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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 121 - 133 of 133 in total
Fri, 05 Oct 2018 #121
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Touching The Source of Energy of All Things

(A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, 1980)

K: Is it possible for the brain, which 'is' (presently dominated by its past?) memory, completely to be free of ( living in the closed field of its?) memory? Is there in the brain a ( holistic ?) faculty which can change the ( present 'thought-time') nature and structure of the brain so that it frees itself of the past, so that it is alive and new?
Since Rishi Valley—and I am not saying this in any personal sense and not exaggerating—every night the brain has been ‘breaking (through its residual limitations ?)' and entering into something immense. I have been watching this, as (impersonally?) if I were watching an operation on someone else.

PJ : Could you ( elaborate and/or ?) 'meditate aloud' on this ( transcendental spiritual experience?) ?

K : The last four months or so, there has been a peculiar activity going on, as though the brain was being 'washed out'—a 'purgation' taking place—and I wondered what it was about. Recently, when I was in Rishi Valley, a peculiar thing happened. For several nights, one actually touched the Source of the Energy of All Things. It was an extraordinary feeling; coming not from the mind or brain, but from the Source itself. And that has been going on, in Madras and here. It is as though one was totally 'isolated' ( from the temporal reality?) —if one can so use that word without a sense of withdrawal. There was a sense of nothing existing except ‘That.’ That Source or the 'feeling' (of It?) was a state in which the mind, the brain, was no longer in operation—only ( the lntelligence of?) that Source was in operation. (I have been also watching very carefully to see that desire does not enter into it at all, because the moment ( one's ) desire enters, it becomes a remembrance and the original thing is gone. So I am extremely careful to see that 'that thing' remains pure - clear, unspotted, not corrupted- it is like the 'pure water' of a mountain stream which has never been touched by human mind or hand.
I have been very careful about (observing?) this. I have found recently that the ( temporal) brain is losing its own 'volition', its own ( mental ?) activity. For as many years as can I recollect, I go for a walk for three or four hours and there is not a single thought in that time. And ‘That’ has been going on, when I go for a walk it is always there.

( Pre-Meditation hint:) The (constantly active temporal?) brain, is so accustomed to remembrance, to experience, knowledge, memory. It has to find its own tranquility... so that the Origin, the Beginning is not interfered with. The Bible and other religious books of the East are saying that in the beginning was Chaos and out of that chaos came Order. I think it is the other way, because Creation cannot be ( linked with ) chaos. ( In the Beginning?) there must have been 'total order'; ( even ) the earthquakes, the upheavals, the volcanoes, were all (part of this Cosmic?) Order. I think we have lost that sense of total, complete, original, blessed order. We have lost (or ignored?) it, and the 'darkness of chaos' has been created by man.
Even if there is God—I am using 'God' in the ordinary sense of the word—and He created original chaos and out of that created order, the Origin must have been order. The beginning must be order. Man's ( survival oriented mind?) called it 'chaos' and out of that man brought about a tremendous ( thoughtfully organised?) disorder. Now he seeks to go back to that Origin, to that Order. ( Hint:) That state must be something of immense benediction, an immense, timeless, incorruptible state, otherwise it is not Order.

PJ : So how can ( the holistically minded ?) man get back to That?

K: (For starters by realising that ?) It can never be 'experienced' ( personally?). Because ( any self-conscious ?) 'experience' implies recognition, remembrance. It is not a thing that 'you' go through as ‘I remember.’ ‘This’ is outside the realm of all (spatio-temporal ) experience, outside all knowledge, totally beyond all man’s endeavor.

PJ : But if ( 'That' source of Creation is not 'experienceable'?) man is left with his senses, and his desires and the vast accumulation of knowledge gathered in the brain.

K: So, the ( first experiential?) question is : can one 'wipe out' the tremendous (burden of psychological?) accumulation of a million years?

PJ : I think it is possible when all the senses are totally awake and 'excellent' (harmoniously integrated?) . Then there is no (mental) 'center' (of self-interest?) from which a (dualistic) experience can take place. When there is no ( such ) 'center', there is a state of non-( personal) experiencing, a state of (direct ) observation, when all the senses are highly awakened and functioning, superbly sensitive, then in that state, there is no center as the ‘me’ involved. It is this center as the ‘me’ that creates ( the 'time threads' of thought & ) desire. So what is ( the intelligent thing ) to do?

K: It is very important ( now or...for homework?) to understand ( the thought sustained movement of?) desire. If that is not completely understood, the subtlety of desire is immense and therefore it has immense possibilities of ( creating all kinds of) illusions. ( In short :) Desire, will & 'time' ( the mental continuance?) , must come to a complete end. That is, the mind, the brain, must be absolutely 'pure'— completely empty of ( all inwardly related ?) knowledge. A ( profoundly meditative?) state where thought can never arise—unless necessary. So that thought has its own (responsible place) so that it can only act in certain ( useful outward ) directions.
Such a ( meditation friendly ) brain that is free from all (greed for rewarding ?) experiences, and therefore of the knowledge ( regarding how to get them?) , is not in the field of ( though-) time ( of the 'known'?) , therefore has come to the beginning of all things. You cannot explain all this to ( spiritually ignorant) people. But some should (eventually?) listen to it—you follow?”

SP : What is the relationship between the ( perceptive?) state of the mind and That?

K: This ( self-conscious mind?) cannot go to That, that which is non-time. ( However?) the mind which is free from all ( self-centred?) experience, is like an (empty) vessel, it can receive That. But 'this' cannot go to That.

SP: What is the relationship between the (empty) vessel and ‘That’?

K: What are you talking about? The desire of the senses—desire that comes from one's center ( of self-interest) has to be completely 'emptied'. There is no movement towards ‘That’ which ( experientially-wise?) means the ending (of the 'thought-) time' (process) . Any ( mental) movement in any direction is time. Man has made great struggle to reach That. It is not possible (to be achieved this way ?)

(However, thought's movement of ?) Desire which is so subtle and therefore the creator of illusion, ( can and?) must end. The ( meditating?) brain has to be free of desire.
( Final Hint:) there can be no ( preset) pattern, no direction, no volition, no desire.

PJ : So, 'That' is ( the timeless movement of) Creation. There is no ‘has been’ in that. There is only 'beginning'. There is only the state of beginning.

K: Ah, wait—watch it carefully. When you say that 'there is always a state of beginning', what does it mean to the people who listen to you?

AC : What are the ( experiential) implications of this statement ''The ending is always the beginning''? What does it actually mean?

K: It means that in the ending of attachment there is (a new) beginning. Look, Sir, with the ending of ( thought giving continuity to) a problem, the mind is ( remaining momentarily) empty. To have a mind with no problems at all, is to have no ( desire for further ) experiences. But as an ordinary (average self-centred ) man I have all kinds of ( unfulfilled) desires, fears, etc. I 'carry them' (consciously or not?) all my life and I never say—can I end at least one thing ? - Eg : ( a particular?) attachment, a ( personal) jealousy... ???

AC : Even if can I end it, my mind is still full of (many other time-binding threads of unfulfilled desires &) thoughts..

K: The mind is full of ( various threads of desire & ) thought because the senses are not ( allowed to) fully flowering. But when the senses are fully flowering, what happens? There is no 'center' as ( thought-identified?) desire.

AC : What are the implications of this ( inner flowering of the senses ) in my daily life?

K: In your daily life, your main concern is whether your ( harmoniously integrated) senses can 'flower'. All your senses, not just your eyesight, not just hearing with the ear. Can you look at anything with all your senses ? Then you lose the 'center'; ( the self-conscious) 'experience' does not exist. Right?

AC : What interferes in the flowering of the senses?
K: There is nothing that interferes (except... an inherited survival-oriented mentality?) . We have never allowed the senses to flower. We have operated with ( self-centred) thought as the ( only fool-proof?) medium of action. But we have not ( took the necessary leisure time?) to enquire deeply into the origin of thought. The moment the (partial activity of the) senses begins comes appetite, sex—I start moving in a narrow (temporal) groove.
You have ( for optional meditation homework?) to go into that deeply so that all the senses are operating (& flowering?)

AC : Is it a question of the entering of this limitless energy (of Creation) ? And...is the limitless energy always there to enter? Is it the amount that can be received that makes the difference?

K: My ( absolute beginner's ) concern is to find if my senses can flower because from that everything arises.

AC : Do the senses become dull because of our lack of ( holistic?) attention?

K: 'You' are not aware of the senses. You 'are' the senses.
( Hint:) Is Love a movement of the senses?

AC : Doesn't ( a loving?) attention awaken the (totality of the?) senses?

K: Attention means care, responsibility, affection, no ( hidden personal) motive. So, when in our everyday life ( 'personal') problems do arise, the totality of senses is not operating. When the senses are awakened and there is no center, there is a beginning and an ending (of such problems)

( Clue:) Psychological problems do not exist in the state of no ( self-identified) center. So, don’t say 'I' must become ( choicelessly ?) aware; then you are lost. Yesterday, when we were walking, you were telling me of the computer. The brain was listening, it didn’t record. There was a sense of a pouring out, something pouring down to the brain. When something is actually taking place there is no ( personal ) feeling; when there is actually fear, there is no feeling. Fear arises a second after. The moment 'you' are apprehending it... there is fear

AC : There must be something ( else involved?) in that state (of listening with all the senses awakened?) ...

K: This cannot be answered (verbally?)

AC : Isn't there a complete renewal?

K: A renewal of the brain? Yes, the brain cells are 'cleansed'. They don’t carry (their) ancient ( karmic residues of) memory.

PJ : Your brain does not carry any 'ancient memory'? The million years are wiped away?

K: Otherwise there is only darkness...

( PS:) Days later, when we were at the breakfast table, I asked whether Krishnaji was pointing to a new use of the senses. When the senses are fully flowering, in a state of simultaneity, the center ceases. I asked him whether in this state the thrust of the “I” consciousness, which gives direction to the mind, dissolves? This wholeness of sensory intelligence negated the dividing line of outer and inner, the yesterday and tomorrow ?
“See it, Pupulji, see it,” Krishnaji said. “There is only being and beginning.”
In the days that followed Krishnaji spoke again and again of 'That' which lies beyond Creation itself. He said, “Order is the beginning, the source of an energy that can never diminish. To investigate it there must be an investigation of the senses and desire. That blessedness of order is when the mind does not have a single desire and the senses are operating fully, totally.” I asked Krishnaji whether he was saying essentially the same as he had said in previous years, but using new words; or were these insights entirely different? He said, “This is entirely different.” )

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 05 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Oct 2018 #122
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Awakening the Timeless Seed of Spiritual Questioning

A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1981

( Pupul Jayakar's intro: Achyut was recalling a K discussion in 1931  with Jawaharlal Nehru, who was then feeling that it was essential for India to be politically free before a regeneration in the Indian mind could take place. Krishnaji had said that if they ignored the inner regeneration in the struggle for Independence, India would lose its way. Nehru understood the importance of ( spiritual) regeneration, but felt that the India's political freedom had to provide the 'proper space' for the Indian mind to flower. Krishnaji’s response to Nehru was that India had stood for the religious spirit throughout history. “Buddhism spread from India to China, Japan, the whole of the East and Far East. What is the relationship of that religious core of India to the world today?” he had asked Nehru.)

K : Is that ( spiritual) 'core' (still) alive? The Christian world, had (opted for ? ) a religious core that rested on 'Faith'. In India at the heart of religion was the denial of everything but ‘That’. (The ancients used the word 'Tat' (as in 'Tat Twam Asi'?) or 'Brahman' to express it). In the ancient times religion was not based on caste or ritual. This concern with the core had lead to a different way of life. Now, is it possible for that 'seed' that has laid dormant in the soil for centuries to awaken?

PJ : It is the 'seed' awakening that is life, and the flowering of the ( flowering of the?) seed is the response.

K: You are all conscious of ( the current trends in the ) Indian culture - the various gurus, the cults, and also you must have a 'feeling of the core' from which great things took place. What relationship has that core (of Compassion, Love & Intelligence?) , if it still exists, to the Western religion and culture which is (still?) based on faith & belief?
If there is no ( actual) relationship, then is that the point from which a new regeneration can emerge?

PJ : If that core, that center, has 'disappeared' in India, is it in that, that the East and the West are coming together?

K: Apparently, from the beginning of (historically recorded?) time, the people of India had something which was genuine, true. They were deeply religious in the true sense of the word. There were the 'Buddhas' ( the 'enlightened' people?) and the 'pre-Buddhas' who had left their imprint on the ( 'spiritual) soil' of India. The present ( proliferation ?) of astrologers, gurus (& other 'psy' coaches ?) —does that indicate that the depth of the 'real thing' is going (away) ?
In the Christian world doubt had never been part of ( the main-stream?) religion. Here doubt, as part of religious enquiry, has always existed. Is that capacity to 'doubt' the truth ( or the falsehood of 'what is'?) disappearing and gradually becoming faith?
Do you see that 'doubt' in religious enquiry is one of the most extraordinary things that existed in India? Is this ( quality of self-?) doubt disappearing, and therefore is India joining the Western stream? Or if is it being smothered (by the 'great march forward' of modern technology ?) , we are losing the vitality of it? ( Hint:) 'Doubt' as an extraordinary act of purgation.”

RB : Doubt is becoming a formal ( culturally standardised ?) questioning...

K: I am speaking of real ( quality of self-) doubt, with the immense ( potential of intelligent?) energy that lies behind it. What do you say, Pupulji? You are a mixture of both the East and the West (cultures) .

PJ : When you use that word ‘doubt,’ it is an immense thing. But I cannot answer your query whether it still exists in India or not...

K: The Theosophical Society and Amma (Mrs Annie Besant) had that quality at the beginning ; she left ( the organised religion of?) Christianity, she (even?) left her husband; there was doubt ; but then... she got trapped ( entangled?) in organizational ( issues?) and lost ( the spiritual?) vitality. But the original Indian mind emphasized ( the spiritual importance of ) doubt : ( the 'transpersonal' quality of ) doubt with its (inner) clarity and immense vitality, purges the mind of illusions. Is India losing that? Because it is only through 'doubt' that you come to the Brahman, not through acceptance of authority.

RB : That is what the Buddha also said...

K: Are we losing that? Not ( speaking of) the few of us (present) . But the Indian mind. Is it losing that quality, that (meditative inward?) quest for clarity?

RB : I still think that in India 'doubt' ( discerning the truth from the false?) exists, but this doubt has become a ( scholarly?) tradition. We question in a formal sense. In the West this takes the form of scientific search -they doubt ( the value of) anything that has not been corroborated by experiment. The modern Indian mind also has turned in the direction of scientific search.

AP : The Western tradition of conformity has also entered the Indian ( cultural) stream.

PJ : Krishnaji has brought into his teaching a new factor: a ( transpersonal quality of ?) doubt that does not move toward an answer. When you use the word ‘doubt’ within the Indian context, immediately out of 'doubt' springs ( the spiritual) search.

AP : ''What am I'?'' , ''Who am I?'' This is the Indian (existential) question. This is not a question with a direction.

K: Of course. If you have 'doubt' with direction, then it has an entirely different meaning.

PJ : Doubt without being followed by search has not existed in the Indian (cultural main)stream. In Krishnaji’s 'doubt' is ( implied ?) an immediate (meditative ?) immobility of the mind.

K: I am asking a really very serious question : in India the mind is being caught and carried away by the materialistic wave. ( Hint:) The same (tidal) wave is also threatening the culture of the Western world, expressing itself through technology, materialism, (& vulgarity and/or?) nationalism. The Western mind is moving in the direction of the 'outer', and it dominates the world. So is India losing something which was there? From what one can see it appears to be losing it.

MZ : Are you asking whether the 'other spirit' which underlays India is failing? How does one tell that?

