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

Pages from the Book of Life

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 139 in total
Tue, 19 May 2015 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Hopefully this new thread will not end up in a 'calendar' format, with carefully selected quotes and beautiful pictures, but rather offer some authentic pointers towards a spiritual or 'holistic' way of life. Many of them will be certainly inspired by the timeless truths of the K Teachings, but our fine readers and participants are free to bring in their own favourite insights- especially those which worked out in their own life.

To start this new thread here are a few of K's first degree encounters with Nature:

The morning star was quite high in the sky, and as you watched, it grew paler and paler until the sun was just over the trees and the river became silver and gold. Then the birds began, and the village woke up. Just then, suddenly, there appeared on the window-sill a large monkey, grey, with a black face and bushy hair over the forehead. His hands were black and his long tail hung over the window-sill into the room. He sat there very quiet, almost motionless, looking at us without a movement. We were quite close, a few feet separated us. And suddenly he stretched out his arm, and we held hands for some time. His hand was rough, black and dusty for he had climbed over the roof, over the little parapet above the window and had come down and sat there. He was quite relaxed, and what was surprising was that he was extraordinarily cheerful. There was no fear, no uneasiness; it was as though he was at home. There he was, with the river bright golden now, and beyond it the green bank and the distant trees. We must have held hands for quite a
time; then, almost casually, he withdrew his hand but still remained where he was. We were looking at each other, and you could see his black eyes shining, small and full of strange curiosity. He wanted to come into the room but hesitated, then stretched his arms and his legs, reached for the parapet, and was over the roof and gone. In the evening he was there again on a tree, high up, eating something. We waved to him but there was no response.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 23 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 05 Jul 2015 #2
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline



MAN IS AN amphibian who lives simultaneously in two worlds - the given and the homemade, the world of matter, life and consciousness and the world of symbols. In our thinking we make use of a great variety of symbol-systems - linguistic, mathematical, pictorial, musical, ritualistic. Without such symbol-systems we should have no art, no science, no law, no philosophy, not so much as the rudiments of civilization: in other words, we should be animals. Symbols, then, are indispensable. But symbols - as the history of our own and every other age makes so abundantly clear - can also be fatal. Consider, for example, the domain of science on the one hand, the domain of politics and religion on the other. Thinking in terms of, and acting in response to, one set of symbols, we have come, in some small measure, to understand and control the elementary forces of nature. Thinking in terms of and acting in response to, another set of symbols, we use these forces as instruments of mass murder and collective suicide. In the first case the explanatory symbols were well chosen, carefully analysed and progressively adapted to the emergent facts of physical existence. in the second case symbols originally ill-chosen were never subjected to thoroughgoing analysis and never re-formulated so as to harmonize with the emergent facts of human existence. Worse still, these misleading symbols were everywhere treated with a wholly unwarranted respect, as though, in some mysterious way, they were more real than the realities to which they referred. In the contexts of religion and politics, words are not regarded as standing, rather inadequately, for things and events; on the contrary, things and events are regarded as particular illustrations of words. Up to the present symbols have been used realistically only in those fields which we do not feel to be supremely important. In every situation involving our deeper impulses we have insisted on using symbols, not merely unrealistically, but idolatrously, even insanely. The result is that we have been able to commit, in cold blood and over long periods of time, acts of which the brutes are capable only for brief moments and at the frantic height of rage, desire or fear. Because they use and worship symbols, men can become idealists; and, being idealists, they can transform the animal’s intermittent greed into the grandiose imperialisms of a Rhodes or a J. P. Morgan; the animal’s intermittent love of bullying into Stalinism or the Spanish Inquisition; the animal’s intermittent attachment to its territory into the calculated frenzies of nationalism. Happily, they can also transform the animal’s intermittent kindliness into the lifelong charity of an Elizabeth Fry or a Vincent de Paul; the animal’s intermittent devotion to its mate and its young into that reasoned and persistent co-operation which, up to the present, has proved strong enough to save the world from the consequences of the other, the disastrous kind of idealism.

Will it go on being able to save the world? The question cannot be answered. All we can say is that, with the idealists of nationalism holding the A-bomb, the odds in favour of the idealists of co-operation and charity have sharply declined. Even the best cookery book is no substitute for even the worst dinner. The fact seems sufficiently obvious. And yet, throughout the ages, the most profound philosophers, the most learned and acute theologians have constantly fallen into the error of identifying their purely verbal constructions with facts, or into the yet more enormous error of imagining that symbols are somehow more real than what they stand for. Their word-worship did not go without protest. ”Only the spirit,” said St. Paul, ”gives life; the letter kills.” ”And why,” asks Eckhart, ”why do you prate of God? Whatever you say of God is untrue.” At the other end of the world the author of one of the Mahayana sutras affirmed that ”the truth was never preached by the Buddha, seeing that you have to realize it within yourself”.

Such utterances were felt to be profoundly subversive, and respectable people ignored them. The strange idolatrous over-estimation of words and emblems continued unchecked. Religions declined; but the old habit of formulating creeds and imposing belief in dogmas persisted even among the atheists. In recent years logicians and semanticists have carried out a very thorough analysis of the symbols, in terms of which men do their thinking. Linguistics has become a science, and one may even study a subject to which the late Benjamin Whorf gave the name of meta-linguistics. All this is greatly to the good; but it is not enough. Logic and semantics, linguistics and meta-linguistics - these are purely intellectual disciplines. They analyse the various ways, correct and incorrect, meaningful and meaningless, in which words can be related to things, processes and events. But they offer no guidance, in regard to the much more fundamental problem of the relationship of man in his psychophysical totality, on the one hand, and his two worlds, of data and of symbols, on the other. In every region and at every period of history, the problem has been repeatedly solved by individual men and women. Even when they spoke or wrote, these individuals created no systems - for they knew that every system is a standing temptation to take symbols too seriously, to pay more attention to words than to the realities for which the words are supposed to stand. Their aim was never to offer ready-made explanations and panaceas; it was to induce people to diagnose and cure their own ills, to get them to go to the place where man’s problem and its solution present themselves directly to experience.

In this volume of selections from the writings and recorded talks of Krishnamurti, the reader will find a clear contemporary statement of the fundamental human problem, together with an invitation to solve it in the only way in which it can be solved - for and by himself. The collective solutions, to which so many so desperately pin their faith, are never adequate. ”To understand the misery and confusion that exist within ourselves, and so in the world, we must first find clarity within ourselves, and that clarity comes about through right thinking. This clarity is not to be organized, for it cannot be exchanged with another. Organized group thought is merely repetitive. Clarity is not the result of verbal assertion, but of intense self-awareness and right thinking. Right thinking is not the outcome of or mere cultivation of the intellect, nor is it conformity to pattern, however worthy and noble. Right thinking comes with self-knowledge. Without understanding yourself you have no basis for thought; without self-knowledge, what you think is not true.”

This fundamental theme is developed by Krishnamurti in passage after passage. ‘’There is hope in men, not in society, not in systems, organized religious systems, but in you and in me.” Organized religions, with their mediators, their sacred books, their dogmas, their hierarchies and rituals, offer only a false solution to the basic problem. ”When you quote the Bhagavad Gita, or the Bible, or some Chinese Sacred Book, surely you are merely repeating, are you not? And what you are repeating is not the truth. It is a lie, for truth cannot be repeated.” A lie can be extended, propounded and repeated, but not truth; and when you repeat truth, it ceases to be truth, and therefore sacred books are unimportant. It is through self-knowledge, not through belief in somebody else’s symbols, that a man comes to the eternal reality, in which his being is grounded. Belief in the complete adequacy and superlative value of any given symbol system leads not to liberation, but to history, to more of the same old disasters. ”Belief inevitably separates. If you have a belief, or when you seek security in your particular belief, you become separated from those who seek security in some other form of belief. All organized beliefs are based on separation, though they may preach brotherhood.”

The man who has successfully solved the problem of his relations with the two worlds of data and symbols, is a man who has no beliefs. With regard to the problems of practical life he entertains a series of working hypotheses, which serve his purposes, but are taken no more seriously than any other kind of tool or instrument. With regard to his fellow beings and to the reality in which they are grounded, he has the direct experiences of love and insight. It is to protect himself from beliefs that Krishnamurti has ”not read any sacred literature, neither the Bhagavad Gita nor the Upanishads”. The rest of us do not even read sacred literature; we read our favourite newspapers, magazines and detective stories. This means that we approach the crisis of our times, not with love and insight, but ”with formulas, with systems” - and pretty poor formulas and systems at that. But ”men of good will should not have formulas; for formulas lead, inevitably, only to ”blind thinking”. Addiction to formulas is almost universal. Inevitably so; for ”our system of upbringing is based upon what to think, not on how to think”. We are brought up as believing and practising members of some organization - the Communist or the Christian, the Moslem, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Freudian. Consequently ”you respond to the challenge, which is always new, according to an old pattern; and therefore your response has no corresponding validity, newness, freshness. If you respond as a Catholic or a Communist, you are responding - are you not? - according to a patterned thought. Therefore your response has no significance. And has not the Hindu, the Mussulman, the Buddhist, the Christian created this problem? As the new religion is the worship of the State, so the old religion was the worship of an idea.” If you respond to a challenge according to the old conditioning, your response will not enable you to understand the new challenge. Therefore what ”one has to do, in order to meet the new challenge, is to strip oneself completely, denude oneself entirely of the background and meet the challenge anew”. In other words symbols should never be raised to the rank of dogmas, nor should any system be regarded as more than a provisional convenience. Belief in formulas and action in accordance with these beliefs cannot bring us to a solution of our problem. ”It is only through creative understanding of ourselves that there can be a creative world, a happy world, a world in which ideas do not exist.” A world in which ideas do not exist would be a happy world, because it would be a world without the powerful conditioning forces which compel men to undertake inappropriate action, a world without the hallowed dogmas in terms of which the worst crimes are justified, the greatest follies elaborately rationalized.

An education that teaches us not how but what to think is an education that calls for a governing class of pastors and masters. But ”the very idea of leading somebody is antisocial and anti-spiritual”. To the man who exercises it, leadership brings gratification of the craving for power; to those who are led, it brings the gratification of the desire for certainty and security. The guru provides a kind of dope. But, it may be asked, ”What are you doing? Are you not acting as our guru?” ”Surely,” Krishnamurti answers, ”I am not acting as your guru, because, first of all, I am not giving you any gratification. I am not telling you what you should do from moment to moment, or from day to day, but I am just pointing out something to you; you can take it or leave it, depending on you, not on me. I do not demand a thing from you, neither your worship, nor your flattery, nor your insults, nor your gods. I say,” This is a fact; take it or leave it. And most of you will leave it, for the obvious reason that you do not find gratification in it.”

What is it precisely that Krishnamurti offers? What is it that we can take if we wish, but in all probability shall prefer to leave? It is not, as we have seen, a system of belief, a catalogue of dogmas, a set of ready-made notions and ideals. It is not leadership, not mediation, not spiritual direction, not even example. It is not ritual, not a church, not a code, not uplift or any form of inspirational twaddle. Is it, perhaps, self-discipline? No; for self-discipline is not, as a matter of brute fact, the way in which our problem can be solved. In order to find the solution, the mind must open itself to reality, must confront the givenness of the outer and inner worlds without preconceptions or restrictions. (God’s service is perfect freedom. Conversely, perfect freedom is the service of God.) In becoming disciplined, the mind undergoes no radical change; it is the old self, but ”tethered, held in control”. Self-discipline joins the list of things which Krishnamurti does not offer. Can it be, then, that what he offers is prayer? Again, the reply is in the negative. ”Prayer may bring you the answer you seek; but that answer may come from your unconscious, or from the general reservoir, the storehouse of all your demands. The answer is not the still voice of God.” Consider, Krishnamurti goes on, ”what happens when you pray. By constant repetition of certain phrases, and by controlling your thoughts, the mind becomes quiet, doesn’t it? At least, the conscious mind becomes quiet. You kneel as the Christians do, or you sit as the Hindus do, and you repeat and repeat, and through that repetition the mind becomes quiet. In that quietness there is the intimation of something. That intimation of something, for which you have prayed, may be from the unconscious, or it may be the response of your memories. But, surely, it is not the voice of reality; for the voice of reality must come to you; it cannot be appealed to, you cannot pray to it. You cannot entice it into your little cage by doing puja, bhajan and all the rest of it, by offering it flowers, by placating it, by suppressing yourself or emulating others. Once you have learned the trick of quietening the mind, through the repetition of words, and of receiving hints in that quietness, the danger is - unless you are fully alert as to whence those hints come - that you will be caught, and then prayer becomes a substitute for the search for Truth. That which you ask for you get; but it is not the truth. If you want, and if you petition, you will receive, but you will pay for it in the end.” From prayer we pass to yoga, and yoga, we find, is another of the things which Krishnamurti does not offer. For yoga is concentration, and concentration is exclusion. ”You build a wall of resistance by concentration on a thought which you have chosen, and you try to ward off all the others.” What is commonly called meditation is merely ”the cultivation of resistance, of exclusive concentration on an idea of our choice”. But what makes you choose? ”What makes you say this is good, true, noble, and the rest is not? Obviously the choice is based on pleasure, reward or achievement; or it is merely a reaction of one’s conditioning or tradition. Why do you choose at all? Why not examine every thought? When you are interested in the many, why choose one? Why not examine every interest? Instead of creating resistance, why not go into each interest as it arises, and not merely concentrate on one idea, one interest? After all, you are made up of many interests, you have many masks, consciously and unconsciously. Why choose one and discard all the others, in combating which you spend all your energies, thereby creating resistance, conflict and friction. Whereas if you consider every thought as it arises - every thought, not just a few thoughts - then there is no exclusion. But it is an arduous thing to examine every thought. Because, as you are looking at one thought, another slips in. But if you are aware without domination or justification, you will see that, by merely looking at that thought, no other thought intrudes. It is only when you condemn, compare, approximate, that other thoughts enter in.” ”Judge not that ye be not judged.” The gospel precept applies to our dealings with ourselves no less than to our dealings with others. Where there is judgement, where there is comparison and condemnation, openness of mind is absent; there can be no freedom from the tyranny of symbols and systems, no escape from the past and the environment. Introspection with a predetermined purpose, self-examination within the framework of some traditional code, some set of hallowed postulates - these do not, these cannot help us. There is a transcendent spontaneity of life, a ‘creative Reality’, as Krishnamurti calls it, which reveals itself as immanent only when the perceiver’s mind is in a state of ‘alert passivity’, of ‘choiceless awareness’. Judgement and comparison commit us irrevocably to duality. Only choiceless awareness can lead to non-duality, to the reconciliation of opposites in a total understanding and a total love. Ama et fac quod vis. If you love, you may do what you will. But if you start by doing what you will, or by doing what you don’t will in obedience to some traditional system or notions, ideals and prohibitions, you will never love.

The liberating process must begin with the choiceless awareness of what you will and of your reactions to the symbol-system which tells you that you ought, or ought not, to will it. Through this choiceless awareness, as it penetrates the successive layers of the ego and its associated subconscious, will come love and understanding, but of another order than that with which we are ordinarily familiar. This choiceless awareness - at every moment and in all the circumstances of life - is the only effective meditation. All other forms of yoga lead either to the blind thinking which results from self-discipline, or to some kind of self-induced rapture, some form of false samadhi. The true liberation is ”an inner freedom of creative Reality”. This ”is not a gift; it is to be discovered and experienced. It is not an acquisition to be gathered to yourself to glorify yourself. It is a state of being, as silence, in which there is no becoming, in which there is completeness. This creativeness may not necessarily seek expression; it is not a talent that demands outward manifestation. You need not be a great artist or have an audience; if you seek these, you will miss the inward Reality. It is neither a gift, nor is it the outcome of talent; it is to be found, this imperishable treasure, where thought frees itself from lust, ill will and ignorance, where thought frees itself from worldliness and personal craving to be. It is to be experienced through right thinking and meditation.” Choiceless self-awareness will bring us to the creative Reality which underlies all our destructive make-believes, to the tranquil wisdom which is always there, in spite of ignorance, in spite of the knowledge which is merely ignorance in another form. Knowledge is an affair of symbols and is, all too often, a hindrance to wisdom, to the uncovering of the self from moment to moment. A mind that has come to the stillness of wisdom ”shall know being, shall know what it is to love. Love is neither personal nor impersonal. Love is love, not to be defined or described by the mind as exclusive or inclusive. Love is its own eternity; it is the real, the supreme, the immeasurable.” ALDOUS HUXLEY

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 07 Jul 2015 #3
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


One wonders what is the future of mankind ? This 'future' is ( a modified continuation of?) what we are now. You see on television endless entertainment from morning until late in the night ; the entertainment of sport - thirty, forty thousand people watching a few people in the arena and shouting themselves hoarse. Or you watch some ceremony being performed in a great cathedral, and that too is a form of entertainment, a sentimental, romantic experience, a sensation of religiosity. Watching all this in different parts of the world, watching the human mind being occupied with (striving to earn a livelihood plus?) amusement, entertainment, sport, one must inevitably ask, if one is in any way concerned: what is the future (of human consciousness?) ? Probably you haven't given it much thought about (our collective) destiny, the result of our present way of life - as we said earlier, this 'future' is what you are now. If there is no t a deep change that is demanding your attention, your care, your affection – if there is not a fundamental change, then the future is ( already obvious in ?) what we are doing every day of our life in the present. One must enquire carefully into this word 'change'. Perhaps a better phrasing is : 'the ending of what is'. The ending, not the movement of changing 'what is' to 'what should be'. ( However?) when desire enters into the act of the ending, that desire becomes the cause of ending. Where there is a cause there is a motive and so there is no real ending at all.

