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

The Great Consciousness Puzzle


Displaying posts 61 - 85 of 85 in total
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #61
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

Daniel Paul. wrote:

>Krishnamurti: there is no shortest way; but hard feelings, worries and troubles themselves liberate you if you are not trying to escape from them through the desire for freedom and happiness

and to finish this dialogue on my side , yet most comment are gone now , I think that k with these simple words which absolutely anyone on earth can afford to understand and to relate to, in my view...I say that based on some of my time spend with people about such hard feelings, that k here gives us what it did, and does with such matters....once this is said, there is no need for more words about it but there is the need of actually doing it..somehow depending on each one , to experiment with it...

around me I have seen that working .

this doing, this action, is more complex than the words say because for the analytical process it is extremely difficult almost impossible to passively stay with that yet being it, the hard feeling must remain untouched by thought because it is thought itself so that any doing would lead nowhere but to more pain, frustration and all the usual goodies which fulfil our lives.....the observer is the observed..so both are dissolved..if when it is about mental matters leading to unknown problem and problem's root, there is still the observer observing itself without knowing it ..

we remove the hard feeling here as a matter of talking , in my view thought is forever caught in the turmoil we are since some 5 to 10 000 years, depending on the real past history , not the bullshit we are told.And that would be a dead end ,as we actually appear to be in...

this is why for me thought must fail to be the leader of the brain so of our lives...and nevertheless it is thought which much accept to be what it is...which it does not..apart from exceptions..

thanks and..cheerio..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Jan 2018 #62
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

if you are not trying to escape from them through the desire for freedom and happiness

That's a big 'If', Dan and somehow it is 'occulting' many very real difficulties or handicaps that many of us encounter in their spiritual endeavour. And if it would have worked as presented in the quote above...we would have probably have seen the 'illuminating' results just by looking around in the small K world

Hello John, yes indeed this is a pretty big if...because globally we, as a species, do escape...

and yes it would have worked but it has not worked, yet it has in some very ancient times hidden by mainstream occults powers, you can see here and there "proofs" that it did work, but no absolute ones good enough for a sceptic..

and again yes for your insertion about the small k world.

John Raica wrote:
I think that Dr Bohm was wise enough to speak of 'hidden variables'- not only in the esoteric world of Physics, but also in the within the human consciousness.

Well yes, the Bohm dialogues (1980 ones as I am up to in my present) as well the ones with pupul jayakar ,and so on, are for me my main visioning of video when in the mood..especially 1980 k-Bohm at a very slow pace..

John Raica wrote:
Of course, the time-binding continuity of desire & thought if seriously examined could give us an invaluable experiential clue ...were it not that our 'highly knowledgeable' minds don't really want to look at it. And why ? Because in all probability it would imply the dismantling of the whole 'echaffaudage du connu'. And very few of us - if any- are prepared for the whole inner discomfort of it

Could be yes...the time binding desire of continuity of desire so of thought is vital as far as I see that...if we could remove it, we do not exist any more is what I see..sorry to be so assertive without any background for that but to go into it would need so many words, time ,writing and as well probably more a real dialogue in flesh ...an encounter of the third kind!

so anyway the point being that this time-binding desire of thought as such cannot-must not be removed , it has its fair place. Does this imply that it is not where it should be ? Yes it does..it fields is practicality in terms of matter, tools,organising the practical life between us etc ..when thought dominates as a dictator life becomes matter, tools, organising , method but as it is a calculator it evaluates, eliminate, keep, organise, creates hierarchies , values etc proper to matter but not to the mental-mind(global)..and cherry on the cake , in order to be able to function as I have seen it thought has in store so is loaded with some triggers and incentives to make it work..those incentives are pushing us , in theory to do a relative good job, to make it work, to make it properly, to make it steady etc in a relative manner...when it comes to what is mental, by using such tools, when planning to make a roof it will work,if not the first time it will work at some stage anyway so it will be fine, but when planning happiness which is in fact already an escape from my misery , the goal will NEVER be attained..and the incentive adds on will keep pushing and pushing and pushing until the job is properly done, this never takes place and is one origin for frustration so suffering..etc

I see a very tricky point-momentum for us that you express here (were it not that our 'highly knowledgeable' minds don't really want to look at it. And why ? Because in all probability it would imply the dismantling of the whole 'echaffaudage du connu'. And very few of us - if any- are prepared for the whole inner discomfort of it)

why? ask you. Yes I seem to observe that very quickly on that road a lot of dismantling of what is known, as you say is already perceived , I would express that like this : a need for something radically different is perceived as first and first of all , thought perceived that it is wrong but does not see where,why,how ? so in a bunch one has fear,some sort of pain, ignorance, no hope in sight, the vision that I may be unable to cope with this mechanical life, with all the weight of society etc...so from the beginning I perceive all that and more as a huge cataclysm from which I apparently do not see any way out nor goodness for me in it , not do I get much of it...apart from the fact that i may perceive that when trying to tun away , If I see that, it is more painful ,then in a flash I understand that running away whatever the reasons and background are, running away is pain then I may stop....

and will then live in spite of myself what takes place by itself, thought had been somehow, in some ways , bypassed , not that one expects such thing in such moment as it is precisely what does not take place if this is lived..there is no expectation...and as soon as there is this reality of no expectation, not one produced by thought , something else takes place and somehow it speaks ..

then this may or not be there all the rest of one's life to some extend depending on what goes on for oneself's life at the mental level mainly..

in that sense hard feelings are a -the mean to force thought into that direction where is does not expect for anything, as all what matters in such peculiar moment is hard feeling..what is noticeable here is that as soon as it is the case, for real, something uncommon and not expected immediately takes place...

this is how any of "my" moments have started....it was not noticeable at first..but after some time I realised: well this could well be what takes place..

you say : Because in all probability it would imply the dismantling of the whole 'echaffaudage du connu'

well yes , or at least it is felt that the field of the known is somehow empty of goodness , of contentment etc...so here we are back to what you called " the need for another instrument" , which I call myself " our other capacities" ..those instruments,capacities, are able as they wishes to work in fields where thought must not interfere...it seems to me that some sort of guidance will be there for anyone finding himself on that "road" , something X knows what has to be done...not me..of course this implies an "intelligence" beyond thought....

I think it is there in store already....;-), it is just not turned on...

cheers

ps: I did not reread...

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Tue, 30 Jan 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #63
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

Shadow zones

More often than not, when looking into our own 'consciousness puzzle'- even if we think that we have all the 'parts' at hand - if not more- we realise that we simply cannot solve it.
So, we can safely infer that there are a few 'shadow zones'.
I'm not speaking here of the 'dark chambers' where the human consciousness has purposedly hidden all its 'bad experiences' -those things that common people never talk about. But for starters I would adress the very common issue of the 'observer' separating itself from whatever he/she is 'observing' ( in K's synthetic terms the division 'observer-observed' )

Now is this separation something hidden in the dark chambers of our 'unconscious' mind or is it a direct result of wanting to be 'personally' protected from a potentially destabilising direct contact with what is happening outside or within ourselves - which has become by everyday use a 'perceptive habit'?
Part of this 'safe way' to deal with an everyday outer reality becoming more depressing by the day - is the process of verbal recognition (aka: 'naming'). By this very recognition & 'naming' the new and potentially disturbing experience it is quickly processed in terms of the 'known' and a safe solution 'pops up' -it may not really work, but this approach is certainly looking safer to our one million years brain , than 'not knowing' what to do and panicking.

So, it is not something really hidden, but it is an attitude that has become so 'embedded' in our everyday perception that we seldom question its validity when dealing with the 'inner facts' of our own consciousness? From where, a certain 'inner blindness' - very similar to the 'blind spots' of any driver- those places where we usually never look simply because ur brain assumes that it sees all there's important to know for its safe survival. The existential choice is actually very simple- the 'old' brain chose to function in an 'auto-pilot' mode in all routinely everyday situations. Now, inwardly speaking, there are not really challenging incidents since the same old brain also learned to 'sweep them under the carpet'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 04 Feb 2018 #64
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
But for starters I would address the very common issue of the 'observer' separating itself from whatever he/she is 'observing' ( in K's synthetic terms the division 'observer-observed' )

Now is this separation something hidden in the dark chambers of our 'unconscious' mind or is it a direct result of wanting to be 'personally' protected from a potentially destabilising direct contact with what is happening outside or within ourselves - which has become by everyday use a 'perceptive habit'?

Hello John, well not easy of course

For me close if not very close from the root of all this is what I find to be a need to be able to separate a body from its environment to be able to simply "walk" in , this must not be explained but seen as so obvious...

then this process invades all and everything in our lives...we remain separate from the environment including where of course it does not work and must not work at all which is practically everywhere apart from walking in the street of the forest or wherever, I make it very simplistic on purpose ..remarkable human absence of global and universal intelligence at work, this is said without being cynical but just factual ,that is what we do.

there seem to be no end to that,but there will be of course as we won't survive long that way.. we may be trapped for a good while in this corner as it is so embedded now in our cells..apart from exceptions...

one point ,nothing apart from oneself prevents anyone not to go that way..

then you ask about dark chambers and protection..

I am not sure that it is as dumb smart as that to protect oneself or not, I sense here a rather stupid move of the analysing function trying to function in the simplest way as possible where it shall not be used...my view so far.The analysing system seems to be a rather dull program, yet it has a very high esteem of itself without realising that this is what it does thinking such view to be absolutely objective , unless it gets carried away by some spectacular desire of ultimate achievement for "myself" where will be found of course, so "I" believe , ultimate contentment and the all shebang

desire here plays a vital part, of course...one may be interested to know that without desire thought does not function..without blind self esteem it does not either, without self reward it does not etc etc to know this one must know it in a visionary way, this makes thought an absolute outsider in he matter

this separation in my view is part of the program allowing the analyser to analyse...it is a very basic program, it is vital for anything practical as a tool...it is surely mostly unconscious...this means that it is out of reach of our superficial thought, the only program we still have functioning ...

take the man with the biggest IQ in the world , this is still part of the superficial mind of course ..

John Raica wrote:
So, it is not something really hidden, but it is an attitude that has become so 'embedded' in our everyday perception that we seldom question its validity when dealing with the 'inner facts' of our own consciousness?

in my view exactly yes.

John Raica wrote:
The existential choice is actually very simple- the 'old' brain chose to function in an 'auto-pilot' mode in all routinely everyday situations. Now, inwardly speaking, there are not really challenging incidents since the same old brain also learned to 'sweep them under the carpet'

Well I do not know about some old brain meaning that there would be somewhere a new brain or an even older brain , for myself so cannot say.

Is it a routine ? well it is a calculator, radar, evaluator ONLY in practicality so it is set up ,limited ,define but but in our case to be able to work (turn itself on) it is loaded with motives to work, tasks to do etc what we call desire plays such role...then it may be that it is in such corner that some of our deepest problems will be found...

this is , in my view, very interesting ..

cheerio..

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #65
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
I suppose that consciously or not, we still do measure the overall success of our life by the outer achievements, while the redeeming of our 'psychological' failures is always postponed for later...much later. So the 'psy' problems keep accumulating until some major life challenge confronts us. Also with age, we are becoming- so to say- psychologically immune to many of them. And as the brain has to keep surviving with or without 'psy' problems, it is simply forming 'blind spots' -all those things it does not know how (or does not want to) to deal with

well this seems to make sense yes

John Raica wrote:
Now my point here is that the 'observer' is not only reflecting this very instinctive 'survival-at-any-price' attitude of the animal ('old') brain but...is even impersonating it ; and any time the validity of its 'righteous' continuity is challenged, it responds very 'personally' And it may the right place to notice that the 'observer' is constantly creating and updating a whole assortment of 'masks' -or 'images'- often used with a high degree of identification quite beyond the bestest performance of any professional actor (who is only 'adopting masks')

the observer as analytical process is also of course as you know quite capable to play the part written by itself of the neutral observer observing the observer which is observing the observer etc ad libitum..it is a "bloody" catch 22, is not it ?

now this is painful and meaningless etc ..

the analyser wants to get rid of this nasty feeling...bingo, it falls again and again into the same trap..
it has extended its limited field of the memory-past-known whether it is fact, desires or lies-delusion and then I, as of course it is I, I keep on that way entirely inertly destroyed by the refusal or inability to live this death so end of my glory to come for programming reasons ( not thought business) , consciously and more powerfully unconsciously..for a simple fact that death means no beloved continuity and the thought program aims at planning some practical continuity in the sense that any analysing takes place in the future,whether it is a split of a second or centuries up to desired immortality...as a guess, as valid as the so called big bang theory etc

I, as thought, see no way out here, so can we say that searching a way out is another wrong attempt ? Well this could be so yes ...

thought is discontent , seems its mature sate of mind as a lonely worker, isolated from everything but what it wants..the older the worse it gets because most escapes do not really work any more..so this means that we can avoid wasting a lifetime by taking the right "path-move" from quite very young..k suggest s that very strongly but the entire planet goes the exact opposite...

again I find desire yet vital to be the main but not only trouble maker...

yes as you say sure all this is quite beyond the bestest performance of any professional actor...that we all would be, apart that some get paid huge money for that..matter of distracting the people from the facts of life...etc...

it seems to me , not sure, that any change must consider both the inner and the outer..you know what , I am not at all sure that a highly technological civilisation will ever have a chance to be at peace, yes thought absolutely believes in that, this is normal as it is its field..., after all when this k thing took place we were two persons communicating using one's brain, god knows all the possibilities beyond thought we are missing, the main being this uninvited weird goodness of course !! ...because we may have absolutely nothing at all to reach..surviving correctly together in peace is enough when the brain is fed with goodness..only pain makes ones searching and go mad...

sorry but all this is not clear , this morning I may be too disturbed..;-)

cheers..

Dan ...........

This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. Mon, 05 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 05 Feb 2018 #66
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

Hello again John,

a very interesting post in my view..

John Raica wrote:
Well, Dan, there's a double aspect to this 'observer' position : if we are observing other people- how they behave, talk, etc, we can be pretty objective - providing that there is no 'personal' conflict of interests interests and ( as a friend or as a psy) we can even give some 'good advice' which if accepted, can give 'good results' for a while. But obviously this is only a 'patch-up therapy' since the deeper cause of these psychological problems will re-surface sooner or later

Yes agreed..

John Raica wrote:
- and it is man's ages old self-interest rather than 'desire or 'thought'...

well all this is entirely linked in what I see.So there are many ways to express that.

John Raica wrote:
So, basically unless we tackle the 'observer' itself everything will go pretty much as before -slightly better or worse. On the other hand, dealing directly with the inner nature of the 'observer'- in the sense of a personal 'prise de conscience' can have an authentic transformational value - although it can be 'temporarily' very destabilising. K did it on a regular basis in practically all his public talks & discussions. Did it work ? On short term 'perhaps', on longer terms...'not, or...not really'.

Well there will be some sort of destabilisation yes, huge one regarding thoughts values and hopes as well as behaviour...uncertainty enters through the front door..

what makes one to be so frightened right there, fear meaning for me "running away"..so what makes one run away from destabilisation? first as thought seeks for opposites most of the time, if not all the time we can agree that it is about to be stable, steadiness , etc..

whatever the reasons for that do not seem important to me right now...I want stability, routine but I want the excitement of the new at the same time..all this is very contradictory in itself already ...

of course it seems again to be about security, taking shelter etc...this seems to have no end....yet sometimes in life some break this pattern whether in some last attempt to get rid of a boring routine or because they have seen some light in that corner..then for once security is not the goal...and I can be destabilised...

k was destabilising people in some talks , is it what you mean here ? with seemingly poor results .

You may have noticed that I did not bring yet any hints about sorrow and the all shebang, yet in such situation this is what takes place...so far we did not "deal" with that in this talk yet .

John Raica wrote:
As a dispassionate 'observer' of K's 'radical' psy-approach one can see that there was no 'SAV' (no contingency plan) -which is reminding us of the old Hippocratic principle 'Doctor, heal yourself !'
So I guess that the future generations- starting with ours- would have to deal - with the 'psycho-logistics' implied - and it is not the power of understanding that is failing us, but rather the lack of a 'quiet inner space of self-exposure & healing'. In short an inner space of 'quiet contemplation'. It is probably our 'first & last" responsibility versus ourselves, to be considered even before thinking of helping or 'educating' others.

that seems to me very "wise" by all means indeed....thanks for the dialogue !

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 06 Feb 2018 #67
Thumb_2018-01-20-120616 Daniel Paul. Ireland 23 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
my perception is that in K himself, behind the "sane rationality" of the Teachings operated a Source of Universal Compassion & Intelligence. But to most of his 'live' audiences or readers the 'ineffable light ' of that Source did not pass the stage very well, while in the 'spiritual' world an elementary level of selflessness & inner harmony seems to be the minimal requirement required for a basic understanding

Hello John, well yes. K work so far seems not successful when reading some of his early statements, , and this whatever the reasons are and there may be numerous causes for that...

Being in one of those moments where all seems to fade away, I so do not know about selfishness and inner harmony...of course I get it intellectually.

John Raica wrote:

Daniel Paul. wrote:

You may have noticed that I did not bring yet any hints about sorrow

Well, since you mention it, I have noticed - and it reminds me K's remark : 'We keep ploughing and never sowing'. This may be again due to our ego's reluctance to let go its attachments to the "known"

Well ,why not ?
but the question arises immediately: this ego, or me, or thought, or analytical process etc can it let go the past or is it illusory so a wrong expectation to expect that from a process which functioning is also based on the known ..I mean here the known is its field of competence and it cannot function without it...I have seen many people having some of their known removed by some mental-physical brain problems , they are unable to survive as vulnerable as young children..

I keep feeling that this is about the awakening of our other capacities..and k does not bring enough clarity, in my view only, here as I remember him mentioning that he did not know " how this happened"....

basically in the context of the talk this meant that he had no clue about how and why this ecstasy is there sometimes.

yet in this today's quote he says this

Is conflict necessary for creative being? When do you feel that creative overpowering ecstasy? Only when all conflict has ceased, only when the self is absent, only when there is complete tranquillity. This stillness cannot take place when the mind-heart is agitated, when it is in conflict; this only strengthens the self-enclosing process. As most of us are in a state of constant struggle within ourselves, we rarely have such moments of high sensibility or stillness, and when they do occur they are accidental. So we try to recapture those accidental moments, and only further burden our mind-heart with the dead past.

The absence of the self for me means the incapacity to deal with daily affairs at all levels, so for me this so called self or rather analytical process remains active but do to the turning on of some other capacities, it remains in its yard which it should have never left...

well our troubles as a global species may be even much worse than we may think....as in fact we may well have lost the use of some capacities, so we are regressing, the ones able to wisely drive thought as it is a tool ..in fact of progress we may be on the exact opposite directio0n, the illusion given by our machines and possible success in some fields is blinding the entire species about life, as it seems that we are left with tools ....and no hand to guide them...

Dan ...........

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Feb 2018 #68
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

As I was re-editing the K-Bohm-Shainberg dialogues on 'The Wholeness of Life' (cca 1976) , I thought they might provide a few experiential clues to the ultimate solutioning of this ever-changing 'puzzle' of human consciousness:

FROM INNER FRAGMENTATION TO WHOLENESS ( experientially friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: What do you think is the most important thing that we three can talk about ?

Dr. Bohm: I would like to talk about the question of 'wholeness'.
K: I wonder how we can approach this question ( of the 'wholeness of life' ?) knowing that most people are (inwardly) fragmented, broken up and not whole. How do we tackle this ( very tough existential?) question?

S: Through becoming responsibly aware of our inner fragmentation ?

K: You know, we have been talking (with Dr Bohm) whether we can ever be (holistically?) 'aware' of ourselves at all. Or we can only become aware of the various (inner) fragments , by examining them one by one ? ( In this traditional self-introspective approach?) isn't the 'analyser' not another fragment who has assumed the authority?

S: Usually we seem to be aware of these 'fragments' one at a time and ( eventually we get) cought in the ( complex interactive )
movement of these fragments.

K: Is that so?

S: Yes, but then some other times we can take a step back and try to be aware of ( the intricate interactions between ) these many fragments .

K: When Dr. Bohm asked this question of 'wholeness', I wonder from what source he is asking that question.

B: Generally, ( the ongoing inner fragmentation) presents itself primarily as one ( highly active ) fragment with a 'background' of all the other fragments perhaps dimly present in it. I mean, one fragment seems to take pre-eminence in our common) awareness.

S: I feel getting cought up in a movement of fragments - my identity is fragmented, my relationship is fragmented, my very substance of movement is a feeling of fragmentation. I don't have any centre when I am fragmented. I am not...

K: I am not at all sure that there is not an (identitary ) 'centre' , even when you feel fragmented.

B: Right, definitely there is a 'centre'. That is the major fragment that one is aware of.

S: Let us go into that more.

B: Well, I think that there is a ( supervising) 'centre' which you may sense anywhere, and that seems to be the 'centre of everything' that is connected to everything else .

K: Are we aware of (our own inner) fragmentation?

S: Not really ...

K: Then what are we aware of?

S: I think we are aware of being 'sucked into' (spilled into?) more fragments. In other words, pleasure is pulling us forward into more fragmentation : this would give me pleasure, that would give me pleasure... And it is the ( overall) feeling of ( being split into) 'pieces'.

K: But are we aware of it from a 'centre' which says, "I am feeling fragmented"?

B: We are both aware of a centre, and from a centre, you see. And this (all controlling ?) 'centre' seems to be the fragment that is dominating, or attempting to dominate.

K: That 'centre' is the dominating factor.

B: But it seems to be the 'centre' of your very being, the 'self' - which one might think it is the whole (of one's being) . Because it is in contact with everything, you see.

K: Would you say that having (subliminally identified ourselves with ?) this 'centre' is the very cause of ( all further inner) fragmentation?

B: Yes, we could say that, but at first sight it seems that the 'centre' is trying to organize everything into a 'whole'.

K: Yes, trying to bring about an inner integration, an (inner sense of ?) wholeness, and all that. But I am asking whether this very ( identification with this ) 'centre' doesn't make for (our inner) fragmentation ?

S: In the common experience when there is ( an inner) fragmentation. there doesn't always seem to be a ( supervising) 'centre'.

K: Sir, one is becoming aware of the 'fragments' ( or of one's inner fragmentation?) because of ( the ongoing conflicts and ?) contradictions. Then I am becoming aware that there are 'fragments' (thoughts & desires pulling in different drections) . And the 'I' is working (as a superviser?) in this area of fragments (trying to harmonise and direct the overall activity ?) .

S: Right. But then again, one is not (objectively) aware of this 'centre'. There is ( a loop for) self deception, right there.

K: Sir, may I suggest that one is becoming aware ( of the inner fragmentation ?) only when there is ( a major existential ?) conflict. And this conflict itself does arise out of ( the existing) fragmentation; opposing desires, opposing wishes, opposing thoughts.

B: So, are you saying that these (inner fragments are usually moving on their own?) and then suddenly some ( disturbance or?) pain makes us aware that their conflict (of interests?) is unpleasant?

K: Yes, ( living in a state of inner contradictions & ) conflict is unpleasant and therefore one is becoming aware that...

B: ...that something is wrong with the whole thing.

