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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 172 in total
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #121
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Touching The Source of Energy of All Things

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

K: Is it possible for the brain, which 'is' (presently dominated by its past?) memory, completely to be free of ( living in the closed field of its?) memory? Is there in the brain a ( holistic ?) faculty which can change the ( present 'thought-time') nature and structure of the brain so that it frees itself of the past, so that it is alive and new?
Since Rishi Valley—and I am not saying this in any personal sense and not exaggerating—every night the brain has been ‘breaking (through its residual limitations ?)' and entering into something immense. I have been watching this, as (impersonally?) if I were watching an operation on someone else.

PJ : Could you ( elaborate and/or ?) 'meditate aloud' on this ( transcendental spiritual experience?) ?

K : The last four months or so, there has been a peculiar activity going on, as though the brain was being 'washed out'—a 'purgation' taking place—and I wondered what it was about. Recently, when I was in Rishi Valley, a peculiar thing happened. For several nights, one actually touched the Source of the Energy of All Things. It was an extraordinary feeling; coming not from the mind or brain, but from the Source itself. And that has been going on, in Madras and here. It is as though one was totally 'isolated' ( from the temporal reality?) —if one can so use that word without a sense of withdrawal. There was a sense of nothing existing except ‘That.’ That Source or the 'feeling' (of It?) was a state in which the mind, the brain, was no longer in operation—only ( the lntelligence of?) that Source was in operation. (I have been also watching very carefully to see that desire does not enter into it at all, because the moment ( one's ) desire enters, it becomes a remembrance and the original thing is gone. So I am extremely careful to see that 'that thing' remains pure - clear, unspotted, not corrupted- it is like the 'pure water' of a mountain stream which has never been touched by human mind or hand.
I have been very careful about (observing?) this. I have found recently that the ( temporal) brain is losing its own 'volition', its own ( mental ?) activity. For as many years as can I recollect, I go for a walk for three or four hours and there is not a single thought in that time. And ‘That’ has been going on, when I go for a walk it is always there.

( Pre-Meditation hint:) The (constantly active temporal?) brain, is so accustomed to remembrance, to experience, knowledge, memory. It has to find its own tranquility... so that the Origin, the Beginning is not interfered with. The Bible and other religious books of the East are saying that in the beginning was Chaos and out of that chaos came Order. I think it is the other way, because Creation cannot be ( linked with ) chaos. ( In the Beginning?) there must have been 'total order'; ( even ) the earthquakes, the upheavals, the volcanoes, were all (part of this Cosmic?) Order. I think we have lost that sense of total, complete, original, blessed order. We have lost (or ignored?) it, and the 'darkness of chaos' has been created by man.
Even if there is God—I am using 'God' in the ordinary sense of the word—and He created original chaos and out of that created order, the Origin must have been order. The beginning must be order. Man's ( survival oriented mind?) called it 'chaos' and out of that man brought about a tremendous ( thoughtfully organised?) disorder. Now he seeks to go back to that Origin, to that Order. ( Hint:) That state must be something of immense benediction, an immense, timeless, incorruptible state, otherwise it is not Order.

PJ : So how can ( the holistically minded ?) man get back to That?

K: (For starters by realising that ?) It can never be 'experienced' ( personally?). Because ( any self-conscious ?) 'experience' implies recognition, remembrance. It is not a thing that 'you' go through as ‘I remember.’ ‘This’ is outside the realm of all (spatio-temporal ) experience, outside all knowledge, totally beyond all man’s endeavor.

PJ : But if ( 'That' source of Creation is not 'experienceable'?) man is left with his senses, and his desires and the vast accumulation of knowledge gathered in the brain.

K: So, the ( first experiential?) question is : can one 'wipe out' the tremendous (burden of psychological?) accumulation of a million years?

PJ : I think it is possible when all the senses are totally awake and 'excellent' (harmoniously integrated?) . Then there is no (mental) 'center' (of self-interest?) from which a (dualistic) experience can take place. When there is no ( such ) 'center', there is a state of non-( personal) experiencing, a state of (direct ) observation, when all the senses are highly awakened and functioning, superbly sensitive, then in that state, there is no center as the ‘me’ involved. It is this center as the ‘me’ that creates ( the 'time threads' of thought & ) desire. So what is ( the intelligent thing ) to do?

K: It is very important ( now or...for homework?) to understand ( the thought sustained movement of?) desire. If that is not completely understood, the subtlety of desire is immense and therefore it has immense possibilities of ( creating all kinds of) illusions. ( In short :) Desire, will & 'time' ( the mental continuance?) , must come to a complete end. That is, the mind, the brain, must be absolutely 'pure'— completely empty of ( all inwardly related ?) knowledge. A ( profoundly meditative?) state where thought can never arise—unless necessary. So that thought has its own (responsible place) so that it can only act in certain ( useful outward ) directions.
Such a ( meditation friendly ) brain that is free from all (greed for rewarding ?) experiences, and therefore of the knowledge ( regarding how to get them?) , is not in the field of ( though-) time ( of the 'known'?) , therefore has come to the beginning of all things. You cannot explain all this to ( spiritually ignorant) people. But some should (eventually?) listen to it—you follow?”

SP : What is the relationship between the ( perceptive?) state of the mind and That?

K: This ( self-conscious mind?) cannot go to That, that which is non-time. ( However?) the mind which is free from all ( self-centred?) experience, is like an (empty) vessel, it can receive That. But 'this' cannot go to That.

SP: What is the relationship between the (empty) vessel and ‘That’?

K: What are you talking about? The desire of the senses—desire that comes from one's center ( of self-interest) has to be completely 'emptied'. There is no movement towards ‘That’ which ( experientially-wise?) means the ending (of the 'thought-) time' (process) . Any ( mental) movement in any direction is time. Man has made great struggle to reach That. It is not possible (to be achieved this way ?)

(However, thought's movement of ?) Desire which is so subtle and therefore the creator of illusion, ( can and?) must end. The ( meditating?) brain has to be free of desire.
( Final Hint:) there can be no ( preset) pattern, no direction, no volition, no desire.

PJ : So, 'That' is ( the timeless movement of) Creation. There is no ‘has been’ in that. There is only 'beginning'. There is only the state of beginning.

K: Ah, wait—watch it carefully. When you say that 'there is always a state of beginning', what does it mean to the people who listen to you?

AC : What are the ( experiential) implications of this statement ''The ending is always the beginning''? What does it actually mean?

K: It means that in the ending of attachment there is (a new) beginning. Look, Sir, with the ending of ( thought giving continuity to) a problem, the mind is ( remaining momentarily) empty. To have a mind with no problems at all, is to have no ( desire for further ) experiences. But as an ordinary (average self-centred ) man I have all kinds of ( unfulfilled) desires, fears, etc. I 'carry them' (consciously or not?) all my life and I never say—can I end at least one thing ? - Eg : ( a particular?) attachment, a ( personal) jealousy... ???

AC : Even if can I end it, my mind is still full of (many other time-binding threads of unfulfilled desires &) thoughts..

K: The mind is full of ( various threads of desire & ) thought because the senses are not ( allowed to) fully flowering. But when the senses are fully flowering, what happens? There is no 'center' as ( thought-identified?) desire.

AC : What are the implications of this ( inner flowering of the senses ) in my daily life?

K: In your daily life, your main concern is whether your ( harmoniously integrated) senses can 'flower'. All your senses, not just your eyesight, not just hearing with the ear. Can you look at anything with all your senses ? Then you lose the 'center'; ( the self-conscious) 'experience' does not exist. Right?

AC : What interferes in the flowering of the senses?
K: There is nothing that interferes (except... an inherited survival-oriented mentality?) . We have never allowed the senses to flower. We have operated with ( self-centred) thought as the ( only fool-proof?) medium of action. But we have not ( took the necessary leisure time?) to enquire deeply into the origin of thought. The moment the (partial activity of the) senses begins comes appetite, sex—I start moving in a narrow (temporal) groove.
You have ( for optional meditation homework?) to go into that deeply so that all the senses are operating (& flowering?)

AC : Is it a question of the entering of this limitless energy (of Creation) ? And...is the limitless energy always there to enter? Is it the amount that can be received that makes the difference?

K: My ( absolute beginner's ) concern is to find if my senses can flower because from that everything arises.

AC : Do the senses become dull because of our lack of ( holistic?) attention?

K: 'You' are not aware of the senses. You 'are' the senses.
( Hint:) Is Love a movement of the senses?

AC : Doesn't ( a loving?) attention awaken the (totality of the?) senses?

K: Attention means care, responsibility, affection, no ( hidden personal) motive. So, when in our everyday life ( 'personal') problems do arise, the totality of senses is not operating. When the senses are awakened and there is no center, there is a beginning and an ending (of such problems)

( Clue:) Psychological problems do not exist in the state of no ( self-identified) center. So, don’t say 'I' must become ( choicelessly ?) aware; then you are lost. Yesterday, when we were walking, you were telling me of the computer. The brain was listening, it didn’t record. There was a sense of a pouring out, something pouring down to the brain. When something is actually taking place there is no ( personal ) feeling; when there is actually fear, there is no feeling. Fear arises a second after. The moment 'you' are apprehending it... there is fear

AC : There must be something ( else involved?) in that state (of listening with all the senses awakened?) ...

K: This cannot be answered (verbally?)

AC : Isn't there a complete renewal?

K: A renewal of the brain? Yes, the brain cells are 'cleansed'. They don’t carry (their) ancient ( karmic residues of) memory.

PJ : Your brain does not carry any 'ancient memory'? The million years are wiped away?

K: Otherwise there is only darkness...

( PS:) Days later, when we were at the breakfast table, I asked whether Krishnaji was pointing to a new use of the senses. When the senses are fully flowering, in a state of simultaneity, the center ceases. I asked him whether in this state the thrust of the “I” consciousness, which gives direction to the mind, dissolves? This wholeness of sensory intelligence negated the dividing line of outer and inner, the yesterday and tomorrow ?
“See it, Pupulji, see it,” Krishnaji said. “There is only being and beginning.”
In the days that followed Krishnaji spoke again and again of 'That' which lies beyond Creation itself. He said, “Order is the beginning, the source of an energy that can never diminish. To investigate it there must be an investigation of the senses and desire. That blessedness of order is when the mind does not have a single desire and the senses are operating fully, totally.” I asked Krishnaji whether he was saying essentially the same as he had said in previous years, but using new words; or were these insights entirely different? He said, “This is entirely different.” )

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 #122
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Awakening the Timeless Seed of Spiritual Questioning

A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1981

( Pupul Jayakar's intro: Achyut was recalling a K discussion in 1931  with Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then feeling that it was essential for India to be politically free before a regeneration in the Indian mind could take place. Krishnaji had said that if they ignored the inner regeneration in the struggle for Independence, India would lose its way. Nehru understood the importance of ( spiritual) regeneration, but felt that the India's political freedom had to provide the 'proper space' for the Indian mind to flower. Krishnaji’s response to Nehru was that India had stood for the religious spirit throughout history. “Buddhism spread from India to China, Japan, the whole of the East and Far East. What is the relationship of that religious core of India to the world today?” he had asked Nehru.)

K : Is that ( spiritual) 'core' (still) alive? The Christian world, had (opted for ? ) a religious core that rested on 'Faith'. In India at the heart of religion was the denial of everything but ‘That’. (The ancients used the word 'Tat' (as in 'Tat Twam Asi'?) or 'Brahman' to express it). In the ancient times religion was not based on caste or ritual. This concern with the core had lead to a different way of life. Now, is it possible for that 'seed' that has laid dormant in the soil for centuries to awaken?

PJ : It is the 'seed' awakening that is life, and the flowering of the ( flowering of the?) seed is the response.

K: You are all conscious of ( the current trends in the ) Indian culture - the various gurus, the cults, and also you must have a 'feeling of the core' from which great things took place. What relationship has that core (of Compassion, Love & Intelligence?) , if it still exists, to the Western religion and culture which is (still?) based on faith & belief?
If there is no ( actual) relationship, then is that the point from which a new regeneration can emerge?

PJ : If that core, that center, has 'disappeared' in India, is it in that, that the East and the West are coming together?

K: Apparently, from the beginning of (historically recorded?) time, the people of India had something which was genuine, true. They were deeply religious in the true sense of the word. There were the 'Buddhas' ( the 'enlightened' people?) and the 'pre-Buddhas' who had left their imprint on the ( 'spiritual) soil' of India. The present ( proliferation ?) of astrologers, gurus (& other 'psy' coaches ?) —does that indicate that the depth of the 'real thing' is going (away) ?
In the Christian world doubt had never been part of ( the main-stream?) religion. Here doubt, as part of religious enquiry, has always existed. Is that capacity to 'doubt' the truth ( or the falsehood of 'what is'?) disappearing and gradually becoming faith?
Do you see that 'doubt' in religious enquiry is one of the most extraordinary things that existed in India? Is this ( quality of self-?) doubt disappearing, and therefore is India joining the Western stream? Or if is it being smothered (by the 'great march forward' of modern technology ?) , we are losing the vitality of it? ( Hint:) 'Doubt' as an extraordinary act of purgation.”

RB : Doubt is becoming a formal ( culturally standardised ?) questioning...

K: I am speaking of real ( quality of self-) doubt, with the immense ( potential of intelligent?) energy that lies behind it. What do you say, Pupulji? You are a mixture of both the East and the West (cultures) .

PJ : When you use that word ‘doubt,’ it is an immense thing. But I cannot answer your query whether it still exists in India or not...

K: The Theosophical Society and Amma (Mrs Annie Besant) had that quality at the beginning ; she left ( the organised religion of?) Christianity, she (even?) left her husband; there was doubt ; but then... she got trapped ( entangled?) in organizational ( issues?) and lost ( the spiritual?) vitality. But the original Indian mind emphasized ( the spiritual importance of ) doubt : ( the 'transpersonal' quality of ) doubt with its (inner) clarity and immense vitality, purges the mind of illusions. Is India losing that? Because it is only through 'doubt' that you come to the Brahman, not through acceptance of authority.

RB : That is what the Buddha also said...

K: Are we losing that? Not ( speaking of) the few of us (present) . But the Indian mind. Is it losing that quality, that (meditative inward?) quest for clarity?

RB : I still think that in India 'doubt' ( discerning the truth from the false?) exists, but this doubt has become a ( scholarly?) tradition. We question in a formal sense. In the West this takes the form of scientific search -they doubt ( the value of) anything that has not been corroborated by experiment. The modern Indian mind also has turned in the direction of scientific search.

AP : The Western tradition of conformity has also entered the Indian ( cultural) stream.

PJ : Krishnaji has brought into his teaching a new factor: a ( transpersonal quality of ?) doubt that does not move toward an answer. When you use the word ‘doubt’ within the Indian context, immediately out of 'doubt' springs ( the spiritual) search.

AP : ''What am I'?'' , ''Who am I?'' This is the Indian (existential) question. This is not a question with a direction.

K: Of course. If you have 'doubt' with direction, then it has an entirely different meaning.

PJ : Doubt without being followed by search has not existed in the Indian (cultural main)stream. In Krishnaji’s 'doubt' is ( implied ?) an immediate (meditative ?) immobility of the mind.

K: I am asking a really very serious question : in India the mind is being caught and carried away by the materialistic wave. ( Hint:) The same (tidal) wave is also threatening the culture of the Western world, expressing itself through technology, materialism, (& vulgarity and/or?) nationalism. The Western mind is moving in the direction of the 'outer', and it dominates the world. So is India losing something which was there? From what one can see it appears to be losing it.

MZ : Are you asking whether the 'other spirit' which underlays India is failing? How does one tell that?

K: Can you answer that question? Can you feel, probe into it? Can Pupul or Achyut have a feeling of what is happening in this country? Can you take the 'outer' (the manifested world ?) as a measure and move to the 'inner'? The 'Other' was always there. I am saying something very simple. India moved from a 'center' (of authentic spirituality ?) and that center spread all over the Asiatic world through inner search, dance, music, and cultural expression. The Western world was 'centered' in belief, which is so 'superficial'. That superficiality, that materialism, is that conquering this? It is very significant to see the outer manifestation of this (materialistic trend?) in India, through its bureaucracy, technology, science, nuclear energy; following the ways of the West; and so is the pristine, original core of this country gradually withering away? India was centered on (that) one thing. And therefore she had a 'fire' which spread thoughout the world. Now what is happening to the Indian core?

MZ : Would you not say that in India the 'spirit' has turned to the other? It has become adulterated. It is no longer a force. So what is the difference between India and the West?

PJ : I would not say that this field has been corroded in the last fifteen years. I would not say that..

K: I hope not. But I won’t accept your statement. I am questioning it. I want India to be that. So I say I hope India is not going to lose it. If it is lost, it is lost. I don’t want her to lose it, because then it is the end of everything.

PJ : Either you bring what you are saying into the comparative field of time and question whether earlier there were more people concerned with the core, or you can only put the question ( outside the temporal context) : ''Are there people today who take their stand in this?”

AP : Outside of those people who have been exposed to Krishnaji in India, are there people who take their source, their energy from doubt?

PJ : There have been times in the history of this country when ( the core of its spiritual ?) energy has exploded in great manifestations. When you say India is deteriorating, a hundred years ago was there religious doubt then and what was its nature? So don’t put the question in terms of linear time. Can one ask the question are there people today who have the capacity to ask this question?

RB : There have been various factors also that have contributed to the wearing away of this spirit. The Bhakti movement with its emphasis on belief and faith, which existed for a number of centuries, could be compared to Christianity. Then the modern, scientific approach has reduced all nature to experiment. All this has cut the source at the roots.
PJ : In the past there were only a few 'aristocrats of the spirit' who took their stand on the formless. Buddha ( awoke?) arose and talked. It was three hundred years before the ( 'official' Buddhist ) teaching was established.

K: Don’t say you cannot answer my question. I have been questioning this for years. This time as I flew into Bombay I was again asking that question, is the ( materialistic mentality of the?) West conquering the East? The West has the capacity to organize, bring people together, it has technology, communication, etcetera. It has been capable of building ( standardised?) 'systems' (of thought?) to a marvelous extent. Here it was not based on organization or system. There were people who 'stood alone'.

PJ : There is a field of good and the field of evil. The challenge really is what is possible to make that 'field of good' more potent.

K: No, the Good cannot be 'potent'. Good is 'good'.

PJ : Take it that the 'center' (the spiritual core?) is corroded. What is the right response?

K: Then we can say ''it is finished'', let us do something about it. But if you say it exists then we just carry on.

PJ : And if I admit it is finished?

K: Then that ( old cultural trend?) which has an ending has a new beginning. If it has ended, then something tremendous is taking place.

AP : That is the major difference between you and others (local spiritual teachers) . I was brought up in a ( multi-millenary cultural) tradition which believed in this source and everyone thought about revivalism, saying that it existed. You are the only person who is asking whether the seed is alive or not.

PJ : As long as Krishnaji is there, how can I say that the seed is corroded?

RB : I also fail to see how doubt has completely ended and a new thing has started.

K: When something has ended a new thing (something new?) is taking place.

PJ : You can ask, is there doubt in me? I can answer that directly; but when you ask me has that seed been corrupted, I can never answer that.

K: I am afraid that if 'doubt' (the spirit religious questioning?) has ended in India, then it is a terrible thing...

PJ : If I deny that 'seed' I have denied everything.

K: I am not talking of denying it. I am asking you a ( subliminally active ?) question. The ( cultural influence of the West ( not to mention that of the North, South & East?) is becoming enormously powerful with its science, technology, organization, communication, ( instruments of ) war, all that. That enormity has smothered (the inner light of?) 'That' which is not (physically speaking?) 'enormous'. Right? Is the ( spiritual?) 'core' of India so enormous within, that it can counter (balance ) that (powerful materialistic trend?) and see that it is not touched by all that? Do you see what I am saying? It is not ( anymore?) a 'geographical' question. I am talking about the ( spiritual essence of the human?) mind that has produced the Upanishads, the Buddha... ( the list is open ended ) . India has been the storehouse of something very very great. The West, with its emphasis on faith and its materialism, is destroying its ( long past?) 'greatness'.

PJ : I cannot answer your question...

K: You (all?) have got to answer. It is a ( major existential?) challenge you have got to meet ( sooner or later?) . Is the ( holistically inclined ?) human mind asking itself the question: ‘Is there a mind that is incorruptible?’
The (tradition of) religious enquiry in India was not based on faith, so it could move (freely?) in any direction. Free of direction, there was a different movement taking place; this is the ( spiritual) essence of the Buddhas & the pre-Buddhas. Is that 'essence' gradually being corroded or is that (timeless spiritual) 'essence' expressing itself now? Not as the 'Buddha' or 'Maitreya'—these are but names - but is(n't) that 'essence' expressing itself now?

PJ : That ( timeless spiritual) 'essence' is incorruptible. Therefore It cannot be corroded. ( However, the Indian mind of today is conditioned. The only thing which one can say is that that mind, because it has been tuned to the ‘Other’ for centuries, may have a proclivity to the ‘other.’

K: And so, the possibility of a (holistic qualitative?) mutation. I think this (local?) 'mind' has a greater possibility of mutation. This is not denying the ( potential aspirants from the?) West. We are not talking of the East and the West ( & North & South?) as 'opposites'; we are talking of a quality of mind that has no (need for a pre-programmed cultural ?) 'direction'.

RB : Would you say the ( survivalistically ?) 'conditioned' mind can have nothing to do with ‘That’?

K: The conditioned mind can have nothing to do with ‘That,’ but ‘That’ can have something to do with ‘this.’ So I am asking whether the 'mind of India', that has evolved through five thousand years, the 'mind of the Buddha'—can ( the spiritual essence of ) that mind ever be conditioned (or corrupted?) ? You say, Pupul, that this is the ( spiritual) mainstream of the Indian mind. ( But...) are we ( vitally immersed ) in those (deep) 'waters of ( spiritual) enquiry'? Or are we just (  comfortably? ) floating on words, symbols, myths, ideas, theories?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 #123
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Inner Wholeness and Holistic Perception

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue extracted from Mrs Pupul Jayakar's Memoirs, cca 1982 )

( PJ's intro : We started discussing the 'holographic' model, in which ( even the smallest?) fragment contains (the essential informations of ) the whole (picture?) . Krishnaji said that in a total perception there was the 'wholeness' ( the 'total picture' ?) of mankind. He spoke of the (holistic?) perception of ( the nature of human?) sorrow, in which there was a total freedom from sorrow; in such (holistic?) perception the human consciousness was renewed. )

K : (...) Is that so? In one perception of sorrow, is there ( revealed?) the whole content of human sorrow? If you see the whole movement of ( pursuing the ?) sensory pleasures you have understood the whole ( psychological) content of ( the self-centred?) consciousness.

AP : Could we be so aware of the ( complex activities of our ?) body & mind?

K: Could there be an exploration of ( the nature of holistic?) attention? We have (often) said, ‘attend !’ But we have never probed into ( this?) 'attention'!
What takes place as attention probes into itself? If you are so attending, all your senses are completely awake. It is not just one (or two?) senses attending, but the 'totality' of all the senses (integrated & functioning in harmony?) . Otherwise you cannot 'attend'. When there is one sense that is highly cultivated and the others are not, one cannot attend ( holistically ?) . The complete(ly integrated?) sensory activity is a state of (total) attention. Partial sensory activity leads to ( mental ?) concentration. Attention has no center. Attention is a ( self-energised movement?) - it flows, moves, getting more and more (intense?) , as a river that has behind it a vast volume of water; a tremendous volume of attention energy , wave upon wave upon wave, each wave having a different movement. We have never enquired into what takes place ( within this?) attention. Is there a total summation of ( mind & brain's intelligent ?) energy?

In (meditatively?) penetrating into a wave of ( insightful ?) perception as ( the summation of all one's?) energy, extraordinary things go on. There is a sense of soaring ecstasy; a feeling of limitless space; a vast movement of color. Color is 'God' ( manifested ?) , not the 'gods' we worship, but the Color of the earth, the sky, the extraordinary Color of a flower.

AC : Would you include aroma?

K: Of course, Color 'is' (not separated from?) aroma, So, can one see ( anything) completely with all the senses (fully awakened?) ? 'See' not with the eyes alone, but with the ears; to listen, to taste, to touch? There has to be ( an authentic inner?) harmony and this is only possible when there is no 'center', no ( "thought-time" ?) movement.

( For optional homework:) Watch yourself ( this way) ; look at the sunlight and see whether you can see with all your senses, completely awake and completely free ( of the heavy burden of the past?) . Which leads to an interesting 'fact': Where there is disharmony, there is the 'self' ( along with its self- centred interests?) .

( In a nutshell:) ( The holistic) attention 'is' (the natural action of mind & brain's ?) complete harmony. ( Experiential clue:) There must be a great volume of energy gathered through ( living in) harmony (with All That Is?) . It is like the river Ganga. Attention is a ( timeless?) movement (in)to eternity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #124
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

More 'reader-friendly' selected excepts from Pupul Jayakar's memoirs of K, along with a small but very educational dialogue :

On October 1981,( on his return to India) Krishnaji was looking very frail and had lost a great deal of weight. He had aged and his shoulders were bowed. He wanted to talk seriously to us in the afternoon. One night, he awoke with a feeling of 'being completely well'. Every organ in his body was healthy and awake. In that state he had a sense that the Door of Death was 'open' and he was stepping through, completely awake and completely still. ( However) at one instant the door closed. He then turned to me very seriously and said, “Death can come at any moment.” He asked me how I was physically. I said I had not been too well. He said, “You have to be well. You have to outlive me.” And then he said these strange words, which he repeated, “Learn to die to yourself completely.” His frail body was shaking, yet there was a roar of thunder in his words.

His first talk (in Benares) was exalted. He spoke about “the teaching as the mirror in which you see ‘what is’ reflected. The ( living aspect of the ?) teaching is the perception within you, of the actual.” He said, “See, ask, what is religion, what is thought? See thought arising. The truly religious mind is concerned with discovery and the understanding of what Truth is.
Find out the beginning of thought, operating in time. For millennia, man is caught in pattern, in knowledge. There is no freedom in pattern, in knowledge. (...) We then discussed the morning talk; Krishnaji said he had talked a great deal; there were a number of books. People referred to them as “Krishnamurti’s teachings.” “The teachings were not the book,” he said. “The only teachings were, ‘Look at yourself. Enquire into yourself—go beyond.’ There is no 'understanding of the teaching', only 'understanding of yourself'. The words of K were a pointing of the way. The understanding of yourself is the only teaching.”

On November 24, Achyut, Rimpoche Samdhong, and I had lunch with Krishnaji. The Rimpoche’s face was very grave. Suddenly, the Rimpoche said, “For the last few days I have known great sorrow. I have meditated—looked, listened, but it is there.” He had tears in his eyes and deep sorrow on his face. We talked of the 'ending of sorrow' and the 'holding of sorrow' in the mind and what it involved. Krishnaji suddenly put his two hands over his heart and said, “It is here.” I asked him to elucidate that gesture. He said, “First of all, one must observe, see with great care the mind and its functioning, listen to what is within and without; out of this arises sensitivity and in sensitivity there arises insight. That insight alone will wipe away sorrow.”

A day earlier we had, at a small discussion, spoken of time and knowledge. “Can the brain be free of time as becoming—can it change its dependence on psychological time?” He spoke of the 'mind of man', the million years of man’s history, contained in the brain cells and the transformation in the brain cells. The birth of a global mind demanded an urgency, a revolution in the human condition. “What is man’s relationship to the ( Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe?” I again asked Krishnaji, “Has there been a change in your teachings?” He pondered for a few moments, then said pointing to the river Ganga, “at the source, that river is one drop—it is the Ganga.”

He spoke of the Meditation of the Universe as the Ground of Creation. Meditation being a state without horizons, a space without limit, and an ending of time. He probed into this (inward ?) space, using intelligence as the instrument. “The probing is with 'no-thing', into a wordless endless Being.” This enquiry within is infinite. You must be alone, stripped, then you can take a journey into the unknown.
(...) In Life there is both Creation and Destruction— (but) the very act of 'listening' is the miracle, it is light in darkness. In it is mutation and deep uprooting. Could one in the act of listening, explore into oneself? )

And here's the bonus K dialogue

The nature of holistic attention.

K: What is it 'to attend' (with all one's being?) ? Such total attention to one ( single thread of?) thought unfolds the whole nature of ( the time-) thought (process) .

PJ : For ( being capable of?) such a total attention, the mind has to have 'weight' ( a critical 'energy mass') . Every (new act of) attention gives depth to the ground of the mind.

K: No ( thought-controlled?) preparation is necessary.

PJ : Then, what gives the mind the 'swiftness', the (inner clarity of?) 'insight' to perceive that in one thought, all ( the truth regarding the time-bound ) process thought is revealed?

K: It is necessary ( in meditation?) for the brain cells to be totally still.

PJ : But there is an inherent tendency in the brain to 'move' (in time & space ?) .

K : ( The psychological?) mutation is immediate. The question is, what makes it take place?

PJ : Biologically (speaking) a mutation is possible when there is a tremendous necessity for such mutation; or, with the ending of a particular function of the brain, the ( previously specialised) cells wither away and a new (type of brain?) cell is born.

K : ( The inner realisation of ?) the absolute necessity to change creates the biological need to find the new. As knowledge cannot transform man, I ask, is there an action that is not based on knowledge?

PJ : ( For this realisation?) I have to observe the mind, to see its traps. That is ( creating the right conditions for a major?) insight.

K: No, you are ( sounding as ?) a traditionalist. You are speaking of years of preparation to see this. I say, insight 'is' (inherent in ?) the perception of ( the inner inadequacy of?) this (time- thought) pattern. Insight breaks the pattern.

PJ : The word ‘insight’ is an interesting word. It implies a ''sight into the within'' (an inner sight?) . Insight is to turn your face away from the 'known'.

K: Yes. The brain is conditioned to (think along ) a pattern (of temporal continuity?) . The very 'biological' necessity (for operating a qualitative change?) makes it to break the pattern. The insight (the 'holistic perception'?) needed to see this does not need training, nor time.

PJ : I am not speaking of ( the total) 'insight' ( involved in ending thought's) continuity as ( it is projecting itself in ) 'time', but as ( a more 'user-friendly' quality of ?) 'insight' - a deepening of the mind.

K: Deepening is (still in the field of 'thought - ) time'. See what is implied in what you are saying.

PJ : You are speaking of the mind being 'totally still'. Twenty years ago when you asked such an ( 'absolute' ?) question, my thoughts moved towards ( achieving the quality of stillness sugested by your totally challenging ? ) question. ( Fortunately enough?) this no longer happens. The brain is still and listens. There is a difference in quality between the two states. How can you deny the ( intrinsical value) of these twenty years (of self-preparatory work?) ?

K: ( The subliminal stress involved in achieving the holistic quality of 'insight' in terms of?) 'time' makes the brain duller and duller. I question the whole concept of 'time' to get anywhere (psychologically-wise?) ) . I don’t accept ( the inner validity of this ?) inner time.

PJ : I am not talking of it as a 'practice'.

K: But you are giving strength to ( the traditional concept of spiritual achievement in  ? ) time. How ( strong) is the river in flood flow  (but... holistically- wise?) the first 'few' drops 'are' the river.

AP : You are so relentless in your ( holistic?) logic. There is such immensity in what you say. Yet, I see that there is a blockage in me that comes in the way of my understanding you.

K: Could you consider ( for 'meditation homework'?) denying the ( validity of) psychological time as ( self-) becoming ? Can you 'deny' ( the continuance of the thought-) time (mental process) so that it ceases in your brain? We are speaking of the 'psychological' process of time as a ( virtual) movement from 'here' ( fro 'what one is now'?) to 'there' ( what one expects to be tomorrow) .

(...Silent Pause....)

Can you accept (the validity of chronological ) time as sunrise and sunset and ( at the same time see that inwardly?) there is no other time? Don’t say ‘Yes.’ Do you see what 'no psychological future' implies ? It means ( that what has been done in ) the 'past' has its own ( measurable causal) action, but not as (thought's) movement (in terms of) becoming something.
So, when I say, ''There is no ( necessary inner) preparation for (having a total?) insight'', can you see ( the inward truth of it?) immediately, without (taking extra ) time?

PJ : One can see that the (the 'active memory' function of) brain cells and thought are one. The brain cells for millennia have been conditioned to move (along) a (temporal) pattern. You told me some years ago that the brain cells could not renew themselves, but a 'new' ( type of) brain cell had to be born.

K: ( Such a radical inner ?) 'transformation' cannot take place in the old cell, nor in thought. The 'new' can have no relationship to the ( time-binding patterns of the?) old. All ( temporal) change, the movement from one corner of the brain to another, is not ( bringing a total) renewal. Find out, ( for optional 'meditation homework'?) whether it is possible to break ( the time binding continuity of this ages old ?) conditioning and discover something totally New.

( To recap:) We said that in a total (transpersonal holistic ?) attention was the ending of the old. I could not know or contact directly the brain cells, but I could only know thought. Any operation of ( this holistic) attention has to be on thought. Then we have said that ( this 'time-thought') movement is inbuilt into the brain. Can that brain, which for millennia has known movement, not move?
Now we are getting ( at the experiential aspect of ) it : can one see the (functioning of the ) brain cells as (their past memory continuously responding in terms of self-centred ?) thinking? Can one see that attention can only act on thought? And that ( this holistic) transformation has no relationship with thought? The old ( 'time-thought' continuity ?) has to end for the new (to be born)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 #125
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Transcending the 'psychological' limitations of Time

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue with Pupul Jayakar & friends, cca 1983)

K: What is ( the psychological ) time? Can we be ( inwardly?) 'simple' and go as deeply into the nature of this 'time' as possible? We know a whole series of continuous ( mental threads ) of psychological time as (self-projected ) 'becoming'  from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’ is (the 'psychological' component of ) time. The 'physical' (chronological) time is ( used by thought in order to measure) a distance, from 'here' to 'there'. Now, is this 'physical' time related internally to the 'psychological' time?

PJ : Knowing ( being very familiar with the conventional measurement of the ) 'physical' time by the clock, (the thoughtful brain?) applies the same ( logic of) 'time' in its 'inner' world . The (result is a very realistic?) illusion which is shaping the whole structure of the within along the linear movement of physical time. The measure of ( one's psychological) becoming is (generating the?) inward time.

K: When the outer movement (of the outward time) is 'extended' (adapted ?) to 'psychological' states, the ( very realistic ?) illusion of ( an unbroken continuity in ?) time enters. The idea of growth in the outer world is extended to one's inner life as a movement of becoming 'what I should be’ (or to what our family or society wants us to be?) It is a process of fantasy; it builds-up itself from illusion to illusion. The mind ruminates. ‘What will be—then what will happen?’ ( The collateral ?) anxieties & fears are part of its structure.
The brain extends the physical time into the inner psychological sphere, because the brain is conditioned to linear time in the outer. As it is conditioned to that, it accepts ( the reality of the ) psychological time in the 'within'.
I am questioning ( the reality of?) that ( deeply imbedded?) illusion that conditions the brain. The brain is accustomed to the movement of becoming. It looks at itself as a movement in time. It operates in this 'illusion' ( in this illusory mentality?) . The brain is evolved in time, and so looks at everything in terms of time. ‘I am, I was,’ modified into, ‘I will be.’ Now I ask, is that so? Is there a 'tomorrow' in the ( inner world of the?) psyche?

PJ : As there is a 'physical tomorrow', ( brain's projection of) a 'psychological tomorrow' seems inevitable...

K: That is, a ( temporal inner) continuity.

PJ : I exist; therefore I will be (around?) tomorrow. But why do such 'strong feelings' (of existential anxiety & ) fear - get entangled in thought's projection into ' tomorrow'?
( long silence …)

K: ( Inwardly?) there is no 'time' (-continuity) ; we know the 'physical time' as ( intimately related to the physical ?) movement. There is no way of measuring physical time without movement. If there were no (mental?) movement in the psyche, thought's ( 'time creating mechanism' traditionally known as the ?) 'wheel of time' ends.
Look at ( the rational description of it ?) Movement is time. Movement is thought. Thought is a material process. That is simple. Why do we complicate it? Can you accept this even logically?

PJ : What do you mean by 'accepting this statement logically'?

K: To see ( intellectually ?) that any 'psychological' movement is a process of ( self-) becoming. Now (experientially-wise?) is there (an inner state of being ?) where no time exists? (For instance?) if you sit ( meditating ?) in a dark room, without ( any physical) movement, is there ( a sense of the passing ) time? This is also ( true ?) in the ( mental space) 'within', when there is no (movement of) thought (projecting itself in ?) time.

PJ : There may be a momentary 'stopping' of the physical movement in the brain, but the ( subliminal) action of 'time' as ( ensuring the sense of) continuity operates in every cell of my body. It also acts in the brain – the ( survival oriented ) action of time is inevitable...

K: The (material ) brain is a physical thing - it grows old, it deteriorates. The question is whether the ( intelligent energy of the?) brain needs to deteriorate?

PJ : If it is a material process, as material as the fact that my hair grows gray—it must deteriorate. How is it possible that one part of the organism can remain unaffected (by the passing of time) ?

K: You say the brain grows senile. Senility is the ( the common symptom of brain's ) physical aging by time. To me the brain need never grow old,

PJ : How do you distinguish between the brain and other organs? How can the brain alone have the capacity for renewal?

K: Are we clear what is meant by (psychological) time? It is the same ( survival-oriented) movement in the outer existence as in the inner. They are not separate. Millennia through millennia, that movement has continued. This (imbedded mentality of) constant movement is the factor of deterioration, both organically and in the psyche. The ( next experiential ?) question is : Can the ( inner survival-oriented ?) 'movement' stop?

PJ : The brain receives physical stimuli so it will always respond as ( some physical or mental) movement to the (incoming) challenge...

K: Go slow, go slow ? There is ( the physical) reaction and action—otherwise the brain is ( as good as …) dead. But that ( neurological?) action in itself has little significance (other than ensuring the physical survival ???) .

PJ : The (physical) brain cannot be wholly still ; so, does its aging arise because of movement or because of ( its self-generated ?) frictions?

K:( Thought's self-centred ?) movement', as we know it, is ( generating a great amount of) friction. This ( self-sustained psychological) 'movement' is the ( time-) deteriorating factor. Any ( mechanistic?) movement in the brain physically wears out the brain. But it is the psychological process that ( prioritarily ) affects the body and the brain. It is not the other way around.
AC : Can there be an (inner) movement without friction?

K: If there is no ( self-centred) 'psychological' movement, then ( mind's?) movement is as in absolute space, there is no friction. When the 'psychological' movement is not, ( the psychological) 'time' as (a continuous ) becoming is not.
But...one can sit very quietly in a dark room for twenty years and the brain will go on aging— for thought, as ( the subliminal process behind  this ? ) becoming, continues to operate. But when thought is ( naturally ) 'quiet', without movement, then the ( inner world of the ?) 'psyche' has no time.
( In a holistic nutshell:) If there is no movement as thought, there is no (psychological) 'becoming'. This 'becoming' creates duality, conflict, deterioration ( &) 'time'.
Time is the barrier, is limitation. Only a (mind?) that is moving without friction can go to the limitless. If friction as 'psychological time stops, is there a factor of deterioration?

AC : When the brain is quiet, does the ( physical) body function naturally?

K: Yes, the body has its own intelligence. But...is this an (experiential) actuality? Can the brain ever be without movement except for its own natural movement? Psychological movement is interfering with the ( psychosomatic) body. Can this (fake?) 'movement' stop? That in turn implies, can there be no ( psycho-) accumulations of any kind?

PJ : What distinguishes the negation (or the denial) of all time as movement? And...how is one ( becoming) aware of ( the subliminal continuity of thought-) 'time'?

K: I am ( becoming ) aware of it when there is a ( major existential?) challenge.

PJ : But even then, the brain reaches out, looks backwards or forwards, and asks questions.

K: That is movement...

PJ : And when the brain is not seriously challenged, it plays games with itself. It throws up memories.

K: The ( average ) brain 'is' (dominated by its psychologically-active) ?) memory - remorse, guilt, are a constant movement in the brain, as memory. The ( temporal) brain 'is' memory, a movement from the past through the present to the future.

AC : Continuity is that. The brain creates memory. Does it just 'play with it'?

K: The brain survives through memory.

.
PJ : So, what is the 'movement' that must stop? Or do you say that all movement must stop?

AC : The brain feels that ( living in its familiar field of psychological ?) memory there is security...

PJ : In the ending of this 'movement' (of psychological time?) , does a new movement come into being, which makes the brain feel totally secure? Is there a movement outside time?

K: As the heart functions naturally, so the brain has its own natural movement—when ( its psychological) memory does not interfere. The brain has its own movement on which it has superimposed ( the 'personal') 'memory'. Listen : the heart beats without ( personal?) remembrances. The brain can function without movement, if allowed to do so by (the survivalistic activity of) thought. The heart doesn’t pump because of knowledge.

PJ : To draw ( such holistic?) similarities between the heart and brain is not correct. The physical brain has evolved out of memory, out of man’s capacity and experiences. It can only survive through hoping (for the best ?) , seeking survival.
But is the brain we know built out of memory? There is a part of the brain one is not aware of. The whole brain is not linked to memory.

K: The human brain has sought security through knowledge. ( But its subliminal addiction to?) knowledge has made the 'ground of the brain' very limited. Now, its evolutionary knowledge is discovering that the ( existential) 'ground of the brain' which it has created is not stable and feels that friction as movement is necessary for the brain to survive.
So what does it do now ? It 'sees' (the sobering fact that ?) there is no security in ( living exclusively in the field of) knowledge. The brain realizes its ( psychological) foundation in (time &) ) knowledge is very weak.

AC : Can it also see (an alternative opening?)

K: The ( survival-oriented ) brain, as it functions now , can never let go of the past. All its movement is (enmeshed in) time. So I ask, does one remain in the old house?

AC : If there is no movement (obviously) there is no time. But what I say is at the intellectual level....

K: If there is no ( self-centred inward ?) 'measurement', is it the same brain that functions without movement? When the brain is silent, the ( natural intelligence of the?) 'mind' operates. That 'is' ( one with?) the Intelligence of the Universe. ( ...long silent pause...)

PJ : Is this 'intelligence' a natural faculty of the brain?

K: The Intelligence that sees the ( psycho-) movement of (self-centred ) continuity as the process of aging is outside the ( material?) brain.

AC : If the brain cannot reach it, then 'who' or 'what' is it that sees the limitation of the brain? To see that, the brain must have contact with that.

K: The ( time-free ?) brain in its ( holistic?) functioning has its own intelligence. That limited brain has no relationship to the other.

AC : Then what is it that can stop the ( time-bound) movement of the brain?

K: It is perceiving its own inadequacy.

AC : If the brain is only a movement of time, then what sees its own limitation?

K: Would you accept 'insight' as the operation of the whole brain?

PJ : Is the ( illuminating?) operation of 'insight' then not connected with the narrow operation of the ( physical) brain?

K: An 'insight' into the operation of ( thought's temporal ) limitation frees the brain from limitation. (Hint : ) Insight can only arise when there is no ( continuance of psycho-) memory, and so no 'time'. When the 'whole brain' is operating, it has no direction. It is free of the past. Insight is ( the action of the ?) 'mind' operating on the 'brain'.

PJ : But (as long as ) the brain is (still) limited, how can the 'mind' operate on the brain?

K: As one is ( meditatively ?) watching very carefully, without ( any personal) motive, in this watching there is ( the building up of a ?) tremendous ( energy of pure ?) attention. It is like 'light' focusing. The depth of this attention is (originating in the?) 'mind'. That ( holistic quality of) attention focuses 'light' on the limitations of the brain.

(Parting words:) Love is outside the brain. ( And this is how?) we come to an ending (of 'psychological time' ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 #126
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

A fine 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue held in 1984 on:

Time, Mind & Brain, Love & Death

GS : The question has been raised by our friend on the functioning of different kinds of time. That is, is there a ( diferent dimension of ) time which comes into operation even when ( the psychological) 'becoming' ceases to be? That is, when the normal process of causation, of memory and expectation, anticipation—all the background accumulated over one’s lifetime or even before that—have been given up, or drops off, is there still a ( different dimension ) of time in which (life's) events unfold?

PJ : Krishnaji also spoke of a ( holistic) perception which simultaneously negates that arising, a simultaneity of arising and negating; and what is the nature of time, in relationship to the ‘now’?

K: We have said that ( thought's psychological) 'time' is not only (implied in personal & collective ) becoming, anticipation & hope, but also in possessing and accumulating knowledge and living (safely protected in the field of?) that knowledge. And we asked, Is there any other movement (or dimension ?) of time ? Is there a non-movement when one has stepped out of ( the illusion of?) 'psychological' time? Is there a movement which is totally different from the movement of time and thought?

GS : Do you speak of the brain ceasing to function, or the mind ceasing to function?

K: I would like to separate the 'brain' and the 'mind'. The brain is conditioned. The mind is outside the brain. Mind, for me, is something totally unrelated to the conditioned brain and therefore something which is not measurable by words or by thought. Whereas the brain activity and the ( energy) wastage of brain's ( self-centred) activity is measurable and any ( mental) function arising from brain's accumulated knowledge is the 'known' —as myself, my ego, my self-centered activity. Now, is it possible not to be self-centered? Can one ask this question: Can one be free of the 'self' (of one's psychological identification?) , entirely?
The ( time-bound ) self (-consciousness ) , the ‘me,’ is the product of time, of our evolution. It is the ( survival oriented) activity of the self-centered brain as 'my' (social) position, my power. And as long as there is that ‘me’ which is ( a pro-active aggregate of?) accumulated knowledge, memory, experience, there is the limitation of time.

JU : One may speak of time in whatever way one likes—time as thought, time as movement, etcetera. There is time as the coming into existence and time as ceasing to be, which is the process of becoming in which we live. But behind it, is there a ( timeless dimension of the ) 'mind', in which there is no arising and ending? And if, as you're saying it is 'outside' us, one cannot do anything about it. We can’t act upon it or investigate it?

K: No, we can’t. As long as the 'self', the ‘me,’ is arising, dying, arising, ending, and again arising, this constant process of ( self-) becoming is time.

JU : Not only 'becoming', but 'being'...

RB : When Upadhyaya speaks of 'being', he means ‘I am.’ There is a becoming, but there is also the sense of ‘I am.’ We can see this ( continuous ) process of thoughts arising & ending—when this ( temporal continuity) stops, what happens?

K: How do you know it stops?

RB : To put it simply, when 'becoming' comes to an end, is there Being?

K: What do you mean by 'Being'?

AP : The sense of ‘I am'.

PJ : The sense of existing...

K: What is 'existing'? The moment you acknowledge that 'you are living', you set the whole process of the 'self' in operation.

PJ : No, I won’t accept that ; with ( thought's) ending, becoming ends. To most of us it is possible for a thought ( thread ?) projection to end, which is for becoming to end. But that state is not a dead thing. It is a state of existing.

GS : When you talk about Being, is it a statement about a condition or function or are you talking about an object? If it is Being, by definition it is an object.

PJ : I am not talking about Being as object.

GS : So, when you talk about 'existing ' or 'Being', to the extent that there is no separation of a knowing person from the rest, to the extent of that there is 'vyaapti', a complete identification (with All That Is?) , without claiming anything for yourself, there is no separation between you and anything else.

PJ : Why do you deny Being? Being in the sense that something ‘is.’ Do you say ( that inwardly ) there is nothing?

JU : There is no difference between being and becoming. When becoming ends, being ends.

K: Yes.

JU : Becoming and being are the same. Where there is ( the sense of?) becoming and of being, there is the ( subliminal presence of the?) self (consciousness) with all its activities, etcetera, and when it ends, that also ends. But my question is : when there is the end of all this, of thought, etc, then is there something ( non-material) in which everything is sustained?

PJ : If I may ask, what is the distinction you draw between becoming and being?

RB : In Sanskrit they are not two words. 'Bhava' means both being and becoming.

AP : Panditji ( JU) says that what you call 'intelligence' is unrelated to intellect. Only when this intellect recognizes that it is fragmented and is limited then it ceases and intelligence is born.

PJ : I would like to go into becoming and being a little more. Being is a state of non-differentiation.

K: Why do you differentiate between being and becoming?

