I have been through the transformation of consciousness that Krishnamurti spoke about and which he urged people to do as a matter of global importance. I would like to add something to what he wrote about and offer a piece of advice to anyone undertaking it.
Beyond the "me" state that the human mind has produced itself into, with tragic consequences, one finds oneself in a state which has three levels: the universe, the human level, and thought still operating separately to some extent. From what I can gather from what I have read of K.'s writings he remained in this state for the rest of his life. In my experience this three-level state is transitional and one is not meant to stay in it. It feels quite unnatural and inherently unstable. If one completes the transformation what happens is the three levels of consciousness resolve into one thing which is something and nothing.
This "something" has no immediate, direct information about what it is, but it can be safely taken to be everything that consciousness has been revealed to be throughout the journey from the "me" state: the human being from the beginning of the human race; thought; and the universe. This resolved state feels very natural, unified and stable. If feels simply like a human being, whatever that is. It is the truth at the human level because you are not bound to illusion.
I don't know why K.'s consciousness never resolved (if I am right in thinking that it didn't) but I am very suspicious about his practice of meditation. He said that he didn't meditate in the ordinary sense, but that he woke up meditating. So he was in some kind of state where he was continually meditating. He believed meditation was extremely important and that the universe may be in a state of meditation. In the resolved state, where thought is no longer operating separately, I'm not even sure it would be possible to meditate. I don't really see how it would be possible and I am very suspicious that K.'s practice of meditation prevented his consciousness from ever resolving. I know there are grand traditions of meditation but to me it is an artificial practice that I don't believe anything real can be gained from and my advice to anyone who undertakes this transformation is: don't meditate. Don't do anything artificial to try to control or engineer what is taking place. You won't be able to help the transformation but it may be possible, at least in this last stage, to harm or hinder it.
The transformation is no doubt every bit as important as K. said it was. It is initiated by letting go of the image structure - basically the self-image but it includes one's images of everyone and everything else, they all imply the self - that thought has produced, in a single action. Initially that's all you have to do. This will lead to insight into the deep suffering of human kind and the ending of that suffering.
It is my profound hope that others will undertake this journey. I believe that the more people who do it, the easier it will become for others.

Elizabeth

This post was last updated by Dev Singh Thu, 28 Jan 2010.

Elizabeth A. wrote:
The transformation is no doubt every bit as important as K. said it was. It is initiated by letting go of the image structure - basically the self-image but it includes one's images of everyone and everything else, they all imply the self - that thought has produced, in a single action

Assuming you are not deluding yourself, imagining yourself to be transformed, I'd like to know more about this "single action". Obviously, one cannot perform it until one reaches a certain awareness of what the problem is, and clearly, most of us have not reached that state of awareness. Why is this?

That is an extremely good question and I'm not sure I can answer it adequately. For my own part I don't think I had any choice, but that's no use to anyone else. You need to become aware of what the problem is and where it is - that you are in the same place with it - and that it is connected with all the sufferings of mankind. The bluff is that everyone needs the image structure. It is supposed to be absolutely essential. Ending the structure means calling that bluff. At least, I'm saying it's a bluff. Maybe people actually do need to be deluded and to suffer. But you either continue to accept the bluff and hang on to it or you call the bluff and let go of it, and you can only do one or the other. Which you do will affect the present and the future of humanity. You have to be willing to act.

Elizabeth

If to bluff is "to make a show of strength or confidence in order to mislead", the self-concious human being is both the bluffer and the bluffed. This implies that one is unconciously carrying on a deception for the purpose of maintaining a delusion. To "call" this bluff, then, to commit the "single action" of which you speak would require awareness of this unconcious activity, would it not?

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 18 Dec 2009.

Hi Elizabeth,

<pre> Reading your comments on the subject of transformation,it struck me that it was not what K had to say but what he was. With direct experience of him one could see that he was the message,not what he was saying. Do you find that others are influenced just by your presence?
</pre>

One has to wonder why K didnt change the world.
Regards JohnT (who used to live out at Cobar)

You are dead right. The human being is both the bluffer and the bluffed. This means that calling the bluff is calling your own bluff. But I don't know that it involves an awareness of something about an unconscious process; it simply means realising that one has been doing this - that everyone has been doing this - and ending the structure.

John, who used to live out at Cobar - I would love to influence people simply by my presence - it sounds lovely - but, no, as far as I know, I don't. In fact until very recently I have been living virtually as a recluse, and so very few people have been subject to my presence. But I think that Krishnamurti influenced people by what he was but that mustn't detract from what he had to say. If he didn't change the world it was because people took too much notice of what he was and not enough of what he was saying. If you just bask in the presence of someone else that won't change anything.

