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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 181 - 185 of 185 in total
Sat, 05 Jan 2019 #181
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 312 posts in this forum Offline



Questioner: I have left my familiar world of professional writing, because I wanted to lead a spiritual life. I abandoned all my ambitions to be famous, and I have been (hanging around ) under this great (Rishi Valley) Banyan Tree for five years now and I find myself all of a sudden inwardly dull, washed out, lonely and rather miserable. What is to blame – these teachings, your environment - or is it that I have not been able to find the 'crack in the wall' that will reveal the sky? What is wrong with me and what am I to do now?

Krishnamurti: Do you feel that this ('K friendly' ?) environment is destroying you? If you leave this world and go back to what you did before, will you not be
destroyed by the things of that life? You see this destructive process going on everywhere in people who pursue ( personal or their group's ?) success, whatever they are doing and for whatever reason. Does anyone anywhere ever manage to escape this (slow process of inner?) destruction?

Questioner: Yes, they may have achieved global fame and wealth, but if they would look at themselves objectively they'd have to admit that (inwardly) they are actually nothing more than a showy 'façade' of actions, concepts, attitudes, platitudes, hopes and fears. Underneath there is emptiness and confusion, old age and the bitterness of failure.

Krishnamurti: Do you also see that the 'religiously inclined ' people are still really in it because their inner conduct is governed by the same drive to become, to realize, to attain, to grasp and to keep? The objects of this ( subliminally acquisitive) drive seem to be different from the objects of the worldly drive, but (inwardly) it is exactly the same movement. In this so-called 'spiritual' world you are destroyed just as you were destroyed in that other everyday world. Now, do you think that this ( inner) destruction, comes from (this particular?) environment, or from yourself?

Questioner: I thought that this inner dying, this destruction, was the result of ( a poor choice of) my
environment, but now I am beginning to see that
it is I who do it, I who am responsible, and it has
nothing to do with other people or environment.

Krishnamurti: This is a most important point to realize - that you are (personally) responsible for (ignoring ?) your own destruction and misery, your own empty hollowness.

Questioner: I can understand this now.

Krishnamurti: In that case you will ( wisely?) abandon all ( ego-centric?) hope of finding a 'solution' by changing the outer environment of your life.

Questioner: I see this, but what am I to do? I am still dying (inwardly) ; I have lost all I had and gained nothing
in return.

Krishnamurti: Then... you have not actually understood. This (wide ?) road ( of self-becoming?) itself 'is' ( not separated from) its own ( inner) destination of self-destruction, frustration, loneliness, immaturity. So the question now is, have you really 'turned your back' on that road?

Questioner: How do I know whether I have turned my back on it or not?

Krishnamurti: You don't 'know' (it positively?) , but if you see what that the very beginning of that road ( of self-interest?) is ( inwardly) the same as its end, then it is impossible for you to ( keep ) walking on it. Knowing well the danger of it, occasionally you may 'stray on' in a moment of inattention but seeing ( the inner) truth regarding this road and its desolation is the ending of that road, and this is the only ( eliberating) action.

Don't say, " I must meditate and go into it," but see ( the inner truth that ?) that every movement of fulfilment, achievement or dependence in life is that road. Seeing this is the abandonment of that road. When you see danger you don't make a great fuss trying to make up your mind what to do about it. If, in the face of (an actual psychological) danger, you say, "I must meditate about it, become aware of it, go into it, understand it," you are lost ( in the stream of psychological time?) , it is too late. So what you have to do ( holistically ?) is simply to see ( the whole truth regarding) this 'road' (of self-centred becoming) , what it is, where it leads and how it feels - and already you will be walking in a different direction. This is what we mean when we speak of (a choiceless) awareness : to be aware of the road and all the significance of that road, to be aware of the thousand different movements (activities ?) in life which are (going on along) the same 'road'.

Questioner: How can I be sure that I am seeing what is the right thing to do?

Krishnamurti: You can't see ( positively?) what 'to do', you can see only (negatively) what 'not to do'. The total (inteligent ?) negation of (inwardly walking along ) that 'road' is the new beginning, the 'other' road. This 'other road' can't ever be put on any ( spiritual ?) map. Every ( such) 'map' is a map of the wrong road, of the old road.

2nd Conversation

K : (...) The real question is, can one find enlightenment ( even?) in the ( middle of the?) everyday activities of life, or is it only for the few who are endowed with some extraordinary (material means or?) capacity to discover this (inner?) beatitude? 'Enlightenment' literally means to be a light unto oneself. After all, this has always
been the teaching of any authentic religion - not ( involved in ) organized belief and fear.
So we come back to the basic question of whether it is possible in daily life to live in a state of (spiritual?) enlightenment?

Questioner: I still don't know what you exactly mean by 'enlightenment'?

Krishnamurti: A state of 'negation' (of the false?) . This 'negation' ( rejection of the false?) is the most positive ( spiritual) action. Most of us so
easily accept a 'positive' creed, because we want to be secure, to belong, or (to rely on something perceived as significant ?) . ( Unfortunately?) this 'positive' attitude divides and brings about a (subliminal?) conflict between ( those who adopted ?) this attitude and others.
But the ( inward?) negation of ( one's attachment to?) all ( fake?) values, having no ( 'self'-confining ?) frontiers, cannot be in opposition to anything. To negate (one's psychological dependency to?) everything that man has invented, is to be in a ( holistic ?) state of mind in which there is no ( 'self' created?) duality and no conflict between opposite (thoughts & ?) desires .
( In a nutshell:) In this state there are no opposites, and this state is not the ( upgraded?) 'opposite' of something else.

Questioner: Then how do you know what is good and what is bad? ? If I have no moral standards what is to prevent me from God knows what aberrations?

Krishnamurti: To deny all this (wholistically?) is to deny 'oneself' - the ( time -) conditioned entity. To most (outlookers?) such a total negation appears as a state of inner vacuum because we know 'activity' only in the prison of our ( temporal) conditioning, fear and misery. From that ( safe position) we look at negation and imagine it to be some terrible state of oblivion or emptiness. However, to the ( enlightened?) man who has negated all the (false?) assertions of modern culture and morality, the man who is still ( living inwardly ) in the ( fool-proof?) prison of social conformity is a 'man of sorrow'.

( To recap:) Negation is a (time-free?) state of (inner) enlightenment which functions in all the activities of a man who is free of the ( psychological burden of the?) past. It is this (whole burden of the?) past, with its ( worldly?) traditions and 'authority' , that has to be negated. Negation is ( a state of inner?) freedom, and it is the free man who lives, loves, and knows what it means to die.

Questioner: That much is clear; but you said nothing about any intimation of the Transcendental, of the Divine, or whatever you like to call it.

Krishnamurti: The 'intimation' of That (transcendental reality?) can be found only in freedom, and any statement about it becomes a verbal communication without meaning. It is there, but it cannot be ambushed by any clever tricks of the ( self-centred) mind. There is no ( preset?) path (leading ) to it ; its ecstasy comes only when there is ( the inner presence of?) Love. This is enlightenment.

Questioner: Does it bring any new understanding of the nature of the physical universe or of an universal consciousness or being? All the religious texts are full of that sort of thing.

Krishnamurti: It is like asking questions about ( what is there to be found on ?) the Other Shore while ( enjoying one's ?) living and suffering on this shore. When you are on the 'Other Shore' you are (both) everything and nothing, and you would never ( indulge in) asking such questions. All such questions are of this shore's ( dualistic mentality) and really have no ( experiential) meaning at all.
( Parting words:) Begin to live (free of the known?) and you will be 'there' without asking, without seeking, without fear.

