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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 31 - 41 of 41 in total
Sat, 07 Oct 2017 #31
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 16 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
We can only look inwardly and see what’s actually there. Only the heart-mind can see directly what’s inside, no? I mean, it’s not for “me” to tell “you” (and vice-versa) whether or not “your” actions are rooted in love. Do we want to quibble over vocabulary?

Yes, that's right, it's not for each of us to demand it from the other. However, the issue is that, the inward freedom we think we possess can still be used to rationalize the outward conformity, i.e. with the environment. The result is the smothering of our vitality to question again our habitual adaptation with the environment. Say, our so called personal love might even be an excuse to avoid such questioning, not that it isn't love.

contraria sunt complementa

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 19 Oct 2017 #32
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

Here is a very good example of K's holistic approach in the context of adult education ( this 'reader friendly' edited text comes from K's Commentaries on Living' first series (cca 1954 ?)

TO SEE THE FALSE AS FALSE

( Listener friendly intro:) We know so little of ourselves; we know (the outward facts?) , but we do not understand (their inner meaning?) ; we 'know', but we have no ( sense of an authentic) communion with another. We can never (completely) 'know' another, what we know is the dead past, not the living. To be aware of the living, we must 'bury' the dead (residues of the past?) in ourselves. We have ( a lot of) informations and ( knowledgeable?) conclusions about so many things; but there is no ( sense of inner) happiness, nor a peace that is not stagnant. Our ( inner) lives are dull and empty, or so full of words and activity that it blinds us. Knowledge is not wisdom, and without wisdom there is no inner peace, no ( creative) happiness.

He was a young man, a professor of some kind, dissatisfied, worried and burdened with responsibilities. He had been well educated, he said - which was mostly a matter of knowing how to read and gathering information from ( the ww web or from ?) books. He stated that he had been to as many of the ( K) talks as he could, and went on to explain that for years he had been trying to give up ( even the simple habit of?) smoking, but had never been able to give it up entirely. This was one of his (psychological) problems, one among ( many?) others. He was intense, nervous and thin.

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

Q: I have condemned myself for smoking, over and over again. It is difficult not to condemn.

K: Yes, it is difficult not to condemn (our psychologial attachments?) , for our (traditional ) conditioning is based on denial, justification, comparison and resignation. This is our ( cultural) background, the ( mental screen of?) conditioning with which we approach every problem. This very conditioning breeds (an additional) inner conflict (btw 'what is' and 'what should be'?) You have tried to rationalize away the habit of smoking, have you not? You have thought it all out and come to the conclusion that it is 'stupid'. And yet , your rationalization has not made you give it up. We think that we can be free from a problem by knowing its ( visible?) causes; but this 'knowing' is merely an (intellectual) conclusion. This (intellectual ?) knowledge obviously prevents (the insightful?) understanding of the problem. Knowing the ( superficial?) causes of a problem and ( experientially?) understanding the problem are two entirely different things.

Q: But how else can one approach such a ( dependency ?) problem?

K: That is what we are going to find out. When we discover what the false approach is, we shall be aware of the (holistic?) approach. The understanding of the false (our dualistic approach?) is the discovery of the true. To see the false as false is 'arduous' (a very delicate issue?) . We look at the 'false' (eg : attachments, habits, etc?) through comparison, through the measure(ment) of thought; but can the 'false' be seen as such through any thought process? Is not thought itself conditioned and so false?

Q: But then, how can we know the false as false without the ( backing of the?) thought process?

K: This is our whole trouble (the experiential difficulty?) , is it not? When we use thought to solve a problem, surely we are using an ( outwardly tuned ?) instrument which is not at all adequate (inwardly) ; for thought itself is a product of the ( outward ?) past human experience. ( In order to ?) to see ( inwardly ?) the false as false, thought must become aware of itself as a 'dead' (mechanistic?) process. Thought can never be free (to see inner things directly?) , and therefore there must be a freedom from thought (in order) to discover ( the inner truth about anything?)

Q: I don’t quite see what you mean.

K: One of your (many particular?) problems is (the habit of?) smoking. You have approached it with condemnation, or you have tried to rationalize it away. This approach is 'false' (inadequate ?) . How do you discover that ( this approach is?) false? Surely, not through ( the dualistic process of?) thought, but by being passively watchful of how you approach that (particular) problem. Such passive inward watchfulness does not demand thought; on the contrary, if thought is functioning there can be no ( authentic?) passivity. Thought 'functions' only to condemn or justify, to compare or accept; but if there is a passive ( non-personal?) watchfulness of this process, then it (the habit of smoking?) is perceived as what it ( actually) is.

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

K: Let us experiment together to find out if one can approach the problem of ( one's suliminal attachment to?) 'smoking' without ( thought's interferences of ?) condemnation, comparison, and so on. Can't we look at this whole problem ( of psychological dependency?) afresh, without the past overshadowing it? We seem unable to be aware of it passively, there is always some kind of response from the past. It is interesting to see how incapable we are of observing the problem as though it were 'new'. We carry along with us ( the psychological burden of?) all our past efforts, conclusions, intentions; we cannot look at the problem except through these 'curtains' (mental screens?) .
( In terms of direct perception?) no problem is ever old, but we ( prefer to play safe and ?) approach it with the ( good ?) old (way with mental ?) formulations, which prevent the (insightful?) understanding of it.

( For homework : Try to ?) Be passively watchful of these ( controlling mental ?) responses. Just be passively aware of them, see ( the actual truth?) that they cannot solve the problem. The ( actual ?) problem is real, but the ( 'what is' vs 'what should be' ?) approach is utterly inadequate. The inadequate response to ( the actuality of) 'what is' breeds ( its own ) conflict; and this (secondary?) conflict is the ( deeper aspect of the?) problem. If there is an (integrated?) understanding of this whole process, then you will find that you can act adequately ( even) with regard to ( your irrational dependency to such a costly habit as ?) smoking.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 19 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Oct 2017 #33
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

This is perhaps the only 'first & last step' in any approach to a holistic education rightfully deserving its name :

ENDING ( THE INNER ATTACHMENTS TO ?) THE 'STREAM OF SELFISHNESS'

K: One can see that ( the self-centred process of?) thought has built the "me" , ( which is then generating its own temporal
continuity as ?) the past (personal & collective memory?) which passing through the present and modifies itself as the future. It is ( a mental entity ?) put together by thought, and which has become independent of thought. That "me" identifies ( itself?) with the name and with the (physical) form, and with the ideals which it wants to pursue. Also with the desire to change the "me" into another form of "me", with another name. This "me" is the (by) product of time and of thought, ( constantly identifying itself with nice sounding ?) words - remove the words, what is ( left of ?) the "me"?

But ( our self-identified way thinking presents an inconvenient ?) this "me" as well as 'you', suffers. Deep down this "me" ( mental entity ?) is moving in the Stream of (collective) Selfishness, of greed , fears, anxiety and so on - please see the truth of it. That is the (vast consciousness) Stream in which we are all caught - while we are living - and when the physical organism dies, this stream of selfishness goes on.

Suppose I have lived a very common selfish life, with the importance of my desires, ambitions, greed, envy, the accumulation of property, the accumulation of knowledge, the accumulation of all kinds of things which I have gathered - all of which I have ( globally ?) termed as "selfishness". So while we are living, we are flowing ( and interacting?) in this Stream of ( collective?) selfishness. This is a ( basic psychical?) fact - if you observe ( non-personally?) you will see it, whether you go to America, to India, or all over Europe, modified by the environmental pressures and so on, but basically that is the movement. And when the ( physical) body dies, this movement goes on... That stream is ( generically called?) 'time'. That is the (basic) movement of ( the self-centred human thought) which has created the "me" from which (in its turn has) asserted itself as being an independent (thinking entity ?) , dividing itself from 'you'; but this "me" is an 'imagined' structure of thought. In itself it has no reality, except that ( our thinking brain?) has invested in it all its ( hopes for continuity and ?) certainty. While we are living we are being ( unconsciously) carried in that stream, and when we die that Stream ( of collective thought - time?) does still exists.