The twentieth century has had a tremendous lot of changes produced by two devastating wars, the 'dialectical materialism', and the technological world which has brought about a great many changes, and when the computers (eventually) take over (the routine chores ?) what is going to happen to our human minds? When this whole industry of entertainment takes over, when the young people, the students, the children, are constantly instigated to pleasure, to romantic sensuality, the (deeper meaning of such words as ) restraint and austerity are pushed away, never even given a thought. You probably won't even listen to what the (spiritual ?) implications of austerity are. When you have been brought up from childhood to escape from yourself through entertainment and the psychologists saying that you must express everything you feel and that any form of restraint is leading to various forms of neuroticism, you naturally enter more and more into the world of sports, amusement, entertainment, all 'helping' you to escape from ( the actuality of?) what you are. The understanding of the nature of what you are, without any reactions to what you discover you are, is the beginning of austerity. The awareness, of every thought, every feeling, like watching a bird in flight - that ( free) watching brings about an extraordinary sense of austerity (sobriety?) that goes beyond all the fooling around with this ideas of self- improvement and self-fulfilment. In this watching there is ( an inner sense of?) great freedom and in that freedom there dignity of austerity. But ( unfortunately?) if you said all this to a 'modern' group of students or children, they would probably look out of the window in boredom because the ( temporal consciousness of the modern ?) world is bent on (biased by?) its own pursuit of pleasure.

It appears that man has always escaped from what he is, from where he is going, from ( fundamental questions as?) What all this is about ? – the ( meaning of the?) universe, of our daily life, of the dying and the beginning. It is strange that we have never realized that however much we may ( succeed to?) escape from ourselves, however much we may wander away consciously, deliberately or unconsciously, subtly, the ( deeper existential?) conflicts (brought by the pursuit of ?) pleasure, the pain, fear and so on are always there. And they ultimately dominate ( the temporal consciousness?) . You may try to push them away deliberately with an act of will but they surface again. And ( the instinctual seeking of) pleasure is one of the factors that predominate; it too has the same conflicts, the same pain, the same boredom. The weariness of pleasure and the fret is part of this turmoil of our life. You can't escape it, my friend. You can't escape from this deep unfathomed ( existential) turmoil unless there is a careful attention, a diligent watching of the whole 'movement of thought' and the 'self'. You may say all this is perhaps unnecessary. But if you do not pay attention to this the future of mankind is not only going to be more destructive, more intolerable but without much significance. All this is not a depressing point of view, it is actually so. What you 'are' (inwardly) now is what you 'will be' in the coming days. You can't avoid it. It is as definite as the sun rising and setting. This is the ( time-bound) share of all man, of all humanity unless each one of us change to something that is not projected by thought.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 07 Jul 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 08 Jul 2015 #4
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


IT IS THE second day of a spring morning. There is a scent in the air of many flowers and the sky is blue, dotted with passing clouds. The beauty of such a morning is timeless. It isn't just this morning: it is the morning of the whole world. You sit quietly far from everything and look at the blue sky, feel the whole earth, the purity and the loveliness of everything that lives and moves on this earth - except man of course.

K: Man is what he is now after many thousands of centuries of ( evolution in) time. His 'future' is what he is now unless there is a deep abiding mutation of his whole 'psyche' (psychological structure?) . Time has become extraordinarily important to man, to all of us - if you had no time you couldn't put things together to bring about a house; you must have time to lay brick upon brick. You must have time to go from here to where you want to go, but we also think that we need a 'psychological' time, the ( subjective continuity in ? ) 'time' of what has one been, modified now and continuing in the future. Man inwardly pins his hopes ( personal expectations?) on time; - one is 'this', but one hopes will become 'that'. In the physical world one can understand that time is necessary to travel, to reach to the desired place. The desired place is the future. There, (organising one's life in terms of?) time seems not only necessary but must exist. And this same movement (mentality?) is extended in the world of the psyche. But is there ( a time of) psychological becoming at all? The religions, the evolutionary books, have informed us that we need time to change (inwardly) from 'what (one) is' to 'what ( one) should be'. And there is a certain ( amount of) pleasure and pain in inwardly becoming 'non-violent' when one is 'violent' (greedy, self-centred, fearful?) , and that it needs an enormous amount of time. And perhaps that is one of the ( psycho-) miseries of man – when that fulfilment, that hope, is not achieved, is not come by easily. Is there actually 'time' in the (inner) 'psychological' world - is the divisive (mentality?) of man that has brought about conflict? After all, ideologies have existed perhaps as long as man can remember. And, like belief or faith, they separate man from man. And this ( mentality of?) separation comes about through time. The 'me', the I, the ego, the person, from the family to the group, to the tribe, to the nation. One wonders if these tribalistic divisions can ever be bridged over. Evolution ( of mankind) has separate groups, so time, knowledge, experience, definite conclusions, will never bring about a global relationship, a global mind.

So the question is: is there a possibility of bringing about a change in the actuality of what ( one) 'is', totally disregarding the ( wishful thinking?) movement of time? Is there a possibility of changing ( one's inner heritage of?) violence - can ( greed?) envy, with all its implications, be changed without ( thinking in terms of?) time being involved at all- to radically end 'envy' without time? This 'ending' has no time.

Q : Why do you say, sir, that time is unnecessary for change?

K : Let us together find out what is the truth of the matter, together having a dialogue to explore into this matter. It is the ( generally accepted) tradition that time is necessary for any change. That is correct about the physical time, the time necessary to gain a physical skill, but here we are considering whether the ( human) 'psyche' can ( through will?) reach a 'higher' state of consciousness. That is the whole movement (mentality?) of measurement, comparison. What does ( a radical inner?) ) 'change' imply? We live inwardly in disorder, confused, uncertain, constantly seeking rewards and avoiding punishments. We want to be secure, yet everything we do seems to bring about insecurity. This, and more, brings about disorder in our daily life. We have this constant ( psycho-) urge to move away from ( an unsatisfactory reality of?) "what (one) is", to become something other, rather than the understanding of "what is" and the causes of disorder.'

Q : That I understand, we do 'escape' from (facing?) "what is". We never consider diligently, what is happening now in each one of us. If we have a great deal of pain, psychologically, inwardly, we never look at it carefully. We want immediately to erase it, to find some consolation. And always there is this (instinctive ?) struggle to reach a state where there is no pain, where there is ( inner peace and?) no disorder. But the very attempt to bring about order seems to bring about other problems. So, you are saying, sir, that time is not a factor of change? I am not sure I really understand it.

K : Let us ask the question: is there a ( possibility for a?) timeless (time-free?) perception of that "which is"? That is, to look at "what is" without all the accumulated memories, words, reactions - to look at that feeling, at that reaction of (say for instance) , 'envy'. To observe this feeling without the 'actor' ('controller'?) who is ( impersonating?) all the remembrance of things that have happened before. Time is not merely the (chronological interval between the?) rising of the sun and the setting, or yesterday, today and tomorrow. ( Inwardly, the movement of?) time is much more complicated, more intricate, subtle. And to really understand the nature and the depth of time one has to meditate upon whether in the field of the 'psyche' time has a stop, whether (this thought projected?) time, really, actually, can ever come to an end? That is really the question : whether the continuity of the psyche is a reality or the desperate hope of man to cling to something that will give him some sort of security, comfort. When you look at the heavens, the planets and the unimaginable number of stars, can that ( immensity of the?) universe be understood by the time-bound mind ( by our temporal consciousness?) ? Is time necessary to see instantly that which is always true? One should really 'hold it in your mind', not 'think about it', but just observe the whole (inner) movement of 'time', which is really the movement of thought. Thought and time are not two different things : Time is (the creation of?) thought and thought is (the creation of) time. To put it differently, is there the actual 'ending of thought'? That is, the 'ending of knowledge'? Knowledge is time, thought is time, and we are asking whether this

accumulating ( and updating?) process of ( psycho-) knowledge, gathering more and more information, pursuing more and more the intricacies of one's existence, can end? Can ( the psychological content of?) thought, which is after all the essence of the 'psyche', the fears, the pleasures, the anxieties, the loneliness, the sorrow and this self-centred activity of selfishness, can all that come to an end? When death comes there is the ( compulsory?) ending of all that. But we are not talking about (that) death, the final ending, but whether we can actually perceive that ( the psychological component of?) thought, time, have an ending. Our knowledge after all is the ( result of a constant ?) accumulation ( updating, processing?) through time of our various ( personal and collective) experiences, the recording of various incidents, happenings, and so on; this recording is naturally stored in the brain, this recording is the essence of 'time' ( our temporal consciousness?) . Can we find out when this recording (and usage?) of knowledge is necessary, and whether the 'psychological ' recording is necessary at all? When one is ( feeling) insulted or psychologically hurt by a word, by a gesture, by an action, why should that 'hurt' be recorded? Is it possible not to record the flattery or the insult so that the 'psyche' (the mind?) is never cluttered up, so that it has vast space (inwardly) , and the ( identified?) 'psyche' that we are conscious of as the "me", which again is put together by thought and time, comes to an end?

We are always afraid of something that we have not previously experienced. But you can't 'experience' ( have a personal experience of?) truth. To 'experience' (truth personally ?) there must be the 'experiencer' ( a self-consciousness?) . The 'experiencer' is the result of time, accumulated memory, knowledge and so on. As we said at the beginning, ( understanding the inner process of?) 'time' demands quick, watchful, attentive understanding. In our daily life can one live without 'time', inwardly? The roots of Heaven are not in time and thought.'

Q : Sir, your various statements about 'time' and 'thought' seem now, while I am listening to you, so simple, so clear, and perhaps for a second or two there is the ending and stopping of 'time'. But when I go back to my ordinary routine, the weariness and the boredom of it all, even pleasure becomes rather wearisome - when I go back I will pick up the old threads. It seems so extraordinarily difficult to let go of the threads and look, without reaction, at the way of time. But I am beginning to understand that there is a possibility of 'not recording', if I may use your words. I realize I 'am' the record. I have been programmed to (thinking of) being this or that. One can see that fairly easily and perhaps put all that aside. But the ending of thought and the intricacies of time need a great deal of observation, a great deal of investigation. But you are really saying; just watch without any reaction, give total attention to the ordinary things of life and there discover the possibility of ending time and thought. Thank you indeed for this interesting talk.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Jul 2015 #5
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


We came to this house ( in ojai) which was recently built and with the cleanliness that houses in towns don't have. There were lots of flowers, a place in which to be deeply, inwardly, quiet, not just vegetate.

Silence is a great benediction, it cleanses the brain, gives vitality to it, and this silence builds up a great unpolluted energy, untouched by thought. It is the ( total) energy (of the brain) that has incalculable capacity, skills. And this is a place where the brain, being very active, can be silent. That very intense activity of the brain has the quality and the depth and the beauty of silence. (Holistic ?) education is the cultivation of the whole brain, not one part of it; it is a cultivation of the (whole?) human being. (Such) a school should teach both science and religion. Science really means the cultivation of (the field of?) knowledge, and this has given us the innumerable small things for an easier way of life in which human beings need not struggle endlessly but it has also given us the modern ( techno-?) deity, the computer.

Human beings look to science to bring about peace in the world, but it has failed, just as the politicians have failed to give them total security and peace. And the essence of a religious way of life is inner freedom, to have no conflict, psychologically, inwardly. With such freedom the brain becomes holistic, not fragmented in itself. Freedom also means love, compassion, and there is no freedom if there is not intelligence. If there is some ( cooperating ?) peace among a few people, then those few, not necessarily ( the self-selected?) 'elite', will employ all their skill to bring about a different world, where religion and science can go together. Religion is a form of ( inward?) science : to go beyond (the limitations of?) knowledge and to comprehend the nature and immensity of the human mind and heart. But this ( inward) immensity has nothing whatsoever to do with any 'organized' religion.

A ( holistically oriented ?) school is a place for learning the art of living. This art is the greatest, it surpasses all other arts for this art touches the entire human being, not one part of him, however pleasant that may be. And in a school of this kind, if the educator is committed to this as an actuality of daily life (s)he can actually try to find out in the human brain a way of living that is not caught in problems, strife, conflict and pain. And (such an) educator could also instil in the students' ( beyond the scholastic) acquisition of knowledge this freedom from knowledge (absolutely necessary ?) to understand 'that' which is eternal, which is timeless. Knowledge is of time, and ( a religious mind?) is free from the bondage of time. It seems so urgent and important that we bring about a new generation, even half a dozen people in the world would make a vast difference. But this (new) educator needs (to go through self-?) education (since) this is the greatest vocation in the world.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Aug 2015 #6
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

K to himself: the root-cause of 'psychological' disorder

Everything seems to live (integrated) in (an universal) order, in its own order - the sea with its tides, the new moon and the setting of the full moon, the lovely spring and the warmth of summer. Even the earthquake of yesterday has its own 'order' (a resettling of the tectonic plates?) . Order ( harmony?) is the very essence of the universe - the order of birth and death and so on. It is only man that seems to live ( in the artificial order of self-projected time?) in such disorder, confusion. He has lived that way since he began.

Talking to the visitor sitting on the veranda, with the red climbing rose and a young wisteria and the smell of the earth and the trees, to discuss about human disorder, human confusion and misery, seems so utterly out of place. But there he is, friendly, knowledgeable and probably given (addicted?) to thought. The fog is clearing, there is that spring sunshine and the lizard is coming out, warming itself on the rock, and all the little things of the earth are busy. They have their order, they all seem to be so happy, enjoying the sunshine, with no man near to hurt them, to spoil their day.

Q : If one may ask,what is to you the most important thing in life? What to you is the most essential quality that man must cultivate?

K : If you ( are trying to?) 'cultivate' it , as you cultivate the fields of the earth, then it is not the most essential (most spiritual ?) thing. It must happen naturally, easily, without any self-centred motives. The most important thing for each human being, surely, is to live in order, in harmony with all the things around him - even with something (an environment?) that is ( becoming) ugly, vulgar, without letting it affect or alter the course of his life, alter or distort the order in which he is living. Surely, sir, ( the sense of being integrated in an universal?) order is the most important thing in life, or, rather, one of the most important.'

Q : Why shouldn't order be simply a quality of a brain that can act correctly, happily, precisely (efficiently?) ?

K : ( Universal) Order isn't created by thought. Order isn't something that you follow day after day, practise, conform to. As the streams join the sea, so the river of Order, is endless. But that order cannot be (perceived?) if there is any kind of inner struggle to achieve, or slipping into a routine, into various well defined (settled psychosomatic?) habits. All that is not Order. ( Self-isolation and its resulting ?) conflict is the very source of our disorder, is the very cause.

Q : ( In the material world) everything struggles, doesn't it? Those trees, they have struggled to exist, struggled to grow. The marvellous oak there behind this house, it has withstood storms, years of rain and hot sunshine, it has struggled to exist. Life is conflict, it is a turmoil, a storm. And you are saying, are you not, that order is a state in which there is no conflict? It seems like (you are?) talking in a strange language, something utterly foreign to one's own daily life, one's own way of thinking. Do you, if I am not impudent, live in (such an) Order in which there is no conflict whatsoever?'

K : Is it very important to find out if another is living (inwardly) without effort, without conflict? Shouldn't you rather ask if you, as a human being, who live in ( conflict and ) disorder, can find out for yourself the many causes - or perhaps there is only one cause - of this disorder? Those flowers know anything about order nor disorder, they just 'exist'. Of course, if they were not watered they would die, but dying also is ( part of?) their order. It seems to be the nature of the (material) world: the big things live on little things, and the bigger live on the big. This is the cycle in the world of nature. We know from time to time this sense of total harmony and also (more often than not?) the pain, the anxiety, the sorrow, the (inner and outer?) conflict. The cause of (our inward, psychological) disorder is the everlasting 'becoming' - ( the desire?) to become (better) , to seek ( one's ) 'identity', the struggle to 'be' .

As long as the (human) brain, which is so heavily conditioned, is measuring, moving psychologically from 'this' to 'that', it must inevitably bring about a sense of conflict, and this is ( generating its own?) disorder. Not only becomingt something 'more', 'better', but the ( gratifying) feeling of achieving, gaining - as long as there is this duality (between what one is and what one should be?) , there must be (a time-binding?) conflict. And out of this conflict is (coming) disorder. Perhaps one is aware of all this, but being negligent (not diligent?) in this 'awareness', one 'carries on' living in the same way, day after day all the days of one's life. This duality is not just on the verbal (intellectual?) level but is a deeper division as the 'thinker' and (his) thought. The 'thinker' (mental entity) is 'put together' (automatically generated?) by (the thinking brain?) thought, the 'thinker' is the (identification with the knowledge of the?) past, the thinker is knowledge, and (the process of) thought too is born out of knowledge. Actually there is no division between the 'thinker' and the (process of self centred) thought, they are one inseparable unit; but thought plays a clever ( self-protective) trick upon itself, it divides (splits?) itself. Perhaps this constant (self-) division , this inner fragmentation, is the cause of our (living in?) disorder. Just to see the truth of this, that the 'perceiver' is (not separated from what is?) 'perceived', ends this (artificially generated?) disorder.

The morning ends and the sun now is bright and there are a thousand shadows. The earth is quiet but man is lost and confused.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 03 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Aug 2015 #7
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


K : What does 'death' mean to you, Sir?

Q : As far as I can understand, 'death' means the ending of a living thing, a sudden ending of that person which has been living with all its memories, ideas, pain, anxiety, joys, pleasures – all that has come to an end. And the remembrance of all that, ( of the one who is still alivenot only brings tears but also the realization of one's own inadequacy, one's own loneliness. The idea of (a sudden) separation from the attachments and the pain of attachment - all that and more ceases suddenly. That is death. The ending of a long life, or the ending of a new born baby.

K : It is very important to understand the way we actually live now- why we live this way after so many centuries. Isn't it one constant struggle? Conflict, pain, joy, pleasure, anxiety, loneliness, depression, and working, labouring for others or for oneself; being self-centred and occasionally generous, envious, angry, trying to suppress the anger, or letting that anger go rampant, and so on. This is what we call 'living' - the weariness of it all, the boredom, the inanities: this is our life. Not only yours but the life of all human beings on this earth. This ( inner) agony, fear has gone on from the ancient of days until now - labour, strife, pain, uncertainty, confusion, and joy and laughter. All this is part of our existence. And the coming to an end of all this is called 'death'. Death puts an end to ( the physical objects of ? ) all our attachments, however superficial or however deep. The attachment to one's family, every form of attachment must end with death. Is there such a thing as immortality? The immortal ( essence of our consciousness?) is that which is beyond time and is totally unaware of this ( physical) ending. Is the 'self' ( centred consciousness?) , the "me", immortal? The "me", the I, with all its qualities is put together through time, which is thought- that 'self' (identified consciousness?) can never be immortal.

