Mon, 09 Jul 2018 | #91 |
---|---|
![]() |
(Abstracts of the Madras ) K Group Discussion 30th October, 1947 It is an (experientially) realisable fact that one can bring about an almost instantaneous perception of what is Truth and (the insightful perception of) Truth is the liberating factor.
In daily life, most of us do not act up to our (true ) convictions because of fear to lose our social status etc.; they are therefore (becoming ) 'hypocrites' to their relatives and later on to the people at large also. Most of us merely follow the old routine of habitual action and thinking. Group Discussion 1st November, 1947 A mind which is conditioned (accustomed?) to live (safely) in a mental pattern controlled by a (personal or collective) creed or ide(ology) , can never know itself (by direct experience) . The mind can discover itself only when it is free of (thought) control and when there is a certain ( self-awareness &) spontaneity.
|
Back to Top |
Tue, 10 Jul 2018 | #92 |
---|---|
![]() |
2-nd K Public in Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited) I would like to continue from where I left off last Sunday. I was trying to show the (2-way interactive) relationship between the individual and society. How society having been created by (older self-centred ?) individuals smothers the ( present self-centred?) individual through systems, through organizations, through religion and so on. I think it is very important to realize very seriously and profoundly, ( the individual responsability involved in the ) relationship between the individual and society, as well as the transformation of society (through) the regeneration of the individual (mind) .
( The deeper consciousness of ) man is ( presently in a state of ) despair, confused, in a sorrowful (condition) . ( Our 1000 $ existential question is:) Does man's happiness lie in the ( material) 'things' made by the human mind? Through self-knowledge we can discover what is the truth and right happiness and whether our happiness lies in things made by the hand and by the mind.
I do not think we realize fully the extraordinary nature of the present human crisis . As I have said in my previous talk, a crisis like this happens only very rarely and we are all confronted with one of the rarest ( case of) of catastrophes and confusions. And what is needed is a complete revolution in ( our existing) values and you cannot create new (spiritual) values except by awakening the 'individual' (integrated consciousness). (For starters?) when you walk down the (Madras) streets you are aware of the poverty of the people, of the ill-fed families and of the utter callousness of everyone who's passing by ? ( Hint:) we have created all this, and since we are not aware of it how can we transform it? Surely it looks simpl(istic intellectually) ) , but the most profound ( experiential) beginning is to begin with ourselves.
Question: In a recent article by a famous correspondent it was stated that wisdom and personal example do not solve the world's problem. What do you say? Krishnamurti: As there are many things involved in this particular question we must analyses it carefully. First of all we are told what to think by 'famous' correspondents, because like you, they have their own 'axes to grind'. So, we have stopped thinking (out everything for ourselves) as we absorb what they think and what they do. So, one has to be extremely alert, not to absorb other people's ideas and demands.
So there must be a creative revolution in thinking and that is extremely difficult (for the self-centred thinker?) . There can be a ( qualitative?) revolution in thinking only when the (thinking mind of) man is free from its (time-binding) conditioning, not only of the conditioning one is conscious of?) , but the many (un-conscious) layers of consciousness in which ( traces of time-binding?) conditioning exists. To liberate oneself inwardly from that conditioning is ( the function of any authentic ?) revolutionary thinking. ( Hint : that may imply that you have to cease to (identify yourself as a?) Brahmin, Hindu, Christian, you have to 'transcend' all fallacies, class divisions. But (on a second thought?) if you do change, what will your neighbours say! You might even lose your job ! Therefore you will go on shaking your head (in assent) but the world will go on more and more miserably and you will go on talking about changing the world. So the start is not in the ( consciousness of the?) world of which you are unaware, but the world's problem can be solved (from the inside out?) if you are becoming aware of the misery and confusion which exists in you and therefore in ( the collective consciousness of?) the world. I assure you that is the only way out, and what is of the highest importance ( to be dealt with?) is what you are, your is your thinking, feeling & action 'now'. Question: What did you mean when you said that ''we use the present as a passage'' ? Krishnamurti: Last Sunday I said that ''we use the present as a passage to the future''. We use the present as a means of achieving some result, whether it is a psychological result or a personal result, changing oneself to become something. We use the present as a means of the past for the future, that is, this (time-bound ?) 'present' is the result of the ( whole mankind's ) past. Surely that is obvious. What you think is based on the past, your (self-centred?) being is founded on the past.
So ( to recap:) if you use ( thinking in terms of) time as a means to reach the 'timeless' ( dimension of Reality ?) you will never find that timeless-ness because (inwardly-wise?) using the wrong 'means' you will produce the wrong 'end'. War is a wrong means to achieve peace, since the 'end' is not dissociated from the 'means'. So if you would understand the timeless, (the thinking which ) is ( currently) bound in time must free itself and... that is extremely 'arduous' since it demands a constant awareness of every ( self-centred) thought and feeling and a 'becoming aware' of how one is caught up in it. |
Back to Top |
Wed, 11 Jul 2018 | #93 |
---|---|
![]() |
3-rd K Public Talk in Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited) K: I would request you to 'listen' to these talks, not so much with the idea of learning (something new) , but also by letting what I am saying to 'take root'. If it is true it will take root 'unconsciously', and if it is not it will just fall off and so you do not have to bother (about it anymore) . Because, what is (seen as) true is absorbed instantaneously by the 'unconscious' (layers of our total consciousness?) and what is not ( perceived as being) true, gradually falls off.
Now, why have these rudimentary demands taken such a deep hold of our minds? Is it not because we have no greater ( spiritual) values? If you are interested in something greater, the lesser would not have such predominating value. Secondary ( sensory?) values when given consuming importance bring disaster and misery as they are doing now in the world. So why is there no greater value (in our everyday life) though all the sacred books, say that there is a greater value? And if we did seek it, where has it led us to? Though you are (actively) seeking God and all the rest of it, the result is still the cultural division between the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian, the Muslim and so on.
So, how is the 'greater' value to be found? (For starters?) if I am really interested in something greater (spiritually-wise?) , I will not give such significance to the lesser values. But how am I to find the greater? I can only find it by understanding ( the time-binding nature of my inner ) 'psychological' demand for security. I think this is the first problem which we have to face (inwardly) : is there any 'psychological' ( self-projected?) security? We are all seeking (such ) security in ( academic titles & ) names, property, beliefs, definite ideas. This is the way in which the mind constantly seeks to be secure, to be certain, and we have assumed that there is such a thing as security and on it we are building our whole civilization, the whole structure of our thoughts, religious thoughts as well as those of every day existence. We have never asked ourselves, is there ( such a ) security? If there is not we will have to alter our whole existence.
( Hint:) Self-knowledge has an extraordinary creative significance, (only) if we treat it as a direct experiment – but not in order to achieve a result - if we experiment with ourselves and live experiment(i)ally then every relationship becomes a (potential) process of self-revelation; in my daily contact with you I am being revealed to myself, the way I think, the way I feel and act; if I am observant and aware of that relationship in daily life, the process of my thinking, my meditations, my demands become revealed to me. But I can only have self-knowledge if I am (inwardly?) aware. Then I can see that one of the major difficulties in the human relationships is our (ages old?) desire to be (totally?) secure ; and self-knowledge becomes extraordinarily significant when one begins to question the ( spiritual validity of a ) mind which is ever seeking, pursuing the ( illusory inner safety of living in the?) known.
Question: Will you please explain further what you mean by 'meditation'? Krishnamurti: First of all, what do we generally do when we sit down to meditate? Your ( superficial) mind wanders all over the place. So, because you have been told that you must concentrate on ( some serious stuff ? ) you try to concentrate on a picture or a (mantram) phrase or an idea taken out of a book. The mind being vagrant, wandering, disorderly, but still seeking some inner orderliness, pursues one exclusive idea, generally a verbal idea; and when someone can dwell completely in an idea and be identified with it, we call him a 'great man' . Yet... that ( great meaningful ) idea is a mere projection. Or the ( sacred?) word is ( constantly) repeated and you are putting yourself in a (self-induced) trance, and going far into that trance, you will call that (a successful) 'meditation', which is in fact only a ( subliminal) identification with a (self-) projected idea. Now, since ( the Unmanifested ?) Reality is ( intrinsically) unknowable, you actually cannot 'think' about something unknowable, you can only think about the ( things that are?) knowable. And since what you 'know' is not the ( living ?) Truth, you only 'experience' a process of self-hypnosis. Is that Meditation? To go into a trance, to concentrate on a thing with which you are getting completely identified, which is a projection of yourself? Is that not what we are doing? When your meditation is merely moving from the 'known' to the 'known', it is obviously not (allowing) the discovery of the Unknown. Then... what is the true 'meditative' process? How to discover (within one's own mind) the 'Unknown' is (crux of the ) the problem. After all the purpose of meditation is to discover ( the inward source of ) Reality, Beauty & Love.
How then would you find out (within yourself?) that which is not conceivable, that which cannot be formulated, that which is Immeasurable, the Real ? ( The meditating mind ) can only know the Eternal, the Timeless when (itself) it is not caught in time. (In other words) the ( meditating) mind can know the ( living dimension of?) Truth only when it is free from ( its psychological ties in the field of the?) known. So the first problem is our (everyday ) mind which moves from the known to the known. This mind cannot see the Real unless it frees itself from the known. What is the 'known'? Our memory is constantly gathering ideas, possessions or distinctions. Can mind free itself from its own ( self-protective) creations? Can mind, which is the result of time, free itself from time? When it is free from (its thought-created continuity in ) time, the Timeless is. So, how can the (temporal) mind free itself from time, from the past, the present and the future? It can free itself only from time by becoming ( non-personally?) aware of all that it is doing now, of all its thinking & feeling. Now and not tomorrow ! For, the 'present' is the door to the understanding of time and in becoming aware of what you are thinking ( & feeling) now you will discover 'why' you are thinking and 'what' you are thinking. That is, in the constant awareness of what you are thinking, feeling & doing, you will find the beginning of self-knowledge, not only the knowledge of your conscious mind , but also of all the hidden activities. Therefore self-knowledge is the beginning of meditation and there can be no meditation without self-knowledge. To meditate there must be self-knowledge. The question 'How to meditate' is a wrong question because it merely asks for a method, a technique which is (already recorded in the field of ) the 'known', in order to find the Unknowable. See how ridiculous it is ? If the means is the 'known' then the end also is the 'known' and therefore it is not the Unknowable, the Timeless. So (to recap:) the right beginning of meditation is also the beginning of self - knowledge. That is the ( meditating) mind begins to be aware of its own activities ; and to know ( by total immersion?) the whole process of the ( self-centred) mind is not a question of time ; you just begin by being aware (non-personally & ) choicelessly, that is, without condemnation, without justification, without identification, and then (the meditative approach to ) self-knowledge becomes extremely creative. After all that is Creation, the Real Question: I am beginning to realize that I am a very lonely person . What am I to do (in order to fix this 'psychological' problem) ? Krishnamurti: Do you know what this 'loneliness' really means and are you aware of it? I doubt it very much because ( generally speaking?) we have smothered our ( deeper feelings?) in various 'activities', which really prevent us from being aware of loneliness. So, what do we mean by 'loneliness'? It is a sense of feeling inwardly empty, of having no anchorage anywhere, the sense of real inexhaustible pain, an (existential) pain that cannot be covered up, though we are constantly trying it.
Now when you realize ( the truth regarding ) what you are doing , do you still think you can fill this 'inner void of loneliness' ? Have you succeeded in filling it or have you merely covered it up (temporarily?) ? If you have merely covered it up, it is still there. Therefore, it will come back ( one of those days?) and if you are able to escape it altogether then you must have become ( inwardly) very, very dull. Can this ( profound sense of existential) emptiness, this inner void be ever filled (with 'things' ?) ? If not, can we keep running away from it, escape from it? (Hint:) meditation can also be such an escape.
Question: Are you not becoming our ( new spiritual) 'leader'? Krishnamurti: First of all, why do you want a (spiritual) leader ? Because we are ( inwardly & outwardly ) confused and we want somebody to protect us. Politically ( this 'protection') may son be the tyranny of a dictator. That is what is happening and what is going to happen.
Now (speaking personally?) I do not believe in self-fulfilment, it leads to misery. And as I do not depend on you financially or for my psychological demands, I am not your (spiritual) leader. It does not matter to me whether there is one, many, or no none, to listen to me. I do not believe in mutual exploitation and therefore you are not going to make me your ( spiritual) leader. Because the true Reality is not found through following anybody - it comes into being only when the 'self' (consciousness ) is absent, when there is freedom from psychological demands, when the mind is free to act in pursuing anything ( true?) . This pursuit is indicative of creation and when all ( worldly?) desires cease then there is Reality. Question: What is the difference between belief and confidence? Why do you condemn belief? Krishnamurti: First of all let us see what is 'belief' and what is 'confidence'. Why do we have to 'believe'? Is it not because we have a desire to be certain, to be secure? So, belief is a demand to be (inwardly) secure made by the ( self-centred) mind and therefore the mind takes the beliefs of others and then what happens? Belief divides (people) . When you seek security in your particular belief you become separated from those who are seeking security in other forms of belief. Therefore, all organized beliefs are based on separatism, though they may preach brotherhood. That is exactly what is happening in the world because belief is a hidden psychological demand for self-fulfilment.
And what do we mean by 'confidence'? Most of us feel a certain confidence in something. If you have practised something, read books, etc., it gives you a certain self-confidence, done it over and over again with confidence. It is a (sublimated?) form of competitive aggressiveness - "I can do something and you cannot." Self-confidence in an (academic title, bank account or?) in another (lucrative?) capacity - such (self-) confidence is ( a sublimated form of) aggression. Is it not? Such confidence is also self-exploitation which again is akin to belief. Therefore belief and confidence are similar. They are the two sides of the same coin.
Sirs, please do not get ( subliminally influenced or ?) hypnotized, but (for a change ?) try to be in that receptive mood when the seed (of truth) is set in place and takes root. I hope sincerely that the 'seed' ( of truth) is being planted because what is going to free you, to deliver each one of us from 'sin & suffering' is the awareness of 'what is' (going on inwardly?) and to perceive it without (thought's ) obstruction brings freedom. This is (the ultimate ?) freedom and through that freedom alone can Truth be known. This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 12 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Fri, 13 Jul 2018 | #94 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussions - abstracts 10th November, 1947 The ( thought-addicted?) mind can be understood only when it is 'slowed down' so that each thought, as it arises, can be followed out with a sense of inner freedom; the ( totality of our) mind has to dedicate itself to that understanding.
13th November, 1947 We saw that the mind has to slow itself down if its restlessness and vagrancy are to be understood. The ( meditative?) quietening of the mind was regarded as a problem outside; but in following each of its responses completely, the mind had become naturally quiet and alert – and it has to be (inwardly) quiet in order to understand each response fully.
15th November, 1947 Life is a (cvasi-?) continuous ( process of) challenge and response. Whenever there is an (unexpected) challenge there is a direct (spontaneous) response which almost immediately becomes a conditioned response which almost immediately (is recognised, processed and recorded in memory and therefore ) becomes a ( 'known') conditioned response - fear, love, jealousy or something else. But at the very moment of a (spontaneous ) direct response there is only the (surge of an ) intense alertness, without any qualification whatsoever; in that state, there is no dissociation between the (self-conscious) 'entity' who experiences it and the quality which is being experienced. As it is extremely difficult (& inwardly uncomfortable ?) to live for any length of time in that state of heightened sensitivity, the ( survival oriented ) mind which is seeking self-protection (at all levels) , gives it a (verbal) qualification according to whether pleasure or pain is apprehended; and instantaneously there is a separation of the 'experiencer' from that (wanted or unwanted) quality. (On longer term?) this leads to a 'conditioned' response.
(To recap) We are trying to understand ( the psychological nature of?) fear. We have seen how futile is the attempt made by the ( self-centred) mind to overcome fear or to run away from fear. We have also seen how fear is primarily based on the mind's desire for self-protection. This problem of fear has not been ( experientially) solved because we pursued (our particular ) fears which are of a secondary value, instead of pursuing 'the desire for self-protection' which is the primary (cause) value. We gave importance to the symptom and not to the cause, to the secondary values and not to the primary. When we are (becoming holistically?) aware of both fear and of the ( previously ignored) process of 'the desire for self-protection' the mind is free of fear.
K Public Talk 16th November, 1947 It would be very interesting if we could take the journey together into self-exploration and it would be beneficial if we could all 'play the game' and be creative, and not only watch one person think, feel, live. The difficulty with most of us is that we got (inwardly unperceptive & ) accustomed to being told what to do, what to think and what the right action is.
( In a nutshell:) We do not seem to realize the impermanency of all things – (all material) things are impermanent; they wear out. In the case of relationships, there is a constant friction. The same is true for ideas and beliefs which have no stability. Yet we seek our happiness in them because we do not realize the impermanency of things, of ideas and relationships. And ( eventually ) sorrow becomes our constant companion – since orrow is inevitable as long as we seek happiness through something- and the overcoming of sorrow our (major existential) problem. Can I happy when I (have stopped) seeking happiness 'through anything'? Can happiness exist by itself? To find that out we have to explore the River of Self knowledge, which is in oneself. Our ( experiential) difficulty lies in that we have to follow not only our 'conscious', but also our 'unconscious', motives, demands and purposes. Those of us who have listened earnestly, must have made the experiment of following their conscious 'thoughts and feelings' - and by becoming aware of our conscious thoughts and feelings and ideas, we may also begin to receive the 'unconscious' thoughts and intimations. So in order to begin following the Stream of Self-knowledge there must be a clarification of the conscious mind, that is to become aware of the conscious activities - which I assure you is quite difficult - the unconscious thoughts and hidden intentions and motives can be (exposed &) understood. So, as the conscious is the present, the ( whatever we are?) 'now', through the present the unconscious and hidden thoughts can (eventually surface & ?) be understood by becoming intensely aware of the present and by freeing ourselves from those complications, incompleted actions and thoughts that are constantly creeping into the conscious mind. To make it still simpler, the conscious mind is surely occupied with the immediate problems, the job, the family, studies, politics, and so on. So, without our understanding those problems of the conscious mind and doing away with them, how can we proceed further? And to 'sweep them clear', is this not our constant problem of (modern) living? With these problems we are occupied, the state, nationalism, class division, property, relationship and ideas that constantly (are siphoning) into the conscious mind. And if we do not clear that up, surely we cannot go very far and follow up the stream of self-knowledge.
Question: I have been told that you do not read any philosophical or religious literature. I can hardly believe this as when I listen to you I realize that you must have read or at least have some secret source of knowledge. Please (try to?) be frank. Krishnamurti: I have not read any 'sacred' literature, and there is no 'secret' source of knowledge either, because (after all ?) you and I are the reservoir of everything and of all the knowledge. Because we are the result of the past, and in understanding ourselves we uncover the whole knowledge and therefore all wisdom. Self-knowledge is the beginning of wisdom and we can find ( or have free access to?) that (universal) 'wisdom' without reading a book, without going to any leader or following any 'yogi'. ( Except that...) it requires enormous persistency and alertness of mind – but I assure you that through self-knowledge, through your 'self', you can discover the eternal. It is really a most arduous task, for self-knowledge has no beginning and no ending. You begin ( by seeing?) where you are, and you can only be awake when there is (an experiential) spontaneity. (Hint : there are moments when even the disciplined minds, are getting spontaneous and in these spontaneous moments (of inner clarity) we can discover, we can go beyond the illusions of the self-centred mind). ? So, as there is no 'secret source' of Wisdom in any (man-made) book you will (eventually) find out that the Real is very near, for it is ( subliminally encripted?) in your 'self' - ( However, reading?) this Book requires an extraordinary inward activity, a constant alertness. Self-knowledge does not come by studying (the Masters of Wisdom?) in a room by yourself. If the mind is alert yet passive you can follow (reading this Book) every second of the day and even when one sleeps the mind is functioning. If during the day you are alert, extraordinarily awake, you will see that the mind has received intimations, hints which can be pursued during the night. So really a man who wants to (independently) discover Truth, the Real, the Eternal, must abandon all books, all systems, all gurus, because 'That' (inner light?) which is to be found will only be found when one understands oneself. Question: At present in this country our government is attempting to modify the system of education. May we know your ideas on education and how it can be imparted? Krishnamurti: Sirs, in considering education we will have to find out the purpose of living. What are we living for? What are we struggling for? If that is not clear to you education has no significance. Are you merely being educated in order to get a job? Then you make living a means to a job and you make of yourself a man to fit into a groove. Is that the ( spiritual?) purpose of human existence ? And if there is any 'higher' purpose to our lives and if we do not discover it, then ( our everyday) life has very little significance; it is as if we committed suicide when we make ourselves into machines, either religious machines or political machines. So if we do not discover what the purpose of life is, education has very little significance. Then, what is the (true) purpose of our living? ( In order to find it?) we must turn our back against ( man-made) divisions and distinctions, and (try to?) find what is the Real, what is God, what is Eternity and what is happiness; because a man who is already (inwardly free & ) happy loves everybody. For him there is no class distinction. If ( this creative?) happiness is the end, then what we are doing now has no ( spiritual) significance. To find Reality there must be (inner) freedom from conditioned thinking, so as to discover if there is something beyond the sensate values. Can parents, environment give freedom? If so, environment becomes extraordinarily important because parents must be (re-?) educated as well as the educators. If the (parent or the ) educator is culturally conditioned, narrow minded & limited, the ( holistic development of the?) child will suffer.
You are asking what I would do ( for a new education?)
Then there is the question of nourishment, care and love. Most of us have no real ( intelligent?) love for our children though we talk about it. Sirs, education is something tremendous and without (an intelligent & self-less affection) I do not possibly see how there can be education. The moment you love somebody you understand the person, your heart is in it. If we ( have the intelligence of?) Love there must be instantaneous communication, on the same level and at the same time and because we ourselves are inwardly dry & empty. I am afraid you will say that I have said nothing 'positive' ( more specific that can be done ) about education. Is not the 'negative thinking' (by negation of what is false?) the highest form of thinking ?
Question: The traditional method of reaching Adepts or Masters by training given by them or through their disciples is still said to be open to humanity. Are your teachings intended for those who are on that path? Krishnamurti: Sirs, let us really go into ( the truth or falseness of) the various paths leading to the Ultimate Reality. A ( pre-established) 'path' can only lead to that which is known, but that which is 'known' is not the (living spirit of ?) truth. The known, the (crystallised knowledge & experience of the ) past is caught in the net of time and therefore it is not the Truth, it is not the Real. You take (the shortest ) path to your village, or to your house, because you know where the house is in the village and there are many paths to your house, to your village. But ( the Ultimate?) Reality is the immeasurable, the unknown.
So a man who really seeks ( the Ultimate Inner?) Reality must have devotion, knowledge and action. (Hint:) They are not three separate paths.
Question: What profession would you advise me to take? Krishnamurti: If you want a right answer we must go into it fully. What is happening in this world? Is there any choice of profession? You take whatever you can get. You are lucky if you can get work. This is so in all parts of the (Free?) World. Because we have lost all true values we have but one aim: to get money somehow in order to live. Since that ( survivalistic) value is predominating in the world there is no (real?) choice. By becoming a soldier can you solve the world's problem? And you know what it is to be a lawyer - a cunning man without much substance behind him. Can you join a man who makes money in the midst of this economic chaos? Can you know what starvation means?
Group Discussion 18th November, 1947 Before we continue the discussion about fear, death and love, we should discuss quite an important subject - the 'art of listening'. Our (self-conscious ) mind is so filled with thoughts & problems, that it is almost impossible to really listen to somebody. When you 'love' ( or have selfless affection for) somebody, there is a sense of full communication. I think it is important during these ( group) discussions to listen with ease but yet with a a right 'psychological' tension, as the string of a violin must be tuned just right. Similarly, it is possible for us to listen in such a way that communication is possible instantaneously, at the same time and the same level.