Third Conversation

Questioner: I would certainly like, suddenly, to find myself in a totally different world, supremely intelligent, happy, with a great sense of Love. I'd like to be ( metaphorically speaking ?) on the 'Other Bank' of the River, not to have to ( hapelessly?) struggle across, asking the 'experts' the way . I feel very strongly that there must be a sudden 'break through' from all this tawdriness of (our temporal) life. There
must be!
Recently when I was in India I heard a temple bell ringing and it had a very strange effect on me. I suddenly felt an extraordinary sensation of unity and
beauty such as I had never felt before. It happened so suddenly that I was rather dazed by it, but it was real, not a fancy or an illusion. Then the (tour) guide came along and asked me if he could show me the temples, and on that instant I was back again in the world of noise and vulgarity. What can I 'do' ( or... 'not do'?) , to get ( ASAP?) to the ' Other Shore'?

Krishnamurti: There is no 'way' to the other shore. There is no (prescribed) action that will open the door to the 'Other' (dimension of universal consciousness?) . It it cannot be bought nor invited. If this is clear and if the ('self'- centred) ?) mind has forgotten itself and there is a total ( meditative?) emptiness and space within the mind itself - then and only then 'It' is there.

Questioner: I understand ( the flawless logic of?) what you're saying, but deep within me I can not believe that there is no action that will bring me to the other shore.

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by "I do not believe there is no way"?

Questioner: I simply hope that someone who 'understands' will directly point to it, for it must actually be there all the time since it is 'Real'.

Krishnamurti: Surely all this is a supposition. Reality is a living thing and cannot be 'captured' (by an acquisitive mind?) ; you cannot even say it is always there. To (an infinitely subtle?) 'living thing' which has no resting place, how can there be a guide, a path? The mind who is so eager to attain it makes it into a 'dead' thing. Can you put ( wisely?) aside the teacher, the path, the 'end' - so completely that your mind is empty of all this ( self-centred) seeking?

The 'other shore' implies that (you assume to be on) 'this shore' , and from this shore to get to the other shore there is ( an imponderable gap of ?) 'space and time' and that is the real problem - ( one's self-centred thinking in terms of space & ) time that divides, and ( is creating?) the distance between 'this' and That. 'This' wants to become 'That', and finds it is not possible because there is ( involved a subliminal form of mental?) measurement, and a mind that is capable of measuring is capable also of (creating) illusions. This ( self-separating) division between this and that is the way of the ( time-bound?) mind, which is thought. Don't you know that when there is Love ( in one's mind & heart?) space (the sense of distance?) disappears and time disappears? It is only when 'thought & desire' come in that there is a gap of time to be bridged. When you see (the inner truth of?) it, this (shore) 'is' ( one with?) That (shore) .

Questioner: I feel that what you say ( has a certain ring of?) truth, but it eludes me.

Krishnamurti: (Perhaps because?) you are not ( inwardly?) quiet to look, to listen and to feel deeply. The 'other shore' may be (on) 'this shore'; so, if I may metaphorically?) suggest : stop 'swimming'. This doesn't mean that you do nothing, but rather that you should be passively aware without any choice whatsoever and no ( mental) measurement – and see what happens then .
To be ( inwardly ) quiet requires a great ( gathering of one's intelligent?) energy; and ( the hapless?) 'swimming' only dissipates that energy. You need all your energy for silence of the mind, and it is only in the complete (inner) emptiness, that a new thing can be.

Fourth Conversation

Questioner: I see the ( psychological?) importance (you give to) ending fear, sorrow, anger and that one must lay the foundations of good behaviour and that there must be freedom (from) the prison of one's own demands and desires. But I'd like to ask you : What is there 'beyond the Wall'? What is there that can be seen when the mind is quiet, not committed to any particular activity?

Krishnamurti: Are you asking what is ( happening inwardly ) when the mind has stopped all its wanderings and has come to ( perfect ?) quietness? Are you asking what there is on the 'other side' when the mind is really still?

Questioner: Yes, because when my mind is still there seems to be nothing. However, there must be something tremendously important to discover since the Buddha and one or two others have talked about something so
immense that they can't put it into words. The Buddha said, ''Don't measure with words the immeasurable." Everyone has known moments when the mind was
perfectly still, and there was really nothing so very great about it; it was just emptiness. And yet one has a feeling that there is something in there, which, once discovered transforms the whole of one's life. There must be something much more than simply a still mind - something
much more than a fresh mind, an innocent mind, more even than a loving mind.

Krishnamurti: Are you asking if there is something sacred beyond all this? Are you asking if there is a different dimension in which the mind can live and if there is or is not something supreme?

Questioner: A great many people have said in the most convincing way that there is a tremendous treasure which is the source of consciousness and they
also say that (the self-centred) thought must stop before it can manifest itself. Apparently you yourself say more or less the same thing and it seems that you have drunk at this Source. One's inner ( state of) conflict can end. But what then?

Krishnamurti: Why are you asking this?

Questioner: You're asking a blind man why he wants to see ?

Krishnamurti: What actually takes place when the mind is really quiet? That is the real ( experiential) question, isn't it - not what lies beyond?

Questioner: What lies 'beyond' it is my question.

Krishnamurti: There may be something or there may be nothing at all, but ( the truth regarding) what lies beyond can be found only if the mind is ( meditatively?) still. If this stillness to you is only the 'door' to that which lies beyond, then you are not concerned with that door, whereas what is important is the very door itself, the very stillness itself. Therefore you cannot ask ( anybody ?) what lies beyond. The only thing that is important is for (your?) mind to be still. That is all we are concerned with, not with what lies beyond Silence.

Questioner: You are right. That state of (inner) silence has no importance to me except as a 'doorway'.

Krishnamurti: How do you know it is ( just ) a doorway and not the thing itself? The 'means' and the 'end' are not two separate things. Silence is the only fact, not what you discover through it. Let us remain with the fact and see what that fact is :
( For starters?) it is perhaps of the greatest importance, that this silence is not something induced through drugs, discipline or the repetition of ( magic?) words.

Questioner: ( This state of ) silence comes of its own, without a motive and without a cause, but I see that nothing happens.

Krishnamurti: That is the whole point – a (state of inner peace & ?) silence which is the natural outcome of
observing and understanding oneself and the world about one. If there is any shadow of a motive, then that silence is directed and deliberate, so it is not ( an authentic) silence at all. If you can honestly say that that silence is ( thought-) free, then what is the nature of this silence ? Is it innocent or is it put together?
A ( mechanistic?) mind can look at a fact and not see the beauty, the depth, the quality of that fact. Is it possible to observe silence without the 'observer'? Then, in that silence what takes place? Is this what you are asking?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Is there a (transpersonal?) observation of silence by silence in silence?

Questioner: That's a new ( holistic trick ?) question ?

Krishnamurti: It is not a new question if you have been following. The whole brain, the mind, the feelings, the body, everything is quiet. Can this quietness,
stillness, look at itself, not as an 'observer' who is (self-conscious of being?) still? Can the totality of this
silence watch its own totality?
When this ( authentic state of inner) silence becomes ( choicelessly?) aware of itself - in this there is no division between an 'observer' and the (silence which is being) observed. That is the main point. The silence does not use itself to discover something beyond itself. There is only that silence.

Now (.... for optional meditation homework?) see what happens.

5-th Conversation ( On the holistic approach in dealing with habits)

Questioner: I have got one predominating (bad?) habit; I also have other ( not so bad ?) habits, but I have been fighting with this one habit as long as I can remember. It must have been formed in my early childhood and gradually as I grew older it became more and more deep-rooted and I don't seem able to get rid of it. What am I to do?