Is it possible for that Stream - with all its (interior) decorations, with all its ( mental) subtleties - to come totally to an end ( here & now ?) ? This is the 'ending of time'. Therefore after this ending, there is ( the actual possibility of?) a totally different ( psychical ?) manifestation which is: no selfishness at all.
When there is suffering, is there a "you" and "me"? Or there is only the factor of suffering ? Do you know what it does when you realize that? Out of that non-personalised suffering, comes ( is born?) a tremendous sense of Compassion.
So I have got this ( major existential?) problem as a (responsible?) human being : knowing that I exist in this stream of selfishness, can that movement of ( thought & ) time, come totally to an end - both at the conscious as well as at the deep levels?

Now, how will you ( experientially?) find out whether you, who are ( un-consciously ) caught in this Stream of (Collective?) Selfishness, and whether you can completely 'step out' of it? - which is the 'ending of ( thought created?) 'time' . Can you, living in this world, that (our self-centred?) thought has made, the dictatorships, the totalitarian authority, the destruction of human minds, destruction of the earth, the animals, everything man touches he destroys, including his wife or husband. Now can you live in this world no longer being caught in that stream of selfishness ?
You see there are many more things involved in this mystery called 'death' : is there a possibility of ending suffering in that world of reality?

( For meditation homework:) Think about it. Look at it. Don't say yes, or no. Find out if there is an ending of suffering in the world of reality - which is the full significance of 'ending time'- to bring about order in the world of reality, in the world of everyday relationships, of action, of rational thinking, of fear and pleasure. So can one, while living in the world of reality as we are, end selfishness? You know it is a very complex thing to end ( the personal attachments to this collective stream of ?) selfishness, it isn't just, "I won't think about myself".... This selfishness in the field of reality is creating chaos. And ( since) you are the world and the world is you, if you change deeply you ( also ?) can affect the whole Consciousness of Mankind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #34
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

( An Insight-based ?) Meditation is hard work. It demands the highest form of ( inner ) discipline, which comes through constant awareness, not only of the things about you outwardly, but also inwardly. So meditation is ( illuminating the ?) action in the everyday life - which demands co-operation, sensitivity and intelligence. Without laying the foundation of a righteous life, meditation becomes an escape and therefore has no value whatsoever. A righteous life is ( to be found in ?) the freedom from envy, greed and the search for power. The freedom from these does not come through the ( enforcing ?) activity of will but through being ( responsibly ?) aware of them through self-knowing. Without knowing the activities of the self, meditation becomes a ( higher form of ?) sensuous excitement and therefore of very little (spiritual) significance.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 24 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 24 Oct 2017 #35
Thumb_open-uri20171115-31086-13da1wu-0 Dan McDermott United States 123 posts in this forum Offline

John Raica wrote:
Without knowing the activities of the self, meditation becomes a ( higher form of ?) sensuous excitement and therefore of very little (spiritual) significance.

Yes agreed but how does this necessary "constant awareness" come about rather than the 'sometime awareness'? What does "hard work" mean in this context when any 'method' or 'system' of 'reminders' is useless?

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Tue, 24 Oct 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Oct 2017 #36
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

( And here is a very good K quote from 'The Only Revolution')

Do not think that meditation is a continuance and an expansion of ( your past?) experience. In ( the traditional dualistic?) experience there is always the 'witness' and he is ever tied to the ( personal memories of his own ) past. Meditation, on the contrary, is that complete inaction (inner non-action ?) which is the ending of all ( one's past?) experience. The action of experience has its roots in the past and so it is time-binding; it leads to ( the dualistic?) action which brings disorder. Meditation is the total inaction which comes out of a mind that sees 'what is', without the entanglement of the past. This action is not a response to any challenge but the action of the challenge itself, in which there is no duality.

Meditation is the emptying of experience and is going on all the tine, consciously or unconsciously, so it is not an action limited to a certain period during the day. It is a continuous action from morning till night - the watching without the 'watcher'. Therefore there is no division between one's daily life and meditation, the religious life and the secular life. The division comes only when the 'watcher' is tied to time. In this (temporal-) division there is disarray, misery and confusion, which is ( reflecting ?) the state of ( modern ?) society.

So meditation is not individualistic, nor is it social(istic) , it transcends both and so it includes both. This is Love: the (inner) flowering of Love is (the essence of ?) meditation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 30 Oct 2017 #37
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

Here are a few practical clues for an insight based meditation extracted from the very last dialogue between David Bohm and JK :

DB: Is there some (more practical) aspect of 'meditation' which can be helpful here when a ( serious?) person says, 'All right, I am caught in the 'self' (in my self-centredness?) , but I want to get out'. What would you (tell him?) ?

JK: Very simply put: Is the 'observer' different from the (inner things which are being?) observed?

DB: Well, ordinarily one feels that the 'observer' is different from the 'observed'. We do all begin there.

JK: Let's look at it (again ?) . Are 'you' (actually ?) different from your anger, from your envy, from your suffering? ( Fundamentally ?) you are not.

DB: Well, at first sight it appears that I am (qualitatively different) , and I might even try to control ( my irrational responses) . The first perceivable experience is that 'I' am here first, and that those are my qualities which I can have or ( better ?) not have. I might be angry, or not angry, I might have this belief, or that belief. Now, when you say 'I am' that, what do you actually mean ?

JK: At present you 'are' (totally or only partially identified with ?) that ( whole bunch of 'personal' reactions & memories ?) .

DB: All right. So you are telling me that the 'unbiased' observer is on the same level as the ( reaction of) anger he is looking at?
And indeed, if I watch this ( 'gut' reaction of) anger for a while, I can see that I am getting very biased by the anger, so at some stage I realise that 'I am one' with that anger?

JK: I 'am' it. The observer 'is' (not divided from?) the observed. And when that (integrated?) 'actuality' exists you have really eliminated altogether conflict. Conflict exists when I am separate from my quality.

DB: Yes, that is, as long as I believe myself to be separate, it is creating an (additional conflict :) trying to change myself while remaining ( subliminally identified with?) myelf at the same time.

JK: Yes ; when the ( observed) quality is ( perceived as not being separated from?) me, the (perceptive ?) division (btw observed and observed) has ended.

DB: Well, then there is no point in trying to change yourself...?

JK: No. When there is ( this dualistic) division there is ( time-binding ?) conflict, either in trying to suppress it or escape from it, which is a wastage of (one's total) energy. When ( there's an insight that?) that quality 'is' me, all that energy which has been wasted is (now available ?) to look, to observe ( the 'what is' directly) .

DB: In other words, the mind does not try to fight (or to trick?) itself ?

JK: Yes, ( actually) the 'brain'.

DB: So, when there is no illusion of a difference, the brain just stops fighting.

JK: And therefore you have (recycled & integrated a?) tremendous energy.

DB: The brain's natural energy is released?

JK: Yes. And ( if it is intelligently put to work, this newly integrated ?) energy (is providing the necessary?) attention for that thing to dissolve.

DB: Yes, but wait a minute. You said before that this attention was a contact of the "mind" and the "brain". So, it follows that the brain must be in a state of high energy to allow that contact.

JK: That's right. But most of us are (indulging in a slacky and/or wasteful state of?) 'low energy' because we are so (deeply ) conditioned.