We came to the point of studying what Death means (inwardly) . We said that as ( the inward essence of ) Reality is unknown, so Death is also unknown. We have spent centuries in studying (the outward) Reality, but we have hardly spent five minutes in studying the (inner) significance of Death.
Group Discussion 20th November, 1947 I think it is important that we should understand the whole (inward significance of psychological) of death because, in it there is ( an opportunity of spiritual) renewal. That which ends has always a new beginning. That which continues without an end has no renewal.
To say that God is (always present in) 'me' is ( technically ?) incorrect, as God or Truth cannot exist in a contradictory state ( of consciousness?) because we are in ourselves both the evil and the good. If God is ( already present?) in us, we would not need to purify ourselves or renew ourselves.
In order to bring about an ( authentic inner) renewal we must 'die' (to the known?) ; meaning that we must start (everything) anew by putting away completely all ( the 'dead ?) memories' of the past. This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 14 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Sun, 15 Jul 2018 | #95 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussion 22nd November, 1947 (experientially-friendly edited ) We have been discussing the ( 'psychological' aspect of ) death and fear and we said that any form of (self-projected mental) continuity is (resulting in a form of psychological stalemate or creativity?) 'death' because continuity implies a constant movement of thought within the fortress of the 'known'. Thought is always moving ( within this field) from (something already?) 'known' to ( something 'new' but still within the ? ) 'known', from a memory to another memory, from continuity to continuity, as it cannot think of the 'unknown'.
Meditation is ( creating the right inner environment for the self-identified process of?) ?) thought to free itself from ( its time-binding) continuity and then there is ( a real opportunity for inner) Renewal, Creation and Reality.( However, the hidden difficulty is that?) our whole structure of thinking is based on (our brain's survivalistic?) desire for continuity. In understanding ( the truth regarding the spiritual validity of this?) continuity we can understand the significance of (inner) rebirth or renewal.
( Hint : ) We are not concerned (in the context of a time-free meditation with the daily worries regarding our ?) physical continuity. We are primarily concerned whether through (getting subliminally identified with materialistic?) things (& values?) there is ( a residual) psychological continuity - we are concerned with the (psychological) value we give to the material world . We have seen that one of the causes of the havoc and destruction in this (materialistic) world is our extraordinary adherence to (personal) property. We certainly need a certain amount of food, clothing and shelter. But, the moment we bring our 'psychological' values into it - like when we use our social position or property as a means (to optimise our?) own psychological continuity, there is ( a 'trump'-enhanced ?) chaos. When we feel a (physical) pain we take immediate action to arrest it. But we do not seem to take such (urgent?) psychological action with regard to property, which means ( that inwardly?) we are not aware of (the psychological) consquences what we are doing – our ( subliminal) desire for (psychological) continuity has made us inwardly insensitive and inactive . Psychologically we have given ourselves over to ( the hedonistic pleasures & values associated to ?) property and so we are ( creatively?) 'dead', because things are dead. So, we have (empirically?) discovered the truth that the moment we have (projected our psychological) continuity through property, we are ( creatively speaking, 'as good as ?) dead'. The same is the case with regard to our closest relationships. When we seek continuity through the family, we give importance to (our personal ) continuity and not to the family, and thus ( further down the line?) we are creating the (group identification ?) which leads to disaster or to death (which ever comes first?) . It is only when we ( humbly?) recognise (that inwardly?) we are (virtually ?) 'dead' that there can be ( an inner awakening to?) life. If we recognise ( the sad truth?) that (inwardly ?) we are (blind or?) 'dead', there will be a revolution in our daily life. There will no longer be the psychological attachment to name, to family and to position. There will be an (qualitative inner) revolution with regard to our beliefs, which implies the cessation of beliefs. We have seen and heard about several (outward) revolutions which have all brought about (their own part of human) misery. But this (on-coming inner) revolution is a revolution of values, a revolution of thought, which can only come about by the recognition of 'what is'. There is a revolution in ( my way thinking?) when I come to know ( that inwardly?) I am 'blind'. Then I will be very tentative, very watchful; I do not accept, but listen, I move very slowly, (therefore the whole quality of my inner ) being is revolutionised. ( On the other hand?) if I do not realise that I am (inwardly) blind, I cannot find what Truth is , because truth may be (found) in ( the non-dualistic perception of ?) 'that which is' and not away from it. |
Back to Top |
Tue, 17 Jul 2018 | #96 |
---|---|
![]() |
Third K Public Talk, Madras 1947 (experientially friendly edited) K: I think there is an ' art of right listening' : to listen as though we had no (verbal) background at all, as we would listen to a song or ( indian?) music. Likewise when there is a 'right' ( quality of ) communication when there is ( selfless?) affection, love - a comprehension at the same time, on the same level . It is very rare ( nowadays?) to find people who (have this quality of selfless & intelligent ) 'love' for each other so completely that there is a complete understanding.
I do not know if you have listened to the songs of the birds in the morning. It is new, it is something very lovely because your mind too is fresh, untroubled by the day's activities and capable of hearing it 'as for the first time' even though their song is as old as the hills. Similarly, please listen to whatever I am saying as though you were hearing it anew, and you will see an extraordinary thing taking place in yourself, because ( the inner sense of creative?) happiness is not something that is old, but something that is constantly renewing itself. As I said in last week's talk , when hapiness is sought through an object - material or psychological - that is merely ( a materialistic ) gratification which is always impermanent. Surely, becoming (personally ) happy and being (creatively) happy are two wholly different states. The first is continuous, but have you noticed that that which is continuous is always time- binding ? If ( happiness?) it is merely (a matter of self- ) gratification, it is ( soon) becoming merely a habit. To put it differently, there can be (a space of inner) freedom only in virtue because it is orderly, clear and free, while the (less-than-virtuous ?) man is disorderly and unclear and his mind is confused. Virtue is not an end in itself, but it creates that (basic state of inner) freedom without which ( the direct perception of?) Reality cannot exist; but when we translate this inner virtue as a means of (spiritual) becoming, then there is friction. Virtue is ( intimately linked to self-) understanding, is it not? That which you understand ( as being wasteful & false?) brings freedom. Now, is understanding to come through ( will-power or ?) effort, or is there an ( open ?) state (of mind) in which effort has ceased for understanding to be? If I want to understand (the truth regarding?) what you are saying, must I make an effort to listen? If there is ( a vital) interest (to find out the truth of the matter ?) and if there is ( an authentic) communion, then there is no ( need for any mental) effort. After all when you see a picture or a painting, do you ( have to ) make an effort? If you want to criticize, to compare, or to find out who painted it, then you have to make an effort. Or (for a change?) you can sit quietly in front of it and in that ( natural ) quietness in which there is no distraction, you understand the beauty of the picture. Similary (the inner ?) virtue comes without any effort and if you ( would really want to ?) understand the 'what is', you have to give it your whole attention, you have to be significantly aware of its extensional values. Do you need to make a mental effort in order to understand ( the hidden workings of ?) 'what is'? To understand 'what is', you surely must look at (whatever is going on?) without condemnation or justification. If we would use for understanding 'what is' all the energy now wasted in trying to change 'what is' (into its opposite?) we would find an extraordinary (opportunity for inner) transformation which comes when there is an ( inner) stillness, (instead of) striving to become other than 'what is'. Question: What is the difference between introspection and ( choiceless?) awareness? Krishnamurti: Introspection begins with the desire to change myself (inwardly) into something different . I am feeling unhappy and I look into myself to find the cause of my unhappiness. In that process there is (a subliminal evaluation or ?) condemnation. I am angry but I must become peaceful. So, introspection is a constant struggle to change the 'what is', whereas ( the choiceless?) awareness is the ( non-dualistic) recognition of 'what is' and therefore the understanding of what is. Let us take a simple example to make it clearer. When the man of introspection, is (becoming) aware that he is greedy, what is his reaction? He either identifies himself with it and therefore pursues it or he denies it and puts it aside. Therefore the reaction is always one of justification, condemnation or identification because he is always translating 'what is' (going on within his own psyche?) in terms of ( optimising his ) becoming. This is what we are doing in our daily life, and we are spending our life in this constant transformation of what is, that is, we are striving to be free from greed and still we are greedy, we are confused and weary. After all, the action of a man of introspection is residual, his action springs always from the residue of yesterday, whereas for the man of awareness there is no residual response. He is simply aware, which means, he is not translating, not condemning, not justifying and not identifying himself with anything aunderstanding nd therefore his response is non-residual, it is spontaneous. So, there is a great 'qualitative) difference between a residual response and awareness, the one is a becoming and therefore a constant strife, and the other is being aware of what is and therefore understanding what is and going above and beyond what is, which the introspector can never do. If you really go into it very deeply you will see the extraordinary creative quality of being aware and the destructive quality of introspection. The man of introspection, the introvert, which is unfortunately, a psychoanalytical phrase, is a man who is concerned with changing what is and he can never be creative. He is only concerned with improving himself and he can never be free. He is only moving within the fortress of his own desires and therefore he can never find reality. He is never happy. Reality will shun him because he is immersed in the idea of becoming righteous. You know that a respectable man, a righteous man, is a curse, which does not mean that the sinner is not also a curse. But at least the sinner is aware and is inquiring and therefore there is a possibility that he will see more than the man who is respectable in his enclosure. Whereas a 'man of awareness' understands directly 'what is', and in that ( compassionate?) understanding of what is, there is an extraordinary transformation, an instantaneous transformation, which is Creation. Question: Do you believe in (the psyche's ) immortality ? Krishnamurti: What do we mean by 'immortality'? We will perhaps better understand it if we can understand the ( psychological value of) ending ( one's temporal attachment to?) things, then we shall be able to understand that (innermost spiritual essence ) which is imperishable, immortal.
Surely our ( experiential?) problem is not whether there is ( a soul) immortality or whether there is not, but to understand our anxiety or fear of death. Why there is this 'division' (separation?) between Reality and Death; why you pursue ceaselessly, generation after generation what you call 'God' -not knowing what it is- and always avoiding the thought of Death ? What happens to any (living) thing that 'continues' ( 'keeps going & going & going' ) ? It either decays , or it becomes a (self-energised living ?) mechanism . When you start thinking that your life will cease to continue ( some day) you become afraid. If you are ( non-personally) aware of that fear you will see that the fear ceases. Only then will you be able to understand that there is no division between Death and Life. Death is ( the inward Door to ?) the Unknown, but a mind that has its being in the 'known' can never find the Unknown. The 'known' is always ( functioning in its self-generated continuity?) and the (time-bound) mind is always moving within the 'House of the Known' and it is this ( reality of the?) 'known' which wants to be continued. Surely that which is ( gathered , stored & recycled in the mental space of the?) known can never know the 'unknowable' ; it is only when the mind is freed from the 'net of time' that there is the Timeless. Then only there is a (different dimension of) life that is not 'thought of' in terms of time or continuity. To understand death there must be no fear (of the Unknown?) . But a man who desires ( his temporal) continuity is frightened and the escapes that civilization has created to allay his fear have made him so (inwardly insensitive & ) dull, that he cannot see the ( true) significance of death. Surely ( in the meditative context ?) the experience of (psychological) 'death' is as lovely as is the ( outward experiencing of ?) 'Reality' , because both are the Unknown, but a mind that is merely functioning within the (field of the?) 'known' can never understand the Unknown. Question: Please explain further what you mean by the 'clarification of the conscious (mind) '? Krishnamurti: I said that the superficial consciousness must clarify itself and be clear, in order for the hidden (content of consciousness?) to project its hidden motives, unconscious and subconscious demands, pursuits, ignorance and darkness, ( Hint:) this 'hidden' (content ?) being not the Real (spiritual essence?) . (Briefly put) the immediate mind must be calm. There is ( in the common wisdom) a phrase, 'sleep over a problem for the answer.' What happens is that your conscious mind, not understanding ( all the implications of?) the problem puts it aside and having 'detached' itself from it, has become clarified; and then the 'unconscious' (or the deeper) layers begin to project themselves into the conscious (mind) and when you wake up, the problem has been very simply solved.
Surely, Sir, a (living) room is useful only when it is empty (of useless stuff?) and ( similarly) a (self-) conscious mind that is not ( 'psychologically) empty' is not good for anything ( creative?) except for a civilisation which is so utterly degraded and degenerated, because it is the product of the upper (outward oriented) layer . The upper layer is (repetitive &) mechanical, ( but nevertheless?) swift and cunning when it comes to safeguarding itself. Is not our modern civilization mechanistical and industrial, even though the upper layer may talk about beauty and the modern dance and so on? And if the upper layer of consciousness is not still, how can it receive (the highly symbolic) intimations of things deeply hidden, of of things unknown?
Question: You have realized Reality. Can you tell us what God is? Krishnamurti: Sirs, is not what I am saying the truth? Even if I am the most perfect human being, if what I say is not the truth why would you even listen to me? I know the whole tradition says 'Be with a man who has realised God.' All that you can do is to keep company with him, which is extremely difficult nowadays. There are very few 'good' people, in the real sense of the word 'good,' who are not after something. (Hint:) Those who are seeking (to achieve) something or are (going) after something ($$$) are ( actual or potential?) exploiters and therefore it is very difficult for anyone to find (even) a companion to love. We idealize those who have Realized (God?) and hope that they will give us something ( of their realisation?) which is again a false relationship.
So (in a nutshell:) ( the Ultimate?) Reality is not far from us , but we place it far away because we use it as a means to self-continuity. It is ( present) here, now, in the immediate. The timeless 'is' (in the eternal) Now, but the 'Now' cannot be ( experienced or?) understood by a mind which is caught in the net of time. To free (one's ego-centric ) thinking from ( the limitations of?) time is only possible by 'right meditation' - a 'complete action' which (happens naturally?) when the thinking mind understands (the truth regarding the time-binding) continuity of its 'psychological' memory ( Hint:) as long as this (survivalistic ?) memory functions the mind cannot understand 'what is'. But ( on the positive side?) one's mind, one's 'whole being', becomes extraordinarily creative, passively alert, when we understand the significance of 'ending', because in ending there is renewal while in continuity there is death, there is decay. Group Discussion 25th November, 1947 Before we proceed with our discussion about continuity and death, I think we ought to (re-) consider (a) the 'art of listening' - to listen (freely) without any apprehension, without any fear of loss or fear of pain. Such communication is possible only when there is love. And (b) we should consider that there is ( a sharing of inner) beauty only in a real communion, which can only come with love. When there is, on the part of one, the attitude of ( someone) learning, and ( someone else) teaching, this communion really ceases; and without communion, without partaking, without sharing, and without 'being together in good company' , any clear ( insightful?) thinking is almost impossible.
In discussing ( the 'psychological') continuity, we have found out that we seek continuity through ( gettingsubliminally identified with our?) name, property,( etc.) and tha our genetic (pedigree?) continuance and our physiological continuance have become extraordinarily important, as long as psychological continuance is maintained. This ( strong ego-centric) 'psychological' continuance is doing great havoc in this world, as can be seen from history and from what is happening nowadays and which ultimately beings about agony and misery.
So, we carry ( our memories of) yesterday to today and from today to tomorrow - always ( a residual) burden of psychological memory. The older we are, the heavier (this burden?) becomes. (Living trapped in ) this ( constantly refreshed) continuity is really ( a sure recipe for psychological) decay, and the older we are the more mentally sterile we are.
Realistically speaking , we do not know what God is, what Death is, nor what Love is. These are the three amazing (Universal ?) principles in ( any spiritually integrated?) life, of which we do not know, though we like to talk about them - we say that we 'love' our family but if we eliminate the principle of pleasure there is nothing left, and so... there is no 'love'. Therefore, to understand what ( Universal ?) Love is, we must be free from (thinking in terms of personal ?) pleasure and pain. There are certain extraordinary moments in our life when we (have the sense of Selfless?) Love - very rare and extraordinarily beautiful moments.
This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 18 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Thu, 19 Jul 2018 | #97 |
---|---|
![]() |
Morning Discussion 27th November, 1947( 'reader friendly' edited) K: We have met in this discussion group not for learning as in a classroom but to discuss with each other; and, in exchanging our ( intimate?) thoughts, we begin to discover our own process of thinking. This is a self-revealing process, for our everyday self(- centred consciousness ) which is working through you and me. Without ( this holistic) self-knowledge which is being aware of our own actions and our own feelings, there can be no right thinking at all.
It is no good discussing theoretically what Love is. We can only start by examining and becoming ( non-personally?) aware of "what is " - our present relationship is based on ( open or subliminal expectations of?) pleasure and ( personal) gratification. Now, this desire for gratification pulls us along and pushes us also along into a mass of ( collective assumptions & ) beliefs - we talk of having a duty, a responsibility, etc, which are all words having no significance, because they are merely based on gratification.
(In a nutshell:) due to our inward poverty, we constantly seek self-gratification through things, relationship, and ( superior?) ideation such as God, ideal, etc. There are however certain rare moments when the state of non-(dualistic) relationship exists, but in that sense of complete self-(forgetfulness?) , there is no asking (anything from anybody) . At those moments, you are left silent. It happens to one in a million, and he is a happy man. Once he knows what it is, it is like a scent that is perfuming his whole life. ( The 1000 $ question is then:) Why are we not awake to such moments ( of Love & Grace?) much more often? Why do we not realise that our pursuit of a ( spiritual?) 'ideal' is only a ( form of ) avoiding to face the actual, and therefore reduces us to a state of ( knowledge-plated ?) dullness and insensitivity? These various hindrances are only covering the lack of ( selfless & intelligent ) affection. By (becoming aware of ) these hindrances, they can be dissolved.
The ( academical ?) problem now is "Can this (time-bound) mind separate itself from the past?" The 'thinker' cannot go back to (his memory of the ) past unless he is (also) the product of the past; therefore, he and the past are one and not separate. So, when I say "I remember", I am making a (dualistically ?) false statement. ( The streaming of our psychological?) memory is ever continuing from the past, in the present, and into the future. The (memory streaming of the ?) 'past' includes my forefathers and also the mankind with all their accumulations, traditions, superstitions, fears and conditions - social, economic, racial, religious, etc. Thus when we enquire what is our (psychological) memory, we should know who (or what?) the 'enquirer' is. The 'enquirer' is the ( self-conscious center of the thinking ) mind which has separated itself from its own past. This (internal) division (btw 'thinker' & his thoughts) is a 'false' (a dualistic mental?) action, because any product of the (temporal) mind must, like the mind itself, be also a product of the past. ( In short:) the 'observer' and the (inner stuff which is being?) 'observed' are ( having) the same (roots in our personal & collective memory of the past ?) ; therefore, the (self-identified ) 'observer' is making a false statement when it says "I am looking at the stream and can go back to the past (or go forward into the future) ". We now see the ( dualistic?) absurdity of the whole process - the 'observer' imagines himself to be separate from, and superior to, the ( psychological content which is being) 'observed'. Now, ( after countless failed?) attempts to (objectively) examine the 'observed' he realises ( the elementary fact ?) that he is not separate from the (psychological stuff which was being) 'observed' and the separation was 'false' (QED?)
Afternoon Discussion 27th November, 1947 K: It is necessary to understand the true nature of Meditation. As practised by most of us, meditation is a (though-controlling ) process by which a pre-conceived result is ( hopefully?) achieved (or... not?) . This process or system involves (following) a (mental) routine which makes the mind (very disciplined, but also?) mechanical and dull, very similar to 'going to the office' day in and day out, and regularly on time. To discover the truth of ( what is the authentic purpose of ?) Meditation, you have to understand the ( hidden ) problems involved :
(b) by studying yourself (as you function) under (the umbrella of some spiritual) authority. If you analyse your own action you will find that you have followed some authority when you have found it profitable to do so. You also have rejected equally good authority when the following of such authority was found to be unprofitable. From this it is clear that our seeking of profit or craving creates the authority (of the 'one-who-knows-best' ?) . From the analysis of the above standpoints, you arrive at the (realisation of the outwardly obvious ?) truth that our craving or desire for profit, creates authority. (Experiential hint:) You can see ( the inward implications of this universal) Truth only when you are able to see the false as (actually being ) 'false' . When this is seen you are released for ever from the 'false' . ( So, for starters?) Meditation is reall the thinking out of each thought ( or 'train of thought'?) fully and completely so that you see the Truth of that thought. [ NB : at this meeting, one and a half hours passed away like a few minutes when all the persons present at the meeting followed and completed each thought without any effort but with awareness. This was a real Meditation when "time" ceased and the "Timeless" came into being. ] K Group Discussion 29th November, 1947 The desire to listen (for achieving a 'personal' profit?) and the action of ( holistic) listening are two quite different states. Most of us are concerned with the ( acquisitive) desire to 'learn' ; and in this ( the personal) effort is involved. But if you are ( vitally?) interested in what is said, you listen without any ( mental) effort, and ( if lucky?) there is ( shared-learning?) communion. So let us listen (to each other?) as though we are really enjoying it. We were dealing with ( the intricate workings of our 'psychological'?) memory, an extraordinarily subtle ( slippery?) subject, since the majority of us have not even thought about this; therefore it requires an attentive mind to follow the swift movement of this ( ego-centric 'psychological') memory. I would suggest that you do not look on me as (your spiritual) authority, but listen with affectionate and thoughtful attention.
The ( thought-addicted ) mind shuttles back and forward in this continuity, and it is not aware that it is still a part of the 'continuity' (thought-process) , when it separates itself from the stream of continuity, and says 'I remember', 'I recollect', 'I hope', which is future action. When the particular mind says 'I remember', it considers itself to be separate from ( its background ) "continuity" and looks back to the past or forward to the future.
Why does the ( particular ?) mind separate itself from the Stream of ( collective thought-) continuity and say 'I' remember ? This 'I' is non-existent if its ( memorable?) qualities are removed. The 'I' ( our 'self-consciousness' ?) is non-existent without ( its personal) memory, its tendencies, gifts and so on – without its ( background) continuity of the racial past ( which) in conjunction with the 'now' is flowing to the future. If we cannot understand that, we cannot bring about an inner regeneration or an ending.
( The 'hidden' difficulty being that ?) our whole existence is ( organised along a guide-line of temporal ) continuity which generates our daily routine - an (orderly collection of?) habits and any habit is a form of ( psychological) continuity. Therefore, we have to discuss the validity of memory in all our daily activities. We know (the benefits of a ) factual memory, i.e. dealing with facts, talents, expression of talents and so on. ( But ) we do also translate them 'psychologically' in order to suit ourselves ( or to 'play safe'?) with any ( personal) challenges we meet. Q: What is implied in 'thinking a thought through'? K: Take for instance the (widely accepted ?) thought that we have only 'factual' memory and nothing else. When I understand ( what is) 'false' in this statement I am free from it and therefore I can see the ( wider?) truth.
The 'conscious' mind, that is ( the mental activity?) of the superficial layers of our consciousness, is aware of the 'factual', because it is the ( compounded) product of facts learned at school, the (general knowledge of the ) 'immediate' (reality) learned through books, through self- assertion, through techniques and so on. That is, the superficial layers of consciousness are (saturated with?) factual memories. Through these ( 'reality' ) layers everything is being translated and accumulated. The unconscious, the hidden layers are the residues of all (the experiences of?) humanity, as ( consciousness- wise) you are not one isolate human entity but the result of the whole of humanity. ( For obscure safety reasons?) you are only conscious in the superficial layers, i.e., only, factually; and the responses of these conscious layers are strengthening the 'unconscious' (ones) by adding to it more (subjectively distorted ?) 'facts of life'
( Self-) consciousness comes into being when there is friction, when I meet a challenge, or when there is disharmony. ( The integration of the total ?) consciousness begins when there is ( a continuity?) interruption. When I am awake and look at the trees there is no friction, there is no response (of the past) . I am only watching the tree.
( For more meditation homework ?) What is ( the 'psychological'?) memory? Why has the mind separated itself from ( its under-) current of ( continuity in ) time? How do I set about trying to find the truth (about all this stuff?) myself? (For starters?) I must study the problem (non-personally?) . I must not take sides about the problem. I must free myself from all prejudices. I must not be biased, for or against the problem. That means I must free my thinking from (any personal) bias about the problem, and I must come to it anew.
