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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 211 - 237 of 237 in total
Thu, 04 Jul 2019 #211
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An experientially-friendly edited K Dalogue, cca 1954)

Q: I see the importance of listening, but I wonder if I really can listen to what you say. Somehow I have to make a great effort to listen.

K: When you make an effort to listen, are you ( really) listening? Is not that very effort a ( mental ) distraction which prevents listening? Do you make an effort when you listen to something that gives you great delight? ( The authentic ) listening in itself is never ( becoming) a 'problem'.

Q: But to me it is. I want to listen 'correctly' because I feel that what you are saying has a deep ( spiritual) significance, but I can’t go beyond its verbal (intellectual ?) meaning.

K: If I may say so, you have made listening into a (psychologically motivated ) problem, and (the inward conflict generated by ?) this problem is preventing you from listening. Everything we touch becomes a 'problem', one issue breeds many other issues. Perceiving this is it possible not to breed problems at all?

Q: That would be marvellous, but how is one to come to that 'happy' ( problem-free) state (of being)?

K: ( For starters?) you must be(come ?) aware of the manner in which the ( self-centred) mind is creating the problem. You want to achieve the (ideal) state of a 'perfect listening'; and (in thinking that you ) need time '& effort) to gain that state, you are not simply aware that you are not listening now . When (and if?) you are becoming aware of ( the inward truth of the ) fact that you are not 'listening', this (timeless insight) has its own action - the 'truth' of that fact acts, 'you' (the 'self'-centred entity) do not act upon the fact.
( In a nutshell) Your (mental) effort to act upon the 'fact' breeds problems, whereas seeing the (inward) truth of the 'fact' brings its own liberating action. You are not aware of the truth, nor do you see the false as the false, as long as your mind is occupied in anyway with effort, with comparison, with justification or condemnation.

Q: All this may be so, but with all the ( open & hidden) conflicts and contradictions that go on within oneself, it still seems to me that it is almost impossible to listen (completely to anything) .

K: Listening (with the 'mind-in-the-heart'?) itself is a complete act and this very act of (selfless) listening brings its own freedom. But are you really concerned with ( the act of) listening, or with altering ( the ongoing state of conflict & ) turmoil within? If you would 'listen', sir, in the sense of being ( choicelessly) 'aware' of your ( self- generated inner ) conflicts and contradictions without ( trying to) force them into any particular pattern of thought , perhaps they might altogether cease. You see, we are ( openly or subliminally?) constantly trying to achieve a particular ('special' ?) state (of consciousness?) , to capture one kind of experience and avoid another, so the mind is ( keeping itself) everlastingly occupied with ( thinking about) something; it is never (remaining completely) still to 'listen' to the ('self'-generated) noise of its own struggles and pains.
(Parting words:) Be (inwardly) simple, sir, and don’t try to become something or to capture some experience.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 #212
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An "experientially-friendly" edited K Dialogue, cca 1952

Q:  What you say at the various public meetings shows that you have either read extensively in Sanskrit, or have studied the translations of some of the great teachers.

K: It is odd what importance we give to the printed word, to the 'sacred' books. The scholars, as the laymen are concerned with ( gathering of 2-nd hand ?) knowledge, and not with experiencing.
( In fact, one's emphasis on ) knowledge is an impediment to
experiencing (of 'what is' actually going on inwardly ?) .
Knowledge does not bring (self-) understanding. Knowledge can be taught, but not wisdom; there must be freedom from knowledge for the coming of wisdom. Knowledge is not the coin for the purchase of wisdom; but the man who has entered the refuge of knowledge does not (dare to ?) venture out, for the words feed his thought and he is gratified with thinking. There is no ( authentic?) wisdom without experiencing. ( Hint:) An occupied mind is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be self- discovery. An occupied mind is self-enclosing; it not vulnerable, and therein lies its (illusory temporal?) security.
Thought is the ( constantly refreshed) continuation of the ( memories of the ) past, but that which continues cannot be free. There is ( an authentic inner) freedom only in ending . ( In the material world ?) the occupied mind creates what it is working, from the 'bullock cart' to the jet plane.

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: ( Psychologically speaking?) what we think, we are; but it is the understanding of the process of thought that is important, and not what we think about.
( In a nutshell:) To be ( inwardly) occupied with one’s own projections, at whatever level, is to worship the 'self'. Whatever thought is occupied with, that it 'is'; and what it 'is', is nothing else but thought.
So it is important to ( return to the experiential 'square one' and try to ?) understand the ( inner working of the) thought process.
Thought is ( brain's) response to challenge, is it not? The process of challenge and response is ( recorded as personal or colective?) 'experience'; and experience verbalized is thought. Man's experience is not only ( the result?) of the past, but also of the past in conjunction with the present; it is the 'conscious' as well as the 'hidden'. This residue of experience is ( stored in brain's temporal )memory and the response of memory, of the past is thought.

Q: But is that all there is to thought? Are there not greater depths to our thinking than the (mechanical) response of memory?

K: Thought can and does place itself at different levels, the stupid and the profound, the noble and the base; but it is still thought, is it not? ( The persistence of) memory is long-lasting, and so may
appear to be 'deep'; but by its very structure it can never be deep. ( The psychologically active ?) memory may be concealed, not in immediate view, but that does not make it profound. Thought can never be profound (or...transcendental?) , or anything more than what it is. ( The subliminally self-identified?) thought can give to itself greater value, but it remains thought ( within the field of the known?) . When the (time-bound?) mind is occupied with (working at ?) its own self-projections, it has not gone beyond thought, it has only assumed a new pose; under the cloak it is still thought.

Q; But then, how can one go beyond ( the time-binding limitations of?) thought?

K: One cannot 'go beyond' thought, for the ”one,” the maker of effort, is the (subliminally self-identified?) result of thought. But in uncovering the thought process, which is ( the very purpose of any authentic ?) 'self-knowledge', the ( direct perception of the?) truth of 'what is' puts an end to the ( mechanistic?) thought process.
( Unfortunately, for the dedicated scholar?) the truth of 'what is' is not to be found in any book, ancient or modern. What is found is the words, but not ( the living spirit of ?) truth.

Q: Then how is one to find Truth?

K: One cannot find it (as a self-separated individual?) . The effort to find truth brings about a self-projected 'end'; but that 'end' is not truth. A result is not truth; result is the continuation of thought, ( mentally?) extended or projected.
Only when (the psychological continuity of?) thought ends is there ( the living presence of) Truth.

( Parting words:) Listening to the (unfolding) story of 'what is' brings its own liberation. It is ( the direct perception of?) truth
that liberates, not the ( mental?) effort to be free.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 #213
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly" edited K group dialogue, cca 1952)

Q: Is it really possible to be free of all desire? Without desire, is there life? Is not desire life itself? To seek to be free of desire is to invite death, is it not?

K: What is desire? When are we aware of it? When do we say we desire? ( The process of thought-sustained ?) Desire is not an abstraction, it exists only in ( the context of our everyday?) relationship. Without ( visual, sensory or mental?) contact, there is no desire. The actual contact may be at any level (of our consciousness?) , but without it there is no sensation, no response, no desire. We know how it comes into being: perception, contact, sensation, desire. And we are becoming aware of desire when there is an awareness of a conflict (of interests) , of a disturbance, that there is the cognizance of desire.

Desire is the ( collateral result of an) inadequate response to (the total) challenge (of life) . The perception of a beautiful car gives rise to the disturbance of pleasure. And the ( mental self-) focusing of this disturbance, caused by pain or by pleasure, is ( generating the ) self-consciousness. Self-consciousness 'is' ( the psychological residue of?) desire. We are ( becoming self-) conscious when there is the disturbance of inadequate response to life's challenge. ( And the resulting) conflict is ( sustaining one's ) self-consciousness.
( The next experiential question is therefore : ?) can there be freedom from this disturbance, from the conflict of desire?

Q: Do you mean the freedom from the conflict of desire, or the freedom from desire itself?

K: Are ( the dualistic 'observer' vs the 'observed' inner ) 'conflict' and (the thought-backed activity of ) 'desire' two separate states? If they are, our inquiry must lead to illusion. If there were no (self- stimulating) disturbance of pleasure or pain, of wanting, seeking, fulfilling, would there be desire? And do we want to get rid of ( the unpleasant) disturbances? If we can understand this, then
we may be able to grasp the significance of ( thought sustained ) desire.
(To recap) Conflict is ( generating the time-bound ?) self-consciousness; and ( desire is the result of?) the focusing of ( self-centred) attention through disturbance. But is it that you would want to get rid of the conflicting (& disturbing) elements in desire, and keep the pleasurable element? Both pleasure and conflict are disturbing (factors) , are they not? Or do you think pleasure does not disturb?

Q: Pleasure is not ( necessarily a ) disturbing factor.

K: Is that true? Have you never noticed the ( hidden ?) pain of the craving for pleasure, of ever demanding more and more? Is not the 'craving for more' as disturbing as the urgency of avoidance (of an undesired challenge ?) ? Both bring about conflict. We want to keep the pleasurable desire, and avoid the painful; but if we look closely, both are psychologically 'disturbing' , but do you want to be free only from disturbance?

Q: If we have no ( drive & vitality brought by) desire we will die; and if we would have no inner conflicts (to overcome?) we will go to sleep.

K: Are you speaking from ( your own?) experience, or you are just imagining what it would be like to have no conflict and so are preventing the direct experiencing of that inner state in which all conflict has ceased. Can we not see a beautiful or an ugly thing without a conflict (of opposing desires?) coming into being? Can we not observe, listen without (the time-bound) self-consciousness? Can we not be (what we are?) without desiring (to become something else?) ? What causes ( the state of inner) conflict? This conflict arises when the response is not adequate to the challenge; and this conflict is (due to) the ( self-identified ) focusing of our (total) consciousness as the self. The 'self', the (temporal?) consciousness focused through conflict, is ( generating one's personal) experience. Experience is ( the cummulative result of the ) response to a stimulus or challenge, but without naming ( & processing it) , there is no ( recorded) experience. Naming is ( coming?) out of the storehouse of memory; and this naming 'is' ( sustaining) the process
of verbalizing, the making of images, words, which strengthens memory.
( In a nutshell : ) (The time-bound ? )consciousness - ( generated by) the focusing of the 'self' through conflict - is the total process of experience, of naming, of recording.

Q: Can we be free from this inner conflict? And what is beyond conflict?

K : It is ( thought's sub-conscious  habit ?) naming that gives rise to conflict, is it not? You ( sub-consciously?) approach the new challenge with a ( pre-recorded personal?) conclusion or prejudice, as you name the experience. This 'terming' also gives ( a personal significance or ) quality to the new experience. Your past (personal memories & experience ?) meets the new challenge, but the (pre-recorded?) responses of the past cannot understand ( in real time) the living, the new challenge.

( To re-recap : ) The ( mental ) responses of the past are ( psychologically) inadequate (in meeting life's new callenges) , and from this arises ( a subliminal inner ) conflict, which is ( subsequently generating the temporal?) 'self-consciousness'. ( This state of inner) conflict ceases when there is no (psychologically motivated ) process of  ?) 'naming' ( mental recognition?) . The (silent interval) between (thought's mechanistic ?) response and naming is (providing the inner space for direct) experiencing. ( This non-dualistic state of) experiencing - in which
there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the 'experienced' - is ( a time-free dimension of consciousness) beyond conflict.

( Parting words:) With the cessation of (the inner state of) conflict there is the ending of all ( time-binding activities of ) thought and the beginning of the Inexhaustible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #214
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K ddialogue, cca 1953)

( K's comment : He said he was a 'man of action', and not a contemplative and he used a Sanskrit phrase which was intended to convey a whole philosophy of action. The very assertion that he was a man of action implied that he was one of the essential
elements of real life ( but... inwardly-wise ?) he had blocked the understanding of himself.)

K: What is ( the true meaning of?) action? Mere activity is not action, surely; to keep (oneself & others?) busy is not action, is it? The housewife is busy, but would you call that action?

Q: No, of course not. She is only concerned with everyday, petty affairs. A man of action is ( keeping himself?) occupied with larger problems and responsibilities. Such a man is not a contemplative, a mystic he is a man of action.

K: Occupation with wider issues you would call action. But what are the 'wider issues'? Are they separate from our everyday existence? Is there ( a holistically friendly way of ) action when there is no (inward) integration of all the many layers of existence? Without understanding (oneself) and so integrating (consciousness-wise ?) the total process of life, is not one's (outward) action mere destructive activity? Man is a total process, and action must be the outcome of this totality.

Q: But that would imply not only inaction, but indefinite postponement. There is an urgency of action, and it is no good philosophizing about it.

K: We are not philosophizing, but only wondering if your so-called ( activistic?) action is not doing infinite harm ( on the long term?) . Reform always needs further reforms. Partial action is no action at all, it brings about disintegration.
( However?) if you will have the patience, we can find now, not in the future, what is that (way of?) action which is 'total' - ( inwardly) integrated.
When one's action is directed to (obtaining) a ( temporal) result, is it (a holistic) action?

Q: How else can you act?

K: Working towards an object, a goal, factual or psychological, is what is generally called action. This process can be understood in relation to some
physical facts, such as building a bridge; but we are talking of the 'psychological' purpose, the ideal or the belief towards which you are working. Would you call 'action' this working towards a psychological purpose?

Q: Action without a purpose is no action at all, it is death.

K: Inaction is not the opposite of action, it is quite a different state, and we may discuss that later, but let us come back to our point. Working towards an end, an ideal, is generally called action, is it not? But how does the ideal come into being? Is it entirely different
from what is ? Is the ideal of 'non-violence' wholly other than ( the ongoing) 'violence'? Is not the ideal self-projected? Is it not homemade? In acting towards an ideal, you are pursuing a self-projection, are you not?

Q: Is the 'ideal' a self-projection?

K: You are 'this', and you want to become 'that'. Surely, that is the outcome of your ( self-centred) thought. Thought projects the ideal; the ideal is part of thought.

Q: What’s wrong with thought? Why shouldn’t thought create the ideal?

K: You are 'this', which does not satisfy, so you want to be 'that'. If there were an (indepth?) understanding of 'this', would 'that' come into being? But because you do not understand 'this', you create 'that', hoping to escape from 'this'.

( In a nutshell:) Thought creates the (future?) ideal as well as the (existing ) problem; the ideal is a self-projection, and your working towards that self-projection is what you call action with a purpose. So your action is within the ( known) limits of your own projection. This movement within your own bounds ( of the field of the known?) is ( psychologically-wise?) the activity of the dog chasing its tail; and is that action?

Q: But is it possible to act without a purpose?

K: Of course it is. If you see the truth ( regarding) the (time-binding) action with a purpose, then there is just action. Such ( 'goal-free' inner) action is the only ( spiritually ? ) effective action, it is the only radical (inner) revolution.

Q: You mean action without the 'self' (aka : the selfless action?) , don’t you?

K: Yes, action without the 'idea'. The 'idea' is the 'self (-interest'?) identified with God or with the State. Such (self-) identified action only creates more (inner & outer) conflict, more confusion and misery. But it is hard for the ('dedicated?) man of action' to put aside his ( all purpose 'shield of) ideology' – without it he feels lost as a man caught in his own self-projections whose activities are( ultimately aimed at) the glorification of himself. Such (self-centred) activities contribute to separation, to disintegration.

Q: Then what is one to do?

K: Understand ( the truth regarding ?) what your ( self-centred) activity is, and only then is there ( the authentic holistic ?) action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #215
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


Q: I know you have healed and will you not heal my son? He is nearly blind. I have seen a few doctors, and they can do nothing. They advise me to take him to Europe or America, but I cannot afford it. Will you not please do something? He is our only child, and my wife is heart-stricken. There must be a ( karmic?) cause for this calamity, hidden in some past action.

K: There may be an immediate cause for this blindness which the physicians have not yet discovered - some inherited disease may have brought it about. If the doctors cannot discover the physical cause, why do you seek a metaphysical one in the distant past?

Q: By seeking the cause I may be better able to understand the effect.

K: When you say that you will understand the effect by knowing the cause, you mean that you will take comfort in knowing how this thing has come about, do you not?

Q: Of course, that is why I want to know what action in the past has produced this blindness. It will
certainly be most comforting.

K: Then you want comfort and not understanding.

Q: But are they not the same thing? What is the good of understanding if there is no joy in it?

K: Understanding ( the inward truth of?) a fact may cause disturbance, it does not necessarily bring joy. You are disturbed by the fact of your son’s ailment, and you want to be pacified. This pacification you call understanding. You start out, not to understand, but to be comforted; your intention is to find a way to quiet your disturbance, and this you call the search for
the cause. Your chief concern is to be put back to sleep (psychologically?) , to be undisturbed, and you are seeking a way to do it. We want to escape from disturbance, and one of the escapes is this search for the cause.

Q: Why shouldn’t one seek freedom from disturbance? Why shouldn’t one avoid suffering?