DB : So, essentially you are saying that this is the way to start .

JK: Yes, to start 'simply'. Start with ( the non-dualistic observation of?) 'what is,' with 'what I am'. ( This is why the direct approach to?) self-knowledge is so important. It is not an accumulative process of (various pieces of) knowledge (about oneself?) , at which 'one' then looks at 'objectively' ; it is a constant learning (by full immersion ?) about oneself.

DB: So, it is not the (same traditional) 'self- knowledge' which is ( only giving a modified continuity to one's past?) conditioning ?

JK: That's right. ( That accumulative process of?) knowledge conditions.

DB: So, you are saying that self-knowledge of this kind is not conditioning. But then, why do you still call it self knowledge? Is it a different kind of knowledge?

JK: Yes. Which is to know and to comprehend oneself ( through direct perception?) . To understand ( the psychological aspects of?) oneself is such a subtle, complex thing. It is something living.

DB: So, essentially it means 'knowing yourself' in the very moment in which things are happening.

JK: Yes, to know ( by direct perception?) what is happening....

DB: Rather than store it up in memory (in order to be processed later?)

JK: Of course. Through (a non-dualistic observation of my various responses & ) reactions, I begin to discover (and interact holistically with the actuality of ?) what I am.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 31 Oct 2017 #38
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO THE AGES OLD PROBLEM OF 'SEX'

That morning the river was tarnished silver, for it was cloudy and cold ; one could feel the biting wind from the north, even the birds were aware of it. But the river that morning had a strange 'movement' of its own; it seemed almost motionless and had that timeless quality which all waters seem to have. And, meditatively watching it, somehow you seemed to lose 'yourself' , and there was a penetration into an (inner) void that was full of blessing. This was Bliss.

The younger man had come with his guru, and was waiting for him to speak first. He looked at the river but he was thinking of other things. Presently the older sannyasi said:

Q : I have come to talk about love and sensuality. We, who have taken the vow of chastity, have our sensuous problems. The vow is only a means of resisting our uncontrollable desires. I am an old man now, and these desires no longer burn me. This young man has come with me because I think he is going through the same problem. He wants to give up the world and take the vow of poverty and chastity, and I thought it might be worthwhile if we could talk over this problem of sex and love with you. I hope you don't mind if we talk quite frankly.

K : So let us first find out what Love is, not as an abstract idea but what it actually is. Is it merely a sensuous delight, cultivated by thought as pleasure, the remembrance of an experience which has given great delight or sexual enjoyment? Is it the beauty of a sunset, or the delicate leaf that you touch or see, or the perfume of the flower that you smell? Is Love to be divided as the sacred and the profane? Or is it something indivisible, whole, that cannot be broken up by ( the ego-centric?) thought? Is love ( the domestic feeling ?) cultivated by thought , or is it utterly unrelated to thought and, therefore, independent, free? Without understanding the ( true) meaning behind this word we shall become neurotic about sex, or be enslaved by it.
( As a holistic rule of thumb?) Love is not to be broken up into fragments by thought. When thought breaks it up as 'sensuous' and 'spiritual', or as 'my' God and 'your' God, then it is no longer Love, but a product of ( personal & collective?) memory, of convenience, of comfort and so on.

( On the other hand?) in the sexual act there is self-forgetfulness, self-abandonment, a sense of the non-existence of ( any personal?) fear, anxiety, or the worries of our daily life. Remembering this state of tenderness and self-forgetfulness, and demanding its repetition, thought 'chews over it' until the next occasion. Is this ( an authentic act of love &?) tenderness, or is it merely a recollection of something that is over and which, through repetition, you hope to capture again? And is not the repetition of something, however pleasurable, (eventually ending up as ?) a destructive process?

(The young man suddenly found his tongue)

Q: Sex is a biological urge, as you yourself have said, and if this is destructive then isn't ( the habit of?) eating equally destructive, because that also is a biological urge?

K : If one eats when one is ( really?) hungry - that is one thing. If one is hungry and thought says: "I must have the taste of this or that type of food - then it is ( taken over by?) thought, and it is this which is the destructive repetition.

Q : How do you know what is the ( dividing line between) a biological urge, like hunger, and a 'psychological' demand, like greed?

K : There is a ( holistic?) question involved here - why do you separate ( the desire for?) sex from ( the desire of?) seeing the beauty of a mountain or the loveliness of a flower? Why do you give such tremendous importance to the one and totally neglect the other?

Q : If sex is something quite different from Love, as you seem to say, then is there any necessity at all to do anything about sex?

K : We have said that Love is whole, not to be broken up, and ( our self-centred?) thought is by its very nature fragmentary. When ( the ego-centric ?) thought dominates, obviously there is no ( place for?) love. Man generally knows the 'sex of thought', and its repetition. Therefore we have to ask: Is there any other (approach of this issue of) sex which is not of thought or desire?

(The older sannyasi who had listened to all this with quiet attention, now spoke:)

Q: I have taken a vow against it, because I have seen that one must have ( all one's ) energy for a religiously dedicated life. But this ( mental) resistance has taken a great deal of my energy. So I now understand better what you have said - that a conflict of any kind is ( amounting to ) a waste of ( one's total) energy .

K : Is there ( a sense of ) love which is whole, without thought entering into it? When we ask: Is there ( a different approach to) sex without the whole mechanism of thought operating, doesn't it mean that we have stepped out of the old ( thought patterns) ? Love is whole and always new - and if you have followed (and discarded ?) the whole (interference?) of thought, then perhaps you will come upon the Other. However, if you demand that you must have your ( personal) pleasure at any price, then (the other quality of ?) Love will not exist.

Q : Perhaps I can ( better ?) answer my young friend, for I have been through all this. I have ruthlessly controlled my biological demands. The biological urge does not ( necessarily?) engender thought; but thought captures it, creates 'images', and then the urge is a slave to thought. Most of the time it is thought which engenders this urge. I am beginning to see the extraordinary nature of our own self-deception and dishonesty. There is a great deal of (subliminal ?) 'hypocrisy' ( a Greek word  meaning 'wearing actor's masks') in us. What you are telling us, sir, is to look at everything with clear eyes, without the ( interfering?) memory of yesterday; then life does not become a problem. In my old age I am just beginning to realize this.

K : This is why ( for extra homework  ? ) it is very important to know oneself ('as is'?) , not according to any formula or according to any 'guru'. This constant ( practice of a non-personal?) 'choiceless awareness' ends all illusions and all 'hypocrisy'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 04 Nov 2017 #39
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

A holistic advice for a young university student

That morning, out of those hills that went on for miles and miles, came a tranquillity which met your own ( inner) quietness. It was like the earth and the heavens meeting, and the ( resulting?) ecstasy was a benediction. You went up the steep incline for many miles, and then came down suddenly. As you turned the corner you came upon that complete silence which was already descending on you, and as you entered the deep valley it became more penetrating, more urgent, more insistent. There was no thought, only ( a seeing & listening ?) that silence. As you walked down, it seemed to cover the whole earth, and it was astonishing how every bird and tree became still. There was no breeze among the trees and with the darkness they were withdrawing into their solitude.

That morning a group of about thirty young people had come to the house. There were students from various Californian universities. Only one or two of them sat on chairs, most of us were sitting on the floor. One of the boys spoke, with quivering lips, and with his head down.

Q : I want to live a different kind of life. I don't want to be caught in sex and drugs and the ( daily ) 'rat race'. I know I want to live peacefully, with love in my heart, but I am torn by my own urges and by the pull of the society in which I live. I really don't know what to do and I'm getting bored with everything. My parents can't help me, nor can the professors with whom I sometimes try to discuss these matters. They are as confused and miserable as I am, more so in fact, because they are much older.