Krishnamurti: From what you say you have fallen into a habit for many, many years and you have also cultivated a ( compensating?) habit, the ( mental) habit of fighting it. So you want to get rid of one ( bad?) habit by cultivating another ( better one?) which is the denial of the first. You are fighting one habit with another.
(Now, from the holistic point of view?) both habits are the two sides of the same coin: without the first,
the second wouldn't be, so the second is really a (modified) continuation of the first as a reaction.

Questioner: I know what you ( usually) say about ( choiceless?) awareness, but I can't be so aware all the time.

Krishnamurti: The real problem is having habits, not just one particular habit. So the ( holistically friendly?) question really is, is it possible to 'break' a habit without cultivating its opposite or without trying to suppress it through 'uninterrupted vigilance' ?

Questioner: You mean, that I can get rid of this ('bad'?) habit without generating this complicated network of reactions to it?

Krishnamurti: So long as you want to get rid of it, that complicated network of ( knowledgeable?) reactions is actually in operation.

Questioner: But all the same, I must do something about it!

Krishnamurti: That indicates that you are (psychologically) dominated by this one ( self-centred?) desire. This desire and its ( collateral) reactions are not different from the habit itself - as they feed on each

Questioner: Should I, then, just do nothing about it at all?

Krishnamurti: What you are presently doing about it is to cultivate another habit in opposition to the old one.

Questioner: But if I do nothing, I am left with the habit, and we are back where we started.

Krishnamurti: Realising that what you do (in order ) to break the first habit is the cultivation of another habit, there can be only one ( holistically friendly?) action : to do nothing at all against that habit, as whatever you try to do is within the old pattern of habits, so doing nothing, (or just having the feeling that you don't have to fight it?) is the greatest action of intelligence.
Seeing this ( subtle point?) very clearly there is immediately a feeling of great relief and great lightness.

Questioner: Then only the (old mechanism of the?) habit remains, and there is no resistance to it ?

Krishnamurti: You become (responsibly?) aware of the habit ( mechanism) and your ( waking?) intelligence says, don't do anything about the habit, don't get (obsessively?) concerned with it because the more you are concerned with it the more active it becomes. Now ( the holistic ?) intelligence is in operation and is (freely?) 'watching'. If you get the feeling of this intelligence watching (freely?) , then this will operate and deal with the habit ( creatively ?) , and not the (self-imposed ) vigilance of resolution and will.

So (in a nutshell?) what is ( experientially?) important is not ( breaking that particular?) habit but the ( conflict-free ?) understanding of ( the mechanism of) habit which brings about Intelligence. This Intelligence keeps awake without the fuel of (egocentric) desire. In the first instance the habit is confronted with resistance, in the second it is not confronted at all, and that is ( the holistic action of?) Intelligence. The action of intelligence has withered the resistance to the habit on which the habit feeds.

Questioner: Do you mean to say that I have already got rid of my ( bad ) habit?

Krishnamurti: Don't be too hasty in your assumption of having got rid of it. What is more important (educationally ?) than habit is this ( quality of holistic) understanding, which is intelligence. This intelligence is sacred and therefore must be touched with clean hands, not exploited for trivial (mind) games. Your little habit is ( then seen as ) utterly unimportant. If (this quality of holistic?) intelligence is (awake ?) the habit is ( seen as?) trivial; if intelligence is not there, then the 'wheel of habit' ( chasing its own tail?) is all you have got.

6th Conversation ( Transcending the 'blank wall' of psychological duality )

Questioner: I have come to you to find out why there is this ( sense of psychological) division, of separation between oneself and everything else. Wherever one goes, one finds this separation - not only in oneself but in everyone else. I wonder if it is ever possible to be really free of this aching separation?

Krishnamurti: (The gist of your ?) question is: why is there this division, this 'cleavage' between 'what is' and 'what has been' or 'what should be' and why man has lived in this dualistic state that broken his life into various fragments?

To understand a ( holistic?) state of mind in which the division (between the 'observer' and 'what is observed'?) no longer exists, we must ( take a brief detour and?) look at the beginning of thought – by being aware of a thought as it arises and of that which it comes out of.
Thought arises from the ( active memory of the?) past. A thought is like a thread in a piece of cloth, but as most of us are unaware of the 'whole cloth' (the whole self-centred mind) we are trying to control, or shape, or
understand, only one ( particular thread of?) thought. On what is this whole 'cloth of thoughts' resting?

Questioner: This ( holistic question?) has never
occurred to me before, so you must go slowly.

Krishnamurti: Is ( the subliminally self-centred activity of ?) thought the cause of all division, of all fragmentation in life? What is a thought made of? What is the substance of those pieces of thread woven into that complex cloth we call the mind? Thought comes from the accumulated memory, which is matter, stored in the brain.
Can one be aware of a thought as it arises out of the ( memory matrix of the?) past ? And can one be aware beyond the wall of the past? This means ( being aware of an inner ) space that is not touched by ( the residues of) time or memory. Until we discover this ( silent inner space?) the mind cannot see itself in terms of anything other than thought, which is ( constantly projecting its own ) time.
( In a nutshell:) Whatever ( one's self-centred) thinking does, is still within its own measurable boundaries.
To go beyond thought's ( limitations?) we must ( spend some quality time to?) understand (who or?) what is this 'thinker', or 'observer' , the living ( mental) entity who is always moving, acting, who is aware of things, and aware of his own existence ? This 'observer' is the ( personalised focussing of the?) whole machinery of thought, he is also (subliminally identifying itself with the ?) sensory perceptions and with his own idea of himself – a ( protective self- ?) image built from conditioning, from the past, from tradition. The 'observer' thinks and acts (in a self-centred way?) . His action is always according to his image about himself and to his (own) image of the world. This (all-controlling ) action of the 'observer' breeds division in all its relationships.
So the cause of all the ( inward & outward ) division is the (dualistic?) action of the 'observer' who divides life into the thing observed and 'himself' ( being safely) separated from it....and hence (the endless ) conflict.

( In a holistic nutshell:) The 'observer', the 'thinker', the 'experiencer', are not different from the 'observed',
the 'thought', the 'experienced'. ( Hint : ) This is not a (paradoxical?) verbal conclusion. When the ( meditating?) mind sees the reality of this, the division can no longer exist. This is the whole point of what
we are saying. All (one's inward & outward) conflict is ( the result of) the ( subliminal ?) efforts of the observer ( in trying to fix?) the ( flaws of what is being ?) observed.
This point is the greatest thing to understand .
Only now can we answer our (transcendental ?) question : Can we go beyond the ( invisible) wall of time and memory ? Because only now has ( the time-binding) activity of thought come to an end. ( The integrated ) thinking which can now function to communicate, to act, to work, is another kind of thought which does not breed division in relationship.
Righteousness is living without the separative action of the observer.

Questioner: What is that thing on which the cloth of thought exists?

Krishnamurti: It is that ( creative substratum ?) which is not the action of the observer. The realizing of
this is (leading to an inner sense of?) great Love
. This realization is possible only when you understand that the
observer himself is (not separated from) the observed: and that is ( the practical aspect of a holistically friendly ?) Meditation.

7-th Conversation ( On Loneliness & Attachment)

Questioner: I find myself getting dreadfully attached to people and dependent on them. Seeing the
discomfort and pain of this dependency , I try to be detached. Then I feel terribly lonely, and unable to face the loneliness I escape from it through drink and in other ways.

