtue, that has stifled itself through discipline, control. Truth comes to the mind that is really innocent, fearless. And it is the mind that has completely understood its own seeking, that has gone ( meditatively?) to the fullest depth of this state of negation - it is only such a mind that is without fear. Then that 'extraordinary thing', which we are all wanting, will come. It is elusive, and it will not come if you stretch out your hand to capture it. You cannot capture the immeasurable. Your hands, your mind, your whole being, must be quiet, completely still, to receive it. The Immeasurable will be there when the mind understands this whole process of search, not at the end, but at the beginning - which is the continuous movement of self-knowledge.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Dec 2018 #134
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

6TH ( 'reader friendly' edited ?) K PUBLIC TALK IN MADRAS 1959


K: Some of us must have observed the (threads of) contradictory desires operating in ourselves and in others. Just as we have divided the earth into many conflicting parts, so also we are inwardly broken up into many parts, each part in conflict with the others. The earth is ( supposed to be?) ours, yours and mine, to be lived on, to be enjoyed, to be nourished, to be looked after and beautified. It is a total thing, not to be broken up. Yet we continue to break up the earth, just as we are broken up in ourselves; and this breaking up process is a source of constant deterioration.

Now, is there a ( state of ?) 'wholeness of being' from which total action can take place, instead of this self-(conflicted ) state with which we are so familiar? Why is the mind always broken up in its thinking, in its feeling, in its activity, in the very manner of its existence? If we can go into this problem deeply, perhaps we shall find an action, a way of living, a state of being which is not self-contradictory. But to be free of self-contradiction requires, not merely an outward change, but a revolution in the quality of the mind itself. Is it possible to bring about a radical revolution in the quality of our mind, in the ways of our thinking and feeling? Can one live with one's whole being (harmoniously integrated?) , so that the job, the technique, is not separated from one's daily thoughts and emotions? Is there a ( holistic?) way of living which is not fragmentary, not self-contradictory, but which is an integrated whole, like a tree with its many branches, many leaves? Is it possible to live in such a way that every action is a total action, every feeling is whole, every movement of the mind complete? Can you and I live totally, from the very depth of our being, so that there is no self-contradiction? If we can seriously go into this question, as two individual human beings, then perhaps we shall find the answer; and that is what I would like to do this evening.

Is it possible to live with a sense of harmony, beauty, with a sense of never-ending state of (creative?) action in which there is no sorrow, no repentance, no cause for regret? If there is such a state, then how is one to come to it? The state of total integration, of (holistic?) action, can come only when the mind is not forcing itself into a patterned ( standardised?) way of living.
So, there must obviously be a tremendous change inwardly, deeply, an inner revolution which will transform the manner of one's thinking and bring about a way of life which in itself is total action. And... why doesn't such a revolution take place? Let us go deeply into ourselves and discover the root of this problem.
The root of the problem is fear, is it not? There is a basic fear which has to be discovered - a fear much more profound than the fear of losing one's job, or the fear of going wrong, or the fear of outward or inward insecurity. But to go into it very deeply, we must begin with the fears that we know, the fears of which we are conscious - the fear of public opinion; the fear of losing one's son, wife or husband through the sad experience called 'death'; the fear of disease, the fear of loneliness, the fear of not fulfilling oneself; the fear of not attaining to a knowledge of truth, God, heaven, or what you will. The savage has a few very simple fears; but we have innumerable fears, whose com- plexity increases as we become more and more 'civilized'.

Now, what is fear? Have you ever actually experienced fear, or does the mind always run away from it?
Take the fear of death, you see the inevitability of death, and because you do not want to die, you are afraid of it. But you have never known what death is, you have only projected an idea about it; so you are afraid of an idea about (what might happen at the moment of ?) death. To really experience this fear, you must be totally with it, you must be entirely in it, and is the mind capable of living with fear, being a part of it? Can the mind go into that feeling; instead of avoiding it or trying to escape from it? I think it is largely because we are always running away from ( this major existential ) fear ( of not being?) that we live such contradictory lives.

Sirs, one is aware, especially as one grows older, that death is always waiting. And you are afraid of death, aren't you? Now, what is ( the psychological significance of?) 'death'? It is really the ending of (all the attachments to?) everything you have known. Whether or not you survive (as a non-material entity?) is not the point (of this talk ?) . You never go into the question of death itself, because the very idea of coming to an end, of entering the 'totally unknown' awakens ( a self- protecting mental ?) fear. Surely, to free the mind from fear, you have to know what it is to 'die' ( let go the psychological attachments to the known?) while you are physically and mentally vigorous, going to the office, attending to everything. You may read any number of books about the hereafter, but that is not going to free the mind from fear; because the ( time-locked ?) mind is used to just one thing, which is continuity through memory, and so the very idea of coming to an end is ( perceived with?) horror. The constant recollection of the things you have experienced and enjoyed, everything you have possessed, the (noble treats of?) character you have built up, your ideals, your visions, your knowledge - all that ( self-conscious continuity?) ) is coming to an end.

To be free of this 'fear of ending', surely I must inquire into the ( psychological) nature of death; I must experience its beauty, its tremendous quality. It must be an extraordinary thing to die (to the unbroken continuity of the past?) and enter into something never imagined, totally unknown.
Now, how is the mind to experience, while living, that 'ending' called 'death'? Can I not 'end' (the psychological continuity ?) while I am living? Cannot the (time-bound?) mind - with all its ( self-centred) thoughts, activities and memories - come to an 'ending' (of all it knew?) while the body is not broken down through old age and disease, or swept away by an accident? Cannot the mind, which has built up ( its own time-locked ?) continuity, come to an end, not at the last moment, but now? That is, cannot the mind be free of all the (residual?) accumulations of ( its personal ) memory?

You are (self-identified as?) a Hindu, a Christian, or what you will. You are shaped by the ( ancient culture of the ) past, by custom, tradition. You are greed, envy, joy, pleasure, the appreciation of something beautiful, the agony of not being loved, of not being able to fulfil - you are all that, which is the process of ( self-) continuity. You are also attached to your property, to your wife, ( not to mention?) your opinions & your ways of thinking.
Now, can you not come to the end of that ( illusory continuity of?) attachment? And why are you attached? Because without your 'attachments' you will be ( worth?) nothing; therefore you 'are' (identifying yourself with ?) your house & with your bank account, and/or to your job. You 'are' (continuing through) all these things. And if there is an ending to this sense of continuity through ( self-) attachment, a total ending, then you will know what death is. Can I drop ( my psychological attachments?) with the finality of death? When ( the actual ?) death comes, it does not ask your permission; it comes and 'takes you' (away?) on the spot. In the same way, can one totally drop hate, envy, pride of possession, attachment to beliefs, to opinions, to ideas, to a particular way of thinking? Can one drop all that (attachment package?) in an instant? There is no (question of?) 'how to drop it', because that is only another form of continuity. To drop ( one's psychological addiction to ?) opinions, beliefs, attachments, greed, envy, is ( synonimous to?) to 'dying' at every moment. If there is the coming to an end of all (personal) ambition from moment to moment, then you will know the extraordinary state of 'being (as?) nothing', of coming to the abyss of an eternal movement, as it were, and 'dropping over the edge' - which is ( a metaphorical image of?) death.

I want to know all about death, because death may be ( the Open Door to ? ) that extraordinary 'something' that lives and moves, yet has no beginning and no end. So for that I must (simply?) 'die' to everything I already know. The mind can become aware of the Unknown only when it dies to the 'known' - dies without any motive, without the hope of reward or the fear of punishment. Then I can find out what death is while I am living - and in that very discovery there is freedom from fear.

Whether or not there is a continuity ( of the spirit ?) after the body dies, is (educationally speaking ?) irrelevant ; whether 'you' are born again, is a trivial affair. To me, living is not apart from dying, because in living there is death. There is no separation between death and life, as the mind is dying ( to the known?) every minute, and in that very ending there is renewal, newness, freshness, innocence - not in continuity. But for most of us, death is a thing that the mind has really never experienced. ( Hint:) To experience death while living, all the tricks of the mind - which prevent the direct experiencing - must cease.
I wonder if you have ever known what Love is? Because 'death', 'love' and 'life' are one and the same; but we have divided Life, as we have divided the earth. Love, surely, is a 'total feeling' in which there is no sense of separation; it is a complete purity of feeling, without the separative, fragmentary quality of the intellect. Love has no sense of continuity. Where there is a sense of (self-conscious ?) continuity, love is already dead, and it smells of yesterday, with all its ugly memories, quarrels, brutalities. To love, one must die. Death is love - the two are not separate.

(To recap:) the fear of complete loneliness, isolation, of being (inwardly as ?) nothing , is the very root of our (inner) contradiction, Because we are afraid to be (inwardly attached to?) nothing, we are splintered up by many ( superficial?) desires, each desire pulling in a different direction. That is why, if the mind is to know (the true meaning of ) a total, non-contradictory action there must be freedom from fear. And you will find that only in ending is there a total cessation of fear - the ending of (living in the memories of?) yesterday, of what has been, which is the soil in which fear sinks its roots. Then you will discover that Love, Death and Living are one and the same (movement ) . The mind is free only when the accumulations of memory have dropped away. Creation is in ending, not in continuity. Only then is there the total action which is living, loving and dying.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Dec 2018 #135
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

7-TH ('reader-friendly' edited) K PUBLIC TALK IN MADRAS 1959


K ( Intro:) The ( inner) journey I am proposing that we take together, is not to the Moon, or even to the stars. The distance to the stars is ( metaphorically ) much less than the distance within our (real?) 'selves'. The discovery of ourselves is endless, and it requires constant inquiry, a perception which is total, an awareness in which there is no ( personal ?) choice. This journey is really ''Opening the Door'' to the (holistically minded) individual in his relationship with the world. It is because we are in conflict with ourselves that we have ( so many) conflicts in the world. If ( however?) we could really bring about a radical inward transformation, we shall be ( inwardly & outwardly ?) at peace and we shall know how to live rightly ( even ?) in a world that is corrupt, destructive & brutal.

I would like, if I may, to go into this question of Meditation, but the Meditation of which I speak has no 'goal', no 'end' (since ) Love is a state of being, a sense of radiancy and it is this (trans-personal?) Love alone that transforms the mind totally.
The 'meditation' with which most of us are familiar is a process of (mental) concentration based on exclusion, on building walls of resistance, is it not? You control your mind because you want to think of (nobler?) things, and you try to exclude all other thoughts. To help you to control your mind, and to exclude the unwanted thoughts, there are various 'systems of meditation' - and you will find in every case that some form of ( thought) control is practised - and what is implied in controlling ( one's thoughts?) ? Surely, it implies a ( dualistic) battle between what 'you' (the 'meditator'?) who wants to concentrate on the ( various threads of?) thought that wander off. Such 'concentration' is a form of exclusion - I suppress in myself what I do not like. I never look at it, delve deeply into it. I have already condemned it; and a mind that condemns cannot penetrate, cannot understand what it has already 'condemned'.

Also, there is another form of 'concentration' when you 'give yourself over' to something. The mind is absorbed by an 'image', as a child is absorbed by a toy. Those of you who have children must have observed how a 'toy' (or a smart phone video game?) can absorb them completely. When a child is playing with a new toy, he is extraordinarily concentrated. Nothing interferes with that concentration, because he is enjoying himself. The ( video ?) toy is so entrancing, so delightful, that for the moment it is all-important, and the child does not want to be disturbed. His mind is completely given over to that ( new age ?) "toy". And that is (pretty similar to) what you call 'devotion': giving yourself over to the ( sacred) symbol or to the image which you have labelled God. The image absorbs you, as the child is absorbed by a toy. To lose themselves in someting created by the human mind or hand, is what most people want as the 'concentration' achieved through (following) a system of meditation offers the ( promise of) attaining the 'ultimate' (inner) peace or inner satisfaction, which is what you really want.

Also, all such 'efforts' involve the idea of spiritual growth through time - if not in this life, then in the next life you will get there. Control and discipline invariably imply the effort to be, to become, and this effort places a (safe temporal ?) limitation on the mind – which is a most gratifying thing, because then you can see (or evaluate ?) everyday how far you have advanced in your efforts to become what you wanted to be. All of this involves the effort to expand the boundaries of (one's self-) consciousness (aka the 'I').
Also there is also another ( subtler ) factor involved, which is the whole process of ( recording & ) recognition.
All you know of life is a series of 'recognitions'. You 'know' your wife or your husband in the sense that you recognize them, just as your knowledge is based on recognition. So what happens? You also want to recognize the ( transcendental experience of the ) Unknown through meditation. You want to find out what God is, what Truth is, which means that you want to recognize the ( deepest principles of the?) Unknown; but ( be aware that?) if you can 'recognize' something, it is already (in the field of what was previously?) known. When you have visions of your particular ( 'Master' ?) or 'god' and 'goddess', these are the projections of your ( cultural) background, of your conditioned mind. The Christian will invariably see 'Jesus', or ( Virgin?) Mary, the Hindu will see Shri Krishna, or his ( local?) gods with a dozen arms, because the conditioned mind projects these images and then recognizes them. This ( imaginary ?) recognition gives you a tremendous satisfaction, and you say "I have found, I have realized, I know".

There are many systems which offer you this sort of thing, and I say none of that is Meditation. It is a ( reputable form of?) self-hypnosis, it has no depth. You are merely emphasizing the ( temporal?) 'self', which is nothing but a ( self-identified ) 'bundle' of associated memories (not to mention that) you are perpetuating, through your 'meditation', the ( ages old?) conflict between the 'observer' and ( whatever is) observed, in which the 'observer' is always ( jealously?) watching, denying, controlling, shaping 'the things observed'. Any schoolboy can play this ( mind-) game, and it has nothing to do with meditation, though the yogis, the swamis, the sannyasis, the people who renounce the world are all still caught in this pursuit of their own visions, however noble, which is a ( sophisticated?) process of self-gratification.

Then what is ( the authentic?) Meditation? Surely, you are in the state of meditation only when the 'thinker' is not there - that is, when you are not giving soil to the centre of the 'me', the 'self'. It is this centre that marks the ( temporal) boundaries of one's consciousness, and however much (or little?) it may try to help humanity, it can never be in the (holistic) state of meditation. You can come to that state of ( transpersonal?) awareness, which is meditation, only when there is no effort of suppression or control. It is an awareness in which there is no choice; for 'choice' implies an effort of ( personal) will (-power?) , which in turn implies (thought) control. It is a (holistically friendly?) awareness in which ( one's ) consciousness has no (self-imposed) limits, and can therefore give a 'complete' attention. ( Hint:) there is no ( holistic?) attention if there is a 'centre' (of self-interest) from which 'you' are attentive. Such attention implies a state of wholeness in which there is no 'observer' apart from the 'observed'.

( To recap:) ( The first & last step of holistic ) Meditation is really the freeing of the mind from the 'known'. This obviously does not mean discarding the technical knowledge required for the performance of your job, but it means freeing the mind from its ( 'psychological') conditioning, from the background of ( one's self-centred?) experience, from which all projection and recognition take place. The mind must free itself from the process of acquisitiveness, satisfaction and recognition. You cannot recognize or invite the Unknowable, that which is Real, Timeless. You can invite your friends (for dinner?) but you cannot invite the Immeasurable, that 'Something' about which you do not know anything.
And as Meditation is the freeing of the mind from the 'known', you must come to this ( fundamental inner ) freedom in the immediate, now, because through time you cannot come to the Timeless . The Timeless (essence of Life?) is whispering round every corner, it lies under every leaf. It is open to everyone whose mind is in the state of meditation from moment to moment. Only such a mind can receive that which is Unknowable.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 06 Dec 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Dec 2018 #136
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

8TH ("reader-friendly" edited) K PUBLIC TALK MADRAS 1959


As this is the last talk of the present series ( of public talks?) I wonder if it is not possible to go beyond the frontiers which the ( time-bound?) mind has imposed upon itself and 'act, think and feel' from a (holistically friendly ? ) state (of mind) while carrying on one's everyday activities. I think we can 'break through' the ( self-protective?) limitations which the mind has placed upon itself; because, after all, we have only one problem, namely the problem ( of self-interest expressing itself in terms ?) of 'me and my urges', from which all our other problems arise. I am not at all sure that we are even aware of our real problem. To know love, to feel the beauty of nature, to worship something beyond the creations of man - I think all this is denied to us if we do not understand our immediate problems.

So I would like, if I may, to 'think aloud' with you on this question of whether the mind can break through its own frontiers and go beyond its own (self-created?) limitations: because our ( materialistic?) lives are obviously very shallow and surely it is of the utmost importance to find out in what manner the ( psychological?) barriers which the mind has created for itself, can be swept away. That, it seems to me, is our fundamental problem. Through the so-called 'education', through various forms of social, moral and religious conditioning, the mind is (getting) caught up in a moving vortex of environmental influences. And is it possible for the ( totality of one's?) mind to break away from all this conditioning; so that it can live with joy, perceiving the beauty of things, feeling this extraordinary sense of immeasurable life?

I think it is ( experientially?) possible, but this ( can be achieved through?) a gradual process. It is done ( it happens?) instantly, or never. The perception of truth (and of the false?) does not come at the end of many years (of scholastic endeavour?) . There is no 'tomorrow' in ( a holistic approach to self ?) understanding. Either the mind understands immediately, or not at all. It is very difficult for the mind to see (the practicality of?) this, because most of us are so accustomed to thinking in terms of ( better luck ?) 'tomorrow'. But have you not noticed that ( any insightful?) understanding always comes in a flash - never through calculation, through time, never through exercise and slow development? The mind which relies on this idea of 'gradual comprehension' is essentially lazy.
Time is not going to reveal the truth, the beauty of anything. What really brings understanding is the state of ( integrated?) attention - just to be attentive, even for one second, with one's whole being, without calculation, without premeditation. If you and I can be (holistically?) attentive on the instant, then I think there is ( an actual possibility of?) instantaneous comprehension, a total understanding.

Why does it seem to be so difficult to give one's total attention to something ? Have you ever looked at (the beauty of) a flower with your whole being, or ( for a change?) to be completely aware of the ways of your own mind ? If you have done that (for homework?) , you will know that the clarity of total attention brings into focus any ( ongoing psychological ?) problem. I wonder if you are paying such attention (in the sense of being fully aware) to the ( self-protective?) blockages that your mind has created for itself? If you can become ( responsibly?) aware of these bondages you will find that they begin to 'break up'; and then comes a state of attention in which there is no ( personal) choice, no wandering off, because there is no longer a centre from which to ( choose or ? ) wander. That state of ( compassionate ?) attention is (called ) Goodness, and it is the only ( Holistic?) Virtue. There is no ( need for?) other virtue. It is only through such 'attention' that the Truth is seen; and it is ( the light of?) Truth that breaks the bondage, that sweeps away the limitations - not your ( personal?) 'effort', not your 'controls'.

To be in this state of attention requires, surely, an (experiential ?) knowledge of the 'me' ( of one's self-consciousness?) and its ( time-binding?) ways. ( A holistically friendly?) mind must know (become aware of?) the movement of every emotion, every thought. ( Experiential clue : ) Our past knowledge always colours ( puts a 'knowledgeable' spin on?) the act of direct knowing. We are concerned with here with 'knowing', and not with gathering self- knowledge, because the accumulated knowledge about oneself distorts the ( direct) knowing of oneself.

Look here, sirs. The 'self (- identified' consciousness?) , the 'me' is always wandering never still, like a river making a tremendous (mental) noise as it rushes down the valley. It is a living (self-centred entity?) ; and how can one have knowledge about something which is constantly changing, never the same? By the time the ( conscious?) mind has observed it, it is already gone (somewhere else?) . I do not know if you have ever tried to look at yourself, to 'pin down' ( to focus?) your mind to any one thing. If you do that, the thing you have 'pinned it down' and it is constantly before you - and so you have come to the end of ( the time binding accumulation ) of self-knowledge.
( In a nutshell:) Knowing oneself ( by direct observation?) ?) is never cummulative; it does not culminate in a point from which you judge the fact of what is the 'me'. You see, usually we first accumulate self-knowledge, through personal experience, or through reading ( the classics of psychology ?) , and from that (very knowledgeable?) background we say, "I know all (there is to know?) about the 'self'. It is greedy, everlastingly wanting to become something superior" – or whatever it is. However, the moment you take up a knowledgeable position, your knowledge is ( marketable but...) very superficial. But if there is no accumulation of knowledge upon which the mind rests, then there is only a movement of ( constant learning ?) and then the mind becomes extraordinarily swift in its perceptions.

So ( experientially-wise?) it is the 'self-knowing' that is important, and not (the quantity of ) self-knowledge. Knowing the movement of thought, knowing ( in 'real time' ?) the movement of feeling without accumulation - and therefore with never a moment of judgment, of condemnation - is very important; because the moment there is an accumulation, there is also a 'thinker (entity' trying to valorify it?) . The accumulation of knowledge gives an (apparently very stable ) position to the (thinking) mind, a centre from which to think; it gives rise to an observer who judges, condemns, identifies, and all the rest of it. But when there is ( a holistically friendly?) self-knowing, there is neither the 'observer' nor the (inner stuff being) 'observed'; there is only an ( awakened inner ) state of attention, of watching, learning.

Surely sirs, a mind that has accumulated ( tons of psychological?) knowledge can never ( be inwardly free to?) learn. If the mind is to learn (anything new ) it must be fresh, innocent, free of the past. The accumulation of knowledge gives birth to the 'me' (the 'thinker' pseudo entity ?) ; but ( a holistic ) knowing can never do that because knowing is (undissociated from?) learning, and a mind that is constantly learning can have no (has no need for a time binding ?) 'resting place'. If you really perceive the truth of this, not tomorrow, but right now, then you will find there is only a state of ( free flowing ?) attention, a learning (in real time?) with never a moment of accumulation; and then the ( psychologically related?) problems which most of us now ( enjoy having?) are completely gone. ( Hint : this is not a mental trick by which to resolve your unwanted problems, nor is it a lesson for you to learn).

You see, a society such as ours ( has become ) acquisitive, not only in the pursuit of material things, but also in terms of competing, gaining, arriving, fulfilling. This ( shared mentality of?) society has so shaped our ways of thinking that we cannot free ourselves from the concept of a 'goal', an 'end'. We are always thinking in terms of 'getting somewhere', of 'achieving inward peace', and so on. Our approach is always ( time-binding & ) acquisitive. Physically we must obviously provide ourselves with food, clothing and shelter. But the ( self-centred) mind uses these things as a means of further acquisition - in the psychological sense - so through gathering & using knowledge it establishes itself in a position of ( fool-proof?) psychological certainty. From this background of (personal & collective) experience we think and live, ( but the collateral effect of ) this process creates an inner state of duality ( me & you, us & them) , 'what I am', and 'what I hope to be'. There is therefore a (self-sustained state of ) 'contradiction', a constant battle between the two.

But if one observes this process comprehensively (or 'holistically'?) , if one really understands & feels its significance, then one will find that the mind is (becoming naturally & ) spontaneously good, alert, loving; it is always ( enjoying the inner freedom of ? ) learning and never acquiring. Then, obviously , 'knowing oneself' is infinite, there is no end to it. So our ( new existential?) problem is to abandon the ways of habit, of custom, of tradition, on the instant, and to be 'born anew'.

What I would like to commune with you about, is very simple: total 'self-abandonment' on the instant. Cannot the mind suddenly drop the ( time-binding?) 'anchors' it has put down into the various patterns of existence? Some evening when the sun was just going down, when the green rice fields were sparkling, when there was a lone passer-by and the birds were on the wing, it must have happened to you that there was all at once an extraordinary 'peace' in the world. There was no 'you' watching, feeling, thinking, for you were ( included in) that beauty, that peace, that infinite state of being. Such a thing must have happened to you, if you have ever looked into the face of the world, into the vastness of the sky. How does it happen? When suddenly there is no ( personal reason to?) worry, when you are no longer wondering whether someone really loves you (or... not?) , and you are in that state of Love, that state of Beauty - what has happened? The green tree, the blue sky, the dancing waters of the sea, the whole beauty of the earth - all this has ( momentarily?) 'driven out' ( silenced?) the self (consciousness ) , and for an instant you 'are' all that. This is this ( blissful?) state of self-abandonment without calculation. Now, to feel (more often?) this sense of self-abandonment, you need ( the integrated energy of) passion. If you have no passion, how can you be sensitive to the ugly, to the beautiful, to the whispering leaves, to the sunset, to a smile, to a cry?

I know you are all 'passionate' ( seriously motivated?) in getting a good job, or in being jealous of someone; but I am talking of something entirely different: a 'passion' that loves. Love is a state in which there is no 'me' ( no 'self-centred' consciousness?) ; love is a state in which there is no (mental) condemnation, no saying that this is good and something else is bad. Contradiction ( the conflict of duality?) does not exist in Love. And how can one love if one is not passionate? Love, I assure you, 'is' passion (for all?) . And without love, do what you will, it will be of no ( authentic ?) value; because when the heart is empty, without passion, without this extraordinary simplicity, there can be no self-abandonment.

Surely, the mind has abandoned its moorings ( in the field of the known?) only when there is no desire for ( temporal ?) security. A mind that is constantly seeking ( to improve its temporal ?) security can never know what love is. Self-abandonment is not the state of the devotee before his idol or his mental image. What we are talking about is as different from that as light is from darkness. Self-abandonment can come about only when you do not cultivate it, and when there is self-knowing. Do please listen and feel your way into this.

( To recap:) When the ( holistically friendly ?) mind has understood the (limited significance of the cummulative self-) knowledge, only then is there self-knowing; and self-knowing implies self-abandonment. When you have ceased to rest on any ( personal or collective?) experience as a ( fixed) 'centre' from which to observe, to judge, to weigh; the mind has already plunged into the movement of self-abandonment. In that abandonment there is sensitivity. In the very abandonment of its own ( self-protective?) limitations, the mind becomes sensitive and therefore innocent. And only the innocent mind knows what Love is. In that state (of All-Oneness?) there is passion; and without passion, Reality will not come near you. It is only the enfeebled mind that invites Reality; it is only the dull mind that pursues Truth, God. But the mind that knows passion in love - to such a mind the Nameless comes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Dec 2018 #137
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 1ST K PUBLIC TALK 1976 ('reader-friendly' edited)


K: We are going together to investigate into the whole psychological realm of human existence. (Starting with?) what is our actual relationship in our daily life with each other? If you examine it very closely, you have a (self-protective) image (making mechanism?) about yourself, a concept of yourself, and the person you are relating to has his or her concept about himself /herself . Right? If you have lived ( underthe same roof?) with another for a week, or a hundred weeks, you have already made a ( mental) image of each other, and the other has made a picture of you, Are you afraid to look at that picture? That (psychologival image?) has been built through many incidents of pleasure, domination, attachment and so on and so on and so on. Each one has an image of the other, and the relationship is between the two images. So our relationship is not actual but 'memorial' and therefore there is always in it division and conflict. For instance, if you have been hurt in this relationship , it is the (identification with that self-protective?) image that has been hurt.