Secondly (this is a little bit more challenging?): is it possible to ( inwardly) live with death? Why have we divided death from living? Death is part of our life, it is part of our existence - the dying and the living are inseparable. The (continuity of our) envy, t sorrow, the ( self-isolating?) loneliness, and the (occasional) pleasures that one has, which we (generically ) call 'living', and this ( 'ending'?) thing called death - we are always separating life and death. This is a 'psychological' problem which we should question, see the inward implications of, not (self) deceptively. Another (psychological) question involved is the issue of 'time' -the time that separates the living from the ending. Where there is such a 'separation', from "what is" to "what should (or could?) be", ( a mental process of?) time is involved. Sustaining this ( temporal) division between that which is called 'death' and that which is called 'life', is to me a major ( deteriorating?) factor. When there is this division, this separation there is the fear (of 'not being'?). and the effort of overcoming that fear and the (compensating) search for comfort, satisfaction, for a sense of continuity. (We are talking about the (in ner) 'psychological' world not the physical world or the technical world.) It is time that has put the 'self' (consciousness) together and it is ( the same process of) thought that sustains the ego, the self. If only one could really grasp the significance of ( this thought created?) 'time' and the (resulting) separation, psychologically, of man against man, race against race, one type of culture against another. This separation, this division, is brought about by ( the joint process of?) 'thought and time'. And to 'live with death' means a profound change in our whole outloo on existence. (It implies) to end (the 'psychological' ) 'attachments' without time and motive, that is 'dying while living.' Love ( a loving mind?) has no time and is never 'personal'; one may 'love' another but when that love is narrowed down to one person, then it ceases to be (unconditional) Love. Where there really is (a quality of?) Love (in our mind and heart?) there is no division of ( created by thought created ?) 'time' and all the complexities of life, all the misery and confusion, the uncertainties, jealousies, anxieties involved. One has to give a great deal of ( meditative?) attention to (the inner process of?) 'time and thought'. Not that one must live only in the present, which would be utterly meaningless (in the modern world?). ( The thought-created?) time is the 'active memory of the?) past, modified (by the 'present' circumstances?) and continuing ( projecting itself into?)j the future'. It's a 'continuum' and (the self-centred) thought holds on, clings to this. It clings to something which it has itself created, put together.

Another (third and more universal?) question is that you 'are' the (consciousness of the?) entire humanity, « you are the world and the world is you » - what happens to you when you die? You and are the (psychical) manifestation of that Stream of (collective) Consciousness. That Stream (shared colectivistic mentality?) has conditioned (imprinted?) the human brain, and as long as we remain conditioned by (that mentality of self-centred ?) greed, envy, fear, pleasure, joy and all the rest of it, we are (an active contributor ?) part of this stream. Your physical organism may end but you (subconsciously?) are while living, ( an impersonation of?) that stream itself. That Stream is slow at times, fast at others, deep and shallow, narrowed by the 'banks' and breaking through the narrowness into a vast volume of water - as long as you are of that stream there is no (authentic inner ?) freedom. There is no freedom from (the ongoing process of thought created?) 'time', from the ( residual) confusion and the misery of all the (collective and personal?) accumulated memories and attachments. It is only when there is the ending of (the identification with?) that Stream (of self-interest?), the ending, not 'you' stepping out of it and becoming something else, but the ending of it, only then is there quite a different dimension (inward state of mind ?) . That dimension cannot be measured (described or evaluated?) by words. This (meditation act of?) 'ending' without a motive is the whole significance of 'dying and living'. The roots of Heaven are (to be found ?) in ( inwardly integrating?) 'living' and 'dying'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Aug 2015 #8
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

K to himself: on the ebb and flow of life

At last you came to the blue Pacific. It was like a pond this morning, so quiet, so extraordinarily still, and the morning light was on it. One should really meditate on on that glittering water. If you can look at that sea, the sparkle of the dazzling light, and the clear water, with all your senses highly awakened to their excellence, in that observation there is not the ( self-conscious ?) centre as 'you', watching. It is a beautiful thing to watch that sea, and the sand, clean, washed every day. No footprint can remain there, even the little birds of the sea never leave their mark, the sea washes them away. Sitting on the shore watching the birds, the sky and hearing the distant sound of passing cars, it was a most beautiful morning.You 'went out' with the ebb and 'came in' with the tide. You went out far and came back again - this endless movement of in and out and out and in. You could see as far as the horizon where the sky met the waters. It was a big bay with blue and white water and tiny little houses all around it. And behind you were the mountains, range after range. Watching without a single thought, watching without any reaction, watching without identity, only endlessly watching, you really are not awake, you are absent minded, not all there; you are not 'you' but watching. Watching the thoughts that arise and then fade away, thought after thought, thought (the 'thinking' brain?) itself is becoming aware of itself.

Sitting on the beach watching the people pass by, two or three couples and a single woman, it seems that all nature, everything around you, from the deep blue sea to those high rocky mountains, was also watching. We were not expecting anything to happen but watching without end. In that watching there is a 'learning' which is not the accumulation of knowledge but watching closely, deeply, with a swiftness and a tenderness; then there is no 'watcher'. When there is a 'watcher' it is merely the ( acting memory of the?) past watching, and that is not (pure?) watching, that is just remembering and it is rather dead stuff. Watching (free of the past?) is tremendously alive, every moment a vacancy. Those little crabs and those seagulls and all those birds flying by are watching. They are watching for prey, for fish, watching for something to eat; they too are watching. Somebody passes close by you and wonders what you are watching. You are watching nothing, and in that 'no-thingness' everything is.

The other day a man who had travelled a great deal, seen a great deal, written something or other, came - an oldish man with a beard, which was well kept; he was dressed decently without the sloppiness of vulgarity. He took care of his shoes, of his clothes. He spoke excellent English, though he was a foreigner. He said he had talked to a great many people, discussed with some professors and scholars, and while he was in India he had talked to some of the pundits (local wise-men?) . And most of them, according to him, were not concerned with society, not deeply committed to any social reform or to the present crisis of ( the Falklands?) war. He was deeply concerned about the society in which we were living, though he was not a social reformer. He was not quite sure whether society could be changed, whether you could do something about it. But he saw what it was; the vast corruption, the absurdity of the politicians, the pettiness, the vanity, and the brutality that is rampant in the world.

Q : What can we do about this society? - not petty little reforms here and there, changing one President for another, or one Prime Minister for another - they can't do much because they represent the mediocrity, or even less than that, the vulgarity; they want to show off, they will never do anything. They will bring about potty little reforms here and there but society will go on in spite of them.' He had watched the various societies, cultures. They are not so very different fundamentally. He appeared to be a very serious man with a smile and he talked about the beauty of this country, the vastness, the variety, from the hot deserts to the high Rockies with their splendour. One listened to him as one would listen to and watch the sea.

K : Society cannot be changed unless man changes (inwardly) . Man, you and others, have created these societies for generations upon generations; out of our ( self-centred?) limitation, out of our greed, envy, brutality, violence, competition, and so on. ( Therefore ) we are responsible for (accepting?)
all the tribal nonsense and religious sectarianism. Unless each one of us (inwardly) changes radically, ( the outer human) society will never change. It is there, we have made it, and then it shapes us, it puts us in a mould and the mould puts it into a framework which is the society. So this action-reaction is going on endlessly, like the sea with a tide that goes far out and then comes in, sometimes very, very slowly, at other times rapidly, dangerously. In and out; action, reaction, action. This seems to be the nature of this movement (of time?) , unless there is (established a ) deep order in oneself. That ( inward) order will bring about order in society, not through legislation, governments and all that business - though as long as there is disorder, confusion, the law, the authority, which is created by our disorder, will go on.

So the inner (world) , the 'psyche', creates the outer (society) according to its limitation; and the outer then controls and moulds the inner. ( However) the inner always overcomes the outer, for it is far more vital, than the outer. Can this ( time-based?) movement ever stop - the inner creating the outer environment psychologically, and the outer, the laws, the institutions, the organizations, trying to shape (condition?) the human brain, to make it act in a certain way, and the brain, the inner, the psyche, circumventing the outer limitations? This movement has been going on for as long as man has been on this earth, crudely, superficially, sometimes brilliantly - but it is always the inner overcoming the outer, like the sea with its tides going out and coming in. One should really ask whether this (interactive 'evolutionary'?) movement can ever stop - action and reaction, hatred and more hatred, violence and more violence. It has an end when there is only a 'watching' without motive, without direction. Direction comes into being when there is ( a process of psychological ?) accumulation. But the watching, in which there is attention, awareness, and a great sense of compassion, has its own intelligence. This (time-free?) 'watching' and its intelligence act. But this requires a great alertness, to see things directly without the word, without the name, without any (mental) reaction; in that 'watching' there is a great vitality, passion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 07 Aug 2015 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

A meditative outlook on death and sorrow (from The only revolution)

Meditation is the unfolding of the New. The New is beyond and above the repetitious past - and meditation is the ending of this repetition. The 'death' (the ending of our attachment to the old?) that meditation brings about is the (timeless) immortality of the new. The New is not (to be found) within the area of thought, and meditation is the silencing of thought. Meditation is not a (personal) achievement, it is like the river, not to be tamed, swiftly running and overflowing its banks. It is the music without sound; it is the silence in which the 'observer' has ceased from the very beginning. The sun wasn't up yet; you could see the morning star through the tree. There was a silence that was really extraordinary. Not the (interval of) silence between two noises or between two notes, but the Silence that has no reason whatsoever - the Silence that must have been at the beginning of the world. It filled the whole valley and the hills. And this Silence spread, and seemed to go beyond the hills. Towards the end of the evening, as the sun was setting over the western hills, the Silence came in from afar, over the hills, through the trees, covering the little bushes and the ancient banyan. And as the stars became brilliant, the Silence grew into great intensity; you could hardly bear it. The little lamps of the village were put out, and with sleep the intensity of that Silence grew deeper, wider and incredibly overpowering. Even the hills became more quiet, for they, too, had stopped their whisperings, their movement, and seemed to lose their immense weight .


Q : l lost my husband four years ago. He was a doctor and died of cancer. He must have hidden it from me, and only in the last year or so did I know about it. He was in agony although the doctors gave him morphine and other sedatives. Before my eyes he withered away and was gone. I somehow cannot bear this loneliness, this meaningless existence without him. I loved my children; I had three of them, a boy and two girls. One day last year the boy wrote to me from school that he was not feeling well, and a few days later I got a telephone call from the headmaster, saying that he was dead. I don't know what to do. This death has shaken the very foundations of my life. Like a house, our marriage was carefully built on what we considered a deep foundation. Now everything is destroyed by this enormous event.

K : Do you want to talk about this seriously - go to the root of it all? Or do you want to be distracted from your sorrow by some satisfying words?

Q : I'd like to go into it deeply, but I don't know whether I have the capacity or the energy to face what you are going to say. When my husband was alive we used to come to some of your talks; but now I may find it very difficult to go along with you.

K : Why are you in sorrow? Is it for your husband - or is it for yourself? If you are crying for him, can your tears help him? He has gone ( in the next world?) irrevocably. It is a fact which you have to accept; you can't do anything about it. But if you are crying for yourself, because of your loneliness, your empty life, because of the sensual pleasures you had and the companionship, then you are crying out of self-pity? Perhaps for the first time you are becoming fully aware of your own inward poverty. You have 'invested' ( emotionally?) in your husband, and it (the resulting attachment?) has given you comfort, satisfaction and pleasure. All you are feeling now - the agony of loneliness and anxiety - is ( basically?) a form of self-pity, isn't it? His death has shaken you and shown you (brought to the surface?) the actual state of your mind and heart. You may not be willing to look at it, but if you observe a little more you will see that you are ( actually) crying out of your own loneliness, out of your inward poverty - which is, out of self-pity.

Q : You are rather cruel, aren't you, sir? I have come to you for real comfort, and what are you giving me?

K : It is one of the (psychological) illusions most people have - that there is such a thing as (a lasting) inward comfort; that somebody else can give it to you or that you can find it for yourself. I am afraid there is no such thing. If you are seeking ( this illusory?) comfort you are bound to live in ( the comfort of?) illusions, and when the (material support of these?) illusions is broken you become sad because the comfort is taken away from you. So, to understand sorrow and/or to go beyond it, one must 'see' ( acknowledge ?) actually what is inwardly taking place, and not try to cover it up. When you see ( the truth about?) this (sad inner situation ?) , very clearly, then you ( may?) come out of it immediately, without a scratch, unblemished, fresh, untouched by the events of life. ( Recap :) Death is an inevitable fact (of life) for all of us; one cannot escape from it. We try to find every kind of explanation, cling to every kind of belief, but do what you will it is always there; tomorrow, or many years away - it is always there. And ( psychologically ) one has to come into touch with this enormous fact of our life.

Q2 : But the Atman (the eternal soul?) is in every one of us! It is reborn and continues until it realizes that it is (one with) Brahman. We must go through sorrow to come to that ( eternal) Reality. We live in illusion; the world is an illusion. There is only one Reality.

K : There is nothing 'permanent' either on earth or in ourselves. Thought ( the 'thinking brain'?) can give continuity to something it thinks about; it can give 'permanency' to a word, to an idea, to a tradition. Thought thinks itself permanent, but is it permanent? It can build a (mental) image and give to that image a continuity, a permanency, calling it Atman or it can remember the face of the husband or the wife and hold on to (the memory of) it. All this is the activity of (a self-centred ?) thought which creates fear, and out of this fear there is the drive for (seeking some) permanency - the fear of not having a meal tomorrow, or shelter - the fear of death. This fear is the result of thought, and ( the concept of?) 'Brahman' is the product of thought, too.

Q2 : Memory and thought are like a candle. You put it out and re-light it again; you forget, and you remember again later on. You die and are reborn again into another life. The flame of the candle is the same - and not the same. So in the flame there is a certain quality of continuity.

K : But the flame which has been put out is not the same flame as the new flame. There is (must be?) an ending of the old (flame ?) for the new (one) to be. If there is a constant modified continuity, then there is no 'new' thing ( flame) at all. The (memory of) thousand yesterdays cannot be made new; even a candle burns itself out. Everything must end for the new to be.

Q1 : I am not concerned about all these (metaphysical issues?). I am utterly miserable. I have lost my husband and my son, and there are these two children left. What am I to do? K : If you are ( truly) concerned about the two children, you can't be concerned about yourself and your misery. You have to look after them, educate them without the usual mediocrity. But if you are consumed by your own self-pity, which you call "the love for your husband", and if you withdraw into isolation, then you are also destroying the other two children. Consciously or unconsciously we are all utterly selfish (self-centred ?) , and so long as we get what we want we consider everything is all right. But the moment an event takes place to shatter all this, we cry out in despair, hoping to find other comforts which, of course, will again be shattered. So this process (of time and sorrow?) goes on, and if you want to be caught in it, knowing full well all the implications of it, then go ahead. But if you see the ( spiritual ?) 'absurdity' of it all, then you will naturally stop isolating yourself, and live with a new light and with a smile on your face.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 08 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Aug 2015 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

From K's 1973 Journal on: meditation, order and...pleasure

Darkness of the night is as necessary as the light of day. In the
quiet darkness, there is growth and flowering, gathering strength to meet the
vibrant day; night and day are essential; both give life, energy, to all living
things. Only man dissipates it.
Sleep is very important, since in sleep many things happen both in the physical organism
and in the brain (the mind is (the energy of?) the brain; they are one, a unitary movement). To
this whole (mind-brain) structure sleep is absolutely essential. In sleep order, adjustment
and deeper perceptions take place; the quieter the brain the deeper the
insight. The brain needs ( a deep feeling of protection and?) security and order to function harmoniously, without any ( inner fragmentation and?) friction. Night provides it and during quiet sleep there are states (levels of consciousness?) , which thought (the thinking function of the brain?) can never reach. ( Then) dreams are 'disturbance' ( distractors?) ; since they distort
total perception. In sleep the mind rejuvenates itself.
Dreams are the expression (reflexion?) in different forms and symbols of
our daily life. If there is no harmony, no (profound ) order in our daily life of relationship,
then dreams are a ( compensating?) continuance of that disorder. The brain during sleep tries to
bring about order out of this confusing contradiction. ( With age?) in this constant struggle
between order and disorder the brain is (getting) worn out. But it must have ( an inner feeling of protection and?) security in order to function at all, and so beliefs, ideologies and other 'neurotic '
concepts become necessary. Turning night into day is one of those neurotic
habits, but the inanities that go on in the 'modern' world after nightfall are (just) an
escape from a daily life of routine and boredom.

A total awareness of disorder in our relationships both private and public,
personal and distant, a choiceless awareness of 'what is' during the day, brings ( a new) order out of (the existing ?) disorder. Then the brain has no need to seek (a deeper feeling of ) order (through dreams) during sleep. Order in the whole of consciousness, not merely at the
conscious level, takes place (only?) when division between the 'observer' and the
'observed' ceases . The 'what is' ( the temporal 'reality'?), is transcended when the 'observer' who
is the ( active knowledge of the?) past, who is ( the result of?) time, comes to an end.
The ( perception in the?) 'active present' is not in the bondage of time as the 'observer' is.
Only when the mind, the brain and the (psychosomatic?) organism during sleep has this total
order, is there an awareness of that wordless state, of that timeless movement.
This is the very summation of meditation. The brain is constantly active ( registering ?) , waking or sleeping, but the constant conflict between ( living inwardly in a state of ?) disorder (and trying to establish some compensatory feeling of?) order, wears down the brain. (Inner ?) order is the highest form of virtue, sensitivity, intelligence. When there is this great beauty of (inner) order, harmony, the brain is not endlessly active (thinking ?) ; certain parts of it have to carry the burden of ( practical) memory but that is a very small part; the rest of the brain is free from the noise of ( material?) experience. That freedom is the order, the harmony, of silence. This freedom and the noise of memory move together, intelligence is the action of this movement.
Meditation is this 'freedom from the known' and yet ( intelligently?) operating in the field of the known. There is no 'me' as the (self-conscious?) 'operator'. In sleep or awake this ( inner quality of?) meditation goes on.