K: With the whole thing, of course. After all, you are ( becoming acutely self-conscious ?) only when there is pain, or intense pleasure. Otherwise you are not ( so much) aware of 'yourself' (but of the 'outward' action?) .

S: You are saying that the very 'fragmentation' itself breeds the 'centre', and the centre has bred the fragmentation, so it is like a (self-sustained vicious circle ?)

K: Yes, back and forth.

B: So, one view is to say that the 'centre' and thought are always co-existent and that one breeds the other and the other view is to say that there might be ( a self-interest based ?) thought first and that produces conflict and then (in order to put order into ?) that, it produces a ( controlling ?) 'centre'.

K: Let's go into that a little bit. Does ( an awareness of ) thought exist before conflict? Or one is aware of the centre only when there is conflict.

B: Yes, because that ( controlling centre ?) comes in apparently to try to bring about wholeness again, to take charge of everything.

K: The 'centre' tries to take charge, or tries to create wholeness (some inner harmony ?) .

B: Yes, to bring all the factors (diverging vectors ?) together.

K: But this 'centre' is itself a fragment.

B: Yes, but... it doesn't realise that.

K: Of course it doesn't know it – and it thinks that it can bring all the fragments together and make it a whole. So, we were asking (the old 'chicken or the egg' question?) : did thought exist before the centre, or the centre existed before the thought.

S: (And you're saying that ?) thought create the centre?

K: Thought creates the 'centre'.

B: But many people would think the other way : that the 'me' is there in the first place, and then 'I' began to think!

K: I think 'thought' (the thinking process based on self - intertest) exists before the 'centre'. We started talking about the 'wholeness' of life. How can one be aware of life's wholeness if one is ( inwardly) fragmented? That is the next question. I can't be aware of the whole ( of my existence ) if I am only looking through a small hole.

S: Right. But on the other hand in actuality you 'are' the whole.

K: Ah! That is a theory : when you are ( inwardly) fragmented how can you assume that you are the whole?

S: Well, I mean that is a new issue : how am I to know I am fragmented?

K: When are you aware that you are fragmented? Only when there is a conflict, when two opposing desires, opposing elements of (mental or emotional ) movement, then there is conflict, then you have pain ( inner discomfort?) and then you become '(self) -conscious'. What we are asking is: can this ( central ) 'fragment' dissolve itself , then only it is possible (for the integrated mind?) to see the whole.

S: Right. All you really know is your ( self-centred ?) fragmentation.

K: That is all we know.

B: That is right. And the supposition that there is a 'wholeness' may be reasonable but as long as you are fragmented you could never see it. It would be just an assumption. You may think you have experienced it once, but that is also an assumption, that ( inner state of wholeness ?) is gone.

K: Absolutely. Quite right.

S: I wonder if there is not also a tremendous sense of loneliness that goes on when I am becoming aware of my fragmentation.

K: Look sir: can you become aware of your ( identitary ?) 'fragments'? That you are an American, that I am a Hindu, you are a Jew or a Communist - it is only when you are challenged, it is only when it is said, "What are you?", then you say, "I am an Indian", or a Hindu, or an Arab.

B: Or, when 'your' country is challenged then you have got to worry.

K: Of course.

S: So you are saying that I am living totally reactively ?

K: No, you are living in some kind of ( existential) confusion .

S: From one piece to the next, from one reaction to the next reaction ?

K: Reward and punishment in that movement. So can we be aware, actually now, of the various ( identitary?) fragments? That I am a Hindu, that I am a Catholic, that I am a businessman, I am married, I have responsibilities, I am an artist, I am a scientist. You follow? All this various outward fragmentations , as well as 'psychological' (identitary ?) fragmentation.

S: That is exactly what I started with : this feeling that I am a fragment, this feeling where I get absorbed, being a fragment.

K: Which you call the 'individual'.

S: That I call 'important', not just the individual.

K: So can we now in talking over together, be aware that I am ( inwardly functioning as a self-enclosed ?) fragment and therefore creating more conflict, more misery, more confusion, more sorrow, because when there is this ( deep existential) conflict it affects everything.

S: Right...

K: Can you be aware of it as we are discussing?

S: I can, a little.

K: Not 'a little'.

S: Why can't I be aware of all of it?

K: You are only aware of (your inner fragmentation only ?) when there is a conflict. There is not a conflict in you right now.

B: But isn't it it possible to be aware of it without conflict?

K: That is the next thing, yes. That requires quite a different ( experiential) approach.

B: I was thinking that the ( overwhelming) 'importance' of these fragments is occuring when I identify myself ( with one of them ?) and say, "I am this", "I am that", ( and that specific fragment appears as ?) the whole of 'me'. In other words the "whole of me" is 'rich' or 'poor', or 'American', and therefore it is becoming all important because it is (assumed to be ?) the whole (of myself) . I think it seems that the trouble is that the fragment claims that it is the whole, and makes itself very important.

S: Takes up the whole life.

B: Then comes a contradiction and then comes (to the surface ?) another 'fragment' saying that 'it' is the whole.

S: You are bringing in something different here. That is exactly how it is that we come to believe in ( the objective 'reality' of ?) these fragments. Because we look at objects and we say they are separate things, therefore I am also a separate thing.

K: I question that ( apparent reality ?) sir. Say for instance, the Arab and the Israeli - are they aware that 'I am an Arab', or I have ( just identified myself with ?) an idea...

B: An idea that "I am an Arab "?

K: Yes.

B: But this 'idea' is seen as very important (socially) , or rather I am totally in error. And somebody else has the idea 'I am a Jew', that is also ( perceived as ?) all important and therefore they must destroy each other.

K: Quite. And I think the 'politicians', the 'religious' people are encouraging all this, because they are fragmented themselves. You see that is the whole point. People who are in power, being (inwardly ) fragmented, sustain the fragmentation.

S: Right. It is the only way to get into ( a position of) power, to be (strongly ?) fragmented.

K: Of course.

B: Well he says, ''it is all important that I should be a successful politician'', and so on.

S: This movement into fragmentation, seems to be caused by something. It seems to be...

K: Is this what you are asking: what is the cause of this fragmentation?

S: Yes. Right. What is the cause of the fragmentation? What breeds it? What sucks us into it?

K: Let's look: what is the cause of this (inner) fragmentation?

S: That is what I was getting into. There is some (separative) cause there and it begins there, ''I have got to hold on to something''.

K: No. What has brought fragmentation in you?

S: Well, my immediate response is the need to 'hold on' to something.

K: No, much deeper, what is the cause of it? Why are you and I and the majority of the world fragmented (isolated inwardly) ? What is the cause of it?

S: Fear ?

K: No, no, much more. Why am I (identifying myself as ?) a 'Hindu'? - what makes me a Hindu? My father, my grandfather, generations and generations after ten thousand or five thousand years, they have said, 'you are a Brahmin'. Which is what?

S: That is ( the pressure of) tradition, conditioning, sociology, history, culture, family, everything.

K: But behind that, what is that? Don't theorize. Look at it in yourself.

S: Well that gives me a place (in my community ) , an identity, I know who I am then, I have my little 'niche'.

K: Who made that 'niche'?

S: Well I made it and they helped me make it. The whole (tradition ?) is moving towards putting me in a hole .

K: So your great great grandparents created this cultural environment, this whole structure of human existence, with all its misery and with all the mess it is in, which is , this ( mentality of ?) fragmentation, with all the conflicts (involved ?) .

S: The same action that makes ( the same mentality of human fragmentation ?) right now.

K: Exactly. The Babylonians, the Egyptians, and we are (thinking the same way) now.

S: This is what I was getting at in the beginning. This is all giving me my 'secondhand' existence.

K: Yes. Now, let's find out why man has brought about this (inner) state ( of fragmentation) which we accept - gladly or unwillingly. Is it ( our inborn ?) desire for security, biological as well as psychological security?

S: You could say that, yes.

K: If I belong to something, to some organization, to some group, to some sect, to some ideological community, I am feeling 'safe' there.

B: You may only 'feel' safe. But why don't I see that I am not really safe?

K: You are a doctor, you have a special position in society.

B: And it is essential that I shouldn't enquire too far to feel secure, isn't it? In other words, I must stop my enquiry at a certain point. If I start to ask questions...

K: If I begin to ask questions about my (cultural) community and my relation to that community, my relationship to the world, my relation to my neighbour, I am finished. I am out of the community. So to feel safe, secure, protected, I 'belong'.

S: I 'depend' ?

B: I 'depend wholly' - in the sense that if I don't have that then I feel the whole thing is sunk.

S: This is good. You see not only do I depend but every problem that I now have is with reference to this dependency. I really know nothing about the patient, I only 'know' how the patient doesn't fit into my system.

B: It is still not clear why I should go on with it. You see in other words as long as I don't ask questions I can feel comfortable. But when I do ask questions, I may feel very deeply uncomfortable. Because the whole of my ( social & economical) situation is challenged.

K: Why don't I ask questions? Because of (a very real ?) fear.
B: Yes, but that fear is coming from my existing fragmentation.
K: Of course. So the beginning of this ( self-isolation & ) fragmentation takes place when one is seeking security - both biologically and as well as psychologically ? Primarily psychologically, then biologically.

B: But isn't the tendency to seek security physically built into the organism?

K: Yes, that's right. It is. I must have food, clothes, shelter. It is absolutely necessary. But my inner fragmentation takes place when psychologically I want security. That is: if I don't psychologically belong to a group , then I am out of that group.

S: Then I am feeling insecure.

K: So because the group gives me physical security, I accept everything they give me, or say to me.

S: Right.

K: But the moment I object psychologically to the structure of that society or that community I am ( feeling) lost.

S: Are you suggesting that this movement of (self-centred) fragmentation is the major conditioning ?

K: Sir, look, look: if there was no fragmentation, both historically, geographically, nationally, no nations, we would live perfectly safely. We would all be protected, you would all have food - you follow - all have houses. There would be no wars, you'd be all one. He is my brother; I am him, he is me. But this fragmentation prevents that taking place.

S: Right. So you are even suggesting something more there - you are suggesting that we would help each other.

K: I would help, obviously.

B: We are going around in a circle still.

K: Yes, sir. We were asking: why does this (psychological) fragmentation take place? What is the source of it? Is it knowledge?

S: What 'knowledge' are you talking about here?

K: The (psychological connotations of ?) 'knowing': do I (really) 'know' you? I can never say, 'I know you' - actually. It would be an abomination to say, 'I know you'. I have known you, but in the meantime we are changing, there is a great deal of ( mental & emotional) movement going on in you.

S: That's right.

K: So this 'knowing', is the (response of our memory of the ?) past. Would you say that?

B: Yes, all the 'known' is (coming from ) past. But the psychological 'danger' is that we (impose that ) knowledge on ( what is happening in ) the present.

K: That is just it.

B: In other words, if we would acknowledge that the past is gone, and what we know is the ( experience of the ) past, then this would not introduce any psychological fragmentation.

K: No, it wouldn't, quite right.

B: But if we (assume that ) what we know (from the past) is ( identical with) what is present now, then we are introducing fragmentation.

K: Quite right, quite.

B: Because we are imposing this partial knowledge on the whole.

K: Sir, would you say (that our 'psychological' ) knowledge is one of the factors of fragmentation? A large pill to swallow !

B: But then, there are plenty of other factors.

K: Or, that ( our existence rooted in the known) may be the only factor ?

B: But I think we should look at it this way: that many people hope through (enlarging their personal ) knowledge to overcome this fragmentation.

K: Of course. But isn't that perhaps 'the' (root) factor of (our inner) fragmentation? My (past) experience tells me I know what God is...

B: Wouldn't it be better to say that the confusion regarding the relative value of knowledge is the cause of our inner fragmentation? In other words, not 'knowledge' in itself.

K: Sir, we said yesterday that the 'art' (of living) is putting things in its right place. So I will put knowledge in its right place.

B: Yes, so we are not (getting) confused about it.

K: Of course. We are saying both Dr Bohm and I, is (that in the outer world) knowledge has its right place. Like ( acquiring the practical knowledge & skill for ?) driving a car, learning a language and so on.

B: We have to make it clear: driving a car using our existing knowledge is not ( bringing inner) fragmentation. The car itself is a limited (mechanical) part of life and therefore it can be handled by our knowledge. But when we say 'I am so and so', I am trying to cover the whole ( of my existence ) by the part.

K: When knowledge (the 'me-who-knows' mentality ?) assumes it understands the whole, then begins the (psychological) mischief.

B: But it is often very tricky, because it is 'implicit' - by saying 'everything is this way', or 'I am this way'. It implies that the whole of me, the whole of life, the whole of the world is this way.

S: Krishnaji was saying, I mean like, "I know you", that is how we deal with ourselves. We say, I know this and that about me, rather than being open to (discover) the new. Or even being aware of the fragmentation.

B: I shouldn't say 'I know all about you' because you are not a limited part like a machine is. You see the machine is fairly limited and we can know all that is relevant about it, or most of it anyway. Sometimes it breaks down. But when it comes to another person, that is immensely beyond what you could really know. The past experience doesn't tell you the essence.

K: Are we saying, Dr Bohm, that when knowledge spills over into the psychological field...

B: Well, also it spills over into the philosophical field and man tries to make it 'metaphysical', (pertaining to) the whole universe.

K: (To recap:) All that you can say (experientially) is that we are (inwardly) fragmented. That is a fact. And there is an awareness of the fragmented mind because of the (inner & outer) conflicts (it is creating ?) . And this may be one of the factors of ( inner frahgmentation) : ( the instinctive search for ?) security in (the field of the known) – knowledge used wrongly.

B: Or could we say that some sort of (honest ?) mistake has been made, that man feels insecure biologically, and he thinks what shall I do, and he makes a (honest) mistake in the sense that he tries to obtain an additional sense of security by ( gathering more & more ?) knowledge?

K: By knowledge, yes. One feels secure in having a (noble) "ideal".

S: Right. That is so true.

B: But one asks why the average person makes this (honest ?) mistake. You see, if the mind had been absolutely clear it would never have done that.

S: If the mind had been 'absolutely clear', yes, but we have just said that there is ( a lot of) biological insecurity. That is a fact.

B: But that doesn't imply that you have to delude yourself.

S: I mean there's this biological fact of my constant uncertainty. The biological fact of constant change.

K: That is created through ( this very mentality of?) fragmentation.

S: My biological uncertainty?

K: Of course. (I may think ?) I may lose my job, I may have no money tomorrow.

B: I may have no money tomorrow. You see that may be an actual fact, but now the question is, if man's mind were (inwardly) clear, what would be his response?

K: You would never (wait to ) be put in that position.

B: But suppose he finds himself without money, you see ?

K: He would do something.

B: But his mind won't go into this 'well of confusion' ?

K: No, absolutely. But we were trying to stick to one point: what is the cause of this fragmentation? And we said (one major cause is our ) knowledge spilling over into the field where it should not enter.

B: But why doesn't Intelligence show that there is no such security ?

K: Can a fragmented mind be (holistically ?) intelligent?

B: Are you saying that once the mind 'fragments' (confines itself within the field of the 'known' ) then intelligence is gone?

K: Yes.

B: But now you are creating a serious problem (for the already fragmented minds?) because you are also saying that there can be an end to their fragmentation.

K: That's right.

B: You see, at first sight that would seem to be a contradiction.

K: It looks like that, but it is not. Therefore, let's see if it can end. Go through it.

B: But if you're saying that in an (already) fragmented mind intelligence cannot operate ?

K: Is our 'psychological' security more important than 'biological' security?

S: I think my 'psychological' security is what I actually worry about most.

K: Psychological security. Which prevents (paying full attentionn to your) biological security.

S: Right. I (often tend to) forget about the other.

K: Because I am seeking ( to optimise my ) psychological security in ideas, in knowledge, in pictures, in images, in conclusions, and all the rest of it, which prevents me from having biological, physical security for me, for my children & for my (global) brothers. Because my psychological security says I am a 'somebody' in my little corner.

S: No question.

K: So can we be free of this desire to be 'psychologically' secure?

S: That is the question...

K: Of course it is. Because man has given more importance to his 'psychological' security than to the actual physical security.

B: But it is not clear why he should delude himself in this way ?

K: Why he has deluded himself ? Because the (temporal continuity of the ) 'me' is the most important thing: my (social) position, my happiness, my money, my house, my wife....

B: Yes. And each person feels the 'me' is the very essence of his whole, existence and ( it appears that ) if this 'me' were gone, the rest wouldn't mean anything.

K: That is the whole point. The (safe continuity of the ?) 'me' gives one a sense of complete security, psychologically.

B: It seems all important. People use to say, ''if I am sad then the whole world has no meaning''. Right?

K: We are saying, in the 'me' is the greatest security.

S: Right. That is what we think.
K: No, not 'we think'. It is so.

B: What do you mean, 'it is so'?

K: In the (real) world this is what is (actually) happening.

B: That is what is happening. But... it is still a delusion.

S: I think that is a good point. The 'me' is what is important. That is all it is.

K: Psychologically. 'Me' & 'my' country, 'me' & 'my' God, 'my' house, and so on....

S: We have got your point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Feb 2018 #69
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 181 posts in this forum Offline

Another aspect of this is the question of self-inquiry, which is said to lead to understanding. The pious inquirer admits of only one desire, that of understanding. Yet, is it so? Does the piety not itself obscure the fact that we are looking for a result?

We want to be free of something or, as K would have put it, to be totally free. We want to overcome the self, the burden we carry of past inequities or to reach the bliss, the nirvana etc. If, by some chance, he gets an inkling of this duplicity of purpose, the 'serious' inquirer immediately castigates himself and promises himself all sorts of things, that he will put aside all goals or that he will be especially attentive in future, all things that are impossible for him.

Even once the problem is recognised as such, even though one may see the handicap of goal-seeking, this is not enough to allow one to see it as it happens, from where it is seated deep in the unconscious mind, and the vicissitudes of its journey towards even its most pious expression, how it influences the inquiry and so on. The mind is effectively incapable of seeing it because the mind that is trying to see it and regulate it is the same mind that is doing it and is trying to hide its own eyes from it by every means of self-trickery.

If we can say that the mind may be crippled in terms of its fundamental inability to go too deeply into itself (which Bohm called its lack of proprioception) we may see that it can never be a matter of piecing the pieces or filling the pages but one of placing the dynamite charge, though there is no one to place it. Were life to set such a charge under one, things would be different. It may have happened to K.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Feb 2018 #70
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 181 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Thought is only a 'survival-oriented' function of the brain .

Hi John. Could you go into that a little more, please. Are there other functions of the brain that are not survival-oriented?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Feb 2018 #71
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 181 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
if the totality of our brain . . . is given the actual 'facts'

What are you considering "the actual facts" here, John. And who or what will give them to "the totality of the brain?"

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 #72
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

Paul David son wrote:
What are you considering "the actual facts" here, John. And who or what will give them to "the totality of the brain?"

Self-interest would be probably the principal 'active' fact. But it has divided itself -like a blob of mercury- in so many 'sub-facts' - which we can observe on an everyday basis both in ourselves and in others. As for 'who' (or what) is giving them to the totality of the brain, this is a 'work in progress' which requires a quality of inner listening - usually blocked by the original 'fact' mentioned above.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 08 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 #73
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
If all this is correct, then what could bring 'thought' to realize its 'proper' place and cease to operate in the psychological where its activity creates a 'center' (a 'me' and a 'mine' ) and further fragmentation? Is it simply the 'light' of meditation, the 'light' of awareness?

Your assessment, Dan, sounds correct, but the experiential solution might not be 'linear', in the sense that thought cannot 'undo' overnight the multiple 'knots' it has created for generations.
K gave a clue regarding the holistic solution- ending the thought-time process. Now, since this 'ultimate ending' cannot be produced by 'will power', my personal understanding is that it happens spontaneously when we ( or when the totality of the thought process ?) realise that there is no more time to do it the way we assumed it should be done- analytically, diligently, etc. This could explain why K tried to 'force' such 'moments of truth' by cutting out all the possible 'escapes'. Except that thought... knew better - the consummate survivalist. So it all comes down to our own 'thinking brain' to realise for itself that there is no more time. And perhaps there is a 'subliminal' conflict of interests right here - we still have a lot of time to 'learn', 'enjoy the good things of life', 'grow', evolve & become wiser, or better handle our existential anguishes & sorrow, etc ...but regarding the holistic solution of the whole puzzle our thinking in terms of time is irrelevant. And in the absence of the 'time' (postponing) factor, the intelligent energy subsequently gathered together and backed even by a minimal amount of self-knowledge can generate the 'enlightening spark'.

As for creating the inner environment that could facilitate the above 'miracle', it may be an issue left to the discernment of the beholder.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 08 Feb 2018 #74
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

2ND K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG

Psychological Security and its Time-traps (experientially friendly edited )

Krishnamurti: Shall we go on from where we left off yesterday?

Dr Bohm: I felt there was a point that wasn't entirely clear that we were discussing yesterday. Which is that we rather 'accepted' (the idea ) that 'psychological' security was wrong, but we did not make it very clear why we think it is a delusion. You see, for most people their 'psychological' security is a very real thing and quite necessary ( to functioning in the material world) and when it is disturbed - when a person is frightened, or sorrowful, or even so disturbed that he might require (some mental) treatment - everyone feels that ( restoring a basic ) 'psychological security' is necessary before he can even begin to do anything physically.

K: Yes, right...

B: And I think that it wasn't very clear why one should say that this sense of inner security is not really as important as physical security.

K: Let's go into it: is there really a 'psychological' security at all?

B: I don't think we clarified that fully last time.

K: Of course. Nobody accepts that. But we are enquiring into it, going into the problem of it.

Dr Shainberg: But we said something even deeper yesterday - that ( the self-centred ?) conditioning sets the importance of psychological security, and that in turn it creates insecurity. So, is it the (self-centred ?) conditioning that creates the 'psychological' security as a focus?

K: I think that we two mean something different.

S: What do you mean?

K: First of all, sir, we take it for granted that there is 'psychological' security.

B: Well, I think that if you told somebody who was feeling very disturbed mentally that there is no 'psychological security' he would just feel worse.

K: Would collapse, of course. But we are talking here of fairly sane, 'rational' people. We are questioning whether there is any 'psychological' security at all.

S: Maybe you could say something more about this 'psychological' security?

K: Like, when I 'believe in something'. It may be a neurotic belief...But it gives me a tremendous sense of (a meaningful ?) existence, vitality, and stability.

B: I think we could think of two examples: one is that if I could really believe that after dying I would go to Heaven, and be quite sure of it, then I could be very secure anywhere (on earth) , not matter what happens. I'd say, it is all a temporary trouble and then I am pretty sure that in time it is all going to be very good. Do you see?

K: Right. That is the whole Asiatic attitude, more or less.

B: Or if I think I am a Communist, then I say, in time Communism is going to solve everything and we are going through a lot of troubles now but it is all going to be worthwhile and it will work out, and in the end it will be all right. So, if I could be sure of that then I would say I feel very secure inside, even if the present conditions are hard.

K: So we are questioning whether in these strong (mental?) 'beliefs' which give people a sense of security, permanency, if there is ( a real security ?) in actuality...

S: The question is: is it possible? I'd want to ask David something : in the case of the scientist, where does he get his (psychological) security?