And unless you can 'heal' that ( self-) image totally there must always be conflict. There are two problems involved : one is that you have been previously hurt in the past and because one is hurt one builds an (invulnerable?) wall around oneself in order to not to be hurt any more. And having built a wall round oneself ( a subliminal) division takes place. Now, is it possible - please listen - is it possible not to be hurt at all? ( You know what it means to be inwardly hurt? Any form of comparison is to hurt another. Any form of imitation, conformity, is to hurt another, not only verbally but deeply. And when one is hurt, out of that hurt there is violence) So our ( relationship related ?) problem is: is it possible never to be hurt? And having been hurt how to deal with the past hurts. And how to prevent future hurts.
When you say, 'I am hurt' what is this me that is hurt? Is it not the ( self- protective?) 'image' that you have ( spontaneously?) built about yourself? Please do look at it : this ( identitary self-) image is one of the factors which society, education and environment ( as well as yourself?) has built in you. You 'are' that ( self-) image, with the name, the physical form, the character and so on. All that is (becoming ) 'you', the ( self-) image which you are (subliminally identified with ?). And when that 'conclusion' about yourself is being challenged or disturbed you are feeling 'hurt'. So can you live (in the everyday relationships?) without an image about yourself so that it is possible not to be hurt at all? That is to have an innocent mind. The word 'innocent' in Latin a means a mind that is incapable of being hurt.

This is very important ( for optional homework?) to find out if one can live in the everyday life without the ( image making mechanism ?) , and therefore never to get hurt (psychologically ) . Which means never to have conflicts, never to have this psychological division ( distance?) between you and me.
So ( for starters?) one has to become aware that one has this ( self-created ) image which has been hurt in the past, & one has built a ( mental 'fire-) wall' round oneself, in order not to be hurt any more and therefore withdrawal, isolation.
(Secondly ?) how will you deal with the past hurts? Will you 'analyse' why you have been hurt and who has hurt you, go into it analytically ? Again look at the analytical tradition: we have accepted (psych)analysis as part of our ( modern?) life. Right? If you cannot analyse yourself you go to the professional. When you analyse, the analytical process is ( getting split between?) the 'analyser' and the (personal problem being) 'analysed'. Right? So there is a (potentially conflicting) division.

( In a holistically friendly approach ?) is not the 'analyser' the ( integral part of the problem which is being?) analysed? So you are creating an artificial division, when the 'analyser' is thinking (of himself) as being different from the analysed, but in actuality the analyser 'is' the analysed. Right? So there is a fundamental error (flaw?) in psycho-analysis. ( Not to mention that) the process of analysis takes ($$$ & ) time, days, months, years - you know the (mind) games that you all play, 'enriching' each other financially and emotionally and all the rest of it.
So there is a fundamental flaw in the process of analysis. But (if &) when one is (finally?) realizing that the analyser 'is' the analysed then how is one to be free of all hurts, of the past and (those coming up in?) the future?

Is this a real vital issue to be solved (ASAP?) by you? Do you feel the necessity of solving it? Otherwise you just play (hide & seek?) games with it. If it is essential that you solve this problem, which means the problem of man who has divided himself (from the his fellow-men) by calling himself a Christian, a Buddhist, a Hindu, a Muslim - you follow? - 'me' and 'you' , 'we' and 'they', then how is one to be free of past hurts? If analysis is not the way, what is one to do? (Hint  :)   Hurt and flattery are the same, aren't they? Both are leaving psychological marks?) You are flattered and you like it, and the flatterer becomes your friend. So these are forms of ( damaging or?) encouraging the ( self-) image. Right? So both are the same.

Now how am I, how is a human being to be free of ( past, present & future ?) hurts ? For this we have to go into the question of what it is to be attentive ? Have you ever given your total ( undivided?) attention to anything? Complete attention in which there is no ( self-conscious?) 'centre' from which you attend. When there is a centre from which you attend there is a (subliminal ) division (btw 'observer' & 'observed')
You know what it is to be aware of the trees under which we are sitting, aware of the branches, the colour of the branches, the leaves, the shadows, the thickness, aware of all the nature, the beauty of it. Then you are also aware of (yourself) sitting on the ground, of the speaker, the microphone. Now can you be aware of all this (but) without any ( personal) choice or judgement, just to look ? If you can do it, in that (quality of non-verbal) observation there is no ( self-conscious?) 'observer'. The moment the 'observer' comes in, the personal prejudice begins, the like and the dislike, I prefer this, I don't prefer that, division takes place. Right? So there is ( a holistical quality of ?) attention only when there is no ( self-conscious 'thinking ) entity' who says, 'I am ( conscious that I am) attending'. It is ( experientially?) important to understand this, because if there is such (integrated?) attention then you will see you will never be hurt again (psychologically ), and the past hurts are wiped away (ASAP?) . There is a (natural quality of direct  ?) awareness in which there is no personal choice, no judgement, merely observation, but the moment the 'observer' comes in ( & takes control?) then the 'observer' gets hurt (or flattered?) . Right?

Suppose that somebody calls the ( K) speaker a 'fool', arrogant, or this or that. To listen to that (insulting) word, to see the meaning (behind) that word and give complete attention to it, then there is no past hurt, or the future hurt because there is no ( self-identified ?) 'entity' who is observing (or...taking it personally?). I wonder if you get this (simple rule of thumb:) that as long as there is a division (btw observer & observed) there must be conflict ; and this (non-dualistic approach?) is very important in dealing with fear, with pleasure, with sorrow, with death & all of that. So ( for experiential homework:) can you observe the tree, yourself, your neighbour, or just observe Life completely attentively? Then can you (go inwardly ?) observe with total attention the ( self-) 'image' that you have about yourself? And when you give that complete attention is there any ( residual image-making ?) at all?

So when there is no ( self-protective?) 'image', & no ( lurking personal ?) 'conclusions' then what is the relationship between two human beings? You have understood? To have (an authentic?) human relationship is to have no image ( no 'imaginary firewall'?) whatsoever. But this is quite a complex question, because you have ( lots of residual ) memories. Can you be free of the memories of yesterday's incidents so that you are (inwardly 'as new'?) you follow? All that is implied. Then what is the relationship between two human beings who have no ( self-protective) images? You will find it out ( for optional homework?) if you have no image. That may be ( a mutual relationship of?) Love.
So can one live, actually in daily life without division - which also means without conflict ?
Do you want to have a 'dialogue' about this, a conversation between two friends who are concerned about the problem, who say, 'Let's go beyond words, and have an exchange, a friendly enquiry to solve this problem. Then it is 'fun' to discuss, to go into it.

Q: Sir, why does one try to protect the images you have of yourself in the first place?

K: That is fairly simple, isn't it? Because we all want our 'psychological' security. What would you be ( doing) if you had no ( self-protective?) image about yourself? Wouldn't you immediately feel at loss, insecure? We certainly need physical security, food, clothes, and shelter - they are necessary, otherwise you can't live. But is there a 'psychological' security at all? It is one of our deepest longing, but in actuality, really, is there (an all-time?) psychological security? I may have a marvellous 'image' about myself that gives me (inner) comfort, or I may identify ( myself) with something; but remove all that ( psychological shield?) and I become utterly empty, utterly lonely. But to have none of this, you are totally related with everything and therefore when there is total relationship with everything there is no fear of insecurity. I wonder if you get this?

Q: Isn't it necessary to have the cooperation of the ( unconscious layers of the ?) mind in order to be able to transcend itself & arrive at that position of no image?

K: You have put a 'wrong' question, if I may point it out. You have already divided the mind as being different from the (self-) image . The thought (aka ; the process of thinking within the field of the known?) has created the 'image'. Right? And the whole structure of thought is ( the active) part of the mind . ( We will perhaps go into the nature and the structure of thought tomorrow ) . It is thought that has created the ( self-protective mental) 'image', isn't it? You say something to me and I react to it, according to pleasure or pain, and that is the beginning of the ( self-) 'image' . And thinking is part of our mind. So when you see that thought in itself is the cause of ( inner) fragmentation, then you have to understand thought. We will discuss tomorrow, this question, I think it is important. Thought has made this ( psychological structure of the ) world - thought has made Christianity, thought has made Hinduism, thought has made all the ( socio-political?) divisions. And thought has also created wars - my country vs your country. So what is the place of thought? Do you understand? We will go into that tomorrow. It is a very complex question. And you have to go into it whether you like it or not because all your ( time-bound) life is based on thought.
Therefore, our action then is fragmented – the business action unrelated to moral action, and moral action unrelated to political action, and political action unrelated to religious action. So there is always in our human existence and relationship conflict, and therefore never a moment of peace.
Madame you were going to say something?

Q: I don't know that I really understood what you said today. To avoid being hurt, is it necessary to accept it for the moment without judgement, is that the concept?

K: I never used the word 'avoid'. I made it very clear, that the ( self-protective) 'image' which thought has created gets hurt. To be aware that you have these pictures, these images, that is the first thing, not to avoid it. Then to look at that ( self-identified?) image without any choice, without any judgement, of like or dislike, just observe it without the ( interfernce of the all controlling?) observer. Which is quite arduous madame, it isn't just a plaything. That means you must be very serious in this matter.

Q: In the moment ?

K: Of course. At the moment when somebody flatters you, somebody insults you, to give complete attention.

Q: What about if they love you?

K: If they say they love you, what do they mean by that 'love'? Has love a (personal ) motive? Does it help you to wipe away your loneliness? Does it cover up your sorrow? You understand? Is it an escape? Does it breed attachment?

( Parting words:) So, when one says, 'I love you', or insults you, or flatters you, give complete attention. Then you will ( eventually be able to?) find out how to live a life without a single shadow of conflict.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Dec 2018 #138
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ( reader friendly edited) K PUBLIC TALK OJAI 1976


K: We are going to talk over together this morning the (very complex?) question of 'thought'. All our actions are the result of thought, either ( surging) from the deep ( memories of the?) past, or from our immediate necessities according to ( the socio-economic?) environment.
So, what is ( involved in the process of?) thought? Why do we ( predominantly?) exercise that particular part of this whole brain which is thinking and why has it become such an extraordinary important factor in our daily life? And in examining why thought has become so extraordinarily important, we have also to go into the question of 'consciousness'. Because (the time-bound human ?) consciousness is filled with the 'things' of thought. Whether it is conscious or unconscious, deep down, it is still ( dominated by?) the (self-centred activity or?) 'movement' of thought, ( surging ) from the (memory of the?) past, meeting the ( challenges of the?) present, and creating ( a less or more realistic vision of?) the future. All that is ( involved in) the movement ( in the time-bound continuity of ?) of thought.

( Any form of material?) movement implies (or requires?) time, so thought is a ( self-centred mental?) movement which implies time and measure. And we act & live according to certain ( temporal threads & ) patterns laid down by thought, consciously or un-consciously. And it seems to one extraordinarily important to understand this question of thought because we are trying to find out if there is another ( 'holistically friendly' dimension of ?) consciousness which is not put together by thought. Therefore we must examine this ( self-centred?) consciousness as we now know it , which is filled with the 'things' of thought.
So : (a) What is the source of thinking? And ( b)  Why is ( our self-centred) thinking fragmentary?
So (a) one must discover for oneself ( as experiential homework?) what is the beginning of thought. Isn't thought a reaction to ( of ???) memory? 'Memory' is (containing all ) the stored up knowledge, ( accumulated) as (result of the personal & collective ? ) experience. So, the ( mental ) response of that memory is thinking. The source of thinking is in the ( stored memory of) past. And if you ( spend some quality time to?) examine, all our lives are based in the past, our 'roots' are in the past. (Hint:) There is a 'knowing' (in real-time of what is happening inwardly in?) the present only when there is a complete understanding of what the structure and the nature of the ( active memory of the?) past is, and ending it - which we will go into presently, if you are at all interested in it. So ( as it is now?) thought is the ( knowledgeable?) response of the (memory) movement from the past. All ( mankind's evolution from the distant ?) past (until now) is stored up in the ( collective memory of the?) brain as experience and knowledge.

And (b) Why is thought fragmentary? Why has thought built the ( various) divisions between people? As a' Christian', 'Buddhist', this and that, 'socialist', 'capitalist', the 'believer' and the 'non-believer' and so on. So we are asking: can thought see itself as a 'fragment' (of one's whole consciousness?) ? Or it can never see its own limitation, see its own fragmentary movement and therefore it can never see the whole. Now leave it for the moment there. We will come to it in a different way.

Does one realize, or 'see' (with the mind's eye?) that one's ( self-centred ) consciousness 'is' ( constantly identifying itself with ?) its ( past memory?) content? (In a nutshell:) The 'content' of consciousness makes the consciousness. (Eg:) If you are ( self-identified as?) a 'Christian', the ( past memory?) content of your consciousness is all the beliefs, the dogmas, the rituals, ( not to mention the personal?) attachments, the anxieties, the fears, the sorrows, the aspirations, the images which you have built about yourself and about others, all your conclusions, your prejudices, all that is ( the content of) your consciousness. Right? It is so. So your consciousness is filled by the 'things' of thought. Your experiences, your scholastic knowledge, the knowledge of your own experiences, prejudices and so on. So your consciousness is fragmentary. And because it is fragmentary, and therefore divisive, it must always be in conflict. Right? And thought realizes this and then says to itself, 'I must go beyond it' - through meditation, through control, through suppression, through various forms of enlarging consciousness. You are following all this? This is the ( mind) game we are playing all the time, holding on to our content, and trying to go beyond it.
So, ( this self-centred?) thought cannot see the whole, because the 'observer' (itself ) is a fragmentary (entity) . Right? It says, 'I am conscious of the limitations of my thought'. This observer 'is' (impersonating the all controlling memory of ) the past. And therefore the ( psychological memory of the ) past, which is fragmentary, makes every action fragmentary. You see the 'past' is the knowledge, experience, all the things that human beings have gathered together for centuries and centuries, as knowledge. And we (like to?) think that time will make us progress , evolve, grow (inwardly) , a 'psychological' tomorrow, where I shall be able to achieve enlightenment. So there is ( an objective chronological?) time and (a virtual) psychological time. Now is there a 'psychological' time at all? Or it is the invention of thought? I wonder if you are getting all this?

Look sirs, and ladies, one wants to find out after seeing the movement that is going on in the world, and in ourselves, which is the ( psychological image of the outer) world, one wants to find out if there is an action not based on a (mental ?) conclusion. Don't you want to find out such a (way of?) action which is whole, and therefore complete, in which none of the regrets, or the 'poisonous' ( psychologically toxic?) movements, enter into it. I think this is what (the natural) intelligence in the human being demands, and not being able to find it he invents ( the need for ) an 'outside' agency.
So we are going to find out if there is a (holistically friendly ) action which is whole, sane, healthy, rational, and therefore 'holy'. That is, why has thought invented the ideal (behaviour?) ? The ideal is the opposite of 'what is'. So there is the division between 'what is' and that 'ideal' (behaviour?) , and hence conflict. Thought, being fragmentary, is not capable of dealing with 'what is' in the present. It thinks it will ( eventually) understand by creating an ideal, and trying to follow that ideal and therefore bringing more and more conflict. But if one is capable of looking at the present, the actual, the 'what is', without without the ( self-projected?) ideal, then you meet the actual.

( Story time:) I have been told by the scientists that in observing a (living) cell, by merely observing it the very transformation is taking place in the cell. Some of you must know this, scientists and so on. By observing the ( living) molecule the very observation is changing it. Now can one (similarly) look at 'what is' without a 'prejudice' (without a pre-judgement?) . Can you look at 'what is' without the ( prejudiced ?) 'observer' who is the past? Look: one is envious, which is a common thing, unfortunately. Envious of people, you know what envy is, I don't have to describe it. How do you regard, look at that envy? Are you looking at it as a (separate) 'observer' who is different from envy? But the fact is you 'are' (the creator of) envy. Right? You are not an (objective) observer who is different. So the observer 'is' the observed. This is really very important to understand (experientially) . When you have grasped the truth of this, that the observer 'is' (actually not separate from) the observed then 'that ( feature) which is being observed' undergoes radical change. What ( constantly) prevents such a radical change of 'what is' is the ( knowledgeable?) interference of the observer, who is (impersonating the crystallised mentality of the ?) past. Understanding this is significantly important because this removes altogether all conflict. We are educated to accept the division of the observer and the observed, as the ( all controlling) observer is trying to do always something about the observed. He says, 'I am envious, I will find it reasonable to be envious if I am not envious what will happen in the society', or 'I must suppress it, rationalize it, or justify it'. Which are all a process of ( inner) conflict, but the actual fact is, the observer is the observed. Right? And therefore the division ends. And when there is observation only of the fact, the 'fact' undergoes a radical transformation. This is a scientific (proof?) . You understand? When you are angry, which is a (very popular ) form of violence, when you observe that you are angry, in that observation there is the observer who says, 'I must not be angry', or 'It is right to be angry' - isn't there? Right? You are following this? So there is a conflict between the observer and the observed. Right? Out of that conflict we have all kinds of violence and so on and so on. So can one live a life in which there is no conflict whatsoever? Which is to be perfectly sane.

So one wants to find out a way of living in which there is no conflict, in which thought, which is the movement in time as measure, which creates division, and whether thought can realize its own limitation, and function where it is absolutely necessary, and not enter into the psychological field at all. Are you getting all this? Thought has built the 'psychological identity' , which is 'me', my ego and all the rest of it. And thought is fragmentary, therefore what it has created, the 'me', is fragmentary. And then thought says, 'I must integrate with the whole' - which is an impossibility.
So there it is. And our consciousness is filled with the things of thought. Therefore our consciousness is fragmentary. So is there a ( wholistic dimension of?) consciousness which is not fragmentary? Do you understand my question?

Audience: Yes.

K: Good! By Jove, it takes a long time, doesn't it!
So can thought (or...the thinking brain ?) realize itself, that it is a fragment, and whatever movement it makes must be a fragment, fragmentary, and is there an action which is not fragmentary and which can only take place when the observer is the observed, and watching, that which is undergoes a radical change.
Now the next point is: is there a ( dimension of) consciousness which is not put together by thought? Now how are you, a ( thoughtful?) human being, going to find out if there is a consciousness which not put together by thought? Man has tried this for millennia. You understand? It isn't just now we are trying it. He has said there must be another consciousness which is not this kind of consciousness. And when the ( temporal) thought is completely under control , then perhaps I will know what the other is'. And this is the whole basis of meditation, whether Zen or other forms of meditation. Control thought. And they have never said, 'Who is the controller?' The controller is still the thought. I wonder if you see all this.

So, to come upon that which is not put together by thought, we not only have to understand the right place of thought as ( practical) knowledge and where thought has no place whatsoever – not 'suppressing' it. And it is only possible to give knowledge its right place when you have understood the ( dualistic) nature of our thinking. That is, the 'psyche' , the ( self-centred ) entity as the 'me', has been put together by thought - 'me', my temperament, my desires, my ambitions, my peculiar idiosyncrasies, my experience as opposed to your experience. Those are all the result of (a dualistic attitude of ?) thought. And thought has its right place, otherwise you couldn't speak & understand the English language. Is this clear? That thought as knowledge has its right place, but it has no place in the 'psyche', which means, can this whole ( egotistic?) structure of the psyche cease to be? Then only there is a totally different kind of consciousness - which you will never find through 'transcendental' meditation - it is a good word that has been spoiled, by ( salesmen of?) 'cheap' meditation. Do you understand?

( To recap) We have examined the nature of thought. We said thought is a material process, matter, because it is stored up in the brain, part of the living cell, which is matter. So thought is a material process in time, in movement. And whatever that movement creates is 'reality', so can thought, which is fragmentary, which is caught up in time, mischievous, violent, all that, can that thought find truth, truth being the whole, that which is sacred, holy?
You know all this demands ( a lot of?) meditation. This is ( the purpose of ) real meditation - whether ( the self-centred) consciousness, which is its content, can ever expand to include the ( Universal) Consciousness of Truth. Or this ( self-centred) consciousness has to 'end' before the perception of what is Truth. What is this 'me' to which one clings so desperately? The vanity, the arrogance, the desire to achieve, to become successful, you know be somebody. What is the nature of it? How has it come about? Because if that exists the 'other' cannot be. You understand? As long as that psychic centre exists, Truth cannot possibly be, because Truth is the whole .
So how is the ( self-centred) mind, the mind being all the senses, the emotions, the memories, the prejudices, the principles, the ideals, memories, experiences, the totality of that, which is the psyche, which is the me, how is that to end and yet live in the world which is now? Is that possible? To find that out one must go (for optional homework?) very deeply into the question of fear, the very complex problem of pleasure, because pleasure is very complex, fear is fairly simple, pleasure is what one demands; and the question of sorrow, whether sorrow can ever end. Man has lived with sorrow for millennia upon millennia. He hasn't been able to end it. And one must also go into the question of what is death. Because all that is involved in the matrix of the 'me'. So this is a very, very serious affair. It is not just a thing to be played with. One must give one's whole life to understand this. To live in this world completely, sanely without the ( ego-centric?) psyche - you understand - to live here, in this ( pretty?) mad world where there is so much corruption, where politics are divorced from ethics and therefore there is corruption. To live in this world sanely, without the psyche, the 'me'. Do you understand? This is a tremendous question. That requires a mind that is capable, can think meticulously, correctly, objectively, having all your senses fully awakened, not drugged by alcohol, speed and all the rest of it. Do you understand what all this means? You must have a very healthy ( condition of) mind. And when it is drugged by smoking, drinking (list is open ...) all this destroys the mind, makes the mind dull.

So the next time we meet we will go into the whole question of fear. When we go into questions of these kinds, fear, pleasure, you must end it, not carry fear with us afterwards. Whether there is an ending to fear, that is important to find out, not what to do with it, which we will come to. Whether it is possible for a human mind to have no psychological fears at all. And when there are no psychological fears then you will understand the physical fears, which are very simple to deal with. So when we are going into these questions, as we have done this morning, the whole problem of consciousness, its content, the psyche, whether one can live, a human being can live in this world without the ( egotistic?) psychological structure. I don't know if you have ever put that question to yourself. If you put that question, don't answer ( ASAP?) by saying, 'We must all be one. We must love all people'. That is all just the movement of thought still. But to find out the way of living in which the psychological torment, all the movement doesn't exist at all. That requires tremendous examinations, accurate thinking. So when we discuss, talk over together next Saturday fear, please bear in mind that we go into it so that we end it that morning, completely. Because otherwise we just, you know, we play with things. Therefore this is a very serious affair. Right ?

Are there any questions?

Q: What is your impression of the conclusion that truth is the correct perception of reality?

K: If it is an (intellectual?) conclusion, it is not worth examining. No, don't laugh, please. If thought has examined it, and come to a conclusion, then whatever it has concluded is still within the realm of fragmentary thought. But out of a ( holistic ?) perception which is giving ( to the temporal?) reality its right place, by seeeing all the implications of freedom from fear and so on, then Truth is.

Q: In you talks you use the word 'image' very often. I would like your definition of it. I took a psychology class and the ( standard) definition was that a (psychological) image is the ability to reproduce any of the five senses, without the senses being directly stimulated. For instance, I can see the (mental image of the?) tree with my eyes closed. I would like to see if your definition of it coincides with this definition.

K: I would rather not give definitions. One can look up in the dictionary and it says that 'image' comes from the imagination, to imagine the tree, or to imagine what I think I am. Now, what is important, it seems to me, is to find out for yourself if you have a (subliminally self-identified?) image about yourself, why you have it, whether it is an actual reality, or it is fictitious, whether put together by thought (by wishful thinking?) and therefore neurotic, and act according to that neurosis. You understand? So find out please for yourself (as experiential homework ?) if there is an image, a picture, a conclusion that you have about yourself.

Q: Can a fragmented mind do that?

K: Of course it can. But you are asking a much more complex question, which is: can thought become (fully) aware of itself? Watch it. Look at yourself. Can your thought be aware of the ( various threads of its ?) thinking? Aren't you aware when you tell a lie? Aren't you aware of the beginning of a lie? Aren't you aware at the beginning of anger - if you have ever looked (inwardly?) . If you are a little watchful ? So thought (the thinking brain?) can be aware of itself.

Q: In the observation of that is there a ( holistic?) change?

K: Do you observe ( whatever is going on inwardly ?) without an idea? Or do I observe something, abstract it into an idea, and I live according to that idea, not according to the ( ongoing ?) fact. I don't know if you see this? So to observe implies no idea, no conclusion, no prejudice, ( in short?) that means no (personal interference of the?) 'observer', who is the (mental entity impersonating the?) past. So to look without the observer, is that possible? Then only that which is observed ( non-dualistically?) undergoes a radical transformation. It is the ( all-controlling) 'observer' that prevents transformation. I wonder if you have got this ? Because the observer is the past.

Q: The observation of thought without the observer, is that (what is meant by?) ' the thought observing itself'? Or ( the observing mind ) has transcended itself in the truth of observing thought?

K: Are you asking, sir, about the ( holistic?) observation of thought? How do you observe anything?

Q: Not with (using) thought ?

K: Just go slowly and you will find out. When you say, 'I have observed', what you mean by that? In the observation are all your senses fully awakened? Or only you observe in a ( partial) limited way? You understand my question? When you 'see' the tree, which is part of the observation, are all your senses totally awake, then only you are 'seeing'. But if you merely look with your eyes and the rest ( of the senses have) gone to sleep, then you are not (fully) observing. So to observe oneself: I want to know myself, what I am. I want to have a full knowledge of myself without any deceit, without evasion, to see actually what I am, not condemning it, or accepting, but to observe it. How do I do it? Do I observe it as an outsider looking in? You follow? Or there is no outsider but only 'observing'? I wonder if you get this....

Q: If we have created an image of ourself and we lose that image, we are feeling empty.

K: If we lose the (reassuring) image ( we have ) of ourselves we are (feeling) empty. So you are filling yourself with a lot of ( occupations & ) 'things' which are not real, which are just words. So when you remove the words - see what you are doing - when you remove the word, the name, the form, the furniture to which you are attached, you are (feeling like being) 'nothing'. So you are frightened to lose the ( psychological ) 'furniture' and being nothing. See what you have reduced yourself to - that you 'are' ( inwardly identified with ) the 'furniture'. Can you look at that fact? Observe that fact. Please do it now. You will see what takes place. You are attached to a furniture, husband, wife, whatever it is, attached. You are attached to some 'thing'. Are you aware ( of the fact?) that you are attached? Then are you aware 'why' you are attached? Because it gives you comfort, it helps you to escape from your ( sense of existential) loneliness, from your boredom and so on and so on. So you are attached because of ( the fear of?) loneliness - suppose that is (the actual cause) . Now look at that loneliness, observe it, not translate it saying, 'How appalling, I am frightened' - just to observe it. Now if you observe it without the 'observer', which I have explained carefully, then 'that which is observed', which is your 'loneliness', undergoes a radical transformation. It is the fear (of letting go the things of ?) the past, that prevents the radical transformation. Right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Dec 2018 #139
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

OJAI 1ST K PUBLIC DIALOGUE ( reader friendly edited) 6TH APRIL 1976


Krishnamurti: We are going to have a 'dialogue'. The word 'dialogue' comes from the Greek 'dia-logos', which means, to express ( or to share?) through words one's profound inner thoughts. Probably most of us don't want to expose ourselves too much, but we still could have a ( decent ?) conversation

Questioner (1) : Education, and maybe of the approach according to different ages.