It is the oldest living tree on the earth. It is gigantic in proportion, in its
height and vast trunk. Among other redwood trees, which were also very old,
this one was towering over them all; other trees had been touched by fire but
this one had no marks on it.
The noisy ( groups of) tourists had not come yet and you could be alone with this great 'silent one'; it soared up to the heavens, vast and timeless. Its very age gave it
the dignity of silence- it was as silent as your mind was, as still as your heart, and living without the burden of ( the memories of?) time. You were aware of a compassion that time had never touched and of innocency that had never known hurt and sorrow. There was immortality, for death had never been. Nothing ( seemed to ?) exist except that immense tree, the clouds and the earth. You went to that tree and sat down with it, and every day for many days it was a
benediction of which you were only aware when 'you' wandered away. You
could never come back to it asking for more; there was never the 'more', the
'more' was in the valley far below. There was unfathomable sacredness which would never again leave you, for it was not yours.

In the early morning when the sun had not yet touched the tops of the
trees, the deer and the bear were there; we watched each other, wide-eyed
and wondering; the earth was common to us and fear was absent. The blue
jays and the red squirrels would come soon; the squirrel was tame and
friendly. You had nuts in your pocket and it took them out of your hand; when
the squirrel had had enough the two jays would hop down from the branches
and the scolding would stop. And the day began.

In the world of pleasure sensuality ( the pursuit of sensations?) has become very important. Taste
dictates and soon the habits of pleasure takes hold; (and even) though it may harm the
whole organism, pleasure dominates. Pleasure of the senses, of a cunning and
subtle thought, of words and of the images of mind and hand (plus?) the pleasure of violence and the pleasure of sex, are (sustained by of our?) culture and education. (The total consciousness of?) man is moulded into the shape of pleasure, and all his existence, religious or otherwise, is the pursuit of it. When the mind is not free and aware (of the bio-cultural pressures?), then 'sensuality' (living on the sensory level?) becomes a factor of corruption which is what is going on in the 'modern' world (where the ) pleasure of money and sex dominate. When man has become a secondhand (conditioned?) human being, the expression of sensuality is his (only available?) freedom. Then love is (translated in terms of?) pleasure and desire. ( The joint efforts of?) organized entertainment, religious or commercial, makes for social and personal immorality; (and eventually) you cease to be responsible. Responding wholly to any challenge is to be responsible, totally (humanely?) committed. This cannot be when the very essence of human thought is fragmentary and the pursuit of pleasure, in all its obvious and subtle forms, is the principal movement (motivation?) of existence.

Pleasure is not joy; joy and pleasure are entirely different things; the one is
uninvited and the other cultivated, nurtured; the one comes when the "me" is
not and the other is time-binding; where the one is the other is not. Pleasure,
fear and violence run together; they are inseparable companions. Learning
from observation is action, the doing is the seeing.
In the evening when the darkness was approaching, the jays and the
squirrels had gone to bed. The evening star was just visible and the noises of
the day and memory had come to an end. These giant sequoias were
motionless. They will go on beyond time. Only man dies and the sorrow of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Aug 2015 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Meditation and Space

In a small boat on the quiet slow current of the river all the horizon was visible; there wasn't a tree or house that broke the horizon; there was not a cloud floating by. The banks were flat, stretching
on both sides far into the land and they held the wide river. The sky and the earth met and there was vast space. In this measureless Space the earth and all things had their existence,
even this small boat carried along by the strong current. There must be this Space for beauty and compassion. Everything must have (its own ) space, the living and the dead, the rock on the hill and the bird on the wing. If rats are enclosed in a restricted space, they begin to
destroy each other; human beings living in crowded cities are becoming (increasingly?) violent. Where there is no ( free) Space, outwardly and inwardly, every form of mischief and degeneration is inevitable.

Conditioning the mind through the so-called 'education', 'religion', 'culture', gives little (inner) space to the flowering of the mind and heart. When there is no such space there is (decay and) death
Music creates the space it needs; the sound of a word not only makes space: it needs space to be heard. The interval between two thoughts is ( confined within?) the (mental) space that thought makes. The continuous extension of ( the psychological ?) 'time' movement and the interval between two movements of thought need space. Our consciousness is ( contained?) within the movement of time and thought. This consciousness, wide or narrow, exists where there is ( the identification with?) a centre , the "me". This "me" has its being and its activity within this small space it has created for itself. All its problems and sorrows, its hopes and despairs are within its own (self-protecting ?) frontiers, and there is no (free inner) space (left). The 'known' occupies all (the free inner space of our) consciousness. Consciousness 'is' the known and within its frontiers there is no solution to all the problems man has created. And yet he won't let go; clinging to the known hoping that (an extensive knowledge?) will bring the solution his problems. This (mental) space which the "me" has built for itself is (generating ?) its own sorrow and the pain of ( its endless search for?) pleasure.
The vast, measureless Space lies outside the measure of thought, and thought is the (natural activity of the?) known. Meditation is the emptying of consciousness of its (psychological?) content, the known, the "me".

Slowly the oars took the boat up the sleeping river and the light of a house
gave it the direction. It had been a long evening and the sunset was gold,
green and orange and it made a golden path on the water.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Aug 2015 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


He was a sannyasi and he spoke of himself as of a third person. While still young he had renounced the world and its ways and had wandered all over the country, staying with some of the well known religious teachers, talking with them and following their peculiar disciplines and rituals. He had fasted for many a day, lived in solitude among the mountains, and done most of the things that sannyasis are supposed to do. He had damaged himself physically through excessive ascetic practices, and although that was long ago, his body still suffered from it. Then one day he had decided to abandon all these daily practices, rituals and disciplines as being vain and without much (spiritual) significance, and had gone off into some faraway mountain village, where he spent many years in deep contemplation. The usual thing had happened, he said with a smile, and he in his turn had become well known and had had a large following of disciples to whom he taught simple things. He had read the ancient Sanskrit literature, and now that too he had put away. Although it was necessary to describe briefly what his life had been, he added, that was not the thing for which he had come.

Q : Above all virtues, self-sacrifices, and the action of dispassionate help, is meditation. Without meditation, our knowledge and action become a wearisome burden with very little meaning; but few know what (true) meditation is. If you are willing, we must talk this over. In meditation it has been the experience of this speaker (aimed) to reach different states of consciousness; he has had the experiences that all aspiring human beings sooner or later go through, the visions embodying Krishna, Christ, Buddha. They are the outcome of one’s own thought and education, and of what maybe called one’s cultural (conditioning?). There are visions, experiences and 'powers' of many different varieties. Unfortunately, most truth seekers are caught in the net of their own thoughts and desires, even some of the greatest 'exponents of truth'. Having the power of healing and the gift of words, they become prisoners to their own capacities and experiences. The speaker himself has passed through these experiences and dangers, and to the best of his ability has understood and gone beyond them - at least, let us hope so. What then is (true?) meditation?

K : Surely, in considering meditation, the effort (to achieve something higher?) and the ('meditator' or the ?) 'maker of effort' must be understood. ( Psychologically speaking?) 'good' effort and 'wrong ' effort are both (time) binding, and it is this (time) bondage that must be understood and broken. Meditation is the breaking of all bondage; it is a state of (inner) freedom, but not 'freedom from anything' . To be conscious of 'being free' is not freedom. Self-consciousness is the experiencing of freedom or of bondage, and that self-consciousness is the 'experiencer', the maker of effort. Meditation is the breaking down of the 'experiencer' (self-identification?) , which (unfortunately?) cannot be done 'consciously' ( by a conscious effort?) . If the 'experiencer' is broken down consciously, then there is a strengthening of the will, which is also a part of (self-) consciousness. Our problem, then, is concerned with (seeing through ?) the whole process of our consciousness, and not with one part of it, small or great, dominant or subservient.

Q : What you say seems to be true. The ways of (our self-centred?) consciousness are profound (hidden?), deceptive and contradictory. It is only through a dispassionate observation and careful study that this tangle can be unravelled and order can prevail.

K : But, sir, the 'unraveller' is still there; one may call him the Higher Self, the Atman, and so on, but he is still part of consciousness, the maker of effort who is everlastingly trying to 'get somewhere' (to a desired state) . Effort is (the dualistic action of?) desire. One desire can be overcome by a greater desire, and that desire by still another, and so on endlessly. Desire breeds (self-) deception, illusion, contradiction, and the 'visions' of hope. The all-conquering desire for (attaining) the ultimate (truth), or the will to reach 'That' which is nameless, is still the way of (a self-centred) consciousness, of the 'experiencer' of good and bad, the 'experiencer' who is waiting, watching, hoping. Consciousness is not of one particular level, it is the totality of our being.

Q : What has been heard so far is excellent and true; but if one may inquire, what is it that will bring peace, stillness to this ( ordinary) consciousness?

K : No-thing ( not-a-thing?) . Surely, the (human) mind is ever (instinctively) seeking a result, a way to some 'achievement'. It is a (mental) instrument that has been 'put together', it is the fabric of time, and it can only think in terms of result, of achievement, of something to be gained or avoided.

Q : That is so. It is being stated that as long as the ( mental) mind is active, choosing, seeking, experiencing, there must be the (identification with the?) 'maker of effort' who creates his own (self-) image, calling it by different names, and this is the net in which thought is caught.

K : Thought (the 'memory based' thinking?) itself is the maker of the net; thought is the net. Thought is (time) binding; thought can only lead to the vast expanse of 'time', the field in which knowledge action, virtue, have importance. However refined or simplified is our thinking, it cannot breakdown all thought. (The self-identified?) consciousness as the 'experiencer', the 'observer', the 'chooser', the 'censor', the 'will', must come to an end (in the inner space of meditation?) , voluntarily and happily, without any hope of reward. The 'seeker' (de- ?) ceases. This is (the beginning of?) meditation. Silence ( Inner Peace?) of the mind cannot be brought about through the action of will. There is Silence (only) when 'will' ceases. This is ( the key to?) meditation. ( The timeless dimension of ?) Reality cannot be sought; it 'is' when the 'seeker' is not. The (self centred?) mind is (the result of?) time, and ( the time binding process of ) thought cannot uncover the Measureless.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Aug 2015 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


You (should?) not 'invite' ( give continuity to?) joy; if you do, it becomes (another?) pleasure. ( Seeking the satisfaction of ?) pleasure is the (motivating?) movement of thought, but ( the self-centred) thought can in no way, cultivate joy ; if it pursues that which has been joyous, then it's only a remembrance, a dead thing. Beauty is never time-binding; it is wholly free of time and so of culture. It is there when the 'self' (-identification?) is not. The self (-consciousness) is put together by ( the personal memories of?) time, by the ( self-centred?) movement of thought, by the known, by the word (naming process?) . In the abandonment of the self-(identification ) , in that total attention, the essence of Beauty is there. The letting go of the self (centred consciousness?) is not the result of a calculated action of desire-will. The dissolution of the self is not ( found along the accumulation of?) self- knowledge; time does not enter into it at all. There is no way or means to end it. The total inward 'non-action' is the positive attention of beauty. You ( the collective consciousness of mankind?) have cultivated a vast network of interrelated activities in which you are caught, and your mind, being conditioned by it, operates inwardly in the same manner : ( personal and collective) 'achievement' becomes the most important thing and the fury of that drive is the skeleton of the self. That is why you follow a Guru, a Saviour, or your ideals; 'faith' (spiritual wishful thinking?) takes the place of insight, of awareness. There's no need for prayer when the self is not. You fill the empty spaces of the skeleton with knowledge, with images, with meaningless activities and so keep it 'alive' (busy?). In the quiet stillness of the ( emptied ?) mind, that ( universal feeling of?) everlasting Beauty comes, uninvited, unsought, without the noise (need?) of recognition.

How lovely it was that morning, the purity of light and the golden path the sun made on those living waters. You were (one with?) the world, the Cosmos, the deathless Beauty and the joy of Compassion. Only 'you' weren't there; if 'you ' were all this would not be. 'You' (the self-identified consciousness?) bring in the (time fragmentation of?) beginning and the ending, only to begin again in an endless chain. In the process of self-becoming there is uncertainty and instability. In 'nothingness' there is an absolute (inner) stability and so clarity. That (essence of our consciousness?) which is wholly stable never dies; corruption is in the becoming (part ?) . ( Unfortunately?) the world is bent on (biased by the illusion of?) becoming, achieving, gaining and so there is fear of losing everything and dying.
The mind must go (inwardly) through that small (fox?) 'hole' which it has put together, the 'self', to come upon this vast No-thingness whose stability thought cannot measure. Thought may wish to capture it and put it on the market- making it acceptable and so respectable, to be worshipped. Thought cannot put it (the inner no-thingness?) into any category and so we think that it must be a delusion, or it must be for the few, for the select. And so (the self-centred?) thought goes about its own mischievous ways, (inwardly) frightened, vain and never stable, though its ( intellectual?) conceit asserts there is stability in its actions and in knowledge it has accumulated. The dream (of inwardly and outwardly becoming 'somebody'?) becomes a reality which it has nurtured. But what thought has made real is not truth. 'Nothingness' is not a reality but it is the truth . That small (fox-) hole, the self, is the 'reality' of thought, the 'reality' of its (self-isolating?) fragmentation, the pain, the sorrow and its 'love'. In this 'reality' ( created by thought) there is no stability or pure clarity. The knowledge of the self can be accumulated, used as a 'ladder' to become, to improve, to achieve, but it will in no way free the mind of the (psychological) burden of its own 'reality'. 'You' are the burden; the truth of it (is revealed) in the very 'seeing' of it and the freedom (from the known) is not the 'reality' of thought. The seeing is the doing. The doing comes from the stability, the clarity, of no-thingness.

Every living thing on earth has its own sensitivity, its own way of life, its own consciousness, but man assumes that his own is far superior and thereby he loses his 'love' ( the feeling of all-oneness?) and becomes insensitive, callous and destructive. ( Man's evolution in the material world dominated by ?) time has bred (his personal content-colored ?) consciousness with its 'content'. Its ( 'psychological') content makes up consciousness; without it, consciousness, as we know it, is not. Then there is no-thing. We ( keep ourselves busy by?) moving (shifting) the little pieces in this ( time-bound) consciousness from one area to another according to the pressure circumstance but this is happening in the same field of pain, sorrow and knowledge. This movement is ( a process of?) time, of thought its measurement. It is a senseless (psycho-illusory?) game of hide and seek with yourself, the 'past ' and the 'future' of thought. Thought cannot hold the (present) moment for it is not of time. This is the ending of time : time has stopped at that moment, there is no ( mental) movement and so it is not related (linked) to another moment. It ( the timeless dimension of the present ? ) has no cause and so it has no beginning and no end. ( The problem is that the 'content' generated?) consciousness cannot contain it. ( So, the actual purpose of?) Meditation is the emptying of this 'consciousness' of its ( conditioning conditioned) content. In that (timeless) moment of (inner) no-thingness everything 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Aug 2015 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Think about these (other) things

Any form of ('self'-) conscious (dualistic ?) meditation is not the real thing; it can never be. The deliberate attempt to meditate is not (a living?) meditation. It must happen; it cannot be invited. Meditation is not the play of the (intellectual?) mind nor of desire and pleasure. All (effort?) to meditate is the very denial of it. Only be (passively, choicelessly ?) aware of what you are thinking and doing and nothing else. The seeing, the hearing, is the doing (has its own action?), without rewards and punishments. The skill in (a holistic) 'doing' lies in the skill of seeing, hearing. Every form of (premeditated ?) meditation leads inevitably to deception, to illusion, for desire blinds (inwardly) .

It is good to be alone. To be far away from the world and yet walk its streets is to be alone. To be alone walking up the path beside the rushing, noisy mountain stream full of spring water and melting snows is to be aware of that solitary tree, alone in its beauty. The loneliness of a man in the street is the pain of (a self-centred?) life; he's never alone, far away, untouched and vulnerable. To be full of ( wordly?) knowledge breeds endless misery. The demand for ( self-) expression, with its ( rewards?) frustrations and pains, is ( causing the loneliness of?) that man who walks the streets; he is never alone (all-one?) . Sorrow is the movement of that loneliness. He ( the young K) only discovered recently that there was not a single thought during these long walks, in the crowded streets or on the solitary paths. Ever since he was a boy it had been like that, no thought entered his mind. He was watching and listening and nothing else. Thought with its ( mental) associations never arose. There was no 'image-making'. One day he was 'suddenly aware' ( had the insight?) how extraordinary it was; he even attempted often to 'think' but no thought would come. On these walks, with people or without them, any movement of thought was absent. This is to be (inwardly) alone.

He (young K) always liked machinery; he dismantled the motor of a car and when (put back) it ran as new. When you are driving, meditation seems to come so naturally. You are aware of the countryside, the houses, the farmers in the field, the make of the passing car and the blue sky through the leaves. You are not even aware that meditation is going on, this meditation (of the Cosmic Mind ?) that began ages ago and would go on endlessly. Time isn't a factor in (such) meditation, nor the word which is the (verbal interference of the?) 'meditator'. There's no 'meditator' in ( the universally integrated?) meditation. If there is, it is not meditation. The 'meditator' (mental interface?) is the word (naming process?) , thought and time, and so subject to change, to the coming and going. Meditation is not a flower that blooms and dies. You are sitting on the bank of a river, watching the waters, the current and the things floating by, but there's no 'watcher'. ( The essence of?) Beauty is not ( to be found) in the mere (artistic) expression, it's in the abandonment of the words and ( artistic) expression, ( forgetting about ?) the canvas and the book.