K: Through avoidance is there freedom from suffering? You may shut the door on some ugly thing,
on some fear; but it is still there behind the door, is it not? What is suppressed, resisted, is not
understood, is it? You may suppress or discipline your child, but surely that does not yield the
understanding of him. You are seeking the cause in order to avoid the pain of disturbance; with
that intention you look, and naturally you will find what you are seeking. There is a possibility of
being free of suffering only when one observes its process, when one is ( becoming?) aware of every phase of it, cognizant of its whole structure. To avoid ( (facing one's existential?) suffering is only to strengthen it. Through explanation you are not freed from suffering; the suffering is still there, only you have covered it over with words, with conclusions, either your own or those of another. The study of explanations is not the study of wisdom; when explanations cease, then only is wisdom possible. Truth. ( The perception of?) Truth comes when there is observation without conclusions, without explanations, without words. The 'observer' is built out of words, this ( temporal?) 'self' is made
up of explanations, conclusions, condemnations, justifications, and so on. There is communion with
the (inner facts which are being?) ) observed only when the 'observer' is not (mentally active?) ; and only then is there understanding, freedom from the

Q: I think I see your point, but is there not such a thing as karma? Present circumstances are the result of previous actions, immediately past or far back in time

K: That is only a (generic?) explanation, but let us go beyond the words. Is there a fixed cause producing a
fixed effect? When cause and effect are fixed, is there not ( a time-binding form of?) death? Anything static, rigid, specialized, must die. The specialized animals soon come to an end, do they not? Man is ( inwardly-wise?) unspecialized, and so there is a possibility of his continued existence. That which is pliable endures; that which is not pliable is broken. The acorn cannot become anything but an oak tree; the cause and the effect are (both engrammed in the genes of the?) in the acorn. But ( the total consciousness of?) man is not so completely enclosed, specialized; hence, if he does not destroy himself through various ( over-specialised?) ways, he can survive. Are cause and effect fixed, stationary? Surely ( within man' s consciousness?) the cause-effect is a ( time-binding?) continuous process - ( what he is thinking ?) today is the result of ( what he thought ?) yesterday, and ( what he will think?) tomorrow is the result of today . It is a ( mechanistic?) chain-process, is it not? One thing flows into another, and at no point is there a halt ( a silent break?) . It is a constant movement, with no ( time-out & no?) fixation. There are many factors that bring about this 'cause-effect-cause' movement, but when you try to cover the living ( facts of life?) with explanations, there is death to the living.

( Parting words: ) Thought cannot be free nor can it ever make itself free. Thought is the result of ( man's past) experience, and ( his temporal) experience is always ( psychologically?) conditioning.
Awareness of the false as ( being) false is (opening the door to?) the freedom of truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Jul 2019 #216
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1953)

(K's Intro:) She was courting social respectability, and was confused. It is strange how, when one is clear within oneself, whatever may happen is ( looking?) right. When there is this inward clarity, the right is not according to one’s desire, but to
what is right. Contentment comes with the understanding of what is. But how difficult it is to
be clear!

Q: How am I to be clear about what I should do?

K: Clarity 'is' ( 'has' its own?) action. You are torn between your hopes and ( seeing directly with?) what is ; only when you are capable of looking (lovingly ?) at 'what is', is there (inner) clarity. The 'what is' is not ( what is expected to be ) desirable but the ( inward truth of the?) fact. Probably you have never approached it this way; you have thought or cunningly calculated, weighing this ( option) against that, planning and counter-planning, which has obviously led to this confusion which makes you ask what you are to do. Whatever choice you may make in the state of confusion can only lead to further confusion.

See this ( 'non-action' point ?) very simply and directly; if you do, then you will be able to observe 'what is' without distortion. The ( 'what is') implicit is (has?) its own action. If 'what is' is clear, then you will
see that there is no (personal) choice but only action, and the question of 'what you should do' will never arise; such a question arises only when there is the uncertainty of ( thought's ) choice. ( Insightful ?) action is not ( the result of clever?) choice; ( Inwardly speaking ?) the action of choice is the action of confusion.

Q: I am beginning to see what you mean: I must be clear in myself, without the ( subliminal) persuasion of social respectability, without self-interested calculation, without the spirit of bargaining. I am clear, butit is difficult to maintain clarity, is it not?

K : Not at all. To (try to) maintain it is to resist. You are not maintaining clarity and opposing confusion. When you experience all this (for homework ?) & see
it directly for yourself, then the clarity of (seeing the inward truth regarding?) 'what is' is there; you do not ( try to) maintain clarity, it is ( present?) there.

Q: I quite see what you mean. Yes, now I am ( inwardly) clear; it is all right. But what about love? We don’t even know what Love means. I thought I loved, but I see I do not.

K: From what you have told me, you married out of fear of loneliness, physical urges and necessities; and you have found that all this is not love. You may have called it love to make it ( sound) respectable, but actually it was a matter of convenience under the cloak of the word ”love”. To most people, this is ( real?) love, with all its confusing smoke: the fear of insecurity, of loneliness, of frustration, of
neglect in old age, and so on. But all this is merely a (zmotionally compounded ?) thought process, which is obviously not Love.
( Hint:) Thought does not renew itself, it can only continue; and what has continuity cannot be the new, the fresh. Thought is (thriving on?) sensation, thought is sensuous. Thought cannot ( put an end to)
itself in order to be creative; thought cannot become something other than it is, which is sensation.
Thought is always the stale, the past, the old; thought can never be (holistically?) 'new'. As you have seen, love is not ( the product of?) thought. Love is when the 'thinker' ( mental entity is?) is not (active?) . The thinker is not an entity different from thought;
thought and the thinker are one. The 'thinker' ( entity?) is the ( 'self'-identified creation of?) thought.

( Parting words:) Love is not ( an emotion - loaded ?) sensation; it is a ( living spiritual ?) flame without smoke. You will know Love when 'you' – the (self-conscious?) 'thinker' are not (present?) . ( Hint:) You cannot ( try to) sacrifice ('kill'?) your (mental?) 'self', the 'thinker', for Love, because Love is not ( the creation of the thinking?) mind. The thought of love is (a self-rewarding ?) sensation ; Love is beyond the reaches of the mind. ( The time-thread of?) thought is continuous, and Love is inexhaustible. That (inward source of Intelligent Love?) which is inexhaustible is ever new, (while?) the ( 'self-conscious' line of thought?) which has continuance is ever in the fear of its own ending. (Only) that (holistically open ?) which 'ends' (the time-binding continyity) knows the eternal beginning of Love.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 22 Jul 2019 #217
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1952)

She was a dancer, not by profession but by ( personal) choice and she must have felt proud of her art, for there was a certain arrogance about her, not only the arrogance of ( her professional) achievement but also that of some inner recognition of her own spiritual worth. As another would be satisfied with outward success, she was gratified by her spiritual advancement. She not only danced, but alsogave talks on art, on beauty, and on spiritual achievement. Vanity and ambition were on her face;she wanted to be known both spiritually and as an artist, and now the 'spiritual' ambition was gaining.
She said she had no personal problems, but wanted to talk about beauty and the spirit. She did not care about the 'personal' problems but was concerned with wider issues.

Q: What is beauty?

K: Are you waiting for a definition, for a formula, or do you desire to inquire?

Q: But must one not have first the right instrument for inquiry? Without knowing, without explanations, how can one inquire? We must know where we are going before we can go further .

K: Does not 'knowledge' (the all-knowing attitude?) prevent inquiry? Does not the very word ”knowing” indicate a state in which (the inner?) inquiry has ceased? Is there a 'measure' for beauty? Can its outer ( expressions?) be beautiful without inner freedom? Is the outward show of beauty an indication of (inner)
sensitivity? What is it that you are seeking? A combination of the outer and the inner? But how can
there be outer beauty without the inner? On which do you lay emphasis ?

Q: I lay emphasis on both; without the perfect form, how can there be perfect life? Beauty is the
combination of the outer and the inner.

K: So you have a ( mental ) formula(tion) for becoming beautiful. (But...unfortunately?) the ( thought that made this ?) formula is not the actual beauty, but only a series of ( empty) words. Being ( inwardly?) beautiful is not the ( planned) process of becoming beautiful. What is it that you are seeking?

Q: The beauty of both form and spirit. There must be a lovely vase for the ( unfolding of the ) perfect flower.

K: But can there be inner harmony, and so perhaps outer harmony, without (inner) sensitivity? Is not sensitivity essential for perception either of the ugly or the beautiful? Is beauty ( to be found in) the avoidance of the ugly?

Q: Of course it is possible.

K: If there is ( a subliminal?) resistance (to the ugly aspects of life) , can there be ( any holistic) sensitivity? Must there not be (inner) freedom (from what was previously 'known'?) for sensitivity? Can the self-enclosed (mind) be sensitive? Can the ambitious be sensitive, aware of beauty? Sensitivity, vulnerability to what is, is essential, is it not? We want to identify ourselves with what we call the beautiful and avoid what we call the ugly. We want to be identified with the lovely garden and shut our eyes to the smelly village. We want to resist and yet receive. Is not all ( self-) identification resistance? You want to be sensitive only to beauty, to virtue, and resist evil, the ugly. Sensitivity, vulnerability is a total process, it cannot be cut off at a particular gratifying level.

Q: But I am seeking both beauty & sensitivity.

K: Is that really so? If it is, then all concern about (acquiring) beauty must cease. This worship
of beauty is an escape from ( seeing) 'what is' (going on inwardly?), from 'yourself', is it not? How can you be sensitive if you are unaware of what you (really) are, of 'what is'? The ambitious, the crafty, the pursuers of beauty, are only worshipping their own self-projections. They are wholly self-enclosed, they have built a 'wall' around themselves; and as nothing can live in isolation, there is ( an existential) misery. This search for beauty and the incessant talk of art are respectable and highly regarded escapes from life, which is oneself.

Q: But music is not an 'escape'.

K: It is, when it replaces the understanding of oneself. Without the understanding of oneself, all ( self-centred?) activity leads to confusion and pain.
(Parting words;) There is sensitivity only when there is the freedom which ( the self-) understanding brings - the understanding of the ways of the self, of thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 23 Jul 2019 #218
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K public talk, cca 1975)

One can see (or... maybe not ?) that thought has built this ( self-conscious mental entity of the?) "me", ( aka:) the 'observer', that is the ( psychologically active memory of?) the past and which , as it passes through the present (challenges of life?) modifies itself as ('me' continuing the ) the future - and (for (safety reasons ?) it has (apparently ?) become independent of thought. That "me" has a (an ID ) name & a (physical) form. (with which it identifies itself)
( In a nutshell:) This "me" is the product of (man's long evolution in?) time and of ( its survival-oriented) thought.
Though you may have a different temperament, different character, be cleverer, all that is the peripheral field of culture; but deep down, basically we are all the same : "me" is moving (or just swimming with sharks?) in the ( river of collective 'thought-) stream' of greed, in the stream of selfishness, in the stream of fear, anxiety and so on, which is the same as 'you' (drifting ) in the stream. Please see the (inward) truth of it. That is the (time-bound consciousness?) stream in which we are living, the stream in which we are (subliminally?) caught, all of us. Please see that we are caught in this stream as a 'fact' of life. This stream is the Stream of "Selfishness" (of self-interest?) and in this ( collective 'consciousness ) stream' we are living ( our material life ?). (However?) when we die, the physical organism dies, but the selfishness stream goes on.

Suppose I have lived a very selfish life, in self-centred activity, with emphasising the importance of my desires, ambitions, greed, envy, the accumulation of property, the accumulation of knowledge, the accumulation of all kinds of things which I have gathered - all of which we have (holistically?) termed as "selfishness".
So (to make a very long story short?) while living we are (swimming) together in the stream of (collective) selfishness, when the physical body dies that movement goes on... That is the Stream of 'Time', the (dynamic result) of (millenia of mankind's survival oriented ?) thought, which has created suffering, which has created the "me" which now asserted itself as being independent, by dividing itself from you; (however?) this "me" is the imagined structure of thought - in itself it has no reality. It is thought that made it because thought needs security, certainty, so it has invested in the "me" all its (needs for) certainty. And in that there is ( involved a very real existential sadness ) suffering. In that movement of selfishness, while we are living we are being carried in that stream and (even) when we die that Stream still exists.
Now, is it possible for that stream (of Time) to end? Can (man's) selfishness, with all its decorations, with all its subtleties, come totally to an end (in 'meditation's context?) ? And the ending is the ending of Time. ( Hint:) If yes, there is a totally different 'manifestation' after the ending, which is: ( a humane consciousness with?) no selfishness at all.

So I have got this (major meditation related ?) problem : can that movement of (thought-created?) time, come totally to an end? Both at the conscious as well as at the deeper levels? Now, how will you who are caught in that stream of selfishness completely step out of it? - which is the (psychological) 'ending of Time'. (Hint:) Death is (psychologically speaking?) the 'ending of time' as concerning the movement of thought if there is the 'stepping out' of that (survivalistic mentality?) . Can you, living in this (pretty sad ?) world that thought has made, the dictatorships, the destruction of human minds, destruction of the earth, the animals - can you live in this world completely without ( thought's self-projected continuity in?) time? - that means – being no longer caught in that (collective?) stream of selfishness.

You see there are many more things involved in this (homework meditation-related question?) : there is this thing called 'death', and the mystery that lies where there is a possibility of stepping out of it. As one lives in the world of reality, which we do, can there be the ending of suffering in that world of reality? Think about it. Look at it. If there is no ending of man's selfishness in the world of reality - it is selfishness that creates disorder in the world of reality - if there is no ending to that then you haven't understood, or grasped, the full significance of ending ( thought's self-projected continuity in) time.

(Parting words :) So can one, living in the world of reality as we are, end 'selfishness'? This (pro-active mentality of ?) 'selfishness' is creating chaos in the field of reality . And as you are ( part of the consciousness of the ?) world and the (consciousness of the world is manifesting itself in?) you, if you change (inwardly so ) deeply, you can (possibly?) affect the whole consciousness of man.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Aug 2019 #219
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1973)

M: What makes our minds chatter and what is the purpose of that chattering? It is a constant ( background) operation.

K: Your mind chatters, why? Is it (an ages old mental ?) habit? Is it ( the subliminal) fear of not being occupied with something?
The (temporal) mind apparently needs to be occupied with something and if it is not occupied, it feels empty and therefore it resorts to
chattering. I am just asking, is it habit or is it the fear of not being

M: It is a habit, an ingrained habit.

K: I wonder if it is (just?) a habit?

P: There is what we call meaningful thinking, directed thinking,
a thinking which is logical, which is analytical, which is concerned
with the solution of (real life) problems. Chattering is not a conscious thing.

K: Is it just like water running out of the tap?

M: It is indeed a mental leakage.

K: Why do you object to a chattering mind?

M: Loss of (intelligent?) energy, even the common sense says that what is going on is useless.

K: Is it a habit or does the ( self-centred) mind need
to be occupied with something? And when it is not occupied with
what it thinks it should be occupied, we call it 'chattering'. Why
should not the occupation be chattering also? I am occupied with
my house. You are occupied with your work, with your business, with your children, with your property. The ( self-centred) mind needs to be occupied with something and when it is not occupied, it may feel a sense of emptiness and therefore chatters. I don't see any problem in this unless you want to stop it chattering.

M: If this chattering were not obsessive, there would be no problem.

K: You want to put an end to it. So our ( next experiential) question is What for?

M: Can the chattering mind be put an end to?

K: Can a chattering mind come to an end? I say that any occupation, with myself, with my God, with my wife, with my husband, with my children, money, property or position, the whole of that is chattering. Why exclude all that and say the other is chattering?

P: Because the chattering we speak of has no rationality.

K: It has no relationship to your daily activity. There is no
rationality. It is not related to daily life. It has nothing to do with
your everyday demands and so it chatters and that is what you call it

P: Do you do that?

K: Don't bother about me.

A: Sir, our normal thinking has coherence to a context.
Chattering is that activity of the mind which has no coherence to
any context. Therefore we call it unmeaningful because we can
break through the context, but when the activity of the mind is
unconnected then it has no coherence.

K: Is chattering a ( form of) rest to the (constantly thinking) mind?

A: No, sir.

K: Listen Achyutji, you are occupied with your daily work, conscious, rational (& boring ) and chattering may be a release from all that.

B: Would chattering bear the same relationship as the dream to
the waking state?

K: I wouldn't put it that way. My ( brain?) 'muscles' have been
exercised all day and I relax, and chattering may be a ( natural) form of (mental) relaxation.

A: But it dissipates energy.

K: Chattering, you say, is a wastage of energy and you want to put a
stop to it ?

A: It is not a question of wanting to stop it. The problem is that
the mind that is wasting its (intelligent) energy in chattering should be put to doing something worthwhile. We come back to understanding how this chattering process is going on. We don't understand it at all. It is extra-volitional.

K: Just listen, sir; if the whole mind is full of ( free inner) space, will it chatter? It is not a matter of what word you use, - space, totally empty, or completely without any ( self-centred) occupation. Does the mind then chatter? Or does chattering take place only when there is some little space which is not covered? Do you know what I mean? Our minds are partly full, partly occupied and the unoccupied part is ( creating a virtual occupation by) chattering.

M: You are identifying chattering with the unoccupied mind.

K: I just want to find out why the mind chatters. Is it a habit?

M: It looks like ( a deeply rooted mental) habit.

K: If it is an (ages old mental) habit, then how does that habit come to an end? That is the only ( experiential) thing that you are concerned with. How does a habit come to an end - any habit, smoking, drinking, overeating?

M: It usually comes to an end by intensely looking at it.

K: If I intensely observe smoking paying attention to all the movement of smoking, it withers away. So, why can't chattering wither away?

M: I cannot trace any beginning to ( my mental) chattering. It is peculiarly automatic. I see the brain murmuring and I cannot do anything.

P: All other ( meditation) systems that deal with this peripheral movement of chattering say that it must end before one can get down to doing anything else.

M: To end it, you repeat mantras, bring some ( silencing ) uniformity, some monotony to the mind. But chattering is not monotonous, the
content changes.

K: That is interesting: the content ( siphoned from our collective consciousness?) changes.

P: It is completely disjointed. The basic problem is that so long
as the (self-centred) thinking process fills the major (central part ) of our consciousness, there will be both directed thinking and chattering. I don't think it is possible to get rid of one and keep the other.
The conscious movement of thinking is when the 'thinker'
draws on thought to build a premise and moves on (projecting its own continuity ) from there. While in the irational field of chattering, many, many things take place which the rational mind does not understand. But I was wondering whether the two are not counterparts of each other and whether one can exist without the other.

B: The ( self-centred) mind knows directed ( purposeful) occupation, and it also knows a non-directional chattering. Does the mind know (the free inner) space of emptiness?