Q (2) : I wonder if we could go into that problem of thought and what is often thought of as the 'absolute mind'.

Q (3) : I want to discuss the problem of after you awaken the ( intelligence?) energy in you and your parents curse you & turn you out (they didn't do this until I spoke of and told them that a certain energy had awakened in me) what do you do then, when you have nowhere to sleep, nothing to eat?

Q(4) : What is our function as a human being, why are we here ?

Q(5) : Why do I desire a mate, why aren't I enough?

Q( 6) : Why do you say one shouldn't escape from the world in which one lives actually and not escape into some monastic world?

K: I think if we could take one issue which may be related to all the others : what is the function of ( a holistically friendly?) learning?

Q: Can't such an education teach you how to learn, not just teaching you facts ?

K: That's what we are asking, how to learn (holistically?) . First of all, one is a human being, totally related ( consciousness-wise?) to the rest of other human beings in the world. And I can learn about myself by reading the book (of mankind?) which is (in) me, because I am the world. So how am I to learn to look at myself, which is the vast area which the traditional education doesn't explore ?

Q: Don't you have to have desire to learn first?

K: Do you have the desire to learn about yourself now & here? Do you see the importance of learning about yourself because if you don't know about yourself what can you know ( at first hand?) about life? Do we have that urgency, or you just say, tell me all about it ?

Q: It depends on how serious one is. When you are confused you realize that we have that problem but we forget it. We are confused, we make mistakes, we don't know what's going on, then we have serious concern but most of the time we forget about it.

K: Look, if I want to learn about myself, I must find out what it means to learn (by direct perception?) . And what it means to observe. There are two things involved in it: (a) what it means to observe and (b) what it means learning through observation ?
(a) What does it mean to look, the art of looking? You understand? The ( original meaning of the?) word 'art' means to put everything in the right place, where it belongs, that's the meaning of that word art. The artist is someone who 'puts everything in its right place'. So we are giving a new meaning to 'art of observation' , what does it mean? How do I observe, not only ( within ?) myself, (but also what is going on in?) the world around me, the politicians, the businessman, the priest, the wife, the husband, the educator, you follow, how do I observe it?

Q: You look with your eyes, you see outside, but if you look with your mind, you look inwards.

K: We are coming to that. First how do you look at those mountains? You are sitting there with your eyes open and you see those mountains, that range of mountains. What is your reaction when you look at that?

Q: I don't think we ever have a reaction, at least very rarely, we are not even looking at them .

K: That's it. But (supposing that?) I am going to 'look' at those mountains and find out what my reactions are : there is visual sensation, there is visual perception, there is sensation, isn't there. Then what takes place?

Q: You name it ?

K: You look at that mountain and there is the sensory response of beauty, the shadows, the depth, the line of it, the valleys and you say, that's a mountain. Then you verbalize ( the perception?)  : ' it is beautiful'  . In that verbalization you have already moved away from observation, haven't you?
So ( for a change?) can you observe without verbalizing, just to observe without naming? ( And inwardly?) can you observe ( whatever is actually going on within ?) yourself without saying, 'good', 'bad', or get depressed - just to observe ?

Q: That's so much harder (if one looks as a self-identified 'observer'?) .

K: Don't make it harder (than it is?) just (try to?) 'do' it! What we are trying to find out is the 'art of learning' ( by direct observation) - can I observe ( non-verbally ?) the tree, the things around me, what is going on in the world, and ( by the same stroke?) observe myself, see actually what I am without any interpretation, without judgement, just to look at myself - which is the complex structure of my human activity? My ( personal ) ambitions, my greed, my arrogance, my ( cultural) tradition which says, 'there is God', or 'there is no God'. Can I look at all these various complex (multiple threads of ) activities in myself? Probably one never has done it. Right?

Q: How does one know what is 'the right place of everything' in the art of observation ?

K: That's a good question, isn't it? How is one to know to put things in their right place? I'll show you : ( by realising the truth that?) I don't know, and ( from this new position of freedom from the known?) I am going to find out. You follow? So I start with ''I don't know'' and I begin to observe. ( for instance?) I see there is a 'contradiction' (or a conflict of interests ?) in myself . So I must find out ( not just ?) why I am in conflict and what is ( the nature of this?) conflict, but also if the mind can ever be free from conflict, and then (everything will fall into?) its right place. You have understood?
Right? So what is ( the nature of my inner?) conflict? Why is a human being divided in himself, self-conflicted & contradictory ? Why is there an inner conflict?

Q: Because you don't trust your true feelings ?

K: Your feelings ( if dominated by self-interest?) may also be contradictory. My ( gut?) feeling says, eat more, and my mind says, don't eat more. So feelings can't be trusted.

Q: How about trusting one's intuition ?

K: Intuition, that's one of the most (slippery?) things, isn't it?

Q: Then, I am in conflict when I am dividing 'what is' from 'what should be' ?

K: That's right. But we are educated, trained to (pursue the?) 'what should be', so there is a (time-binding inner) contradiction. So as long as there is a contradiction I will not know what is the right thing to do.
So (b) What is the nature of self- contradiction? Is it between two opposing desires? Or between opposing objects of desire? Or being uncertain I say one thing, and do another? So I say to myself, why does one live in contradiction ? Why doesn't one live (inwardly with the actual facts of ?) 'what is', not with ( the virtual reality of?) 'what should be', which is ( generating ) a contradiction ( a subliminal conflict of interests?). Why can't I live with 'what actually is'? Do look at it : one is envious, live (& deal with?) with it (directly?) , not have the (mental projection of the?) opposite ?
( One reason for which?) we don't 'live with it' ( is that) we don't know what to do with it. If you knew what to do with it (and were willing to transcend it?) then the opposite (inner quality?) wouldn't ( have to?) exist. Have you understood?

Q: If you have a habit you can't learn about it if you are trying to change it – yes?

K: Look at it. If I have a ( very bad?) habit, be aware with all your senses, don't say, 'I must not do that', that brings a duali(stic mentality?) and that means ( an additional?) conflict.
(To recap:) as we don't know to do with our envy, we move away from it (in projecting ) the ideal image of a human being who is not envious, who doesn't have any envy, ( assuming ) that it must be a marvellous state. So you move away from 'what is', from the fact of envy. Right? Now, when you don't move away what takes place? Yesterday we were talking about the ( bio-) scientists are saying that when you look at a cell through a microscope, as you are observing it is undergoing a transformation. Now we are saying, as you observe 'envy' without ( projecting) its opposite - just to look at it, the very process of ( transpersonal?) observation is transforming the envy totally.
( In a nutshell:) When the ( all-controlling?) 'observer' says, ''I must do something about it'', there is a ( perceptive ) division (a psychological 'distance' ?) between the 'observer' and the (ongoing) 'fact of envy'. When you look (as through) the microscope without the 'observer', then that ( psychological entity?) which is envious undergoes a radical change because you don't waste ( potentially intelligent?) energy in justification, condemnation or rationalization. Right? And when through that you have that energy, that ( focussed perceptive?) energy transforms the 'fact' of envy.
I wonder if you get it, if you don't.... it's up to you. Let's get on with (the public dialogue ?)

Q: The energy of habit is one thing, and the energy of observation is another. But these two energies are not different, are they ?

K: They are ( coming from) the same (origin?) , of course. So, if you have understood this principle, that when you rationalize, justify or condemn you are wasting energy, the energy that is needed to observe 'what is'. Whether it is any kind of feeling, any kind of reaction, any kind of prejudice and so on.

Q: How does one 'look' at envy?

K: Aren't you ( openly or subliminally) envious? Aren't you? Can't you look at it, know the feeling of it? Envy means (implies a subliminal ?) comparison, doesn't it ? I compare myself with you who are more intelligent, more bright, more clever and all the rest of it, taller, beautiful, and all that. I compare myself with you. So where there is comparison there must be envy. In that envy there is ( also involved) imitation, the desire to conform to the pattern. All that is implied in being envious. Now you mean to say you can't 'look at it'? Can't you look at the feeling of envy as it arises? Of course you can.

Q: What about ( your ?) judgement (of it) ?

K: It is a ( psychologically?) wrong question to ask, ''How am I not to judge it ?''. But ( unfortunately?) you have been used to judging and therefore you say, ''how am I not to do it ?'' Now if I ( would ) tell you ''how not to do it'' then your old ( cultural) tradition and the new ( holistically friendly?) tradition will be in battle. I wonder if you see all this. Whereas if you say, look, I am envious, I am going to watch it, I am going to see whether I am comparing myself with anybody. And we are 'educated' (or simply enjoy being competitive?) to compare ourselves: if I am poor and you are rich, both physically and psychologically, I am envious of you because I want to be as rich as you. You mean to say you can't know this (kind of) feelings as they come up? Can't you watch that?

Q: If my envy says, I don't want to sit here and be watched, I want to go out there and express myself?

K: Go ahead and do it.

Q: I mean, it won't sit still for you to watch it.

K: ( Then...) go ahead and do it. Be caught by it. That's what we are all doing (in various degrees?)

Q: How is it possible to be the same energy that can observe and also that justifies?

K: When I twiddle my fingers, isn't that energy? When I condemn it, isn't that part of that same energy?

Q: I don't see how ( qualitatively?) that is the same energy.

K: Ah, no. I am afraid you have not understood what I said. Supposing that I am envious. Envy implies comparison, measurement, imitation, conformity. Now are you watching it with a (hard?) feeling of condemnation, with a judgement, or just 'watching' it? Because condemnation, justification, rationalization are a wastage of ( one's total inner?) energy, the same energy which ( if integrated?) is needed to focus all your attention on 'what is' which is envy. Because when you condemn, justify, rationalize, it is the observer, the past which says, condemn, the past says, judge, the past says, it's quite all right. So the ( active memory of the?) 'past' which is also ( time-bound?) energy, when you don't waste that energy you have that energy to observe. Understood now?

Q: Is that ( energy qualitatively?) different from the past?

K: Yes, totally different from the past.

Q: Sir, are you saying that one 'is' that energy of the habit, the envy?

K: Of course.

Q: One's consciousness is that. I mean it is absurd to say you 'are' the energy.

K: Let's find it out. When you think, you are using energy, aren't you? When you feel, that's a form of energy. When you get angry, envious, afraid, that's all energy, isn't it? Envy, jealousy, anger 'is' you and so on. That whole complex structure is you, which means 'you', the ( self-identified, active memory of the?) past.

Q: Sir, when you look at envy and see that you are envious, you also see you are judging envy. Will that energy of observing the fact that you are judging the 'fact' that you are envious, will that energy transform the judgement?

K: You see you are still ( stuck in?) judging . Why do we judge? Which means you have a preconceived opinion, no? Your brain is forming 'opinions' all the time, it is part of your education, part of your tradition to ( evaluate & ) judge. So you ( are constantly?) prevent yourself from 'looking' (non-verbally?) .

Q: Thought creates the ( overall) 'image' and through that image I understand. How can I understand without the ( mental) image?

K: Thought creates a ( psychological?) 'image' ( or a 'conclusion' out of its cultural ?) prejudice. You see how we are trained, educated, conditioned to operate always with judgement, opinions. And that you call ( intellectual?) freedom.

Q: I can't see my envy because I can't even see the mountains...

K: That's just it, sir. So how am I to learn (holistically?) about myself ? By observing it, looking at this ( inner & outer) world which 'is' me without any judgement. So there is a vast field, a complex area in the human mind which has not been explored. So this (inner) micro world 'is' (one with?) the large world if one knows how to look at that small little world.

( In a nutshell:) ( The holistically friendly?) learning implies that you can learn about yourself only when the ( previously known?) accumulated experience doesn't interfere with the actual ( live ?) observation of 'what is'. When I look at myself, this 'myself' is something constantly moving, it isn't static. Haven't you noticed that one moment it is (self-satisfied &?) 'peaceful', the next moment it is ( getting?) angry, the third moment it is pursuing some ( self-rewarding?) pleasure, it is constantly ( engaged ) in (some form of ) action, movement. And also I have learnt by ( mentally ?) looking at myself something about it. Right? That becomes an experience, that becomes the knowledge, and with ( that updated ?) knowledge I look ( at myself) the next time. See what has happened ? I look at the present movement ( within myself?) with the ( aid of my) past knowledge, therefore I never 'look' (directly?) . So can I look at ( what is actually going on in?) the present movement without the past (previously known?) experience impinging upon it?

Q: How can I ask myself this question, ''Can I look without the past knowledge ?'', if I 'am' the past knowledge ?

K: Can one look at oneself without the ( inteference of the?) 'observer' who is the ( self-identified memory of one's ?) past?

Q: One has to 'be in the present', it is the only way.

K: Now, what does that mean, ''you have to be in the present''?

Q: To forget ( about ) the past  and to observe what is going on ?

K: Can you observe without the past?

Q: I can see the ( memory threads of the?) past 'pop up'. I can see in the present the past coming forward.

K: Sir, be very simple. ( Suppose that ) I flatter you, or I insult you. That is registered in your memory. Right? Now the next time I meet you can you 'forget' (about ) those ( past ) insults or the flattery and look at me? That is the (living in the ) 'present', isn't it.

Q: Sir, this is the same thing as saying, ''can you watch yourself without 'you'''.

K: That's right.

Q: Well, I don't understand that.

K: ( Living in the 'memory field' of the known ) you 'are' the past, aren't you? All our knowledge is the ( result of the ) past. Suppose that I read the Bible and it says that ''God is looking after me''. So I live with that idea for many years, and you come along and say, 'Don't be silly, that's a ( cultural) prejudice'. And you say, 'I can't get rid of it, it is so part of me'. Of course it is part of 'you'. He ( the Speaker) says, don't ( try to ) get rid of it but look at it, observe it, don't fight it.

Q: What happens then to the ( subliminal separation btw the ) 'observer' and the 'object' observed?

K: What happens when the ( self-identified memory of the?) past doesn't interfere with the thing observed ?

Q: 'You' don't exist any more ?

K: You see this is all guess work. What is the observer? Is he not ( impersonating the active memory of ) past? Which is his experience, his prejudice, his knowledge. The' observer' in essence 'is' the past.

Q: So, there is only ( a pure) observation then ?

K: When there is only (a pure, non-verbal) observation, that which is observed undergoes a radical transformation. I wish you would do it and find out (for extra homework?)

Q: Is anybody doing it besides yourself?

K: Sir, look, I want to find out if there is a way of living without conflict, right through my life, not just for a few minutes. Right? No civilization, no culture, can exist in ( a psychological environment of?) conflict - as the modern world is living, it is destroying itself. So as a human being related to the world, I say, is it possible to live without a single conflict? As a ( holistically responsible?) human being living in this chaotic world you must find out.
So can a human being live in this modern culture without a single conflict in himself? (Yes) he can - iff one goes into it very seriously you will find out. That is, conflict exists as long as there is ( any self-centred) 'fragmentation' in oneself. And this fragmentation is between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. As long as there is a division between the observer and the observed there must be ( inner & outer) conflict.

Q: It seems that our divine wholeness is covered over by the illusions of self and other things, fragments.

K: How do you know you are a divine wholeness?

Q: I have experienced that there is an (inner) wholeness, which gets covered over by the fragments that we examined during all this weekend, fragments of self and other things. And you were saying that these divisions are fragments and not the discovery of the wholeness.

K: Sir, just take, 'what is', don't let's imagine that we are 'perfect', just take actually what is going on outside of us and inside, actually.

Q: A life without conflict, without sorrow, without pain, isn't that a statement of perfection?

K: It is not ( intended as ?) a statement of perfection. Human beings suffer, one asks is there an end to sorrow. But it doesn't mean one wants to live a perfect life, I don't know what a perfect life is.
So (as of now?) inwardly there is ( a psychological) division as the observer and the observed. But once you see the truth of it, that the observer 'is' the observed, then all conflict ends, then you won't be fighting that which is observed.

Q: After you have eliminated the conflict does the division remain?

K: No, of course not. How can it remain?

Q: Then there is wholeness?

K: Find out ( for homework?) what it means to live wholly. The word 'whole' means healthy physically, to think clearly, objectively, rationally, and it also means 'holy', sacred.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Dec 2018 #140
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ( 'reader friendly' edited ) K PUBLIC TALK Ojai 1976


K: ( Today) we have to understand this question of fear, as it is a ( serious ?) human problem, not only in this country, but everywhere – and if one single human being understands radically this problem of fear, and resolves it instantly, he affects the whole consciousness of mankind. This (personal & collective?) consciousness is the result of time, of thousands of incidents & experiences that are put together (collected & processed?) by thought. This ( temporal?) consciousness of mankind is in constant movement. It is like a Stream, a vast River (of Time?) of which you are a part. And if you go into it very deeply, there is no (self-centred?) 'individuality'. 'Individual' actually means an entity who is undivided, indivisible, who is not fragmented, a whole human being - such a man is an (integrated?) individual. But most of us unfortunately are (inwardly) fragmented, divided and we have the arrogance to call ourselves 'individuals'. Actually, if you look at yourself very deeply, you are (inwardly ?) like the rest of the world - unhappy, self-concerned, confused, frightened and all the rest of it.

So we are going together to explore this question of fear and whether you can end the 'psychological' ( component of fear first, and then ( if there is some time left ?) the 'biological' fears. You understand? The fear of losing a job, fear of not being successful, fear of death, fear of not being loved, fear of loneliness, isolation, fear of deep insecurity, the fear of being dependent and losing that dependency, fear of not doing the right thing, or the fear of following the rest of the crowd and being left behind. You know what fears are.

So ( for starters?) we are going to enquire very seriously whether our 'psychological' fears can end at all. You understand the ( vast existential?) implications of it? Man has never been able to psychologically be free of fears. Fear has burdened his mind, darkened his outlook, and as he does not know how to deal ( holistically?) with these fears, he 'escapes' from these fears, into violence, brutality, arrogance, bitterness, you know the whole human bag of ( psycho-) tricks. So what is the root cause of fear? Please look into yourself as we are talking. Use the words as a mirror to discover your own fear and find out as you observe the root of it, the fundamental cause of fear. So, what is the root of fear? Is it not being able to find ( a sense of) complete security, psychologically, inwardly? Is it that we don't understand ( the nature of psychological?) time? Is it that we are seeking permanency, something that will endure, that will last? Is there the uncertainty of not being? So we will go into it.

First let's look if there is ( any long term ) security psychologically, because if we are seeking ( to constantly optimise our personal ?) psychological security, we are implicitly creating insecurity in the outward world. What is the 'psychological security', inwardly? What do we mean by ( feeling inwardly) secure? (An inner state of being) certain, enduring, so that nothing can break it down. Is that what you are seeking in the relationship between each other? In having (lots of?) knowledge and depending on that knowledge to give us stability? And isn't ( thought's self- projected continuity in ?) 'time' one of the factors of fear? If you were confronted with the (truth of the?) fact that ( inwardly-wise?) there is no 'tomorrow', the inner foundation ( of one's being?) is shaken, because tomorrow you are (looking forward ?) to have greater pleasures, tomorrow you will be better (off) , tomorrow you will achieve (the ultimate success?) , or tomorrow you will get rid of your ( existential anxieties & ?) fears. So is there a 'tomorrow' psychologically ? 'Tomorrow' means ( thinking in terms of continuity in ?) time - ( the self centred?) thought, which is in itself fragmentary, has created ( & projected its continuity in) time psychologically, in which you will move from 'what is' ( today) to 'what should be' (expected tomorrow?) . So is ( thought's projection of its own continuity in ?) time a factor of ( psychological) fear?
We must examine all the various factors that may be the cause of fear - like time & thought, the desire for certainty, the demand for a relationship in which there is complete permanency, and therefore psychologically total security and then we will see how to look ( holistically?) at fear.

The 'me' that says, 'I must be'. 'I must meditate', 'I must find God", 'I must realize', 'I must be happy', 'I am lonely', 'I must be successful', 'I am frightened', 'I must be told' - what is that 'me'? Is it not ( a subliminal self-identification with ?) the name, the form and with the image about yourself, the image that says, 'I am much better than you are'. Are they not all put together by ( our self-centred) thought? Thought itself is a fragment (of man's total consciousness?) , and the activity of that fragment is not only the 'me', but the fragmentation it has created right round you. Separate nations, separate classes, wars, the whole of that and thought is a material process in time. Thought is the response of memory, experience, knowledge, stored up in the brain, and the response of that is thought.

So the ( temporal ?) 'me' is a fictitious ( entity?) to which we cling (jealously ?) and which becomes tremendously important. And we say that may be the root cause of fear, clinging to something that is non-existent. So, there is this fictitious, imagined 'me', an ( identitary self-) image, put together by thought in (the course of) time, which is a material process and measurement; and being uncertain of its existence, deeply, in the very depths of one's being, that may be the deep fundamental cause of fear.
Which doesn't mean if you have no 'me' (no self-identifiction?) you cannot live in this world. On the contrary. I will show you (how?) in a minute.
Now can you look at ( the unbroken continuity of ? ) this ( self-identified mental?) image ? That is the 'movement of time' and the 'ending' of that movement is putting a stop to time, which is one of the major factors (check-points?) of Meditation, so that 'time' comes to an end, (inwardly). So we are saying the cause of our deeply rooted fear is the movement of thought in time, which is a material process, which has created an artificial structure called the 'me', and having created it thought clings to it, clings to a fragment which it has created, and thought itself is a fragment. Fear in relationship, because in relationship we have created the image of you and me. And we cling to this ( self-) image, and we are frightened of losing that image.

So after having described in words the nature, the quality, the structure, how it is put together, this thing called 'fear', can you look not at the description but at the actual inner 'fact' which is described? That is, can you observe it? And it is very important to learn how to observe. Are you the 'observer', different from the thing observed? If there is no ( qualitative ?) difference between the observer and the observed, then there is only the observed. Right? Then there is only the (self-sustained process of ?) thinking , not a 'thinker' different from its thinking.
So can you look at fear without the ( mental distance created by the?) 'observer'? Because you 'are' (both the creator & the victim of?) fear ; fear isn't different from you. Right? If you are feeling different then you try to control it, then you try to rationalize it, then you try to do something about it. But if the observer 'is' the observed you can't do anything about it, you are that. Now (for meditation homework try to?) observe that (gut reaction ?) which is fear, without the 'observer'. You understand?

( To recap:) There is this problem of fear, which we have described (rather hectically?) , and we can go on adding to that description a great deal, much more, but ( for starters?) what we have described is 'good enough'. And one realizes in observing that fear, that this fear (of not becoming or not being?) is not different from ( 'me') the 'observer' . When the observer 'is' the observed there is a fundamental change in that which is observed. If you don't waste ( the potentially intelligent inner ?) energy (in the 'observer vs observed' conflict?) , and that only takes place when the observer 'is' the observed, then you have that ( holistically ?) 'immense' energy to transform 'what is', the very observation is the energy which transforms that which is. Then you will see that you are totally free from 'psychological' fears.
If you have paid ( undivided?) attention this morning, listened to it with all your heart and your mind, then when you get up, walk home, you are free of fear. That means you have 'listened'. That means it is ( now ?) your problem, and it is absolutely necessary to solve it, not tomorrow, but instantly. That is, when you perceive (the whole truth about ?) something then you act instantly, and that perception is only possible when the 'perceiver' ( realises that it ) 'is' ( not separated from that which is ) perceived, because there you have a total (holistically integrated ?) energy. As we explained the other day, some scientists have said that when you observe So when there is total observation, that is only possible when there is no observer - the 'observer' being the ( all-controlling memory of the?) past - when there is that total attention given to observation, 'that which is (being) observed' undergoes a fundamental transformation. Got it? (If yes...then ?) Do it!

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Dec 2018 #141
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

4TH ( 'reader friendly' edited) K PUBLIC TALK, OJAI 1976


K: Today we would like to talk about) pleasure and sorrow. We are going to go deeper into this ( double sided ?) problem, which ( karmically-wise?) is much more complex than fear. But before we go into this we must understand ( the subtle distinction between ) what is 'reality', and what is 'truth' as it is rather important when we go into the question of pleasure and whether the human mind can ever be free from sorrow, or must sorrow continue endlessly.

So what is ( our inner ) 'reality' ? All the psychological structure put together by thought, the 'me', and the 'not me', the 'I' and the 'you', 'we' and 'they', the communist, the business world , all that area of the psyche is the ( man made?) reality, along with the neurotic behaviour, the illusions & the beliefs, also that is (our everyday ) reality. But obviously, the world of nature, the trees, the mountains, the lakes and the beauty of nature – which are not created by thought, but it is also part of the real world . And ( we are trying to) bring order in this ( man made?) reality which thought has created as the 'me', as the you', the divisions between nationalities, beliefs, dogmas, all that, in that confusion there must be order because without order no (holistically friendly?) culture can come into being. As we said, order has been (traditionally?) regarded as mechanical, conforming, following a particular pattern, moralistic, laid down by society, or by the sanctions of religion and so on and so on. So one has to find out why our ( temporal) mind, which is (dominated by ) thought's ( self-centred activities & ?) movement, why is it mechanical? ( Hint : by 'mechanical' we mean a movement that has a cause with its effect, and the effect becoming the cause, which is a process of a chain movement, that is mechanical.)

We are (trying?) to find out if there is any part of the brain which is 'non-mechanical'. Or is the whole structure of the brain, of our mind, mechanical, repetitive? And we say (any living process?) which is 'mechanical' must always have a 'cause' – and the cause becoming the effect and the effect becoming the cause for the next effect is a process of psychological enchainment, binding. As long as that process exists there must be mechanical activity. Right? That is, if one acts according to a particular pattern established by experience as memory, and act according to that memory, that is ( time) binding, that is 'mechanical'.
And our daily life becomes ( slowly but surely?) a 'mechanical' (repetitive & programmable?) process. You have had certain experiences, certain incidents, which have become a memory, and according to that memory thought responds, and pursues in that circle, in that cycle: that is mechanical. And ( the self-centred process of?) thought, which is based on ( the past collective & personal?) memory, is mechanical.

So thought ( thinking within the field of the known ?) is mechanical. But the ( thoughtful part of our?) mechanical thought says, 'I must bring order in the things which I have created'. That is, in the world of (the man made?) reality, in the world of human relationship, fear, pleasure, sorrow, it says, 'I must bring order'. ( The self-centred activity of?) thought has created (a generalised psychological ?) confusion and now it says, 'I will bring order in the things which I have created (in the past?) , which is rather messy, confused'. And that is what is happening politically, and that is what ( many?) religions have done, ( with the result that?) all our human relationship has become (orderly , but...) mechanical. Right?