B: Well, in the belief that he is learning the permanent laws of Nature, really getting something that means something. And also getting a position in society, being well known and respected and financially secure.

S: He 'believes' that these things will give him the thing. The mother believes that the child will give her security.

K: Don't you 'psychologically' have security?

S: Yes, OK... I get a security out of my knowledge, out of my routine, out of my patients, out of seeing my patients, out of my position.

B: But there is ( a potential ?) conflict in that because if I think it over a little bit, it doesn't look all that secure, anything may happen. I mean I say there may be a war, there may be a depression, there may be a flood. So there is ( a certain amount of ?) conflict and confusion in my (temporal) 'security' because I am not sure about it. But if I had an absolute belief in God and Heaven...

K: This is so 'obvious'!

S: I agree with you it is 'obvious', but I think it has to be really felt through.

K: But, you, Dr Shainberg, don't you have any strong belief?

S: Well... I wouldn't say 'strong'.

K: Don't you have a sense of permanency somewhere inside you?

S: I have a sense of permanency about my work.

K: Your knowledge...

S: My knowledge, my status, the continuity of my (professional) interest. There is a still deeper sense of security in the feeling that I can help someone and I can do my work OK.

K: That gives you ( both material ?) security, (and a bonus of ?) 'psychological' security.

S: There is something more intimate about this psychological 'security' - I won't feel lonely.

K: Or that you have a belief that is 'impenetrable' ?

S: No, I don't feel it that way. I feel it more in the sense of what is going to happen in time, am I going to have to depend, what is my life going to be, am I going to be lonely, is my life going to be empty?

K: No, sir.

S: Isn't that what you mean by 'psychological' security?

K: If one has a 'strong belief' in reincarnation, as the whole Asiatic world has, then it doesn't matter what happens, since in the next life you have a better chance. So that gives you a great sense of "this is unimportant, but that is important", it gives me a sense of great inner comfort - as though this is a transient world anyhow and eventually I will get to something permanent.

S: This is happening in the Asiatic world; but I think in the western world you don't have that.

K: Oh, yes you have it.

S: With a different focus.

B: It is different but we have always had the search for security.

S: But what do you think ( this 'psychological) security' really is?

K: Having something (inwardly) to which you can cling to and which is not perishable. It may perish eventually but for the time being it is there to hold on to.

B: Like in the past, people used to accumulate gold because gold was the symbol of the imperishable.

S: So the (psychological security ?) is ( knowing that I'm ) having something that 'I' can count on ?

K: Count on, hold on to, cling to, be attached to.
I think that is fairly clear.

B: Wouldn't you say that in so far as thought can project ( its own continuity in ?) time, that it wants to be able to project that everything is going to be all right in the future as far as possible ? In other words the anticipation of what is coming is already the present feeling. You see, if you can anticipate that something bad may come, you are already beginning to feel bad (about yourself) . I would say that ( the common psychological ?) security would be the anticipation that everything will be good in the future. Or, if it is not so good now it will become better with certainty.

S: So then (this 'psychological' ?) security is (found in the hope that everything is ?) 'becoming' (better) .

K: Yes, becoming, perfecting (oneself) . 

S: Right. I see this kind of patients all the time. Their projected belief is '' I will find somebody to love me'', "I will become the chief of the department", "I will become the most famous doctor", "I will become..." and their whole life goes like that. Because it is also focussed on being the 'best'. It seems it is all focussed on anticipating that life is going to be good, when you say that.

B: But you wouldn't raise this question unless you had a lot of experience that your life is 'not so good' - in other words, it is a reaction to having had to much experience of disappointment, of suffering.

K: Would you say that (inwardly) we are not ( fully aware or ?) conscious of the whole movement of (our 'self'-centred?) thought?

B: I think that most people would say : I have had a lot of experience of suffering and disappointment and danger, and that is unpleasant and I would like to be able to anticipate that everything is going to be good. At first sight it would seem that that is really quite natural. But you are saying it is not, that there is something wrong with it ?

K: We are saying there is no such thing as a ( thought projected?) 'psychological' security. We have defined what we mean by this 'security'.

B: Yes, but is it clear now that all our ( existential) hopes are really vain hopes ?

K: Sir, there is death at the end of everything. I am trying to point out that there is no ( temporal) permanency, which means "no tomorrow" psychologically.

B: That hasn't yet come out. We can say empirically that we know these hopes for security are false because first of all you say there is death, secondly you can't count on anything, materially speaking everything changes...and even mentally everything in your head is changing all the time. You can't count on your feelings, you can't count on enjoying tomorrow a certain thing that you enjoy now, or you can't count on being healthy, you can't count on money.

K:(On the long term?) you can rely on nothing (or...you can, but it may be an illusion ?) .

B: So that is a fact. But you seem to be suggesting something deeper ?

K: The (rational observation that 'all things must pass'?) is very superficial. (The deeper implication) is that if there is no such security, then is there (still) a 'tomorrow' ( worth waiting for?) 'psychologically'? And then you take away all 'hope' (wishful thinking?) .

S: Well, I think that is a little quick, because I hear you saying ''there is no security''.

K: But it is so.

S: It is so (maybe for you ?). But for me to really say, "Look, I know there is no ( personal) security"...

K: Why don't you see that?

S: Why don't I see that...?

B: Well, isn't it an observed fact, that there isn't anything you can count on 'psychologically'?

S: Right. But I think there is also some 'action' (involved). Krishnaji is saying, why don't you (see the truth of it ?) . Why don't I?

K: When you hear "there is no security", is it ( seen verbally as) an abstract idea? Or as an actual fact, like that table, like your hand there, or those flowers?

S: I think it mostly becomes an idea.

K: And isn't it part of a (traditional ) objection to see things as they 'are' ?

B: When you're saying say that there is no (psychological) security, there seems to be (a hidden variable :) something which is trying to protect itself, namely the fact that the 'self' is there.

K: Of course...

B: And if this 'self' is really there, it requires security and therefore this creates a (subliminal) resistance to accepting the ( 'no-tomorrow' hypothesis ) as a fact and puts it as an 'idea' only. It seems that the apparent factuality of the 'self' ( which supervising the inquiry) has not been denied.

S: Right. Why do you think it hasn't been denied? What happens?

K: Is it that you refuse to 'see' things as they are? ( At this deeply intimate level the negating ?) 'action' comes through perception, not through ideation.

S: I am glad you are getting into this. Is this what you mean when you talk about the (purifying role of) 'destruction' in (the context of ?) creation? In other words, like 'I am not' ( existing anymore) ?

K: You must 'destroy' that.

S: Why can't I 'do it'?

K: You see you are already entering into the realm of action. I say, first 'see' (the truth or the falseness of ?) it. And from that (enlightening ?) perception the (authentic ) action is inevitable.

S: All right. So, does one actually see that there is no (thought-projected ) 'security' ?

K: No, (but for starters you can see ?) that you are clinging to something, belief and all the rest of it, which gives you ( a subliminal sense of ?) security.

S: OK...

K: Like I cling to this ( Brockwood?) House - it gives me a sense of physical and therefore of psychological security.

S: Right, you have a place to go.

K: A place to go. And a poor man says, ''I have no material security'', but he still wants it. His ( basic notion of ?) 'security' is, give me a good (decent?) job, a house, and a good wife and children; that's my security. So that's how the desire for his material) security enters (surreptitiously?) into the 'psychological' field. Do you see it? The (insightful ?) perception of that is ( synonimous to a ) total action with regard to (the right place of ?) security.

S: I can't see this 'total action'. But I can see that there is a (joint ) process of ( desire &) thought which is driving on, continually.

K: Are you asking why has the ('self'-?) image becomes so fantastically real?

B: Yes. It seems to be standing there 'real', and everything else is referred to it.

K: More real than the marbles, than the hills... Why?

S: It is hard to tell 'why', except it that would give me ( a tangible sense of ?) security.

K: No. We are much further than that...

B: Abstractly you can see this whole thing as no security at all, I mean, just looking at it professionally and abstractly. But when it comes to ( seeing the living truth of ?) this, no proof seems to work. You (K) may say all that but here I am presented with the solid reality of 'myself' and 'my security' - and there is a sort of ( mental) reaction which seems to say, ''well, that may be possible but for me.... it's only words''. It seems that the 'real thing' is Me, which is all important.

S: No question about it. 'Me' is all important.

K: Which is a ( very strong, self-identified?) 'idea'...

B: But it doesn't (just feel like just an 'idea' ) - we can say abstractly it is just an 'idea'. The (experiential) question is, how do you actually 'break into' this ( identitary psychic ?) process?

K: I think we can 'break into it', or 'break through it', or 'get beyond it', only through ( a time-free ?) perception.

B: Now, our trouble is that all that we have been talking about is in the form of (trading ?) ideas. They may be correct ideas but they won't break into this  ('ego' - package ?) because it dominates the whole of our thinking.

K: If I feel that my (illusion of inner) security lies in some 'image' I have (of myself) - a picture, a symbol, a conclusion, an ideal and so on- I would put it not as an 'abstraction' but bring it down. You see it is so.

( Here's an elementary example : ) Suppose that I believe in something. Now I say, why do I believe ?

B: Well, have you actually done that (kind of self-introspection?) ?

K: No, I haven't because I had no beliefs. I have no ( self-image) picture, I don't go in for all those kind of ( Psychological?) Games. I said, 'if' …

S: Right...

K: So, I would bring the 'abstracted thing' into a perceptive reality.

S: To see my (personal attachment to that ?) belief, is that it?

K: To 'see' it.

S: Right. To see that 'me' in operation...

K: Yes, if you like to put it that way.
Let's take a (still ) simpler thing: haven't you a (personal) 'concept' or 'conclusion' about something? Take the 'concept' that.. I am an 'Englishman'.

B: The trouble is that people don't feel attached anymore to this kind of 'concepts'...

S: Let's take one that is real for me: take the one about me being a (psy) 'doctor'.  That is a (solid personal ) 'conclusion' based on my (medical) training, based on experience, based on the enjoyment of the work.

K: Which means what? That as a 'doctor' you capable of certain (medical) activities.

S: OK. My concept that I am a doctor is based on all that. And I continually act along that line .

K: Yes, sir, so what is 'real' in that? Your (med school ?) training. Your knowledge. Your daily operation.

S: Right...

K: That's all. The rest is a 'conclusion' (an assuption?) .

B: But what is the rest?
K: The rest ? That 'I' am doing much better than anybody else here .

B: Or else this ( professional) thing is going to keep me occupied in a good way...

K: I will never be lonely.

B: Well, that is part of it. But isn't there also a certain fear that if I don't have this, then things will be going bad? Then I have no money; fear.

K: So 'loneliness' is back. Therefore, be 'occupied' (& keep busy ?) .

S: 'Be occupied' is completing this concept. Do you realize how important that is to all people, to be occupied? I can see them running around.

K: Sir, a housewife is occupied. Remove that occupation, she says, what shall I do?

S: We know that as a fact. Since they put these new electrical equipments into the house, women are going crazy, they have nothing to do with their spare time...

K: Now is this occupation an abstraction, or actuality?

S: This is an actuality. I am actually occupied.
B: Well, 'being occupied' it seems to me has a psychological meaning, that my mind is in that thing in a relatively harmonious way. There was something I saw on television once of a woman who was highly disturbed, it showed on the graph, but when you was occupied doing her maths, the graph went beautifully smooth. She stopped doing the sums and it went all over the place. Do you, therefore, she had to 'keep on doing something' to keep the brain working right.

K: Which means what? A ( safely repetitive ?) mechanical process.

B: It seems the brain starts 'jumping all over the place' unless it has this thing.

K: So you have reduced yourself to an (efficient thinking?) machine ?

B: But why does the human brain begin to go so wild when it is not occupied? This seems to be a common experience.

K: Because in occupation there is ( a sense of temporal ?) security.

B: Right. So our need for security really means we want ( a sense of inner peace &) order. Is that right?

K: That's it.

B: We want order inside the brain. And we also want to be able to project that order into the future, for ever.

S: That's right. But would you say that you can get (this sense of inner security just ) by mechanical order?

B: Then we get dissatisfied with it : "I am getting bored with it, I am sick of this mechanical life, I want something more interesting". You see, the mechanical order won't satisfy it because it works only for a little while.

S: OK. But suppose that doesn't happen. Suppose some people become totally satisfied with their job?

B: Well, they don't really, or then they become dull...

K: So ( functioning) 'mechanically' (on auto-pilot?) : and if you stop that mechanism, the brain goes wild.

B: Right. Or they feel a bit dull and they would like some entertainment, or something more interesting and exciting. And therefore there is a contradiction, there is conflict and confusion in the whole thing. Well, take this woman who could always get everything (psychologically) 'right' by doing arithmetical sums, but we can't keep on doing arithmetical sums! (Laughter) I mean somewhere she has got to stop doing these arithmetical sums. Then her brain will go wild again.

K: Sir, he (Dr Shainberg) is asking what is disturbing him. He feels he hasn't put his teeth into it.

S: Let's say I can get this mechanical order from occupying myself with something I like. So I keep doing more of that. It is like an accumulative process.

K: So, from one mechanical process, you get bored with it, and move to another mechanical process...

S: That's right.

K: ...get bored with it and keep going. And you call that 'living'... ?

B: I see that the trouble in it is that I now try to be sure that I can keep on doing this, because I can always anticipate a future when I won't be able to do it. I will be a bit too old for the job, or else I'll fail. I'll lose the job, or something. In other words, I still have insecurity in that ( temporal ?) order.

K: Essentially, essentially it is 'mechanical disorder'.

S: Masking itself as order. I see that, yes.

B: Right. Then the point is, are you driven to adopt these ( patterns of mechanical order ?) because you are frightened of the (potential) instability of the brain ? That will merely be masking ( a deeper level of) disorder.

S: Well, then you are suggesting that this is being the 'natural disorder' of the brain ?

B: This seems to be a fact : that the human brain without occupation tends to go into ( mental or behavioral) disorder. In other words, I feel that the main danger comes from within.

K: Absolutely. Now, when you 'see it' there is ( the possibility of an) action which is not fragmented.

B: You see, we do not know whether this 'disorder' can stop. There seems to be nothing that can control that disorder. You may take pills, or do various things, but it is always (going on ) there in the background.

K: Quite right.

B: So, one question is, why do we have this disorder?

K: I think this ( collateral ) disorder (of the 'time-thought' process ?) arises when there are 'mechanical' processes going on (on their own?) . And in that mechanical process the brain feels secure, and when the mechanical process is disturbed it becomes insecure.

S: Then it does it again. It never stays (long enough) with that (inner sense of ) insecurity.

B: The question is, why does the brain get caught in (the time-thought?) mechanism?

K: Because ( functioning in the 'auto-pilot' mode ?) is the most 'secure' way of living (a 'no-brainer'?) .

B: Well, it appears that way.

K: Not just 'appears'. It 'is so' for the time being.

S: Are you saying we are ( genetically) conditioned to be 'time bound'?

K: No. But we are 'conditioned' by the culture we live in, to operate mechanically.

S: We take the 'easy way' ?

K: The easy way.

B: But it is also a kind of (honest) mistake : in the beginning the mechanical way (the 'auto-pilot' mode ?) shows signs of being safer, and at the beginning the brain makes a 'honest mistake' and says, "This is safer", but somehow it holds to this mistake. Like in the beginning you might call it an innocent mistake to say, "This look safer and I will follow it". But then after a while you are getting evidence that it is not so safe, the brain begins to reject it, keep away from ( acknowledging) it.

S: Why doesn't it see that at some stage it went wrong?

K: You are asking: why doesn't it see that this mechanical process is essentially ( accumulating inner) disorder ?

B: And that it is ultimately disorderly and even dangerous (deadly?) .

S: Why don't I? For instance, I have seen my life is mechanical.

K: Now wait. Why is it 'mechanical'?
S: I want it to be easy. I feel that that gives me the most security, to keep it mechanical. I get a (safe) boundary. I have the house, I have got my mechanical life, that gives me security, ( the only draw-back being that ) it is mechanical & repetitious.

K: You haven't answered my question. What has caused us to accept this 'mechanical' ( & culturally standardised ?) way of living?

S: I am not sure I can answer that...

K: Wouldn't you be 'frightened' if the mechanical (continuity ?) of your life would suddenly stop ?

S: Yes. It feels like that things would take on a terribly 'moment-by-moment' effect.

K: Now look, sir : wouldn't an inner sense of 'total order' give it complete security? The brain wants this sense of total order. Otherwise it can't function properly. Therefore (not finding it available ?) it accepts the mechanical, and hoping it will find order in that.

B: Could you say that perhaps in the beginning the brain accepted this ('auto-pilot' mode ) just simply not knowing that this mechanism would bring disorder and it just went into it in an innocent state?

K: Yes...

B: But it got caught in (its own safety?) trap, you see. And somehow it maintains (jealously?) this (orderly form of?) 'disorder', it doesn't even want to get out of it.

K: Because it is frightened of creating a still greater disorder.

B: Yes. It says, all that I've built up may go to pieces. In other words, I am not in the same situation as when I first went in the trap because now I have already built up a great structure. I think that structure will go to pieces.

K: What I am trying to get it is, the brain needs this ( inner sense of harmony and ?) order, otherwise it can't function (properly) . It finds order in mechanical process because it is trained from childhood; do as you are told, etc., etc., etc.

B: Also there is (a subliminal) fear of giving up this mechanism at the same time. You are thinking that without this everything will go to pieces, including especially the brain.

K: Yes, which means the brain must have order. And it finds ( empirically a sense of harmony & ?) order in a mechanical way of life. ( On the other hand?) if I live entirely in the ( safe memories of the ) past, which I think it is very orderly, and what takes place? I am already ( as good as?) 'dead' and I can't meet anything new.

S: I am repeating myself always, right.

K: Now do you see ( what's wrong with ?) this whole thing? And therefore ( the possibility of ) an instant action breaking it all away and therefore ( a non-mechanical inner ?) order and the brain says, at last I have an order which is absolutely indestructible.

B: Well, it doesn't just follow from what you said that this would (really) happen. In other words, it is you who are saying this.

K: I am saying this.

B: Yes, but... it doesn't follow logically.

K: It would follow ( even) logically if you (will) go into it (for homework ?) …

B: Maybe we can go now into it. How can we reach the (pivot ) point where it really follows necessarily?

K: I think we can only go into it if you perceive (what is really wrong with?) the (mental ) mechanical structure which the brain has developed, attached and cultivated.

S: I can see this 'mechanical-ness' in the common interchanges between people, in the way they talk at a cocktail party, and it is all about what happened before, you can see them telling you who they are, in terms of their past. I can see what they will be. This is the way our everyday (social) life really is.

K: That's right. Therefore, why don't you change it?

S: How do I change it ?

K: As we were saying : when the ( constant streaming of the?) 'past' ( memory) meets the present and 'ends' there, there is a totally different thing takes place.

S: Yes. But 'the past doesn't meet the present' so often...

K: I mean, it is taking place 'now'.

S: Right now. Right. We are seeing it 'now'.

K: Therefore can it stop there?

B: Well, the (memory of the ?) past is generally active in the present ( as moving) towards the future. Now when the 'past meets the present' then the past stops acting. And what it means is that thought stops acting so that ( sense of Universal?) Order comes about.

S: Do you think that the 'past meets the present', or 'the present meets the past'?

K: How do you meet me? With all (your past ?) memories, all the 'images', the 'reputation', the words with all that (recognition package?) , which is the (recycled memory of) past, you meet me 'now'. So, (usually) the (memory of the ?) 'past' is meeting the present.

B: But aren't you saying that the past should stop meeting the present?

K: What I am trying to say is that the (dynamic memory of the ?) past can meet the 'present' (moment) and 'end' there. Not move forward.

S: Why should it stop there ?

K: I will show it to you : if I meet you now with my (whole background of ?) memories of the past, I never meet you (directly) . Now if I don't have that movement going on...

S: But I do...

K: Of course you do. But I say that that is (perpetuating the existing) disorder. When the 'past' meets the 'present' and continues, it is (introducing) the ('entropic' ) factors of time, movement, bondage, and so on. Now, if when I am (becoming) completely aware of this (never-ending) 'movement', then it stops. Then I meet you "as though for the first time", it is like a 'new flower' coming out.

S: Yes, I understand...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 #75
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

3RD K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG (experientially friendly edited)

Can thought become aware of its own movement ?

Krishnamurti: Shall we start where we left off? We were asking, weren't we, why do human beings live this way, in this appalling (inner disorder and ?) misery? Why?

S: Well, I have often said they do it because their ( struggling with the ?) problems, is ( creating a false sense ?) of security.

Dr Bohm: I think people just get used to (living in a state of inner conflict. I mean they are missing anything they got used to.

K: Is it that we like it?

S: As long as I know my conflicts I know what I am at.

K: Have we all become neurotic? And I come along and say, 'why'? Is it that we have started out on the wrong path and now we feel that we cannot do anything about it?

B: That's been an old story. People said for ages that the human nature can never be altered. I mean that is not new at all...

S: Right, and the fact of the matter is that most people don't even try to change.

K: They do, there are dozens of ways they have tried to change.  But essentially (deeply ) they are still the same.

B: I think people cannot find out how to change the human nature.

S: Is that it? Or is it the fact that the very nature of the way they want to change it is part of the old process itself?

K: Look, sir, take yourself - why don't you change?

S: Well, the immediate feel of it is that there is still some sort of false security, (in keeping this ?) fragmentation, the immediate pleasures that are gotten from the fragmentation; in other words there is still that movement of fragmentation. There is not a "seeing of the whole thing". I mean we keep getting something back from (the present way of life ) , we get these immediate pleasure and failures, frustrations from...

K: There is a much deeper issue than that : is it that the 'entity' that wishes to change sets (a self-centred ?) pattern of change, and therefore the (self-centred?) pattern is always the same, but under a different colour?

S: Can you say it another way?

K: I want to change. And I plan out what to change, how to bring about this change. But the 'planner' is always the same (ego-centric entity) .

S: That's right. I have an image of what I want to achieve through this change.

K: Therefore the patterns are new but the old (subliminal mentality ?) is always controlling the new.

B: But when I do that I don't feel that I am the 'old', but that I am the 'new man'... I really don't feel involved in the 'old stuff' that I want to change. It is a kind of 'sleight of hand trick' whereby the thing which is causing the trouble is put into position to make the change. You see, it is a deception.

K: I am deceiving myself all the time by saying, I am going to change 'this' and become 'that'. You read some Hindu book and say, ''yes, how true that is, I am going to live according to that''. But the 'me' that is going to live according to that is the same old 'me'.

S: That's right. We run into this in psychotherapy, with our patients, for instance, the patient will say, the doctor is going to be the one who is going to help him. Right? And then when they see that their doctor is not going to help them, they have never touched that central issue, which is that I thought that somebody could help me. So then they go to something else, most of them go to another theory ( therapy ?) .
So, your point is that the root is this belief that someone or something can help you ?

K: No, the root ( is that this 'centre' of self-interest ?) remains the same. And we (indulge in ) 'trimming the branches'.

B: I think we don't see the 'root-cause' because we put it in the position of the 'one who is supposed to be seeing'. It is a sort of 'conjuring trick': we don't see the root because the root is put into the position of somebody who would be looking for the root.