He was a short man, lean and hard of muscle: he had come from a far away country, darkened by the sun. After a few words of greeting, he launched into criticism.

Q : You may be free and live really all that you are talking about, but physically you are in a prison, padded by your (wealthy?) friends. You don't know what is happening around you. People (such as... ?) have assumed authority, though you yourself are not authoritarian.

K : I am not sure you are right in this matter. To run a school or any other thing there must be a certain responsibility and it can exist without the authoritarian implication. ( Acceptance of someone's psychpological?) authority is wholly detrimental to ( an authentic) co-operation, to talking things over together. This is what is being done in all the work that we are engaged in. This is an actual fact. If one may point out, no one comes between me and another.

Q : What you are saying is of the utmost ( spiritual) importance. All that you write and say should be printed and circulated by a small group of people who are serious and dedicated. The modern world is exploding and it is passing you by.

K : I am afraid again you (or we?) are not fully aware of what is happening. At one time a small group ( R&R?) took the responsibility of circulating what has been said. Now, too, a small ( but better organised and funded ?) group has undertaken the same responsibility. Again, if one may point out, you are not aware of what is going on.

He made other various criticisms but they were based on assumptions and passing opinions. Without defending, one pointed out what was actually (supposed to be?) taking place. But how strange human beings are....

The hills were receding and the noise of daily life was around one, the coming and the going, sorrow and pleasure. A single tree on a hillock was the beauty of the land. And deep down in the ( Saanen) valley was a stream and beside it ran a railroad. You must leave the world to see the beauty of that stream.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Aug 2015 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline


You have only one head (brain?) and look after it for it's a marvellous thing. No machinery, no electronic computers can compare with it. It's so vast, so complex, so utterly capable, subtle and productive. It's the storehouse of experience, knowledge, memory. All thought springs from it. What it has put together is (technologically) quite incredible, but one thing it apparently cannot do: change (or integrate?) completely its (inherited self-centred?) behaviour in its relationship to another human beings. Neither punishment nor reward seem to change this behaviour; knowledge doesn't seem to transform its conduct. The (dualistic mentality of the?) 'me' and the 'you' remain. It never realizes that the 'me' is the 'you', and that (inwardly) the 'observer' is the 'observed'. Its freedom is its 'known' prison; it is educated to live in this (psychological) prison, only making it more comfortable, more pleasurable. You have only one head, care for it, don't destroy it. It's so easy to poison it.

He (K) always had this strange lack of 'distance' (separation?) between himself and the trees, rivers and mountains. It wasn't something he cultivated: you can't 'cultivate' a thing like that. There was never a (mental?) 'wall' between him and another. He was like the waters of a river. He had no thoughts at all when he was alone. His brain was active (thinking) when talking or writing but otherwise it was quiet and active without (inner) movement. He wakes up often with that (silent) activity of meditation; something of this nature is going on most of the time. He never rejected it or invited it. The other night he woke up, wide awake. He was aware that something like a ball of light, was being put into his head, into the very centre of it. He watched it objectively for a considerable time, as though it were happening to someone else. It was not an illusion, something conjured up by the mind. Dawn was coming and through the opening of the curtains he could see the trees.

Have you ever wondered why human beings go wrong, become corrupt, aggressive, violent and cunning? It's no good blaming the (wrong) environment, the culture or the parents. Then there are others, born (naturally) generous, kind, responsible. They are not changed by the environment or any pressure. They remain the same in spite of all the clamour. The what (one) 'is' can be totally transformed with the (gathering of all the inner) energy usually wasted in explanations and in searching out the causes. Love is not (to be found ) in (the materialistic field of) time nor in analysis, in regrets and recriminations. It is ( may be?) there when the cunning deceits of the 'self' (-centred consciousness) are not (active?).

(The psychological challenge of?) death is everywhere but we never seem to live with it. The beauty of Love is ( brought by the?) death (dying to the past?) and one knows neither. Death is ( commonly associated with?) pain and 'love' is ( confounded with?) pleasure and so, the two can never meet; they must be kept apart and their division is (inwardly generating) pain and agony. This has been from the beginning of ( mankind's?) time, the division and the endless conflict. There will always be death for those who do not see that the observer is the observed, the experiencer is the experienced. It is like a vast river (of continuity in time?) in which man is caught, with all his worldly goods, his vanities, pains and knowledge. Unless he 'leaves' ('dies' to the attachments to ?) all the things he has accumulated in the River and swims ashore, death will be always at his door, waiting and watching. When he leaves the River has left everything, the river and the bank. For the River is time and the 'banks' are the thoughts (debris?) of time: the river is the movement of time and thought is of it. When the observer leaves everything which he is (attached to or identified with?), then the 'observer' is not. This is the Timeless. (However?) 'you' cannot know (or experience ) it, for what is known is of ( the River of?) Time. Freedom from the 'known' is freedom from ( the River of?) time. When time is not then death is not. Love 'is'.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Aug 2015 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Other Excerpts from K's journal (1973-75)

Coming back from the airport on a shaded road with the parrots, green and red, screeching around the trees, one saw across the road what appeared to be a large bundle. As the car came near, the 'bundle' turned out to be a man lying across the road, almost naked. The car stopped and we got out. His body was large and his head very small; he was staring through the leaves at the astonishingly blue sky. We looked up too to see what he was staring at and the sky from the road was really blue and the leaves were really green. He was malformed and they said he was one of the village idiots. He never moved and the car had to be driven round him very carefully. The camels with their load and the shouting children passed him without paying the least attention. A dog passed, making a wide circle. The parrots were busy with their noise. The dry fields, the villagers, the trees, the yellow flowers were occupied with their own existence. There were open gutters, filth and crowding humanity and the sacred river went on its way. The sadness of life was everywhere and in the blue sky, high in the air, were the heavy-winged vultures, circling without moving their wings, circling by the hours, waiting and watching.

What is sanity and insanity? Who is sane and who is insane? Are the politicians, the priests, those who are committed to ideologies, are they (holistically) sane? We are controlled, shaped, pushed around by them, and are we sane? To be (inwardly) whole, non-fragmented in action, in life, in every kind of relationship that is the very essence of ( a holistic) sanity. Sanity (having a sane mind) means to be whole, healthy and holy. To be ( holistically speaking ?) insane, unbalanced, is to be fragmented, broken up in one's actions and in the ( interactive) movement of relationship which is human existence. The artists, the intellectuals, the scientists, admired and flattered so much are they sane ( inwardly integrated ?) Or do they live in two different worlds - the world of their ideas and imagination with its compulsive self-expression, wholly separate from their daily life of sorrow and pleasure? The world about you is fragmented and so are you and its expression is conflict, confusion and misery: you are ( like) the world and the world is (not different from ) you. ( A holistic?) 'sanity' is (implies) to live a life of action without conflict. ( Our daily ) actions and ideas are contradicting each other. Seeing (the truth or falseness of someting ?) is ( undivided from ) the doing - not ideation first and action according to the (intellectual) conclusion. This (psychological gap ?) breeds conflict. The analyser himself is ( actually not separate from) what is analysed. When the analyser/observer/thinker/experiencer/ separates (considers?) himself as something different from what is analysed/observed/thought/ experienced/, he begets ( a state of inner) conflict, and (living with a mentality based on ?) conflict is the area of the unbalanced. The observer is the observed and therein (in perceiving the inner truth of it?) lies sanity, the ( being) whole, and with the holy (wholeness?) is ( coming a sense of?) love.

It is good to wake up without a single thought, with its (time-related?) problems. The brain can only function efficiently, objectively, where there is ( a deep sense of order and?) security, not in contradiction and confusion. Order is the transformation of all this mess. When the observer 'is' (not separating itself from?) what is observed, there is complete order. Can the human mind never be hurt or wounded? Not to be hurt is to be innocent. If you are not hurt you will naturally not hurt another. Is this possible? The 'culture' in which we live does deeply wound the human mind and heart : the noise and the pollution, the aggression and competition, the violence and the (standardised ) 'education', all these and more contribute to this (psycho-) agony. Yet we have to live in this world of brutality and resistance. What is (actually) hurt? The ( identification with a protecting self-) 'image' that each one has built about himself, that ( identification?) is what is ( getting) hurt. The essence (content?) of the (self) image you have is the same as of the man who lives a thousand miles away. So you 'are' ( inwardly very much like?) that man or woman. Your hurts are the (shared) hurts of thousands. Is it possible never to be hurt? Where there is ( a psycho-) wound there is no love. Where there is hurt, then love is ( translated in terms of?) mere pleasure. When you discover for yourself the beauty of ( living without a self-image and therefore ?) never being hurt, then only do all the past hurts disappear. In the full (intensity of the) present the past has lost its burden. He ( K) has never been hurt though many things happened to him, flattery and insults, threats and (upper class?) security. It is not that he was insensitive, unaware: he had no ( need for a self-protective ?) image of himself. ( having a self-) image is (a form of?) resistance and when that is not, there is vulnerability but no hurt. You need not seek to be come vulnerable, highly sensitive, for that which is 'sought and found' is another (improved version?) of the same image. Understand this whole (hidden ) movement (of image creation) , not merely verbally, but have an insight into (the illusory value of image making?) Seeing the truth of it is the ending of the 'image' building process.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

'Think on These Things'

what it means to learn?

When you are really learning you are learning throughout your life and there is no one special teacher to learn from. Then everything teaches you - a dead leaf, a bird in flight, a smell, a tear, the rich and the poor, those who are crying, the smile of a woman, the haughtiness of a man. You learn from everything, therefore there is no guide, no philosopher, no guru. Life itself is your teacher, and you are in a state of constant learning. 

What does it mean to be free?

Is freedom a matter of doing what happens to suit you, going where you like, thinking what you will? This you do anyhow. Merely to have independence, does that mean freedom? Many people in the world are independent, but very few are free. Freedom implies great intelligence, does it not? To be free is to be intelligent, but intelligence does not come into being by just wishing to be free; it comes into being only when you begin to understand your whole environment, the social, religious, parental and traditional influences that are continually closing in on you. But to understand the various influences - the influence of your parents, of your government, of society, of the culture to which you belong, of your beliefs, your gods and superstitions, of the tradition to which you conform unthinkingly - to understand all these and become free from them requires deep insight; but you generally give in to them because inwardly you are frightened. You are afraid of not having a good position in life; you are afraid of what your priest will say; you are afraid of not following tradition, of not doing the right thing. But freedom is really a state of mind in which there is no fear or compulsion, no urge to be secure.

What is intelligence?

Most people are satisfied with a definition of what intelligence is. Either they say, "That is a good explanation", or they prefer their own explanation; and a mind that is satisfied with an explanation is very superficial, therefore it is not intelligent.
You have begun to see that an intelligent mind is a mind which is not satisfied with explanations, with conclusions; nor is it a mind that believes, because belief is again another form of conclusion. An intelligent mind is an inquiring mind, a mind that is watching, learning, studying (life) Which means what? That there is intelligence only when there is no fear, when you are willing to rebel, to go against the whole social structure in order to find out what God is, or to discover the truth of anything.
Intelligence is not knowledge. If you could read all the books in the world it would not give you intelligence. Intelligence is something very subtle; it has no anchorage. it comes into being only when you understand the total process of the mind - not the mind according to some philosopher or teacher, but your own mind. Your mind is the result of all humanity, and when you understand it you don't have to study a single book, because the mind contains the whole knowledge of the past. So intelligence comes into being with the understanding of yourself; and you can understand yourself only in relation to the world of people, things and ideas. Intelligence is not something that you can acquire, like learning; it arises with great revolt, that is, when there is no fear - which means, really, when there is a sense of love. For when there is no fear, there is love.

Why don't you do miracles?

Krishnamurti: When 'that which is', is perceived without distortion, there is understanding; and that understanding brings a healing quality. But understanding can come only through your own individual awareness and not through the miracle of another, not through the impression, the influence, the compulsion, or the imposition of the idea of another. Surely, miracles do happen. They are happening all the time, only we are not aware of it.
Physically and psychologically, inwardly as well as outwardly, you are not the same today as yesterday. The body is undergoing transformation all the time, and so is the inward nature, the mind; and if we can follow it easily and swiftly, then we will see what an extraordinary miracle is happening in us and about us - the miracle being the constant newness, the freshness of life, the infinite beauty, the pliability, the depth of existence. For the man who asks nothing, to him life is a miracle, a miracle of constant renewal; and we shall miss that renewal if we are merely seeking a result, an end.

What is self-knowledge, and how can we get it?

Krishnamurti: Self-knowledge comes when you watch everything in you and around you and see yourself as you see your face in a mirror. When you look into the mirror you see yourself as you are, don't you? You may wish your head were a different shape, but the fact (of what you are) is there, clearly reflected in the mirror, and you can't push it aside and say, "How beautiful I am!" Now, if you can look into the mirror of relationship exactly as you look into the ordinary mirror, it is like entering a fathomless ocean which has no shore. Most of us want to reach an end, we want to be able to say, "I have arrived at self-knowledge and I am happy; but it is not like that at all. If you can look at yourself without condemning what you see, without comparing yourself with somebody else, without wishing to be more beautiful or more virtuous; if you can just observe what you are and move with it, then you will find that it is possible to go infinitely far. Then there is no end to the journey, and that is the mystery, the beauty of it.

What is the soul?

Krishnamurti: Now and then there may have been one or two people who have discovered for themselves something about this extraordinary thing called 'immortality', a state in which there is no death. The very word 'soul' embodies the idea of a state which is indestructible, timeless, does it not? But, you see, you never find out for yourself whether or not there is such a state.
The man who really wants to find out whether or not there is a state beyond the framework of time, must be free of ( the conditioning of the) 'civilization'; that is, he must be free of the collective will and stand alone. I or another may tell you there is a timeless state, but what value has that for you? If you are hungry you want to eat, and you don't want to be fed on mere words. What is important is for you to find out for yourself. You can see that everything about you is decaying, being destroyed. This so-called 'civilization' is no longer being held together by the collective will; it is going to pieces. Life is challenging you from moment to moment, and if you merely respond to the challenge from the groove of habit, which is to respond in terms of acceptance, then your response has no validity. You can find out whether or not there is a timeless state, a state in which there is no movement of the 'more' or of the 'less', only when you say, "I am not going to accept, I am going to investigate, explore" - which means that you are not afraid to stand alone.

Will you please teach me how to love?

Krishnamurti: What is important is not to let ( the reactions of) hate take root in your mind. Your mind is like rich soil, and if given sufficient time any problem that comes along takes root like a weed, and then you have the trouble of pulling it out; but if you do not give the problem sufficient time to take root then it has no place to grow and it will wither away. If you encourage hate, give it time to take root, to grow, to mature, it becomes an enormous problem. But if each time hate arises you let it go by, then you will find that your mind becomes very sensitive without being sentimental; therefore it will know love.

What is the real life?

Krishnamurti: Real life is doing something which you love to do with your whole being so that there is no inner contradiction, no war between what you are doing and what you think you should do. Life is then a completely integrated process in which there is tremendous joy. But that can happen only when you are not psychologically depending on anybody, or on any society, when there is complete detachment inwardly, for only then is there a possibility of really loving what you do. If you are in a state of total revolution, it does not matter whether you garden, or become a prime minister, or do something else; you will love what you do, and out of that love there comes an extraordinary feeling of creativeness.

Are you happy or not?

Krishnamurti: I don't know. I have never thought about it. The moment you think you are happy, you cease to be happy, don't you? When you are playing and shouting with joy, what happens the moment you become conscious that you are joyous? You stop being joyous. Have you noticed it? So happiness is something which is not within the field of self-consciousness.

Why do we cry, and what is sorrow?

Krishnamurti: A little boy wants to know why we cry and what is sorrow. When do you cry? You cry when somebody takes away your toy, or when you get hurt, or when you don't win a game, or when your teacher or your parents scold you, or when somebody hits you. As you grow older you cry less and less, because you harden yourself against life. Very few of us cry when we are older because we have lost the extraordinary sensitivity of childhood. But sorrow is not merely ( due to) the loss of something, it is not just the feeling of being stopped, frustrated; sorrow is something much deeper. You see, there is such a thing as having no understanding. If there is no ( self) understanding, there is great sorrow. If the mind does not penetrate beyond its own barriers, there is misery

How can we become integrated, without conflict?

Krishnamurti: Integration does not come when you seek it by avoiding conflict. It is only through conflict, and the understanding of conflict, that there is integration.
Integration is one of the most difficult things to come by, because it means a complete unification of your whole being in all that you do, in all that you say, in all that you think. You cannot have integration without understanding relationship - your relationship with society, your relationship with the poor man, the villager, the beggar, with the millionaire and the governor. To understand relationship you must struggle with it, you must question and not merely accept the values established by tradition, by your parents, by the priest, by the religion and the economic system of the society about you. That is why it is essential for you to be in revolt, otherwise you will never have integration.

Does the soul survive after death?

Krishnamurti: You must first find out, surely, whether there is a soul to survive. What is the soul? Do you know what it is?
The word 'soul' implies something beyond mere physical existence, does it not? There is your physical body, and also your character, your tendencies, your virtues; and transcending all this you say there is the soul. If that state exists at all, it must be spiritual, something which has the quality of timelessness; and you are asking whether that spiritual something survives death. That is one part of the question.
The other part is: what is death? Do you know what death is? Can you know death while you are living? What significance has it if someone tells you that there is or is not survival after death? You still do not know. But you can find out for yourself what death is not after you are dead, but while you are living, healthy vigorous while you are thinking, feeling. Death is the unknown, and what matters is to know of the unknown while you are living.

Will the rich ever be prepared to give up much of what they have for the sake of the poor?