Krishnamurti: There is attachment, then the struggle to be detached, then out of this comes a still deeper conflict (brought by) the fear of ( facing one's existential?) loneliness. So aren't you (interested ) to learn whether you can live a life of freedom and joy which is not the
result of environment, human or otherwise? This is a very important ( existential) question as most human beings are ( becoming 'psychological?) slaves' to their family or to their ( limiting material?) circumstances. Does (this condition of) dependence in any form bring joy, or to depend psychologically on anything - people, possessions, ideas, talent - is to invite sorrow ?
Therefore one asks: Is there an ( inward source of creative happiness or ?) joy that is not dependent on anything? Is there a 'light' that is not lit by another?

Questioner: My joy so far has always been 'lit' by something or someone external to myself so I can't answer that question. Perhaps I don't even dare to
ask it because then I may have to change my way of life. I certainly depend on drink, books, sex and companionship.

Krishnamurti: But when (and if?) you see for yourself, clearly, that this dependence breeds various forms of fear and misery, don't you inevitably ask the other ( holistically friendly?) question whether there is a joy, a bliss, that is its own light?

Questioner: I may ask it but it has no value. Being caught in all this, this is all that actually exists for me.

Krishnamurti: Attachment is an escape from (facing one's existential condition of ) loneliness. Can't ( the causation of?) this loneliness be understood and (then?) find out for oneself what is beyond it? That is the real question : can this deep sense of one's loneliness & (inner) emptiness, be transcended? (Hint:) Any movement away from loneliness strengthens it and so this makes for attachment which brings its own problems. ( Eventually?) the ( collateral) problems ( created by one's) attachment get to occupy the mind so much that one loses sight of the loneliness and disregards it. So we disregard the cause and occupy ourselves with the effects. But this sense of loneliness is acting all the time because there is no difference between cause and effect. There is only 'what is'.

( Recap:) It is important to understand that this 'movement away' from (one's existential loneliness) is ( generating) its own effect - attachment. Then this ( resulting condition of dependency & ) attachment prevents one from looking at 'what is'. The movement away from what is, ( generates its own psychological?) fear, and then we try to resolve it by another escape.
This is ( generating ) a perpetual ( 'treadmill' kind of mental ?) motion, which is apparently moving away from 'what is', but in actuality there is no movement at all.
So (in a nutshell:) it is only the mind which sees 'what is' and doesn't move away from it in any direction that is free of 'what is'. Since this chain of cause and effect is ( generated by?) the action of ( avoiding to face one's?) loneliness, it is clear ( for any objective observer ?)
that the only ending of loneliness is the ending of this action.

Questioner: I shall have to go into this very, very deeply...

Krishnamurti: This ( noble endeavour of going into oneself very deeply?) can also become another ( psychologically motivated ?) occupation which becomes a ( highly sophisticated form of psychological ?) escape.
But if you 'see' ( the inward truth of) all this with complete clarity it is like the 'flight of the eagle' that
leaves no mark in the air.

8- th Conversation ( A holistic approach to ending one's inner conflict )

Questioner: I am ( finding myself) in conflict with so many things, not only outwardly but also inwardly. I can somehow deal with the outward conflicts but I want to know how I can end the inner conflict which is going on within myself most of the time. What should I do to be free from all this ( inner) strife ?

Krishnamurti: Conflict in any form distorts the (holistic quality of the?) mind. This is an ( observable inner ) 'fact', that ( the state of inner) conflict prevents any insightful perception.
( In a nutshell:) The (observer's?) division between 'what is' and 'what should' be is the origin of conflict. And the (time) interval between idea and ( applying it) in action also breeds conflict.
The ( direct perception of a?) fact and the ( mental) image (of it?) are two different things: the pursuit of the image leads to every form of conflict, illusion and hypocrisy whereas the ( trans-personal?) understanding of 'what is' leads to quite a different state of mind.
Contradictory drives ( threads of thought- desire?) bring about conflict; the ( survival oriented ?) structure of the brain is also a source of conflict ; our ( everyday) relationship is ( a potential source of ?) conflict ( between the 'image' and the reality) . So wherever one looks, superficially or very, very deeply, there is this ( existential) agony of strife and pain. The human mind itself is (living in?) conflict : all activity of the ( self-centred?) mind and of its feelings is conflict.

When you ask how you can end conflict you are really
asking how you can stop thinking and be really quiet?

Questioner: Precisely, for when there is conflict it is as if the mind were wounded by its own activity and loses sensitivity.

Krishnamurti: So is it also clear that ( the inner) conflict destroys passion, energy and sensitivity ?

Questioner: I know it, but it doesn't get me any

Krishnamurti: What do you mean by 'knowing it' ? Do you see the truth of it, or do you see the ( logic of) the verbal explanation? We must be very clear about this because the explanation is not the fact, the description is not the described; and when you say "l know" it may be that you perceive only the description.

Questioner: No...

Krishnamurti: One very (tricky?) activity of the ( intellectual) mind is description, in which it gets caught. The mind sees its own ( mental image of the?) description and thinks it sees the 'fact', whereas
in reality it is caught up in its own movement. So where are we now, when there is only ( the seeing of) 'what is' and not the verbal description?

Questioner: You were saying that the mind dulls itself by conflict, by working against itself.

Krishnamurti: So your question becomes: how can the mind stop working against itself?

Questioner: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Is this question ( a subtle form of) trying to get rid of conflict? If it is, you are ( caught) forever in this vicious circle. So the right
question is not 'How to end conflict ?' but to see the truth that ( in a holistically integrated mind ?) where passion and sensitivity are present, the inner conflict is absent.
Do you see this?

Questioner: Yes...

Krishnamurti: So you can no longer be concerned with the ending of conflict; it will ( eventually?) wither away. But it will never wither so long as thought is nourishing it. What is (holisticaly) important is the (awakening of inner ?) passion and the sensitivity, not the ending of conflict.

Questioner: I can see ( the rationality of ) this, but that doesn't mean I've got that passion; it doesn't mean I've ended the conflict.

Krishnamurti: If you ( would) really see ( the truth of) this, that very 'act of seeing' is ( generating its own?) passion, sensitivity, energy. And in this ( insightful?) 'seeing' there is no conflict.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 10 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Jan 2019 #182
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 312 posts in this forum Offline

More 'holistically easy' Conversations selected from The Only Revolution ( and...'reader friendly' edited)


Q: I have heard your talks and what you are saying is pure Vedanta, brought up to date but of the ancient tradition.

K: What do you mean meant by 'Vedanta' ?

Q: Vedanta essentially postulates that there is only Brahman who creates the world and the illusion of it, and the 'atman' (the individual soul?) - which is present in every human being – is part of that Brahman. Therefore, ( the spiritually minded) man has to awaken from the (dualistic) consciousness of his plurality in the manifest world, much as he would awaken from a ( very bad?) dream. Just as this 'dreamer' creates the totality of his dream so the individual consciousness creates the totality of the manifest world and other people. You, sir, don't say all this (explicitly) but you surely mean it as you are the ( cultural) product of India and you have an Indian mind. Your gestures, your statue-like stillness when you talk, and your very ( charismatic ) 'looks' are part of this ancient heritage. Your Teaching is surely the continuation of what our ancients have taught since time immemorial.