K: Yes, sir. So if I really want to change I don't accept anybody's authority in all this. (The need for a psychological ) 'authority' arises only when I am confused, when I am (indulging ?) in disorder.

S: That's right.

K: So can I completely change at the very root?

B: Well, there seems to be a confusion in the language itself - because you said , "I am going to change", and it is not clear what I mean by 'I'.

K: The 'I' is the root.

B: So, if the 'I' is the root, how can the 'I'... change? You see, your ( 'holistic' ?) language is confusing because you say, I have got to change at the root, you see, but 'I' am the root.

K: Yes...

B: So how is it going to happen?

S: That's the question. Let's roll it back a second. You stated you are not going to accept any authority. Now, there is this whole theory, that if I go along with the ( guidance of an ?) authority to the point where I see my addiction to authority, then I free myself from the authority. You know that?

K: Yes. They say "Freedom comes at the end of good discipline. And discipline is what I tell you".

S: Right. In other words by 'giving myself over' (temporarily) I will discover my error. What do you want to say about that?

B: Why do you have to follow ( someone's spiritual) authority to see (what's wrong with ?) authority? Do you have to deceive yourself in order to understand self-deception? I mean, that is absurd because when you are really deceiving yourself you obviously don't know what you are doing. If you don't truly deceive yourself, what is the point?

K: ( To recap:) Is it possible for a human being to change at the very root of his (psychological) being? They have tried in many different ways to bring about this 'miraculous' change - and it 'is' a miraculous change !

S: It would be, yes, yes.

K: It is. And a man like us, comes along and says, look, I don't want to accept anybody's (spiritual) authority, because they have misguided everybody - this (self- interest generated) disorder has created them, not clarity, not compassion, not something entirely different. It is the disorder that has created them. So I reject all that because I see it .
Now, how do I proceed? I have got ( a few ?) more years to live. What is the 'right' action?
If everybody would have said, "I can't help you", you have to do it yourself, look at yourself, then the whole thing is beginning to act.

B: I may feel that this (inner & outer) chaos is too much for me and I just assume that somebody else can tell me what to do. But that comes out of this confusion.

S: Yes, the very disorder creates the (need for an ?) authority.

B: It creates among common people the general impression that they need (to rely on someone's) authority to correct the ongoing disorder, you see. That would be more exact.

K: Right. So let's start from there. In the rejection of (any 'spiritual' ?) authority I am beginning to become (a little more responsible & ?) 'sane'. Now what shall I do? What is the correct (way of ) action in my life? Can I ever find it by (indulging in ) being neurotic? I can't. So, can I free my mind from being 'neurotic', is it (experientially ) possible? I am very serious now (inwardly) , because ( I realise?) that it's my life.

B: But you have to be so serious in spite of the immense pressures to 'escape'...

K: I won't.

B: ...you won't. But I am saying that one may feel at this 'juncture' (point ?) that there will probably be an intense pressure towards 'escape', saying this is too much for me...

K: No, sir. When I reject (anybody's spiritual ?) authority I have much more energy.

S: That's right. I have to be really open to 'what is', since that is all I have got.

K: So, what shall I do?

S: Is there a more intense alertness ?

K: I am going to first see in what ways I an 'neurotic'. I am (inwardly like) the world and the world is ( an extension of ?) me. Do you see what it does?

S: It puts you straight up there in front ?

K: It gives you a tremendous sense of integrity. Now can I look at my neuroticism? What makes me neurotic? All the (self-centred content ?) which makes the 'me'. Can my consciousness empty itself of all that?

S: But to start with, your consciousness 'is' that …

K: Of course.

B: But...is it only that?

K: For the moment ( for holistic 'educational purposes' ?) I am limiting it to that.

S: That is 'my' consciousness. This 'me' is made out of the proliferation of these fragments. Is that right?

K: Of course. But can you take one fragment at a time and look at it? Or can you take the 'whole of it' and look at it?

S: How exactly can you "take the whole of it" and look at it?

B: It seems to be (the same ) language problem here, because if you say you 'are' that, how are 'you' going to look at it?

K: I'll show you in a minute. We'll go into it.

B: I mean, it's ( creating an additional ) difficulty just in stating it .

K: I know, it is a verbal (confusion ?) - you know, the words are wrong...

B: So... we shouldn't take these words too literally ?

K: (Not) too literally, of course.

B: Could we say that these ( 'holistic' ?) words can be used flexibly?

K: The word is not the thing ( it describes) .
B: But since we are actually using these words, the question is how are we to understand them ? You see, in some way they can offer an (experiential) 'clue' to what we are talking about. So, it seems to me that one trouble ( we're having ?) with these ('clue') words is that take them to mean something very fixed, and imagine that my consciousness is just so : I 'am' the neurosis, we take it as a very fixed condition.

K: It is ( actually ) moving.

B: Yes, it is moving and changing itself ( in time), therefore you can't just exactly say "I 'am' the neurosis".

K: It is constantly in ( a state of) 'flux'.

S: So, you are saying that the very thing that we are investigating is a ( consciousness in ?) movement. That is the (time-bound ?) consciousness.

K: That's it. And ( the next experiential step is ?) can you look at it non-verbally ? Is that possible? Can one realize (non-verbally) that one lives in ( a self-enclosed space of ?) conclusions & memories, which is (at least potentially?) a 'neurotic' (condition) ?

S: That is, you live in (a mental space of ?) words.

K: Words, 'images' and their 'reality'. My belief may be illusory, but because I believe so strongly it is (quite) 'real' to me.
So can I examine the nature of this belief, how it arose, by looking at it (non-verbally ) ? You have got a belief, haven't you?

S: Oh, yes. This morning we were talking about my belief of being a (very successful psy ) doctor.

K: Can you look at that belief?

S: But how am I going to look at it if I really believe it? In other words, look: I say "there is a God". How can I look at my 'belief in God' ?

K: Why do you believe? What is the necessity of ( believing in ) God? Not that I am an atheist, but I am asking you.

S: The general answer is that : "God is there for me", if I believe.

K: Then there is no ( further ) investigation, you have stopped. You have shut the door (to the Unknown ?) .

S: That's right. But you see, we have actually got such ( strong) beliefs.

K: One has tried hundreds of times to show this to somebody who has a very strong belief, and he says, "What are you talking about? This is Reality".

B: That's right. That is how the word becomes the "reality". Can we investigate that?

K: Why words have become 'reality' ?

B: I think the deeper question involved is : how does the mind sets up the sense of 'reality' - in some way the words set up in the brain a (mental) 'construction of reality'. Then everything is referred to that construction of reality.

S: How are we to investigate that?

K: What created that 'reality'? Can we say that whatever man's thought has put together is ( our man-made) 'reality'? The chair, the table, all these electric lights; and also the illusions it has created are a reality.

B: But this ( mental) 'construction of reality' has its place because that table is real although the brain has constructed it. But then ( the self-centred thinking) goes further and we say that mentally we did construct a 'psychological' reality, which seems intensely real, very strong. I think that what happens is that the illusion builds up very fast; once you (mentally) construct this 'reality', all its events are referred to it as if they were coming from that reality. You see, and it builds up a tremendous structure, a 'cloud' around it of support.

K: Let's (recap?) : We have said no ( spiritual) authority, nobody can say to another, "This is the right thing to do", because we are trying to find out what is the right action in life. I can only find that out if there is no disorder in me. And...however 'real' this ( egotistic?) 'me' is, that is the source of disorder.

S: Right...

K: Because that separates 'me' and 'you', and 'we' and 'they', 'my' nation, 'my' God . Now we are asking: can this (self-centred ) consciousness be aware of itself? - or can thought become aware of its own movement?

B: That's the question. Can thought understand its own structure ?

S: But... is it thought that is becoming aware of itself? Or is it something else?

K: Try it now : can your thought become aware of itself, of its own movement ?

(Long pause.....)

B: It stops.

K: What does that mean?

S: It means what it says: in this (direct) observation of thought, thought stops.

K: No, don't put it that way.

S: How would you put it?

K: It is undergoing a radical change.

B: So (your 'holistic' use of ?) the word 'thought' is not a fixed thing either ?

K: No.

B: The word 'thought' does not mean a fixed thing. It can change (into a ' holistic thinking'?)

K: That's right.

B: In ( the context of an objective ?) perception ?

K: You have told me that in the very observation through an microscope of the object, the (movement of the ?) 'object' undergoes a change.

B: In the quantum theory the 'object' cannot be fixed apart from the act of observation.

S: This is true even with patients in psychoanalysis. Being with the patient they change automatically.

K: What takes place when thought ( when the thinking brain ?) is ( becoming ?) aware of itself? You know, sir, this is an extraordinarily important thing. Can the 'doer' become aware of his 'doing'? 

(Here's a practical example:) When I move this vase from here to there, can I be aware of that moving? I stretch out the arm and so on and so on.

S: Yes...

K: Now inwardly, can there be a (similar ) awareness of (the mental 'movement' of ) thought, of what it has created, what it has done in the world, the misery, and all the rest of it ?

S: I'd want to save this question for tomorrow: when you are aware of your movement of the vase, the physical movement doesn't stop. But when you are aware of (thought's) movement of the brain it does stop. Isn't that interesting?

B: The irrelevant activities of thought stops

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 10 Feb 2018 #76
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

4TH K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG

ALL-ONENESS AND THE ENDING OF 'THOUGHT-TIME'  (experientially friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: You know I don't think we answered fully yesterday the question: why human beings live the way the are living. We went into the question of "can thought observe itself ?", but I think we ought to answer that first question.

S: Well, my immediate answer to that question was : because ( for lack of anything better...?) they 'like it'.

K: I think it is much deeper than that : if one actually (would radically) transform one's ( self-centred) conditioning, he might find himself in a very difficult position. It is like going 'against the current'.

B: Are you saying that it might lead to a certain objective 'insecurity' ?

K: Objective insecurity.

B: A lot of things we are discussing yesterday, was about some 'illusion' of security. In addition there is some genuine insecurity ?

K: Doesn't it imply you have to 'stand alone' , because it is like (inwardly being) completely away from the 'stream' (of self-interest ?) . And that means you have to be psychologically 'all-one'; can a human being stand that ( inner condition of all-oneness?) ?

S: Well commonly the other alternative is completely to be together.

K: That is ( follow your) herd instinct, which all these totalitarian (minded) people use, be together, be with people, don't be alone.

B: Well, it is unclear because in some sense we should 'be together', but the modern society is giving us a false sense of 'togetherness' which is really ( covering up our inner ?) fragmentation.

K: Quite right. So would you say that one of the main reasons, that human beings don't want to radically transform themselves is that they are really frightened not to belong to a group, to a herd ( mentality ?) , which implies (taking the risk of?) standing completely alone?  (Personally) I think that from the (newly found sense ?) 'all-oneness' one can co-operate (intelligently) ; but not the other way round.

B: Well, the anthropologists find that in the primitive people, the sense of belonging to the tribe is even stronger, they feel completely lost, their entire 'psychological structure' depends on being in the tribe.

K: So, this is one of the (main) reasons why we don't want to change - we are (subliminally) frightened (to let go the known?) Cling to the ( existential ?) misery that you already know, than come into another kind of misery that you don't know.

S: That's right : by being with others you are feeling safe. And I mean it even goes further: I compare myself with you and therefore, "I am together with you" (but I'm doing better ?) , is the afterthought.

B: Even if you leave off ( the personal) comparison, there is something deeper in the sense that people feel this 'togetherness', this sense of belonging to a group, they just feel it is safe, they will be taken care of and that fundamentally it will be all right because the group consciousness is wiser, it knows what to do. I think there is a feeling like that (in all living species) rather deep. The ( Sunday) church may give that same feeling.

K: The feeling of 'alone'-ness has got a great deal in it. It isn't just ( one's personal) isolation.

B: Isn't there an 'aloneness' (all-oneness ?) in which you have a certain security?

K: Yes, that is right. In ( an inwardly integrated ?) 'all-oneness' you can be completely secure.

B: I wonder if we could discuss that because most people feel that they should have a basic sense of security and they are looking for it in a group, the group being representative of something universal. For the little child the ( his familial ?) 'tribe' is the whole world, you know.

K: If a human being transforms himself he becomes 'all-one'. That (inner sense of ?) 'all-oneness' is not isolation but a form of supreme intelligence.

B: Yes, but at first, when you say 'I am feeling alone', the (actual ) feeling is that I am entirely apart. Right?

S: What would the average person experience when they are alone? They experience isolation.

K: ( But from a holistic point of view?) when one realizes the appalling state of the world the disorder, the confusion, the misery and all the rest of it, and when one sees that there must be a total change, a total transformation, he has already begun to move away from all that.

S: Right. But he is ( feeling pretty safe in ) belonging to this group.

K: Yes, identifying oneself with the group, and remain with the group, what does it mean? The ( shared consciousness of the ) group 'is' me and... I 'am' the ( consciousness of the ) group. Therefore it is like co-operating with ( a multitude of ?) 'myself'.

B: Well, Descartes said, "I think, therefore I am" (''what you think is what you are''?) . So, if you think 'I am in the group', therefore 'I am (impersonating the ego-centric consciousness of the group ?) '. Now, if I am not in the group where am I? In other words, I have no being at all. That is really the condition of the primitive tribe : I feel that my very existence, my being psychologically, is implied in being first in the group. The group has made me, everything about me has come from the group. I say I am nothing without the group.

K: Yes, quite right. I 'am' (the shared consciousness of the ?) group, in fact.

B: And therefore the greatest punishment that the group could make, is to banish him, because such a banishment sort of 'robs them of his being', it is almost like killing him, you see.

K: Of course. I think that is (the origin of ?) this fear of being alone. Alone is translated as being isolated from all this.

B: Right. Could we say (isolated ?) from an Universal Consciousness ?

K: Yes, from the universal.

B: Now, you are implying that if you are (getting inwardly integrated as 'all-one'), then you are not isolated from the (Mind of the ?) Universe.

K: Absolutely.

S: Right, when that false security (of belonging to the group) is dropped, then one is 'opened up' to the participation in...

K: No, you 'are' (integrated in ?) the Universe.

B: You see, as a child I felt that my hometown was the whole universe, then I heard of another town beyond that which felt almost beyond the universe. That must be the ultimate limit of all reality, you see. So that the idea of going beyond that would not even have occurred to me. (Laughter) And I think that the (subliminal ) feeling you have, it is like the little child.

K: Therefore is it that human beings (gregariously enjoy ?) holding on to their own misery, confusion, and all the rest of it because they don't know anything else? The 'known' is so far, then the 'unknown'.

S: Right...

K: Now to be Alone ( 'all-in-one' ?) implies, doesn't it, to 'step out' of the ( thought – time?) stream of this utter confusion, disorder, sorrow and despair, hope, travail, all that, to 'step out' of all that.

S: Right.

K: And still deeper than that: to be ( inwardly) 'all-one' implies not to carry the 'burden of tradition' with you at all.

B: Tradition being the ( mentality of the ?) group, then ?

K: Tradition being ( living in the field our past) knowledge.

B: Knowledge comes basically from the group. Knowledge is collected by everybody.

K: So to be (inwardly integrated 'all-one' ) 'Alone' implies total freedom. And when there is that great freedom it is ( 'being one' with the whole ?) Universe.

B: Could we go into that further, because it doesn't look so obvious.

K: 'Cosmos' implies total order...

B: And 'Chaos' is what we are.

K: Chaos is what we live with. So, what has actual reality is my confusion, my (inner) 'chaos'.

S: I belong to a group.

K: Chaos is ( created by the ego-centric mentality of the ?) group : political leaders, religious, the whole thing is an (orderly form of ?) Chaos. So to move away from that into Cosmos, which is total Order, means there is a total (inner) order which is not associated with disorder, chaos. That is 'All-One'.

B: Yes, now, suppose several people are doing that, moving into order out of the (organised) 'chaos' of society : they are no more feeling 'alone'?

K: No, they don't feel alone there. There is only order.

B: Are these people 'different' ?

K: Sir, if we three are (feeling integrated in this ?) Cosmic (order) , there is only that Cosmic (Intelligence ?) , not Dr Bohm, Dr Shainberg and me.

B: Therefore we are 'all-one' (all as one?)

K: Which is, Order is all-one.

B: I looked up the word 'alone' in the dictionary; basically it is coming from 'all one'. In other words there is no (self-) fragmentation.

K: Therefore there is no three; and that is marvellous, sir.

S: But you 'jumped' here. We have actually got chaos and confusion.

K: So, to move away from this (static inner condition ?) most people are afraid, which is (subliminally afraid ?) to have total (a non-personal) order. Being 'all-one' there is no ( sense of personal ) fragmentation, then there is Cosmos.

S: Right. But 'as of now...) most people are (living in ?) confusion and chaos. That is all they know.

K: So how do you 'move away' from that? That is the whole question.

S: That is the question. Here we are ( indulging in ?) chaos and confusion, we are not 'over there'.

K: No, because you may be (unconsciously ?) frightened.

S: Frightened of what ?

K: Frightened of the (very ?) idea of "being alone".

S: How can you be frightened of an idea?

B: That is easy!

K: Aren't you frightened of ( what may happen ?) tomorrow? Which is a ( self-projected ?) idea.

S: OK. That is an idea.

K: So they are frightened of an 'idea' ( image of aloneness?) which they have projected: I will have nobody to rely on.

S: Right, but that is an idea.

B: Well, let's go slowly. To a certain extent it is genuinely so. You are not being supported by society and all that. You do have a certain (intuition of a ) genuine danger because you have withdrawn from the nub of society.

S: I think we are getting confused here, because if we have got chaos, and if you have an idea about 'being alone' that is just another idea, another thought, another part of the chaos.

K: That is all.

S: OK. Now let me say what my idea is: that most people are let's say 'unaware', about this (being) 'all-one'.

K: Yes. Therefore they say, "I would rather stay (put) where I am, in my little pond, rather than face total isolation".

S: That's right...
K: And that may be one of the (subliminal ?) reasons that human beings don't radically change. The other reason is we are so heavily conditioned to accept things as they are. We don't say to ourselves, "Why should I live this way?"

S: That is certainly true. We definitely are conditioned to believe that 'this is all (there is '?) .

B: Well, that is important. This word 'all' is one of the traps. If you say "this is all that can be", then what can you do?

K: Nothing, nothing.

B: You see that is (due to our rigid ?) use of language which may be (eventually have to be ?) changed : for instance the word 'all'...

K: When you say, "This is all we know", you have already stopped.

B: And what does the word 'all' do ? It closes (all further enquiry) . It turns an idea into a 'reality' because apparently it gives that sense of reality to the idea, because if you say "that is all there is", then... that has to be 'real'.

S: Yes. I think that is a very good point. So again, (our rigid use of) language itself is (a major) conditioning factor …

K: So ( to recap:) (a) human beings don't dare to (think about) radically transforming themselves since they are frightened of being isolated from the group, banished from the group. That is one reason. And (b) traditionally we are so conditioned that we would rather accept (and try to optimise the ?) things as they are; our misery, our chaos, all the rest of it. 

So, then, what will make human beings change radically? May I ask you (Dr Shainberg a very 'personal' ?) question? Why don't you change? What is preventing you?

S: I don't have any answer!

K: You have never asked yourself that ( potentially destabilising?) question. Right?

S: Not so radically...

K: We are asking here the 'basic' ( holistic ? ) questions.

S: Well, I don't really know the answer to the question.

K: Is it that our (self-centred) thought says, "I can't do this (even if I'd want to ?) , therefore an outside agency is necessary to change me"? Is it because thought doesn't see its own 'limitation' and realize that it cannot change itself?
S: What thought does in fact is that it (plans to achieve ?) this through a series of gradual changes.

K: That is a (very clever ?) invention of thought.

S: Yes, but that is where I think the 'hook' is.

K: No, sir, please sir, just listen. Thought has put this (man-made ?) world together. Technologically as well as psychologically. Now, the technological world is all right, but 'psychologically' (for its own safety & pleasure ?) thought has divided (our reality ?) in 'me' and 'outside me' – and...does it realize it has made this mess, this chaos?

B: I would say that it doesn't. It tends to look on the (outer) chaos as independently existent...It is very hard for it to see that. You see we were discussing that at the end of the hour yesterday really.

K: Yes, really we are ( eventually) coming back to that , but (first) does thought realize that the chaos it has created?

B: You see, thought always tends to attribute the (causes of this) chaos to something else; either to something outside, or to 'me' who is inside. At most I can say that "I have done it", but then thinking is attributing.

K: Thought has created (the 'me -who-thinks' ?) .
B: But also thought has assumed that this 'me' is not thought, but in reality it is. So it is important to keep clear whether this ' me-who-thinks' is a 'reality' that is dependent on this whole inner movement, or whether it stands independent. As of now, thought is treating the 'me' as an independent reality and therefore it doesn't take credit for what it does itself.

K: To me ( K) thought has created the 'me'. And so the 'me' who is ( in charge of) 'thinking' is not separate from thought. It is the (self-dividing ?) nature of our thought that has made 'me'.

S: Right...

K: Now: does thought realize this?

S: It does... but in flashes (every now & then) .

K: No, not 'in flashes'. You don't see that table in a flash, it is always there. 
We have asked a question yesterday : does thought see itself in movement? ( Its survival oriented?) movement has created the 'me', created the chaos, created the division, created the conflict, jealousy, anxiety, fear and all that ('psychological' package)

S: OK. So, what is the actuality of "thought seeing itself" ?

K: You want me to describe it for you ?

S: No, but it seems that thought 'sees' and then...forgets.

K: I am asking a very 'simple' ( holistic ?) question. Does ( our self-centred) thought see the ( outer & inner) chaos it has created? Which means, is thought aware of itself as a 'movement' ? Not 'I' am aware of (my) 'thought'. This 'I' has been created by thought.

B: But I think the question that is relevant is: why does thought keep on going? You see, how does it sustain itself? Because as long as it sustains itself it does produce its own 'independent' reality. 
The (experientially critical) point is : can this very thought stop right now? What is sustaining its whole mechanism at this very moment ?

S: Yes, that's the question.

B: We may have a certain insight (into its self-centred nature ?) , but something happens ( deeper down ?) to sustain the old process right now.

K: You asked a very good question: why does thought move? What is movement? Movement is time. Right?

S: That's too quick !

K: Obviously, to move from 'here' to 'there' ( takes time) . Physically to go from from here to New York. 
And inwardly our thought also moves from 'here' to 'there' ( within the mental space of the 'known' ?) Thought 'is' (projecting its own ) 'movement' (in a virtual space & time?) .

S: This has to be made more clear...

B: I think there is an intermediary step that might help : to ask myself what is it that makes me 'go on thinking' or... talking. In other words, I often can watch people and see they are 'in a hole' just because they keep on talking: if they would stop talking their whole problem would vanish. I mean it is just this flow of words, because what they say then comes out as if it were a 'reality' in them, and then they say: Yes, that is my problem, it is real, and I have got to think about it some more. I think there is a kind of a (mental loop or ?) feedback. Suppose I say, 'Well, I have got a problem, I am suffering'.

S: You have got an 'I' though...

B: Yes. 'I' am thinking of my suffering but in that it is implicit that it is 'I' who is there, and that suffering is real because 'I' am real.