Krishnamurti: Whatever they give up, it will still not satisfy the poor . You who are well-to-do, and who therefore have the opportunity to cultivate intelligence, can you not create a new society? it depends on you, not on anybody else; it depends on each one of us, not on the rich or the poor, or on the communists. You see, most of us have not this spirit of revolt this urge to break through, to find out; and it is this spirit that is important.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Aug 2015 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

More excerpts from the K journal 1973)

Listening is a (living) art when you listen out of complete quietness, out of total silence. Listening to one's thoughts or to the blackbird on a branch or to what is being said, without the (verbal) responses of thought ( the responses of the known?) , brings about a wholly 'new' significance from that which the movement of thought brings. This is the art of listening ; in listening with total attention there is no (self-conscious) 'centre' which listens. The silence of the mountains has a depth which the valleys have not. Each has its own silence; the silence among clouds and among trees is vastly different; the silence between two thoughts is timeless; the silence of pleasure and of fear are tangible. The artificially (created) silence which thought can 'manufacture' is dead; the silence between noises is the absence of noise but it is not silence, as the absence of war is not ( necessarily) peace.

The man had been sitting there on the bank of the beautiful river, motionless; he would come there every morning, freshly bathed, he would chant in Sanskrit for some time and (eventually) he would be lost in his thoughts; he didn't seem to mind the morning sun. One day he came and began to talk about meditation. He did not belong to any school of meditation, he considered them useless,
without any spiritual significance. He had put away the ways of the world long ago. He had controlled his desires, shaped his thoughts and lived a solitary life. He was not bitter, vain or indifferent; he had forgotten all these some years ago. Meditation and Reality were all his (interests in this?) life. As he talked the sun was setting and a deep ( loving?) Silence descended upon us.

Q : That is the Silence I have been looking for everywhere, in the books, among the teachers and in myself. I have found many things but not this. It came unsought, uninvited. Have I wasted my life in things that did not matter? You have no idea what I have been through, the fastings, the self- denials and the practices. I saw their futility long ago but never came upon this Silence. What shall I do to remain in it, to hold it in my heart? Sitting here I am conscious of this sacred silence; through it I look at the stars, those trees, the river. Though I see and feel all this, I know I'm not really there. As you said the other day, the observer 'is' (one with ) the observed. I see what it means now. The benediction I sought (in my meditations) is not to be found in the seeking. It is time for me to go.

You watched the stars and the dark earth and the world was far away. ( A deep sense of ) Beauty, which is Love, seemed to descend on the earth and the things of it.


He ( the young K) was standing there with no one around, alone, unattached and far away. He was about fourteen or less. They had found his brother and himself quite recently and all the sudden importance given to him was around him. Standing there alone, lost and strangely aloof, was his first and lasting remembrance of those days and events. He doesn't remember his childhood, the schools and the caning. He was told years later by the very teacher who hurt him that he was caned because he couldn't study or remember anything he had read or been told. All those years passed without leaving scars, memories, on his mind; his friendships, his affections, none of these events, friendly or brutal, have left marks on him. In recent years a writer asked if he could recall all those rather strange events, how he and his brother were discovered and the other happenings, and when he (K) replied that he could not remember them and could only repeat what others had told him, the man openly stated that he was putting it on and pretending. He never consciously blocked any happening, pleasant or unpleasant, from entering into his mind. They came, leaving no mark and passed away.

Consciousness is its content: the ( streaming) content (of our collective memory) content makes up (our own self-centred) consciousness. There is no 'you' and 'another', only this content varying according to the culture, the racial accumulations, the techniques and capacities acquired. This ( collective) conditioning is the content of our consciousness. This again is broken up as the conscious and the hidden. This fragmentation takes place when the observer is not (realising it is not separated from?) the observed, when the 'experiencer' is considering itself as different from the experience. The hidden is as the open; the observation the hearing of the open is the seeing of the hidden. ( But this direct?) seeing is not analysing. In analysing a fragmentation which leads to inaction, a paralysis. In 'seeing', the observer is not, and so the (perceptive) action is immediate; there is no (time delay?) interval between the idea and action. The idea, the conclusion, is the (product of the) 'observer' (assuming it is) separate from the thing seen. ( Self-) identification is a (self-protective) act of thought and thought is ( the result of the inherited self- ?) fragmentation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 18 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Aug 2015 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Excerpts from the K Journal (1973-75)

A new ( and compassionate?) Consciousness and a totally new morality are necessary to bring about a radical change in the present culture and social structure. One sees the necessity of a social, economic and moral change but our response is from the old consciousness ( in which the self-centred) thought is the principle actor. The confusion and the misery that human beings have got into within the area of the old consciousness, and without changing that profoundly, every human activity, political, economic and religious, will only bring us to the destruction of each other and the earth. This is so obvious to the sane.

One has to be a light to oneself; this ( inner) light is the law (the ordering factor) . There is no other (inner) 'law'. You cannot be a light to yourself if you are (safely enclosed) in the dark shadows of authority, of dogma, of conclusion. ( an authentic) Morality is the child of love and love is not ( related to) desire or sensory enjoyment. Freedom is to be a light to oneself- freedom from dependency, attachment, from the craving for ( new and rewarding) experiences. Freedom from the very structure of thought is to be a light to oneself. In this light all action takes place and it is never contradictory. Contradiction exists only when that (inner) light, is ( absent or?) separated from action, when the 'actor' is separate from action. The barren movement (mental activity?) of thought cannot co-exist with this light; where the 'observer' is, this (inner) 'light', this love, is not. The ( self-conscious) structure of the 'observer' is put together by thought, which is never new, never free. You have to see (what is true and what is false?) but not through the eyes of another. This light, this ( spiritual ) 'law', is neither yours nor that of another, only (intelligent and compassionate ?) light. This is Love.

It was a pleasant and lovely morning, all around there were these enormous clouds against a blue and dazzling sky. He had not a single thought and was only looking at the beauty of the world. He must have been at that window for some time and 'something' took place, unexpected, uninvited : everything seemed to withdraw and be giving space only to That, the 'unnameable'. You won't find it in any temple, mosque or church or on any printed page. 'You' will find it nowhere and whatever 'you' (the 'experiencer' ,) find, it is not That. If you ever walk by yourself high in the mountains among the pines and rocks, leaving everything in the valley far below you, when there is not a whisper among the trees and every thought has withered away, then it may come to you, that 'otherness'. If try you 'hold' it, it will never come again; what you 'hold' is the memory of it, dead and gone. What you can hold is not the Real; your heart and mind are too small, they can 'hold' only the things of thought and that is barren. You must be alone (all-one?) with the trees, meadows and streams. You are never inwardly 'alone' if you carry the things of thought, its images and problems. The mind must not be filled with the 'rocks and clouds' ( debris?) of the earthly (life) . It must be empty as the newly-made vessel. Then you would see something totally new, something that has never been. You can't see this if 'you' are there; 'you' must die to see it.You may think 'you' are the most important thing in the world but you are not.You may have everything that thought has put together but they are all old (stuff) , used and beginning to crumble.
It was a temple in ruins, with its roofless long corridors, gates headless
statues and deserted courtyards. It had become a sanctuary for birds and
monkeys, parrots and doves. The whole place was surprisingly clean
and one could sit on the ground to watch the monkeys and chattering birds.
Once very long ago, the temple must have been a flourishing place with
thousands of worshippers, with garlands, incense and prayer. Their
atmosphere was still there, their hopes, fears and their reverence. The holy
sanctuary was gone long ago. This old ruined temple was too far away for the
villagers to further destroy it. Had they come they would have desecrated the

Religion has lost the beauty of truth; instead of direct perception there is in its place the image carved by the hand or the mind. The only concern of religion is (should be?) the total (inner) transformation of man. That's why ( the living?) Truth is not to be found in any temple, church or mosque, however beautiful they are. The (inner) beauty of truth and the (outer) beauty of stone are two different things. One opens the door to the immeasurable and the other to the ( spiritual) imprisonment of man; the one to freedom and the other to the bondage of thought. Knowledge in the area of (practical) action is necessary to function efficiently
and objectively, but knowledge is not the means of the transformation of man;
knowledge is the very structure of (self-centred) thought, the dull repetition of the
known, however modified and enlarged. There is no freedom through the ways
of thought, the known. The long snake lay very still along the dry ridge of the

The (living) beauty of Truth and its subtleties are not in belief and dogma, there is no path to its beauty; it is not a fixed point, a haven of shelter. It has no market value to be 'put aside' (stored) and used later. It is there when the mind and heart are emptied of the things of thought. The one who says he 'knows' it has never come near it. Be ( inwardly) 'far away' from the world and yet live in it.


He ( K's father?) was sitting with a cloth over his head, weeping; his wife had just died.
He did not want to show his tears to his children; they too were crying, not
quite understanding what had happened. The mother of many children had
been unwell and lately very sick; the father sat at her bedside. He never
seemed to go out, and one day, after some ceremonies, the mother was
carried out. The house had strangely become empty, without the perfume that
the mother had given to it, and it was never the same again for there was
sorrow in the house now. The father knew it; the children had lost someone
forever but as yet they did not know the meaning of sorrow.
It is always there, you cannot just forget it, you cannot cover it up through
some form of entertainment, religious or otherwise. You may run away from it
but it will be there to meet you again. You may lose yourself in some worship,
prayer or in some comforting belief but it will appear again, unbidden. The
'flowering' of sorrow is bitterness, cynicism or some neurotic behaviour. You
may be aggressive, violent and nasty in your conduct but sorrow is where you
are. You may have power, position and the pleasures of money but it will be
there in your heart, waiting and preparing. Do what you will you cannot escape
from it. The 'love' that you have ends in sorrow; sorrow is ( being caught in?) time, sorrow is (being caught in self-centred ?) thought.
The new technologies and machines are taking over the toil of man but you may not end sorrow through the things that (human) thought has put together. ( The self-centred) thought with its
memories, with its images of pleasure and pain, with its loneliness and tears,
with its self-pity and remorse, is the ground of sorrow.
Listen with your heart, with your whole being to what is now being said : Your dependence and attachment have prepared the soil for your sorrow. Your neglect of the study of oneself and the beauty it brings, have given nourishment to your sorrow; all your self-centred activities
have led you to this sorrow. Just stay with it, don't wander off. Any movement of thought is the strengthening of sorrow. Thought is not (bringing) love. Love has no sorrow.

The temple overlooked the blue Mediterranean; it was in ruins and only the
marble columns remained. In a war it was destroyed but it was still a sacred
sanctuary. One evening, with the golden sun on the marble, you felt the holy
atmosphere; you were alone, with no visitors about and their endless chatter.
The columns were becoming pure gold and the sea far below was intensely
blue. A statue of the goddess was there, preserved and locked up; you could
only see her at certain hours, but she was losing the beauty of sacredness.
The ( beauty of the?) blue sea remained.

What is sacred? Not the things made by the mind or hand or by the sea.
The symbol is never the real; the word 'God' is not God. The word 'sacred' has no meaning by itself; it becomes sacred only in its relationship to something, illusory or real. What is Real is not the words of the mind; Reality, Truth, cannot be touched by thought. Where the 'perceiver' is, Truth is not. The 'thinker' and his thoughts must come to an end for Truth to be. Then  that which is (seen in the light of truth?) is sacred - that ancient marble with the golden sun on it, that
snake and the villager. Where there's no Love there is nothing sacred. Love is 'whole' (holy?) and in it there's no ( personal?) fragmentation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 20 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Aug 2015 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Selected excerpts from the K Journal (1973-75)

The word is not the thing (it describes); the image, the symbol is not the Real. To put Truth into words wipes its (living content?) away and illusion takes its place. Reason is the order of thought and thought is the response of the outer (world) . Because it is the ( result of the ) outer, thought puts together an 'inner' (life) . No man can ever live only with the outer, and the inner becomes a necessity. This ( mental) division is the ground on which the battle of "me" and "( what is ) not me" takes place. The outer (activity of thought) is ( creating) the God of religions and ideologies; while its 'inner' (part) tries to conform to those 'images' and conflict ensues. ( Psychologically speaking ?) there is neither the 'outer' nor the 'inner' but only the whole. The (inner) experiencer is ( not separated from ) (what is) experienced (in the outer world) . ( This) fragmentation is ( a psychological form of?) 'insanity' . This wholeness is not merely a word; it is ( an integrated state of being?) when the division as the outer and inner utterly ceases. The thinker 'is' (not separated from ) the (process of) thought. Suddenly, as you were walking along, without a single thought but only observing without the 'observer', you became aware of a ( sense of?) Sacredness that thought has never been able to conceive. You stop, you observe the trees, the birds and the passer-by; it is not an illusion or something with which the mind deludes itself. It is there in your eyes, in your whole being. .

Straight ahead, towering in the clear sky was the second highest peak of the Himalayas. You could almost touch it but it was many miles away; you forgot the distance for it was ( a presence) there, in all its majesty so utterly pure and measureless. By late morning it was hidden in the darkening clouds from the valley. Only in the early morning it showed itself and disappeared a few hours later. No wonder the ancients looked to their gods in these mountains, in thunder and in the clouds. The divinity of their life was in the benediction hidden in these unapproachable snows.

His disciples came to invite you to visit their guru; you politely refused but they came often, so it was decided that their guru would come with a few of his chosen disciples. The guru came, carrying a small, polished stick. Several of us were sitting on a thin mattress on the floor when he entered the room and we got up and offered him the mattress. He sat cross-legged, putting his cane in front of him; that thin mattress seemed to give him a position of authority. He ( was assuming he) had found Truth, experienced it and so he, who knew it, was opening the door for us. You might be lost in your search and he would help you along the way, but you must obey. Quietly you replied that all the ( spiritual) 'seeking' and the 'finding' had no true meaning unless the mind was free from its (past) conditioning; that freedom is the first and last step, and obedience to any authority in matters of the mind is to be caught in illusion and action that breeds sorrow. He looked at you with pity and concern, as though you were slightly demented. Then said, "The greatest and final experience (of Truth) has been given to me and no seeker can refuse that."

K : If Reality or Truth is ( something) to be ( recognised and personally ?) 'experienced', then it is only a projection of your own mind. What is 'experienced' ( by the self-centred consciousness ?) is not (the living?) truth but a creation of your own mind.

His disciples were getting fidgety. Followers destroy (deny the freedom of?) their teachers and themselves. He got up and left, followed by his disciples.

There is no ( pre-established ) path to ( a living ?) Truth. It is not to be (personally?) 'experienced' or found through dialectics. You will come upon it when the human mind is free of all the things it ( the self-centred thought?) has put together.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Aug 2015 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

More excerpts from the K journal

He was a thin, wiry man, with a well-shaped head and eyes that had known laughter. We were sitting on a bench overlooking the river in the shade of a tamarind tree, the home of many parrots and a pair of small screech-owls which were sunning themselves in the early morning sun.

Q : I have spent many years in meditation, controlling my thoughts, fasting and having one meal a day. I used to be a social worker but I gave it up long ago as I found that such work did not solve the deep human problem. There are many others who are carrying on with such work ( in India and elsewhere) but it is no longer for me. It has become important for me to understand the full meaning and depth of meditation. Every school of meditation advocates some form of self- control, but somehow there seems to be no end to it.

K : Control(ling one's thought) implies ( a hidden ) division, the (identification with the ) 'controller' and the things (that have to) to be controlled; this division (separation) , as all division, brings about conflict and distortion in our actions and behaviour. This (dualistic) ,fragmentation is the work of ( our survival oriented self-centred) thought, one fragment trying to control the other parts, call this one fragment the controller or whatever name you will. ( Although it is deeply rooted in most cultures?) this division is artificial and mischievous. Actually, the controller is (not separated from) the 'controlled'. Self-centred thought in its very nature is fragmentary and this ( duality conflict?) causes confusion , and sorrow. Thought is the response of ( active) memories (of our past?) experiences and knowledge, stored up in the brain; it (the thinking brain ?) can only function efficiently, sanely, when it hasa deep sense of security, order. To survive physically it must protect itself from all dangers; the necessity of outward survival is easy to understand but the 'psychological' (component of this ) survival is the survival of the (self-) image that thought has put together (and identified with?) . Thought has divided existence as the outer and the inner and from this separation conflict and (the need for ) control arise. For the survival of the 'inner' ( self or group-consciousness ? ) beliefs, ideologies, gods, nationalities become essential and this also brings about untold wars, violence and sorrow. The desire for the survival of the inner (psycho-structure) , with its many images, is ( eventually producing) is disharmony. ( The self-identified?) thought is disharmony. All its images, ideologies, its 'truths' are self-contradictory and destructive. Thought (brain's self-centred thinking patterns ?) has brought about, both outwardly and inwardly, chaos, and pleasures that soon become agonies. To 'read' all this in your daily life, to see this movement of ( self-centred) thought is the transformation that meditation brings about. This (is an integrating?) transformation of the ( psychological) content of consciousness. The consciousness of the world is ( also) your consciousness; you are the world and the world is you. Meditation is the complete transformation of ( the self-centred programming of human? ) thought and its activities. Harmony is not the fruit of (a 'self'-controlled) thought; it comes with the perception of the whole (universal ? Consciousness ).


One day, a man asked if he would like to see a baby elephant and naturally we went to see it. It was about two weeks old and the big mother was nervous and very protective, we were told. The car took us out of town, past the squalor and dirt to a river with brown water, with a village on its bank; tall and heavy trees surrounded it. The big dark mother and the baby were there. He stayed there for several hours till the mother got used to him; he had to be introduced, was allowed to touch her long trunk and to feed her some fruit and sugar cane. The sensitive end of the trunk was asking for more, and apples and bananas went into her wide mouth. The newly-born baby was standing, waving her tiny trunk, between her mother's legs. She was a small replica of her big mother. At last the mother allowed him to touch her baby; its skin was not too rough and its trunk was constantly on the move, much more alive than the rest of it. The mother was watching all the time and her keeper had to reassure her from time to time. It was a playful baby.


The woman came into the small room deeply distressed. Her son was killed in the war.

Q : I loved him very much and he was my only child; he was well- educated and had the promise of great goodness and talent. He was killed and why should it happen to him and to me? There was real affection, love between us. It was such a cruel thing to happen.