Afternoon Discussion 29th November, 1947 We have already discussed about the various factors involved in meditation, and how meditation as generally practised involved ( an irrational) belief in gurus, in tradition or in a technique.
This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 20 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Sat, 21 Jul 2018 | #98 |
---|---|
![]() |
4 th K Public Talk 30th November, 1947( experientially-friendly edited) To understand the whole purpose of existence we must understand effort, because our life is sorrowful as we know it. We are always in strife, we are always in struggle, there is never a moment's deep happiness when we can say 'We are happy'. And, as we do not know happiness, except at rare intervals, we have completely forgotten it. We do have rare happy moments when our everyday strife, struggle and phenomena stop, but we do not know how to sustain it. It seems to me that until we know how, our life will have no ( spiritual ?) meaning.
( For starters?) We must be ( inwardly sufficiently ? ) free to see that ( the creative ) Joy and Happiness do not come through effort. When do you create? Surely when there is no effort, when you are completely open, when on all levels you are in complete communication, completely integrated. The moment of creation is not born of struggle.
The moment I accept (to face & understand non-dualistically the ?) 'what is' there is no ( more inner) struggle. Any form of 'psychological' (stress or?) effort must exist only as long as I wish to transform 'what is' into something it is not. Take for example ( the very common reaction of ) anger. Can this ( surge of?) anger be overcome by effort, by various (psychanalitical) techniques, by ( fake?) meditations, or by other (alternative?) ways of transforming 'what is' into 'what is not'? Now, suppose that instead of making an effort to transform anger into (a virtuous?) 'non-anger', you just acknowledge that you got angry - what would happen then? You would ASAP be(come) ( responsibly?) aware that you are angry and iff you are completely aware of it, without condemning or justifying it, there would be an instantaneous change. But this is extremely difficult because our whole tendency is to transform or deny. We deny ( our inner) ugliness thinking that we shall achieve beauty. Surely ( the timeless quality of ?) virtue is not the denial of vice; virtue is in the recognition (or full awareness of?) of vice. The moment I know that I am angry and I do not try to transform my anger (into a more tolerant attitude?) ; but rather, I cease to be angry. Try it (for homework?) and you will see how extraordinary is the creative quality of understanding 'what is'. (But, on the other hand?) there cannot be ( inner) freedom if there is no virtue.
Many questions have been sent to me, but you will not have the right answer if the questioner himself is not in earnest. To find the right answer to a question we must study the problem, not merely wait for an answer. Life is an (endless ) series of challenges and to respond 'rightly' requires immense study; immense self-knowledge gained by yourself in your every day action and thinking. My answers are only ( 'pointer -style' ?) indications towards self-revelation. If you wait for a conclusion or an assertion from me you are going to be disappointed. But if together we study the problem, we will see and understand its many implications. So, please bear in mind that in answering these questions I am not offering you any (ready to use?) 'conclusions', because that which is 'concluded' is not the ( inner light of ) truth. Life is (intelligent energy in?) movement, and if we seek a (static mental) conclusion we are making our life very small. If we recognize with our minds our smallness we can then proceed. Question: What are your views about the ( transcendental ) implications of the belief in reincarnation? Krishnamurti: This is a vast subject and I can only give a few 'hints', point out certain significances, I cannot go into the whole problem, because it is immense. First of all, let us put aside the superficial responses of the person who wants ( a jolly ?) good time ( on Planet Earth) and does not bother about ( the actual possibilty of a ) life after death. This ( worldly ) person acts as he pleases and feels no responsibility for his actions. But the moment we are not concerned with this (moral or ethical) aspect of the question since the man who seeks truth must travel the uncharted seas; he has no harbours, he has no havens, he must go out to explore. Two things are implied in this question: (a)( the possibility of an after-death) continuation, and (b) (the karmic aspect of the inward ) cause and effect. With regard to (a) we must consider the ( widely spread) idea that there is in each one of us a 'spiritual essence' which continues. It is said in ( sacred ) books and you also feel that there is a spiritual structure which continues after death.
Therefore, ( what you are clinging to ?) is not spiritual in essence; because 'you'( the thinker ?) have created it, therefore you cling to it. If it were Real, it would be beyond your (thought's?) control. If it is true, you do not "know" it and yet... you cling to it. You say that there is a (self-conscious?) spiritual essence, which is the 'I' , and that it continues (forever & ever) , while at the same time you say it is timeless. So in order to know whether there is ( within one's 'self'?) a spiritual essence or not, you have to understand the (crux of ) this problem of ontinuity: 'death'. What continues (from yesterday, to today to tomorrow) in our everyday life? 'I'( a self-consciousness ?) identified with its (personal) memories, property, family, beliefs. And this 'I' continues ( day after day) and I want to be sure that it continues (even after my physical death?) . Therefore, I do not really want to discover the ( spiritual) truth about reincarnation, but to ensure 'my' (self-conscious) continuity. Now, what is it that we hold on so desperately, so fearfully, so anxiously? Is it not ( a bunch of personal & collective ?) memories?
That is, as long as the ( temporal) mind is concerned with (giving continuity to ) the results of the past, the 'thing' which continues is memory, a 'dead' thing to which you give life, which means that through a series of habits, accumulations and idiosyncrasies, the experiences are ( recycled and ) translated to produce all that you wish to have continued. (However ?) that (self-identified consciousness ) which continues (in time is also subject to ?) decay. That which is continuous is non-creative. So, if we really go into this question of reincarnation , if we are (becoming ?) aware of its significance, we will find that, that ( essence of oneself ?) which is spiritual is timeless and therefore beyond our reach and therefore beyond continuity. But the more we cling to ( the traditional ideas regarding ) this spiritual essence, the more we are really distracted from it by false action, because the 'timeless' (spiritual essence?) cannot be 'known' by ( thinking about it in the field of the?) known . ( In a nutshell:) What is continuous ( in terms of time) is not immortal, what is continuous does not renew itself. It merely continues as a (thought) habit. It is only in renewal that there is creation, there is reality; and only in ending there is renewal, not in continuity. See the trees, they drop their leaves and fresh leaves come. They do not 'continue'. Because we are afraid, we cling to our memories and a man who is (inwardly) living in a (temporal) continuity is ( creativity -wise ?) a 'dead' man - and I am afraid that is what we are doing. In this question there was also the (b) problem of cause and effect. (Psychologically-speaking ) they are not two separate processes - (since inwardly ?) the (old) effect becomes the ( new) cause (and vice-versa). However, when we view the 'cause' apart from (its psychological ? ) 'effect', there is an illusory 'time interval' which may lead us to the wrong conclusions. (Inwardly speaking?) the moment there is an effect, its cause cannot be far in the distance. They are (still) together although you may take time to perceive its (unfolding) . The moment you are ( becoming) aware of 'what is,'( actually going on inwardly) which is the 'cause', the 'effect' is also there. And therefore there is ( an unique opportunity for an instant inner ?) transformation. It means that if you (fully) understand 'what is' (going on inwardly in real time ?) , there is an immediate (possibility of inner) transformation - a (time-free ) change, not a change in time. Traditionally, we expect to change in time, to become something ( far better... ?) tomorrow. But if you perceive ( in the time-free Now?) the cause becoming the effect and the effect becoming the cause all the time, then there is an immediate 'cessation' of the 'cause' (or... the ending of 'time' ?) That is, Sirs, to make it very simple, when you are (getting really?) angry, if you would see immediately the (unfolding ) cause of that anger and are ( becoming non-personally?) aware of it, there would be an immediate (inner) transformation, because then you are free from this (wide-spread) illusion that only in time you can produce a ( psychologically significant ?) result. The cause is ( contained) in the effect. Self-knowledge, or seeing what is false in the 'I' (in one's self-consciousness?) , is the ( awakening of one's timeless ) intelligence |
Back to Top |
Sun, 22 Jul 2018 | #99 |
---|---|
![]() |
5-th K Public Talk 7th December, 1947 (reader friendly edited) Before I answer the many questions that have been put to me (in writing) I wish to make a very brief resume of what I have been saying, and then I would like to suggest how the answers to the questions should be received. It seems to me that it would be a really beautiful world, if there were no ( spiritual?) 'teachers' and 'disciples'. Why look to another for (your own ?) enlightenment, or for spiritual guidance? Would it not be a peaceful and orderly world, if there were neither the seeker nor the thing which he seeks? The thing which he seeks originates, does it not, from the desire for gain and therefore out of this desire comes the conflict of duality, does it not? That is, I want to gain something, the desire to gain entails always the fear ( that I might not gain it?) and fear naturally creates the duality (observer-observed ?) and then the conflict of the opposites begins. But if we can understand the ongoing inner 'fact' in itself, like anger for instance, then the conflict (created by the effort to achieve its ) opposite ceases; that is, if we can understand 'what is', the (inner conflict of ?) duality ceases. I think it is of the utmost importance to understand this problem of opposites as the only (holistic) way is through the understanding of the fact itself, without any attempt to overcome it by its opposite. In other words, 'what is' can only be understood through ( an integrated self-) awareness, not through condemnation or justification.
Question: You have often talked of 'relationship'. What does it mean to you? Krishnamurti: First of all to be, is to be related (with all that is ?) and without relationship there is no existence. Now, what do we mean by relationship? It is an interconnected (interactive ?) challenge and response between two people, between you and me, the challenge which you throw out and which I accept, or to which I respond; also the challenge I throw out to you. So, the relationship of two people creates society; society is not independent of you and me; the 'mass' is not by itself a separate entity, but you and I in our ( reciprocal ?) relationship to each other create the mass, the group, the society. So, relationship is the awareness of inter-connection between two people and whstrong textat is that relationship generally based on? Is it not based on so-called interdependence, mutual assistance? At least we say it is mutual help, mutual aid and so on, but, actually, apart from words, apart from the emotional screen which we throw up against each other, what is it based upon? On mutual gratification, is it not? If I do not please you, you get rid of me, if I please you, you accept me either as your wife or as your neighbour or as your friend. That is the actual fact.
We talk about love, we talk about responsibility, duty, but there is really no love, (as long as our mutual ) relationship is based on gratification, the effect of which we see in the present civilization. The way we treat our wives, children, neighbours, friends is an indication that in our relationship there is really no love at all. it is merely a mutual search for gratification and as this is so, what then is the purpose of relationship? What is its ultimate significance? Surely, if you observe yourself in relationship with others, do you not find that relationship is a process of self-revelation? Does not my contact with you reveal my own state of being if I am aware, if I am alert enough to be conscious of my own reaction in relationship? So, relationship really is a process of self-revelation which is a process of self-knowledge and in that revelation there are many unpleasant things, disquieting, uncomfortable thoughts, activities and since I do not like what I discover I run away from a relationship which is not pleasant to a relationship which is pleasant. So, relationship has very little significance when we are merely seeking mutual gratification, but relationship becomes extraordinarily significant when it is a means of self-revelation and self-knowledge. After all there is no ( dualistic ?) relationship in love, is there? It is only when you expect a return of your love that there is a ( dualistic) relationship. But when you love, that is, when you give yourself over to something entirely, wholly, then there is no ( self-consciousness in that ?) relationship. Is relationship a mutual gratification or is it a process of self-revelation? There is no gratification in love there is no self-revelation in love. You just love. Then what happens? If you do love, if there is such a love, then it is a marvellous thing. In such love there is no friction, there is not the one and the other there is complete unity. It is a state of integration, a complete being. There are such moments, such rare, happy, joyous moments, when there is complete love, complete communion. But what generally happens is that love is not what is important but the other, the object of love becomes important; the one to whom love is given becomes important and not love itself. Then the object of love, for various reasons either biological verbal, or because of a desire for gratification, for comfort and so on, becomes important and love recedes Then possession, jealousy and demands create conflict and love recedes further and further, and the further it recedes, the more the problem of relationship loses its significance, its worth and its meaning. So, Love is one of the most difficult things to comprehend. It cannot come through an intellectual urgency, it cannot be manufactured by various methods and means an disciplines. It is a state of being when the activities of the self have ceased but they will not cease if you merely suppress them, shun them or discipline them. You must understand the activities of the self in all the different layers of consciousness. We have moments when we do love, when there is no thought, no motive but those are rare we cling to them in memory and thus create a barrier between living reality and the action of our daily existence. So, in order to understand relationship it is important to understand first of all `what is', what is actually taking place in our lives, in all the different subtle forms and also what relationship actually means. Relationship is ( an unique opportunity for ?) self-revelation, but because we do not (really) want to be revealed to ourselves, our relationship loses its extraordinary depth, significance and beauty. There can be true relationship only when there is love but love is not the search for ( personal) gratification. Love exists only when there is self-forgetfulness, when there is complete communion, not between one or two, but communion with the highest, and that can only take place when the self is forgotten. Question: The Theosophical Society announced you to be the Messiah and world teacher. Why did you leave the Theosophical Society and renounce the Messiahship? Krishnamurti: First of all let us examine the whole question of ( spiritual) organizations. There is a rather lovely story of a man who was walking along the street and behind him were two strangers. As he walked along, he saw something very bright and he picked it up and looked at it and put it in his pocket and the two men behind him observed this and one said to the other: "This is a very bad business for you, is it not?" and the other who was the 'devil' answered: "No ; what he picked up is truth. But I am going to help him 'organize' it". Can you find truth through ( belonging to a spiritual?)organization? Must you not go beyond and above all ( fake?) organizations to find truth? After all why do all spiritual organizations exist? You understand that I am not talking about organizations formed for the mutual convenience of man in his daily existence; I am talking of the psychological and the so-called spiritual organizations. Are they necessary? They exist on the supposition that they will help man to realize truth and they are a means of propaganda: you want to tell others what you think, or what you have learned, what appears to you to be a fact. But is truth ( something of a static nature that can be shared by?) propaganda? What is truth to someone, when propagated surely ceases to be the truth for another. Does it not? Surely, Reality, God or whatever you call it, is not to be propagated. It is to be experienced by every one for himself and that experience cannot be organized; the moment it is organized, propagated, it ceases to be the truth, it becomes a lie, therefore a hindrance to reality, because after all, the real, the immeasurable cannot be formulated, cannot be put into words, the unknown cannot be measured by the known, by the word, and when you measure it, it ceases to be the truth, therefore it ceases to be the real and therefore it is a lie, and therefore generally propaganda is a lie. And organizations that are supposed to be based on the search for truth, founded for the search of the real, become the propagandists' instruments, and so they cease to be of any significance; not only this particular organization in question but all spiritual organizations, become means of exploitation. They acquire property and property becomes awfully important; seeking members and all the rest of that business begins; they will not find truth for the obvious reason that the organization becomes more important than their own search for Reality. And no truth can be found through any organization because truth comes when there is freedom (from the known ?) and such freedom cannot exist when there is belief, for belief is merely the desire for security and a man who is caught in his need for security can never find that which is. Now, with regard to Messiahship, it is very simple. I have never denied it and I do not think it matters very much whether I have or have not (renounced it?) . What is important to you is whether what I say is the truth. Whether I am the World Teacher or the Messiah or something else is surely not important. What is important is to find out, if you are really earnest, whether what I say is the truth and you can only find out whether what I say is truth by examining it, by being aware now, of what I am saying and finding out whether what I am saying can be worked out in daily life. What I am saying is not so very difficult to understand. (However?) The 'intellectual' person will find it very difficult because his mind is perverted and the man of devotion also will find it extremely difficult, but the man who is really seeking ( the inner light of Truth?) will understand because of its simplicity. And what I am saying cannot be put into a few words and I am not going to attempt to say it in a few words because my answers to the questions and the various talks which I have given will reveal if you are interested in what I am saying. Question: On two or three occasions in the course of your talks I have attended, I have become conscious of standing in the presence of one vast Void of utter Silence and Solitude for a fraction of a second. What feeling is this? Krishnamurti: During these talks and discussions there have been moments when we perceived for ourselves certain states of consciousness and because we reached a point of great understanding and great depth, there was an absolute silence. But the (1000 $) problem is whether you have come to it through your own understanding or through ( an external?) influence, through (speaker's subliminal?) persuasion or through your own wise experience and understanding. Unless you have come to it through your own understanding, not merely intellectually and verbally, it has no ( truly spiritual ) meaning. But if you come to that ( presence of a total inner) stillness through understanding, through being aware, then it brings about the cessation of those (ongoing) conflicts and through that understanding there is quietness and in that quietness and in that solitude, in that (all-oneness?) there is Reality. ( Experiential Clue :) 'You' cannot enter It, but It must come to you. If It comes to you it is the Unknown, therefore the Real. But, if you go to it, you have already (created an image of ) what it is and therefore that towards which you go is the known and therefore not the Real. Therefore it must come to you. All (states of spiritual) Greatness, like Love, come to you. If you pursue Love it will never come, but if you are open, inwardly still & non demanding, it will come. Understanding or ( the inner) clarification comes when the mind is 'single' ( all-one?) , free, not distracted by effort. When you are interested in something, keen about it, you give your whole being to it. You are not distracted and in that giving of yourself, in order to find out what is true there comes that amazing creative emptiness, that absolute silence, unenforced and uninvited, and in that Silence, the Real comes into ( one's?) being. |
Back to Top |
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 | #100 |
---|---|
![]() |
Bonus questions from the previous talk Question: You have said that a mind ( which is caught in temporal) bondage is 'vagrant, restless & disorderly'. Will you please explain further what you mean? Krishnamurti: To ( experientially ) understand this question we must (also) consider the whole problem of (a 'self-knowledge integrated'?) meditation. I do not know if you have noticed that a mind that is in bondage, held (hostage?) by a (false?) idea or by an (insoluble material) problem, is always restless, because it is always seeking an answer to the problem. Therefore it is always wandering. A mind that is in prison is always seeking freedom and therefore it is restless, but only if it questions the 'prison' itself, the (psychological) bondage itself, then it is ( becoming naturally?) quiet because then it is pursuing the truth (regarding) that bondage and therefore not wandering away from the problem; the bondage itself 'is' the problem . If you are interested, not in the 'solution' of the problem but in the ( root of the?) problem itself, which contains its own answer, then surely the mind becomes free & concentrated, because it deals with the problem itself; therefore the mind becomes extremely effective, clear and capable of pursuing swiftly every movement. So, meditation then is the understanding of the problem itself which contains its own answer. Meditation is thought (or...the thinking brain?) freeing itself from time because through time the timeless cannot be comprehended, and as the mind is the product of time, thought must cease if the real is to be. And the whole process of meditation causes thought to come to an end and it is very important to comprehend this because thought is the product of time, the experience of yesterday, thought is caught in the net of time and that which is of time can never comprehend that which is timeless, the eternal. So,(in a nutshell:) our problem is to understand that the ( self-centred thinking ) mind which is constantly creating ( its own continuity in) time, is the product of time and therefore whatever it produces is of time. As thought is founded upon the (memory of the?) past which is ( the result of?) Time, it cannot understand the Timeless (dimension of Reality?) and therefore meditation is a process of freeing (our mind?) from time which means that thought must come to a (happy?) end(ing) .
How then can one complete ( a thinker-generated?) thought? How is ( the dualistic process of ?) thought to come to an end? Thought can only come to an end when the 'thinker' understands himself (namely that) the thinker and the thought are not two separate processes (although the first has the upper hand?) . The thinker 'is' the ( self-identified part of?) thought, and the thinker separates himself from his thoughts for his permanency and therefore the thinker is continually producing ( the ) thoughts which is are gratifying.
Again, it is a very arduous ( contemplative?) task to have one's mind go slowly, so (as most of our minds are 'vagrant, disorderly & confused') , in order to follow each thought through, write it down ( or... make a mental note?) if only for a period of two minutes. As in the case of an (action?) film, the quicker movements cannot be followed (very accurately ?) only when the film is slowed down can you follow the (actor's) movements. Similarly a mind that is ( thinking?) too fast can only be understood ( experientially -wise ) by 'slowing it down' in pursuing every ( train of?) thoughts as it comes. As you are listening to me your mind is slowed down and not wandering because I am concentrated on what I am talking about, and it is an actual (live inner ) experience, you are following it actually, which indicates that you can slow down your (thought addicted ) mind and follow each thought through. But since you cannot be with me all the time, I suggest, you write down every thought and experiment with it and you will see what an extraordinary thing takes place (or...not?) . Your condemnations, your (subliminal?) attachments & prejudices, will come out (acting in slow-motion?) before an (awakened?) consciousness that is empty (of its past knowledge?) and is now capable of complete silence.
The other day a man came to see me and he wanted to find 'peace of mind'. He wanted to find 'God' and he also stated that he was a ( black market?) speculator. We all want 'peace of mind', happiness, love and tranquillity and yet we are caught (personally entangled?) in activities that are not peaceful; we are caught in professions that are ( psychologically ) destructive such as ( …. ???) .
Question: I have made the rounds of various (spiritual) teachers and I would like to know from you what is the purpose of life? Krishnamurti: Apparently, the questioner must have been told by the various ( gurus & ) teachers what the purpose of life is and now, he wants to add my views to his collection and see which is the most suitable. Sirs, I know the person who wrote this question, a married man in a 'responsible' position. See the ( spiritual) tragedy of making a collection of purposes of life and choose one out of them. Sirs, it is tragic, not laughable, because it shows the state of mind of the majority of us. We are mature in office, in bringing up children, in getting money, but immature in ( our inward ) thinking and in life. We do not know what it means to love. So, the questioner wants to know what is the purpose of life. Shall I tell him what it is ? Mustn't he find out for himself (as homework?) what the purpose of life is ? To remain ( or get stuck in the routine of ) an office day after day, month after month, ( & year after year?) pursuing money, position, power, ambition, is that the ( ultimate?) purpose of life? Is it the purpose of life to worship graven images, to perform rituals and indulge in their ( weekly?) repetition? Is it the purpose of life to acquire virtue and become 'walled in' by barren righteousness? If it is none of these then, must you not 'go beyond' all these? Surely the man ( who realises the existential ?) sorrow (of such a life?) wants to be free of sorrow. But you see, we (avoid facing this ?) suffering and therefore we do not understand suffering. Can you go to another ( wise-man?) to find out? To find out the (way out of) of all this confusion, you should understand the 'one who is confused', which is 'yourself'. This chaos is the result of our own (self-centred) thinking & feeling, and as you proceed deeper and deeper in understanding yourself you will find out what is the significance of life. Merely to stand at the edge of confusion and ask what is the significance of life has very little meaning. Sirs, it is like a man who has lost the song in his heart. Naturally he is always seeking for somebody who has a song, he is enchanted by the voice of others, and seeking a 'better singer' because in his own heart there is no song. There can be 'song' in his heart only when he discards everything and ceases to follow the (providential?) teacher. There comes a time when you become aware of your desires, when you do not escape from them, but understand them. It requires earnestness, it requires extraordinary serious attention and he who is already in earnest has begun to understand and in him there is Hope (for all mankind?) . This hope (can be found?) only in yourself. This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 23 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 | #101 |
---|---|
|
well John , yes, as usual with most k words it seems rather easy intellectually, like when watching a thriller quietly sitting in a comfortable armchair...being just a watcher... this all business with sorrow so suffering avoiding it or not is really something else...avoiding = more of it and much more ..properly living it = unpredictable discoveries...up to whatever god knows.. in both case thought is living some uncomfortable time...
in one case there is "light" ,small, huge does not matter etc in the other no light...but some sort of darkness even if one is in the spotlight...famous, wealthy or well known spiritually etc thought must be put in its right place...somehow.. cheers Dan ........... This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Mon, 23 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 | #102 |
---|---|
|
For me the mystery here will remain, about what is in bold letters, yet I have some sort of personal factual opinion on that but that is of no interest for others; I mean is k always talking from the now as it is happening or is he (too) talking from recalled vivid memories left by some experiences yet sort of living it again or at least very carefully revisiting them...the way he says it leaves place to interpretations. I would have liked to know...matter of deep interest for me... Anyway by no means I could do what he suggests here...talking being my cup of tea...writing is not.. Dan ........... |
Back to Top |
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 | #103 |
---|---|
|
Hello " the other Dan", long time no see, how are things for you ? Now by reading your post came back something. In time of let us say "properly living sorrow" or whatever mental problem is there, if this is possible, there is a sort of thought's watching yet not listening to it occurring by itself.. Can it be triggered or not otherwise ? I do not know.It is a bit like if something in thought or "somewhere "else can now see thought yet not listen to it, able to do this and that ..