S: Right....

B: And then comes the next thought, which is: since (my suffering ?) is real, I must think some more about it.

S: Right...it feeds on itself.

B: Yes. And then one of the things I must think, what is my problem ? That I am suffering. And I feel compelled to keep on thinking (along ) this ( thread of) thought all the time. And (by the same stroke) maintaining 'myself' in existence. Do you see what I am driving at? That there is a feedback (a self-sustained process ?) .

K: Which means that as thought is ( a self-sustaining ?) movement, if there is no such movement 'I' ( the acting 'thinker' ) am dead !

B: Yes, if that ( self-projected) movement stops, then the sense that 'I' am there must go too, because that sense that 'I am real' is the result of my thinking.

K: Do you see this is extraordinary: one realizes thought as movement. Right? There is not, "I realize thought as a movement", but thought itself realizes it is a ( self-sustained 'time' ) movement .

B: And in this movement it creates an 'image' of a 'me', that is supposed to be moving.

K: Now when this movement stops there is no 'me'. The 'me' is put together by ( the self-centred ?) thinking which is (projecting its own continuity in ?) time .

S: Right...

K: So, listening to this, do you realize the truth of it? Therefore when the movement as (time &) thought comes to an end there is a 'total' action.

B: But it doesn't mean that thought is permanently gone.

K: No, no.

S: It can still be a movement in its proper place. In its fitting order.

K: So a human being, is he (subliminally ?) afraid of all this ('psychological' ending ?) ? Deeply, he must realize the ending (or the discontinuity?) of 'me'. And that seems a most frightening thing: ( the ending of?) all ( personal attachments to ) my knowledge, my books, (& money?) , to all 'my' life (as I knew it?) - the whole thing which thought has put (gathered) together.

B: I mean, it is the ending of verything 'I know', because everything that 'I know' is in there.

K: Absolutely. So you see, the (average) human being is frightened not the biological death but of the 'coming to an end' (of all his/her 'personal' accumulations) . Now, when thought realizes itself as a ( time bound ?) movement and sees that movement has created the 'me' and the whole structure of the chaotic world, thought (or...the thinking brain?) sees the truth of it and ends. Therefore there is only a cosmic (holistic order ) . Now you listen to this: how do you receive it?

S: Do you want me to answer?

K: I offer you something. How do you receive it? How do you listen to it? What takes place in you when you listen to it?

S: ( A sense of existential ) panic ?

K: Is it?

S: There is a sort of 'fear of death'. There is a seeing, and then there is a fear of that death.

K: Which means you have only listened to the ( verbal meaning of the?) words, and they awakened this dark fear (of death ?), not the actuality of seeing the ( living truth of the ) fact.

S: There is an actuality of seeing the fact and there seems to be a silence, a moment of great clarity that gives way to a kind of (a gut) feeling in the pit of the stomach where things are dropping out and then there is a kind of...

K:... withholding ?

S: ...a 'withholding', right.

K: So you are describing ( the general response of ?) humanity...

S: No, I am describing me.

K: You 'are' the (self-centred consciousness of all ) humanity. You 'are' the viewer, the people who are listening.

S: Right. There is this (anguishing) sense of "what will happen to me tomorrow ?". I am telling you, that is the fear.

K: When thought realizes (itself ?) as a (time binding ?) movement, and that in its (chaotic) movement it has created all the (global ?) disorder, when it realizes that, there is no ( more time for ?) fear. Fear is ( the reaction to ) the idea of (yourself ?) ending, and are frightened of that ending.

S: You are right. When that actually takes place there is silence.

K: In ( seeing the actual truth of) the fact there is no fear.

B: But... as soon as the ( good-old process of ?) thought comes in...

K: Then ( the ending) it is no longer a 'fact'.

B: Well, as soon as thought (& its temporal continuity gets back?) in it, (the whole thing ) is seen as a mental fantasy which is felt to be real, but it is not so. Therefore you are not (being ?) with the 'fact' ( of 'ending thought & time') any longer.

K: We have discovered something extraordinary: when you are faced with (the actual truth of the?) fact there is no fear.

B: So all fear ( of the Unknown?) is ( the projection of the self-identified process of ?) thought, is that it?

K: That's right. ( in a nutshell:) All thought is fear, all thought is sorrow.

B: Except the (intelligent ?) kind of thinking that arises ( in abiding ?) with the fact alone.

S: It seems to me that we have also discovered something else : at the moment of the actual seeing, the ( holistic quality of one's ) attention is at its peak.

K: Something new takes place, sir.

S: Yes ?

K: Something totally new that has never been understood or experienced. There is a totally different thing happening.

B: But isn't it important that we acknowledge this ( totally new thing ?) in our language? In other words, if it happened and we didn't acknowledge it then we are liable to 'fall back'.

K: Of course, of course. It is like saying: remain totally with sorrow, not move away, not say that it should be, or shouldn't be, how am I to get over it, just 'totally remain' with that thing, with the 'fact'. Then you have (awakened ?) an 'energy' which is extraordinary.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 11 Feb 2018 #77
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

5TH K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG

THE 'IMAGE MAKING' MECHANISM ( experientially friendly edited)

Krishnamurti: When talking about the necessity of human beings changing, I think we ought (to make a small detour by ?) the 'unconscious'. Do you know if you have an 'unconscious (mind?) ' trying to give you hints (during your sleep?) , are you aware of all that?

Bohm: Well, I think we can say that there are some things we do, of whose origin we are not really aware of. Like when we react (very personally?) or when we use words in an habitual way.

K: I want to ask the 'expert' , if there is such a thing as the unconscious. For me somehow I don't think it has played any important part in my life at all.

S: Well, it depends on what you mean by 'unconscious'

K: Something hidden that I have to go after and unearth it, explore it and expose it.

B: Well, could we make it more clear? There are some things people do ( un-consciously) where you can see they are not aware of what they are doing, for example, the Freudian 'slip of the tongue', which expresses his will.

K: I didn't mean that.

S: If I can just put in a technical statement: there are those people, who think that there are ( hidden) things in the unconscious which are there and must be lifted out. Then there is a larger group of people now who think of the unconscious as areas of ( brain's) experience of which we aren't totally aware of, so that in the daytime you might have, let's say, an experience of stress, or like you would say, 'disorder', you didn't finish with the experience and at night you go through 'reworking it' in a new way. So that would be the 'unconscious' in operation.

K: My ( holistic?) point is: why we have divided ( the totality of our consciousness into?) 'conscious' and the 'unconscious' ? Or ( the huan consciousness ) it one unitary total process, moving as a whole current ? Isn't it ( the result of an all-controlling ?) state of mind that divides everything, that says, there is the unconscious, conscious?

B: Well, certain material is made 'unconscious' by the brain because it may be too disturbing.

K: That is what I want to get at.

B: I mean that is well known in all schools of psychology. Would you say that the brain itself is on purpose in some sense holding it separate to avoid ( those disturbing elements?) ?

K: Yes, to avoid facing the fact.

B: Yes. So either there are two distinct layers : the deep unconscious areas and the surface consciousness, in that an ('archaeological') structure is implied, or the other notion is to say that certain material, wherever it may be, is simply avoided.

K: I don't want to think about somebody because he has hurt me. That is not the unconscious, it's just that I am conscious he has hurt me and I don't want to think about it.

B: But eventually you would become so good at it that you don't realize you are doing it. I mean that seems to happen: people become so proficient at avoiding these things that they cease to realize they are doing it. It becomes habitual.

S: That is right. I think this is what happens: the (memory of the ) hurts remain and we remember to 'forget about them'. And then the process of therapy is helping to remember what you have forgotten, and then to understand the connections of why you forgot, and then the thing can move in a more holistic way, rather than being fragmented.

K: Do you feel that you have been hurt?

S: Yes.

K: And want to avoid it (happening again) ? Or, being hurt, resist, withdraw, isolate, ( or try to upgrade?) the image of yourself being hurt and all that ?

S: Yes, I feel there is definitely a move ( of avoiding to ) to be hurt again, period.

K: : Now I am asking: can our 'psychological' brain , if I can use those two words, never be hurt under any circumstances? Because apparently the more sensitive you are, the more ( self-conscious ) you get more and more hurt, and withdraw more and more. Is this process inevitable? 
That is, in that relationship between two people the 'images' that we have of each other, that is the cause of hurt.

B: Well, it also goes the other way: that we hold to those ( full proof) images because we have been previously hurt.

K: Of course, of course.

B: So, where does it all start? Because the past hurts gives tremendous strength to the ( self-protecting ) image.

K: Now are these (personal ?) wounds hidden in the 'unconscious' ?
S: I think you are being a little simplistic about that, because what is 'hidden' is the fact that I have had 'wounding' events happening many times, with my mother, with my friends, it happened in school, when I cared about somebody - you form the ( emotional) attachment and then comes the hurt.

K: I am not at all sure it comes ( only?) through attachment...

S: May be it is not due to attachment, but there is something there that happens - I form a relationship with you where what you do to me becomes important.

K: You have an 'image' about yourself...

S: ...and I like you because you are confirming my image.

K: And then I come along and put a pin in that 'image'.

S: No, first you come along and confirm it. The hurt will be greater if you first come along and be very friendly to me and confirm (my self-) image, and then suddenly you 'put a pin' in my image .

K: Of course, of course.

B: But then, even somebody who didn't confirm it, if he puts the pin in properly he can produce that hurt.

S: That's right. So, that's not something 'unconscious'. But why did I have the (self-) 'image' to begin with? That ( creation of the self-image ?) is unconscious.

K: Is it 'unconscious'? Or we don't ( really care to ?) look (how it's being created ?) ?

S: I don't feel that all the 'ingredients' of ( creating the 'self-image' ?) are obvious.

B: I think we 'hide it' in one sense, by saying that (basically) everything is all right (about ourselves) , and the things ( contradicting it) may be 'hidden' by saying it is unimportant, and we don't have to notice them.

S: Yes, but I have asked : what is it that generates the (self-) image in the first place ?

K: Ah, we will come to that. Most people do have a (self-protective ?) 'image' about themselves, practically everybody.

S: Right. Practically everybody.

K: It is our ( subliminal identification with this ?) 'image' that gets hurt. ( You feel that) this image 'is' you, and so you say, "I am hurt".

B: So, if I have a pleasant ( complacent?) 'self - image', then I attribute the pleasure to 'me' and say, that's real. But when somebody hurts 'me' then the pain is also attributed to me and I say, that's real too. It seems that if you have created a ('self-) image' that can give you pleasure then it must be able to give you pain.

K: Pain, yes.

B: There is no way out of this (existential conundrum) .

K: Absolutely.

S: But the (self-) 'image' seems to be perpetuating itself anyways .

B: I think people would hope for an (invulnerable self-?) image that would bring only ( a rewarding sense of ) pleasure.

S: People do hope that, there is no question. But also they invest all their interest in (constantly upgrading ) their (self-) image : I 'am' that image but when I discover that I am not (living up to my) image then I should ( do something to ) be that way because I really am that. So it works both ways.

B: If you (are getting identified with your ?) self image, the value of everything depends on this 'self image' being right. So if somebody shows it is wrong, it looks like everything is ( going) wrong.

K: But we are always giving it a new shape to this 'image'.

B: We feel that this (self-) image means everything, so this gives it tremendous power.

S: The entire personality is directed to the achievement of this image. Everything else takes second place.

K: Are you aware of this?

S: Yes, I am aware of it.

K: Every human being practically has an image of themself, of which he is ( either) unconscious, or simply not aware. So, how does it come into being?

S: Well, I think it comes into being when as children : you are my father and I understand through my watching you that if I am (really) smart you will like me. Right? I learn that very quickly. So I am going to make sure I get your (appreciation &) 'love', so I am going to become that.

K: It is all very simple. But I am asking: what is the origin of making images about oneself ?

S: Now wait a second. Suppose you have got this child, very vulnerable in the sense that he needs physiological support. He has enormous tensions.

K: Sir, agreed to all that. Such a child has an 'image'.

B: Well, that is what we are discussing. Is it necessary to work that way? Or is this the result of our cultural conditioning? You see, suppose the parent and child have 'images' of each other, and the relationship is governed by those images, the question is whether that is actually an (authentic) relationship or not, or whether it is some sort of fantasy of relationship - the person who has the (self-) image is not really related ever, you see ?

K: Yes, the actual fact is that as long as you have (subliminally identified yourself with a 'self-?) image' you have no (authentic) relationship with another (who is 'unconsciously' doing the same thing ?) .
This is a tremendous revelation. You follow?

B: So then, our ('self-) image' controls it all the time because it is ( becoming) the dominant factor. If you once pass that ( safety boundary), no matter what happens, the 'image' takes over.

K: So, ( to make short a never-ending story ?) the ( emotional identification with one's self-) image gets hurt. And, educationally speaking, if you have an image (of yourself) don't you ( subliminally?) impose the image on the child? You are bound to do it .

S: Well, you are working at it and the child picks it up, or he doesn't pick it up.

K: No, no. Because you have an image about yourself you are bound to create an 'image' in the child.
(Not to mention that ) and society is also doing this to all of us.

B: So you say the child is just 'picking up' a 'self- image' (from his parents & educators?) and then suddenly it gets hurt ?

K: Hurt. That's right.

B: But also the (psychological) hurt has been prepared and preceded by a steady process of building ( for himself a convenient self-) image.

S: That's right.

B: So, if this steady process of building a self-(protective) image didn't occur then there would be no basis, no structure to get hurt. You see, I was previously enjoying the pleasure of saying, "My father loves me, I am doing what he wants." Now comes the pain: "I am not doing what he wants, he doesn't love me".

S: But what about the initial hurts? I don't think we touched on the biological situation of the child feeling neglected.

B: Well that is still, if the child is neglected, I mean, I think he must pick up an image in that very process.

K: Of course, once you see the reality that as long as the parents have an image about themselves they are bound to give that image to the child, an image.

S: Well, as long as the parent is a (proficient ?) image-maker and has a self- image, then he can't really see the child.

K: And therefore he (subliminally induces or ?) gives a (self-) image to the child. But you see society is doing this to every human being. Right? Churches are doing it; churches, religions, every culture around us is creating this ( standardised self-?) image. And that image gets hurt, and all the rest of it. 

So, is one aware of all this (image making process ?) which is part of our consciousness? It may be the major machinery that is operating, the major (ego-centric ) activity . And, being psychologically hurt, which every human being is, can that hurt be healed and never be hurt again? That is, can a human mind which ( constantly) creates 'images', put away the '(self-) image' completely and never be hurt again?
( This would imply that) a great part of our consciousness is becoming empty, it has no (psychological) content.

S: Can it?
K: ( Let's inquire into?) what is the machinery or the process that is making these 'images' ? I may get rid of one image and take on another: I am a Catholic, I am a Protestant, I am a Hindu, I am a Zen monk, I am this, I am that. You follow? They are all 'images'. After all if there is an image of that kind, how can you have love in all this?

S: That's right. We have got a lot of ( mental) images.

K: We are saying is it possible to stop the (mental ?) machinery that is producing images? And what is (behind this ?) machinery? Is it (the desire ?) to 'be' (or to become) somebody?

S: Yes. It is wanting to be somebody, it is wanting to know who I am.

B: Well, as a child, if you don't have an image of yourself you don't know what your parents are going to do if you start acting without a (self-) image. I mean you may do something and they may just simply be horrified.

K: The image is the product of ( the self-centred ?) thought. Thought may go through various forms of pressures and all the rest of it, a great deal of 'conveyor' belt, and at the end produces a (reliable self-) image.
Now, can this (unconscious image-making ?) machinery stop? Can thought stop producing these images that destroy all (authentic) relationship, and therefore no love. 
( As it is now there is no love in the world. There is no sense of real caring for somebody. The more affluent the society the worse it becomes.) Not that the poor have this. I don't mean that. Poor people haven't got this either; they are after filling their stomachs, and clothes and work, work, work.

B: But still they have got lots of images.

K: Of course. I said both the rich and the poor have these images, whoever it is. So I ask myself, can this (mental mechanism of ?) 'image making' stop ?

S: It seems that you made a (quantic ?) jump here. You said that all we know is images, and image making. That is all we know.

K: But we have never said, Can it stop ?...

B: You see, this notion that we might stop (creating such 'images' ) is something that we didn't know before.

S: So, what can we do with your ( holistic) question, Can (the 'image making' mechanism ?) stop?

K: I put that question to you. Do you listen to this statement, ''can it stop?'' We now examine this whole process of image making, the result of it, the misery, the confusion, the appalling things that are going on: the Arab has his image, the Jew, the Hindu, the Muslim, the Christian, the non - you follow - the communist. There is this tremendous division of images, symbols and all the rest of it. If that doesn't stop, you are going to have such a chaotic world - you follow? Do I see this (danger) , not as an abstraction, but as an actuality ? If yes, as a human being, what am I to do?

Personally I have no ( self-protective) image about myself, no conclusions, no ideals, all these are images. I have none. And I say to myself, what can I do when everybody around me is building ( self-isolating) 'images', and so destroying this lovely earth where we are meant to live happily ? What is the right action for a man who has such an image?

S: What happens when I say to you: ''can it stop?''

K: I say, of course it can stop. But don't you ask me the next question: how do you do it? How does it come about?

S: Well, 'how' can it stop? Let me put it to you straight. I have absolutely no evidence that it can, no personal experience that (the image making mechanism?) can stop.

K: I don't want evidence, I don't want somebody's explanations. Because they are based on 'images'. So I say: can it stop ? I say it can: definitely. To me this is tremendously important.

S: Well I think we agree that it is tremendously important, but how?

K: I see the' fact' of what is going on in the world: that as long as there are 'images' there is not going to be peace in the world. And I remain with the 'fact'. You follow? This morning we said if one remains with the fact there is ( the possibility of ) a transformation. Which is, not to let thought begin to interfere with the fact.

B: But it is the same as this morning, more images come in (to replace the garbaged ones ?) .

K: More images come in. So our consciousness is (constantly ?) filled with these images.

B: When you say, ''remain with the fact'', one of the 'images' that may come in that it is impossible, it can never be done.

K: Yes, that is another mental image (projection ) .

B: In other words, if the mind could stay with that fact with no comment whatsoever...

S: Well, when you say 'remain with the fact', you are really calling for an action right there. To really remain with it is that the action of (direct) perception is ( expected) there.

K: So our (temporal) consciousness, sir, is ( involved in ?) this (constant creation of ?) images, conclusions, ideas, all that.

S: We are always 'running away'.

K: Filling (an inner void?) and that is the essence of the image (creation) . If there is no 'image making' then what is (happening with ?) our consciousness?

B: Do you think we could discuss that next time?

K: Tomorrow.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 12 Feb 2018 #78
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

6TH K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG (experientially friendly edited)

STOPPING THE 'IMAGE MAKING' MECHANISM

B: At the end of the last discussion we were discussing (the possibility of stopping this mental mechanism creating ?) 'images' and (especially ) the 'self image'. And whether we can have no ( need for self-protective?) images at all.

K: Yes. I can see very well that I have got a (self-protective 'mask' or ) 'image' and that it has been put together through generations. How am I to 'break it down'?

B: Well (for starters) I have to become aware of that 'image', to watch it as it moves.

K: So am I to watch it in the office? In the factory, at home, at the golf club, because in all these areas are my relationships.

B: Yes. I would have to watch it on all those places, and also when I am not there.

K: So I have to watch it all the time, in fact.

B: Yes.

K: And you say (that for this inner observation?) one must have ( a minimum intelligent) energy. Therefore am I willing to give up certain wastages of energy ?

B: What kind of 'wastages' ?

K: Drink. Smoke, useless chatter.

B: That would be just the beginning, anyway.

K: So I must realise , as an ordinary human being, that the greatest importance is to have a 'right' relationship (with All That Is ?) .

B: Yes, but would be good if we could say what happens when we don't have it ?

K: Oh, if I don't have it I create such havoc around me. So, by putting aside smoke, drink, pubs and the endless chatter about this or that, will I gather that ( intelligent) energy to face the (fake self-?) 'images' which I have?

B: Yes. But doesn't that also require to let go ambition and many other things ?

K: Of course. You see I begin by ( discarding the ) obviously (wasteful) things, like smoking, drink, pubs and all the rest. And do we realize the utter importance of having a right relationship with my wife, with my neighbour, with the office, with nature also - to have a relationship which is quiet, full, rich, happy, the beauty of it, the harmony of it ? And how are you, who realize the importance of ( having a harmoniously integrated?) relationship, to deal with me?

B: I think it should be very clear that nobody can do it for me. You see, whatever somebody else does it won't affect my relationship.

S: How are you going to make that clear?

B: But isn't it obvious? Even supposing that you live a perfect life. I can't imitate it, so I have to start doing something for myself. Isn't that clear?

S: What if I don't feel able to do anything for myself  ?

B: Then... it is inevitable that it must go on. Any idea that it will ever get better is a delusion.

S: Can we say that ( establishing the ) right relationship begins with the realization that I have to do something for myself?

K: And to see the (global?) importance of it. Because you are the world and the world is you.

B: Perhaps we could discuss that a bit more, because it may seem strange to say, "You are the world". What do you actually mean by "you are the world" ?

K: You go to India, you see the suffering, the anxiety, and you come to Europe, to America, in essence, is the same.

B: So, each person in the world has the same basic (inner) structure of suffering and confusion, and self- deception and so on. Therefore when I say, "I am the world", I mean that there is a 'universal' (basic ) structure (of any human consciousness) and it is part of me and I am part of that.

K: Quite. So now let's proceed from that. The first thing you ( the holistic educator?) have to tell me as an ordinary human being is "Look, that the most important thing in life is ( having an authentic ?) relationship (with everybody & with everything) ". And you cannot have such a relationship if you ( keep identifying yourself with a ) pleasurable (self-) image and stick to that.
(As a rule of thumb ?) any form of ( self-projected mental) 'image' you have about another, or about yourself, prevents the beauty of relationship.

Now, what will make a human being listen to this ( 'no-image' challenge?) seriously, even for two minutes?

B: Well, it is freely available for whoever is able to listen.

K: That means somebody who is somewhat (inwardly integrated & ) 'serious' ?

B: Yes, who sees that life ceases to have any value without a 'right' ( non-divisive?) relationship.

K: Now (the problem is that ) my ( everyday) consciousness is filled with these 'images'. So, when you are asking me to have no 'images' at all, that means no ( egotistic?) consciousness, as we know it now. Right sir?

B: Yes, but could we say that the major part of our daily consciousness is occupied by this self image? There may be also some other parts...

K: We will come to that (eventually ?) .

S: What about the whole way it generates itself, what do you think?

B: Well, we discussed that before : that thought gets caught on thinking of the 'self' as real, and that (root assumption) is always 'implicit' - for example the global image may be that 'I am suffering' in a certain way, and I must get rid of this suffering. You see there is always the 'implicit' meaning that 'I' am there, real, and therefore I must keep on thinking about this reality. And it gets caught in that (egotistic) 'feedback' we were talking about - thought feeds it back and builds up....

S: Builds up more images ?

B: More images, yes.

K: So, the ( active) content of my consciousness is a vast series of (mental) 'images' (ideas, opinions?) , all of them being related (to the central one?) .