PJ : There is a state from which things arise and into which things disappear...

K: Which is the 'self' ?

PJ : In a state of ( pure) attention, a state of ( choiceless?) awareness, what is there?

K: In attention there is no 'self '(-consciousness?)

PJ : Then what is the nature of attention?

RB : Are you asking what is the nature of attention or whether there is a 'ground' from which attention springs?

K: Attention has no ( mental?) background.

GS : There are two kinds of functioning in the physical universe. One is a functioning by 'discrete events' in which you have a chronology, you have a sequence of things, and then you construct laws connecting the events. And so you can find one event causing another event which is causing another event, and you are able to understand a number of things. Then there is another kind of functioning in which you don’t ( have to) differentiate, for example, it was a great discovery of physics when people decided that free motion does not require an explanation. You don’t ask why it is continually moving; you attribute it to the nature of things, you say that it is the nature of objects to move. And one can enlarge, generalize the scope of the thing by saying that a 'complete system' has no history, has no events in it. Events come when you are putting the system which is functioning by itself, within the matrix of something else ; therefore a chronological 'time of unfolding' takes place when you have an incomplete system. But when the system is complete within itself, its functioning has no chronology, there are no 'events' within the system. Unfortunately, we are so used to the idea of chronology that natural evolution is always very puzzling: an evolution in which there are no ( discrete) happenings. So, whenever there is a motion to which we cannot pin a definite cause and effect, we feel that we do not fully understand.
Perhaps these two possible kinds of unfolding may be useful as models for this discussion. There is one kind ( or dimension of?) of time—the physical time in which events take place, in which the law of cause and effect takes place, and another ( dimension of) time in which you cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect, because there is no breaking up of ( distinct) events with regard to that.

K: When does that take place?

GS : When the system has no 'ideal' (references ) to compare itself with. We refer to it as a closed system, but we mean it may be a 'complete' system.

K: In all ( closed?) systems—bureaucratic, scientific, religious—isn't there an inherent decay, an entropy?

GS : Yes.

K: So, as long as the brain is ( functioning in the 'known' experience of the ) collective, it forms a ( closed) system.

GS : Quite right.

K: So, inherently in the 'collective' (consciousness there ) is a process of decay, a degeneration takes place?

GS : Krishnaji, I am concerned about your ( emphasis on paying a constant) attention to the (functioning of the ) brain. The brain is also part of the physical system and I do not have to pay that much more attention to my brain than I do to trees or to birds...

K: No.

GS : So, why should I feel so attached to what happens in my brain—thought waves and the functioning of the various (neuronal) interconnections and so on? Should I be too concerned about what the brain is doing?

K: As long as my brain is conditioned (by its instinctual survival-oriented self-interest?) , the brain becomes very limited. The brain has an infinite capacity, and that capacity is being denied by its own limitation. (For instance:) you are a scientist and have acquired tremendous knowledge and you keep 'adding'. This (accumulative instinct ) is the factor of conditioning. Obviously. And therefore the brain becomes limited and that addition is (creating ) the ( temporal) 'self'. And as long as the 'self' is there, the self is a ( closed) system, and the self is a factor of deterioration.

GS : That is what we call the ( temporal) 'self' with a little ‘s’ rather than the ‘Self ’

K: I am using it only in one context, the small ‘s.’ For me, there is no big ‘S’

RB : Going back to what Pupulji said, Sir, you said that ( holistic ?) attention has no background.

K: Here is a scientist. What is attention to you, Sir?

GS : Well, I would say (the holistic) 'attention' is when there is no separation, when there is no identification of anything else; including perception of any entity. Attention is one, in which there are no personal anticipations or memories.

K: Which means what? There is no ( psyhological) background?

GS : No background is the simplest statement. In attention there is no background because background assumes a (knowledge) matrix, an ideal. In attention there is no comparison. Attention is one without the second.

K: When there is attention, there is no ( knowledge?) background. Love has no reminiscences. Love is not the activity of desire or pleasure. ( Hint:) The activity of desire and pleasure involves time. Love has no time.

PJ : This is a mighty leap...

JU : It is a Brahmastra - a weapon which annihilates everything.

K: It (the 'Love has no time' statement ) is approachable. I don’t put something on a pinnacle and then say it is unapproachable.

JU : Has Love an arising and an ending?

K: No. If there is an arising and ending, it is not love.

JU : Then it is beyond any discussion...

K: What is a dialogue? A dialogue is—you question and I answer; so, you and I are forgotten. We don’t exist. Only the question remains. And if you leave (only contemplate?) the question, it flowers, it has vitality, it provides an answer, Has Panditji understood my answer?

RB : : He accepts what you say—that there is a question and an answer flows, but he says, ‘What has this to do with Love?’

K: I make a ( holistic?) statement—‘Where Love is, Time is not.’ You listen, you question it, and I reply. There is a connection, both verbal and non-verbal, and the question remains, the ( experiential feeling of the?) fact remains. If you let it remain, it begins to move.

PJ : You're saying that Love has no time ?

K: See the beauty of it ?

PJ : It is a fine question and no response arises to it, but the question remains...

K: Then remain with that. Pupul, take a lotus flower and look at it.

PJ : I look.

RB : In (silently) 'looking' there is no question.

K : Or, take ''Death has no time''...
GS : It seems to me that before we move to 'death has no time' , let us talk about love, and its relation to the 'dialogue' question. You have previously said that when there is a dialogue between two or many people, and the vital purpose is actually in the dialogue, the persons cease and the question remains and it moves around, it speaks through various people and its own vitality functions. I think you are saying that the purpose of the dialogue is not for a person to ask questions and for the other person to answer, but for the question and answer to come around, and move by itself between people. So it is not one person giving information to another person, but it is a case of the question itself answering itself, using people’s voices as the instrument. K is saying that if there is a time when the question ceases, that too is a very valuable time, that too is in fact very natural. In a sense, what it shows is an image, an echo of what he was talking about earlier—namely, is there a being at this point or is there a becoming or is there something which is other than the two? Looked at from one point, there is being; looked at from another point, when all questions cease, then who is there to ask any question, who is there to understand? That holding the question, or holding the answer if there is no question, is itself in a sense a dialogue. It is a meditation in which no words are spoken because it is a state ( of seeing the Truth) where words do not reach.

K: Yes. So, let us now talk about death. What, according to the Buddhists is death?

JU : By whatever cause life came into being, by the same cause life comes to an end; that is death,

K: I exist because my father and my mother met, and I was born. I live eighty-nine years or ninety-one years. At the end of that I die. There is a ( physical) causation and the end of causation. Right? Is that what you call death?

JU : The causation is not only at the level of things, that is, at the biological level; but it is at the memory level, at the thought level. Nagarjuna says in that movement is past, present and future.

K: It is an intellectual concept ; this doesn’t interest me, if I am actually dying.

JU : At every moment there is an ending; each moment is separate. There is a death ( and rebirth) all the time...

K: But ( suppose that ) I have a son who is dying and I am in sorrow, I shed tears. I am lonely, depressed. You come along and speak of causation. But I am in pain. What are you going to do about it?

JU : Whatever comes into being ends from moment to moment.

K: I have heard all that before, but now I am in sorrow...

JU : But what connects the moments together is memory...

PJ : Jagannath Upadhyaya says that none of the Buddhist teachings have dealt with death, except as a rising and ending.

K: I was with a man, Sir, some years ago. He was dying. His wife came and said, ‘He is asking for you.’ I went to him, sat next to him, and held his hand. And he said, ‘I am dying, don’t preach philosophy to me. I am dying, and I don’t want to die. I have lived a fairly good life, I have got my family, my memories, all the things that I have accumulated, and I don’t want to die. But I am dying.’ What is your answer to that?

JU : The answer is, he has to die...

K: Of course he has to die. He has got cancer but he says, ‘ help me to understand.’

PJ : But death is part of life...

PJ : Panditji, are you saying there is no ending to sorrow?

JU : Unless the cause of sorrow is eliminated, it (the fear of death?) cannot end.

K: But the man who is dying hasn’t eliminated it. You have to deal with this man who is dying. Nobody has held his hand. So I hold his hand and he has the feeling that there is Love. I do not talk to him about a beginning or ending...
He may die or not die. He will die sometime. But we are dying at this moment, we are dying to this feeling. We are in sorrow, there is no question of that. The question is not whether our brother is dying. It is we who are in sorrow, and we are asking for help, for support. He wants consolation. But I am not giving him a thing. We cannot give him life. He who is dying is not dying outside of himself, he is dying within himself and it is his problem.

GS : Is the question how you deal with that person?

K: No, it is how you deal with (the fact of) death.

GS : There are two things involved : one is my feeling that my friend is dying and that he is afraid, he is unhappy and unwilling to die. The other is what can I do to give him help at this point. Which of the two aspects are we discussing?

K: Both. I want to know ( the inner truth?) about death. I am going to die. I’ll be eighty-nine in May—probably I will live another ten ( or...two?) years. I am not frightened. I don’t want anybody’s help. I have lived with death and life together, all the time, all my life. Because I don’t possess anything inwardly. I am dying and living at the same time. There is no separation for me. But my friend is dying. Nobody has loved him and he has loved nobody. What the Buddha said, does that help? He wants somebody to love him, be with him. Somebody who says ‘Look, we are together in this. You are lonely and what
does it mean when death comes?’ I see him utterly lonely, separated from anybody else. And there is dreadful fear. And you come and speak of beginning, ending. I say, for God’s sake!

JU : Even if I ( have) love, can I give it to him? Is it something which can be given?

K: No, it is not something 'I' can give.

JU : However great or deep one's compassion may be, it cannot be independent of causation...

K: Sir, he is not interested in your philosophy. He is not interested in what the Buddha said. He is dying. Don’t tell him of beginning, arising, and ending. He is not interested in that. We go to the dying with a lot of words, but these words are like ashes to him, including Buddha’s words. Can one 'come with nothing' and hold his hand? Can one say, ‘My friend, when you die, a part of me is also dying. I have never met you before. But your wife came to see me and she asked me to visit you. So, we both are going to die today. I know what it means to die. I have lived my life dying and living, never separating the two. Each day I die.’ So I say to my friend, ‘Let us die. I understand your fear.’ Then death is not ( surrounded by?) fear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 #127
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

THE SUMMATION OF THE K TEACHINGS

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar, 1984)

PJ : What is the summation of your teaching? To me it integrates and includes the teachings of the Buddha and Vedanta. You could negate the 'Higher Self', the 'Brahman', but from the very negation (of their traditional connotation?) emanates a (spiritual) energy which those words originally conveyed. So...who is Krishnamurti? And what is his ( spiritual) lineage? Is he ( representing) a breakthrough in (mankind's spiritual ?) evolution? It could take centuries (or ... much less ?) to fully comprehend the challenge Krishnamurti had posed to the root of human Consciousness.

K: Keep the challenge ; work with ( the living truth of?) it and forget the person. Why do we give such importance to the person(ality) of the Teacher? The teacher may be physically necessary to (help) manifest the Teaching, but beyond that, what? The vase contains water; you have to drink the water, not worship the vase. (The collective consciousness of ?) Humanity (generally indulges in ?) worshiping the Vase and ... forgets the Water.

PJ : But even to start real enquiry into the Teaching is (requiring a holistic ?) 'breakthrough' in one's consciousness.

K: Yes, that is so. ( But there isalso the collective?) tendency to center everything around the personality ( & achievements?) of the teacher — not on the essence of what he says and.... that is the greatest ( active factor of) corruption. Look at the great ( spiritual) teachings of the world and look what their followers have made of them?

The ( physical) manifestation (of the Teacher?) has to take place, through a human body, naturally—but the manifestation is not the 'Teaching'. We must be extraordinarily impersonal about all this and see that we do not project the ( glorious image of the?) Teacher and forget to see the ( living spirit of?) Truth in the teaching, the depth in it, go into it, live it, that is what is important. Does it matter (in) the ( small 'K ) world' what people say of K, what a 'wonderful' person he was —who cares?

If ( the spiritual message of?) K is a breakthrough, the words ( & his public image?) are not his measure. If I were living in the times of the Buddha I may have great affection for him, but I would be far more concerned with ( seeing the inner truth of?) what he says. Look Pupulji, our brains have become so 'small' (inwardly conditioned ?) by the words we have. When one speaks to a group of scientists, specialists in various disciplines—one sees that their own lives have become so small. They are measuring everything in terms of ( scientifically standardised ) words, and experiences. But (the inner awakening ?) is not a matter of words or (of scientifically measurable ? ) experience. Words are limited, all ( self-centred ?) experiences are limited. They cover a very small area.

Let us start anew (from Square One ?) . The (time-bound?) 'self' is a (pro-active ) bundle of (personal & collective?) memories. The 'self' is the essence of ( living in the area of one's past, present & future ?) knowledge (in the 'field of time'). K is saying that this 'self' is ( made up of ) inherited and accumulated memory. When this 'self-(centred entity?) is not (around ?) time is not. ( The timeless life-?) energy has no past. But man has emphasized the ( cultivation of the?) past. Now, when this (life-) energy is not bound by the 'self' it has no ( continuity in terms of ) time. It is energy.

PJ : But in any ( physical) manifestation, isn't there a time ( necessary ) to that manifestation?

K: Yes. Any (physical) manifestation needs time (to be born, grow, flower & vanish?) . Therefore, having manifested itself as a flower, a tree, or as a human being, that energy is limited (by its material condition?) . ( However?) when the 'self ( -centred' consciousness) is not (active ) , there is a state (of consciousness which is) totally out of time.
I am questioning whether the (inner) evolution of the human brain has to continue as it is ( doing ) now, by gathering, more and more knowledge? Or whether there is a meditation ( -friendly evolution ?) that is not based on knowledge ? So long as (the present time-bound) consciousness exists, there must be ( the inherent limitations of ) time. Therefore the (holistically friendly?) meditation can only be when ( the self-centred) consciousness, as we know it, ends ( dissolves ?)
For the last year(s), there was a State (of Holistic Consciousness ) , not measurable by words, (Hint : not in the field of the 'known' !), Immense, totally out of time. It is there, when I close my eyes to do my yoga exercises, or when I go for a walk. I watch it to see whether it is fanciful or Reality.

PJ : That must be totally altering the nature of the brain...

K: Probably it does.

PJ : But...can it touch the ( life-energy matrix of the?) brain of humanity?

K: Yes, yes.... Pupulji, you who have read the ancient texts and have discussed with ( wise-men & ) pundits, what do you contact?

PJ : You see, Krishnaji, I have read the ancient texts, but I also bring into (their understanding a holistic quality of) listening which has come through listening to you. I so listen to the texts, and because there is that state, I can touch something, or get closer to It...

K: ( Actually) it was not a ( personal) question, but a way of moving me into this inner journey...

PJ : Touching ‘That’ does not lie in the words. As you were speaking, the mind, because it is quiet, feels close to ‘That.’ But when I read the ancient texts and the mind is quiet, or when I sit alone in the garden and hear the birds sing, or just the touch of the wind, I may also feel a closeness to ‘That.’

K: Does the person (or the 'presence'?) of K become important?

PJ : No, although the ( spiritual) energy emanating (in his presence) is certainly important. It 'draws us in', the moment the mind is quiet. I am beginning to see that the energy of one's ( temporal) mind is not ( by itself) capable of touching ‘That.’ It can go only so far and no further. Still, I do understand your point - to allow the ( time-bound?) 'self' as little ( roaming ?) space as possible.

K: (laughed). Yes , (meditation-wise?) allow it as little play as possible .

PJ : I see that there is very little of the 'personal' (side of) Krishnamurti left...

K: Yes...

PJ : One can feel - when touching the 'gateways' of your mind- that the 'ground' is saturated with ‘That.’

K: Yes.

PJ : In the last year (1983) or so, you tried to bring people closer and closer to ‘That'....But then there is this ( hidden) blockage of ( man's spiritual) evolution that is ( the personal & collective?) Karma.

K ( laughing ) : As you sow, so shall you reap...

PJ : Karma, which is the ( invisible time-binding) 'essence' of what you were, so you are and so you will be. I (guess?) that one has to let one's thought flow, let it be very fluid, and not let it 'crystalize'. One has to uproot ( the self-centred?) thought, unearth it.

K: Uproot it, that is right...

PJ : So that it 'sits lightly' in the ( inwardly transparent?) mind.

K: Just a minute. How would you communicate what you are saying to fifty people, or five thousand?

PJ : The key to ( any authentic) communication is observation. Nothing else is needed.

K: How do you answer (the perrenial trick question?) ''Who is the 'observer'?”

PJ : The only answer is to observe (holistically), to be open, to discover. How extraordinary is this journey of self-discovery, the insights into the Endless...

( PJ's Post Scriptum:) As I left the room, the question again arose in my mind: Who is Krishnamurti? What is his 'gotra', his (spiritual) lineage? Out of the question, the answer arose:It is all ( the Consciousness of?) humankind. Because in every human being is the capacity to 'break through' the bondage (of its time-binding self-interest?) and 'be' in the lineage of impersonal compassion.
Later I asked him ( a last 'bonus question' regarding ) the nature of 'Samadhi'. He said, “The brain is silent throughout the day; a word is said and the brain sees instantly the whole content of it. The brain does not accumulate. There is no ( thought-time ) movement within the brain, but there is an infinite movement - the (natural ) 'rhythm' of the brain and a sense of Timeless, Eternal Protection.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 #128
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Where Do I Begin?

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar & friends 1984 )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, three days ago we started discussing the (holistic preparation of the ) 'ground' of a mind from which a New Mind emerges. You said that from a mind which is caught in conflict, fear, anger, the 'new' can never emerge; but you said that something entirely new is necessary. You also spoke about the ( holistic quality of?) attention when the senses are operating (harmoniously) integrated at their highest. I want to start with the (absolute beginner's) question: I’m a newcomer to your ( recorded) talks & videos ) ; I hear this. Where do I begin?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Probably at first you won’t make head or tail of it. You won’t know what K is talking about. So ( to start on the right foot?) we will have (first) to establish the semantic meaning (of K's experiential terminology?) , and also be aware of our relationship to (the world of?) nature. If we lost touch with nature - of which we are a part - we would lose touch with our fellow beings. I would begin there—with my relationship to nature, with my relationship to the beauty of all that.

PJ: So you are saying that the starting point of (any holistic self -) inquiry is starting with the awareness of the 'outer' ?

K: Without understanding the beauty of the land, of the rivers and also this extraordinary world we live in, with all the cruelty, the terrorism, and so on, how can I ever have a clear perception of myself? What is my relationship to all that? Am I blind to it all? Or do I have certain (self-protective shield of handy ) conclusions which dominates ( my perception of the everyday reality ) ?

PJ: Sir, we all look at nature - at the trees, at the flowers and at the rocks. And we really feel that as we have (sensible?) eyes, we look. But there is something (more involved?) in the holistic 'looking' and in the 'relationship with nature' of which you are talking about ; and obviously it is not the (same quality of) 'looking' which we are used to.

K: How do you look (holistically?) at nature? Is it merely a visual perception? Or do you look with your whole being, with all your senses? Do you perceive it as though it was something outside you or as something of which you are a part?

PJ: I think one can actually say that there is a ( quality of non-dualistic ?) looking in which the 'seer' does not interfere . But I don’t want to start there. I’m coming to you as a beginner who says, ‘I look with my eyes’.

K: I would reply to that: Do you only 'look'? Or do you also 'hear'—hear the sound of the whisper among the deep shadows of the trees, the sound of the breeze and of running water? My ( holistically friendly?) question is: Do you 'listen, see & feel'?

PJ: Sir, if you are 'seeing, listening & feeling', then it is a state ( of holistic perception?) in which everything exists. But I don’t know anything about that. So, I would like to approach it from the point of view of an (absolute) beginner.

K: Would ( this absolute beginner?) agree that human beings have lost ( the direct?) touch with nature?

PJ: Yes, completely; because when they see, their eyes move over. They never look directly. They never 'look'—period, (perhaps because?) they consider it too trivial.

K: That’s just it. They consider viewing nature as something trivial. They consider nature as something that can be exploited.

PJ: You see, sir, the human mind has ( since millenia ) divided what is important ( for its temporal survival & enjoyment ?) from what it considers 'un-important' .

K: So, let’s begin from there . What is 'important' for the ordinary person, what is important? Food, clothes & (a decent) shelter ?

PJ: No, sir. Beyond those very basic needs there is ( an endless search for hedonistic pleasures, and/or for ? ) the sacred, the divine, God...

K: Of course, but I’ll come to that later. I’m just beginning with the elementary needs—food, clothes, shelter.

PJ: Even so, if you were to try to get someone to look at one leaf, at one single leaf, you will find out how difficult it is. But why take someone else? When one does it oneself, one realizes how difficult it is to look (with full attention ) at anything.

Q: As you said, we glance at it and move away.

K: Would you blame the (poor educational job done amongst by the?) established religions that have prevented man from considering nature as part of himself?

Q: The modern urban man is not- to any great extent - influenced by religions...

K: No, we are not talking about an urban man or about a rural man, a man who lives in a big town or in a little town or village. And all these so-called religious people have maintained that desire is to be suppressed, that the senses are to be suppressed because they distract.

Q: Yes, this has been upheld not only by religion but also by society.

K: Of course. They have not said, ‘Look at all the wonders of this world. Look at its beauty; feel it; absorb it; be of it’. What they have done is to create 'images'— made by the hand and by the mind. And images that are made by the mind are more important than the others. Now, if I were a (holistically inclined) man and I were to hear all this, as Pupulji pointed out, where would I begin?

Q: But, wouldn’t you say that this person must have seen somewhere, somehow, that his world is limited?

K: Yes, he knows ( the inevitability of his own aging & ?) death...

PJ: He does see ( his existential limitations) when he is in sorrow; when he is suffering; he does when there is death.

K: He does when there is sorrow. He does when there is death. It is then that he will begin to say, ‘What is all this (loveless existence?) about?'

Q: But you see, there are a ( dwindling?) number of people who generally consider having 'very happy lives'. They have no sorrow—at least not the sorrow that is common to most people: poverty, ill-health, lack of education, and so on. Yet they ( still) come upon these questions, and they go, very seriously, into them.

K: You are talking of those people who are 'exceptional'. But we began by asking, ‘If I were an ordinary man where would I begin?’ Let us say that I am an ordinary man, fairly educated, and surrounded by the very complex problems of existence—suffering, pain, anxiety, and all the other activities of thought—where would I begin to understand the very complex society in which I lived? That is the question with which Mrs Jayakar began.

PJ: You see, we take it for granted—when we listen to Krishnaji—that the beginning must start within. We have all taken it that way, namely, that the beginning has to start within, with the discovery of ‘what is’ (going on inwardly) . We have never (really) looked at the outside world and seen the 'outside' as the same movement as the movement within us. Therefore the ( intellectual?) callousness, the corruption...

K: Why have we neglected or discarded or despised all the things from nature?

PJ: Because ( for psychological reasons we learned to?) divide the 'outer world' from the 'inner world' (or ...simply ignore the latter?) .

K: So, both the Buddhists and the Hindus considered the outside world is m?y?, an illusion. K, however, is saying that it is important to understand first one’s relationship to nature and to the ( real) world in which all the misery, confusion, brutality, and corruption is going on. Look at that first and, then (if there's some time left...?) from the outer, move to the inner. But if you start and stop at the inner, you will have no ( common sense ) measure. You ( will happily?) follow Jesus or some ( modern) guru.

(In a nutshell?) I feel, personally, that we must start with what we see, hear, and feel outside. But the question is: How do I look at my wife, my children, my parents, and all the 'facts of life' which are (going on) outside?
Take the fact of 'death' -it is there ( & easily observable ?) outside of me, but I begin to inquire. But if I have not established a right relationship with nature, with another person—wife, husband, anyone—how can I ever establish the right relationship with the immensity of the ( Vastly Unknown?) Universe?

Q: Krishnaji, in looking ( objectively) at the 'outer', you’re saying that the brain 'quickens' ?

K: Of course; it becomes more sensitive.

Q: But, sir, the Western world has always treated the 'outer' (world) as very, very concrete. All their energies have moved outward. But that doesn’t seem to have brought about the 'inward' (spiritual quickening) either...

K: So we have to (consider ) a much more ( profound &) serious question. What makes a man change (inwardly?) ? ( Supposing that?) one is envious (greedy & intellectually?) brutal, uncertain, confused and there is ( an accumulation of personal frustrations & resentment or?) 'hatred' in me. I’m the result of thousands of years of ( survival oriented?) evolution. Why have I not yet changed (inwardly?) ? That is one of the basic questions.

Q: Isn’t it too early to put that question ( to our 'holistically friendly' beginner?) ?

K: Yes, it is early...

Q: But you are saying that, all the same, he will have to come to it.

K: I appreciate nature; I am in constant touch with it and I begin to 'look' . But ultimately, I must ask myself—I, who am a human being, who suffers, who has fear and who is in turmoil, just like the rest of mankind—‘Why have I not radically changed?’ That is my ( intermediate beginner?) question.

Q: The ordinary man is much more concerned with gaining the object of his greed or with running away from the object of his fear, than with asking (inwardly) the question, ‘Why am I greedy?’ or ‘Why am I afraid?’

K: Ask it for yourself, sir; why after thirty or forty years you are exactly as you were—modified, of course, but with no radical change. Why? I suggest that any rational and thoughtful person would ( eventually come to?) ask this question.
Do you understand what I mean by ‘change’?

Q: No, sir, I do not understand.

K: Take ( the inherited trend of survivalistic greed or?) envy. That is a common factor for everybody, and it has produced a great deal of trouble in the world. You see the consequences of envy, but you still remain ( subliminally?) envious. Why is don't you 'wipe it out' of your brain? To watch ( non-personally?) the brain being envious, and to 'wipe it out' (ASAP ...?) —why hasn’t that been possible? Why haven’t you done it?

Q: I feel that ( a certain accumulation of existential) suffering seems to be necessary in some ways for this ‘radical’ change that you are talking about. Yet when one suffers and keeps on ( indulging in one's ) suffering, it has a blunting (dulling) effect on the individual who suffers. So where do we go from there?

K: Sir, (first of all), there is no division between the outer and the inner; they are one. Do you see that? Do you actually see the fact that the outer, that is, ( the collective trend of greed in) the society in which we live, and the inner (the personalised trend of greed) in ‘me’, are the (one & the?) same? I 'am' part of society and ( the collective mentality of the?) society is not different from 'me'. That is one of the most fundamental ( holistic) facts . Do you, actually, recognize (the inward truth of ) that fact ?
(Secondly), the division between 'you' and 'me' is created by thought and, therefore, it ( has already become) tremendously complex.
(And thirdly...?) You never ask, ‘Can this suffering end?’

Q: Sir, would you say that these two questions—‘Can suffering end?’ and ‘Why have I not changed?’—are the same?

K: They are the same.

Q: Then is't the ( honest ) answer to both the questions the fact that we don’t have enough ( holistically integrated intelligent?) energy?

K: You have plenty of energy when you (really?) want to do something. Right? When you want to make money, you work tremendously to get it. So I don’t think it is a matter of ( lacking) energy.

Q: Is it that we do not (really) want to change with our whole being? And why is it that the desire ‘not to suffer’ or the desire to ‘change radically’, is so easily dissipated in us?

K: Is it because there is no ( foresight of any personal) profit in that? We are profit-motivated (programmed subliminally by self-interest) aren’t we? We always want a reward. Our brains are conditioned to reward and punishment. Right? We work like the blazes if we can have a ( concrete?) reward at the end of it—money, position, status, happiness, whatever it is.

PJ: Sir, I think we have moved away slightly. We were talking of the ( integration of the ) senses and their operation (in harmony) and...

K: Yes...

PJ: Now, the senses 'are' (& have?) energy. But what is it that thwarts the energy of the senses? What is it that comes in the way of their real capacity?

K: Is it our ( survival oriented ?) conditioning? Is it our ( dualistic ?) education? Because, as you know, we are always told to control.

PJ: Yes, sir, but we have to not only be very careful with ( not wasting) our energy but also to channelize it properly. The whole of life and the whole of ( modern) education is, I feel, merely a channelling of this energy and, so, perhaps in itself it is an incorrect approach.

K: Yes.

PJ: Because what is necessary is the ( gathering integrating & ) conservation of energy. Now, how does one conserve energy? How does one create energy?

K: Would you 'conserve' energy? Or is it that the more you ( intelligently) expend energy the more there is?

PJ: But you can also allow energy to fritter away.

K: That’s just it. You see, for a person like ‘K’, there is no distraction or attraction.

PJ: This is the 'magical' thing. For ‘K’ there is no distraction in the mind; there is no triviality.

Q: Also, there is no ( self-) preoccupation.

K: That’s right.

PJ: We can easily see that whatever energy a human being has, he is dispersing it all the time. There must be something ( that has to be done?) at the root of it.

K: Pupul, just look. You are conditioned from childhood to this idea of reward and punishment. So you expend all your energy ( in thought's sophisticated schemes ?) to avoid punishment and gain a reward. A ( high expectation of ?) reward gives me tremendous energy to work, work (&...) work. And then you (K?) come along and tell me that this reward and punishment is a conditioning, and that in that there is no freedom.
( Hint:) Enlightenment isn’t a reward.
But I have been trained from childhood to (think in terms of) seeking rewards. So there is a ( conflict of interests?) and I waste my energy in that battle. I struggle inwardly (to achieve a permanent state of?) happiness or (inner) peace. And I do everything in order to (achieve ) that.

PJ: Sir, ( man's inner) life is so complex that if I ever try to solve it, I never will. But you have given us a (holistic ) 'key' – the total operation of the senses. Can we explore and go into that?

K: Yes, let’s do it. Are 'seeing' and 'hearing' separate, or are they one? Do you understand my question? When you (try to) 'perceive' something (holistically) is the seeing of it and the hearing of it separate, and also is there a ( subliminally controlling ) 'thinking about it'? (Hint:) The moment you 'think about it', you are not listening to the ( truth of the ) question.
The point is, can you see, that is, perceive, and hear at the same time?—Not as two separate things.
( Story time:) I was talking to a scientist last year—a biologist who is concerned with ( man's relationship with?) nature, and so on. He asked me, ‘Do you hear the sound of a tree? Do you hear the 'sound' (the life-vibration?) of a tree when it is absolutely quiet, for example, early in the morning or as the sun is setting? Have you heard a tree when there is no breeze? A tree has a peculiar quality of sound’. And I said, ‘Yes, a tree has a peculiar quality of 'sound’. (But...) can you 'hear and see' that sound at the same time? Or do you divide it? Do you follow what I’m saying?

PJ: I follow, sir.

K: The ( experiential point of this ) question is whether you can 'see-hear – feel -smell & taste' anything, without ( thought's verbal ?) division. It’s as though you are completely immersed in it.

Q: Sir, you have frequently said (in private?) that 'meditation' is a sixth or seventh sense, and that if one doesn’t have it, one is missing a lot. What exactly is the essential nature of 'meditation' according to you?

K: The essential nature of meditation is never to be ( self-) conscious that you are meditating. If 'you' attempt to meditate, you merely want to achieve ( an impossible reward?) . But... meditation is not an achievement. If you meditate according to a system, at the end of your endeavour, you say, ‘Ah, at last I have got (inner) peace!’ (Laughs) It is the same as saying, ‘At last, I have a million dollars in the bank’. In the business world you do this, this and that to get money, but you can’t do anything to get this. You see, meditation, to K, is something that cannot be ( self-) consciously achieved.

PJ: Is it separate from the state of the 'seeing-listening'?

K: That is in itself ( part of the holistic) meditation.

Q: You speak of ‘a contact with nature’. There seems, to me, (a natural) meditation going on in a very sensitive way when there is a contact with nature—especially the kind of contact that you describe. Unfortunately, many people feel that a ( meditation-friendly) posture or approach is very relevant to meditation.

K: I know...

Q: So when you talk about a meditation in which all these (supportive ) things are eliminated, one is lost.

K: Be lost!

Q: But we are not 'lost' in the ( timeless ) way you mean. We are feeling lost in confusion.

K: Sir, doing all these (thought-controlling methods of meditation) 'is' ( are a sign of) confusion!

Q: How would you further guide us so that 'meditation' becomes an actuality?

K: When you’re watching this whole universe, 'watching', not seeking a reward or evading punishment but 'watching'—the suffering of those villagers, of those little boys who walk twelve miles a day to school—in that very watching there is great perception, great love, great care. You see, this 'watching' is not merely with the senses, there is a quality of love, a quality of care.

PJ: Yes, now we are getting to it. But what awakens ( this loving perception?) ?

K: The awakening of all the senses and in the fullness of it—there’s a quality of something totally different in that.

PJ: There must be something missing because—let me put it in other words—that 'explosion of the heart' does not ( usually?) happen, sir. That is really the crux.

K: Would you say that the ( physical) 'brain' is the centre of all our nervous responses, it is the centre of all thought (but also) it is the centre of all confusion, of all pain, of all sorrow, anxiety, depression, aspiration, achievement, and so on. In the (time-bound human ) brain there is a great activity of confusion and of contradiction.
Love is not (to be found in) this (brain) . Therefore it must be something outside the brain. And we (usually) look at nature, or other human beings...

PJ: From inside the brain ?

K: Yes, we look from inside the brain. We were walking yesterday with some of the people here, and there was complete silence even though there were bullock carts, children cycling, you know, all the other noises. There was nothing, just an immense silence. And it was not a silence 'out there'. It was silence; the entire world was silent. And you were silent. And you felt the whole earth as part of you.

PJ: You see, sir, this is your statement, and I am listening. But although the senses working simultaneously give the brain great clarity, a great germinating creativity, it doesn’t wipe the tear of another...

K: No.

PJ: I am concerned with what it is that wipes the tear of another. Because unless that (compassionate intelligence is) is there...

K: Just a minute. Can the brain—that is my question ( for homework meditation?)—be so 'quiet' that the activity of thought has 'completely ended' in that second or in that period? Or is the brain always (background) chattering ?

PJ: Is it, sir, that the only thing which is legitimate to ask is ( for the brain) to be totally awake (inwardly) , that is, for the senses to operate fully and never even worry about the 'Other'?

K: Of course. You don’t even know the 'Other'. How can you question...?

PJ: ...what is outside the skull ?
K: Yes. All I know is what is within the skull.
And you ( K) come along and say, ‘As long as you’re (keep being stuck?) in there, you will solve nothing’. You point this out to me. And I listen to you because I see the logic of all this, the common sense of all this, and I say, ‘Quite right’. So I want to know what it is to make the brain quiet—though it has its own rhythms.

Meditation is not ( a mechanical?) quietness. You try to bring (peace of mind & inner ) quietness through ( thought) control, through all kinds of ( mental) tricks. But that’s not the 'stillness' and the beauty of Silence. So where do we end up (the absolute beginner's inner journey?) ?

PJ: You see, sir, everything else is man-made. Only That is ( coming from) Divinity ; but unfortunately, we just don’t know how to (meditate holistically in order to?) reach it, how to touch it....

K: ( Parting funny story:) I met a man the other day. He was a great ( local?) painter. He said to me, ‘What man has made is the most beautiful thing’. That was the end of it for him. Then I pointed to a tree and said, ‘No one made that’, and he began to see (something new?) . ‘Yes’, he said, ‘that’s interesting...’.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Oct 2018 #129
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Dealing holistically with one's psychological fears

( an 'experientially & reader friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): You have often said, Krishnaji, that Intelligence is the greatest security when facing ( one's psychological) fears. The problem is: In a ( major existential?) crisis, when fear from the unconscious floods you, where is the place for this Intelligence? Intelligence demands listening, seeing and observation. But when the whole being is flooded by an uncontrollable ( existential anxiety or?) fear where is the place for intelligence? How does one deal with the primeval, archetypal fears which lie at the very base of the human psyche?
For instance let's take one of ( the deepest existential) fears - the fear of 'not being': how does one deal with this fear? You have talked of Intelligence as being the greatest security. It is so; but when ( that profound existential anxiety along with the more concrete ?) fears (of what might happen tomorrow?) floods you, where is Intelligence?

K: You are asking: How can one deal with (a tidal ?) wave of (anxiety & ) fear at that moment? Is that the question?

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): One sees fear like the branches of a tree. If we deal with these fears one by one, there is no freedom from anxiety & fear. Is there a ( holistic inner ?) quality that sees ( the central root of man's existential anxiety & ) fear without ( bothering about ) its 'branches'?

K: Let us find out. There are 'conscious' and 'unconscious' (existential) fears and at moments these unconscious (anxieties & ) fears become (overwhelming) and that at those moments ( one's natural) intelligence is not in operation. So, you are asking how one can deal with those waves of uncontrollable anxiety ?

PJ: Yes, and they seem to take on a material form; it is almost like a 'physical' (darkness) which overpowers you.

K: Yes, it upsets your (whole being) neurologically, biologically...
Let us explore (its roots) : The (deep existential anxiety & ) fear exists when there is a sense of loneliness, when there is a feeling of complete abandonment by others, a sense of complete isolation, a sense of utter helplessness. And in those moments, when deep fear arises and there is ungovernable, uninvited fear, obviously intelligence is not (anywhere in sight?) .

PJ: One may feel that one has faced the ( everyday worries & ) fears which are known but 'unconsciously' one is swamped.

K: ( For starters?) the outskirts of (one's) intelligence can deal with the 'conscious' fears ?

PJ: You can even allow those fears to flower.

K: And then in that very flowering there is ( the holistic action of?) intelligence. Now how do you deal with the 'unconscious ' (anxieties & ) fears? Do they actually exist in the traditional depths of the ( collective?) 'unconscious' or is it a thing that the unconscious gathers from the (outer) environment? Are they all an inherent part of the (collective) unconscious, of the racial, traditional history of man? Are they in the inherited genes? How do you deal with this vast problem?

PJ: Can we discuss the second one, which is the gathering of fear from the outer environment?

K: First of all, let us deal with the first type. Why does the unconscious hold ( the deep existential) fears at all? Are they imposed by the culture in which we live, or is it that the ( thinking ) mind is not able to deal with them (in real time?) ? When you said that these waves of ( existential anxiety or?) fear come, I said that they are always there , but that, in a (more serious existential) crisis, you (or the conscious mind?) become aware of them.

SP: They exist in ( any time-bound?) consciousness. Why do you say that they are in the unconscious?

K: First of all, ( one's ) consciousness is made up of its ( 'active memory' ? ) content. Without this 'content' there is no ( ego-centred ) consciousness. One of its ( psychologically active) 'contents' is this basic fear (of one's existential insecurity?) and the conscious mind never tackles ( the roots of ) it ; it ( man's existential anxiety) is ( lingering) there, but (for obscure reasons, the conscious mind ?) never says, ‘I must deal with it’. However in moments of ( deep existential) crisis that ( lingering?) part of one's consciousness is awakened and is frightened. But the (causation of this) fear is always there.

PJ: I don’t think it is so simple (to be dealt with?) . Is fear not a part of man’s cultural inheritance?

K: ( In a brain strongly attached to the 'thought-time' process ?) fear is always there. Is it part of our 'cultural' inheritance or is it inherent in man? Fear, as it exists in the animal, as it exists in every living thing, is a sense of not being; the fear of being destroyed.

PJ: The self-preservative instinct takes the form of fear.

K: Is it that the whole structure of (all living) cells is frightened of not being? You see, that exists in every living thing. Even the little ant is afraid of not being. We see that fear is there; we see that it is part of human existence, and one becomes tremendously aware of it in a crisis. ( Your question was ) how does one deal with it at that moment when the 'surge of ( existential anxiety or ?) 'fear' comes? ( The experientially friendly answer is ?) Why do we wait for the crisis (to awaken it?) ? We said that it is always there, that it is a part of our biological, psychological, structure. The whole human structure—our entire being—is frightened . Fear is a part of the tiniest living thing; it is a part of the minutest cell. Why do we wait for a crisis to come and bring it out? That is a most irrational acceptance of it. I am asking: Why should I have to have a crisis in order to deal with my ( existential anxiety & ) fear?

PJ: You see, sir, it is ( theoretically?) possible to face the fear of death with ( rational) intelligence. Is it possible to face other fears intelligently?

K: I question whether you can have any ( holistic ?) intelligence at all before you have resolved ( this existential anxiety or?) 'fear'. ( The loving & compassionate?) Intelligence is light and you cannot deal with ( the inner) darkness when this 'light' is not there .
( Both outwardly & inwardly?) Light exists only when 'darkness' is not .
I am questioning whether you can deal with fear 'intelligently' when (the deeper causation of this?) fear exists. I say that you cannot. You may rationalize it, you may try to avoid it or go beyond it, but that is not ( the holistic action of ) Intelligence.

PJ: I would say that ( the awakening of this ) intelligence occurs in the awareness of fear arising, in leaving it alone, in being with it, and so (eventually) leading to the dissolution of fear. But you're saying that where intelligence is, fear does not arise ? ( and vice-versa?)

NANDINI MEHTA (NM): Will fear not arise?

K: We don’t (intelligently?) allow ( this profound existential anxiety or?) 'fear' to arise.

NM: I think fear arises, but we don’t allow it to flower.

K: You see, I am questioning, altogether, the whole (traditional 'time-delaying') response to a crisis. Fear is there; why do you need a ( major existential) crisis to awaken it? A ( cruel?) word, a gesture, a look, a thought—those are challenges that can bring it up. I am asking: Why do we wait for the (ultimate existential?) crisis? A gesture, a thought, a word, a look, a whisper—any of these are ( very valid existential) challenges.

NM: I don’t look for the crisis. The only thing I am aware of is that it just arises and I am paralysed.

K: Why don’t you ( endeavour to?) contact ( your existential?) fears before the challenge? Why should one not awaken to it without a challenge? If fear is ( lingering) there, it must be awake; or is it dormant? And if it is dormant, why is it dormant? Is it because the conscious mind (is subliminally) afraid that ( the Big Existential ?) Fear may awaken? Has it put it to sleep and refused to look at it? Or ( this 'existential anxiety' or ?) 'fear' is (lingering there but still?) awake, but one's ( survival oriented?) conscious mind won’t let it flower? Do you admit that fear is ( the unwanted?) part of human existence?

PJ: So, you are asking: Why don’t you face it right (here & now?) ?

K: Why should I wait for a ( major existential) crisis for this (lingering existential?) 'fear' to awaken ( flower and wither & die ? ) ? If it is (just lingering?) there, who has put it to sleep? Is it the 'conscious' mind because it cannot resolve it? Why should the conscious mind trying to suppress fear?

SP: Sir, the readily available instrument of the conscious mind is 'analysis' and the capacity of (mental) recognition. With these instruments it is inadequate to deal with (mankind's ages old existential?) fears.

K: It can’t deal with it. But what is required is the real simplicity (of a direct, non-verbal observation?) , not analysis. That is my point : why does the (holistically friendly?) mind not bring that fear out and move (intelligently ?) with this basic fear is of non-existence, of uncertainty ( facing the Vast Unknown?) , of 'not being', of dying. ? Why wait for a (major ) crisis? Is it that you are ( indulging in being psycho-somatically?) lazy and therefore you haven’t got the ( intelligent ressources of) energy to go to the root of it?

PJ: I am trying to see (how your proposition is experientially?) valid...

K: ( To recap:) We say that every living thing is frightened of not being, of not surviving. Fear is part of our blood cells (as 'neuro-transmitters'?) . So the 'fear of not being' is part of our whole psychological, as well as biological structure, and I am asking myself why a crisis is necessary, why challenge should become important. I want to be 'ahead of challenge', not behind the challenge...

PJ: So, our (next experiential) question is: With what instrument, with what energy, from what dimension does one 'see'; and what does one see?

K: ( For starters?) is it that the 'unconscious' ( part of one's total ) mind is asleep? And there are only there some parts of the mind that are awake? If you are ( fully) awake, no challenge is necessary. If, (one does realise that ) it is part of one's (physical) life that we should die, then one's ( total consciousness?) is awake all the time.

PJ: You are not being conscious of ( this profound existential anxiety or 'psychological' ?) fear all the time. It is there all the time under the carpet, but you don’t look at it.

K: I say: ( in one's meditation homework?) 'lift the carpet' and look. It is there. That is my point. It is there and awake. So it does not need a challenge to awaken it. I am frightened all the time of not being, of dying, of not achieving. That is the basic fear in our life, in our blood and it is there, always watching, guarding, protecting itself. But it is very much awake. It is never, even for a moment, asleep. Therefore, an (outward) challenge is not necessary. What you do about it and how you deal with it comes later.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): Don’t you consider the ( very humane) factor of 'non-attention'?

K: I said it is awake, like a ( lingering hidden ) snake in the room, it is always there. I may look elsewhere, but it is there. Can't you face (inwardly this?) 'living thing'? This does not need ( waiting for a major existential?) challenge. The next step is: When the conscious mind is ( becoming ) awake to this ( lingering?) what are we going to do next?
When it is ( fully) awakened it is not frightened. In itself, it is not frightened. It is the conscious mind that says, ‘I am frightened of not being (forever alive & happy?) ’. But when I meet death in an accident, an aeroplane crashes, there is no fear. At the moment of death I say, ‘Yes, I know now what it means to die’. Have you never watched an ant? It is never frightened (psychologically?) : if somebody kills it, it dies.

NM: Sir, if you observed an ant and put a piece of paper in front of the ant, it dodges it.

K: It wants to survive, but it is not 'thinking' about ( its personal?) surviving.
So ( to recap : ) It is ( the self-identified process of ?) thought which creates (the psychological) fear: it is only thought that says, ‘I will die, I am lonely. I have not fulfilled myself ’. See ( the truth of ) this: that is ( the inward door to ) timeless eternity, that is real eternity. Can the mind be completely motionless? Can the mind be completely stable? Then that ( holistic Intelligence ?) comes. When 'That' is awake(ned?) , what then is ( left of the?) the central root of fear?

PJ: Has this actually happened to you, sir?

K: Many times, when the ( meditating?) mind is completely stable, without any rationalizing or escaping, there is no movement of any kind. We have got to (transcending?) the root of it, have we not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Oct 2018 #130
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

( Reviewing holistically the 1972 K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM)

ON INTELLIGENCE

Bohm: About ( the origins of the word?) 'intelligence', it comes from (the latin) 'inter-legere' which means 'to read between'. So (in experiential terms) we could say that thought is like the information written in a book and ( our ?) intelligence has to 'read the meaning' of it. I think this gives a rather good notion of intelligence. There is also another dictionary meaning which is: mental alertness.
Now, this is very different from what ( most materialistically minded ) people try to measure intelligence. Now, considering many of the things you have said, we could say that a holistic intelligence is not ( to be found in the sphere of the self-centred) thought. Could we say that intelligence is not of the order of time at all ? . Would you say there is a real difference between the physical (functioning of the human brain?) and Intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Let us put it differently ; are we saying that thought is a material process ? And if it is, then what is the relationship between thought and intelligence?

Bohm:  Simply put, ( the self-centred) thinking is mechanical while  Intelligence is not.

Krishnamurti: So thought is measurable; intelligence is not. And how does it happen that this Intelligence comes into existence? Is the cessation of thought the awakening of intelligence? Or is it that intelligence, being independent of thought, and therefore not of time, exists always ?

Bohm: That raises many difficult (meta-physical) questions. So you're saying that intelligence may be there always ?

Krishnamurti: I am (actually) asking - is it there 'always' because the Buddhists, and the Hindus have the theory that ( a spark of timeless ) Intelligence exists always ( awake or dormant in man's consciousness ?) but covered over by ( strata of) illusions, by the material (survival needs) & by all kinds of 'mischievous' things created by thought.

Bohm: Well, we don't actually see the eternal existence of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: They say : peel all these ( temporal residues?) off, and 'that' thing is there. So their assumption is that it existed always.