I know that all this is quite unclear, and probably does not make sense...well adding to that that I am in one of those nice lazy day and mood...and I am enjoying it actually.. anyway I would tend to go along with what you bring here..interesting indeed.. cheers.. Dan ........... This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Mon, 23 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Mon, 23 Jul 2018 | #104 |
---|---|
|
well you know yourself, the first approach is another thought's delusion and not only a waste of time but making it worse, only the other one is the only one, no net, no safety, no guarantee, not predictable etc
thanks for the take on that..agreed with the second paragraph.. Dan ........... |
Back to Top |
Tue, 24 Jul 2018 | #105 |
---|---|
|
Hello the other dan well we are lucky not to have only many dan in this forum, as this would be complicated ;-) yes this auto pilot point you bring used anywhere else than in technical task is one aspect of what brings mental problems...
As I mentioned out of experiments is that some unusual awareness of thought is there by itself in time of properly living sorrow-problems then possibly in time of living anything in k's case...properly living sorrow brings thought down to its knees and by passes it....roughly put..as the matter is complex to describe and quite extensive . there may be something in that corner, I must say that I forgot a bit if not more about that aspect and yes well it is important, in the sense that it thwarts this auto pilot full power on the all brain.It is good to have that aspect in line somehow. well only a vague approach here...but there is something. Dan ........... This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Tue, 24 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Wed, 25 Jul 2018 | #106 |
---|---|
![]() |
Abstracts from K's Group Discussion in Madras 1947 ( experientially friendly edited ) (9th December) K: Not only at the present time, but since always, the fundamental truth is that ( the total) consciousness of man divides ( 'fragments' ?) itself by (identifying itself with credible ?) beliefs & systems. ( eg:) ( The psychological identification with?) 'nationalism' divides human beings, beliefs break up friendship and create animosity. At the present time, when the world is in such a frightful chaos when all the ( authentic human) values have disintegrated, those of us who have thought seriously about the cause of the misery and the antagonism that exists, should attempt to bring about a new (culture & ) society and not merely (keeping themselves busy with?) the reconstruction of the old, because the ( ages-) old (self-centredness) cannot be patched-up and even if it is patched-up it will remain still the old. As ( common?) wisdom comes only with the knowledge of our everyday activities and feelings, we shall today take up the (topic of the wide spread ) ideas regarding (the nature of?) "evil" as a means of revealing the process of our own thinking. ( Clue: as all ideas are interrelated, by examining one profoundly and following it through, you will see how extraordinarily interrelated they are).
(Another wide spread idea is ) that 'God has a Plan' and anything that interferes with that plan is 'evil'. This is the old idea of the fight between God and the Devil ( where 'God' wins...ultimately?)
( Back to our main topic:) ? Is "evil", or " badness" the opposite of Good(ness) ? To understand anything (holistically?) there must not be a condemnation, nor an identification with it. When I am stupid and I want to become 'clever'. Is not "becoming clever" a part of stupidity? There is conflict between what I am and the thing which I want to be. The thing which I want to be is part of my own projection of stupidity. If I understood stupidity, then the problem ceases. The very awareness of the fact that I am stupid is the beginning of intelligence, and not trying to become clever. If I think in these terms, there is no opposite at all; the opposite may be a fabrication of the mind.
(10th December) K: On the last occasion, we saw the need to understand the problem without identifying ourselves either with religious or materialistic ideas. (And inwardly?) you have to be free from the conflict of the opposites. In fact, the opposite does not exist at all.
( This hidden inner conflict starts with ?) the 'naming' of a feeling - when you contact something with any of your senses you give it a name to capture it, usually adopting the (verbal) conventions already set up. ( Unfortunately?) this is done (mechanically?) even in the case of the ( non-material ) feelings that arise in you though the feeling cannot be contacted by the senses. Therefore the ( common usage of the ) word which is 'sensuous', cannot adequately describe the ( 'existential'?) feelings which are 'non-sensuous'. ( Therefore, in the 'psychological' field?) ''The word is not the thing''. However, if to your ( thought addicted mind ?) the 'words' have become all-important, you will ( mechanically translate or ?) 'interpret' your ( true?) feeling through a ( culturally standardised ?) word. Therefore you miss the full ( holistic) significance of the feeling.
(11th December) We were talking about the (inner?) conflict of the opposites – the 'good' against 'evil', etc. Now, is the (best?) way of discovering the truth of anything, by bringing in the 'utilitarian' point of view? Is it not the ( more holistically?) correct way to view the thing 'as it is', and not get confused by its effect for the many or for the few?
Is there ( inwardly a temporal?) becoming at all? I know the tiny acorn becomes the big oak tree ; but this is a ( natural physical ) becoming. There is no 'natural becoming' of the acorn into a rose or a pine tree. If you can understand (rationally ?) the problem of becoming, then perhaps you will discover the truth about ( thinking in terms of?) duality.
As another illustration of this conflict of opposites is anger. You are (often getting) angry and what is your ( self-becoming?) response? " This is awful, what is the matter with me ?" and you create the opposite which is ( the very cool virtue of?) 'non-anger'. You were in a state which was very disturbing and you would rather like the state which is quite peaceful and more ( rewarding inwardly ). Therefore, you are ( mentally?) moving from 'what you are' to 'what you want to be' - the (reasonable ?) opposite of 'what you are', with a ( subliminal) motive for ( a higher moral ) profit. Now, the (thought projected image of the?) 'opposite' state is created on account of your desire for profit or benefit, for a result; it is non-existent (as such) . Therefore, the ( hapless & hopeless inner ?) fight between the 'what is' and 'what is not'. This ( moral) 'fight' is only on the verbal level. Therefore, the fight is a (self-projected?) illusion, a (psychologically?) stupid (inner) action. ( In a nutshell:) This ( thoughtless inner ) conflict between the opposites is non-existent (similar to fighting with one's shadow?) because,there is only one thing, 'what is': and any movement away from 'what is' is ( an act of 'psychological?) stupidity'. Therefore, this ( 'virtual reality'?) conflict has no ( true inner ) significance. ( For extra homework : ?) To ( holistically) understand this ( morally & ethically ?) disturbing state in which you may find yourself, you must (ASAP ?) stop this (personal involvement in ?) fighting with the 'opposite' ( by simply realising that inwardly it ?) is non-existent, i.e. you must give up the (inner) 'struggle to become the opposite'. ( Experiential Clue:) Do not 'condemn' that state nor 'identify' yourself with it. Then, watch it with your whole being and be ( non-personally?) aware of it. ( In conclusion:) Investigation into and ( the holistic) understanding of our ( 'existential' responses or?) 'feelings' which are ever in movement, demands ( a basic) freedom from (the habit of naming or terming them ?) since ( at the deeper levels of being ?) the term is not the 'thing' that it is supposed to denote. ( On the other hand ?) if such a (profound) feeling is investigated through a (specialised ) term(inology) , the ( intellectual processing of the ) term becomes important (rather than directly dealing with ?) the feeling. Moreover, when communicated to another, that other person interprets the term or the word according to his or her own (personal experience in dealing with that ) feeling. Thus, the (culturally standardised?) 'terming' influences, modifies, and shapes the feeling. (12th December, 1947) When applied to objective things, the words are quite (obviously ) apart from the things and you don't ( need to?) 'interpret' (or put a spin on?) those things through the (usage of) words as you can contact those things directly. ( However, in the case of ( our subjective) feelings and thoughts, their effect on the person concerned can be seen and felt by others. When a feeling arises, he names it in order to evaluate it according to the frame of references already established in his ( cultivated?) memory; he thus absorbs it into himself and strengthens the ( foundations of his 'psychological') memory, the 'me'. Therefore the naming of a feeling converts it to 'time', - i.e. ( to consolidate one's psychological) continuance - and ( generally) leads either to the condemnation of a painful feeling or to the ( self-) identification with a pleasurable feeling. ( On the other hand?) if the feeling is not ( noticed or ) named, it is not absorbed (into one's self-consciousness?) , therefore it runs its course and (eventually?) ceases without in any way strengthening the 'me' In our 'actual' ( inner) life, we always ( like to recognise, evaluate &) 'name' the pleasurable feelings thus giving them (a temporal) continuance, and we always avoid painful feelings. A man seeking God by avoiding ( vulgar?) sensate values in still pursuing his pleasure on a higher level. But by avoiding the painful feelings and pursuing the pleasurable ones he wreaks ( collateral?) havoc to (the culture of his) society and causes a great deal of ( psychological?) harm to others. You have to understand the implications of this and ( for homework try to ?) 'seriously experiment' with not naming the ( thoughts & ) feelings as they arise in you. (13th December) ( Intro:) I think one should distinguish between 'hearing' ( what is going on?) inside oneself and (the outward?) listening. Listening is surely ( directed to?) something outside. ( The inward?) hearing is much more subjective. Let us 'hear' each other rather than 'listen' to each other, as these ( exploratory) discussions are really meant to reveal the ways of our own thinking, feeling and acting. Right thinking begins only in discovering what is exactly taking place (inwardly) in each one of us - being aware of all our illusions, (hidden) motives & intentions leads to a 'right thinking' which only can come into being through sel-knowledge and not through any book, not through any listening to a (inspirational ) talk but by being aware of every 'thought and feeling' movement in ourselves. We were discussing the ( ages old?) problem of 'duality' , whether the (inner) conflict ( of opposite thoughts & desires ?) was inevitable - this conflict between ignorance and knowledge, between arrogance and humility, between anger and (inner) peace, and so on. This conflict between the opposites has apparently been accepted by us as an inevitable fact in ( order to improve the quality of?) our (inner) life.
Now, the ( actual) 'fact' is that (the self-protective shield one's ? ) arrogance is existent, but the ( desire of ) becoming 'non-arrogant 'or 'humble' is not a fact. Your (cultivated?) 'humility' is existent only in theory but actually is not (100% true?)
Why do we name any ( disturbing psychological) quality? Perhaps, if we do not name it or term it, it may have a different significance (or it might be seen in a different light?). If I do not term a ( disturbing) 'quality' that arises in me - such as arrogance - what would happen? Then, if we shall not confuse its 'name' with the feeling; then the feeling will have a different meaning, a different inner significance. (For instance?) if you understand and realise that the term 'God' is not ( the 'actual') God, you are free of all the (cultural) implications of what was being accepted as 'God'. Then the temples will have no ( higher spiritual?) meaning, whether we go to it or do not go, therefore we are at once (or...ASAP?) free from ( the spiritual authority of) all priests, churches and so on. ( Hint :) The ( man-made) image is not the Real and if you realise (this inner truth) the ( psychological authority of the man-made ?) 'image' disappears. (To recap:) The 'term' (the name?) is not the actual feeling though it is (traditionally intended ) to represent the feeling. Now, why is an ( emotional ) quality or 'feeling' named? (i) to communicate the quality to others and (ii) to 'pin down' and to (morally) evaluate that quality in terms of our old (ego-centric?) frames of references. Therefore, even as the feeling itself is in the present and is therefore 'new', by naming it we relate it to ( our previous experience from ) the past, the new is interpreted ( processed &) and modified in terms of the old, thus strengthening ( our self-centered) memory, i.e. the 'me'. The ( newness of that?) feeling is thus absorbed into the ( good-old?) 'me' and is given continuance in time as the 'real' memory (of what I 'know 'about myself?) . Without ( being recognised & processed by?) memory, there cannot be evaluation. The feeling, when it arises, is new and in the present; but when that feeling is termed, it is translated or modified so as to fit it into the old (self-centred) framework of reference, thus strengthening ( one's 'psychological' ) memory. So, the ( self-conscuiousness of the?) 'me' is strengthened; and the person feels 'stronger' ( empowered?) : when he says "this is my property", he feels already ( better ? ) .
Now, suppose a new ( emotionally loaded?) reaction arises and you do not name it. Rather than absorb it into ( your 'known' self-) consciousness, but you are merely aware of it. ( As a result?) that feeling and the ( thought-controlling ) responses would cease running their course; the feeling is not judged or evaluated and it is not absorbed into ( one's psychological) memory.
At present there is an ( exponential???) increase, all over the world, in sensate values - more theatres, more cinemas, more drinks, more clothes, more and more (of anything) . The ( first reaction of a ) 'spiritual' person seeing this ( scary global trend?) , says 'I do not like it' and denies the sensate and goes after the ideation, as the ideation gives him pleasure. Thus, this 'spiritual' person is still following the pleasurable (but on a different level than) the man of the sensate.
( In a nutshell:) It is not the 'things' that are dividing man, but the ideas. If that is understood, life would become very simple.
( To recap:) When we do not put a feeling in the (known) framework of references, the feeling comes to an end, withers away. ( As a result?) if we do not term our 'feelings' at all, both the painful feelings as well as the pleasurable feelings, the mind will be still and (eventually) the feelings will wither away. Thus, the ( in-famous?) 'conflict of duality' (more specifically - the conflict between the 'opposites', or btw the observer & the observed ?) exists only when there is the naming of the feelings, and ( it follows +/- logically that?) if we do not term ( stick a name on ?) our feelings, there is freedom from the conflict.
This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 26 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Fri, 27 Jul 2018 | #107 |
---|---|
![]() |
6-th K Public Talk Madras 1947 (experientially friendly edited) K: Those of us who are accustomed to listening ( in the 'self-protected' mode ? ) , really hardly ever understand anything (of a deeper nature ) because their understanding then is merely on the verbal level. But 'hearing' (with 'mind's ear'?) I think is different. Such hearing is obviously more 'subjective' - you are hearing ( primarily to) what is taking place in yourself rather than ( focussing your) listening to someone outside. So, it would be a waste of time if you merely listen to ( my ) words and do not 'hear' within yourself their (deeper psychological ) significance - it would be then just a gathering of informations from (someone outside ) outside rather than hearing your own process of thinking and feeling. And, as we are trying to find out what is true , it demands a certain letting down of ( our self-protective) verbal ( firewalls or ?) 'barriers', a certain ( degree of ) freedom from our everyday prejudices, because we must go beyond. So, if we can, at least temporarily, put aside this (self-protective listening mode) , then perhaps we will be able to go beyond the verbal level and bring an understanding into our daily life and action.
I want to take this evening very briefly the problem of 'suffering'. The creative happiness is not ( achieved by?) the denial of sorrow, but by a (holistic) understanding of sorrow. Most of us think that through suffering you will awaken understanding and intelligence. But if you examine it a little more closely you will find that suffering -like pain and conflict- really dulls ( the inner perception of?) 'what is' and to regard suffering as a means to understanding or intelligence is really fallacious . What do we mean by suffering? A sense of ( major existential?) disturbance, is it not? ( Clue: : I am not for the moment dealing with the outward suffering, diseases and so on, but with the inward existential ?) suffering - like when you feel your existence has no ( deeper) meaning, and when the future becomes all important, or when you regard the past as more beautiful & happier than the ( boring ?) present. That implies a dissatisfaction with your present (state of being?), an utter sense of ( existential emptiness or ?) void that can never be filled. What is our natural and instinctive response (when we realise this sad 'inner' condition) ? We try anything to get away from that constant ache, pain and suffering. Even the ( introspective ?) inquiry into the cause of suffering, is it not also (ultimately becoming) a (respectable intellectual) escape? If we would examine it with a little ( more intelligence, compassion & ) care, we would know very well what is the cause of suffering. It is obvious ( in the frustrated continuity of one's self-interest? ) , is it not? So, what generally happens ( if we avoid tackling the central cause ?) is that we become very clever in our escapes, but suffering continues, while pursuing various ( diversions & ) escapes is called (the modern way of ?) living. That is, you 'progress' through (upgrading & reshuffling ? ) the objects of escape, but ( a profound existential?) suffering, in some way or other, continues. So, how is this (deep existential ?) suffering to be understood ? (For starters?) by not running away from it. And ( then ?) the more you are (getting) acquainted with it, the more you invite it & talk with it, the more it gives off its ( holistiv ) 'perfume' and significance.
Question: I heard your last Sunday talking about 'duality' and the pain of it, but as you did not explain how to overcome the 'opposite', will you please go further into it? Krishnamurti: Let us go into it very delicately. Let us find out its enormous significance. We know the conflict of the opposites. We are caught in that long corridor (or...labyrinth ?) of pain, always overcoming one (poor inner quality ?) and trying to become the other (better one ?) . That is our our everyday struggle in life, a constant battle of becoming, of (redeeming ourselves by) transforming 'this' into 'that'. I needn't go into more details concerning the conflict and the pain of the opposites. Now, what exists ( here & now) is only the actual, while the opposite is only the (product of our wishful thinking ?) regarding 'what is', is it not? It has no existence apart from `what is.' That is : I am arrogant and that is a fact and the negative response to that is humility and I accept (to pursue ?) humility as an opposite because I have found my arrogance ( uoproductive or ?) painful; (unless in a politically correct environment ) it is taboo. So, since it no longer pays to be arrogant, I would like to become humble, the ( politically correct ?) opposite. What actually happens is that (my faked ?) humility is an ideal which I would like to realize. It seems to me an utter waste of time to meditate or try in some other way to become the opposite. To put it differently, the ( what one is inwardly in the ) present is the result of ( what one was in) the past and it must create its ( upgraded ?) 'future' which is still the net of time. I see the present as the passage of the past into the future. On the other hand, if I want to understand ( in real time ?) 'what is', I must give my whole ( undivided) attention to it and not be distracted by the ( alternative realities created by ?) opposites. The opposite is non-existent, it is merely the negative wish of 'what is'. So, that is one point. The second is why do we name any ( spontaneous ?) feeling? When you term it, what happens? You ( impose a controlling) framework of references to a living feeling and thereby absorb the living feeling into ( thought's continuity ?) time, which only strengthens ( one's self-centred) memory, which is the I. Now what happens, if you do not name the feeling, what would happen to it? Does it not come to a (natural) end?
So, any '( emotionally charged ) response to a challenge comes to an end when you do not name it and put it in (a mind controlling) frame of reference. We have just learned that a painful reaction can be got rid of that way: don't name it, it will ( ASAP ?) vanish. But, will you do the same thing with more pleasurable feelings? That is, if you have a pleasure and if you do not name it, it will also wither away, will it not? So, both the pleasurable and the painful reactions do wither away ( ASAP ?) when they are not absorbed into thought's ( controlling) framework of references. You will see if you experiment with it that it is a fact. Now, is 'love' also an (emotionally charged personal) reaction not to be named and so left to wither? It will wither if it is an opposite of hate, because then it is merely a response to a challenge; but surely ( the Selfless Love ?) is not a response to a challenge. It is a state of being. It has its own eternity. But you cannot try to cultivate ( the selfless ?) love, surely. Love can be known surely only when the sense of (self-) becoming which creates the opposite ceases. So, this ( meta-physical ?) problem of duality which all your life have struggled to transcend - but in which you are still caught - seems to me fallacious. In the understanding of how the opposite is created , duality ceases to exist. The 'opposite' exists only when you try to avoid what is, in order to become something which is not; but in understanding what is, which for instance is arrogance with all its implications, not only at a particular level but through all the layers of one's consciousness - in the ( experiential) understanding of this arrogance without naming the feeling, you will see it wither away. That process of ( temporal self-) becoming must entirely cease before love can be. Question: Gandhiji says in a recent article: "Religion and nationalism are both equally dear to man and one cannot be bartered away in favour of the other". What do you say? Krishnamurti: In this question is implied the acceptance of authority; some one tells and you accept. In acceptance there is blindness and total lack of ( independent) thinking. If you have lost the critical ability to inquire, you will never discover what ( the living dimension of ?) Truth is. And to find out what Truth is you must have an open heart and open mind and have ( the freedom ?) to think for yourself and venture out into the open, uncharted seas.
( a) What do you mean by 'religion'? Surely, ( the authentic spirit of ?) religion implies the search for God, for Truth, the search after ( the Ultimate ?) Reality and in this inquiry after Truth, the ( experiential) approach must be ( by negation )since Reality is the unknown. Therefore any (affirmative ?) approach to the Unknown will make it 'knowable' and therefore that is not the ( living ) Truth. Truth 'is' when the 'known' ceases to be. The Eternal ( Now ?) is not to be approached not through ( the knowledge of ?) time. The Eternal 'is' when ( the 'thinker' & its ?) 'thought' which is the result of ( man's long evolution in ) time, comes to an end. And ( b) what is 'nationalism'? The ( collectively shared ?) feeling of belonging to a particular nation or country? When you call yourself a Hindu, does it not give you the feeling of being united with something you consider greater than yourself, which is also giving me a sense of ( peronal & collective temporal ) continuity.
Surely, ( for homework ?) you must 'go beyond' these petty ( although ... larger than life ?) images created by man's mind or hand, to find Truth, must you not? You must cease to be 'nationalistic' however stimulating it may feel, and you must cease to belong to any particular religion in order to find Reality, must you not? As both nationalism and organized religion are inventions of the human mind, of time, to understand the Timeless, you must be ( inwardly) free of ( thought's continuity ) time. This is extremely difficult as the modern world is geared for a total ( self ?) destruction - which nationalism or organized religion render inevitable-
Question: You have talked of exploitation as being 'evil'. Do you not also exploit ( your wealthy sponsors?) ? Krishnamurti: I am glad that you have still the capacity to criticize (the Speaker?) and I am quite willing to expose myself, and I will. ( In a nutshell:) Exploitation begins when the 'need' becomes 'greed', when ( the physiological ) needs become (translated as?) 'psychological' necessities. These (temporal) needs which are 'food, clothing and shelter' have very little ( spiritual?) significance in themselves and a ( creatively?) happy man is not bothered by these, because he has other riches, he has other (inner ressources & ) treasures. ( On the other hand?) the man who has no (inner access to such ?) treasures, makes the sensate values ( overwhelmingly?) predominant and this creates such ( economic & social?) havoc in the world. So, if I may be personal, as I do not use the ( bare?) essentials of ( a civilised?) life for my psychological aggrandizement I am really not 'exploiting' anyone. You may call me an exploiter, but in my heart I know I am not.
So, ( the darker side of?) exploitation begins deeply only when you, the (self-centred) individual have that painful, psychological emptiness of which we are aware sometimes, but which is generally very carefully concealed. So, things, names and ideas become extraordinarily significant when through them 'you' are expanding (your 'psychological empire'?) . That ( self-)expansive process is the beginning of real exploitation.