A: It is possible for a person to be efficient in the doing of
any single job to which he is directed. This directed activity can be understood as either a projection of the 'centre' (of self-interest ) or that which strengthens the centre. So this directed activity can be traced to a source.

P: Directed activity - do I really know the source?

A: That is how the 'centre' sustains itself. This is the self-sustained activity of the centre, ut of which the centre gets strengthened, fed. Here is a channel of movement which seems to be even unrelated to that.

K: Chattering is a wastage of ( mind-) energy. It is so irrational, so illogical, sloppy, it is all over the place and how is it to come to an end?

M: All I can do is to look at it. As long as I can look at it, it (momentarily ) stops.

K: But it will return later. I want to stop it for good. Now, how
am I to do it?

P: I feel that as long as you are looking at any process of (the self-centred) mind, whether it is directed action or non-directed action, you are trapped.

K: Why do I object to chattering? You say you are wasting
energy, but you are wasting energy in ten other different directions. Sir, I
don't object to my mind chattering. I don't mind wasting a little bit
of energy because I am wasting energy in so many directions. Why
do I object to chattering?

M: Because I waste energy.

K: So you are against wasting energy on a particular kind of
work. I object to wasting energy on any account.

P: There are two ways of looking at this: the one way is of
saying, how can I solve the chattering problem? The other, why does one differentiate between the directed and non-directed (mental activities ) ?

M: Whenever my mind is in a state of chattering, there is ( some existential ) anguish, there is despair.

K: So, you are objecting to the waste of (fragmentary mental) energy which is unpleasant. I will approach it differently. What is important is that (at its very roots ?) the mind is very steady, rock-steady and then the problem does not exist; the mind does not need to chatter.
If the ( meditating ) mind is completely rocksteady,
then a word passing over it, somebody spilling water on it
or a bird making a mess on it, it brushes it off. That is the only (holistically friendly ) way I would approach it.
( So, for optional meditation homework?) find out if the mind is rock-steady and then a little wave, a little movement does not matter. But if you are approaching it from the point of trying to stop the irrational wastage, I say that such unintended or intended wastage is taking place all around you, all the time. Sir, to me the problem is very simple. Is the mind totally steady?

P: Does your mind operate in thought at all, in thought and verbal
formation moving across the mind?

K: No.

M: He does not know what he is going to say next but he says
something and it makes ( a total holistic ) sense. Here is a man who is ( inwardly) completely empty.

P: So your consciousness is really empty?

K: ( Yes, but... experientially-wise ?) this does not lead us very far. Let us drop that.

B: Sir, you have approached the issue from two different positions: one,
you say 'look at fragmentation, look what happens'; then you
suddenly take a jump, and you say leave it and you ask is there a
mind that is imperturbable?

K: I don't think the problem of chattering will be stopped the
other way.

B: What is the relationship of the two approaches?

K: I don't think there is any. Look, the mind is chattering and
we have discussed it an hour, talked about it from different
points of view, but ( the temporal) mind still goes on fragmentarily, wanting to resolve the problem by looking at it and by various means. I listen to it all and I say this does not seem to be the answer. It does not
seem to complete the picture and I see it is so because our ( time-bound) minds are so unsteady. The mind has not got deep roots of in-depth
steadiness and therefore it chatters. So I have not jumped away from the
observation of 'what is', I have watched it (holistically?) .

B: We have dealt with the various parts in ourselves, whereas you have collected the whole thing together.

K: That is how I would operate, if my mind were chattering. I
know it is wastage of energy. But when I look at it and some other (ignored) factor comes into it - the fact that my mind is not steady at all. So I would pursue that rather than the chattering.

P: When you say that I would pursue the fact that it is not stable, how would you tackle it?

K: That would be my concern, not my chattering. I see as long as the
mind is not steady, there must be chattering. So I am going to find out what is the feeling and the quality of a ( holistically integrated?) mind that is completely steady? That is all.

( To recap:) I know my ( self-centred) mind chatters. That's a fact of life . I know it is an irrational, unintended, a wastage of ( mind) energy; I also know I am wasting energy in ten different ways. To gather all the wastage of energy is
impossible. You spill mercury and there are hundreds of little
droplets all over the place. To try to collect them is a futher wastage of
energy. So I see, there must be a different way. The mind, not
being steady, chatters. My enquiry now is: What is the nature and
structure of ( inward ) steadiness?

M: The steadiness is not there with me.
K: I don't know it. I am going to enquire. I say steadiness is not the opposite of restlessness,
because the opposite always contains the opposite of itself.
Therefore it is not the opposite. So it may be that the
chattering will go on, all the mental wastage will go on in different
directions as long as the mind is not 'rock-steady'. That is not a
verbal statement. It is an (experiential) understanding of an (inward) state that has come into being by discarding the ( vain?) enquiry how to gather the wastage.

B: There has always been this problem that with us, that the negative
does not naturally transform itself ; so, what would you do about it?

K: Attention is applied in a different direction. Instead of how
to stop the wastage, it is now directed to the understanding of what
it means to be (inwardly) steady.

B: But this is not a mental direction.

K: No, obviously not. What is the nature of a steady mind? Can
we discuss that, not the verbal description of a steady mind?

P: But what is the nature of a 'steady' mind?

K: Don't you know it?

M: By your grace we all know it (as it is manifested in you)

P: I would also say that, but that still would not stop either the
chattering or the thinking process.

K: He ( K) said the Sea ( of the Univeral Mind?) is very deep, it is very steady, a few waves come and go, and you don't care, but if you care then you remain there. And you see that and discard it. As Balasundaram pointed out, the 'negatve' instantly
becomes 'positive' when I see (the whole picture) . The 'false' becomes the true instantly.
( Parting words;) The 'seeing' is the rock; and the ' listening' (with the inner ear?) is the ( proverbial) rock

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Aug 2019 #220
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

Where do I begin my holistic education ?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1984)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): If you remember, Krishnaji, three days ago we started discussing the ( holistic) ground from which a new ( human) mind emerges. You said that from a (psychological) ground of conflict, fear, anger, the new can never emerge; you said that something entirely new is necessary. I'd want to start with a question: Supposing I’m a newcomer to your talks and I hear this. Where do I begin?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Probably at first you won’t even know what K is talking about. So (for starters?) to establish the semantic meaning, and also become ( directly) aware of my relationship to nature, my relationship to the beauty of all that.

PJ: So you are saying that the starting point of ( one's holistic) inquiry is in the outer ?

K: Absolutely. You see, Pupul, if I don’t have the obvious 'common sense' criteria, then how can I ever have a clear perception of myself? Because the outer (state of the world?) is a manifestation of myself (for) I 'am' part of nature. And without understanding the beauty of the land, the rivers and also of this this brutal world we live in, how can I ever have a clear perception of myself? So, what is my ( actual) relationship to all that? Am I blind to it all? Or do I have certain personal conclusions which dominate me?

PJ: Sir, we all 'think' that we look at nature. We think that we look at the trees, that we look at the flowers, and at the rocks. We actually feel that we look. We feel that as we have eyes, we look. But there is something in this looking which obviously is not the looking you are talking about

K: Is my perception merely a visual perception? That is, do you look at those marvellous shadows only with your eyes? Or do you look at them with your whole being, with all your ( awakened?) senses? Moreover, do you perceive it as though it was something outside you or as something of which you are a part?

PJ: I think that there is a looking in which the ( self-centred) 'seer' does not exist. But as a beginner who says, ‘I do look with my eyes’, I'd want to start from there.

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

PJ: Sir, if you are seeing, listening & feeling, then it is a ( blissful) state where everything exists. But I would like to approach it from the point of view of an (absolute) beginner rather than of any other.

K: Would you agree that human beings have lost touch with nature?

PJ: Yes, completely; because when they see, their eyes move over. They never look directly. They never look—period. 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 mind has divided itself (along survivalistic priorities ) . It considers looking at a leaf or a leaf’s movement as something unimportant; what is important is something vast.

K: So, for the ordinary person, what is important? Food, clothes, shelter (plus many other 'perks'?) —that’s all that he is concerned with ?

PJ: No, sir. Beyond that there is the Sacred, the Divine, God.

K: Of course, when he has (acquired all the physical basics) he begins to 'think' about God as something extraordinary... He sees the immensity of this marvellous Universe , and he says, ‘Who created all this?’ Right?

Q: My senses have been very deeply dominated by my thinking. I see for myself that when I go for a walk, I’m not really looking, I’m not really listening. I am all the time ( engaged in) thinking, and from that thinking I occasionally glance at something or the other. So in a sense there is no looking, no seeing, the actuality of a tree.

K: Would you blame ( the traditional dogmas of?) religion that have prevented man from considering nature as part of himself? You see, religions have said, ‘Suppress all your senses. Don’t look out there; always look inside you’.

Q: Wouldn't you say that the modern urban man is to a great extent not influenced by religions?

K: You see, the religious leaders 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 ( larger than life?) images—images that are made by man's hand and mind. And images that are made by the (man made) mind are more important than the other.

Q: But, wouldn’t you say, Krishnaji, that this 'ordinary' man must have seen somehow, that his world is limited?

K: Yes, he knows ( the inevitability ) of death.

Q: He has to be already a little bit discontented with his God, with his...

K: I question whether he is discontented or sceptical about his Gods.

Q: Then what makes him ask the question, ‘Where do I begin?’

K: He doesn’t ask this question.

PJ: He does when he is in sorrow; he does when he is suffering; he does when there is death.

K: He does when there is sorrow. He does when there is death.

Q:You see, there are a number of people who generally live very 'happy' (& care-free?) lives. They have no the sorrow that is common to most people: poverty, ill-health, lack of education, and so on. Yet they come upon these questions, and they go, very seriously, into them.

K: You are talking of those people who are ( spiritually) exceptional.

PJ: We just 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 within ourselves) . We have never looked at the outside and seen the outside as the same movement as the movement within. Therefore the callousness, therefore the corruption...

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

PJ: Because we divide. We divide the outer world as the world of ( the enjoyable things of our ) desire and the inner world as the real world.

K: And also because for both the Buddhists and the Hindus the outside world is m?y?, ( to be ultimately considered as ) an illusion. K, however, is saying quite the contrary. And that’s why I feel it’s important to understand one’s relationship to nature, to the outer world. That’s why I feel it is important to understand one’s relationship to the world in which all the misery, confusion, brutality, and corruption is going on. Look at that first and, then, from the outer, move to the inner. But if you start and stop at the inner, you will have no elements of reference. Personally I feel we must start with what we 'see', with what we 'hear', and what we 'feel' outside. Take death. When I see somebody carrying a dead body—in this country it’s simple; just two or three people carrying a corpse—I begin to ask, ‘What is death?’ Death is there outside of me, but I begin to inquire. I can’t just go off by myself into a mountain cave and there inquire what death or God is. Of course, I can imagine a lot of things, 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 ( Unknown?) Universe?

Q: Krishnaji, in looking at the outer, you’re saying that the brain's (perceptions) 'quickens'.

K: Of course; it becomes more sensitive.

Q: And, therefore, it can look at the inner without distortion.
K: Yes, without distortion.

Q: But, sir, the Western world —has always treated the outer as something very, very concrete. All their energies have moved outward. But that doesn’t seem to have brought about the inwardness either.

K: So we come to a much more serious ( existential) question. What makes a man change? Would you begin with that? I’m the ( compounded) result of thousands of years of evolution. Why have I not changed? I suggest that any rational and thoughtful person would eventually come to ask this question. (Experiential hint:) do you understand what I mean by ‘change’? Take ( greed & ) envy. That is a common factor for everybody, and it has produced a great deal of trouble in the world. To watch the brain being envious, and to wipe it out—why hasn’t that been possible? Why haven’t you done it? You just talk about it endlessly.

Q: Sir, there seems to be a kind of paradox, for I feel that (a triggering amount of personal ) suffering seems to be necessary in some ways for this ‘radical’ change that you are talking about. Yet when one suffers and keeps on suffering, it has a blunting effect on the individual who suffers. So where do we go from there?

K: Sir, first of all, there is no ( actual) division between the outer and the inner; they are one. Do you see that? Do you actually see the fact that the 'outer', the society in which we live, and which we have created, and the 'inner', the ‘me’, are the same? I am part of society. Society is not different from me. That is one of the most fundamental facts. Do you, actually, recognize that fact, and not just agree with it?

Secondly, there is an (ideological) division between you and me. You belong to one group or community or religion, and I belong to another community, another religion, and so on. This division is created by thought and, therefore, it is becoming tremendously complex. You say, ‘I suffer, you suffer, the rest of humanity suffers’. But 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 ( basically) the same.

Q: Is the answer to both the questions the fact that we don’t have enough energy?

K: I would not say that you haven’t got enough energy. You have plenty of energy when you want to do something. Right? When you want to make money, you work tremendously to get it. So I don’t think it is (only) a matter of energy. But is it because there is no ( foreseeable personal) profit in that? Our brains are ( seriously) conditioned to reward and punishment. Right? We work like the blazes if we can have a 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 senses and their operation and the (activity of the) senses are energy and also that which is outside is ( a manifestation of ) energy. But what is it that thwarts the (holistic integration of the ) energy of the senses?

K: Is it our ( cultural) conditioning? We are always told to ( keep the senses under ) control.

PJ: Yes, sir, but I think that there must be some seed, some insight, that has been responsible for this (K) teaching, namely, that we have to not only be very careful with ( not dissipating ) our energy but also channelize it properly. The whole of life and the whole of modern education is, I feel, merely an (outward) channelling of this energy and, so, perhaps in itself it is an incorrect approach.

K: Yes.

PJ: Because what is necessary is the 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 expend energy the more there is?
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. But what I said was from a different viewpoint. We see that energy disperses. Whatever energy a human being has, he is dispersing it all the time. There must be something ( very wrong) at the root of it.

K: Pupul, just look. You are conditioned from childhood to this idea of reward and punishment. Right? Your mother says, ‘If you do this, ‘I’ll give you a sweet. If you don’t do that, I will punish you’. When you enter school, the same principle is carried on: better marks in the examinations, and so on—you follow? Our brains are conditioned to reward and punishment. Right? So you expend all your energy to avoid punishment and gain a reward. And a reward gives me tremendous energy to work, work, work. Now then you come along and tell me that this reward and punishment is a conditioning, and that in that there is no freedom. Heaven isn’t a reward; enlightenment isn’t a reward. But I have been trained from childhood to seek a 'reward'. So there is a battle and I waste my energy in that battle. I want 'happiness'; I want 'peace'. And I do everything to accelerate that.

PJ: Sir, the human life is so complex that if I ever try to solve it, I never will. But you have given us an (experiential) key. The key is this 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 ( inwardly functioning as) one? The point is, can you see, that is, perceive, and hear at the same time?—Not as two separate things. You see, I was talking to a scientist last year—a biologist who is concerned with nature, and so on. He asked me, ‘Do you really hear the sound of a tree when it is absolutely quiet, for example, early in the morning or as the sun is setting? Any tree has a peculiar quality of sound’. And I said, ‘Yes, a tree has a peculiar quality of 'sound’( its own life-vibration). Can you hear and see that sound at the same time? Or do you divide it? The question is whether you can 'see' something without (the subliminal observer-observed) division. That’s all I’m asking. See, hear, feel, smell, taste—without any division. It’s as though you were completely immersed in it.

Q: Sir, you have frequently said 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 ( holistically) essential nature of meditation is never to become (self-) conscious that 'you' are meditating. You see, meditation, to K, is something that cannot be ( self-) consciously achieved.

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

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

Q: So in a meditation in which all these ( self- refferenced) things are eliminated, one is lost.

K: Be lost!

Q: But we are not 'lost' in the ( idyllic?) way you mean. We are lost in confusion. So, how would you further guide us so that meditation becomes an actuality?

K: When you’re watching this whole (Intelligent) 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, the 'watching' is not merely with the senses, for in watching there is this quality of love, this quality of care.

PJ: Now we are getting to it.

K: In the the awakening of all the senses and the fullness of it—there’s the ( holistic) quality of something totally different in that.

PJ: There must be something missing because that explosion of the heart does not happen, sir. The explosion of the heart does not take place. That is really the crux.

K: The (physical) brain is the centre of all our nervous, electrical responses and also the centre of all thought. In the (time-bound) brain there is a great activity of confusion and of contradiction. Love is not that. Therefore it must be something outside the brain. Just follow it logically. And we 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, the entire (consciousness of the ) world was silent. And you were silent. And you felt the whole earth as part of you.

PJ: But you see, sir, the senses working simultaneously give the brain great clarity, a great living, germinating creativity, but it doesn’t wipe the tear of another.

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

PJ: Is it, sir, that the only thing which is legitimate is to be totally awake, that is, for the senses to operate fully and, then, never even query about the Other?

K: You don’t even 'know' the Other. All I 'know' is what is within the skull. Right? And you come along and say, ‘As long as you’re 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. We have tried everything, but the brain has never become quiet.
Meditation is not (self-induced) quietness. You try to bring (this inner) quietness through control, through all kinds of (mental) tricks. But that’s not the stillness and the beauty of silence. So where do we end up?

PJ: You see, sir, everything else is 'man-made'. Only That is divinity, but unfortunately, we just don’t know how to reach it, how to ( get in ) touch it.

( Parting words:) K: I met a man the other day. He was a great 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. ‘Yes’, he said, ‘that’s interesting’.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Aug 2019 #221
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

Is There a Timeless dimension of the human mind ?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue 1985)

KRISHNAMURTI (K) : We are talking about a dialogue that is not just a conversation between two people, but an inward questioning and an answering where the very answering provokes a further questioning and so on. In this kind of (transpersonal?) dialogue 'you' and 'I', disappear altogether, and only the question and the answer remain.

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): The essential nature of any authentic dialogue is a probing into something. Now, it seems to me, that all problems of the brain are born from thought's process of time, because the brain tries to change ‘what is’ into something different, and the movement of the brain which wants to change ‘what is’ into something else, creates (its own continuity in) time.