K: Can you answer that question? Can you feel, probe into it? Can Pupul or Achyut have a feeling of what is happening in this country? Can you take the 'outer' (the manifested world ?) as a measure and move to the 'inner'? The 'Other' was always there. I am saying something very simple. India moved from a 'center' (of authentic spirituality ?) and that center spread all over the Asiatic world through inner search, dance, music, and cultural expression. The Western world was 'centered' in belief, which is so 'superficial'. That superficiality, that materialism, is that conquering this? It is very significant to see the outer manifestation of this (materialistic trend?) in India, through its bureaucracy, technology, science, nuclear energy; following the ways of the West; and so is the pristine, original core of this country gradually withering away? India was centered on (that) one thing. And therefore she had a 'fire' which spread thoughout the world. Now what is happening to the Indian core?

MZ : Would you not say that in India the 'spirit' has turned to the other? It has become adulterated. It is no longer a force. So what is the difference between India and the West?

PJ : I would not say that this field has been corroded in the last fifteen years. I would not say that..

K: I hope not. But I won’t accept your statement. I am questioning it. I want India to be that. So I say I hope India is not going to lose it. If it is lost, it is lost. I don’t want her to lose it, because then it is the end of everything.

PJ : Either you bring what you are saying into the comparative field of time and question whether earlier there were more people concerned with the core, or you can only put the question ( outside the temporal context) : ''Are there people today who take their stand in this?”

AP : Outside of those people who have been exposed to Krishnaji in India, are there people who take their source, their energy from doubt?

PJ : There have been times in the history of this country when ( the core of its spiritual ?) energy has exploded in great manifestations. When you say India is deteriorating, a hundred years ago was there religious doubt then and what was its nature? So don’t put the question in terms of linear time. Can one ask the question are there people today who have the capacity to ask this question?

RB : There have been various factors also that have contributed to the wearing away of this spirit. The Bhakti movement with its emphasis on belief and faith, which existed for a number of centuries, could be compared to Christianity. Then the modern, scientific approach has reduced all nature to experiment. All this has cut the source at the roots.
PJ : In the past there were only a few 'aristocrats of the spirit' who took their stand on the formless. Buddha ( awoke?) arose and talked. It was three hundred years before the ( 'official' Buddhist ) teaching was established.

K: Don’t say you cannot answer my question. I have been questioning this for years. This time as I flew into Bombay I was again asking that question, is the ( materialistic mentality of the?) West conquering the East? The West has the capacity to organize, bring people together, it has technology, communication, etcetera. It has been capable of building ( standardised?) 'systems' (of thought?) to a marvelous extent. Here it was not based on organization or system. There were people who 'stood alone'.

PJ : There is a field of good and the field of evil. The challenge really is what is possible to make that 'field of good' more potent.

K: No, the Good cannot be 'potent'. Good is 'good'.

PJ : Take it that the 'center' (the spiritual core?) is corroded. What is the right response?

K: Then we can say ''it is finished'', let us do something about it. But if you say it exists then we just carry on.

PJ : And if I admit it is finished?

K: Then that ( old cultural trend?) which has an ending has a new beginning. If it has ended, then something tremendous is taking place.

AP : That is the major difference between you and others (local spiritual teachers) . I was brought up in a ( multi-millenary cultural) tradition which believed in this source and everyone thought about revivalism, saying that it existed. You are the only person who is asking whether the seed is alive or not.

PJ : As long as Krishnaji is there, how can I say that the seed is corroded?

RB : I also fail to see how doubt has completely ended and a new thing has started.

K: When something has ended a new thing (something new?) is taking place.

PJ : You can ask, is there doubt in me? I can answer that directly; but when you ask me has that seed been corrupted, I can never answer that.

K: I am afraid that if 'doubt' (the spirit religious questioning?) has ended in India, then it is a terrible thing...

PJ : If I deny that 'seed' I have denied everything.

K: I am not talking of denying it. I am asking you a ( subliminally active ?) question. The ( cultural influence of the West ( not to mention that of the North, South & East?) is becoming enormously powerful with its science, technology, organization, communication, ( instruments of ) war, all that. That enormity has smothered (the inner light of?) 'That' which is not (physically speaking?) 'enormous'. Right? Is the ( spiritual?) 'core' of India so enormous within, that it can counter (balance ) that (powerful materialistic trend?) and see that it is not touched by all that? Do you see what I am saying? It is not ( anymore?) a 'geographical' question. I am talking about the ( spiritual essence of the human?) mind that has produced the Upanishads, the Buddha... ( the list is open ended ) . India has been the storehouse of something very very great. The West, with its emphasis on faith and its materialism, is destroying its ( long past?) 'greatness'.

PJ : I cannot answer your question...

K: You (all?) have got to answer. It is a ( major existential?) challenge you have got to meet ( sooner or later?) . Is the ( holistically inclined ?) human mind asking itself the question: ‘Is there a mind that is incorruptible?’
The (tradition of) religious enquiry in India was not based on faith, so it could move (freely?) in any direction. Free of direction, there was a different movement taking place; this is the ( spiritual) essence of the Buddhas & the pre-Buddhas. Is that 'essence' gradually being corroded or is that (timeless spiritual) 'essence' expressing itself now? Not as the 'Buddha' or 'Maitreya'—these are but names - but is(n't) that 'essence' expressing itself now?

PJ : That ( timeless spiritual) 'essence' is incorruptible. Therefore It cannot be corroded. ( However, the Indian mind of today is conditioned. The only thing which one can say is that that mind, because it has been tuned to the ‘Other’ for centuries, may have a proclivity to the ‘other.’

K: And so, the possibility of a (holistic qualitative?) mutation. I think this (local?) 'mind' has a greater possibility of mutation. This is not denying the ( potential aspirants from the?) West. We are not talking of the East and the West ( & North & South?) as 'opposites'; we are talking of a quality of mind that has no (need for a pre-programmed cultural ?) 'direction'.

RB : Would you say the ( survivalistically ?) 'conditioned' mind can have nothing to do with ‘That’?

K: The conditioned mind can have nothing to do with ‘That,’ but ‘That’ can have something to do with ‘this.’ So I am asking whether the 'mind of India', that has evolved through five thousand years, the 'mind of the Buddha'—can ( the spiritual essence of ) that mind ever be conditioned (or corrupted?) ? You say, Pupul, that this is the ( spiritual) mainstream of the Indian mind. ( But...) are we ( vitally immersed ) in those (deep) 'waters of ( spiritual) enquiry'? Or are we just (  comfortably? ) floating on words, symbols, myths, ideas, theories?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 07 Oct 2018 #123
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Inner Wholeness and Holistic Perception

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue extracted from Mrs Pupul Jayakar's Memoirs, cca 1982 )

( PJ's intro : We started discussing the 'holographic' model, in which ( even the smallest?) fragment contains (the essential informations of ) the whole (picture?) . Krishnaji said that in a total perception there was the 'wholeness' ( the 'total picture' ?) of mankind. He spoke of the (holistic?) perception of ( the nature of human?) sorrow, in which there was a total freedom from sorrow; in such (holistic?) perception the human consciousness was renewed. )

K : (...) Is that so? In one perception of sorrow, is there ( revealed?) the whole content of human sorrow? If you see the whole movement of ( pursuing the ?) sensory pleasures you have understood the whole ( psychological) content of ( the self-centred?) consciousness.

AP : Could we be so aware of the ( complex activities of our ?) body & mind?

K: Could there be an exploration of ( the nature of holistic?) attention? We have (often) said, ‘attend !’ But we have never probed into ( this?) 'attention'!
What takes place as attention probes into itself? If you are so attending, all your senses are completely awake. It is not just one (or two?) senses attending, but the 'totality' of all the senses (integrated & functioning in harmony?) . Otherwise you cannot 'attend'. When there is one sense that is highly cultivated and the others are not, one cannot attend ( holistically ?) . The complete(ly integrated?) sensory activity is a state of (total) attention. Partial sensory activity leads to ( mental ?) concentration. Attention has no center. Attention is a ( self-energised movement?) - it flows, moves, getting more and more (intense?) , as a river that has behind it a vast volume of water; a tremendous volume of attention energy , wave upon wave upon wave, each wave having a different movement. We have never enquired into what takes place ( within this?) attention. Is there a total summation of ( mind & brain's intelligent ?) energy?

In (meditatively?) penetrating into a wave of ( insightful ?) perception as ( the summation of all one's?) energy, extraordinary things go on. There is a sense of soaring ecstasy; a feeling of limitless space; a vast movement of color. Color is 'God' ( manifested ?) , not the 'gods' we worship, but the Color of the earth, the sky, the extraordinary Color of a flower.

AC : Would you include aroma?

K: Of course, Color 'is' (not separated from?) aroma, So, can one see ( anything) completely with all the senses (fully awakened?) ? 'See' not with the eyes alone, but with the ears; to listen, to taste, to touch? There has to be ( an authentic inner?) harmony and this is only possible when there is no 'center', no ( "thought-time" ?) movement.

( For optional homework:) Watch yourself ( this way) ; look at the sunlight and see whether you can see with all your senses, completely awake and completely free ( of the heavy burden of the past?) . Which leads to an interesting 'fact': Where there is disharmony, there is the 'self' ( along with its self- centred interests?) .

( In a nutshell:) ( The holistic) attention 'is' (the natural action of mind & brain's ?) complete harmony. ( Experiential clue:) There must be a great volume of energy gathered through ( living in) harmony (with All That Is?) . It is like the river Ganga. Attention is a ( timeless?) movement (in)to eternity.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 08 Oct 2018 #124
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

More 'reader-friendly' selected excepts from Pupul Jayakar's memoirs of K, along with a small but very educational dialogue :

On October 1981,( on his return to India) Krishnaji was looking very frail and had lost a great deal of weight. He had aged and his shoulders were bowed. He wanted to talk seriously to us in the afternoon. One night, he awoke with a feeling of 'being completely well'. Every organ in his body was healthy and awake. In that state he had a sense that the Door of Death was 'open' and he was stepping through, completely awake and completely still. ( However) at one instant the door closed. He then turned to me very seriously and said, “Death can come at any moment.” He asked me how I was physically. I said I had not been too well. He said, “You have to be well. You have to outlive me.” And then he said these strange words, which he repeated, “Learn to die to yourself completely.” His frail body was shaking, yet there was a roar of thunder in his words.

His first talk (in Benares) was exalted. He spoke about “the teaching as the mirror in which you see ‘what is’ reflected. The ( living aspect of the ?) teaching is the perception within you, of the actual.” He said, “See, ask, what is religion, what is thought? See thought arising. The truly religious mind is concerned with discovery and the understanding of what Truth is.
Find out the beginning of thought, operating in time. For millennia, man is caught in pattern, in knowledge. There is no freedom in pattern, in knowledge. (...) We then discussed the morning talk; Krishnaji said he had talked a great deal; there were a number of books. People referred to them as “Krishnamurti’s teachings.” “The teachings were not the book,” he said. “The only teachings were, ‘Look at yourself. Enquire into yourself—go beyond.’ There is no 'understanding of the teaching', only 'understanding of yourself'. The words of K were a pointing of the way. The understanding of yourself is the only teaching.”

On November 24, Achyut, Rimpoche Samdhong, and I had lunch with Krishnaji. The Rimpoche’s face was very grave. Suddenly, the Rimpoche said, “For the last few days I have known great sorrow. I have meditated—looked, listened, but it is there.” He had tears in his eyes and deep sorrow on his face. We talked of the 'ending of sorrow' and the 'holding of sorrow' in the mind and what it involved. Krishnaji suddenly put his two hands over his heart and said, “It is here.” I asked him to elucidate that gesture. He said, “First of all, one must observe, see with great care the mind and its functioning, listen to what is within and without; out of this arises sensitivity and in sensitivity there arises insight. That insight alone will wipe away sorrow.”

A day earlier we had, at a small discussion, spoken of time and knowledge. “Can the brain be free of time as becoming—can it change its dependence on psychological time?” He spoke of the 'mind of man', the million years of man’s history, contained in the brain cells and the transformation in the brain cells. The birth of a global mind demanded an urgency, a revolution in the human condition. “What is man’s relationship to the ( Intelligent Mind of the ?) Universe?” I again asked Krishnaji, “Has there been a change in your teachings?” He pondered for a few moments, then said pointing to the river Ganga, “at the source, that river is one drop—it is the Ganga.”

He spoke of the Meditation of the Universe as the Ground of Creation. Meditation being a state without horizons, a space without limit, and an ending of time. He probed into this (inward ?) space, using intelligence as the instrument. “The probing is with 'no-thing', into a wordless endless Being.” This enquiry within is infinite. You must be alone, stripped, then you can take a journey into the unknown.
(...) In Life there is both Creation and Destruction— (but) the very act of 'listening' is the miracle, it is light in darkness. In it is mutation and deep uprooting. Could one in the act of listening, explore into oneself? )

And here's the bonus K dialogue

The nature of holistic attention.

K: What is it 'to attend' (with all one's being?) ? Such total attention to one ( single thread of?) thought unfolds the whole nature of ( the time-) thought (process) .

PJ : For ( being capable of?) such a total attention, the mind has to have 'weight' ( a critical 'energy mass') . Every (new act of) attention gives depth to the ground of the mind.

K: No ( thought-controlled?) preparation is necessary.

PJ : Then, what gives the mind the 'swiftness', the (inner clarity of?) 'insight' to perceive that in one thought, all ( the truth regarding the time-bound ) process thought is revealed?

K: It is necessary ( in meditation?) for the brain cells to be totally still.

PJ : But there is an inherent tendency in the brain to 'move' (in time & space ?) .

K : ( The psychological?) mutation is immediate. The question is, what makes it take place?

PJ : Biologically (speaking) a mutation is possible when there is a tremendous necessity for such mutation; or, with the ending of a particular function of the brain, the ( previously specialised) cells wither away and a new (type of brain?) cell is born.

K : ( The inner realisation of ?) the absolute necessity to change creates the biological need to find the new. As knowledge cannot transform man, I ask, is there an action that is not based on knowledge?

PJ : ( For this realisation?) I have to observe the mind, to see its traps. That is ( creating the right conditions for a major?) insight.

K: No, you are ( sounding as ?) a traditionalist. You are speaking of years of preparation to see this. I say, insight 'is' (inherent in ?) the perception of ( the inner inadequacy of?) this (time- thought) pattern. Insight breaks the pattern.

PJ : The word ‘insight’ is an interesting word. It implies a ''sight into the within'' (an inner sight?) . Insight is to turn your face away from the 'known'.

K: Yes. The brain is conditioned to (think along ) a pattern (of temporal continuity?) . The very 'biological' necessity (for operating a qualitative change?) makes it to break the pattern. The insight (the 'holistic perception'?) needed to see this does not need training, nor time.

PJ : I am not speaking of ( the total) 'insight' ( involved in ending thought's) continuity as ( it is projecting itself in ) 'time', but as ( a more 'user-friendly' quality of ?) 'insight' - a deepening of the mind.

K: Deepening is (still in the field of 'thought - ) time'. See what is implied in what you are saying.

PJ : You are speaking of the mind being 'totally still'. Twenty years ago when you asked such an ( 'absolute' ?) question, my thoughts moved towards ( achieving the quality of stillness sugested by your totally challenging ? ) question. ( Fortunately enough?) this no longer happens. The brain is still and listens. There is a difference in quality between the two states. How can you deny the ( intrinsical value) of these twenty years (of self-preparatory work?) ?

K: ( The subliminal stress involved in achieving the holistic quality of 'insight' in terms of?) 'time' makes the brain duller and duller. I question the whole concept of 'time' to get anywhere (psychologically-wise?) ) . I don’t accept ( the inner validity of this ?) inner time.

PJ : I am not talking of it as a 'practice'.

K: But you are giving strength to ( the traditional concept of spiritual achievement in  ? ) time. How ( strong) is the river in flood flow  (but... holistically- wise?) the first 'few' drops 'are' the river.

AP : You are so relentless in your ( holistic?) logic. There is such immensity in what you say. Yet, I see that there is a blockage in me that comes in the way of my understanding you.

K: Could you consider ( for 'meditation homework'?) denying the ( validity of) psychological time as ( self-) becoming ? Can you 'deny' ( the continuance of the thought-) time (mental process) so that it ceases in your brain? We are speaking of the 'psychological' process of time as a ( virtual) movement from 'here' ( fro 'what one is now'?) to 'there' ( what one expects to be tomorrow) .

(...Silent Pause....)