Question: What is the difference between ( the traditionalistic ) 'surrendering' to the Will of God and what you are saying about the acceptance of 'what is'? Krishnamurti: Surely there is a vast difference, is there not? If you know ( the ultimate truth of?) Reality, you cannot 'surrender' to it. The 'you' ceases to exist and It comes into (one's inner?) being only when the ( living in the?) 'known' ceases. The 'known' is a creation of the ( self-centred thinking ) mind which can only create ( an inner space filled with?) what it knows. So, when you 'surrender to the will of God' you are surrendering to your own (XXXL self-?) projection; it may be a very comforting feeling , but it is not the Real.
|
Back to Top |
Sat, 28 Jul 2018 | #108 |
---|---|
![]() |
Excerpts from K's Group Discussions Madras 1947 (reader friendly edited ) December 15th What is (the actual process of your self-centred?) 'thinking'? You realise that this is an entirely a new question and your ( outward experience stored in) memory does not furnish any framework of reference with which you could ( properly ) answer this question. There is, therefore, a 'hesitancy' or ( a gap of) silence on the part of the ( conscious ?) mind. To the (holistic) challenge involved in this question there is no ready-made response from you because the question is absolutely new. There is therefore a ( silent) gap between the challenge and the response. What is the state of mind during this gap? In this state, the ( inwardly sincere ?) mind does not refer to any ( previously known) framework of reference and at the same time it is extremely alert though passive. Therefore, ( a quality of non-verbal ?)iIntelligence comes into being; this state of a 'new' mind facing a new challenge can be (only experientially) known by you, though it cannot be verbalised. 16th December, 1947 I wonder how far ( in your homework ?) you have been experimenting with what we have been discussing, namely, the problem of conflict and effort which brings about (the 'observer - observed') duality, and the problem of (naming ) terming a (spontaneous) feeling. I wonder whether it had any fundamental effect on your daily activities ? Do you translate into action anything that you hear (here) or do you just let it pass by? Today, let us find out the (experiential) significance of not ' terming' a feeling our daily life relationship - whether with your family, your boss, or your office clerk
( In a nutshell : ) if you are not naming a quality or terming a (spontaneous ) feeling the feeling (eventually?) dies away . Similarly, if the quality of ( greed, aka) 'acquisitiveness' is not termed (as good or bad?) , the acquisitiveness withers away ; (Hint:) naming a feeling is giving it continuity. Therefore when you do not name the feeling, then ( one's inner?) life becomes very simple.
Identifying oneself with the feeling of acquisitiveness, is one of the problems which is creating terrible havoc in the world. If you do not understand its whole significance, the ( karmic?) remnants of that acquisitiveness will still remain in the mind. This ( issue) is really difficult ( to transcend?) because, psychologically, you 'are' (100% identified with your?) property. The moment you let it go, you feel lost. To let go ( one's attachment to) name (& form?) , title, and property requires an extraordinary inward richness; it means freedom from outward things; you can let them go only when you have found something Real in yourself. You do not let them go for the simple reason that the (psychological memory of your?) property 'is' you, as the title 'is' you, the name 'is' you; this means the ( self-identified memory with the ) sensory things 'are' you. The moment you do not identify with your name, and do not name the (inner?) feeling of being nobody, (the anxiety related to ?) it comes to an end. Then the ( attachment to your) property will drop away and you will not care two pins. When you have (a free ) inward (access to spiritual ?) riches, property does not matter; but... there can only be ( free access to those ) 'inward riches' when you do not name the feeling; through that Door you find the imperishable. ( Hint : The man who is talking about the imperishable (Now?) and is naming & (cleverly marketing ?) his feelings is a hypocrite).
17th December Let us consider the 'truth' or the (holistic) significance of 'falling in love' in relation to the understanding of what thinking is in the light of our previous action.
18th December On the last occasion, we found that the conflict of the opposites is really fallacious, because the opposite is the non-existent, which has been created from 'what is'; and that the becoming into something other than 'what is' is the opposite; we also discussed the whole significance of terming a feeling, the reaction to a challenge, and that from that naming there are a series of reactions and in these reactions we get lost. So, the becoming is the conflict. Then the naming of the feeling is perhaps wrong because the feeling is new but it is put in the framework of references, thereby interpreting the new feeling through the framework of old references and therefore misinterpreting the feeling. If I had not termed it perhaps I would have a different reaction to the feeling, and the feeling may then subside. A feeling which is termed, whether unpleasant or pleasant, can come strong textto an end if you do not name it, then you will see that it withers away. But, is (the selfess ?) love a feeling which, when not named, will come to an end? We have discussed further about terming a feeling and what effect it has in our daily life. We also discussed about property and what happens if we do not name it. 19th December In your search to understand the inner significance of 'falling in love', you came to the point when you knew that you were in love and that your mind was wandering backwards and forwards - to the past and to the future - seeking pleasure in thinking of the past actions when you met the object of your love, or of the future when you would next meet her. At this stage, most of you want to get a result or condemn the sensuous pleasure which you get out of the memory of your company with your object of love. You have to understand the (inner) truth of this. All ( our material) existence is sensory. Pleasure and pain are also sensory. If you exclude any pleasure you must exclude all. If you exclude all, you will cease to live. Therefore, you realise that in life there are three important inescapable principles, Love, Pleasure and Pain of which pleasure and pain are sensory. We have to understand the significance of pleasure and pain. We generally deny pain and pursue pleasure. Our daily life is one continual pursuing and denying. The 'I' is the result of this pursuing and denying, and it is therefore a (psychological entity thriving in ?) contradiction. That which is in contradiction, cannot understand Truth. You, therefore, realise that you who are in contradiction, cannot understand the truth of these three principles. When you realise this, you are against a blank wall. At this stage, what happens to your seeking pleasure in a memory of your object of love back to the past or forward to the future? 20th December Today we should discuss together the practical steps to be taken by us in our daily life to give expression to the ideas we have hitherto considered, especially in relation to property.
Let us take, for instance, 'nationalism'. How can you be 'practical' about nationalism? If you understand it and its results in daily life, it drops away from you. You do not become international; you cease to be national and therefore you are an (integrated ) human being. How can you have a practical step to cease to be national?
How can you be more 'practical' if you do not see the significance of nationalism in all its different layers so that it may drop away of its own accord? If you have the intelligence to see that it is a cobra, you do not have to take practical steps to fight it. You just leave it alone. You can see that nationalism is a poison which has degenerating effects in human relationship. Therefore nationalism drops away. You may have a little (emotional) reaction when you hear that India beat Australia in cricket, but it does not become a (psychological' problem. So, your difficulty lies in seeing the thing clearly ( non-personally & ) without any prejudice. The prejudice has been created by outside agencies as well as yourself. With regard to every subject, you are misinformed, you are badly educated and badly conditioned; and you try to interpret life through this misinformation. When you realize that your information is wrong you immediately put it aside. Inwardly, you like to identify yourself with your country because it gives you a sense of warm feeling that you are achieving something. So there are more soldiers, more armies, more dreadfulness. That is what we are achieving and that is not progress. Progress does not obviously lie through bloodshed.
You must see the whole significance of the idea of ( personal or collective ?) acquisitiveness which is expressed through property, through relationship and through ideation. What are the effects of acquisitiveness? Outwardly it's the nationalism and (within the same nation ?) is the competition between you and me; while inwardly acquisition gives you a sense of life, a sense of struggle, a sense of (the $$$ value of your) existence. If you do not acquire what are you? You are a 'nobody' if you have no title, no property, or no name; and because inwardly you are nothing, you wish to acquire, which implies power, prestige, title and all the rest of it. Then, mentally, you want to acquire knowledge. You are anchored to acquisition and you become a mental addict who always reads. A mind that is merely acquiring, ceases to function as an instrument of thought, it inevitably becomes dull without any pliability, it is slavish, it is uncreative, it is repetitive because it is merely acquiring what it calls 'knowledge'. So, acquisition is really a factor that dulls the mind and cripples (any independent) thinking. To think, you must be free and not be anchored to acquisition, to property or to belief. When you understand the (inner) significance of acquisitiveness, it is very simple to deal with property. What is the 'practicability' wanted here? The world is confused; and the more it is confused, the more the individual wants security, i.e. you want to be secure. This leads to conflict in you as well as outside you. This conflict will cease only when you understand and are aware of the significance of acquiring property; then there will not arise the question of how you will escape from the conflict. There are various forms of relationship - such as relationship with things and the relationship to other human beings. The relationship to human beings is more difficult and more subtle; and the difficulty arises when there is no love. Love cannot be learned through following some ( easy) steps. If there is love, you will understand relationship; love will then show the way out of this horrible mess of husband and wife and relationship between man and man. Why don't we (have) love? What is preventing us from loving (each other ?) ? If you can find out the cause, perhaps you may know how to love. Love is (the outward expression of ?) an extraordinary sense of Intelligence, a heightened form of intelligence. If you are intelligent then perhaps there will be love. Why is it that the relationship between man and man has become so difficult? It may be because they are not dealing with it intelligently and they do not know what intelligence is. Perhaps you can find out what intelligence is 'negatively' (by rejecting what it is not)
Why does each one of us, in our relationship with one another, try to isolate oneself? Is this process natural? If it is natural or inevitable, then there is nothing more to be said about it, and there will be constant conflict between you and me; there will be no peace between you and society, between you and myself. If it is inevitable, there can never be love, not a moment of complete quietness between us. However, we know of moments when there is (a sense of unity with all ?) creation, though such moments are rare. Creation takes place not in conflict but only when the conflict ceases, when there is silence, when there is a sense of fullness. So, we find that the conflict is not inevitable. We have now to understand why we isolate ourselves in relationship. On examining further, we find that one of the reasons for our self-isolation is our "functional" (vision of ) existence. Functions have become very important in our life for the very simple reason that our life is based on sensate values. We have divided life into higher and lower (social postions and) functions , like the minister and scavenger, etc. Why are we isolating psychologically? Because we have not understood ( the divisive nature of) self-protection. After all, any enclosure, psychological or physical, is self-protection, is isolation. I put a wall around myself, psychologically, for the obvious reason to protect myself. The more I try to protect myself, the greater the isolation, the greater is the conflict. Protecting myself by putting a wall psychologically around me creates an (invisible psychological ?) barrier. You have a (psychological fire-)wall around you and I have a similar wall around me and we keep working on the ( upgrading or ?) strengthening our respective ( psychological fire-) walls. And when you and I thus ( self-protected ) come in contact, what will be our relationship? The more I am enclosed in myself the more violent I become, the more aggressive I am; & similarly you. ( For homework:) To have a right (authentic) relationship, this barrier of psychological enclosure around each one of us has to be 'pulled down' (by deactivating the self-protective) firewall . And quite obviously, I must first start with myself and set about to 'pull down' (deactivate) this (subliminal self-) enclosure which I am putting up around me for ( my temporal) self-protection |
Back to Top |
Sun, 29 Jul 2018 | #109 |
---|---|
![]() |
7th K Public Talk Madras 1947 A holistically friendly approach to 'right thinking' There are so many (life) problems, especially at this time when there is so much confusion, when each individual, each group of people or nation is seeking ( to optimise) its own security at the expense of others, and it seems to me very important to find out what is the right (approach to insightful?) thinking because the various problems which confront us constantly, demand right thinking. So, what is ( our common way of ) thinking? As we know it, it is a response of memory, is it not? You have (accumulated) certain memories and from this residue you respond. So, this thinking, which is the response of our memory, is always ( personally or culturally?) conditioned - that is, you have an experience and you translate that experience according to the previous memories. Surely such thinking only strengthens ( the already existing ) conditioning, which only produces more conflict, more pain and more sorrow.
Now, I ask myself and I hope you are doing it too, is that thinking? These (highly cultivated mechanical) responses ( according ) to ( whatever we've got stored in?) our memory, is that ( the real?) thinking? ( If not, then) What 'is' thinking?
You can experiment with this for (homework) very simply and you will see how remarkably it works. For instance, you are in front of a ( bizarre?) modern painting. Your instinctive response is that you don't understand it and you push it aside, or else you ask who painted it, and if it is some big name you say it is very good. You respond according to your cultural background or your conditioning. But suppose you put aside, if you can, the training, the classical training you have had and remain very quiet, very passive but alert in front of the picture. Does not the picture then tell you, give you its significance? So, this passive awareness is surely the highest form of (insightful?) thinking because you are so receptive, so alert that the picture conveys its meaning to you.
Question: I dream a great deal. Have my dreams any ( deeper ) significance? Krishnamurti: This is really an extremely important and very difficult problem because many things are implied. (a) First of all, are we (inwardly) awake or are we asleep most of the time? When are you fully awake? When there is a tremendous crisis, when when there is a ( real life) problem. And, when there is such a crisis what do you do? You try to solve the crisis according to your personal framework of references, or according to religious literature and that again puts you to sleep. So when there is a challenge of life, if it is pleasurable you pursue it, which is also a way of putting oneself to sleep, because the more (hedonistic?) pleasures you may have, the more ( inwardly insensitive or?) 'dull' you become. When the challenge of life is painful what happens? You avoid it, which again dulls the mind; you avoid it through various channels. So, ( as a rule of thumb?) when there is a challenge which demands earnest attention and/or a clear perception, either we refuse (to face?) it or we ( coyly?) identify ourselves with it, to the extent that we put ourselves to sleep (or in a 'stand-by' mode) . It is only at very, very rare moments that we are (inwardly fully) awake. In those moments that there is no (need for compensatory ) dreams . In those moments you are just (100%) 'awake' and therefore the 'dreamer' (or the 'thinker') is not dreaming. ( b) Now, what is the ( inner) significance of dreams? Surely, it is that our ( self-) conscious mind during the day, is actively (pretending to be?) busy with superficial things such as ( tweeting?) , reading, avoiding, enjoying; it is constantly active. When the mind goes to sleep, the superficial ( time-bound) mind is fairly quiet. But ( the human ) consciousness is not just ( limited to ) these superficial layers ; it has many, many layers of hidden motives, pursuits, anxieties, fears, frustrations and so on. And these deeper layers of ( our collective?) consciousness do project themselves (upwards) in ( the fringes of) the conscious mind and when it wakes up it says: 'I have had a ( strange?) dream.' In others words, the conscious mind is incapable of receiving intimations and hints (from the 'unconscious' layers ) during the day. Each of the many layers has its own consciousness and when the superficial mind becomes quiet the layers project themselves on the superficial mind and then you dream. ( c) There are of course dreams which have real significance and it (may?) happen that as you 'dream' an interpretation is taking place (in real time) . When the 'interpreter' (one's intimate desire to understand) is fully alert yet passive, then the dream reveals its significance. That is the only way of dealing ( holistically) with dreams - if the 'dreamer' is passively alert, quiet, then the dream begins to yield its significance. So, how the dreamer, the interpreter, regards the dream is of the highest importance. (d) Then there is the problem of how to 'transcend', how to understand fully, deeply, all the intimations of the various layers of consciousness so that you don't have to wait to have a dream and then translate it and all the rest of it. Is it possible to understand the whole content of ( one's time-bound) consciousness, to free it (from the wheel of Time?) so that it need not project itself upon the superficial mind when asleep? Is it possible to empty the whole of consciousness so that the conscious mind understands fully? The superficial then is (integrated with) the profound layers of consciousness. So,(e) my (homework meditation ?) question is: is it possible for the conscious mind to be so alert, so passively (non-personally?) aware during the day that all the (deeper layers' ) intimations are translated ( ASAP) as they arise? In other words, can one be so 'choicelessly & passively' aware that all the layers of consciousness are ( communicating) their intimations (in real) time, so that all of our consciousness is one ( integrated) whole, without layers? This is possible only when the conscious mind has stopped battling with (its personal) problems, that is, when the conscious mind is ( naturally) still. If you will experiment (it?) you will see how extraordinarily interesting this is. Then this (inner) quietness is not disturbed by the superficial activities and the more 'passively observant', 'negatively watchful', and 'choicelessly alert', one is, the (hidden) contents of the many layers of (the collective?) unconscious, comes to the surface.( Hint:) You don't even have to 'interpret' them because the moment they arise they are being (holistically) understood (& integrated) . and (f) If you (further) experiment ( or meditate along this line?) you will feel an extraordinary freedom because your whole being, your consciousness, which now is (compartmentalised or ) broken up, becomes integrated. There is no longer any struggle in your consciousness, it is therefore ( all intelligence & ?) love, it is completely whole (& as good as new?) . Surely, that is ( the essence of inner) freedom as a total renewal has taken place - which is constantly going on because there is always an ending. The ( wise?) farmer tills the field in the spring time. Then he sows, then he harvests and allows the field to 'lie fallow' during the winter months. That 'fallowness' of the soil is ( allowing a) regeneration because the fertile soil is exposed to the sun, the snow, the storm. It renews itself. So, similarly, after (one's wise?) conscious mind has tilled, sown & harvested, it must ( take a break & ?) lie fallow. Such (inner) 'fallowness' is (bringing) its own creativeness. It (the totality of consciousness?) renews itself and this can be done every day, not only at the end of the season. When you have a ( serious psychological ) problem, if you don't 'end' it (lay it down?) , you will (naturally) carry it over to the next day. But if you end it then, that is, if ( metaphorically speaking?) you 'live the four seasons' in one day, then when you wake up you find there has been an inner renewal, a freshness, a newness which you have never felt before. ( Hint:) It is not the renewal of desire, but ( a total inner) renewal to face things anew. (In a nutshell :) dreams have an extraordinary significance. But their (holistic ?) significance is not understood if there is the ( all controlling attitude of the virtual ?) 'interpreter' who is always translating the dream according to his (self-centred) conditioning. So, is it possible to remove the 'interpreter' ( mentality ?) ? It is possible only when the conscious mind is ( remaining ) passively aware. Then, in that new awareness, in that passive, choiceless state, the whole content of the many layers of consciousness is understood (holistically) , because that consciousness is no longer broken up but is whole and integrated; it is (time-) free; and it can renew itself constantly and face anew everything that confronts it. Question: We see the ( psychological) significance of what you say, but there are many ( more ?) important ( material) problems which demand our immediate attention & action . Krishnamurti: We all know that there are immediate problems which need immediate solutions and answers. That is obvious, especially in a society which is chaotic & confused, as a result of modern industrialization and so on. Now what is it that we are saying here that is so impracticable, that cannot deal with the immediate problems? That is the implication in this question, that one does not know how to deal (or prioritise?) the problems which demand immediate attention.
Our immediate (problems ) can only be understood (from the holistic point of view?) , if we understand the timeless. The man who is concerned with the immediate can never understand the profound, for man is not merely the immediate. If he is seeking an answer to his problems in terms of time - the the problem must be settled the day after tomorrow - then such a man is not concerned with the deeper psychological issues and problems of man; he will say: all we want is to feed the millions. But taking ( the consciousness of) man as a whole is what very few people want to do, because they are all concerned with the immediate: ( starting with their own?) immediate desires, immediate fulfillments, immediate passions. So, most of us are really concerned with the immediate, they want easy settlements. But those people are not going to be the Saviours of Mankind. The man who will save (the total consciousness of?) humanity is he who profoundly understands himself in relation to his society and who by transforming himself brings about a new understanding which helps to clarify the significance of society and its struggles. Question: Are we not shaped by circumstances? Are we not really the creatures of our senses? Krishnamurti: Again this is an enormous ( metaphysical ?) problem because the implications are enormous in a question of this kind.
Now, if I want to find out where the truth is, how do I start? It is a fact that I am partly, ( yet ?) not wholly, a result of my ( physical & cultural) environment; but in order to find out what is ( eternally?) 'true' you must find out how far your thinking & your feeling is merely sensory, and not just assume that God is (the) absolute (value of life?) , and then try to find the absolute. Then you will not find the ( Ultimate) Truth, because you have arbitrarily decided in advance that ( in you) there is God or... there is not.
So, in order to understand ( the whole truth regarding ) this ( 'mind over matter'?) problem, the mere acceptance of the ( ideologies of the ) 'left' or of the 'right' is a denial of ( the living essence of) Truth. (Experiential Hint:) Food, clothing and shelter are sensate values; and your thinking is obviously sensate and so are your feelings. But from there, if you can ( meditate and ?) go deeper into the 'psychological' process you will find there comes a Silence, an absolute (inner) Tranquillity which is not of a sensory nature & not self-induced. In that ( bottomless inward space of?) Silence you will (hopefully ?) find Truth when the ( totality of the?) mind is really still, when (your) whole consciousness is still and not urged by desires. Then in that Real ( Inner Peace &) Tranquillity you will find the ( Ultimate ?) Truth - but when you accept either the left or the right surely you cannot find the ( living) Truth of anything. Acceptance ( of other people's truths ?) is the very denial of Truth. This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 30 Jul 2018. |
Back to Top |
Tue, 31 Jul 2018 | #110 |
---|---|
![]() |
Selected excerpts from K's small discussion group (experientially friendly edited ) 21st December, 1947 [ A friend suggested that we should discuss the subject of fear. ]
23rd December, 1947 K Our (everyday) relationship, as it exists now, is one ( endless ) series of (personal) conflicts, a constant battle between yourself and society, a constant friction, struggle and contradiction between two people.
You are now ( becoming responsibly?) aware that you are building this( self-protective fire-?) wall and (although it is ) being caught in the process of building the wall, your ( newly awakened?) Intelligence says that you should be ( ASAP?) rid of this wall. To get rid of this ( self-protective mental fire-) wall, you must first find out :
( To recap:) First of all, you are ( becoming) aware that you are building walls, psychologically, around yourself. You do not protect yourself psychologically to be safe outwardly - name, property, bank account, etc.- but in order to be safe inwardly, in order to give you an assurance of self-protection inside. Some protection of you outwardly, in the form of 'food, clothing and shelter', is necessary; but because you are inwardly incapable of protecting yourself and therefore you feel inwardly uncertain, you ( begin to ) depend on outward things - ideas, objects & other values made by the hand or made by the mind. (Hint:) you can only protect yourself in relation to an outside object. You have no inward actions or perceptions which are apart from outward things and there is no inward protection by itself. What is the nature of the 'enclosing' (fire- ?) 'wall' around you, which gives you psychological protection in relation to your neighbour, your wife and your society? The 'wall' you build around yourself psychologically consists of the values you give to things made either by the hand or by the mind, i.e. of your ideation. These values are merely the outcome of the pleasure or the pain felt by you through your senses, i.e. the outcome of sensory values. They have no ( real) substance behind them except the significance or value you give them. You can use 'property' as a means of psychological protection. Property in itself is just a piece of land which can give you food; you give that property a significance which it has not, and with that 'significance' you protect yourself.
Therefore, to find out what is behind the wall, you have to 'climb over the wall' or ( still more simply?) 'go through' the wall, or (in 'meditation friendly' terms?) the 'wall' must cease. You do not know what is (or what is not?) behind the wall, but the wall which you know, which is your ( mental) 'valuation'. So, perhaps you are protecting the 'wall' itself ; you are keeping this (psychological fire -) wall, as a means of protecting yourself, but on enquiring what you are protecting, you realise that you do not know. You see the 'wall' only and not the 'something' behind it. Perhaps if you would know what is inside the enclosure, it may not be necessary to protect at all; or perhaps there is nothing to protect.
Therefore (in a nutshell ?) this (psychological 'fire-) wall' is the 'me', the 'thinker', the 'evaluator' . The ( self-consciousness of the?) 'me' - the (self-identified) accumulated residue of one's experience- is both pleasurable and painful. The 'thinker' ( the 'thought controlling' mental entity?) wants to avoid the painful part ; and hoping to be permanently (happy ?) and unchanged , he separates himself from the ( hectic flow of personal & collective ) thoughts, thus playing a ( self-identifying ?) trick on himself, because the separation is not real but only fictitious. When attacked (ideologically?) , the thinker tries to seek identification with "Higher Self", or he identifies himself with Atman (the individual Soul ) , with Paramatman (the ' Over Soul' ?) . 24th December, 1947 K : Whenever you meet with a challenge there is a response. The challenge and the response constitute a ( personal?) 'experience'. Generally such experience leaves a residue - which is what you have learned from that experience; this is (stored in your ?) memory. When there is a similar challenge again, the response is brought by the already existing residue. The residue itself is old and it translates the new challenge according to itself and the result is added to the residual (experience) . Thus, ( in time the psychological component of ?) this residue gets thicker and thicker.