K : Let us look at the whole picture of this ( wordly?) existence : we have a physical body and it has its demands. They are encouraged and influenced by the ( commercialistic?) society in which we live, by the insistence on (having ) fun, and by the 'morality' of a society which is disorderly and immoral. You are stimulated in every way - by books, by talk, and by an utterly permissive society. All this (psychological mess?) surrounds you; it's no good merely shutting your eyes to it ; you have to see all this confusion very clearly.

Now (for a change?) look out of that window and see those marvellous mountains, freshly washed by last night's rain, and that extraordinary light of California which exists nowhere else . You can smell the clean air and the newness of the earth. The more sensitive you are to all this incredible light and beauty, the more ( the holistic quality of your  ?) perception is heightened. The very perception of this whole map which is being unfolded is already (an act of) intelligence and it is this (newly awakened )intelligence that will act ( or help to find the right action ?)

( One major difficulty is that?) our (psycho-somatic?) body has been made dull, just as our minds and hearts have been dulled, by our ( highly standardised outward ?) education, and by our own conformity to the ( behavior) patterns which society has set and which deny the 'sensitivity of the heart', destroying all our natural beauty, tenderness and joy.

( So, for your first meditation homework:) The ( attentive, non-personal ?) observation of all this ( quickly deteriorating conditioning ?) , not 'intellectually' but actually, makes our body and mind highly sensitive. The body will then demand the right kind of food; and the (newly integrated heart &?) mind will not be caught in the old platitudes of ( collective) thought. Then we shall know how to live both in the valley and on the mountain top; then there will be no division or contradiction between the two.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 14 Nov 2017 #40
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

A BONUS K QUESTION: WHAT IS THE ORIGINAL BUDDHIST MEDITATION ?

K: Sir, would you kindly explain, what is the Buddhist meditation ?

R (Dr Rahula) : The purest form of Buddhist meditation (named) Vipassana is ( based on) insightful vision, to see into the nature of things, that is having an insight into ( the truth or falsehood of?) 'what is'.

K: Have they developped a ( standardised meditational ?) 'system'?

R: A system is, of course, developed. But when you take the original teaching of the Buddha, his best discourse (Saripattana) is on this 'insight' (based) meditation. There is no talking about a system. And the key point is to be 'mindful', fully aware, of all that happens, you are not expected to run away from life and live in a cave or in a forest. And this 'Satipatthana' – you can translate it (in English) as the 'establishment of mindfulness', 'the presence of awareness' would be the meaning of that word.

K: Is this awareness to be 'cultivated' ( practised on a regular basis?)

R: There is no question of 'cultivation'. But rather of (an?) awareness of every movement, of every act, of everything.

K: That is what I am trying to get at, because in the modern 'systems of Buddhist meditation' or modern Zen, they are trying to 'cultivate' it. Is ( this mindul) awareness, something to be cultivated in the sense of being watched over, or worked at?

R: No, no.

K: So how does it come into being?

R: There is no 'coming into being', you just 'do it'.

K: Is this awareness something that takes place through ( mental) concentration?

R: For anything we do in this world a certain amount of (mental) concentration is necessary. That is understood. In that sense a certain kind of concentration is necessary but don't mix it up with ( the 'top of the line'?) 'dhyani' and 'samadhi'.

K: I don't like any of those words personally...

R: But they are implying some concentration in the principle.

K: I know, I know. Most of the meditations that have been propagated all over the world involves concentration.

R: In Zen and in various other Hindu, Buddhist meditations, the concentration is the centre.

K: That is nonsense. I don't accept concentration.

R: In the Buddha's teaching, meditation is not ( related to) that concentration.

K: It is not concentration. Then what is this awareness, how does it come into being?

R: You see, you live the action in the present moment.

K: Wait, sir, but the moment you (talk theoretically about 'living in?) the present moment', you don't actually 'live' in the present moment.

R: Well, 'satyabhatan' means to live in the present moment.

K: No, you are (experientially?) missing it. How is one to 'live in the present'? What is the ( inner quality of the?) mind that lives in the present?

R: The mind that lives in the present is the mind which is free from the idea of 'self'. When you have (acting from?) the idea of 'self', either you live in the past or in the future.

K: The 'now' as one sees it generally, is the ( active memory of the ?) 'past' modifying itself in the present and going on.

R: That is the usual case ( the temporal 'now ')

K: Then what is the ( timeless?) present? Free of the past?

R: Yes.

K: That's it. Free of the ( personal memories of the?) past, which means free of 'time'. So that is the only state of mind which is ( fully living in the?) Now. And I am just asking what is ( the nature of this choiceless?) awareness? How does it flower, how does it happen?

R: You are asking how it happens, but there is no technique for it.

K: I'll put it round the other way. In what manner does this awareness 'come into (one's) being'?
( To start with) suppose I am not aware (inwardly ) . I am just enclosed (entangled?) in my own petty little worries and anxieties, (my unsolved existential?) problems, and all that is going on in the ( self-centred ? ) mind. And you ( the certified Buddhist Scholar ?) come along and tell me, "Be aware of all that". And I say, "What do you mean by 'being aware'?

R: To become aware of your (self-centred ) pettiness.

K: Yes, sir, but I don't even know what it means.

R: It is not necessary to know (exactly) what it means.

K: What do you mean it is not necessary?

R: ( Just) be aware of it (of what's going on within your own) mind.

K: Yes, sir. You tell me, be aware of it. But (suppose that?) I am (inwardly) 'blind'. You follow? I am blind and I want to see light. And you say, "Be aware of ( the hidden causes of?) that 'blindness'". I say, "Yes, what does it mean?"

( So, let's spell it out:) It is not ( a mental) concentration. Awareness is something in which ( the personal) 'choice' doesn't exist. ( Eg :) To be aware of this hall, the curtains, the lights, the people sitting here, the shape of the walls, the windows, to be aware of it. As I enter the room ( at a first sight?) I am ( naturally ) aware of the (atmosphere of?) whole thing: the roof, the lamps, the curtains, the shape of the windows, the floor, the ceiling ( and the people waiting for us?), of everything.
That is ( the outward?) awareness. Now what is the difference between this awareness and attention?
What is ( the basic requirement of?) 'attention'? To 'attend'.

R: How do you discriminate between these three: awareness, mindfulness and attention?

K: I would say 'awareness' is without ( any personal?) choice, just to be aware. When you say, "I like this room", all ( its holistic quality?) has ended (and you're right back into the 'known'?)

R: Right.

K: Then 'attention', to attend, in this ( 'attending'?) attention there is no ( observer-observed?) division. No (self-conscious?) 'me' attending. And so it has no division, therefore no measurement and therefore no borders. A completely (non-personal quality of ?) attention.

R: In that sense it is equal to ( your choiceless?) 'awareness'.

K: No.

R: Why not?

K: In ( the sensory?) awareness there may still be a ( stand-by?) 'centre' from which 'you' are being aware.

SS: So, you're saying 'attention' is a deeper process.

K: Of a totally different ( holistic ?) quality. In ( this quality of 'mindfulness' or ) 'attention', there is no ( mental interference of an all controlling ?) 'attender' , no (observer-observed?) division.

R: But even in the 'choiceless' awareness there is no one who is aware.

K: Of course, that's right. But it has not the same ( deeply meditative?) quality as 'attention'.

R: In Buddha's teaching, that is in the practise of (insight-based) meditation there is no discrimination, there is no value judgement, there is no like or dislike, but only 'seeing'. That's all. And whatever happens then will happen when you see.

K: In that state of ( holistic) attention you totally attend, with your ears, with your eyes, with your body, with your nerves, with all your mind, with your heart in the sense of affection, love, compassion, total attention, what takes place?