Can you accept (the validity of chronological ) time as sunrise and sunset and ( at the same time see that inwardly?) there is no other time? Don’t say ‘Yes.’ Do you see what 'no psychological future' implies ? It means ( that what has been done in ) the 'past' has its own ( measurable causal) action, but not as (thought's) movement (in terms of) becoming something.
So, when I say, ''There is no ( necessary inner) preparation for (having a total?) insight'', can you see ( the inward truth of it?) immediately, without (taking extra ) time?

PJ : One can see that the (the 'active memory' function of) brain cells and thought are one. The brain cells for millennia have been conditioned to move (along) a (temporal) pattern. You told me some years ago that the brain cells could not renew themselves, but a 'new' ( type of) brain cell had to be born.

K: ( Such a radical inner ?) 'transformation' cannot take place in the old cell, nor in thought. The 'new' can have no relationship to the ( time-binding patterns of the?) old. All ( temporal) change, the movement from one corner of the brain to another, is not ( bringing a total) renewal. Find out, ( for optional 'meditation homework'?) whether it is possible to break ( the time binding continuity of this ages old ?) conditioning and discover something totally New.

( To recap:) We said that in a total (transpersonal holistic ?) attention was the ending of the old. I could not know or contact directly the brain cells, but I could only know thought. Any operation of ( this holistic) attention has to be on thought. Then we have said that ( this 'time-thought') movement is inbuilt into the brain. Can that brain, which for millennia has known movement, not move?
Now we are getting ( at the experiential aspect of ) it : can one see the (functioning of the ) brain cells as (their past memory continuously responding in terms of self-centred ?) thinking? Can one see that attention can only act on thought? And that ( this holistic) transformation has no relationship with thought? The old ( 'time-thought' continuity ?) has to end for the new (to be born)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Oct 2018 #125
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Transcending the 'psychological' limitations of Time

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue with Pupul Jayakar & friends, cca 1983)

K: What is ( the psychological ) time? Can we be ( inwardly?) 'simple' and go as deeply into the nature of this 'time' as possible? We know a whole series of continuous ( mental threads ) of psychological time as (self-projected ) 'becoming'  from ‘what is’ to ‘what should be’ is (the 'psychological' component of ) time. The 'physical' (chronological) time is ( used by thought in order to measure) a distance, from 'here' to 'there'. Now, is this 'physical' time related internally to the 'psychological' time?

PJ : Knowing ( being very familiar with the conventional measurement of the ) 'physical' time by the clock, (the thoughtful brain?) applies the same ( logic of) 'time' in its 'inner' world . The (result is a very realistic?) illusion which is shaping the whole structure of the within along the linear movement of physical time. The measure of ( one's psychological) becoming is (generating the?) inward time.

K: When the outer movement (of the outward time) is 'extended' (adapted ?) to 'psychological' states, the ( very realistic ?) illusion of ( an unbroken continuity in ?) time enters. The idea of growth in the outer world is extended to one's inner life as a movement of becoming 'what I should be’ (or to what our family or society wants us to be?) It is a process of fantasy; it builds-up itself from illusion to illusion. The mind ruminates. ‘What will be—then what will happen?’ ( The collateral ?) anxieties & fears are part of its structure.
The brain extends the physical time into the inner psychological sphere, because the brain is conditioned to linear time in the outer. As it is conditioned to that, it accepts ( the reality of the ) psychological time in the 'within'.
I am questioning ( the reality of?) that ( deeply imbedded?) illusion that conditions the brain. The brain is accustomed to the movement of becoming. It looks at itself as a movement in time. It operates in this 'illusion' ( in this illusory mentality?) . The brain is evolved in time, and so looks at everything in terms of time. ‘I am, I was,’ modified into, ‘I will be.’ Now I ask, is that so? Is there a 'tomorrow' in the ( inner world of the?) psyche?

PJ : As there is a 'physical tomorrow', ( brain's projection of) a 'psychological tomorrow' seems inevitable...

K: That is, a ( temporal inner) continuity.

PJ : I exist; therefore I will be (around?) tomorrow. But why do such 'strong feelings' (of existential anxiety & ) fear - get entangled in thought's projection into ' tomorrow'?
( long silence …)

K: ( Inwardly?) there is no 'time' (-continuity) ; we know the 'physical time' as ( intimately related to the physical ?) movement. There is no way of measuring physical time without movement. If there were no (mental?) movement in the psyche, thought's ( 'time creating mechanism' traditionally known as the ?) 'wheel of time' ends.
Look at ( the rational description of it ?) Movement is time. Movement is thought. Thought is a material process. That is simple. Why do we complicate it? Can you accept this even logically?

PJ : What do you mean by 'accepting this statement logically'?

K: To see ( intellectually ?) that any 'psychological' movement is a process of ( self-) becoming. Now (experientially-wise?) is there (an inner state of being ?) where no time exists? (For instance?) if you sit ( meditating ?) in a dark room, without ( any physical) movement, is there ( a sense of the passing ) time? This is also ( true ?) in the ( mental space) 'within', when there is no (movement of) thought (projecting itself in ?) time.

PJ : There may be a momentary 'stopping' of the physical movement in the brain, but the ( subliminal) action of 'time' as ( ensuring the sense of) continuity operates in every cell of my body. It also acts in the brain – the ( survival oriented ) action of time is inevitable...

K: The (material ) brain is a physical thing - it grows old, it deteriorates. The question is whether the ( intelligent energy of the?) brain needs to deteriorate?

PJ : If it is a material process, as material as the fact that my hair grows gray—it must deteriorate. How is it possible that one part of the organism can remain unaffected (by the passing of time) ?

K: You say the brain grows senile. Senility is the ( the common symptom of brain's ) physical aging by time. To me the brain need never grow old,

PJ : How do you distinguish between the brain and other organs? How can the brain alone have the capacity for renewal?

K: Are we clear what is meant by (psychological) time? It is the same ( survival-oriented) movement in the outer existence as in the inner. They are not separate. Millennia through millennia, that movement has continued. This (imbedded mentality of) constant movement is the factor of deterioration, both organically and in the psyche. The ( next experiential ?) question is : Can the ( inner survival-oriented ?) 'movement' stop?

PJ : The brain receives physical stimuli so it will always respond as ( some physical or mental) movement to the (incoming) challenge...

K: Go slow, go slow ? There is ( the physical) reaction and action—otherwise the brain is ( as good as …) dead. But that ( neurological?) action in itself has little significance (other than ensuring the physical survival ???) .

PJ : The (physical) brain cannot be wholly still ; so, does its aging arise because of movement or because of ( its self-generated ?) frictions?

K:( Thought's self-centred ?) movement', as we know it, is ( generating a great amount of) friction. This ( self-sustained psychological) 'movement' is the ( time-) deteriorating factor. Any ( mechanistic?) movement in the brain physically wears out the brain. But it is the psychological process that ( prioritarily ) affects the body and the brain. It is not the other way around.
AC : Can there be an (inner) movement without friction?

K: If there is no ( self-centred) 'psychological' movement, then ( mind's?) movement is as in absolute space, there is no friction. When the 'psychological' movement is not, ( the psychological) 'time' as (a continuous ) becoming is not.
But...one can sit very quietly in a dark room for twenty years and the brain will go on aging— for thought, as ( the subliminal process behind  this ? ) becoming, continues to operate. But when thought is ( naturally ) 'quiet', without movement, then the ( inner world of the ?) 'psyche' has no time.
( In a holistic nutshell:) If there is no movement as thought, there is no (psychological) 'becoming'. This 'becoming' creates duality, conflict, deterioration ( &) 'time'.
Time is the barrier, is limitation. Only a (mind?) that is moving without friction can go to the limitless. If friction as 'psychological time stops, is there a factor of deterioration?

AC : When the brain is quiet, does the ( physical) body function naturally?

K: Yes, the body has its own intelligence. But...is this an (experiential) actuality? Can the brain ever be without movement except for its own natural movement? Psychological movement is interfering with the ( psychosomatic) body. Can this (fake?) 'movement' stop? That in turn implies, can there be no ( psycho-) accumulations of any kind?

PJ : What distinguishes the negation (or the denial) of all time as movement? And...how is one ( becoming) aware of ( the subliminal continuity of thought-) 'time'?

K: I am ( becoming ) aware of it when there is a ( major existential?) challenge.

PJ : But even then, the brain reaches out, looks backwards or forwards, and asks questions.

K: That is movement...

PJ : And when the brain is not seriously challenged, it plays games with itself. It throws up memories.

K: The ( average ) brain 'is' (dominated by its psychologically-active) ?) memory - remorse, guilt, are a constant movement in the brain, as memory. The ( temporal) brain 'is' memory, a movement from the past through the present to the future.

AC : Continuity is that. The brain creates memory. Does it just 'play with it'?

K: The brain survives through memory.

.
PJ : So, what is the 'movement' that must stop? Or do you say that all movement must stop?

AC : The brain feels that ( living in its familiar field of psychological ?) memory there is security...

PJ : In the ending of this 'movement' (of psychological time?) , does a new movement come into being, which makes the brain feel totally secure? Is there a movement outside time?

K: As the heart functions naturally, so the brain has its own natural movement—when ( its psychological) memory does not interfere. The brain has its own movement on which it has superimposed ( the 'personal') 'memory'. Listen : the heart beats without ( personal?) remembrances. The brain can function without movement, if allowed to do so by (the survivalistic activity of) thought. The heart doesn’t pump because of knowledge.

PJ : To draw ( such holistic?) similarities between the heart and brain is not correct. The physical brain has evolved out of memory, out of man’s capacity and experiences. It can only survive through hoping (for the best ?) , seeking survival.
But is the brain we know built out of memory? There is a part of the brain one is not aware of. The whole brain is not linked to memory.

K: The human brain has sought security through knowledge. ( But its subliminal addiction to?) knowledge has made the 'ground of the brain' very limited. Now, its evolutionary knowledge is discovering that the ( existential) 'ground of the brain' which it has created is not stable and feels that friction as movement is necessary for the brain to survive.
So what does it do now ? It 'sees' (the sobering fact that ?) there is no security in ( living exclusively in the field of) knowledge. The brain realizes its ( psychological) foundation in (time &) ) knowledge is very weak.

AC : Can it also see (an alternative opening?)

K: The ( survival-oriented ) brain, as it functions now , can never let go of the past. All its movement is (enmeshed in) time. So I ask, does one remain in the old house?

AC : If there is no movement (obviously) there is no time. But what I say is at the intellectual level....

K: If there is no ( self-centred inward ?) 'measurement', is it the same brain that functions without movement? When the brain is silent, the ( natural intelligence of the?) 'mind' operates. That 'is' ( one with?) the Intelligence of the Universe. ( ...long silent pause...)

PJ : Is this 'intelligence' a natural faculty of the brain?

K: The Intelligence that sees the ( psycho-) movement of (self-centred ) continuity as the process of aging is outside the ( material?) brain.

AC : If the brain cannot reach it, then 'who' or 'what' is it that sees the limitation of the brain? To see that, the brain must have contact with that.

K: The ( time-free ?) brain in its ( holistic?) functioning has its own intelligence. That limited brain has no relationship to the other.

AC : Then what is it that can stop the ( time-bound) movement of the brain?

K: It is perceiving its own inadequacy.

AC : If the brain is only a movement of time, then what sees its own limitation?

K: Would you accept 'insight' as the operation of the whole brain?

PJ : Is the ( illuminating?) operation of 'insight' then not connected with the narrow operation of the ( physical) brain?

K: An 'insight' into the operation of ( thought's temporal ) limitation frees the brain from limitation. (Hint : ) Insight can only arise when there is no ( continuance of psycho-) memory, and so no 'time'. When the 'whole brain' is operating, it has no direction. It is free of the past. Insight is ( the action of the ?) 'mind' operating on the 'brain'.

PJ : But (as long as ) the brain is (still) limited, how can the 'mind' operate on the brain?

K: As one is ( meditatively ?) watching very carefully, without ( any personal) motive, in this watching there is ( the building up of a ?) tremendous ( energy of pure ?) attention. It is like 'light' focusing. The depth of this attention is (originating in the?) 'mind'. That ( holistic quality of) attention focuses 'light' on the limitations of the brain.

(Parting words:) Love is outside the brain. ( And this is how?) we come to an ending (of 'psychological time' ?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Oct 2018 #126
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

A fine 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue held in 1984 on:

Time, Mind & Brain, Love & Death

GS : The question has been raised by our friend on the functioning of different kinds of time. That is, is there a ( diferent dimension of ) time which comes into operation even when ( the psychological) 'becoming' ceases to be? That is, when the normal process of causation, of memory and expectation, anticipation—all the background accumulated over one’s lifetime or even before that—have been given up, or drops off, is there still a ( different dimension ) of time in which (life's) events unfold?

PJ : Krishnaji also spoke of a ( holistic) perception which simultaneously negates that arising, a simultaneity of arising and negating; and what is the nature of time, in relationship to the ‘now’?

K: We have said that ( thought's psychological) 'time' is not only (implied in personal & collective ) becoming, anticipation & hope, but also in possessing and accumulating knowledge and living (safely protected in the field of?) that knowledge. And we asked, Is there any other movement (or dimension ?) of time ? Is there a non-movement when one has stepped out of ( the illusion of?) 'psychological' time? Is there a movement which is totally different from the movement of time and thought?

GS : Do you speak of the brain ceasing to function, or the mind ceasing to function?

K: I would like to separate the 'brain' and the 'mind'. The brain is conditioned. The mind is outside the brain. Mind, for me, is something totally unrelated to the conditioned brain and therefore something which is not measurable by words or by thought. Whereas the brain activity and the ( energy) wastage of brain's ( self-centred) activity is measurable and any ( mental) function arising from brain's accumulated knowledge is the 'known' —as myself, my ego, my self-centered activity. Now, is it possible not to be self-centered? Can one ask this question: Can one be free of the 'self' (of one's psychological identification?) , entirely?
The ( time-bound ) self (-consciousness ) , the ‘me,’ is the product of time, of our evolution. It is the ( survival oriented) activity of the self-centered brain as 'my' (social) position, my power. And as long as there is that ‘me’ which is ( a pro-active aggregate of?) accumulated knowledge, memory, experience, there is the limitation of time.

JU : One may speak of time in whatever way one likes—time as thought, time as movement, etcetera. There is time as the coming into existence and time as ceasing to be, which is the process of becoming in which we live. But behind it, is there a ( timeless dimension of the ) 'mind', in which there is no arising and ending? And if, as you're saying it is 'outside' us, one cannot do anything about it. We can’t act upon it or investigate it?

K: No, we can’t. As long as the 'self', the ‘me,’ is arising, dying, arising, ending, and again arising, this constant process of ( self-) becoming is time.

JU : Not only 'becoming', but 'being'...

RB : When Upadhyaya speaks of 'being', he means ‘I am.’ There is a becoming, but there is also the sense of ‘I am.’ We can see this ( continuous ) process of thoughts arising & ending—when this ( temporal continuity) stops, what happens?

K: How do you know it stops?

RB : To put it simply, when 'becoming' comes to an end, is there Being?

K: What do you mean by 'Being'?

AP : The sense of ‘I am'.

PJ : The sense of existing...

K: What is 'existing'? The moment you acknowledge that 'you are living', you set the whole process of the 'self' in operation.

PJ : No, I won’t accept that ; with ( thought's) ending, becoming ends. To most of us it is possible for a thought ( thread ?) projection to end, which is for becoming to end. But that state is not a dead thing. It is a state of existing.

GS : When you talk about Being, is it a statement about a condition or function or are you talking about an object? If it is Being, by definition it is an object.

PJ : I am not talking about Being as object.

GS : So, when you talk about 'existing ' or 'Being', to the extent that there is no separation of a knowing person from the rest, to the extent of that there is 'vyaapti', a complete identification (with All That Is?) , without claiming anything for yourself, there is no separation between you and anything else.

PJ : Why do you deny Being? Being in the sense that something ‘is.’ Do you say ( that inwardly ) there is nothing?

JU : There is no difference between being and becoming. When becoming ends, being ends.

K: Yes.