B: They are all centred on (a prolific ) 'self' (image ?) because they are all aimed at making the 'self' feel right, correct. And (having a successful & balanced 'self' is regarded ( by the thinking brain?) as all important.

K: So, you are asking me, a fairly serious human being, to empty that ( 'psychological ' content of my ?) consciousness ?

S: Firstly I am asking you to ( become aware &) 'look' at the 'image making' machinery of your consciousness.

K: In short, you are asking me to be free of ( my identification with the ) 'self', which is the 'maker of images', and to prevent further image making ?

S: Right.

K: Then, I ask : ''Tell me how to do it''. And you tell me that the moment when you ask me 'how' to do it, you (are surreptitiously trying to upgrade the existing self- 'image' by following ?) the system, the method.

B: Yes, when you say, "how am 'I' to do it", you have already put 'I' in the middle. The same ( self-) image as before but with a slightly different content.

K: So you ( the holistically responsible educator?) tell me, ''don't ever ask how to do it, because the 'how' involves the (same ) 'me' doing it''.
So now let's proceed from there. I have realized right from the beginning during these dialogues that ( having a selfless?) relationship is the greatest importance in life; without that, my life is ending up in chaos. For starters, I can see that every ( personal) flattery, or insult is registered in the brain. And thought then takes over this (personal) memory ( processes it?) and creates an (all-purpose personal ?) 'image', and (sooner or later) this (self-) image gets hurt. So there are two things involved in it: one to prevent further hurts and two : to be free of all the hurts that I have had.

B: But both are on the same principle : you see there is no distinction really between the 'past hurts' and the 'present hurts' because they all come from the ( self-centred) reaction of the past.

K: That's right, the (self-) image is the same. So you are saying to me, don't divide the past or the future hurts; there is only the image being hurt; there is only ( brain's drive for safety and ) pleasure: so look at that. Look at this 'image-(making' process) which is both the (result of the ?) past and the ( creator of the ?) future.

B: So we are saying don't look at its particular content but at its general structure ?

K: Now my next ( experiential) question is: how am I to look at it (objectively?) ? Because I have already a (strong personal identification with this ?) 'image', (through) which I am going to look.
( But, on the 'plus' side) you are giving me the (implicit) hope that if I have a right relationship, I will live a life that will be extraordinarily beautiful, I will know what love is and all the rest of it, therefore I am already excited by this idea.

B: But then I have to be aware of the (forming of that new ?) image too.

K: Yes, yes. Therefore, how am I to look ( non-personally) at it? ( Here's a clue:) Is the 'observer' different from 'the image-making mechanism' which is being observed ?

B: Yes, well, that is 'the' ( experientially critical) question.

K: You see, sir, if there is a 'difference' (a subliminal separation ?) between the 'observer' and the 'observed' , this creates an 'interval of time' ( a time-gap?) in which other (thought ) activities are going on.

B: Well, yes, in which the brain sort of 'eases itself' into ( projecting ?) something more pleasant.

K: And where there is such a ('temporal') division there is a conflict (between 'what is' and 'what one hopes to be' ?) .
So ( in order to avoid these devious time-traps  ?) you are telling me to learnv(ASAP?) the 'art of (direct) observing', where the 'observer' is (not separating itself from what is being ?) 'observed'.

B: Yes, but I think we could look first at the ( given) 'fact' that our whole cultural conditioning is that the observer is different from the observed. Shouldn't we ( spend some quality time & ) look at that for a while, because that is what everybody feels ?

K: That the 'observer' is different ( an independent entity)  ?

B: Yes. And I think it ties up with what I was saying yesterday about reality, saying everything we think of is 'reality' of some kind, and the reality is sustained by thought. And ordinarily we think that the 'self' is a reality which is independent of thought, and this 'self' (acting as ?) the 'observer' has an objective reality which is independent of thought.

K: But it is the product of ( our self-centred) thought.

B: Yes, but that is (a wide-spread ) confusion.

K: Isn't the 'observer' the result of (our whole experience of the ?) past?

B: Yes, one can see that, but the ( occasional ?) viewer might find it a little hard to follow that, if he hasn't gone into it.

S: It is very hard to communicate ( this subliminal duality)

K: It (the holistic explanation ?) is fairly simple.

S: What do you mean?

K: Don't you live in the ( memories of the?) past, (guided by your ) past experiences. And from this ( knowledge of the ) past you project the 'future' - hoping that your life will be better ? It's always ( a thought movement ?) from the past to the future.

S: That's right. That's how we live...

K: Now, this ( all controlling interefence of the ?) past is the 'me' of course.

B: But it does look as if it is something independent.

K: Is it independent?

B: It isn't but to 'see' that may be ( not so obvious ?)
It actually feels like the 'me' is present, looking at the past.

K: Yes, like the 'me' is in a ( full proof) jar.

B: Right...

K: But the (temporal structure of the ?) 'me' is the product of the past.

S: Right. Intellectually, I can see that 'I' am the product of the past.

K: Then, you don't see it (as a true fact ?) .

S: Right. There is an immediacy of perception (that is required ?) here.

K: Why isn't there an immediacy of perception of a truth which is, that you 'are' the past?

S: Because the 'time' ( factor) comes in. I ( am thinking of myself in terms of ?) time :   I have an image of myself at three, I have an image of myself at ten and I have an image of myself at seventeen, and I see how they follow a sequency in time. I see myself having developed over time. I am different now than I was five years ago.

K: Are you?

S: I am just telling you how I have got that ( self-) image. My present (self-) 'image' is the result of a developmental sequence in time.

B: Yes.
 
S: And 'I' exist as a storehouse of (personal & collective ) memories, a bunch of accumulated incidents.

K: That is, time has produced that.

S: That is the result of time, right.

K: What is this 'time'?

S: I have just described it to you. Time is a movement in...

K: It is a movement. A (memory projected ) movement from the past.

S: That's right. I have 'moved' from the time I was three, to ten, to seventeen.

K: Now, is that 'movement' an actuality?

S: What do you mean by 'actuality'?

B: Is it a (mental projection ?) or is it an actuality? 

S: I am describing an actual mental process …

B: But that is the whole point about (any thought projected ?) 'image', that it 'imitates' ( modelling?) the actual fact, and you get the feeling that it is real. In other words, 'I' feel that I am really here, as an actual fact looking at all my past, how I have developed.

S: Right...

B: But is that a fact that 'I' am doing that?

S: It is the actual feeling when I am looking at it.

B: Yes, but I mean is it an "actual fact" - that all the implications of your (line of thinking) are correct ?

S: No, it is not. I can see the incorrectness of my memory which constructs (the continuity of ?) "me" in time. I mean obviously I was much more at three than I can remember, I was more at ten than I can remember, and there was much more going on obviously in actuality at seventeen than I have in my memory.

B: Yes, but the "me" who is here now and looking at all that, is 'he' (really) here and is 'he' looking? That is the question.

K: Is the 'me' an actuality ?

S: Well, what is an 'actuality' is this (global) image of a developmental sequence.

B: And the 'me' who is looking at it?

S: And the 'me' who is looking at it, that's right.

B: You see, I think that is one of the things we 'slip upon', because we say, there is this developmental sequence objectively so implying 'me' is looking at it. But it may be that the 'me' who is looking at it is a (composite mental ?) image as is the developmental sequence.

S: You are saying then that this 'image of me' is...

K: ...is a non-reality.

B: Well, its only 'reality' is that it is ( a mental projection of ?) thought. It is not a reality independent of thinking.

K: So we must go back to what is "reality". The (man made ) reality, we said, is everything that thought has put together: the table, the ( cultural ?) illusions, the churches, the nations, everything that thought has contrived, put together, is ( our shared ?) 'reality'.
However, nature is not ( a man-made ) reality ; it has its own (independent ?) reality.

B: So, is the 'me' a reality that is independent of thought like nature?

K: That is the whole ( philosophical ?) point. Have you understood?

S: Yes, I am beginning to see it . Let me ask you a question: is there any difference for you between the perception of a physical person and your perception of the 'me'?

K: This is real, the 'me' is not real. Sir, just let's be simple. I know I have ( this mechanism of producing mental ?) images and you tell me to look at it, to be aware of it, to perceive the ( creation of the central self-) image. Is the 'perceiver' different from what is perceived? That is all my question. Because if he (thinks that he ?) is different then the whole process of ( inner fragmentation and ?) conflict will go on endlessly. But if there is no (actual) division, when the observer 'is' the observed, then the whole ( experiential) problem changes.

S: Right...

K: So (experientially-wise ?) is the 'observer' different from the 'observed' ? Obviously not. So can I look at that image (making mechanism ?) without the observer? And is there any image (making) when there is no observer? Because the observer makes the image, because the observer 'is' ( not separated from ) the movement of thought.

B: Well, then perhaps we shouldn't call it the 'observer' then because it is not really looking. I think (this 'holistic' use of ?) language is confusing.

K: The language, yes.

B: Because if you say it is an 'observer' that implies that 'someone' or 'something' is looking...

K: Yes, quite...

B: So, what you are really meaning ( by the 'observer') is that thought is moving and creating a (virtual) image (of itself ?) as if it were looking but...nothing is being 'seen'.

K: Yes...

B: Therefore there is no 'observer' (only 'observation')

K: Quite right. So you ask me to look at my images without the observer, because the observer is the image maker, so then, there is no image ( being created) .

S: As you said, the question changes completely.

K: Completely. There is no ('refreshed' self-) image.

S: It feels completely different, a silence...

K: So ( to recap:) my ( self-centred) consciousness 'is' the ( self-centred) consciousness of the whole world, because it is filled with the 'things' of thought - sorrow, fear, pleasure, despair, anxiety, attachment, detachment, hope - it is a ( self-sustained?) turmoil of confusion, with a sense of deep ( existential) agony is involved in it all. In that ( chaotic ) state you cannot have any ( intelligent & compassionate ?) relationship with any human being.

S: Right...

K: So you say to me: to have a responsible relationship is to have no (self-) 'image'.

S: That is, to be fully responsive to 'what is'.

K: So ( to recap:) the 'maker' of the image is the ( self-identified memory of the?) past, the ( choicy?) 'observer' who says, "I like this", "I don't like this". 
Now, are these (self-identified ?) 'images' deeply hidden? If yes, then how am I to 'unearth' them, expose them out?

S: You don't have to 'unearth' them once it is clear to you, the observer 'is' the observed

K: Therefore you are saying there is no 'unconscious' (to a waking consciousness ) ?

S: Right...

K: I agree with you! The moment you see ( the truth that ?) the observer 'is' the observed, or that the observer 'is' the maker (and the user ?) of the images, it ( the artificial division between the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious') is finished.

S: If you really 'see' that...

K: That's it. So the ( watertight self-centred ?) consciousness which I knew ( before) has undergone a tremendous transformation? Has it to you?

S: Mmm...

K: If I may ask Dr Bohm, both of you, and all of us, realizing that the observer is the observed, and therefore the ( mental) 'image maker' is no longer in existence, and so the content which made up ( the self-centred ?) consciousness, is not.... What then?

S: I don't know how you can say it (so easily ?) .

K: I am asking this question (just for extra-homework ?) because it involves (a meditator-free ?) "meditation". But as long as we live within this ( 'known' ?) area of (our self-centred) consciousness - anxiety, fear and all the rest of it- whatever we do will still be ( moving in circles) within that same area.

S: Right...

K: So what happens when there is no ( psychological ) movement of thought (which is the 'image making' mechanism ) what takes place then? When ( the psychological continuity of ?) 'time' -which is the (core) movement of thought - ends then what is there? So, when thought comes to an end, time has a stop. What then? Is that ( a close encounter with ?) death?

S: It is the death of the (temporal ?) 'self'.

K: It is much more than that. When thought stops, when there is no 'image maker', there is a complete (holistic ?) 'transformation' in our consciousness because there is no ( more internal frictions created by ?) anxiety & fear & all the (self-interest based ) things that create turmoil, division.

What then comes into being , or what 'happens'? I have to find it out ( for homework ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 13 Feb 2018 #79
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

7TH K CONVERSATION WITH DR BOHM & DR SHAINBERG ('reader friendly' & 'experientially friendly' edited)

A CRASH COURSE ON HOLISTIC "MEDITATION" 

K: After attending all these ( insightful ?) dialogues , as someone who has 'listened' (non-verbally) to all this, I am still left with a sense of 'blank wall' , since I have, at one glance, rejected all the systems, all the gurus. But... have I solved the problem of sorrow ? Have I this sense of astonishing (compassionate ?) energy (which comes with the ?) ending of my sorrow, do I know what it means to ( have selfless love for a human being? And I haven't understood a thing about death. 
So there is a lot of ground to cover before we have finished this evening's (crash course on meditation?) …

B: Could we begin with the question of 'death' ?

K: Yes. Let's begin with (the psychological implications of ?) death.

B: One point that occurred to me is that where we see the observer 'is' the observed then that is ( tantamount with the 'observer's) death, essentially this is what is implied . Right?

K: Yes.

B: Now, this raises a question: if the 'self' is nothing but a (self-identified ?) image, then what is it that 'dies'? You see if one's (self-) 'image' dies that's nothing, that's not death – right?

K: No.

B: So is there something 'real' that dies?

K: The (self-identified ?) images have died, the (temporal ?) 'me' is dead.

B: But is that a 'genuine' death, or is there something that has to die more deeply? In other words, if the physical organism dies, something 'real' has died, you see.

K: Yes, something real has died.

B: Ah, but when the self-(image ?) dies... ?

K: Ah, but so far I have (implicitly ?) accepted this 'self' as an astonishingly real thing. You come along and tell me that ( my identification with?) that 'image' is fictitious, but I'm a little frightened (of what may happen) when my ( self-protective image ?) 'dies'. So, when there is no ( self-) image - there is an ending of ( your identification with ?) something.

B. You see, you could say an ending of an image is like turning off the television set. Is that what it is, or is there something deeper that 'dies'?

K: Oh, I would say it is not just the ( self-) image which is dead, but something much deeper than that.
Now, this (psychological form of ) 'death'- the ending of the (identification with one's 'self-) ? image' is like a very shallow pool. You have taken away a little water and there is nothing but 'mud' left behind. So is there something much more to the meaning of death ? Obviously. It must be.

B: Will this ( wider meaning ?) include the death of the physical organism ?

K: Yes. The organism might go on, but eventually it will come to an end.

B: Yes. But is there some other meaning beyond the death of one's '(personal) image' ?

K: That's only a very small part.

B: That's very small part . Then, one could think there might be a process or a structure beyond the self-image that might die, that creates the self-image ?

K: Yes, that is ( the 'image-making' machinery of ?) thought.

B: Now are you discussing this death of thought? Is there something beyond thought itself that (dies ?)

K: (To recap:) the ( identification with one's personal ) image' dies. That's a very shallow affair. 
Then there's the ending of thought, which is the dying to ( one's subliminal identification with this process of ?) thought. So we have removed the ' image-making ' ( mechanism ) and the 'image' itself. Now, is there something more?

B: This question is not clear when you say, "Is there something more?"

K: Is that all there is to ( the mystery of ?) death?

B: Oh, I see. Is that all that death is about ?

K: Yes. Is that all the meaning of death?

B: Are you saying death has a significance for the whole of our life?

K: Yes, for the whole of life.

B: The way we live now, death is at the end and you try to forget about it, and try to make it unobtrusive, and so on.

K: But as you three have pointed out, the (common human ) life is in a turmoil, a constant conflict, anxiety, all the rest of it.

B: Right... 

K: That's been all my life. Now, ( in the context of meditation?) I have come to the (frontiers of the ?) known, and therefore death is the 'unknown'. So I am afraid of that. And you come along and say, look death is partly the ending of the image, and of the (image making process), but death must have a greater (metaphysical ?) significance.

B: Well, perhaps you could make more clear why it must have ?

K: Because... Is our life just a shallow empty pool, with (a lot of psychological ?) mud at the end of it?

B: But, even if it's something else, we have to ask why is it that 'death' is the key to understanding that ?

K: Because it's the ending of ( one's identifications & attachments to?) everything – the 'ending' of all my concepts, images – the ending of all my ( 'psychological' ?) memories.

B: But that's the 'ending of thought', right?

K: Ending of thought. And also it means, the 'ending of time'. ( Thought's projection in ?) time coming to a stop totally. And so, there is no ( psychological) 'future' in the sense of 'past' meeting the 'present' and carrying on.

B: You mean, 'psychologically' ?

K: Yes, the 'psychological' ending of everything . That's what (the deeper meaning of ?) death is.

B: Right. And when the physical organism dies then everything ends with that organism?

K: Wait a minute. If I don't end the ( personal identification with my self-) image, the ( psychic ?) stream of 'image-making' goes on.

B: Yes, well this again is not too clear : 'where' it goes on ?

K: It 'manifests' itself ( on a regular basis?) in other people. That is: the organism dies, and at the last moment I'm still (stuck ?) with my (self-) image - this ( personal ?) 'image' has its continuity with the rest of the (other 'personal' ?) images - your image, my image.
Your image is not different from mine - it may have a little more (personal) colour, but essentially my image 'is' your image. There is ( in both of us ?) this constant ( mental ) 'flow' of image-making.

B: But where does it take place? In people?

K: It is there (in the energy matrix of human consciousness and ?) it ( does constantly) manifests itself in people.

S: It's a (collective 'psychic' ?) river, and it manifests itself in (individual) streams which we call 'people' ?

K: That 'stream' is both the 'maker of images' and the 'images'.

B: In other words, you're saying that the ('self-) image' does not originate only in one brain, but in some sense it is an "universal" (process ) ?

K: Universal. Quite right.

B: Well, again that's not clear. You're not only saying that it's just the sum of the effects of all the brains, but are you implying something more?

K: It is the (collective karmic?) 'effect' of all the human brains, and it manifests itself in people, as they're born; genes and all the rest of it.

B: Yes...

K: Now ( in the calm context of an insightful meditation ?) , does (this 'psychological') death bring about this sense of an enormous, endless (source of intelligent ?) energy which has no beginning and no end? Or is it just, I have got rid of my (self-) images and the image-making (process) , ( but I am inwardly facing a 'blank wall'?) since I haven't touched the much deeper things - Life must have an infinite depth.

B: And it's (the mystery of ?) death which opens that up ?

K: Death opens that up.

B: Is there something real which is blocking that from 'realizing itself'?

K: Yes, one is blocking oneself through (getting identified with one's self-) image and the 'time-thought' ( process ) which is making these images.

S: Yes, the constant 'image making' is blocking …

K: Is blocking that (self-realsation?) . But there are still other deeper blocks.

B: That's what I was trying to get at. That there are deeper 'blocks' ( 'strings'?) that are 'real' ?

K: That are real.

B: And they really have to 'die'?

K: That's just it.

S: How would that be related to this 'Stream' that you're talking about ?

K: There is a 'Stream of Sorrow' , isn't there?

B: And is this (stream of collective ?) sorrow deeper than the (stream of self-?) images?

K: Yes.

B: Well, that's important (to examine ) then.

K: It is. But be careful sir, it's very serious, this 'thing'.

S: So, deeper than the ( stream of ?) image-making is (this larger undercurrent of self-isolation & ?) sorrow.

K: Isn't it? Man has lived with ( this cummulative?) sorrow for a million years.

B: Well, could we say a little more about what is this 'sorrow' ? It's more than (any personal ) pain ?

K: It's much deeper than that.

B: Right. It goes beyond the (self-) image, beyond our 'thought and feeling' .

K: Oh, of course. Now can that end?

S: Well, is this stream of sorrow different from the stream of image-making?

K: No, it's part of the (same ) Stream, but much deeper.

B: So then then, the 'image-making' is on the surface of this stream ?

K: That's all. But I want to penetrate (deeper) …

B: So the deeper ( undercurrent of ) disturbances and sorrow come out on the surface as 'image-making' ?

K: That's right.

B: But what is actually this 'sorrow'?

K: You know, sir, there is an 'universal' ( the 'all-time' human ?) sorrow.

B: Let's try to make it clear. It's not merely the sum of all the sorrows of different people?

K: No, no. Could we put it this ( holistic ?) way : ( surfing?) the Waves of the River doesn't bring ( Intelligence, Love & ?) Compassion . So then, what will? Because without (Selfless Love & Intelligent ?) Compassion human beings are destroying themselves. So, does (this Intelligence of ?) Compassion come with the "ending of sorrow" which is not (just ?) the sorrow created by (your own self-centred ?) thought.

B: Yes, right: in (the ordinary self-centred ?) thought you have sorrow for the self – right?

K: Yes, ( one feels the ) sorrow for oneself.

B: Which is self-pity. But now you say there's another side we haven't yet got hold of. There's a deeper sorrow which is not merely the sum (of all personal sorrows ?) but rather something more 'universal'.

K: That's right.

S: Can we go into it?

K: Aren't you aware of a much deeper sorrow than the sorrow of self pity, the sorrow of the self-image.

B: Does this sorrow have any (particular ?) content? Is it the sorrow for the fact that man is in this (sad) state of affairs of which he can't get out ?

K: That's a part of it - the 'sorrow of ignorance'.

B: Yes. Man is ignorant (of what's happening within the depths of his psyche ?) and cannot get out of it.

K: Cannot get out. And the ( holistic ?) perception of that sorrow is ( the intelligent action of an ?) Compassion.

B: And the non-perception of it is ( generating its own existential ?) sorrow ?

K: Yes, yes. Say for instance, you see me (enjoying my hedonistic living ?) in ignorance...

B: Or that I see the whole of mankind living in ignorance.

K: After living for millennia, they are still ignorant - in the (deeper ) sense of (ignoring the ?) 'image making' mechanism and all that (Stream of sorrow & time?)

B: Now, let's say if my mind is ( waking up & becoming inwardly ?) clear, seeing this tremendous ( world wide) ignorance, this tremendous destruction should have a deep effect on me...

K: We are getting at it.

B: Right. But then if I miss this (holistic ?) perception of it, then I'm ( drifting ) in it too?

K: Yes, you are in it too.

B: And this ( intelligent & compassionate) feeling for the universal sorrow (of mankind) is still something that everybody can feel- is that what you mean to say?

K: Yes.

B: Although he is not very perceptive as to what it means.... ?

K: (For starters ?) You can feel the (personal loneliness and ?) sorrow of (your egocentric ?) thought.

B: The sorrow of (my self-centred) thought. But how can I sense, or somehow be aware, of the ( strong undercurrent of ?) universal sorrow ?

K: Yes. You can (do it as 'meditation homework' ?)

S: So you're saying that this 'universal' ( undercurrent of collective ?) sorrow is there whether you feel it or not.

K: You can feel it (just by looking around ?) . The sorrow of mankind living like this...

B: Is that the essence of it?

K: I'm just moving into it.

B: Is there more to it?

K: Oh, much more to it...

B: Oh well, then perhaps we should try to bring that out ?

K: Suppose I live the ordinary life: self-image, ( personal worries & ) sorrow, and all that. And you who are "enlightened" look at me, aren't you full of sorrow (feeling really sorry?) for me? Which is ( the holistic action of ?) compassion?

B: I would say that there is a lot of (compassionate) energy aroused because of this situation. Would you call it 'sorrow', or you'd call it 'compassion' ?