Bohm: There is a (hidde) difficulty in the word 'always', because it implies (thinking in terms of?) time. And that is just the trouble, because (inwardly speaking?) time is ( enfonded in the order of?) thought - in other words thought has invented (ingenious waysto measure?) time, and in fact thought is ( the result of man's evolution in?) time. Thought may sweep over the whole of time in one moment; but then thought is always changing (its point of view?) without noticing that it is changing for physical reasons ; and this may have to do with some physiological movements in the brain; therefore ( it puts a spin on ?) the meaning (of the actual facts of life ?) which is no longer consistent, it becomes contradictory, it changes in an arbitrary way.
Then you begin to think, everything is changing, I change, everything changes, and one begins to think "I am ( existing) in time". When time is extended it becomes vast, the past before I was, further and further back and also forward in the future, so you begin to say time is the essence of all, time conquers everything. First the child may think, "I am eternal", then he begins to understand that he is in time. The general view is that time is the essence of existence. This I think is not only the common sense view but also the scientific view. It is very hard to give up such a view because it is an intense conditioning. It is (possibly) even stronger than the conditioning of the 'observer' ( feeling separated from) what is observed.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite. Are we saying that thought is time, thought is measurable, thought can change (its content & direction), modify, expand? And intelligence is of a different quality altogether?

Bohm: Yes, Intelligence seems to be of a different order, of a different quality. We commonly think of the 'past' as becoming the 'future'; but you can see that it is just ( the linear operation of?) thought. Yet one gets the impression that past and future are present together and there is movement in another way; that the whole pattern is moving. But I can't picture 'how' it moves - at first sight it seems that it is a movement in another ( dimension of?) time.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite... Is intelligence out of time and therefore not related to thought, which is a movement of time?

Bohm: But still thought must be somehow related to it.

Krishnamurti: Is it? I think it is 'unrelated' .

Bohm: Unrelated? But we can distinguish between intelligent thinking and unintelligent (dumb?) thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but ( even) that requires intelligence to recognize unintelligent thought.

Bohm: But when Intelligence reads ( between the lines of ) thought, what is the relationship? Doesn't thought respond to intelligence? Doesn't thought change?

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. Thought is ( a mental) movement in time. Thought is measurable and thought functions in the field of time, ( changing according to material circumstances) all the time moving (along a particular thread of self-interest ) . Is Intelligence within the field of time?

Bohm: Well, in one sense it can't be. Could it be a movement in ( a different dimension of ) time ?
Krishnamurti: Thought is mechanical; being mechanical it can move in many different directions (motivated by a wide range of self- centred interests) and all the rest of it. Is intelligence mechanical? Let's put it that way.

Bohm: I would like to ask you what does 'mechanicalness' mean?

Krishnamurti: Repetitive, ( predictable?) measurable, comparative.

Bohm: I would say also 'dependent' . Let us get it clear - intelligence cannot be dependent on any ( material) condition for its (perception of?) Truth. But it seems that intelligence doesn't operate if the brain is not healthy.

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: So, in that sense intelligence seems to depend on the ( condition of the physical) brain.

Krishnamurti: On the (internal harmony & ) quietness of the brain?

Bohm: All right, it depends on a ( holistically friendly?) 'quietness' of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Not on the 'activity' of the brain...

Bohm: So, there must be some (subtle?) relation between intelligence and the brain. In Physics, ( we have certain devices like) the Wheatstone bridge, where a 'null reading' indicates the perfect balance of the two sides of the whole system. So if we are using the ( brain) instrument negatively, then the non-function of the instrument is the sign that it is working right. Could we say the human brain has used thought 'positively' to make a (realistic model ) image of the world, but  the other ( largely ignored) function of thought is 'negative', which is to indicate the presence of inner harmony or non-harmony.

Krishnamurti: Yes, ( mostly of ?) non-harmony. Let us proceed from there. When you're saying that intelligence is 'dependent' on the ( overall condition of the?) brain what do we mean by that?

Bohm: It has several possible meanings. There may be a simple mechanical dependence, or intelligence depends for its existence on this (the qualitative condition of the?) brain, which can indicate non-harmony, but the brain does not have anything to do with the ( active) content of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So if the brain is not ( holistically?) harmonious, can intelligence function (properly?) ?

Bohm: That is the question...

Krishnamurti:  What we are saying is that it cannot function if the brain is hurt (not innocent?)

Bohm: It seems that intelligence requires the brain in order to exist.

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an 'instrument' - it is not the creator of the 'other' ( holistic intelligence) .

Bohm: The brain doesn't create Intelligence but it is an instrument which helps intelligence to function ?

Krishnamurti: That's it. Now if the brain is (constantly) functioning within the field of ( its past experience accumulated in?) time - up and down, negatively, positively, in any way - through that movement of time-(bound thinking) can intelligence operate? Or must that ( transponding?) instrument be 'quiet' (inwardly silent?) for the ( holistic?) Intelligence to operate?

Bohm: Yes. The quietness of the instrument is ( allowing) the operation of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. Then the two are not separate.

Bohm: And vice-versa, the non-quietness of the instrument is ( pointing to) the failure of intelligence (to operate) .

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: I think it would be useful (existentially-wise?) to go back into a questions raised in the whole of scientific and philosophical thinking : Does intelligence exists independently of ( the) material world ?

Krishnamurti: Do we agree (for experiential purposes that?) any movement of thought in any direction, vertical, horizontal, in action or non-action, is still in time ?

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then what is the relationship of that movement to this 'intelligence' which is not a movement, which is not of time, which is not the product of thought, and so on and so on? Where can the two meet?

Bohm: They don't meet. But there is still got to be some ( inter-) relation.

Krishnamurti:  Can thought ever be harmonious - thought as ( a self-projected )movement (in time) , not static thought?

Bohm: I understand your point : there is that thought which you abstract as 'static', like in geometry let us say, that may have some harmony; but thought as it actually moves ( in self-becoming) is always contradictory.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it has no harmony in itself. But intelligence has harmony in itself.

Bohm: I think I see the source of the confusion. We have the static products of thought that seem to have a certain order & harmony. But that harmony is really the result of intelligence, at least it seems so to me. It is not perfect harmony because every form of mathematics has been proved to have some limits.
Krishnamurti: As we said, sir, thought is ( a mental?) movement, and in that movement is there harmony? If there is, then it has relationship with the other. If there is no harmony and therefore it is ( caught in internal) contradictions and all the rest of it, then it has no relationship with the 'other'.

Bohm: Then would you say that we could do entirely without using our thinking capacity ?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought which may be (inwardly ?) contradictory, & non- harmonious, to create ( materially useful ? ) things in the world. But can we put into words, negatively or positively, what is 'intelligence', or what is not intelligence? Or is that impossible because our words are (part of = thought, time, measure and all the rest of it?

Bohm: We can't ( really?) put it in words. But nevertheless the words of thought can function as 'pointers' to an intelligence which is beyond the domain of time.

Krishnamurti: So thought is a pointer. The ( pointed) content is intelligence.

Bohm: The content which it points to.

Krishnamurti:  Can we put this thing entirely differently? May we say, thought is barren?

Bohm: When it moves by itself, yes.

Krishnamurti: Which is, mechanical and all the rest of it. Thought is a pointer, but without ( the inner light of) intelligence the pointer has no value.
So ( a minimal quality of holistically friendly  ?) intelligence is a necessary (pre-requisite?) . Without that this has no meaning at all.

Bohm:  Then somehow thought and intelligence seem to fuse in a common function ?

Krishnamurti:  So what is one's ( homework?) action in relation to intelligence ? ( Hint:) in the carrying out of that action (a certain amount of thoughtful ?) thinking is necessary.

Bohm: Yes. Don't they have a common source? But you see ( at this point in our evolution the self-interest dominated ?) thought has conquered the world.

Bohm: Dominates the world ?

Krishnamurti: Thought, the intellect, dominates the world. And therefore ( the holistic?) intelligence has very little place here. When one thing dominates, the other must be subservient.

Bohm: One asks, how that came about ?

Krishnamurti: That is fairly simple. ( Man's survival oriented?) thought must have security; it is seeking security in all its movements.
But ( the holistic) intelligence is not seeking security. It has no ( temporal?) security. The idea of ( seeking a temporal) security doesn't exist in intelligence. Intelligence in itself is secure.

Bohm: Yes, but how did it come about that intelligence allowed itself to be dominated?

Krishnamurti: Oh, that is fairly clear ( when one is looking around ?) Pleasure, comfort, physical security, security in (our ) relationships, security in action, security...

Bohm: But ( inwardly) that security is illusory...

Krishnamurti: ( A very realistic?) illusion of security, of course.

Bohm: You could say that thought got out of hand and ceased to allow itself to be orderly, ordered in general by ( an Universal) Intelligence (aka :Divine Wisdom?) , or at least it ceased to stay in harmony with this (Cosmic) Intelligence, and began to move on its own accord.

Krishnamurti: Now as ( working hard for ) the physical security is obviously necessary, the ( gratifying rewards 'As Seen On TV'?) ?) physical pleasures & the physical well-being became tremendously important...

Bohm: Yes, if you go back to the animal, then there is instinctive response towards pleasure and security would be right. But now when thought comes in, it can dazzle the instinct and produce all sorts of glamour, more pleasure, more security. And the instincts are not intelligent enough to deal with the complexity of thought, therefore thought went wrong, because it excited the instincts and the instincts demanded more.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So thought really created a world of illusion, miasma, confusion, and put away ( any interest for holistic) intelligence.
But now, we are trying to ( move in a different direction by ?) finding out the right relationship, in our everyday action, of thinking and intelligence. Because everything is ( experientially coming down to ) action or inaction. And our daily life it is not ordered by intelligence in the way we all live... It is fragmented (compartmentalised & specialised) activity, therefore it is not an activity of a wholeness. ( Hint:) The activity of wholeness is intelligence.

Bohm:  So, ( for starters?) Intelligence has to understand the ( limitations of the self-centred) activity of thought. Would you say that when intelligence understands the activity of thought, then thought is different in its operation?

Krishnamurti: Yes, obviously. That is, if thought has created ( the concept of) nationalism as a means of security and when one sees the fallacy of it, the seeing of the fallacy of it is intelligence. Therefore an intelligent thinking creates a different kind of world in which nationalism don't exist.  And therefore division, conflict, war and all the rest.

Bohm: That much is very clear. Intelligence sees the falseness of what is going on. When one's thinking is free of this falseness it is ( moving in a ) different (direction) carryink out the implications of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore thought finds its proper place.

Bohm: That is very interesting because generally, thought always moves along its own (threads of self-interest) . But in the light of intelligence, when the falseness is seen, then thought moves parallel or in harmony with intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: That would suggest that intelligence and thought have this common origin and that they are two ways of calling attention to a greater whole.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Sir. (To recap:) We are now concerned with living a life in which intelligence operates. Intelligence ( aka 'Mind'?) which is not of time, which is not of measure, which is not the product of ( brain's self-centred?) thought. Now a human being who wants to live a different kind of life asks, "How am I to be free of all this ( time binding mentality?) in order to be intelligent?" But... can 'I' be the instrument of this intelligence?

Bohm: Obviously it can't be, because this ( self-identification of?) thought in time is the essence of un-intelligence.

Krishnamurti: But aren't we thinking in terms of 'I' all the time ?

Bohm: Yes. That is thought projecting some sort of phantasy of what 'intelligence' is, and is trying to achieve it.

Krishnamurti: This is why we said that thought must be completely still for the awakening of 'that' ( holistic intelligence?) . There can't be an (interfering) movement of ( self-centred) thought and yet the awakening of That.

Bohm: This may be clearly seen on one level, but ( on the deeper levels of consciousness) the mechanism (of time-thought seems to ?) continue on its own .

Krishnamurti: Continues, yes...

Bohm: ...through instincts and pleasure and fear and so on. The (newly born?) Intelligence therefore has to come to grips with this question of the (ages old self-interest involved in) pleasures, the fears, the desires, which make thought continue.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: And there is always this (hidden 'psycho-) trap', which is to form a concept or image of it, which is partial.

Krishnamurti: Of course. So as a ( holistically inclined) human being I would be concerned with (considering ) how confused, contradictory, disharmonious one's life is. Is it possible to change that so that Intelligence can function in my life, so that I live without disharmony, so that the pointer, the direction (of my life ) is guided by intelligence? You see, sir, the religious people, instead of using the ( culturally updated ?) word Intelligence, have used the word 'God'.

Bohm: What is the advantage of that?

Krishnamurti: (Probably?) it came from primitive fears, fear of thunder, fear of nature, and gradually out of that grew the idea that there is an (All Mighty ?) God...

Bohm: But that is still the ( time-bound ) brain functioning.
Krishnamurti: Of course. I am just saying that. They said have faith in God, then God will operate through you.

Bohm: It sounds like a sort of metaphor, if you said, God is Intelligence. But most people didn't take it as a metaphor....

Krishnamurti: What I am trying to convey is, that the desire for this intelligence, through time, has created this image of God. And by having faith in that image of God, Jesus, Krishna, or whatever it is, - which is still the movement of thought - I hope that way there will be harmony in my life.

Bohm: And this sort of image because it is so total produces an overriding desire, urge; that is, it overrides rationality.

Krishnamurti: It overrides rationality, everything - the whole world ( of the organised religions) is conditioned this way.

Bohm: Yes, but the question is what you have hinted at is that the whole (state of the modern?) world is the result of this way of thinking, it is both the cause and the effect of a way of thinking which is breeding disharmony, chaos and unintelligence . That is what our trouble has always been; people have developed (sophisticated ) technology and weapons in terms of some limited intelligence, which is serving highly unintelligent purposes.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is just it.

Bohm: For thousands of years that has been going on. Then of course I think reaction tends to arise like this, that is all much too big.

Krishnamurti: But it is really very simple, extraordinarily simple, ( to meditate & recover ?) this sense of harmony. Because it is so ( holistically?) 'simple' it can function in the most complex field. We said the same (life-creating) source is common to both thought and intelligence.

Bohm: Yes, we got that far.

Krishnamurti: What is that source?

Bohm: Well that would be beyond 'me' ( beyond my self-identified consciousness?) ...

Krishnamurti:  Let's (try to find out experientially?) what is that common Source, the central ( life-creating) movement which divides itself into matter and intelligence. (Obviously?) you can't find it through ( the traditional ways of?) thought.

Bohm: That raises (another existential ?) question: if you find 'It' then what are 'you'?

Krishnamurti: 'You' ( the temporal consciousness?) don't (really?) exist. 'You' are (the psychological movement of ?) time, environmental conditioning - you are all that.

Bohm: In that question the whole of this ( the self-) division is put aside ?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely. So, (for starters?) I am not going to exercise thought (the self-centred thinking within the 'known'?) ." By deliberately understanding the whole ( transpersonal nature?) of this ( creative life source?) one puts away the 'me' altogether.

Bohm: But that sounds like a contradiction...

Krishnamurti: I know. 'I' can't put it away ( by a deliberate action?) . It 'takes place' (in a meditation friendly inner environment?) . Then what is the Source? ( Hint:) Can it ever be 'named'? In the Jewish religious feeling is that it is not nameable: you don't name it, you can't talk about it, you can't touch it. You can only 'look' (transpersonally ?) And the Hindus and others (wise men were ) saying (pretty much?) the same thing in different words.
Now I want to get at this: what is the (innermost ?) Source (of all Creation?) Can thought find it? And thought is born from that source; and intelligence is also born from that source. It is like two streams moving in different directions.

Bohm: Would you say more generally that all (living?) matter is also born from that Source?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Bohm: I mean the whole Universe ? But then the Source is beyond the (material) Universe.

Krishnamurti: Of course. Now what is ( the right way to approach ?) That?
Could we try it this way? Thought is ( a manifested form of Life's ?) energy, so is intelligence...

Bohm: So is matter...

Krishnamurti: Thought, ( & all living & non-living ?) matter (are manifested forms of energy) . Intelligence is also energy. ( But the energy of?) thought is confused, polluted, constantly dividing (separating) itself, 'fragmenting' itself. And ( the energy of Compassionate ?) Intelligence is not polluted. It does not divide itself as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence'. It is ( part of Universal?) intelligence, it is not divisible. So, (both thought & intelligence) have sprung from a source of ( creative) energy which ( in the course of man's evolution in time?) has divided itself.

Bohm: Why has it divided itself?

Krishnamurti: Because for physical (survivalistic) reasons, for comfort, for existence, you know all the rest of it.

Bohm: To maintain physical existence. So a part of this (original) Intelligence has been changed in such a way as to help to maintain physical existence.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: It has developed in a certain ( self-interest dominated?) way.

Krishnamurti: And has going on ( evolving along) that way. Both are energy. So there is only one energy.

Bohm: Yes, they are different forms of energy. In physics you could say light is ordinarily a very complex wave motion, infinitely complex, but in ( focussing it through?) the 'laser' it can be made to move all together in a very simple and harmonious way.

Krishnamurti:  So there is only ( Life) energy, which is the Source.

Bohm: We have to clarify this notion of 'energy'. I have also looked up this word in the dictionary - in ancient Greek it means, "To work within."( that which works within?)

Krishnamurti: Works within, yes.

Bohm:  So, you're saying there is an ( source of creative) energy which 'works' (within all forms of life) , but without any movement ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. The Source is there, uncontaminated, non-movement, untouched by thought, it is there. From that (original Source of human consciousness?) these two are born. Why are they born at all?

Bohm: One was necessary for man's physical survival.

Krishnamurti: That is all. In ( man's ages old?) survival the (holistic nature of that Source?) has been denied, or ( simply ignored?) .
Now, what I am trying to get at is this : can the mind of an (ordinary) human being living in this world with all the ( ongoing) chaos and suffering ( meditatively ) 'touch' that Source in which the two divisions don't exist? And because it has touched this source, because it has no division, it can then operate ( in the real word?) without the sense of division.

Bohm: But how is it possible for ( a holistically friendly ) human mind not to touch the Source (which is actually sustaining its very existence ?) ? Why does it not touch the Source?

Krishnamurti: Because we are (inwardly distracted or?) consumed by thought's (survivalistic self-interest?) , by the cleverness of thought, by the movement of thought (within the field of the known) . All their 'gods', their ( systems of?) meditations, everything is ( dominated by) that (time-thread of self-interest?) .

Bohm: Yes. I think this is also related to our physical survival...

Krishnamurti: Because of thought, in its ( obsessive?) desire for security, it has (projected ?) 'death' as something separate from itself.

Bohm: Yes, that may be the key point. Thought has constructed itself as an instrument for survival, not to die. Therefore...

Krishnamurti: ... it has created ( the concept of ) 'immortality' .

Bohm: Thought cannot possibly contemplate its own (ending?) death. It seems inbuilt into ( the time-bound continuity of?) thought that it cannot possibly consider death properly.

Krishnamurti: It cannot. It means ending itself.

Bohm: That is very interesting. Taking the death of the physical body, which we see outwardly; the organism dies, the (source of) life- energy ceases to imbue the body and therefore the body no longer has any wholeness. You could say that with thought also; that (life-sustaining ) energy in some ways goes to thought, as to the body. Would that make sense?

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now, you and other ( holistically minded ?) people have often used the phrase: "The mind dies to the whole (temporal continuity of) of thought." That way of putting it is puzzling at first, because you would think it was thought that should die.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite.

Bohm: But now you are saying that it is the 'mind' that dies, or the (intelligent) energy that dies to thought. The nearest I can see to what that means is, that when thought is working (in the everyday life) it is invested with a certain energy by the 'mind' or the 'intelligence'; and when thought is no longer relevant, then the energy goes and 'thought' is like a dead (lifeless) organism.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now it is very hard for the (time-bound) mind to accept this, because the comparison between thought and the physical organism seems so poor, because thought is insubstantial and the organism is substantial. So the death of the organism seems something far more ( real) than the death of thought. Now this is a point that is not clear. Would you say that in the death of thought we have the essence of ( what happens at?) the death of the physical organism as well?

Krishnamurti: Obviously...

Bohm: Although it is on a small scale, as it were, it is of the same nature?

Krishnamurti: Yes. As we said, there is ( the same source of life) energy in both, but thought in its ( survival oriented ) movement has (identified itself with?) this ( life) energy, and therefore...thought cannot ( is not in the position to?) see itself die.

Bohm: It has no way of imagining, or projecting, or conceiving its own death ?

Krishnamurti: Therefore it 'escapes' from ( facing its inward 'dissolution' or ?) death.

Bohm: Well, it gives itself the illusion.

Krishnamurti: ( A very realistic?) 'illusion' of course. And it has created the illusion of a state beyond death, a projection of its own desire for its own continuity.

Bohm: Well, that thought may have begun by desiring the continuity of the physical organism.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right, and then gone on beyond it.

Bohm: Gone beyond that, by desiring its own continuity. That was where it went wrong.

Krishnamurti: Yes, went wrong. It saw the (physical) organism as itself.

Bohm: It felt itself to be not merely an extension, but the essence of the organism. At first thought is functioning merely in the organism and then thought begins to present itself as the essence of the organism.

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Bohm: Then thought begins to desire its own immortality.

Krishnamurti: Although thought itself is very well aware that it is not immortal.

Bohm: It knows it only as an outward fact.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it creates immortality in ( sacred?) pictures, images...
So, if we see it very clearly, both psychologically and physically, my next question is: can the ( holistically friendly?) mind keep the purity of the original Source? The original pristine clarity of that (innermost?) energy (of Creation) which is not touched by ( the self-centred ) thought at all?

Bohm: The question is clear.

Krishnamurti:  Can the (temporal) mind ever discover that?

Bohm: What is the ( temporal) 'mind'?

Krishnamurti: The ( time-bound) mind is (the psychosomatic?) organism, thought, the brain with all its memories, experiences and all that, which is all of time. And this ( self-conscious ) mind says, "Can I come to this?"
( Hint:) It cannot. Then I say to myself, " I will learn how to be quiet; I will learn how to meditate in order to be quiet''. But it (may be ) still a ( devious?) operation of thought. Then what is it to do? Is it a (possibility for a holistic) perception, an 'insight' which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought?
So I have got a ( potential?) key to it. But then... what is this (total) 'insight'? Can I cultivate it?

Bohm: 'You' can't do that ( on purpose?) but still...there is some (gathering of intelligent ?) energy that is needed.

Krishnamurti: That is (left for optional homework ???). So, if the (total inner clarity of ) insight is not the product of thought, how does one come upon it ? (….Pause....) We have come upon it because we 'denied' all that.

Bohm: Yes, 'it' is there. You can never answer that question, how you come upon anything of (immaterial nature?) .

Krishnamurti: I think it is ( holistically-wise?) fairly clear, sir. You do 'come upon it' when you see the ( truth regarding the limitations of thought's ?) endeavours . So 'insight' is the perception of the whole. A fragment cannot see this (limitation) , but the ( timeless ?) quality of a mind that sees the whole is not touched by thought; therefore there is perception, there is insight.

Bohm: Perhaps we will go over that more slowly. Could we say the actual energy which sees those fragments is whole?

Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.

Bohm: But we don't usually manage to 'see the whole' because... ?

Krishnamurti: ...we are ( very poorly ? ) educated, and all the ( karmic?) rest of it...

Bohm:  So, 'seeing the wholeness' is the freedom (from all the mental ?) fragments ?

Krishnamurti: That is right. The freedom (from the 'known' is necessary in order ?) to 'see' (holistically?) . Such freedom doesn't exist when there are fragments.

Bohm: That makes a fine 'paradox' : the (perception of the?) whole does not start from the fragments, but once the whole operates then there are no more fragments. But the paradoxical aspect comes from supposing that the fragments are independently 'real', that they exist independently of thought.
If I suppose that the fragments are there independently of me and my thought, and then I must somehow do something about them - that would be a ( the impossible aspect of the ?) paradox. The ( perception of the?) whole starts from the insight that these fragments are in a way , 'nothing', they are not substantial realities. They are very insubstantial.

Krishnamurti: Insubstantial, yes.

Bohm: And therefore they don't prevent ( the seeing of the ) wholeness .

Krishnamurti: Quite.< ;;

Bohm: You see, one of the things that often causes (a lot of intellectual) confusion is that, when you put it in terms of ( a 'thinker' observing the movements of his) thought, it seems that you are presented with fragments that are real, having a substantial reality. Therefore you ( assume that you ) have to 'see' them (in action) ...But then, as long as the fragments are active there, there is no wholeness so that you can't see them (holistically) . But (in the holistic perspective?) all comes back to the one thing, the one Source.

Krishnamurti: I am sure, sir, really serious people have asked this question. They have asked it and tried to find an answer through ( exercising their rational capacity of ) thought.

Bohm: Yes, well it seems only natural....

Krishnamurti:  But... they never saw that they were caught in ( the fragmentary nature of ) thought.

Bohm: That is always the trouble. Everybody gets into this trouble: that he seems to be looking at everything, at his problems, saying, "Those are my problems, and I am objectively looking at them ." But that 'looking' is only ( a projection of the thinker who is in command of his) ?) thinking, but it is confused with ( direct) looking. One of the very common ( experiential) confusion that arises at this point is that when you say, ''Don't think , just 'look''', one may ( subliminally ) feel that one is already 'looking'.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So you see, this ( meditation-related?) question has arisen and they say, "All right, then I must control thought and make my mind quiet so that it becomes whole, then I can see the parts, all the fragments, then I'll touch the Source." But...it may be still the operation of thought ( within the same field of the 'known'?) all the time.

Bohm: Yes, that means the ( 'psychological') operation of thought is unconscious for the most part and therefore one doesn't even know it is really going on. We may all say consciously ''we have realized that, all this has to be changed, it has to be different''...

Krishnamurti: ...but the 'unconscious' (activity of 'time-thought') is still going on. Can you ( the holistically friendly educator?) talk to my 'unconscious', knowing my 'conscious' (time-bound) brain is going to resist you? Because you are telling me something which is ( inwardly quite?) 'revolutionary', something which shatters my whole house ( in the field of the known) which I have built so carefully, and I won't 'listen' to you. My instinctive (survivalistic) reactions is pushing you away. So realizing that you say, "All right, old ( truth seeking?) friend, just don't bother to listen to me in that ( subliminally self-protective) way. I am going to talk to your 'unconscious' (part of your total Consciousness?) and make it see that whatever movement it does is still within the field of (its past knowledge & ) time and so on." So your ( self-) conscious mind is ( temporarily suspended ?). (Educational Hint:) When it operates it must inevitably either resist ( or argue ) , or say, "I will accept", therefore it creates an (additional) conflict in itself, and all the rest of it. So can you talk to the 'un-conscious' ( part of one's total consciousness?) ?

Bohm: You can always ask 'how' ( it can be done properly ...?)

Krishnamurti:  You tell me first, "Look, old boy, don't resist, look at that (gorgeous?) tree, while I am going to talk to you." It sounds funny, but (right now) we two are communicating with each other without the 'conscious' mind (interfering with the total) listening.

Bohm: Yes....

Krishnamurti: I think this is what really takes place : When you were talking to me - I was (listening) openly to you, not to your words, as you explained what you looked in the dictionaries and all the rest of it. I said to myself, I am listening to 'you', not to the words but to the inward quality of your (thinking & ) feeling which wants to tell me something.

Bohm: I understand...

Krishnamurti: That ( compassionate quality of listening) changes me, not all this verbalization. So can you talk to me about my illusions, my peculiar tendencies, without the ( self-) conscious mind interfering and saying, 'Please don't touch all this, leave me alone!'
You are telling me, look at the tree, and the cloud, or that picture on that wall, don't listen to me with your 'conscious' ears but listen to me with the (mind's 'inner) ear' that hear much deeper. That is how I listened to you this morning because I am terribly interested in contacting that ( timeless creative) Source, as you are. To come to that thing together and to feel ( the truth of?) it together - that is the (right educational?) way to break a ( psychological) conditioning, a habit, a (self-) image which I have cultivated. You talk to me about it at a level where the ( self-) conscious mind is not totally interested.

(Eg:) Say for instance I have a (particular habit or ) conditioning; you can point it out a dozen times, but I still go on. I resist it, I say how would I do in this world otherwise, and all the rest of it. But if you (the holistically friendly educator?) see the truth that as long as the mind is conditioned there must be conflict and all the rest of it, you push aside my (psycho-) resistance and get the 'unconscious' (mind) to listen to you, because the 'unconscious' (subliminal mind) is much more subtle, much quicker - it sees the danger much quicker than the conscious mind (located upstairs?) does.

Bohm: So, in order to reach the 'unconscious' ( part of the human mind) you have to have an approach which doesn't directly appeal to the conscious ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is ( the holistic action of?) affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it penetrate through it with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That operates (a holistic mutation?) , not anything else.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 15 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 #131
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

LEARNING THE ART OF LISTENING

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

P: I feel the central point missing in all of us is the factor of
compassion. You once used a phrase, 'Is it possible to
listen with the heart?' What does it actually mean ?

K: Shall we discuss what does it mean to 'listen with compassion'?

P: This is a crucial thing. If we have ( access to the universal intelligence of?) Compassion, everything (of psychological nature) is (solved).

K: Agreed, but we have not got it, unfortunately. So can we take the two: listening and the listening 'with the heart', with ( the intelligence of?) Compassion. And also whether there is an 'art of listening'?

R: You have often said that the response of thought is fragmentary.
Is 'listening with the heart' a non-fragmentary response ?

K: To 'listen' (non-verbally?) with the total flowering of all senses is one thing; listening partially with (thought controlling a ?) particular sense is fragmentary.

R: Yes...

K: But... we do not 'listen' (holistically) .

S: Sir, when you talk of 'listening with the heart' is it listening with feeling ? There is a different quality of communication when the 'feeling' is there.

K: Is this 'feelin'g different from ( the self-centred process of?) thought?

S: To accept the statement that our (deepest) 'feelings' are not different from thought is very difficult because we have also experienced tenderness, affection...

K: Let us go into it slowly. Do I listen with thought or do I not listen with thought? That is the ( experiential) problem.

P: Can we listen without ( the interference of?) thought?

K: Yes.

P: Sometimes, maybe once in a lifetime, one gets the total
feeling of the heart and the mind and consciousness being one.
So, when you ask if there is a listening without thought, we can
say, 'Yes, it is so, but still there is something lacking.

K: We will come to that. Let us go slowly into this.

A: At a lower degree of sensitivity there may be no articulated
thought, but there is listening. That listening is lacking in
sensitivity. So it is not alive.

K: I think we have to begin with what it means to communicate ( or share insight?) . I want to tell you something which I am deeply concerned with. You must be prepared (ready, able & willing ?) to enter into (finding the truth of the ) statement which one is proposing; which means, you must have the same ( passionate?) interest as the speaker or the same 'intensity', and also to 'meet him' at the same level. All this is implied in ( totally insightful?) communication.

S: 'Interest' one can understand, but the 'meeting at the same level' is very difficult to know...

P: May I say something? In introducing the word 'communication', you are introducing the two people who are communicating . In listening from the heart there may not be the two.

K: Yes. We will come to that. ( But first?) what is ( involved in) listening with one's heart? I want to (or share with?) you something which I feel profoundly. How do you 'listen' to it? I want you to feel ( the truth of?) it with me, otherwise how can there be (anything more than a verbal) communication?

S: How does one know the ( being on the same) 'level'?

K: The moment it is not ( speculative or?) intellectual, verbal, but a burning human problem that I want to convey to you, to share with
you, we ( obviously ) must be on the same level, otherwise you cannot
listen.

S: If there is a deep seriousness, will the right level be there?

K: I want to tell you something which is profoundly important. I want you to listen to it because you are a ( responsible) human being, so it is also your problem. So, in sharing it with me you are exposing your own intensity to it. Therefore ( the holistic?) listening implies a
sharing, a non-verbal communication. There must be a listening,
there must be a sharing, which implies an absence of verbal ( intellectual?) distortions.

P: Obviously you can only communicate if there is a certain level.

K: Now, will you listen to me in that manner?

P: To you we listen...

K: Because you have built a ( great spiritual ?) image about me and to that 'image' you give importance, and therefore you listen. But can you listen not only to this (very charismatic?) man who is speaking at the moment, but also listen ( with the same passion for truth?) when somebody else says something? (S)he may try convey to you something
which (s)he may not be capable of putting into words? Will you, in
the same ( holistically friendly ) manner, listen to all of us?

S: We do listen to some, but we do not listen to all.

K: Why?

P: Because of ( our cultural or personal) prejudice. But listening to a voice which is established in truth and which speaks out of silence, can it ever be of the same quality as listening to the voice which speaks
out of thought? Please answer that question.

K: You are too definite.

Raj: We usually listen with ( a personal) motive. The motive may be very subtle or very obvious. When we listen to another we think we will not get anything out of it. That is why, when we listen to K there is much
more attention.

K: So how do we alter that (element of self-interest?) and listen to each other?

FW: Is it that we 'interpret'?

K: No, don't ( bother to?) 'interpret' what I am saying, just 'listen' !
If I start from (the position of total ) 'not knowing', I am listening. But we 'know' - and that is our difficulty. You say this should be this way, this should be that way - all conjectures, opinions...
So, the first thing to be learned is the 'art of listening'.( Hint:) Art means to put everything in its right place. You may have your (cultural) prejudices, you may have your conclusions, but when you are 'listening' put away the interpreting, comparing, judging, evaluating, put all that
away. Then ( a shared?) communication takes place.

R: This 'putting away of everything (one knew before?) ' is the same as having the same intensity and being at the same level ?

K: Otherwise what is the point of it?

R: I have seen this but I am not doing it.

K: Do it now !
So (to recap:) what does it mean to listen with one's heart? If you listen with a sense of care, attention, affection, a deep sense of communion with each other, it means, you 'listen with all your senses', does it not?

P: With 'fullness'.

K: Will you listen that way to somebody whom we don't like, or who we think is stupid? When you have that ('not-knowing', innocent?) feeling, the words don't matter any more.

Let us proceed. Suppose I do listen and I have done it
often in my life. I listen very carefully, I have no prejudices, I have
no ( self-protective images?), I have no conclusions, I am an ( inwardly simple?) human being listening to somebody. I just 'listen' (to the truth of?) what he's telling me about himself.
However, because he has got a ( glamorous ?) image of me, he generally comes to see me (wearing a 'politically correct' ?) mask. But if ( I notice that) he wants to talk seriously with me, I say 'Remove the (politically correct?) mask, let us look at your problem together.' (Clue:) I don't want to 'look behind the mask' unless (s)he invites me. If he says ''All right, sir, let us talk (openly?) about it'', in ( this free space of?) listening he tells me something which is so utterly, completely
common to all human beings. He may put it wrongly, he may put it
foolishly, but it is ( pretty much?) something of which every man or woman suffers ; therefore he is telling me the ( ongoing?) history of mankind. So I am listening not only to the words, the superficial feeling but also to the profound depth of what he is saying. If it is 'superficial', then we discuss superficially and ( try to?) 'push it' (deeper down?) till he feels this thing profoundly . And in going deeper and deeper, he is expressing something which is totally common to all of us. So there is no inner sense of division between him and me.

P: What is the source of this (transpersonal ) 'listening'?

K: Compassion. So how am I to have that extraordinary intelligence
of compassion? I would like to have that flower in my heart.
Now what is one to do?

FW: Compassion is not in the field of thought (of the known) . Therefore I can never have the feeling that I have it.

K: It is like an (oil) drill, you have to push, push ( the 'meditative' way?)

P: There must be a 'perfume to it'.

K: Of course. You cannot talk about compassion without its perfume...

P: It is either there or not there. But why is it that when we
are in (a 'sharing insight'?) communication with you, there is this tremendous impact which knocks away all prejudices, all obstacles and makes the mind ( ASAP?) silent?

K: It is like going to the Well with a small bucket or with an
enormous bucket which one can hardly carry. Most of us go with a
small bucket and pull out of the well insufficient water. It is like
having a fountain in your yard, flowing, flowing. I would like to
have it too inside (myself) . So what am I to do?

S: I can also see that ( purposedly?) sitting in meditation regularly, being in silence, none of these things have any relationship to That. Every kind of 'experience' that one has gone through, has also nothing to do with It.

K: Listen Sunanda, ( Suppose that?) Radha and Pupul have got this thing 'in their backyard'. They don't talk about it because it is there, flowering,
flowing, murmuring, all kinds of things happen. And I say, I would like to look at it like at a precious jewel. How is it to happen to me?
Don't 'take time' to meditate about it. You have no (more deliberation ) time when there is a tremendous crisis. You have no time then to
analyse it , you 'are' (totally immersed ) in it.
So, the (timeless spiritual crisis is :) (S)he has got that extraordinary perfume which is so natural to her. (S) he has got ( free access to?) it somehow, and I would like to have it too, since without it nothing matters. So 'It' must be (in) there (freely available for anyone) .
So, I am in the middle of this ( ultimate existential) Question. The (inner) house is on fire and 'I' am caught in that fire.

R: Sir, when at a certain moment one is filled with this, the 'I want it' does not even arise...

K: Be simple, Radha. You ( may?) have something in your backyard, a
'fountain' which very few people have, very very few. And as a (fellow) human being, I can see how marvellous that is and I go towards it. What
am I do to?

FW: Is there anything that 'I' can do?

K: May be or may be not. If the demand (for It?) is so great, the demand itself puts everything aside.

P: Is it not very closely linked up with the 'volume of energy'?

K: All right. She says it is linked up with the 'flame' of energy.
Pupul, when you really 'want' something you burn like hell. Doesn't one? When you want that girl or that man, you are at it.

FW: That makes the difference...

K: I want to create ( or quicken ?) a ( spiritual ) 'crisis' . Then there is action. (If it happense ?) one can ( openly or subliminally) avoid the 'crisis' or one 'acts'. So, Pupul, is this (psychological?) crisis taking place? I come to you and talk about all this. You listen as far as
you can listen, as far as you can go, but nothing happens. You hear
it year after year, you take a little step each time, and by the end
you are dead (better luck in the next life?) . What he (K) wants to do is to bring about (or trigger?) an action which is born out of a tremendous ( existential) crisis. Is that 'crisis' the ( subliminally induced?) result of his urgency or is it a crisis which 'you' have got to break through? That is his intention. He says that is the only thing that matters.

A: Such ( a major existential) crisis is usually ( the direct result of?) an external challenge to which I am unable to find an adequate response ; but (the inner) 'crisis' of which you to speak of is not at all triggered by any external fact but it is a projection from within.

K: His intention is to create a crisis, not superficial, not external
but inside. He has created that (major existential) crisis in you (becaudse) he is talking of Truth. His demand is that there
should be a ( Truth generated ?) crisis in you, not a superficial crisis. I think that is ( also implied in) 'listening with the heart'. He has turned you inwards so deeply, or he has taken away all (time-binding?) anchorage. The Monsoon says to you: 'Please collect all the water you
can, next year there will be no Monsoon.' That makes you build every kind of (reservoir?) to collect water. So where are we at the end of it?

P: In a strange way it also implies 'lifting your hands off everything'...

K: It could also mean that a (holistic inner ) action which you have not premeditated may have taken place. If there is a ( truth induced existential ?) crisis, then it will happen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Oct 2018 #132
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Holistic Consciousness in relation with the Brain Cells
( An 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

P: Shall we discuss the relationship of one's consciousness to the brain cells? Are they of the same nature or is there something which gives them separate identities?

K: That's a good question. You begin.

A: Quite correct. The brain is a very complex conglomeration of cells, a
forest of cells, but although each cell is dependent on all the others, every brain cell can act by itself. So we may ask: Is there a co-ordinating factor?

K: Let us start from the beginning: What is consciousness? What does it mean 'to be conscious of' ? One is conscious, for instance, of this microphone. I am ( becoming ) conscious of it and then I ( recognise it by ) using the word 'microphone'. So, when you are conscious of something, ( the process of) naming begins; then like and
dislike.

A: I feel that consciousness is prior to sensation. It is the feeling (of one's whole existence) and at any one time I may aware of some part of it through sensation; I feel consciousness is much more vast, but I am
aware of only a part of a very wide thing. That whole field is not in
my awareness. So, I do not want to restrict my consciousness to
something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not
be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: Pupul asked what is the relationship between the brain and consciousness. What is their relationship?

P: When you say that the content of consciousness 'is' (displayed in one's?) consciousness, does it imply that the memory content of the brain cells is all there is to our consciousness ? Isn't there an ( intelligent ?) 'mind' field which is outside the brain cells ?

K: What is outside the field of one's consciousness is not its ( temporal) content.

A: Is the 'known' a part of our consciousness, consciousness
being the content?

P: The major difference between K's position and the Vedantic
position is that K uses the word 'consciousness' in a very special
sense ( of what one is conscious of?) . The Vedantic position is: Consciousness is that which exists before anything exists.

A: Basically, they say that the source of all existence is a vast incomprehensible energy which they call 'Chaitanya' the ( Mind?) energy, the ( unmanifested ) Source. The Buddhist position does not say anything ( specific) about this at all. It refuses to say a word about it. The Buddhist will say: 'Don't talk about it; any talk about it will be speculative and speculative processes are not meant for actual
practice.'

K: (Quoting : ) 'Ignorance has no beginning, but has an end. Don't enquire
into the beginning of ignorance but find out how to end it'.

A: Buddhists say: 'There is no such thing as consciousness in
general. Ignorance has no beginning. Ignorance can end. Don't let
us investigate into the beginnings of ignorance because that would
be speculative, would be a waste of time. But how is it possible to
end ignorance ( experientially )? This ignorance 'is' consciousness.' Consciousness as ignorance is a position into which we will have to investigate. The Vedantins will say that the source which you refer to
as ignorance is of the same ature as ' Sat, Chit and Anand'. It is
constantly renewing itself, it is constantly coming into being; and
the entire process of birth, death, decay is a ( spiralling) movement in it. I feel that a man who does not accept the Buddhist position, will not
immediately accept what you say, that the beginning is ignorance
and that it is a self-sustaining process. You cannot trace its
beginning, but it can be brought to an end.

K: We simply say that ignorance has no beginning; one can see it within ( one's) consciousness, within that field.

P: If it is within this field, then has it existence apart from the
brain cells which contain the memory about it? The scientific
position is: whereas the brain cells and their operation are
measurable, consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two
are not synonymous.

K: Wait a minute. What you are saying is that the brain cells
and their ( mental activity or?) movement are measurable, but consciousness is not measurable.

A: May I suggest something? When we look through the
biggest telescope, we see the expanse of the cosmos as far as that
instrument will show it. If we get a bigger instrument, we get a
bigger view. Though we measure it, that measurement is relevant
only to the instrument which is a relative element. Consciousness
is immeasurable in the sense that there is no instrument to which it
can be related. Consciousness is something about which one cannot
say that it is measurable or immeasurable. Therefore, consciousness is something about which one cannot make any statement.

K: That is right. Consciousness is not ( physically?) measurable. What Pupul is asking is: Is there outside one's everyday consciousness, as we now know it, a state which is not pertinent to this consciousness?

P: Is there a state ( of being) which is not divisible, not knowable, not
available within the (time-conditioned ) brain cells?

K: Have you got it Achyutji? Not knowable, in the sense, not
recognizable; something totally new.

A: I am coming to that. I say that ( our personal & collective?) consciousness as we know it is the source of all the recent memories and all the memories man has had. The brain cells will recognize everything that comes out of their racial memories; everything that comes within the field of the past, out of that which has been known.

K: Let's keep it very simple. We said the content of ( our temporal) consciousness is the 'known'. Now, is there something outside this, something which is not known, totally new and which does not already exist in the brain cells? And, if it is outside the ( field of the?) 'known', is it recognizable (and/or experientiable?) ? - for if it is recognizable it is still in the field of the known. The (time-free dimension of consciousness?) is available only when the 'recognizing and experiencing' process comes to an end.
Pupul asked: Is it in the 'known' or outside the 'known';
and if it is outside the known, is it already in the brain cells? If it is
in the brain cells, it is already the known because the brain cells
cannot contain ( the memory of ) something totally new. The moment it is in the brain cells, it is tradition.

( To recap:) Outside the ( temporal consciousness of the?) brain, is there anything else? I say there is. But every process of recognition,
experience, is always within the field of the known and any
movement of the brain cells moving away from the known, trying
to investigate into the other is still the known.

M: Then... how do you know that there is something?

K: You cannot 'know' it, but there is a (holistic ?) state where the mind does not ( need to?) recognize or experience anything. There is a ( purely perceptive?) state in which 'recognition and experience', which are the movement of the known, has totally come to an end.

A: In what way is it differentiated from the common state of recognition & experiencing? Is it of a different nature?

K: You see, (when) the organism, the brain cells, come to an end, there is a different state altogether.
P: When the processes of recognition (& experiencing) comes to an end, and yet it is a living state, is there a sense of one's existence, of being?

K: The words, 'existence' and 'being' do not apply.

A: Then, how is it different from deep sleep? In deep sleep the processes of recognition and recording are for the time being put in total abeyance.

K: That is quite a different thing.

P: What has happened to the senses in the state you just mentioned ?

K: The senses are in abeyance.

P: Are they not operating?

K: In that state, I might scratch myself - that is the action of the senses, but it does not affect that (holistic quality) .
( To re-recap:) any ( mental) movement of the brain, real or imaginary , is within the field of the known. But when the ( self-centred ) content of consciousness with its ( past) experiences, demands,
its craving for something new, including its craving for freedom
from the known, has completely come to an end, then only does the
other (holistic inner ) quality come into being. The former has a motive; the latter has no motive. The mind cannot come to 'that' (timeless dimension?) through motive. Motive is (part of the dynamic of?) the known. So, can the ( time-binding activity of the?) mind come to an end ? When the ( 'time-thought' activity of the ?) mind comes to an end - then the 'other thing' is there.

M: The 'other thing' is there... Right now, do you know that?

K: Of course, I see the colour of your shirt, the senses are in operation. Recognition is in operation normally. The 'Other' is there. It is not a duality.

A: But trying to translate what you are saying ( in terms of our own experience?) is preventing one from getting at it because that would immediately be duality. When you say something about the 'other' , any movement in our mind is again preventing one from (accessing?) it.

K: Achyutji, what are you trying to get at?

A: I am pointing out that the (verbal) communication about the 'other' is not possible. I am trying to understand the state of the mind of the man who talks to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something?

K: The basis is that when there is no ( mental) movement of
recognition, of experiencing, of motive, the freedom from the known
takes place.

M: That is pure cognition without recognition.

K: You are translating it differently. The (self-conscious ) movement has come to an end for the time being; that is all.

M: The movement of recognition of That. Where does the time
element come in? Is there another ( dimension of?) time?

K: Let us begin again. The brain functions ( in the 'safe mode'?) within the field of the known; in that function there is (the verbal) recognition. But when the (holistically friendly ?) brain is completely still, there is no (self-consciousness?) that your mind is still. The inner stillness
which we are talking about is 'non-recognizable', 'non-experienceable'.
Something (measureless ?) comes out of it. It is there for man. I am not saying it is always there. It is there for the man who understands the (limitations of living exclusively within the field of the ?) known. It
is there and it never leaves; and though he( K) communicates it, he
feels that it is never gone, it is there.

M: Why do you use the word 'communicate'?

K: That is ( true communion or?) communication.

M: But who 'communicates' when ou talked to me just now.

K: Just now? The brain cells have acquired the knowledge of
the language. It is the ( illuminated?) brain cells that are communicating.

M: The brain contains its own 'observer'.

K: The brain itself is the 'observer' and the (silent?) 'operator'.

M: Now what is the relationship between 'That' and 'this' ?

K: When the brain is (inwardly) completely stable, completely still, there is no verbal statement or communication, what is the relationship between the brain (cells?) and That?

M: By what magic does the still mind make a bridge to That ? How do you manage to create a permanent bridge between the brain and That, and maintain that bridge?

K: If one says 'I don't know', what will you answer?

M: You have either inherited it through some good karma or 'somebody' has given it to you.

K: Is it by chance that 'That' event can happen to us, is it an exception?
If it is not something 'given from above' , one can ask: How did this
happen with this person and not with another – right?

M: What can we do?

K: 'You' ( personally?) can do nothing – but this does not mean 'doing
nothing'!

M: What are these two meanings of 'doing nothing'?

K: I will tell you the two meanings of ( doing) nothing: the one refers to
the (profound experiential ) desire to experience 'That', to recognize 'That' and yet to do nothing about ( capturing?) 'That'. The other meaning of 'doing nothing', is to see or to be (passively?) aware, not theoretically but actually, of the ( limitations of living in the?) known.

M: You say, 'Do nothing, just observe.'

K: Put it that way if you want.

M: It brings down 'enlightenment' into ( the everyday) action.