R: Of course what takes place is a complete (inner) revolution.

K: But what is the state of such a mind that is completely attentive? You see it has no ( verbally measurable?) quality, no centre, and having no centre, it has no borders. And this is an 'actuality', you can't 'imagine' this. That means has one ever given such complete attention.

SS: Is there any 'object' in that attention?

K: . Obviously not. Because there is no 'subject and object' division. You try it (as meditation homework?) do it now... if you can. Take ( as a simple 'in class' example:) ''Meditation 'is' (not divided from ? ) the meditator''. Give your complete attention to that (non-dualistic pointer?) , and see what happens. That's a ( verbal) statement you hear first. Then, instead of making an intellectual abstraction of it, you just listen ( with your inner ear to ?) that statement. It has the (holistic) quality of Truth, a sense of 'absoluteness' about it. Now give your whole attention to ( seeing the inwardness of?) it and then...see what happens.

R: I think ( the original 'insight' based?) Buddhist meditation is ( pretty much like ?) that.

K: I don't know, sir. I'll accept your word for it, but I don't know.

R: And I think it is not misleading to accept that the real 'satyabhatana' is that. Now if you ask people who 'practise' it, in most meditation centres, I'd openly say they are misleading.

K: Yes, sir, now I am just asking, can one give such attention ?

R: You are asking whether it is possible?

K: Yes, whether is it possible and whether will you attend (in this holistic way?) . Not by exercising will (power?) .
You know, just 'do it'. If that ( quality of integrated?) attention is not there, Truth cannot exist.

R: I don't think that is very appropriate. Truth exists (anyway) but cannot be 'seen'.

K: Ah, I don't know. You say 'truth exists' but I don't know.

R: But that doesn't mean that truth does not exist.

K: I don't 'know' , I said.

R: That is correct.

K: Jesus ( is supposed to have?) said ( Our) Father in Heaven. I don't know the Father. He may exist but I don't know Him ( by direct experience?) , so I don't accept.

R: Anyways, I don't think it is correct to say that without that attention Truth does not exist.

K: I ( should have?) said that without that attention Truth cannot come into (one's?) being. Let me put it differently. Without that ( quality of integrated, holistic ?) attention the Truth has no (experiential) meaning.

R: That's better. I thank you on behalf of everybody

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 14 Nov 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Nov 2017 #41
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 705 posts in this forum Offline

A LONG & WINDING K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM, MR.NARAYAN AND TWO FINE BUDDHIST SCHOLARS

ON SELF-IDENTIFICATION AND THE 'TOTAL' (aka:HOLISTIC) ACTION ,

B: Could we ask why there is (this strong tendency of self-) identification, why is it that this is so prevalent?

K: Why does thought identify ?

B: With sensation and other things.

K: Why is there identification with something?

B: Specially with sensation.

N: If I can't identify even with my (psychosomatic) sensations, I have nothing else to identify with.

K: So why do you give importance to sensation (to the sensory responses?) ?

B: Isn't there a (hidden?) duality involved in this identification? Could we make it more clear ?

K: In identification, as you pointed out sir, there is the duality between the 'identifier' and the 'identified'.
But I'd really want to find out in talking over together, is there an action in which the 'self' ( interest ) is not (involved) ? Which means, the mind has to find out an action which has no cause, which means no motive, an action which is not the result of a ( previous) series of causes and effects. If that ( karmic causation?) exists, our action is always (time-) bound, chained. So is there such a ( time -free?) action?

B: Well, it seems to me we can't find it (experientially) as long as we are identifying.

K: That's right. That's why I said as long as ( a personal or collective ?) 'identification' exists, one can't find the answer.

B: But why does thought identify? Is it an irresistible ( biological tendency ?) or is that just something you can ( 'happily and freely'?) put aside?

K: I don't know if this (tendency of self-identification?) is irresistible, or if it is part of (the pleasure/pain factor of ?) sensation.

B: You think that sensation is behind that?

K: It may (well?) be but let's investigate why have sensations become so important in our (everyday) life - sexual sensations, the sensation of power, whether political or economic, or (tressful?) sensations induced by the pressures of (our social & economic?) environment, why has thought yielded to this pressure?

B: Does sensation necessarily produce a (psychological?) pressure?

K: It does when it is ( self-) identified. Now, what do we mean by sensation - the operation of the senses - touching, tasting, seeing, smelling, hearing.

B: The sensory experience that happens (there &) then; but also the (personal ?) memory of it.

K: The ( personal?) memory is ( recorded & stored ?) only when there is an (ongoing?) (self-) identification.

B: I agree, yes.

K: When there is no ( self-) identification the senses are senses. But why does ( the self-centred?) thinking identify itself with senses?

B: Yes, that is not yet clear.

K: We are going to make it clear. When one is seeing a beautiful lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only the (visual) seeing by the eye, but also the ( other) senses are awakened, the 'smell' of the water, the trees on the lake...and the other senses start operating. Why doesn't it stop there?

B: What is the next step?

K: The next step is : thought comes in - 'How beautiful that is, I wish I could remain here longer' .

B: So thought 'identifies' it.

K: Yes, because in that there is ( a possibility for time-stretching the sensation that brought us?) pleasure. Then ( our self-centred?) thought coming into operation saying, "I must have more, I should build a house here, it ( the comforting sense of pleasure will be forever ?) mine".

B: But why does thought do that?

K: Why does thought interfere with senses ? Now wait a minute, sir. Until the moment the senses take in the (rewarding sensation of) 'pleasure', ( the egocentric ?) thought doesn't enter. Right? So, why does thought enter? If it is a pleasurable ( a stimulating sensation?) , when the senses begin to enjoy then thought begins to identify itself with it .

B: But why ?

K: Why, because of ( the rewarding?) pleasure.

B: But why doesn't it give it up when it sees how futile this is?

K: Oh, that's much later. Only ( later on?) when it becomes aware that this identification ( or strong attachment?) breeds both pleasure and fear, then it begins to start questioning.

B: Well, are you saying that thought has made a simple (honest?) mistake in the beginning, a kind of innocent mistake?

K: That's right. Thought has made a (karmic?) mistake in identifying itself with ( the mental image of?) something that brings to it pleasure.

B: And then it (keeps thinking about it?) to make it 'permanent', perhaps ?

K: Permanent, that's right, which means ( processing and storing it in its 'personal'?) memory. A remembrance of the lake with the daffodils and the trees and the water and sunlight, and all the rest of it.

B: I understand thought has make a mistake and later it discovers that mistake, but it seems to be too late because it doesn't know how to stop (the unconscious recording/remembering mechanism?) .

K: It is now 'conditioned' ( self-programmed ?) .

B: So, why it cannot give it up later ?

K: Why it cannot give it up. That's our whole ( existential ?) problem.

B: Can we try to make it more clear ?

K: Why doesn't thought give up something when it becomes aware of being painful?

B: Yes.

K: Let's take a simple (in class?) example: psychologically one's (personal image ) is hurt.

B: Well that is coming later.

K: I am taking that as a (scholastic ) example : one's (self-identified 'image'?) is getting hurt, why can't one immediately give up ( the personal recording of ?) that hurt, knowing that ( keeping that memory of ?) hurt is going to create a great deal of ( psychological ?) damage (like) Building (or updating the existing 'fire-) wall' round myself not to be hurt anymore, the result is self isolation, neurotic actions, all that follows.
( Recap : ) Thought has (already) created an 'image' about myself, and that image gets hurt. Why doesn't ( my thoughtful?) thinking say, "Yes, by Jove, I have seen this", and drop it immediately ? Because when it drops the self-image there is nothing left (to live for?) .