Now we are enquiring: is there an action, a way of living, which is non-mechanistic, which is not based on the movement of thought as time? Do we understand that as long as there is ( a 'non-stop' mental ?) activity in that mechanical existence of our life there must be more confusion, more sorrow, more violence, more everything. ( If yes, we can proceed ?) to find out if there is an action which is 'non-mechanistic', a ( holistically friendly ?) way of living which is not based on the mechanistic ( recycling?) repetition of memory, conforming to a pattern, a way of living in which there is no conflict , a way of action which is free of regrets, free of any form of corruption, an action that doesn't leave a ( psychological?) residue, that doesn't create contradiction, that in itself is the flowering of ( an universally integrated?) order?
( Hint : ) We are asking for a total insight into the ( limitations of the man-made?) reality which thought has created, having an insight into that structure. 'Insight' means having a ( very clear?) 'sight in'.

First of all let's look at the ( ages old?) question of why does the human mind pursue ( safety &?) pleasure (at all price?) ? Why is there this immense (collective?) demand for pleasure? Which is, following the easiest ( sensory rewarding ?) way of action, the most comfortable way of living, the 'easy' relationship of sex and all the rest. This pursuit is not limited only of physical, sensory pleasures, but for the psychologically (rewarding?) pleasures, & the 'ultimate' pleasure for (finding?) God, for (reaching?) Enlightenment and so on.
I do not know if you have ever asked that question what is ( the karmic effect of the constant search for  ? ) pleasure? (Hint) This is a very important point to understand : it may be the 'other side' of the coin of fear. And as most human beings do not know how to deal ( holistically?) with fear, they pursue constantly pleasure. So we are asking: is this pursuit of pleasure 'mechanistic' ? Through ( the pressures of our materialistic?) culture, through tradition, through our habits, environment and so on, ( a predominant ?) part of the human brain, has become mechanistic ; so we are asking : what is ( the nature of our drive for?) pleasure? Is it the ( sensory rewarding?) repetition of a certain 'delight' of yesterday, which becomes a (psychologically loaded?) memory and the mechanistic pursuit of that memory as 'pleasure'? Therefore is ( our pursuit of?) pleasure mechanistic? It is very important, for those who are really serious, to find out why we human beings have been caught in this everlasting pursuit of pleasure.

Now what is the difference between ( the time-binding pusuit of?) pleasure, enjoyment and joy? There are three things: pleasure, enjoyment and joy. ( Hint:) The ( hedonistic?) pursuit of pleasure you can cultivate, but can you cultivate Joy? Joy comes uninvited : by some curious chance you find yourself suddenly, extraordinarily, unspeakably happy. (Unfortunately?) then thought takes it over and says, 'I must have more of it'. So the moment thought interferes with that ( feeling of?) joy, which is uninvited, it becomes pleasure, therefore ( pursuing ) it becomes mechanistic. And that is ( leading to?) a ( materialistic?) way of living, which is constantly repetitive, constantly going over ( reviving?) something that is already dead, making it 'live' through thought and pursuing that as pleasure.

Can't you just look at something beautiful and enjoy looking at that tree and the clouds, and the light ? That's ( a time-free ?) enjoyment. But when thought comes in and says, 'That was a most lovely thing', it (the living experience of joy?) is already finished. So can you (for optional homework?) watch the beauty of nature, the beauty of this world, with all your senses and not let ( the self-centred process of?) thought come in? Therefore 'enjoyment' is a completely (time-free action ?), but when thought takes it over, it becomes 'pleasure' and (its pursuit?) becomes mechanistic. This ( can be ) experimented with it (even) now, as we are talking: look at the trees, the sunlight, the beauty of the hills, the shadows, the playing of those shadows among the hills, the valleys, (just to) look at it. Isn't a ( pure) delight to watch it without thought coming into it and 'end' it there, not wanting to continue it.
( In a nutshell:) What has ( a temporal ?) continuity becomes mechanistic, while in that which has an ending there is a new beginning.

Now, ( iff?) you had an insight into ( the truth of?) this, you have found something ( very significant ?) :that the action ( generated?) through insight is not mechanistic. Got it?
So, we found out that acting according to insight and/or ( holistic?) intelligence is a non-mechanistic action. What is ( the holistic action of?) intelligence? As we explained very carefully, in watching the shadows, the mountain, the clouds, and seeing the beauty of it, and ending it, and not giving thought an ( interfering?) movement in that, you had in insight into it, and as we said ''How true that is !'' that to act according to that insight is non-mechanistic. Have you got it?

(To recap:) We have pointed out that whenever thought takes over the moment of ( pure joy or?) delight, it becomes mechanistic. You saw (the truth of?) that, didn't you? The perception of that is ( a direct action of?) Intelligence, isn't it. Can you act always according to that intelligence, not according to the repetitive movement of thought? Do you see the (qualitative?) difference? That is, the activity of the senses plus thought is (the beginning of any time -binding ) desire. How did you see the (truth of?) that? You see it because your ( natural?) intelligence is observing it. That intelligence is not the product of thought.

Now we are going to enquire into this question of sorrow. I do not know if you have even considered why man has lived with sorrow from the ancient of days, and we are asking something (relatively new?) which is: can sorrow end? If there is no ending to sorrow there is no compassion, there is no love.
We (generally choose to ignore it, or ?) think there is no solution to suffering, therefore we must escape from it. And we have developed a marvellous network of ( psychological ) 'escapes'. So, what is sorrow? When you suffer, when there is this thing called sorrow, which is pain, grief, loneliness, a sense of total isolation, no hope, no sense of relationship, or authentic communication, a total isolation - don't you know all this? Man has lived with and perhaps cultivated it for millenia , because he doesn't know how to resolve it. And we are going to find out, share together this question and find out if there is an ending to sorrow, because without the ending of sorrow there is no love. When there is (the compassionate intelligence of) Love will there be ( the darkness of?) sorrow? You might have sympathy, kindliness, generosity, sharing, but love is a totally different dimension (of universal consciousness?) , which only one can come upon when sorrow ends.
There is sorrow when someone dies whom you 'love', and you feel utterly lonely when you have lost that upon which you have depended. Or when someone whom you 'love', or at least you think you love, and it is not returned, or when your beliefs in which you have found a false (a fake?) security are shattered, when your mother, father dies, or son, brother dies there is sorrow. You all must know this, but I do not know if you have ever asked yourself deeply whether there can be an end to human sorrow.

Now what actually takes place when you suffer? Not biologically, physiologically, but psychologically (or existentially?) , which is much more penetrating, much deeper, much more excruciating. So, what takes place when we are (finding yourself engulfed ) in sorrow? Apart from emotional sentiment, tears, apart from all that, what takes place? As we don't know how to understand sorrow (holistically?) , or seen what is involved in sorrow, we have not (yet ?) had an insight into sorrow. But if you remain with the totality of suffering, without the ( interfering?) movement of thought, then you have all that energy to comprehend (at once?) that thing which you call sorrow. That is, to remain ( or abide ?) without a single movement of thought, with that which you have called 'sorrow'. Then if you remain with that there comes a ( qualitative energy?) transformation in that which you have called sorrow and that becomes 'passion'. ( The Greek root meaning of sorrow is 'passion') . When you escape from it, you lose that ( wholistic?) quality which comes from sorrow, which is complete passion, which is totally different from 'lust and desire'. So when you have an (illuminating?) insight into sorrow and remain with that thing completely, without a single movement of thought, out of that comes this strange 'flame of passion'. And you must have this passion otherwise you can't create anything.
And out of this passion comes compassion - a passion for all things, ( including ?) for all human beings. So there is an 'ending' to sorrow. And only then you will begin to understand what it means to love.

So (in a nutshell?) one has to have an insight into fear, that is, insight into relationship, insight into the whole structure and nature of thought, thought that breeds fear, that pursues pleasure and the ending of sorrow. If you have an insight into all that you have (free access to?) that ( Love, Compassion & ) Intelligence that transforms your mechanistic activity into something totally non-mechanistic. Right?

( Parting words:) Don't plan to 'go home and think more about it' ! You have no time. It must happen 'now' ( or never?) because ( the time-bound ?) thought will prevent it, thought has no insight; but when you look at the ( whole) picture we have pointed out and have an insight into that, it must take place instantly, ( in the timeless?) 'now' ; so 'thinking about it' at home is just a waste of time. When you are sharing ( the truth of?) something, you are sharing (& seeing?) it now.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Dec 2018 #142
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

5TH ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K PUBLIC TALK, Ojai 1976


K: This morning, we would like to talk about Love, and also a very deep problem which is Death. We are concerned with living which includes dying also. And going ( experientially?) into all these problems, investigating them, sharing together, is part of this thing called Meditation, of which we'll speak about tomorrow morning. (
So what we are talking about is very serious. Either you listen completely, share it wholly, or you merely pay passing attention and carry on with your daily confused, unhappy lives. So please bear in mind that we are sharing this thing together, sharing implies that one must be ( spiritually?) hungry to find out (the truth?) , hungry to taste the things that are 'real'. The speaker may 'paint a picture' verbally, but unless we go beyond (K's verbal description) and see the 'fact', we merely then play with words.

We are going to now go into this question of what is Love. It is a question that one must investigate, not accept what love is, or define it, or come to some abstract conclusion what it should be because those things have no value at all. But to find out actually in our daily life what is implied in that word, the full significance of that word, because we are using that word so slackly. We have loaded that word with so much meaning, mostly sensual. So we must, if we may, use that word, knowing all the complications of that word, the meaning of that word, and explore together, share the structure and the nature of that thing called 'Love'.

So (for starters we are ?) asking whether love is ( related with ?) desire. Apparently for most of us, 'love' is intimately connected with desire. Sexually, psychologically, biologically, spiritually, all that is involved in that word. So what is the root of desire, how does it come into being in each one?
So what is the beginning of desire? Most organized religions have said that in order to serve God, you must be free of desire. And so the monks, the Indian sannyasis try to suppress desire and in that process of repression they identify themselves with a (holier?) image, with a name and thereby they think they have solved the problem. They are burning inside with desire but they suppress it through ( performing ) rituals, through self-enforced discipline, through every form of conformity, effort. So this has been a great problem for human beings who are very serious to find out if there is a ( Timeless?) Reality - if there is Truth. Because desire breeds illusion, desire breeds 'experiences', and when you cling to an experience that becomes an illusion. So one must go into this question of what is desire very carefully, deeply because we have identified 'love' with desire.
Is not desire ( a self-centred ?) 'sensation' ? Sensations plus (the self-centred) thinking is desire. No? Though one states it, that is, sensation plus thought is desire - is that ( 'psychological equation' seen as a true?) fact, or just a statement of an idea? Can you 'look' ( holistically?) at something, with all your senses, completely? And in that ( non-verbal?) 'looking' not let thought (taking over?) the ( natural) activity of sensation? That is, when you look at something, the trees, the mountains, the human being, the face, at the endless movement of the sea, to look at it with all your senses, with all your 'eyes ears and nerves' , look at it completely and not allow ( the 'thinker' & its?) thought to interfere with it ? Then your perception is whole (holistic?) . Whereas when thought interferes with that sensory perception it becomes fragmentary. So ( the thought-sustained process of ?) desire is fragmentary. And we have unfortunately identified desire with that thing called love. So we are asking: is love desire? And also, is ( selfless?) love ( associated with?) pleasure, sexually, and in all its different manifestations? Pleasure as we went into the other day, is what most ( materialistically minded?) human beings pursue endlessly, outwardly as well as inwardly. If there is a psychological pleasure, which you call (a significant personal?) 'experience', and retaining that experience as memory and pursuing that memory, then ( capitalising ?) that 'experience' becomes a ( thought-certified?) pleasure. But if you have an 'experience' of whatever kind, pleasurable generally, or miserable, and 'end' it (stop thinking about?), not let thought take it over.

And is 'love' (also involved in?) attachment? Is 'love' (a convenient name for one's emotional?) attachment? You may be attached to ( the cozy comfort of?) your house, to a (highly regarded ?) ideal, to a belief, to a person - what is the meaning of that attachment? When you have totally identified yourself with something, you 'are' that ( or... that psychological identification becomes an integral part of the psyche ?) . And why is this ( collectively shared?) urge to 'identify' (with anything ? ) ? Does not ( any personal) attachment breed fear - because he may lose it? Being ( subliminally?) attached you may become jealous, frightened, anxious, which are obvious ( collateral?) phenomena.
( In a nutshell:) You are attached because of your own ( inner) insufficiency, or loneliness. And so out of your own (psychological) insufficiency, a sense of lacking, you (instinctively?) cling to another. So is attachment (akin to?) love? ( Hint : Where there is attachment there must be a reciprocal exploitation) . And we use this ( all-purpose?) word 'love' to cover up all this. Do you follow (inwardly?) all this?

So when you have understood that this (sense of existential) emptiness in oneself can never be filled by something else, none of these not escape from it, but observe it totally, you will see that loneliness goes completely away. and perhaps one will know what (selfless?) love is. So when you strip yourself of ambition, anxiety, attachment, and understand deeply the meaning and the significance of pleasure and desire, then you perhaps come upon that strange thing called Love. And out of that comes Compassion, which is the highest form of intelligence. When you have compassion and therefore intelligence, you will do the right thing at the right moment. I hope you are following this - not verbally (or intellectually?) but actually in your hearts, in your minds, & doing it.

And there is this other question of what ( the inner meaning of ) death is (as an undivided ) part of life. Without knowing what is implied, to shut ourselves away from it, to escape from it, to avoid it, not to talk about it, is to divide life, which is a total movement.
So what is our daily living? A (long series of?) conflicts, pleasures, ( material worries?) & ( existential?) uncertainty, with occasional ( intervals of pure ?) joy, which is totally different from pleasure? This is what we call living. And we cling to that endless struggle, and say that is 'living'. And what then is dying? The ending of this so-called 'living'? Or ( an actual opportunity of ?) ending this immense Stream (of collective consciousness ?) which man has created (by living in) conflict, sorrow, pain, anxiety?

So there is a biological death - the physical body dies by constant usage and our brain as it gets older it generally deteriorates. You should have noticed it, it is called 'senility'. But inwardly (the real question is : ) can the brain stay young and not deteriorate? Is there a way of living without effort and therefore have a brain that is always young, fresh, active, decisive. I'll go into it if you are interested because it is possible.
Is one ( ever becoming fully?) aware of the constant battle ( going on within )oneself, trying to 'be' something, trying to imitate, trying to conform, becoming the ideal, which is the mechanical (time & thought ) process.

Is one aware of that without any ( personal?) choice, just to look at it, because if you introduce a (mental?) effort you have already destroyed ( the holistic quality of?) it. So can one observe (non-verbally & ) without any choice, the ( time-bound) mechanical ( activity?) of the brain, or rather, of that part of the brain which has been so ( heavily) conditioned for centuries upon centuries to act mechanically - just to be aware of it ? Not to correct it, not to alter it, because then again, in that alteration comes conflict. As we said where there is duality, difference between the observer and the observed there must be conflict. ( Hint:) When there is no observer but merely observation then there is no conflict.

And if one is (so non-personally?) aware during the day of all the mechanical movement, of the ( self-centred?) ways of your thinking, desire - to be totally aware of all this during the whole day, then at night when you go to sleep, the mind, the brain is quiet because all your problems, all your activities have been dissolved during the day. So when you go to sleep there is peace, the brain may be in movement but it is a 'quiet' movement, therefore the brain brings order in itself.

So what is ( involved in the 'psychological' dimension of ) death? Apart from our biological ending, what is it that we are so frightened of? Is it the ending of our ( hedonistic?) experiences? The ending of our (addiction to?) knowledge? The ending of all the things that we are attached to, psychologically? When the biological death takes place whatever you are attached to does end. You are not going to carry your (physical?) house, your furniture, your books and not even your gurus . So what is it that human beings are so dreadfully frightened of ? They are frightened of ending something inwardly. And knowing it is going to end then we say there must be a continuity ( of the Soul?) . And the ancient Hindus said there is a continuity, which is called reincarnation ; you will be reborn next life according to what you have done this life, if you have behaved properly, decently, morally, ( according to the law of ?) 'karma' – in the next life you are going to be better. So through a series of incarnations depending on the present activity, present behaviour, present morality, through a constant series of lives you will ultimately come to the Highest Principle. And also there is the whole Buddhistic attitude, that life is in a constant flux, a constant movement and when that manifests there is an enclosure taking place which becomes the 'you', the 'me', which through time, through constant movement undergoes a change. And of course the Christians have their own belief, in resurrection, because they believe that their own deity woke up from death physically.

Now, we are saying something entirely different. And if you really understand this thing you will see, that ( deep down within oneself?) there is a timeless movement, a timeless state - which we are going to go into

As we said ''the world is you, and you are the world''. Whether you go the human beings radically, basically are afraid, anxious, in sorrow, confused, unhappy, with occasional joy, psychologically it is a constant movement - it is the same streaming (of collective consciousness?) . The same Stream, therefore ''you are the world and the world is you'', that is a fact. Therefore ( in it?) there is no ( authentic ?) 'individuality'. Individuality implies an indivisible entity and you are not like that- you are divided, broken, therefore you are not actually an 'individual', indivisible. (However?) you ( may?) become totally an 'individual' in the complete sense of that word when you are whole, ( an integrated mind?) in which there is no fragmentary action. So, ( as of now ?) you are (karmically ?) caught in this constant Stream (of the collective consciousness ?) , but if ( the inner causation of ?) sorrow can be ended, not tomorrow, but actually now, then there is an (individual ?) 'manifestation' which is out of that Stream, in the freedom from that stream, because that stream is Time.

So you have to find out whether ( the inner Stream of) Time has a stop. Time has a stop when there is no longer that movement of that stream. That stream is fear, that stream is conflict, that stream is sorrow, and all the confusion man has built - built through thought. So then that is the stream of time. When there is ending to that stream, there is ( the beginning of?) a totally different dimension, which we will discuss tomorrow, in the whole problem of Meditation.

So when death takes place, the ( most important?) thing that we are afraid of losing, is the ( self-identified?) structure which thought has built as 'me' - the attachment to the ( physical) form and to that name, which are pain, pleasure, anxiety, all that is the 'me', the 'you'. You can say, ' Well, that is not ( the real?) 'me' and (imagine that) there is a higher 'me' - which is still the product of (the same self-centred?) thought.
So ( to recap:) That 'movement' in which human beings are caught, that 'stream' ( of the collective consciousness?) is the movement of ( psychological ) time, driven by thought. And when that Stream - which is our ( temporal?) consciousness, with all its (psychological ) content - when that Stream ( of self-centred thinking? ) comes to an end then 'time' has a stop and therefore there is a totally different dimension (of one's being?) . And when you understand this ( ending of psychological time ?) , not verbally, but deeply, and live it daily, then you will see that Death has a totally different significance.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Dec 2018 #143
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

6TH K PUBLIC TALK, OJAI 1976 ("reader friendly" edited)


K: To hear correctly is an art, and to see things as they are is also an art. And (it is also an art?) to learn, not from others, about the whole content of human one's consciousness, because one is the result of millennia of human endeavour, human sorrow, human agony, anxiety. It is all there in us. And to learn to look at it, to listen to all the content of that consciousness, and in the observation of that consciousness is ( the holistic?) action. So we are this morning going to talk over together seriously, the question of what is (the true meaning of?) 'religion', because religion (the religious mind?) is the creative factor of a new culture. If there is no religion then the culture dies, civilization goes to pieces. So we are asking: what is the nature of religion? If it is none of these things, and it is none of these things, beliefs, rituals, authoritarian attitudes, division between yourself and your highest god, or no god ; if there are interpreters between you and truth, all that is surely not religion.

So in order to find out what is ( the true meaning of?) religion one must (put?) order in one's (inner?) life. Right? Such order comes only when one realizes, is aware fully, without any choice, of one's own confusion, one's own daily disordered life - to be aware of that. From ( the holistic perception of this ) disorder comes order. That is, from the understanding, from the awareness without any ( personal preference or?) choice of our daily life which is disorderly, the observation not based on condemnation, rationalization, judgement, to be aware of that disorder, out of that awareness comes order.
(Hint:) This ( inner) order is a living thing, therefore it is constantly moving, and without (putting?) order in one's life, without being totally moral in one's daily activity, how can you even think of 'meditating'? You may sit cross-legged for the rest of your life & breathe in a certain ( pranayama?) way, you will never come upon that which is Truth because your life is disorderly.
( So, for starters?) there must be order in our relationship, and this order is not put together by ( the self-centred?) thought. To come upon 'That' which is most sacred, most holy, there must be a ( holistically-friendly way of ?) life which is based solidly on order. And the (experiential) importance of all meditations is to come upon that (Inner?) Silence. Even physiologically, to see anything clearly, to look at these trees, to see the light on the leaves, the green grass, and the hills, to see it clearly, your ( temporal?) mind must be quiet, mustn't it. If you are ( indulging in?) chattering, you won't 'see' the (beauty of the?) trees, you won't see the depth of the shadow, the beauty of a trunk or a limb. So you can only 'see it' when your mind is quiet. Right? Similarly, if you want to hear somebody clearly you must be ( mentally?) quiet. So silence is absolutely necessary to perceive both outwardly and inwardly. The outward and the inward are ( part of) the same movement (of Life?) , they are not different. It is one unitary movement, but (for survivalistic reasons?) we have divided it as the inward and the outer.

So by observing clearly the 'outer' ( world) you then discover the 'inner' , and then see that it is one movement. And to see this clearly you must look, observe silently. Now, there are different kinds of silence. The silence between two noises. Then, there is ( the interval of ) 'silence' between two ( threads of?) thoughts - is that silence? There is the (relatively calm period of?) 'peace' between two wars - is that peace? You are following all this? So we are asking: what is ( a holistically friendly approach of ?) Silence? ( Experiential clue:) :) To see (anything?) clearly you must be silent, to hear (anything) clearly the mind mustn't be chattering. If you 'see the truth of it' , then it happens (naturally ?) . 'You' don't have to make a (mental?) effort to be silent.
So what is that ( holistic inner quality?) which is silent? We will look at ( experientially?) it by examining what is 'awareness'. As you are sitting here, aren't you also aware of the trees, the shadows, the light on the leaves, the movement of the leaves ? Can you look at all this without naming it, without giving it a description, just to observe ? Can you observe, see this whole beauty of this (South Californian?) land, all the hills, their quietness, their shadows, just to observe without any reaction of thought, without any reaction of like and dislike. Just to observe. This is ( the ABC of choiceless ?) 'awareness' : being aware of the universe around you, then being aware of the universe inside. ( Hint  :) The universe inside is much more complex. The universe inside is our whole consciousness. And this consciousness 'is' (generated by all ?) its ( 'psychological'?) content. Right?

As I said, the 'inside universe' is much more complex, much more subtle, and if one has the energy, the capacity, the intensity and the clarity, there is a great tremendous depth ( to be explored?) in it. So we are saying: to be aware first of the outer, to look at it, and to be aware of all your reactions to it, and then go beyond your ( verbalised ?) reactions and observe your ( own ?) consciousness with all its ( psychological?) content, with its experiences, with its knowledge, with its likes, with its fears, anxieties, sorrow, pain. You follow? That enormous content which man has added thousands of years, to ( become ?) aware of that. Now, can one be aware totally (wholistically?) ? Or you will take one segment after another, one layer after another, one fragment after another ? Or is there a (global?) understanding of it, totally?
Are you getting my point? The ( psychologically active ?) content of your consciousness is ( the result of) your ( environmental ?) conditioning, as a Christian, as a socialist, conditioned by the climate, by the food, by all the ( good & bad?) things that man has done to himself and to others: his identifications, his beliefs, all that is ( generating the self-?) consciousness.

Now, in order to understand that consciousness will you examine it portion by portion? Or is there a way of looking at it 'wholly', so that you don't have to take time to do it (sequentially?) ? We said there is a way of looking at it wholly, not fragment by fragment, but that is only possible if you understand what is ( an observer-free?) awareness - awareness of the world outside you, watching your reactions to the world outside you and to observe without reactions the world outside you, and to move from the outer to the inner with all the content, which is your ( self-centred?) consciousness - to observe it (live?) . First you will naturally ( want to personally ) react to it - I don't really like this particular aspect , but... how pleasurable that was, I wish I could keep a little bit of this, and so on and on. (In a nutshell:) To watch that (personal?) reaction and then to go beyond ( & transcend?) it.( Hint:) If you ( manage to?) you go ( non-personally?) beyond it then you see the whole content instantly.

So this is ( the holistically responsible?) part of meditation: to see the outer actually as it is, not what you wish it to be, the wars, the antagonisms, the hatreds, the innumerable insults and hurts that human beings receive, the sorrow, the pain, the anxiety, the loneliness, lack of love, all that to observe. Then what takes place? Then you will see that ( a 'critical mass' of intelligent ) energy is being gathered, because there is order and therefore there is no wastage of energy. Right? When there is such a 'mathematical' ( transpersonal?) order in your life, daily life there is no wastage of energy. There is the accumulation of (a holistically friendly ?) energy. And with that energy to observe the world and yourself, and to realize the world out there and here are the same movement. So again you are adding to that volume some further energy. ( Or rather?) there is the accumulation of energy when there is an observation without the 'observer'. The 'observer' ( aka : the 'thinker' or the 'experiencer' ) is ( the controlling mental interference of?) the past, isn't it? The 'past' being all your (previous?) prejudices, opinions, conclusions, your traditional responses – a tradition that may be two days old or ten thousand years old.

The 'observer' (entity ) is the ( psychologically active memory of the?) past and this ( culturally biased?) 'observer' meets the present, the 'what is' (going on inwardly or outwardly ) , and tries to translate (or optimise?) the present (conditions) according to his past ( time-proven?) conclusions. And therefore 'it' gives to the past further movement (& momentum?) in time, as the future. Look sir: 'you' (the self-identified 'observer'?) are the result of the past. That is a fact. Your brain, (or rather, the 'thought controlled' ?) part of your brain is the ( compounded?) result of series of ( personal & collective?) adventures, happenings, incidents & experiences, ( stored ?) as knowledge, and this knowledge ( all-knowing attitude?) is always ( based on what happened in?) the past. That ( mental) 'movement' of the ( experience of the ) past meets the present and translates or modifies the present according to the past (experience?) and so it gives (itself?) a further ( opportunity to project its?) movement into the future. Right?
Now the ( meditation-wise?) the question becomes ( slightly more ) difficult : ( when the self-projected movement of?) the 'past' is meeting the present and 'ends' there -this means no ( further mental?) movement, and therefore ( the psychological movement of?) 'time' has ( come to a full?) stop.

So ( in a nutshell:) Meditation is (beginning by) bringing about order in life, and thereby gathering great energy, and the ending of the conflict between the observer and the observed adds further ( holistically integrated?) energy. (And ) this gathering of energy, ( an intelligent mind-) energy, not only biological, the gathering of this 'total' energy is the beginning of Silence. Then you have this ( holistically integrated ?) energy which alone can discover That which is eternal, which has no beginning and no ending.
So, when (the 'thinker'?) tries to control its thoughts the result is a wastage of ( potentially intelligent?) energy. But if you see the truth that the controller 'is' the controlled, the truth of it, then the inner conflict comes to an end. That means, there is further ( available?) energy. And this complete energy, which is not put together by friction, is necessary. Friction has its own energy, but this ( holistically integrated?) energy which we are talking about, is not put together (generated ) by thought, and therefore it is not the result of friction. And this energy is necessary to come upon that which is sacred, which is the religious mind. Got it?