K: You must touch this thing, very very lightly. You must touch it very lightly - food, talk – and, as the body and the senses become very light you will see that there is a 'dying' (an inner 'dissolution' ?) every minute. Have I answered, or... 'nearly answered', the question?

P: You have not answered specifically.

K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call 'That', for
the moment, ( the Universal Mind's?) infinite energy  and the ( self-conscious ?) energy created by strife and conflict - it is entirely different from 'That'. When there is no (self-divisive ) conflict at all, the infinite Mind energy is always renewing itself. The energy that 'peters out' is what we know (on a daily basis) . What is the (2-way communicating ) relationship of the 'energy that peters out' to 'That'? There is none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 19 Oct 2018 #133
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

THE TIMELESS NATURE OF HOLISTIC ENERGY (and of the necessary 'spade-work'... )

( a 'reader & experientially' friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1972)

P: Could we discuss one of the chief blockages to understanding (the ages old tendency for ?) self-centredness ?

K: ( In a consciousness ?) where there is a ( self-identified?) 'centre' there is a ( dualistic) limitation and all its action must be ( confined to a mental space ) within the circle of centre and periphery? That is the self-centred activity.

P: What are the boundaries of the self?

K: You can push them as far as you like. As long as there is a centre (of self-interest?) that centre may expand itself (endlessly?) but all action takes place within that (perimeter?) . You can stretch it (outwardly) as far as you like, through social service, democratic or electorate dictatorship and tyranny, everything is within that area.

A: The point is, sir, is action possible which does not nourish a
centre?

K: Or, can there be no ( subliminal identification with this ) centre?

A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
with a centre and every ( psychological) activity nourishes that centre.

K: The ( holistically friendly ) point (of view ) is this: the ( mental) energy that is expanded within the circumference and the centre is a limited energy, a 'mechanistic' energy and therefore a wastage of energy?

VA: So, to realize ( thought's subliminal ) 'self' (- identification) in ourselves would be the first problem ?

K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish (psychical?) entities. We are self-centred human beings, we constantly think about ourselves, our worries, our family – in fact, we 'are' (identified with?) this ( self-focussing) centre. We can expand the (activities of this) centre to social work, ( various cultural & educational?) work (of public interest) , but ( in the background) it is still the centre operating.

P: That is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
yourself with something in which you feel the centre is not
involved.

K: You may ( like to?) think that 'I' who work for the poor, but I am
still working within ( the boundaries of) this(self-centred) limitation.

P: Sir, it is not the work for the poor which you are questioning?

K: No. It is the ( psychological ?) identification of myself with the ( cause of the?) poor, my identification of myself with the nation, identification of myself with some ( larger than life?) ideal and so on, that is the problem.

Apa: Can this (self-centred activity or ?) movement of the mind, along with its ( collateral dependencies & ) habits,  can it be stilled? Is there a ( dormant intelligent?) energy which will silence it or make it irrelevant, make it seem a shadow?

P: It is really like this: we have done everything (knowable ?) to understand the nature of this self-centred activity. We have observed, we have meditated, but the ( subliminal identification with this) centre does not cease, sir...

K: No, because we don't actually see in our 'heart & mind', see (the truth ?) that any action from the centre to the periphery and then from the circumference to the centre, this movement back and forth is ( holistically-wise?) a wastage of energy and must be limited and must ( eventually) bring sorrow. Everything within that area is (ultimately leading to self-isolation & ?) sorrow. We don't see that (holistic fact?) .

P: Isn't it part of the ( genetic heritage of the ?) brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples of (self-interest) and create the sense (of temporal continuity of their) self-centred existence, then...

K: Pupul, the brain needs two ( basic) things: security and a sense
of (temporal) permanency.

P: Both are provided by the 'self' (-centred consciousness?)

K: That is why it has become very important.

Apa: Sir, the brain is a physical entity in its habit of seeking security or continuance. Now, how do you 'break out' of its (time-binding attachments & ) habits, its mechanical operations?

K: Any movement ( of thought intended ?) to 'break out', is still within the perimeter ( of the known) . Is there an action, a movement which is not self-centred?

P: We know states (of Grace?) when it appears as if the self is
not, but then if the seed of self-centred activity is held within the
brain cells, it will repeat itself again. Then I say to myself there
must be another energy, there must be another quality which will
wipe it out.

Apa: What is the nature of this energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it from the exterior, or is it something from the interior?

K: Our brain is ( survivalistically ?) programmed to function from the centre to the periphery and from the circumference to the centre, this back-and-forth movement. Is it possible to 'break' ( stop ?) this ( time-binding) momentum of the brain cells? Can this 'programme' of the brain, for which it has been conditioned for millennia, can that stop?

Apa: And the brain to start deconditioning itself ?

K: The moment it stops, you have 'broken' it. Now (in order for this psychological breakthrough to happen?) is there a (different inner source of ) energy which is not ( dependent of the ) self-centred movement, a (source of intelligent?) energy without a motive, without a cause, an energy which is without a cause, an energy which is
inexhaustible and therefore non-mechanical and endless?

P: Is it possible to investigate ( the nature of?) this (holistically friendly ?) energy?

K: We have ( already ) discovered something. That is, the brain has been conditioned through ( its long survival through many ) millennia to move from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to move to the centre, back and forth, extending or limiting it and so on. Is there a way of ending that movement? We just now said ( that the programme ) ends when the plug is pulled out. The ( holistically friendly) brain can stop moving along that direction, but... if there is any causation ( self-interest ) for the stopping, you are back again in the circle.

( In a nutshell:) That is, can the ( outwatdly oriented human ) brain which has been so (accustomed ?) for millennia to act from the centre to the periphery and from the periphery to the centre, can that ( mental) movement stop? (The very moment) when the brain itself sees the ( inward ) necessity of this (self-centred mental) movement ceasing, it 'stops'...

Q: Momentarily it does stop, but then... it starts again.

K: No, sir, the moment you say you want it again, you are back ( stuck )
in the centre.

Q: Probably because I want to bring about a 'permanent' stopping ?

K: That is ( the time-binding action of ?) greed. But if I see (holistically?) the truth ( regarding the necessity of?) ending that movement, the thing is over. ( Hint:) It is not a 'continuous' (a time-stretched?) stoppage. When you want it to be continuous, it is a thought & time movement.

Apa: The ( holistic) 'seeing' then is without ( any mental) movement.

K: Observing (transpersonally?) the whole ( acquisitive) movement of the centre to the circumference & from the circumference to the centre, is seeing the 'what is'.

Apa: But this ( holistic) seeing is without any centre.

K: Of course.

Q: So, sir, that seeing is on a different dimension altogether.

K: You 'see'. There is ( such a holistic perception) when you are aware without any ( personal element of?) choice. Just be aware of this (constantly reiterated self-centred ?) movement. The ( time-binding ) programme stops.
Now, Pupul's question was : Is there ( within the human psyche?) a (source of creative ?) energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation, and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?

VA: That is the energy of death.

K: What do you mean, sir? Death in the sense of the total ending of the '(center-) periphery' movement ? In one sense that 'ending' is ( the psychological counterpart of) death. Then, is that ( triggering the awakening of the 'other' ) energy which is causeless?

VA: It is causeless, sir. It just 'comes', like the blood in the body.

K: I understand that . But, is it a theory or an actuality?

VA: An actuality.

K: Which means what? That there is no 'centre' ( of self-interest) from which you are acting?

VA: During that period when that 'energy' is there.

K: No, no. Not 'periods'...

VA: There is a sense of timelessness at that time.

K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?

VA: Then... again ( the survival- oriented process of ) thought comes back.

K: So, you are back again ( in the movement?) from the centre to the periphery ?

VA: One gets afraid of that thing happening again because it is like (your) total death.

K: It has happened without your invitation.

VA: Yes...

K Now you are inviting it (in the self-centred field of the 'known'?) (…)

The other question is what Pupulji raised about the 'endless journey'. You want to discuss ( about the awakening of?) kundalini?

P: Yes, sir.

K: First of all, we are entering into a subject which is very
serious. Are you willing to forget what you have heard about
it, what your gurus have told you about it, or your attempts to
awaken it? Can you start with a completely 'empty slate'?

So, you have to start the enquiry from ( the totally honest position) of not knowing anything about kundalini.

Q: Actually, we just want to know whether there is an (inner source of timeless) energy that can wipe out conditioning.

K: So long as self-centred activity (is going on?) , you cannot touch it.
That is why I object to any discussion on whatever that ( purely creative) energy is, because we have not done the 'spade work'. We don't
lead a life of correctness and we just want want to add something new to it and so carry on our mischief.

VA: Even after awakening kundalini, self-centred activity continues.

K: I question whether the kundalini is awakened...

P: Do you (K, personally ?) know of such an energy when self-centred activity ends? We assume that this is the source of the endless energy.
It may not be.

K: Are We saying that in the ending of this 'movement from the centre
to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre', the complete ending of it - is the (awakening of?) of that energy which is limitless.

P: Sir, if we are going to examine it, let us see how it operates in
one. The awakening of kundalini is ( traditionally) linked to ( the activation of) certain 'psychic centres' (or 'chakras') located at certain physical parts of the body. The first question I would like to ask is whether that is so? Has the release of this (holistic life ) energy, which has no end, anything to do with the psychic centres in the physical parts of the body?

K: Unless there is a stoppage of this ('thought-time' mental ) movement from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre...Pupulji's question is not ( experimentally - wise ?) valid?

P: I take it that when one asks the question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks. It is not possible to investigate
the self which also releases energy, if one's life has not gone
through a degree of inner balance, otherwise what K says has no
meaning. When one listens to Krishnaji, one receives at the depth
to which one has exposed oneself, and therefore I think it is right to
ask the question. Why is this question more 'dangerous' than inquiring into what is thought, what is meditation, what is this, what is that? To the mind which will comprehend, it will comprehend this and that. To
the mind which will not comprehend, it will comprehend neither.
The mind which wants to misuse it , it will misuse anything.

K: Unless your life, your daily life is a completely nonselfcentred
way of living, the 'other' ( timeless spiritual energy) cannot possibly come in.

P: Why is this question awakening so many ripples? Most
people go through a great deal of psychic experiences in the
process of self-knowing. One also understands, at least one has
understood because one has listened to Krishnaji, that all psychic
experiences when they arise, have to be put aside.

K: Is that understood? (The self-centred desire for) 'psychic experiences' must be totally put aside.

Q: Sir, I want to ask a straight forward question. Taking for granted that one is leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?

P: Krishnaji, we are just asking whether there is an energy which,
on awakening, not being awakened, but on awakening completely
wipes out the centre ?

K: I would put it the other ( roundabout?) way. Unless the self-centred movement stops, the other can't be.

P: As it does not seem possible to proceed with the kundalini discussion, may I put another ( more holistically friendly) question? What is the nature of the field which needs to be prepared, to be able to
receive that which is limitless?

K: Are you cultivating the soil of the brain, of the mind, in order
to receive it?

P: I understand your (trick?) question. But I can neither say yes nor no
to it.

K: Then, ( for homework): find out if you can end sorrow, the whole of human sorrow and enquire into the nature of compassion. But as long as you have ( a personal) motive to cultivate that 'soil' in order to receive 'that' ( 100% pure creative ?) energy, you will never receive it.

S: To see the whole prison (of the known) and ask whether there is any other way out of this, is it a (personal) motive? Then, one gets caught in a vicious circle, in a (hopeless mental) trap .

K: I live an (inner) life of ( psychological) misery, confusion. That is my basic ( existential) feeling and can that end? ( In the ending of something which is seen as false?) there is no ( personal) motive.
So, can that (fake?) process end? Only then can I answer the other questions, which have a tremendous ( existential) significance.

P: We have asked about is the nature of the soil of the human mind which has to be cultivated to receive the 'other' ? You tell me that is also a wrong question. You say I am in conflict, I am suffering and I see that a life of conflict and suffering has no end.

K: That is all. If it cannot end, then the other enquiry and investigation, and the wanting to awaken the 'other' in order to wipe this out is like asking an 'outside agency' to come and clear up your house.
I say in the process of clearing the house, this house, there
are a great many things that are going to happen. You will have clairvoyance, 'siddhis' and all the rest of it. They will
all happen (or... not?) . If you are (getting) caught in (using?) them (for personal profit?) , you cannot proceed further. But if you are not caught in them, the 'heavens' are open to you. Then, if you come along and
say there something known as kundalini power, then I am
willing to listen : is there ( within the human psyche) a (dormant) energy which is non-mechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most definitely. But it is not what you (glibly?) call 'kundalini'. The body must be sensitive. If you are working, clearing up the house, the body becomes very sensitive. The body then has its own intelligence, not the ( mechanistic) 'intelligence' which the ( self-centred) mind dictates to the body. The body then becomes extraordinarily sensitive 'per se'.
Then Pupul says, 'Can we talk about a (psychic?) energy which I feel must exist?', as she has had a glimpse, the feeling of it, an energy that is endless; and K comes along and says 'Yes', there is such a thing. There is an energy which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic,
which has no cause, which has no beginning and therefore no
ending. It is an eternal movement. I say there is, but what value has that to you? Will you go off ( meditating?) into that and not clear up the (temporal) house?

P: That means, sir, that the 'cultivation of the soil' - in the sense of ending one's suffering, which is essential.

K: The only ( readily available psychological ?) job. But (the 'other' energy) is the most sacred thing, therefore 'you' can't invite it.

( To recap:) Clearing one's (inner) house demands a tremendous (self-) discipline, in the sense that it demands a tremendous ( holistic) attention. When you give your complete attention, then you will see a totally different kind of ( inner awakening) taking place, a (intelligent & creative ?) 'energy' in which there is no repetition, and energy that isn't coming and going. It is not as though I have it one day and a month later I don't have it. ( Hint : ) It implies keeping the mind completely empty (of the 'known' ) . Can the mind keep itself 'empty'? Then,
there is that energy. You don't even have to ask for it. When there
is (a free inner) space, which is 'empty' (with 'not-a-thing') and therefore full of energy. So, in cleansing the (inner) house of ( the psycho-residues of personal & collective?) sorrow, can the ( meditating) mind be completely empty, without any motive, without any ( personal) desire? When you are keeping the house clean, other things ( from an Universal Mind) come naturally. That is Meditation.

P: And the ( creative) nature of That is ( allowing the holistic) transformation of the human mind.

K: ( To re-recap:) we are ( inwardly) programmed by centuries of ( survivalistic) conditioning. When there is the stopping of ( the internal mechanism of?) it, there is an ending of it. ( Hint : If you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't function any more) . Now, the question is: Can that ( self-identified?) centre of selfishness, end?
When that ends, there is no movement of (thought-) time. That is all. When ( in a 'meditator-free' meditation ?) the ( ages old?) mental movement from the centre to the periphery stops, (thought's) 'time' stops. When there is no ( 'self-becoming') movement of selfishness, there is a totally different kind of ( inwardly Creative ) Movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Oct 2018 #134
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

PSYCHOLOGICAL REGISTRATION – THE TIME BINDING MOVEMENT OF MILLENNIA

( an 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

K: Can the momentum (of 'psychological' recording ) be stopped? We are all getting hurt from childhood for various reasons and the memory of the 'personal' hurts has all been deeply registered in the brain. The instinctive reaction is not to be hurt any more (or to counter the further hurts ?) . So, one builds a ( mental 'fire ?) wall', and ( safely) withdraw (behind it ) Now, without building (or upgrade ?) this (pro-active 'fire ? ) wall', can one become aware of ( the recording mechanism behind this momentum ?) and the next time a process of hurt begins, not register it ( in one's 'personal' files?) ?

FW: What do you mean by 'registering'?

K: Our brain is ( functioning like a sophisticated ) tape recorder. It is registering all the time, and there is ( also a processing of what has been recorded in terms of ) like and dislike, pleasure and pain. Now, I say: 'Can one ( become aware of the inertial momentum of this psychological ) registration, and the next time if there is any insult, not register it at all '?

FW: That means not to have any 'self-image'...

K: Don't introduce the 'self-image' for the moment. Can you recognize the ( hurtful intention behind the insulting ?) words but not register them (personally ?) ? As we said, the brain is registering everything all the time. That is an (easily observable) fact. The next question is: Can the (psychological component of this) registration stop? Otherwise the mind, the brain, has no sense of ( inner) freedom.

P: The brain is a living thing. It has to register (everything related to its temporal survival) . This registration is one thing, but the 'cutting' of the ( psychological) momentum is the movement away from ( the mechanistic aspect of this) registration.

K: That is what I am talking about.

P: Does that mean this ( instinctual process imbedded in the ?) brain cells come to a stop?

K: Look, Pupulji, it is very important because if there is no possibility of stopping ( the inertial momentum of ) registration, then the brain
becomes mechanical by moving from knowledge to knowledge. Now, I see ( that living exclusively in the field of?) knowledge is limited, fragmented and so on and I am asking myself whether registration can stop.

GM: Can the brain answer that question?

K: I think it can, in the sense the brain can become aware of its
own registering process.
( The experiential difficulty is that) the brain has been registering for millennia. Therefore, registering has become part of it. The brain has become mechanical. I say: Can that mechanical process stop? That is all. If it cannot be stopped, the brain becomes merely a ( personalised thinking ? ) machine, which it is. So, I am asking a simple question which has great depth to it, which is: Can ( this inertial momentum ) stop? If it cannot stop, man is never ( inwardly) free.

Par: May I ask you another 'simple' question? Why do we register at all?

K: For safety, security, protection, certainty. The registration is (supposed ) to give the brain a certain sense of ( temporal) security.

P: But hasn't the human brain itself evolved through registration.

K: It has evolved through ( constantly accumulating & processing) knowledge, which is ( based on this) registration.

P: Then...what is it from within itself which says 'stop'?

K: Someone (a 'holistically minded' Teacher ?) comes along and says: Look, through millennia man has evolved through knowledge and at present you are certainly different from the great apes. And he says: Look, as long as you are (not in control of this survivalistic ) registering, you are ( inwardly) living a fragmentary life and whatever you do from that fragmentary state of brain is incomplete. Therefore, there is (an accumulation of ) pain, suffering. So, we are asking at the end of that ( all-comprehensive?) explanation, can that
registration, can that (inertial) movement of the past, end?

P: Has this 'ending' something to do with the quality of listening?

K: Yes, that's it.

P: And that (holistic quality of?) 'listening' ends, 'silences' this registration ?

K: That is it. That is my (educational) point. You have come into my life by chance and you have pointed out to me that my brain has evolved through knowledge, through registration, through ( gathering) experience; but that (outward?) knowledge and experience is fundamentally ( self-centred & ) limited . And whatever action takes place from that limited state will be fragmentary and therefore
there will be conflict, pain.
( For meditation-related homework?) Find out if that momentum which has tremendous volume, depth, can end. ( Hint : there is a tremendous
flow of energy which is (involved in accumulating & processing ) knowledge. Stop that (inertial momentum of ) knowledge. That is all.

FW: Much (metaphorical?) reference has been made to the (dumb?) tape-recorder which just goes on registering, and it can't stop itself. It has to be stopped . But then, can the brain stop itself?

K: We are going to find out. First listen to the (inward implications of the ) question.

S: In the whole of my (time-bound ) consciousness, is there only this mechanism of registration going on?

K: Of course.

S: Then, what is it that can observe that (inertial ) momentum of registering?

K: We also know ( intervals of ?) silence, like the silence that is between two noises...But is there a ( holistic quality of ) silence which is non-mechanistic? A silence which has not been induced, brought about or invented ? Otherwise, the silence is merely mechanistic.

S: One ne knows this 'non-mechanistic' silence sometimes...

K: Not 'sometimes'...

Raj: Sir, isn't it possible for this 'non-mechanistic' silence to come (spontaneously?) ?

K: ( Experientially- wise?) I am not interested in that. I am asking something entirely different: this momentum, this conditioning, the whole of our consciousness is the (compounded result of the?) past, registered & stored up as (personal) experience, knowledge, fear, pleasure. That is the whole momentum of the past (aka : 'thought- time' ?) . And somebody comes along and says: Listen to what I have to say, can you end ( the psychological identification with?) that momentum? Otherwise this momentum, with its fragmentary activity, will go on endlessly.

Raj: I think this movement can be stopped only if you don't
hang on to it.

K: No, the momentum 'is' (not something apart from) you. You just don't realise that you 'are' this vast momentum, this river of tradition, of racial prejudices, the collective drive, (including?) the 'individual' assertions. If there is no stopping that, there is no ( possibility of spiritual evolution in the? ) future. You may call it a ( technologically upgraded?) future, but ( inwardly speaking) it is only the same thing modified. There is no (new?) future. I wonder if you see this ( profound existential truth?) .

P: An ( undesired?) action takes place and darkness arises in me. The
question arises: Can ( this time-bound) consciousness with its own content of darkness...
K:... end ?

P: What do you mean exactly?

K: Can the ( meditating?) brain actually 'hold' this momentum ? Listen to it carefully. Is the momentum 'actual' or is it ( seen as?) an idea? If it is an idea, then... you can only hold an 'idea' of the momentum . But, if it is not a (speculative) idea, a conclusion, then the brain is coming directly in contact with the actual 'momentum' (of self-centred thought ) . And therefore, it can say: 'All right, I will watch.' And as it is watching, it is not allowing it to move (within the field of the known?)

Now, or are you observing this vast ( psycho-) movement? Look, you 'are' (subliminally identified with?) this vast movement. Therefore, find out if that 'thing' can end – the ( active memory of the ?) past coming, meeting the present, a challenge, a question and...( its temporal continuity?) ending there. Otherwise, there is no end to ( its collateral) suffering. Man has put up with (this karmic burden of ?) suffering for thousands upon thousands of years. That momentum is going on and on. I can give intellectual explanations - reincarnation, karma - but I still suffer. This (sense of existential) suffering 'is' the vast momentum of man. Can that momentum come to an end without ( thought's mental ) control? If it does not stop, then there is no (sense of inner) freedom, then action will always be incomplete. Can you see the whole of that, see it actually?

P: Obviously, if the (mind's) eyes and the ears are (silently ) seeing and listening, then they take in (the truth of it?) without any registration.

K: So, you are saying that when there is an (authentic) 'quietness' in one's listening, there is no registration. But... most of us are not (inwardly, that?) quiet.

P: Is it because we can't answer that ( holistically friendly ) question of yours: Why should one register?

K: I am asking quite a different (experiential ?) question. Someone calls
you a 'fool'. Don't register it ( in your personal files ?) at all.

P: The way you put it, you are suggesting two alternatives: it is either to register or not to register.

K: No. You ( the subconscious mind is?) registering everything all the time.

P: There is a registration all the time. So long as my senses are
moving outward, there is registration.

K: When you say 'as long as', that means you are not ( seeing it?) now.

P: No. I am giving an explanation.

K: I want to find out ( experientially) whether this vast (inertial) 'stream of the past' can now come to an end. That is all my question.

P: There has to be an (experiential) way to end it ...

K: I am asking: How can it end?

P: By becoming aware of the actual registration in the brain cells ?

K: So, the brain cells are ( routinely functioning in their habit of) registering. Those brain cells which are so heavily conditioned, have realized that in ( living within the field of the 'known'?) is the only safety. So, in that 'momentum', the brain has found tremendous
security. Right?

P: ( Within the field of the known?) there is only one ( self-sustained ) movement which is the movement of the past, touching the present and moving on (towards a predictable future ?) .

K: The past meeting the present, moving on, modifying itself - the brain is conditioned to that (continuity) . As long as that 'stream' exists, it is feeling (relatively?) safe . Now, how are those ( time-indulging?) cells
to be shown that the momentum of the past in which the brain cells
have found (their temporal) security and well-being, is actually a most
dangerous (time-binding) movement?
Now, to point out to that brain the danger of (indulging in ) this momentum is all that matters. The moment it sees the actual
danger, it will 'end' it (ASAP?) . Does your brain see the actual danger of this movement?

P: Are your brain cells telling us that ( indulging in the apparent comfort ?) this movement is dangerous?

K: My brain is using the words to inform you of the danger, but
it has no danger in it (because) it has seen ( the actual danger of) it and dropped it. When you see the ( deadly) danger of a cobra, you just avoid it - which is an ( almost?) instant action. So, the moment
the brain realizes that it is the most dangerous thing, it drops it
because it wants ( an authentic inner) security.

Raj: I don't see the danger of this (inertial) momentum (of indiscriminate recording) as actually as you see it.

K: Why, sir?

Raj: Partly because I have never observed the vast momentum
to see its danger.

K: Are you living with K's description of the momentum or
living with the momentum itself which 'is' you? You understand my
( non-dualistic) question, sir? Is the momentum different from you?

Raj: No, sir.

K: So, you are the momentum? So, you are ( non-personally?) watching yourself?

Raj: Yes. But this does not happen too often.

K: Are you now aware without any ( personal bias or ?) choice that you 'are' the momentum - not just 'sometimes'? You can say: I only see the ( danger of this inner?) precipice occasionally. Without using the word 'momentum' , would that thing exist? The naming is part of the registration process. For the brain to (actually) 'hold' that momentum (of the 'known'?) wait, watch. Give (allow?) a gap between the (knowledgeable?) movement of thought, without its interference with the actual movement of feeling. This (silent?) gap can only happens when you go (or meditate?) very deeply into the question that ''the word is not the thing'' ? Immediately, you have stopped the momentum. I wonder if you see ( the experiential aspect of ) this.

P: How is it possible to hold a feeling without the word, whether it is hatred, anger or fear ?

K: You just remain with that feeling.

P: But what do you do exactly?

K: When a ( reaction of?) fear arises from whatever cause, remain with it, without any (mental recording?) momentum, without any movement of thought.

P: What is it then?

K: I would say it is ( a purely intelligent ) energy held without any movement. When energy is held without any movement, there is an explosion. That then gets transformed.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Oct 2018 #135
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

BEGINNINGS OF HOLISTIC LEARNING

(a 'reader friendly' collection of K's educational group dialogues)

Creating an atmosphere of mutual affection & responsibility (cca 1973)

Krishnamurti: Most people (have to ?) work under great pressure. Here there is not any kind of pressure put upon you. Therefore there is a tendency to slacken down & lose that vitality that youth generally has - that feeling of urgency, the flame of doing something. There is no 'authority' here, therefore you are left to yourself and it is very difficult to keep oneself at the highest point of energy, drive, intelligence and affection and not just go off into a kind of day-dreaming , uselessly wasting time. This school is supposed to give you the right environment in which this self-generating energy can go on. So who is going to be responsible to bring about the right soil here, the right environment, the right atmosphere, so that you are totally awake, generating the energy for yourself?

Questioner: All of us together ?

Krishnamurti: If each one of us does that there is no problem, is there? Then the place will be marvellous and each one of us will have a thousand-watt candle inside him. Can we all do this together?

Questioner: We are capable of it, but we don't usually do it.

Krishnamurti: Why not?

Questioner: First, how can one be responsible if one doesn't know the field in which one is working well enough. I mean, before I can take responsibility for something, I have to know for certain that I can do it. But mostly what happens (here) is that people are saying, "You are responsible," and it's taken for granted that one knows what to do.

Krishnamurti: Are you sufficiently intelligent to deal with something that has to take place here? If we are not, let's be humble about it, let's be sensible and say: we are not. Then how do we bring this ( sense of innocence?) about in us?

Questioner: I see so many misunderstandings in the school, very often among the students and also among the staff. But I realize now that in order to be responsible we have to see first that we have ( our own ) misunderstandings which must be cleared up (in the first place ) .

Krishnamurti: Now how do you clear up a misunderstanding?

Questioner: You go back to the beginning and see what went wrong.

Krishnamurti: Is it necessary to do all that?

Questioner: It needs time.

Krishnamurti: It needs a little more than that - what else is necessary?

Questioner: I would say affection.

Krishnamurti: So ( a sense of mutual) affection is the basis on which one can wipe away misunderstandings. Have you got that affection? ( The sense of mutual) affection is different from sentiment(alism) - be very clear on that point.

Questioner: What does 'sentimentality' mean?

Krishnamurti: An (emotionally charged ) feeling, . "I love (working with ) children'': In that there is a great deal of sentiment(alism involved) because I don't want to do things which may hurt them.

Questioner: There is a certain self-deceptive element in this sentiment(alism) .

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's right. ( One's self-centred) sentiment(alism) can become very efficient but cruel .

Questioner: Like the Nazis, who were sentimental about music and the arts, but very brutal (with people they considere  'inferior'?)

Krishnamurti: That's right. We can be sentimental, go into a kind of ecstatic nothingness over music, over painting, we can say, "I love Nature", and the next minute hit someone on the head because he thwarts us. So sentimentism is one thing and ( the sense of mutual) affection is another. I don't know whether you see the difference - do you?

Questioner: Younger people do also feel that sentiment(alism) is something sloppy.

Krishnamurti: You see, sentimentality breeds hypocrisy .

Questioner: Because it has moods ?

Krishnamurti: That's right, all that is involved in sentimentality . That being clear, have we this ( sense of mutual) affection so that when there is a misunderstanding we can talk about it and get it over, not store it up?

Questioner: Perhaps the word "sentimentality" needs a more precise definition.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's right, it is like an 'mask' you put on.

Questioner: But it is often difficult to distinguish it in one's daily life. Let's take an example: I see a beautiful tree. What is that feeling?

Krishnamurti: I look at that tree and say, "What a marvellous tree that is, how beautiful," - is that a 'sentiment'?

Questioner: The perception of the tree is a fact. But when you think 'you ought to feel' it is beautiful that is a ( thought enforced?) sentiment.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that's it - when I feel sentimental about something I put on a 'false front' : I "ought" to feel that is a beautiful tree.

Questioner: It's a (very convenient) act of ( social) behaviour.

Krishnamurti: Yes, an act of behaviour. I am glad we are getting into this.

Questioner: Yes, but now, continuing your story, you take care of that tree and become attached. Then does sentimentality come in?

Krishnamurti: Yes. When you become attached, sentimentality ( insidiously ?) creeps in. But when there is ( a sense of spontaneous) affection, is there attachment?

Questioner: No, but sometimes one jumps to the other without realizing it.

Krishnamurti: Of course. So you have to go very slowly. We are trying to differentiate between ( the authentic) affection and sentimentality. We see what sentimentality is. Most of us don't feel sentimental when we are young but as we grow older we put on many unnecessary (cultural?) masks and say, "We must feel the beauty of that tree." Or, "I must love that poem because Keats or Shelley wrote it."
Sentimentality is ( breeding) affectation & hypocrisy. Now, what is affection?

Questioner: It literally means to 'move towards somebody'.

Krishnamurti: Yes, doesn't it? Affection means, "to move towards" - the tree, the bird, the lake, or a human being - to stretch out your arms, to make a( friendly) gesture, smile; all that is ( the spontaneous action of) affection, isn't it? If I stretch my hand out to you though I've misunderstood you (in the first place?) , you immediately say, "Yes, I'll try and wipe it out." Unless there is a 'movement towards you' the misunderstanding cannot be got rid of.

Questioner: But some people might just stretch out their hand mechanically.

Krishnamurti: That is sentimentality, that is hypocrisy.

Questioner: When we leave the school we meet people who are sentimental: our mother, or some person like that. You have to respond to her sentiments.

Krishnamurti: You see, then 'love' (as the highest form of intelligence?) is not sentimentality. Love is something very (uncompromising) - it has no hypocrisy, it has no (conventional) 'clothing' around it.
We know now what we mean by affection, love and sentimentality. How do we create here the (right educational) environment in which there is that sense of freedom from pressure and hence of non-dependence, so that you yourself generate this tremendous feeling of living, of vitality, of flame - whatever you like to call it. How do we set about it? What will you do to bring about this atmosphere in which ( intelligence & mutual) affection can function?

Questioner: We have all (had moments of spontaneous) affection, it has happened.

Krishnamurti: Why does it disappear? Can ( the authentic) affection go away or (thought translated it into a )sentimentality that can (and does) wither?

Questioner: We feel affection and in trying to hold on to it and perpetuate it, we become 'sentimental', because we act according to ( the past) memory.

Krishnamurti: Or it might have been just ( an sublimated form of ?) sentimentality, which we call 'affection'.

Questioner: Yes, if it's real affection I don't see how it can dissolve. It gets buried maybe (into the su-conscious?) , but it doesn't dissolve. It can be buried by misunderstandings and it can re-emerge.

Krishnamurti: (But unfortunately?) most of us haven't got this great sense of ( selfless?) affection. Now how do we bring it about? This feeling must come naturally, not be forced or stimulated. One can't say, "It is necessary, therefore I must be affectionate to you." It may be that you must come to it 'obliquely' - if you understand what I mean.

Questioner: Perhaps you have to find out first what stops you from having affection.

Krishnamurti: But you must have ( at least a glimpse of?) it even before you can find out what stops it. Anger, jealousy, misunderstanding - will all those things stop ( this sense of mutual) affection?

Questioner: Yes.
Krishnamurti: Will they? You say something brutal - will that destroy ( the inward source of?) my affection? I (or my self-image is?) hurt, but the 'real thing', the inward beauty of affection, will that be destroyed? So it may be that we can come upon it from a different direction. Shall we investigate that possibility?
We said ( the inward source of ?) affection is a very 'hard' (uncompromising ?) fact, you can't distort it, you can't destroy it. If I haven't got (a free access to?) it I want to find out how I am to come upon it. I can't cultivate it, I can't nourish it by performing 'good deeds' ; there must be a way of doing something that will bring it about. What do you think?

Questioner: If I've never experienced it, how can I know that it is there?

Krishnamurti: Supposing I haven't got any affection ; how is that seed (of Intelligence, Love & Compassion?) to flower in me?

Questioner: You have to lose your ( self-protective) 'images' (you made ) of people.

Krishnamurti: That's one thing. I want to come much nearer.

Questioner: There are many things that are preventing it, maybe we can look at those things ?

Krishnamurti: Yes, go on. But will that do it?

Questioner: I can't do it before I've looked at what is preventing me.

Krishnamurti: I know many people - 'monks', good social workers and so on, who have trained themselves not to get angry. But the real flame has gone, or they never had it, they are kind, generous people, they will help you, will give you their money, their shelter, but the real thing is nowhere there. I want to find out how to let this thing flower in us; once it flowers you can't destroy it.
Now, when you said: 'let's see the things that prevent it', that means you are deliberately ( planning to?) cultivate affection. When you say, "I will see what the things are which are blocking me", that is a (roudabout mental ) action in order to get it. Therefore you are trying to cultivate it, aren't you? - only in an obscure way.

Questioner: Perhaps she meant 'trying to create a certain atmosphere in which this ( spontaneous mutual affection) can flower' ?

Krishnamurti: I was only pointing out that you cannot 'cultivate' it cunningly, unconsciously or deliberately, you can't produce this (by any artificial means?) . So what are we to do?

Questioner: It seems to me that one can recognise when you are looking at somebody, or a situation, that there is no (mutually felt?) affection ; and this takes no time.

Krishnamurti: That can be done (here or...for homework?) . What takes place when you say, "Yes. I see when I look at you that I really have no affection for you." What has happened?

Questioner: You have faced an actual 'fact'. Then something happens (or...not?) .

Krishnamurti: Listen: unconsciously, deeply, this idea that there must be ( mutual) affection exists (in our collective consciousness?) . And we (subliminally try to?) do various things in order to 'capture' it (& made a professional asset?) . ( The inward purity of it?) cannot be 'captured', but you are all suggesting ( devious?) methods to capture it.

Questioner: I was not suggesting a method, I was only saying: recognise that you haven't got it.

Krishnamurti: Yes, I haven t got it, I know that very well. That 'flame' isn't there.

Questioner: It's quite hard (to deal with the truth?) that it's not there, so...we go on pretending (or wishing for it to happen?) .

Krishnamurti: ( Personally?) I like to look at things as they are and face facts; I have no sentimentality of any kind in me, I strip away all that. Now I say, "I do not have this thing." And I also ( kind of?) I know that it cannot be cultivated surreptitiously, in a roundabout way. Yet I vaguely see the beauty of it. So what am I to do? May we move away from that and come back to it later?

(Intermission)

Krishnamurti: Do you feel at home here? Do you know what a 'home' is?

Questioner: The place where you know that you can always get support and help. You feel comfortable, you don't feel self-conscious, you move more easily at home than where you are a stranger.

Krishnamurti: At home you are not feeling a stranger. What makes it a home?

Questioner: Is it a feeling in yourself about being at home?

Krishnamurti: I go all over the world - except to Russia and China - I am put into different rooms, small rooms or big rooms. I have slept on the floor, I have slept on silver beds, I have slept in all kinds of places, but I have 'felt at home' - you understand? To me, home means wherever I am. Sometimes there is a plain wall in front of my window, sometimes there is a beautiful garden, sometimes there is a slum next door - I am telling you accurate things, not just something imaginary. Sometimes there is a tremendous noise going on around me, the floor is dirty and so on - the mattresses I've slept on! I am at home as I am at home here. It means I bring my own home - you understand?
Is this (boarding school feeling like ?) a home to you - in the sense of a place where you can talk to each other, feel happy, play, climb a tree when you want to, where there is no scolding, no punishment, no pressure, where you feel completely protected, feel that somebody is looking after you, taking trouble to see that you are clean, that your clothes are clean, that you comb your hair? Where you feel that you are completely secure and free? That's a home, isn't it?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Are you sure that you feel you are safe, protected, watched over, cared for, never blamed, being told affectionately not to do certain things?

Questioner: Do we ever feel ( completely) safe, wherever we are?

Krishnamurti: I am asking you, Tungki, if you feel at home here, in the sense which we all agreed is more or less a home. Do you feel that?

Questioner: Yes, one does feel cared for here.

Krishnamurti: So the moment you feel at home, what takes place?

Questioner: Affection ?

Krishnamurti: Affection, isn't it? So where you are (feeling) at home the seed ( of mutual affection?) begins to germinate, you don't have to cultivate it, it begins to flower. When you grow up you will leave this place, you will have to face the (real?) world. And if you haven't this 'seed' (of intelligence & affection?) in you here, the world is going to destroy you. They will 'trample' on you, don't mistake it. This feeling that you are completely relaxed, completely at home - in the sense I am using that word - that brings about a responsibility which is also affectionate. And when you have that seed ( germinating?) and it is flowering here, then you will keep it going all your life. But if it doesn't operate (at home) then the world will destroy you; the world makes you what it wants you to be: a cunning ( programmable?) animal .

So ( for homework?) let's find out if you are at home here and if you aren't, why not? You spend eight or nine months of the year here and it's your responsibility to make it your home, so apply yourself, create, don't let everybody else do all the work and say, "Yes, I am very comfortable here, this is my home." Then it's not your home, because you haven't built it.
You see, from an early age I have been living in other people's houses and I have never had a place of which I could say, "This is my home." But there is the feeling that you are at home wherever you are because you are responsible, you are affectionate. '( Feeling at home) is not a ( mental) creation of sentimentality, it is a creation of fact - the fact that I am ( feeling inwardly ?) free, responsible & affectionate.
( In a holistic nutshell?) Total responsibility is the feeling of being at home.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Oct 2018 #136
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Exploring the Mind of Krishnamurti

( A 'reader friendly edited' K dialogue, cca 1978)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we, during this ( holistically friendly ?) dialogue, explore how is actually working your mind ?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): You want to explore my mind?

PJ: Yes, because in exploring your mind, I feel that we can ( better understand?) the holistic way of exploration in which we usually get bogged down.

K: All right, let’s begin.

PJ: Can we begin with the question: How do you receive a question which is put to you? What is the state of the mind—your mind—which receives?

K: I would say that first he 'listens'; he listens without any barriers and without ( drawing ?) any conclusions,. And because there is no such hindrance, the mind is ‘empty’ ( of what it knew previously?) no recording and remembrance of its previous answers. There is a state of 'emptiness' and out of that K answers.

PJ: Now, in this state (of inner 'emptiness') , what is the (nature of holistic) attention? You see, sir, the usual attention is directed towards the search for an answer ; but if you receive the question in a (state of inner) emptiness, what actually happens to the question? Because you do respond.

K: Yes. The question is put, and there is a 'hearing' of it— not only with the (physical) ear but also without the usual process of hearing (with the mind's inner ear?) . The question is received like a seed that is put into fertile earth—the earth acts upon the seed, and the seed acts upon the earth and, gradually, out of that comes a plant or a flower. You see, Pupul, there is also a state (of holistic listening) in which the question is 'heard' (non-verbally?) not with the ( physical) ear, and out of that state there is the answer.

PJ: Is it that a new (inner) instrument that comes into being—a new capacity? When one observes you listening to a question , it is as if your eyes are also participating in the listening process as much as your ears. You have, if I may say so, a ‘listening eye'.

K: I would like to answer your last question by bringing in the ( holistically friendly) word ‘insight’. ‘Insight’ is an (inwardly awakened?) state of mind in which there is no ( interference of ) memory, no remembrance - no ( mental or emotional) reaction. ( But of course?) Insight is much more than all that.

Now when you ask a question, there is a ( verbal) hearing with the ear and there is also a (non-verbal) hearing with the non-ear ( mind's ear ?) which means that the mind is in a state where there is no remembrance, no conclusion, previous recording of that question and, therefore, no replying that question according to memory. All that (bunch of?) remembrance, conclusions & ready-made responses, being absent, there is an (in-depth) insight into the ( truth of the ) question.

PJ: Does this ( non-verbal) hearing with the non-(physical) ear come into being with the very ending of the ( usual time-binding) processes of the mind, or is it something else?

K: When there is an insight the brain cells themselves undergo a change - the insight transforms the brain cells.

PJ: Does insight arise because of the non-( verbal) hearing?

K: Yes, because of the hearing with the non-(physical) ear.

PJ: Can we investigate this 'hearing with the non-ear' ( with the mind's ear?) or is it impossible to investigate it?

K: The ( holistic quality of hearing ) with the non-ear (with the mind's ear ?) is similar to that of dropping a stone into a completely quiet (mill-) pond. When you drop a stone into such a pond, it makes little waves which disappear.
A state of listening with the non-ear is a state of absolute 'quietness' of the mind. Now, when a ( serious?) question is put to such a mind, it is like a little stone that is dropped into a tranquil pond. The response is the wave, or the little waves. I don’t know if I am making it clear.

PJ: Now, is the tranquil 'mill-pond' ( a poetical metaphor for?) the ( intelligent energy-) matrix of the mind? Is it ‘mind only’?

K: When you say ‘mind only’ what do you mean?

PJ: When the question is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pool—is it the 'totality' ( of one's mind) which receives it?

K: It is. But can the 'listening' mind be so extraordinarily receptive that the ( memory of the ) past has no place in it at all?

PJ: Has the listening with the 'non-ear' the same quality as ( the normal) listening? Is it of a different nature?

K: Oh yes; obviously.

PJ: What is its nature?

K: Listening with the ear or hearing with the ear and the response from that listening to a question will necessarily be fragmented. Right? But when there is a listening without the ( sensory) ear, that state of ( holistic) listening is not fragmented (non dualistic?) .

Listening with the ( sensory) ear implies recording and remembrance and from that ( pre-recorded) past knowledge, past experience, answering the question. However, as there is no ( intefering memory of the ) past involved in the 'non-ear' listening there is no fragmentary answer.

PJ: Is the 'non-ear' listening different from that which it receives?

K: I think the simile of the 'mill-pond' is very good. Now, we are saying that the pond is absolutely quiet, and the water of the pond is totally without all the pollution that man has put into it—the pollution is the ( self-centred memory of) past, and all the rest of it—and when the question is put into that pond just as a pebble is dropped in, and the 'reply' is the wave. I think that is how it functions.

PJ: Now, as there is a non-ear listening, is there also a 'non-eye' (a non-visual) seeing?

K: Yes.

PJ: Can we go into the nature of that (seeing with the mind's eyes?) ?

K: Let’s see first whether the 'hearing with the non-(physical) ear' and the 'non-visual seeing' without the past interfering are not the same. Yes, the (inner) hearing and the ( inner) seeing—when the (active memory of the?) past does not interfere in either case, they are the same ( holistically perceptive instrument ?) .

PJ: Sir, ( the Indian ) tradition maintains that the outward movement of the (physical) eye is ( linked with) the movement of ( mental) focusing, of naming. But the same 'visual movement' which turns backwards, breaks through the naming process; it breaks the naming process. There is for the s?dhaka— the spiritually earnest man who is on the path of search—a movement of the eye going inwardly . That is, the very optic seeing is 'thrown within' and it breaks through the naming process, the divisive process. In fact it is known as the ‘backward flowing movement’, and it is a term that is used in various ways also by the ancient Chinese.

K: So, there is only the 'going out', and another movement altogether which is 'going in' ?

PJ: Which is ‘optically’ going in—that is what tradition says.

K: So that is what tradition says. But what do you say?

PJ: You see, the 'looking out' focuses—the looking at a tree—, but the 'looking within' ends (puts on hold?) the very instrument which focuses.

K: I question the whole thing. You see, Pupul, I wonder if there is a 'looking within' at all.

PJ: Why is that, sir?

K: Because this 'looking within' may imply the ( knowledgeable?) movement of thought.

PJ: Yes, but not necessarily.

K: All right. Then if there is no movement of thought, what do we mean by ‘looking within’?

PJ: By 'looking within' (or 'inward-sight'?) I mean a seeing of 'that which exists' at any particular instant, both within and without. But there is no division between 'within' and 'without' in that state.

K: And you are also saying that this ( non-dualistic) inward looking dispels the whole (self-centred) structure of thought ?

PJ: Yes.

K: (Long pause) I question that. One can look inwards, from what you say, into the whole movement of thought. Is that the 'inward looking'?

PJ: I would say it is. Let me put it this way: the looking is physical, but what is seen is not physical. Thought is not something that can be ‘seen’ as such.

K: Pupul, all thought is a material process.

PJ: But it is so fleeting.

K: I know; but it is (the result of ) a material process (in the brain). The recording of knowledge, the remembrance of it—all that is a material process.

PJ: Yes, but there is a distinction between seeing a microphone and seeing a flashing movement of thought.

K: But that 'flashing movement of thought' is still ( the result of ) a material process .

PJ: Yes, all right; I agree that it is a material process, but its existence is in a dimension which we call the ‘within’.

K: Yes, I know that you call it the ‘within’, and I question (the holistic validity of ? ) that whole thing.

PJ: It has to be somewhere, sir.

K: No, my ( non-dalistic ?) point is why should it be either ‘within’ or ‘without’.

PJ: Because it is not something which is visible without.
K: I see what you are trying to get at. You are saying that thought is not visible; it cannot be perceived as one’s face is in a mirror. Thought cannot be perceived in a mirror. So that which is not perceivable you call the ‘inner’.

PJ: Yes, it is not perceivable and, yet, it exists.

K: But I would question whether it really is 'inner' at all. I believe that when the Eskimos use the word ‘thought’ they mean ( thinking about ) something ( happening) outside.

PJ: Sir, I am talking of ( a seeing within) myself. What I am saying is that there is something which I can see outside—which is the physical seeing. I am also saying that I can never see, with the same 'optical' eye, the nature of thought itself.

K: Yes, I can see my face in a mirror, but I can’t see my thought in a mirror.

PJ: Then where do I see it? What is the seeing then?

K: You know, Pupul, I don’t think there is a ( visual) seeing at all.

PJ: Can we investigate ( the validity of) this statement ?

K: Yes, but we must go slowly, for we must be very clear on this point which is rather interesting.
First there is a hearing with the ear, and then there is a hearing without the ( sensory) ear. The hearing without the (sensory) ear is like a mill-pond that is absolutely still. It is without a single movement; there is no air that ruffles it. Now the (incoming) question is like a stone that is dropped into that still pond, and the ( mental) 'waves' are the answer to the question.

PJ: Which the question itself throws up ?

K: That’s right. He, K, has said right from the beginning that you must approach the question afresh so that the very throwing of the question into the mill-pond produces the answer. There is no ( knowledgeable?) entity that answers; that is very important to understand.
Now, let us go back to your question regarding the ‘seeing’ of thought. I don’t think there is a ‘seeing’ of thought, for ( the visual) ‘seeing’ implies that there is a ‘seer’ and that there is a ‘thought’ (which is seen) - implying that the ‘seer’ and ‘thought’ are distinct. But the seer 'is' (actually not separate from) thought. So there is only thought which cannot be seen in the mirror. So, for me, there is no inward looking.