K : We spend so much money on educating our children; we give them so much care; we become deeply attached to them; they fill our lonely lives; in them we ( hope to ) find our fulfilment, our sense of continuity. Why are we educated? To become technological machines? To spend our days in labour and eventually die in some accident or with some painful disease? This is the life (pattern offered by?) our culture.. Every wife or mother is crying when war or disease has claimed the son or the husband. Is this sorrow ( due to our) attachment? Is it self-pity and the pain of separation? If you loved your son, you would see to it that no son was ever killed in a war. There have been thousands of wars, and mothers and wives have never totally denied the ways that lead to war. You will cry in agony but still support, unwillingly, the systems that breed war. Love knows no violence.


The man explained why he was separating from his wife.

Q : We married quite young and after a few years things began to go wrong in every way, sexually, mentally, and we seemed so utterly unsuited to each other. We loved each other, though, at the beginning and gradually it is turning into hate; separation has become necessary and the lawyers are seeing to it.

K : Is love (the pursuit of) pleasure and the insistence of (fulfiling our ) desire? Is love a physical sensation? Is ( sexual?) attraction and its fulfilment 'love'? Is love a commodity of thought? A thing put together by companionship, kindliness and friendship? If any of these take precedence then it is not 'love'. Love is as final as death.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Aug 2015 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

More Journal stuff

( Our heritage of animal?) violence is everywhere, among the highly educated and the most primitive, among the intellectuals and the sentimentalists. Neither the modern education nor the
organized religions have been able to 'tame' man (psychologically) ; the more he progresses (technologically) the more cruel man seems to become. Politics have become ( a politically correct form of?) gangsterism, one group against another; nationalism has led to war; there are economic wars; ( not to mention?) the personal hatreds and violence. Man doesn't seem to learn from experience and knowledge, and violence in every form goes on. What place has
knowledge in the transformation of man and his society? The (intellectual) energy which has been spent in analysing of the causes of man's insane destruction, of (taking pleasure in violence, or in the bullying activity, has in no way made ( the average ?) man considerate and gentle. In spite of all the words and books, threats and punishments, man continues his violence.

Violence is not only in the killing, in the bomb, in the revolutionary change
through bloodshed; it is deeper and more subtle. Conformity and imitation are
the indications of ( a psychological form of?) violence; the imposition and the accepting of authority are an indication of violence; ambition and competition are an expression of this
aggression and cruelty, and comparison breeds envy with its animosity and
hatred. Where there's a conflict , inner or outer, there is the ground for violence.
Division (self-isolation?) in all its forms brings about conflict and pain.
Perhaps you (think that you?) know all this; you have read about the actions of violence, you have
seen it in yourself and around you and you have heard it, and yet violence has
not come to an end (in one's own life) . Why? The explanations and (analysing ?) the causes of (our inherited violent) behaviour have no real significance. If you are ( intellectually?) indulging in them, you are wasting your ( directly perceptive?) energy which you need to transcend violence. You need all your energy to meet and go beyond the ( fragmented) energy that is being wasted in violence. Controlling violence is another (psycho-) form of violence, for the 'controller' is (not of a different nature than ?) the 'controlled'.

In total attention, in the summation of all energy, violence in all its forms comes to an
end. This 'attention' is not a (catch?) word, an abstract formulation of thought, but a (holistic) action in our daily life.( However) if action is the outcome of a (self- identification with an ?) ideology then it leads to violence.

Again a well-known guru came to see him. He had announced a few days before that he wished to pay a call. He arrived and his disciples came streaming in afterwards, one by one. They
would touch his feet as a mark of great respect. They wanted to touch the
other man's feet too but he would not have it; he told them that it was
degrading but the hope of Heaven was too strong in them. The guru
would not enter the house as he had taken a vow never to enter a house of
married people. The sky was intensely blue that morning and the shadows
were long.

Q : You deny being a guru but you are a guru of gurus (a teacher of teachers ?) . I have observed you from your youth and what you say is the (inner) truth which few will understand.
What, if one may be allowed to ask, is the experience of that absolute Reality?

K : (The ultimate ) Reality is not to be experienced. There's no path to it and no word can
indicate it; it is not to be sought after and to be found. The very word 'truth' is not ( the living?) Truth; the description is not the described.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Aug 2015 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

A journal meditation and a new answer to an old question

Has our consciousness any (conexion with its universal ?) depth or only a surface fluttering? Has ( the self-centred activity of?) thought itself any depth at all. ( The 'self'- ) consciousness is made up of its ( patterns of active memory) content; its content is ( determining) its entire frontiers. Thought is the (reflexive?) activity of the 'outer' and in certain (primitive ?) 'languages' thought means the ( thinking related to the?) outside. The ( psychological) importance that is given to the hidden layers of consciousness is still on the surface, without any depths. Thought can give to itself a ( controlling) 'centre', as the 'ego', the "me", but that 'centre' has no depth at all; ( the identification with a bundle of?) words, however cunningly and subtly put together, is not profound. The "me" is a ( identitary verbal ?) fabrication of thought in word and in identification; the "me", seeking depth in action, in existence, has no (true ?) meaning at all; all its attempts to establish depth in relationship end in the multiplications of its own 'images' whose shadows it considers are deep. The ( psycho-) activities of (the self-centred) thought have no depth; its pleasures, its fears, its sorrow are ( ripples?) on the surface of ( a total?) consciousness .

The very word 'surface' indicates that there is something below, but a 'shallow' or a 'deep' mind are the words of thought and thought in itself is superficial. The (driving) 'volume' (the active content?) behind thought is (our past) experience, knowledge, the memory of things that are gone, only to be recalled, ( in order ) to be acted upon.

Is there a (authentic?) 'depth' to our existence at all? Is all human relationship shallow? Can thought ever discover it? Thought is the only ( mental ?) instrument that man has cultivated and sharpened, and when that's denied as a means to the understanding of depth in life, then the mind seeks other means. To lead a ( sensory ?) shallow life soon becomes wearying, boring, meaningless and from this arises the constant pursuit of pleasure, ( with its associated ) fears, conflicts and violence. To 'see' ( to have an insight into ?) the ( inner) 'fragments' that thought has brought about and their activity, as a whole, is the ending of ( self-centred?) thought. This ( insightful) 'perception of the whole' is only possible when the observer, who is the controlling fragment of thought, is not active. Then action 'is' (direct) relationship and never leads to conflict and sorrow.

Only ( inner) 'silence' has depth, as love. This 'silence' is not ( related to) the movement of thought nor is love. Then the words, deep and shallow, lose their meaning. There is no (qualitative ) 'measurement' to Love nor to Silence. What's measurable is ( the product of) thought and time; ( in fact) thought is (a process of 'self' continuity ?) time. Measure is necessary ( in the outer world) but when thought carries it into ( the area of inner) action and (personal) relationship, then mischief and disorder begin. ( The Universal?) 'order' is not measurable, only (the entropy of) disorder is. The sea and the house were quiet, and the hills behind them, with the wild flowers of spring, were silent.

Question: May we request you to state clearly whether there is God or not?

Krishnamurti: To know God, Sir, to know truth, you must not seek it. If you seek it, then you are escaping from what is; and that is why you are asking ( implicitly?) whether there is God or not. You want to get away from your suffering, escape into an illusion. For reality to come into being, suffering must cease; and merely to search for God, for truth, for immortality, is an escape from suffering. The man who discusses the nature of God, does not know God; because, that Reality cannot be 'measured' ( described verbally?) . You cannot catch the wind in your fist; you cannot capture Reality in a temple, so until you understand and transcend that suffering, Reality cannot come into being. So, your enquiry whether there is God or not has no (truly spiritual) meaning, it can but lead to illusion. How can a mind that is caught in the turmoil of daily sorrow and suffering, in ignorance and limitation, know that which is illimitable, unutterable? How can that (conditioned mind?) which is a product of time, know the Timeless? It cannot. Therefore, it cannot even 'think about it' (since) (the self-centred) thought is the result of time, of ( the memories of) yesterday, of the past; and being the result of time, of the past, being the product of memory, how can thought find that which is eternal, timeless, immeasurable?

All that you can do is to free the mind from the ( limitations of the?) thought process; and ( in order) to free the mind from the thought process, you must understand suffering at all the different levels of consciousness. That means being open, vulnerable to suffering, not defending yourself against suffering but living with it, embracing it, looking at it. Because, you are suffering now. You are suffering from morning till night, with an occasional ray of sunshine, with an occasional gap in the cloudy sky. Since you are suffering, why not consider that, why not go into it fully, deeply, completely, and resolve it? And that is not difficult. The search for God is much more difficult, because it is the Unknown, and you cannot search for the unknown. But you can seek out the cause of suffering and eradicate it by understanding it, being aware of it, not running away from it. In understanding ( the nature of that) suffering, there is a release. Then the mind becomes free from all thought, it is no longer the product of the past. Then the mind is ( mill-pond) 'tranquil', without any problem; it is not made tranquil, but is tranquil, because it has no problem, it is no longer creating thought. Then ( the self-isolating process of) thought has ceased - thought which is the scars of yesterday; and when the mind is utterly quiet, not made quiet, Reality comes into being. That is the experience of Reality, not of illusion, and such ( direct?) experience gives a blessing to man. Truth, love, is the Unknown, and the Unknown cannot be captured by the known. The known must cease for the Unknown to be; and when the Unknown comes into being, there is a blessing.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 27 Aug 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 27 Aug 2015 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

More K Journal extras

Sensuality in the world of pleasure has become very important. Taste dictates and soon the habits of pleasure take hold; though it may harm the whole organism, ( the drive for an ever renewed?) pleasure dominates. Pleasure ( can be just ) of the senses, or of cunning and subtle thought, of words and of the images of mind and hand is the culture of education, (not to speak of?) the pleasure of violence and the pleasure of sex. Man's mentality is moulded to the shape of pleasure, and all his (earthly) existence, religious or otherwise, is the pursuit of it. The wild exaggerations of ( this irational drive for) pleasure are the outcome of a ( socially imposed?) moral and intellectual conformity. When the mind is not free and aware (of these deeper causes?) , then sensuality becomes a factor of corruption which is what is going on in the modern world.- where the (joint ? ) pleasure of money and sex dominate. When man has become inwardly a secondhand human being, the expression of sensuality is his 'freedom'. Then love is ( becoming a thing of) pleasure and desire. Organized entertainment, religious or commercial, makes for social and personal immorality; you cease to be responsible. Responding wholly to any challenge is to be responsible, but this cannot be when the very essence of thought is fragmentary and the pursuit of pleasure, in all its obvious and subtle forms, is the principal ( motivation?) movement of existence. Joy and pleasure are two entirely (qualitatively?) different things; the one is uninvited and the other cultivated, nurtured; the one comes when the "me" is not (in charge) and the other is time-binding; so, where the one is the other is not. Pleasure, fear and violence run together; they are inseparable companions. Learning from observation is action, (then only?) the seeing is ( not divided from) the doing.

The sky was very blue and soft and all the hills and mountains were still dreaming. It was a 'happy' morning and the soft light covered the land and the endless beauty of life. Meditation is ( perceiving ?) the essence of this beauty, expressed or silent. Expressed, it takes form, substance; silent it's not to be put into word, form or colour. From ( this inner) silence, expression or action have beauty, are whole, and all struggle, conflict cease. Without passion there's no creation. Total ( self-) abandonment brings this unending passion. Not being driven by any cause or ( expectation of) gain, it has no beginning and no ending. This (self-) abandonment is the emptying of the mind of the "me". This "me" can lose ( forget?) itself in ( getting commited to?) some activity or fanciful dream, but such 'loss' is the continuing of the 'self' in another form, identifying itself with another ideology and action. The abandonment of the 'self' ( centred consciousness) is not an act of will, for the will 'is' (the essence of) the self. Any movement of the 'self' (-centred mind ?) , horizontally or vertically, in any direction, is still within the field of time and sorrow. Thought may give itself over to something, sane or insane, reasonable or idiotic, but being in its very structure and nature fragmentary, its very enthusiasm, excitement, soon turn into pleasure and fear. This self-abandonment is illusory, with little (spiritual) meaning. The awareness of all this is the ( total mind's) 'awakening' to the activities of the self; in this ( intelligence of?) attention there is no centre, no self-(identification?). The urge to express oneself for 'identification' ( finding one's identity?) is the outcome of confusion and the meaningless-ness of one's existence. Thought can and does give a thousand meanings to life- which are merely opinions and convictions and there's no end to them. The very living is the whole meaning ( of existence) but when life is ( becoming) a conflict, a struggle, a battlefield of competition and the worship of success, then life has no (deeper) meaning. What is the need of self-expression? Does Creation lie in the things (artistically) produced? When there is division between 'creator' and the ( things) 'created', ( the sense of inner) beauty, of love, come to an end. You may produce a most excellent thing in colour or in stone, but if your daily life contradicts that total abandonment of the 'self' that ( object) which you have produced is for admiration and vulgarity. The very ( act of) living is ( containing in itself) the colour, the beauty and its expression. One needs no other (form of artistic expression?).

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 02 Sep 2015 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Gstaad Meditations ( From the 1961 Notebook)

The room became full with that benediction. Now what followed is almost impossible to put down in words and what took place was beyond all words and description. It was the centre of all Creation, a purifying seriousness that cleansed the brain of every thought and feeling; its seriousness was as lightning which destroys and burns up; the profundity of it was not measurable, it was there immovable, impenetrable, a 'solidity' that was as light as the heavens. It was in the eyes and the eyes could 'see'. The ( mind's?) eyes that 'saw' were wholly different from the eyes of the (optical) organ and yet they were the same eyes. There was only ( an integrated?) 'seeing', the eyes that saw beyond 'time-space'. There was impenetrable dignity and a peace that was the essence of all movement, action. There was a ( sense of?) 'love' that was utterly perishable and so it had the delicacy of all new things, vulnerable, destructible and yet it was beyond all this. It was there imperishable, unnameable, the unknowing. No thought could ever penetrate it; no action could ever touch it. It was "pure", untouched and so ever dyingly beautiful. All this seemed to affect the brain; it was not as it was before, its relationship seems to have changed. As a terrific storm, a destructive earthquake gives a new course to the rivers, changes the landscape, digs deep into the earth, so it has levelled the contours of thought, changed the shape of the heart. *

Yesterday, as we were walking up a beautiful narrow valley, its steep sides dark with pines and green fields full of wild flowers, suddenly, a 'benediction' descended upon us, like gentle rain. We became the centre of it. It was gentle, pressing, infinitely tender and peaceful, enfolding us in a power that was beyond all fault and reason. Early this morning, on waking a changeless purifying seriousness and an ecstasy that had no cause. It simply was there. And during the day, whatever one did it was there in the background and it came directly and immediately to the fore when one was quiet. There is an urgency and beauty in it.


Why is it that there is deterioration? Inwardly as well as outwardly. Why? Time brings destruction to all 'mechanical' organizations, it wears out by use and disease every form of living organism. Why should there be deterioration inwardly, 'psychologically'? Seeing the 'fact' that we decline, deteriorate is all important and the ( truth of the?) fact is we are violent and conflict is part of our daily life - ambition and success. Seeing ( the truth of?) this fact puts an end to ( the inner) deterioration. Choice, must wholly cease, the desire to fulfil and the satisfaction and sorrow that exist in its shadow, is also one of the factors of deterioration. Woke up early this morning, to experience that 'benediction'. One was "forced" to sit up to be in that clarity and beauty. Later in the morning sitting on a roadside bench under a tree one felt the immensity of it. It gave shelter, protection like the tree overhead whose leaves gave shelter against the strong mountain sun and yet allowed light to come through. All relationship is such protection in which there's freedom, and because there's freedom, there is shelter.


Woke up early this morning with an enormous sense of power, beauty and incorruptibility. It was not an experience that was past and one woke up to remember it as in a dream, but something that was actually taking place. One was aware of something utterly incorruptible, in which nothing could possibly exist that could become corrupt, deteriorate. It was too immense for the brain to grasp it ; it could only register, mechanically (subliminally?) , that there is such a "state" of 'incorruption'. Experiencing such a state is vastly important; it was there, limitless, untouchable, impenetrable. Because of its incorruptibility, there was in it beauty. Not the beauty that fades : one felt that in its 'presence' all ( spiritual?) essence exists and so it was sacred. It was a Life in which nothing could perish. Death is incorruptible but man makes of it a corruption as, for him, life is. With it all, there was that sense of power, strength as solid as that mountain which nothing could shatter ; it was there, immense, which no wave of thought could corrupt, a thing remembered. It was there and the eyes, the breath were of it.

Why should all this (mystical stuff?) happen to us? Certain things are fairly clear. 1. One must be wholly "indifferent" to it coming and going. 2. There must be no desire to continue the experience or to store it away in memory. 3. There must be a certain physical sensitivity, a certain indifference to comfort. 4. There must be self- critical 'humourous' (indirect?) approach. But even if one had all these, by chance, they are not enough. Something totally different is necessary or nothing is necessary. 'It' must come and you can never go after it, do what you will. 5. You can also add 'love' to the list but it is beyond love. One thing is certain, the brain can never comprehend it nor can it contain it. Blessed is he to whom it is given. 6. And you can add also a still, quiet brain

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 20 Oct 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 03 Sep 2015 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Is there a God?( a 'simple' answer to an ages-old question)

Questioner: I really would like to know if there is a God. Can I know God? I've asked this question of many 'holy people' both in India and here and they've all emphasized belief. "Believe and then you will know; without faith you can never know." What do you think?

Krishnamurti: When the mind is free of belief then it can 'look' ( and see for itself?) . So we can completely put aside positive or negative belief ? Then the question, "Is there a God?" has quite a different meaning. The word 'God' with all its ( cultural) tradition is not the Real. So can the mind be free of the word ( of naming and verbalising ) ?

Questioner: How can I do that? Your name is not you, and yet without your name I can't ask about you. And you're asking me if the mind can be free of the word - that is, can the mind be free of its own ( verbalising?) activity?