K: First of all, the speaker is not ( culturally conditioned as ? ) an 'Indian', that is to say, he does not belong to this nation or to the community of Brahmins, though he was born in it. He denies that his teaching is the continuity of the ancient teachings. He has not read ( or...just does not remember reading ?) any of the sacred books of India or of the West because they are unnecessary for a man who is aware of what is going on ( in himself and?) in the world - the propaganda of two thousand or five thousand years which has become the tradition, the truth, the revelation.
To such a man who denies totally and completely the (traditionalistic?) acceptance of such words and symbols, to him truth is not a second-hand affair and he has insisted that one must be (inwardly?) outside all (such) culture and its social morality. He totally denies the ( 'psychological' knowledge of the?) past, its teachers, its interpreters, its theories and its formulas. ( The direct perception of?) Truth is never in the past. The 'truth' of the past is the ashes of memory; memory is of time, and in the dead ashes of yesterday there is no truth. Truth is a living thing, not within the field of time.

So, having brushed all that aside (from a single stroke?) , we can now take up the central issue of 'Brahman' ( 'Universal Consciousness'?) , which you postulate. Surely, sir, this vebal assertion is a (very fine?) theory invented by an imaginative mind. You can 'experience' (within the field of the known ) any theory and say that it is (true or false ?) but such experience does not prove a thing. To recognise ( a mystical ?) vision as 'Krishna' or 'Christ' is the outcome of ( one's culturally?) conditioned knowledge; therefore it is not 'real' at all but a ( flight of?) fancy, strengthened through ( one's past?) experience and therefore utterly invalid. But if you do not postulate any dogma, then you are (finding yourself) face to face with 'what actually is' ( the content of your own consciousness?) .

(In a holistic nutshell:) the ( active content of?) "what is", is ( the time-bound movement of?) thought, (the search for) pleasure, ( along with its collateral accumulation of?) sorrow and the fear of death. When you understand ( experientially?) the structure of your daily living - with its competition, greed, ambition and the search for power - then you will see not only the absurdity of ( following ) theories, saviours and gurus, but you may find an ending to sorrow, an ending to the whole structure which thought has put together.
The (inward) penetration into this structure and the (holistic) understanding of is ( the practical purpose of?) meditation. Then you will see that the ( collective consciousness of the?) world is not a ( momentary hangover or ?) 'illusion' but a terrible reality which man, in his ( self-centred) relationship with his fellow man, has constructed (for many centuries ?) . It is this which has to be understood ( in the first place) and not your ( abstract) theories of Vedanta, with the rituals and all the paraphernalia of organized religion.

( However, on the 'plus' side ?) when (the consciousness of) man is ( 'time-thought' ) free, without any ( psychological) motivations of fear, envy or sorrow, then only is the mind naturally peaceful and still. Then it can see not only the truth in daily life from moment to moment but also go beyond all ( self-centred?) perception; and therefore there is the ending of the ( false division between the?) 'observer' and ( what is being?) 'observed', and duality ceases.
And still beyond all this there is a ( Creative ?) Stream ( of Universal Consciousness?) that has no beginning and no end; a measureless movement that the ( dualistic) mind can never capture. When you come upon that benediction called Love, you will know the ( living?) Truth of what is being said.


Q: I have listened to you for many years. Perhaps I understand intellectually what you are saying but it doesn't seem to penetrate very deeply. I like the setting of the trees under which you talk, and I look at the sunset when you point it out but I cannot feel it, I cannot feel the joy of the dancing shadows on the ground. I wonder why I no longer feel strongly about any of the evils that exist in the world. I seem to see everything (in the self-protecting mode ?) intellectually and can reason quite well - at least I think I can - with almost anybody. But why is there this gap between the intellect and the heart? Why have I lost love, and the feeling of genuine pity and concern?

K: Look at that bougainvillaea out of the window. Do you see it at all? Do you see the light on it, its transparency, the colour, the shape and the quality of it?

Q : I look at it, but it means absolutely nothing to me. And there are millions (who become inwardly dull ?) like me. So I come back to this question - why is there this gap between the intellect and the feelings?

K: Is it because we have been badly educated, cultivating only memory and, from earliest childhood, have never been shown a tree, a flower, a bird, or a stretch of water? Is it because we have made our life ( totally safe materially but, alas...) mechanical? Or is it because (living exclusively on the level of the?) words has become so extraordinarily important and not (with a direct perception of?) what is above and beyond these words? Or is it because you are ( inwardly) blocked in various (subliminal) ways, of which you may not be conscious at all?

Q: It may be (due to any or to ) all these things but what will that bridge the gap between the mind and the heart? That's what I really want to know.

K: Do you really care that the mind and heart should come together, or the question of how to unite the mind and the heart is only academical ? This concern is still of the intellect and doesn't spring, does it, from a real concern at the decay of your (quality of holistic?) feeling, which is part of you? You have ( for obscure psychological reasons ?) divided life into the intellect and the heart and you intellectually observe the heart withering away and you are verbally concerned about it. Let it wither away! We are saying: (try to) live entirely in ( the self-enclosing field of ) your intellectual arguments.
And ( for meditative homework ?) when you do actually live there - what takes place?

You may have listened for many years to the K talks, and perhaps you have been making great efforts to bring the mind and the heart together, but this effort is of the mind and so dominates the heart. (Experiential clue:) Love doesn't belong to either, because it has no quality of domination in it. ( The intelligence of?) Love is ( 'should' be present ?) at the beginning, not at the end of any (holistically friendly ?) endeavour.

Q: Then what am I to do?

K: You (the 'knowledgeable thinker') can't do anything (in this regard?) . Keep out of ( the psychological field of the known?) ! And (spend the quality time to ) listen and ( also ?) see the beauty of that flower.


( Intro:) The meditation of a mind that is utterly ( & selflessly?) silent is the benediction that man is ever seeking. The meditative mind 'flows' (transparently?) in this silence, and Love is the way of this mind.

Q: I would like to talk about immortality and the perfection of life as it evolves towards the Ultimate Reality. From what you said the other day (it seems that?) you have a direct perception of what is true, while we, not knowing it, only believe. So, first of all, I'd like to know for myself if there is (within us?) an (inner) Reality which is permanent, a Soul - is there this permanent entity in me, something that is imperishable?

K: (For starters?) can it be sought out by thought, by words? Can you find that ( spiritual essence?) which is changeless through that which is constantly changing - thought? Thought can give 'permanency' to any idea, but ( the process of?) thought itself is impermanent, anything that it invents is, like itself, non-permanent. ( For instance?) it can cling to a ( self- identified ?) memory throughout life and call that memory permanent, and then want to know whether it will continue after death. Thought has created this thing, given it continuity, nourished it day after day and held on to it. This is the greatest illusion because thought lives in time - what it has experienced yesterday it remembers ( and updates it ) today and (subliminally projects it into?) tomorrow; ( an unbroken continuity in?) time is born out of this. So there is the 'permanency' of time and also the 'permanency' which thought has given to an idea of ultimately attaining the Truth. All this is the product of thought, in its everlasting becoming.

Q: But who is the 'thinker' who has all these thoughts?

K: Is there an (independent?) 'thinker' at all, or only ( a self-protecting activity of ) thought which puts together the 'thinker'? And having established him, then invents the permanent, the Soul, the Atman.

Q: Do you really mean to say that I would cease to exist if I don't think?

K: Has it ever happened to you, naturally, to find yourself in a ( holistically friendly ?) state where thought is totally absent? In that state are you self-conscious of yourself as the 'thinker', the 'observer', or the 'experiencer'? We are not talking of controlling thought in order to silence it, but of a mind that is fully awake, fully alert. And if there is no ( self-centred?) thinking & no words, isn't the mind in a different dimension altogether?
( In a nutshell:) Thought is the response of memory, and the (all-controlling?) bundle of ( personal ?) memories is the 'thinker'. When there is no thought is there ( a self-conscious?) "me" at all, about whom we make so much fuss and noise?