K: Could we say this very simply? All physical or mental movement is a matter of time. There is this whole process of man's evolution—both psychological and physical. Now, (inwardly ) there is also a 'psychological' ( thinking in terms of ) time—the time required for becoming something. ‘I am this, I will become that.’ All this is fairly simple and clear, and we all accept this. Right? Now, my question is: Is there a time outside ( thought's self projected) movement which we know and call time? That is, is there a ''time of non-movement''?

Let us go slowly into this. Time as we know it is ( intimately associated to any material) movement. The gap between one action and another, between one understanding and another, is (measurable in terms of) time. ( In the psychological realm?) the whole movement (of thought ) from the past to the present to the future is generally acknowledged as 'time'. Any movement—of evolution, of growth, of achievement, of fulfilment, of becoming something—involves time. The interval between seeing something, thinking about it and acting is time. Now, I question whether there is a ( dimension of?) time—I am using that word for the time being till we find another word—which doesn’t belong to this category at all.

PJ: When you use the word ‘time’ and say that it does not belong to the category of movement, does it belong to the category of matter?

K: Matter as I understand it—I’ve discussed the matter with Dr Bohm and others—is manifested energy. The body is such a manifested energy.

PJ: You see, sir, the human brain is ( a form of living ) matter

K: Yes, and thought is a material process (within the brain) .

PJ: Now, in that living matter an evolution in time must exist.

K: Of course. We were monkeys at one time. Gradually, through a million years of evolution, we became Homo sapiens—what we are now.

PJ: Yes, but we link that evolution with the memory content which the brain cells hold.

K: Just a minute! I want to be clear on this. The brain is matter. That’s a statement. What is the next statement?

PJ: The next step is, there is a (memory) content in the brain cells. And we generally link the evolution which is in the brain with the evolution in ( the quality & organisation of this) memory.

K: I see what you are trying to get at. Is memory (the result of) a process of evolution?

PJ: Within that brain is the content of a million years.

K: Yes, millions of years of memory. Is memory which is knowledge, which is experience, the gathering process, a process of time?

PJ: That is why I said, Krishnaji, that the problem is that we take the content of the brain which is memory and feel that there is an entity which can change that content of the brain. The whole process of becoming is that; that is the time of the within, the time of the interior.

K: Yes. Time as becoming; time as accumulating more knowledge—advancing more and more. I understand that all that is implied in time.

PJ : My question is: Is the content of the brain which is nothing but a gathering of experiences and knowledge, identical with the nature of the brain itself? You see, we all know that becoming is illusion. That is very simple to understand. But there is something much more than that, and the ‘much more than that’ is that you make a statement that there is an outward time of the watch and that there is an inward time of becoming. You then ask: Is there another time which doesn’t belong to these two categories?

K: Time is ( intimately related to any forl of ) manifested energy. The very manifestation is a process of time.

PJ: Agreed, time cannot exist without manifestation.

K: That’s what I want to inquire into. Is there an ( inward dimension of?) time which is not 'manifest'?

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): Are you saying that in the very Ground ( of Creation) from which manifestation arises is another time?

K: Probably. We are trying to find out what eternity is. We are trying to find out a reality which is not of time. We know that what is mortal grows and dies. We are asking whether there is a state (of mind) or a movement which is not of time and which is beyond time. Which means, is there ( within man's consciousness?) a timeless activity which is infinite and measureless?

PJ: Now let us go into it. We know 'time' as the past, as the present and as the future. ( from the memory of the past ) we project the future. But what is the perception of that instant which is the only reality?

K: Wait. Let us examine that—the seeing and the doing, the ‘I must do’. There is the seeing which is the future—‘I must do’, ‘I will become’. Now, the future is the past modifying itself. That is time. Now, there is also a timeless action, an action which is ''perception-action''. In this ( directly perceptive) action, there is no time interval. Right?

PJ: Before I can even go into this, I want to go into what this ‘modifying in the present’ is.

K: ( The self-preserving activity of) Thought? I am afraid of the past and I meet the present. Thought modifies itself and goes on, but it’s still ‘fear’.
I am afraid of what might happen tomorrow, but 'tomorrow' is ( implicitly contained?) both in the today and in the yesterday. The present, the ‘now’, is (containing) the past and the future. The present contains that.

PJ: But a holistic perception in the present negates both the past and the future.

K: That’s what I am saying. But ( this) perception requires a state without the past. Perception is timeless. That’s it.

PJ: When you speak of a ( dimension of) time which does not belong to these two—the past and the future—it is obviously the essential element of this perception of the ‘now’.

K: Yes, and that perception is not of time. Because that perception doesn’t contain the ( memories of the ) past.

PJ: What is the ‘now’?

K: The ‘now’ is ( containing ) all time: past time, future time and the present time.

PJ: Now, what is the experiencing of ‘all time’?

K: 'You' can’t experience it (personally?) . Experience implies the experiencer who is experiencing. The experiencer is of time.

PJ: Is there ever an actual ( experiential) contact with this? When you say that the past and the present are both contained in the ‘now’. I ask: What is this ‘now’?
K: I’ll tell you what the ‘now’ is.

K: Pupul is asking: What makes you say that thought's ( momentum of the ) past is contained in the present? Do you have an insight into that?

PJ: The only (widow of inward ) perception where the revelation of this or the insight into this can come about is in the present. Now, how do I come to this ‘now’ of existence?

K: 'You' cannot come to it. You cannot experience it; you cannot conceive of it. Your brain is conditioned to knowledge, is conditioned to measurement in words. But this cannot be approached that way. And this is where religious minds meet—do you follow?—because they have wiped away the theories, they have wiped away ideas and concepts. They deal with the actual state, And that is where the religious inquiry begins. But if you are inquiring into theories you will play around with it infinitely.

PJ: Is it possible to probe into this (now' ) time which is not of this...?

K: Yes, it is possible. you may use words, but the words are not the (actual) thing. You can’t measure this with words.

PJ: Because there are no words, the moment words cease...

K:...the question remains.

PJ: This is something quite extraordinary, because if the question remains, but the 'questioners' do not remain...

K: Yes. The question remains and the questioners don’t exist.

ASIT CHANDMAL (AC): What does the question operate upon?

K: I said: (the non-dualistic ) Perception means that there is no (self-conscious?) 'perceiver'. See the implications ?. The 'perceiver' is the (result of the ) past and the (projector of its own) future. But the act of (direct) perception is now. Therefore it is timeless just as action is timeless.

PJ: Therefore, in that perception, the past and the future are totally annihilated.

K: Do you see what is happening now? (the selfless act of) listening is not of time. If I listen, it is now. So attention has no time. And, therefore, there is no linear or horizontal time.

AC: In that state what is there a perception of? Who or what is listening or inquiring into that state? How can you ask a question?

K: You can. I am going to show it to you in a minute. But, please, realize what has happened before we probe. The mind has rid itself of all ( its past) concepts, all theories, all hopes, all desires. It is now in a state of ( total inner) clarity. Right? So in that state, you can inquire non-verbally. That’s what I want to get at.

AC: I don’t understand.

K: Look, sir, I tell you ''love is not of time''. How do you listen to that? First you hear the words—those words have a certain meaning and those words are interpreted according to your cultural background. But can you listen to the (eternal) truth of it?

PJ: I will try to answer your question: How do you listen? Without translating everything into memory.
In a dialogue with Krishnaji you can listen without thought operating and, yet, comprehend fully what he is saying. It is in this ( non-verbal) listening at such depths that it—the statement, the question, ‘what is’—opens up, it tells you; there is no need for other action.

SP: Pupulji, what is your experiential comprehension of the statement ‘Love is not of time’?

PJ: There is no (intellectual) comprehension ; you take it like a perfume...

K: Do you understand the (inward) beauty, the depth of it? I tell you, ‘Love is not of time’. To me that’s a tremendous fact; it is the (timeless) truth. You say, ‘I really don’t understand you’. And I tell you, ‘You won’t understand it the way you want to understand it, because you want to understand it through the intellectual process, through argument, through a reactionary process, a constant back and forth of words. I say that you won’t understand it that way. You might say that that is the only instrument you have—there is a dialogue going on now—and I reply, ‘Look, there is a totally different instrument (available) . I will tell you what that instrument is if you can put aside the enormous weight of knowledge which is of time’.
Is there a direct comprehension, an insight, an immediate perception without the word, without analysis, without bringing all your knowledge into it? Oh yes, sir.

AC: I understand that, sir.

K: So, if you understand that there is an (knowledge free) state where words have lost their meaning, but that there is pure perception of something, you will probe into that perception.

AC: How can I inquire into that state, for how does one inquire without the word? You see, this state, to me, is the end of inquiry, not the beginning of inquiry.

K: All right, if it is the end of inquiry, do you stop there? The (natural intelligence of the ) brain—does it see this? Then that’s finished.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 12 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Aug 2019 #222
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experentially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1952)

He was a young man, a professor of some kind, dissatisfied, worried and burdened with responsibilities. He stated that he had been to as many of the talks as he could, and went on to explain
that for years he had been trying to give up smoking, but had never been able to give it up entirely.
He had done everything he could to stop his habit of smoking, but had always come back to it. This was one of his problems, among others. He was intense, nervous and thin.

K: Do we understand anything if we condemn it? The very condemnation or acceptance is an avoidance of (looking directly at the ) the problem.

Q: I have indeed condemned myself for smoking, over and over again. It is difficult not to condemn (this kind of bad habits) .

K: Yes, it is difficult not to condemn, for our cultural conditioning is based on denial, justification, comparison and/or resignation. This is our psychologial background, the conditioning with which we approach every problem.
This very conditioning breeds the (annoying) problem of the ('observer' vs ' observed') conflict. We think that we can be free from a problem by knowing its cause; but this 'knowledge' obviously prevents the live understanding of the problem. Knowing the
cause of a problem and understanding the problem are two entirely different things.

Q: But how else can one approach a problem?

K: That is what we are going to find out. When we discover what the false approach is, we shall be aware of the only approach. The understanding of the false (approach?) is (opening the door to) the discovery of the true. To really see the false as 'false' is arduous if we look at it through comparison, through the measure of thought; and can the false be seen as the 'false' through any thought process? Is not thought itself a conditioned (process) and so false?
When we use thought to solve a problem, surely we are using an instrument which is not at all ( experientially) adequate; for thought itself is a product of the ( recorded) experience of the past.
(In a nutshell:) to see the false as 'false', thought must be aware of itself as an (inwardly redundant ) 'dead' (mechanical) process. Thought can never be free, and there must be freedom to discover, freedom from thought.

Q: I don’t quite see what you mean.

K: One of your problems is smoking. You have approached it with condemnation, or you have tried to
rationalize it away. This approach is ( experientially speaking?) 'false'. And how do you discover that it is false? Surely by being passively watchful of how you approach the problem. This passive watchfulness
does not demand thought; on the contrary, if thought is functioning there can be no passivity.
Thought functions ( in the psychological domain ) only to condemn or justify, to compare or accept; but if there is a 'passive ( inward) watchfulness' of this process, then it is perceived for what it really is.

Q: I see that; but how does this apply to my habit of smoking?

K: Let us experiment together to find out if one can approach the problem of smoking without (thought's inerference in terms of) condemnation, comparison, and so on. Can we look at this whole problem afresh, without ( 'thinker's interference ) overshadowing it? No (life challenging) problem is ever old, but we approach it with the old formulations, which prevent our understanding it (in real time) .

( For extra homework:) Try to be passively watchful of these responses and see that they cannot solve the problem. This (smoking habit) problem is an actuality, but your old approach is utterly inadequate. The inadequate response to 'what is' breeds (further frustration & ) conflict; and ( the resulting inner state of) conflict is your (present ) problem.

( Parting words:) If there is a ('loving) understanding' of this whole process, then you will (hopefully?) find that you will act ( holistically & ?) adequately with regard to smoking.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 16 Aug 2019 #223
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An experientially friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1952)

He was a young man, in his twenties; he was well fed, had travelled a little and been to college. He was nervous and there was anxiety in his eyes. He was saying that just as he was going off to sleep he would sit up with a start of naked fear. Then the room would lose its proportions; the walls would go flat, there would be no roof, and the floor would disappear. He would be frightened and sweating. This had been going on for many years.

K: What are you frightened of?

Q: I think I am really frightened of not being, of losing my identity, my name.

K: What do we mean by losing your identity? It is to be identified with a name, with property, with a person, with ideas; it is to be associated with something, to be recognized as this or that, to be labelled as belonging to a particular group or country, and so on. You are afraid of losing your ( social) label, is that it?

Q: Otherwise, what am I?

K: So you are your ( subliminally identified with the mental images of your ) possessions. Your name and reputation, your car and other property, the girl you are going to marry, the ambitions that you have - you are these things. These things, together with certain characteristics and values, go to make up what you call the 'I'; you are the sum total of all this, and you are afraid of losing it. not insecurity the very nature of all things? That 'which is', you cannot avoid; insecurity is there, whether you like it or not. This does not mean that you must resign yourself to it, or that you must accept or deny it; but why be afraid of insecurity?

Q: Now that you put it this way, I don’t think I am afraid of material insecurity. Then what is it?

K: To find it out ( experientially ) we must be quiet, watchful, but not pressing. Are you frightened of being inwardly insecure, of being unable to achieve the end which you have set for yourself? Probably you have a religious ideal; and do you feel you have not the capacity to live up to or achieve it? Do you feel a sense of hopelessness about it, a sense of guilt or frustration?

Q: You are perfectly right. Ever since I heard you some years ago as a boy, it has been my ideal, if I may say so, to be like you. It’s in our blood to be religious, and I have felt I could be like that; but there has always been a deep fear of never coming near it.

Q: Though you are not frightened of being outwardly insecure, you are frightened of being insecure inwardly. Another man makes himself secure outwardly with a reputation, with fame, with money, and so on, while you want to be secure inwardly with an ideal; and you feel you have no capacity to become that ideal. Why do you want to become or achieve an ideal? Isn’t it only to be secure, to feel safe? This refuge you call a (spiritual) ideal; but actually you want to be safe, protected. Is that it?

Q: Now that you point it out, that is exactly it.

K: You see the obvious shallowness of outward security; but do you also see the falseness of seeking inward security through becoming the ( spiritual) ideal? The ideal is your refuge, instead of money. Do you really see this?

Q: Yes, I really do.

K: Then be what you are. When you see the falseness of the ideal, it drops away from you. You are 'what is'. From there proceed to understand 'what is' - The 'what is' is yourself, not at any particular period or in any given mood, but yourself as you are ( living & thinking ) from moment to moment.

(Parting words:)( Try to be inwardly) watchful without interpreting the movement of 'what is'. This will be arduous, but there is delight in it (if done right ?) . Only to the free is there (creative) happiness, and this ( inner) freedom comes with ( seeing ) the (inward) truth of 'what is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 17 Aug 2019 #224
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An experientially-friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1952)

( K's Intro:) He was seriously interested in meditation, and said that he had practiced it for many years. He was
more attracted by the meditations of the Hindu and Buddhist saints. He has led what was considered to be a strict moral life, but that was only a minor incident, for he was no more attracted to the ways of the world. He had a job of sorts, but that too was quite incidental.

K: The end (or final goal of) of meditation is ( to be found in the ?) meditation itself. Meditation used as a means to arrive, to gain only gives strength to the 'meditator'. The 'meditator' is ( not actually separated from ) meditation; (in fact, a central important part of) meditation is the understanding of the 'meditator'.

Q: Personally I meditate in order to find the Ultimate Reality, or rather, to allow that Reality to manifest itself. It is not exactly a concrete result I am seeking, but that bliss which occasionally one senses. It is there; and as a thirsty man craves for
water, I want that inexpressible happiness. That bliss is infinitely greater than all joy, and I pursue it
as my most cherished desire.

K: That is, you hope to achieve certain results, certain well-marked stages, depending upon your persistence of effort, and progressively experience greater and greater joy. This well-laid-out course
assures you of the final result. So your meditation is becoming a very calculated affair, is it not?

Q: When you put it that way, it seems rather absurd; but deeply, what is wrong with it? What is wrong essentially with seeking that inward state of Bliss?

K: This desire for bliss implies that 'bliss' is something everlasting, does it not? All other results have been unsatisfactory; one has ardently pursued worldly goals and has seen their transient
nature, and now one wants the everlasting state, an end that has no ending. The ( temporal) mind is seeking a final and imperishable refuge; so it disciplines and train itself, practises certain virtues to gain what it wants. It may once have ( really) experienced that Bliss, but now it is panting after it like other pursuers of results, you are pursuing yours, only you have placed it at a different level; you may call it higher, but your 'arrival' implies another (sublimated ) effort to become. The mind ( involved in self-becoming) is never at ( total) rest, it is always striving, always achieving, always gaining - and, of course, always in fear of losing. This process is ( generally) called 'meditation'. But how can a mind which is caught in its endless ( self-centred) becoming be aware of bliss? Can a mind that has imposed discipline upon itself ever be free to receive that bliss? Through the desire for that Bliss, have you not built a 'wall' around yourself which the Imponderable, the Unknown, cannot penetrate? Have you not effectively shut yourself off from the (visitations of the) New? Out of the old, you have made a path for the new; and can the new be contained in the old?

( In a nutshell:) The ( time-bound) mind can never create the New; this mind itself is a result (of time) , and all its results are an outcome of the old. ( The first step of ) Meditation is the freeing of the mind of the 'meditator'; in freedom alone is there discovery, sensitivity to receive. Without freedom, there can be no bliss; but this freedom does not come through ( self-imposed) discipline. The ( constantly reiterated) pattern (of thought's projection in time) must be broken for freedom to be. The mould (of thought & time) is (to be) broken from moment to moment. ( If it works?) the 'broken moment' is the forgotten moment. However, it is the (personally?) remembered moment that gives (continuity &) shape to this mould, and only then does the 'maker of the mould' ( the 'thinker-in-chief' ?) come into being, the creator of all (real & fake?) problems, conflicts, miseries.