B: So, we have another (active ) ingredient because thought wants to hold on to the memory of its (self- protective) image.

K: Hold on to the ( personal?) memories which have created this ( self-) image.

B: So, thought feels they are very precious.

K: Yes, they are very precious, nostalgic and all the rest of it.

B: So somehow it gives a very high value to all that. How did it come to do that?

K: Why has it made the ('self-) image' so valuable ?
Sir, if thought gives up (all its memories of happiness , pain & ?) pleasure , what is there left?

B: ( But it also would have the opportunity ?) to return to the state it had in the beginning when there was nothing.

K: Ah, that is the 'pristine' state.

B: So, it seems (unwilling and/or?) unable to return to that ( original) state ?

K: It can't because ( all the attachments & identifications of?) thought & the rest of it.

B: Well, when thought thinks of giving up a pleasure which has become very precious, then the mere thinking about that ( eventuality is ?) painful.

K: Yes, the 'giving up' is ( psychologically resented as) painful.

B: And therefore thought simply discards this (experiential option)

K: Yes, so it clings to ( seeking a new?) pleasure.

B: It does not wish to face the pain (of losing everything?) .

K: ( Foresees the possibility that ?) it has nothing else then afterwards, then it is frightened.

B: But you see in the beginning it was not frightened to have nothing else.

K: In the beginnings of man ?

B: Yes.

K: Can we question even that? The beginnings of the ( 'sapiens'?) ape ?

B: It has been going on for a long, long time, but thought has built this ( psychological) trap, which has gradually got worse.

K: Sir, as all our brains are very old - merely tracing it back further and further and further, you can never find out. But I can take my brain as it is now - deeply conditioned in terms of pleasure and pain.

B: They (the Science Guys?) say the old brain is also the emotional product of the brain.

K: Of course, emotional and all the rest of it, sensory. So where are we now?

B: Well, we say this brain has conditioned itself by continual memory of the image of pleasure, the unpleasantness of giving it up and the fear.

K: So it clings (instinctively?) to something which it knows.

B: ... and which is very precious to it.

K: But it doesn't know that it is ( eventually?) going to breed fear (sorrow & other collateral damage?) .

B: Even when it knows this (rationally) it still clings ( subliminally?) .

K: It would rather run away from this (compounded sorrow &?) fear hoping the pleasure will continue.

B: Eventually it starts to become irrational because it creates ( compensatory psychological ?) pressures which make the brain irrational and unable to 'think straight'.

K: So (to recap :) we started off with : Is there an action in which there is no motive, no cause, where the self doesn't enter into it at all? Of course there is... but only when the 'self' (consciousness?) is not (active?) , which means no ( self-) identifying process takes place. There is the ( pure) perceiving of that beautiful ( Swiss?) lake with all the colour and the glory and the beauty of it, that's enough. Not the cultivating of ( a recyclable personal ?) memory, which is developed through the identification process. Right?

B: This raises the question, how are we going to stop this identification?

K: I don't think there is a 'how' ( a 'fool-proof' procedure to be followed ?) such as practicing self-control & meditation since ( following ) that way makes the mind mechanical, dull (unperceptive & ) incapable of ( experientially) receiving anything new.

Dr Schloegel: If it just imitates, this is precisely what happens.

K: What do you mean 'imitation'?

S: To make it very simple : if you tell me : if three times a day you will sit down quietly and relax , something good will happen to you ; and if I do not question it, if I just do it mechanically... nothing will happen, I will get only more and more fuzzy (or ...more conceited?) . But if I enquire into it why, what for, what is my reaction...

K: You see our minds have been made mechanical. Can't we investigate why we have become mechanical, rather than practice that which is non-mechanical, which may become (still more subtly ?) mechanical.

S: We can, since there have been people who have become 'whole' before us...

K: I don't know (anything about them?) . I start with myself. I don't look to somebody who is ( presumably ?) enlightened. They may deceive themselves.

S: This is why I am trying to find...

K: So one must start with oneself. It (the 'pathless approach'?) is ( at least ...theoretically?) so 'simple', whereas the other ('followable' ones?) lead to so many complications.

S: I do not necessarily see it as a 'complication'. If I have an idea that there is something in my life that is more than my illusion, my suffering, my general state of dissatisfaction in which I am and which I have to face, if I do not think that there is any possibility (to reach it?) then I might not even try. If I see that there might be a possibility, I do not need to take it for truth, but it gives me the sense that it is worthwhile trying to work with myself as my own subject of experiment, to work it out.

K: Why do you want a 'motive' (a personal incentive?) ?
I just want to know ( who or?) 'what' I am, not according to anybody else . So I begin to enquire, I begin to look in the 'mirror' (of my everyday relationships). This (non-personal?) mirror says : your reactions are these, and as long as you have these ( self-interest based?) reactions you are going to suffer. So how am I to bring about this (non-personal quality of?) observation in which there is no motive to restrain, or to expand (redirect my ?) reactions?

S: Yes... ?

K: How am I to observe myself without a ( self-interest motivated?) cause? The cause generally is ( the expectation of a) reward ( and the avoidance of?) punishment . Which is obviously how a dog is being trained. So can't I look at myself without any ( temporal ?) motivation ?

S: At the ( beginner's) stage of enquiry, when I just 'try to do it', I may find that I cannot do it, I am too conditioned ( to the 'duality paradox' of the 'observer' trying to observe... 'himself' ?)

K: No, I wouldn't admit that. You are always asking for help.

S: Not necessarily. I can learn slowly to look those things that normally I do not like to see in myself.

K: I understand that madam. I have no muscles to do certain exercises, in a week's time I have those muscles by doing exercises. That same mentality is carried over - I don't know myself but I will gradually learn about myself.

S: It is not that I need to gradually learn about myself, it is only that I have to develop the strength to bear myself.

K: The same mental operation goes on psychologically, 'I am weak' but 'I must become strong'.

S: When one gets oneself into a critical state it is in the very suffering and looking (at its causes?) that there is a changing factor that 'makes it possible'.

K: Which is again gradual, evolution. If I may point out, that will lead nowhere, that is an illusion. Either you have insight immediately, or you don't have it.

S: Yes, that is true but...

K: Ah, ( for this Insight ) there is no preparation, the moment you allow time it is the cultivation of the 'self' ( leading to a more 'insightful' self?) .

S: Not necessarily. But if I expect to gain something out of it , this is certainly a cultivation of the self.

K: Madam, we said just now (non-authoritatively... ?) that 'insight is devoid of time and memory'. Insight is timeless, it must happen. 'You' can't gradually come to it, it is not a thing cultivated by thought. So to have a (complete ?) insight into oneself instantly, is that possible?

S: From my own conviction and experience, yes, it is possible.

K: That means if one has ( such a total?) insight, that insight wipes away the 'self', not momentarily. So would you say your action then is without motive? Do you know such action - not occasionally, but living an everyday life?
Is there such an action born of insight?

R: If you have insight, there is no exception, all your actions are without motive.

K: Forgive me - are we talking theoretically or actually?

R: Actually.

K: That means your action is correct, accurate, right throughout your life ?

R: Yes. There is no self, there is no motive if you have that insight. Every action...

K: But...have 'you' got that insight into the whole nature of the self ? And therefore, if there is an insight through the self then action will inevitably follow from that insight.

S: May I make one point clear ? It is not that 'I' have the insight, but there is that insight.

K: So, what were we talking about?

R: There is another question also dealing with Intelligence. Perhaps you are aware of this theory - that we think in a particular language. Thought itself has no language, but the thought is immediately interpreted (by the brain and ASAP translated ? ) into the nearest ( available?) language.