Krishnamurti: In the case of a tree ,the object is before our eyes, and the word refers to the (actual) tree by universal agreement. Now with the word 'God' there is nothing (material?) to which it refers, so each man can create his own image of that for which there is no reference and hen illusion begins. So we are asking whether you can be free of the word with its illusion.

Questioner: I must meditate on this.

Krishnamurti: If there is no illusion, what is left?

Questioner: Only what 'is'.

Krishnamurti: The what 'is' is the most holy. If you see that what 'is' is sacred, you do not make war, you do not 'hope' (do not expect anything?) , you do not exploit. So if each one of us sees this truth there must be change. This seeing of the truth is change.

Questioner: I came here to find out if there is a God, and you have completely confused me.

Krishnamurti: When there is no illusion the "what is" is most sacred. Now let's look at what actually 'is' (within ourselves) . At a given moment the "what is" may be (manifested as?) fear, or utter despair, or a fleeting joy. These things are constantly changing. And also there is the 'observer ' (inner entity) who says, "These things all change around me, but I remain permanent". Is that a fact ? Is he not also changing, adding to and taking away from himself, modifying, adjusting himself, becoming or not becoming? So both (components of our inner reality ? ) the 'observer' and the 'what is observed' are constantly changing. What is ( the psychological reality ) is constantly changing. That is a fact.

Questioner: Then if everything is a movement of change, isn't love also part of that movement?

Krishnamurti: Is that love? Can Love ever be caught in the wheel of change? It is only when there is no illusion that "what is" is most sacred. When there is no illusion "what Is" is God - or any other name that can be used. So God is when 'you' are not. When you are, It is not. When 'you' ( the 'self-consciousness'?) are not, love is. When 'you' are, love is not.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 03 Sep 2015.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 12 Sep 2015 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

A perfect day for meditation

It was a perfect day; the sky was intensely blue and everything was sparkling in the morning sun. There were a few clouds floating about, leisurely, with nowhere to go. The sun on the fluttering leaves of aspen were brilliant jewels against the green sloping hills. The meadows overnight had changed, more intense, more soft, a green that is utterly unimaginable. There were three cows far up the hill, lazily grazing and their bells could be heard in the clear early morning air; they moved in a line steadily chewing their way from one side of the meadow to the other. It was a morning of long shadows and infinite beauty. Strange, how love has its being in this beauty, there was such gentleness that all things seemed to stand still, lest any movement should awaken a hidden shadow. And there were a few more clouds.

It was a beautiful drive, in a car that seemed to enjoy what it was built for; it took every curve, however sharp, easily and willingly and up the long incline it went never grumbling and there was plenty of power to go up wherever the road went. It was like an animal that knew its own strength. The road curved in and out, through a dark sunlit wood, and every patch of light was alive, dancing with the leaves; every curve of the road showed more light, more dances, more delight. Every tree, every leaf stood alone, intense and silent. You saw, through a small opening of the trees, a patch of startling green of a meadow that was open to the sun. It was so startling that one forgot that one was on a dangerous mountain road. But the road became gentle and lazily wound around to a different valley. The clouds were gathering in now and it was pleasant not to have a strong sun. The road became almost flat, if a mountain road can be flat; it went on past a dark pine- covered hill and there in front were the enormous, overpowering mountains, rocks and snow, green fields and waterfalls, small wooden huts and the sweeping, curving lines of the mountain. One could hardly believe what the eyes saw, the overpowering dignity of those shaped rocks, the treeless mountain covered with snow, and crag after crag of endless rock, and right up to them were the green meadows, all held together in a vast embrace of a mountain.

It was really quite incredible; there was beauty, love, destruction and the immensity of creation, not those rocks, not those fields, not those tiny huts; it wasn't in them or part of them. It was far beyond and above them. It was there with the majesty, with a (silent ?) 'roar' that no eyes or ears could see or hear; it was there with such totality and stillness that the brain with its thoughts became 'as nothing' as those dead leaves in the woods. It was there with such abundance, such strength that the world, the trees and the earth came to an end. It was love, creation and destruction. There was the essence of depth. The essence of thought is that state when thought is not. However deeply and widely thought is pursued, thought will always remain shallow, superficial. The ending of ( self-centred) thought is the beginning of ( the awakening of ? ) that essence. The ending of thought is negation and what is negative has no positive way; there is no method, no system to end thought. ( Following) the method, the system is a 'positive' approach to Negation and thus thought can never find the essence of itself. It must cease for the essence to be.

The essence of being is non-being (being as no-thing ?) , but to "see" the depth of this 'non-being', there must be freedom from becoming. There is no freedom if there is ( ego-) continuity and that which has continuity is time-bound. Every ( self-centred ?) experience is binding thought to time and a mind that's in a state of non-experiencing is aware of all essence. This state in which all experiencing has come to an end is not the paralysis of the mind; on the contrary, it's the additive mind, the mind that's accumulating, that is withering away. For accumulation is mechanical, a repetition; the denial to acquire and mere acquisition are both repetitive and imitative. The mind that destroys totally this accumulative and defensive mechanism is free and so experiencing has lost its significance. Then there's only the fact and not the experiencing of the fact; the opinion of the fact, the evaluation of it, the beauty and non- beauty of it is the experiencing of the fact. The experiencing of the fact is to deny it, to escape from it. The experiencing of a fact without ( the interference of?) thought or feeling is a profound event.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Oct 2015 #28
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Insights on Meditation ( From the K Notebook, 1961)

The brain which had listened to the silence of the hills, fields and groves was itself now silent; it no longer listened to itself; it had gone through that and had become quiet, naturally, without any enforcement. It was still ( but) ready to stir itself on the instant. It was still, deep within itself; like a bird that folds its wings, it had 'folded' upon itself and had entered into depths which were beyond itself. The brain is essentially superficial; its activities are superficial, ( eventually becoming?) almost mechanical; its activities and responses are immediate, though this 'immediacy' ( of its material needs?) is also translated (stretched?) into the future. But the (same) brain being still (at peace with itself?) and turning upon itself, it was no longer 'experiencing' (anything) outwardly or inwardly. Self-consciousness, (residual conglomerate of?) the fragments of many experiences, compulsions, fears & hopes of the past and the future, ( not to mention?) the ( cultural) contradictions of the race and its own self-centred activities, was absent; it ( simply) was not there. One's entire being was utterly still and as it became intense as it was entering into a depth where (the self-centred) consciousness could not enter. It was an inward dimension which the brain could not 'understand'. This New(ness of Creation?) , this 'depth' was expanding beyond (the limitations of?) time and space.

There was no one on the road and Meditation came as easily and naturally as the coming night. The brain was aware of its environment but very quiet and all words had faded ( along?) with thought. There was that strange energy, deeply active, without object and purpose; it was ( the movement of?) Creation, completely unrelated to everything and totally alone in its vastness and immensity. There was the ecstasy (and) the aloneness (all-oneness?) of the 'impossible' ( of the Uncreated?) . The 'possible' is ( eventually becoming?) mechanical but that ecstasy had no cause, it was simply there, as a fact. Every (thought created ?) 'thing' has to die (end?) for it to be, a 'death', a 'destruction' which is Love.

A poor, worn-out labourer, in torn dirty clothes, was returning home with his bone-thin cow.

It was a 'meditation in emptiness', ( entering into an inner?) void that had no borders. The ( thinking?) brain was in no way participating in this meditation; it was the totality of the Mind being aware of what was taking place and yet it was not something outside of itself. Thought is an impediment to meditation for it dissipates energy ; the ( spiritual?) 'essence' of energy is ( to be found in the very ?) freedom from thought and feeling.

On this ( country ) road, far away were the cities with their filth, industries, rich houses, temples and dull minds, there was the solitude of the hills, full of age and indifference. Meditation is the emptying the mind of all ( psycho- activities of ?) thought, for ( the self-centred ) thought and feeling dissipate ( one's total) energy. They are producing ( a lot of ?) mechanical activities which are a necessary part of human existence. But ( the self-centred?) 'thought &feeling' cannot possibly enter into the immensity of life. Quite a different approach is necessary : there must be freedom from the path(ways) of habit : ( the first and last step in?) meditation is the emptying of the mind of the known. This (emptying) cannot be done by the hidden promptings of thought, nor by desire in the form of prayer, nor through the 'self'-effacing hypnotism of words, images, hopes and vanities. All these have to come to an end, easily, without effort and choice, in the flame of awareness. Walking on that road, there was a complete emptiness of the brain, and the mind was free of all (its past) experience, the knowing of yesterday. Time, the ( self-projected?) 'thing' of thought, had stopped; literally there was no ( mental) movement, no going or arriving or standing still. The totality of the Mind, in which is (contained?) the brain with its thoughts and feelings, was empty; and because it was empty there was a a deepening and widening energy without measure. The 'otherness' was (one with?) this mind without time; it was the breath of innocence and immensity. The emptiness was alone (all-one?) .

One was aware, suddenly, of that strange Otherness; it had been there, only that ( because of the public?) talks, seeing people and so on, the body had not had enough rest to be aware of the 'strangeness' but only on going out ( for a walk) there was the realization that it had been there.It was unexpected and sudden, with that intensity which is the essence of beauty. One went with it down the road not as something to be observed, examined, and remembered. These were the ways of thought but thought had ceased and so there was no 'experiencing' of it. All 'experiencing' is (eventually becoming?) part of the machinery of thought and all mechanical processes deteriorate. It was something totally new and this 'new(ness?) has no relation whatsoever with the known, with the (memory of the ) past. There was ( an inward?) beauty, beyond all thought and feeling.

Habit and meditation can never abide together; meditation can never follow the patterns laid down by ( the self-centred?) thought which forms habit. Meditation is the destruction of (the self-centred?) thought : thought shattering itself against (the fact of?) its own nothingness is the explosion of meditation. In that peculiar silence meditation was ( an inner ?) 'movement' in which the brain emptied itself and remained still. It was the movement ( the silent activity ?) of the totality of the mind in emptiness and there was timelessness. Thought is ( a material brain activity?) held within the bonds of time; thought is never free, never new; every experience only strengthens the bondage and so ( eventually?) there is ( an accumulation of?) sorrow. However astute, however 'experienced', thought can never end sorrow. The ending of sorrow is the ending of thought, (since ) every (self-centred) thought shapes our response to the challenge of a limitless life and this response of 'time' ( of the active memory of the past?) breeds (engenders?) sorrow. Thought is mechanical and so it can never be free; only in the freedom (from this self-centred process of thought?) there is no sorrow. The ending of thought is the ending of sorrow

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 04 Nov 2015 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

Madras Meditations (from the K Notebook, 1961)

That little opening in the casuarina grove, enclosed by dark trees and fast-fading light was not only a quiet (place) but there was a joy in it, the joy of immense solitude and as one went by it, that ever-strange ( sense of?) 'otherness' came like a wave, covering the heart and the mind in its beauty and its clarity. All time ceased, the next moment had no beginning. Out of emptiness only is there love ; every form of image, word, symbol must come to an end for the flowering of meditation.

The mind must lose (get rid of?) its 'slavery' ( addiction?) to words and their reaction. ( The self-centred?) thought is ( creating its own continuity in ?) time, and its ( verbal) symbols, however ancient and significant, must lose their its grip on thought. Thinking then has no ( temporal?) continuity; it is then only from moment to moment and so loses its mechanical insistency; (such time-free ?) thinking then does not shape the mind (and heart?) and enclose it within the frame of ideas and condition it to the culture in which it lives. (Inner) freedom is not from society but from ( its ?) "ideas" ; then only relationships do not condition the mind.

The whole of (our collectively shared ?) consciousness is residual, changing, modifying, conforming, and (a qualitative?) mutation is only possible when 'time' and idea(tion?) have come to an end. This 'ending' is not an idea to be denied or accepted. It is (an action ?) to be understood through self-knowing, learning from moment to moment, for the 'self' (-consciousness?) , the 'me', is ever changing, never constant. Accumulation of knowledge, distorts and puts an end to ( such inward?) learning. Gathering knowledge, however much is expanding its frontiers, becomes mechanical and a mechanical mind is not a free mind. Self-knowing liberates the mind from the known; to live the entire life in the activity of the known breeds endless conflict and misery. Meditation is not a 'personal' achievement, a personal quest for reality; meditation frees the mind from the narrow limitations of existence ( an opening into ?) the ever expanding, timeless life.

Without ( inner?) sensitivity there can be no affection; the 'personal' sensitivity about your family, about your achievement, about your status and capacity is a reaction, limited, narrow, and is a deteriorating (factor?) . The ( inner) freedom from ( such?) 'personal' reactions is the awareness of beauty. Without this sensitive awareness of beauty, there is no love. Thz sensitive awareness of nature, of the river, of the sky, of the people, of the filthy road, is affection (love?) . The essence of affection is sensitivity. But most people are afraid of being sensitive; to them to be sensitive is ( increasing the risk?) to get hurt and so they harden themselves and so preserve their ( self-isolating?) sorrow. Or they (naturally?) 'escape' into every form of entertainment, the church, the temple, ( TV?) gossip and cinema and (or ) social reform.
( Recap:) Being sensitive is not 'personal' ; when it is (made so?) , it leads to misery. To break through (the limitations of?) this 'personal' reaction is to love, and ( having affection or?) love is not restricted to the one or to the many. To be sensitive, all the senses must be fully alive, active, and the ( subliminal?) 'fear' of becoming a 'slave to the senses' is merely the avoidance of a natural fact. The awareness of the fact does not lead to 'slavery'; it is the fear (or the ignorance ?) of the fact that leads to bondage. Thought is ( a verbalised reaction ?) of the senses and thought makes for limitation but yet you are not afraid to think . On the contrary, thought is 'ennobled' with respectability and enshrined with conceit. To be sensitively aware of one's thought and feeling, of the world about you, of your office and of nature, is to explode (from moment to moment) in affection. Without affection, every human action (eventually ?) becomes burdensome and mechanical and leads to ( inner?) decay.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 09 Nov 2015 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 710 posts in this forum Offline

More Meditations du Jour (from the K Notebook 1961)

On the ending of sorrow

There is no end to ( gaining ?) money ( and/or?) material security and power, but behind all ( this struggle for?) money and power, there is a (subliminal sense of?) sorrow which cannot be denied; you may try to forget ( ignore?) it but it is always there, a deep wound that nothing seems to heal. (But strangely enough?) nobody wants to be free of it, it is too complex to understand sorrow; it is all 'explained' in the books, and then the books, words, conclusions, become all important but sorrow is there still covered over with ideas. And then, escaping (from the pain of it?) becomes significant; escape is the essence of superficiality, though it may have varying depths.

But sorrow is not easily cheated. You have to go into the very heart of it to end it; you have to dig very deep into yourself, never leaving a corner uncovered. You have to see every twist and turn of the cunning (self-centredness of?) 'thought and feeling' about everything, every move of every reaction, without restraint, without choice. It is like following a river to its source; the river will take you to it. You have to follow every thread, every clue to the heart of sorrow. You have only to watch, see, listen; it is all (in) there open and clear. You have to take this journey into yourself. You can take a 'swift step' into yourself and so swiftly end sorrow, or prolong the journey, idly (hanging around?) , lazy and dispassionate. You need to have ( the total inner energy of ?) passion to end sorrow, and this passion is there when you stop escaping.

The tree was alive, marvellous, and there was plenty of shade and the blazing sun never touched you; you could sit there by the hour and see and listen to everything that was alive and dead, outside and inside. You cannot see and listen to the outside without wandering on to the inside. Really the outside 'is' the inside and the inside 'is' the outside ; almost impossible to separate them. You look at this magnificent tree and you wonder who is watching whom and presently there is no 'watcher' at all. Everything is so intensely alive and there is only (the movement of?) life and the 'watcher' is as dead as that leaf. There is no dividing line between the tree, the birds and that man sitting in the shade and the earth that is so abundant.

On total sensitivity, self-centred thinking and habit

( The essence of?) virtue is there without thought and so there is order; this ( inner?) order is not 'permanent'; it is there only from moment to moment and that (sense of?) Immensity comes with the setting sun so casually, so freely welcoming. The birds have become silent for it is getting dark and everything is slowly becoming quiet, ready for the night. The brain, this marvellous, sensitive, alive thing, is utterly still, only watching, listening without a moment of reaction, without recording, without experiencing, only 'seeing and listening'. With that ( sense of Cosmic ?) immensity, there is love and destruction and that destruction is ( of an?) unapproachable strength. The words would never capture that (inward sense of?) sweeping nothingness. Only out of that immense emptiness is there love, with its innocency. How can a brain that is so ( hyper?) active, (and?) burdened with knowledge, be aware of that Love? Everything must be ( meditatively?) 'denied' for that to be.

Habit (forming ?) , however convenient, is destructive of sensitivity, habit gives the feeling of security, but how can there be alertness, sensitivity, when ( an existence based on?) habits is cultivated ( not that insecurity brings alert awareness!). How quickly everything becomes habit, sorrow as well as pleasure and then boredom sets in and that peculiar thing called ( entertainment and?) leisure : after ( routinely?) working for forty years, you have leisure or (the instant?) leisure at the end of the day. ( The routinely working?) habit had its turn and now it's the turn of leisure which again turns into ( another series of?) habit. Without ( a total?) sensitivity (of being?) there is no ( authentic?) affection and that ( inner?) 'integrity' which is not the driven reaction of contradictory existence. The machinery of habit is ( the direct result of a self-centred?) thought which is always ( instinctively?) seeking security, some comforting state from which it will never be disturbed. It is this search for the 'permanent' that denies ( total) sensitivity. Being ( totally?) sensitive never (accumulates?) hurts, only ( the removal of?) those things in which you have taken shelter cause pain.

( Recap:) To be totally sensitive is to be wholly alive and that is 'love' ( free affection?) . But ( the process of our self-centred?) thought is very cunning; it will evade the 'pursuer' (the 'analyser?) , which is another ( yet controlling process of?) thought; only the ( free unfolding?) 'flowering' of thought can be ( obseerved ?) seen, listened to, and what flowers in freedom (naturally) comes to an end, 'dies' without leaving a mark.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 139 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.)