25th December, 1947 K: Are you aware that you are creating a wall of (psychological attachment) around yourself ? The man of possession, or the man of greed, creates a (impenetrable mental) barrier between himself and the man who has no (such) titles. The ( subliminal?) building of these 'psychological walls' is one of the fundamental disintegrating factors in society. You have the desire to be separate, to be superior to others, to be ( 'someone' or?) 'something' ; that is why you are ( getting) attached to your titles, your property, your name, etc. If all these are taken away from you, you are ( left with?) absolutely nothing. Similarly, your nationalistic prejudice is another such ( self-protective) wall. As you ( may feel?) inwardly poor (or just insufficient ?) , shallow and empty, you seek gratification through things by giving them (a larger than life?) value and you then cling to them with great tenacity; you therefore build the (psychological 'fire-) wall' around yourself. ( The thought sustained?) 'desire' is the builder of the wall. And how does this (self-identified activity of ?) desire come into being? Perception, sensory contact, ( the resulting ) sensation and then comes the ( thought process projecting the ?) desire - "How lovely it is! I would like to have it". Desire or craving is the outcome of sensate values ( creating an) identification with the object of the senses. Desire with regard to ideas also follows the same process. The acceptance of an idea or the rejection of an idea is based merely on ( mental) gratification which is (also) sensate. So, the sensory values dominate and the ( highest ) sensory value is the (sense of the ) 'me' (who is) dominating the whole .
You can now understand how, because your ( subliminal assigning a 'psychological') values to property, to relationship and to ideation – which are all sensory - there is ( a brewing ) conflict within yourself and chaos in the society around you which is an expression of your ( and everybody's ?) inner conflict. You see that your neighbour is like you in many ways and both of you have only sensate values. So, there is no ( authentic) relationship between you and your neighbour; and therefore there is no relationship between you and society.
The 'thinker' and the ( process of its outward ) 'thinking' are now two different things because the 'me', (i.e. the thinker) , is ( assuming to be ) the permanent entity, (while its ) thoughts are impermanent. If the 'thinker' would ( foolishly try to?) identify with his thoughts , he would ( ASAP?) becomes impermanent - (an idea) which he does not like. Therefore, the ( process of) 'thought' is considered ( by the material brain) as separate from the 'I'; and there is always in the 'thinker' a sense of (temporal) continuity. And because you ( implicitly) think that you are separate from your thoughts and desires, you are all the time seeking ( to upgrade your) permanency by changing your thoughts and your desires through (self-) discipline, through systems (of meditation) and so on. But as has been stated already, whatever you the 'thinker' may do, it is always sensory and therefore impermanent. Thus, unless the 'me' who is the 'mischief-maker' is ( holistically?) tackled and transformed, the (temporal) 'me' will always create havoc in relationship with property, with family, and with ideas. (Hint:) The transformation of the 'thinker' will be 'radical' only when the separation of the 'thinker' from the ( vagrant streaming of its ?) 'thought' ceases. To sum up, the 'I' is made up of many ( psychological & objective ?) memories. The ('psychological') memories are the result of desire; the desire is the result of perception, contact, sensation, identification, which is ( creating the temporal continuity of?) the 'me'. So, ( subsequently) this ( temporal) 'I' which is the product of desire, cleverly separates himself from the (hectic movement of thought &) desire and ( operates on it in order for himself to?) remain permanent. That is a 'clever trick' (a master trick?) it is playing upon himself with a view to entrenching himself in continuity. This is the (hidden ) cause of the inner conflict in each individual and of the chaos which exists in the world at present; this state of affairs will continue till the trick is gone.
So, who (or what?) is going to make you 'look' ( inwardly ) ? Can any 'outside agency' make you look? Therefore, suffering comes to you as a (fair existential ?) warning. But every time you have suffering and sorrow, you look on it as a 'disturbance' and try to avoid it so as to continue in the same old state; this sort of action on the part of the mind has made your life one ( highly sophisticated?) series of ( diversions & fake ? ) conflicts in order to avoid "what is".
This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 01 Aug 2018. |
Back to Top |
Thu, 02 Aug 2018 | #111 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Public Talk in Madras 28th December, 1947 (reader friendly edited) K: This will be the last Sunday talk and I think it may be just as well if I made, a general survey of what we have been discussing during the last ten weeks.
So, we must begin near, that is, with our daily thoughts and feelings and actions which are (ASAP) revealed in the manner of earning our livelihood and in our relationship with (a) people, (b) ideas or beliefs.
Now, to bring order out of this confusion (is necessary some inner?) virtue. You can only bring order and peace and happiness through ( a 'virtuous' ?) self-knowledge. But... to know oneself is most difficult (as it requires) to be aware of the activities of your daily existence, ( not to mention?) thoughtfulness, intelligence, ( and a quality of integrated?) awareness which very few people are willing to practice. (a) This ( 'live' form of) self-knowledge implies knowing ( in real time) your 'daily action' - what you do, feel & think at every moment. This requires an extraordinary (amount of intelligent energy & ) alertness in order to pursue every thought, every feeling and to know (ASAP ?) all their ( open & hidden) content.
I have received many written questions, and I have chosen seven as representing the many and I am going to try to answer these seven questions as quickly and as concisely as possible. Question: Can an (uneducated?) man with many ( family) responsibilities understand and so carry out your Teachings without the aid of another, or without resorting to books and to teachers? Krishnamurti: Now, can ( self-) understanding be given to another? Can you be taught how to Love?
Now, surely in order to know yourself( in real time) - what you think & feel, you don't have to go to a (trained psy or to a ?) guru. Though it is 'arduous' no one can help you to follow out every thought & every feeling and to realize their full significance. ( On the other hand?) you and I can 'discuss' it and 'go into it' with complete concentration and (earnest?) interest. The moment you recognize your ( personal?) responsibility in your everyday relationships then that very process begins to 'unwrap' (unfold & expose ?) the ways of your own thought and action. So, very simply, you are aware of what you are doing, of what you are thinking, when you put on your 'sacred' threads, your 'namams', aware of the way you treat your wives, your children and your neighbours. Be aware every ( spare) moment (that you can afford?) and see what happens. You will see that when you are ( becoming) aware (of 'what is') , there will be a greater (inner) conflict than before; because you then begin to see the ( existential in-?) significance of your actions, of your thoughts and feelings, and this will bring you further misery. But, if what is (primarily) important is to be ( inwardly awake & ) creative , this 'creativeness' comes into being only when there is freedom (from the inner limitations of the 'known'?) . Only in a state of (inner) freedom from your (outer?) daily worries, is there ( an opportunity for ) creativeness, and this creativeness comes into (your) being when your daily problems are ( transcended & ) understood.
Question: What is the ( choiceless?) 'awareness' that you speak of? Is it the awareness of the supreme Universal Consciousness? Krishnamurti: Surely, Sirs, as you must begin very near to go very far - being (choicelessly?) aware means (for starters ?) being aware of yourself in relation to your neighbour, to the flower, to the bird, to the tree; to be aware of your own thoughts, feelings and actions. It (may seem) much easier to be aware of 'God', for you can lose yourself in imagination. But to be ( responsibly?) aware of your own daily acts, feelings & thoughts is much more 'painful' (or uncomfortable inwardly?).
You do this (naturally) when you are really interested in (finding out the truth about?) something - you give all your mind and heart to it. But to become aware and to pursue all the implications requires a great deal of (contemplative?) patience, a capacity to penetrate and to be still. You understand only when there is ( a timeless inner) stillness, when there is silent observation, passive awareness. Then the problem ( unfolds & ) yields its significance. So, ( in a nutshell:) the 'choiceless awareness' of which I am speaking of is awareness of 'what is', of the mind's ( routinely) activities in which are included ideas, beliefs but also of the ( subliminal) 'tricks' which the mind plays upon itself ( and/or upon others?) . So, by being aware of what is (going on within oneself?) , without ( any personal) condemnation, justification or identification, then you will see that there is a deeper understanding which ( eventually?) resolves our ( psychological?) problems. Question: I am very interested in your Teachings; I would like to spread them. What is the best way to do it? Krishnamurti: What you can repeat ( from memory) is (truth-wise ?) a lie. Truth can only be experienced directly; mere repetition is a lie because repetition implies ( a subliminal form of mental) imitation. It may be ( a 'live' experiencing of) Truth to someone, but when you repeat (or parrot ?) it, it ceases to be Truth. ( Spiritual) propaganda is one of the terribly (wrong) things in which we are caught. You know something or you don't know. Say, for instance, you believe in 'reincarnation'; you don't really know why you believe it but you want to spread that belief. What are you spreading in fact? Your belief, terms, words, your convictions which are still within the field, within the layer of verbal expression.
I don't think you know how catastrophic the whole situation is in the world now (at the end of 1947) . I don't have to frighten you. You have merely to pick up a newspaper and read about it. You are on the edge of a precipice and you just carry on, blind to what is happening (out there ?) . You can only alter it by a (holistic) transformation of yourself, but ( it cannot happen) if you are caught in the net of 'organizations'.
So, you can spread even a tiny part of what I have been talking about, only as you live it. It is by ( the holistic quality of ) your life that you communicate anything profoundly, not through words. Words and terms are of very little significance when you are really seeking Truth in (our everyday) relationship and not an abstract Truth of valuations, of things, or of ideas. But ( spreading the ?) words become very important when you are not ( sincerely ?) seeking Truth; then the word is (confused with the 'real') thing and then the ( verbal) thing catches you. So, if you want to spread these Teachings, live them, and by your life you will be spreading them (anonymously ?) which is much more significant.
Question: I have listened to what you have been saying and I feel that to carry out your teachings I must renounce the (restrictions of the ) world I live in. Krishnamurti: Sir, if you must renounce something, renounce the wrong (ego-centric) valuations which you have given to everything. Wrong valuations create havoc and it is from( consequences of ) these wrong valuations which cause the misery (of the world?) that you want to escape. You cannot (completely) withdraw from the world, to withdraw means isolation and you cannot live in (total) isolation. But you can live truly happily with the world when you are not of the world, which means you don't give wrong values to the things in the world. It is not by renouncing that you can find Reality. By renouncing you may escape into (a very cozy existence built on ?) illusion, but you do not discover that which is true. So, what I have been saying is that one must give right values to things, to relationship, to ideas and not try to escape from the world. It is comparatively easy to go away into isolation, but it is extremely arduous to be aware (of the false values and) and to give true values. Sirs, ( the material ) things have no ( spiritual) value in themselves. If psychologically (inwardly) you are feeling insufficient , your house becomes very important because you may identify yourself with the house, but if you understood ( the truth regarding?) your inward hollowness, then the problem would have very little meaning. Everything becomes extraordinarily significant when you are trying to use it to cover up your own ( inner sense of insufficiency & ?) loneliness. Similarly with relationship, with ideas, with belief.
Question: Moden life hurls at us one problem after another. Will the state of (choiceless?) awareness of which you (so often) speak, enable us to understand and solve, once and for all, all our ( psychological) problems or have they to be solved one after the other (as they come up ) ? Krishnamurti: There are several things involved in this question. You will be pursued by ( inner) problems, ( only) if you don't understand who is the 'creator' of problems. And if you understand 'who' is the creator of problems, then naturally you will not deal with the problems one by one; if you understand the ( root cause) cause and not merely the symptoms, then the symptoms cease to be. The other point in this question is whether ( our psychological ?) problems can be solved all at once, in one stroke to cut off at the root. But first we must discover who is the 'creator' of problems. If the creator is understood the problems will cease. The creator of the problem is the ( survival oriented ?) 'thinker', is he not? Now, is the thinker really separate from his (other) thoughts? If not, then being the creator, he can begin to 'solve (or...to dis-solve ?) himself' . And, why has the thinker separated himself from his (other ) thoughts? To give ( the personal brain a sense of temporal ?) permanency - the ( casual) thoughts being transient, mutable, can be altered, but the 'thinker' can ( continue for ever & ever as ?) the permanent entity, whereas his thoughts can be ( conveniently ?) changed according to the environmental influences . Now, how does the 'thinker' (mental entity) come into being? Obviously through ( a subliminal self- identification of ?) desire. Desire is the outcome of ( the sensory) perception, contact, sensation, identification and 'me'. (EG:) Perception of a car, contact, sensation, desire, identification, and... 'I' like it , 'I' want it . So, the (self-identified ) 'thinker' ( entity ) is the product of (will &) desire, and having produced the (vitual 'image' of the?) 'I', the 'I' ( goes on & ) separates itself from the thought because it can then transform the thought and yet remain permanent. So, as long as the 'thinker' is ( considering itself as being ) separate from his (ordinary) thoughts, there will be innumerable ( collateral) problems ; but if there is no such separation, if the thinker 'is' the thought, then what happens? Then the ( life-energy encapsulated within the ) 'thinker' undergoes a ( major qualitative) transformation, as I have said, that is ( the essential function of ?) Meditation. It is ( encompassing the inner journey of ) self-knowledge plus all that I have said about how the 'thinker' has come into being. You can test it out for yourself - starting with ( the non-dualistic approach of ) 'self-knowledge' and from that comes ( the Noble Art of?) Meditation. Meditation is the (happy?) ending of ( the illusory division between ? ) 'thought' & 'thinker', by not giving 'continuity' to the thinker. And when the 'thinker' ceases thinking, that Meditation begins. Meditation 'is' ( beginning with a non-dualistic approach to?) self-knowledge and without ( such ) self-knowledge there is no ( authentic?) Meditation. ( For optional homework?) you can go deeper and deeper starting with the centre which is the ( self-identified activity of) desire creating the ( temporal continuity of the ) 'I'. When you become aware of this whole process you will find that ( the process of thought -) time has ceased - 'time' as ( recycling the psychological ) memories of the past and ( projecting them into) the future - and that there is an Immediate ( Open Door to the?) Eternal Present and in this alone is Reality. This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 02 Aug 2018. |
Back to Top |
Fri, 03 Aug 2018 | #112 |
---|---|
![]() |
Selected excerpts from K's Group Discussions in Madras 1947 ( 'experientially frendly' edited) 29th December, 1947 On the practical advantages of dealing (in real time) with one's 'psychological' Karma K: You now want to know what 'Karma' means (in terms of inner experience) . Karma comprises (i) the (inherited) instinctive responses of the physical organism and (ii) the cultural responses of our 'psychological' being. Society impinges on the (consciousness of the) individual and changes his impulses. The 'individual' has also inherited impulses from his personal past. The ( karmically active memory of the?) past is (expressing itself as ) the 'me' and in conjunction with the ( ongoing challenges of the) present, the 'me', produces action. Thus, the 'actor' is the creator of ( its own continuity in?) time - the time of memory not chronological time. In this time-interval, cause and effect form a dynamic process . That which was the effect yesterday is now found to be the cause of your action today; this effect in turn will be the cause of something which will be noticed as effect tomorrow.
The whole (thing) is one continuous process and our thought's action is a continuous stream where the cause, the effect and the (controller or) 'modifier' are all part of the same (process) .
If you consider that the cause is different from the effect, that means you can modify the effect during this time-interval; this implies growth or progress in time towards a (glorious inner?) state already projected by you. ( Psychologically-wise?) this (mentality of becoming better in time ) is really false ; but when you realise that cause and effect are the same, you will cease to think in terms of time.
30th December, 1947 K: To love one another is one of the most difficult things, because there is in it always the shadow of pleasure and pain. Surely, there can be (selfless?) love when there is this sense of complete communion with another.
( Therefore) you have to understand (a) what is implied in 'being held' (psychologically attached ) to something and (b) that in the very desire to achieve anything (better?) , there is the seed of its (dualistic) opposite. In the process of 'becoming', achieving, gaining, there is always the 'conflict of the opposites', because the very desire to 'become something' creates its own opposite.
Supposing you realise that you are arrogant, and your (next spiritual) ideal is to achieve (the noble virtue of ) humility. This ideal is created by your not understanding ( the psychological mechanism of ) 'arrogance' which is the 'what is'. So, in ( trying to) become humble , in trying to achieve this ideal, there cannot be ( any place for critical ) thinking; since the (mind is following its ( desire for self-) achievement by 'becoming that ideal'. The ideal is (becoming ) the (ultimate) authority, whether it is imposed by others or by yourself , therefore, there is a cessation of (any critical) thinking and there is also the (lurking) fear (of not being able to achieve it?) . The man who is learning, watching and feeling (the true value of) things, does not require an ideal; he is active where he is. So, in 'becoming' there is the denial of 'what is', the denial of ( dealing with?) what you are. A man who is 'becoming' can never find Reality because he is not (holistically?) understanding 'what is', but wants to transform (or upgrade?) 'what is' (into its opposite?) . ( Hint:) By ( lovingly & intelligently?) understanding 'what is', perhaps a new thing will come into being.
There is, at present, ( a cultural) chaos in most of the countries and at least those ( few?) people who are ( at all ?) intelligent can really think it all out and lay the foundations for a new culture. An old house that is crumbling must be pulled down before you build a new one ; and in the process of pulling it down, those (clueless people) who look at it from outside may say that it is chaotic; but, the man who is 'pulling it down' is not affected by it, because he 'knows' what he is going to build. ( Back to dealing holistically with 'what is':)
( Bonus question # 1:) You want to know, 'how to love' ? "How to love ? " implies duality (a dualistic mentality?) , and in the very 'becoming' (more 'loving') there is a ( hidden) conflict of the opposites. If one understands the whole significance of the ( psychological desire of) 'becoming' it drops away, and one is faced with 'what is'. When he faces 'what is' - i.e. he is lacking in love - and goes deeper and deeper into it, he finds that he is (inwardly) nothing though he ( is wearing a very sticky & hypocritical ?) 'mask', behind all verbal (nice sounding ?) things intellectually produced there is absolutely nothing.
( Bonus question #2 : ) You ask me how you can feel as 'nothing' when you are constantly reminded by others that you are something ? You, by yourself, may feel and acknowledge ( the profound inner truth ) that you are nothing (no-a-thing) ; but, society and your friends say that you are something. If you acknowledge ( the inner truth ) that inwardly you are nothing , no amount of your ( opportunistic ?) friends telling you that you are a 'great man' is going to make you believe you are a great man. But if you ( may surreptitiously ?) think that you ( already have some inner ) greatness, then their telling you that you are a great man means a lot to you. ( Bonus question # 3) You want to know what will happen if you feel you are 'nothing' but you are married and have relationships ? There is your responsibility to the family; it means immediate communion because you are nothing and she want to be something. Because you are open completely and your wife is not, there is a ( subliminal) friction on her part, because she ( assumes to be) something and you are not. You love and you don't ask anything. You really love your wife or your neighbour, or your husband, because you are open. They may be closed and they may create (a collateral) trouble. You become more and more silent, and more and more loving. They may get more and more irritated (or aggravating?) .
(Bonus question # 4) You want to know what will happen when you feel that you are 'the whole' ? Feeling as 'the whole' (as 'You are the World' ?) comes perhaps later. But first, you are ( inwardly as?) nothing and you are not concerned with ( the spiritual benefits of?) what comes after. If you are concerned with what is beyond the nothingness, it means you are frightened of ( the 'psychological ending' involved in?) being nothing.
(Bonus question #5)
( For starters?) you are not concerned with will the 'others' ( think or do?) at all. ( But ) if you recognise ( the inward truth of?) 'what is' and live with it, you will see an (inner ?) revolution produced in you and therefore in the ( total Consciousness of ) the world. Surely (holistically-wise?) that is the most practical way of living. Out of that comes Creativeness, because when you accept 'what is' - i.e. in accepting what you are - you are free. Then you begin to Create. Then there is ( an inner Presence of?) Reality, God (or what you like to call it) and you will find a beautiful and really indescribable (sense of) Love - something that is self-created and which is its own eternity. 31st December, 1947 ( Bonus question# 6) Q: Isn't there some basic knowledge of psychology necessary to understand what we are discussing ? K: There is no ( real?) need to learn any 'psychological' terminology to understand what we have been discussing, especially as we have been using only ordinary ( but experientially friendly?) words . Self-knowledge is quite different from technical knowledge (especially in the?) case ( of the non-dualistic approach of ) self-knowledge which cannot be ( properly) communicated to another. For instance, to find a solution for ( a your 'existential'?) suffering you ( will ?) have to start with yourself , to enquire (earnestly ) and to find out the ( experiential) solution. Any amount of reading what other (philosophers ?) have said about suffering will not be of the same (quality ) as your own understanding of your ( personal) suffering or sorrow. Nowadays, more & more people go to psy's & (other) psychanalysts in order to dissolve their sorrow. ( Unfortunately?) when you gather ( lots of academic ?) knowledge in regard to 'psychology' (the study of the human psyche) , the gathering of knowledge from books further conditions your mind if you don't relate what you read to your action in daily life. If you care to analyse the question seriously, you will find that you can understand and face 'what is' without reading even a single ( specialised ) book. You have got your own ( ' firewall' of professional ) prejudice which translates the knowledge that you gather from books; and no book can point out to you that you are prejudiced nor can it teach you how to love. You can only discover ( the truth of this matter?) when the mind is fresh without any burden of book knowledge.
( Hint) An incomplete experience leaves a scar or a residue whereas a completed experience does not leave any residue. The problem then is how to 'act' without leaving a residue. Psychologically, you have to give an end to every one of your feelings. Otherwise, you carry it over and it becomes a burden. When you see the ( experiential) implications of 'continuing' the feeling and the truth of 'ending' the feeling so as to leave no residue, there is an immediate ending. Then there will be a (real opportunity for an) inner renewal. ( The thinking process based on accumulted ) memory continuing on and on is incapable of understanding. Therefore a mind seeking (openly or subliminally its own temporal) continuity can never meet the New.
( For homework:) It is necessary to experiment with this in your daily life, so that every thought and feeling comes to an end. This means you should be extremely careful as to what you say consciously or unconsciously, what you feel and what you do. Every word has a verbal and a nervous reaction which sets a wave going. Do not allow other's words to react upon you. Be careful not to use words which produce ( 'hard feelings' ) in others. Be careful about what books and newspapers you read. Similarly, since what you feel affects you nervously, you will find what tremendous effect (watching TV &) cinema-going has upon you. Cinema shows awaken ( hidden psychological) responses which will continue ( to influence us ) if they are not ended. Therefore, you are inclined to go again and again to movies. You have to understand ( what is wrong with) this and be free from all these (fake?) excitements. The 'ending' of a feeling is not the result of an inner battle to overcome it, but it is really seeing directly the truth of ending the feeling. ( Experiential Clue:) A feeling is ( automatically dragged into the field of?) thought when it is 'named'. When words have (produced emotionally loaded ) nervous responses both on yourself and on the individual in relationship with you, you'd better keep silent. Similarly, when you end a feeling, there is an immediate (sient) communion and there is complete understanding. ( Parting words ?) You should, all of you ( endeavour to?) live an (inner) life of (choiceless) awareness which is made possible only through Love and ( Holistic) Understanding. You will find Truth only through the ( non-personal ) awareness of your own thoughts, feelings and actions. Such awareness will free you ( ...ASAP ?) from your personal shortcomings and will enable you to solve your ( life-) problems without your striving to force any solution. Your daily life will then become (inwardly) rich and you will find joy in each & every one of life's ( passing) moments, and you will not be interested in ( artificial stimulations and/ or?) mechanical pursuits. Then, Reality will come into ( your own ) being. This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 04 Aug 2018. |
Back to Top |
Sun, 05 Aug 2018 | #113 |
---|---|
![]() |
Still More K Group Discussions in Madras, April, 1948 (reader friendly edited) K: As these ('spring break' ?) discussions will be for about three weeks, I would like to go directly to the root of the problem and not 'beat about the bush' : as long as we are looking for a change in the outward structure of society, such a change is only a modified continuity of 'what is' since it implies a change towards (within in the field of?) the known - intellectual, factual or utopian. Question: Is not the ( inner revolution your are suggesting?) another 'hop' within the same framework? Krishnamurti: Surely not. ( This inner) transformation is not a modified continuity but quite a different process. (However, in order to?) understand what a 'complete' ( inner) transformation means, we must ( take a brief philosophical detour and ?) understand what 'change' means. Any change which ( involves time?) is a modified continuity of the same thing as now exists. For instance, when we deliberately set about to change the present social system in regard to the outer conditions, is not all such change the same thing continued in a different form? We want a continuity of what we like and a discontinuity of what we do not like. Question: Isn't any biological growth also involving a ( constant) change? Krishnamurti: The growth of a tree is not a ( radically qualitative?) change but a ( steady) growth of the same tree. But we are referring here only to changes due to human action and not to ( the changes ) that occurs in nature.