PJ: Then what do you mean, sir, when you talk of the seeing of ‘what is’ ?

K: Thought cannot be seen with the (dalistic) inward look.

PJ: Then by what is thought seen ? I ask this question because there is a seeing.

K: I wouldn’t use ( for it) the word ‘seeing’.

PJ: Then what word would you use, sir?

K: I would say that 'thought (the totality of the thinking brain?) becomes aware of itself', of its own activity.

PJ: But you have been talking all these years of the seeing of ‘what is’.

K: The seeing of ‘what is’ is the seeing of what is actually happening inwardly which is not the observation of what is happening with the optical eye or with another thought. ‘Seeing’ implies that.

PJ: Can't there be a (holistic) ‘seeing’ without the dualistic (observer-observed?) state?

K: Yes. ‘Seeing’ implies that there is no ( interference of thought projecting the  ?) opposite (the what should be) .

PJ: Yes, of course, because it has the same quality as the lake.

K: Yes. That’s why, Pupul, when you speak of ‘inward looking’, it sounds to me, artificial and—forgive me—traditionalistic. I think that (mind's holistic perception?) works like a tranquil mill-pond. Thought itself has to be quiet; it has to be as quiet as the lake. When you put a question to that lake, the question is answered from the ( lake's depths or...just from the superficial waves of the ? ) lake.

PJ: Suppose that a reaction of jealousy arises. Jealousy is a material thing.

K: Yes, absolutely.

PJ: But by the time one becomes fully aware of it... it is already over. So, I cannot see that which is over.

K: No, you see jealousy arise and there is the ( 'mill-pond') watching of it.

PJ: One of the things which has always puzzled me is this: Can there be a watching of the actual state of jealousy arising? For in such a ( tranquil mill-pond) state (of mind) it would not arise.

K: Jealousy is a ( self-centred) reaction, which you name ‘jealousy’. The ( experiential) question is: Before you name it as ‘jealousy’, can there be a watching of that reaction without the 'watcher'? Can there be a watching in which there is no ( observer-observed) opposite? Can one just ‘see’ the reaction?—And I mean by that word ‘seeing’ a (non-verbal) observation without the (physical) eye or the ear.

(To recap:) We were saying, first, that a question is asked and that question is like a pebble stone dropped into a mill-pond that is absolutely still. Now, what we are saying is that not only the question but the very answer 'is' (produced by) the dropping of the stone into the pond. You see, Pupul, the answer comes out because of the stone—for otherwise the mill-pond is absolutely quiet, right?
What we are talking about is not the tide (of self-centred observation?) going out and the tide coming in, but an observation of ‘what is’ without the ( interference of the ) previous remembrances associated with ‘what is’ (seen).

PJ: You say that it is neither optical nor aural. And yet you use the word ‘observing’ ( traditionally loaded with dualistic connotations) ?

K: Yes, I use the word in the (holistic?) sense : that in this (quality of non-dualistic) observation there is no ( self-identified?) 'centre' ( of one's past?) memories, various conclusions, hurts and so on, So, there is no ( static) point from which it is being observed. And in this (holistically friendly) observation the 'seeing' is as quiet as the mill-pond. And the 'question' is a challenge which drops into the mill-pond which is absolutely quiet and which responds (ASAP?) . I am very clear about this, but I don’t know if I am conveying ( the experiential aspect of) this.

PJ: Sir, according to me, you have said a number of new things. You just implied that the 'ripple' is the (mill-pond's) response.

K: Yes, the ripple is the response. It is a marvellous 'idea' (way to look at it?) .

PJ: I have often observed you, sir, and I feel that you listen to your own responses with the same attention as you listen to a question that is put to you. Do you listen to your response?

K: Yes, I listen to it to see if it is 'accurate'.

PJ: So your response and what the other person is saying—as far as this 'non-(physical) ear' is concerned—are at the same level. Now, when the (average) person responds, (s)he normally never listens to his/her own response.

K: No, (s)he never listens.

PJ: (S)He is always listening (prioritarily) to what the other person is saying. He never listens to his own response. At least I don’t listen to it. I am watching myself, and I see that I don’t listen to my own response. However, I may 'listen' to (the accuracy of) my own response afterwards.

K: If you are talking casually, you don’t ( really need to ?) listen. But if you are talking 'seriously', you are listening to the questioner and you are listening (to the mill-pond's response ?) not as ‘me’ listening to 'my responses'. There is only 'listening'.
Now, if the 'pebble' (the question thrown in?) is very light, the ripple is just two waves. But if it is a rock it goes down and causes a great many (far deeper?) waves.
So (to recap:) the act of ( holistic) listening is not only to the person who questions, who challenges, but also to the answering. It is, in other words, a total state of listening—a 'listening' which is including both the questioner and the person who replies.
So (in a nutshell:) We have discovered that there is no ( dualistic) 'inward/outward' looking; there is only 'looking'.

QUESTIONER (Q): Sir, what is the 'mill-pond'?

K: All this ( metaphoric) analogy of the 'mill-pond' came about because Pupul began by asking: Can we investigate ( the inner quality of?) K’s mind? If you ask, however, what is ( the nature of?) that 'mill-pond' you will be entering into something else, and I don’t know if I would investigate that.

PJ: What is that 'mill-pond', sir?

K: First of all, Pupul, whose mill-pond? Is it the mill-pond of K’s mind or the mill-pond of a person who's mind is agitated and all the rest of it? You see, an agitated mind is not a mill-pond.

PJ: We are talking of the 'K' mill-pond (mind) to see how far one can go into throwing open K’s mind.

K: You are asking: What is the (inward) state of the mill-pond that, apparently, K has? I don’t think K is aware of the mill-pond. If K is ( personally) aware of it, it is not 'the' mill-pond.

PJ: Sir, if I may ask, what is the inner nature of
yourself?

K: If I were to reply ( holistically correct ?) I’d say: 'nothing', that is, 'not-a-thing'. Yes, there is no-thing. Would you comprehend this state of K’s inner being, which says that there is nothing, absolutely nothing?

Q: Sir, when you said that K cannot be aware of the mill-pond, is it because any ( personal) examination would be...

K: It is like measuring the Immeasurable, you follow? I am not saying that K’s ( personal) mind is unmeasurable, but ( 'mill pond' -wise?) it is like measuring the immeasurable. You can’t examine it; it can’t be examined. First of all, with what would you be examining it?
You see, the ordinary person’s (mind) is constantly in agitation. Now, from that agitation you are asking questions about the examination of K’s—mill-pond. I am telling you that 'That' mill-pond just cannot be examined. There is a state of absolute 'no-thingness', and that nothingness cannot be examined—because examination implies measurement : you can only perceive this 'no-thingness' if your mind is also that.

PJ: Sir, may I please ask you something else? I find that in your dialogues, in your discussions, there is a great use of the ( silent) pause. What is the significance of this pause?

K: Probably K pauses to see that the answer is from the mill-pond.

PJ: I understand. Now, during a serious dialogue it appears that you start at the same level as the person with whom you are discussing. Is it that the 'mill-pond' that is K’s mind, the mind which is (as) nothing, enters the state of the mind of the person who is in duality?

K: There is no ( personal) remembrance of that 'nothingness'. If K remembers nothingness, it is not then Nothingness. All we can say is that 'It' is there; we cannot enter into That. (Pause)

PJ: How do you, sir, comprehend my 'duality'?

K: By listening to what you are saying : ''How can I be rid of jealousy? How can I be rid of something or the other?'' And I say that 'you' can’t get rid of it. My instant reply is that there is not (a matter of) 'getting rid' of anything.

PJ: No, but you will immediately see whether someone's statemen is a theory or a fact. You see, sir, there is a capacity within you to see the truth.

K: Obviously, everybody has that (potential?) .

PJ: Not 'always', sir.

K: No, not always...

PJ: Sir, you have been questioned for the last fifty years or so. Now, out of this questioning, which grows intense, you suddenly say, ‘I see’. My question is: What is it that brings about that ( flash-light of?) 'insight' which suddenly makes everything clear?

K: As I told you, K 'listens'. There is a 'listening' and out of (the inner) 'no-thingness', suddenly, there comes (an insight)

PJ: So are you saying, sir, that the insight arises in the very act of ( transpersonal) listening?

K: Yes. Because, to me what is ( experientially) important is the act of listening. There is a listening to the question—the question that is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pond. It is ( that?) simple.

PJ: Is this state the same as what takes place when you have an interview and when you sit on a platform?

K: No, no. When K sits on the platform it is quite different. In an interview the person 'is' (impersonating?) the problem; so both of us discuss. It is (an inquiry which is) much more concentrated.

PJ: If I may say so sir, for those of us who have had a (personal) interview with you it is like facing a totally empty state.

K: Yes.

PJ: There is nothing except oneself reflected. You see, sir, you throw back on the person exactly 'what is' in the person.

K: Yes. (Long pause) I am now Pupul and you are K. I ask you: How did you come to this extraordinary quality of the 'mill-pond' (mind) ? That would be my inquiry : how did you come to it? What are its characteristics? How did it happen to you and not to me? Tell me the things that prevent the ( unfolding of this ) 'mill-pond' ?

PJ: Please proceed, sir, because you alone can be the questioner as well as the one who answers.

K: That’s what I am doing—(trying to?) answer (it) .
All right, how did I get to it? First of all you have no comparison; you have no sense of it at all. You don’t even feel that you have got it and that I haven’t got it. Stating that 'you have it' and 'I don't have it' means comparison. So you tell me first of all, ‘Don’t ( bother to?) compare (yourself with another) ’.
Can you be totally free of ( the mental conditioning of) comparison?’ Now that is something new to me; it is a statement that I don’t quite understand. So I say, ‘I have lived all my life by comparison and you are now asking me to throw away all the things that I have learnt through (psychological) comparison’ - the struggle, the pain, the envy, the jealousy, the ( competitive?) drive—all that—must completely be dissipated. And you also tell me, ‘Don’t take time over it. It must be done (dropped) instantly’.

Now, iff I have 'listened' to you very carefully—with the non-(physical inner) ear—I am ( becoming) very alert to ( the experiential aspect of) what you are saying. I see that I can’t possibly dissipate it through time. It must (happen ?) now’. Your very ( compassionate) challenge makes me respond ( in real time?) . Your ( profoundly existential) challenge being very vital, very urgent, very forceful, awakens in me the quality of urgency and, so I understand completely (the 'no-time' aspect) .
And you also tell me, ‘Don’t accumulate (personal ) problems; don’t accumulate 'hurt memories', ( along with hurt related images) names & forms; just don’t accumulate’. Again because my 'whole being' is listening to you, I understand it instantly. You say to me, ‘Every (psycho-) problem must be resolved instantly’. Now that, of course, would require a great deal of back and forth, but at the end of it I would see what you mean. And I would (ASAP?) understand fear & pleasure - understand the whole (time binding) movement of it. And ( along) with this understanding comes the 'ending of sorrow'; the whole thing would be 'wiped away'. If you were to put to me this ( 'mill-pond' experiential question) , that’s how I would act...

( Parting words:) You see, Pupul, I am in a (Universal 'Mill-Pond'?) inner state where I am surrounded by an immense stretch of 'water'—a 'water' that is warm, healthy, sane. I am swimming in that marvellous water, and I won’t leave you. So, one may come and 'listen' if possible, every day, because the Beauty of the Flower is different every day.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 24 Oct 2018 #137
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

REVISITING A FEW K CONVERSATIONS WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS AND DR BOHM

DEALING HOLISTICALLY WITH THE ONGOING "PSYCHOLOGICAL" FACTS

( Intro: Dr Schloegel is a well known scholar in Zen Buddhism. She lived in Japan for twelve years and she teaches Zen Buddhism in London. She was also the librarian of the Buddhist Society until very recently. Dr Rahula, from Ceylon, Sri Lanka, is a well known Buddhist scholar who has written quite a few books.)

K: ...and probably you all know Dr Bohm and myself so we don't need introducing.

Rahula: Yes, sir, we know you so well and I have been following your teaching and reading your books, for many years. Now, for a person who knows Buddha's teaching sufficiently well, your teaching is quite familiar. What the Buddha taught 2,500 years ago you teach today in a new idiom, a new style, and I was surprised how you got these things so well and so beautifully. Of course, you're not a Buddhist...

K: No, sir.

R: But ( for the scholarly reader?) between your teaching and the Buddha's teaching there is hardly any difference, you say the same things in a fascinating way for the man of today & for tomorrow's man. I would like to know what you think about all this.

K: May I say, sir, with due respect, what is the ( experiential) necessity of comparing? If you were not scholarly (minded) and not gone very deeply into ( the philosophy ) Buddhism, how would it strike you reading this (vast collection of K's talks & dialogues?) , without the background of all ( the previouly accumulated knowledge?) ?

R: That I can't tell you because I was never without that background. It is a ( very strong cultural?) conditioning. We are all conditioned. Therefore I cannot answer that question because I don't know what would be the position.

K: Does the knowledge of scriptures, knowledge of what the 'saints' (holy men?) have said and the whole gamut of the 'sacred books', does that help man (to know himself?) at all?

R: Scriptures and all our ( book) knowledge conditions man, there is no doubt about it. But I should say that this knowledge is not absolutely unnecessary, and Buddha has pointed out this very clearly : if you want to cross the River and there is no bridge, you make a boat for yourself and you cross with the help of the boat. Going to the other shore, if you think, 'Oh, this boat has been very useful to me, very helpful, I can't leave it here, I will carry it on my shoulder', was that man acting rightly? No. He should ( wisely) say, of course this boat was very helpful to me but I have crossed the river, not it is not any more use to me, and I'll leave it here for somebody else to use. That is the Buddhist attitude for knowledge and learning. Buddha says, even the teachings, not only that, even the moral virtues are also like the boat and they have only a relative value.

K: I am not doubting ( the ancient wisdom of ?) what you are saying, but I would like to question whether ( the accumulated psycho-?) knowledge has the quality of liberating the mind.

R: I don't think knowledge can liberate.

K: It can't, but the ( self-confident?) quality that you derive from knowledge, the feeling that you 'know', the weight of ( one's well structured?) knowledge - doesn't that strengthen the 'self' (centred consciousness?) ?

R: Certainly.

K: Doesn't knowledge actually condition man ( inwardly?)

R: Knowledge ?

K: The word 'knowledge' means a ( well organised activity of ?) accumulation of information, accumulation of experience, accumulation of various facts and theories and principles of the past and of the present, all that (pro-active mental ?) bundle we call 'knowledge'. Does then the ( psychological experience of the ) past help - because knowledge is the past?

R: All the ( pro-active memory of the?) past, all that (second hand) knowledge disappears the moment you see the Truth.

K: But... can a mind that is ( subliminally?) 'burdened' with (its past) knowledge, see the Truth?

R: Of course if the mind is burdened and crowded and covered with knowledge...

K: Generally (speaking?) most minds are filled and crippled ( weighed down by ?) knowledge. Can such a mind perceive what is ( the living?) truth? Or must it be free from (its past?) knowledge?

R: To see the Truth the mind must be free from all knowledge.

K: Then why should one accumulate knowledge and then abandon it, and then seek truth?

R: I think that when we take our ordinary life, most of the things which will happen are useful at the beginning, and for instance, in our studies as children at school we can't write without ruled paper ; today I don't need ruled paper, but at that stage...

K: I agree. When you are in ( a grammar?) school, college and university, we need ( to learn the guiding) lines - but (for the holistically inclined mind?) does not the 'beginning' ( the initial attitude to learning?) matter enormously , since it might condition the future, as he grows up? Does the freedom ( from the known?) lie at the end or ( has to be there from?) the beginning?

R: ( Mind's inner ?) freedom has no beginning, no end.

K: Wouldn't you say that this freedom is limited by ( the crystallised forms of ?) knowledge?

R: Freedom is not limited by ( one's ) knowledge, but perhaps the knowledge that is wrongly applied may obstruct freedom.

K: No, ( experientially -wise?) there is no 'wrong' or 'right' accumulation of knowledge – I am asking if knowledge leads to freedom? As you say, ( certain guidelines of self- ) discipline are necessary at the beginning. But as you grow older, mature, acquire capacities and so on and so on, doesn't the ( mentality of self-imposed discipline ) condition the mind so that it can never abandon ( the practice of) discipline in the usual sense of that word ?

R: I understand your point. But you agree that ( some self-imposed ) discipline at the beginning, at a certain level is necessary.

K: I 'question' that, sir. I don't mean it is not necessary, but I question it in order to enquire (experientially into the nature of inner freedom?) .

R: I should say at a certain level it is necessary ; there are two words in Buddhism with regard to the way: ( the 'adhikar' is referring the ?) all those people who are on the way, who have not yet arrived, that means all those disciplines, precepts, and all those things that are good and bad, right and wrong. But the 'Arhat' – the man who has realized the truth has no ( need for self-imposed?) discipline because he is (already) beyond that.

K: I understand, but I question ( the inner necessity of accumulating ?) knowledge as a (convenient?) 'boat' to cross the River. I want to enquire whether that ( classical) simile has the ( living) quality of truth – to put it that way.

R: You mean simile, or that teaching?

K: The whole of that. Which means, sir - just a minute - which means accepting ( the validity of psychological?) evolution : gradually, step by step, advancing, and ultimately reaching (Nirvana?) . First I make an effort to control (my thoughts ) , and as I get more capacity, more energy, more strength I abandon that and move on. I am enquiring, whether there is such ( psycho-evolutionary ) progress at all.

R: What do you think?

K: What do I think? No.

Mrs Schloegel: I entirely agree with you, for the very good reason that ever since human beings have existed as far as we know, we have always known that we should be good. If it would be possible to 'progress' by something like this we would not be the human beings that we are nowadays. We would all have progressed sufficiently.

K: Have we progressed at all?

S: Precisely, we have not progressed – or if at all, very little.

K: We have progressed technologically, scientifically, hygienically and all the ( materialistic) rest of it, but psychologically, inwardly, we have not - we are what we were thousands of years ago.

S: And so the fact that we know 'we should do good' and have evolved so many systems of 'how to do it' has not managed to help us to become precisely that. As I see it, it is this (time delayed?) 'working through' that seems to me at stake.

K: We have accepted ( the validity of psychologial?) evolution (in time) . Biologically there is evolution. We have transferred that biological fact into ( the realm of our) psychological existence, thinking psychologically we will evolve (for the best?) .

R: The (inward) realization of Truth, the attainment of Truth, or 'seeing the truth' is ( happening) without a ( temporal) scheme.

K: Is 'out of time' ?

R: Out of time. Exactly.

K: Therefore why should I ( inwardly) accumulate knowledge?

R: How can you avoid it (after having accumulated lots of it?) ?

K: 'Psychologically' avoid ( accumulating) it, not technologically.

R: Even 'psychologically', how can you do that?

K: Ah, that's a different ( 'homework' ?) matter.

R: Yes, how can you 'do' that if you are already conditioned ?

K: Let's go into it a little more ( analytically?) .
Physically, the little acorn ( if it gets lucky or cared for ?) grows into a gigantic oak tree, that's a fact (of life) . And we have assumed that 'psychologically' ( in the 'spiritual' domain this life principle ) is also true? Which is that eventually I will achieve truth, or truth will take place if one ( is dilligently ?) preparing the ground.

R: That is obviously a wrong point of view. The realization of truth is a 'revolution', not evolution.

K: Therefore, can the mind be ( ASAP?) free psychologically (inwardly) of this idea of progressing in time ?

R: It can be.

K: No, not 'it can be'. It 'must be' otherwise you can't.

R: That is what I told you that revolution is not evolution, a gradual process.

K: So psychologically can there be a revolution?

R: Yes. Certainly.

K: Which means what? No ( convenient delays in ?) time.

R: There is no time in it.

K: But all the religions, all the scriptures, have maintained you must go through certain systems.

R: May be, but not Buddhism. I don't perceive it like that, and nor did Buddha.

K: Sorry. I may be mistaken.

R: I asked you, how do you proceed to that realization of truth, how do you do that?

K: Ah, that's quite a different matter...

R: I mean, we are all starting ( from a ) conditioned (position) . Nobody can tell us that, however much they try. And the ( triggering of an inward) 'revolution' is to see that you are conditioned. The moment you 'see' (the hidden implications of) that, it has no time, it is an entire revolution and that is the truth.

K: Suppose one is conditioned ( to think inwardly ) in this pattern of ( temporal) evolution - I was (inwardly dull & ) ugly yesterday, but today I am learning about that ugliness and freeing myself and tomorrow I will ( completely) be free of it. Right? That is the whole (time-based dynamic of the ) psychological structure of our being. This is an everyday fact.

R: But do we actually see that? Or are we understanding it intellectually, verbally ?

K: The average human being in his everyday life he says, "I am not as good as I should be, but I eventually - give me a couple of weeks, or a couple of years - and I will be awfully good".

R: Certainly this is the general attitude of most people.

K: Practically the whole world is conditioned by this idea, which may have come from the biological progress (conveniently transposed?) into the psychological field.

R: Yes...

K: Now how is a ( holistically minded?) human being, to 'break through' this pattern without (introducing ) time?

R: It is only by 'seeing'.

K: You say it is only 'by seeing', but... I say I can't see.

R: Then... you can't.

K: I want to enquire into (what is actually preventing?) it, sir. That is, why have we psychologically given 'progress' such importance?

S: I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that ''I blind myself, I am my own obstacle'', as long as 'I', ( my self-consciousness?) with all my bundle of conditioning, am here, I cannot 'see and act'.

K: Let's come back to why we are all caught in this idea of progress.

R: We have just come to an agreement on that point, that humanity accepts the fact that progress is a gradual evolution, so if biologically they accept it, and prove it, so they apply the same theory to 'psychological' things. We agree it is the human position.

K: But is that the 'truth'?

R: I don't think it is the truth.

K: Therefore I abandon the whole idea of ( progressing inwardly by following a ?) 'discipline'.

R: There is no question of 'you' abandoning it. If you abandon it consciously...

K: No, sir, when a human being sees the falseness of it, actually not theoretically, then it is 'finished'.

R: Absolutely, that is what I ( was trying to) tell you all this time.

K: Why should I then acquire knowledge of scriptures, of this or that, psychologically?

R: There is no reason.

K: Then why do I read the Buddha?

R: That is what I told you, (because for starters?) we are all conditioned.

Bohm: Could I ask a ( more personal?) question: do you accept that you are conditioned?

R: I don't know whether you accept or not, I accept it : to exist in time is to be conditioned.

B: Well, Krishnaji has said, at least in some of our discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned (inwardly) in the beginning and that therefore he had a certain ( inner clarity of) insight that would not be common. Is that fair?

K: Please don't refer to me. I may be a 'biological freak', so leave me out of it. What we are trying to discuss is this: can we admit the truth that there is no ( psycho-evolutionary) movement forward - the truth of it, not the idea of it.

R: I understand...

K: So do we as human beings 'see' the truth or the falseness of what we have done?

R: You mean human beings generally?

K: The whole world.

R: No, they don't see it.

K: Therefore when you are telling them, get more knowledge, read this, read that, scriptures, what the Buddha said, what Christ said - as they are full of this ( 'knowledge ) accumulating' instinct which will (hopefully?) propel themselves into heaven ?

B: When we say we are all conditioned, how do we know that we are all conditioned? That is really what I wanted to say.

R: That is a very complicated question. As far as our society is concerned, all are conditioned. There can't be anybody who is unconditioned because he is within 'type'. But what we are talking about is the realization which has no time, which is unconditioned.

B: But I really wanted to emphasize that if we say we are all conditioned there could be two ways (to look at it) . One way could be to accumulate ( lots of general) knowledge about our conditioning, to observe ( objectively) the common human experience, and see they are generally conditioned. The other ( more holistically friendly?) way would be to see it in a more direct way that we are all conditioned. That's really what I was trying to drive at.

R: Of course, there are people who see that.

B: The point I was trying to make is that if we say we are all conditioned then ( one may naturally ) think there is nothing else to do but some kind of 'disciplined' or 'gradual' approach. That is you begin with your conditioning.

K: Not necessarily.

B: Well then let's try to pursue it. That's the way I take the implication of his question that if we begin all conditioned...

K: ...which we are.

B: ...then what can we do for the next step?

R: There is nothing called 'the next step'.

B: Then how can we be free of the conditioning as long as we keep doing whatever we do?

R: The freedom from conditioning is 'to see'.

B: Well, the same question, 'how' do we see?

R: Of course many people have tried various ways.

K: No, no, there are not various ways. The moment you say 'a way', you have already conditioned him.

R: Aren't you also conditioning ( people) by your talks ? Your lectures are also conditioning. Trying to uncondition the mind is also ( risking to further ?) condition it.

K: I question whether what K is talking about conditions the mind. I doubt it, I question it.

R: I think (so?) ...

K: If I may suggest, we are going off from the central issue.

R: The question is 'how' to see it - is that it?

K: Not 'how', there is no how. First let us see this ( holistically?) simple fact, that as a human being, I represent ( the total consciousness of) all humanity. I represent the (same self-centred consciousness as the ) whole world, because I suffer, I go through agony, etc., etc., so does every ( self-centred) human being. So do I, as a ( holistically responsible?) human being, see the falseness of the ( presumptious ?) step human beings have taken, moving from the biological to the psychological, with the same ( temporal ?) mentality?

R: Yes.

K: Do I see it, as I see this ( coffee?) table? Or I agree with the idea of it," and then ( experientially-wise) we are lost (in theories?) . Therefore agreeing with the idea, the theory is ( translating the whole issue in the field of one's past) knowledge.

S: If I see it (inwardly) as ( clearly as ) this table then it is not a theory any more.

K: It is a fact. But the moment you ( mentally) move away from the 'fact' then it becomes idea, knowledge, and the pursuit of it.

S: And it has further and further 'pictures'.

K: Further away from the fact. So, having moved inwardly with that same mentality (of constant progresss ) , creates there a 'false' ( a 'wishful thinking'?) movement? I wonder why have we done this?

S: Because I want to become something ( better than what I am now?) ?

K: Which is you want satisfaction, safety, certainty, a sense of ( personal high ) achievement.

S: So, it's all in the 'wanting'.

K: So why doesn't a human being see ( the inward falseness of) what he has actually done?

S: I do not really like to see it. I fear (not knowing what to do with?) it.

K: Therefore you are living in an (self-sustaining?) illusion.

S: The fact is, that I usually do not see it.

K: Why don't you see it?

S: I suspect it is because of ( a subliminally hidden existential ?) fear... ?

K: You are entering into quite a different field, 'fear' (...left for optional homework ?) . But I would just like to know as a ( philosophical ) enquiry, why human beings have played this (mind) game for millenia - living in this false structure, and then people come along and say, be unselfish, be this and all the rest of it – why?

S: Simply put, because we human beings have a very strong irrational side in us.

K: I question ( the holistic validity of) all this. Because we are living not with 'facts' but with ideas and ( second hand?) knowledge.

R: Certainly, but you don't see a certain development, an evolution, even psychologically?

K: No.

R: A man who was telling lies, stealing and all these things - you explain to him certain very fundamental, very elementary things, and ( eventually) he may change - in the conventional sense – into a better man, now he does not steal, now he does not tell lies, he does not like to kill others.

R: Don't you agree a criminal in the accepted sense, you meet a criminal like that, you explain to him the wrong way that he lives, and he realizes what you have said, either because of the ideas or of your personal influence, or whatever it be, he transforms himself, he changes himself.

K: You see that is my whole thing ; the bad man evolving into the good man.

R: In the conventional sense, certainly there are such examples - a 'bad' man... changing his way of life, and becoming a 'good' man - good also in quotes.

K: Yes, we know that, we have dozens of examples.

R: Don't we accept that at all?

K: The 'bad man' who tells lies, who does cruel things, and so on, probably one day he realizes it is an ugly business, and says, "I'll change and become good", but that is not Goodness. Goodness is not born out of badness.

R: Certainly not.

K: Therefore the 'bad' man, can never become the ( holistically?) good man. Goodness is not the opposite of the badness . May I put it this way: is there 'psychologically' (inwardly wise) is Love the opposite of hate?

R: You can't talk about the 'absolute' in terms of good or bad.

K: If ( my idea of) freedom is the opposite of my (time-binding) conditioning, it is not freedom at all. That freedom is born out of (the existential pain of) my conditioning because I am caught in this prison and I want to be free. It is a reaction to the ( sad reality of one's inner) prison, which is not freedom. All opposites are born out of their own opposites. No?

R: I don't know. That is what you say...

K: Sir, if someone hates you and then says I must have love (for you) , that 'love' is born out of hate, because he knows what hate is and he says, "I must not be that, but I must be that". So 'that' is the opposite of 'this'. Therefore that opposite contains this. And I question the ( reality of this) whole corridor (of opposites) . We have invented it, but actually it doesn't exist.

S: Personally I see this corridor of opposites as a humanizing factor.

K: Oh no, that is like saying, 'I have been a tribal entity, now I have become nationalistic , and ultimately an internationalistic - it is still ( the same self-centred mentality of?) tribalism going on.

S: At a really barbaric stage, I could have laughed when you had broken your leg, nowadays I could not laugh any more.

B: I think both of you are saying that we do in some sense make progress, in the sense that we are not as barbaric as we were before. Right?

S: That is what I mean by the humanizing factor.

K: I question whether it is ( really?) humanizing.

R: I don't like to think in extremes.

K: This is not extremes, this is just 'facts'.

B: So, you are saying that this is not a 'genuine' progress. You see in the past people were far more barbaric generally than they are today, and therefore would you say that that really doesn't mean very much?

K: I don't quite follow.

B: Well, some people would point to their past and say there was a great deal of barbarism then.

K: ( Inwardly ?) we are still barbarous.

B: Yes, we are, but some people say we are not as barbaric as before. So, if we can get it straight, you say that that (psycho-evolution) is not significant?

K: No. When I say I am better than I was - it has no meaning.

B: I think we should clarify that.

R: In the relative, dualistic sense I can see an evolution. But in the absolute, ultimate sense there is nothing like that.

K: I see how the ( psychologically) opposite (condition) is born in everyday life : I am greedy, that's a fact. I try to become 'non-greedy', which is non-fact. But if I remain with the ( truth of the?) fact that I am greedy, then I can do something about it right now. Therefore there is no (need to project an) 'opposite' (condition) . So then one can deal with facts, not with non-facts.

S: The ( 100 $ experiential) question now is: how am I going to deal with it, having accepted the fact that I am violent...

K: Not 'accepted', it's a fact.

S:... having 'seen' it ?

K: Then we can proceed (holistically) , I'll show you.
(For starters?) I must see ( the fallacy of?) what I have done. I avoid the fact and run away to non-fact. That is what is happening in the world. So, you remain with the 'fact'. Can you do it?

S: This is part of our Zen training. One can certainly do it, though one very often does not like doing it....

K: Of course you can do it (ASP?) - when you are seeing something dangerous and you realise the fact that it is dangerous, you won't go near it. ( Now inwardly) 'running away' from the ( potentially destabilising ) fact is dangerous. Finished. You just don't run away.

R: If you 'see' it, there is no running in it.

K: I am saying : don't run, then you 'see'. But we say, "I can't see because I am caught ( a vast thought network directed to escaping ) that".

R: I quite see what you're saying, I see it very well.

K: So there is no duality ?

R: Where?

K: Now in your daily life, not ultimately.

R: What is 'duality'?

K: (Being caught in the conflict of the ?) opposites. Violence and non-violence. If (inwardly) there is ( remaining with ) the fact of 'violence', deal ( directly ) with the (actual causes of this ) violence, not ( by introducing) the ideal of non-violence.

R: We agree, if you see the 'fact ' we must handle this.

K: Therefore there is no ( utility in thinking in terms of making a gradual ) progress.

R: So?

K: So, no ideals. Only facts. And to look at facts time is not necessary.

R: Absolutely not.

K: Therefore if time is not necessary, I can see it now.

R: Yes, agreed.

K: You can see it now. Why don't you?

R: Why don't you - that is another ( homework intended?) question.

B: If you take it seriously that time is not necessary then right now one could perhaps clear up the whole thing...

R: Yes, but that does not means all human beings can do it, there are ( few?) people who can do it.

K: No. If I can see it, you can ( potentially) see it (too) .

R: I don't agree with you.

K: It is not a question of agreement. But when we have ideals away from facts time is necessary to get there, progress is necessary. I must have knowledge to progress. All that comes in. Right? So can you abandon ideals?

R: It is possible.

K: Ah, no, the moment you use the word 'possible' ( the postponement of) time is there.

R: I mean seeing the facts...
K: Do it now, do it sir, not - forgive me, I am not being ( pushy or?) authoritarian – because when you say 'it is possible' you have already moved away.

R: I mean to say that everybody can't do it.

K: How do you know?

R: That is an (observable) fact (of life) .

K: No, I won't accept that...

S: I can perhaps come in with a bit of a concrete example. If I stand on a high - a concrete fact - on a high springboard over a swimming pool and I cannot swim, and I am told just jump in and relax completely, the water will carry you. There is nothing that prevents me except I am frightened of doing it. That is I think the point in question. And therefore this is the (experiential aspect of the ) question. Of course everyone can do it, there is no difficulty but there is this basic ( survivalistic) fear that makes us shy away.

K: I am not talking of that. If one realizes that one is greedy, why do we invent ( the psychological ideal of) non-greed?

S: I wouldn't know because it seems to me so obvious that if I am greedy then... I am greedy.

K: So I don't accept that. I say that is an escape from this. And it won't solve this problem.

S: It hasn't.

K: It hasn't. So to deal with the problem, remove it. I can't have one foot there and one foot here. I must have both my feet here.

S: And if both my feet are here? I see I am greedy, or I am violent.

K: Now we have to go into something entirely different. How can a human being be free of greed now? That's the question. I want to be free of sorrow, pain, now. So I have no ideals at all. I am greedy. Now do we go (holistically?) into that? What is this 'greed'? The very usage of that word immediately condemns the fact. Now can I look at that fact without using the word with all its intimations, all its content, with its traditional connotations ? Look at it. You cannot understand ( holistically) the depth and the feeling of 'greed' if you are ( mentally) caught in words. So I won't use the word greed. Now can my mind look directly at something like greed, without the word?

R: That is really seeing the 'fact'.

K: Then only I see the fact. Finished.
However, this is where the ( dualistic) difficulty lies, sir : I am all the time making a (personal?) effort to be free of that greed . But if the ( ongoing) fact is that I am greedy, I have to understand the nature and the structure of that feeling. What is it? Can I look at it without my past remembrances? The past remembrance condemns this and therefore strengthens it . But if ( greed is regarded as learning about ) something new, I won't condemn it. So can I look at it ( non-personally) without the word, without the (traditional & personal) associations of that word ? That ( innocent quality of looking ) doesn't need discipline, that doesn't need practice, that doesn't need some guide, just to say, ''Let's see if I can look at it without the word''.
Can I look ( knowledge-free?) at that tree, woman, man, sky, heaven, without the word and find out ( the holistic quality of direct perception?) ? But if someone comes along and tells me, "I'll show you how to do it", then ( experientially -wise?) I am (stuck &?) lost.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Oct 2018 #138
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

THE ENDING OF 'SELF'-IDENTIFICATION

2-nd 'reader friendly' edited K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (1978)

Rahula: I want to ask you to clarify one or two things ; in the Buddhist terminology, an 'arhat' is the one who realized the truth, who is liberated, who is free, and the question was put to the Buddha, very often, by his disciples, and by various people, what happens to an ( enlightened person? ) 'arhat' after his ( physical) death? Does he exist after his death? The Buddha said, "No." Then he does not exist ? The Buddha said, "No. None of those terms 'exist' or 'does not exist' can be applied to that state (of enlightened consciousness?) ''
All those relative, dualistic terms, are used only within the empirical world. But this is beyond that, therefore you can't apply any of those words. Now, what do you say to this?

K: Could we talk over together, sir, what is living and what is dying, and what is the state of the mind that is in the process of dying? Could my putting it that way be a help to answering the question?

R: I don't know...

K: You see, (many thoughtful?) human beings right throughout the world, have always enquired whether there is there life after death, is there a ( spiritual?) continuity, and if there is no continuity what is the point of living at all? Life is such a dreadful affair anyhow with a lot of trouble, anxieties, fears, and so on, if there is no reward for living properly, correctly, what is the point of being good, kind, noble, etc? Could we approach your question from that point of view? Or do you want to ask what is the state of a mind that has no 'self' (-identification?) whatsoever?

R: That's right, that is an 'arhat'.

K: That is what I want to get at.

R: I think that is a good approach, because that is an 'arhat' who has no self (-centred identification?) whatsoever.

K: Is that ( 'self'-dissolution?) possible? I am not saying it is, or it is not, we are enquiring, proceeding through exploration and finding out (the actual truth ?) .
So what is the 'self' (-identified consciousness?) ? The name, the form, the ( psychosomatic?) organism, ( all these) characteristics being identified by thought as the 'me'. Also the ( karmic?) tendency is identified by thought as the 'me', also the personal experiences and the accumulated knowledge are ( subliminally?) identified by thought as the 'me', and ( in its turn ?) the 'me' is ( consciously?) identifying itself) with that which I possess - my property, my house, my furniture, my wife, my books. All that, ( including ) the violence, the pleasure, the fear, the agonies, all that with the name, with the form, constitutes the 'self'. So what is the root of the self? Isn't the root of the 'self' (thought's identification with the?) acquired (personal & collective) experiences ?
So the whole process of identification - my house, my name, my possessions, what I will be, the success, the power, the position, the prestige - ( the self-) identification process (of thought ) is the essence of the 'self'. If there is no (thought?) identification is there the self? You understand sir?

R: Yes, I follow...

K: So can ( thought's subliminal self-) identification come to an end? Which is, the identification is the movement of thought. If thought didn't say, ''that is my furniture'', identifying itself with that (& with other material possesions ?) , because it gives it pleasure, position, security, all that, so the root of the 'self' is the (ego-centric?) movement of thought.

R: Yes.

K: Now, 'death' is the ending of that (thought-sustained ?) movement. Or is death a continuity of that ( self-identified ?) movement into the next life? You understand?

R: Quite.

K: Now, the 'arhat', or the liberated man, why should he wait until the end, till he reaches that ( physical event) which is called death? When we realize that the very root of the self is the ( survivalistic) movement of thought in time, with all the (psychological burden of) conflicts, miseries, confusions, created by thought, when ( the self-identified movement of) thought comes to an end that is a form of death while living.

R: Yes.

K: Now, can ( the self-identified continuity of ?) thought come to an end? To bring that about, or wanting thought to end we practice the so-called 'meditation'. Right sir? Would you agree to that.

R: Popular religion.

K: No, no, the ordinary man is not even interested in all this because of a wrong education, social conditions, economic position, environmental influences, and maybe the (organised?) religions have helped to keep man down there, while the elite are somewhere else. So, I wouldn't talk about 'popular religion'. It is the human tendency, that is all we are talking about. Every human being has identified himself and so conditioned himself with something or other, with (material possessions and/or with?) god, with nirvana, with paradise and so on. Now while living can that ( psychological ?) 'death', which is ( actually) the ending of thought, take place? Not at the end of one's life which is a 'graveyard renunciation' which has no (spiritual?) meaning.

R: I agree when you said it is not necessary to wait until the end of your life, at the moment of physical death, and Buddha pointed out the same thing. When this question was put to him, the question was asked also what will happen to the Buddha after his death. He asked the disciple, "What is Buddha (now) ? Is it this ( physical) body?" And the disciple said, ''no''. ''Then, if you can't pin-point the Buddha even now, living, then how can you say after death?''

K: Sir, why do we need to bring in the Buddha? We are talking as ( thoughtful) human beings, as a human being I want to know what happens after death. Or what is the ( spiritual?) significance of death. Or can one live in daily life without this 'self'-(identification?) ?

R: Of course, but my question was not that, but what happens after death to the person who has realized the truth, who has become liberated, free ?

K: I would never ask (somebody else?) that question, because he might say this happens, or he might say that happens, or nothing happens. Then it becomes a 'theory' to me, an 'idea'.

R: I wanted to hear from you a little more than that....

K: If you want ( to hear ) it from this person, you have to enquire (meditatively?) as he is enquiring. And he asks, is it possible to live in daily life, not at the end of one's existence, in daily life without this ( sublimated 'self-) identification' process which is the result of thought? Can the ( self-identified) movement of thought end while one is living? That is the question, rather than what happens when I die.
The 'me' is merely (the identitary component of the?) movement of thought. ( This self-identified thread of) thought is in itself very limited. So as long as thought is (acting as) a limited fragment (of one's total consciousness?) whatever it creates will still be limited, (mechanistic & ) fragmentary. Right? So can a human being, you or I or any of us, can we live without this ( self-centred) movement of thought, which is the essence of the 'self'? Suppose I say, yes, it can be done - what value has it to you?

Dr Schoegel: Once that ( subliminal process of ) identification of thought and 'me' is really broken...

K: Ah, no, not 'broken' - when you 'break' something it can continue. Here it is an 'ending'.

S: You mean an irrevocable ending ?

K: Suppose the 'speaker', this ( K) person says, yes, it is possible, I know it is possible, what ( experiential ) value has it to you?

S: That is what I personally hoped we can discuss.

K: Either you accept ( the experiential possibility of) it; or you say, don't be silly, it is not possible, and you walk away . But if you want to enquire and say, look, is it possible, let's find out - not as an idea but as an actuality in daily life. Right?

Narayan: Dr.Rahula, in the context of Buddhist meditation, what is the value of 'mindfulness' in relation to the ending of ( the self-identified continuity of ) thought?

R: Mindfulness, or rather 'the presence of awareness' has many aspects, not only one but the most important thing is the mindfulness, awareness in (real time of ) everything (one is doing) . Even now what we do here the deepest sort of meditation ? Being mindful of everything you do, whatever you do, eating, drinking, or going about, talking, everything is mindfulness. And all that leads to what he (K) says – the ending of the ( subliminal?) thought process of 'self' (- identification?) .

K: Sir, I hope you don't think me irreverent to what the Buddha said, but I don't want to start with somebody telling me what to do, or what to think. As a (holistically responsible ?) human being, suffering, going through agonies, sex and mischief, and terror, and all the rest of it, in enquiring into all that I come to the ( critical) point, which is ( the ending of) thought. That's all. I don't have to know all the (religious) literature in the world, which will only condition my further thinking.

R: I fully agree with you and that is my attitude as well. I am talking in order to examine it.

K: You see I only start with what is a (psychological) 'fact', for me - I suffer, I have fears, I have sexual demands. How am I to deal with all these tremendously complex things which make my life miserable, unhappy. From there I start, with something which is common to all of us. I suffer, I want to find out to end it, or must I carry on for the rest of my life - this agony, this brutality, the sexual desires, all the rest of it. So I see the root of all this confusion, uncertainty, insecurity, travail, effort, the root of this is the 'self', the 'me'. Now is it possible to be free of this (all-controlling) 'me' ( entity?) which produces all this chaos, both outwardly, politically, religiously, economically and all the rest of it, and also inwardly, this constant struggle, constant battle, constant effort? So I am asking, can thought end? So, if (the self-centred) thought has no future - that which ends then has a totally different beginning.
Now, in what manner can ( the self-centred process of) thought end? Somebody like me comes along and says, effort is the very essence of the self.

S: You mean that the very effort that I make to end it, that in itself is already contributing to my delusion?
K: The (mental entity) who is making an effort to reach it, is still the movement of thought.

S: And it is still bargaining - if I do this, then I will get that.

K: So if a person like me says, effort of any kind only strengthens the self. Now how do you receive (or listen to?) that statement?

Bohm: Do we listen in the same way we have made identifications, that is in general we listen through the ( experience of the ) past, through our previous ideas, through what we know?

K: Can you 'listen' without the idea of receiving, or accepting, or denying, or arguing, just listen to a statement? It may be false, it may be true, but just listen to it. Can you do it?

S: I would say yes.

K: Then if you so listen, what takes place? I listen to a statement that thought is the root of the self. After carefully explaining the mood of thought which identifies itself with the form, with the name, with this and that and the other thing. So after explaining very carefully, it is said that thought is the very root of the self. Now how do we receive, listen to the truth of that fact, that ''thought is the root of the self''? Is it an idea, a conclusion, or is it an absolute, irrevocable fact?

R: If you ask me, it is a fact. You see I listen to it, receive it. I see it.

K: Are you listening as a ( highly knowledgeable?) Buddhist - forgive me for putting it that way?

R: I am not identifying with anything at all. I am not listening to you as a Buddhist or as a non-Buddhist.

K: Are you listening to the ideas, to the words, and the implications of those words, or are you listening without any sense of verbally (processed) comprehension, and you say, yes, I see the absolute truth of that?

R: That is what I said.

K: Do you?

R: Yes.

K: Then it (the self-centred continuity of thought?) is finished. It is like seeing something tremendously dangerous, it is over, you don't touch it.

B: It seems to me there is a tendency to listen through the words, as you say, and that (verbal understanding) identifies , and therefore thhought's identification still goes on while one thinks one is listening. This is the problem. It is very subtle.

K: When you say something about what the Buddha has said, I listen. I say, he is just quoting from what Buddha has said, but he is not saying something that I want to know - what you think, not what Buddha thought, because then we are establishing a direct relationship between you and me, and not between you, Buddha and me? I wonder if you see that.

R: That also means you were listening...

K: I was listening to what you were saying about Buddha. Just listening. I don't know. You are quoting, probably what you are quoting was perfectly so, you are quoting probably correctly and so on, but you are not revealing yourself to me and I am revealing myself to you. Therefore we have a relationship through the Buddha, not direct relationship.

S: So, what you are looking for is our personal experiential response ?

K: Your personal experience is also the experience of everybody else ; if you and I suffer it is suffering, not my suffering and your suffering. But when there is (thought's ) identification with suffering there is 'my' suffering. But as human beings (living) in the world we (all) suffer (of something or ather, at various degrees ?) .

B: It seems to me this question of ( thought's self-) identification is the main one ; and it is very subtle, because in spite of all that you have said, the identification still goes on (subliminally?) .

K: Of course.

B: It seems to be built into us.

S: And this raises the question whether that identification can be ended - if I understood rightly.

B: Identification prevented listening freely, openly, because one 'listens through' the identification.

K: What does ( thought's ) identification mean? Why do human beings identify themselves with something - my car, my house, my wife, my children, my country, my god, my - you follow? Not only identify with outward things, but also inwardly identify with 'my' experience. Why do human beings go through this all the time?

B: At one stage you said we identify with our sensations, for example, our senses, and this seems very powerful.

K: Yes. So when one 'listens', am I listening to identify myself with ( the desire to understand?) the ( inner) 'fact' about which he is talking, or there is no identification at all and therefore I am capable of listening with a totally different ear, with a total attention? I attend so completely when there is only the act of listening and nothing else, no identification, no saying, yes, that is a good idea, bad idea, that's true, that's false, which are all processes of identification, but without any of those movements can I listen? And when I do so listen, then what? The very ( insight into the ) truth that ( the self-centred ) thought is the essence of the 'self', and that the 'self' creates all this ( psychological) misery, it is all over when I see the ( inward) 'danger' of these things. So can we listen so completely that there is the absence of the self? Can one see, observe something (directly) without the ( all-controlling interference of the?) 'self' ?

So when there is such an active, non-identifying (quality of) attention, then does the self exist? Such active listening also implies listening to the whole sensory movement. You can't stop the senses, then you would be paralysed. But the moment I say, "That's a marvellous taste, I must have more of that", begins the whole (psycho-somatic) identification.

B: It seems to me that that is the present general condition of mankind, to be identifying with the senses. Now how are we going to change that?

K: That is the whole problem sir. Mankind had been educated, conditioned for millenia to identify with everything - my guru, my house, my god, my country, my king, my queen...

B: And attached with each one of those there is a sensation.

K: It is a sensation, which you call 'experience'.

( Intermission )

R: So should we come back to our point ?