JU : Becoming and being are the same. Where there is ( the sense of?) becoming and of being, there is the ( subliminal presence of the?) self (consciousness) with all its activities, etcetera, and when it ends, that also ends. But my question is : when there is the end of all this, of thought, etc, then is there something ( non-material) in which everything is sustained?

PJ : If I may ask, what is the distinction you draw between becoming and being?

RB : In Sanskrit they are not two words. 'Bhava' means both being and becoming.

AP : Panditji ( JU) says that what you call 'intelligence' is unrelated to intellect. Only when this intellect recognizes that it is fragmented and is limited then it ceases and intelligence is born.

PJ : I would like to go into becoming and being a little more. Being is a state of non-differentiation.

K: Why do you differentiate between being and becoming?

PJ : There is a state from which things arise and into which things disappear...

K: Which is the 'self' ?

PJ : In a state of ( pure) attention, a state of ( choiceless?) awareness, what is there?

K: In attention there is no 'self '(-consciousness?)

PJ : Then what is the nature of attention?

RB : Are you asking what is the nature of attention or whether there is a 'ground' from which attention springs?

K: Attention has no ( mental?) background.

GS : There are two kinds of functioning in the physical universe. One is a functioning by 'discrete events' in which you have a chronology, you have a sequence of things, and then you construct laws connecting the events. And so you can find one event causing another event which is causing another event, and you are able to understand a number of things. Then there is another kind of functioning in which you don’t ( have to) differentiate, for example, it was a great discovery of physics when people decided that free motion does not require an explanation. You don’t ask why it is continually moving; you attribute it to the nature of things, you say that it is the nature of objects to move. And one can enlarge, generalize the scope of the thing by saying that a 'complete system' has no history, has no events in it. Events come when you are putting the system which is functioning by itself, within the matrix of something else ; therefore a chronological 'time of unfolding' takes place when you have an incomplete system. But when the system is complete within itself, its functioning has no chronology, there are no 'events' within the system. Unfortunately, we are so used to the idea of chronology that natural evolution is always very puzzling: an evolution in which there are no ( discrete) happenings. So, whenever there is a motion to which we cannot pin a definite cause and effect, we feel that we do not fully understand.
Perhaps these two possible kinds of unfolding may be useful as models for this discussion. There is one kind ( or dimension of?) of time—the physical time in which events take place, in which the law of cause and effect takes place, and another ( dimension of) time in which you cannot say what is the cause and what is the effect, because there is no breaking up of ( distinct) events with regard to that.

K: When does that take place?

GS : When the system has no 'ideal' (references ) to compare itself with. We refer to it as a closed system, but we mean it may be a 'complete' system.

K: In all ( closed?) systems—bureaucratic, scientific, religious—isn't there an inherent decay, an entropy?

GS : Yes.

K: So, as long as the brain is ( functioning in the 'known' experience of the ) collective, it forms a ( closed) system.

GS : Quite right.

K: So, inherently in the 'collective' (consciousness there ) is a process of decay, a degeneration takes place?

GS : Krishnaji, I am concerned about your ( emphasis on paying a constant) attention to the (functioning of the ) brain. The brain is also part of the physical system and I do not have to pay that much more attention to my brain than I do to trees or to birds...

K: No.

GS : So, why should I feel so attached to what happens in my brain—thought waves and the functioning of the various (neuronal) interconnections and so on? Should I be too concerned about what the brain is doing?

K: As long as my brain is conditioned (by its instinctual survival-oriented self-interest?) , the brain becomes very limited. The brain has an infinite capacity, and that capacity is being denied by its own limitation. (For instance:) you are a scientist and have acquired tremendous knowledge and you keep 'adding'. This (accumulative instinct ) is the factor of conditioning. Obviously. And therefore the brain becomes limited and that addition is (creating ) the ( temporal) 'self'. And as long as the 'self' is there, the self is a ( closed) system, and the self is a factor of deterioration.

GS : That is what we call the ( temporal) 'self' with a little ‘s’ rather than the ‘Self ’

K: I am using it only in one context, the small ‘s.’ For me, there is no big ‘S’

RB : Going back to what Pupulji said, Sir, you said that ( holistic ?) attention has no background.

K: Here is a scientist. What is attention to you, Sir?

GS : Well, I would say (the holistic) 'attention' is when there is no separation, when there is no identification of anything else; including perception of any entity. Attention is one, in which there are no personal anticipations or memories.

K: Which means what? There is no ( psyhological) background?

GS : No background is the simplest statement. In attention there is no background because background assumes a (knowledge) matrix, an ideal. In attention there is no comparison. Attention is one without the second.

K: When there is attention, there is no ( knowledge?) background. Love has no reminiscences. Love is not the activity of desire or pleasure. ( Hint:) The activity of desire and pleasure involves time. Love has no time.

PJ : This is a mighty leap...

JU : It is a Brahmastra - a weapon which annihilates everything.

K: It (the 'Love has no time' statement ) is approachable. I don’t put something on a pinnacle and then say it is unapproachable.

JU : Has Love an arising and an ending?

K: No. If there is an arising and ending, it is not love.

JU : Then it is beyond any discussion...

K: What is a dialogue? A dialogue is—you question and I answer; so, you and I are forgotten. We don’t exist. Only the question remains. And if you leave (only contemplate?) the question, it flowers, it has vitality, it provides an answer, Has Panditji understood my answer?

RB : : He accepts what you say—that there is a question and an answer flows, but he says, ‘What has this to do with Love?’

K: I make a ( holistic?) statement—‘Where Love is, Time is not.’ You listen, you question it, and I reply. There is a connection, both verbal and non-verbal, and the question remains, the ( experiential feeling of the?) fact remains. If you let it remain, it begins to move.

PJ : You're saying that Love has no time ?

K: See the beauty of it ?

PJ : It is a fine question and no response arises to it, but the question remains...

K: Then remain with that. Pupul, take a lotus flower and look at it.

PJ : I look.

RB : In (silently) 'looking' there is no question.

K : Or, take ''Death has no time''...
GS : It seems to me that before we move to 'death has no time' , let us talk about love, and its relation to the 'dialogue' question. You have previously said that when there is a dialogue between two or many people, and the vital purpose is actually in the dialogue, the persons cease and the question remains and it moves around, it speaks through various people and its own vitality functions. I think you are saying that the purpose of the dialogue is not for a person to ask questions and for the other person to answer, but for the question and answer to come around, and move by itself between people. So it is not one person giving information to another person, but it is a case of the question itself answering itself, using people’s voices as the instrument. K is saying that if there is a time when the question ceases, that too is a very valuable time, that too is in fact very natural. In a sense, what it shows is an image, an echo of what he was talking about earlier—namely, is there a being at this point or is there a becoming or is there something which is other than the two? Looked at from one point, there is being; looked at from another point, when all questions cease, then who is there to ask any question, who is there to understand? That holding the question, or holding the answer if there is no question, is itself in a sense a dialogue. It is a meditation in which no words are spoken because it is a state ( of seeing the Truth) where words do not reach.

K: Yes. So, let us now talk about death. What, according to the Buddhists is death?

JU : By whatever cause life came into being, by the same cause life comes to an end; that is death,

K: I exist because my father and my mother met, and I was born. I live eighty-nine years or ninety-one years. At the end of that I die. There is a ( physical) causation and the end of causation. Right? Is that what you call death?

JU : The causation is not only at the level of things, that is, at the biological level; but it is at the memory level, at the thought level. Nagarjuna says in that movement is past, present and future.

K: It is an intellectual concept ; this doesn’t interest me, if I am actually dying.

JU : At every moment there is an ending; each moment is separate. There is a death ( and rebirth) all the time...

K: But ( suppose that ) I have a son who is dying and I am in sorrow, I shed tears. I am lonely, depressed. You come along and speak of causation. But I am in pain. What are you going to do about it?

JU : Whatever comes into being ends from moment to moment.

K: I have heard all that before, but now I am in sorrow...

JU : But what connects the moments together is memory...

PJ : Jagannath Upadhyaya says that none of the Buddhist teachings have dealt with death, except as a rising and ending.

K: I was with a man, Sir, some years ago. He was dying. His wife came and said, ‘He is asking for you.’ I went to him, sat next to him, and held his hand. And he said, ‘I am dying, don’t preach philosophy to me. I am dying, and I don’t want to die. I have lived a fairly good life, I have got my family, my memories, all the things that I have accumulated, and I don’t want to die. But I am dying.’ What is your answer to that?

JU : The answer is, he has to die...

K: Of course he has to die. He has got cancer but he says, ‘ help me to understand.’

PJ : But death is part of life...

PJ : Panditji, are you saying there is no ending to sorrow?

JU : Unless the cause of sorrow is eliminated, it (the fear of death?) cannot end.

K: But the man who is dying hasn’t eliminated it. You have to deal with this man who is dying. Nobody has held his hand. So I hold his hand and he has the feeling that there is Love. I do not talk to him about a beginning or ending...
He may die or not die. He will die sometime. But we are dying at this moment, we are dying to this feeling. We are in sorrow, there is no question of that. The question is not whether our brother is dying. It is we who are in sorrow, and we are asking for help, for support. He wants consolation. But I am not giving him a thing. We cannot give him life. He who is dying is not dying outside of himself, he is dying within himself and it is his problem.

GS : Is the question how you deal with that person?

K: No, it is how you deal with (the fact of) death.

GS : There are two things involved : one is my feeling that my friend is dying and that he is afraid, he is unhappy and unwilling to die. The other is what can I do to give him help at this point. Which of the two aspects are we discussing?

K: Both. I want to know ( the inner truth?) about death. I am going to die. I’ll be eighty-nine in May—probably I will live another ten ( or...two?) years. I am not frightened. I don’t want anybody’s help. I have lived with death and life together, all the time, all my life. Because I don’t possess anything inwardly. I am dying and living at the same time. There is no separation for me. But my friend is dying. Nobody has loved him and he has loved nobody. What the Buddha said, does that help? He wants somebody to love him, be with him. Somebody who says ‘Look, we are together in this. You are lonely and what
does it mean when death comes?’ I see him utterly lonely, separated from anybody else. And there is dreadful fear. And you come and speak of beginning, ending. I say, for God’s sake!

JU : Even if I ( have) love, can I give it to him? Is it something which can be given?

K: No, it is not something 'I' can give.

JU : However great or deep one's compassion may be, it cannot be independent of causation...

K: Sir, he is not interested in your philosophy. He is not interested in what the Buddha said. He is dying. Don’t tell him of beginning, arising, and ending. He is not interested in that. We go to the dying with a lot of words, but these words are like ashes to him, including Buddha’s words. Can one 'come with nothing' and hold his hand? Can one say, ‘My friend, when you die, a part of me is also dying. I have never met you before. But your wife came to see me and she asked me to visit you. So, we both are going to die today. I know what it means to die. I have lived my life dying and living, never separating the two. Each day I die.’ So I say to my friend, ‘Let us die. I understand your fear.’ Then death is not ( surrounded by?) fear.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 11 Oct 2018 #127
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

THE SUMMATION OF THE K TEACHINGS

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar, 1984)

PJ : What is the summation of your teaching? To me it integrates and includes the teachings of the Buddha and Vedanta. You could negate the 'Higher Self', the 'Brahman', but from the very negation (of their traditional connotation?) emanates a (spiritual) energy which those words originally conveyed. So...who is Krishnamurti? And what is his ( spiritual) lineage? Is he ( representing) a breakthrough in (mankind's spiritual ?) evolution? It could take centuries (or ... much less ?) to fully comprehend the challenge Krishnamurti had posed to the root of human Consciousness.

K: Keep the challenge ; work with ( the living truth of?) it and forget the person. Why do we give such importance to the person(ality) of the Teacher? The teacher may be physically necessary to (help) manifest the Teaching, but beyond that, what? The vase contains water; you have to drink the water, not worship the vase. (The collective consciousness of ?) Humanity (generally indulges in ?) worshiping the Vase and ... forgets the Water.

PJ : But even to start real enquiry into the Teaching is (requiring a holistic ?) 'breakthrough' in one's consciousness.

K: Yes, that is so. ( But there isalso the collective?) tendency to center everything around the personality ( & achievements?) of the teacher — not on the essence of what he says and.... that is the greatest ( active factor of) corruption. Look at the great ( spiritual) teachings of the world and look what their followers have made of them?

The ( physical) manifestation (of the Teacher?) has to take place, through a human body, naturally—but the manifestation is not the 'Teaching'. We must be extraordinarily impersonal about all this and see that we do not project the ( glorious image of the?) Teacher and forget to see the ( living spirit of?) Truth in the teaching, the depth in it, go into it, live it, that is what is important. Does it matter (in) the ( small 'K ) world' what people say of K, what a 'wonderful' person he was —who cares?

If ( the spiritual message of?) K is a breakthrough, the words ( & his public image?) are not his measure. If I were living in the times of the Buddha I may have great affection for him, but I would be far more concerned with ( seeing the inner truth of?) what he says. Look Pupulji, our brains have become so 'small' (inwardly conditioned ?) by the words we have. When one speaks to a group of scientists, specialists in various disciplines—one sees that their own lives have become so small. They are measuring everything in terms of ( scientifically standardised ) words, and experiences. But (the inner awakening ?) is not a matter of words or (of scientifically measurable ? ) experience. Words are limited, all ( self-centred ?) experiences are limited. They cover a very small area.

Let us start anew (from Square One ?) . The (time-bound?) 'self' is a (pro-active ) bundle of (personal & collective?) memories. The 'self' is the essence of ( living in the area of one's past, present & future ?) knowledge (in the 'field of time'). K is saying that this 'self' is ( made up of ) inherited and accumulated memory. When this 'self-(centred entity?) is not (around ?) time is not. ( The timeless life-?) energy has no past. But man has emphasized the ( cultivation of the?) past. Now, when this (life-) energy is not bound by the 'self' it has no ( continuity in terms of ) time. It is energy.

PJ : But in any ( physical) manifestation, isn't there a time ( necessary ) to that manifestation?

K: Yes. Any (physical) manifestation needs time (to be born, grow, flower & vanish?) . Therefore, having manifested itself as a flower, a tree, or as a human being, that energy is limited (by its material condition?) . ( However?) when the 'self ( -centred' consciousness) is not (active ) , there is a state (of consciousness which is) totally out of time.
I am questioning whether the (inner) evolution of the human brain has to continue as it is ( doing ) now, by gathering, more and more knowledge? Or whether there is a meditation ( -friendly evolution ?) that is not based on knowledge ? So long as (the present time-bound) consciousness exists, there must be ( the inherent limitations of ) time. Therefore the (holistically friendly?) meditation can only be when ( the self-centred) consciousness, as we know it, ends ( dissolves ?)
For the last year(s), there was a State (of Holistic Consciousness ) , not measurable by words, (Hint : not in the field of the 'known' !), Immense, totally out of time. It is there, when I close my eyes to do my yoga exercises, or when I go for a walk. I watch it to see whether it is fanciful or Reality.

PJ : That must be totally altering the nature of the brain...

K: Probably it does.

PJ : But...can it touch the ( life-energy matrix of the?) brain of humanity?

K: Yes, yes.... Pupulji, you who have read the ancient texts and have discussed with ( wise-men & ) pundits, what do you contact?

PJ : You see, Krishnaji, I have read the ancient texts, but I also bring into (their understanding a holistic quality of) listening which has come through listening to you. I so listen to the texts, and because there is that state, I can touch something, or get closer to It...

K: ( Actually) it was not a ( personal) question, but a way of moving me into this inner journey...

PJ : Touching ‘That’ does not lie in the words. As you were speaking, the mind, because it is quiet, feels close to ‘That.’ But when I read the ancient texts and the mind is quiet, or when I sit alone in the garden and hear the birds sing, or just the touch of the wind, I may also feel a closeness to ‘That.’

K: Does the person (or the 'presence'?) of K become important?

PJ : No, although the ( spiritual) energy emanating (in his presence) is certainly important. It 'draws us in', the moment the mind is quiet. I am beginning to see that the energy of one's ( temporal) mind is not ( by itself) capable of touching ‘That.’ It can go only so far and no further. Still, I do understand your point - to allow the ( time-bound?) 'self' as little ( roaming ?) space as possible.