Q: Certainly there is something quite different when the ( temporal) 'self' is not acting, is not asserting itself, but this need not mean that the Self does not exist - just because it does not act.

K: Of course the "me", the 'ego', the (pro-active?) bundle of ( self-centred?) memories exists. We see it existing only when it responds to a challenge, but it's there, perhaps dormant or in abeyance, waiting for the next chance to respond. A greedy man is occupied most of the time with (pursuing the fulfilment of) his greed; but he may have moments when it is not active, but it (Greed ?) is always there.

Q: What is that living entity which expresses itself in greed?

K: It is still (the natural impersonation of?) greed. The two are not separate.

Q: I can understand perfectly what you call the ( temporal) 'me', its memory, its greed, its assertiveness, its demands of all kinds, but is there nothing else (within our consciousness?) except this 'ego'? In the absence of this ego do you mean to say there is oblivion?

K: This (ages old) question about what remains after the death (of the temporal self?) can be answered only when the mind is no longer greedy or envious.
But our ( first experiential?) concern (should be?) whether the ( self-centred) mind, which is so conditioned by the culture in which it lives and for which it is responsible - whether such a mind can free itself ( from its past knowledge?) and discover ( the truth for itself)

Q: Then how am I to begin to free myself (inwardly?)

K: 'You' (the self-centred entity ?) can't free yourself. You 'are' the seed of this misery, and when you ask "how" you are asking for a method which will destroy the old "you", but in the process of destroying this "you", ( the self-centred thought is subliminally ) creating another "you".

Q: Now, if I may ask (my second bonus?) question, what then is Immortality? Mortality is the (well trodden) way of life with its sorrow and pain. But man has searched everlastingly for a (state of) immortality, a deathless state.

K: Again, sir, you have come back to the question of something that is timeless, which is beyond thought. What is beyond thought is ( a state of inner?) innocence, but ( the time-bound activity of ) thought can never touch it, for thought (the self-centred thinking within the field of what is previously known?) is always 'old'. It is ( the state of inner ) Innocency, like Love, that is deathless, but for That to exist the mind must be free of the 'thousands yesterdays' with their (residual psychological?) memories. Then, freedom ( from the known?) is a state (of being ?) in which there is no hate, no violence, no brutality.

(Parting words:) Without putting away all these 'things' how can we ( legitimately ?) ask what Immortality is, what Love is, what Truth is?

Four: Why are against gurus?

Q : Why is it, that you are ( so outspoken ?) against gurus? They are like a light in the darkness, and one must be guided by them otherwise one is lost, confused and in great misery. They even told me that I shouldn't come and see you, for they taught me the danger of those who do not accept the traditional knowledge, I am.

K: What is the need of (following ) a guru? Can anyone teach you that extraordinary state of mind? They may be able to describe it to you, awaken your interest, your desire to experience it - but they cannot give it to you. You have to walk by yourself, you have to take the 'journey' (of self-knowing) alone, and on that journey you have to be your own teacher and pupil.

Q: But all this (spiritual endeavour ?) is very difficult ; can't one's steps be made easier by those who have experienced that Reality.

K: If they become the authority and you accept the (fool-proof?) system which they offer, you lose all initiative, all direct perception. You are merely following what they think is the way to the truth. But, unfortunately, Truth has no way (leading) to it.

Q: What do you mean?

K: There are a thousand gurus who maintain that their method, their system, their way of meditation, is the only path that leads to truth. And if you observe, each disciple 'tolerates' condescendingly, the disciples of other gurus.

Q: Do you mean to say that I must give up my own 'guru' and abandon all he has taught me? I should be lost!

K: But mustn't 'you' be lost to discover? We are afraid to be uncertain, and so we run after those who promise 'heaven' in the religious, political or social fields. So they really encourage fear, and hold us prisoners in that fear.

Q: But can I walk by myself?

K: There have been so many Masters, Gurus, political leaders and philosophers, and not one of them has saved you from your own inner misery and conflict. So why follow them? Perhaps there may be quite another approach to all our (existential?) problems.

Q: But am I serious enough to grapple with all this on my own?

K: You are ( becoming ?) 'serious' only when you begin to understand the 'pleasures' that you are pursuing now- not that there must not be pleasure, but if this (thought sustained?) 'pursuit of pleasure' is the whole (purpose?) of your life, then obviously you can't be serious.

Q: You make me feel helpless and hopeless.

K: You feel 'hopeless' because you want (to get the best of?) both to be serious and you want also all the (sensate?) pleasures the world can give. These pleasures are so small and petty, anyway, that you desire in addition the (ultimate?) pleasure which you call " (the Love of?) God". When you see for yourself (the actual truth about?) all this, then the ( insightful?) 'seeing' of it makes you both the disciple and the master. This is the main point. Then you are (all these three in one?) : the teacher, and the taught, and the teaching.

Q: But, you are a 'guru'. You have taught me something this morning, and I accept you as my (new?) guru.

K: Nothing has been taught (just pointed out ?) , but you have 'looked'. This (transpersonal?) looking is your 'guru', if you like to put it that way. But it is for you either to 'look' or 'not to look'. Nobody can 'force' you. But if you 'look' because you want to be rewarded or fear to be punished, this (personal?) motive prevents the ( purity of the?) looking.
(Parting words) To 'see' (the inward truth of all this?) , you must be free from all authority, tradition, fear, and thought with its cunning words. Truth is not (to be found) in some far distant place; it is (to be found ) in the (selfless?) looking at what is. To see oneself as one is - in that 'awareness' into which ( any personal element of ) choice does not enter - is the beginning and end of all ( one's spiritual?) search.

Five: What is an authentic  religious life ?

Q: What is a (truly ? ) religious life? I had a good job, but I gave it up because I am drawn deeply by religion and now I want to find out what it means to lead a religious (a holistic way of ?) life in a world that is so irreligious (& so... worldly?).

K: f I may suggest, can we ask first what (is the inner reality of our everyday?) living ? Then perhaps we may understand (negatively ?) what is a truly religious (holistic?) life is. The psychological actuality of this living is the daily grind, the routine work , with its (collateral),struggles and conflicts; it is the ache of loneliness, the search for (self-) fulfilment (with its) the successes and sorrows - these cover the whole field of our life. This is what we call ( a worldly way of ) living - gaining and/or losing the battle ( for everyday survival), and an endless (vain?) pursuit of pleasure. And in opposition to this, there is what is called the 'spiritual' life. But (as ) any 'opposite' contains the very seed of (the actual fact that generated it?) the inner essence of 'what was' and of 'what must be' is (pretty much?) the same. This 'duality' (dualistic mentality?) is the product of 'thought' (of our thinking in the field of the known?) and so it breeds more (inner) conflict; and the 'corridor' of this conflict is endless. All this we generally call 'living'.

(Therefore creating the right foundations for a truly ? ) religious life is (something that has to be done?) on 'this side' - the side of this whole travail of man, and the very action of understanding it ( trans-personally ?) is the (authentic) religious act - not wearing a loin cloth or a mitre, or sitting in the seat of the mighty (of this world?) .
The 'seeing' of the (truth regarding this ) whole (worldly ) condition, of the pleasure and the misery of man, is of the first importance- and its denial is not of the intellect but an actual 'moving out' of the (time-binding) patterns of a morality which is immoral.