( To recap:) Meditation is freeing the mind of its own ( self-centred) thoughts at all levels. Thought creates the (very realistic illusion of the) 'thinker' – but actually they are a unitary process, and not two separate processes. Keeping these two processes separate only lead to ignorance and illusion.

( Parting words:) When the meditator 'is' (one with his) meditation, the (totality of the ) mind is 'alone' (all-one) and silent. Only to the 'all-one' mind can the Causeless come, only to the all-one is there Bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Aug 2019 #225
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An experientially-friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1952)

Q: I am married and the mother of several children, but I have never felt love. I am beginning to wonder
if it exists at all. We know sensations, passions, excitements and satisfying pleasures, but I wonder
if we know love. We often say that we love, but there is always a certain withholding. Physically we may give ourselves completely; but this giving is
a gift of the senses, but that ( inward flame) which alone can give is unawakened, far away. We meet and get lost in the smoke, but that is not the flame. Why is it that we have not got ( free access to that) the flame? ?

K: Is ( selfless?) love a bright ideal which becomes attainable only if all the right conditions are fulfilled? To be (inwardly ) open and vulnerable is to be sensitive; where there is a ( self-centered) withholding, there is insensitivity. The vulnerable mind is free from ( psychological expectations of) tomorrow and open to the Unknown.
( In a nutshell:) That which is open and vulnerable is beautiful; the ( self-) enclosed ( mind) is dull and insensitive. And that is one of our difficulties : we are always trying to become something (or other in the outer world ) - but ( our inward) dullness remains.

Q: Then what is one to do?

K: Do nothing but remain with what you are, insensitive. Listen to it , and it will
tell you its story; do not translate or act, but listen without interruption or interpretation right to the
end of the story. Then only will there be (an inwardly integrated ) action. The doing is not important, but the listening is.
The 'smoke' is created by ( our self-centred) desire as jealousy, anger, disappointment; the smoke is the fear of time; the smoke is ( the psychological weight of the personal & collective) memory, experience. Become aware of the smoke.

Q: Is it possible to have (free access to) that flame, or is it only a gift for the few?

K: Whether it is for the few or for the many is
not the ( experiential) point, is it? If we pursue that ( exclusive) path it can only lead to ignorance and illusion. Our concern is with the awakening of that flame without smoke? Find out; observe the smoke silently and patiently. You cannot dispel the smoke, for you are the ( creator of the ) smoke, but as the smoke goes, the flame will come. This flame is inexhaustible. When the heart is empty of the things of the mind, and the mind is empty of ( the self-centred) thought, then is there Love. That mind which is (meditatively?) 'empty' is inexhaustible. (Hint : the flame and the smoke can never be in conflict with each other. The one is when the other is not (around ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 21 Aug 2019 #226
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


Thought moves through the present to the future and back again, like a restless animal tied to a post, it moves within its own field (of the known) . This movement is the occupation of the mind with the past, the present and the future. The ( time-bound ) mind 'is' ( surviving by this?) occupation. If the mind is not occupied, it (its self-consciousness?) ceases to exist; its very occupation is its existence. To be occupied with something, whether with furniture or God, is a state of (inner) shallowness. Occupation gives the mind a feeling of activity, of being alive. That is why the mind sustains itself with occupation. The mind must be busy with something. What it is busy with is of little importance; the important thing is that it be occupied, and the better occupations even have a social significance.

To be ( constantly) occupied with something ( or another) is the nature of the ( self-centred ?) mind, and its activity springs from this. Without ( its psychologically motivated) occupation, the mind is (as) not(hing); and this ( subliminal) fear of not being makes the mind restless and active. This restless activity has the appearance of ( real) life, but it leads always to death - a death which is the same activity in another form. The 'dreams' are another occupation of the mind, a symbol of its restlessness. Dreaming is the continuation of the conscious state, the extension of what is not active during the waking hours. This ( time-binding) activity of both the upper and the deeper mind has no ending; but only to that ( mind) which 'ends' it can there be the ( birth of ) new, only to that which 'dies' ( to the known?) can there be life. The death of the occupation of the ( time-bound) mind, is the beginning of a total (inner) silence. There is no relationship between this imponderable silence and the activity of the ( temporal) mind. The ( temporal) mind cannot commune with this Silence; but there is silence only with the death of the mind’s occupation with silence. Silence is beyond the occupation of the deeper mind. The deeper mind is the residue of the past, open or hidden. The mind is a total process, and not an exclusive part. The total process of activity, residual and acquiring, cannot ( freely ?) commune with that silence which is inexhaustible.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 21 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 22 Aug 2019 #227
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

HIGHLY INSTRUCTIVE SELECTIONS FROM MRS PUPUL JAYAKAR PRIVATE DIALOGUES WITH K ( carefully selected & edited from her most remarkable book of memoirs : Krishnamurti a biography

ONE: Probing into the nature of holistic attention.

K: What is it to ( completely?) attend ( to what is happening inwardly within oneslf ) ? ( Hint:) The total attention of one thought ( may or...may not ?) unfold the whole ( self-centred) nature of thought.

PJ : For such a total attention, the mind had to have weight. Every ( moment of) attention gave depth to the ground of the mind.

K : No preparation is necessary.

PJ : If not, what is it that gives your mind the swiftness and the 'insight' to perceive that in one thought, all thought is revealed?

K : ( Realising?) the necessity for the brain cells to be totally still.
The, a (qualitative) Mutation is immediate. Your question is, what makes it take place?

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

K: 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 : Doesn't one have first to observe the mind and see its traps ?

K: You are a traditionalist. You are speaking of years of preparation to see this. I say, insight is the (spontaneous) perception of this pattern. Insight breaks the pattern.

PJ : This word ‘insight’ implies a 'sight into the within'. Insight is to turn your face away from the known.

K: Yes. The brain is conditioned to ( follow the safest temporal) pattern. The very biological necessity (for inner freedom?) makes it to break the pattern. The ( flash of) insight needed to see this does not need training, nor time.

PJ : I am not speaking of continuity as time, but of a deepening of the mind.

K: Deepening is ( a process of thought improving itself in ) time. See what is implied in what you are saying.

PJ : You are speaking of a mind which is being totally still. Twenty years ago when you asked such a question, my thoughts moved towards (answering) the question. This no longer happens. The brain is still and listens. So, obviously there is a difference in quality between the two states. How can you deny the twenty years?

K: ( Generally, the passing of?) time makes the brain duller and duller. I question the whole concept of time to get anywhere (deeper inwardly) . ( Personally?) I don’t accept ( the validity of?) inner time.

PJ : I was not talking of it as practice...

K: But you are (implicitly?) giving strength to time.
( experiential clue:) How strong does the river in flood flow, and yet ( holistically speaking ?) the first few drops 'are' the river.

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

K: Could you consider ( for meditation homework?) denying the psychological time as (self-centred) becoming. Can you so deny time that it ceases in your brain? Can you accept time as sunrise and sunset and (see that inwardly ?) there is no other time? Don’t ( glibly ) say ‘yes.’ Do you see what is implies when there is no psychological future? It means the ( memory of the ) past has its own action, but not as the movement of becoming something.
I say, there is no (necessary) preparation for (having the inward clarity of) insight. Do you see this immediately, without time?

PJ : One can see that the brain cells and ( the brain's activity of ) thought are one. These brain cells for millennia have been conditioned to move in a pattern

K : Transformation cannot take place in the old ( brain cells) , nor in (the proteic activity of ?) thought. The ( perception of the ) new can have no relationship to the (residual memories of the) old. All change, in terms of the mental movement from one corner of the brain to another, is not renewal.
( For optional homework meditation?) Find out, whether it is possible to break conditioning and discover( perceive?) something totally new.

PJ : I agree that in total attention was the ending of the old. But I could not know or contact the brain cells, I could only know thought. Any operation of attention has to be on thought. You have said that ( mind's time-binding) movement is inbuilt into the brain. Can that brain, which for millennia has known ( only the survivalistic) movement , not move?

K: Yes, now we are getting at it : Can one see (directly) the (operation of the) brain's cells as ( constantly fabricating?) thought? Can one see that ( a transpersonal) attention can only act on thought? And that ( a holistic ) transformation has no relationship with thought? If yes, the old (time-binding movement?) has (come to an) ending.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Aug 2019 #228
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

“Can you look from today at your last thirty years as the ( dead residue of the ?) past, rather than look at today from the ( self-identified memory of the last ) thirty years ?

( an experientially friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1978)

PJ : Krishnaji, I had listened to you for thirty years, and I felt that there had been a (qualitative) change in the teachings. Have you moved away? Has there been an unfolding or a change?

K: Unfolding would be more correct; the teaching is in the same direction, it is holistic rather than an examination of detail. It is direct, simple, and comprehensive.

PJ : Could this 'total immobility of the mind' be possible without all those years of observation & self-questioning ?

K : (In a nutshell) Total ending of thought 'is' (generating its own ) immobility, is silence; 'thought as time' has to stop.

PJ : If this (thought-projected) time is actually the movement of becoming, then how could becoming end without the observation of its movement in one's consciousness? Without the thirty years of listening, observing the outer and the innerworld , could there be an end to becoming? Is there not a fundamental change in your teaching?

K: How do you look at (your whole?) past from today? Inbuilt is a 'holistic' seeing. The ( timeless?) 'present' holds the totality of the past. Is it possible to apprehend, have an insight into the whole immediately?

PJ : Thirty years ago you took us by the hand and explored into our consciousness; today, you have taken away your hand...

K: We are more mature.

PJ : I see three distinct periods in the teaching. The early days, when Krishnaji spoke of self-knowing, of the thinker and thought as one, of freedom from judgment and condemnation. In the 1960s he had moved to a denial of (emphasis of an) 'individual' (consciousness) as separate from the Consciousness Stream of Humanity; so, from an (individual) step-by-step approach you have moved to the urgency for a revolution in the human Consciousness Stream. In the 1970s your ( experiential) terminology had become more precise. You were probing into the nature of observation and the illusion that underlay the division between the observer and the observed. And by 1978 you appeared to be concerned with universals, and with a holistic perception. Now, when you're saying that this holistic (global) perception is possible now, what triggers it? What gives maturity to the eye and the ear to listen, without the ( diligent observation work of the ) past thirty years?

K: Without any preliminary preparation, can there be a holistic ( insightful?) view? Without detailed exploration, can one see the totality of all one's existence? Can one see the whole of ( one's) consciousness? I say, yes, it is possible.

PJ : Was your position of thirty years ago, then, not true?

K: No, I won’t say that, the position then was true. What he said then was out of totality as what he says now. That detailed examination was born from a totality of perception.

PJ : Can a person who comes to your teaching for the first time understand becoming, without seeing becoming as a movement in consciousness?

K : ( It all comes down to:) can one observe without the past? Can one have insight without the weight of yesterday? Insight is instantaneous. Perception of totality is an instant perception. If that is so, what is the need for preparation? ( Such an) Insight is possible only in the ( present) instant. This instant is not contained in time. X cannot see that. He says, ‘Tell me what to do?’ K says, ‘Observe the thinker and the thought as one.’ Is X listening, or is a process of abstraction taking place, which puts X away from ( the possibility of an) instant perception?

PJ : You may deny the thirty years, but ( the good effects ) are still here. My mind that has listened for thirty years is capable of receiving what you say today.

K: What is listening? Why haven’t people seen when this person says, ‘an instant perception is (one of the) totality?’

PJ : It is like asking you to give me insight.

K: Nobody can give another insight. But if you listen (to its inward truth) , it must have a tremendous effect. Your whole attention is gathered in listening. In this listening, there is no time.

PJ : Do you think it is possible without delving, without enquiry, to so listen?

K: ( Introspective) delving won’t bring (the quality of direct, non-verbal ) listening. But what has happened to your mind when you listen? It means I have to abandon my whole ( psychological) dependency I have cultivated for millennia.
( To recap:) “What do you say to this statement that ( any insghtful) perception of the total is immediate, that time is not necessary. If you have listened accurately (to the inward truth of) that statement, you have ( access?) to the whole perception.
So, Pupulji, the fact is, our whole (inward) attitude is based on evolution—becoming, growing, achieving, ultimately reaching. I think that basic assumption is radically false.

PJ : I see the truth of that. I can listen to that without a ripple in consciousness.

K: If you so 'listen', what takes place? What takes place if the Buddha says to me, ‘The ending of sorrow is the bliss of compassion’? ( hint : I don’t try to intellectually examine this statement. I don’t translate the statement into my old way of thinking. I am only in a state of acute total attention of listening, because that statement has an enormous ( content of) truth, tremendous truth. ( However, if nothing happens?) I would ask the Buddha (a bonus question?) , ‘I am not capable of that intense capacity of listening, so please help me,’ and the response is, ‘First 'listen' to what I am saying. There is no outside agency that the human mind or thought have invented.’ So, I see it means giving up everything that I cling to. So, I ask, ( a second bonus question) ‘How am I to be detached?’ The moment I say ‘how,’ I am lost. I have great reverence for Him, but I am not listening, because ( my personal?) attachments have a tremendous place in my life. So, he says, ‘Throw it out, throw it out, in one instant.’ ( In a nutshell:) The moment you have perception into the ( inward truth of the ) fact you are free of the fact.

PJ : Is it a question of seeing the totality of that statement of the Buddha, ‘Be detached,’ without the words?

K: Of course, the words are not the real thing. So, there must be freedom from the word. But the intensity of listening is the crux of it.

PJ : What is it that gives one that intensity?

K: Nothing. (Not-a-thing) ( but the realisation that?) Our whole way of thinking is based on ( self-centred becoming, evolving. It has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment.

( To recap:) You asked a question: ‘Has there been a fundamental change in K from the 1930s, 1940s?’ I say, no, although there has been considerable change in expression. Now, if you are listening with intensity, then what takes place when ( such an radical) statement is made—that time, process, evolution, including (one's hardly earned psychological) knowledge—has to be abandoned ? Will you 'listen' (non-verbally?) to that? If you do, you are actually abandoning them. After all, listening, or something seeing totally, is like a ( spiritual energy of a ) thunder or lightning that destroys everything. To go through the whole process is not to deny this instant thing.

PJ : That’s it— it means going through the whole thing, without denying the instancy, That doesn’t mean time is involved.

K: But ( the traditionally minded) man translates it as (a process to be achieved in) time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 24 Aug 2019 #229
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

Re-defining some of K's ( holistic) terminology so that needless further confusion did not arise amongst his earnest listeners.

( An experientially-friendly edited mini K Dialogue with Pupul Jayakar , cca 1978)

PJ : Through these many years many of public talks & dialogues, your words had ( constantly) changed meaning. Let's take for instance the words 'consciousness', 'thought', 'brain', and 'mind'.

K: How would you define 'consciousness' ?

PJ : For me personally, 'consciousness' is the sense of one's existing, of 'being'. The sense that one “is.” But what is the relationship of thought to consciousness ?

K : ( The self-centred) thinking is not ( responsibly) concerned with the totality of human consciousness, but with parts of it.

PJ : But isn' it through thought that consciousness reveals itself? The part is revealed in the ‘now’ as the fragment.

K: Can thought, which is a fragment, see the whole of Consciousness? Thought is a broken piece in ( self-suspained ) movement . That fragment, that thought, cannot see the whole. ( For instance,) thought does not 'see' ( in real time when ) it is hurt; ( only after the hurt happened?) it says, ‘I am feeling hurt.’

PJ : But that is a thought formation.

K: The name,the form, the (cultural) environment are the structure of the ‘I.’ Thought does not say it is hurt.

PJ : Then, who says it?

K: Look at it factually : in explaining ( the causes of ) that hurt, thought thinks it is different from the (self-identified 'thinker') structure it has built, which is hurt. Thought can never be aware of the total content of human consciousness. It can only be aware of the fragments. What will give a 'holistic' meaning to this consciousness?

PJ : Has it a holistic meaning?

K: Consciousness (aka : Mind ?) is ( encompassing ) the totality of life. Not only my life, your life, but the life of the animal, the tree; the totality of all life.

PJ : You are using now this word 'consciousness' very differently to what you said in the early 1950s.

K: Yes, I am moving away from what I had said earlier...

PJ : Is 'consciousness' the totality of life? Is it different from my (personal) experience of life?

K: Your ( personal) experience of life is the experience of every human being. It may have different colors, but it has the same (content &) direction. Basically ( inwardly speaking ) you are not different from (all the rest of) mankind. Your consciousness 'is' the consciousness of mankind. Mankind goes through ( lots pf physical & psychological) hardship , and doesn’t everything go through the same 'travail'—the animals, all the world of) nature?

PJ : Do you mean that ( in a holistic sense) 'consciousness' is the whole phenomenon of life—of existence?

K: What do you mean by 'phenomenon'?

PJ : All that can be perceived by the senses.

K : That is only part of it.

PJ : What is the other part?

K: The 'psychological' (existential) agonies of man which you cannot touch or taste. Psychological turmoil, anxiety can affect both the organism of man and plant. That is the process of mankind. It is global. It is the common fate of man.

PJ : Can thought be aware of the totality of this consciousness?

K: If thought cannot be aware, then what perceives the totality? There must come into operation a new factor that sees the totality. Is it the Mind? Can the ( Universal Intelligence of the) Mind perceive the totality? Then... what is this Mind?
Pupulji, let us find out whether there is an (intelligent) movement beyond consciousness. What is the mind? Is the mind intellect? Part of it is, of course, the intellect. But can the intellect perceive?

PJ : Is intellect separate from thought?

K: It is not. Intellect is the most extraordinary thing we have. We worship the intellect, but can it perceive the totality of consciousness? The intellect is ( a highly refined?) product of thought. The, can the ( holistically integrated?) 'mind' perceive the totality?

PJ : You are using 'mind' as if it were an instrument. You say it can perceive. Is the 'mind' an instrument or a field?