K: (laughed). Yes , (meditation-wise?) allow it as little play as possible .

PJ : I see that there is very little of the 'personal' (side of) Krishnamurti left...

K: Yes...

PJ : One can feel - when touching the 'gateways' of your mind- that the 'ground' is saturated with ‘That.’

K: Yes.

PJ : In the last year (1983) or so, you tried to bring people closer and closer to ‘That'....But then there is this ( hidden) blockage of ( man's spiritual) evolution that is ( the personal & collective?) Karma.

K ( laughing ) : As you sow, so shall you reap...

PJ : Karma, which is the ( invisible time-binding) 'essence' of what you were, so you are and so you will be. I (guess?) that one has to let one's thought flow, let it be very fluid, and not let it 'crystalize'. One has to uproot ( the self-centred?) thought, unearth it.

K: Uproot it, that is right...

PJ : So that it 'sits lightly' in the ( inwardly transparent?) mind.

K: Just a minute. How would you communicate what you are saying to fifty people, or five thousand?

PJ : The key to ( any authentic) communication is observation. Nothing else is needed.

K: How do you answer (the perrenial trick question?) ''Who is the 'observer'?”

PJ : The only answer is to observe (holistically), to be open, to discover. How extraordinary is this journey of self-discovery, the insights into the Endless...

( PJ's Post Scriptum:) As I left the room, the question again arose in my mind: Who is Krishnamurti? What is his 'gotra', his (spiritual) lineage? Out of the question, the answer arose:It is all ( the Consciousness of?) humankind. Because in every human being is the capacity to 'break through' the bondage (of its time-binding self-interest?) and 'be' in the lineage of impersonal compassion.
Later I asked him ( a last 'bonus question' regarding ) the nature of 'Samadhi'. He said, “The brain is silent throughout the day; a word is said and the brain sees instantly the whole content of it. The brain does not accumulate. There is no ( thought-time ) movement within the brain, but there is an infinite movement - the (natural ) 'rhythm' of the brain and a sense of Timeless, Eternal Protection.”

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Oct 2018 #128
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Where Do I Begin?

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar & friends 1984 )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, three days ago we started discussing the (holistic preparation of the ) 'ground' of a mind from which a New Mind emerges. You said that from a mind which is caught in conflict, fear, anger, the 'new' can never emerge; but you said that something entirely new is necessary. You also spoke about the ( holistic quality of?) attention when the senses are operating (harmoniously) integrated at their highest. I want to start with the (absolute beginner's) question: I’m a newcomer to your ( recorded) talks & videos ) ; I hear this. Where do I begin?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Probably at first you won’t make head or tail of it. You won’t know what K is talking about. So ( to start on the right foot?) we will have (first) to establish the semantic meaning (of K's experiential terminology?) , and also be aware of our relationship to (the world of?) nature. If we lost touch with nature - of which we are a part - we would lose touch with our fellow beings. I would begin there—with my relationship to nature, with my relationship to the beauty of all that.

PJ: So you are saying that the starting point of (any holistic self -) inquiry is starting with the awareness of the 'outer' ?

K: Without understanding the beauty of the land, of the rivers and also this extraordinary world we live in, with all the cruelty, the terrorism, and so on, how can I ever have a clear perception of myself? What is my relationship to all that? Am I blind to it all? Or do I have certain (self-protective shield of handy ) conclusions which dominates ( my perception of the everyday reality ) ?

PJ: Sir, we all look at nature - at the trees, at the flowers and at the rocks. And we really feel that as we have (sensible?) eyes, we look. But there is something (more involved?) in the holistic 'looking' and in the 'relationship with nature' of which you are talking about ; and obviously it is not the (same quality of) 'looking' which we are used to.

K: How do you look (holistically?) at nature? Is it merely a visual perception? Or do you look with your whole being, with all your senses? Do you perceive it as though it was something outside you or as something of which you are a part?

PJ: I think one can actually say that there is a ( quality of non-dualistic ?) looking in which the 'seer' does not interfere . But I don’t want to start there. I’m coming to you as a beginner who says, ‘I look with my eyes’.

K: I would reply to that: Do you only 'look'? Or do you also 'hear'—hear the sound of the whisper among the deep shadows of the trees, the sound of the breeze and of running water? My ( holistically friendly?) question is: Do you 'listen, see & feel'?

PJ: Sir, if you are 'seeing, listening & feeling', then it is a state ( of holistic perception?) in which everything exists. But I don’t know anything about that. So, I would like to approach it from the point of view of an (absolute) beginner.

K: Would ( this absolute beginner?) agree that human beings have lost ( the direct?) touch with nature?

PJ: Yes, completely; because when they see, their eyes move over. They never look directly. They never 'look'—period, (perhaps because?) they consider it too trivial.

K: That’s just it. They consider viewing nature as something trivial. They consider nature as something that can be exploited.

PJ: You see, sir, the human mind has ( since millenia ) divided what is important ( for its temporal survival & enjoyment ?) from what it considers 'un-important' .

K: So, let’s begin from there . What is 'important' for the ordinary person, what is important? Food, clothes & (a decent) shelter ?

PJ: No, sir. Beyond those very basic needs there is ( an endless search for hedonistic pleasures, and/or for ? ) the sacred, the divine, God...

K: Of course, but I’ll come to that later. I’m just beginning with the elementary needs—food, clothes, shelter.

PJ: Even so, if you were to try to get someone to look at one leaf, at one single leaf, you will find out how difficult it is. But why take someone else? When one does it oneself, one realizes how difficult it is to look (with full attention ) at anything.

Q: As you said, we glance at it and move away.

K: Would you blame the (poor educational job done amongst by the?) established religions that have prevented man from considering nature as part of himself?

Q: The modern urban man is not- to any great extent - influenced by religions...

K: No, we are not talking about an urban man or about a rural man, a man who lives in a big town or in a little town or village. And all these so-called religious people have maintained that desire is to be suppressed, that the senses are to be suppressed because they distract.

Q: Yes, this has been upheld not only by religion but also by society.

K: Of course. They have not said, ‘Look at all the wonders of this world. Look at its beauty; feel it; absorb it; be of it’. What they have done is to create 'images'— made by the hand and by the mind. And images that are made by the mind are more important than the others. Now, if I were a (holistically inclined) man and I were to hear all this, as Pupulji pointed out, where would I begin?

Q: But, wouldn’t you say that this person must have seen somewhere, somehow, that his world is limited?

K: Yes, he knows ( the inevitability of his own aging & ?) death...

PJ: He does see ( his existential limitations) when he is in sorrow; when he is suffering; he does when there is death.

K: He does when there is sorrow. He does when there is death. It is then that he will begin to say, ‘What is all this (loveless existence?) about?'

Q: But you see, there are a ( dwindling?) number of people who generally consider having 'very happy lives'. They have no sorrow—at least not the sorrow that is common to most people: poverty, ill-health, lack of education, and so on. Yet they ( still) come upon these questions, and they go, very seriously, into them.

K: You are talking of those people who are 'exceptional'. But we began by asking, ‘If I were an ordinary man where would I begin?’ Let us say that I am an ordinary man, fairly educated, and surrounded by the very complex problems of existence—suffering, pain, anxiety, and all the other activities of thought—where would I begin to understand the very complex society in which I lived? That is the question with which Mrs Jayakar began.

PJ: You see, we take it for granted—when we listen to Krishnaji—that the beginning must start within. We have all taken it that way, namely, that the beginning has to start within, with the discovery of ‘what is’ (going on inwardly) . We have never (really) looked at the outside world and seen the 'outside' as the same movement as the movement within us. Therefore the ( intellectual?) callousness, the corruption...

K: Why have we neglected or discarded or despised all the things from nature?

PJ: Because ( for psychological reasons we learned to?) divide the 'outer world' from the 'inner world' (or ...simply ignore the latter?) .

K: So, both the Buddhists and the Hindus considered the outside world is m?y?, an illusion. K, however, is saying that it is important to understand first one’s relationship to nature and to the ( real) world in which all the misery, confusion, brutality, and corruption is going on. Look at that first and, then (if there's some time left...?) from the outer, move to the inner. But if you start and stop at the inner, you will have no ( common sense ) measure. You ( will happily?) follow Jesus or some ( modern) guru.

(In a nutshell?) I feel, personally, that we must start with what we see, hear, and feel outside. But the question is: How do I look at my wife, my children, my parents, and all the 'facts of life' which are (going on) outside?
Take the fact of 'death' -it is there ( & easily observable ?) outside of me, but I begin to inquire. But if I have not established a right relationship with nature, with another person—wife, husband, anyone—how can I ever establish the right relationship with the immensity of the ( Vastly Unknown?) Universe?

Q: Krishnaji, in looking ( objectively) at the 'outer', you’re saying that the brain 'quickens' ?

K: Of course; it becomes more sensitive.

Q: But, sir, the Western world has always treated the 'outer' (world) as very, very concrete. All their energies have moved outward. But that doesn’t seem to have brought about the 'inward' (spiritual quickening) either...

K: So we have to (consider ) a much more ( profound &) serious question. What makes a man change (inwardly?) ? ( Supposing that?) one is envious (greedy & intellectually?) brutal, uncertain, confused and there is ( an accumulation of personal frustrations & resentment or?) 'hatred' in me. I’m the result of thousands of years of ( survival oriented?) evolution. Why have I not yet changed (inwardly?) ? That is one of the basic questions.

Q: Isn’t it too early to put that question ( to our 'holistically friendly' beginner?) ?

K: Yes, it is early...

Q: But you are saying that, all the same, he will have to come to it.

K: I appreciate nature; I am in constant touch with it and I begin to 'look' . But ultimately, I must ask myself—I, who am a human being, who suffers, who has fear and who is in turmoil, just like the rest of mankind—‘Why have I not radically changed?’ That is my ( intermediate beginner?) question.

Q: The ordinary man is much more concerned with gaining the object of his greed or with running away from the object of his fear, than with asking (inwardly) the question, ‘Why am I greedy?’ or ‘Why am I afraid?’

K: Ask it for yourself, sir; why after thirty or forty years you are exactly as you were—modified, of course, but with no radical change. Why? I suggest that any rational and thoughtful person would ( eventually come to?) ask this question.
Do you understand what I mean by ‘change’?

Q: No, sir, I do not understand.

K: Take ( the inherited trend of survivalistic greed or?) envy. That is a common factor for everybody, and it has produced a great deal of trouble in the world. You see the consequences of envy, but you still remain ( subliminally?) envious. Why is don't you 'wipe it out' of your brain? To watch ( non-personally?) the brain being envious, and to 'wipe it out' (ASAP ...?) —why hasn’t that been possible? Why haven’t you done it?

Q: I feel that ( a certain accumulation of existential) suffering seems to be necessary in some ways for this ‘radical’ change that you are talking about. Yet when one suffers and keeps on ( indulging in one's ) suffering, it has a blunting (dulling) effect on the individual who suffers. So where do we go from there?

K: Sir, (first of all), there is no division between the outer and the inner; they are one. Do you see that? Do you actually see the fact that the outer, that is, ( the collective trend of greed in) the society in which we live, and the inner (the personalised trend of greed) in ‘me’, are the (one & the?) same? I 'am' part of society and ( the collective mentality of the?) society is not different from 'me'. That is one of the most fundamental ( holistic) facts . Do you, actually, recognize (the inward truth of ) that fact ?
(Secondly), the division between 'you' and 'me' is created by thought and, therefore, it ( has already become) tremendously complex.
(And thirdly...?) You never ask, ‘Can this suffering end?’

Q: Sir, would you say that these two questions—‘Can suffering end?’ and ‘Why have I not changed?’—are the same?

K: They are the same.

Q: Then is't the ( honest ) answer to both the questions the fact that we don’t have enough ( holistically integrated intelligent?) energy?

K: You have plenty of energy when you (really?) want to do something. Right? When you want to make money, you work tremendously to get it. So I don’t think it is a matter of ( lacking) energy.

Q: Is it that we do not (really) want to change with our whole being? And why is it that the desire ‘not to suffer’ or the desire to ‘change radically’, is so easily dissipated in us?

K: Is it because there is no ( foresight of any personal) profit in that? We are profit-motivated (programmed subliminally by self-interest) aren’t we? We always want a reward. Our brains are conditioned to reward and punishment. Right? We work like the blazes if we can have a ( concrete?) reward at the end of it—money, position, status, happiness, whatever it is.

PJ: Sir, I think we have moved away slightly. We were talking of the ( integration of the ) senses and their operation (in harmony) and...

K: Yes...

PJ: Now, the senses 'are' (& have?) energy. But what is it that thwarts the energy of the senses? What is it that comes in the way of their real capacity?

K: Is it our ( survival oriented ?) conditioning? Is it our ( dualistic ?) education? Because, as you know, we are always told to control.

PJ: Yes, sir, but we have to not only be very careful with ( not wasting) our energy but also to channelize it properly. The whole of life and the whole of ( modern) education is, I feel, merely a channelling of this energy and, so, perhaps in itself it is an incorrect approach.

K: Yes.

PJ: Because what is necessary is the ( gathering integrating & ) conservation of energy. Now, how does one conserve energy? How does one create energy?

K: Would you 'conserve' energy? Or is it that the more you ( intelligently) expend energy the more there is?

PJ: But you can also allow energy to fritter away.

K: That’s just it. You see, for a person like ‘K’, there is no distraction or attraction.

PJ: This is the 'magical' thing. For ‘K’ there is no distraction in the mind; there is no triviality.

Q: Also, there is no ( self-) preoccupation.

K: That’s right.

PJ: We can easily see that whatever energy a human being has, he is dispersing it all the time. There must be something ( that has to be done?) at the root of it.

K: Pupul, just look. You are conditioned from childhood to this idea of reward and punishment. So you expend all your energy ( in thought's sophisticated schemes ?) to avoid punishment and gain a reward. A ( high expectation of ?) reward gives me tremendous energy to work, work (&...) work. And then you (K?) come along and tell me that this reward and punishment is a conditioning, and that in that there is no freedom.
( Hint:) Enlightenment isn’t a reward.
But I have been trained from childhood to (think in terms of) seeking rewards. So there is a ( conflict of interests?) and I waste my energy in that battle. I struggle inwardly (to achieve a permanent state of?) happiness or (inner) peace. And I do everything in order to (achieve ) that.

PJ: Sir, ( man's inner) life is so complex that if I ever try to solve it, I never will. But you have given us a (holistic ) 'key' – the total operation of the senses. Can we explore and go into that?

K: Yes, let’s do it. Are 'seeing' and 'hearing' separate, or are they one? Do you understand my question? When you (try to) 'perceive' something (holistically) is the seeing of it and the hearing of it separate, and also is there a ( subliminally controlling ) 'thinking about it'? (Hint:) The moment you 'think about it', you are not listening to the ( truth of the ) question.
The point is, can you see, that is, perceive, and hear at the same time?—Not as two separate things.
( Story time:) I was talking to a scientist last year—a biologist who is concerned with ( man's relationship with?) nature, and so on. He asked me, ‘Do you hear the sound of a tree? Do you hear the 'sound' (the life-vibration?) of a tree when it is absolutely quiet, for example, early in the morning or as the sun is setting? Have you heard a tree when there is no breeze? A tree has a peculiar quality of sound’. And I said, ‘Yes, a tree has a peculiar quality of 'sound’. (But...) can you 'hear and see' that sound at the same time? Or do you divide it? Do you follow what I’m saying?

PJ: I follow, sir.

K: The ( experiential point of this ) question is whether you can 'see-hear – feel -smell & taste' anything, without ( thought's verbal ?) division. It’s as though you are completely immersed in it.

Q: Sir, you have frequently said (in private?) that 'meditation' is a sixth or seventh sense, and that if one doesn’t have it, one is missing a lot. What exactly is the essential nature of 'meditation' according to you?