So (our first & last experiential?) question really is: Is it possible to 'step out' of this (dualistic thinking ?) pattern? It is (the self-centred) thought which has created this frightening mess and misery, and which has prevented a truly religious life. ( Hint : ) Thought thinks that it can 'step out' of the pattern, but if it does it will still be an act of thought, for thinking (within the self-centred field of the 'known'?) has no ( inner validity?) and therefore it will create another illusion.
( In a nutshell:) the 'going beyond' this (dualistic) pattern is not an action of thought. This must be clearly understood, otherwise you will be caught again in the (apparently cozy & comfortable?) prison of thought. After all, the 'you', is a (self-identified?) bundle of memory, tradition and the (residual?) knowledge of a thousand yesterdays. So only with the ending of sorrow, for sorrow is the result of thought, can you 'step out' of the world of war, hate, envy and violence. This act of stepping out 'is' the religious life. This religious life has no ( self-projected expectations & ) beliefs whatsoever, for it has no 'tomorrow'.

Q: Aren't you asking, sir, for an impossible thing? Aren't you asking for a miracle? How can I 'step out' of it all without thought? Thought is my very being!

K: That's just it! This very 'self-centredness' with its activities must naturally and easily 'die' (allowed to flower, wither & ) end ?) . It is in this (psychological counterpart of ?) 'death' that there is ( possible ?) the beginning of the new religious life

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 16 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 19 Jan 2019 #183
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 312 posts in this forum Offline

Selected Q & A's

Question: Is it possible to be free of self-centred activity? Is there a real Self apart from the self-created image?

K: What do we mean by the 'self'? If you ask somebody what the 'self' is (made of ?) , he would say, "It is ( a psycho-somatic compound of ?) all my sensory responses, qualities, my struggles, my achievements, my ambitions, my aspirations, my unhappiness, my joys" - all that would be the 'self' . You can add more ( reader-friendly ?) words but the essence of it is a ( pro-active) centre (of self-interest ) , the 'me' & my (gut ?) impulses. From this 'centre' all our ( everyday ) actions take place: all our personal aspirations & ambitions, our opinions & judgements & experiences, are centred in this (psychological 'home-base' ?) . This centre is not only ( including) the conscious 'self' acting outwardly but also the deeper inner consciousness which is not open and obvious; it is ( the interactive compounding of ) all the different levels of consciousness.

Now the questioner asks: Is it possible to be free of (the time-binding limitations created by?) this 'centre' ? Why does one want to be free of it? Is it because the centre ( of self-interest?) is the active element that is operating (in each human consciousness ) all the time; it is the same ( self-centred ) 'me' with different names, with a different coloured skin, with a different job, with a different position in the social hierarchy - you are Lord 'so-and-so', somebody else is a servant - it is the same ( collectively shared stream of self- interest which is ) dividing itself into all these different categories - socially, economically and religiously. Now, where there is this division there must be ( a protracted conflict of interests?) - the Jew, the Arab, the American, the English, the French. That is physically obvious and it has brought about ( countless ) wars, brutality and violence. This self-(consciousness) identifies itself with an ideal ( generally considered ) noble and fights for that ideal. But it is still an 'ego trip'. People go to India trying to find spirituality; they put on different fancy dress but they have only changed the garb, the clothes; essentially they are each the (same self-centred) 'me' operating (openly or subliminally?) & getting deeply attached to their ( personal) experiences, ideas, opinions and longings. And as everyone can observes ( outwardly) this centre (of self-interest?) , this 'me', is the essence of all trouble. Also one can observe (inwardly) that it is the essence of all ( one's search for psychological safety & ) pleasure (with the collateral effects of ) fear and sorrow.

So one ( will eventually come to the point of ) asking : "How am I to get rid of this 'centre' so as to be really free ( inwardly) - absolutely, not relatively?" ( Hint:) It is fairly simple to be 'relatively free'; one can be a little unselfish, a little concerned with social welfare & with the difficulties of others, but the centre is always there ( on 'stand-by' and when challenged personally ) biting, hard & brutal.
( Our 64,000 $ question is?) Is it possible to be absolutely free of this 'centre' ( of self-interest, aka : the ' thinker', the 'observer' or the 'experiencer' ?) ? First of all ( one has to) see that there must be no ( psychological) effort ( involved) ; which does not mean ( to indulge in) doing what one likes, for that is still the movement of the self. So if you are not making (will-power based) effort because you see the truth that the more effort you make the greater the travail of the centre, then what is one to do (other than paying loving attention to what is going on inwardly & outwardly ?)

The questioner also asks ( a bonus question ?) : Isn't there a real Self apart from the (time-bound ) 'self' created by thought with its images?

You all may feel that there is 'something else' ( within the human psyche) beyond the ( temporal self ) , and which (traditionally ) has been called the Higher Self. ( However ?) the moment we use this or any word to describe 'that which is beyond' ( it is becoming an intellectual concept within the known self- consciousness ) .

( Back to the experiential aspects ?) Is it possible to be free of the 'self'? - which means: is it possible to be totally free from the ( gut ?) attachment to one's reputation, to one's name, to one's experiences, or just to what one has said (or thought) the moment before. If you really want to be free of the self it means no attachment (no psychological dependency ?) ? Then from that deep sense of non- attachment comes a deep sense of responsibility (for the whole of life) . To be ( inwardly) free from your own experience, from your own knowledge, from your own accumulated perceptions - it is possible if you 'go at it' ( for meditation homework ?) . **

( Hint:)It does not take ( any thought-projected ?) time (to do it ? ) when you see that one of the major factors of the (time-bound ) 'self' is ( the psychological) attachment and you see what it does in the world and what it does in your relationship with another, quarrels, separation, all the ugliness of ( our everyday) relationship - if you see the truth regarding ( the collateral damages of ) 'attachment', then you are ( ASAP ?) free from it. Your own perception (of what is wrong with it ?) sets you free. But ( the question still remains :) will you do it?**

' A bird-eye's view on the cessation of thought'

K: A mind occupied (with gathering & processing tons of knowledge?) is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be any self-discovery. Thought cannot be spontaneous, it can never be free. Thought is the continuation of the ( accumulated memory of the ? ) past, but the (mental process ?) which continues cannot be free. There is (an opening for inner?) freedom only in ending.
An occupied mind creates what it is working on. (In the physical world?) it can turn out (or upgrade?) the bullock cart into the (latest) jet plane. And inwardly, if we think we are ( the creation of ?) God, we are ( impersonating?) our own conception: "I am That."

Q: But surely it is better to be occupied with the things of God than with the things of the world, is it not?

K: What we think, (subliminally projects the image of) ) we ( think we) are; therefore the ( experiential) understanding of the ( self-centred?) process of thought that is important, and not what we think about. Whether we think about God, or about ( the health benefits of the vegan diet?) , in both cases thought is (keeping itself busy ) with (implementing?) its own ( self-centred) projection. Ideas, ideals, goals, and so on, are all the projections or extensions of one's ( self-identified ?) thinking. Whatever thought is occupied with, that's what it is; and what it is, is nothing else but thought. So it is important to understand the thought process:
(In a nutshell:) Thought is the response (of our past memory) to (an oncoming physical or mental ?) challenge, is it not? Without (incoming) challenge, there is no ( mechanical response of ?) thought. The process of challenge and response is stored in (one's personal or collective ) memory as 'experience'; and (the verbally processed response of one's past ) experience is thought.

Q: But is that all there is to human thought? Are there not greater depths to thought than the mere response of memory?

K: Thought can and does place itself at different levels, the (vulgar) and the profound, but it is still thought, is it not? When the mind is occupied with ( pursuing ) its own self-projections (in time?) , it has not gone beyond thought, it has only assumed a new role, a new pose; under the cloak it is still thought.