K: When the 'self' (identifcation?) ends – and it can end, obviously, ( except for only the most ignorant and for the people who are identifying themselves with knowledge and all that...) when there is the ending of (thought's) 'self' (identification) , what takes place? Not at the end of my life, not when the brain becomes deteriorated, when the brain is very, very active, quiet, alive, what then takes place, when the self ( identification ) is not? Say, X has ended the self completely, and he says, yes, there is a totally different activity which is not ( based on) the self, a different ( perception of the ) world altogether, a different (inner) dimension, something totally different.
Can one , as a ( holistically inclined?) human being, living in this tremendously complex & violent world, economically, socially, morally and all the rest of it, live without ( asserting my) 'self'? Then I begin to enquire, why is there identification with the form, with the name . So you examine this very, very carefully not to identify yourself with anything, with sensation, with ideas, with a country, with an experience. Can you do it with the passion & intensity (necessary) to find it out.
That means I must put everything in its 'right' place - all the bodily demands, sex, put it in its right place. How shall I find it out? I have got the key to it : the non-identification with sensation, that is the key of it. ( Hint ; the identification with sensation, is translated in the modern world as (the desire to) experience - ( as in:) I must experience sex. So thought's ( subliminal) identification with sensation makes the self. So is it possible ( for the holistically friendly mind ? ) not to identify with sensations? So I have got the ( experiential) key to it, the truth of it. Right sirs? Non-identification, that is the truth of it. If I really see the truth of it then sex, money, everything has its right place.

R: In other words, you see without the 'self' ?

K: No, there is the ( realisation of the ) truth that identification with sensation, with this, or that, builds the structure of the self. Is that an absolute, irrevocable, passionate, everlasting truth? Or is it just an idea which I have ( subliminally?) accepted, yes, it's true, but I can change my ideas tomorrow? This thing is irrevocable.

B: Does it means the end of the desire for anything ?

K: No, but ( when brought into its right place?) desire has very little meaning. But it doesn't mean I am a dead vegetable.

B: Are you saying ( that thought's self ) identification gives desire excessive meaning?

K: Of course. So having put everything in its right place – and this happens because I have seen the truth of this thing so everything falls in its right place.

R: I see what you say.

K: Then what is the right place of thought? Obviously when I am talking I am using words, the words are associated with memory and so on and so on, so there is ( some) thinking (involved ) there - thought has a place when I have to catch a train, when I have to go to ( work or???) when I go to do something, thought has its proper place. But it has no place psychologically when the ( self-) identifying process is taking place. I wonder if you see ( the beauty of) this ?
(In a nutshell:) having the key, or living with the truth of ( seeing danger of) that (self-) identification brings about the structure and the nature of the self, which creates all the innumerable problems, seeing the truth is putting thought in its right place.

B: You are saying it is ( thought's subliminal self-) identification that makes thought do all the wrong things.

K: That's right. Identification has made thought do the wrong things.

B: It would be all right otherwise ?

K: Otherwise thought has its place.

B: But when you say no identification, you mean the self is empty, that it has no content, doesn't it?

K: There are only sensations.

B: Sensations, but if they are not identified, they are just going on, do you mean?

K: Yes, sensations are going on.

B: Outside or inside ?

K: Inside.

N: And you are also implying there is no slipping back ?

K: Of course not. When you see something most dangerous, you don't slip back - it 'is' dangerous. So then, is that ( the psychological aspect of ) death? That is the question we began with.

R: Yes, yes.

K: Death as we know it, is the body deteriorating , there is no oxygen going to the brain and all the rest of it. So it dies. Sensations die with it. Right?

B: Sensations, you say, die with the body ?

K: No ( physical) sensation. Right? But is it possible to live a daily life with 'death', which is the ending of the self? A living with the sensation fully awakened - they are alive, but the non-identifying with sensation wipes away the 'self'.

B: Would you say that such an insight transforms the person?

K: The insight transforms not only the state of the mind but the brain cells themselves undergo a change.

B: Therefore the brain cells being in a different state behave differently, it is not necessary to repeat the insight.

K: So I am left with the question of ( the inner significance of the ) ending of the 'self' - no self- identification of any kind. This is a tremendous thing. Non-identification with anything, with experience, with belief, with a country, with ideas, with ideals, wife, husband, love, no identification at all. Is that (the psychological?) death? People may say ''My God, if I don't identify myself with my something or other, I am nothing''. So they are afraid of being nothing ( and therefore?) they identify. But this ( state of inner) 'no-thingness', which is being (inwardly transparent?) 'as nothing', is quite a different state of mind. Now that is ( the living significance of ) death, while there is living, sensations, the heart beating, the blood circulating, breathing, the brain active, undamaged.
And when there is (the death of) self-identification, then is that Love? . The 'dying while living' is (bringing ) that love in which there is no attachment. When there is that love, it is not just for the woman whom I love, it is a 'global' (holistic) love.

R: Yes.

K: What relation has that quality with compassion? Or is compassion the same as love?

R: In the Buddhist language, 'karuna' is compassion, but love or 'maitri', is more than compassion.

K: Sir, does one ( have this sense of) love without identification, which implies no self, no attachment?

R: That is the true love.

K: I am asking you - as a human being, not as a Buddhist- as a human being without identification with your senses and so on and so on, do you love a woman or a man, or a child, or the sky or a stray dog without identifying? They all suffer - the woman suffers, the man suffers, the dog has a terrible life, a stray dog, chased and kicked. And when there is no self- identification do you have compassion for that dog? Is that compassion an idea - ''I must have compassion for the suffering, for the poor, for the demented''?

B: Would there be love if there were no suffering? You know, if mankind were to be free of it ?

K: No, I haven't come to compassion yet, sir. I just want to know as a human being, do I (have) love for somebody - the dog, the chimney, the clouds, that beautiful sky, without identifying? Not as a theory but fact.

S: As long as the 'I' is acting as 'self', I cannot do it.

K: We said the truth is the identification breeds the self which causes all the trouble, miseries. It is an absolute, irrevocable reality, it is in my blood, I can't get rid of my blood, it is there.

S: Then I cannot help but 'love'.

K: Do you see the (inner) truth that identification is the root of the self, with thought and all the rest of it? That is an absolute fact, like a cobra, like a dangerous animal, like a precipice, like taking deadly poison. It is only when this inner truth (is seen) that identification is absolutely cut out of one's life, there is no callousness - because that (newly born sense of compassion & love ?) is 'real'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Oct 2018 #139
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

THE "WHOLISTIC" SEEING

3-rd K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM AND TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS cca 1978 ( 'reader friendly' edited)

R: One (of my bonus?) question is about the (inner significance of) free will, which has played a very important part in the western culture. According to Buddhism, such a thing is impossible because all our thinking is conditioned. Therefore one's 'free will' is 'free' only in a relative sense and it is not the absolute freedom.

K: Let's talk it over, sir. What is the origin, the beginning of will? ''I will do this'', ''I won't do that''. Now what is the meaning of 'will'? Is it not (a thought enforced form of?) desire?

R: It is the ( drive of  ?) desire.

K: ( The drive of) desire accentuated, heightened, strengthened ( by thought's self-interest?) , which we call 'will' (or 'will power'?) .

Bohm: It seems to me that we make it 'determined'. We 'determine' the object of desire. We say, "I am determined (to take this course of action?) ". So, it gets 'fixed' there.
K: I desire to get 'that', and to achieve it I make an effort. That effort, the motive of that effort is desire. So will is desire. Right?

R: It is a form of desire.

K: Now, can desire ever be free? (The self-centred thought?) can change the objects of desire: I can desire one year to go to buy this, the next year that, change, but desire is constant, the objects vary. And the strengthening of desire, I 'will' do that, the will is in operation. Will is desire. Now can desire ever be free?

R: No.

K: But we say 'free will' exists because I can choose between this and that, I can go from England to France 'freely'. So the idea of 'free will' is ( politically & economically?) cultivated with a sense that human beings are 'free to choose'. I can (certainly) choose between this car and that car, between that house and so on, but apart from material things, apart from certain books and so on, what is there the necessity of choice at all? If I absorb the whole significance of Catholicism, with its abstractions, with its rituals, dogmas, you know the whole circus in it, and I abandon that, why should I join something else? Because when I have investigated this I have investigated all the 'organised' religions. So ( in the 'psychological' field) choice must exist only when the mind is confused. When one's mind is ( seeing ) clear(ly) there is no choice. Is that right?

B: Probably the western philosophers might not agree with you. They say that ( 'free) will' is not ( just a thought-enforced) desire, but an act ( of freedom) ? I think people have the impression that ( free) will is something entirely different (than mere choice)

K: Yes, that will is something derived from a divine being.
But if one puts all that aside, which is rather 'problematical' then what is 'will' and what is 'choice', and what is ( the holistic way of?) action without choice and will? Is there any action which is not compounded with ( personal or collective ) will?

N: Would you say that 'insight' has nothing to do with will?

K: Oh, nothing whatever to do with will, or desire, or memory.

N: So insight is ( the holistically perceptive action) which is free from will, and from analysis.

R: Yes. Insight is 'seeing'. And in that ( inner clarity of) seeing there is no choice, there is no discrimination, there is no judgement, there are no moral values. You 'see'.

N: So 'insight' ( the 'time free' holistic perception?) is not visible to will, nor is it visible to analysis.

R: No.

K: You are making it ( sound) so theoretical. You have defined it, it is not this, it is not that, and then you may think you have insight. If I may point out, we are talking over together about ( holistic way of  life & ?) action in which there is no choice, in which there is no effort as will. Is there such action?

R: There is such an action.

K: Is it a ( ^sychologically convenient) theory? Or we're finding out for ourselves the truth of that matter: which is, is there a (desire free?) action in which there is no effort of will at all, and therefore no choice? To find that out one must be very clear, mustn't one, of the ( time-binding?) nature of desire : desire is part of sensation and thought identifies itself with that sensation, and through identification the 'I' is built up, the 'ego' who then says, "I must", or "I will not".
So we are trying to find out if there is a (holistcally friendly way of ?) action which is not based on ideals, on desire, on will (power?). ( Hint : 'spontaneous' is a rather dangerous (slippery?) word because most of our actions have an (open or hidden motive. ) And the ( personal or collective?) motive is part of the ( self-) identification process. So if there is an (inward) perception of the truth that identification builds the whole nature, the structure of the self, then is there an action which doesn't spring from ( self-centred) thought?

B: Before we go into that, could we ask why there is (this self-) identification, why is it that this is so prevalent?

K: Why does thought identify (itself)...

B:... with sensation and other things ? Isn't there a duality (involved ) in ( any self-) identification? Could we make it clear ?

K: In identification, as you point out sir, there is duality, the 'identifier' and the 'identified'. But I want to find out whether is there an action in one's daily life, in which the 'self (-identified' entity ?) is not (interfering ) ? Which means that the ( holistically-friendly?) mind has to find out an action which is not the result or an effect of a series of causes and effects. Is there such an action?

B: Well, it seems that we can't find it as long as we are (inwardly) identifying.

K: That's right. As long as ( the self-) identification exists I can't find the answer.

B: But why does thought identify? Is that irresistible or is it ( as you imply ?) something one can put aside?

K: I don't know if that is irresistible, or if it is part of sensation.

B: You think that sensation is behind that?

K: It may be... So why have sensations become so important in life - sexual sensations, the sensation of power, (etc...) why has thought yielded to this ( subliminal) pressure?

B: Does sensation necessarily produce a ( psychological) pressure?

K: It does when it is ( 'thought- ?) identified'.

B: Well ; it is clear that we may have a remembered sensation of pleasure.

K: Senses, the operation of the senses - touching, tasting, seeing, smelling, hearing.

B: And also the ( pleasant or painful) memories of it.

K: No, the ( psychological) memory is only when there is an identification with it. When there is no ( subliminal thought ?) identification the senses are senses. But why does thought identify itself with senses?

B: Are you saying that when the sensation is remembered then we have identification?

K: Yes.

B: Can we make that more clear?

K: Let's work at it. There is the seeing a beautiful ( Swiss?) lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only the seeing by the eye, but also the totality of the senses are being awakened, the smell of the water, the trees on the lake...The other senses start operating. Why doesn't it stop there?

B: What is the next step?

K: The (self-identified ?) thought comes in - how beautiful that is, I wish I could remain here.

B: So thought 'identifies' it (by creating an personal 'image' ?) .

K: Yes. Because in that there is ( a self- gratifying sensation of ?) pleasure – and ( ASAP?) thought coming into operation and saying, "I must have more, I must build a house here, it is mine".

B: But why does thought do that ?

K: Why does thought interfere with senses ? Now wait a minute, sir. If the senses would take the (sensation of) pleasure and say, "How delightful", and stop there, thought doesn't ( have to) enter. Right? Now why does thought enter? If the sensation is painful, thought avoids it, it doesn't ( want to?) identify itself with that.

B: It identifies against it, it says, "I don't want it".

K: But if (the sensation ) is pleasurable, when the senses (the sensory consciousness?) begin to enjoy, say, "How nice", then thought begins to identify itself with it.

B: But why doesn't it give it up when it sees how ( time-binding & ?) futile this is?

K: Oh, that's much later, when thought is becoming aware that identification breeds both pleasure and ( dependency or?) fear, then it begins to question.

B: Well, are you saying that thought has made a simple (honest?) mistake in the beginning...

K: ... in identifying with something that brings to it pleasure.

B: And thought tries to take over to make it 'permanent', perhaps.

K: Permanent, that's right, which means ( recording it it into its 'psychologically active'?) memory. A remembrance of the lake with the daffodils and the trees and the water and sunlight, and all the rest of it...

B: And even if thought discovers later that it made a mistake, it seems to be too late because it doesn't know how to stop.

K: It is now 'conditioned'.

B: Can we make it clear why it cannot give it up -( by using its free will?) ?

K: Why doesn't thought give up something ( of which it is becoming aware that it is ultimately?) destructive ?
Let's take a simple example: one is getting hurt 'psychologically'. Why can't one immediately give up (the 'self-image' that the?) hurt, knowing that ( the keeping the memory of that) hurt is going to create a great deal of (collateral) damage like building a (mental fire-) wall round myself not to be hurt anymore, there is isolation & the whole chain neurotic reactions that follows. Thought has created a ( feel-good) 'image' about myself, and that image gets hurt. Why doesn't thought say, "Yes, by Jove, I have seen this", drop ( its subliminal attachment to it?) immediately? Because when it drops the ( self-) image there is nothing left (to protect itself?) .

B: Then you have another ingredient because thought wants to hold on to the ( personal) memories of that self- image as it feels they are very precious.

K: Yes, nostalgic and all the rest of it.

B: So somehow it gives very high ( sentimental ) value to all that. How did it come to do that?

K: Why has this 'self-image' - which thought has created- become so important?

B: In the beginning it was a simple mistake, and thought made an image of pleasure and as it ( got attached to it) it seemed to become precious, and was unable to give it up.

K: Yes, if thought gives up ( all its personal memories of ) pleasure, what is there left?

B: It will return to the state in the beginning when there was nothing.

K: Ah, that is the pristine state.

B: It is unable to return to that state.

K: It can't...

B: ...because when thought thinks of 'giving up' a ( self-rewarding) pleasure which has become very precious, then the mere thought of that is painful.

K: Yes, giving up is (resented as) painful.

B: And therefore thought runs away from that (undesirable option?) .

K: Yes, so it clings to that pleasure until there is the (opportunity ) of a better pleasure.

B: But you see, in the ( early childhood?) beginning it was not frightened to have nothing else.

K: Yes.

B: Now it is.

K: Yes, In the beginning, that means the beginning being the beginning of man. Can we question even the beginnings of the ape ?

B: You want to say it has been going a long time, but thought has built this trap which has gradually got worse.

K: Sir, could we say as the human brain is very old and merely tracing it back further and further and further, you can never find out (its original condition?) . But I can say my brain is now as it is, which is very old, conditioned, in terms of pleasure and pain.

B: They say the 'old brain' is also the emotional product of the brain.

K: Of course, emotional and all the rest of it, sensory. So where are we now?

B: Well, we say this brain has conditioned itself by continually (recycling the ) memory of the image of pleasure, (& by avoiding?) the unpleasantness of giving it up and by the ( sublimnal fear of being inwardly left with nothing) .

K: So it clings to that which it 'knows'.

B: Which it knows and which is ( becoming) very precious to it.

K: But it doesn't know that ( eventually) it is going to breed fear.

B: Even when it knows this , it still clings.

K: So, it would much rather 'run away' from fear hoping the pleasure will continue.

B: And eventually it starts to become irrational because it creates pressures which make the brain irrational and unable to get this straight.

K: Yes. So, where are we now at the end of this (psychological detour?) ? We started off, by asking if there an action in which the self doesn't enter into it at all? Of course there is. There is when the self- identifying process does not takes place. There is the perceiving of a beautiful lake with all the colour and the glory and the beauty of it, that's enough. Not the cultivating of memory, which is developed through the identification process. Right?

B: This raises the question, how are we going to stop this ( instinctual self-) identification?

K: I don't think there is a 'how' (in terms of practicing a system) – which makes the mind mechanical, dull and literally incapable of receiving anything new.

Schloegel: If it just imitates it, this is precisely what happens.

R: That means if that ( spiritual) practice becomes an imitation then the mind is mechanical.

K: Do you remember that ( funny) story of a guru who had a favourite cat, and he had many disciples. Every morning before they all started meditation, he caught hold of the cat, put it on his lap, and meditated. And when the cat died the disciples had to search around for a (replacement ?) cat.

R: I heard it quite differently. The cat was tied up so he could not come and listen.

K: Same thing. You see our minds have been made mechanical. Can't we investigate 'why' (inwardly) we have become 'mechanical', rather than practice ( a 'choiceless' awareness?) which is (supposed to be) non-mechanical, which may be mechanical ?

S: We certainly can, since there have been people who have become 'whole' (holy?) before us...

K: I don't know. ( Experientially-wise?) I can start only with myself. I don't ( have to) look to somebody who is ( supposed to be) enlightened. They may deceive themselves.

S: This is why I am trying to find...

K: So one must start with 'oneself'. From there I begin. It is so simple, whereas the other leads to so many complications.

S: I do not necessarily see it as a complication. If I have an idea that there is something that is more than my illusion, my suffering, my general state of dissatisfaction in which I am (stuck inwardly) and I see that there might be a possibility, I do not need to take it for truth, but it gives me the sense that it is worthwhile trying to work with myself as my own subject of experiment, to work it out.

K: Why do you want a motive?

S: I think it is almost impossible not to start with that motive because (any such search) starts from 'self' (interest?) .

K: (Or?) I just want to know what I ( really) am, not according to anybody but just know about myself. So I begin to enquire, I begin to look ( objectively?) in the mirror (of relationship ) , which is ( a reflexion of?) myself. This (magic?) 'mirror' says, ''your ( self-centred) reactions are these, and as long as you have these reactions you are going to pay heavily, you are going to suffer''. So now how am I, an ordinary ( holistically inclined?) human being, knowing all my reactions, ugly, pleasant, hateful, all the reactions one has, to bring about a ( transpersonal quality?) of observation in which there is no motive to restrain, or to expand those reactions? Generally (such motivation is based on) ( the fear of failure or?) punishment and ( the expectations of some ) reward. Which is obviously too absurd (infantile?) . So can I look at myself without any ( open or hidden personal ) motivation ?

S: At this early stage of enquiry I cannot ( actually) do this , I am too conditioned.

K: No, I wouldn't admit that (escuse?) . You are always asking for help.

S: No, but in the same way that I can do a physical training, I can be able slowly, but not immediately, start to look at the proximity of those things that I do normally not like to see in myself.

K: I understand that madam. That same mentality is carried over - I don't know myself but I will gradually learn about myself.

S: In the very reality of one's ( existential?) suffering there is a changing factor which in the end makes ( the inner mindfulness?) possible.
K: Which is again ( the mentality of a ) gradual ( inner) evolution – which, if I may point out, is an 'illusion'.

S: I would like to make another point here : whether we have done it starting with the motive (of self-interest) and began slowly in the other direction , or whether we have done it ( for reasons) unknown to ourselves so that it does suddenly happen on the basis of the ( holistically friendly?) life that we have lived, does not really make any difference.

K: Madam, either you have ( a holistic?) insight immediately, or you don't have it.

S: yes, that is true but...

K: Ah, there is no preparation, that means time, which means cultivating, identification, the 'me'.

S: No.

K: Of course. The moment you allow time it is the cultivation of the 'self'.

S: Not necessarily. But if I do it for something that I want to gain out of it then it is certainly a cultivation of the self.

K: Madam, as we said just now, ( the inner flash of?) 'insight' is devoid of time and memory. Insight is timeless, it must 'happen'. 'You' can't gradually come to it, it is not a (mental quality?) cultivated by thought. So, is it possible to have an 'insight' ( a 'satori' moment ?) into oneself instantly, not by degrees ?

S: I would say with my own conviction and experience, yes.

K: Say 'yes' to what?

S: That it is possible.

K: That means if you have a (total) insight, that insight wipes away the 'self' (-centredness?) , not momentarily. So would you say action then is without any (personal ) motive? Do you know such action - not occasionally, but in the everyday life? And, as ( the inner clarity of such) insight is devoid of time and divorced from memory & thought, therefore is there an ( holistic?) action born of insight? You understand?

R: If you have (such an?) insight, there is no exception, all your actions are without motive.

K: Are we talking theoretically or actually?

R: Actually.

K: That means (your) action is correct, accurate, right through life ?

R: Yes. There is no self, there is no motive if you have that insight. Every action...

K: Have you got that 'insight' into the whole nature of the self ? . And therefore, if there is an 'insight' into the (illusory nature of the?) 'self', then one's action will inevitably follow from that insight.

S: May I make one point clear ? It is not that I have the insight, that is not possible. There is that insight. It is not as if 'I' had it.

K: If I say, "I have an insight into that", I am a little bit mentally deranged.

R: Then there is my other ( bonus?) question dealing with 'intelligence'. You see, many people say that we think in a language ; now, thought itself has no language, but it is immediately interpreted into the nearest language.

K: Sir, could you convey your 'thought' (what you have in mind?) to me without the word?

R: That depends on the level.

K: Which means what?

R: I don't know whether you have had that experience, without talking, without words, there is communication.

K: That is, sir, there can only be ( a shared ) communication, or communion, when you and I are on the same level, and with the same intensity, at the same time. Then the words are not necessary. What is the quality of that state of (non-verbal sharing ) ? Wouldn't you call that ( the intelligence of?) 'love'?

R: Yes.

K: Sir, when two people (are sharing ?) the extraordinary quality of this state, words are not necessary. When that (holistic) quality of love exists, the words become unnecessary. There is instant communication.
( But in the absence of it?) the language is driving us, pushes us, shapes us. Our minds are conditioned by language, which is, the words drive us, force us . Now, if we use words without the language ( subliminally?) directing us, words then have an entirely different meaning.

B: I think that ordinarily we are identified with our language and therefore it is driving us, but if we are free of this identification...

K: That's right, sir, It is extraordinary how language has made us (think?) . I am a communist.

B: That's a ( verbal self) identification. But do you think that language is the major source of identification?

K: One of them.

B: One of the big ones.

K: Yes.

R: I would like to remind here of a very important Mahayana Buddhist philosophical attitude which says that ''the ( consciousness of the?) world is caught up in language''. And the ordinary man is stuck in words just like an elephant in the mud, and so one must go beyond words to see them. Because as long as you are, as you say, driven by language...

K: Are you?

R: Are you asking me, personally?

K: Yes, are you? Am I? Is Dr.Bohm driven by language?

R: That I can't see. You can answer only for yourself.

K: Absolutely.

N: But I think the more scholarly (minded) one becomes, there is a greater possibility of being caught in language.

R: Yes...

N: Whereas the 'rustic' ('suburban' person ?) might just use it for simple (utilitarian?) communication.

K: Sir, does the words create the thought, or thought creates the words?

B: You once asked the question, is there a thought without the word?

K: That is very interesting, sir, shall we go into it a little bit?

R: Is there a thought without the word ?

B: That is the question.

R: I think thought has no words. Thought is an image.

K: No, we are using (the holistic syntagm  ?) 'the word' in the larger sense of the (mental) symbol, the image (conveyed by the ) word.

B: You see the 'word' can easily be turned into an image, for example, a verbal description can be turned by an artist ( or even by the casual reader?) into an image, or vice versa, the image could be described and turned into words. So they have an equivalent content.

K: Sir, what is the 'origin' of thought?

R: Is there an origin?

K: Of course, sir, there must be a beginning of thought.

R: That is a wrong way of looking at it – that everything must have a beginning.

K: I am just asking how did 'thought' begin? With the dog, with the birds & animals, everything that is living, they all 'think' or 'feel' in various ways – so, there must be a beginning of that. What is this ( origin of thought?) in human beings ? Was it handed down by my father, by my parents, by education, by environment, by the ( streaming consciousness of the?) past? I want to know : what made you 'think' ?

R: I would say, nothing made me think, it is in the nature of yourself, thinking. There is no other cause.

K: Oh yes there is. I'll show you.

R: What is that?

K: I am not the final authority, but if I had no memory, would there be thinking?

R: I ask you again, what is the origin of memory?

K: That's fairly simple to answer. I remember meeting you in Paris - that is recorded, isn't it? And then I say, yes, I recognize you. How does that 'recognition' take place?

R: This is a question that I very much wanted to ask you to clarify .

K: I meet you now, and in a year's time you come back for a discussion. Then I say, ''yes, this is Mr.Rahula, we met last year''. How does that take place? Very simple : the brain has recorded that memory of meeting you, learning your name. So that is memory, and when I meet you next time I recognize you. Right?

R: How does it happen?

K: It is very simple. The (sub-conscious process of ) recording is going on (mechanically in the brain's cells) . I meet you today, there is a remembrance, which is the recording process. No? It is so simple.

R: It is not so clear to me. Let us admit it is recorded, how does that record come up when we meet next year?

K: When I see you. That memory comes up and says, oh, he is Mr. Rahula. . So this whole process is recorded - how I learnt to drive a car, how I learnt to speak English, French, German, whatever it is, there must be recording. No?

R: Certainly it is so. But I want to say is, it is not in the brain. That is the thing. It is in the nature of what we call generally the 'mental faculty'.

K: It is the faculty of the brain to record.

R: It is not in the physical brain. That is my point.

N: You are saying that the mental faculty is spread all over the body, not necessarily in the head?

R: ( According to Buddhism?) the 'mental faculty' is one of the sense organs - there are five physical sense organs, but there is the mental faculty (a mental interface through) which the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body deals with the external world, material world. This mental faculty has many, many aspects, many potentialities; and one ( of them ) is the memory. And what I want to clarify from you is how does it happen, and of course you begin with the idea of the recording ( mechanism ) in the brain, with this I disagree.

K: Sir, let's cut out the brain, for the moment. I meet you today and I see you a week later. There is the process of (visual memory ) recognition. That's one part of the (mental) faculty. The other part of the faculty is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, faculties which are made up in the mind. You cannot have mind without the brain.

R: Yes. Not only the brain, but without the body, without the stomach, without the heart. Without the physical existence you can't have the mind.

K: That's all. Therefore the mind is part of the senses, the mind is part of the thought, emotions, certain faculties and so on and so on. Is that whole structure of the ( psychosomatic) organism, the whole brain, body, eyes, ears, all that is part of this 'mind' which is (involved in) the process of thinking. No?

B: Are you saying that the 'mind' is ( synonimous with?) thought, or is (there in ) it something more than thought as well?

K: I don't want to say that. I wanted to say that as long as it is functioning within the field of thought the ( average self-centred?) mind is limited.

B: You mean ( the time-bound ?) consciousness ?

K: Yes, consciousness is limited.

B: It is limited by these ( mental) 'faculties', wherever they are ?

K: Yes, that's right, whatever they are.

B: But as far as recognition goes, people are even making (e-) machines that can imitate ( & outperform?) the process of recognition. You know you can recognize simple things already by means of a computer.

S: And yet, if I have met you just for a moment, and there was not a sufficient impact of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by and not recognize you.

B: That's the point, it has to be recorded with some energy, you see.

K: All recording must have energy.

B: If you don't turn on the microphone nothing is recorded.

R: And many things that we see and hear we don't remember, only things that leave a certain impression.

B: I think it is fairly clear how the recording could give rise to the next experience. The next time you see the person the record is compared with.

R: It is exactly like the computer.

K: So our brains are computers.

R: I should say, no ; the brain may be only the basis – but without the whole body, without the heart can you think?

K: We said ( previously?) that the 'mind' contains the brain, the feelings, the heart, the whole structure.

B: All the nerve centres.

K: We are using the (term) 'mind' as ( synonimous with) consciousness, which is I cannot have consciousness if the heart doesn't function.

R: That is why I used the word mental faculty - the mind has the power, the capacity, the potentiality, to do all that. And you can't ask why and from where.

K: So the mind is the active ( intelligent?) energy to do all this.

B: And I think that the infant has the 'ability to think' already built into him because of the heredity.

K: I don't know sir, but I do know the very simple thing which is, without ( mental) recording there is no thought.

R: That means that (the origin of) thought is memory.

K: Of course. Thought is ( the mental response of) memory, which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up, and when it is challenged it operates.

B: Without memory none of the other ( mental) faculties could operate.

K: Of course. So what is the origin, the beginning of this conditioning? Why does man condition himself? For security, to avoid danger? Obviously. I believe in Christ, because I have been brought up in the Christian world, that's my conditioning, and this life is a miserable life, unhappy life, but if I believe in Christ which gives me a certain sense of comfort, strength, to face this appalling thing, the world, so it gives me great comfort. So the instinctual response of any human brain is to feel secure, like a child, sir, obviously. From that ( basic need of) physical security we turn to psychological security, which ( my belief in ) Christ gives me. So we go on & on , each one of us clings to our own particular form of security, whether it is reasonable, sane, rational, that doesn't matter.

R: But where are we going (in this discussion?) ?

K: We haven't discussed the central issue : what is ( a holistic way of?) action without this enormous complex of motives, reactions, regrets, pain, sorrow. Can a human being live a daily life without all this dreadful confusion? So I must understand is there an action which is total, which is complete, total, whole, not partial ? Which ( inwardly-wise?) means can I observe myself wholly, not in fragments? I say, yes, there is, definitely. Don't you ask me, what is that ?

R: What is that ((holistically friendly action) ?

K: First of all, can you see with your ( physical) eyes the tree as a whole? Can you see your wife, or your husband as a whole entity? Do you understand my question? Can one see anything totally, or are you always seeing partially?

R: When you use the words 'seeing totally' what is the (experiential?) meaning?

K: Whole. Can I see ( the consciousness of) humanity as myself? Because ( the conflicted consciousness of ) humanity is ( very similar to ?) mine , suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure, sorrow-ridden, like another's . So in seeing man, humanity, I see myself.

R: It also works the other way: by seeing yourself you see humanity.

K: Which is : I am not separate from humanity. So seeing the world as myself, is (the seeing of the ?) whole. Would that be right sir?

B: But it is not clear when you say 'you see the tree as a whole'...

K: The whole thing, to see something wholly, sir.

B: Just 'see it all', right ?

S: I think we are in a slight language (created ) difficulty here because , " Seeing as a whole", does really mean that the fallacy of the 'self' (centred consciousness?) has clearly been 'seen into' and was broken down, because otherwise however much 'I try to see the tree as a whole' it is still my thought.

K: That is the ultimate thing. But ( for starters?) can you see your husband, your wife as a whole being? Totally, you know. You can, can't you? How does that happen when you can see somebody wholly?

S: A tremendous warmth comes in.

K: If you ( have?) 'love' that tree you will see it wholly.

S: But we have also to be careful what we mean by 'love'.

K: Keep it very simple, don't intellectualize. If I (have authentic ) love for somebody, a (transpersonal ?) 'love' which is not possessive, acquisitive & all the rest, if ( the seeing with?) 'love' , the totality of that man or woman is there.
Now ( the next step is:) can I see myself 'wholly' - as being not different from humanity ? I 'am' the world. I can only see myself as a 'whole' (consciousness?) when I am actually the rest of mankind.

B: You mean in essence, you mean that essentially I am the same as the whole.

K: Essentially, basically, as a human being. Then there is no individual effort, nor collective effort. Right? When one sees oneself as a whole, the ( conflicting?) parts disappear. But we think by collecting the parts we make the whole. So when I see myself as a whole then the parts disappear, therefore the 'self ( - divided' consciousness?) is not. Sir, when I see that thing, that tree, completely, I can only see it completely if ( I look at it holistically &) I don't ( evaluate, compare or ?) condemn it , and if I don't say, "It's 'my' tree, it's 'my' garden." Right? When I ( look with?) love that tree I can see it as a whole.

B: Would you say then that it is similar to all trees?

K: So I love all trees, whether they are in your garden, or in my garden, or somewhere else.

B: So it doesn't matter, the particulars.

K: That's it. I raised this question of 'seeing wholly' because we were asking : what is the ( human) action which is not fragmented, not broken up as a business man, as the artist, as a lecturer, as a professor, as a priest, an action which is total ? Don't say, if the 'self' is not then you will have it - one is caught in the self (-identified mentality?) ; or rather the 'self' is there.

B: But you are saying, see ( lovingly ) the 'self' ( 'as a whole' and then it will change ?

K: Yes, sir.

B: Therefore would you also say that you have to love the self ?

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( slippery?) statement. I was going to make it and I stopped myself in time because that is what advertising people say, 'Love your hair, use this (pedigreed cucumber) shampoo'.

B: Could you say instead of ''you are mankind'', ''you love mankind''?

K: Ah, now, be careful...

B: Because the analogy seems to be limited...

K: Analogies are limited.

S: So are the words in themselves...

K: Any more questions, sir? We will stop unless you have any more questions.

R: There is no end to these questions, therefore let us finish today like that. But you have answered all my questions, and thank you very much for all your very enlightening explanations.
K: And all the people here, you don't thank me and 'everybody else'.

S: We all 'thank each other'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Oct 2018 #140
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

THE HOLISTIC APPROACH TO TRUTH

4-TH ( reader friendly edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH BUDDHIST SCHOLARS & FRIENDS (cca 1979)

R: Sir, I want to ask you one thing today : we all talk of truth, absolute truth, ultimate truth; and seeing it and realizing it; and of course according to Buddha's teachings, these are very important central points, that is the essence really. And Buddha says ''there is only one truth, there is no second''. But this ( Ultimate Truth?) is never defined in positive terms Sometimes the word ' Truth' is used in place of 'Nirvana'.
But then again, Nirvana is never defined except mostly in negative terms. If it is described in positive terms it is mostly metaphorically, as a symbol, symbolic way.
So, this is (my personal) challenge for today: what is truth, what is absolute truth, what is ultimate truth and what is 'non-duality' as you see it?

K (For starters?) is 'truth' measurable by words? Perhaps if we could distinguish between what is 'reality' and what is 'truth', then perhaps we could penetrate more deeply into this question.
What is 'reality'? The latin root of this word, 'res', means 'things'. Could we say that everything that thought has created is 'reality' - including the cathedrals, the temples, the mosques, and their content the illusions, the gods, the various mantras, rituals, the whole movement of thought and what it has brought about in the ( technological) world like this (tiny) microphone? That is 'reality' - it's made by thought, it is there, actual. Obviously, nature is not created by thought, but we human beings have used ( the things of) nature to produce houses, chairs, and so on and so on. So (to summarise ?) could we say then that anything that thought has created, brought about, put together, is ( creating our everyday ) reality?

R: The Buddhist attitude about this problem is that there is a 'relative truth' and an 'absolute Truth'. What you say is fully accepted, that is the ( relative truth of) reality.

K: Everything that thought has created is ( part of man's everyday everyday) reality : the world of technological knowledge, all the things that thought has put together as literature, poem, painting, illusions, gods, symbols - all that is reality. Would you accept that, sir?

F (Feroz Mehta) : Yes, but this word 'reality' has its denotation; its first meaning as well as its ( spiritual) connotation - through the centuries people have tended to talk of reality more in terms of one of its connotations of 'ultimate reality'.

K: I know, but I would like to separate the two - truth and reality. Otherwise we mix our terms all the time.

S: Are you also including nature in this 'reality' ?

K: No. That tree is not created by thought. But out of that tree man can produce chairs and so on.

S: Is there then a third category of 'things', which is neither truth nor reality?

K: Nature is not created by thought. The tiger, the elephant, the deer. The gazelle that flies along, that obviously is not created by thought.

R: That means, you don't take the tree as a 'reality'.

K: Of course it's an (objective) reality, but it's not created by thought.

R: That's true. Then you include in ( your concept of) 'reality' only the 'things' created by thought,

K: Yes.

R: Of course that is your own definition...

K: I'm just trying to be clear that we understand so as not to mix up these two terms, truth and reality.

R: Yes, I can understand, yes, leave the word truth for another purpose ?

K: Let us look at ( the man-made?) reality - what is this reality? The ( 'real'?) world is reality, the illusions that one has, are also an actual reality.

M: But sir, could we define another category for living creatures, nature, trees, animals, people?

K: A human being is not created by thought. But what he creates...

M: So the 'reality' of which you are speaking is man-made, in a sense.

K: Man-made. Like war is a reality.

F: Could we regard all that is apprehended through the senses, and then interpreted by the brain as 'reality'.

K: That's right, sir.

F: The ( experiential ) point which arises here is that we are not capable of apprehending the totality of what is happening now. We apprehend only a portion of it.

K: What is actually happening (in the real world?) is the 'actual' ( the factual reality ?) . Whether we comprehend the whole of it or part of it, it is a different point. So, what do you say to all this, sirs?

R: I am still hesitating, I'm waiting to hear more.

K: Can the (thoughtful?) mind see that from 'reality' you cannot go to 'truth' ?

SS: That's quite a big jump...
K: Could we start by saying that all our sensory responses are the beginning ( at the origins ) of thought ?

F: Yes.

K: And thought, with all its complex ( various mental 'time-threads' or ?) 'movements', is what is happening now when we're talking.

F: Yes.

K: And the understanding of 'what is' actually happening depends on thought. All that, including illusions and the whole business of it, is ( man's 'known') reality.

F: Yes, that is so.

K: Then the question arises: can the (time-bound) mind, which is the network of all the senses, actualities and so on, can that apprehend, see, observe what is ( the timeless dimension of ?) 'Truth'?

F: Provided the mind can be free of all its conditioning.

K: I'll come to that a little later. But to find out what the 'absolute truth' is, the whole ( self-centred) movement and nature of thought must have been ( non-dualistically?) gone into & observed. And then the mind becomes absolutely still and perhaps in that ( inner space of ?) stillness, the ( living dimension of?) Truth (which is not to be measured by words) can perceived.

F &R : Yes, there we'd agree, completely, fully.

K: Now, if man's mind is caught in the movement of thought, this movement projects what is 'truth'.

F: This is the mistake that man makes.

K: Of course. He projects from 'this' ( the 'known') to 'that' ( the unknown?) , hoping to find ( the ultimate) truth which can be put in different words - God. Brahman it is called in India, or Nirvana, or moksha, you know, all that business.
So our ( Meditation 101?) question is then, sir, can the mind cease to 'measure'?

F: The mind as it functions at present in each one of us as an 'individual' (mind) ?

K: As ( self-centred?) human beings, ( the mental & physical ) 'measurement' is ( at the basis of) our whole educational environmental, social conditioning. Would you agree?

R: Yes...

K: Then ( inwardly?) what is this 'measurement'? Measurement means 'comparison'. One 'measures' oneself, psychologically against somebody else .

F: Yes.

K: And so there is this constant ( highly competitive) measurement of comparison, both externally and inwardly.
Now, how has this ( materialistic) conditioning come about? You understand, sir? Otherwise we can't move away from 'this' to That. How has man been caught in this ( time-binding mentality of?) measurement, comparison imitation ?

R: The whole measurement is based on self (-interest?) the use of measuring is done...

K: Yes, but how has it come? Why have human beings, wherever they live, why are they conditioned through this measurement. What is the source of this measurement ?

SS: Part of it seems to be the fruit of ( man's outward) observation, because you observe the duality of life in terms of night and day, man, woman, the change of seasons and it seems a natural step to say that there's therefore a kind comparison which is applicable in man's own life.

P: But thought also needs a static point to measure, and as long as itself is in a state of continuous flux or movement, it can't measure, so it creates a static ( 'reference?) point' which is immovable, which is the 'self'. From there only you can measure.

K: Yes, sir. I mean, the very word 'better', 'greater', is implying measurement. So our language itself is involved in measurement. Now, I'm just asking, what is the 'source' of this ( self-centred?) measurement, and why has man employed this as a means of ( inward) living? The 'psychological' measurement (the self-evaluation?) , that's what I'm talking about, which is much more ( time-binding?) than the mere physical movement of distance (& technology?) and so on. Why has man been held in this measurement?

SS: Probably he thinks it's the way forward, to some extent, because, if you're a farmer and you plant to crop in a certain way, and you get this kind of result, the next year you plant in a different way, and you get that better result.

K: Yes, so it is ( thinking of everything in terms of?) 'time'.

SS: It includes the ability to 'experience' and to reflect on that ( accumulated) experience in order to produce something better out of that, in terms of what is the better thing to have, or what is the 'right' situation of things.

K: Of course, but I want to go a little further than that. Which is, why has man used ( this same mentality of thinking in terms of?) time as a means of ( inner ?) progress? I'm talking ( of measuring oneself?) 'psychologically' , not ( of the objective?) time necessary to learn a language, to develop a certain technology and so on... Why has man used psychological time as a means of self growth, self aggrandisement, he calls it 'getting better', getting more noble, achieving enlightenment? All that implies time.

P: Perhaps it's due to thought's ( need to improve its own ) security ?

N: Is it just carried over from the day to day necessity of material measurement, to the psychological field, or does it exist in the psychological field without reference to this?

K: That's what we're discussing. Whether there is any (authentic) 'psychological' evolution at all. So, why do we need ( to think in terms of) time at all, psychologically?

SN: What is it that creates ( the psychological) time?

K: Thought, thought is ( both the result and the creator of this mentality of ) time. What we're saying is that ( the mentality of an evolution in ) 'time' is ( at the core of thought's psychological ? ) movement, isn't it ? I am now greedy, or envious, and I need some time to ( understand it & ) be free of it. One is questioning whether this 'psychological' distance is not a (very realistic) illusion. To put it very succinctly, is there psychologically, tomorrow?

F: Only in terms of anticipation.

K: Ah, because thought says, "I hope to" ?

F: But in addition to thought's (psychological projections) , there is the fact of our physical experience in time and therefore the words 'tomorrow', 'today'.

K: There is a ( chronological succession of?) yesterday, today and tomorrow; that is a reality, that is a measurement also. But we are asking, if is there is a psychological time at all, or thought has invented time it in order to live in some kind of (enhanced inner) security?

R: What is time? Time is nothing but the unbroken continuity of cause and effect, that is movement.

K: We said that (previously?) . The cause becoing effect, and the effect ( in its tutn) becomes the new cause, and so on, and so on.

R: That is time. We give a word called 'time' for that (self-unfolding?) continuous movement.

M: Sir, would you say that ( the process of ) thinking in itself implies time, because the action of the mind consulting thought, going through the thought process takes a certain amount of time ?

K: Surely, because thought is response of ( one's past) memory, ( which) memory is ( acquired in) time. Memory 'is' (the result of man's experience in) time. Right sir?

F: Yes.

K: Now, time is necessary physically. The baby grows into man and so on. That's an 'actuality', that is a 'reality'. We are questioning whether 'psychologically' there is ( any validity to think in terms of) time at all. Or thought has invented time as a means of either achieving ( a never-ending) security, or, because it is too lazy to completely transform itself ( here & now?) .

F: Immediately.

K: Immediately. So it says, "Give me time". Give me time to become 'psychologically' stronger, give me time to get rid of my anger, my jealousy or whatever it is, and ( eventually) I'll be free of it. So he's using time as a means of achieving something psychologically.

M: But then one must ask you about the ( legitimate ) use of the word 'psychological' in this instance because if a thought process is involved and we just said time is implicit in thought, how can 'you' be without thought psychologically?

K: We are coming to that. Isn't the whole (time-bound structure of the ) 'psyche' put together by thought?

SS: There seems to be a (metaphysically related) question here, whether it is or not...

K: I'm asking sir, go slowly . Isn't the whole 'psyche' ( subliminally identified with?) the 'me'?

SS: Is that ( all there is to?) the human 'psyche'?

K: Isn't the 'me', ( the central) part of that, - what 'I' think, what 'I' want, what 'I' don't want, and so on ? The whole self-centred movement of the 'me' is put together by thought.

M: If that is so, then how would it be possible for there not to be time involved in any psychological movement?

K: We're going to go into that... .

N: In the whole religious world there is ( a spiritual) aspiration. Wouldn't you say that?

R: Of course religious traditions, there is aspiration, always. What we discuss her is, I think, whether you can see truth without thinking in terms of time, whether the 'seeing of truth' is now, in this moment, or whether you postpone it till you become better. The (bottom line) question is : if it is true, you see it now.

K: We have't come to ( seeing the ultimate?) truth yet. I am very careful to examine this whole nature of time, psychologically, because if there is no (inner postponement for) tomorrow, our whole action (now) is different.

F: Exactly. So would I be right in saying you are concerned with being free of the 'time factor' in the psychological area ?

K: Yes, sir. Otherwise I am caught, our mind is living always in a closed circle ( within the field of the known) .

F: Yes, that is true. We are tied to the past, to that which has become fossilised.

K: Yes, so the past modifying the present and going off. This ( active memory of the ) past modifying itself in the present and towards the future is ( creating its own continuity in?) time. So I quesion ( the experiential validity of) that, whether it's merely an invention of thought for its own (intimate) reasons, and so it is illusory, and so there is no ( point in one's psychological expectations of) 'tomorrow'.
So if one is envious, ( which is a thought sustained sensory response, so, thought has created this envy), generally we say, give me time to be free of that envy.

F: Yes, provided we actually perceive this envy....

K: Oh, yes, everybody can perceive the envy, the jealousy, (and the collateral) antagonisms. So is it possible, being envious, to 'be free of it instantly', and not allow time to intervene? That is the whole point.

F: Isn't the psychological reaction of envy perceived through the senses?

K: Yes, that's right.

F: And determined by the actual physical conditions?

K: Yes, obviously.

F: So psychological reaction follows the sensuous activity. And that involves the pleasure/pain drive within us.

K: Obviously. I see you driving a big lovely car. And I'm driving a smaller car, so there is comparison.

F: Yes. The comparison arises surely, partially through what others have put before us, that this is better than that.

K: That begins from childhood.

F: So we get into a psychological habit of comparing everything .

K: That begins in childhood. You are not as good as your brother, in examinations and the whole education system is based on this comparative evaluation of one's capacities.
( The next experiential step is : ) do we see (the actual truth?) that we've used time psychologically and so that the psychological usage of time is a (very real collectively created ?) illusion ? Do we see the inner truth that thought has created this psychological time as a means of achieving something ( in a safe way?) ?

M: We can see that, but still within the realm of thought. Is that the seeing you're talking about?

N: I think there's also some difficulty in apprehending (the inward truth of) what you're saying, because there is maturity and growth in nature, through time.

K: We said that.

N: Yes, so one gets ( naturally) stuck to it....

K: One holds on, is attached to this idea of time as self-improvement, not only physically but psychologically.

N: I don't say 'self-improvement', but 'maturity', a kind of natural growth, comparing yourself with nature, as you see all over.

K: Yes, we may have different meanings to that word, 'to mature'. A tree is mature at a certain age, a human being physically is mature at a certain age.

N: Yes, the whole growth of the mature fruit from the bud.

K: Yes, but is there ( an authentic) 'psychological' maturity at all? That's my whole point.

M: Within the ( 'real ) world', even 'psychologically' there is a certain maturity, but it's still founded on thought and time.

K: Yes, but I'm just asking about using time as a psychological catalyst to bring about change? I'm questioning ( the experiential validity of) this (fake?) 'catalyst'.

F: When you say, "Do we see that psychological time is an illusion", what do you mean by the word 'see'?

K: I mean by that word 'see', to observe (directly?) without the interference of thought.

F: That means, to be completely conscious, or to be completely aware of time being an illusion ?

K: Yes, to 'see' this like I see a snake, and I don't mistake it for a rope.