K: The essential nature of meditation is never to be ( self-) conscious that you are meditating. If 'you' attempt to meditate, you merely want to achieve ( an impossible reward?) . But... meditation is not an achievement. If you meditate according to a system, at the end of your endeavour, you say, ‘Ah, at last I have got (inner) peace!’ (Laughs) It is the same as saying, ‘At last, I have a million dollars in the bank’. In the business world you do this, this and that to get money, but you can’t do anything to get this. You see, meditation, to K, is something that cannot be ( self-) consciously achieved.

PJ: Is it separate from the state of the 'seeing-listening'?

K: That is in itself ( part of the holistic) meditation.

Q: You speak of ‘a contact with nature’. There seems, to me, (a natural) meditation going on in a very sensitive way when there is a contact with nature—especially the kind of contact that you describe. Unfortunately, many people feel that a ( meditation-friendly) posture or approach is very relevant to meditation.

K: I know...

Q: So when you talk about a meditation in which all these (supportive ) things are eliminated, one is lost.

K: Be lost!

Q: But we are not 'lost' in the ( timeless ) way you mean. We are feeling lost in confusion.

K: Sir, doing all these (thought-controlling methods of meditation) 'is' ( are a sign of) confusion!

Q: How would you further guide us so that 'meditation' becomes an actuality?

K: When you’re watching this whole universe, 'watching', not seeking a reward or evading punishment but 'watching'—the suffering of those villagers, of those little boys who walk twelve miles a day to school—in that very watching there is great perception, great love, great care. You see, this 'watching' is not merely with the senses, there is a quality of love, a quality of care.

PJ: Yes, now we are getting to it. But what awakens ( this loving perception?) ?

K: The awakening of all the senses and in the fullness of it—there’s a quality of something totally different in that.

PJ: There must be something missing because—let me put it in other words—that 'explosion of the heart' does not ( usually?) happen, sir. That is really the crux.

K: Would you say that the ( physical) 'brain' is the centre of all our nervous responses, it is the centre of all thought (but also) it is the centre of all confusion, of all pain, of all sorrow, anxiety, depression, aspiration, achievement, and so on. In the (time-bound human ) brain there is a great activity of confusion and of contradiction.
Love is not (to be found in) this (brain) . Therefore it must be something outside the brain. And we (usually) look at nature, or other human beings...

PJ: From inside the brain ?

K: Yes, we look from inside the brain. We were walking yesterday with some of the people here, and there was complete silence even though there were bullock carts, children cycling, you know, all the other noises. There was nothing, just an immense silence. And it was not a silence 'out there'. It was silence; the entire world was silent. And you were silent. And you felt the whole earth as part of you.

PJ: You see, sir, this is your statement, and I am listening. But although the senses working simultaneously give the brain great clarity, a great germinating creativity, it doesn’t wipe the tear of another...

K: No.

PJ: I am concerned with what it is that wipes the tear of another. Because unless that (compassionate intelligence is) is there...

K: Just a minute. Can the brain—that is my question ( for homework meditation?)—be so 'quiet' that the activity of thought has 'completely ended' in that second or in that period? Or is the brain always (background) chattering ?

PJ: Is it, sir, that the only thing which is legitimate to ask is ( for the brain) to be totally awake (inwardly) , that is, for the senses to operate fully and never even worry about the 'Other'?

K: Of course. You don’t even know the 'Other'. How can you question...?

PJ: ...what is outside the skull ?
K: Yes. All I know is what is within the skull.
And you ( K) come along and say, ‘As long as you’re (keep being stuck?) in there, you will solve nothing’. You point this out to me. And I listen to you because I see the logic of all this, the common sense of all this, and I say, ‘Quite right’. So I want to know what it is to make the brain quiet—though it has its own rhythms.

Meditation is not ( a mechanical?) quietness. You try to bring (peace of mind & inner ) quietness through ( thought) control, through all kinds of ( mental) tricks. But that’s not the 'stillness' and the beauty of Silence. So where do we end up (the absolute beginner's inner journey?) ?

PJ: You see, sir, everything else is man-made. Only That is ( coming from) Divinity ; but unfortunately, we just don’t know how to (meditate holistically in order to?) reach it, how to touch it....

K: ( Parting funny story:) I met a man the other day. He was a great ( local?) painter. He said to me, ‘What man has made is the most beautiful thing’. That was the end of it for him. Then I pointed to a tree and said, ‘No one made that’, and he began to see (something new?) . ‘Yes’, he said, ‘that’s interesting...’.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Oct 2018 #129
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Dealing holistically with one's psychological fears

( an 'experientially & reader friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): You have often said, Krishnaji, that Intelligence is the greatest security when facing ( one's psychological) fears. The problem is: In a ( major existential?) crisis, when fear from the unconscious floods you, where is the place for this Intelligence? Intelligence demands listening, seeing and observation. But when the whole being is flooded by an uncontrollable ( existential anxiety or?) fear where is the place for intelligence? How does one deal with the primeval, archetypal fears which lie at the very base of the human psyche?
For instance let's take one of ( the deepest existential) fears - the fear of 'not being': how does one deal with this fear? You have talked of Intelligence as being the greatest security. It is so; but when ( that profound existential anxiety along with the more concrete ?) fears (of what might happen tomorrow?) floods you, where is Intelligence?

K: You are asking: How can one deal with (a tidal ?) wave of (anxiety & ) fear at that moment? Is that the question?

SUNANDA PATWARDHAN (SP): One sees fear like the branches of a tree. If we deal with these fears one by one, there is no freedom from anxiety & fear. Is there a ( holistic inner ?) quality that sees ( the central root of man's existential anxiety & ) fear without ( bothering about ) its 'branches'?

K: Let us find out. There are 'conscious' and 'unconscious' (existential) fears and at moments these unconscious (anxieties & ) fears become (overwhelming) and that at those moments ( one's natural) intelligence is not in operation. So, you are asking how one can deal with those waves of uncontrollable anxiety ?

PJ: Yes, and they seem to take on a material form; it is almost like a 'physical' (darkness) which overpowers you.

K: Yes, it upsets your (whole being) neurologically, biologically...
Let us explore (its roots) : The (deep existential anxiety & ) fear exists when there is a sense of loneliness, when there is a feeling of complete abandonment by others, a sense of complete isolation, a sense of utter helplessness. And in those moments, when deep fear arises and there is ungovernable, uninvited fear, obviously intelligence is not (anywhere in sight?) .

PJ: One may feel that one has faced the ( everyday worries & ) fears which are known but 'unconsciously' one is swamped.

K: ( For starters?) the outskirts of (one's) intelligence can deal with the 'conscious' fears ?

PJ: You can even allow those fears to flower.

K: And then in that very flowering there is ( the holistic action of?) intelligence. Now how do you deal with the 'unconscious ' (anxieties & ) fears? Do they actually exist in the traditional depths of the ( collective?) 'unconscious' or is it a thing that the unconscious gathers from the (outer) environment? Are they all an inherent part of the (collective) unconscious, of the racial, traditional history of man? Are they in the inherited genes? How do you deal with this vast problem?

PJ: Can we discuss the second one, which is the gathering of fear from the outer environment?

K: First of all, let us deal with the first type. Why does the unconscious hold ( the deep existential) fears at all? Are they imposed by the culture in which we live, or is it that the ( thinking ) mind is not able to deal with them (in real time?) ? When you said that these waves of ( existential anxiety or?) fear come, I said that they are always there , but that, in a (more serious existential) crisis, you (or the conscious mind?) become aware of them.

SP: They exist in ( any time-bound?) consciousness. Why do you say that they are in the unconscious?

K: First of all, ( one's ) consciousness is made up of its ( 'active memory' ? ) content. Without this 'content' there is no ( ego-centred ) consciousness. One of its ( psychologically active) 'contents' is this basic fear (of one's existential insecurity?) and the conscious mind never tackles ( the roots of ) it ; it ( man's existential anxiety) is ( lingering) there, but (for obscure reasons, the conscious mind ?) never says, ‘I must deal with it’. However in moments of ( deep existential) crisis that ( lingering?) part of one's consciousness is awakened and is frightened. But the (causation of this) fear is always there.

PJ: I don’t think it is so simple (to be dealt with?) . Is fear not a part of man’s cultural inheritance?

K: ( In a brain strongly attached to the 'thought-time' process ?) fear is always there. Is it part of our 'cultural' inheritance or is it inherent in man? Fear, as it exists in the animal, as it exists in every living thing, is a sense of not being; the fear of being destroyed.

PJ: The self-preservative instinct takes the form of fear.

K: Is it that the whole structure of (all living) cells is frightened of not being? You see, that exists in every living thing. Even the little ant is afraid of not being. We see that fear is there; we see that it is part of human existence, and one becomes tremendously aware of it in a crisis. ( Your question was ) how does one deal with it at that moment when the 'surge of ( existential anxiety or ?) 'fear' comes? ( The experientially friendly answer is ?) Why do we wait for the crisis (to awaken it?) ? We said that it is always there, that it is a part of our biological, psychological, structure. The whole human structure—our entire being—is frightened . Fear is a part of the tiniest living thing; it is a part of the minutest cell. Why do we wait for a crisis to come and bring it out? That is a most irrational acceptance of it. I am asking: Why should I have to have a crisis in order to deal with my ( existential anxiety & ) fear?

PJ: You see, sir, it is ( theoretically?) possible to face the fear of death with ( rational) intelligence. Is it possible to face other fears intelligently?

K: I question whether you can have any ( holistic ?) intelligence at all before you have resolved ( this existential anxiety or?) 'fear'. ( The loving & compassionate?) Intelligence is light and you cannot deal with ( the inner) darkness when this 'light' is not there .
( Both outwardly & inwardly?) Light exists only when 'darkness' is not .
I am questioning whether you can deal with fear 'intelligently' when (the deeper causation of this?) fear exists. I say that you cannot. You may rationalize it, you may try to avoid it or go beyond it, but that is not ( the holistic action of ) Intelligence.

PJ: I would say that ( the awakening of this ) intelligence occurs in the awareness of fear arising, in leaving it alone, in being with it, and so (eventually) leading to the dissolution of fear. But you're saying that where intelligence is, fear does not arise ? ( and vice-versa?)

NANDINI MEHTA (NM): Will fear not arise?

K: We don’t (intelligently?) allow ( this profound existential anxiety or?) 'fear' to arise.

NM: I think fear arises, but we don’t allow it to flower.

K: You see, I am questioning, altogether, the whole (traditional 'time-delaying') response to a crisis. Fear is there; why do you need a ( major existential) crisis to awaken it? A ( cruel?) word, a gesture, a look, a thought—those are challenges that can bring it up. I am asking: Why do we wait for the (ultimate existential?) crisis? A gesture, a thought, a word, a look, a whisper—any of these are ( very valid existential) challenges.

NM: I don’t look for the crisis. The only thing I am aware of is that it just arises and I am paralysed.

K: Why don’t you ( endeavour to?) contact ( your existential?) fears before the challenge? Why should one not awaken to it without a challenge? If fear is ( lingering) there, it must be awake; or is it dormant? And if it is dormant, why is it dormant? Is it because the conscious mind (is subliminally) afraid that ( the Big Existential ?) Fear may awaken? Has it put it to sleep and refused to look at it? Or ( this 'existential anxiety' or ?) 'fear' is (lingering there but still?) awake, but one's ( survival oriented?) conscious mind won’t let it flower? Do you admit that fear is ( the unwanted?) part of human existence?

PJ: So, you are asking: Why don’t you face it right (here & now?) ?

K: Why should I wait for a ( major existential) crisis for this (lingering existential?) 'fear' to awaken ( flower and wither & die ? ) ? If it is (just lingering?) there, who has put it to sleep? Is it the 'conscious' mind because it cannot resolve it? Why should the conscious mind trying to suppress fear?

SP: Sir, the readily available instrument of the conscious mind is 'analysis' and the capacity of (mental) recognition. With these instruments it is inadequate to deal with (mankind's ages old existential?) fears.

K: It can’t deal with it. But what is required is the real simplicity (of a direct, non-verbal observation?) , not analysis. That is my point : why does the (holistically friendly?) mind not bring that fear out and move (intelligently ?) with this basic fear is of non-existence, of uncertainty ( facing the Vast Unknown?) , of 'not being', of dying. ? Why wait for a (major ) crisis? Is it that you are ( indulging in being psycho-somatically?) lazy and therefore you haven’t got the ( intelligent ressources of) energy to go to the root of it?

PJ: I am trying to see (how your proposition is experientially?) valid...

K: ( To recap:) We say that every living thing is frightened of not being, of not surviving. Fear is part of our blood cells (as 'neuro-transmitters'?) . So the 'fear of not being' is part of our whole psychological, as well as biological structure, and I am asking myself why a crisis is necessary, why challenge should become important. I want to be 'ahead of challenge', not behind the challenge...

PJ: So, our (next experiential) question is: With what instrument, with what energy, from what dimension does one 'see'; and what does one see?

K: ( For starters?) is it that the 'unconscious' ( part of one's total ) mind is asleep? And there are only there some parts of the mind that are awake? If you are ( fully) awake, no challenge is necessary. If, (one does realise that ) it is part of one's (physical) life that we should die, then one's ( total consciousness?) is awake all the time.

PJ: You are not being conscious of ( this profound existential anxiety or 'psychological' ?) fear all the time. It is there all the time under the carpet, but you don’t look at it.

K: I say: ( in one's meditation homework?) 'lift the carpet' and look. It is there. That is my point. It is there and awake. So it does not need a challenge to awaken it. I am frightened all the time of not being, of dying, of not achieving. That is the basic fear in our life, in our blood and it is there, always watching, guarding, protecting itself. But it is very much awake. It is never, even for a moment, asleep. Therefore, an (outward) challenge is not necessary. What you do about it and how you deal with it comes later.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): Don’t you consider the ( very humane) factor of 'non-attention'?

K: I said it is awake, like a ( lingering hidden ) snake in the room, it is always there. I may look elsewhere, but it is there. Can't you face (inwardly this?) 'living thing'? This does not need ( waiting for a major existential?) challenge. The next step is: When the conscious mind is ( becoming ) awake to this ( lingering?) what are we going to do next?
When it is ( fully) awakened it is not frightened. In itself, it is not frightened. It is the conscious mind that says, ‘I am frightened of not being (forever alive & happy?) ’. But when I meet death in an accident, an aeroplane crashes, there is no fear. At the moment of death I say, ‘Yes, I know now what it means to die’. Have you never watched an ant? It is never frightened (psychologically?) : if somebody kills it, it dies.

NM: Sir, if you observed an ant and put a piece of paper in front of the ant, it dodges it.

K: It wants to survive, but it is not 'thinking' about ( its personal?) surviving.
So ( to recap : ) It is ( the self-identified process of ?) thought which creates (the psychological) fear: it is only thought that says, ‘I will die, I am lonely. I have not fulfilled myself ’. See ( the truth of ) this: that is ( the inward door to ) timeless eternity, that is real eternity. Can the mind be completely motionless? Can the mind be completely stable? Then that ( holistic Intelligence ?) comes. When 'That' is awake(ned?) , what then is ( left of the?) the central root of fear?

PJ: Has this actually happened to you, sir?

K: Many times, when the ( meditating?) mind is completely stable, without any rationalizing or escaping, there is no movement of any kind. We have got to (transcending?) the root of it, have we not?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Oct 2018 #130
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

( Reviewing holistically the 1972 K CONVERSATION WITH DAVID BOHM)

ON INTELLIGENCE

Bohm: About ( the origins of the word?) 'intelligence', it comes from (the latin) 'inter-legere' which means 'to read between'. So (in experiential terms) we could say that thought is like the information written in a book and ( our ?) intelligence has to 'read the meaning' of it. I think this gives a rather good notion of intelligence. There is also another dictionary meaning which is: mental alertness.
Now, this is very different from what ( most materialistically minded ) people try to measure intelligence. Now, considering many of the things you have said, we could say that a holistic intelligence is not ( to be found in the sphere of the self-centred) thought. Could we say that intelligence is not of the order of time at all ? . Would you say there is a real difference between the physical (functioning of the human brain?) and Intelligence?

Krishnamurti: Let us put it differently ; are we saying that thought is a material process ? And if it is, then what is the relationship between thought and intelligence?