K: Sir, could you convey your thought to me without (using) words?

R: That depends on the level (of the listener?) .

K: Which means what?

R: I don't know whether you had that experience, without talking, without words, there is ( a direct, mind-to-mind?) communication.

K: That is, sir, there can only be such a 'communion', when you and I are on the same level (of inner integration?) , and with the same intensity, at the same time. Then the words are not necessary. Now, what is the quality of that state (of shared communion?) the perfume of it ? Wouldn't you call that Love?
When that quality of Love (integration with All That Is?) exists, words become unnecessary. There is 'instant communication'.

( But as of?) now, most of our minds are ( mentally ) conditioned by ( the traditional meanings of our particular?) language, which is, the words drive us, force us (to think along well trodden patterns?) . ( EG:) 'I am an Englishman' – (conveys the whole socio-cultural ?) content of that language. Right? Now, if we use ( the same English ) words without the ( traditional 'thinking patterns' of this ?) language directing us, our words then would have an entirely different meaning.

B: I think that ordinarily we are ( getting subliminally?) identified with our language and therefore it is driving us, but if we are free of identification...

K: That's right, sir, It is extraordinary how language has made us (think & behave?) . 'I am a communist'.

B: That's a ( rather superficial?) identification. But do you think that language is the major source of our (self-) identification ?

K: One of them...

B: One of the big ones ?

K: Yes.

R: I would like to remind here of a very important Mahayana Buddhist philosophical attitude : It is said ''the ordinary man is stuck in words just like an elephant in the mud''.

K: Are you?

R: Are you asking me personally?

K: Yes. Are you, am I, or is Dr.Bohm driven by language?

R: That I can't see. You answer it !

K: I can answer for myself, but I am asking you.

R: You can answer only for yourself.

K: Absolutely.

R: That's enough.

N: I think that the more 'scholarly' one becomes in language, there is a great possibility of being caught in your own ( patterns of?) language.

R: Yes.

N: Whereas the rustic might just use it for simple communication.

K: Sir, that was your ( personal) question?

B: You once asked the question, 'Is there a thought without the word?'

K: That is very interesting, sir, shall we go into it a little bit? Do you want to go into it, sir (R) ?

R: I think thought has no word. Thought is (using mental ?) images.

K: We are using ( holistically this term ?) 'word' in the sense of the symbol, the image, the picture, ( and also the literal) word.

B: You see, the words can easily be turned into an 'image', for example, by an artist, a verbal description can be turned by an artist into a (visual) image, or vice versa, the image could be described and turned into words. So they have an equivalent content.

K: Sir, what is the origin of thought? If you had to find it out or... otherwise your head will be chopped off, what will you do ? Please sir, answer that (capital?) question.

R: Is there an origin?

K: In your (own brain?) sir, what is the origin?

R: No origin. It is a wrong way of looking at it, by just asuming that everything must have a beginning.

K: How did thought begin ( biologically speaking?) ? With the animals, everything that is living, they all 'think' in various ways, or 'feel', and so on - there must be a beginning of that. What is ( the origin of?) that (animal thinking?) in human beings.

B: Are you discussing about a thinking without (self-) identification?

K: No, sir. How did ( this self-centred?) thinking begin in myself? Was it handed down by my father, by my parents, by education, by environment, by the past? I want to know. What made me 'think'?

R: You are putting some ( temporal) cause behind it, but I would say, nothing made me think, thinking is in the very nature of yourself. There is no other cause.

K: Oh yes there is. I'll show you.

R: What is that?

K: If I had no memory, would there be thinking?

R: Then, I could ask you again, what is the origin of memory?

K: That's fairly simple to answer (empirically?) . I remember seeing you a few years ago in Paris : that is being recorded, isn't it? And then I say, yes, I recognize you. How does this recognition take place? Very simple : the brain has recorded that memory of meeting you and recorded your name. So that is sored in my ( short term?) memory, and when I meet you next time I may 'recognize' you (or...not?) . It is so simple.

R: It is not so clear to me. Let us admit it is recorded, how does that record come up when we meet next year?

K: When I see you again, that memory comes up and says, Oh, he is Mr. Rahula. And the recording is ( conveniently associated with a personal ) 'image', pleasurable or not pleasurable. And... if it is not pleasurable I say, ' Oh, what a bore !'. So this whole process is being recorded. No?

R: Certainly it is so, but the recording is not in the (physical) brain. It is in the nature of what we call generally the 'mental faculty'. That is one possibility.

K: It is the faculty of the brain to record.

R: It is not the 'physical' brain. That is my point.

N: You are saying that this 'mind faculty' is spread all over the body, not necessarily in the head?

R: Our mental faculty is one of the ( inner ) sense organs - there are five physical sense organs, but this 'mind faculty' has many, many aspects, many potentialities; one of them is the memory. Now, what I wanted to clarify from you is how does it happen, and of course you begin with this ( 18-th century) idea of the recording in the brain, and with which I disagree.

K: Sir, suppose I meet you today and I see you a week later. There is the process of (mental) recognition. All right. That's one part of the faculty. The other part of the faculty is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, faculties which are made up in the mind. However, you cannot have 'mind' without the 'brain'.

R: Agreed, without the physical existence you can't have the mind.

K: That's all. Therefore the mind ( the spatio-temporal consciousness?) is part of the senses, the mind is part of the thought, emotions, certain faculties and so on.

B: Are you saying 'mind' is only thought, or is it more than thought as well?

K: I don't want to say that (yet?) . I'd only say the human mind (aka : 'consciousness'?) as long as it is functioning within the field of thought is limited.

B: You mean our consciousness, the mind is that ?

K: Yes, ( our self-) consciousness is limited.

B: We say it is limited by these faculties, wherever they are.

K: Yes, that's right, 'whatever they are'.

B: But as far as recognition goes, you can recognize a lot of things already by means of a computer.

S: And yet, if I have met you just for a moment, and there was not a sufficient (mental -) 'impact' of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by and not recognize you.

B: That's the other point, you see, it has to be recorded with some energy.

S: That is what I mean, there must be sufficient energy.

K: All recording must have energy.

R: And many things that we see and hear we don't remember, only things that leave a certain impression.

B: You see I think it is fairly clear how the record could give rise to a recognition from the next experience. The next time you see the person the record (the image recognition?) is compared with.

R: It 'comes back', exactly like the computer.

K: So our brains are computers.

R: Why do you only say brain, why not the whole body, whole heart, without heart can you think?

K: Therefore the 'mind' (the totality of our consciousness?) contains the brain, the feelings, the heart, the whole structure.

B: All the nerve centres.

K: We are using the 'mind' as 'consciousness', which is I cannot have consciousness if the heart doesn't function.

R: That is why I used the word 'mental faculty' instead of the mind, or consciousness, the word faculty embracing, involving all that department.

K: What do you mean by ' mental faculty', sir?

B: To have some capacity and ability – the capacity to do something.

K: No, sir, the 'ability' to do something depends on knowledge. If I didn't know how to play the piano, that is learnt it...

R: No, excuse me, sir, you are going away from the point. I said the 'mind faculty' -( aka : the 'mind' ) has the power, the capacity, the potentiality, to do all that. And this faculty is inborn.

K: I won't accept the mind has the inborn faculty...

B: ...to think ?

K: The mind is the 'active energy' to do all this.

B: I think the infant has this 'ability to think' already built into him because of the heredity.

K: How has this 'built in' come into being?

B: By growing in the same way that our visual faculty developped .

K: Which means, by evolution ?

B: Evolution, yes.

K: Which means that right from the beginning it has evolved until we are now greater ( superior?) monkeys. Sorry!

R: I question that. When you say we are evolved from the monkey, you took for granted Darwin's theory.