So meditation then is the emptying of the content of consciousness, of its (temporal ?) content - the fears, the anxieties, the conflict in relationship, the ending of sorrow, and therefore ( opening itself to?) compassion. The ending of this ( psychologically active?) content of consciousness is ( resulting in a) complete (inner) silence. That ( state of inner?) Silence is full of energy, it is not a ( self-centred?) 'silence' that (expects?) something more (in exchange?) .
( At its best ?) Meditation must be totally uninvited. Not contrived, not put together. Which means there is no measurement. And if one has done this - then there is that ( inner) emptiness. ( Scientists say, that in the emptiness of Space there is energy.) ( But) we are saying that when there is this meditative movement, there is a totally different kind of Consciousness of a dimension in which there is all this ( pure?) energy which has been gathered through meditation, order in life and so on and so on. There is a total energy. And in that emptiness there is not-a-thing. There is no-thing. Nothing means not-a-thing. 'Thing' means thought and we said thought is a material process. So in that ( silent state of inner?) emptiness ( the 'things' of?) thought doesn't exist at all and therefore there is no 'experiencer' who is experiencing this total nothingness.

We also have to enquire (briefly?) into what is ( inner?) Beauty. Does not (the sense of inner Beauty) exist when there is not a centre of conflict? Or is beauty (only present in?) the total absence of the observer? There is only complete observation, in which there is no choice, no division. So there must be this sense of beauty, because that may be that which is 'sacred'. A mind that has come upon that sense of total absence of anything that is contradictory, that is, anything that is whole, complete, sane, rational, such a mind is a beautiful mind - which is the religious mind. Because there you have got the total energy embodied there.
So there is such a thing as something Sacred, which is not touched by thought, which is not touched or made corrupt by human beings with their desires and frights and quarrels and mischief. And to come upon that is not only part of meditation, but the ending of sorrow is the beginning of wisdom. So when there is an ending of sorrow in yourself as a human being, then out of that comes wisdom. And when a human being transforms himself, you transforms yourself radically you are affecting the whole consciousness of mankind. You understand, sirs, because you 'are' the mankind, you are the movement of mankind - which is a fact, which is actual. And if you change you affect the world. So it is your tremendous responsibility.

(Parting words:) So, meditation implies a life of great order, and therefore great moral virtue. And it implies the understanding and the depth of beauty. And it implies the 'emptying' of that ( self-centred?) consciousness which is 'you', with all your attachments, fears, hopes, despairs. Emptying all that by (a wholistic?) observing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Dec 2018 #144
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline



Krishnamurti: I was thinking ( to have a dialogue?) on the (perrenial?) question of what is 'Truth' and what is 'reality 'and whether there is any relationship between the two, or whether they are (to be forever?) separate. I thought that 'reality' comes from "res", thing, and that anything that thought operates on, or fabricates, or reflects about, is a 'reality'. But thought (that is the habit of self-centred ?) thinking in a distorted, conditioned manner is ( creating a lot of?) illusion, is (involving a lot of?) self-deception, is ( creating its own psychological?) distortion. I left it there, because I wanted to let it come rather than
my pursuing it.

Dr Bohm: The question of thought and reality and truth has
occupied ( the thought of amateur & professional?) philosophers over the ages. It seems to me that what you say is basically true, but there are a lot of ( unclear?) points that need to be ironed out. (For instance ?) one of the questions that arises is this: if 'reality' is what only what thought thinks about, does it go beyond ( man's spatio-temporal?) consciousness?

K: Isn't the ( spatio-temporal ?) contents of consciousness ( generating our everyday?) 'reality' ?

Dr B.: That's 'the' question; and I wonder whether, just for the sake of completeness, we should include in ( the holistic concept of?) 'thought' also the ( self-centred?) feelings, desires, (our will– power? ) and reactions ?

K: Yes.

Dr B: Then, of the points I'd like to bring up ( for starters is your generic statement that?) ''the thought is not the thing''.

K: Yes ?

Dr B: Then, we'll have to get it (more experientially?) clear, because in some sense the (actual) 'thing' may have its own 'reality' independent of thought; if do we go (off the tangent?) as far as some philosophers,
like Bishop Berkeley, who has said that 'all is thought'? So, I
would like to suggest a possibly useful distinction between that
( virtual?) 'reality' which is largely created by our own thought, or by the
thought of mankind, and the ( objective?) 'realty' which is
existing independently of thought. For example, would you say
Nature is real?

K: It is, yes.

Dr B: So, (the reality of nature?) is not just ( created by?) our own thoughts ?

K: No, obviously not.

Dr B: (I mean ) the trees, the whole earth, the stars.

K: Of course, the ( physical reality of the?) Cosmos. (But inwardly speaking, our existential) pain is also (feeling pretty ?) 'real'.

Dr B: Yes. I was thinking the other day, that an illusion is also real, in the sense that it is really something going on in the ( brain & mind?) of the person who is in a state of illusion.

K: To him it is 'real'.

Dr B: But to us (the science people ?) it is also real because his brain is in a certain state of electrical and chemical movement ; it acts from his illusion in a very real way.

K: In a 'distorted' way ?

Dr B: Distorted, but nevertheless 'real'. So, it occurred to me that even a 'false' (a psychologically distorted pecrception ) is 'real' but not (necessarily?) true. This ( distinction ) might be (experientially?) important.

K: For instance: is Christ 'real' ?

Dr B: He is certainly 'real' in the minds of people who believe in

K: We must (take a brief detour &?) understand what we mean by the 'fact'.

Dr B: The 'fact' is the action that is actually taking place.
For example, (imagine that?) you are walking on a dark road and
you think that you see something. It may be real, it may not be real.
But then you suddenly touch it and it resists your movement.
From this action it's immediately clear that it is a 'real' thing
which you have contacted. But if there is no such contact you might say that it was perhaps an illusion, or at least something mistakenly taken as real.

K: But, of course, that 'thing' is still a reality that thought thinks
about. And (thought's ) reality has nothing to do with Truth.

Dr B: So, an 'illusion' is still a form of reality which is ( psychologically?) conditioned. For example, one's ( psycho-somatic chemistry?) is not in a very balanced state – his (nerves ) may be too excited and that could be why he is caught in illusion. So every ( psychological) 'thing' is determined by ( the surrounding?) conditions and it also conditions every other thing.

K: Yes, quite...

Dr B: All 'things' ( in the material universe ?) are interrelated in a way of mutual conditioning which we call 'influence'. In physics that's very clear, the (movement of the stars & ) planets all influence each other, the atoms influence each other, and I wanted to suggest that maybe we could regard our 'thought' and 'consciousness' as part of this whole chain of influence.

K: Quite right....

Dr B: So that every 'thing' can influence our 'consciousness' and it in
turn can work back and influence the shapes of (or the way we look at?) 'things'. And you could then say that this is all (part of a wider concept of ?) reality, where thought is therefore also 'real'.

K: Thought is real.

Dr B: And there is one part of reality influencing another part of

K: Also (inwardly-wise?) one part of illusion influences another part of illusion.

Dr B: Yes, but now we have to be careful because we can say
there is the (other part of ) reality which is not made by mankind. But that's still limited as anything that we see, we see through our own
experience, our own background. The tree is a reality that
is relatively independent but it's our consciousness that abstracts
the tree.

K: Then, what is the relationship of a sane, rational, healthy,
whole man, to reality and to truth?

Dr B: Yes, we must also consider this, but first may we look at this
question of 'Truth'. ( The) Latin word for truth is?) "verus" which means "that which is", but in English the root meaning of the word "true" is
'honest and faithful'; you see, we can often say that a line is ( running) true. So, we can say that our thought, or our
consciousness, is 'true' to that which is if the mind is sane and healthy. And otherwise it is not, it is 'false'. So the 'falseness' of ( a devious?) consciousness is not just ( due to 'fake news' or to ?) wrong information, but it is actually running crookedly as a reality.

K: So you're saying that as long as man's (mind) is sane, healthy, whole and rational, his (thinking?) thread is always straight ?

Dr B: Yes, his 'consciousness' is on a straight thread. Therefore
his ( inner ?) reality...

K: ... is ( qualitatively ?) different from the ( inner?) reality of a man whose ( life ) thread is crooked ( or just ? ) 'neurotic'.

Dr B: Very different. Perhaps the latter is even ( becoming?) insane. You can see with insane people how different it is - they sometimes cannot
even see the same reality (as the normal people ?) at all.

K: And what is the relationship to Truth of this ( mentally?) sane, healthy, whole, or holy(stically friendly?) man ?

Dr B: If you accept that 'truth' means being true to 'that which is', then you have to say that he is all this.

K: So you would say that man 'is' ( living in the light of?) ?) truth?

Dr B: He 'is' truth, yes.

K: Such a man 'is' truth. He may think certain things which
would be 'reality' , but 'he' is ( true to?) truth. He can't think irrationally.

Dr B: Well, I'd say that he can make a mistake, but he doesn't persist in it. In other words, the man who has made a mistake and acknowledges it, changes it. And there is also the ( truth bending?) man who has made a mistake but his mind is not straight and therefore he goes on with it.
But now we have to come back to the ( academical?) question: does Truth go beyond any particular man; does it include other men, and Nature as well?

K: It includes 'All That Is'.

Dr B: Yes, so the Truth is One. ( So, to recap:) There are many different
'things' in the field of reality. Each 'thing' is conditioned, the whole
field of ( the spatio - temporal?) reality is conditioned. But clearly, Truth itself cannot be conditioned or dependent on things.

K: What then is the relationship to reality of the man who 'is' (living in the spirit of?) Truth?

Dr B: He comprehends reality. What the word "comprehends" means is to hold it all together.

K: He doesn't separate reality. He says, "I comprehend it, I hold
it, I see it".

Dr B: Yes, the ( world of?) reality has things in it which are conditioned but he comprehends the conditions.

K: And because he 'comprehends' conditioning, he is free of

Dr B: It seems clear then ( to conclude?) that all our knowledge, being based on ( self-centred?) thought, is actually a part of this one conditioned field of reality.

K: Now another ( bonus experiential?) question. Suppose I am a ( very knowledgeable?) scholar, I'm full of such conditioned and conditioning knowledge. How am I to comprehend Truth in the sense of holding it all together?

Dr B: I don't think you can comprehend truth.

K: Say I have studied all my life, I've devoted all my life to
knowledge, which is reality. And suppose you come along and say, "Truth is somewhere else, it's not that". I accept you (rationally ?), because you show (the logic of ) it to me, and so I say, "Please help
me to move from here to That". Because once I get ( a 'true' insight into?) that, I comprehend it. (But...) if I ( inwardly) live here (stuck in the 'reality field' of the known?) , then my comprehension is always fragmented.

Dr B: Yes...

K: Therefore my (intuitive?) knowledge tells me, "This is ( a relatively fine ?) 'reality' but it is not Truth". And suppose you come along and say, "No, it is not". And I ask: please tell me how to move from here to 'That'. What am I to do?

Dr B: I think that I have to see that this whole structure of knowledge is inevitably false, because my (inner) reality is twisted.

K: Would you say the 'content' of my consciousness is knowledge?

Dr B: Yes.

K: So, how am I to empty that (psychological content of my?) consciousness and yet retain (the factual) knowledge which is not twisted - otherwise I can't function (in the 'real' world?) - and
reach a ( time-free ) state ( of consciousness?) , or whatever it is, which will comprehend reality.

Dr B: Yes.. ?

K: What I'm asking is: if my human consciousness a messy conglomeration of irrational knowledge and some which is correct. Can that consciousness comprehend, or bring into itself, truth?

Dr B: No, it can't.

K: Therefore, can this consciousness go to that truth? It can't either. Then what?

Dr B: There can be a perception of the 'falseness' in this (self-centred?)
consciousness. This consciousness is 'false', in the sense that 'it does
not run true'. Because of the confused (psychological) content it does not 'run true'.

K: It's contradictory.

Dr B: It muddles things up.

K: Not,"muddles things up'' ; it 'is' a muddle.

Dr B: It is a 'muddle ' in the way it 'moves'. Now then, one of
the main points of the 'muddle' is that when consciousness reflects
on itself, the reflection has this character: it's as if there were a
mirror and consciousness were looking at itself through a mirror
and the mirror is reflecting consciousness as an independent reality.

K: Yes...

Dr B: So, the 'action' which this consciousness takes is
wrong, because it tries to improve the apparently independent
reality, whereas in fact to do this is just a muddle.
(But on the other hand?) the whole of man's consciousness is
somehow an instrument which is connected up to a deeper energy. But as long as consciousness is connected in that ( self-centred?) way, it maintains its state of wrong action.

K: Yes.

Dr B: So on seeing that this consciousness is reflecting itself
wrongly as independent of thought, what is needed is somehow to
disconnect the energy of consciousness. The whole of
consciousness has to be disconnected, so it would, as it were, lie
there without energy.

K: You're saying, ''don't feed it''. My consciousness is a muddle, it
is confused, contradictory, and all the rest of it. And its very
contradiction, its very 'muddle', gives its own energy.

Dr B: Well, I would say that the (original ) energy is not actually coming
from consciousness, but that as long as the energy is coming,
consciousness keeps the muddle going.

K: From where does it come?

Dr B: We'd have to say that perhaps it comes from something
deeper ?

K: If it comes from 'something deeper', then we enter into the
whole field of 'gods' and 'outside agency' and so on.

Dr B: I wouldn't say the energy comes from an 'outside
agency'. I would prefer to say it comes from me, in some sense.

K: Then the "me" is this consciousness?

Dr B: Yes.

K: So the 'content' is creating its own energy. Would you say that?

Dr B: In some sense it is, but the puzzle is that it seems
impossible for this (psychological) 'content' to create its own energy...

K: Actually, the (active memory?) 'content' is creating its own energy. Look, I'm in contradiction and that very contradiction gives me vitality. I have got opposing (conflicting?) desires. When I have opposing desires I have energy, I fight. Therefore that ( 'energy pack' of?) desire is creating the energy - not God, or something profounder - it is still desire. This is the (mind?) trick that so many played. They say there is an outside agency, a 'deeper energy' - but then one's back in the old field.

But I realize that the energy of contradiction, the energy of desire, of will, of the pursuit of pleasure, all that which is the (active psychological ) content of my consciousness is creating its own energy. Reality is this; reality is creating its own energy. I may say, "I derive my energy deep
down", but it's still (in the field of ) 'reality'.

Dr B: Yes, suppose we accept that, but the point is that seeing
the truth of this...

K: ...that's what I want to get at. Is this ('real' inner ) energy different from the energy of truth?

Dr B: Yes.

K: It is different.

Dr B: But let's try to put it like this: 'reality' may have many levels of energy.

K: Yes...

Dr B: But a certain part of the energy has gone off the 'straight
line'. Let's say the ( energy matrix of the?) brain feeds energy to all the thought processes. Now, if somehow the brain didn't feed energy to the (self-centred?) thought process that is confused, then the 'thing' might straighten out ( in no time ?) .

K: That's it. If this ( Original ?) energy runs along the straight thread it is a 'reality' without contradiction. It's an energy which is endless
because it has no friction. Now is that energy different from the
energy of Truth?

Dr B: Yes. They are different, but as we once discussed, there
must be a deeper common source.

K: I'm not sure. You are suggesting that they both spring out of
the same root ?

Dr B: That's what I suggest. But for the moment there is the
energy of truth which can comprehend the reality and...

K: ...(used?) the other way it cannot.

Dr B: No, it cannot; but there appears to be some connection in
the sense that when truth comprehends reality, reality goes straight.
So there appears to be a connection at least in one way.

K: That's right, a 'one-way' connection - Truth loves this, this
doesn't (really?) love Truth.

Dr B: But once the connection has been made, then ( man's inner?) reality 'runs true' and does not waste energy or make confusion.

K: You see, that's where ( a meditator-free?) Meditation comes in. Meditation is actually seeing (the truth or falseness of?) 'what is'. But
( as it is) generally (understood?) 'meditation' is taken as moving from one 'reality' to another.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 21 Dec 2018 #145
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline


( a 'reader friendly' edited K conversation with David Bohm (cca 1976)

Krishnamurti: I am concerned with trying to find out if there is an
action which is not ( the result of?) a process of ( one's self-centred?) thought, an action which is ( coming from the perception of?) of truth – a (flash of?) insight which acts instantly. I want to inquire into that question.

Dr Bohm: Perhaps one action that acts instantly is to see (the truth or?) falseness ?

K: Yes. It's difficult ( very slippery?) to take ( real life?) examples . ( But for instance, suppose that ?) I have an insight into the fact that people believe in a (man-made image of?) God which is their own projection.

Dr B: Yes, and this is therefore false.

K: So, if I had (an insight into it?) my 'belief' in God would drop
instantly. So it is not a process of thought, it is an 'insight' (a direct perception?) into the truth (of that matter?) .

Dr B: Or into the falseness ?

K: Or into falseness, and that action (of insightful understanding?) is complete, it's over and done with. That action is whole (in the sense that?) there is no regret, no personal advantage, there is no (afterfalls of?) emotion. It is an action which is complete. Whereas the action
brought about by thought, the investigation of an analysis whether
there is a God or no God, is always 'incomplete'.

Dr B: Yes, I can understand that. But then there is a (follow-up?) action in which you do use words, where you try to 'realize' ( the practical implications of that ?) insight. Let's say that you have discovered (that truth?) about 'God'. Other people are still calling this a fact, and therefore...

K: But the man speaks from an insight.

Dr B: He speaks from an insight, but at the same time he starts a
process of time.

K: Yes, in order to convey (that?) something.

Dr B: Or to change things. It (your vision?) is starting from an insight but it's conveying truth...

K: Yes, it is always starting from an insight.

Dr B: And in doing that you may have to organise...

K: ...( to use some?) reasonable thinking and so on, of course. But the action of reasoned thought is different from the action of insight.

Dr B: Now what is the ( qualitative?) difference when such an insight is conveyed through reasoned thought? To come back again to your insight
about 'God': if you have to ( really?) convey it to other people, you must put it into a reasonable form.

K: Yes.

Dr B: And therefore isn't there still left some of the ( original?) quality of the insight, as you convey it? Some of the truth (content) of the insight is still being communicated in this (holistically friendly thoughtful ?) form. And in some sense that is ( entering in the field of?) thought.

K: When conveying to another that insight verbally, (the actual impact of?) your action will be incomplete unless he (the listener?) has (his own?) insight.

Dr B: That's right. So you must convey ( that 'little something'?) which will give someone an (actual oportunity of having the same?) insight.

K: Can 'you' give an insight?

Dr B: Not really, but whatever you convey must somehow 'do
something' which perhaps cannot be further described.

K: Yes. But that ( clarity of insight?) can only happen when you yourself have dropped the belief in God.

Dr B: But ( even then) there is no ( personal?) guarantee that it will happen.

K: No, of course not...

Dr B: That depends on the other person, whether he is (inwardly integrated &?) ready to listen.

K: So we come to this ( experientially critical ?) point: is there a ( perceptive quality of the ?) thinking (brain?) which is nonverbal? Would this ( holistically friendly quality?) be (the element?) what communicates insight?

Dr B: I would say that there is another kind of ( holistically friendly?) thinking whose (implicit?) order is determined, not by the word, but by the insight.

K: Is the insight the product of thought?

Dr B: No, but insight works through thought. You once gave an example of a drum vibrating from the emptiness within. I took it to mean that the action of the skin was like the action of thought. Is that right?

K: Yes, that's right. Now, how does this insight come into being?

Dr B: It's not clear what you mean by the question.

K: How do I have an insight that 'God' is a projection of our own
desires, images and so on? I see the falseness of it or the truth of it;
how does it take place?

Dr B: I don't see how...

K: I have a feeling inside that ( the self-centred process of ?) thought cannot possibly enter into an area where truth is, although it operates anywhere else. So, truth can operate through thought but thought cannot enter into that area.

Dr B: That seems clear if we (assume?) that thought is the response of
( man's past collective & personal?) memory. It seems clear that this cannot be unconditioned and free.

K: I would like to go into this question of what is
the ( insight-friendly?) quality of the mind, or the quality of observation, in which thought doesn't enter? And because it doesn't enter, you have an insight. We said, insight is a non-verbal perception which is?) complete (wholly?) . It is not fragmented as thought is.

Dr B: Thought may ( be able to verbally) communicate the insight. Or at least some of the data which lead you to an insight. For
example, people told you about religion and so on, but eventually
the insight depends on something which is not thought.

K: Then how does that insight come? Is it ( due to?) a cessation of thought?

Dr B: It could well be considered as a cessation.

K: Thought itself realizes that it cannot enter into a certain ( non-dualistic?) area. That is, when thought itself realizes, becomes aware that the thinker 'is' the thought, or the 'observer' is the observed, can
only function ( properly) within a certain area ( of the known?) .

Dr B: But doesn't that ( self-awareness in) itself require some insight?

K: That's just it. Does thought realize that there must be insight?

Dr B: It seems to me that thought by itself cannot realize anything of this kind.

K: Yes.

Dr B.: But as we said, truth can operate in (the field of) reality.

K: So, how does one's mind 'see' the truth (or the falseness of something?) ? Is it a process?

Dr B: You're asking whether there is a ( preparation?) process for seeing. There is no such process, that would be time.

K: That's right.

Dr B: Let's consider that there is an insight about the ( dualistic?) nature of thought, that the observer 'is' the observed and so on.

K: That's clear.

Dr B: Now in some sense thought must accept ( the rationality of) that insight, carry it, respond to it.

K: Or the insight is so vital, so energetic, so full of vitality, that
it forces thought to operate ( non-dualistically?) .

Dr B: All right, then there is the 'necessity' to operate.

K: Yes, the necessity.

Dr B: But you see, generally speaking it ( the insight being communicated verbally ?) doesn't have that vitality. So in some indirect (or...devious?) way thought has rejected the insight, at least it appears to be so.

K: Most people (may) have an insight, but ( their mental?) habit is so strong they reject it.

Dr B: Can we break through this ( gut ?) 'rejection' ? I looked up the word "habit" in the dictionary and it says, "A settled
disposition of the mind", which seems very good. The mind is
disposed in a certain fixed way which resists ( a profound?) change. Now we get caught in the same question: how are we going to break that "very settled disposition"?

K: I don't think thought (the self-centred thinking?) can break it...

Dr B: Then...we are asking for that intense insight which necessarily
dissolves it.

K: So (for starters?) one's mind is disposed in a certain way, it has formed habits in the 'world of reality' - it lives there.

Dr B: And it's very rigid.

K: Now suppose you come along and point out the rigidity of it.
I catch a glimpse of what you're saying - which is a 'non-thinking' (perception?) - and I see it.

Dr B: In a glimpse only ?

K: In a glimpse. But this ( temporal) conditioning is so strong I reject it.

Dr B: I don't do it purposely; it just 'happens'...

K: It has happened because (for many generations?) you helped to create that happening. First of all, is that glimpse strong enough to dissolve this? If it is not so strong, then it goes on. Can this conditioning dissolve? You see, I must have an insight into this (time-binding psychological ?) conditioning, otherwise I can't dissolve it.

Dr B: Maybe we could look at it like this: ( this psychological?) conditioning is a very solid reality, which is fundamentally ( expressing itself in?) what we think about. As we said in the previous dialogue, it's 'actual'. Ordinary reality is not only what I think about, but to some extent is the actual fact. That's the proof of its reality. Now, at first sight it seems that this conditioning is just as solid as any reality, if
not more solid.

K: Much more solid. Is that conditioning dissolved, or does it
come to an end, through thinking?

Dr B: It won't because thinking is what it is.

K: So thinking won't dissolve it. Then what will?

Dr B: We're back again. We see that it's only ( a direct perception of?) truth ( also known as?) 'insight'.

K: I think that something different must takes place. ( Usually ) I see I'm conditioned and I (instinctively try to?) separate myself from the conditioning, I am different from the conditioning.
And you ( the insightful person?) come along and say "No, it isn't like that, the observer 'is' (actually not separated from?) the observed". If one can see (the inner truth?) that the observer 'is' the observed, then the ( self-centred?) conditioning begins to dissolve.

Dr B: Because it's not (really ?) 'solid'.

K: The ( holistic?) perception of that is ( the beginning of the?) the ending of the (psychological?) conditioning. . Then in that realization, which is ( the actual inner ?) truth, the conditioning disappears.
So, what is necessary for the crumbling of that ( self-centred psycho-) structure?

Dr B: The insight into the falseness of it ?

K: But I can have a (partial) insight into something that is false and yet
I go on that way, accept the false and live in the false.

Dr B: Yes...

K: Now I want to bring this ( insight?) into action in my daily life.
( Hint : until now?) I have accepted (the time-binding ?) reality as truth and I live in that - my gods, my habits, everything - I live in that. You come along and say "Look, ( the world of?) truth is different from reality" and you explain it to me. How will I put away that tremendous weight (of the past?) , or 'break' (through?) that tremendous (psychological) conditioning? I need ( a holistically integrated?) energy to break that conditioning. Does this (special?) energy come when I see, "the observer is the observed"? Now when I realize that the observer 'is' the observed, a totally different kind of ( intelligent?) energy comes into being. That's all I want to get at.

Dr B: Yes, but then, it's not the energy of ( the temporal) reality. ( Personally?) I see it better when I say, "the thinker is the thought". It's actually the same thing.

K: Now, is this (special?) energy ( coming from?) the perception of truth? - and therefore it has quite a different quality of energy.

Dr B: It seems to have the quality of not being bound by (one's past ) conditioning.

K: Now to make it ( look?) more practical, (suppose that?) I see ( intellectually?) this whole thing, but this quality of
energy doesn't come because I'm living ( +/- comfortably settled ?) in the 'realm of reality'. You ( K) are living in the 'realm of truth' and I can't. There is no ( '2-way' sharing ?) relationship between you
and me. How will you help me to break this down? It's your ( educational?) job, because you see the truth (of it?) and I don't. This is actually going on (in this subtly 'elitistic' neighbourhood?) , you understand? So what will you do with me, who refuses to see
something which is just there? And you point out that as long as
we live (exclusively?) in this world of reality, there is no answer in that realm for any of our problems. How will you convey this to me (supposing that I really?) want to get out of this (self-centred psychological mess?) .

Dr B: It's only possible to communicate the 'intensity'.

K: What you say is something totally new, unexpected, to which I haven't even given a single moment of thought. You come along with a 'basketful' (of compassion & intelligence?) but I do not know how
to receive you. This has been really a (major educational?) problem to the ( ancient?) prophets, to every...

Dr B: It seems nobody has really succeeded in it...