Question: Is there ( an immediate?) transformation if we see things clearly? Krishnamurti: If I see ( the immediate danger of ) a cobra clearly & without any equivocation, do I touch it? I touch it only when I am doubtful about it being a ( living?) cobra. Why is it that we do not see problems that (inwardly) are vital as clearly as we see a poisonous snake? If we see a problem vitally and recognise its (true) significance, then, we shall act properly in relation to war, nationalism, in our relationship to nature, other individuals, ideas and problems of our daily existence. Therefore, either we got immune to poison (of psychological nature ?) by constant habit, (and/) or because we do not want to see (the false cultural values as being really false?) .
Question: How can we find the true cause of there being no ( vital interest for ) immediate ( inner) transformation? Krishnamurti: One reason is that ( by functioning in the 'self'-protected mode?) you got immune to the poison. ( But supposing that?) we realise that an immediate ( qualitative inner ) transformation is the only ( comprehensive ) solution of all our problems - what is it that prevents that marvellous thing happening to me, from my seeing the immense significance of transforming immediately?
Question: Why did not that person see this earlier? Krishnamurti: What are the causes that prevent your seeing the ( psychological poison of such ) things, so that they drop away? What is the element that is required to say I ''see it'' and it is gone .
Question: Well, everyone coming here wants ( a radical inner) transformation. I, for one, have no fear. Yet, there is no transformation. Why is this? Krishnamurti: ( The intelligence of?) Love is the only thing that transforms. You can have actual experience of this. Have you not fallen in love with some one? Have you not been spontaneously affectionate with another? Question: We have been affectionate to others in our own house; yet, there has been no transformation... Krishnamurti: You do not see the 'cobra', you do not see that (consciousness -wise ) you are on the edge of an (existential?) precipice. Is that the trouble? Why do you not see it? Question: We see all the ongoing chaos but we feel helpless. Krishnamurti: The ( global cloud of ) confusion is so colossal that our individual acts can obviously do nothing - for instance, against the use of the atomic bomb. But as a (free) individual, I can create a ( new social) structure away from all this confusion. We cannot persuade the big politicians to do what we think is correct; but we, though we are small people, we can start somewhere else, i. e., with ourselves.
Question: Doesn't this imply isolating ourselves from the world? Krishnamurti: No. Are you not ( psychologically) isolated right now in your relationship with your wife, etc.? Is this not creating the mess in the world? Question: How can all this inner condition be changed? Krishnamurti : I cannot ( properly?) understand ( & transcend?) myself if I am ( consciously or not?) tethered to anything - property, ideas or things. If I want to explore the South Seas, I must leave Madras. I am tethered ( to my own self-interest?) when I say "what does it matter so long as I get what I want." (In a nutshell:) A mind that says "I want to understand Reality and I am seeking Truth" and yet is tethered (to its open or hidden self-interest?) , is a dishonest ( a conveniently 'hypocritical'?) mind.
Question: Why is not the mind honest at least with itself, though not in regard to others? Krishnamurti: I am not (coming) 'face to face' with myself because I do not know what the (end-) result of this could be. There are so many different ( self-protecting psychological?) masks. One day I am ( simply selfish & ) greedy, another day I am ( thinking of myself as?) 'generous' and 'charitable', etc. So, which is the 'me' to which I have to be ( consistent with & ) honest when ( consciousness-wise ) am broken up into different parts. Unless I am (totally stuck or ) neurotic, I cannot say definitely "I am this". There are many contradictory (trends?) in me. In this state of ( inner fragmentation & ) contradiction, I cannot be honest. I can be honest only when the contradiction in my thinking ceases. To think truly, I must get rid of ( the root cause of this inner?) contradiction. Do you know that you are (inwardly ) in contradiction? Question: At any one instant, there is no visible contradiction. Contradiction arises only when I analyse the past and the present. Krishnamurti: There is a ( existential ?) contradiction always going on in us. Only honest direct understanding will lead to the ceasing of contradiction. To understand something, I must give my full attention to it, which is possible when there is no contradiction in me. Question: What do you mean by 'contradiction'? Krishnamurti: We are (inwardly) in contradiction, for instance, when we want to go somewhere else and yet we want to stay here. In that state ( of split desire?), ( the 'thinker's) choice exists; and so, as long as choice exists, there must be conflict. ( The thinker's?) 'choice' exists because you are confused . There is no choice when you see a thing clearly. Contradiction is when I do not see clearly, when ( my rational) choice comes into action. When I see clearly what I want to do, there is no choice and no contradiction.
Question: Are we not always in daily life, if we are intelligent, making a choice? Krishnamurti: For factual ( objective) things, you must choose. But psychological 'choice' is when you are ( inwardly blind or?) confused. ( As a result?) a mind which is ( inwardly blind or?) confused and is choosing does not know what it is doing.
Questioner: I dropped 'belief' and 'authority' after I heard your talk on 'fear', at No. 14, Sterling Road. Krishnamurti: You dropped them because you were ( brought) face to face with the problem and there was no ( possibilty of a strategic ) retreat. You got rid of authority when you faced its ( psychological fallacy ) directly.
**Question: Can we help it? Krishnamurti: If I offer you something, will you take it? Take, for instance, a ( Good) doctor. If I would be the patient, I will not leave the (visits to the good?) ) doctor till I am well. Is not this relationship essential? Between the doctor and the patient, there must be mutual affection - so is the case between you and me. When you ( intelligently ?) love somebody, then there is open receptivity, communion between both; there is ( a sharing of) understanding. Because there is no ( an intelligent sharing based on?) affection - which means 'love' - there is no immediate transformation. Is that the element which is missing in all of us ? Therefore, there is no real communication between us, but only on the (intellectual level) . We are (remaining) on the edge of things and not in the centre. When there is (the Intelligence of) Love, there are no ( personal) sentiments and no emotions.** Question: Apparently, we do not know what this (Intelligent ) Love is... Krishnamurti: You are going to know it. There is no flame without smoke. This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 05 Aug 2018. |
Back to Top |
Mon, 06 Aug 2018 | #114 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussion Madras, 1948 ('reader friendly' edited) K Last time we were talking about the importance of immediate transformation and about the things that prevent us from a radical (inner) regeneration. We were discussing the importance of the individual and his relationship with the world; how when there is a contradiction, there cannot be honest thinking; and how real understanding brings about transformation; and also, that love is not sentiment or emotion.
Question: Well, the generally accepted idea that unless the mass ( consciousness ) changes, there is no use of any individual working. Krishnamurti: Is mass action the only action? Groups can be influenced, persuaded, (or just...) regimented to accept ( glorious ? ) nationalistic ideas, but if you begin to think, to be aware, to question, you cease to be ( part of) the mass (consciousness) . When you do not accept authority, tradition, belief, then you become a (free thinking?) individual; otherwise, you are one of a conglomeration of people driven. If it is so, you are an individual seeking the truth for itself and therefore you are inviting ( for yourself?) an infinite lot of trouble. (But?) if you really have undergone such an inward revolution, your ( ego-centric & mechanistic ?) behaviour to your family and to others will be transformed. We also discussed that there can be 'immediate' (inner) transformation only when there is a clear, honest (& global) perception of the problems. Is (not our indulging in ) living in ( a state of psychological) contradiction one of our difficulties - ( torn between?) opposing desires & opposing demands? Therefore, we never ( have a conflict-free inner space to) see the problem 'as it is' and we (indulge in) giving it a different interpretation from what it is. Why do we ( accept to) live (inwardly) in contradiction? Are we aware we live in contradiction? We talk about peace and anything we do is towards war. We talk about brotherhood and we have castes, classes and titles. We want physical security and we do everything to destroy the global security. Question: What is it that destroys security? Krishnamurti: Nationalism destroys physical security. It brings about war. Everything we do psychologically is against peace. Question: When we 'jump out' of this inner state of contradiction, will there be (ASAP?) a honest thinking? Or, must we first i( take some quality time to meditate seriously on this subject ?) ? Krishnamurti: ( For starters?) are you aware that you are ( living inwardly ) in contradiction? I need a little ( personal) property, but the ( subliminal desire for) 'psychological' expansion through that property leads to ( envy & ) hatred. Question: I may not, but another may seek self-expansion. What to do then? Krishnamurti: Then you will not cause hatred. You will start a new ( holistically friendly?) culture. Question: Where is the 'contradiction' in seeking self-expansion through property? Krishnamurti: As I said, seeking ( to optimise one's inner) security through ( gathering material) properties ( does ultimately ) leads to ( envy & ) hatred and therefore there will be no peace. ( Not to mention that) as we live ( entangled ) in such 'contradictions' in different ways we do everything to destroy affection. If that is seen as true , we must first become fully aware of them and put an end to them. We cannot 'jump out' of it, it is not a ( tramplin?) net. We must become conscious of our thoughts and actions and become intelligent about every one of our activities.
Question: Has this not something to do with capacity? Krishnamurti: No. (Not really?) Only a few have capacity; capacity is a gift. But if you see (the inner truth?) that a mind in ( living in internal ) contradictions cannot see honestly, then you pursue every talk alertly and see where the contradiction lies and so on, till there is no contradiction (left) . You can either shut your eyes to your ( indulging in a ) state of inner contradiction or you can become aware of the (ongoing) contradictions that exist ( in your psyche?) . If you are ( becoming responsibly?) aware, you go after every contradiction. ( Experiential hint:) You cannot 'do away' with contradiction unless you are healthy physically, and you must also become (observant & ) intelligent about everything you do. This has nothing ( much?) to do with 'capacity'. Question: But still, some people are more aware than others... Krishnamurti: Why ( indulge in ) comparing yourself with others? To watch from moment to moment your thoughts and your feelings, does it mean 'capacity'? Please try for yourself and experiment (for homework ?) Question: I would really want to try it (your way ?) , and therefore I want to get that capacity (of doing it naturally & effortlessly?) . Krishnamurti: Your ( greedy ?) desire for ( achieving a top-of-the-line ) capacity (of awareness) is preventing the experimentation itself . I am not interested in ( upgrading the 'capacity' of self-awareness) . Questioner : Then, how can you 'try to be aware' from moment to moment? Krishnamurti: Try to become conscious of (and understand in real time ?) what you are doing . You want to know what to do 'to try' ? Questioner : I feel that I am aware of what I am doing. Krishnamurti: Are you? Are you aware of the ( deeply hidden ?) contradictions? When you are doing pooja, do you ( also try to?) find the whole meaning of it, i.e., whether you do it because your family likes it or because it gives you an emotional kick? This finding of the whole meaning of what you do, is what is meant by being ( choicelessly & non-personally?) 'aware'. Question: The fundamental urge is to seek ( a long lasting sense of ) happiness. As long as it gives me satisfaction, is it not happiness? Krishnamurti: Then, what is your problem? Is it for satisfaction to continue (forever ) ? You can take a drink and be blind to the ( sad state of the ) world, and you can (momentarily ) think that you are happy. But, the morning after the drink, you 'pay for it' (in psychological Bitcoins ?) . You cannot maintain the immediate pleasure always. ( Choiceless awareness?) is not a question of capacity or personal gift. On the contrary, we can all do this (providing that we ) take ( an earnest) interest in it, experiment with it ( in our daily meditations?) and go at it seriously.
Question: Even when we see the (our own state of inner) contradiction, we are ( deviously?) getting lost in positive or negative thinking. Krishnamurti: When you (really) see (your state of inner ) contradiction you will not be lost. You go into the problem, look at it and then see what is. Question: Then...I am not aware of any ( inner state of) contradiction. Krishnamurti: That is it. You can be aware of ( your inner) contradictions only when you are inwardly alert (of their danger?) ; then only you can go into ( examining ) the contradictions. Question: I don't see any contradiction if I pursue what I like. Krishnamurti: If you do not see any contradiction, it does not mean that there is no ( hidden) contradiction. ( Here's a simple test?) to know for yourself whether you are in a state of contradiction or not. If there is no contradiction, your mind will be ( naturally) still, quiet. But apparently your mind is not quiet (inwardly) , but restless. To know ( the whole truth about it?) I must look at it and focus my attention on it without being distracted. There is no 'exclusiveness' in ( that holistic quality of inner ?) awareness. Question: I don't understand you. Krishnamurti: ( The holistic ) attention is not 'exclusive'. When you go out for a walk what happens? You are receiving all the impressions, about birds, people, cars, etc., if you are alert and if you are not (fully) immersed in a (personal) problem. You can give your (free) attention to any one of these things and yet be receptive to the other (inner) impressions also. The mind, if not drugged by an (obsessive personal ?) problem, is openly receiving impressions; in that state of ( inner) receptivity, one object, out of all the many, can be looked at more closely (without excluding the presence of the others) If I have a ( personal) problem and concentrate on it through effort (in order to solve it ASAP?) , this is an exclusive (attitude) . Through exclusion, I cannot understand it (holistically) , I may miss something which may help me to understand it.
Question: If all of us would talk simultaneously can you still listen? Krishnamurti: It is no possible even to hear clearly and listen to anyone if several of you talk at the same time. To be aware is to be open. Therefore, awareness is not ( the result of a long) practice, it is not a 'habit'. The moment I create a habit (of neing aware) , it is ( a mechanical) exclusion.
Question: This also means we must not approach a problem with ( personal) 'preconception' ? Krishnamurti: Yes. It is difficult. You must free the mind from all conclusions. For this, we must be aware of the existence of those 'conclusions'. If I understand the prejudice and let it go away, then I am open. The ( self-sustained continuity of the?) problem will cease when the prejudices ( that created it?) are removed.
Question: When you approach a problem without a ( self-protective mental) 'screen', you say 'there is no problem'. What does this mean? Krishnamurti: Take any ( everyday) 'psychological' problem. You always quote (the thoughts of other Masters of Wisdom) and ( ASAP) get the ( interpreting grid or ?) 'screen' between you and the actual problem. If this ( problem recognition ) screen is removed, you can see the problem clearly.
Question: If I am ( feeling creatively ) happy, can the people who are present here share it (in real time?) ? Krishnamurti: If there is an (authentic) smile, even an ( uncultured or ) 'ignorant' man responds. (Which reminds us that:) the primary factor that brings about ( a holistic inner) revolution is Love. ( Hint : this?) Love is not sentiment, not emotion.
This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 06 Aug 2018. |
Back to Top |
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 | #115 |
---|---|
![]() |
From 'honest thinking' to the activation of a new 'inwardly perceptive' instrument K Group Discussion in Madras, April, 1948 ('read-ex' - reader & experientially - friendly edited) K: We were discussing last time why it ( does not seem) possible to bring about an immediate (inner) transformation. ( One reason could be that ? ) there is no authentic honesty of thinking where there is an (ongoing inner) contradiction. When a man is ( inwardly caught in an inner ?) contradiction, though he may think in a series of positive actions, his action is merely a negation (of the action in the living present?) . What is it that brings about a fundamental transformation?
Question: Is there any moment when a self-centred mind can be said to be thinking ( honestly)? Krishnamurti: Where there is ( an open or hidden inner) contradiction, there is no ( 'straight' ) thinking. What is the process of thinking? Audience: Thinking implies setting in motion the contents of the mind, preconceived notions etc. Krishnamurti: You say that thinking is a movement of various conclusions and memories, this putting in motion being due to a new challenge. Thinking is the movement of the ( 'known'-based?) mind in response to a challenge. Question: 'Thinking is response to challenge'.... This is a rather vague
Krishnamurti: The process of 'discovering and experiencing' as (currently exersed) in science experiments, is it ( the result of) thinking (within the 'known') ? Question: In experiencing, this kind of ( knowledge) correlated 'thinking' seems to stop. Krishnamurti: The common process of 'thinking out' ( a problem) is always directed towards finding an answer. In that process of thinking I rely on my ( available 'bank of) memory', factual (objective) as well as 'psychological' (subjective) . The ( educated?) response of memory in the process of enquiry, I call 'thinking'. ( In a nutshell : ) Thinking starts with a ( call & ) response of memory towards an answer, searching out an issue.
Question: Cannot a conclusion be new? Krishnamurti: I am not sure it is. Thought is the product of conclusions, memories. Question: Darwin's ( fact-based) thinking led to the discovery of the 'theory of evolution'. Krishnamurti: How does a 'new theory' come into being? Is it the result of previous thoughts? Question: In Science, you can only arrive at the 'truth of things' by ( using your objective & rational ) thinking. Krishnamurti: Do you not 'think' (or...'think -think-think'?) up to a certain point and then (the insightful mind) suddenly 'jumps'? Does that 'jumping' state come because of your (dilligent) thinking (within the field of the known?) ? Is thought essential to that ( insight-friendly) state, when the 'new' (truth) is perceived? Is the ( memory of the?) 'old' the spring-board to the New? Question: ( Inwardly speaking?) unless the mind has moved through the labyrinth of the old, we cannot see (and/or appreciate the redeeming value of?) the New. Krishnamurti: When do you see a new ( inner) clarity, a new 'meaning'? Is it as a result of serious thinking? When does the 'new' take place (comes into one's being?) ? I have thought about a problem within the field of the previously known ( ideas & ) conclusions, and I cannot solve it. Suddenly the flash (of Insight) comes when the mind ceases to worry. Would it not come if I had not worried? Question: Is it ever possible to leave alone thought, until we are sure that there is nothing to be found? Krishnamurti: I have a (real life) problem and I search for the solution in the field of the known. I investigate into the field of the known and then when my minds is exhausted, I drop it. Are you saying that it is necessary to exhaust (all the avenues of?) the known before the 'new' is perceived ? Question: There can be application only of known facts in Science. Krishnamurti: The 'scientist' is dealing with the known ( with the 'knowable'?) and not with the Unknown. If there is a (deeper human) problem which cannot be dealt with in the field of ( educated guesses &) conclusions, what do you do? When the ( conscious) mind has dropped ( all hopes to solve a psychological ) problem; and then, the 'new' comes in suddenly. Actually, you worry, worry & worry; and suddenly you may get the new solution (or not?) . You say that there must be a previous examination of all the relevant facts before the new comes in ? Question: Well, yes, because a 'haphazard' mind can never get anything new. Krishnamurti: Do you not suddenly see ( the inner truth of?) something which is not a new view of the old, but something entirely new?
Question: Absence of thought-process is not necessary for stillness. Krishnamurti: ( The thought-free ?) stillness is not the ( rigid?) stillness of death. It is ( a living state of?) passive alertness. Question: When we are discussing here , are we not thinking? Krishnamurti: In our discussing, we (insightfully) went through removing the old misconceptions. The process of thinking comes in only in the stage of verbalization. Question: The process of enquiry, discarding of ideas, is not this a hindrance to stillness? Krishnamurti: The ( inner) stillness gives a new answer. Actually, once we see the necessity of ( a total inner) stillness, we need not go through the thought-process. Question: Is 'not having a problem' a process of thinking? Krishnamurti: Silence is when the 'thinker' ( the creator of the problem !) ceases to 'think'. We do not see things as they ( really) are if we 'think' within the field of the known. ( The authentic inner) Discovery takes place only when the thought-process ( the 'thinker-thinking' process?) ceases. When I see the (absolute ) necessity of (inner) silence, I do not need to cultivate silence. The moment we see that silence is essential, we are (ASAP naturally?) silent. Question: The intention to find the truth and the discovery of the truth can come only when there is silence. Do these not form a ('vertical' ?) 'process'? Krishnamurti: When I 'see' the importance of silence, is it a verbal process or an inward ( 'vertical' or timeless?) process? Please investigate your own minds. I put an (experientially challenging?) question to you. Are you 'thinking it out'? Isn't 'seeing things directly' different from ( using the ?) thought-process ? You ( first ) saw the importance of silence and then you talk or verbalize about it. Through verbalizing (& processing it intellectually) you do not see. Thought- process begins only in ( the outward) communications with another, or in recording, or in experiencing ( 'outward' stuff?) . Thought-process is not necessary for ( the inner) experiencing. Question: You tell us something (of a revolutionary nature?) We are experiencing it in the light of our memories and then we accept it. Is it not thinking? Krishnamurti: The 'creative' state of being does not come through ( a creative ?) technique. Thought-process does not produce transformation. You can 'jump' (by-pass the linear thought process?) right into discovery. Question: Is not thought-process a hindrance to ( a holistic inner?) transformation? Krishnamurti: Certainly. Therefore, if the thought-process is not the right instrument, what is ( the new perceptive instrument?) ? Question: Learning and studying, is it the same thinking process or something different? Krishnamurti: Is there any 'thinking process' involved in directly looking at facts? Is (the homework study & ) learning necessary for ( seeing the vital necessity of ) this silence? Obviously not.
|
Back to Top |
Tue, 07 Aug 2018 | #116 |
---|---|
![]() |
From 'honest thinking' to the activation of a new 'inwardly perceptive' instrument K Group Discussion in Madras, April, 1948 ('read-ex' - reader & experientially - friendly edited) K: We were discussing last time why it ( does not seem) possible to bring about an immediate (inner) transformation. ( One reason could be that ? ) there is no authentic honesty of thinking where there is an (ongoing inner) contradiction. When a man is ( inwardly caught in an inner ?) contradiction, though he may think in a series of positive actions, his action is merely a negation (of the action in the living present?) . What is it that brings about a fundamental transformation?
Question: Is there any moment when a self-centred mind can be said to be thinking ( honestly)? Krishnamurti: Where there is ( an open or hidden inner) contradiction, there is no ( 'straight' ) thinking. What is the process of thinking? Audience: Thinking implies setting in motion the contents of the mind, preconceived notions etc. Krishnamurti: You say that thinking is a movement of various conclusions and memories, this putting in motion being due to a new challenge. Thinking is the movement of the ( 'known'-based?) mind in response to a challenge. Question: 'Thinking is response to challenge'.... This is a rather vague
Krishnamurti: The process of 'discovering and experiencing' as (currently exersed) in science experiments, is it ( the result of) thinking (within the 'known') ? Question: In experiencing, this kind of ( knowledge) correlated 'thinking' seems to stop. Krishnamurti: The common process of 'thinking out' ( a problem) is always directed towards finding an answer. In that process of thinking I rely on my ( available 'bank of) memory', factual (objective) as well as 'psychological' (subjective) . The ( educated?) response of memory in the process of enquiry, I call 'thinking'. ( In a nutshell : ) Thinking starts with a ( call & ) response of memory towards an answer, searching out an issue.
Question: Cannot a conclusion be new? Krishnamurti: I am not sure it is. Thought is the product of conclusions, memories. Question: Darwin's ( fact-based) thinking led to the discovery of the 'theory of evolution'. Krishnamurti: How does a 'new theory' come into being? Is it the result of previous thoughts? Question: In Science, you can only arrive at the 'truth of things' by ( using your objective & rational ) thinking. Krishnamurti: Do you not 'think' (or...'think -think-think'?) up to a certain point and then (the insightful mind) suddenly 'jumps'? Does that 'jumping' state come because of your (dilligent) thinking (within the field of the known?) ? Is thought essential to that ( insight-friendly) state, when the 'new' (truth) is perceived? Is the ( memory of the?) 'old' the spring-board to the New? Question: ( Inwardly speaking?) unless the mind has moved through the labyrinth of the old, we cannot see (and/or appreciate the redeeming value of?) the New. Krishnamurti: When do you see a new ( inner) clarity, a new 'meaning'? Is it as a result of serious thinking? When does the 'new' take place (comes into one's being?) ? I have thought about a problem within the field of the previously known ( ideas & ) conclusions, and I cannot solve it. Suddenly the flash (of Insight) comes when the mind ceases to worry. Would it not come if I had not worried? Question: Is it ever possible to leave alone thought, until we are sure that there is nothing to be found? Krishnamurti: I have a (real life) problem and I search for the solution in the field of the known. I investigate into the field of the known and then when my minds is exhausted, I drop it. Are you saying that it is necessary to exhaust (all the avenues of?) the known before the 'new' is perceived ? Question: There can be application only of known facts in Science. Krishnamurti: The 'scientist' is dealing with the known ( with the 'knowable'?) and not with the Unknown. If there is a (deeper human) problem which cannot be dealt with in the field of ( educated guesses &) conclusions, what do you do? When the ( conscious) mind has dropped ( all hopes to solve a psychological ) problem; and then, the 'new' comes in suddenly. Actually, you worry, worry & worry; and suddenly you may get the new solution (or not?) . You say that there must be a previous examination of all the relevant facts before the new comes in ? Question: Well, yes, because a 'haphazard' mind can never get anything new. Krishnamurti: Do you not suddenly see ( the inner truth of?) something which is not a new view of the old, but something entirely new?