F: So you would agree that ( such an insightful perception ) involves a complete transformation of your (usual) mode of awareness, of your consciousness? In other words, to 'see' is a seeing in the sense of your being ( one with) what you see. You are 'awake' in terms of a unitary whole.

K: Sir, first let's look at what is generally happening when I observe a tree, I ( instinctively) name it. Or I like it or don't like it, and so on, so on. But we mean by (a 'holistic'  ?) observation or seeing; is to listen ( non-verbally) first and not make an abstraction of it into an idea, and then (see ) through the screen of that idea. Say for instance - I said a little earlier that 'psychologically there is no time', that the 'psychological' time is an (inwardly comforting ?) invention of thought, which may ( prove to ) be an illusion. Now, to listen to ( the inner truth of) that ( statement) without making an idea of it - just to listen. As one ( learns to) listen in this ( thought-free?) way, in the same way observe, see. What do you say, sir?

R: What are you actually trying to tell us?

K: I'm trying to say, sir, that truth cannot possibly be perceived, seen, through ( thinking in terms of ? ) time.

R: Yes, of course....

K: And I'm also saying that man through comparison with the outer world has created the 'psychological' time as a means of achieving a desired rewarding end.

R: I agree.

K: Sir, ( all the way) from the ancient Greeks and Hindus, all our whole ( psychological) structure is based on ( creating & recycling images & ?) ideas. And we are saying, this is not the actual listening. It is actually an avoidance of ( being fully immersed in the ) actual observation....

F: ...of the immediate fact ?

SS: Then there may be something which we are evading constantly. May I suggest that there may be some driving factor which accounts for this, like ( avoiding to face one's deep existential ? ) 'sorrow' ?

K: Yes, sir, escape from pain through ( projecting a higher ?) reward.

SS: This seems to apply to the most sophisticated and the more primitive civilizations, all of them.

K: Obviously. Because all our ( self-centred) thinking is based on these two principles, reward and punishment. Our reward is 'enlightenment', or whatever you like to call it, away from ( directly dealing with ) anxiety, guilt, all the pain of existence, you know, all the misery of it all.

F: Is it not possible to be free from this (deeply imbedded) idea of reward or punishment?

K: That's what I'm saying. As long as our minds are thinking in terms of reward and punishment, that is time (-binding ?) .

F: How is it that our minds think that way?

K: Because we're 'educated' (or ) conditioned from childhood, from the time of the Greeks in the West, because there measurement was important, otherwise you couldn't have got all this ( vast scientific & ) technological knowledge.

F: But wouldn't you say that this is also due to the fact that we are tied to the idea of a separate 'me', a separate 'I' ? Supposing one sees, hears, touches, etc., all in terms of a wholeness, an awareness of wholeness.

K: You can't be aware of the wholeness, unless you have understood the ( time-binding ?) movement of ( the self-centred) thought.

F: Thought ?

K: Because ( the self-centred process of ) thought is in itself limited ( by constantly functioning in the field of the known?)

F: Yes, of course, which means the intrusion of the 'self-consciousness' as a separate something.

K: Yes. How did this self separative consciousness come into being?

F: ( By millenia of a survival oriented ?) conditioning in the first instance.

K: It's so obvious.... Of course( this involves) measurement.

F: Measurement, exactly. And that inevitably gets transferred to the realm of the psyche...

K: So we come to this point, that ( thinking in terms of) time has been used by man as a means of achieving his (various) 'psychological' rewards. So we are saying, this search for reward or the achievement of the reward, is a movement of time. But... is there such a thing at all? We have invented it, it may be illuson. And from ( the psycho-safety of) this illusion, one can't go to Truth. So the mind must be totally, completely free of this movement of measurement. Is that possible?

F: As a short answer, I would simply say 'yes' - an 'of-courseness', is there.

K: I may just assume it is so, but I go on the rest of my life moving in the other direction.

F: If one really sees, then one doesn't go in the other direction.

K: So that's what we're saying, do we 'see' it, or just 'think that we see' it ?

M: Can we go back for a moment? You said you 'observe', you 'hear' the statement and you 'observe' it. Actually what does the mind do in that ( holistic) 'observation'?

K: ( This holistic) observation in implies a seeing without naming, without measuring, without a motive, without an 'end' ( dictated by self-interest?) ) . Obviously that is actually 'seeing'. ( Hint:) the very word 'idea' from the Greek, the word itself means to 'observe'.

M: We would probably all agree with that (generic description?) . But what is acting at that moment?

K: ( Holistic) observation implies ( the free inner space of ?) silence and observe silently, without any psychological or sensory response of memory.

R: Without any value judgement.

K: Yes. It implies that ( the self-centred process of ) thought is absolutely quiet in observation.

F: Scientists, for example, who have really new remarkable inspirations, or again great artists when they create wonderful things, this happens when everything is quiet inside, which allows the new (vision) to emerge, the pulse of creation.

K: Yes, sir, but ( more often than not?) the scientist's insight is partial.

F: Partial refers to the formulation of that insight ?

K: ( The total) insight also implies a whole transformation of his daily life, it isn't just, I'm a scientist and I have an insight into mathematics, into matter, into the ( bowels of the?) atom. Insight implies the way the man lives as a whole.

R: That is perfectly so.

K: Sir, let us talk a little bit about insight, or seeing. Insight implies an observation in which there is no remembrance of things past, therefore the mind is alert, free from all the elements and so on, just to observe. Only then you have an insight. But the ( total) insight of which we are talking about, implies, his whole life, not as an (self-centred) 'scientist', or 'artist'. They have partial insight.

R: That is only a small fragment. And what we talk of is the existence as a whole.

K: Of course, man's existence.

F: So in that state of observation which you're talking of, there is no ( personal) reaction whatsoever ?

K: Of course, obviously. It isn't a cause-effect reaction.

F: Quite. It's free of causality.

K: Of course otherwise we are back in the old cause being a motive and so on.

R: And that seeing is beyond time. It is beyond time, that seeing is not limited or caught in time.

K: Yes. But, wait a minute. Have you, not ( just) you, sir, have we got this ( total) insight into the psychological invention of time by thought, as ( a devious means of) achieving some (psych-) result? Have got insight, do you see it, or it is just at a verbal, ideological level? Does one see this as an idea, or it is so? It's so obvious it is so.
Then how is a ( holistically minded?) human being, to totally transform this whole concept of time? I say it's only possible when you have an insight into this whole thing, which doesn't involve effort, which doesn't involve concentration, all that. This is ( the experiential significance of the ?) real ( meditator-free?) Meditation.

F: In fact, it just 'happens'.

K: It's real meditation.
(To recap:) (1) first you listen (non-verbally?) without any interpretation, without like or dislike, just 'listen'. ( 2) If you so listen you have absorbed the (truth of the?) fact that thought is the response of memory. Then (3) you can proceed (to meditate?) whether thought ever free itself from its roots ( of self-interest?) , & from its ( subliminally self-identified?) source?

SS: Thought can be aware of its own activity.

K: Of course, we went through all that (very briefly?) .

M: Sir, would you say that if ( an inner surge of?) insight comes into being at that moment, that then that insight doesn't fall back into the thought mechanism ?

K: Oh no, of course not. Let's be clear. Insight means action instantly, not have an insight and later act. That very insight implies action. And you act. And that action is always right, right being accurate, precise, without any regret, without any effort, without any reward or punishment, it is so.

SS: That action is not necessarily doing anything, though. It may be non-action in terms of doing things externally.

K: You may have to act both externally and inwardly. If I have an insight into attachment, attachment to ideas, attachment to conclusions, attachment to persons, attachment to my - you follow? - knowledge, experience. If I have an insight into that, the whole thing is abandoned.

R: May I put it, sir, in another way - to see this illusion.

K: Yes. But one must be sure that it is an illusion.

R: Whether you call it illusion or whatever name you give to it, to see...

K: ...the 'what is'.

R: Yes, to see 'what is'. Don't give a specific term. To see 'what is' is to see the truth.

K: You see. you're bringing in 'truth' - I'm not yet ready for that.

R: I want to get it, before one o'clock! I don't want to postpone it ; your main thesis is, don't put in time.

K: I don't know what it means to 'see'. You have told me what it means to see, but I may not see. I may (like to) think I see.

R: Yes, then you are not seeing.

K: I may not see actually 'what is'. I think I see 'what is'.
So, sir, now come back to this question of truth.

R: Yes. I don't want to wait for truth. (laughter)

K: You want it all in five minutes, sir?

R: Not even five minutes.

K: One minute?

R: One minute. If you can't do it in one minute, you can't do it in five hours.

K: I quite agree. All right, sir, in one minute. Truth is not perceivable through ( thinking in terms of ) time. Truth doesn't exist when the 'self' is there. Truth doesn't come into existence if thought moving in any direction is. Truth is something that cannot be measured. And without love, without compassion, with its own intelligence, truth cannot be (seen?)

R: You have given it in negative terms, in the real tradition of the Buddha.

K: You see, you have already translated it into terms of tradition, therefore you've moved away from the actual 'listening' of this.

R: I listened, I listened very well.

K: Then you've captured the perfume of it ?

R: Yes, and I captured the perfume of what you said. And that is why I wanted to have it in one minute.

K: So, sir. What then is the relationship of 'truth' to 'reality' - are these two everlastingly divided?

R: No. They are not divided.

K: How do you know?

R: I know it.

K: ''They are not divided''. Now what do you mean by that, sir? That means, thought and truth, are always together, a unitary movement ? We said (man made?) 'reality' is the movement of thought. Right, sir? And truth is timeless. Truth is timeless, it's not your truth, my truth, his truth - it is something beyond time. Thought is of time, the two cannot run together, that's what I'm...

R: There are no two. That is again duality, again you are dividing.

K: No, I'm not. I'm pointing out, sir that thought has created so many deceptions it has brought about, and it may deceive itself by saying, "Yes, I've seen the truth." Therefore I must be very clear, there must be clarity that there is no deception whatsoever. And I'm saying that deception exists, will inevitably exist if I don't understand the ( time-binding?) nature of 'reality'.

R: I think here we have come to Truth. I don't know whether you...

K: 'I' haven't come to truth, 'I' can't go to truth.

R: No, you 'see' the truth.

K: There's a tremendous ( qualitative) difference: I can't go to truth, I can't see truth. Truth can only exist, can be, or is only when the 'self' (consciousness ) is not ( openly or subliminally interfering ?) .

R: That's right.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Oct 2018 #141
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

 2ND ( reader-friendly edited ?) K CONVERSATION WITH TWO BUDDHIST SCHOLARS & FRIENDS (cca 1979)

IS THERE A LIFE AFTER DEATH ? & WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL BUDDHIST MEDITATION ?

R: Is there a life after death ? You see, I want to put this question to you because all religions, as far as I know, agree and accept a life after death. Of course Buddhism and Hinduism, they accept not one life but many lives before this birth and after this death. And of course, except Buddhism, in all those religions there is the 'Soul', 'Self' or 'Atman', with its everlasting ( spiritual) substance in man which transmigrates or is reincarnated. Buddhism does not accept that the 'self', or the 'soul' is a permanent entity , but accepts man is composed of five aggregates which are all energies or (psychical?) forces and the non-functioning of the physical body does not mean the non-functioning of all other qualities and forces, like desire & the will to become ( which continue as ) long as man is 'imperfect'. Once one sees the truth, he is perfect and there is no desire for becoming, because there is nothing to become. But the man who is imperfect has always the desire & the will and the time to become more, to become more perfect. So ( the opportunity of?) rebirth is there for him ; although it is not one unchanging substance that goes on, but it is the ( psychic chain of ) cause and effect, just as the Buddha says, ''every moment we are dead and reborn''. And so in Buddhism it is wrong to say 'reincarnation', because there is nothing to incarnate and 'transmigration' also is not a good term. But we use now 'rebirth' - 'punar janman' in Pali means, an unbroken continuity of re-becoming ; that is the Buddhist attitude. The question is often asked, in many Buddhist texts, 'is it the same person or another one' (that is reborn?) ? And the Buddhist traditional answer is, ''neither he nor another''. That is the answer, 'neither he nor another' - a child is grown up to be a man of fifty, is he the same child or another ? It is neither the same child nor another one. So, that is the Buddhist attitude to rebirth. Nd now I would like to know what is your attitude and what is your interpretation?

K: Sir, could we take a ( meditating ?) journey together, investigating this thing a little bit?

R: Yes.

K: Would you say that all ( the shared consciousness of?) humanity, whether the human being lives in America, Russia, India or Europe, is ( deeply down ?) caught in sorrow, conflict, strife, guilt, great sense of misery, loneliness, unhappiness, confussion; that is the common ( existential condition) of all men, throughout the world? That is, the ordinary ( self-centred) consciousness of man 'is' ( has within itself ?) all this 'content'. Would you agree, sir?

R: Yes.

K: All human beings right throughout the world, have the same psychological phenomenon. Outwardly they might differ but ( deep down inwardly or?) they are greatly similar. So one can say (that consciousness-wise?) , you 'are' the world and the world 'is' you. Right, sir?

R: Yes. In a sense.

K: It is not 'partially true' , it 'is' so. But ( deeper down?) inwardly we have the same sense of ( existential?) anxiety, loneliness, various (personalised?) forms of depression, sorrows and fears, these are the common lot of man. So, as their (psychological) 'content' is all this, the human beings throughout the world are more or less similar, apart from their name & physical form. Would you agree?

R: Yes...

K: So deep ( down inwardly ) you 'are' me, and I 'am' you, because ( eventually?) each person goes through various forms of personal tragedies, misfortunes. And so 'the world', the ( collectively shared consciousness of) humanity is one. Would you agree?

F: Humanity is one.

K: If you see this ( 'all-oneness' of our consciousness ) then 'who' is it that dies? The name, the form (die certainly) but the ( collective stream of self interest with its collateral ?) anxiety, sorrow & misery - does that also (end with the death of the physical body ) ?

To me ( K) the ( shared consciousness of the?) world 'is' actually ( all-one with?) 'me'. ( Deeply down?) I 'am' this stream (of collective thought & time?) in which man lives, psychologically.
Then if you accept ( or 'see' the inward truth of ?) this fact, what is it that dies? The physical form & name? But the ( deeper 'consciousness?) stream' in which all mankind lives ( knowingly or not?) is going on all the time. Right? It's a (like a ?) great River. Let's discuss it since you may disagree completely.

MZ: Sir, are you saying that in that stream the whole notion which most people share of an 'individual' consciousness is a complete illusion?

K: I think so.

MZ: The, why does mankind have that inevitably ?

K: Because it's part of our ( 'self-interest' based) culture, both religiously and worldly, that 'you' are an individual (entity). But even the word 'individual' is really misapplied, because 'individual' obviously means one who is 'indivisible', while we're all broken up (inwardly) . So we can hardly call ourselves 'individuals'.

F: We are 'fragmented'.

K: We are fragmented (inwardly) , broken up. So if we see that our consciousness 'is' ( all-one with?) the consciousness of all humanity in that vast River which has no beginning, which is still going on, what happens ( at death ) to all my desires, to all my ( personal) worries anxieties, longings & aspirations, ( not to mention?) the enormous 'burden of sorrow' which I have ( numbly?) carried for years - what happens to all that?

F: It 'comingles' with the world stream.

K: It ( one's self-consciousness?) 'is' part of that stream.

M: It never was ( really?) 'yours' at all...

K: It 'is' a part of that stream, which has manifested itself as K, with his form.

R: So, in that Stream there is 'K'.

K: There is no ( individualised consciousness of ?) 'K'. That's the whole point. There is only that 'stream' made up of ( self-interest), desire, anxieties, loneliness & all the travail of mankind. That is the River (of Time?) .

F: As well as the ( happy?) 'opposites' of pain and so on.

K: It's all part of that river.

F: Would you say, sir, that that which we call the 'individual' is a misnomer, because of our ignorance ?

K: It's not only 'misnomer', I don't think it exists: because your (self-centred) consciousness is like that of everybody else. So if we see that, not only see it logically, reasonably, factually, but see that it 'is' so...

MZ : There is nothing apart from that in the human (consciousness ) ?

K: I'm coming to that. In that Stream, man has invented gods, rituals, saviours - they are all part of that Stream.

M: But apart from the invention, the illusions, isn't there any other something?

K: Is there in this Stream anything which is not 'man-made' ? Is that what you're asking?

M: Is there something else in the human mind that is not of the Stream ? Something 'real' ?

K: Not in that 'stream' (of self-interest) .

M: I'm not asking if there's a something else in the river, I'm asking if there's something else in (the total consciousness of mankind) except the River.

K: No-thing. No 'Atman', no Soul, no God - nothing.

M: There is enormous implication in that, because if that were so there would be no ( possibility to?) end the stream.

K: The man who 'steps out'... ?

R: Meditation (wise) , what Mary said was a very important point...

K: I'm going to answer it presently ( after a brief recap ?:) that Stream ( of self-interest?) is common to all of us, our (personalised ?) consciousness 'is' part of that Stream.

SS: Because all (its content?) is a creation and manifestation of (self-centred) thought  and the operation of those illusions ?

K: All that is part of this Stream (of self-interest?) . I want this to be clear, that we 'are' (inwardly ?) part of that Stream, and when the body dies, that River of ( all mankind's unfulfilled?) desires, (worries & ) anxieties, and the ( collateral) misery goes on. I die, but that Stream (of mankind's self centred thinking ?) , is going on. I don't see how you can reject it.

R: No rejection, no acceptance. Only waiting for your conclusion.

K: So ( at birth?) that river manifests itself as K.

R: The whole river ?

K: The river manifests itself as ( the young K) And 'K' has certain (psychic?) 'capacities' …

R: I don't know ( this?) but I fully agree that whole humanity without exception shares what you described as 'suffering' and all that. In that sense, all are all equal, not all one.

K: I am the representative of all mankind. Because I'm of that stream.

R: Well, that I don't actually know.

N: It's a qualitative thing - all the qualities of the stream are (also potentially existing) in me.

K: Yes, that's right. All the qualities of that stream.

N: Not that I am the whole river, but ( in the sence that) the drop contains all the qualities of the river.

M: Would it be helpful to use the example of a wave: a wave is no different from the rest of the ocean. But it manifests as a wave which then disappears.

K: If you like to put it that (metaphorical ) way. But this must be clear. Each one of us is the ( responsible) representative of the whole of that stream. And when one manifestation of that Stream 'leaves' the stream, he's completely free of that stream. If (however) X doesn't free himself completely from this stream (of collective thought & time) he's back in it.

M: But, sir, this is what my earlier question referred to. What else is there (that can leave the Stream) ?
K: Wait, wait. I haven't ( fully?) explained it. There is 'no-thing'. But if that A doesn't step out of that stream, there is no salvation for mankind.

M: Sir, what is there to step out?

K: Leap, finish with your anxieties, sorrow, all the rest of it.

M: But you said there was nothing except the content of the stream.

K: As long as I remain in the stream.

M: What is the 'I' that steps out ?

K: 'I' is the thing that has manifested itself as A, and A now calls himself an 'individual', which is illusory. And when A dies, he's ( still) part of that stream. That's clear.

M: Yes, what is it that can separate itself from the stream if it is only made up of the water of the stream?

K: Part of that Stream (of mankind's consciousness?) is this egotistic concept. That's all.

R: Her point is this. What is it that 'steps out' of this River. That is the question.

K: I'll answer it presently. But when you ask that question, 'what is it that steps out', you're positing an 'otherness', something which is not of the stream. I won't 'posit' anything, I've said, as long as man does not step out of that stream, there is no salvation to mankind. That's all.

F: Sir, may I add a word here. I think the question which the lady asked implies an identifiable permanent entity.

M: A 'something', I'm not making it more definite than that.

K: I know what you're trying to say.

M: There has to be some aspect of ( one's) intelligence that can step out of the stream.

K: Yes, but is there some aspect of intelligence in the stream?

N: Which sees the futility of the stream.

K: And therefore 'steps out' ? Let's go step by step : that stream has manifested itself as 'A'. (Eventually?) 'A' perceives he is (caught in) suffering, in anxiety and he says, "Why am I suffering? What is this?" And so he begins to question & sees (has a liberating insight ) . Why do you need to introduce some other factor?

R: According to Buddha's teaching, in that very Stream (of Sorrow?) there is also ( a spark of divine?) wisdom which 'sees' the whole thing. And that (insightful?) seeing is the stepping out.

M: Are you saying that there is an action of 'stepping out' without an 'actor'?

K: Yes. I'll explain it (again?) 'A' is of that stream, with a (particular) name and form. And as he lives (in the 'real' world?) he realizes (the implicit suffering of) what he's going through. Then he begins to enquire into the whole nature of suffering, and in that very enquiry comes an insight. Insight isn't in the stream.

R: And where does that insight come from?

K: From the ( inner state of) 'freedom (from the known' brought in order ?) to enquire. Therefore he puts aside the blockages that prevents exploration, and, he's free to enquire. And in that freedom there is ( the timeless flash of ?) insight.

P: There is a missing link here.

K: There may be ten, sir.

F: Sir, perhaps could we put it this way. That the conditioned enquiry is part of the stream. But the ( 'known?) free' enquiry is getting away from the stream.

K: ( The holistically minded enquirer?) realizes he can only explore if there is an inner freedom to look. Free from fear, free from ( open or obscure expectations of?) reward and punishment, free from any kind of ' self-interest based?) motive, otherwise he can't enquire. The moment he's in that ( totally honest) state of examination, there is insight. Then what is the state of mind of the human who has had an insight into the whole nature of suffering, and therefore the whole stream? ( The newly awakened?) intelligence has no relationship with cunning, cleverness & all that (jazz?) , but it is essentially part of ( Universal?) Love and Compassion.
(Hint : The 'love' within the stream of self-interest is not Love ; if B is in the stream, and he tells his wife or girl friend or boyfriend, 'I love you', is that Love?)

R: Love has many meanings.

K: So, that's what I'm enquiring. The 'love' of a book,' the 'love' of an ideal, the 'love' of your country, the 'love' of jealousy, in which is included hate, envy, hurt. Is all that love?

R: What happened to our initial question?

K: About life after death & rebirth?

R: Yes, what happened there ?

K: I've told you. Rebirth is this constant Stream (of self-interest?) , manifesting itself into 'A', 'B', 'C'... all the way down the alphabet. I know this is most disappointing, depressing...

SS: Are you also suggesting therefore death is part of ( the recycling process of) that Stream?

K: You see, sir, to find out (experientially?) what death is, one has to be with death. That means to end one's ( psychological ?) attachments and beliefs, end to everything that one has collected. Nobody wants to do that...

M: So the ( liberating?) action of 'death' ( of the 'psychological' ending ?) would not be part of the Stream ?

K: No. The ( mind of the ) man who understood this, doesn't think even in streams, is something entirely different.

M: This is the action of insight ?

K: Yes, but you cannot have insight if there is no Love, Compassion & Intelligence. And then only then there is a relationship to Truth.

SS: You seem to be suggesting in some way that ( the psychological) death is a key ?

K: Yes, sir. Free investigation into this whole 'myself', which 'is' ( part of?) that Stream (of time-thought?) .
( For optional homework?) enquire into that ( subliminal identification?) , so that there isn't a shadow of the Stream left. We don't do this because we are too 'learned', we are too occupied with our own pleasure and/or worries.
So have we answered the question? Is there ( a personal) reincarnation, a continuation of the 'me' in different forms? I say, no!

R: Of course not, of course not. First of all there is no 'me' to be reborn.

K: Sir, the Stream manifests (itself as 'B' ) and 'B' says, "I am ( already attached to a lot of good things ?)" therefore I'm frightened to 'die' ( to 'let them go'?) . And therefore he invents various comforting ( after-life?) theories.
But as long as B lives in that stream (of collective self-interest?) - his consciousness is part of that stream- he's only contributing more and more to the volume of that (stream) . Obviously, if you see ( the inward truth of?) that, there is no 'me' to continue ( re-incarnating?) . Sir, nobody will accept this, but it's the truth.

F: You would agree then, that what is necessary is to see in this profound...

K: Yes, ( the 'insight' based?) seeing is that.

F: And that seeing (of truth?) is the real creative action.

K: Is ( a total psychological) 'action', the moment I 'see', I drop ( my self-centred ?) anxiety. The moment I 'see' that I am petty-minded, it's finished.

F: It is a complete transformation of the ordinary 'psychical' process.

K: Yes.

M: Isn't this where people 'go wrong' (psychologically-wise  ?) that they do not 'see' in the sense you're talking about; they 'see verbally', or intellectually, on various levels, but they don't really 'see'.

K: I think mostly they don't mind being (subliminally ) 'sorrowful', they say well why not ( make the best of it?) ? One doesn't see one's own petty reactions. Say, "Yes, why not?"

M: Or 'they don't see that they don't see', to put it perhaps childishly.

K: But Maria (nothing 'personally' ?) - has one dropped any opinion that one holds? One's prejudice; completely? Or one's experience? Never ; they won't even listen to you. Because (in them) they feel completely safe, completely secure. And...if you come and disturb him, either he 'worships' you, or 'kills' you (or ignore you ?) , which is the same.

M: What if he sees that that 'security' is a complete fabrication ?

K: Then he 'drops' these prejudices, his conclusions, even his ( psychological) knowledge. And if A's consciousness is no longer of the stream, this consciousness is entirely different. It is a different dimension altogether.

M: Are you saying that Goodness exists apart from humanity?

K: Let's put it round this (holistically friendly) way: it is not only A suffering, there is this whole suffering of mankind.

( Intermission)

K: Sir, would you kindly explain, what is the Buddhist meditation ?

R: the purest form of Buddhist meditation - which through centuries has taken many forms, many varieties - is this insight into 'what is'.

K: You are using my ( pet?) words ?

R: No. Long before you, two thousand five hundred years ago very similar words were used : 'vipassana' is (the old name of ) insight vision, to see into the nature of things, that is the real vision.

K: Have they a 'system'?

R: A system is, of course, developed, but when you take the original teaching of the Buddha...

K: ...there is no system.

R: Satipatth?na is the best discourse by the Buddha on this insight meditation, and the key point in that is the awareness, that is called Sati - to be mindful, aware, of all that happens (inwardly & outwardly) And the meaning of that word 'Satipatth?na' is ''the establishment of Mindfulness'', or rather, the 'Presence of Awareness' .

K: Is this awareness something to be 'cultivated'?

R: There is no question of 'cultivation'.

K: Because the modern systems of meditation, modern Zen and all the rest of it, they are trying to cultivate it.

R: Yes, and they have developed into such a ( mechanical) technique that the mind can be instead of liberating it can be...

K: Of course , ( that's why ) I am asking: is this 'awareness' ( mindfulness?) something to be 'cultivated' in the sense of manipulated, watched over, worked at?

R: No, no.

K: So how does it come into being?

R: There is no 'coming into being', ( to use your own words?) you 'just do it'.

K: I am just asking if this awareness is something that takes place through ( mental) concentration?

R: For anything we do in this world a certain amount of (mental) concentration is necessary, but don't mix it up with 'dhyani' ( meditation?) and 'samadhi'.

K: I know, I know. Most of the meditations that have been propagated all over the world involves ( the effort of mental) concentration.

R: In Zen and in other various Hindu & Buddhist meditation, concentration is the centre. In the Buddha's teaching, meditation is not mental concentration.

K: It is not concentration. Let's put it away. Then what is this awareness, how does it come into being?

R: You see, you live in the present moment.

K: The moment you ( verbalise) it, you don't live in the present moment.

R: That is what it says, that usually you don't live in the present moment. And 'satyabhatan' is to live in the present moment.

K: How is one to 'live in the present' ? What is the mind that lives in the present?

R: The mind that lives in the present is the mind which is free from the idea of 'self'. When you have the idea of 'self' either you live in the past or in the future.

K: The 'now' is, as far as one 'sees' generally, (is the movement of) the past modifying itself in the present and going on.

R: That is the usual (temporal 'now' ?) .

K: Wait. That is ( being aware in) the 'present'.

R: No.

K: Then what is it? Being free of the ( active memory of the?) past?

R: Yes.

K: That's it. Free of the past, which means free of time. So that is the only state of mind which is 'now'. Now I am just asking, sir, what is awareness? In what manner does this (presence of?) 'awareness' come into ( one's) being?

R: (For starters by?) becoming aware of (your inner ?) pettiness.

K: Yes, sir, bu suppose I don't know what it means.

R: It is not necessary to 'know' what it means.

K: What do you mean ?

R: Just 'be aware' of it.

K: Yes, sir. You tell me, be aware of it. But supposing that I am (inwardly) blind and I want to see light. And you say, "Be aware of that blindness". I say, "Yes, what does it mean?"
So I say, look, awareness is something in which choice doesn't exist ; as I enter the room I am aware of the whole thing: the ceiling , the lamps, the curtains, the shape of the windows, the floor, the mottled roof, everything. Is that what you mean, sir?

R: That also is a kind of awareness.

K: That is ( choiceless) awareness. Now what is the difference between that sense of awareness and attention? What is attention? To 'attend' (midfully?) .

R: How do you explain these three: awareness, mindfulness and attention?

K: I would say awareness in which there is no choice, just to be aware. The moment when ( the personal ?) choice enters into awareness there is no awareness. And choice is ( the result of mental) measurement, division and so on. So (a transpersonal) awareness is without choice, just to be aware. When you say, "I like this room", all that ( purity) of awareness has ended.

R: Right.

K: Attention, to attend, in that attention there is no division.
Attention implies no 'me' attending. And so it has no division, therefore no measurement and therefore no borders.

R: In that sense it is equal to 'awareness'

K: No. In awareness there may be still a centre (of self interest ) from which you are being aware.

SS: Are you saying 'attention' is a deeper process ?

K: Much more, a totally different quality. One can be aware of what kind of dress you have and ( the personal) choice doesn't exist, you are aware of it, that's all. But attention, in that there is no 'attender', the 'one who attends', and so no ( observer-observed?) division.

R: The Buddha's teaching is that in the practise of ( the insight based ) meditation there is no value judgement, there is no like or dislike, but you only 'see'. That's all. And what happens will happen when you see.

K: In that state of 'attention', if you totally attend with all your mind, with your heart in the sense of affection, love, compassion, total attention, what takes place?

R: Of course what takes place is an absolute revolution internal and complete revolution.

K: But what is the state of such a mind that is completely attentive?

F: It is free of the stream.

K: No, that's finished. I am asking what is the quality of the mind that is so 'supremely attentive'? You see it has no (nameable?) quality, no 'centre', and having no centre no borders.
Say for instance, I tell you ''the meditation 'is' the meditator''.

R: That is right. There is no meditator.

K: Give your complete attention to that, and see what happens.

R: I think the Buddhist meditation is that.

K: I'll accept your word for it, but I don't know.

R: Real ''satyabhatana'' is that. Now if you ask people who practise it (the answers may vary ?)

K: I am asking, can one give such (transpersonal & compassionate?) attention ?

R: You are asking whether it is possible?

K: Yes, do we ever 'attend' ? Not exercising (your) will (power) . If that attention is not there ( the seeing of?) truth cannot exist.

R: I don't think that is appropriate. Truth exists but cannot be seen.

K: Ah, I don't know. You say truth exists but I don't know.

R: I don't think it is correct to say that without that ( holistic quality of) attention truth does not exist.

K: I said that without that attention, Truth cannot come into being.

R: There is no 'coming into being'.

K: Let me put it differently. Without that 'attention' , Truth has no meaning.

R: That's better.

K: We have talked for an hour and three quarters ; we had better stop.

R: I thank you (& everybody ) on behalf of... everybody.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 30 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 31 Oct 2018 #142
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

WHAT IS MEANT BY 'PSYCHOLOGICAL CONDITIONING' ?

( A 'reader friendly' edited K conversation with Mary Zimbalist - 1984)

MZ: Sir would you like to go into what is ( 'psychological) conditioning', its effect on our thinking and what we can do about it?

K: I wonder what is meant by ( psychological) 'conditioning'. Is it the (residual result of) centuries and centuries of tradition that has been handed down from generation to generation, and is this 'conditioning' ( the subliminally active factor behind ?) modern civilization, culture as well as the many ( personal) experiences that one has? Doesn't all this along with the various impressions, the propaganda, the literature, the television, add to the background of conditioning in every human being, whether he is very poor & uneducated, and to the most sophisticated human beings ?
This conditioning seems to be the 'normal' (standardised?) conditioning of human beings and it has shaped the society in which we live.

The society is what we have made of it, what each individual throughout the million or fifty thousand years has according to their desires, ambitions, conditioning to their personal tendencies, to their aggression and so on, all this has actually contributed to the society in which we live. So the society is not different from us. That is a fact we seem to forget when we talk about society. Society is something that gradually has come into being, to which we have given all our endeavour, all our struggles, all our imprints and tendencies. This 'is' our society, and the society 'is' us. It is not two separate entities. I think this must be clearly understood.
It appears that those who are trying to change the social structure by laws, by various edicts and so on, have forgot this (psychological) conditioning and tried to shape the outward structure without taking into deep consideration the human character, the human behaviour, the human structure, the condition of his brain which has been programmed for thousands of years. And it seems to us that this (self-centred?) conditioning of the human being is to be gone into very, very deeply to find out whether the human condition can ever be radically changed, and so the social structure which is born of human conditioning can also be changed.

That is the real problem : we seem to neglect, or even (ignore?) that the ( survivalistic 'self-centred' ?) psychological structure that has brought about this rather insane world, whether that human condition can ever be radically changed.
So we must go into that, not only superficially, the outward signs of it, but also the human brain, which has evolved through thousands of years of tradition and has been shaped by experience, by knowledge, by propaganda and so on. If we are clear on that, then we must inevitably ask whether the human brain can ever be cleansed - if we can use that word - of all the 'process of time'?

MZ: Am I correct in understanding that this conditioning of which you speak goes into the human consciousness even before the birth of the human being? In other words he is born with a certain loading of condition, a certain content in his very brain that you would call 'conditioning' and not only what happens to him in his actual life as he grows up?

K: We have used the word 'consciousness', which is ( containing & displaying ?) all our reactions, responses, all our idiosyncrasies and tendencies, both biological as well as psychological, and all the beliefs man has invented, the daily routine of work with its boredom, with its mechanical responses; and also the fears, the anxieties, the depressions, the the loneliness, the uncertainty of the future, and the fear of death and the continuity - all that is ( the dormant or active content of ?) one's consciousness. That (self-centred temporal) consciousness, with its content, 'is' the conditioning. And this conditioning is centuries old.
So the brain itself is the centre of all this. Though the speaker is not a brain specialist, he has watched very carefully, not only the way his own behaviour and other people's and so on, and has acutely observed, and one can see for oneself that the brain is the centre of all action, all thought, all our fears, all our tendencies, propaganda, the innumerable, subtle impressions, and all that. The brain 'is' that. And can that brain, which has evolved through millenia upon millenia, can that brain ever be cleansed of all the 'time-binding' quality? That is the real, the deep question.
Probably one never asked oneself, or enquired deeply, whether this human brain which has evolved through a long duration of time, can ever be free of its ( time-binding) 'content'? When one watches (non-personally?) how the brain works in our daily life, how it reacts, how quickly its responses are according to its background, according to its past knowledge, in watching one's 'quick' ('gut?) responses' one discovers how conditioned those responses are.

MZ: Sir, would you include 'instinct' in this area?

K: Instinct is part of our conditioning, is part of our brain which has been programmed (for material survival?) . My instinct sees a dangerous animal and it says, run, or do something about it. Instinct, that is really a very quick response, is coloured, naturally by our past knowledge. That knowledge may be very, very hidden, subtle but without that knowledge instinct is not possible surely? Like 'intuition' - another word which is used very often - may be coming from the background of our desire, of our longing, of our hidden, deep recesses of one's own brain, which has hidden fears, hidden longings, hidden loneliness and so on.
So really what we should concern ourselves with, during this morning dialogue, is to see whether the brain, which has evolved endlessly through time, whether ( thinking in terms of) time can ever free the brain? Must the brain struggle endlessly in the field of knowledge, trying to ascend through knowledge to freedom?

MZ: What is so terribly wrong with knowledge and the psychological conditioning? Why should the human being seek to change himself in that respect?

K: Knowledge, to put it very briefly, is the result of (processing our past) experience, which is always limited because it is measurable, both psychologically as well as objectively. Anything that is ( materially?) 'measurable' is limited. There may be 'complete knowledge' about some dead thing, but you cannot have completel knowledge about something that is constantly changing, moving.

MZ: But that knowledge goes still they play a very vital part in the life of everybody.

K: Of course, technologically it is a tremendously important thing. It is there you must have measurement, comparison, evolving certain facts and moving, constantly moving. You can see what is happening in the technological world, you invent something one day and a few months later somebody changes it and adds more and so on, it is constantly being added to, where there is invention and so on and so on. That is quite clear that. And perhaps that same movement is carried over to the psychological realm where we consider ( that accumulating more ) knowledge is necessary to know oneself. To 'know' oneself is really a very limited comprehension, because knowledge is limited. But 'knowing' (in real time what is going on inwardly?) is a 'movement'

MZ: Could you enlarge a little bit upon that ?

K: The (inner experience accumulated through intellectual knowledge ?) is static, and whatever you add to it (eventually?) becomes mechanical. But the 'knowing' (in real time ?) is an (interactive ?) 'learning' ( which is not aimed at ?) accumulating knowledge, but is constantly moving, enquiring, exploring, pushing - it is a (living) 'movement' - like ( every form of) life is a 'movement', whether it is the movement in a tree, in a small blade of grass, in the tiger or in the small insect. And it is the same 'life' as in us. Therefore ( for a holistically friendly homework?) one has to have ( a deep respect) for life, not kill life.

So we must come back to our beginning question , which is, can the human brain be ever free from all the ( thought-conditioning) 'programmes' we have received? And the 'speaker' ( 'K') , says it is possible. It is possible only through ( a direct & non-verbal) watching of the whole movement of one's ( self-centred) thought, watching the origin, the beginning of thought. In this ( transpersonal?) watching the brain then becomes much more sensitive, not only to its own responses but sensitive to nature, to everything around one, to the 'real worl that is becoming more and more dangerous, and also to the (inner) world of one's own psyche, so that there is a constant 'objective - subjective' ( interactive?) relationship, an interchange, never coming to a 'final conclusion' . That is, never taking a position from which you move. And this requires not only a great deal of (inner) 'leisure'- one must have the ( necessary inner ) leisure to look at life, the ( inner freedom from the pressures of ?) time to see what is actually happening (within or without oneself?) , what is actually going on in our daily life. And that ( compassionate) watchfulness makes the brain extraordinarily acute, sharp, clear. And if we can ( meditatively ?) go very deeply into it, this clarity is the 'total freedom'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Nov 2018 #143
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

A (reader friendly edited) K DISCUSSION WITH BUDDHISTS IN VARANASI cca 1978

THE ENDING OF PSYCHOLOGICAL RECORDING ALLOWS THE AWAKENING OF HOLISTIC INTELLIGENCE'

Rimpoche: The (mental 'entity' commonly known as the ?) 'observer' cannot 'see' ( perceive anything directly) without naming, because both arises out of the same matrix (of the known) . How then can the ( holistically friendly mind?) free it from this matrix ?

K: Sir, who is the 'observer'? Isn't the 'observer' ( the personalised expression of ) the whole movement of the past? And does it realize that as long as 'he' is observing, ( the perception of) what is being observed (inwardly) can never be totally accurate? I think this is an important ( experiential) question. Can the 'observer' ( the 'self--identified' mind?) , which is (the result of ?) the whole movement of the past, with all its ( cultural) conditioning, ancient and modern, be aware of itself as being conditioned? If it is not aware (of its imbedded ) conditioning , there will be a divisive conflict between itself and the thing which is being observed. So, the question arises then: Is it possible for the 'observer' to understand itself and discover its limitations, its conditioning, and so not interfere with the observation?

RMP: This is the basic (experiential) problem : whenever we try to 'observe' (anything directly ) , the 'observer' ( knowledgeable entity?) is always interfering in the observation. I would like to know whether there is a method to 'cut off' this inteference of the 'me' ?

K: The 'observer' is ( the active factor behind ) the practice, the system, the method. Because he is the result of all past practices, methods, experiences, knowledge, the routine, the mechanical process of repetition, he 'is' the ( exponent of the ) past. Therefore, if you introduce another method or practice, it is still within the same field.

RMP.: Then how can it be done?

K: Can this movement of the past , which is always exerting its pressure on our minds, our brains, our whole existence (come to a natural ) ending, so that it does not prevent pure observation? Can the ( inner momentum of) sorrow, the fear, the pleasure, the pain, the anxiety, which is the ( ongoing) story of man, end now, so that the past does not interfere or prevent pure observation?

RMP.: Can one observe this ( momentum of the past) without the interference of the 'observer'?

K: ( For starters?) what is the quality or nature of the 'observer'? Is he aware of himself as (the active memory of ) the past?

RMP.: I don't think so.

K: No, he is not aware.

RMP.: At the moment of observation he is not fully aware of ( being the expression of ) the past. Intellectually he can understand the past, he can understand his conditioning.

K: Can he understand his conditioning as an outsider observing it, or is he aware of himself as being conditioned? You see the difference, sir?

RMP.: Isn't this awareness (involving) duality?

K: To make it much simpler: Is there an awareness of ( any psychological reaction?) as it arises? Of course, there is, I can see the awakening of envy. I see a beautiful carpet, and there is envy, there is the greed for it. Now, in that knowing, is thought aware that there is a reaction of envy, or is envy itself aware? I know the reaction, I know the feeling of envy. But if the word 'envy' is not used , then is it the same envy? So, is there a (direct) observation of the feeling of envy, without the word?

P.J.: Are you saying that the naming sustains the feeling?

K: That is what I am saying. The word has become more
important. Can you free (dissociate) the word from the observation of the feeling ? (Eg:) I see that carpet. There is a visual perception, an (eye) contact and thought projects the image of owning that carpet, and so desire arises. Now, the 'image' which thought has created is the ( result of naming) . So, is there an observation of that carpet without the word, which means there is no interference of thought?

RMP.: In the case of an outside object... it can certainly be seen without ( verbal) interference.

K: Now, is it possible to observe (inwardly the arising of envy ) without the word, without the ( related memories of the ) past, without the remembrance of previous envies?

RMP.: This is something more difficult.

K: It does not (need to) become 'difficult'. First, let us be clear: The word is not the thing; the description is not the reaction described. But for most of us the 'word' (the naming process?) has become tremendously important. Without the ( usage of) words, is there a 'thinking', in the usual usage of that word? The word influences our thinking, language moulds our thinking, and our thinking is with the word, with the symbol, with the picture, and so on. Now, we are asking, can you observe that feeling that we have previously (recorded & ) verbalized as 'envy', without the word, which means without the remembrance of past envies?

RMP.: That is the ( fine experiential) point we do not see. As soon as observation starts, the past as thought always interferes (in order to control the thing observed ?) . Can we make any observation without the interference of thought?

K: I say 'yes', absolutely.

J.U.: The clue to all these lies in seeing that the 'walker' is not different from walking. Walking itself is the walker.

K: Is this so in daily life?

J.U.: Yes. When we understand that the actor and the acting are one, through ( a non-verbal) observation, then we break history as the past.
I must make myself clear ( through a metaphor:) There is a bullock cart and it is loaded. All that is loaded on the cart, where does it rest, what does it stand on? It is resting on that point of the earth, the point of the wheel which is in contact with the point of the earth. It is on that point that the whole load rests. Similarly, our ( present ) life is the (contact ) point on which our whole history as the movement from the past to the future rests. When I hold it in the field of observation that momentum, is broken. Therefore, the load and the bullock cart are broken (QED?)

A.P.: When you say it is broken, is that attention your experience? If what you say is a fact, then Rimpoche's question should have been answered. If his question has not been answered, then what has been said is theoretical.

RMP.: This does not answer my question.

K: Sir, your question in the beginning was, can the (inner momentum of the?) past end? It is a very simple question because all our life is ( rooted in) the past. It is the story of all humanity, the enormous length, depth, volume, of the past. And we are asking a ( holistically) 'simple' question: Can that vast ( psychological) story of mankind with all its tremendous volume, like a tremendous river with a great deal of water flowing, come to an end?

First of all, do we recognise the immense volume of it - not the words, but the actual volume of it? Or is it just a theory that it is the past? Do you understand my question, sir? Does one recognise the great weight of the past? Then the question arises, what is the value of this past? Which is, what is the value of ( inwardly living in the field of) knowledge?

RMP.: It is the point of realization.

A.P.: But the actual realization is becoming impossible if at this point thought comes in.

K: Why should thought interfere when you are asking me the question: What place has knowledge in my life?

RMP.: It may have its (temporal) utility.

K: Yes, knowledge has its limited place. Psychologically, it has no place. Why has the knowledge of the past taken over the other field?

P.J.: Sir, what is it that you seek by this question? Even the receiving of this question is also in the field of knowledge.

K: I am asking you a very simple question: Why should (my psychological) knowledge take a place in my relationship with another? As, for instance, 'You have hurt me, you are not my friend' or 'she has praised me, then she is my friend', When (our mutual ) relationship is based on memory, remembrance, there is division and conflict. Therefore, there is no love. How is the ( subliminal interference of psychological ?) memory, remembrance, which prevents love, to come to an end in relationship?
(For starters?) what is the function of the brain?

RMP.: To store memory.

K: Which means what? To register, like a ( digital) tape-recorder. Why should it register anything (indiscriminately?) except what is absolutely necessary? I must register the adress where I live & how to drive a car. There must be registration of the things that have utility. Why should it register when she insults me, or you praise me? It is that registration that is the ( unwritten?) history of the past - the flattery, the insult. I am asking, can't that be stopped?

RMP.: When I am thinking (about the subtility of it?) , it is very difficult...You say ''why not register only what is necessary'', but the brain does not know what is necessary. That is why it goes on registering. The registering is involuntary.

K: I am going to show you it is not ( so) difficult.

RMP.: Then how can we register only that which is necessary?

K: What is the nature of the brain? It needs physical security - because otherwise it cannot function properly. It must have food, clothes and shelter, but thought has invented other forms of security: I am a Hindu, with my gods. Thought has created the illusion and in that illusion the brain seeks shelter, security. Now, does thought realize that the creation of the gods, etc. is an illusion, and, therefore, put it away, so that I don't have to perform religious rituals, because they are all the products of thought in which the brain has found some kind of illusory security? For the physical survival, not only of you and me, but of humanity, why do we divide ourselves as Hindu, Muslim, communist, socialist, Catholic?

RMP.: This is the creation of ( our self-centred) thought, which is illusory.

K: Yet we hold on to it. You call yourself a 'Hindu'. Why?

RMP.: It is a survivalistic reflex.

P.J.: At one level we can understand each other. But it does not end that process.

K: Because we don't use ( the totality of ) our brain & mind to find out, to say this is so: I must survive.

P.J.: You just said that the brain is functioning like a ( digital) tape-recorder recording everything. But isn't there another function of the brain, another quality?

K: Yes, it is (the holistic) 'intelligence'.

P.J.: How is it awakened?

K: I see there is no security in nationalism, and, therefore, I am out: I am no longer ( identifying myself as?) an 'Indian'. And I see there is no security in belonging to any religion; therefore, I don't belong to any ( organised?) religion. I have observed how nations fight each other, how communities fight each other, how religions fight each other, the stupidity of it, and the very observation awakens intelligence. Seeing 'that which is false' ( as being actually false?) is the awakening of intelligence.

P.J.: What is this seeing?

K: Seeing the stupidity is ( the liberating action of) intelligence.

R.B.: Are you saying that as one sees this, the unnecessary recording comes to an end?

K: Yes. I am no longer a nationalist. That is a tremendous thing.

Sunanda Patwardhan: You mean if we cease to be nationalists, all unnecessary recording stops?

K: Yes, with regard to ( the psycho- identification with?) nationalism.

R.B.: Do you mean to say that when one sees that security or survival is an absolute minimum and eliminates everything else, then the ( redundant psychological?) recording stops?

K: Of course, naturally.
J.U.: One song has ended and another has started; a new song has been recorded on the old. It will go on. The old destructive music will keep on breaking and the new music which is good, which is right, will take over. Is this the future of humanity?

K: No, you see, this is theory. Have you stopped being a Buddhist?