K: Nobody has, (because?) it's part of ( a non-holistic ?) education that keeps us constantly in the ( survivalistic?) realm of reality.

Dr B: ...where everyone is expecting a clearly marked out Path in the field of reality.

K: You talk of a totally different kind of energy from the energy
of reality. And you say that this ( holistically friendly?) energy will wipe out all this ( self-centred conditioning?) , but it will keep using ( the practical aspects in the 'real world' of the temporal ?) reality.

Dr B: Yes, it will work through it.

K: (But, more often than not...) it's 'all words' to me, because society, education, economics, my parents, everything is here in reality. All the ( living?) scientists are working here, all the professors, all the economists, everybody is here. And you say "Look (within yourself?) ", and I refuse to look.

Dr B: It's not even that one refuses, it isperhaps something of a more 'unconscious' nature...
K: So in our discussing this, is there a (holistically friendly?) thinking which is not (forever stuck?) in the realm of reality?

Dr B: One might ask whether there is such a thinking - in the sense
of the response of the drum to the emptiness within.

K: That's a good simile. Because it is empty (it has an empty inner space?) , it is vibrating.

Dr B: The material thing is vibrating to the emptiness.

K: The material thing is vibrating. Wait – is (the direct perception of?) truth ( related to the state of inner?) 'no-thingness'?

Dr B: Reality is perhaps every 'thing'. Truth is 'no thing'.
That is what the word "nothing" deeply means. So truth is "nothingness".

K: Yes, ( the realm of?) truth is 'no-thing' ('not-a-thing'?) .

Dr B.: Because if it's not ( in the realm of?) reality it must be no-thing - no thing.

K: And therefore (is inwardly content ?) empty. Empty being - how did you once describe it?

Dr B: The English root of "empty" means 'at leisure', 'unoccupied'.

K: So you are saying to me, "Your (inner?) mind must be unoccupied".
It mustn't be occupied by ( the 'things' of?) reality.

Dr B: Yes, that (much is?) clear : what we think about are 'things' , therefore we have to say the (inner?) mind must not think about any thing.

K: That's right. Thought cannot think about (what is in the inner space of ?) emptiness.

Dr B: As that would make it into a 'thing' ?

K: That's just it. You see, the Hindu (spiritual?) tradition says you can come to (Truth) .

Dr B: Yes, but anything you come to must be by a ( linear) path which is
marked out in the field of reality.

K: Yes. Now, ( supposing that?) I have a (clear) insight into that, and I see that my mind must be (inwardly?) 'unoccupied', must have no (thought?) 'inhabitants', must be ( like?) an empty house. What is the action of that (inner) 'emptiness' in my life? - because I
must live here take care of my ( very?) 'real' material needs.

Dr B: There arises a ( hidden conflict of interests?) because what you are proposing appears to be reasonable, but it doesn't seem to take care of one's material needs. Without having taken care of these needs you're not secure.

K: Therefore they (the ancient sages ?) called the world of reality "maya". They say, to live in emptiness is necessary and if you
live there you (should ) consider the world as ''maya'' (of an illusory nature ?) .

Dr B: Well, you could say all that ( reality?) stuff is illusion, but then you would find you were in real danger... So you seem to be calling for a confidence that (truthful state of inner?) no-thingness will take care of you, physically and in every way. In other words, from 'no-thingness', you say, there is security.

K: (Inwardly living ) in (this inner) 'no-thingness' there is ( a sense of timeless?) security.

Dr B: And this (inner) security must include the physical security ?

K: No, I (meant?) the psychological security...

Dr B: Yes, but the question almost immediately arises...

K: am I to be secure in the 'world of reality'?

Dr B: Yes, because one could say: I accept that it will remove
my psychological problems, but I still have to be physically secure
as well in the world of reality.

K: There is no psychological security in ( the time-bound field of?) reality, but only complete (inner) security in 'no-thingness'. Then if that is so my whole activity in the world of reality is entirely different.

Dr B: I see that, but the question will always be raised: is it 'different'
enough to (ensure one's physical security?)

K: Oh yes, it would be totally different, because I'm not
nationalistic, I am (as) 'nothing'. Therefore our whole (perception of the ) world is ( qualitatively?) different. I don't divide...

Dr B: Let's bring back your own example of the one who understands (Truth) and the one who wants to communicate to the other. Somehow
what doesn't communicate (properly) is the assurance that it will take care of all that.

K: It won't ( necessarily?) 'take care of all that'. I will have to work here.

Dr B: Well, in what you were saying there was the implication that in 'no-thingness' we will be completely secure in every way.

K: That is so, absolutely.

Dr B: Yes, but then we'll have to ask: what about the physical

K: Physical security in ( the world of ) reality? At present there is no ( everlasting?) security. But if I am inwardly, psychologically, completely secure, then my ( daily) activity in the world of reality is born of complete intelligence.
This ( holistic intelligence ) doesn't exist ( right ?) now, because that intelligence is the perception of the whole and so on. As long as I'm ( subliminally identified as ) "English" or "something else ", I
cannot have security. I must work to get rid of that (psychological divisiveness?) .

Dr B: I can seethat you'd become more intelligent, you'd become
more secure - of course. But when you say "complete security"
there is always the question: is it really so 'complete'?

K: Oh, it is complete, 'psychologically' (inwardly-wise ) and that feeling of complete security, inwardly, makes me...

Dr B: It makes you do the 'right thing' ?

K: The 'right thing' in the world of reality.

Dr B: I can see that you can be as secure as you can possibly
be if you are completely intelligent, but you cannot guarantee that
nothing is going to happen to you.

K: No, of course not. But if the mind is established, in
( this state of inner?) 'no-thingness', and it operates in the field of reality with intelligence, that very intelligence says, "There you cannot have security unless you do these things".

Dr B: That I've got to do 'everything right' ?.

K: Everything right according to that intelligence, which is of
truth, of no-thingness.

Dr B: And even if something ( unwanted?) does happen to you, nevertheless you still are feeling secure.

K: Of course - if my house burns down. But you see, we are (generally)
seeking (our psychological?) security here, in the world of reality.

Dr B: Yes, I understand that.

K: Therefore there is no ( real ) security (for each & everyone?) .

Dr B: Well, as long as one feels that the 'world of reality' is all there
is, you have to seek it there...

K: Yes.

Dr B: One can see that in the world of reality there is in fact no (everlasting?) security as everything depends on other things which are unknown (to us ) and so on. That's why there is this intense fear ( of material insecurity?) .

K: You mentioned fear. In ( this inner state of ) 'no-thingness' there is complete security, therefore no fear. And that sense of 'no fear' has a totally different kind of activity in the world of reality. I have no fear - I work there intelligently and therefore I am creating ( a collateral?) security even in the world of reality.

Dr B: Yes, you're making it as secure as it can possibly be. The
more clear and intelligent you are, the more secure it is.

K: Because inwardly I'm secure, I create security outwardly.

Dr B: On the other hand, if I feel that I depend inwardly on the (real?)
world of reality, then I become disorganised inwardly.

K: Of course...

Dr B: ( Practically?) everybody does feel that he depends inwardly on the world of reality.

K: Do we see the extraordinary beauty, the feeling, the depth of what you are saying about complete inward security ? ( If not...) I'll say, " How are you going to give the beauty of that to me?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Dec 2018 #146
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

6TH ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K DISCUSSION WITH DAVID BOHM (cca 1975)


Krishnamurti: If a 'seed' of Truth is planted it must operate, it must
grow, it must function, it has a life of its own.

Dr Bohm: Well, millions of people may have read or heard
what you say, but it may seem that a large number of them haven't (really) understood. Do you feel that they are going eventually see ( the practical aspects of?) it?

K: No, but ( still, something is) going on, they are worried about it, they ask, "What does he mean by this?" The 'seed' of Truth (planted in the total consciousness of man?) is functioning , it's growing, it isn't dead. ( (On the other hand?) you can say something 'false' (or half true?) and that also operates.

Dr B: Yes, but as of now we have a struggle between those two and
we cannot foresee the outcome of this struggle; we can't be sure of
the outcome.

K: You plant in me (in the conscience?) the seed that, "Truth is a pathless land". Also a ( more marketable?) 'seed' is planted in my ( temporal?) consciousness that says, "There is a way to truth, follow me". One is false, one is true. They are both embedded in my (collective?) consciousness. So there is a (psychological) 'struggle' going on between the 'true' and the 'false' as both are operating, which causes more confusion and a great deal of suffering. But, if I am sensitive enough (inwardly ) and if I don't escape from (facing) this (existential) suffering what takes place?

Dr B: If you don't escape, then it's clear what will take place.
Then you will have (to gather) the (all your available intelligent ) energy to see what is true.

K: That's right.

Dr B: But now let's take the people who do ( not even realise that they) escape, who seem to be a large number.

K: They are out, quite right, millions are out. But still, their (inner) struggle is going on.

Dr B: Yes, but it is creating confusion.

K: That is what they are all doing.

Dr B: Yes, but we don't know the outcome of that.

K: Oh yes, we do; dictatorship, ( lots of fake news & ? ) deterioration.

Dr B: I know, it gets worse. Now what is the way out of that?

K: Some say there is no answer to that, just get away from it. ( Or...) one ( may chose to?) go on 'shouting'. You talk, you point out. If nobody wants to pay attention it's their business, you just go on. Now I want to go further. You see, there is a 'mystery' that thought cannot touch. What is the point of it?

Dr B: I think you could see it like this: that if you look into the field of thought and reason and so on, you finally see it has no clear foundation. Therefore you see that "What Is" must be beyond that. "What Is" is the mystery. You cannot (indulge in ) living in this field of reality and thought, because of all we said.

K: I live in the field of reality, that is my life. There I am (self-)
consciously aware and struggle to keep going in that field. And
I can never touch that Other(ness?). You say to me, ( Deep down inwardly?) there is a mystery (of Existence ?) which 'passeth all understanding. And because I am caught in this (hyper-active temporal consciousness?) , I would like to get a glimpse of That. You say there is a mystery, because it is an actual truth to you. And what you say makes a tremendous impression on me, because of your integrity. You point it out to me and somehow I 'must' get it.
What is your (educational?) responsibility to me? You say that thought cannot touch it, no ( spatio-temporal?) action can touch it, only the action of truth; perhaps it will give you a feeling of that. And I, because I am ( inwardly?) a 'miserable' (self-conflicted?) human being, would like to get some of that. But you also say, "Truth is a pathless land, don't follow anybody" - and I am left (on my own ) .
I am consciously (painfully?) aware of the limitation of thought, of
all the (global) confusion, misery, and all the rest of it, but somehow I can't get out of it. Is your ( gift of Intelligence & ) Compassion going to help me? You are ( naturally?) compassionate, because part of that extraordinary mystery is compassion. Will your compassion help me? - obviously not (personally?) .
So I have a consuming desire for (reaching ) That, and you say, "Don't have any desire, you can't have That, it isn't a personal property". All you say to me is to put order into the field of reality. If you actually put order into the field of reality then 'something' will (eventually?) take place. (Meditational hint:) This (inner order) must be done instantly.

Is that Mystery something that everybody knows (intuitively?) ? - ( the profound sentiment that ?) there is something mysterious in life apart from my ( existential?) suffering, apart from my death, from my jealousy, my anxiety. Apart from all that, there is a feeling that there is a great mystery in life. Is that it?

Dr B: In some sense everybody (kind of?) 'knows' it. Probably one is born with that sense and it gradually gets dimmed through the conditioning.

K: And has he got the ( inner) vitality, or the intensity, to put away all
that (temporal conditioning ) ? You see, there is also the danger ( of taking for granted that ? ) "God is (always?) within you" ...

Dr B: There is some sort of intimation of this and very probably children have it more strongly when they are young.

K: Do you think that the 'modern' children have that?

Dr B: I don't really know about them, probably ( much?) less. For starters, living in a modern (overcrowded?) city must have a bad effect. There are many other causes. One is lack of contact with nature; I think any close contact with nature gives that sense of Life's 'mystery'.
If you look at the sky at night, for example.

K: But you see the scientists are (very knowledgeably ) explaining the stars. Cousteau explains the ocean; everything is being explained (away) .

Dr B: Yes, the general feeling is that in principle we could know everything.

K: So ( translating everything in terms of?) knowledge is becoming the curse. You see, ( the direct) perception (of Truth?) has nothing to do with knowledge. Truth and knowledge don't go (well?) together; knowledge cannot contain the immensity of Life's mystery.

Dr B: Yes, I think if we start with a little child, he may place the
mystery in some part that he doesn't know. He could put it at the
bottom of the ocean, or somewhere else outside, far away from
where he is, and then he learns that people have been everywhere.
Therefore the whole thing is made to appear non-existent.

K: Yes. Everything becomes so superficial.

Dr B: That's the danger of our modern age, that it gives the
appearance that we know more or less everything. At least that we
have a general idea of the 'scheme', if not of the details.

K: May I ask, do you as a (very knowledgeable ) trained scientist get the feeling of this Mystery ?

Dr B: I think so, yes. But I've always had some of that, you see.

K: But in talking now, do you get more of the intensity of it?
Not because I feel it intensely , but in talking about ( this special ? ) 'something' we 'open a door'.

Dr B: Yes , although my scientific conditioning has a great
deal in it to resist this notion of mystery, and... I think that
science is now going in a wrong direction.

K: But even the (open minded?) scientists admit that there is a mystery.

Dr B: Yes, to some extent. But the general view is that it could be
eventually cleared up...

K: Cleared up in the sense of explained away , because I listen to you (very cleverly?) explaining everything, and then I say, (So...there is nothing (behind what we already know?) .

Dr B: That is the ( practical) point of distinguishing between truth and
reality, because we could say, in the field of reality we may explain
more and more broadly and there is a limitless progress possible. But the 'essence' it is not (possible to be) explained.

K: I am asking a different ( more personal) question you, in
talking like this, do you have an intimation of that 'mystery' (of Life) . Being a serious person, perhaps you had an intimation long ago.
But in talking now, do you feel it's no longer an intimation but a ( living?) truth?

Dr B: Yes, it is a truth. I think it's been a truth for some time now. Because it's implied in what we have been doing here.

K: You see there is something (experientially?) interesting: ( seeing) the truth of that Mystery makes the mind completely empty, doesn't it ? It's
completely silent. Or because it is silent, the truth of that mystery
is (felt)  ? I don't know if I'm conveying that when the mind is
completely silent, (not a pre- meditated silence) but having
has put order in (its inward) reality it is free from that (mental noise of) confusion, and there is a certain silence as the mind is moving away from confusion. Realizing that is not ( the ultimate?) Silence, not moving away from that realization but staying with it, means negating that ( relative silence ) which ( the establishing of inner) order has produced.

Dr B: You say, first you produce order. Why is it necessary to
produce the order first and then negate it?

K: To negate is ( the?) Silence.

Dr B: This is why it has to take place in that sequence ?

K: Because when I remove ( the active causes of my inner) disorder there is a certain mathematical order, and as a result of that order my mind is ( 'problem free'?) quiet.

Dr B: So, you're saying that it is not the 'true' Silence ?

K: No. Realizing that is not (the) true (inner) silence , I negate the 'false'
( noise-free?) silence, for the moment. So in the negation of that silence there is no movement towards a 'greater' silence. Then this total ( spontaneous inner ?) silence opens the door to That. That is, when
the ( temporal) mind, with all the confusion, is ('as) nothing' (read:) 'not a thing' – then perhaps there is the ( silent presence of the?) 'Other'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 01 Jan 2019 #147
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline

A 'must ask' Meditation related Question

Q: The conscious mind is ignorant of and also afraid of the unconscious mind. You are addressing mainly the conscious mind and is that enough? Will your method bring about release of the unconscious? Please explain in detail how one can tackle the unconscious mind ( holistically) .

Krishnamurti: If I were addressing merely the upper layers of the mind, then surely what I am saying would be valueless. There is in fact only one state, not two states such as the conscious and the unconscious; there is only a state of being, which is ( our total ) consciousness, though you may (for intellectual purposes ?) divide it as the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious'.
But this (self-split ?) consciousness is always ( aware ) of ( what happened in?) the past, never of ( what is actually going on in?) the present; you are (becoming) conscious (of psychological things ) only when they are over, you are never fully aware of them happening.
(For meditation homework ?) Watch your own 'hearts and minds' and you will see that ( the time-bound) temporal consciousness is functioning between the ( reassuring memories of the?) past and ( ourhopeful own projections of ) the future and in that process the present instant is merely a passage of the past to the future. ( Our temporal?) consciousness is therefore a movement (of thought?) from the (well known) past to ( a predictable?) future - a ( self-sustained?) process in which ( what is actually happening in) the present is not (considered as truly significant) . (In a nutshell:) the (temporal) mind is (keeping itself ?) occupied with the past or with the future and 'sloughs off' ( disregards?) the (timeless ) present. Such a mind is never capable of looking directly and impartially at any 'fact' (of one's inner life) . It either rejects or accepts and identifies itself with the fact.

Such a mind is obviously not capable of seeing any ( ongoing inner) fact as a fact (as it really is?) . That is our (time-bound) state of consciousness which is conditioned by ( what we knew in) the past and thought (the self-centred thinking?) is the 'conditioned' (verbally processed) response to the direct challenge of (life's ) facts; ( hint) the more ( routinely ?) you respond according to the conditioning of the past, the more there is the strengthening of the past. That strengthening of the past is obviously ( creating an updated) continuity for itself, which it calls the 'future'. So that is the actual (condition ?) of our ( self-centred) consciousness - like a pendulum swinging backwards and forwards between the past and the future. That ( unconscious movement ?) is ( generating our temporal self- ) consciousness, which is made up not only of the upper layers of the mind but of the deeper layers as well. Such consciousness obviously cannot function at a different level, because it only knows those two movements of ( thought moving) backwards and forwards (in time) .

( On the otherhand ?) if you watch it very carefully (non-verbally & non-personally?) you will see that it is not a continuous movement but that there are ( spontaneously silent?) intervals between two ( threads of?) thought; though they may last only for an infinitesimal fraction of a second, this interval that has ( a highly meditative?) significance in the (context of the ?) swinging backwards and forwards of thought's 'pendulum'.

( At this point we can stop & ) see the fact that ( our self-centred ) thinking is 'conditioned' (pre-determined) by the (residual framework of the ) past which is ( subliminally ?) projected into the future; the collective and the individual past, in response to the ( facts of the ) present, give out certain responses which create the individual consciousness; therefore ( the temporal ) consciousness is ( the constantly updated result?) of the past and that is (creating) the whole (psychological) background of our existence.
Most of us ( may happily) reject one particular form of (our traditional ) conditioning and try to find ( or create?) a wider, more significant or more pleasant conditioning. One may give up one religion and take on another, reject one form of belief and accept another. Such substitution is obviously not (bringing a holistic?) understanding life, life being (a vast interactive?) relationship.

Our problem now is how to be free from all ( forms of psychological) conditioning. Either you say it is impossible, that no human mind can ever be free from conditioning, or you begin to experiment, to inquire, to discover (what it's all about?) To find out if it is possible for the mind to be completely free from all conditioning, you must be free to inquire and to discover.
Now I say it is definitely possible for the mind to be free from all ( its psychological ?) conditioning - for me it is a fact and I can show it to you verbally, but if you are to find the truth of it for yourself, you must experiment with it ( non-dualistically?) and follow it swiftly.

The ( holistic) understanding of the whole ( dynamic) process of conditioning does not come to you through ( the traditional psycho-) analysis or ( dualistic self-) introspection, because the 'analyser' is himself part of the conditioned state and therefore whatever his understanding, or his analysis may be, it is still part of the background. So that way there is no escape and to break the background is essential, because to meet the challenge of the new, the mind must be new; to discover God, truth, or what you will, the mind must be fresh, uncontaminated by the past.( On the other hand?) to analyse the past, to arrive at ( solid ) conclusions through a series of ( dualistic?) experiments, implies, in its very essence, the continuance of the ( conditioned) background in different (updated?) forms; when you see the truth of that fact you will discover that the ( emphasis placed on the?) 'analyser' has come to an end. Then there is no 'entity' apart from the background: there is only thought as the background, thought being the (verbally processed?) response of memory, both conscious and unconscious, individual and collective.
The ( self-centred) mind is the ( constantly updated?) result of the past, which is the process of conditioning. How is it possible for this ( time-bound) mind to be free ? To be free, the mind must not only see and understand its pendulum-like swing ( of thought?) between the past and the future but also be aware of the (silent?) intervals between two thoughts. That (ex-temporal?) 'interval' is spontaneous, it is not brought about through any (personal) causation, through any wish, through any compulsion.

If (for extra homework?) you watch very carefully, you will see that although the movement of thought seems so swift, there are (silent) intervals between ( two 'freight trains' of?) thoughts, a period of (un-conscious?) silence which is not related to the thought process. If you observe it (meditatively ?) you will see that this (tiny ?) period of silence, the (thought-free?) interval, is not of time and the full experiencing of that interval, liberates the mind from conditioning . So the understanding (in real-time?) of the process of thinking is (an important part of) meditation. . It is only when the (newly awakened?) mind is not giving continuity to thought (to thinking within the field of the known?) , when it is (inwardly) still with a stillness that is not induced, that is without any causation - it is only then that there can be freedom from (its time-binding psychological?) background.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #148
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline



Questioner: I have left my familiar world of professional writing, because I wanted to lead a spiritual life. I abandoned all my ambitions to be famous, and I have been (hanging around ) under this great (Rishi Valley) Banyan Tree for five years now and I find myself all of a sudden inwardly dull, washed out, lonely and rather miserable. What is to blame – these teachings, your environment - or is it that I have not been able to find the 'crack in the wall' that will reveal the sky? What is wrong with me and what am I to do now?

Krishnamurti: Do you feel that this ('K friendly' ?) environment is destroying you? If you leave this world and go back to what you did before, will you not be
destroyed by the things of that life? You see this destructive process going on everywhere in people who pursue ( personal or their group's ?) success, whatever they are doing and for whatever reason. Does anyone anywhere ever manage to escape this (slow process of inner?) destruction?

Questioner: Yes, they may have achieved global fame and wealth, but if they would look at themselves objectively they'd have to admit that (inwardly) they are actually nothing more than a showy 'façade' of actions, concepts, attitudes, platitudes, hopes and fears. Underneath there is emptiness and confusion, old age and the bitterness of failure.

Krishnamurti: Do you also see that the 'religiously inclined ' people are still really in it because their inner conduct is governed by the same drive to become, to realize, to attain, to grasp and to keep? The objects of this ( subliminally acquisitive) drive seem to be different from the objects of the worldly drive, but (inwardly) it is exactly the same movement. In this so-called 'spiritual' world you are destroyed just as you were destroyed in that other everyday world. Now, do you think that this ( inner) destruction, comes from (this particular?) environment, or from yourself?

Questioner: I thought that this inner dying, this destruction, was the result of ( a poor choice of) my
environment, but now I am beginning to see that
it is I who do it, I who am responsible, and it has
nothing to do with other people or environment.

Krishnamurti: This is a most important point to realize - that you are (personally) responsible for (ignoring ?) your own destruction and misery, your own empty hollowness.

Questioner: I can understand this now.

Krishnamurti: In that case you will ( wisely?) abandon all ( ego-centric?) hope of finding a 'solution' by changing the outer environment of your life.

Questioner: I see this, but what am I to do? I am still dying (inwardly) ; I have lost all I had and gained nothing
in return.

Krishnamurti: Then... you have not actually understood. This (wide ?) road ( of self-becoming?) itself 'is' ( not separated from) its own ( inner) destination of self-destruction, frustration, loneliness, immaturity. So the question now is, have you really 'turned your back' on that road?

Questioner: How do I know whether I have turned my back on it or not?

Krishnamurti: You don't 'know' (it positively?) , but if you see what that the very beginning of that road ( of self-interest?) is ( inwardly) the same as its end, then it is impossible for you to ( keep ) walking on it. Knowing well the danger of it, occasionally you may 'stray on' in a moment of inattention but seeing ( the inner) truth regarding this road and its desolation is the ending of that road, and this is the only ( eliberating) action.

Don't say, " I must meditate and go into it," but see ( the inner truth that ?) that every movement of fulfilment, achievement or dependence in life is that road. Seeing this is the abandonment of that road. When you see danger you don't make a great fuss trying to make up your mind what to do about it. If, in the face of (an actual psychological) danger, you say, "I must meditate about it, become aware of it, go into it, understand it," you are lost ( in the stream of psychological time?) , it is too late. So what you have to do ( holistically ?) is simply to see ( the whole truth regarding) this 'road' (of self-centred becoming) , what it is, where it leads and how it feels - and already you will be walking in a different direction. This is what we mean when we speak of (a choiceless) awareness : to be aware of the road and all the significance of that road, to be aware of the thousand different movements (activities ?) in life which are (going on along) the same 'road'.

Questioner: How can I be sure that I am seeing what is the right thing to do?

Krishnamurti: You can't see ( positively?) what 'to do', you can see only (negatively) what 'not to do'. The total (inteligent ?) negation of (inwardly walking along ) that 'road' is the new beginning, the 'other' road. This 'other road' can't ever be put on any ( spiritual ?) map. Every ( such) 'map' is a map of the wrong road, of the old road.

2nd Conversation

K : (...) The real question is, can one find enlightenment ( even?) in the ( middle of the?) everyday activities of life, or is it only for the few who are endowed with some extraordinary (material means or?) capacity to discover this (inner?) beatitude? 'Enlightenment' literally means to be a light unto oneself. After all, this has always
been the teaching of any authentic religion - not ( involved in ) organized belief and fear.
So we come back to the basic question of whether it is possible in daily life to live in a state of (spiritual?) enlightenment?

Questioner: I still don't know what you exactly mean by 'enlightenment'?

Krishnamurti: A state of 'negation' (of the false?) . This 'negation' ( rejection of the false?) is the most positive ( spiritual) action. Most of us so
easily accept a 'positive' creed, because we want to be secure, to belong, or (to rely on something perceived as significant ?) . ( Unfortunately?) this 'positive' attitude divides and brings about a (subliminal?) conflict between ( those who adopted ?) this attitude and others.
But the ( inward?) negation of ( one's attachment to?) all ( fake?) values, having no ( 'self'-confining ?) frontiers, cannot be in opposition to anything. To negate (one's psychological dependency to?) everything that man has invented, is to be in a ( holistic ?) state of mind in which there is no ( 'self' created?) duality and no conflict between opposite (thoughts & ?) desires .
( In a nutshell:) In this state there are no opposites, and this state is not the ( upgraded?) 'opposite' of something else.

Questioner: Then how do you know what is good and what is bad? ? If I have no moral standards what is to prevent me from God knows what aberrations?

Krishnamurti: To deny all this (wholistically?) is to deny 'oneself' - the ( time -) conditioned entity. To most (outlookers?) such a total negation appears as a state of inner vacuum because we know 'activity' only in the prison of our ( temporal) conditioning, fear and misery. From that ( safe position) we look at negation and imagine it to be some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness. However, to the ( enlightened?) man who has negated all the (false?) assertions of modern culture and morality, the man who is still ( living inwardly ) in the ( fool-proof?) prison of social conformity is a 'man of sorrow'.