K: We have evolved from the 'imperfect man' ; or 'not evolved' from the perfect man. We are going down the hill instead of up the hill, or we are going uphill, therefore we are imperfect man.

B: I wonder if we (really) want to discuss all these ( speculative?) things, they are really details that are not certain.

R: That is why I object to that statement about the monkey evolving. We don't know.

K: I don't know sir, I don't know how we have evolved but I do know this very simple fact : without recording there is no thought.

R: That means that thought is (just the mechanical response of our ?) memory ?

K: Of course. Thought 'is' memory, which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up, and when it is challenged it operates.

B: Well we have also said that thought is the ability to reason logically, along with the ( past knowledge stored in?) memory, all that together. All that is what you have called ('mental) faculties'.

R: Yes, I used that word because it uses a bigger field.

B: But you are saying it still depends on memory. And without memory none of the other ( mental) faculties could operate ?

K: Of course. Without recording there is no thought. So what is the beginning of this conditioning? Why does man condition himself (mentally?) ? For security, to avoid danger? Obviously. I ( choose to?) believe in Christ which gives me a certain sense of ( moral) strength to face this appalling thing, the world, so it gives me great comfort. That's all. It gives me an inner sense of security in an insecure world, ' the Father (or the Son?) is looking after me'. So the instinctual response of a human being is to feel secure, like a child, sir, the baby must have a sense of physical security, it must have food at the right times, at the right hour, and all the rest of it. Nothing wrong with that. Then, (as we grow up?) from that (basic need for ) physical security we turn to the 'psychological' security, which ( the belief in?) Christ gives me, or I can find comfort in some other illusion. You have (found ) your security in something, I have found my security in something else and so on. But each one of us 'clings' (or identifies with?) our own particular form of security, whether it is reasonable, sane, rational, that doesn't matter.

B: It seems to me that it is similar to the 'pleasure' question, that is, you first register the ( rewarding) feeling of pleasure and then try to 'build it up' (optimise or diversify it ?)

K: I can't let go of Christ, I say, 'my God, I can't'.

B: It is the same with pleasure, you can't give up ( your particular?) pleasure.

K: Of course, of course, the same problem.

S: I think it is even harder with pleasure because people nowadays can change ( switch their ) religion without too much difficulty, but we are much against giving up our ( personal?) pleasures when it really comes to it.

K: Ah, well that's a different matter altogether. Physical pleasure...

S: Or the 'pleasures' of the mind.

K: Of course.

R: But where are we going with this discussion ?

K: Where are we going ? We haven't yet discussed the central issue, what is ( a responsible ?) action without (the subliminal burden of?) of (our personal) motives, reactions, regrets, pain, sorrow. Can a human being act without all this dreadful confusion? Is there an action without any shadow of effort and regret ? I must find it out ( ASAP) because I don't want to enter into the ( collectively created?) cage (of the known?) and/or in ( its countless ?) rat races. So what shall we do? What is the 'right ( way of) action' which doesn't depend on circumstances, if there is an (insight-based ?) action which is complete in itself. Don't you ask me, what is that?

R: I do: what is that (insightful ) action ?

K: First of all, can you 'see' with your ( mind's?) eyes the tree as a whole? Can you see your wife, or your husband, or girl friend, or boy friend as a 'whole entity'? Can you see anything totally, or are you always seeing partially?

R: When you use this word 'totally' what is the meaning?

K: Whole. Can I see you as a 'whole being'? Can I see (the whole?) humanity as myself, which is the whole ( holistic perception?) ? Can I see ( the whole consciousness of ?) humanity as ( being one with?) myself? Because ( in its depths, the collective consciousness of?) humanity is ( in the same self-isolating condition as?) mine , suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure, sorrow-ridden. Right? So in ( holistically ? ) seeing humanity, I can see myself (as in a totally objective mirror?) .

R: Or rather the other way: by seeing yourself you see humanity.

K: It doesn't matter, if 'I see myself as humanity', then humanity is me. I am not separate from humanity. So I see the world as myself, which is the whole ( holistic seeing?) . Would that be right sir?

B: I was wondering if we could not go back and consider the (holistic perception of a ) tree for a moment. It is not clear when you say 'you see the tree as a whole'...

K: The whole thing, to see something wholly, sir.

B: Just 'see it all' ?

S: I think we are in a 'language bind' here : "I see as a whole", really it means that the ( hidden duality of the observing?) 'self', or the 'fallacy of the self', has clearly been 'seen into', because otherwise however much I try to 'see the tree as a whole' it is still ( a self-centred action of?) my thought.

K: That is the 'ultimate' ( top of the line?) thing. But ( for starters?) can you (try to look at?) your husband, your wife, or your girl friend, ( without superposing any mental 'image'?) as a whole being? 'Totally' (non-personally?) , you know. You do it ( often with total strangers?), can't you? How does that happen when you can see somebody wholly?

S: Tremendous warmth ?

K: If you love that tree you will see it wholly.

S: But we have also to be careful what we mean here by 'love'...

K: Keep it very simple : if I do 'love' (or have a sincere admiration for ?) somebody, the totality (the 'presence'?) of that man or woman is there.
Now (inwardly speaking?) can I see myself (with the same affectionate openness ?) 'wholly' - myself being ( the whole consciousness of?) humanity? Can I see this ( all-oneness?) as a whole?
( In a nutshell) I can only 'see myself as a whole' when I (deeply feel that I ?) am actually (one with?) the (consciousness of the?) rest of mankind.

B: You mean that essentially (inwardly?) I am the same as the whole (consciousness of all mankind?) .

K: Essentially, basically.

S: The basic human being (the 'nowhere man'?).

K: As a 'human' being. When one sees oneself as a whole the ( fragmentary?) parts disappear, therefore the 'self' (- identified consciousness?) is not (present?) . Sir, I can only see that tree completely if I don't ( evaluate, compare or ?) condemn, if I don't say, "It's my tree, it's in my garden." Right? You understand what I am saying?

R: Yes, yes...

K: So when I 'love' that tree ( when I look at it with a quality of non-personal affection?) I 'see it as a whole'.

B: Would you say then, that it is similar to all trees? Like saying, if 'I see myself as a whole', I ( realise that I?) am the same as all mankind.

K: So... I love ( I can look with unconditional affection at ?) all trees.

B: It is not just this particular tree that you love.

K: I love ( all) the trees, whether they are in your garden, or my garden, or somewhere else.

B: Wherever it is. So the particulars don't matter,

K: That's it. I raised this ( holistic) question of 'seeing wholly' because we were asking 'What is the action which is not fragmented as a 'business man', as the 'artist', as a (Buddhist scholar &) lecturer, as a ( Physics) Professor - what is an action which is 'total'.
Don't say, 'if the self is not then you will have it'. Because I have a self, one is caught in the self- (identification?) ; or rather the 'self' is there ( in full control?) .

B: So, you are saying, 'see the self-( centredness of any human consciousness?) as a whole and then it will change.

K: Yes, sir.

B: Therefore would you also say that you have to (look with?) 'love' (at) the self?

K: That is a 'dangerous' (very slippery?) statement. I was going to make it and I stopped myself just in time because that is what the various 'advertising people' say, 'Love the world as yourself', or 'Love your hair, use this ( Pedigreed Cucumber?) Shampoo'.

B: Could you say instead '( If) you are (feeling one with?) mankind, you 'love' mankind'?

K: Ah, now, be careful. Analogies are limited.

S: So are the words in themselves.

K: Any more questions, sir?

R: There is no end to these questions, therefore let us finish today like that. But you have answered all my questions, and thank you very much for all your very enlightening explanations.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 31 - 41 of 41 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)