Elizabeth,

<pre> I bet its not snowing with you today,we are having the first snow falls for this year,so pretty.
</pre>

Anyway was just wondering how you see the term,often used by K,'you are the world'.
It could mean that we have to change the outside world. On the other hand it could mean we only have to change ourselves to change the world as we are the world.

Regards john (who also used to live at Greenways in S.A)

Hi Elizabeth,Meditation in the sense that K used the term was not toward a result,did not require effort,and was not an attempt to control anything.He said right meditation was the emptying of the mind of all content,that means the mind has to be totally empty,a void,vacant,without want,so it seems that he was saying that through meditation of the sort that he proposed the oneness you speak of is actively present.So one has to ask did K say there was a method,a system,towards an end,which seems to be the implication of your statements?

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

John, It is hard for me to explain "You are the world", not because I don't understand it but because it is not the way I would speak. There are zillions of people, each with their image structure of themselves and everyone else, other nations, etc., each saying "this is the world". It's there that it has to change, in the individual. The world is only the outcome of the individuals.

Elizabeth

Rick, it is hard for me to speak about what Krishnamurti meant by "meditation". I can't say, definitely. But I think the desire to empty the mind of content comes from thought still operating separately. That is the content that you would want to empty. But if thought is no longer operating separately, if one doesn't have that separated process going on, there is nothing to empty.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

<pre> Are you saying that the world that is beyond an individuals perception, is only a construct of the individuals imagination? The same way that the impression of an individuals seperate identity is just images in motion.
</pre>

Reading your responce to Rick,the thought arises that the self is only a problem for the selfish.

john

John,

No. I am saying that the image structure is like a set of coloured glasses. You see everything filtered according to it. You can't really say what the world is beyond the glasses because all you can see (perceive) comes through the glasses. But if you take what you are receiving through the glasses to be accurate information about the world then you will conclude that the glasses are necessary because without them, you wouldn't have the information that, for example, the world is "red". The world, in fact, may or may not be red, but the only way to find out is to take the glasses off (let go of the image structure), otherwise you will continue to receive the information that it's red, whatever the fact is. (What you are as a person is included in this world that you can't really appreciate with the glasses on.)

Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

<pre> Can it be therefore be said that i continue to construct an image of myself and the outside world in order to avoid facing the fact that i know nothing about the nothing?
</pre>

Yes. You continue to construct an image because that's what you are conditioned to do. This is thought's learned behaviour. It has to unlearn the behaviour of doing this and this is only possible with the intervention of awareness. That can only take place when one has let go of the image structure. (Somehow hanging onto the images is preventing awareness coming directly into thought. I don't know how it is doing this, but it is.) This does mean facing the fact that, in a sense, one knows nothing, because everything one has built is illusion.

Elizabeth

Seeking nothing the mind is one with the actual,the what is,no desire,effort,goal,just observation .

THE TRUTH SHALL SET YOU FREE

Although it can be, at times, a rough ride, remaining with what is. That is what the mind doesn't want to do: remain with what is when what is is unpleasant. It is not even used to remaining with what is when what is is pleasant because the mind wants to make an image out of it to contribute to the self-image. So the mind is constantly moving away from what is to avoid something and/or construct something. This means a constant movement in illusion.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth A. wrote:
it simply means realising that one has been doing this - that everyone has been doing this - and ending the structure.

Yes, but what "this" is must be perfectly clear. One can't end the structure of that which one is only dimly aware of.

Nick,
it is thought that is doing it. This is the process that is producing the images. But one can't be fully aware of what is taking place because the action of awareness is blocked from entering into thought. That's the whole problem - that the action of awareness is blocked. This means that one must see that the images are wrong; that they are not reality; that man will live in despair and suffering as long as we maintain this thing; without being able to be properly aware of the process of producing the images - that is only possible once one has ended the structure. Then the action of awareness can enter into the thought process and thought itself sees what it is doing. The whole mind learns what has been going on over all the centuries that awareness has been blocked from thought. I wish it were possible to become aware of exactly what is going on and then to act, but it has to happen the other way around. When one has ended the image structure it is as though someone has finally got the light on and all this behaviour of thought that has been going on in the dark is at last subject to the light and action of awareness.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth.