K: Compassion, which is the outcome of ( the holistic perception of ?) sorrow.

B: But have you ( 'K' ?) felt sorrow first? Has the "enlightened" person felt sorrow and then compassion?

K: Sir, are you implying that one must have ( entered the dark valley of ?) Sorrow first, in order to have Compassion.

B: I'm not saying it, just exploring it. That's what you seem to be saying: that through ( having an insight into the personal & collective ?) sorrow you come to compassion.

K: Yes, I seem to be saying it (but does it imply) that I must go through all the ( karmic mistakes of ?) of mankind ? No. That's the ( holistic) point.

B: But let's say that the enlightened man sees this sorrow, sees this destruction, you know - sees this - and he senses a tremendous energy - we can call it compassion. Now (your 'holistic' point is that ?) he understands that the people are in sorrow, but he is not himself in sorrow ?

K: That's right.

S: Would you then say that the "enlightened" man is not (personally) aware of sorrow, but rather he's aware of the awkwardness, the blundering, the loss of life ?

K: Suppose that you have been through all this:  self- image, (self-centred) thought, the sorrow of ( this self-isolating ?) thought, the fears, anxiety, and you say ''I have understood that. It's over in me''. You have (a sorrow-free ?) energy, but it is still a very 'shallow' business. And is life so shallow as all that? Or has it an immense depth?

B: A deeper inwardness..?

K: And great inwardness. And to find that out don't you have to 'die' to everything 'known'?

B: Yes, but how does this relate to sorrow at the same time?

K: You might feel I am ignorant, my anxieties, all the rest of it. You are on the "other side of the Stream ( of self-interest) " as it were. Don't you have compassion?

S: Yes, yes, I do...

K: Isn't that Compassion the result of the ending of the 'universal' sorrow ?

B: Wait - you say the ending of 'universal' sorrow. Are you talking about a person who was is in sorrow to begin with ?

K: Yes.

B: And in him this 'universal' (component of ?) sorrow ends. Is that what you're saying?

K: No, it is more than that.

B: Then we have to go slowly, because if you're talking of the ending of 'universal' sorrow the thing that is puzzling is that it still does exist, you see ?

K: What?

B: You see, if the 'universal' sorrow ends, then it's all gone.

K: Ah! It's still there...

B: You see there is a certain 'puzzle' in ( your holistic?) language. So in some sense the universal sorrow 'ends' but in another sense 'it persists' ?

K: Yes. Yes, that's right.
B: Couldn't we rather say that if you have an insight into the (self-centred ?) essence of this 'universal sorrow' - then that sorrow ends in (the timeless flash of ?) that insight. Is that what you mean? Although, it still goes on...

K: When does this ( Intelligence of Compassion ?) come into being? Without that life has no (true) meaning. All that you have taken away from me is my superficial sorrow, thought and image, but I feel there's something much more.

B: Is it that when we have (seen) thought producing sorrow and self pity, and also with the realization of the sorrow of mankind, could you say that the energy which is deeper is being in some way (awakened?) You see, in our ( personal & collective ) sorrow this ( holistic ) energy is caught up in whirlpools. It's deeper than thought but there is some sort of very deep disturbance of the energy which we can call 'deep sorrow'.

K: Deep sorrow.

B: And ultimately it's origin is the blockage in ( the self-interest drive of human ?) thought, isn't it?

K: Yes, yes. That is 'deep sorrow' of mankind. ( The spiritual darkness gathered ?) for centuries upon centuries, it's like a vast ( free for all?) Reservoir of Sorrow.

B: Which is moving around in some way that's disorderly and preventing clarity and perpetuating (selfishness & ) ignorance ?

K: Perpetuating ignorance, right!

B: That's it. Because if it were not for that, then man's natural capacity to learn would have solve all these problems long ago...

K: That's right. So, unless there is a (compassionate?) insight into something much greater, I say, "Yes that's very nice", and I go off - you follow?

B: Yes...

K: So, what we're trying to do (in this insightful meditation ?) is to penetrate into something ( which is) beyond 'death'.

B: Beyond 'death' ?

K: Beyond ending of all the (psychological) content of the human consciousness ''as we know it now''.

B: Is it also (part of ) the ending of sorrow?

K: Ending of sorrow of the superficial (personal ?) kind. That's clear.

B: Yes...

K: But you haven't given me the flower, the perfume. You've just given me the (verbal ) ashes of it. And, now, we three are trying to find out "That which Is" beyond the ashes.

B: To find out 'That which Is' beyond death?

K: Absolutely!

B: Couldn't you call it the 'Eternal', or..?

K: I don't want to use this ( culturally loaded?) word.

B: How about "something beyond time" ?

K: Beyond time. Therefore, there is "something" (to be found as meditation homework ?) beyond the surface aspects of death, a (holistic) Movement that has no beginning and no ending.

B: But it is a 'movement'?

K: A (living ?) movement (of Creation ?), but not in terms of time.

S: So, what is the difference between a 'movement in time' and a 'movement out of time'?

K: Something which is constantly renewing itself , constantly flowering, endlessly flowering, something timeless.

S: I get the feeling of a constant inner renewal in creation, without duration, without linearity, that has...

K: You see, (if & when ?) I have an insight into all that , at one glance, it is finished, I won't touch it! And it may be the ending of this 'image-making' (thought mechanism) and all that.
Then (for extra homework ?) a Meditation must take place to delve, to have an insight, into something ( of a sacred nature?) which the human mind has never touched before.

B: Right. But 'if' you do touch it, it doesn't mean the next time it will be ( safely stored in the ?) 'known'.

K: Ah! It can never be 'known' in the sense that it's always "new". It has never been 'old' .

B: Yes, yes, I think I can understand that. Could you say it is like a (''new ?) mind'' that has never known sorrow ?

K: Yes...

B: To say that it might seem puzzling at first but it's actually a moving out of this 'state which has known sorrow' to 'a state which has not know sorrow'.

K: That's quite right.

B: In other words, there's no ( good-old) 'you' (to experience it ?) .

K: That's right.

Any Questions ?

S: Could we say that (Creation) it's an action which is 'moving' where there is no 'you'?

K: You see, when you use the word 'action', action means the 'doing' (now) . Now, most of our actions are the result of a cause, of the past, or according to the future - ideals and so on. (In the field of insight ?) that's not action, that is just conformity.

S: Right. But I'm talking about the (holistic) kind of action.

K: You see, there are several things involved. (a) To penetrate into this ( field of the eternal Now ?) , the mind must be completely silent. Otherwise 'you' are projecting something into it. Absolute ( mental) silence - and this silence is not brought about through will (power). And (b) in that silence (of meditation) there is the sense of something beyond all time, beyond all thought. You follow? 'Something' (but...) not- a - thing. Nothing! And therefore (that inner state 'no-thing'-ness is ?) empty. And therefore it has a tremendous ( mind-) energy.

B: Is this also the 'source' of Compassion?

K: That's it.

S: What do you mean by 'source'?

B: Well, that in this energy there is compassion, is that right?

K: This energy 'is' compassion And beyond that there is something more.

B: Well, what could be that's 'more'?

K: Sir, there is something beyond ( Universal ) Compassion which is Sacred.

B: Is it beyond the movement (of Creation ) ?

K: Sacred. You can't say 'movement', or 'non movement'. You can't examine (intellectually) that 'living' ( Some)thing which is Sacred, and which is beyond Compassion.

B: Then what is our relation to this "something sacred" ?

K: To the man who is ignorant (or thriving in his cultivated ignorance?) there is no relationship. To the man who has removed the (identification with his self- ) image, who is free of the image and the image-making process , it has no meaning yet. It has meaning only when he (is constantly) 'dying to everything', in the sense of never for a single second accumulating anything psychologically.

S: What is then the relationship between that which is sacred, holy, and our everyday reality ?

K: Of course, our (man made ) reality which is the product of thought has no relationship to That because thought is a very little (survivalistic?) affair. But That ( Sacredness ?) may have a relationship with this. And Its relationship comes through (an enlightening flash of ?) insight, intelligence and compassion.

S: How does this ( Compassionate ?) intelligence act?

K: ( To recap:) You have had an insight into the ( 'self-) image. You have had an insight into the (egotistic ?) movement of thought, which (constantly) creates sorrow, and all that. You have had a real insight into it. Haven't you?

S: Right...(?)

K: So you've already got (an inkling into the nature of Compassionate ?) Intelligence. Now with this (newly awakened ?) Intelligence, which is an universal intelligence, a global or cosmic intelligence - comes that (new perceptive tool of ?) insight.

Now, ( for extra meditation homework?) move a step further into it. Have an insight into the enormous (accumulation of darkness - the ?) sorrow of mankind, of ignorance, you follow, and out of that insight (comes ) compassion. Now, have an insight into ( the depths of this ?) Compassion, delve into it. And there is something Sacred, untouched by man's mind, by his prayers, by his everlasting (mental) tricks. And that may be the ( Holy ?) Origin of Everything - which ( up to know ) man has (ignored or?) 'misused'.

B: Would you say That is the origin of all material universe, of all Nature ?

K: Of everything, of all matter, of all nature.

B: Of all mankind ?

K: That's right. I'll stick by it!

So, at the end of these dialogues, what have you, what has the viewer got? Has his ( beggar's) 'bowl' been filled ? He has come to you ( with the secret hope of ?) wanting to find out how to transform his life, because he felt it was absolutely necessary. Has (s)he got anything out of all this? Have you given him/her the 'perfume' of that thing?

S: Can I give you that 'perfume'?

K: Or, yes sir, you can share it with me.

S: So, has the (earnest reader ?) shared with us the experience we've had being together ?

K: Have you two shared this (perfume ?) with this man? If not, then what? Another clever discussion, dialogue, of that we are fed up. You can only share when you are really 'hungry' (spiritually speaking ?) , burning with hunger. (If this was the case) we have come to the point when we see that our (inner) life has an extraordinarily (holistic) meaning.

B: Well, it has a meaning far beyond what we usually think of. Would you say the Sacred is also (within all?) Life?

K: Yes, that what I was getting at. Life is sacred; so, we mustn't misuse life, we mustn't waste it because our ( temporal) life is so short.

B: So, you feel that each (individual) life has a part to play in this 'sacredness ' (of life) that you talk about.

K: It's (in-) there.

B: It's part of the "Wholeness of Life" and to use (one's) life rightly has a tremendous significance.

K: Yes. Quite right.

S: There's something though (which is not very clear) . Have we actually shared this (something) "sacred"?

K: All these dialogues have been a process of (live?) meditation. A real penetrating meditation which brings (an illuminating ?) insight into everything that's been said.

B: I should say that we have been doing that.

K: I think that we have been doing that.

S: We've been doing that. But have we 'shared' that?
with the (potential reader, listener or ?) viewer.

K: Are you considering the ( particular) 'viewer' or there is only That (sacred ?) '(Some)thing' in which the viewer, you and I, everything is?

S: Well, David Bohm said "We have been in a meditation", you say "We have been in meditation" and I say "We've been in a meditation". But how have we shared this (live) Meditation?

K: I mean, has this dialogue been a (live ?) meditation?
You know, meditation is not just a (clever exchange of ?) arguments.

S: No, we've shared (something) . I feel that.

K: Shared the ( perception of the?) truth of every statement ? Or the falseness of every statement ?
Or seen the truth in the false ?

B: Right... ?

S: And been aware in each of us of the false (stuff) as it comes out and is clarified.

K: Therefore we are in a state of (shared ) Meditation.
And whatever we say must (eventually ?) lead to that 'ultimate' thing. Then 'you' are not sharing anything. It is only That.

S: The very action of meditation 'is' That ?

K: No. There is only ( the Presence of ?) 'That'...

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 14 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #80
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

Inner disorder & Conflict

The above mentioned 'villains' might very well explain- if not solve - our Great Consciousness Puzzle. In fact, "Dr K" has diagnosed correctly the main cause of our 'existential malaise' But...as for his 'corrective prescriptions', they are pretty much along the line of the old Hypocratic injunction: Doctor, heal yourself !

So, here's just a very basic perception - subject to corrections and suggestions from our fine readers - There is within every living being an innate tendency for harmony & order ( some may even call it 'love' ) and so much more so in the highly developped human brain. Now, instinctively, the young brain looks for this sense of harmony, protection & love outwards- like the new born baby looks for all its physical & psychological needs to the loving mother. However, as the child grows up, it becomes obvious that the 'providential' mother cannot provide everything- far from that- in an outward world full of self-interest . So the young brain soon realises that it has to do something for itself and the 'natural' tendency is not just to look towards the outward opportunities available, but to create a successful 'temporal' strategy ( study, learn a skill, get a job, build a house... all the way down to retiring in Florida)... Now, this 'temporal' scenario ( created by the thinking brain) is itself facing an endless series of material limitations & impediments ( since practically everyone wants less or more the same things as yourself) the 'natural' brain attitude is to 'fight' ( or flee ? ) which inwardly amounts to a daily existence pretty similar to a (psychological) 'war zone'- and we all know what follows.

So up to here we may (academically ?) notice that the inwardly ignorant human brain didn't know any better. But supposing it still has the elementary good will to learn, does it have any other 'real' options ? The obvious one is trying to improve or optimise its present condition - and most of us are working hard & 'struggling' along this direction . But - en passant- it should be noticed that this is just another 'temporal' scenario - directed along a time- line of optimisation of the overall quality of our living - and at this point of our evolution as an intelligent species this is we are

Now, at this point our spiritual development do we really have a responsible choice ? The simple answer is Yes, we have : rather than struggling endlessly to find a way out of our more & more uncomfortable state of inner confusion & conflict, we can 'abide with what is' by assuming our total responsibility for the ongoing facts - ( some might even call this a first step in holistic 'meditation' ) Now, if this 'vertical' endeavour is sensibly reducing our inner sense of dis-harmony & conflict , this might be an indication that we're on the right track - which, incidently is not 'time binding' anymore .

Now, whether this new outlook is actually throwing light on the proper way to solve the whole Puzzle is pretty much... 'in the eyes of the beholder' , but for myself the parallel is quite clear to having a bird's eye view of the mythical labyrinth

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 15 Feb 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 15 Feb 2018 #81
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

How Can the Human Mind Renew Itself?

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I was wondering whether we could discuss the nature of (a new) birth in the human mind, that is, whether a mind that is jaded, old and incapable of perception can renew itself totally. For you see, sir, the problem with many of us is that as we grow old we find that the quickness of our minds...

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): ... is lost ?

PJ: Yes, that the capacity to perceive (holistically) and 'take in' deeply, grows pretty dim.

K: Are you asking whether it is possible to keep the mind very young and yet 'ancient'?

PJ: Obviously this 'ancient' (quality of mind) you speak about is unrelated to time as ( millions of ) 'yesterdays'. What then is the nature of this 'ancient'(-ness)?

K: Let’s go into it (holistically) . ( To start with ?) the human brain has its own (self-) protective nature; there is a protective (neuro-)chemical reaction when it experiences shock, or pain. The human brain has evolved from the (brain of the ) ape, through time, through tremendous experience. It has acquired a great deal of 'knowledge'—both outward as well as inward—and so it is really very ancient. And, as far as I can understand, it is not a 'personal' brain. It is not ‘my’ brain or ‘your’ brain.

PJ: But, sir, obviously your brain and my brain have a different quality of 'ancient'-ness in them...

K: Now wait. I am just exploring; I am just laying the first bricks. Is it granted that the brain is very old, very ancient and that our brains are not individual(istic) brains?

PJ: Yes.

K: We have reduced our brain to a ( strictly) 'personal' thing—in fact most of us think of it as ‘my’ brain and ‘your’ brain—but the human brain cannot have evolved through time as ‘my’ brain. I mean, such a thing is obviously absurd.

PJ: Yes.

K: Yes, but unfortunately, most of us think that it is a personal brain. ‘My’ brain—and it is from this is born the whole 'individualistic' concept. Now, are we saying that this 'ancient' (temporal) brain has been so conditioned that it has become superficial, rather vulgar and has lost what is imbedded very deep down in the unconscious.

PJ: But the 'ancient' human mind has also asked whether it is possible to free the brain of (the karmic raccumulations of) time built into its aging process.
Sir, when you talk of an ancient brain, are you talking of a brain which has also inbuilt in it...

K: The quality of its own deterioration? Yes.

PJ: Why is that so?

K: Because the more the brain acquires ( tons of specialised experience &) knowledge, the more it limits itself. So, first let us see how 'old' it is in the normal sense of that word, and how in its thousands of years of experience it has limited itself. Therefore, in it there is the ( entropic ?) quality of its own deterioration. Moreover, living in the modern world with all the noise, with all the terrible shocks and so on—has made the brain gets still more (self-centred & ) limited, still more enmeshed in conflict. ( Clue:) the ( self-protective) limitation brings its own ( mentality of ) conflict.

PJ: Sir, the (imbedded) sense of (having lived for) thousands of years, gives to it a (mental) 'density' and 'weight'.

K: Yes, you’re quite right. It has a coarseness to it, a heaviness to it.

PJ: Now, is that what you mean by the 'ancient'?

K: Not quite. Do we admit that the brain by its own evolution has conditioned itself ? And can its inbuilt deterioration can ever be stopped ? Can the brain cells renew themselves in spite of their ( cultural) conditioning, in spite of the agonies, failures, miseries, and all the other complexities of this modern world in which we live, can the ( spiritual matrix of the ?) brain renew itself so as to achieve its 'originality' ( the sense of its 'origin')

PJ: Would you say that the brain cells of the baby are 'original' in that sense?

K: No, of course not.

PJ: So, what is meant by the 'originality' of the brain cells?

K: The word ‘original’—what does it mean?

PJ: A quality of the 'first time' ?

K: Yes, a pristine quality. ‘Original’ means untouched, uncontaminated by knowledge. Can such a brain, which has been conditioned (to live in the field of practical & abstract knowledge?) for many thousands of years, wipe away its conditioning (tendencies?) and achieve a quality of pristine freshness?

PJ: But what is it that will bring a re-birth into the brain?

K: Let’s be clear : is it possible for the human consciousness to totally end all its conflicts? For only then will it be possible to have a 'new birth'. As long as one’s brain, that is, one’s consciousness, is in conflict, no new element can enter into it. Do you see the fact that as long as I am struggling to become something...

PJ: Yes, I think one sees that.

K: Now, if one actually sees that, inwardly as it were, then the question arises whether it is possible to end ( this subliminal struggle of inwardly 'becoming better'?) —to end suffering, end fear, and so on. And does this ending create its own 'opposite'? We generally end a (bad habit?) in order to get to (a better habit) .

PJ: I am not talking about that ( conditional) 'ending'.

K: I mean by ‘ending’ the total perception of ‘that which is’ - having a whole, a complete perception of ( the movement of) that ( self-centred) consciousness which is inside. Such an 'insight' has no motive, no remembrance; it is an immediate perception, and in the ending of it, there is something beyond, which is not touched by thought. That’s what I mean by ‘ending’.

PJ: Is it that the totality of that million years sees itself?

K: Yes, that’s right. Let’s make it a little more simple, a little more definite. Do we see the point that our consciousness has been 'cultivated' ( for the optimising its self-interest?) through time?

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, any ( personal) reaction to the 'ending' of that is ( triggering) a further series of reactions. Which is, if 'I' desire to end it, then that very desire creates another 'object' to be gained.

PJ: Yes...

K: So, can there be a possibility of ( direct inward?) perceiving without the movement of the future? Do you understand what I mean? Ending has no 'future'. There is only ending. But the ( survival conditioned ) brain says, ‘I cannot end that way, because I need a future to survive’.

PJ: Yes, because inbuilt in it is the future.

K: Of course. So ( inwardly speaking) is there an 'ending' (a coming to an end ) of my psychological demands, conflicts, and so on, without the ( after?) thought of ‘What will happen if I end?’

You see, we generally give up something if we are guaranteed something else. I’ll give up, for example, all my (personal files on) 'suffering', if you can guarantee me that there is some extraordinary reward awaiting me. This is because my whole brain, my whole ( time-bound) consciousness, is based on the notion of 'reward' and 'punishment'. ( 'ending' is seen as a 'punishment' and the reward is the continuity being & 'gaining').

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, as long as these two elements ( subliminal trends ?) exist in the brain, ( whatever is going on in ) the 'present'—modified, of course—will go on, will continue (indefinitely for thousands of tomorrows) .

PJ: Right...

K: So, can these two principles of reward and punishment 'end' so that, when suffering ends, the brain is not seeking a future existence in paradise?

PJ: But even if one is not seeking a 'future in paradise', one can see that suffering itself corrodes the brain.

K: You see, Pupulji, it is very important to understand that the brain is constantly seeking ( the certainty of its temporal) security. That’s why tradition, remembrance, the ( cultural) past, have extraordinary significance. The brain needs security. Security being ( outwardly ) food, clothes, shelter and also ( psychologically through ) our faith in God, our faith in some ideal, our faith in a better society in the future.
So, the brain says, ‘I must have ( a constant sense of a ) deep security; otherwise I can’t function’ properly . Right? But physically there is no ( such everlasting) security, because (eventually) you are going to die. And 'psychologically' too there is no (temporal) security at all.

PJ: But I still say that there is one central demand.

K: What? To survive?

PJ: No, sir. The central demand is to have a mind, to have a brain, which has the flavour of a new existence.

K: Who demands it? Who actually wants such a brain? Not the vast majority of people. They only say, ‘Please, let us stay as we are (and fully enjoy our material life ?) ’.

PJ: No, but we are not talking about the 'vast majority'. I am discussing with you, or X is discussing with you...

K: Let’s be clear. I question whether there is security in the ( temporal) sense we want it.

PJ: Sir, the brain will never understand this ( very finnicky) point, because inbuilt in it...

K: But that is why I am saying ( that a holistic) perception is important.

PJ: Perception of what?

K: The ( holistic) perception of ‘what is actually going on'. Right? Of what is going on around me outwardly, and of what is going on inwardly— all that is ‘what is’.

PJ: Yes...

K: Now can this ‘what is’ be ( qualitatively) transformed? ‘What is’ is my ( self-centred ) consciousness which is part of the brain.

PJ: But in the very 'emptying' of that consciousness...

K: That’s the whole point : is it possible to empty or to wipe away the whole of my ( psychological) past? This (self-sustained momentum of the) past 'is' (the process of though-) time. The whole ( active) content of my consciousness is the ( memory of the?) past, which may project ( a brave new ?) future, but this future still has its roots in the past. Do you understand?

PJ: Yes.

K: So, is it possible (in the safe context of holistic meditation ?) to 'empty out' everything? This is really a tremendous question (left for homework ?) . Is it psychologically possible not to have the burden of a 'thousand (thousands' of?) yesterdays? In the 'ending' of that ( time-bound mentality ?) is the beginning of the New. ( In a nutshell:) The ending of that 'is' the ( re-birth of the ) New.

PJ: Is the problem in the (psychological weight of the ) 'burden' or in the 'thousands of yesterdays'?

K: The ( residual memory of the?) thousand yesterdays 'is' the burden. You cannot separate the two (analytically)

PJ: Now, (chronologically) the 'thousands of yesterdays' are a fact. The 'burden' is because I have given a special content to the experiences I have had.