( To recap:) Negation is a (time-free?) state of (inner) enlightenment which functions in all the activities of a man who is free of the ( psychological burden of the?) past. It is this (whole burden of the?) past, with its ( worldly?) traditions and 'authority' , that has to be negated. Negation is ( a state of inner?) freedom, and it is the free man who lives, loves, and knows what it means to die.

Questioner: That much is clear; but you said nothing about any intimation of the Transcendental, of the Divine, or whatever you like to call it.

Krishnamurti: The 'intimation' of That (transcendental reality?) can be found only in freedom, and any statement about it becomes a verbal communication without meaning. It is there, but it cannot be ambushed by any clever tricks of the ( self-centred) mind. There is no ( preset?) path (leading ) to it ; its ecstasy comes only when there is ( the inner presence of?) Love. This is enlightenment.

Questioner: Does it bring any new understanding of the nature of the physical universe or of an universal consciousness or being? All the religious texts are full of that sort of thing.

Krishnamurti: It is like asking questions about ( what is there to be found on ?) the Other Shore while ( enjoying one's ?) living and suffering on this shore. When you are on the 'Other Shore' you are (both) everything and nothing, and you would never ( indulge in) asking such questions. All such questions are of this shore's ( dualistic mentality) and really have no ( experiential) meaning at all.
( Parting words:) Begin to live (free of the known?) and you will be 'there' without asking, without seeking, without fear.

Third Conversation

Questioner: I would certainly like, suddenly, to find myself in a totally different world, supremely intelligent, happy, with a great sense of Love. I'd like to be ( metaphorically speaking ?) on the 'Other Bank' of the River, not to have to ( hapelessly?) struggle across, asking the 'experts' the way . I feel very strongly that there must be a sudden 'break through' from all this tawdriness of (our temporal) life. There
must be!
Recently when I was in India I heard a temple bell ringing and it had a very strange effect on me. I suddenly felt an extraordinary sensation of unity and
beauty such as I had never felt before. It happened so suddenly that I was rather dazed by it, but it was real, not a fancy or an illusion. Then the (tour) guide came along and asked me if he could show me the temples, and on that instant I was back again in the world of noise and vulgarity. What can I 'do' ( or... 'not do'?) , to get ( ASAP?) to the ' Other Shore'?

Krishnamurti: There is no 'way' to the other shore. There is no (prescribed) action that will open the door to the 'Other' (dimension of universal consciousness?) . It it cannot be bought nor invited. If this is clear and if the ('self'- centred) ?) mind has forgotten itself and there is a total ( meditative?) emptiness and space within the mind itself - then and only then 'It' is there.

Questioner: I understand ( the flawless logic of?) what you're saying, but deep within me I can not believe that there is no action that will bring me to the other shore.

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by "I do not believe there is no way"?

Questioner: I simply hope that someone who 'understands' will directly point to it, for it must actually be there all the time since it is 'Real'.

Krishnamurti: Surely all this is a supposition. Reality is a living thing and cannot be 'captured' (by an acquisitive mind?) ; you cannot even say it is always there. To (an infinitely subtle?) 'living thing' which has no resting place, how can there be a guide, a path? The mind who is so eager to attain it makes it into a 'dead' thing. Can you put ( wisely?) aside the teacher, the path, the 'end' - so completely that your mind is empty of all this ( self-centred) seeking?

The 'other shore' implies that (you assume to be on) 'this shore' , and from this shore to get to the other shore there is ( an imponderable gap of ?) 'space and time' and that is the real problem - ( one's self-centred thinking in terms of space & ) time that divides, and ( is creating?) the distance between 'this' and That. 'This' wants to become 'That', and finds it is not possible because there is ( involved a subliminal form of mental?) measurement, and a mind that is capable of measuring is capable also of (creating) illusions. This ( self-separating) division between this and that is the way of the ( time-bound?) mind, which is thought. Don't you know that when there is Love ( in one's mind & heart?) space (the sense of distance?) disappears and time disappears? It is only when 'thought & desire' come in that there is a gap of time to be bridged. When you see (the inner truth of?) it, this (shore) 'is' ( one with?) That (shore) .

Questioner: I feel that what you say ( has a certain ring of?) truth, but it eludes me.

Krishnamurti: (Perhaps because?) you are not ( inwardly?) quiet to look, to listen and to feel deeply. The 'other shore' may be (on) 'this shore'; so, if I may metaphorically?) suggest : stop 'swimming'. This doesn't mean that you do nothing, but rather that you should be passively aware without any choice whatsoever and no ( mental) measurement – and see what happens then .
To be ( inwardly ) quiet requires a great ( gathering of one's intelligent?) energy; and ( the hapless?) 'swimming' only dissipates that energy. You need all your energy for silence of the mind, and it is only in the complete (inner) emptiness, that a new thing can be.

Fourth Conversation

Questioner: I see the ( psychological?) importance (you give to) ending fear, sorrow, anger and that one must lay the foundations of good behaviour and that there must be freedom (from) the prison of one's own demands and desires. But I'd like to ask you : What is there 'beyond the Wall'? What is there that can be seen when the mind is quiet, not committed to any particular activity?

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is ( happening inwardly ) when the mind has stopped all its wanderings and has come to ( perfect ?) quietness? Are you asking what there is on the 'other side' when the mind is really still?

Questioner: Yes, because when my mind is still there seems to be nothing. However, there must be something tremendously important to discover since the Buddha and one or two others have talked about something so
immense that they can't put it into words. The Buddha said, ''Don't measure with words the immeasurable." Everyone has known moments when the mind was
perfectly still, and there was really nothing so very great about it; it was just emptiness. And yet one has a feeling that there is something in there, which, once discovered transforms the whole of one's life. There must be something much more than simply a still mind - something
much more than a fresh mind, an innocent mind, more even than a loving mind.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking if there is something sacred beyond all this? Are you asking if there is a different dimension in which the mind can live and if there is or is not something supreme?

Questioner: A great many people have said in the most convincing way that there is a tremendous treasure which is the source of consciousness and they
also say that (the self-centred) thought must stop before it can manifest itself. Apparently you yourself say more or less the same thing and it seems that you have drunk at this Source. One's inner ( state of) conflict can end. But what then?

Krishnamurti: Why are you asking this?

Questioner: You're asking a blind man why he wants to see ?

Krishnamurti: What actually takes place when the mind is really quiet? That is the real ( experiential) question, isn't it - not what lies beyond?

Questioner: What lies 'beyond' it is my question.

Krishnamurti: There may be something or there may be nothing at all, but ( the truth regarding) what lies beyond can be found only if the mind is ( meditatively?) still. If this stillness to you is only the 'door' to that which lies beyond, then you are not concerned with that door, whereas what is important is the very door itself, the very stillness itself. Therefore you cannot ask ( anybody ?) what lies beyond. The only thing that is important is for (your?) mind to be still. That is all we are concerned with, not with what lies beyond Silence.

Questioner: You are right. That state of (inner) silence has no importance to me except as a 'doorway'.

Krishnamurti: How do you know it is ( just ) a doorway and not the thing itself? The 'means' and the 'end' are not two separate things. Silence is the only fact, not what you discover through it. Let us remain with the fact and see what that fact is :
( For starters?) it is perhaps of the greatest importance, that this silence is not something induced through drugs, discipline or the repetition of ( magic?) words.

Questioner: ( This state of ) silence comes of its own, without a motive and without a cause, but I see that nothing happens.

Krishnamurti: That is the whole point – a (state of inner peace & ?) silence which is the natural outcome of
observing and understanding oneself and the world about one. If there is any shadow of a motive, then that silence is directed and deliberate, so it is not ( an authentic) silence at all. If you can honestly say that that silence is ( thought-) free, then what is the nature of this silence ? Is it innocent or is it put together?
A ( mechanistic?) mind can look at a fact and not see the beauty, the depth, the quality of that fact. Is it possible to observe silence without the 'observer'? Then, in that silence what takes place? Is this what you are asking?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Is there a (transpersonal?) observation of silence by silence in silence?

Questioner: That's a new ( holistic trick ?) question ?

Krishnamurti: It is not a new question if you have been following. The whole brain, the mind, the feelings, the body, everything is quiet. Can this quietness,
stillness, look at itself, not as an 'observer' who is (self-conscious of being?) still? Can the totality of this
silence watch its own totality?
When this ( authentic state of inner) silence becomes ( choicelessly?) aware of itself - in this there is no division between an 'observer' and the (silence which is being) observed. That is the main point. The silence does not use itself to discover something beyond itself. There is only that silence.

Now (.... for optional meditation homework?) see what happens.

5-th Conversation ( On the holistic approach in dealing with habits)

Questioner: I have got one predominating (bad?) habit; I also have other ( not so bad ?) habits, but I have been fighting with this one habit as long as I can remember. It must have been formed in my early childhood and gradually as I grew older it became more and more deep-rooted and I don't seem able to get rid of it. What am I to do?

Krishnamurti: From what you say you have fallen into a habit for many, many years and you have also cultivated a ( compensating?) habit, the ( mental) habit of fighting it. So you want to get rid of one ( bad?) habit by cultivating another ( better one?) which is the denial of the first. You are fighting one habit with another.
(Now, from the holistic point of view?) both habits are the two sides of the same coin: without the first,
the second wouldn't be, so the second is really a (modified) continuation of the first as a reaction.

Questioner: I know what you ( usually) say about ( choiceless?) awareness, but I can't be so aware all the time.

Krishnamurti: The real problem is having habits, not just one particular habit. So the ( holistically friendly?) question really is, is it possible to 'break' a habit without cultivating its opposite or without trying to suppress it through 'uninterrupted vigilance' ?

Questioner: You mean, that I can get rid of this ('bad'?) habit without generating this complicated network of reactions to it?

Krishnamurti: So long as you want to get rid of it, that complicated network of ( knowledgeable?) reactions is actually in operation.

Questioner: But all the same, I must do something about it!

Krishnamurti: That indicates that you are (psychologically) dominated by this one ( self-centred?) desire. This desire and its ( collateral) reactions are not different from the habit itself - as they feed on each

Questioner: Should I, then, just do nothing about it at all?

Krishnamurti: What you are presently doing about it is to cultivate another habit in opposition to the old one.

Questioner: But if I do nothing, I am left with the habit, and we are back where we started.

Krishnamurti: Realising that what you do (in order ) to break the first habit is the cultivation of another habit, there can be only one ( holistically friendly?) action : to do nothing at all against that habit, as whatever you try to do is within the old pattern of habits, so doing nothing, (or just having the feeling that you don't have to fight it?) is the greatest action of intelligence.
Seeing this ( subtle point?) very clearly there is immediately a feeling of great relief and great lightness.

Questioner: Then only the (old mechanism of the?) habit remains, and there is no resistance to it ?

Krishnamurti: You become (responsibly?) aware of the habit ( mechanism) and your ( waking?) intelligence says, don't do anything about the habit, don't get (obsessively?) concerned with it because the more you are concerned with it the more active it becomes. Now ( the holistic ?) intelligence is in operation and is (freely?) 'watching'. If you get the feeling of this intelligence watching (freely?) , then this will operate and deal with the habit ( creatively ?) , and not the (self-imposed ) vigilance of resolution and will.

So (in a nutshell?) what is ( experientially?) important is not ( breaking that particular?) habit but the ( conflict-free ?) understanding of ( the mechanism of) habit which brings about Intelligence. This Intelligence keeps awake without the fuel of (egocentric) desire. In the first instance the habit is confronted with resistance, in the second it is not confronted at all, and that is ( the holistic action of?) Intelligence. The action of intelligence has withered the resistance to the habit on which the habit feeds.

Questioner: Do you mean to say that I have already got rid of my ( bad ) habit?

Krishnamurti: Don't be too hasty in your assumption of having got rid of it. What is more important (educationally ?) than habit is this ( quality of holistic) understanding, which is intelligence. This intelligence is sacred and therefore must be touched with clean hands, not exploited for trivial (mind) games. Your little habit is ( then seen as ) utterly unimportant. If (this quality of holistic?) intelligence is (awake ?) the habit is ( seen as?) trivial; if intelligence is not there, then the 'wheel of habit' ( chasing its own tail?) is all you have got.

6th Conversation ( Transcending the 'blank wall' of psychological duality )

Questioner: I have come to you to find out why there is this ( sense of psychological) division, of separation between oneself and everything else. Wherever one goes, one finds this separation - not only in oneself but in everyone else. I wonder if it is ever possible to be really free of this aching separation?

Krishnamurti: (The gist of your ?) question is: why is there this division, this 'cleavage' between 'what is' and 'what has been' or 'what should be' and why man has lived in this dualistic state that broken his life into various fragments?

To understand a ( holistic?) state of mind in which the division (between the 'observer' and 'what is observed'?) no longer exists, we must ( take a brief detour and?) look at the beginning of thought – by being aware of a thought as it arises and of that which it comes out of.
Thought arises from the ( active memory of the?) past. A thought is like a thread in a piece of cloth, but as most of us are unaware of the 'whole cloth' (the whole self-centred mind) we are trying to control, or shape, or
understand, only one ( particular thread of?) thought. On what is this whole 'cloth of thoughts' resting?

Questioner: This ( holistic question?) has never
occurred to me before, so you must go slowly.

Krishnamurti: Is ( the subliminally self-centred activity of ?) thought the cause of all division, of all fragmentation in life? What is a thought made of? What is the substance of those pieces of thread woven into that complex cloth we call the mind? Thought comes from the accumulated memory, which is matter, stored in the brain.
Can one be aware of a thought as it arises out of the ( memory matrix of the?) past ? And can one be aware beyond the wall of the past? This means ( being aware of an inner ) space that is not touched by ( the residues of) time or memory. Until we discover this ( silent inner space?) the mind cannot see itself in terms of anything other than thought, which is ( constantly projecting its own ) time.
( In a nutshell:) Whatever ( one's self-centred) thinking does, is still within its own measurable boundaries.
To go beyond thought's ( limitations?) we must ( spend some quality time to?) understand (who or?) what is this 'thinker', or 'observer' , the living ( mental) entity who is always moving, acting, who is aware of things, and aware of his own existence ? This 'observer' is the ( personalised focussing of the?) whole machinery of thought, he is also (subliminally identifying itself with the ?) sensory perceptions and with his own idea of himself – a ( protective self- ?) image built from conditioning, from the past, from tradition. The 'observer' thinks and acts (in a self-centred way?) . His action is always according to his image about himself and to his (own) image of the world. This (all-controlling ) action of the 'observer' breeds division in all its relationships.
So the cause of all the ( inward & outward ) division is the (dualistic?) action of the 'observer' who divides life into the thing observed and 'himself' ( being safely) separated from it....and hence (the endless ) conflict.

( In a holistic nutshell:) The 'observer', the 'thinker', the 'experiencer', are not different from the 'observed',
the 'thought', the 'experienced'. ( Hint : ) This is not a (paradoxical?) verbal conclusion. When the ( meditating?) mind sees the reality of this, the division can no longer exist. This is the whole point of what
we are saying. All (one's inward & outward) conflict is ( the result of) the ( subliminal ?) efforts of the observer ( in trying to fix?) the ( flaws of what is being ?) observed.
This point is the greatest thing to understand .
Only now can we answer our (transcendental ?) question : Can we go beyond the ( invisible) wall of time and memory ? Because only now has ( the time-binding) activity of thought come to an end. ( The integrated ) thinking which can now function to communicate, to act, to work, is another kind of thought which does not breed division in relationship.
Righteousness is living without the separative action of the observer.

Questioner: What is that thing on which the cloth of thought exists?

Krishnamurti: It is that ( creative substratum ?) which is not the action of the observer. The realizing of
this is (leading to an inner sense of?) great Love
. This realization is possible only when you understand that the
observer himself is (not separated from) the observed: and that is ( the practical aspect of a holistically friendly ?) Meditation.

7-th Conversation ( On Loneliness & Attachment)

Questioner: I find myself getting dreadfully attached to people and dependent on them. Seeing the
discomfort and pain of this dependency , I try to be detached. Then I feel terribly lonely, and unable to face the loneliness I escape from it through drink and in other ways.

Krishnamurti: There is attachment, then the struggle to be detached, then out of this comes a still deeper conflict (brought by) the fear of ( facing one's existential?) loneliness. So aren't you (interested ) to learn whether you can live a life of freedom and joy which is not the
result of environment, human or otherwise? This is a very important ( existential) question as most human beings are ( becoming 'psychological?) slaves' to their family or to their ( limiting material?) circumstances. Does (this condition of) dependence in any form bring joy, or to depend psychologically on anything - people, possessions, ideas, talent - is to invite sorrow ?
Therefore one asks: Is there an ( inward source of creative happiness or ?) joy that is not dependent on anything? Is there a 'light' that is not lit by another?

Questioner: My joy so far has always been 'lit' by something or someone external to myself so I can't answer that question. Perhaps I don't even dare to
ask it because then I may have to change my way of life. I certainly depend on drink, books, sex and companionship.

Krishnamurti: But when (and if?) you see for yourself, clearly, that this dependence breeds various forms of fear and misery, don't you inevitably ask the other ( holistically friendly?) question whether there is a joy, a bliss, that is its own light?

Questioner: I may ask it but it has no value. Being caught in all this, this is all that actually exists for me.

Krishnamurti: Attachment is an escape from (facing one's existential condition of ) loneliness. Can't ( the causation of?) this loneliness be understood and (then?) find out for oneself what is beyond it? That is the real question : can this deep sense of one's loneliness & (inner) emptiness, be transcended? (Hint:) Any movement away from loneliness strengthens it and so this makes for attachment which brings its own problems. ( Eventually?) the ( collateral) problems ( created by one's) attachment get to occupy the mind so much that one loses sight of the loneliness and disregards it. So we disregard the cause and occupy ourselves with the effects. But this sense of loneliness is acting all the time because there is no difference between cause and effect. There is only 'what is'.

( Recap:) It is important to understand that this 'movement away' from (one's existential loneliness) is ( generating) its own effect - attachment. Then this ( resulting condition of dependency & ) attachment prevents one from looking at 'what is'. The movement away from what is, ( generates its own psychological?) fear, and then we try to resolve it by another escape.
This is ( generating ) a perpetual ( 'treadmill' kind of mental ?) motion, which is apparently moving away from 'what is', but in actuality there is no movement at all.
So (in a nutshell:) it is only the mind which sees 'what is' and doesn't move away from it in any direction that is free of 'what is'. Since this chain of cause and effect is ( generated by?) the action of ( avoiding to face one's?) loneliness, it is clear ( for any objective observer ?)
that the only ending of loneliness is the ending of this action.

Questioner: I shall have to go into this very, very deeply...

Krishnamurti: This ( noble endeavour of going into oneself very deeply?) can also become another ( psychologically motivated ?) occupation which becomes a ( highly sophisticated form of psychological ?) escape.
But if you 'see' ( the inward truth of) all this with complete clarity it is like the 'flight of the eagle' that
leaves no mark in the air.

8- th Conversation ( A holistic approach to ending one's inner conflict )

Questioner: I am ( finding myself) in conflict with so many things, not only outwardly but also inwardly. I can somehow deal with the outward conflicts but I want to know how I can end the inner conflict which is going on within myself most of the time. What should I do to be free from all this ( inner) strife ?

Krishnamurti: Conflict in any form distorts the (holistic quality of the?) mind. This is an ( observable inner ) 'fact', that ( the state of inner) conflict prevents any insightful perception.
( In a nutshell:) The (observer's?) division between 'what is' and 'what should' be is the origin of conflict. And the (time) interval between idea and ( applying it) in action also breeds conflict.
The ( direct perception of a?) fact and the ( mental) image (of it?) are two different things: the pursuit of the image leads to every form of conflict, illusion and hypocrisy whereas the ( trans-personal?) understanding of 'what is' leads to quite a different state of mind.
Contradictory drives ( threads of thought- desire?) bring about conflict; the ( survival oriented ?) structure of the brain is also a source of conflict ; our ( everyday) relationship is ( a potential source of ?) conflict ( between the 'image' and the reality) . So wherever one looks, superficially or very, very deeply, there is this ( existential) agony of strife and pain. The human mind itself is (living in?) conflict : all activity of the ( self-centred?) mind and of its feelings is conflict.

When you ask how you can end conflict you are really
asking how you can stop thinking and be really quiet?

Questioner: Precisely, for when there is conflict it is as if the mind were wounded by its own activity and loses sensitivity.

Krishnamurti: So is it also clear that ( the inner) conflict destroys passion, energy and sensitivity ?

Questioner: I know it, but it doesn't get me any

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by 'knowing it' ? Do you see the truth of it, or do you see the ( logic of) the verbal explanation? We must be very clear about this because the explanation is not the fact, the description is not the described; and when you say "l know" it may be that you perceive only the description.

Questioner: No...

Krishnamurti: One very (tricky?) activity of the ( intellectual) mind is description, in which it gets caught. The mind sees its own ( mental image of the?) description and thinks it sees the 'fact', whereas
in reality it is caught up in its own movement. So where are we now, when there is only ( the seeing of) 'what is' and not the verbal description?

Questioner: You were saying that the mind dulls itself by conflict, by working against itself.

Krishnamurti: So your question becomes: how can the mind stop working against itself?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Is this question ( a subtle form of) trying to get rid of conflict? If it is, you are ( caught) forever in this vicious circle. So the right
question is not 'How to end conflict ?' but to see the truth that ( in a holistically integrated mind ?) where passion and sensitivity are present, the inner conflict is absent.
Do you see this?

Questioner: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So you can no longer be concerned with the ending of conflict; it will ( eventually?) wither away. But it will never wither so long as thought is nourishing it. What is (holisticaly) important is the (awakening of inner ?) passion and the sensitivity, not the ending of conflict.

Questioner: I can see ( the rationality of ) this, but that doesn't mean I've got that passion; it doesn't mean I've ended the conflict.

Krishnamurti: If you ( would) really see ( the truth of) this, that very 'act of seeing' is ( generating its own?) passion, sensitivity, energy. And in this ( insightful?) 'seeing' there is no conflict.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 10 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 19 Mar 2019 #149
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline


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

Questioner P: I wanted to ask if there is one ( first & last?) question which needs to be asked by the ( holistically minded) individual, which would open the door to ( the ultimate inward?) Reality ? There are many things which we have discussed during the last few days. Can all these questions converge into one question?

Krishnamurti: I think so. Can the totality of our mind empty itself of its (psychological?) knowledge and also the ( time-binding?) mechanism of thought that functions all the time? Can the ( meditating?) mind empty itself not only at the conscious level but at the deeper secret chambers of the mind? And from that ( innocent state of inward ) 'emptiness' can knowledge operate and not operate?

B: The ( experiential ) question then, would be (how to achieve this inner state of ?) 'emptiness'?

Krishnamurti: Let us see. Can the ( meditating?) mind 'empty' ( let go?) its whole ( 'psychological') content as the ( subliminally active memory of the?) past, so that it has no ( personal?) motive? Can it empty itself and can that ( universally open state of ? ) emptiness use knowledge, pick it up, use it and drop it, but always remain 'empty' ( free of the 'known'?) ?
Emptiness in the sense of the mind being (inwardly identified with?) 'nothing'; a (state of holistic ?) emptiness which has its own (intelligent) 'movement' , which is not measurable in terms of time. This 'movement in emptiness', which is not the movement of ( thought & ) time, can operate in the field of knowledge and there is no other operation. That movement can only operate in the field of knowledge and nowhere else.

P: Are they two movements?

Krishnamurti: That is why I said that ( this holistically intelligent?) movement can operate only in ( the field of) knowledge; it has no two movements. From what you have observed in your talks here, "K" has divided knowledge and freedom from knowledge. Knowledge operating in the field of science in which there must be a certain direction, an operative function, a design; and knowledge not operating where there is no place for thought and therefore of ( exersing its ) will (power) .

F: It seems that sometimes we operate deliberately and sometimes non-deliberately. I can see I do something of which I know nothing, and yet I operate. So there are these two operations: mental and non-mental. The movement of the two are not separate.

Krishnamurti: Watch ( the inward functioning of) your own mind, "F". You see thought operating always within the field of the 'known' . The knowledge (available there ) helps man to live more comfortably environmentally, but (psychologically ) it brings ( a collateral contribution of ?) misery & confusion. That is a (directly observable) fact. Then you and I ask : is it possible for thought not to create this inner misery? That is all. Keep it as simple as this.

F: My answer to that is the roots of ( my psychological?) 'misery' are not known to me. I do not know the promptings which create this misery.

Krishnamurti: We began from the superficial layers. Now we'll have to go into the 'secret' chambers of the (human) mind.

P: Surely we are not positing an (ideal ) state of consciousness where thought will operate at the day-to-day level of action when necessary, and if by some kind of ( mental) trick, all the (self-centred inner activities of) thought were to be wiped away ? We are not postulating that, surely ?

Krishnamurti: Of course not.

P: But look 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 a state which is 'non-thought'. If consciousness is only content, then what is the 'other'?

D: What else is there in ( the deep chambers of our) consciousness? Is thought ( occupying ) the entirety of man's consciousness? Can we say that consciousness is nothing beyond thought? I would question this.

Krishnamurti: So we have to ( take a brief detour & ?) go into the question of consciousness.

P: What is meant by 'consciousness'?

Krishnamurti: What is ( the human?) consciousness? There is a waking consciousness and there is hidden consciousness - the ( time-bound?) consciousness of the superficial mind, and a total lack of awareness of ( what is going on in) the deeper layers of consciousness.

P: I would say, Krishnaji, that there is a ( superficial level of ) consciousness in which thought operates, then there is a ( transpersonal) consciousness where attention is and where there is seeing; and a ( still deeper level of) consciousness which is 'unconscious' of ( whatever is going on in ) thought. I see these three states as they operate in me.

Krishnamurti: Three states which are : the operation of memory ( in the field of reality?) as thought, as action; then a state of ( transpersonal) attention where there is no thinker...

P:... and a state of being ( sound) asleep when you are not aware of thought nor of attention.

Krishnamurti: So you are saying there is the ( temporal) operation of thought, memory, having been and will be. Then there is a state of attention and there is a state in which there is neither attention nor thought, but a sense of being half asleep.

P: Half awake, half asleep.

Krishnamurti: All this is what you would call 'consciousness'. Right?

P: And in all these states the sensory perceptions are in operation, whether consciously or unconsciously.

Krishnamurti: Can we start (to look at it in a holistically-friendly?) way? There is all this ( field of ) human consciousness, wide or narrow, deep or shallow. As long as there is an 'centre' ( of self-interest?) which is conscious of itself, this 'centre' says 'I am aware' or 'I am not aware' (of whatever is going on within this consciousness) . This ( self-focussing?) 'centre' can attempt to go beyond the ( self-protective?) limitations which it has placed around itself. This 'centre' has its deep roots in the 'caves' ( of the total consciousness of mankind?) and it operates superficially ( by interacting with the outward world). All that is ( time-bound) consciousness (of man) . In all that there must be a 'centre'.