<pre> Yes with the turning on of the light of awareness, one sees what one is missing all the time, because of the darkness of unnecessary thought.
</pre>

Can unnecessary thought (and hence the illussion of identity be avoided).Just asking to see if you work the same as me,i some times wonder if we are not all wired differently anyway,hence the impossibility for agreement.
An observation on the beginnings of the unnecessary thoughts.There is the responce of the past to a perception,the naming commences the illusion.Afterall the description is not the described.The question is asked why do we only respond with the past to certain perceptions and not to all.Afterall we know the images for most perception,so why do we only respond to a limited number.

john

Elizabeth A. wrote:
When one has ended the image structure it is as though someone has finally got the light on and all this behaviour of thought that has been going on in the dark is at last subject to the light and action of awareness.

If thought can't stop its own movement, how can the "I" content of conciousness be dropped? If one can't discern the psychological from the practical content of conciousness, how can one drop the psychological part and retain the practical part? How can one end "the image structure" without knowing exactly what and where it is? To drop something you must have a concious hold on it to begin with, but I'm not conciously aware of holding onto my self and all the associated images. That's the nature of condtioning.

John,

We only use naming for a limited number of perceptions but one thing that is happening all the time is that thought is treating perceptions as knowledge to be turned into something that can be stored as fixed content. This is happening pretty universally and is something that thought is heavily conditioned to do. The basic idea is that it will serve as a basis when you talk to other people. But the mind in fact has no need for this fixed content. It inhibits the present mind from functioning properly and functions as a barrier.

Elizabeth

Nick,

It's as though part of the mind's conditioning is to be oblivious of the fact that it is hanging on to the images. Nevertheless it is, and anything that can be hung onto can be let go of. All this is in the awareness and despite the superficial conscious obliviousness there is a deeper level of awareness of what is going on and action can come from this level so that the superficial consciousness is brought into taking the right action. The mind acts as a whole to let go of the images.

There doesn't seem to be any need to discern the difference between psychological content and practical content. If one addresses the psychological content, practical content simply seems to be left alone. My opinion is that practical, necessary knowledge is stored differently.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth and Nick,

What is the difference between practical(necessary) and psychological (unnecessary) thought.In here it is the form that thought takes,its structure,that defines the difference.The unnecessary takes on the form as used in talking to others as we are now.It could be said that conversation is just syncronised self perpetuation.This form is best described as conversational identity activity.
Can this form of thought be dropped? Heres what works here,by asking my own intelligence the question 'is this thought necessary' then the present thought is just dropped if it is unnecessary.The necessary are stored for when they are necessary.
The trouble with thought in the form of conversational identity activity,is that because it is frequently used it retains a residual energy and hence is able to re-enter the consciousness,when the level of stimulation is less than its residual energy.

Thought is conversational in structure as you say, with the I playing the central role. But "unnecessary" thought is worse than unnecessary: the whole consciousness is dominated by a mass of illusion. It has also created a blockage by dictating knowledge; a blockage that divides human consciousness from the universe.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth A. wrote:
the whole consciousness is dominated by a mass of illusion. It has also created a blockage by dictating knowledge; a blockage that divides human consciousness from the universe.

We know this, but when "the mass of illusion" is indistinguishable from useful, necessary knowledge, there's no direct awareness of the "blockage", and thus, no "dropping" of it.

This post was last updated by nick carter Fri, 25 Dec 2009.

I am really intrigued when you say "we know this". This is the whole situation that I thought people didn't know. Merry Christmas, in the spirit of peace and goodwill to all men, and thinking of others. I hope you have a good Christmas.

One can tell that the images, all that relate to oneself and others, are not knowledge. One can let go of all this. It's a bit like jumping off a cliff, because it's a leap into the unknown. But doing this not only frees the mind from the images, as well as fundamentally divorcing oneself from accepting images it frees the mind to be able to undergo the action of awareness in all the mind's doings. Nothing is going on in the dark anymore.

It should not be difficult to say that the self-image, and all the related images, are not real knowledge. One can let go of all this as letting go of a whole structure, in a single action. It turns out that the images relate to a me which is an idea, not something real.

Elizabeth

We know we're identified with and attached to images and ideas about our illusory selves, but what we don't know is how to drop them because they're tangled up and entwined with all the other information we need to hold onto.

They are entwined because information is used to create images but the information doesn't have to be physically held onto. The images are clung to, like hanging on to a rope. One can let go of this, and the ordinary information remains unaffected. One simply has to become aware that the structure is there, and one has to have the motivation to end it.

Elizabeth

Elizabeth,

<pre> Belated seasons greetings to you.
</pre>

Why is there no motivation to end my self? My self is surely the most destuctive force in this world.If i were to apply the necessary (thought) unnecessary thought formulae then there would be silence,but soon the next unnecessary appears.Being aware that the duration of a single breath is greater than the duration of a thought can negate the present thought.
The benefits of ending the unnecessary come not from what we gain but rather from what we lose.
Best wishes for the new year,
John