K: Just a minute. Would there be any (personal memory of ) thousand yesterdays if there was no remembrance of the ( personal hurts &) sorrows held in those thousand days? Can I separate the ( painful memories of) yesterday by the calendar?

PJ: Yes. You can cut away the ( objective memory of the ) thousand yesterdays from the pain, from the sorrow, which is the ( personal) 'burden'.

K: Do you know what that means? Have I really 'wiped out' or 'ended' the ( temporal continuity of the ) thousand yesterdays with all their superficialities, their pettiness, their narrowness, brutality, cruelty, ambitions, and so on? ‘Ending’ to me implies that there is no continuation of something that has been.
So, I’m asking, is it first of all possible to completely end the whole ( self-interest based?) content of human consciousness which has grown through millennia? And that ( self-sustained) 'content' is this confusion, vulgarity, coarseness, pettiness and the triviality of our stupid lives.

PJ: But it is also a Goodness...

K: Now, wait a minute. In the the ending of 'that which is not good' there is Goodness. So, (for starters?) is it possible to end all conflict?

PJ: Yes, there is an ending to one's inner & outer conflicts.

K: But is there, Pupul, really an ending? Or is there merely a 'forgetfulness' (& forgiveness?) of what has caused a particular conflict?

PJ: You mean to say, sir, that in the (total) ending of conflict is the birth of the New?

K: Yes. Do you see the implications of ( inwardly living in) conflict? Do you see the depth of it, not just the superficiality? The 'superficiality' is merely to say that I’m no longer British or French or that I don’t belong to this religion or that religion. I am not speaking of the ending of superficial things. I am talking of ( the ending of) what is deeply imbedded.

PJ: You’re talking of 'conflict' as ( the deep sense of) being separated from another ?

K: Yes, as ( a sense of) 'separateness', as isolation which inevitably breeds conflict. That is the 'real thing' (to be dealt with ) . When there is no such 'conflict', can all ( personal?) problems end? And when a new problem arises, can one ( understand its nature & ) end it immediately? Problems mean conflict.

PJ: Why do problems arise?

K: A problem is something thrown at you, something you have to face (and deal with personally) .

PJ: Yes...

K: (But usually ) we ( try to) solve these 'problems' intellectually or physically—which creates still further ( colateral karmic?) problems.

PJ: You mean to say, sir, for the birth of the new...

K: Yes, you’re getting it... It must be so. And, therefore, the birth of the new is ( unfolding ) the most ancient (qualities of human consciousness) .

PJ: Can you say a little more about it?

K: After all, that is the Ground beyond which there is no other ground. That’s the Origin beyond which there is no other origin.

(…..Long pause....)

See, Pupul, this is really a question of whether the brain can ever be free from its own ( temporal ?) bondage. After all, just 'ending something' - for example, ending my hurts is not a total (inner) freedom. The images I have ( subliminally identified ) myself (with) , those ( very intimate ) images get hurt. So, the 'image making' mechanism ( the 'thought-time' mental process ?) is the problem. So the ( ultimate clue for an inner renewal ?) is to live a life without a single image. Then there will be no hurt, no fear, and if there is no fear, there will be no sense of ( craving for self- ) safety or comfort.

Would you say that the Origin of all life is the ancient of ancients, beyond all thought of old or new? Would you say that that is the Origin of All Life - when the mind reaches that point - it is the (innermost sacred?) Ground which is totally Original, New, uncontaminated?

My ( experiential) question is whether it is possible for the human mind to reach that. Meditation, or the silencing of the mind  has been one of the ways through which man hoped to bring it about. What I’m saying is that it requires no effort. The very word ‘effort’ means conflict. That which has no conflict, cannot be approached through conflict.

PJ: In this sense, sir, there is no 'partial' approach at all in your ( holistic) teaching.

K: Impossible. How can there be? If I were to approach it through the various 'yoga' paths which the Hindus have discovered— raja yoga & and the rest, all of which are partial—I would never be able to come near it; I would never be able to approach it.

PJ: Then what does one do as an ordinary human being ?

K: That is the real ( crux of the?) problem : 'you' (personally ) cannot do anything. You can only do physical (survival oriented) activities. But inwardly ( or psychologically) you cannot do anything.

PJ: So then...what does one do?

K: ( As a simple 'rule of thumb' ?) the human brain which has lived in psychological isolation with all its (pending) conflicts, can never possibly come to that Ground—that Ground ( of Creation) which is the Origin of All Life. Obviously not. How can my petty mind, worrying about ( the future of ) my little self...?

PJ: Then... after doing almost everything, I haven’t even taken the first step, then where am I?

K: Let's go into it : what is the first (& last ) step?

PJ: I would say that the first step is seeing ‘whatever is’.

K: Seeing ‘what is’. Right. And how do you approach it (holistically ) ? Do you only see ‘what is’ partially (as an 'observer' observing what is going on?) ? If you see the totality of ‘what is’, it is finished.

PJ: You see, sir, it isn't (really) as simple as that...

K: Of course not. Because our minds, our thoughts, are fragmented; therefore we approach life, or ‘what is’ actually with your 'fragmented' ( culturally formatted ?) brain...

PJ: I’ll say, that with time the fragmented (stuff) gets less and it is possible when we listen to you, for the mind to be still, for the mind not to make any movement, not to make any effort. But ….that’s still not the first step.

K: The first step is to observe (holistically) or to perceive ( the truth or falseness of?) ‘what is’. That is where I would begin—by seeing that I lead a life of fragmentation (a self-isolating life ) . (Pause)

So, if I were to perceive ‘what is’ partially, that would lead to further ( intellectual ) complications. Right? Partial perception creates problems. Now, is it possible to see the whole complex of ‘what is’? Is it possible to see the whole, and not the fragment? Because if I approach fragmentarily my consciousness, my way of thinking & feeling, & my actions— then I am lost (in the resulting confusion) . That’s what is happening in the world. We are totally lost (souls?) . So is it possible to look at life ( holistically) 'as a whole', without fragmentation? Pupul, that is the crux.

PJ: Why doesn’t our old mind see this?

K: How can it see this? How can total, complete, order...

PJ: But you just said that the 'ancient'...

K: Just a minute 'That' , the original Ground is the most ancient.

PJ: But That is ( always?) there.

K: No.

PJ: What do you mean, ‘No’?

K: It is there as an 'idea'. And that is what all ( the religiously minded ) people have maintained : There is God (in you) — that’s just a projection of our own desire to be comforted, to be happy. (...Long pause...)

You see, Pupul, the question is whether a human being can live a ( holistic) life in which there is no fragmentary action. If somebody were to ask, ‘Where am I to begin?’ I would say, ‘Begin there; find out for yourself if you lead a fragmentary life’. Do you know what a 'fragmentary' life is? A way of living in self-isolation; therefore you have no authentic relationship with your husband or wife; you have no relationship with the rest of humanity. So, begin there.
Do you realise what a tremendous ( homework of self-) inquiry you have to make to find out?

PJ: What is this 'inquiry'?

K: ( Holistic ?) Observation. Inquiry is to observe very clearly without any bias, without any direction, without any motive, how my (inner) life is 'fragmented'. It is just to observe it, and not to say, ‘I must make it whole’. The idea of 'becoming whole' is another (hopeful projection of the existing ) fragmentation.

PJ: So the birth of the New...

K: Is not possible unless you see this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 09 Mar 2018 #82
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

An apparently central part in trying to solve the Great Consciousness Puzzle of human consciousness is considering the role of death - also known as 'ending' in its psychological version. It seems a 'no-brainer' that in its physical version death does indeed solve most of our 'personal' problems, but K has the great merit of pointing to the 'positive' aspect of 'ending' our personal problems while still alive & in good health: in ending there is a new beginning. However, a significant initial handicap could be the fact that the animal brain is biologically programmed for physical survival . (This could be one possible reason for K's differentiation between the 'brain' and the 'mind')

So, the experiential validity of the 'K solution' should be first tested on the 'test bench' of meditation - or whatever name we might want to give to a 'known- free' and 'stress-free' self-awareness

For starters, this 'psychological ending' can be best regarded as an unique opportunity of exiting the field of the previously 'known' and there is no doubt that any decent human brain has the psychological ressources of doing it - given a quiet & safe environment.

As for what happens next it might be very similar to opening Pandora's Box (According to Hesiod, when Prometheus stole fire from heaven, Zeus, the king of the gods, took vengeance by presenting Pandora to Prometheus' brother Epimetheus. Pandora opened a jar left in his care containing death and many other 'evils' which were then released into the world. She hastened to close the container, but the whole contents had escaped except for one thing that lay at the bottom: Hope)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 23 Mar 2018 #83
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

A few afterthoughts on...thought

Quite obviously, the experiential solutioning of this Giant Consciousness Puzzle has to go through the understanding of our self-centred thinking ( aka: thought)

Now, K has often offered the simplest definition of 'thought' : the ( mechanical or the calculated) response of our past memory.
Now why doesn't this totally holistic definition seem to be practical enough ? One major reason is that our thinking is a multi-level self-sustaining process which - unless other people provide us with the minimal amount 'food, clothes & shelter'- is actually taking care of our everyday survival. So, as the birds never forget how to fly, a human being struggling to survive decently in this rather chaotic modern world, would never forget 'how to think'.

And for obvious safety reasons, the thought process is providing itself with a 'controller' entity, namely the 'thinker'- who is in charge - among other chores with providing a safe enough environment for our own survival & that of our close members of family, community, etc etc. And of course, the more disorderly is our social environment...the more we have to 'think' about sustaining or optimising our material stability.

However, the more our material condition is improving, a secondary level of thinking begins to surface : "how about my psychological security & well being ?" And from here on the K Teachings are offering a few invaluable insights - providing we are keen enough to engage in a dynamic of self-knowing.
Of course, we'll have right away a wholly different set of collateral 'psychological' problems like; if the 'thinker' is capable enough to provide the basics of our material existence, does it have any relevance in the solutioning of our psychological problems ? And if not, can we just 'dismiss it' ? And who or what will take care of solving these problems ?

Here too, K is slipping us the 'right answer' : Intelligence , but what is it actually ? Is our brain already familiar with this 'alternative holistic function or does it have to learn it from scratch? We can notice at this rather crucial point in our spiritual developpment that the human brain actually has an 'intelligent' potential, except that it is using it only in 'extreme' crisis situations; as K puts it, thought gets sick of continuously 'thinking' how to solve this or that problem and suddenly occurs is a gap of 'non-thinking' in which deeper ressources of natural intelligence are surfacing and bring a global understanding of that particular problem (aka: the partial insight) or a more comprehensive understanding -including the 'creator of the problem' ( aka: the 'total insight')

The ultimate 'holistic question' that has to be answered then is: can these two functions of a material brain and of a non-material intelligence cooperate together in harmony - or in other words, can thought find its right place and not interfere with the wider spiritual issues ? Paradoxically enough, it seems to be a basic question of 'free will': is the totality of our psyche ready to leave the (only apparently safe !) 'shores of the known' and place all its bets on self-awareness & attention ? It is a major existential question that can and has to be answered only by our own responsible conscience - and no amount of other people's coaxing ( including K's ) will have any long lasting impact.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 23 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 29 Mar 2018 #84
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

Better late than never, we should perhaps point out that there may be an 'alternative' ( energy savings ) approach to solving this 'Giant Puzzle of Human Consciousnes', namely to deal with our own brain cells through a more direct awareness . In the modern computer technology this original approach would be synonimous to what is commonly called the 'machine language'. Many modern computers are being programmed through an intermediary language - which is pretty similar with dealing with our own psyche through well known verbal symbols such as 'fear', 'envy', self-centred thinking or even 'intelligence', 'compassion' & 'love'.

Needless to say that this more 'direct' approach requires a certain level of inner integration & harmony, not to mention the quiet inner space of a 'meditator - free' meditation .
Anyways, what are our 'brain cells' doing all day long ? Apparently nothing noticeable since their basic 'recording-remembering' function is further used by higher levels of thinking in the everyday implementation of its techno-survivalistic schemes & strategies. However, there is actually a lot of discrete & anonymous activity going on 'down there'

As time goes by I will attach a few 'brain-cells related' K clues, starting with this one:

"Have you not noticed that before you go to sleep, the brain cells establish order? "I should not have done this, I should not have said that." And when going to sleep, unless you establish order, it creates its own order. These are all facts. The brain cells demand order which is ( translated in terms of psychological ?) security."

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 29 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 30 Mar 2018 #85
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 708 posts in this forum Offline

THE BRAIN CELLS AND THE PRISON OF THE 'KNOWN' ( a reader friendly edited K dialogue from Tradition & Revolution)

Krishnamurti: I wonder if we could discuss this morning what 'direct perception' means. Is it a mere intellectual process or is it visual perception or is it a combination of both? Is it
a psychosomatic state or is it something entirely different?
The 'mind' takes in much more than the eye does. So when we talk about ( direct) perception, what do we mean by that word?

SW: When I come into this room, I notice the fine design of the carpet. Very soon I am seeing and not seeing it. There must be some other factor involved other than the ( mere visual) contact of the object and the senses, in the awareness of what I see . The first awareness of inattention comes to me that way.

Krishnamurti: I have not come to the point of attention and inattention. ( For starters) all I know is the visual perception. I see you sitting there. Then there is the ( superposition of the mental) 'image' which the intellectual capacity of thought holds. That is what we generally
call perception, is it not?

A: I see an object. Then there is an image of that object. Then there is the memory (and thought processing ) of that image. Then I see something else and the whole process begins again.

Krishnamurti: All the sensory impressions that are recorded (in the memory of the brain cells) , the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious' ones, plus the ( spontaneous interference of the ) various images, conclusions, prejudices, all that is involved in perception.
Thousands and thousands of ( visual & mental) 'images' are recorded and held in the brain cells.
And when I meet you 'I turn on' my attention and the (previously stored ) images emerge.
This is the machinery that is in operation in the
ordinary process of perception.
I want to see. ( For starters ) that is all I know. Where does the trouble begin?
If my mind is ( getting) 'loaded' with all these accumulated images, conscious or unconscious, where is the place for sensitivity?

A: With every new response, which I call perception, the degree of sensitivity is
inherent. I do not understand why and from where this degree comes, because ignorance is imponderable. If I look through the (self-protective screen of ) ideas, then there is no perception.

Krishnamurti: The mind which is crowded with impressions and information about the perceived object, is looking through this burden . It looks at you with its ( mental) associations, with jealousy, pleasure, pain. What is wrong with that?

R: I am never 'face to face'. I see there is sensory perception, then the images, then the likes, dislikes; those are facts also, but which I do not realize.

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

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

Krishnamurti: First I want to be clear about this point : there are thousands of sensory perceptions and thousands of 'conclusions' - let us cover the whole of that ( interference of our past experience) by the ( generic) word "conclusions". Through this ( self-protective screen of) 'conclusions' I look at everything , and each succeeding sensory perception thickens the same (self-centred mode of) perception. This is the process which is going on all the time, all through life.
Now, the image-making and conclusion are of the past and while the sensory perception is immediate, its 'conclusions' become the ( stand-by memory of the ) past. So, ( metaphorically speaking) I am looking at you through the 'eyes of the past'. What started as
direct perception is not perception at all. That is what we are doing all the time : all visual perception is translated in terms of
conclusions. That is tradition, is it not? That is experience. Experience, knowledge, tradition, all that is contained in the (generic) word "past" and in the word "conclusion; and that is the structure and the nature of the
brain cells. The brain cells are the (active memory of the ) past: They 'retain' the memory of the past because in that there is safety - in the biological processes as well as in the psychological accumulations. In that there is
tremendous safety.

SW: Am I really safe?

Krishnamurti: Look at it. Otherwise you
would not know your name, you would not know how to go to ( home to) Bangalore, recognize your husband or wife. Living in that ( mentality based on) tradition, knowledge, experience and/or conclusions, there is nothing disturbing, there is the feeling of complete safety.

SW: Agreed, there is nothing to disturb.

Krishnamurti: Anything new (unexpected) is disturbing and as the brain cells
need ( a sense of inner) order they find it in ( following safe routines of) the past.

A: What is wrong with that?

Krishnamurti: There is nothing wrong in that. I am just enquiring into the nature of sensory, visual perception, into the operations of
the brain, the mechanism of thought, and how the ( time-bound) mind operates;
there is safety in sensory perception, image, conclusion, the past. All that is our (genetic & cultural) tradition. In tradition there is safety: In the ( fool-proof experience of the ) past there is ( a sense of) complete security.

SW: This 'security' also implies struggle.

Krishnamurti: Security implies the sense of not wanting to be disturbed. The brain needs
order because in order there is security. (It may establish order in disorder which is leading to neurosis) . See this?

SW: That is perfectly clear.

Krishnamurti: In ( following the ways of) tradition there is ( a certain sense of) order. The brain creates for itself a ( psychological) harbour where it feels safe. And K comes along with his 'revolutionary' ideas and tells
you that this is not (an authentic) order, and so there is an (ongoing ?) conflict ( of psychological interests) between you and him.
You reduce the new in terms of the old and there find safety,,security. Why does the mind do this? The French revolution upset the whole established structure but soon the ( post-revolutionary) brain created ( a new) order out of ( the old) disorder, and that was the ( beginning of the) end for (the French) revolution.

A: We have just discovered an experiential 'fact' - that the moment we see something new which creates a disturbance, ( the ordinary self-centred ) perception is the instrument by which we convert the new into the old.

Krishnamurti: This is ( part of) the ( time-binding) biological process of the brain. It is even becoming a biological necessity for the brain, because in that it finds the most efficient way of working. Unless the brain cells themselves understand the ( 'psychological) danger' of seeking security in ( following the pattens of the ) the past, the brain cells will not ( have the freedom to ) see anything new. The brain cells themselves have to see the immense danger of what they consider their ( psychological) security in the past.

A: Which would imply a total change ( in their internal activity ) .

Krishnamurti: How is the brain which is insistently demanding ( an authentic temporal) security, how is that brain to see that in (relying on its psychological experience of the ) past there is no (long lasting) security, but always in ( being open to ) the new?
Presently the brain cells are (constantly) seeking security in the knowledge which has been gathered through ( our personal & collective) experience. In knowledge there is security and knowledge is the past.

SW: There is also a modified continuity in this process which creates the feeling of having progressed.

Krishnamurti: This knowledge can be expanded,
continued, modified, but it is still within the field of the 'known'.

SW: All that you say is fact. But humanely speaking there seems to be something missing in all this.

Krishnamurti: What is the ( 'little) something' which is not quite right? The human mind is always a ( virtual) prisoner (a hostage of time ?) Being (comfortably installed?) in this prison (of the known?) he talks ( endlessly) about freedom (of speech?) or of... Nirvana.
He knows ( that his life in this virtual) prison is not freedom, but ( subconsciously?) wants freedom, because his present life is a repetitive, mechanical continuity, while in ( his few moments of experiencing the sense of total ) freedom there is joy, there is beauty, there is something new happening.

So, man had to invent an ( existential) ideal, or he pursues God, Truth, Enlightenment, but even as he projects them he is always anchored to the past. Biologically this anchorage is necessary, but can the brain see where knowledge is essential and also see the danger of ( living exclusively in the field of) knowledge which brings about division?
Isn't the 'psychological' knowledge the
factor that divides us ?

SW: Yes, of course.

Krishnamurti: Do not agree. "See'' (the truth of it) Can the brain cells seek ( its material) security in ( the areas of practical) knowledge, and also be aware that in knowledge there is a danger of division?

A: Knowing that knowledge is necessary here....

Krishnamurti: And also knowledge is ( potential) danger ( inwardly) because it divides.

SW: To see both at the same time seems pretty difficult...

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

A: But then, knowledge divides what?

Krishnamurti: Knowledge in itself is (quantitatively & qualitatively limited & therefore ?) divisive : the 'known' and
the 'unknown' , the ( temporal division of) 'yesterday' , 'today' and 'tomorrow'. And when I say 'I know you', what I 'know' is the image and the conclusions I made previously about you.
Can the brain cells seeking security in knowledge (become aware ) that knowledge at one level is necessary and at another level is divisive and therefore dangerous? The factor of division is the building of (psychological) images (about ourselves & about the others) .

(Our total consciousness ?) knows ( intuits that) in this there is no freedom and therefore
it has to project an (ideal of) freedom outside the prison. But when it sees the whole (limited) structure of knowledge, then all is understood.

( Recap:) In this ( divisive living in the field of the known there ) is the ( implicit) bondage of time. But, the brain cells also know (or intuit?) that ( living ) in this ( virtual prison ) there is no freedom, and they want freedom. In (an universally integrated) freedom there may be a super-security. And that is why man has from immemorial times talked of freedom. But as freedom is not ( available) within (his inner) prison, man has always thought of freedom as outside. And we are saying that this freedom is (to be found in) here, not outside, right?

SW: In other words : is there ( an authentic) freedom in the field of knowledge?

Krishnamurti: Is there freedom in the past? Knowledge is the past. Knowledge is the accumulation of a million years of
experience. Does this experience give freedom? Obviously not. So is there such a thing as freedom?

SW: I can see that freedom is not ( to be found) outside (of oneself) but there is no true sense of freedom inside (myself) either...

Krishnamurti: There may be ( an opportunity for ?) absolute freedom 'in here'.
Thought seeks this freedom somewhere where it is perceivable, where it is not the
projection of the past which is still knowledge.
Thought has created all this (inner prison of the known) . I have said I must have (lots of) knowledge, but is that (bringing any authentic) security? I see wars, the endless divisions, the 'yours' and the 'mine', the 'we' and the 'they'- is there security in all this (self-divisive mentality?)

See what we have found? In ( the practical) knowledge there is security, but not
in this ( self-divisiveness ) which is the result of knowledge. The brain cells have sought ( a temporal ) security in that, but is there security?

( So, for 'homework':) these ( knowledge dependent ?) brain cells have now to see for themselves ( the truth) that there is no ( authentic sense of harmony & ) security there. ( clue : it is a tremendous inner discovery!) So thought says, what next? Is there an ending of "myself" ( the 'thinker' ?) without any ( resistance or) effort?
To ( meditatively) come to this (ending of psychological time?) point requires tremendous subtlety, which is sensitivity.
Can ( this process of thought-time) end by itself? All this ( inner enquiry) has needed great attention, great awareness; the moving step by step, never missing a thing, that has its own ( self-) discipline, its own order. The brain now is completely orderly, because it has followed step by step, seeing its own ( redundant) attitudes, searching into things that have no security, seeing that it has sought security in division.

When it (finally) sees that in (its self-created ? ) division there is no ( true) security, therefore, every step is a step in order and that ( integrated) order is its own security.

So, ( a new inner) order is ( created by the non-verbal ) perception of things 'as they are'. I cannot see things 'as they are' if I have ( culturally biased ? ) conclusions. Thought has sought security in ( accumulating such ) 'conclusions', which have spread disorder. Therefore it now sees this and rejects 'conclusions' immediately, because, it wants an ( authentic inner sense of) security. Therefore, thought functions in ( the field of ) knowledge only where it is necessary but nowhere else because everywhere else the function of thought is to create ( static) conclusions &
images. Therefore, ( the self-centred process of ) 'thought (-time)' comes to an end.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 30 Mar 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 61 - 85 of 85 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.)