Bohm:  Simply put, ( the self-centred) thinking is mechanical while  Intelligence is not.

Krishnamurti: So thought is measurable; intelligence is not. And how does it happen that this Intelligence comes into existence? Is the cessation of thought the awakening of intelligence? Or is it that intelligence, being independent of thought, and therefore not of time, exists always ?

Bohm: That raises many difficult (meta-physical) questions. So you're saying that intelligence may be there always ?

Krishnamurti: I am (actually) asking - is it there 'always' because the Buddhists, and the Hindus have the theory that ( a spark of timeless ) Intelligence exists always ( awake or dormant in man's consciousness ?) but covered over by ( strata of) illusions, by the material (survival needs) & by all kinds of 'mischievous' things created by thought.

Bohm: Well, we don't actually see the eternal existence of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: They say : peel all these ( temporal residues?) off, and 'that' thing is there. So their assumption is that it existed always.

Bohm: There is a (hidde) difficulty in the word 'always', because it implies (thinking in terms of?) time. And that is just the trouble, because (inwardly speaking?) time is ( enfonded in the order of?) thought - in other words thought has invented (ingenious waysto measure?) time, and in fact thought is ( the result of man's evolution in?) time. Thought may sweep over the whole of time in one moment; but then thought is always changing (its point of view?) without noticing that it is changing for physical reasons ; and this may have to do with some physiological movements in the brain; therefore ( it puts a spin on ?) the meaning (of the actual facts of life ?) which is no longer consistent, it becomes contradictory, it changes in an arbitrary way.
Then you begin to think, everything is changing, I change, everything changes, and one begins to think "I am ( existing) in time". When time is extended it becomes vast, the past before I was, further and further back and also forward in the future, so you begin to say time is the essence of all, time conquers everything. First the child may think, "I am eternal", then he begins to understand that he is in time. The general view is that time is the essence of existence. This I think is not only the common sense view but also the scientific view. It is very hard to give up such a view because it is an intense conditioning. It is (possibly) even stronger than the conditioning of the 'observer' ( feeling separated from) what is observed.

Krishnamurti: Yes, quite. Are we saying that thought is time, thought is measurable, thought can change (its content & direction), modify, expand? And intelligence is of a different quality altogether?

Bohm: Yes, Intelligence seems to be of a different order, of a different quality. We commonly think of the 'past' as becoming the 'future'; but you can see that it is just ( the linear operation of?) thought. Yet one gets the impression that past and future are present together and there is movement in another way; that the whole pattern is moving. But I can't picture 'how' it moves - at first sight it seems that it is a movement in another ( dimension of?) time.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite... Is intelligence out of time and therefore not related to thought, which is a movement of time?

Bohm: But still thought must be somehow related to it.

Krishnamurti: Is it? I think it is 'unrelated' .

Bohm: Unrelated? But we can distinguish between intelligent thinking and unintelligent (dumb?) thought.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but ( even) that requires intelligence to recognize unintelligent thought.

Bohm: But when Intelligence reads ( between the lines of ) thought, what is the relationship? Doesn't thought respond to intelligence? Doesn't thought change?

Krishnamurti: Let us be simple. Thought is ( a mental) movement in time. Thought is measurable and thought functions in the field of time, ( changing according to material circumstances) all the time moving (along a particular thread of self-interest ) . Is Intelligence within the field of time?

Bohm: Well, in one sense it can't be. Could it be a movement in ( a different dimension of ) time ?
Krishnamurti: Thought is mechanical; being mechanical it can move in many different directions (motivated by a wide range of self- centred interests) and all the rest of it. Is intelligence mechanical? Let's put it that way.

Bohm: I would like to ask you what does 'mechanicalness' mean?

Krishnamurti: Repetitive, ( predictable?) measurable, comparative.

Bohm: I would say also 'dependent' . Let us get it clear - intelligence cannot be dependent on any ( material) condition for its (perception of?) Truth. But it seems that intelligence doesn't operate if the brain is not healthy.

Krishnamurti: Obviously.

Bohm: So, in that sense intelligence seems to depend on the ( condition of the physical) brain.

Krishnamurti: On the (internal harmony & ) quietness of the brain?

Bohm: All right, it depends on a ( holistically friendly?) 'quietness' of the brain.

Krishnamurti: Not on the 'activity' of the brain...

Bohm: So, there must be some (subtle?) relation between intelligence and the brain. In Physics, ( we have certain devices like) the Wheatstone bridge, where a 'null reading' indicates the perfect balance of the two sides of the whole system. So if we are using the ( brain) instrument negatively, then the non-function of the instrument is the sign that it is working right. Could we say the human brain has used thought 'positively' to make a (realistic model ) image of the world, but  the other ( largely ignored) function of thought is 'negative', which is to indicate the presence of inner harmony or non-harmony.

Krishnamurti: Yes, ( mostly of ?) non-harmony. Let us proceed from there. When you're saying that intelligence is 'dependent' on the ( overall condition of the?) brain what do we mean by that?

Bohm: It has several possible meanings. There may be a simple mechanical dependence, or intelligence depends for its existence on this (the qualitative condition of the?) brain, which can indicate non-harmony, but the brain does not have anything to do with the ( active) content of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: So if the brain is not ( holistically?) harmonious, can intelligence function (properly?) ?

Bohm: That is the question...

Krishnamurti:  What we are saying is that it cannot function if the brain is hurt (not innocent?)

Bohm: It seems that intelligence requires the brain in order to exist.

Krishnamurti: But the brain is only an 'instrument' - it is not the creator of the 'other' ( holistic intelligence) .

Bohm: The brain doesn't create Intelligence but it is an instrument which helps intelligence to function ?

Krishnamurti: That's it. Now if the brain is (constantly) functioning within the field of ( its past experience accumulated in?) time - up and down, negatively, positively, in any way - through that movement of time-(bound thinking) can intelligence operate? Or must that ( transponding?) instrument be 'quiet' (inwardly silent?) for the ( holistic?) Intelligence to operate?

Bohm: Yes. The quietness of the instrument is ( allowing) the operation of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right. Then the two are not separate.

Bohm: And vice-versa, the non-quietness of the instrument is ( pointing to) the failure of intelligence (to operate) .

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: I think it would be useful (existentially-wise?) to go back into a questions raised in the whole of scientific and philosophical thinking : Does intelligence exists independently of ( the) material world ?

Krishnamurti: Do we agree (for experiential purposes that?) any movement of thought in any direction, vertical, horizontal, in action or non-action, is still in time ?

Bohm: Yes.

Krishnamurti: Then what is the relationship of that movement to this 'intelligence' which is not a movement, which is not of time, which is not the product of thought, and so on and so on? Where can the two meet?

Bohm: They don't meet. But there is still got to be some ( inter-) relation.

Krishnamurti:  Can thought ever be harmonious - thought as ( a self-projected )movement (in time) , not static thought?

Bohm: I understand your point : there is that thought which you abstract as 'static', like in geometry let us say, that may have some harmony; but thought as it actually moves ( in self-becoming) is always contradictory.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it has no harmony in itself. But intelligence has harmony in itself.

Bohm: I think I see the source of the confusion. We have the static products of thought that seem to have a certain order & harmony. But that harmony is really the result of intelligence, at least it seems so to me. It is not perfect harmony because every form of mathematics has been proved to have some limits.
Krishnamurti: As we said, sir, thought is ( a mental?) movement, and in that movement is there harmony? If there is, then it has relationship with the other. If there is no harmony and therefore it is ( caught in internal) contradictions and all the rest of it, then it has no relationship with the 'other'.

Bohm: Then would you say that we could do entirely without using our thinking capacity ?

Krishnamurti: I would put it round the other way. Intelligence uses thought which may be (inwardly ?) contradictory, & non- harmonious, to create ( materially useful ? ) things in the world. But can we put into words, negatively or positively, what is 'intelligence', or what is not intelligence? Or is that impossible because our words are (part of = thought, time, measure and all the rest of it?

Bohm: We can't ( really?) put it in words. But nevertheless the words of thought can function as 'pointers' to an intelligence which is beyond the domain of time.

Krishnamurti: So thought is a pointer. The ( pointed) content is intelligence.

Bohm: The content which it points to.

Krishnamurti:  Can we put this thing entirely differently? May we say, thought is barren?

Bohm: When it moves by itself, yes.

Krishnamurti: Which is, mechanical and all the rest of it. Thought is a pointer, but without ( the inner light of) intelligence the pointer has no value.
So ( a minimal quality of holistically friendly  ?) intelligence is a necessary (pre-requisite?) . Without that this has no meaning at all.

Bohm:  Then somehow thought and intelligence seem to fuse in a common function ?

Krishnamurti:  So what is one's ( homework?) action in relation to intelligence ? ( Hint:) in the carrying out of that action (a certain amount of thoughtful ?) thinking is necessary.

Bohm: Yes. Don't they have a common source? But you see ( at this point in our evolution the self-interest dominated ?) thought has conquered the world.

Bohm: Dominates the world ?

Krishnamurti: Thought, the intellect, dominates the world. And therefore ( the holistic?) intelligence has very little place here. When one thing dominates, the other must be subservient.

Bohm: One asks, how that came about ?

Krishnamurti: That is fairly simple. ( Man's survival oriented?) thought must have security; it is seeking security in all its movements.
But ( the holistic) intelligence is not seeking security. It has no ( temporal?) security. The idea of ( seeking a temporal) security doesn't exist in intelligence. Intelligence in itself is secure.

Bohm: Yes, but how did it come about that intelligence allowed itself to be dominated?

Krishnamurti: Oh, that is fairly clear ( when one is looking around ?) Pleasure, comfort, physical security, security in (our ) relationships, security in action, security...

Bohm: But ( inwardly) that security is illusory...

Krishnamurti: ( A very realistic?) illusion of security, of course.

Bohm: You could say that thought got out of hand and ceased to allow itself to be orderly, ordered in general by ( an Universal) Intelligence (aka :Divine Wisdom?) , or at least it ceased to stay in harmony with this (Cosmic) Intelligence, and began to move on its own accord.

Krishnamurti: Now as ( working hard for ) the physical security is obviously necessary, the ( gratifying rewards 'As Seen On TV'?) ?) physical pleasures & the physical well-being became tremendously important...

Bohm: Yes, if you go back to the animal, then there is instinctive response towards pleasure and security would be right. But now when thought comes in, it can dazzle the instinct and produce all sorts of glamour, more pleasure, more security. And the instincts are not intelligent enough to deal with the complexity of thought, therefore thought went wrong, because it excited the instincts and the instincts demanded more.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So thought really created a world of illusion, miasma, confusion, and put away ( any interest for holistic) intelligence.
But now, we are trying to ( move in a different direction by ?) finding out the right relationship, in our everyday action, of thinking and intelligence. Because everything is ( experientially coming down to ) action or inaction. And our daily life it is not ordered by intelligence in the way we all live... It is fragmented (compartmentalised & specialised) activity, therefore it is not an activity of a wholeness. ( Hint:) The activity of wholeness is intelligence.

Bohm:  So, ( for starters?) Intelligence has to understand the ( limitations of the self-centred) activity of thought. Would you say that when intelligence understands the activity of thought, then thought is different in its operation?

Krishnamurti: Yes, obviously. That is, if thought has created ( the concept of) nationalism as a means of security and when one sees the fallacy of it, the seeing of the fallacy of it is intelligence. Therefore an intelligent thinking creates a different kind of world in which nationalism don't exist.  And therefore division, conflict, war and all the rest.

Bohm: That much is very clear. Intelligence sees the falseness of what is going on. When one's thinking is free of this falseness it is ( moving in a ) different (direction) carryink out the implications of intelligence.

Krishnamurti: Therefore thought finds its proper place.

Bohm: That is very interesting because generally, thought always moves along its own (threads of self-interest) . But in the light of intelligence, when the falseness is seen, then thought moves parallel or in harmony with intelligence.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: That would suggest that intelligence and thought have this common origin and that they are two ways of calling attention to a greater whole.

Krishnamurti: Yes. Sir. (To recap:) We are now concerned with living a life in which intelligence operates. Intelligence ( aka 'Mind'?) which is not of time, which is not of measure, which is not the product of ( brain's self-centred?) thought. Now a human being who wants to live a different kind of life asks, "How am I to be free of all this ( time binding mentality?) in order to be intelligent?" But... can 'I' be the instrument of this intelligence?

Bohm: Obviously it can't be, because this ( self-identification of?) thought in time is the essence of un-intelligence.

Krishnamurti: But aren't we thinking in terms of 'I' all the time ?

Bohm: Yes. That is thought projecting some sort of phantasy of what 'intelligence' is, and is trying to achieve it.

Krishnamurti: This is why we said that thought must be completely still for the awakening of 'that' ( holistic intelligence?) . There can't be an (interfering) movement of ( self-centred) thought and yet the awakening of That.

Bohm: This may be clearly seen on one level, but ( on the deeper levels of consciousness) the mechanism (of time-thought seems to ?) continue on its own .

Krishnamurti: Continues, yes...

Bohm: ...through instincts and pleasure and fear and so on. The (newly born?) Intelligence therefore has to come to grips with this question of the (ages old self-interest involved in) pleasures, the fears, the desires, which make thought continue.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: And there is always this (hidden 'psycho-) trap', which is to form a concept or image of it, which is partial.

Krishnamurti: Of course. So as a ( holistically inclined) human being I would be concerned with (considering ) how confused, contradictory, disharmonious one's life is. Is it possible to change that so that Intelligence can function in my life, so that I live without disharmony, so that the pointer, the direction (of my life ) is guided by intelligence? You see, sir, the religious people, instead of using the ( culturally updated ?) word Intelligence, have used the word 'God'.

Bohm: What is the advantage of that?

Krishnamurti: (Probably?) it came from primitive fears, fear of thunder, fear of nature, and gradually out of that grew the idea that there is an (All Mighty ?) God...

Bohm: But that is still the ( time-bound ) brain functioning.
Krishnamurti: Of course. I am just saying that. They said have faith in God, then God will operate through you.

Bohm: It sounds like a sort of metaphor, if you said, God is Intelligence. But most people didn't take it as a metaphor....

Krishnamurti: What I am trying to convey is, that the desire for this intelligence, through time, has created this image of God. And by having faith in that image of God, Jesus, Krishna, or whatever it is, - which is still the movement of thought - I hope that way there will be harmony in my life.

Bohm: And this sort of image because it is so total produces an overriding desire, urge; that is, it overrides rationality.

Krishnamurti: It overrides rationality, everything - the whole world ( of the organised religions) is conditioned this way.

Bohm: Yes, but the question is what you have hinted at is that the whole (state of the modern?) world is the result of this way of thinking, it is both the cause and the effect of a way of thinking which is breeding disharmony, chaos and unintelligence . That is what our trouble has always been; people have developed (sophisticated ) technology and weapons in terms of some limited intelligence, which is serving highly unintelligent purposes.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is just it.

Bohm: For thousands of years that has been going on. Then of course I think reaction tends to arise like this, that is all much too big.

Krishnamurti: But it is really very simple, extraordinarily simple, ( to meditate & recover ?) this sense of harmony. Because it is so ( holistically?) 'simple' it can function in the most complex field. We said the same (life-creating) source is common to both thought and intelligence.

Bohm: Yes, we got that far.

Krishnamurti: What is that source?

Bohm: Well that would be beyond 'me' ( beyond my self-identified consciousness?) ...

Krishnamurti:  Let's (try to find out experientially?) what is that common Source, the central ( life-creating) movement which divides itself into matter and intelligence. (Obviously?) you can't find it through ( the traditional ways of?) thought.

Bohm: That raises (another existential ?) question: if you find 'It' then what are 'you'?

Krishnamurti: 'You' ( the temporal consciousness?) don't (really?) exist. 'You' are (the psychological movement of ?) time, environmental conditioning - you are all that.

Bohm: In that question the whole of this ( the self-) division is put aside ?

Krishnamurti: Absolutely. So, (for starters?) I am not going to exercise thought (the self-centred thinking within the 'known'?) ." By deliberately understanding the whole ( transpersonal nature?) of this ( creative life source?) one puts away the 'me' altogether.