J.U.: I don't know. My being a Buddhist is a historical past.

K: Then drop ( being inwardly identified with?) it - which means you see the illusion of being a 'Buddhist' ( follower?) .
Seeing the illusion (the illusory safety of your psychological identification?) is the beginning of (the awakening of?) intelligence.

J.U.: But we would like to see that when one thing breaks another (psycho-attachment ) does not form.

K: Could we tackle this (holistically?) ? We are surrounded by false( -ly protective?) illusory things. Must we go step by step, one after another? Or is there a way of looking at this whole process of illusion and ending it? To see the whole movement of illusion, the movement of thought which creates illusions and, seeing it, to end it - is that possible?

J.U.: This is possible only if we can 'break (free' inwardly from ) the self-protective process, then this is possible. The form of this process will then undergo a change; but the brain's self-protective process itself will not end. Thousands of such illusions break down and thousands of new ones come into being - this happens all the time.
So far we have been talking only of the gross illusions; these certainly can be broken down. But ( in the very doing of this) one's ( self-) image is just re-shaping itself. It is making its own thought structures.

A.P.: What he is saying is that this process of negating gives place to the arising of new & subtler illusions.

K: No(t necessarily?) Thought being limited (to act exclusively within the field of the known) , whatever it creates is limited - whatever: gods, knowledge, experience, everything is limited. Do you 'see that thought is limited and its activity is limited? If you see that, it is finished; there is no further ( thought-created) illusion. That is why I said, sir, that thought must find its own proper place, which is ( its materialistic ) utility, and it has no other place. If it has any other place, it is illusion.
Thought is not love. Does love exist? You agree thought is limited, but do you love people? I don't want theories. What is the point of all your knowledge, Gita, Upanishads, and all the rest of it? When we have really discovered the (intrinsical) limitations of thought, there is a flowering of something else. Is it really happening? Does that take place?

RMP.: I can now recognise the limitations of thought more poignantly.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Nov 2018 #144
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 3 posts in this forum Offline

"K: Can he understand his conditioning as an outsider observing it, or is he aware of himself as being conditioned? You see the difference, sir?"

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 03 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 03 Nov 2018 #145
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 3 posts in this forum Offline

K:"as an outsider observing it"

"You are that" (Nisargadata I think.)

This post was last updated by Peter Kesting Sat, 03 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #146
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

1ST ( reader friendly edited) K SEMINAR IN MADRAS (1981)

IN LISTENING IS TRANSFORMATION

Achyut Patwardhan: Reflective ( thoughtful?) minds have come to realize that there is a certain degeneration at the very source of the human mind & brain. Would it be possible for us to explore the source of this degeneration?

P.J.: There is an obvious state of degeneration, both outside and within ourselves - this is part of the very condition of man, but the degenerative process being ( exponentially?) accelerated ( by the new developpments of technology) and, therefore, degeneration being visible both at our doorstep and within oneself. We can start our ( experiential) inquiry with the question  : with what instruments do we enquire ? Unless one asks this question we will keep on going round the circle of degeneration.

K.: I think all of us agree that there is ( an inner & outer qualitative ) degeneration, that there is an ongoing corruption - moral, intellectual and also physical. There is chaos, confusion, misery, despair. To 'think' ( ego-centrically ?) is to be full of sorrow. Now, how do we approach this present condition? The 'communists' would also agrees that sorrow is the burden of mankind, but in order to change that sorrow (sad human condition ?) one must recondition society. Now, if we could put aside all our (ideological) positions, then perhaps we can be able to really look at this very serious problem of degeneration.
( Brain's functioning within the field of self-centred ?) knowledge handed down through tradition, books and so on, appears to be at the root of all its degeneration. Throughout the world there is uncertainty, utter confusion and despair. It is quite clear that I have no answer to this problem of degeneration within me, so we'll have to deal only with observable facts.

P.J.: Krishnaji has brought an element into this enquiry which demands a great deal of examination, which is that ( living in the field of) knowledge - ( an inner habitat ) that the human brain has acquired through millennia – can be in itself the source of degeneration. First, I must discover the truth or untruth of it.

B.K.: Perhaps we do not havethe appropriate tools for doing this . What I am enquiring is, is there a root cause for all this?

K: What is the root cause? We are not examining the (external) symptoms, but can we find out through sceptical investigation what is the effect of knowledge on our minds, on our brains? This has to be examined, and then the root cause will be uncovered. Can we find a different approach?

J.U.: There are two angles from which we look at this problem: one is that of the individual and the other is that of society. The individual himself is, partly, an ( independent) entity but, largely, he is the product of society. I would not like to go back to the ancient past - I am confining myself to the last three to four hundred years of civilization. I want to stress that the problem lies in the nature of the relationship between the individual and society. There are moments when the individual acquires a greater importance, and moments when society acquires greater importance. What is the nature of the inter-relationship of one to the other ?

K: I question whether 'society' is not an abstraction. What is actual is the human inter-relationship.
( For starters?) let us find out whether ( inwardly) we are (harmoniously integrated?) individuals or we are just 'programmed' to think we are individuals. I am questioning very deeply whether the concept of one's (separate ) individuality is actual.

J.U.: There are two levels of delusion at which one is working : the 'illusory reality' of individual's existence and that of society's existence – as long as both exist', there is ( an inevitable ) conflict between the two, which must also be resolved.

K: Are you saying that the brain has been programmed as the individual, with its expressions, freedom, fulfilment, with society opposed to the individual? Are you admitting that the brain has been 'programmed' to think in that way ? Therefore, this programming is an illusion, not the brain that has been programmed. So, can we stop brain's (self-centred) programming ? The computer is ( physically) programmed and we are programmed (psychologically ) .

J.U.: If I wipe that out, then what is our ( mutual) relationship?

K: Not 'if's and 'but's. Do we actually see the fact, not the theory of the fact, that we are not ( inwardly integrated ? ) individuals?

P.J.: Your starting point is that the brain is 'programmed' (to think in terms of a self-centred individuality?) and when we observe (the real world) sometimes the outer predominates, sometimes the inner – but the interaction between the two is always evident. Therefore, as Rimpocheji says, we cannot wipe out the ( reality of the) 'individual' (consciousness) and just talk of 'relationship', we cannot because we have to examine the two points.

K: I question that. I am saying there is only 'relationship' - the brain relating itself to the past. The brain is functioning within its own ( self-centred) circle, within its own area (of the known). The ( average self-centred human) brain is only concerned with itself, its own security, its own problems, its own sorrow, and the other person's brain is also doing this. The brain is never ( feeling actually) related to anything. The 'other person' is ( seen through) the 'image' created by the self-centred thinking of this brain.

S: Do you mean to say there is no 'other person'?

K: You exist, but my relationship with you is based on the thoughts which I have about you, the 'image' that I have created about you. The relationship is not with ( the real) you, but with the ( mental) 'image' that I have (made of you) . Therefore, there is no ( actual) relationship.

B.K.: What I do not understand is, how does the (self-centred) 'programming' come in?

K: Sir, like the computer is (physically) programmed, my brain has also been ( culturally ) programmed that I am a Hindu, I am Christian, I believe in God, or I don't believe in God. Leave it for the moment. We are saying there is no (authentic) relationship with 'other' (our neighour?) . But if I actually see this and change the whole ( self-centred) movement, then perhaps we may know what Love is. Then our relationship is totally different.

A.P.: The ( outwardly) visible fact is that the world is full of people. They are divided into nationalities, etc. I cannot permit an oversimplification of a situation in which the problem itself is reduced to what is happening in my own brain – because something is happening both outside and within me and there is an interaction, and that is the problem.

K: You are saying that there is an interaction between my 'psychological' world and the ( real) world. I am saying (that consciousness-wise?) there is only ( an 'all-one' ) world - my 'psychological' world. It is not an oversimplification; on the contrary.

G.N.: The brain creates its own ( self-protective) 'images' which prevents real relationship. In fact, when the brain is relating to its own image, all the problems arise.

K: The brain is the centre of all the sensory responses. I see a woman and all the sensory responses awaken. The sensory responses are stored in the brain. The brain then reacts as thought, through memory and the 'image' is created. The image then becomes all-important, not the actual woman. The woman may be necessary for my pleasure, etc., but there is no ( authentic human) relationship with her except on the physical level . This is simple enough.

P.J.: The real question then arises, what is the (holistic) action which triggers the ending of this image-making machinery so that a 'direct' contact is possible? The trap we are caught in is, we see it is so, but we continue (to function inwardly ) in the same patterns ( of the known) .

K: This is so. Why is the brain functioning so 'mechanically'?

P.J.: What is the challenge, what is the action which will 'break through' this mechanical functioning so that there is a direct contact with 'what is' ?

K: Let us get this clear. The brain has been accustomed to (function in) this sensory, imaginary, movement. What will 'break' this chain? That is the basic question.

P.J.: The question is, what is your relationship to me or to Upadhyayaji or to 'Y'? Are you not a challenge to me?

K: What do you mean ?

P.J.: Krishnaji's statement, or (rather, the truth of) what he has been saying, and to which I am listening, is it not a challenge to this very brain?

K: It is.

P.J.: If it is so, then there is ( within each one of us?) a (dormant) 'movement' which is other than the movement of the brain.

K: K makes a statement. It is a challenge to you only when you can ( adequately) respond to it. Otherwise it is not a challenge.

P.J.: I don't understand that.

K: This ( inner & outer trend of deterioration?) is a challenge. How do you respond to challenge? As a Buddhist, as a Christian, as a Hindu, Muslim, or as a politician, etc? Either you respond at the same intensity as the challenge or you don't respond at all. To meet a challenge you and I must 'face each other' .

J.U.: Can't there also be a challenge from the outer world?

K: That is entirely different. The 'speaker' has no ( personal) beliefs. From that point he challenges, which is different from the challenge from the outside ; this challenge of 'absoluteness' (of a 'transpersonal' mind ?) , is entirely different.

P.J.: We need to go back to where we started : the question is, how is this ( self-centred) movement to end?

K: How is this 'cycle' of experience, knowledge, memory, thought, action - action again going back to ( accquiring more) knowledge, this (repetitive existential) circle in which you are caught - to end?

P.J.: It is really asking, how is the stream of causation to end? This process you have shown - challenge, sensation, action - does the learning of that action return, get stored (& start a new cycle) ?

K: Obviously. This is what we ( our 'time - bound' brain ) is doing constantly

J.U.: In that process ( of man's material experience) what goes out does not come back as it was, but something special is added to it. What is this new factor, and from where does it come?

K: Sir, all that I am saying is, (that living within the closed circle of our past ) 'psychological' knowledge, is ( causing) the corruption of the brain and, therefore, corrupting the world, corrupting the rivers, the skies, human relationships, everything. How is this chain to be broken?
Has my (intention of) 'breaking of the chain' a cause, a motive? If it is causing me pain and, therefore, I want to be out of it, then I am back in the chain. If it is causing me pleasure, I will say, please leave me alone. So I must be very clear in myself that I must have no ( preset) direction or motive.

Satyendra: It is a central question and people keep on asking, 'How do I break the chain?' Is it basically a new way of looking at things? Is it a matter of reason, logic?

K: No, it is not a matter of analysis, but of plain observation of what is going on. The brain is the centre of all sensory responses. The sensory response has created (a vast memory bank of) experience, thought and action, and the brain being caught in ( living in the field of its past knowledge) which, being partial, is never complete. Therefore, it is polluting everything it does. If you admit (see the truth of ?) that once, not as theory but as a fact, then that 'circle' is broken.

P.J.: Practically every teaching which is concerned with the meditative processes has regarded the ( desires of the ) senses as a (potential) obstruction to the ending of this (mechanistic thought ) process. What role do you give to the senses in freeing the mind?

Kapila Vatsyayan: In the ancient Indian thought, the senses are not to be denied. The image they have is the chariot and horses. Yes, the horses are primary; the senses are primary and they are not to be destroyed. They are to be understood, controlled. They are the factors of ( relating with ) the outer reality. They do not deny the outer.

P.J.: I am asking, what is the role of the senses ?

K: The senses, as ( driven by the self-centred) thought, create desire. Without the interference of thought they have very little ( transcendental?) importance.

P.J.: Senses have no importance?

K: Senses have their place. If I see a beautiful tree, it is beauty; the beauty of a tree is astonishing. Where does desire interfere with the senses? That is the whole point; not whether the senses are important or unimportant, but where desire begins. If one understands that, then why give such colossal importance to it?

R.B.: It sounds as if you are contradicting yourself. You have said, not just now but earlier, 'if you can observe with all your senses'... Therefore, you cannot deny the importance of the senses.

K: I did not deny the senses. I said if you respond to that tree, look at that tree with the sunlight on it after the rain, it is full of beauty, there is a total response, there is no 'me', there is no thought, there is no centre which is responding. That is beauty, not the painting, not the poem, but the total response of all your senses to that. We don't so respond because (before we know it?) thought creates an 'image' from which a desire arises. There is no contradiction in what I have said.

P.J.: If I may ask Upadhyayaji, how would the Vedanta regard the senses?

J.U.: According to Vedanta, without the 'observer' there can be no observation.

P.J.: What about the Buddhist?

S: There is seeing only when the 'seer' is not. There is no difference between the 'seer' and the 'seeing'.

K: (In other words ?) the observer 'is' the observed. But let us come back to our central point: The brain is caught in this ( psychologically safe mental) movement (within the field of the known) . And you are asking, how is this (subliminally time-binding) chain which is built by thought to be broken?
Who is asking this question? Is the ( totality of one's) brain asking the question, or is ( it the self-centred ) desire asking, 'How am I to get out of it?' Do you see the difference?

A.P.: When you say, is the brain asking that question, or is desire asking it, I am bogged.

P.J.: Don't we need to ask the question (regarding how is the chain of time-thought to be broken ) ?

K: There is only this chain. That is all. The moment you ask the question (how can it be broken) , you are trying to find an answer (away from 'what is' ) , you are not looking at the chain. But when you ( realise that you) 'are' that; you can't ask any question. The next ( experiential) point which is, what happens when you 'are' that? There is no (inner) movement. The movement has created this, and when there is no movement, that (repetitive mental activity within the known?) ends. Then there is totally different dimension (of holistic consciousness?) . So, I have to begin by not asking questions.

But is that 'chain' a fact to me? This 'chain' is (thought driven ) desire - desire in the sense of ( pursuing the ) sensory responses. (Hint:) If all the senses respond (as a whole) , there is no desire. But when the sensory responses are partial, then thought comes in and creates the (desirable or undesirable?) 'image'. From that image arises (the time-binding attempt to fulfil that) desire. Is this seen as a fact, that this is the ( mentally repetitive ) chain the brain works in? Whatever it does must operate in this?

B.K.: How can one be more 'in touch' with that observation?

K: Look, if I have a physical pain; I immediately take a pill, go to a doctor and so on. That same movement ( intended to avoid deeper existential pains ) is taken over by the 'psyche' (the temporal self?) who asks 'What am I do? Show me a way out.' The moment 'you' want to get out, there is the (time-binding ) problem. Physical pain I can deal with, but with the 'fact' of psychological pain, can the brain say '' I won't move away from it '' and then see what happens ? Sceptical research, sceptical investigation is the true spiritual process. This is true ( function of ) religion.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 04 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #147
Thumb_avatar Peter Kesting United States 3 posts in this forum Offline

K: "Sceptical research, sceptical investigation is the true spiritual process. This is true ( function of ) religion."

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Nov 2018 #148
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

Peter Kesting wrote:
sceptical investigation is the true spiritual process

Or at least, Peter, this is what it should be...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Nov 2018 #149
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

2-nd reader friendly edited K SEMINAR MADRAS 1981

What does your teaching actually stand for ?

P.J.: Today more and more people are hearing you and both those who stand for the 'status quo' and those who stand for a revolution (in human consciousness ) , takes your teaching and amalgamates it into theirs. This ongoing contradiction needs clarification. What does your teaching actually stand for?

K: Let us take it one by one.

J.U.: When you posit a 'state beyond', which is bliss, etc., that is arising the contradiction. I would say that the stream of sorrow and the compassion which arises upon direct contact with that stream is the only reality.

K: One thing is very clear, that there is this enormous river of ( human) sorrow. That is so. Can that ( personal & collective burden of?) sorrow be 'ended' and, if it ends, what is the result on society? That is the real issue.

J.U.: There is this vast stream of sorrow, but no one can posit ( how &) when this sorrow will come to an end.

K: I am positing ( the possibility of ending ?) it.

A.P.: Sorrow seems to be the very fabric of our (everyday) existence, but you have often said that the ending of sorrow can be attained.

K: Yes, there is an ending to ( the causation of?) sorrow.

A.P.: Your statement about the sorrow of man ending has no future or past. Does it mean that sorrow can end in this very instant ?

K: (For starters?) I think we all agree that ( deeper down, the consciousness of?) humanity is (immersed ) in this 'stream of sorrow' and this ( consciousness of) humanity 'is' (present in ?) each one of us. Humanity is not separate from me; I 'am' humanity, not just a ( lucky?) 'representative' of humanity. My whole psychological structure, 'is' humanity. Therefore, there is no ( dualistic separation between ?) 'me' and the 'stream of sorrow'. Let us be very clear on that point.

P.J.: Are you saying that there is no stream of sorrow independent of the human consciousness ? Upadhyayaji suggests that there is a 'stream of sorrow' which is independent of the individual consciousness.

K: No, no. The human brain is born through ( a long & painful evolution?) time. It is not (only) 'my' brain. It is the brain of all humanity - in which the hereditary principle is involved, which is time. Therefore my ( temporal) consciousness is the ( temporal) consciousness of mankid; it is the ( shared) consciousness of humanity because man suffers, he is proud, cruel, anxious, unkind, this is the 'common ground' ( the time-bound consciousness?) of man. The stream of sorrow 'is' ( shared by all) humanity; it is not something 'out there'. So, before we move on, let us get the ground clear. The ground is, there is no (independent?) individual suffering. ( The pursuit of) pleasure (along with its collateral) fear, anxiety, vanity, cruelty, etc., all that is common to all humanity. That is the ( subliminally shared ?) psychological structure of man. Where does 'individuality' come into this?

P.J.: The problem ( of one's individuality?) arises because we see ourselves as a 'fact', but we don't see the (holistic aspect of our ) consciousness in being rude to someone else.

J.U.: Krishnaji has said something which is of utmost importance : that the individual sorrow 'is' the sorrow of mankind. Now, this ( 'holistic' perception ) should be investigated & understood (experientially) , not as a theory but as an actuality. When one looks at this 'stream of sorrow', it has a direction, it has a (living) movement.

K: That which has a (living) movement has no direction. When it has a direction it is ( the movement of thought & ) 'time'

J.U. A stream which is flowing may appear as a stream, but it is made up of individual drops, and when the energy of the sun falls on that stream, it draws up the individual drops, not the whole stream.

P.J.: You see what is implied in it? The ending of sorrow, does it arise in the individual drop or in the whole stream?

K: Take any river; it has a 'source' - all the rivers of the world have a source. Is the stream (of self-interest?) the source of our sorrow? To me, there is no such thing as an individual sorrow . If you accept that as a fact, you cannot then say that the source is made up of individual drops.

B.K.: If we translate this into human terms, that really means human beings are born of sorrow, and are condemned also (to live with it?).

K: No. I am not condemning. I am saying what is a fact. You cannot condemn a fact.

P.J.: You say there is the stream of sorrow. I am questioning it.

K: I want to start with a clean slate. And I watch, I observe what is happening around me. I observe what is happening inside me. I observe that the 'me' is that.

P.J: I observe what?

K: I observe what is going on. I am the result of experience, knowledge stored up in memory, that is, I am the result of thousands of generations. That is a fact. I have discovered that as a fact, not as a theory.

Sat: When you say 'I have gone through the whole ( experience of) of mankind', who is saying it?

K: Am I saying that as an 'idea' or as the perception of a 'fact' which is happening in my brain cells? All the worries, the anxieties, the misery, the confusion, the uncertainty, the desire for security, the 'psychological' world which thought has built, 'is' mankind.

P.J.: Sir, the ( experiential) importance is in ( directly observing) the movement of sorrow, the movement of violence, as it arises in me. Is it very important whether this movement is part of ( the collective consciousness of ) mankind or just part of my brain cells?

K: My ( beloved) brother dies and I shed tears. I watch my neighbour whose wife or husband has gone; there are tears, loneliness, despair, misery, which I am also going through. So I recognise a common thread between that and my woe.

P.J.: How is it ( experientially?) important?

K. It is important because when I see there is a common factor, there is immense strength. If you are only concerned with your individual sorrow, you are weak. You lose the tremendous ( compassionate ? ) energy that comes from the perception of the whole of sorrow. The individual sorrow is a fragmentary sorrow and, therefore that which is fragmentary has not the tremendous energy of the whole. Whatever a fragmentary consciousness does, it is still within a small radius and, therefore, trivial. If I suffer because my brother is dead and I grow more and more involved, shed more and more tears, I get more and more depleted, I lose contact with the ( truth of ) fact that I am ( a responsible?) part of this enormous stream.

P.J.: When my brother is dead and I observe my mind, I see the movement of sorrow; but of that stream of human sorrow, I know nothing.

K: Then stop there (and look around ?) : I am (immersed ) in sorrow, but I see this happening to my neighbour on the left and on the right. I see this happening right through the world. They are (eventually) going through the same agony, though not at the moment I go through it. So, I discover something, that it is not only me that suffers but mankind. What is the difficulty?

P.J.: I don't weep at the world's sorrow.
K: Because I am so concerned with myself, my life; I have reduced all this life to a little corner, which I call 'myself'. And my neighbour does the same; everybody is doing the same. That is a fact. Then I discover that this sorrow is a ( collective) stream that has been going on for many generations.

J.U.: The particular sorrow and the stream of collective sorrow , are they one?

K: There is no 'particular'.

J.U.: The particular is experienceable, is manifest, but even when we say we see the stream, we see it as particulars put together. As long as the 'self' is, the particular will have to be.

K: I understand that, but either I remain caught in my little sorrow or I perceive this enormous sorrow of man.

P.J.: What is the (holistically perceptive?) instrument, which enables one to see ( the truth of it) directly?

K: See what has happened to my brain. My brain has been concerned with the ( personal) loss of the (beloved) brother. The visual eye sees this enormous suffering in my neighbour here or a thousand miles away. How does it see the fact that my neighbour 'is' (exactly in the same situation as ) me, who is going through hell? The neighbour all over the world is my neighbour. I see it as a fact, not a theory.

J.U.: When Krishnaji talks of seeing the ( totality of human) sorrow not as an 'individual' one, he can do it because he has negated the self totally; K has negated time totally. There is no movement which is fragmentary in him. . K is standing on the bank of the river and watching and I am floating in the river.

K: What has happened? Go through the actuality of it. My brother dies and I am shocked. It takes a week or two to get over it. When that shock is over, I am observing. I see this thing going on around me. It is a fact.

P.J.: You still have to tell me with what eyes I must see.

K: Am I ( inwardly) so ( self- ) enclosed that I don't see anything except me and something outside of me? That is the first thing to be established. I want to go back to this point - sorrow of my brother dying - there is only sorrow. I don't see it as a stream of sorrow; there is this thing burning in me, I see this happening right and left and it is happening to all human beings. I see that too, theoretically. Why can't I see it as a fact, as me suffering and, therefore, the world suffering? Why don't we see it? That is the point we have come to.

P.J.: I don't see it, the sorrow of another. That passion, that intensity which is born in me when there is sorrow arising in me, does not arise when I see the sorrow of another.

K: All right. When you suffer, you close your ears and eyes to everything else. Actually, when my brother dies, everything is shut out and that is the whole point. If the brain says, 'Yes, I won't move from that, I won't seek comfort,' there is no movement. Can I hold it, perceive it? What happens to the mind? That is my point. If you remain with sorrow, you have denied everything.

J.U.: That is so only for Krishnaji.

K: Panditji, throw K away. This is a fact. We never remain with anything completely. If the brain remains completely with fear, everything is gone. But we don't, we are always searching, moving, asking, questioning. Sir, my brother dies, I shed tears, do all kinds of things, and suddenly realize that there is no answer in reincarnation, going to the gods, doing this, doing that, nothing remains except the one thing. What happens then to the brain that has been chattering, making noises about sorrow, chasing its own tail?

B.K.: There is always some other interference.

K: There is no interference when you observe something totally; to observe 'totally' is not to allow thought to interfere with what is being perceived totally.

J.U.: Sorry for going back to my original question. When sorrow has ended, happiness will be there ?

K: When sorrow has completely ended, then there is (the awakening of the intelligent energy of ? ) compassion.

J.U.: The perception of the fact that human existence is sorrow is the ending of sorrow, and without the ending of sorrow, there is no compassion. That is your position ?

K: I will make my position very clear. There is only the ( consciousness?) stream of mankind.

J.U.: Is there bliss after ending sorrow? Will everyone be happy?

K: I never said that. I said the ending of sorrow is the beginning of compassion, not bliss.

A.P.: Sir, I will go a step further. I can say that Upadhyayaji has listened to the fact that the substance of human existence is sorrow and the perception of this is compassion. For him this a new theory ( a new working hypothesis?) and he seeks corroboration of this ( with what he already knew) and this also gives him satisfaction. I say this satisfaction and that satisfaction are on the same level.

K: I quite agree. Are we discussing this as something to be learnt, studied, being informed about, or is (sorrow) a ( vital) fact in our lives? At what level are we discussing all this? If we are not clear on this, we will mess it up.

( To recap:) The 'speaker' says : sorrow is an endless thing that man has lived with, whether it is his own sorrow or that of his neighbour or of a child being beaten and so on. And can it end? You come along and tell me it can end. I either treat it as a ( existentialistic) theory or I say, 'Show me he manner in which it can end.' That's all I am interested in. We never come to that (action) point. He says to me I will show it to you. ( Hint:) But...am I willing to 'listen' to him completely? So he says to me, 'Sorrow is the stream, remain with the (actuality of this stream without any ( mental) movement because any movement is the cause of sorrow.' I don't know if you see that. So he says, 'Remain with it. Don't intellectualize, don't get emotional, don't get theoretical, don't seek comfort, just remain with the ( inwardness of this) thing.' That is very difficult (to be done non-personally ?) and, therefore, we play around with it. And he also tells us that if you go beyond this, there is some beauty that is out of this world. I listen to the 'out of this world' and create a ( fake?) contradiction.

If you found ( experientially?) something astonishingly original which is not ( found in any spiritual ) books, not in the Vedas, if you discovered something of an enormous nature, would you not talk about that (even if ) knowing that ( the materialistically minded ?) man will do exactly what he has done before - catch on to that and neglect this? He would do it, sir, because it is a part of the whole thing; it is part of the ( whole) Tree (of Life?) . The tree 'is' the hidden roots, the trunk, the leaf, the flower, the beauty of the whole thing and if you look at the beauty of its ( original) roots, you talk about them. The tree 'is' ( sustained & nourished by ) its roots.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Nov 2018 #150
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 294 posts in this forum Offline

AN EXPERIENTIAL APPROACH TO THE FUTURE OF MAN'S CONSCIOUSNESS

( A "reader friendly" edited K seminar -India, 1981)

Achyut Patwardhan: Sir, there is a general feeling of a deepening crisis. This feeling is due to various ( outer) factors in the environment - the arms race, pollution, economic problems, underlying all this is a deep feeling of moral decline, and in a country like India, this feeling is quite overpowering. It would be valuable to understand the relationship between this 'inner' moral crisis and its 'outer' manifestations which threaten the survival of man. The problem is: Can we ( experientially ) discover (& expose and solve) for ourselves the relationship of the crisis within man and the crisis outside?

P.J.: Is the present 'crisis' facing the human being of the same nature as the crises in the past? Or due to the pressures generated by the technological action of human beings - genetic engineering, computer engineering and the limitless possibilities of the computer taking over the functions of the human mind - is the crisis of a totally different order? It is not only a moral crisis; we have had moral crises in the past, but the crisis which strikes at the roots of the human mind is of a very different order. I think it is time we brought into this aspect, that the crisis that man faces today is the crisis of survival. With the growth of modern genetics and computer technology, methods will be forthcoming which will take over the functions of the human mind; the distinct possibility of the human mind itself atrophying is something which we can no longer disregard. If this is so, then shouldn't we start thinking of the crisis we face today? A few years later it may be beyond consideration. If there is a threat to the very root of the human mind, to the survival of all that is called 'human', then what is the action of man? Is it possible to meet it? If it is possible to meet it, with what tools, what instruments of our own being, do we meet it?

J.U.: There is a political, scientific, social and also a moral crisis. What is the resolution of this crisis? Is it faith?

Jai Shankar: We have all talked about a 'moral' crisis. The question is: Does it exist for all people? I don't think a moral crisis exists for the makers of armaments and those who buy them, or for the people who wield political power at all cost. And at the other end of the social spectrum the poor don't face any 'moral' crisis; they face a crisis of survival. So what is the crisis we are talking about? The crisis is really not a moral crisis per se, but the result of dissociating morality from knowledge.

R.K.: I think Mr. Jai Shankar was referring to an integral part of the nature of modern science, whose motive, dynamic force, is manipulation, conquest of nature, the re-ordering of society; and it is not that there is no moral perspective behind modern science. There is a moral perspective which has led today to our becoming aware of the manipulative kind of knowledge which tends to make science and technology 'amoral'.

J.S.: When does the tool cease to be a tool and become the master? That is the question. You presume that at all times tools can be controlled. I think that there could be tools that could overtake you; in fact, tools have already overtaken you; they control you, and there is very little freedom that is left to you.

J.U.: It is true that scientific and political developments have affected human consciousness. The ( real) problem is awakening human consciousness so that it can master the tool it creates.

R.K.: There is a fantastic 'stirring' of consciousness at the level of the ordinary person. In fact, there is a 'shrinkage' not only in terms od global communications & technology, but it is also a shrinkage between the bottom and top layers of society. And that shrinkage gives rise to conflicting issues that are part of an extremely complicated process.

K: If I may point out, I don't think the crisis is in morality or values at all. I think the crisis is in ( the self-centredness of human ?) consciousness and ( in the 'psychological' use of ? ) knowledge. Unless human beings radically transform this consciousness, we are going to end up in bloody wars.
( For starters?) has man's ( accumulated  ? ) knowledge transformed him (inwardly) at any time? This is the real crisis. Man has lived for ( at least ?) twenty-five thousand years but ( inwardly) he has not radically changed : he is still anxious, frightened, depressed, unhappy, aggressive, lonely, all that. Man's ( profound existential ) crisis is there and also in the havoc that knowledge played (in his relationship with life) ?
Has it any place at all in a ( holistic ?) transformation of man's consciousness ? That is the real question. We have to understand deeply down in our being whether (man's emphasis on knowledge ) has brought about the 'ascent' of man or the destruction of man, and whether it has any place at all in ( any holistic) transformation .

P.J.: But pf what kind of 'knowledge' are you talking about? When you ask, 'What place has knowledge in the transformation of man?' should we not clarify your conception of 'knowledge'?

T.N.M.: I am suggesting that perhaps what K means, is the will to become more 'humane' by converting our knowledge into the daily experience. Now, one must remember that the scientists who produced the computer did not do it in the name of bringing about human freedom. I think we should try to find out whether the problem is one of moral crisis or in the nature of knowledge or in the acquisition of knowledge.

P.J.: We seem to be going round and round this factor of knowledge. You spoke of a human 'consciousness', which contains not only the (practical) knowledge about ( producing & using ) machines, computers, etc., but also ( as generating inwardly ) some far more potent things like fear, anger, greed, sorrow, envy, loneliness. This is not 'knowledge' in the ordinarily recognised sense of the word, although it has been ( subliminally ) accumulated ( and identified with?) through our everyday experiences.

K: I would like to discuss what is ( the present state of our) 'consciousness' and what is the ( inward value ) of knowledge. These two factors apparently are ( presently) dominating the world.
Thought is ( operating in terms of all our past?) knowledge. Knowledge is ( the result of mankind's spatio-temporal ?) experience. This knowledge (stored in) memory (responds as) thought (and manifests itself in ) action - this is the 'cycle' ( of man's experience) in which he has been caught for ( at least?) twenty-five thousand years. This is the cycle in which man is caught; (resulting) inwardly in a ( self-enclosed life?) within the field of the 'known'. Now what will change man? That is one aspect of the problem.

The other (aspect) is ( man's egocentric) consciousness. ( The self-) consciousness 'is' (generated by its psychologically active?) content - all the beliefs, the class divisions, the suffering, pain, anxiety, loneliness, despair, depression, uncertainty, insecurity, and all this 'content' is ( shared by every ?) human consciousness, because wherever you go, America or Russia, you meet the same problems. Human beings carry this complex burden of ( psychological ) consciousness which contains all the 'things' that thought has put together.

R.K.: I would like a clearer definition of the 'content' of consciousness. Is it just all that thought has put together?

K: When you examine your own ( particular?) consciousness, whether you are a doctor, a scientist, a philosopher or a guru, you find your o the same anxieties, your (existential) uncertainties - all that is ( the active content of ) your (self-) consciousness. And this consciousness is the (common) ground on which all humanity stands.

J.S.: Well, there has been talk in our tradition about a 'pure consciousness' which is not an aggregate of anxiety, pain, despair. This is also a possibility that must be ( wisely?) considered.

K: Positing (the existence of) a 'pure consciousness' is still part of our ( temporal) consciousness, is still part of thought, and thought is born of knowledge, and, therefore limited.

P.J.: Is the human consciousness just a a 'putting together' of many fragments of different types, or has it a holistic quality in it?

K: If it is limited ( within the field of the known ?) , it is not holistic. Would you admit that thought arises from ( our accumulated) knowledge, and this knowledge can never be complete about anything? Therefore, thought is always limited, and all our actions - scientific, spiritual, religious - are limited. So the crisis is in knowledge, which is consciousness.

P.J.: Perhaps that if you 'open up' this whole problem of knowledge, thought, consciousness, it may be simpler to come to a meeting point.

K: Sir, what is ( the man-made?) 'reality'? (The reality of Nature is not created by thoughtà but thought has created everything that we know - all the temples, the churches, the the rituals, the prayers, all that is the invention of thought. Then I ask myself: What is ( the origin of the everyday?) thinking? If you ask my name, I respond immediately because I am familiar with it. But if you ask me something which is more complex, it takes time to investigate, to answer. That is, I look to my memory and try to find the answer or I consult books or talk to somebody to find the answer.
So ( reality - wise?) there are (two experiential options) : an immediate (or delayed) a response of time, and a ( 'thought-time' free?) response which says, 'I really do not know.'

We never say, 'I do not know.' We are always responding from ( our past experience & knowledge stored in ?) memory. That memory is ( imprinted) in the cells of my brain, derived through tradition, education, experience, perception, hearing and so on. I 'am' (my self-consciousness 'is'?) all that. So ( consciousness-wise?) the observer 'is' the observed. My consciousness 'is' (not separate from ?) the ( collective) consciousness of humanity. And this consciousness has known conflicts, pain. It has invented ( the 'greater than life' image of) 'God'. Human beings have lived for twenty-five thousand years in this ( psychological?) misery - inventing technology, (and eventually) using that same technology to destroy each other.

Seeing (the responsability involved in the realisation?) that I 'am' the world, what am I to do ? Will all this accumulation of tremendous knowledge help me to change all that? I have to discard all that kind of help totally. I feel the (root of man's ) crisis ( in consciousness) is in here, and not ( out there) in the world of technology or in the (potential dangers of a) totalitarian world.

R.K.: I have no difficulty in seeing that ( inwardly) a human being is a result of all those factors. But to give the same kind of character to all that without differentiation, that I don't see.

K: Physically and psychologically there are certain characteristic tendencies depending on different cultures, following certain values...

T.N.M.: At a certain level we are different. But at the level of what we 'are' (inwardly) , whether you are living in the Amazonian jungle or in a modern ( overpopulated?) town, there is a basic universality to the human predicament. But surely in terms of what we have, whether we have the computer or the sewing machine, there is a difference.

P.J.: Krishnaji is hinting at a ( psychological) quantum leap, and we are still thinking within the structure of time. Can we somehow come to this point from which we 'see'? Otherwise, we will go round and round; we can be better, more moral, less moral, less destructive or more destructive, but we will still be caught within this framework. I think that is the problem.

K: My question is: After twenty-five thousand years of evolution the result of all that is my ( self-centred) conditioning. And I say 'yes', it is possible to be completely unconditioned.
Now, ( experientially-wise?) how do you 'listen' to these statements so that they enter into that ( time-free deeper ?) part of my consciousness which is willing to comprehend entirely what you are saying ? Have I listened at a level where I 'see the truth' of what you have said? ( If I did ? ) what does it do to my consciousness?

P.J.: You have said there are only two ways open to man : either the way of ( pursuing worldly ?) pleasure or the way of ( awakening to?) an inner movement. I am asking you the 'how' of the inner (awakening) .

K: Can we move away from the 'how' for the moment and ( allow the necessary quality time to ?) observe the mind, or the brain? Can there be a pure observation of it, which is not analysis? ( Experiential hint :) This holistic observation is totally different from analysis. In analysis there is always the search for a cause, plus the ( subliminal division between ) the analyser and the analysed. That means ( that in the context of pure observation?) the division of the analyser is fallacious; it is not actual, the 'actual' being that which is happening now. Is it possible just to observe without ( drawing) any conclusions, without any ( personal) motive - just pure, clear looking? Obviously, it is possible when you look at these lovely trees; it is very simple. But in looking at the operation of the whole movement of one's existence, to observe it without any distortion, you go beyond analysis.

That is, ( ocasionally?) I can look at that tree without any (mental) distortion because I am looking purely visually . Now, is there any (inward) observation of the whole activity of thought without trying to find the cause, or asking how to end it, or trying to suppress it, or running away from it? Is it possible just to look and stay ( contemplatively abide) with the whole movement of 'what is' ? I mean by staying with it, to observe without any movement of thought entering into my observation. Then with that (transpersonal quality of) observation comes attention. It is like focusing a bright light on an object, and in the focusing of that energy which is light on that movement, fear ends. Analysis will never end fear; you can test it out. That is, can my mind bring together all the energy of my intellect, emotion, nerves, to look at this movement of ( greed or?) fear without any 'opposition' or 'support', or 'denial'?

P.J.: ( Various interferences of ?) thought arise in our observation, and one does not stay with observation of fear. Then what happens to ( the interfeting) thought? Does one push it aside? What does one do? Thought does arise, which is also a fact.

K: The speaker explained not only the personal fears but the fears of mankind in which is this stream, in which is included thought, desire, time and the desire to end it, to go beyond it, all that is ( expressed in) the movement of fear. Can you look at it, observe it without any ( mental) movement? Any movement is thought.

P.J.: But in that ( holistically friendly) observing, thought does arise, which is also a 'fact'.

K: You have shown the whole map of fear, in which thought desire, time are included . There is no question of suppressing (the all- controlling interference of) thought; that is impossible. I said, first ( begin by ) looking at it.

P.J.: For an instant of 'pure attention' thought is not; then thought arises. This is the ( current condition of the ) mind ; it is neither possible to remain immovable nor to say that thought will not arise. If it is a stream (of many thought-threads) which seems to flow (on its own) .

K: Are we discussing what is observation?

P.J.: Yes, we are discussing observation. In that observation I have raised this problem because in observing, thought arises. So, then what? What does one do with thought?

K: When in your attention thought arises, you leave aside ( the observation of) fear totally, and you pursue (the interfering ) thought. The movement of 'fear' is not important now, but observing ( in real time) the arising of (a new ) thought and (focussing one's ) total attention on that ( stream of) thought. So, what will end it - a perception without direction?

J.U.: I do not agree with your rejection of analysis. It is only through analysis that the entire structure of tradition and the weight of memory can be broken. It is only when that is broken that a (pure) observation is possible. By your insistence on observation as distinct from analysis, perhaps there is the possibility of a 'sudden (illuminating) happening' occurring, the opportunity of a 'shaktipata' - the 'transmission of power' - takes place.

P.J.: Is the nature of observing or looking at fear or listening to fear of the same nature as looking at a tree, or listening to a bird? Or are you talking of a 'listening' and a 'seeing' which is the optical observing 'plus' (something more) ? And if it is plus, what is the plus?

A.P.: Upadhyayaji says there cannot be ( a sustainable inner ) observation unless it is accompanied by analysis, and if there is a (pure) observation without analysis then that observation may have to depend upon an accidental awakening of an 'insight'. My submission to him is that unless observation is cleansed of analysis, it is incapable of freeing itself from the fetters of conceptualism, the processes in which we have been reared, the process where observation and conceptual understanding go together. It is difficult to bring simultaneously into operation, unconsciously and consciously, a process of conceptual comprehension. Now, an observation that is not cleansed of wordy comprehension distinguishes itself from pure observation. Therefore, in my opinion, it is very necessary to establish that analysis is an obstacle to (a direct inward) observation.

K: Sir, do we clearly understand ( the holistically experiential statement?) ''the observer 'is' the observed''? When I observe inwardly the various reactions such as greed, envy and so on, is the 'observer' separate from (his own ) greed? The observer himself 'is' the observed, which is greed. Is it clear, not just (as a concept) , but actually can you see the truth of it as a profound reality, a truth which is absolute? When there is such observation, the 'observer' is the (controlling interference of the ) past. Same thing as when I observe that tree, all that past associations with that tree comes into being. I name it as oak, or whatever it is; there is like or dislike. But when I inwardly observe ( the 'thought-thread' of?) fear, that fear 'is' me. I am not separate from that fear.
So when the observer 'is' the observed, in that ( holistically friendly ) observation there is only the pure observation of the 'fact' of fear and the whole thing is revealed, and I can logically explain everything from that observation without ( the need for a self-introspective) analysis. We are not clear on this particular point that the 'experiencer' is the 'experience'. When one realizes this, in that ( non-dualistic ) observation, there is no division (and therefore no further) conflict. (Another example : ) I am getting angry. At that very moment of anger, there is no 'me' at all; there is only that ( spontaneous?) reaction called anger. A second later, I ( take control and?) say, I have been angry. I have already separated 'anger' from 'me'. I have already divided a reaction which 'is' me, into 'me' and 'not-me', and then a ( new thread of inner) conflict begins. Whereas if anger 'is' me, what happens ? Earlier, I wasted energy in analysing, in suppressing, in being in conflict with ( the psychological residues of that ?) anger. That ( intelligent?) energy is no more wasted ( in collateral conflicts?) and with that ( holistically integrated ?) energy which is 'attention', I 'hold' this reaction called 'anger' or 'fear'. I do not move away from it because I 'am' that. Then, because I have brought all my (compassionate intelligent?) energy to it, that 'fact' which is called fear disappears (is dissolved) .

P.J.: But then, who 'observes'?

K: There is no (separate entity?) who observes. There is only the ( holistically integrated) state of observation.

P.J.: Does this come about spontaneously?

K: (When?) my mind is listening to the ( inward truth of the ) fact that ''the observer is the observed''.

P.J.: You see, sir, when there is this (non-dualistic) observing of the mind, one sees the extraordinary movement in it. It is beyond anyone's control or capacity to even give direction to it. It is there. In that state, you say, bring all attention on to that which is 'moving'. In your mind no further ( mental) responses arise; you 'hold it'. Now, what is it that given you the capacity to 'hold' that anger or fear in consciousness? I don't think we have that ( inwardly contemplative?) capacity.

K: I don't think it is a question of capacity. What is capacity?

P.J.: The ( holistic) capacity of 'holding a reaction of fear or anger' (in a conflict-free consciousness)

K: That is all.

P.J.: That is, this movement which is fluid becomes immovable.

K: That is it.

P.J.: And the reaction of fear or anger ends. With us that does not happen.

K: Can't we hold anything in our minds for a few seconds, or a minute? (Take the inner 'fact' of?) love; can one remain with that feeling, that beauty, that clarity which love brings? Can I 'hold it'; not say ''what is love'', ''what is not love'' , but just hold it, which is like a ( fully transparent?) vessel holding water? You see, sir, when you have an 'insight' into fear, fear ends. This 'insight' is the immediate perception of (the truth regarding) something. We all have (this holistic capacity) . Often we have this sense of clarity about something.

J.U.: Sir, there are moments of total inner clarity. I accept that. But it must come as a result of something that happens. It must move from period to period, from level to level. My clarity cannot be the same as your clarity.

K: Sir, clarity is clarity, it is not yours or mine. Intelligence is not yours or mine.

(Pause)

P.J.: Sir, I would like to go into something different : in observing the movement of one's mind there is no point at which you say I have observed it totally and it is over.

K: You can never say that.

P.J.: So, you are talking of an observation which is a ( fluid) state of being; that is, your life is a life of observing...

K: Yes, that is right.

P.J.: And out of that observing, wisdom comes and ( the holistic) action rises. Unfortunately, we observe, but ( before knowing it we ) enter into the sphere of non-observing and therefore have always this dual process going on. None of us knows what this 'life of (integrated) observing' is.

K: I think it is very simple: ( for starters?) can't you observe a person without any prejudice, without any (preset mental) concepts?

P.J.: Yes.

K:? What is implied in that observation? How do you look at me?

P.J.: With all the energy I have ; I can't say that I do not know what it is to be in a state of observing without the observer.
K: Could we take this example? Say I am married. I have lived with my wife for a number of years. I have all the memories of those twenty years or five years. When I see her in the morning, how do I look at her? What is my reaction? Do I see her afresh, as though for the first time, or do I look at her with all the memories flooding into my mind?

Q: Either is possible.

K: Anything is possible, but what happens actually? Do I observe anything for the first time? When I look at the moon, the new moon coming up with the evening star, do I look at it as though I have never seen it before? The wonder, the beauty, the light, do I look at anything as though for the first time?

Q: Can we so 'die' to our yesterdays and our past?

K: Yes, sir. We are always looking ( the 'safe-way' ?) with the burden of the past. So, there is no actual 'looking'. This is very important. When I look at my wife, I do not see her as though I have seen her for the first time. My brain is caught in memories about her or about this or that. So I am always looking from the past. Is it possible to look at that moon, at the evening star, as though for the first time without all the associations connected with them? Can I see the sunset which I have seen in America, in England, in Italy and so on, as though I am seeing it for the first time? That implies that my brain is not recording (keeping in its personal files) the previous sunsets I know of.

Q: Very rarely. You are asking, can you see the moon and the evening star? Maybe it is the memory of the first time which makes you look.

K: That leads you to another question ; is it possible not to record, except what is absolutely necessary? Why should I record the insult or the flattery I have received this morning? Both are the same. You flatter me saying it is a good talk, or she comes and says you are an idiot. Why should I record either?

P.J.: You ask a question as if to say we have the choice of whether to record or not to record.

K: I am asking a question to investigate (to meditate upon for homework?) . Because the brain is ( subliminally functioning) like a gramophone record playing over and over again. The mind is constantly occupied, isn't it? Now, in that occupation you cannot listen; you cannot see clearly. So one has to enquire why the brain is ( keeping itself constantly) occupied. I am occupied with God, he is occupied with sex, she is occupied about her husband, somebody is occupied with power, position, politics, cleverness, etc. Why? Is it because when the brain is feeling 'not occupied' there is (a subliminal) fear of being nothing ( of not being alive ?) ? Because occupation gives me a sense of living? If I am not occupied, I feel lost. Is that ( the inward cause of) why we are 'occupied' from morning till night? Or is has become a (thinking) habit, sharpening (or optimising ) itself? This ( subliminal self-centred) occupation is destroying the (perceptive quality of the ) brain and making it mechanical. Now, does one see that one is ( constantly ) occupied (inwardly and/or outwardly) ? And ( after wisely?) remaining with (the inward truth of?) it, see what happens then.

( Parting words:) When there is ( this constant mental) occupation, there is no ( free inner) space in the mind. I am the collection of all the experiences of mankind. The story of all mankind is me if I know how to read the book of me. You see, we are so conditioned to this idea that we are all separate 'individuals', that we all have separate brains (whic along) with their self-centred activity are going to be reborn over and over again. I question this whole concept that I am an 'individual'; not that I am the collective. I am ( the total consciousness of) humanity, not the ( time bound) 'collective' (consciousness) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 10 Nov 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 150 of 172 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.)