K: Is the 'mind' the whole field of consciousness —or part of the field?

PJ : Now, if the (universally open intelligence of the) mind include intellect, and what part do the senses play?

K: I don’t think that emotions—sensation—can possibly bring about a perception of the whole.

PJ : Would you rule out the place of the senses as such?

K: No, I don’t rule them out.

PJ : Are they now being wrongly used?

K: When thought identifies itself with any sensation, then it becomes ( part of ) the ‘me. But to observe with 'all your senses' (awakened) —in that there is no identification. The question ( for optional homework ?) is, can you look with all your senses awakened?

PJ : Can one 'look' and 'listen' in one instant of time? Is it possible to observe with all one's senses, and in that state is there any (interfering) movement of thought at all?

K: When there is (the all controlling) movement of thought, then it is one particular sense operating. Can I find out if there is a totally different dimension? A state where ( the self-) consciousness as we know it ceases?

PJ : You have thoroughly examined and negated all the known instruments we have. The only instrument you did not negate is the movement of the sensory.

K: How can I negate the senses?

PJ : It is the ( integrated functioning of the ) senses that may have the capacity to be free from illusion.

K: This is only possible when the sensory ( activity) as identification with thought is understood. Then the senses do not produce the 'psychological' structure, as the ‘me.’
I am trying to convey that there must be total order for the Cosmic (Greater Mind?) to be (freely interacting) . But I see that there is a total disorder in my everyday life. What will bring that Order?

PJ : There is only one instrument which has a possibility of being free of taint.

K: The senses?

PJ : Otherwise you have blocked every instrument the present brain has (at hand) .

K: Have we not also blocked (silenced?) the senses?

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Tue, 27 Aug 2019 #230
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


Professor Bohm: About the origins of the word intelligence, I have looked up the origin of a word it comes from 'inter' and 'legere' which means "To read between'. So it seems to me that you could say that thought is like the information in a book and that intelligence has to read the meaning of it. There is also another 'intelligence' is not ( related to) thought. You say thought takes place in the 'old brain', it is a physical process, electrochemical which has been amply proved by science. Then we
could say perhaps that intelligence is not of the same order, it is not of the order of time at all.

Krishnamurti: Are we saying that thought is (basically a material process?) And if this is the case what is the relationship between that (self-centred thinking process?) and intelligence? Is intelligence the by-product of thought?

Bohm: I think that we can take for granted that it is not : because thought is ( by its very nature repetitive &) mechanical, while Intelligence is not.

Krishnamurti: So how does it happen that this (holistic) intelligence comes into (one's everyday ) existence? Is the cessation of thought ( opening the door to) the awakening of intelligence? Or is it that intelligence, being independent of thought, not of time, therefore exists always?

Bohm: You're saying that intelligence may be there always ?

Krishnamurti: You see the ancient Hindus had the theory that Intelligence, or 'Brahman', exists always ( embedded in man( consciousness?) and is covered over by illusion, by matter, by sorrow & by all kinds of mischievous things created by thought. I don't know if you would go as far as that.

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

Krishnamurti: They said peel all this off, 'that' thing is there. So their assumption is that it has existed since always.

Bohm: There is a difficulty in that, in the word "always". Because "always" implies time. And that is just the trouble : as thought has invented time - in fact thought 'is' time. The general view is, that time is the essence of our 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 based on man's (ages long survivalistic) conditioning. It is stronger even than the division of the 'observer' and the 'observed'.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite. Are we saying that thought is ( a process ) of time, thought is ( repetitive &) measurable, and intelligence is of a different quality altogether?

Bohm: Yes, of a different quality. And I get an
interesting impression of this (movement of) thought with regard to time. One gets the impression that the 'past' and 'future' are present together and the whole pattern is moving.

Krishnamurti: This whole pattern is moving (generating its own continuity in time?)

Bohm: However, there seems to be some relation between thought & intelligence as one can distinguish between intelligent thinking and the
unintelligent one.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but that requires ( the presence of) intelligence: to recognise unintelligent thought.

Bohm: So, when intelligence reads ( between the lines of ) thought, what is their relationship?

K: Let's be clear : Is ( the holistic) intelligence (to be found) within the field of time ( of the known) ?

Bohm: Well, in one sense it can't be. You're always saying that thought is mechanical, but what does this 'mechanicalness' mean?

Krishnamurti: All right: repetitive, measurable, comparative.

Bohm: I would say also dependent( of its previous experience & knowledge) . Now, intelligence cannot be dependent on conditions for its truth, although it seems that in some sense intelligence doesn't operate if the brain is not healthy.

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: In that sense intelligence seems to depend on the (general condition of the ) brain.

Krishnamurti: Or on the quietness of the brain?

Bohm: All right, it depends on the ( harmony & ) quietness of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Not on the ( mechanical) activity of the brain. So, is ( the awakening of) intelligence dependent on the (time-binding activities of the) brain - have we come to that point? When we use the word "dependent" what do we mean by that?

Bohm: It has several possible meanings. There may be a simple mechanical dependence. But there is another kind: that one can't exist without the other. So I propose that ( the awakening of) intelligence depends for its existence on ( the general condition of?) the brain, but the brain does not have anything to do with the (timeless?) content of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So if the brain is not in a harmonious (condition) , can intelligence function? For instance, (a holistic intelligence) cannot function if the brain is (or if it has been ?) hurt.

Bohm: It seems that intelligence requires the (good condition of the ) brain in order to exist.

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an instrument. It is not the creator of the 'other'.

Bohm: The brain doesn't create intelligence but it is an instrument which helps intelligence to function (in the physical world?) .

Krishnamurti: That's it. Now if the brain is functioning within the field of time (of what it knew already ?) , can ( a holistic form of) intelligence operate in that movement of time? Or must that
instrument be (momentarily?) quiet for the intelligence to operate?

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

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

Bohm: But then, the non-quietness of the (brain) instrument is the failure of the intelligence.
Perhaps it would be useful to go back into ( the ages old implications of this) question : does
intelligence exists independently of matter? ( as pure Mind energy ? (to be continued....)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 #231
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

Continuing with rare & invaluable small excerpts from PJ's memoirs 'K a Biography

(1979) ....Every morning at the breakfast table, questions were asked and insight flowed. We probed, paused, questioned. Krishnaji’s mind was immense and charged with mystery. One morning, speaking with great intensity, Krishnaji conveyed a way of perception, of challenge and response from a state that lay beyond the (individual?) mind, beyond brain, all responses of (man's self-centred) consciousness :
“A state that comes into being in listening at great depth; where (the temporal?) consciousness and its movement do not obstruct. A state where the 'seeing' is whole, inclusive, nonfragmented, a state of no (mental) movement from or towards; beyond matrix and all racial memories of man.”

Krishnaji also spoke of mind which comes into being when there is complete trust. This was only possible when the mind had shed all (its psychological) burdens & was free (of the limitations of time ?) : “This state is not the silent gap between two thoughts, but a 'listenin' that has the whole weight and depth of the million years of man, and goes beyond. A state that can be touched (by the earnest truth seeker?) at any instant. It is like tapping the energy of the universe.”

We spoke whether the role of the guru had (any authentic spiritual) validity. I said I saw clearly that for me Krishnaji was 'the' Guru. Krishnaji intervened and asked, “What do you mean by 'Guru'?” I said, “He who awakens. Krishnaji awakened me. There was an 'eye into eye' looking. Such looking is rare.” I asked, “What was your role in 1948—did you not awaken (me) ?” Krishnaji said, “The ( dualistic) approach of the 'awakener' and the 'awakened' is wrong. When there is (spiritual ) 'light' and I am in darkness and move into the light there is no separation. There is just light. Some ( may choose to ?) stay in the light, some wander away, that is all. Where is the 'awakener'? ”

Another morning at breakfast we discussed about the possibility of transformation of the human brain. Krishnaji spoke of an immense reservoir of energy which must exist (within man's consciousness) . “Can man reach it and let it (the inner freedom to) operate?” he asked. Asit replied , “Surely a boy who had no evil in him, no 'self'( -ishness) , was a very rare being; he could touch it, but could that 'energy' be contacted by ordinary beings?” “I think it is possible, Sir. He spoke of (the necessity of a holistic) approach to this sacred ( Reservoir of Universal Goodnness ?) with a mind that could receive, but what was necessary was an absolute purity of mind. I asked him about the nature of this purity of mind. Krishnaji said, “The purity of this mind is not the purity of ‘the ( particular) mind.’ This 'mind' is the mind of the universe. That is sacred.”**

I then asked whether the human being who had this purity of mind can be given to another?” Krishnaji said, “No. However pure, the brain is still matter, it is still mind. The 'Other' is the universe. It is immense.” He asked himself, “Is there an 'ultimate' beyond which there is nothing? A 'ground' from which everything is, behind and beyond which there is nothing, no cause?”**

We then discussed the sacredness of Rishi Valley. I said in India there was such a thing as a Punya Sthal—a sacred site. (The local) Gods could come and go, but the sacredness of a site continued.
Krishnaji said, “I feel the soil of Rishi Valley has this special quality. It is the Sthal of all Sthals.’ One has to see that this feeling ( of Sacredness) is not destroyed. For God’s sake, tread lightly on this soil.”

Later, Krishnaji was to say, “Energy is cosmos, but it can also be chaos. That is the source of creation. Anger is energy, sorrow is energy—but ( beyond these ) there is a supreme order. Can it be established in Rishi Valley?”

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 31 Aug 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Sep 2019 #232
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( a 'reader-friendly' & 'experientially- friendly' edited K Indian Dialogue, cca 1980)

K: How is Narayan actually going to help the students to awaken intelligence, to communicate what it is to penetrate at great depth?

Q : By meeting every day in smaller (discussion) groups, both teachers and students?

K: Merely talking to them or having discussions is not going to bring this about. How will you make them (become inwardly sensitive &) alert? There has to be good brain, capable of sustained ( coherent?) argument; a human being who has great affection, love. Apart from all this, there must be in him something totally 'unworldly'. How did K happen to get it?

Q: You have asked this ( imposible) question several times. But I have never understood the practical relevance of it. It is not known how Krishnaji came upon it, but how can we know how it can happen to some of us?

K: Is K a 'biological freak'?

Q: It may be so... But I find that you are questioning and pushing much deeper. Is it that you have reached a new milestone in your teachings? Years ago, you used to say, ‘If you are traveling south, can you change direction and travel north?’ Now you ask, ‘Can the mind of Narayan, the mind of Sunanda, be basically in the same state as Krishnaji’s mind?’

K: Can we give a boy or a girl a sense of freedom, the feeling that they are ‘protected’? That they have a special role in life, that they are special human beings? I am trying to find out, Pupul, what is the catalyst, what is the thing that changes the whole mind, the whole brain? Can there be ( awakened?) a quality of 'otherness' so that the mind is quick, the brain is quick, the senses are alert? So that there is never a point at which the brain rests, but is moving (& learning?) ? I would like the student to have ( free access to ) such a ( timeless) movement. Can he listen to something that is true? Can there be a breakthrough so that there is a sense of vitality, energy, drive? And is it only in my hands at all? Or is it that an (inner) door needs to be opened by both of us? This door has to be opened. I have a feeling that there is something waiting to enter, a 'Holy Ghost' is waiting; the thing is waiting for you to open the door, and it will come. There is a sense of benediction waiting, and we are not moving towards it. We are all fussing around, sitting around. What you are doing is ( physically) necessary, but it is not enough.

Q: What is the state of the mind which realizes that what it does ( right now) is not enough?

K: It is obvious, Sir. Millions have meditated - the Catholic monks, the sannyasis but they have not brought about this Benediction. There is another quality which is demanding something, but that demand is not to be found in his everyday talking, discussing, seeing. And the benediction does not enter.

Q: When you say the ( inner) door has to be opened (to That) , coul you say what It ( actually) is?

Q(1) : There is an inexpressible quality, a boundless quality in you, and I feel that we are not 'putting out' our hands...Is there any quality of renunciation necessary?

K: Man has starved; sat alone in the mountains; he has done everything to have ( free acess to) 'that something'; but apparently it does not happen that way. So I say perhaps he should go quickly through with this ( inward) watching and end it (ASAP?) .
What is the most important thing? Is it the (lack of inwardly integrated?) energy ? For centuries man has struggled (to access It) , and yet the 'other' thing has not happened. Therefore I won’t touch all that. It is out.” Can you do this (as meditation homework?)
Is it possible to negate it ( happily & freely?) with the same urgency as the man who studies, takes vows?

Q: Doesn't this negation (require the presence of) ) a tremendous (spiritual) maturity?

K: Is it a real (spiritual) maturity involved in seeing ( the truth) that all the things man has done have not brought about this benediction and so I am not going to go through it all? Is that what is missing? The man who says, ‘I have tried all this and negated it’ he is moving.

Q: So, we have to deny ( our subliminal attachment to) knowledge, deny everything ?
Does what mean I deny you?

K: What I say is, you cannot deny ( the universal spirit of) truth, but you have to deny everything else. Is it due to the lack of a total denial the reason why the ( Inner) Door is not open?

Q: In my younger days, when you broke away from the TS order , you said that ''Truth is a pathless land' , and now I really feel very confused, because I still feel that no path will lead to it...

K : If I deny all the things that man has tried to get it, my brain, is free from ( the necessity of temporal ?) experiment. These ( very earnest) people (of old) have experimented for years in forests, but they have not got it. Why should I go through all that?

Q: What you are saying is, the ( meditating) mind has to be in a state of no direction in which to turn, no enquiry which thought has previously pursued...

K: In that state, see what the ( inward quality of the ) brain is : the brain is now totally mature. Then the ( meditating) brain is absolutely steadfast as it has turned its back completely ( to mentally moving) in all direction. What do you say ?

Q: ( That unfortunately....outside of the blissful sphere of Meditation?) the lack of ( integrated) strength of the body and the mind creeps in...

K: I am eighty-five and I say, you have to deny. If you cannot so deny, I say to you, why can’t you deny? My ( educational?) concern is to see that the student does not have go through with all this struggle. That the mind is mature, alive. Can I do this with ten boys or girls? You are then bringing about a group of boys and girls who are totally different.

Q: Then, how does one meet all the usual problems of adolescence?

K: A boy who is with us from the age of five suddenly changes when he is thirteen or so. I want to prevent that. I am going to find out what happens. I want to prevent the coarsening.

Q: No educator has succeeded in doing this...

K: Is it puberty, sex? Is it the (awakening of the ages old survivalistic ) 'sense of manhood' that makes him coarse? ( If this is the case ) you can see to it that physically he matures very very slowly.

Q: Actually, what does this mean?

K: Why is it that a boy or a girl, up to a certain age, has a sense of lightness and then becomes coarse? Is it the ( survivalistic instincts of the ) physical organism which are concerned with procreation? If it is so, can that take place much later in his life?

Q: I feel, Sir, that all these things (controlled from outside) have only very limited effects. There has to be a necessary ( inward spiritual) diligence...

K: That ( spiritual) diligence does not (indeed) come through any of these ( educational endeavours but with the realisation of the Universal Truth that ?) My brain is the brain of humanity. So, being the brain of humanity, my brain has done all this. I don’t have to go through it all. Do you know what this (inward realisation) does ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 02 Sep 2019 #233
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited small group K Dialogue, cca 1980)

K: Is it possible for the human brain, which is (presently functioning exclusively in the field of ) memory ( within the 'known' ?) , to be completely free of ( its heavy burden of psychological) memory? Is there within the human brain a faculty capable of totally transforming itself, a ( dormant ?) faculty in the brain which can change the nature and structure of the brain so that it frees itself of the (burden of the ) past, so that it is becoming alive and new?

Q: Could you tell us more about the source of this new perception  ?

K: For the last four months or so, there has been a peculiar activity going on (in the brain) , as though a 'purgation' taking place—and I wondered what it was about. And recently, when I was in Rishi Valley, for several nights, one actually touched the Energy Source of All Things. It was an extraordinary feeling (coming) from the Source itself - a sense of nothing existing except ‘That.’ It was a ( holistic?) state in which one's mind, the brain, was no longer in operation—only that source was in operation. It is like a mountain stream which has never been touched by the human mind or hand.

For as many years as I recollect, when 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.
The mind, the brain, is so accustomed to ( living in the field of) remembrance, ( & wanting ) to experience (& gather ever more) knowledge & memory.
Now, it has to find its own (inner) tranquility... so that the Origin, the Beginning is not interfered with. I think we have lost that sense of total, complete, original, blessed order. We have lost it, and the darkness of chaos has been created by man.
Now ( the holistically inclined minds ?) may seek to go back to that Origin, to that (Source of Living?) Order – a state of immense benediction, an immense, timeless, incorruptible state...

Q: So, you're saying that man can get back to That?

K: ( Bearing in mind that?) It can never be (dualistically) 'experienced' (in terms of one's personal ) recognition & remembrance.‘That’ is outside the realm of all (dualistic ) experience & knowledge, totally beyond all mankind' s ( survivalistic ?) endeavour.

Q: But unfortunately, the modern man is still left with his senses, and his (self-centred) desires and the vast accumulation of knowledge gathered in his brain.

K: So, the (homework meditation related?) question is, can one wipe out the tremendous accumulation ( of psychological debris gathered over ?) a million years? I think this is (experientially) possible when all the senses are totally awake and excellent. Then there is no 'center' from which an (dualistic) experience can take place. As long as there is a ( self-identified) 'center' there must be experience and knowledge. When there is no center, there is a state of non-experience, a state of holistic observation, when all the senses are highly awakened and functioning, superbly sensitive, then in that state, there is no center as the ‘me’ involved. This ( self-conscious?) center, cannot reach that ( Original) state—the ( eternally new ) Beginning.