P: May I ask you a ( bonus?) question? Would you say there is no operation of this ( generic human) consciousness in you?

Krishnamurti: We will come to that presently. That is not the point.

A: I wanted to ask whether there is such a thing as a matrix (an original energy field of humman ) consciousness?) in which there is not even a centre, because it is out of that the centre is formed? A 'matrix' of temporality ?

Krishnamurti: Are we ( indulging in?) speculating? Let us begin very simply. When are you actually (self-) conscious? Either through sensory reaction, through a sensory shock, a sensory resistance, in sensing a danger, or in a conflict in which there is (an expected outcome of?) pain-pleasure. It is only in those moments when I am ( feeling personally?) challenged, when there is an impact, conflict, pain, pleasure, then I am ( 100% 'self-) conscious'.

D: There may be no (self-centred ) 'focussing ' at all.

Krishnamurti: This whole phenomenon (of human consciousness) is going on, whether there is a deliberate awareness or not, this thing is operating all the time. That is what we call ( the generic state of our ?) consciousness.

P: You mean there is no 'photographic' (transpersonal) consciousness  - like when I see a dust bin ?

Krishnamurti: The brain cells are receiving all the (sensory) impacts. But 'you' are seeing it.

F: And in this (generic 'brain-cells' consciousness?) there no classification as pain or pleasure?

Krishnamurti: ( The processing of the sensory ) impact ( in terms of) pleasure, pain, conflict, sorrow, conscious, or unconscious, is 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.

P: So, this whole process (of sensory responses and the mental processing) is ( generating its own?) consciousness and the 'centre' that observes is also part of this consciousness.

Krishnamurti: So, what is the next question?

B: What is the nature of the unconscious?

Krishnamurti: It ( basically?) is still the same (process ) . Only it is going on in the deeper layers.

B: Then, why are we unconscious of ( what's going on in) the deeper layers?

Krishnamurti: Because we are very active all the time at the superficial ( survivalistic?) levels .

B: So the density of ( activities going on in ) the superficial layers prevents our being conscious of the deeper layers ?

Krishnamurti: It is like 'swimming on the surface' (& keeping an eye on the incoming sharks?) . So what is my next question?

B: Is it possible ( for the 'centre'?) to integrate the various layers?

Krishnamurti: No.

P: What is the relationship of thought to consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Thought 'is' ( generating its own field of self- ) consciousness.

P: Isn't there ( deeper down?) anything else but thought?

Krishnamurti: Why do you put that question?

P: Because I have observed that you speak of a region where thought has a legitimate place and a region where thought has no legitimate place - and yet you say thought 'is' consciousness.

Krishnamurti: When the superficial ( survival-oriented?) consciousness is making a lot of (collateral?) 'noises', you come and ask what is the relationship between thought and all this (temporal) consciousness ? Thought 'is' ( creating) all that.

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.

A: Isn't there in ( the human) consciousness a 'space' which is not covered by thought?

Krishnamurti: I do not say you are not right. So go on.

A: I say there is space in consciousness which is not thought and that is part of the human heritage. It is there.

Krishnamurti: I do not think that in ( the self-centred?) consciousness there is any such '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 this ( state of non-personal attention ?) 'consciousness'? Wait, go slow. "A" says there is (a thought-free inner ?) space in ( the human) consciousness. Do not call that 'space'. Space, in the ( holistic?) sense in which we use the word does not exist in ( the temporal?) consciousness. That (silent inner ) 'Space' is something else. Leave that for (meditation homework for ?) the moment. Now what is the next question?

P: Is thought contained in ( the total field of human ) consciousness?

Krishnamurti: Put the question this way : Is there a state of mind when there is no ( accumulative?) learning at all?

P: You have left us far behind now...

Krishnamurti: I want to go slowly, please. Thought is consciousness, listening is consciousness and learning is consciousness. Listening, seeing, learning, hearing, as well as the memorizing and thought's reaction to that memory are also part of all this (time-bound consciousness ?).

P: Agreed, when any one of these is operating, there is no 'other'. What you then say is understandable. Then there is no duality. Now we take the next step. When each of these operates, it is ( part of our temporal?) consciousness.

Krishnamurti: When thought is operating in the technical field, there is no duality. When thought 'compares' ( the personal profit of) that particular operation to another then there is duality. Right? I say how marvellous that lamp is. It is finished. But when thought says I wish I had it in my room, then there is duality. See what has been found, when there is the simple functioning of thought without any ( open or hiden personal ?) motive, there is no duality.

P: This again is very difficult - thought is motive - not the brain cells registration- because thought is (using ) words, and many words are loaded (with dualistic ) meaning.

Krishnamurti: There is memory of that sunset, then thought says, I wish it would happen again. In that, motive operates.

D: Yes, but when you look at that sunset, ( the personal) motive is irrelevant.

P: Sunset is an impersonal thing, let us take the movement of jealousy as (a more personal activity of ) thought.

Krishnamurti: Jealousy is ( containing in it ) the factor of duality - that is, my wife looks at another man, and I feel jealous because I possess her, she is mine. But if I observe ( holistically this whole ?) situation , 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 ( Case 'holistically' solved ???)

P: I understand that. But we have somehow moved away.

Krishnamurti: I am coming back  to ( the active content of the temporal ) consciousness : (sensory) perception, hearing, seeing, listening (& occasionally ) learning, the (recorded ) memory of all that and thought's responding according to that ( bank of experiential) memory. All that is ( our temporal ) consciousness in which there is duality & its (inherent) conflicts - I must, I must not - the whole of that field is (the 'man-made' ) consciousness. And in it there is no ( free inner ) space at all because it has ( self-enclosing) boundaries & 'limitations'.

A: There is another ( subliminally active) factor which I would like to have included : the perceptions and experiences of the whole world are ( constantly) 'syphoning' into my consciousness. How can we ignore all that? If we only take the "I" and see the source of it, it is not enough: What is this process by which this ( collective consciousness?) is syphoning into me? The movement of the "I" as ( sustained by?) thought is constantly being fed and renewed by that. Unless I see this (global) process, I do not understand (the total content of human consciousness?)

Krishnamurti: Sir, the whole of this field of human consciousness is the movement of contraction and expansion, a movement of information, knowledge, registration of knowledge, motivation & all that.
( In a nutshell : Consciousness-wise ) I 'am' the environment and the environment 'is' the me. In that whole field ( of mankind's collective consciousness?) there is the ( personal ?) movement of the 'me'. I like the Arabs and I do not like the Jews - within this (vast field of world's ) consciousness, the ( element of personal choice?) comes up -

A: In this wide canvas we see thought is syphoning into this focus which we call consciousness.

Krishnamurti: All that is consciousness. Consciousness creates the mischief by saying, "I like", "I do not like". (Often?) I am a just a witness to this "I like" and "I do not like" because that is part of this movement over which I have no control at all.

A: I would say that the problem is the 'identification' which gives this weightage to the "I like" and "I don't like", that it builds around it.

Krishnamurti: Here I am born in India, with all the cultural environment, all the superstitions, the riches and poverty, the sky, the hills, the economic, the social, the whole of that is 'me' (is defining this particular consciousness?) .

A: Something more - the entire historical and the pre-historical past. If you include all that, then ( the factor of personal) choice disappears.

Krishnamurti: Sir, ( consciousness-wise?) 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 Indian) 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: Let us come back : I asked the question "what is the relation between thought and consciousness?"

Krishnamurti: It is a wrong question.

P: All right, consciousness 'is' thought. But you have been stating that it is legitimate for thought to operate in fields where knowledge is necessary and when it operates in other fields then it brings sorrow, pain, duality. The question is: the 'other' ( knowledge free?) state of which you are talking about, is it also ( part of human) consciousness?

Krishnamurti: What would you say?

P: I would say that it is ( an integral part of human) consciousness, as is seeing, listening etc...

Krishnamurti: Stick to this ( holistically friendly?) question for the moment : thought has a legitimate field of operation (in our practical life) , but if it impinges into other ( psychologically related ) fields then it brings pain, suffering. That which operates in this (practical) area, is it ( the good old time-bound ) consciousness as we know it, with all the ( man-made ?) things we have put into it. The 'Other' is not.

P: The 'Other' is not... what?

Krishnamurti: It is not ( the result of ) thought.

P: But is it still ( part of our ) consciousness? I will open it out a little more. The sensory perceptions operate. Seeing, listening operates, therefore why do you say it is not consciousness?

Krishnamurti: I am saying ( it is a non-dualistic ?) consciousness - in the sense that there is no conflict in it .

P: There is no conflict in ( this holistic ) consciousness. There is only conflict when consciousness operates as ( an ego-centric activity of ) thought in the ( inward ) field where it has no legitimate place. Why should there be conflict in consciousness when ( the self-centred process of) thought is not operating?

Krishnamurti: There is no conflict at all there. Let us go slowly.

P: Then what is it that operates there?

Krishnamurti: Is Intelligence ( part of mankind's temporal?) consciousness? ( The compassionate presence of ?) Intelligence 'is not' ( the intrinsical quality of a self-interest driven ?) consciousness.

P: Now we come to a stage where we just 'listen' ( to your parting statements ?).

Krishnamurti: As "A" pointed out, the whole content of ( our temporal) consciousness 'is' the whole human heritage and I 'am' (psychologically accountable for?) all this consciousness -which is ( caught ) in conflict. And my chief concern is to end this ( inner condition of dualistic) conflict (with its collateral burden of) sorrow, pain. In examining that, there is an (insightful) discovery that it is all ( due to the self-centred) process of thought. There is ( an awareness of its time-binding ) pain and pleasure and from that ( insightful realisation) the ( holistically inclined ) mind says that thought must operate in the field of knowledge and not here. What has happened to my mind? It has become pliable, soft, alive. It 'sees', it 'hears'. It does not have the quality of conflict in it, and that is ( the holistic nature of) Intelligence. And that is not ( part of the time-bound ) consciousness.
Intelligence is not heritage whereas ( the temporal) consciousness is heritage. (Tip :) Do not ( bother to?) translate this Intelligence as 'God'.
Now this ( transpersonal) intelligence can use knowledge & ( the available skills of ?) thought to operate in the field of knowledge, but its operation is never dualistic.

D: The language of intelligence must be different from the language of thought ?

Krishnamurti: Intelligence has no (man-made ?) language, but it can use language. The moment it has a (standardised verbal ?) language it is back again in the field (of the known?) . This Intelligence having no (man-made) language is not 'personal'. It is not 'mine' or 'yours'.

P: It may not be 'personal' but is it focalized?

Krishnamurti: No, it appears to focalize.

P: When it moves, does it focalize?

Krishnamurti: Of course, it must, but it is never ( staying?) in focalization.

P: It is never held (in a particular consciousness?) ?
Krishnamurti: It is like holding the sea in your fist: it (the intelligent 'water' being held) is part of the sea, but it is not 'the' sea.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Mar 2019 #150
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 488 posts in this forum Offline


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

Questioner P: There was something ( worth examining ?) which Krishnaji said in his talk yesterday. He asked whether the brain cells could strip themselves of everything except the movement of the purely biological necessity of survival which helps the physical organism to exist? Krishnaji seemed to suggest that before any ( meditative?) 'movement' in the new dimension could take place, this total stripping to the bare bedrock was essential.

D: Is such stripping of every element of ( self-) consciousness possible? We have always claimed that the human being is more than the urge for survival.

F: Are the brain cells not the repository of culture?

P: 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. The biological survival (has to) exist, but the 'psychological' factors ( based on self-interest?) have made (mankind's) survival (look) almost impossible. Psychological elements like nationalism are preventing man from surviving. Psychological fragmentation is destroying the beauty of survival. Can't we strip man's (consciousness?) of all these 'psychological' factors?

P: Apart from the biological and psychological, isn't there any other element ?

Krishnamurti: As far as we know (it now?) these are the only two ( active) factors that operate in man.

F: Is there not such a factor as psychical survival, apart from the physiological?

Krishnamurti: Which means the survival of the 'psyche' ('soul'?) that is the result of environment, of heritage. Last evening when we used the word "con- sciousness", we said the whole of consciousness 'is' (indissociable from?) its content. This ( self-sustained ?) 'content' of human consciousness is conflict, (attachment?) pain ( & so on ?) - the whole of that is (subliminally defining the self-centred ) consciousness.

D: But you have also said that 'intelligence' is more than ( this 'time-bound') consciousness.

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

P: You implied yesterday that there was a necessity to 'strip' ( the latter?) so that nothing existed but biological survival.

Krishnamurti: Can you not 'strip' ( meditatively speaking ?) this whole 'psychological' content of ( the temporal ?) consciousness ? In that (inward) 'stripping', the ( holistic quality of?) Intelligence is in operation. Then there is the 'biological' and 'intelligence' ( operating factors?) - there is no other.

P: In fact, you did not speak of Intelligence yesterday. You just said that when there is this total ( inward) stripping, the ( totality of the?) 'mind' perceives. Is there such a 'seeing?'

Krishnamurti: Then the 'mind' is not left (just with ) the 'survival' element, but there is in it another quality ( of holistic intelligence?) which perceives.

P: What is that quality?

Krishnamurti: What did "K" say yesterday?

P: He said there is an (inward) stripping and there is only the movement of survival, and that (timeless inward quality of ? ) Silence 'sees'.

Krishnamurti: Perfectly true. Now what is this 'silence'? What is the nature of 'silence'?

P: That 'seeing' ( out of inner silence?) is something which we can affirm. But we cannot help asking : if man is stripped of everything which we consider the defining elements of the human consciousness .....

Krishnamurti: Which is conflict, pain.

P: Not only that, but also ( the feelings of empathy & ) compassion...

B: We consider that man is 'human' as opposed to the animal. What are the things which differentiate man - intelligence, the capacity to analyse, speech...

D: Man is a language ( evolved ?) animal. And that is the mark of man that distinguishes him from the rest of the animal world. What language does to man is to enable him to say "I am'' . And the moment he goes beyond it, he speculates, projects - the whole cosmology.

B: One more thing : because of language, man has been able to evolve all our present culture - he cannot just go back to the biological stage.

D: (But, on the other hand?) In twenty-five thousand years of evolution, of thinking, of speaking and so on, there is very little change in ( the inner consciousness of) man; the environment has changed, but fundamentally there is very little ( qualitative inner ) change.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

P: But ( inwardly) I am still aware of what "I am " . This is where we are ...

Krishnamurti: "B" is saying very simply: strip man of all the psychological factors and what is the difference between animal and man? Oh, there is a vast difference.

P: The moment you posit a difference, then you are investigating something else.

Krishnamurti: Let us go back (to 'Square One'?) . We ( all?) want to survive both 'psychologically' and also 'biologically'.

D: I say there is also something else (of a purely spiritual nature?) .

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

D: So, you say ( that it becomes an actuality only when ) all other ( time-binding) aspects of the human mind have ended ?

Krishnamurti: When ( the inner) conflict, misery, pain have ended......

P: As also the fantasy, the wonder, imagination; that which has made man reach out, reach in ?

Krishnamurti: "K" said both the 'outer' and the 'inner'.

P: Because they are ( the result of ) the same (self-interest based ?) movement ? Now, when all this is to be stripped, what happens? Can we, in this ( meditation- friendly?) discussion, can we in going through this, get the feeling of that 'stripping' & of that 'seeing'?

Krishnamurti: We have said that ( the universally open ?) Intelligence is beyond ( the man-made ) consciousness and when the mind is stripped of its 'psychological' elements (of self-interest?) , in that very 'stripping' there is the uncovering of the (timeless presence of?) Intelligence. Or (perhaps?) Intelligence comes into (one's?) being in the very stripping. Then, there is the biological survival and intelligence. That is all.
( In a nutshell:) Intelligence has no heritage. ( The self-interest driven ?) consciousness has ( its own cultural) heritage. We are caught in ( a collective stream of ) becoming within the field of consciousness. Let the ( meditating?) mind 'empty' itself of all that. In that very emptying comes intelligence. Therefore there are only two things left: the highest form of intelligence and the (intelligent concern for the physical) survival which is entirely different from animal survival. Man is not merely the animal because he is able to think, design, construct.

P: Do you mean to say there is a ( Presence of?) Intelligence which manifests itself in ( the psychological?) stripping?

Krishnamurti: Listen carefully. My ( self-centred) consciousness is all the time trying to become, change, modify, struggle, etc. That is all we know : the (struggling for?) biological survival and that. Everybody operates ( with various degrees of freedom?) within these two. And within that ( survivalistic mentality of ?) struggle we project something beyond consciousness which is still within consciousness because it is projected.
But the ( holistically responsible human?) mind that really wants to be free from this wrangling and 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 (inward) 'stripping', or 'emptying' an endless process?

Krishnamurti: Certainly not. Because then I am caught in the same ( time-binding?) phenomenon.

P: Let us pause here. Is it not an endless process?

Krishnamurti: It is not an endless process.

P: You mean, once it is done, it is done for good ? Does it take time or is it free of time? Is it piecemeal? Or is it an awareness of the whole (self-centred process ?) ?

Krishnamurti: When you use the word "aware", what do you mean by that word "aware"? If you mean an awareness of all the implications - in which there is no ( element of personal?) choice, no will, no compulsion, no resistance - obviously it is so.

P: So at any point this is possible?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

P: So, that is the door (in the Wall?) ; the door of dissolution .

D: The 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 point. But Pupul's question was, is this awareness, bit by bit? Or is it ( a holistic ) awareness in which there is no choice, the total? (If so,) does it empty the whole of consciousness? Does it go beyond consciousness?

P: And my second (bonus?) 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: If you say it is not a question of 'time' then this ( holistic ?) 'awareness' is not a process ; so, five minutes ( or... five years?) later it will emerge again. So the question cannot be answered (once & for all?)

Krishnamurti : Can we, who are caught in the movement of time, go beyond time ? The (self-centred ) consciousness cannot answer this (impossible?) question - it does not even know what it means- because it can only think in terms of time and when questioned whether there can be an ending of this process in which there is no time involved, it cannot answer, can it?
Now as ( our temporal) consciousness cannot answer the question, we say let us see what is ( the choiceless?) 'awareness' and investigate whether this awareness can bring about ( holistically?) a timeless state? But this brings in new elements. What is this awareness? Is it within the field of time, is it outside the field of time?

So, what is the (quality of transpersonal?) awareness'? Is there in it any ( personal) choice, explanation, justification, or condemnation? Or is there the 'observer', the 'chooser'? ( In a nutshell:) is there a (state of objective?) 'awareness' in which there is no 'observer' at all?
Obviously (outwardly ?) there is  : for instance, I am aware of that lamp and I do not have to ( measure, evaluate & ?) choose when I am ( non-personally?) aware of that lamp. Is there an (extratemporal quality of ?) awareness in which the 'observer' is totally absent? ( Experiential hint : ) Not a 'continuous' ( 'self'-enforced?) state of awareness in which the observer is absent, which again is a fallacious statement.

A: The ( traditionally used ?) word is 'swarupa shunyata'. The 'observer' becomes empty. He is 'stripped' (of his all-controlling mentality?) .

Krishnamurti: Now, is this (trans-personal?) awareness to be cultivated ( by the self- conscious mind?) which implies ( planning to achieve it in?) time?( If not, then?) how does this( 'observer'-free quality of ) awareness come into being without ( the temporal ) consciousness interfering? Does it flower out of ( a repented?) consciousness? Or is it free of consciousness?

D: It is free of consciousness.

P: I want to ask two ( bonus ) things. Does it come about when I ask the question "who am I?''

Krishnamurti: All the traditionalists have asked that question.

P: But it is an essential question. Or does ( this choiceless?) awareness come about when one tries to discover the 'observer'?

Krishnamurti: No. The moment you 'try', you are in time.

P: Is it a question of (holistically correct?) language, of semantics ? You can strip at any point. Where is the 'observer'? We are taking for granted that the 'observer' "is"( all the time in action )

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

P: What is the element in my ( known?) consciousness which seems to me the most potent and powerful: It is the sense of the "I".

Krishnamurti: Which is the ( self-identified movement of the?) past.

P: I say the most potent thing is the sense of the "I"? Now can there be a perception of the "I"?

Krishnamurti: Is the "me" or the "I", the central factor in consciousness?

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

Krishnamurti: So you are asking, is this central factor perceivable sensorily?
Or is the "I", something which ( thought & ) the senses have 'invented ' ( created?) ?

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 (good old ??) question over and over again. I have discussed awareness endlessly. I leave it, because the one thing which you have said is, do not accept one word which is not your own. I start looking (within my own mind?) . Is this "I", the central 'core of myself', is it tactable? As I observe it in in the depth layers of my consciousness, in the hidden darkness and as it unfolds , what takes place is a light within, an explosion, an extension within. That (old ego-centric?) consciousness?) 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 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? Can I pursue a ( thread of) thought? Can thought be held in consciousness? These are tangible things which I think the earnest individual has to completely feel for himself .

Krishnamurti: I thought we had done all this ('meditation' homework?). Let us be simple. When I ask "who am I?", who is asking the question? And one finds on investigation that the "I" is not observable, touchable, hearable, and so on. And so, is the ( sense of the?) "I" within the field of the senses? Or have the senses created the (psychological identification with the?) "I"?
Is ( our inner?) perceiving a visual perception or something else?

P: I want to put aside everything Krishnaji has said and I find that the very enquiry, that the very investigation into the ( inward truth regarding the nature of the ?) "I" creates light, intelligence.

Krishnamurti: You are saying, the very enquiry brings about awareness. Obviously I did not say it did not.

P: And in the enquiry one can only use certain instruments which are the (holistically integrated?) senses. Whether the enquiry is outside or within, the only instruments which can be used is the (integrated activity of the ) senses, because that is all we know - the seeing, listening, feeling - and the field is illuminated. The field of the without and the field of the within is illuminated. Now in this state of (selfless?) 'illumination', you suddenly find that there has been a thought, but that it is already over.

Krishnamurti: ( The self-identified process of?) thought exists in the field of relationship and observation. It does not exist by itself. It exists in observing its relationship ( with the real world ?)

P: In this, if you ask : is there a partial or total stripping (of the psychological content?) , the question is becoming irrelevant.

Krishnamurti: I am not sure. Is ( this inward?) perception partial? I have investigated through the senses, the senses creating the "I", investigating the "I". The activity brings a lightness, clarity. Not entire clarity, but some clarity.

P: I will not use the word 'some clarity', but clarity.

Krishnamurti: It brings clarity. We have also said that perception is not only visual but also non-visual. We said perception is that which illuminates.

P: What is the nature of this 'non-visual' seeing?

Krishnamurti: It is non-visual, which is non-thinkable. It does not pertain to the word. It does not pertain to thought. The non-visual perception is the perception without the (verbal) meaning, the expression, the thought. Is there a perception without thought? Now proceed.

P: I see there is such perception. Now that perception can see close, can see far.

Krishnamurti: Perception. We are talking only of perception. Not the duration, length, size or breadth of perception, but perception which is non-visual which is not deep perception or shallow perception. Shallow perception or deep perception comes only when thought interferes.

P: Now in that is there partial stripping or total stripping? We started with that.

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

F: In every perception, there is the non-verbal element of mere perception. Then there is the psychological superimposition. The stripping refers only to the psychological superimposition. Is there a state of mind in which superimposition does not occur and there is no stripping?

Krishnamurti: Is there an perception which is non-verbal, is it not also non-time, non-thought? If you have answered this question you have answered that. A mind that is perceiving is not asking this question, it is perceiving. And each perception is perception. It is not carrying over perception. Where does the question of stripping or not stripping arise?

P: When I see that lamp, the seeing has not been carried. Thought is only being carried.

Krishnamurti: That is obvious. My consciousness is the result of my sensory perceptions. That consciousness is the result of time, evolution, growth. It is expandable, contractable and so on. And thought is part of that. Now somebody comes along and asks "who am I?". Is the "I" the permanent entity in this consciousness?

D: It cannot be.

Krishnamurti: This "I" - is it ( the self-focussing of the temporal?) consciousness? (For me?) this is very clear. "I" is that consciousness.
The after looking, observing, I see I am the whole of this consciousness. This is not a verbal statement. I 'am' all that. I am the heritage. And is that "I" touchable, observable? Can it be felt, twisted? Is it the result of perception, of heritage?

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

Krishnamurti: And then she asks who is that "I"? Is that "I" part of consciousness, part of thought? I say yes. Thought is part of it. Thought is the "I", except where thought is functioning technologically, where there is no "I". The moment you move away from the scientific field, you come to the "I" which is part of the biological heritage.

F: The "I" is the centre of perception, a 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 field of (the known?) consciousness , the "I" is the centre.

P: Now 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: I say, 'maybe'...

Krishnamurti: Because I have an idea that perception is whole.

P: Is (Who am I?) a question which legitimately arises in this state?

Krishnamurti: In the state of 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 have to answer this question. At the moment of perception the question does not arise. The next moment I do not perceive so clearly.

P: The "key" of the doorway is in that question.

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple about this. There is ( a flash of insightful?) 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 an investigation of pollution and so (back again into inner) clarity. Right? And again perception; move again; cover and uncover - and this goes on. This is going on.

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

Krishnamurti: Attention and inattention. Then, being aware of inattention which becomes attention. This balancing is going on all the time.

P: The only thing I can observe is that there is an action of attention on inattention.

Krishnamurti: Does that action on inattention wipe away inattention so that inattention does not come again?

P: I'll say that the nature of this attention is such that it operates on the brain cells. That which is dormant in the brain-cells - 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. Awareness - if there is choice in that awareness we are back again in ( the 'known' self-centred ?) consciousness.
Awareness is non-verbal. Awareness has no relationship to thought. That awareness we call 'attention'. What takes place when there is inattention: in that inattention there are certain ( self-centred) actions going on. And those activities bring further misery, confusion, trouble. So I 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 cultivation becomes inattention. The seeing of that inattention brings attention. Attention affects the brain cells.
Look what has happened. There is attention, and then inattention. In inattention there is confusion, misery, and all the rest of it. Now what takes place?

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

Krishnamurti: Do not say there is nothing to do. We will find out. We are investigating. There is attention and there is inattention. in inattention everything is confusion. Why do I want to put the two together? When there is the urge to put the two together, then there is an action of will which is choice. I prefer attention; I do not prefer inattention - so I am back again in the field of consciousness. So what is the ( inner) action where the two are never brought together?
I want to explore it a little bit.
When there is attention, thought as memory does not operate. There is no thinking process in attention. There is only attention. I am only becoming aware that I have been inattentive when the action produces discomfort, misery or danger. Then I say to myself, I have been inattentive and as attention has left a mark on the brain I am concerned with the misery which inattention has brought about. Then in investigating that misery, attention comes again leaving no mark. So what is taking place? Each time there is inattention there is quick, instant perception of inattention. Therefore ( the totally insightful?) perception is not of duration, of time. Perception and attention leave no mark. The immediacy of perception is always taking place.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 21 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 269 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.)