Question: Absence of thought-process is not necessary for stillness. Krishnamurti: ( The thought-free ?) stillness is not the ( rigid?) stillness of death. It is ( a living state of?) passive alertness. Question: When we are discussing here , are we not thinking? Krishnamurti: In our discussing, we (insightfully) went through removing the old misconceptions. The process of thinking comes in only in the stage of verbalization. Question: The process of enquiry, discarding of ideas, is not this a hindrance to stillness? Krishnamurti: The ( inner) stillness gives a new answer. Actually, once we see the necessity of ( a total inner) stillness, we need not go through the thought-process. Question: Is 'not having a problem' a process of thinking? Krishnamurti: Silence is when the 'thinker' ( the creator of the problem !) ceases to 'think'. We do not see things as they ( really) are if we 'think' within the field of the known. ( The authentic inner) Discovery takes place only when the thought-process ( the 'thinker-thinking' process?) ceases. When I see the (absolute ) necessity of (inner) silence, I do not need to cultivate silence. The moment we see that silence is essential, we are (ASAP naturally?) silent. Question: The intention to find the truth and the discovery of the truth can come only when there is silence. Do these not form a ('vertical' ?) 'process'? Krishnamurti: When I 'see' the importance of silence, is it a verbal process or an inward ( 'vertical' or timeless?) process? Please investigate your own minds. I put an (experientially challenging?) question to you. Are you 'thinking it out'? Isn't 'seeing things directly' different from ( using the ?) thought-process ? You ( first ) saw the importance of silence and then you talk or verbalize about it. Through verbalizing (& processing it intellectually) you do not see. Thought- process begins only in ( the outward) communications with another, or in recording, or in experiencing ( 'outward' stuff?) . Thought-process is not necessary for ( the inner) experiencing. Question: You tell us something (of a revolutionary nature?) We are experiencing it in the light of our memories and then we accept it. Is it not thinking? Krishnamurti: The 'creative' state of being does not come through ( a creative ?) technique. Thought-process does not produce transformation. You can 'jump' (by-pass the linear thought process?) right into discovery. Question: Is not thought-process a hindrance to ( a holistic inner?) transformation? Krishnamurti: Certainly. Therefore, if the thought-process is not the right instrument, what is ( the new perceptive instrument?) ? Question: Learning and studying, is it the same thinking process or something different? Krishnamurti: Is there any 'thinking process' involved in directly looking at facts? Is (the homework study & ) learning necessary for ( seeing the vital necessity of ) this silence? Obviously not.
|
Back to Top |
Wed, 08 Aug 2018 | #117 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussion 18th April, 1948 ('reader friendly' edited ) K: We have been discussing that ( when and if?) the 'individual' transforms himself, there is a possibility of a revolution in the ( surrounding) world to which (s)he is in immediate relationship. ( However the psychological ?) contradictions impede the ( clarity of?) individual thinking ( since) they are not only the superficial contradiction in every-day-existence but also there are ( hidden ) contradictions of the deeper layers of (human) consciousness.
Question: If there is no emotional fervour, there is no possibility of any inner alteration. Krishnamurti: Have you ever had any emotions? Question: Yes, when I have disturbance of some sort or other... Krishnamurti: Are emotions the instruments of transformation? Will the intensity of our emotions transform (the human psyche?) ? You say that great grief can transform an individual, or an ecstasy can. But...can they bring about a sustained revolution of values? Can sorrow be the instrument of (our inner) transformation? Can sorrow beget ( loving & compassionate?) intelligence? ( Suppose that) my son dies. Will the ( resulting) sorrow of (my deep existential ) loneliness bring about a revolution of values? Will the shock of my son's death change my character? Question: Has not grief a chastening effect on the soul? Krishnamurti: Is grief a means of betterment of character, of the soul, of your being? Question: Why not ? Krishnamurti: Grief has no ( long term ) effect on character; it is my attitude towards that grief that makes a change in me : facing the actual state (of existential sorrow?) without seeking any 'escape' from it, leads to inner revolution. Devotion, various forms of sentimentality may modify the superficial structure of one's being but they cannot bring about a ( holistic) transformation which is a complete alteration in direction. Why is it then that there is no transformation? Question: The ( subliminal?) desire to 'escape' is an impediment. Krishnamurti: Yes, it is one factor. Dishonesty is another factor. Thought as a means to transformation is another. The idea of 'becoming', evolution, the giving of the time-interval is another. The (inner) transformation (we are talking about?) is a complete rebirth. Have you not felt it when you have given up ( the psychological attachment to) something? Why are we not (inwardly) creative? You have to discover for yourself what stands in the way of transformation. ( Hint:) Is love ( the missing factor?) ? I can think about the objects of my love but I cannot think about the ( holistic inner) state which I call Love. I can think about the emotions. We may call these (gratifying ?) emotions 'love', though incorrectly. Emotions may be good or evil but they are only a different aspect of ( our self-centred ) thinking. Question: Love is obviously not born of the thought-process. Krishnamurti: You are right. When there is a ( loving?) feeling, the naming of that feeling is ( part of the ) the thought-process. Thought arises also from stimuli. Thought is a response of memory and memory is a record in which the names, terms, incomplete experiences, the result of stimuli, exist. Feeling is also the result of stimuli. So, what is the difference between thought and feeling? Question: Verbalised response of memory is thinking and feeling is the state before verbalising, before giving it a name; it is also a ( sensate) response. Krishnamurti: What is the difference between 'feeling' and 'thinking'? Is it not a ( clever trick?) of the (conscious) mind to separate these two so that it may deal with them (in an ordely way?) ? The 'thinking-feeling' process is perception, contact, sensation, desire and naming. When you think about a person, you have an (an associated 'psychological') sensation which is another form of feeling. You have ( a very sincere ) devotion for your guru, for your ( spiritual) ideal. Has it transformed you? Question: Such a devotion is obviously an impediment. Krishnamurti: It is still within the field of memory. So, if the thought- process is an impediment, then 'sentimentality' ( to have a sense of human warmth) - called noble devotion, etc., - is also an impediment because it is all in the ( previously known?) field of thought. If you see the truth of this, there is freedom from (both) ; and that freedom itself is enough. You will not use emotions, devotion, as a means of inner transformation. Question: We would all like to be (inwardly?) transformed (ASAP?) but nothing that we know, leads to this ( holistic) transformation. Krishnamurti: The main point is whether there is is a transforming factor, not eventually, but 'now'. You say you are incapable. Why incapable? You do give yourself over to something if you are vitally interested in it. Question: Is it because we are not ( inwardly really ?) honest ? Krishnamurti: Why are you not honest? You must find out the whole substance of this. If you realize that it is only now there can be transformation and that transformation is essential for happiness and for a new structure in society, you have to find out what the impediments are. If thought prevents understanding, then emotion will also prevent it, as does ( any self-interest tainted feeling of ?) devotion, ecstasy, joy. We must go outside the field of all this.
Is there a state (a dimension of our inner being?) which is not in the field of thought, something beyond the thought-process? I can only find this out when the 'thought- process' ceases. We see now the importance of the ceasing of the thought-process, of feeling. You (must) have experienced (in your meditation homework?) that it is possible to have a complete cessation of (the continuance of?) thought, no matter even if it was for a split second, when your mind is alert (fully awake?) and passive; when your ( self-conscious) mind is not active because it has understood that ( indulging in) thought is an impediment. When the thought-process is not functioning, you and I are completely open to each other and there is no barrier. It is only when we love each other that there can be complete openness between us. Why is this not ( applicable to?) your experience? We see the possibility of being completely open and this state of openness is only when there is Love. Therefore, this 'love' is a ( natural?) state ( of one's inner being?) when the mind is extraordinarily alert, except that 'you' ( the knowledgeable 'thinker' ?) cannot think about it. ( For some additional meditation homework ?) You should ( try to) perceive ( non-personally?) the (various self-centred ) activities of thought. When you are ( becoming non-dualistically?) aware of your thought-process, it will cease to function ( towards building its self-continuance) and the ( totality of the ) mind will be completely ( silent?) quiet and open and then it will able to discover ( by direct experience?) what is beyond the thought-process. |
Back to Top |
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 | #118 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussion April, 1948 ('read-ex' friendly edited) The inwardly regenerative virtues of 'Not-knowing' K: We have discussed the importance of immediate transformation (in the human consciousness ? ) and how it can be brought about; also how this individual regeneration is a time-free process. The 'time' element is introduced whenever we allow the thought-process to take place. Realizing that no ( inner) regeneration can take place within ( the continuity of though-) time, how are we to set about to have transformation? Question: Can we do anything about it? The moment we try to do something, we seem to imitate some pattern of conduct or another. Krishnamurti: It is an important question. Can anything be done to bring about this inward transformation? Any ( known) action on my part is within the field of thought as it necessitates a choice. How is choice made? With memory. What is memory? Incomplete experience. If you understand or experience something completely, the 'psychological' memory of it is absent; you may remember the incident but there is no emotional content. Question: Psychological memory may act 'subconsciously' whereas factual memory is within the superficial layers of consciousness. Krishnamurti: We are discussing whether ( a regenerative inner) transformation can be effected by any action on my part ( within the field of the known ?) . Obviously, such an act will not lead to such transformation.
Question: If I cannot have a new way of thinking or new ( time-free?) perception as long as my mind is clouded with old ( residual) thoughts, (the 1000 $ experiential question is :) What am I to do? Krishnamurti: (For starters?) you realize that 'you' cannot do anything with regard to immediate inward transformation. Question: Then I feel helpless... Krishnamurti: Have you realized that as long as your action is within the field of the known, you cannot transform yourself by doing anything? If you have realized it, then the activities of your mind which wants to do something or other, are all cut one after another and finally you realize deeply that you cannot do anything about it.
Question: Transformation is not in the plane of ( temporal ) action. Krishnamurti: Do I see the importance of a complete regeneration, a clarity, a creativeness ? If I find this transformation, then my life will have a meaning.
Question: Is ( our self-centred) desire in the way of ( a holistic inner ) transformation? Krishnamurti: Is it not? (But you'll have to) find this out for yourself. Question: Even if I (just sit back & ) do nothing, there will be no transformation either . Krishnamurti: How do you know? Can you examine all the contents of your consciousness, investigate into the (psychological residues of the?) past and finish them one by one? It will take time; the instrument of your investigation is incomplete. You might miss some. Therefore in this ( linear) examination of your past experiences, you are sure to be caught again (in the corridors of self-centred thinking ?) . Therefore, what are you to do? Question: When you can't do it, what can you do? You have to 'step out' or to accept it. Krishnamurti: When I really say "I do not know" my mind is very alert, very quiet and in a new state. Question: It is a state of expectancy ? Krishnamurti: When you expect anything, it is still based upon the known, but if you have realized (the inner truth?) that you do not know, your mind is extraordinarily alert ; this means 'negative thinking' (non-thinking?) is the highest form of Meditation; it is complete cessation of ( the psychological continuance of ) thought. Therefore, ( the innocence of?) "not- knowingness" is the new state of the mind in which the ( interference of the ) past has disappeared. ( If one can allow the meditating mind to come to this point?) there is a way by which the mind can be 'immediately' cleansed of all its past, cleansed of the whole ( residual) content of consciousness. When the mind is thus cleansed of all its past, there is directly (perceptive?) action. Question: Until I say "I do not know", I am not free of the past. Is this correct? Krishnamurti: Why don't you say now "I don't know"? Please experiment with it. When you have a ( serious personal ) problem and when you have realized that you do not know anything about it, then that problem is not 'yours'.
Question: I don't know... Krishnamurti: ( For optional 'meditative homework') Remove the ( psychological identification with your name & physical form and ...) titles, house & money ; what are you?
What happens when you actually come to the state of facing and recognizing yourself 'as you are', and you can ( honestly) say "I don't know, I am nothing"?
|
Back to Top |
Thu, 09 Aug 2018 | #119 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussion 22nd April, 1948 (read-ex friendly edited ) Re-focussing the inwardly perceptive instrument K: As long as we try to look at every (inner) problem in the light of our own opinions and conclusions, it is not possible to arrive at the state where there is both the ( silent ) interval and also the sense of 'not knowing', when alone the 'real' comprehension comes into being. Questioner (1) : If I understand correctly, you said that we have to feel "I am nothing". How am I to get this feeling? Questioner (2) : When I say 'I cannot do anything' to bring about transformation, is it the same as 'I am nothing' ? Or preceding the 'I don't know', is when I feel that 'I am nothing' ? This point requires some clarification. Krishnamurti: As of now, aren't we (psychologically identified with ?) 'something' ? Before you can say ( honestly that) 'you are (as) nothing', shouldn't you see what you (really think you) are ? Question: ( The subliminal identification with?) our beliefs, our cultural biases, our prejudices, our commitments, can (eventually ) be experienced but to say 'I am nothing' appears to be something very different. Krishnamurti: Are you aware that you are something? Question: In any thought-process, I feel I that am (the 'thinker' in charge ?) . Krishnamurti: So, we think we are something whenever the thought- process is functioning (in the dual mode) . Is that it? When there is the continuance of the 'I', I feel that I am something. ( Now, the 1000 $ question is : ) can we go beyond that or not? Can we go beyond the 'screen' ( mental interface of ) of 'I am'? Questioner (1) : Basically, whenever I think, the 'I' comes in. Therefore, I don't know anything beyond that. Krishnamurti: When you have a really ( tough?) human problem, and you cannot solve it, what do you do? Question: You do nothing. Krishnamurti: Have you ever been against such a problem? Question: Yes. Then (realising that I cannot do anything to solve it?) I pushed off the problem and got on with something else. Krishnamurti: What is the state of the mind when the problem demands an urgent ( experiential) solution? Here is ( such ) a problem : an immediate ( inner) transformation is necessary and you feel that the thought-process cannot lead you to solving it, but you feel that it is imperative to find out the solution and you are quite willing to find it out. Then you find that you are unable to do anything about it. When you come to this point, what is the state of your mind? Questioner: My mind has become still, alert and watchful. Krishnamurti: What happens now to it? You realize the deep significance of saying "there must be immediate transformation", but thought cannot do this. No ( already known) action is possible and you cannot do anything about this to bring about transformation. Question: My mind is absolutely quiet, standing still. Krishnamurti: Go into it please. What does this 'absolute stillness' mean?
Question: I feel 'as nothing', but the consciousness is not extinct. The sense of the 'I' is not there. Krishnamurti: Let us view it differently. I have a new ( experiential) problem and I have no previous ready-made answer. It is an entirely new problem. How will I tackle it? Regeneration can take place only immediately and I cannot do anything about it. To understand it completely, I must come with a fresh mind, a mind free from the residues left by my previous experiences. What is the state of your mind now when you similarly face this problem? Question: A state of ( silent) expectancy ? Krishnamurti: One (major experiential) difficulty is to recognize the problem as 'new'. If you see an entirely new ( semi-transparent?) insect, you will find it very difficult to focus on it; the whole thing appears to be blurred to you so far as that 'insect' is concerned. ( Hint :) your mind is 'out of focus', so you have observe the thing much more closely till the mind builds up sufficient ( intelligent mind energy?) through which it can recognize it; the (mind's ?) eye has therefore to make a much greater effort to observe.
Question: It is expecting to hear what you are going to say next. Krishnamurti: I am only unfolding my own mind. I am now focusing my attention on the problem itself and my eyes are focused on the 'new insect' without translating the insect in terms of what I have seen in the past.
Question: This is part of the problem itself. Krishnamurti: That is so. But the ( metaphorical?) 'new insect' says "I am entirely new and you cannot understand me if you bring in any of your old (mind tricks ) ". Desire for a (rewarding ) end creates the action and the action creates the 'actor' who says "I will get it (some day?) ."
When one has ( wisely?) wiped away the three 'screens' ( three 'subliminal blocks'?) referred to above as irrelevant, then what is the state of my mind? The mind is now ( qualitatively?) transformed, because it is no longer ( identifying itself with ) the old – and as it has been cleansed of the past and has become the new.
When all these three ( mental ) 'screens' go, the mind is now all attention. It has examined all the things that are not worthwhile, and discarded them. Then only it has become new.
That state when the mind is 'cleansed of the past' is the state of "not knowing". This ( most excellent inner ?) state is a state of highly ( creative?) activity. When the cup is empty, something new can be put into it - therefore, the mind has to be cleansed of ( its imponderable 'weight of the?) past' in order to view a new ( yet ages old ?) problem anew |
Back to Top |
Fri, 10 Aug 2018 | #120 |
---|---|
![]() |
K Group Discussion Madras, 25th April, 1948 ('reader friendly' edited ) A 'fast track' Course in Miracles K: We have been discussing about the (vital) importance of an individual (regenerative?) transformation; about the importance of not thinking in terms of the 'mass' (multitudes?) and that such inner transformation cannot take place through the ( self-centred?) thought-process as any thinking & feeling is (validly operating only) in the field of sensation and will not lead to fundamental transformation.
When these three 'screens' ( three perceptive blocks?) are removed, the mind is cleansed and is ( open to the ) 'new'. When the mind is thus transformed, the problem is directly seen and it is then no longer a problem at all. This transformation cannot be brought about through time, through growth, through evolution, or ( even) through a series of ( virtuous?) lives. There can be no inward revolution through a process of time. An immediate inward revolution is possible only through ( insightful self-) understanding. Therefore, the removal of the screens must come as a ( necessary ?) experience and not because others have said, etc. We can keep our mind fresh and new only by our own constant experiencing. Question: How comes that the process of the mind seems so clear when you talk about it but, when I go home, my mind goes back into the old groove ? I do not recognize for myself the existence of any ill- will or evil which recreates itself in the minds of others or causes chaos in society. Krishnamurti: Surely, there is a 'repetitive evil' ( a self-divisive process?) which arises inside you, which projects itself into society as anti-social actions, etc. Question: (The Bhagavad ) Gita says "How does it happen that human mind turns to evil rather than good". Krishnamurti: Why is it ( so much?) easier to bring about ( a lucrative?) co-operation between people through greed and/or hatred ? Why is it ( so much ) easier to injure another, to be inconsiderate, rather than to be kind and generous? Supposing we (try to ?) join together and produce something which will be for the good of all of us. Will they (the masses?) join? Why do people more easily choose evil action than good action? Question: Because there is some expectation of getting something in the immediate future ? Krishnamurti: You are saying is that our immediate (needs ) are dictating and not the ultimate result. But the ultimate (end-result) is really ( contained in ) the immediate. If your relationship with society is based on some ( bad ?) qualities, those qualities are bound to be impressed on the society with which you are in immediate relationship. Generally speaking , your whole existence is based on the attempt either to gain or to avoid. Why do I pursue (this collective momentum?) Is it because I am sensitive, or am lacking in clarity? Question: To answer this correctly, you will have to study the whole history of mankind. Krishnamurti: It is not very practical to say that "I shall answer when I know the whole of my past". There must be another method. Question: Am I different from my qualities? Krishnamurti: True. Then, why does the self follow one quality in preference to another? Question: When you follow anger, does anger give you pleasure? Krishnamurti: Certainly, Sir, ( you do feel better?) when you let off steam. But when you (realise ) that ( the blind pursuit for?) pleasure is going to bring ultimate destruction, why do you pursue it? Why do you not see that in your pursuit of pleasure ( a wide spectrum of psychosomatic?) diseases and pains are involved and why do you not therefore immediately drop the pleasure?
Question: Everyone of us has an (open or hidden) tendency to manufacture some unnamed proclivity to evil. Why is it? Krishnamurti: If you know the ( social ) bad effects of anger and yet why do you pursue anger? Question: Because I don't know it is a poison ? Krishnamurti: ( Supposing that) I am getting really angry (for whatever reason?) and I want to stop it immediately (or ASAP?) . How do I do it? Only when I can read the ( ages old ) 'content' of anger with full (undivided?) attention, give it my whole being and understanding. A ( 'natural'?) quality like anger is not recognized as ( a psychological) poison till you give your whole undivided attention to it. Question: I understand anger only after I got angry - not while I am angry. Krishnamurti: Anger is an (inherited violent ?) response to a challenge. You pursue such ( inherited) 'qualities' because you are not (vitally) interested in being aware of them. If you would understand anger (in real time?) , you are transformed immediately. For instance, smoking is first a nausea to you. Then it becomes a habit and then a source of pleasure. When you understand this process and when you understand the nature of smoking, then (the bad habit of) smoking falls away. If you relate the habit of smoking to other habits also, then, in understanding the habit of smoking fully, you understand also the nature of all habits and you will be transformed.
( In a nutshell:) There is ( an inner) regeneration, if there is constant watchfulness. Regeneration is not ( to be looked at as?) an 'end-result' (once & for all?) but ( as something taking place?) from moment to moment. Why is it not possible to ( experientially ) understand something which we call 'evil', completely so that it drops away? Obviously because we do not ( really?) want to study the ( personal implications of the?) problem ( especially since it may require some ?) actions in your way of living, which could lead to more and more trouble. As you do not want to get involved in any more trouble, you are not ( inwardly) earnest, about any of these things. You like to lead a ( cozy way of ?) life, ( cleverly?) avoiding pain and ( earnestly optimising) the pleasure seeking. You (have therefore become?) inwardly dull, insensitive to our ( major existential) problems. Sensitivity means constant ache and therefore you are insensitive.
How do you understand sorrow? Not by seeking a ( quick) remedy. If your intention is to understand sorrow, then you must watch, study every ( activity or?) movement of ( your self-centred ?) thought, study every escape. Then, when you understand all this, your mind does not run away from sorrow. When I completely understand all the escapes which are created by me in order to avoid (facing this) sorrow, the 'escapes' drop away. When escapes have been cleansed from my mind, then only, my mind is face to face with ( your own) sorrow. I may find (for instance) that when I grieve over the death of my son, I have really used my son as an 'escape' (psychological diversion ?) from (facing) myself. Being ( subliminally ?) afraid to discover what I am, I have been seeking fulfilment in my son. I escape from something which is myself and which is not known to me, from my inner poverty. Because my son is not there, I am confronted with ( the ache of my inner) poverty which causes me sorrow. Thus, I am face to face with my loneliness, my emptiness. As long as you escape from ( facing) 'what is', you will have sorrow, but when you understand ( the whole issue and?) you are not escaping, then you are experiencing your own 'true state' of inner emptiness. In this state of (live?) experiencing, there is no ( psychological split as ) 'experiencer' or 'experience'. As long as you are escaping from (facing the inner) 'what is', there is always the experiencer frightened with what he is going to experience. Truth only can free you from escapes. When you realize that you 'are' that which you actually are, and experience ( this existential) loneliness, in the very experiencing, 'loneliness' drops away and it is no more a (personal?) problem. Therefore, sorrow disappears when there is the ( direct ) experiencing of that emptiness. Any other form of resolving sorrow is an escape. Here is the key to the problem of sorrow. It is only in the state of experiencing when there is neither the experiencer nor the experience, that there is an instantaneous (inner) transformation. Question: Does not one get out of this (blissful ?) state when he has once had it? Krishnamurti: Why are you anxious about this? The (direct) experiencing is from moment to moment, but there is also the prolonging of the interval. It is sufficient even if you have that state even for a split second. Wanting to be other than 'what is', is really an escape. If you understand 'what is' completely, then a miracle happens. |
Back to Top |
Not a member yet? Create an Account