( Unfortunately, the self-identified mind) cannot reach anywhere near it. So what is the (holistically friendly person) to do? ( For starters?) it is very important to understand ( the thought- sustained process of) desire. If that is not completely understood, it has extraordinary, immense possibilities of ( creating new) illusions.
( In an expetiential nutshell:) Desire, ( self-centred) will & ( thought's projected continuity in ) 'time', must come to a complete end. That is, the ( meditating) mind, the brain, must be absolutely pure – (in the sense of being) completely empty of knowledge. A ( inwardly integrated ) state where thought does not arise—unless ( when really) necessary. So that thought has its own responsibility, so that it can only act in certain (practical) directions.

( Hint:) The human brain that is free from all ( its past) experience, and (the burden of) knowledge, is not in the field of time, therefore it has come to the beginning of all things.( of course ,) you cannot explain all this to ( the masses of) people. But still, someone could ( possibly) listen to it—you follow?

Q: What is the relationship between the common state of the (temporal) mind and That?

K: The ( meditating) mind which is free from all ( its past ) experience, is like an (empty) vessel, it can receive That. But the (time-bound mind) cannot go to That.

(To recap:) The ( thought-sustained process of ) desire that comes from the 'center' has to be completely emptied. There is no movement towards ‘That’ which means an end to 'time'. That is ( the inward Source of) Creation – a state of ( an eternally new) beginning.

Q: What are the actual implications of ( your holistically encripted statement ) "The ending is always the new beginning" ?

K: The ending of attachment is the (new) beginning. Look, Sir, with the ending of a ( personal) problem, the mind is 'empty' ( problem-free ?) . But as an ordinary man I have all kinds of fears, desires, I carry them all my life and I never say—can I end one thing?

Q: Could it be because the (self-centred?) mind is still full of thoughts ?

K: The (self-centred) mind is full of thoughts because the senses are not fully flowering. The ( residual memory of the ) senses create thought. Senses create ( the need for new sensory) experiences, which are ( processed as) knowledge, memory—as thought. But when the senses are fully flowering, what happens? There is no 'center' as ( self-identified) desire.

Q: What are the implications of that (realisation ) in my daily life?

K : In your daily life, your main concern is whether your senses can flower. All your senses, not just the eyesight, not just hearing with the ear. Can you look at a woman, with all your senses? Then you lose the ( identification with the) center; ( the burden of one's 'psychological' ) experience does not exist. Right?

Q: So, what interferes with the flowering of the senses?

K: ( It may be simply that) We have never allowed the (totality of the) senses to flower. We have operated ( in the survival mode?) with thought as the only medium of action, but have not enquired deeply into the origin of thought. The moment the senses begin (to operate fragmentarily?) comes appetite, sex— and I start moving in a narrow groove.
( For optional homework:) You have to go into this deeply so that all the senses are operating.

Q: Is it a question of the entering of this limitless energy? A question of the amount that can enter into the senses that are half awakened or fully awakened? Is the limitless energy always waiting there to enter? Is it the amount that can be received that makes the difference?

K: ( As an absolute beginner?) my first concern would be to find whether all my senses can flower (harmoniously ) because from that everything arises.

Q: Do the senses become dull because of lack of attention?

K: It is not 'you' ( the all-controlling 'thinker') who is aware of the senses. You 'are' the senses.

Q: Does ( the affectionate ) attention awaken the senses?

K: Attention means care, responsibility, affection, no ( self-interest based) motive
(Generally speaking?) when ( the major existential) problems arise— the totality of the senses is not operating. ( However, if &?) when ( all ) senses are awakened and there is no center ( of self-interest) and there is a beginning and an ending.
The 'psychological' problems do not exist in the state of no center. Yesterday, when you were telling me of the new advances in the world of computers . The ( physical) brain was listening, but it didn’t record. There was a sense of something pouring down to the brain. ( For K:) when something is actually taking place there is no ( self-conscious) feeling; when there is actually a (challenging) incident there is no feeling. Fear ( or the after-thought ?) arises a second after.

Q: There must be something ( more involved ) in that state...

K: This cannot be ( verbally) answered.

Q: Isn't there a complete renewal?

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

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

K: Otherwise there is only darkness...

Q: ( Bonus question:) So, you are actually pointing to a new use of the senses ? When the senses are fully flowering in a state of ( harmonious) simultaneity, the ( ages old identification with the?) 'center' ceases.

K: See ( the experiential beauty of?) it, Pupulji, see it ! Then there is only ( the sense of a timeless ) being and (of an ever new ) beginning.

(In a nutshell:) ) ( The living ) Order (of Creation) is the source of a (timeless) energy that can never diminish. To investigate it there must be an investigation of the ( thought-controlled activities of the ) senses and desire. When the mind does not have a single desire and the senses are operating fully, there is the Blessedness of ( Cosmic ) Order

Q: Is this essentially the same thing as what you said in the previous years, but using new words; or ( the spiritual origin of ) these insights is entirely different?

K : ( The Source of ?) This is entirely different.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 02 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 03 Sep 2019 #234
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

Doubt as the Essence of the authentic Religious Enquiry

( an experientially friendly & reader-friendly edited K dialogue, India 198O)

K: Is the core ( of the ancient Indian spirituality still) alive? The Christian world had a religious core that rested on faith, but in India at the heart of religion was the denial of everything but ‘That’. Now is this religious core disappearing? And if it still exists, what is its response to the West and its ( materialistic) values?

Q: If that seed is still present, then the free flowering of the seed is the response.

K: You are all ( educated) Indians, conscious of Indian culture. You have to answer this question. You are aware of what is going on now in India, the various gurus, the cults, and also you must have a feeling of that 'core' ( of Otherness?) from which great things took place. What relationship has that core, if it still exists, to the Western culture ? If there is no relationship, then is that the point (of Truth) from which a new regeneration can emerge?

Q: If that 'core' has disappeared in India, is it because the cultures of the East and the West are coming together?

K: Apparently, from the beginning of ( 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' ones?) who had left their imprint on the soil of India. Does the present (highly lucrative) world of astrologers & gurus—does that indicate that the depth of the 'real thing' is going (down the drain?) ?
In the Christian world (self-) doubt had never been part of religion. Here 'doubt' (the putting aside of what one thought one knows?) as part of the religious enquiry, has always existed. Is that capacity to doubt (the inward validity of what one knew before) being dissipated? Is that disappearing and gradually becoming (blind?) faith - and therefore India is joining the Western ( materialistic) stream? Or if this ( experiential quality of) doubt still exists, is it being smothered and are we losing the vitality of it? ( Hint:) Doubt as an extraordinary (inward) purgation.

Q: When you use that word ( holistically enfolded term) ‘doubt,’ it is an immense thing. But I cannot answer your query whether it still exists or not.

K: The Theosophical Society and Amma (Mrs Annie Besant) might have had that quality at the beginning. ( She) left Christianity, she left her husband; there was a religious doubt, but then she got trapped in (the TS) organizations and lost vitality. But the Indian mind, the original mind, emphasized doubt. Doubt with its clarity, doubt with its immense vitality purges the mind of (its self-projected) illusions. Is India losing that? Because it is only through 'doubt' (freedom from the known?) that you ( might eventually ?) come to the ( realisation of?) Brahman, not through acceptance of authority.

K: That is what the Buddha also said.

K: Are we losing that? Not the few of us (who are gathered here) , but the ( totality of the ) Indian mind. Is it losing that quality, that quest (inward aspiration?) for (inward) clarity?

Q: I still think that in India ( this capacity of ) 'doubt' does still exist, but it has become a tradition. We question (the spiritual validity of what we thought we knew ?) in a formal sense, while in the West this takes the form of scientific search. ( So, for survivalistic reasons) the Indian mind has also turned in the direction of scientific search.

(Q1) Krishnaji has brought into his teaching a new factor: the ( inward ) doubt that does not move toward ( obtaining) a (convenient ) answer. When you use the word ‘doubt’ within the Indian context, immediately out of doubt springs ( the inward) search...

(Q 2) 'What am I ?' 'Who am I?’ This is the traditional Indian questionning . This is not necessarily a question implying a direction

K: Of course. If you have doubt with (a preset mental) direction, then it has an entirely different meaning...

Q: Doubt without being followed by (a positive mental) search has not existed in the Indian spiritual mainstream. In Krishnaji’s approach this 'doubt' (of what you though you knewn) is leading to an immediate immobility of the mind.

K: I am asking a really very serious question. I want to find out if the Indian mind is not presently carried away by the materialistic wave. That wave is threatening the ( authentic spiritual values of the?) Western world, expressing itself through (the surging tide of vulgarity) , materialism, nationalism. The Western mind is moving in the direction of the outer, and it dominates the world. So is India losing something which was present there (for millenia?) ? From what one can see it appears to be losing it.

Q: Are you asking whether the 'other' spirit which underlays ( the Indian spirituality ) is failing? How does one tell that?

K: The 'Other' was always there. In India it moved from a 'center' (of authentic spirituality  ?) and that spread all over the Asiatic world through inner search, dance, music, and cultural expression. ( On the other hand?) the Western world was centered in ( various forms of) belief, which is so superficial. That superficiality, that materialism, is that conquering this? Can one see the outer manifestation of this in India, through its bureaucracy, technology, science, nuclear energy; following the ways of the West; and so the pristine, original (spiritual) core of this country is gradually withering away? So, what is happening to the India's (spiritual) core?

Q: Would you not say that in India the (original) spirit has has become adulterated ? It is no longer a force. So then, what is the difference between India and the West?

Q (1)  : I would not say that the field of Indian spirituality has been corroded in the last fifteen years (btw 1965-1980) . I would not say that.

K: I hope not. But I won’t accept your (politically correct?) statement. I am questioning it. I want India to 'be' that. I don’t want her to lose it, because then it is the end of everything.

Q: There have been times in the history of this country when That energy has exploded in great manifestations. When you say India is deteriorating, a hundred years or more ago was there any 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?

Q(1) : 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.

Q: In the past there were only a few 'aristocrats of the spirit' who took their stand on the formless. Buddha arose and talked. It was after three hundred years before the teaching was established...

K: Don’t say you cannot answer my question. I have been questioning this for years. As I flew to Bombay I was again asking (myself?) that question, is the ( materialistic trend) 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 (technological) systems to a marvelous extent. Here it was not based on 'organization' or 'systems'. There were people who stood alone.

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

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

Q: Take it that the ( original Goodness of the?) center is corroded. What is your response?

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

Q: And if I admit it is finished?

K: Then that ( spiritual momentum?) which has an ending has a new beginning. If it has (really) 'ended', then something tremendous is taking place.

Q (1) : That is the major difference between you and others. I was brought up in a tradition which believed in this 'Source' and everyone thought about reviving it, saying that it existed. You are the only person who is asking (out of time ?) whether the 'seed' is still alive or not.

Q: As long as Krishnaji is here, how do I say the seed is corroded?

Q(1) : I fail to see how ( the old tradition of) doubt has completely ended and a new thing has started.

K: (As a simple rule of thumb?) when something has ended (within man's integrated consciousness?) a new thing is ( beginning to) take place.

Q: If you ask me is there ( this seed of) 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 if ( the true spirit of) doubt has ended in India, then it is a terrible thing. The West is enormously powerful with science, technology, organization, communication, war, all that. That enormity has smothered 'That' which is not enormous. Right? Is the ( spiritual) core of India so enormous within, that it can counter that and see that it is not touched by all that ? Do you see what I am saying? It is not a geographical question. I am talking about the Indian mind that has produced the Upanishads, the Buddha. India has been the storehouse of something very very great. The West, with its emphasis on faith and its materialism, is destroying that ( Cosmic heritage of ) Greatness.

Q: I cannot answer your question...

K: You'll (eventually ) have to answer it. It is a (timeless spiritual ?) challenge you have got to meet. It is a challenge that every (holistically responsible human being) must meet, Pupul, it is very interesting, the human mind is asking itself this question: ‘Is there a Mind that is incorruptible?’ Is that Mind being destroyed by the West? Religion in the West is based on faith and belief and that's the ending of doubt. Religious enquiry in India was not based on faith, so it could move in any direction. Free of direction, there was a different movement taking place; this is the essence of the 'Buddhas' & the pre-Buddhas. Is that that ( timeless?) essence expressing itself now? Not as the ( manifestations of?) Buddha or Maitreya—these are but names: but is that ( spiritual) 'essence' expressing itself now?

Q: That ( timeless) essence is incorruptible. Therefore it cannot be corroded. Unfortunately ; the Indian mind as it is today is conditioned. The only thing which one can say is that that mind may have a proclivity to the ‘other.’

K: And so the actual possibility of ( a psychological) mutation. I think this ( new) mind has a greater possibility of mutation. This is not denying the ( spiritual heritage of the ) West. We are not talking of the East and the West as opposites; we are talking of a quality of mind that has no direction ( determined by self-interest)

Q: Would you say the conditioned mind can have nothing to do with ‘that’ (spiritual renewal) ?

K: ( In a nutshell : ) the conditioned mind can have nothing to do with ‘That,’ but ‘That’ ( timeless Source) can have something to do with this mind. So I am asking : is the 'Mind of India' that has evolved through five thousand years, the mind of the Buddha—can that Mind ever be conditioned? The Indian mind groping for That, doubts, questions. Are we (immersed) in those 'waters of ( spiritual) enquiry'? Or are we (still indulging in living on nice sounding) words, symbols, myths, ideas & theories?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 #235
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline

Insight & Freedom

( an experientially-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1982)

K: (…) After all, Indians suffer as the European suffers; the (existential) despair, misery is the same. So let us see what prevents the (psychological) mutation taking place.

Q: Is there any other way but perceiving the 'actual' (the 'what is actually going on'?) ?

K: That is what we have been saying for years. The ( seeing the ) 'actual' is more important than ( following?) the ideal. The ideal(istic) concepts have no ( experiential) value at all because they move away from ‘what is.’

Q: So.... you're saying that in directly perceiving the 'actual', there is no ( mental) movement of the brain (involved?)

K: That’s all I’m saying : that if one observes very carefully, the 'facts' in themselves bring about a change. Human sorrow is not Western or Eastern, but we are always trying to move away from ( facing our ?) sorrow. Can we actually delve into the nature of sorrow? ( The depth of human?) sorrow is not 'yours' or 'mine', so what is blocking the human brain from enquiring deeply within? We are speaking of the ending of (thought's) movement. There has to be the ending of ( thought's psychological?) movement, but... we (subbliminally we ) divide the entity that enquires and the 'thing' that is to be enquired into. That is my objection...

Q: When you speak of (an inward) ‘enquiry,’ do you use it as 'perception'?

K: Perception, ( inward) watching...So, what will make human beings change in the way they behave? Very simply put, what will change all this appalling brutality? Who will change it? Certainly the politicians, not the priests, not the ( activistically minded?) people who talk of ( protecting the?) environment, the 'ecologists' and so on. They cannot change the ( inward nature of the?) human being. So (the bottom line is:) who will change him if man himself will not do so?

Q: We see all this, Krishnaji, but that ( general observation in ) itself does not bring man to the (direct) perception of the 'facts'....

K: What will make man have this ( quality of direct inward?) perception? You may have it—but if I don’t have it, what effect has your ( holistic) perception on me? I am asking a deeper question : does man (really?) want to change? Or does he think it’s all right, and mankind will evolve at a certain stage. But in the meanwhile, we are destroying each other.

Q: What is the 'actual' moment of facing a fact? What is the actuality of it?

K: What is a 'fact'? That which has been done and which is being done now. The acting now and that which has happened, is the ( ongoing) 'fact'.

Q: Let us be clear. When we think of a 'fact' that happened yesterday or last week, the incident is over, but I remember it; its ( objective ) memory is stored in the brain. And what is being done now is also a 'fact', colored by (our memories of ) the past, controlled by the past. How can I see ( the truth regarding ) this whole ( unfolding) movement as a 'fact'?
Would you say that seeing it as a 'fact' is seeing without ( any personal?) accretion?

K: Seeing without any ( personal or collective ?) prejudice.

Q: Without anything surrounding the fact ?

K: That’s right, which means what? Negating the 'remembrances'...

Q: ...which might arise out of it ?

K: Now, is that ( experientially?) possible?

Q: That is possible when (the intensity of) attention itself dissipates (thought's interfering?) movement.

K: That means, can the brain be so attentive that ( the truth regarding?) the incident that happened last week is revealed (in real time?) and you do not carry on the 'remembrance'. But what generally happens if my son ( or a close parent, etc) is dead... I suffer. The ( emotionally charged) memory of that son is so strongly imprinted in my brain that there is a constant arising of suffering ( due to my) remembrance.

Q: And out of that is the movement of ( psychological) pain. Attention ends not only the pain, but the arising.

K: Go into it a little bit more : there is this constantly (recycled) remembrance flowing in and flowing out.

Q: Now, negating the ( psychological causation ofthat ) pain and its dissolving, doesn’t it have direct impact on the brain?

K: Which means what? My son ( is dead. That’s a fact. I can’t change the fact. He’s gone, but I’m carrying ( the memories of) him all the time. The brain is holding it as 'memory' and carrying it all the time. ( As a result, inwardly?) I live on ( a rolling carpet of constantly refreshed ?) memories, which are 'dead' things. So, there has to be an ending (a closure?) which doesn’t mean that I have lost my love for him.

Q: But then... what remains?

K: Without being shocking : nothing ! Which is not denying my love for him : what has ended is the (false?) identification of Love with ( my exclusive?) love for my son.

Q: are drawing a distinction between the 'love of my son' and (the Universal) Love ?

K: If I 'loved' my son in the deepest (non-selfish?) sense of the word, I love the whole world. I love the earth, the trees, the whole universe.
So, what takes place when there is a pure perception of 'fact' (of his death?) , without any bias, without any escape? When I am ( totally submerged by ?) sorrow, it’s a great (personal) shock, and you can’t say anything to the person who is in sorrow. But as (s)he comes out of his/her loneliness, despair, sorrow, then perhaps (s)he will be sensitive enough to see ( the transpersonal truth of) this fact.