Q: But how can one go beyond ( the limitations of) thought?

K: One cannot go beyond thought, for the "one," the maker of effort, is the result of ( one's self-centred) thought. However, in uncovering (& exposing?) the thought process, which is (the true purpose of) self-knowledge, the seeing of the truth of 'what is' (going on inwardly) , puts an end to the thought process. The truth of 'what is' is not to be found in any book, ancient or modern. What is found is the word, but not truth.

Q: Then how is one to find truth?

K: Only when ( the self-projected temporal continuity of ) thought ends is there Truth. There is no ending of thought through self (-imposed ) discipline, through any form of resistance. Listening (non-personally?) to the ( unfolding) story of 'what is' brings its own liberation. It is (the perception of?) truth that liberates, not (one's mental ) efforts to be free.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 20 Jan 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 20 Jan 2019 #184
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 312 posts in this forum Offline

More 'reader friendly' edited Q&A's

Question: Is not 'insight' (an updated name for what is generally known as ?) intuition? Would you discuss this (inward flash of?) sudden clarity which some people have ? Is it a momentary thing or it can be continuous?

K: The ( K) 'speaker' has used the word 'insight' (for the inward ? ) 'seeing" ( of the truth or falseness of various psychological ?) things', like ( eg) a 'seeing into' the whole movement of thought, or to perceive the inward nature of greed, or again, seeing ( the truth regarding ?) the whole content of sorrow.
Now, if ( one's inner) observation is not based on (one's previous ?) knowledge, or on the intellectual capacity or reasoning & analysing, then what is it? Is it ( the good old?) 'intuition'? That word 'intuition' is rather a tricky ( slippery?) word since it may be the result of ( a sublimnal expression of ?) desire, fear, or of various ( hidden) forms of pleasure. So for the moment we can put aside (dispose of this psychologically loaded ?) word 'intuition'.
Then what is (a holistic?) 'insight'? It is to perceive ( the truth or falseness of?) something instantly, which must also be logical, sane & rational.
( And the experiential check-point is that any authentic ?) Insight must act instantly. It is not that one has an insight and does nothing about it. If one has a (total) insight into the whole nature of ( self-centred) thinking, it has an instant action.
( Here's a very handy example : ) Thought is the outcome of (one's previously accumulated) knowledge, (which) is limited ( both quantitatively & qualitatively?) . ( The self-centred) thinking can never be all-inclusive; therefore it is everlastingly confined, limited, narrow. Now, to have an insight into that, means that there is an ( inwardly perceptive?) action which is not merely the repetition of thought. One has an insight into (the truth or falseness of?) it, and from that insight one acts. And that action is logical, sane, healthy.

( For optional meditation homework:) Have an insight, for example, into the ( nature of the psychological) wounds that one has received from childhood. Most people are ( inwardly getting?) hurt for various ( obvious or obscure?) reasons, from childhood until they die. Now, to have an insight into the whole nature and structure of that hurt. ( Hint : to see the inward truth that ? ) the ( cause of any psychological) hurt is the ( self-protective?) image that you have created for yourself about yourself. And that as long as this (self-protective ) image remains (psychologically active ?) you will be hurt again , obviously. Now, to have an insight into ( the psychological redundancy of?) all this inner process - to perceive ( the truth about ) it instantly, then that very perception is ( a total) insight ( Clue: it demands all your integrated attention and energy !) but ( if it is done properly ?) in that insight the ( whole mechanism of the psychological) hurt is dissolved completely, leaving no mark, and therefore nobody can hurt you any more. (Hint:) The ( self-protective mental ?) 'image' that you had created about yourself ( as a tool for social survival ?) no longer exists (QED?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
11 hours ago #185
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 312 posts in this forum Offline

A holistic view on 'Enlightenment'

Question: What is enlightenment?

K: To be enlightened about what? Please let us be rational. For instance, one is 'enlightened' about one's relationship with another. That is, one has understood that one's relationship with another is based on one's 'image' about the other, however intimate. That 'image' has been put together through many years of constant reaction, indifference, comfort, nagging, all that goes on (on an everyday basis?) between man and woman. So the relationship is between the two ( self-protective) images. That is what one calls relationship. Now, if one perceives the truth of this, one says one is 'enlightened' about it. Or, one is enlightened about violence; one sees clearly, without distortion, the whole (inner) movement of violence. Or one sees how sorrow arises, and the ending of sorrow is that one is 'enlightened' about it. But generally we mean something else: "I am enlightened, I will tell you all about it, come to me".

If we really want to go (for meditation nhomework?) into what is Enlightenment, Illumination, or the 'Voice of Truth', then we must go carefully into the question of (psychological?) time. The so-called 'enlightened' people have said that you come to it through time, gradually, life after life - if you believe in reincarnation - until you come to the point when you are ( completely?) 'enlightened' - about everything. They say it is a gradual process of experience, knowledge, a constant movement from the past to the present and the future, a cycle. Now, is enlightenment a matter of (spiritual progress in?) time? Is it? Is it a gradual process, which means a process in time, the process of evolution, the gradual becoming? We must understand the nature of time - the psychological structure which has accepted ( the concept of improving in ) time: "I hope ultimately to get there". The ( self-identified process of?) desire, which is part of 'hope', says, "I will ultimately get there". ( Hint : The so-called (certified?) 'enlightened' people are not ( really) enlightened, for the moment they say, "I am enlightened", that is an, expression of their (ego-centric) vanity. It is like a man saying, "I am really humble" – the (authentic) humility is not the opposite of 'vanity') . (However?) When vanity ends the 'other' (quality ) is (present) . Those who are ( pretending to be ?) 'enlightened', say you must attain it, step by step, practise this, do that, don't do this; become my pupil, I'll tell you what to do, I'll give you an Indian name, or a new Christian name, and so on. And you, an irrational human being, accept this nonsense. So you ask, what is ( the essence of) that supreme enlightenment? A mind that has no ( inward) conflict, no sense of striving, of going, moving and achieving.

One must understand this question of psychological time, the constant 'becoming', or 'not becoming' - which are the same. When that ( mentality of) becoming is rooted in the mind it conditions all your thinking, all your activity; then it is a matter of using time as a means of achieving. But, is there such a thing as (the spiritual) becoming? "I am violent, I will be non-violent". That means that (my hope of) becoming (non-violent) is an idea. I am violent and I project the idea of not being violent, so I create duality; the violent and non-violent, and so there is conflict. Or I say, "I must control myself, I must suppress, I must analyse, I must go to a psychologist, I must have a psycho-therapist". Without creating the opposite, the 'fact' is violence. The ( ideal of) non-violence is a non-fact. If you see the truth that if I am violent, the concept of non-violence brings about this conflict between the opposites, the non-fact has no ( experiential) value. Now to observe ( non-dualistically) the whole movement of (one's psychological) violence, anger, jealousy, hatred, competition, imitation, conformity, do so without any direction, without any motive. If you do that, there is the end of violence, which is, (resulting) an immediate (holistically integrated state of) perception and action.
( In a nutshell:) The mind, the brain, the whole human nervous and psychical structure, can be free of the ( psychological) burden of a million years of time so that you see ( inwardly) something very clearly and therefore that action is invariably immediate and will be rational and can be explained logically, sanely.

(Parting words:) That ultimate thing, which is (the perception of) truth, is not to be achieved through time. It can never be 'achieved' ( by 'personal' effort) ; it is there; or it is not there.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 185 of 185 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.)