Q: But you can’t tell this to a person who has never watched (inwardly) to end sorrow.

K: That would be ( needlessly?) cruel.... But ( one can point it out ?) the ( holistically minded?) man who has enquired into ( the truth regarding) death, and sees that it is common to all humanity, a man who is (inwardly) sensitive and wants to find an answer.

Q: Sir, (if one can keep it ) at that level how simple it is...

K: We must keep it simple, not bring into it intellectual theories and ( other?) 'ideas'.

Q: Is the human mind afraid to be the simple?

K: We are (becoming?) so 'highly intellectual' ! To make things complex is part of our education, part of our culture and (the 'new') ideas are so tremendously important...

Q: To you the highest point of ( any universally open) culture is the dissolution of the self. When you speak of the dissolution of the 'fact', it is essentially the dissolution of the self(ishness?)  ?

K: Yes. But this 'dissolution of the self' has become ( just another mental ?) 'concept', and we worship the concept. They do this all over the world. ( All idealistic?) 'concepts' are put together by thought.
(So, to wrap it up?) What will make human beings throughout the world 'behave' (responsibly ) , not 'my' way, not 'your' way, but so that they do not kill, they have affection (for all that is?) . Nothing has ( yet?) succeeded. Knowledge has not helped man.

Q: Living the way man does now, fear is his shadow.

K: And man wants to know what his future is (looking like?)

Q: As part of his ( existential?) fear?

K: Because he seeks security in so many things and they all fail him, he feels there must be ( some psychological) security somewhere? I question whether there is such security—anywhere (outside himself?)

Q: So, (in a nutshell?) what is the action of the dissolution of the 'fact' on the brain cells?

K: I would use the ( magic?) word 'insight'. 'Insight' is not a matter of memory, knowledge, or time, which are all parts of thought. I would say (the inward clarity of) 'insight' is ( occuring in ?) the total absence of the whole movement of ( self-centred) thought, time, and remembrance ; so that there is a direct perception.
Can I see that (inwardly?) I have been 'going north' for the last ten thousand years? That my brain is (totally?) accustomed to (this ) 'going north'? Then someone comes along and says, ‘That ( way of self-centred thought?) will lead you nowhere. ( Better?) turn East.’ When I 'turn east', the (perceptive quality of ) brain cells change.

( In metaphorical terms:) If I see the whole movement of thought as ( intrinsically mechanical & ) limited and I see thought will not solve any of my ( inner life?) problems, then I stop going north. This ending of the 'self (centred' thinking?) is the ending of a ( time-bound) movement that has been going on for thousands of years. That is ( the illuminating power of?) insight which brings about a ( radical qualitative?) change or a ( 'psychological?) mutation' in the brain. will that (holistic) perception make humanity change or is the (psychological momentum of mankind's ) past so tremendously strong? And this (persistency of the?) past is incarnating all the time. Isn'it part of ( the conventional?) culture—to continue this conditioning ?

Q: I would say that is part of any traditionalistic culture...

K: I have been watching this very seriously: how strong ( man's psychological) tradition is. I am speaking of tradition as a continuity of the past, carrying on in its own momentum. And we 'are' that. Our culture, our religious concepts are our tradition. So what is the brain to do?

Q: Sir, when we talk of observing thought, that is an entirely different thing to the actual state of 'attention'.

K: That is, thought being aware of itself.

Q: It is so easy to turn what you say into (intellectual) concepts. Can there be a culture which is living, because it is living with insight?

K: I wouldn’t use the word ‘culture'...

Q: The term ‘culture’ is refers to more than the present human culture—which perhaps is the culture of the mind. In such a state what happens to all the civilizations the world has seen and known ?

K: Which means, Pupulji, ‘What is (the place of?) freedom?’ in any authentic culture ? Are we aware that we are prisoners of our own (self-projected myths & ) fantasies?

Q: I think we are (becoming aware of it)

K: If we are (responsibly?) aware—they are ( ASAP?) burnt out.

Q: You don’t admit an 'in-between' (transitional) state. That is the whole problem.

K: The man who is violent and tries to be less violent in an 'in-between state', is continuing to be violent (but in a subtler form?)

Q: Not necessarily. Is there not also involved in what you say the whole movement of time and thought?

K: You mean that thought enquiring into itself is still limited ?

Q: I might see this, but the attention necessary for it to remain alive in my waking day may not be there. The capacity, the strength of that attention may not be there...

K: That passion (for Truth?) , that sustained movement of ( intelligent) energy is not dissipated by thought, or by any kind of activity, and it comes into being when you understand sorrow. In the ending of sorrow there is ( the birth of?) compassion. That intelligence, that energy, has no depression.

Q: You mean it neither rises nor falls ? But is it possible throughout the day to hold that?

K: Just being aware, not 'holding' it. It is like a ( spiritual?) perfume—it is (present in?) there, but you can't 'hold it'. That is why I think one has (for optional homework?) to understand the whole conditioning of our (self-centred ) consciousness - which is the common ground of all humanity. We never (seriously endeavour to) enquire into it. We never say, ‘I am going to study this ( self-centred ) consciousness that is “me.”
But to be free of the 'self' (of self-centredness ?) is one of the most difficult things, because the ( temporal) ‘me’ hides itself under different rocks, in different crevices.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 #236
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1983)

K: Most ( intellectual ?) people would consider a 'good' mind to be a mind that has read a great deal, that is full of knowledge about many things. A mind like Aldous Huxley’s, Gerald Heard’s, and others—they had encyclopedic minds. In India, would the 'good' mind be the 'Brahminic' mind ? - the (result of a multi-millenary ? ) cultural stream that has cultivated the brain through centuries; to describe a brain that has become very sharp, but has not lost the quality of depth within it. You can make an instrument very sharp; it can cut, but it has also to be used only for delicate things.
A good mind must be related to action, to relationship. It must be related to depth. Great scientists sometimes lead the most shoddy lives. They are ambitious, greedy, they fight each other for position and acclaim. Would you say they have good minds?

Q: The scientist may be a great scientist, but as a human being he may be a disaster. You see, Sir, a really good mind must be able to 'brood' within itself. Perhaps out of this brooding, there is insight.

K: Would you say a 'good' mind has no 'center' (of self-interest ) from which it is acting? The 'center' being the 'self'. A good mind has no self(-ishness?) . When a mind is in a state of complete attention, attending, listening, then there is no place in it for the 'self' (consciousness ?) . The self-( centred cosciousness) manifests itself afterwards. The ( experiential) clue is 'listening'. It is one of the great sustainers of the brain. You see, a good mind must have compassion. It must have a great sense of beauty and be capable of action; there must be a relationship which is right. Is it impossible ( nowadays?) to find such minds? Aristotle, Socrates—they ( possibly ?) had good minds.

Q: They certainly had minds that could question, cleave into matter, energy. But the 'good' mind has to have a quality of wholeness to it.

K: Would you say a 'good' mind is a holistic mind? You see, if you try to define too much the 'good' mind then you wipe away everything. So we should not define it too clearly. Then it limits it. Can we say, a healthy, good mind has an originality that goes contrary to the current (mainstream of vulgarity ) ? Socrates? He stood for something !

Q: One is talking of a mind from which compassion flows freely —otherwise what does it matter?

K: How does such a mind come into being? Is it the result of tremendous evolution of a group of minds which has cultivated the brain, morality, austerity, for centuries? They may not all have been austere, but inside them there was that inner movement going on. We have to enquire whether such a long background of enquiry produces the Buddha (the Enlightenment?) .

Q: Is there a density of insight in the background of the racial mind?

K: Of course...There is a Reservoir of the Good which has no relationship to evil. That Reservoir exists and, given the opportunity, brings the Avatar, or whatever that may mean. Or was it a 'group consciousness', that for centuries has thought and thought and thought about ‘That,’ and that might have produced the Buddha?

Q: The converging of them?

K: I think the 'good' mind must be absolutely free. It may meet fear, but there has to be an energy that wipes it out. Could the scientists store such energy?

Q: ( Modern) science has nothing to do with that 'Otherness'? Can the (holistically minded?) scientist end his self-centered concern? It is his self-centered activity that is the problem. Is it dependent on what you do in the scientific field ?

K: No. You see, they say the Buddha left his house, became a sannyasi, fasted, ultimately got to Buddhahood. I don’t accept that. The fasting, the austerities, have nothing to do with the 'other'.

Q: The Buddhists maintain that the Buddha might have gone through all that—but Buddhahood has nothing to do with that. But could he have danced his life through and come to That?

K: You see, we have made austerity a ( means of) becoming ( integrated?) with ‘That.’

**Q: But is there no gathering of energy necessary for (reaching) ‘That’? ‘That’ (holistic mind?) only becomes possible when you start seeing that energy is not dissipated. That is essential.

K: Be careful. ‘That’ means a sense of self-awareness. Don’t say that you need ( a special?) energy for that....**

Q: But there has to be preparation of the ground...

K: Of course.

Q: So, one's (inner) eyes and ears have to be open. It may have nothing to do with morality. But the (potentially intelligent ?) energies that are constantly being dissipated by gossip, trivialities & self-concerned activity, have to cease.

K: That—yes, but if you say that all self-centered activities must end, then there is a (causal) relationship between that mind and the Other. There is no such relationship.

Q: But still, this cannot mean that you can dissipate energy.

K: Supposing that I am ( naturally?) self-centered, and you tell me, ‘That ( self-centredness ) must end’. That is also a (subtle?) form of (psychological) becoming.

Q: Right. So is your Teaching to be viewed in a different way? Is it a matter of 'awakening to life', in which self-centered activity arises—the outside world enters, sorrow arises?

K: Whatever ‘is’ ( going on inwardly) is observed; there is (a direct) listening, seeing. ‘What is’ has no intention or becoming.

Q: I can see now that your teaching is not about the 'ending' of becoming, but about the ( compassionate ?) 'observation' of becoming. There is a (vast qualitative?) difference between the ending of becoming and the (direct) seeing ‘whatever is (going on inwardly) .’

K: Yes, 'seeing' (it in real time?) and 'moving out' of it (ASAP ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 16 Sep 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 18 Sep 2019 #237
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 473 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially- friendly' edited K Dialogue, 1983)

K: Can we be ( inwardly) simple and go as deeply into the nature of time as possible? We know the physical time and the 'psychological' time as becoming. (Covering the distance?) between the ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ is (the essence of psychological) time. Physical time is (intimately related to covering the ) distance, from here to there. Now, is the physical time related internally to the psychological time?

Q: Knowing the 'physical' time by the clock, one applies ( the same mentality of ) time as ( a means to) reaching out, in the inner (world) . The illusion is the introduction of the concept of physical time to the within and the shaping of the structure of the within, (along the axis of?) of the linear movement of physical time. The measure of (man's psychological ) becoming is the measure of inward time.

K: When the outer movement ( of time) is extended to psychological states, the illusion of time enters. (As a result?) the idea of growth in the outer world extends to the inner.
The movement of ( self-) becoming is the ‘I should be.’ It is a process of fantasy; it builds from illusion to illusion. (Man's existential?) anxieties & fears are part of this structure.

( In a nuthshell:) The brain extends the physical time into the inner psychological sphere, because the brain is conditioned to ( think in terms of?) linear time in the outer world . As it is conditioned to that, it accepts psychological time in the within. I am questioning this '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 ( very comfortable?) illusion. 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 actually a 'tomorrow' in the human psyche?

Q: As there is a physical tomorrow, ( thought's projection of a better ?) psychological tomorrow seems inevitable...

K: That is ( thinking in terms of) continuity...

Q: I exist now; therefore there will be a 'tomorrow'. But (the psychological issue is:) why do strong feelings of fear get entangled in thought's projection of the 'tomorrow'?

K: ( Inwardly?) there is no time. Physical time we know as movement. There is no way of measuring physical time without movement. If there were no movement in the psyche, as thought, the wheel of time ends. Look at it : ( any material) movement 'is' ( has a causal continuity in ?) time. Inwardly, thought is a (mental) movement, a material process. Can you accept this even logically?

Q: What does it mean to accept a (holistic) statement 'logically'?

K: To see that any psychologically (motivated?) movement is a process of becoming. Now, is there any movement where no time exists? If you sit in a dark room, without movement, without thought, is there ( any sense of?) time? This is also so in the within. When there is no thought movement (in terms of ) time, the 'outer' and 'inner' are the same ( timeless) movement.

Q: There may be a momentary ending of the physical (mental?) movement in the brain, for a moment, but the action of time as duration, as continuity, is an activity that operates in every cell of my body. It also acts in the brain. The action of time is inevitable.

K: The human brain is a ( bio)physical thing. The brain grows old. It deteriorates. The question is whether the brain needs to deteriorate?

Q: 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?

K: Senility is the physical aging by time. To me the brain need never grow old.

Q: 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 time? It is the same movement in the 'outer' as in the 'inner' (world) . They are not separate. Millennia through millennia, that movement has continued. The question is, Can that movement stop? That constant movement is the factor of deterioration, both organically and in the psyche.

K: The physical brain constantly receives physical stimuli so it will always respond as ( mental or physical) 'movement' to the challenge. Does the aging arise because of this ( challenge-response) movement or because of the friction (involved) ?

K: Movement, as we know it, 'is' (involving lots of?) friction. It is like a piston in an engine. Any movement in the brain physically wears out the brain. It is the psychological process that affects the body and the brain. It is not the other way around.

Q: Can there be ( a mental activity or) movement without friction?

K: If there is no 'psychologically' (motivated) movement, then ( the brain's inner) movement is as in absolute space, there is no friction. (In a nutshell:) When the 'psychological' movement is not, time as becoming is not.

(Experiential Hint:) One can sit very quietly in a dark room for twenty years and the brain will go on aging— for ( the rolling carpet of?) thought, as becoming, continues to operate. But when ( this psychological activity of) thought is quiet, without movement, then the 'psyche' ( the 'Greater Mind'?) has no time.
( Man's ages old desire for psychological) becoming creates duality. Therefore there is ( the observer-observed) conflict, friction & deterioration in time. Now, if this friction (involved in the ) psychological time, stops, is there any factor of deterioration?

Q: When the brain is (thought-free & ? ) quiet, does the body function naturally?

K: Yes, the body has its own (natural) intelligence,” said Krishnaji. “Is this an actuality? Can the brain ever be without movement except for its own natural movement? Psychological movement is interfering with the body. Can this (psychologically motivated) movement stop? That in turn implies, can there be no ( psychological) accumulation of any kind.

Q: How is one becoming aware of ( the process of the psychological) time?

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

Q: The brain reaches out, looks backwards or forwards, and asks questions, but actually the brain is chewing the cud all the time. Even when the brain is not seriously challenged, it plays games with itself. It throws up memories.

K: The brain is (both the depositary and the beneficiary of its own ?) memory. Remorse, guilt (or their opposites?) are a constant movement in the brain, as ( a constant recycling of this) memory. The brain is ( living in the illusory continuity of) memory, a movement from the past through the present to the future.

Q: The brain (constantly accumulates, updates & recycles its files of ) memory. Does it ( do this just in order to ) play with it?

K: The ( physical) brain 'survives' through this (time-binding process of) memory.

Q: In the ending of this ( self-sustained mental) movement, does a new movement come into being, which makes it totally secure? Is there a movement outside time?

K: Don’t put ( yet?) that question. As the heart functions naturally, so the brain has its own ( natural activity or?) movement—when ( the psychological) memory does not interfere. The brain has its own movement on which it has superimposed this memory. As the heart beats without remembrance, the brain can also function without movement, if allowed to do so by thought.

Q: To draw similarities between the heart and brain is not quite correct. The physical brain has evolved out of memory, out of man’s capacity and experiences. It can only survive through hoping, seeking ( to constantly optimise its own) survival.

K: The brain has sought ( to achieve a higher level of) security through ( constantly acquiring all kinds of ) knowledge. ( However, this indiscriminate accumulation of) knowledge has made the ground of the brain very limited.
Now the mind itself is discovering that the ground of the brain which it has created is not stable and feels that friction as movement is necessary for the brain to survive. The brain itself realizes its foundation in knowledge is very weak. So, does one remain in the old house (of the 'known'?) ?

Q: Would the moving away from the unstable ground create the new ground ?

K: Any (mental) movement means duality, but if there is no ( psychologically motivated?) measurement , is it the same brain that functions without movement? When the brain is silent, the ( Greater ) Mind operates. That is (part of?) the Intelligence of the Universe.

Q: Isn't intelligence a natural faculty of the brain?

K: Intelligence is that which sees the movement of continuity as the process of aging. The (quality of) intelligence that sees this, is outside the ( limitations of the physical) brain.

Q: But if the brain cannot reach it, who or what is it that sees the limitation of the brain? To see it, the brain must have some contact with that...

K: The (selfless?) brain in its ( natural) functioning has its own intelligence. Only the limited brain has no relationship to the 'other'.

Q: Then what is it that can stop this movement ( self-centred activity ?) of the brain?

K: The perceiving of its own inadequacy.

Q: 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?

Q: Is the operation of insight then not connected with the narrow operation of the brain?

K: An insight into the operation of ( its self-centred) limitation frees the brain from limitation. Such insight can only arise when there is no ( interference of) memory, and so no (psychological continuity in?) 'time'. When the whole brain is operating, it has no direction. It is free of the past. Insight is ( the time-free action of the ) Mind operating on brain.

Q: But if the the brain is limited, how can the Mind operate on the brain?

K: In watching (what is going on inwardly ?) carefully, without ( any personal) motive, there is tremendous ( energy gathering of) attention. It is like ( a laser?) light focusing. That attention, at the depth of it, is ( originating in the ) Mind and it focuses light on the ( temporal ?) limitations of the brain.

( Parting words:) ( The Compassionate Intelligence of) Love is outside the ( temporal) brain. We have come to an 'ending'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 211 - 237 of 237 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.)