Bohm: But that sounds like a contradiction...

Krishnamurti: I know. 'I' can't put it away ( by a deliberate action?) . It 'takes place' (in a meditation friendly inner environment?) . Then what is the Source? ( Hint:) Can it ever be 'named'? In the Jewish religious feeling is that it is not nameable: you don't name it, you can't talk about it, you can't touch it. You can only 'look' (transpersonally ?) And the Hindus and others (wise men were ) saying (pretty much?) the same thing in different words.
Now I want to get at this: what is the (innermost ?) Source (of all Creation?) Can thought find it? And thought is born from that source; and intelligence is also born from that source. It is like two streams moving in different directions.

Bohm: Would you say more generally that all (living?) matter is also born from that Source?

Krishnamurti: Of course.

Bohm: I mean the whole Universe ? But then the Source is beyond the (material) Universe.

Krishnamurti: Of course. Now what is ( the right way to approach ?) That?
Could we try it this way? Thought is ( a manifested form of Life's ?) energy, so is intelligence...

Bohm: So is matter...

Krishnamurti: Thought, ( & all living & non-living ?) matter (are manifested forms of energy) . Intelligence is also energy. ( But the energy of?) thought is confused, polluted, constantly dividing (separating) itself, 'fragmenting' itself. And ( the energy of Compassionate ?) Intelligence is not polluted. It does not divide itself as 'my intelligence' and 'your intelligence'. It is ( part of Universal?) intelligence, it is not divisible. So, (both thought & intelligence) have sprung from a source of ( creative) energy which ( in the course of man's evolution in time?) has divided itself.

Bohm: Why has it divided itself?

Krishnamurti: Because for physical (survivalistic) reasons, for comfort, for existence, you know all the rest of it.

Bohm: To maintain physical existence. So a part of this (original) Intelligence has been changed in such a way as to help to maintain physical existence.

Krishnamurti: Yes.

Bohm: It has developed in a certain ( self-interest dominated?) way.

Krishnamurti: And has going on ( evolving along) that way. Both are energy. So there is only one energy.

Bohm: Yes, they are different forms of energy. In physics you could say light is ordinarily a very complex wave motion, infinitely complex, but in ( focussing it through?) the 'laser' it can be made to move all together in a very simple and harmonious way.

Krishnamurti:  So there is only ( Life) energy, which is the Source.

Bohm: We have to clarify this notion of 'energy'. I have also looked up this word in the dictionary - in ancient Greek it means, "To work within."( that which works within?)

Krishnamurti: Works within, yes.

Bohm:  So, you're saying there is an ( source of creative) energy which 'works' (within all forms of life) , but without any movement ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. The Source is there, uncontaminated, non-movement, untouched by thought, it is there. From that (original Source of human consciousness?) these two are born. Why are they born at all?

Bohm: One was necessary for man's physical survival.

Krishnamurti: That is all. In ( man's ages old?) survival the (holistic nature of that Source?) has been denied, or ( simply ignored?) .
Now, what I am trying to get at is this : can the mind of an (ordinary) human being living in this world with all the ( ongoing) chaos and suffering ( meditatively ) 'touch' that Source in which the two divisions don't exist? And because it has touched this source, because it has no division, it can then operate ( in the real word?) without the sense of division.

Bohm: But how is it possible for ( a holistically friendly ) human mind not to touch the Source (which is actually sustaining its very existence ?) ? Why does it not touch the Source?

Krishnamurti: Because we are (inwardly distracted or?) consumed by thought's (survivalistic self-interest?) , by the cleverness of thought, by the movement of thought (within the field of the known) . All their 'gods', their ( systems of?) meditations, everything is ( dominated by) that (time-thread of self-interest?) .

Bohm: Yes. I think this is also related to our physical survival...

Krishnamurti: Because of thought, in its ( obsessive?) desire for security, it has (projected ?) 'death' as something separate from itself.

Bohm: Yes, that may be the key point. Thought has constructed itself as an instrument for survival, not to die. Therefore...

Krishnamurti: ... it has created ( the concept of ) 'immortality' .

Bohm: Thought cannot possibly contemplate its own (ending?) death. It seems inbuilt into ( the time-bound continuity of?) thought that it cannot possibly consider death properly.

Krishnamurti: It cannot. It means ending itself.

Bohm: That is very interesting. Taking the death of the physical body, which we see outwardly; the organism dies, the (source of) life- energy ceases to imbue the body and therefore the body no longer has any wholeness. You could say that with thought also; that (life-sustaining ) energy in some ways goes to thought, as to the body. Would that make sense?

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now, you and other ( holistically minded ?) people have often used the phrase: "The mind dies to the whole (temporal continuity of) of thought." That way of putting it is puzzling at first, because you would think it was thought that should die.

Krishnamurti: Quite, quite.

Bohm: But now you are saying that it is the 'mind' that dies, or the (intelligent) energy that dies to thought. The nearest I can see to what that means is, that when thought is working (in the everyday life) it is invested with a certain energy by the 'mind' or the 'intelligence'; and when thought is no longer relevant, then the energy goes and 'thought' is like a dead (lifeless) organism.

Krishnamurti: That is right.

Bohm: Now it is very hard for the (time-bound) mind to accept this, because the comparison between thought and the physical organism seems so poor, because thought is insubstantial and the organism is substantial. So the death of the organism seems something far more ( real) than the death of thought. Now this is a point that is not clear. Would you say that in the death of thought we have the essence of ( what happens at?) the death of the physical organism as well?

Krishnamurti: Obviously...

Bohm: Although it is on a small scale, as it were, it is of the same nature?

Krishnamurti: Yes. As we said, there is ( the same source of life) energy in both, but thought in its ( survival oriented ) movement has (identified itself with?) this ( life) energy, and therefore...thought cannot ( is not in the position to?) see itself die.

Bohm: It has no way of imagining, or projecting, or conceiving its own death ?

Krishnamurti: Therefore it 'escapes' from ( facing its inward 'dissolution' or ?) death.

Bohm: Well, it gives itself the illusion.

Krishnamurti: ( A very realistic?) 'illusion' of course. And it has created the illusion of a state beyond death, a projection of its own desire for its own continuity.

Bohm: Well, that thought may have begun by desiring the continuity of the physical organism.

Krishnamurti: Yes, that is right, and then gone on beyond it.

Bohm: Gone beyond that, by desiring its own continuity. That was where it went wrong.

Krishnamurti: Yes, went wrong. It saw the (physical) organism as itself.

Bohm: It felt itself to be not merely an extension, but the essence of the organism. At first thought is functioning merely in the organism and then thought begins to present itself as the essence of the organism.

Krishnamurti: That's right.

Bohm: Then thought begins to desire its own immortality.

Krishnamurti: Although thought itself is very well aware that it is not immortal.

Bohm: It knows it only as an outward fact.

Krishnamurti: Therefore it creates immortality in ( sacred?) pictures, images...
So, if we see it very clearly, both psychologically and physically, my next question is: can the ( holistically friendly?) mind keep the purity of the original Source? The original pristine clarity of that (innermost?) energy (of Creation) which is not touched by ( the self-centred ) thought at all?

Bohm: The question is clear.

Krishnamurti:  Can the (temporal) mind ever discover that?

Bohm: What is the ( temporal) 'mind'?

Krishnamurti: The ( time-bound) mind is (the psychosomatic?) organism, thought, the brain with all its memories, experiences and all that, which is all of time. And this ( self-conscious ) mind says, "Can I come to this?"
( Hint:) It cannot. Then I say to myself, " I will learn how to be quiet; I will learn how to meditate in order to be quiet''. But it (may be ) still a ( devious?) operation of thought. Then what is it to do? Is it a (possibility for a holistic) perception, an 'insight' which has nothing whatsoever to do with thought?
So I have got a ( potential?) key to it. But then... what is this (total) 'insight'? Can I cultivate it?

Bohm: 'You' can't do that ( on purpose?) but still...there is some (gathering of intelligent ?) energy that is needed.

Krishnamurti: That is (left for optional homework ???). So, if the (total inner clarity of ) insight is not the product of thought, how does one come upon it ? (….Pause....) We have come upon it because we 'denied' all that.

Bohm: Yes, 'it' is there. You can never answer that question, how you come upon anything of (immaterial nature?) .

Krishnamurti: I think it is ( holistically-wise?) fairly clear, sir. You do 'come upon it' when you see the ( truth regarding the limitations of thought's ?) endeavours . So 'insight' is the perception of the whole. A fragment cannot see this (limitation) , but the ( timeless ?) quality of a mind that sees the whole is not touched by thought; therefore there is perception, there is insight.

Bohm: Perhaps we will go over that more slowly. Could we say the actual energy which sees those fragments is whole?

Krishnamurti: Yes, yes.

Bohm: But we don't usually manage to 'see the whole' because... ?

Krishnamurti: ...we are ( very poorly ? ) educated, and all the ( karmic?) rest of it...

Bohm:  So, 'seeing the wholeness' is the freedom (from all the mental ?) fragments ?

Krishnamurti: That is right. The freedom (from the 'known' is necessary in order ?) to 'see' (holistically?) . Such freedom doesn't exist when there are fragments.

Bohm: That makes a fine 'paradox' : the (perception of the?) whole does not start from the fragments, but once the whole operates then there are no more fragments. But the paradoxical aspect comes from supposing that the fragments are independently 'real', that they exist independently of thought.
If I suppose that the fragments are there independently of me and my thought, and then I must somehow do something about them - that would be a ( the impossible aspect of the ?) paradox. The ( perception of the?) whole starts from the insight that these fragments are in a way , 'nothing', they are not substantial realities. They are very insubstantial.

Krishnamurti: Insubstantial, yes.

Bohm: And therefore they don't prevent ( the seeing of the ) wholeness .

Krishnamurti: Quite.< ;;

Bohm: You see, one of the things that often causes (a lot of intellectual) confusion is that, when you put it in terms of ( a 'thinker' observing the movements of his) thought, it seems that you are presented with fragments that are real, having a substantial reality. Therefore you ( assume that you ) have to 'see' them (in action) ...But then, as long as the fragments are active there, there is no wholeness so that you can't see them (holistically) . But (in the holistic perspective?) all comes back to the one thing, the one Source.

Krishnamurti: I am sure, sir, really serious people have asked this question. They have asked it and tried to find an answer through ( exercising their rational capacity of ) thought.

Bohm: Yes, well it seems only natural....

Krishnamurti:  But... they never saw that they were caught in ( the fragmentary nature of ) thought.

Bohm: That is always the trouble. Everybody gets into this trouble: that he seems to be looking at everything, at his problems, saying, "Those are my problems, and I am objectively looking at them ." But that 'looking' is only ( a projection of the thinker who is in command of his) ?) thinking, but it is confused with ( direct) looking. One of the very common ( experiential) confusion that arises at this point is that when you say, ''Don't think , just 'look''', one may ( subliminally ) feel that one is already 'looking'.

Krishnamurti: Quite. So you see, this ( meditation-related?) question has arisen and they say, "All right, then I must control thought and make my mind quiet so that it becomes whole, then I can see the parts, all the fragments, then I'll touch the Source." But...it may be still the operation of thought ( within the same field of the 'known'?) all the time.

Bohm: Yes, that means the ( 'psychological') operation of thought is unconscious for the most part and therefore one doesn't even know it is really going on. We may all say consciously ''we have realized that, all this has to be changed, it has to be different''...

Krishnamurti: ...but the 'unconscious' (activity of 'time-thought') is still going on. Can you ( the holistically friendly educator?) talk to my 'unconscious', knowing my 'conscious' (time-bound) brain is going to resist you? Because you are telling me something which is ( inwardly quite?) 'revolutionary', something which shatters my whole house ( in the field of the known) which I have built so carefully, and I won't 'listen' to you. My instinctive (survivalistic) reactions is pushing you away. So realizing that you say, "All right, old ( truth seeking?) friend, just don't bother to listen to me in that ( subliminally self-protective) way. I am going to talk to your 'unconscious' (part of your total Consciousness?) and make it see that whatever movement it does is still within the field of (its past knowledge & ) time and so on." So your ( self-) conscious mind is ( temporarily suspended ?). (Educational Hint:) When it operates it must inevitably either resist ( or argue ) , or say, "I will accept", therefore it creates an (additional) conflict in itself, and all the rest of it. So can you talk to the 'un-conscious' ( part of one's total consciousness?) ?

Bohm: You can always ask 'how' ( it can be done properly ...?)

Krishnamurti:  You tell me first, "Look, old boy, don't resist, look at that (gorgeous?) tree, while I am going to talk to you." It sounds funny, but (right now) we two are communicating with each other without the 'conscious' mind (interfering with the total) listening.

Bohm: Yes....

Krishnamurti: I think this is what really takes place : When you were talking to me - I was (listening) openly to you, not to your words, as you explained what you looked in the dictionaries and all the rest of it. I said to myself, I am listening to 'you', not to the words but to the inward quality of your (thinking & ) feeling which wants to tell me something.

Bohm: I understand...

Krishnamurti: That ( compassionate quality of listening) changes me, not all this verbalization. So can you talk to me about my illusions, my peculiar tendencies, without the ( self-) conscious mind interfering and saying, 'Please don't touch all this, leave me alone!'
You are telling me, look at the tree, and the cloud, or that picture on that wall, don't listen to me with your 'conscious' ears but listen to me with the (mind's 'inner) ear' that hear much deeper. That is how I listened to you this morning because I am terribly interested in contacting that ( timeless creative) Source, as you are. To come to that thing together and to feel ( the truth of?) it together - that is the (right educational?) way to break a ( psychological) conditioning, a habit, a (self-) image which I have cultivated. You talk to me about it at a level where the ( self-) conscious mind is not totally interested.

(Eg:) Say for instance I have a (particular habit or ) conditioning; you can point it out a dozen times, but I still go on. I resist it, I say how would I do in this world otherwise, and all the rest of it. But if you (the holistically friendly educator?) see the truth that as long as the mind is conditioned there must be conflict and all the rest of it, you push aside my (psycho-) resistance and get the 'unconscious' (mind) to listen to you, because the 'unconscious' (subliminal mind) is much more subtle, much quicker - it sees the danger much quicker than the conscious mind (located upstairs?) does.

Bohm: So, in order to reach the 'unconscious' ( part of the human mind) you have to have an approach which doesn't directly appeal to the conscious ?

Krishnamurti: Yes. That is ( the holistic action of?) affection, that is love. When you talk to my waking consciousness, it penetrate through it with your affection, with all the feeling you have. That operates (a holistic mutation?) , not anything else.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 15 Oct 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Oct 2018 #131
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

LEARNING THE ART OF LISTENING

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

P: I feel the central point missing in all of us is the factor of
compassion. You once used a phrase, 'Is it possible to
listen with the heart?' What does it actually mean ?

K: Shall we discuss what does it mean to 'listen with compassion'?

P: This is a crucial thing. If we have ( access to the universal intelligence of?) Compassion, everything (of psychological nature) is (solved).

K: Agreed, but we have not got it, unfortunately. So can we take the two: listening and the listening 'with the heart', with ( the intelligence of?) Compassion. And also whether there is an 'art of listening'?

R: You have often said that the response of thought is fragmentary.
Is 'listening with the heart' a non-fragmentary response ?

K: To 'listen' (non-verbally?) with the total flowering of all senses is one thing; listening partially with (thought controlling a ?) particular sense is fragmentary.

R: Yes...

K: But... we do not 'listen' (holistically) .

S: Sir, when you talk of 'listening with the heart' is it listening with feeling ? There is a different quality of communication when the 'feeling' is there.

K: Is this 'feelin'g different from ( the self-centred process of?) thought?

S: To accept the statement that our (deepest) 'feelings' are not different from thought is very difficult because we have also experienced tenderness, affection...

K: Let us go into it slowly. Do I listen with thought or do I not listen with thought? That is the ( experiential) problem.

P: Can we listen without ( the interference of?) thought?

K: Yes.

P: Sometimes, maybe once in a lifetime, one gets the total
feeling of the heart and the mind and consciousness being one.
So, when you ask if there is a listening without thought, we can
say, 'Yes, it is so, but still there is something lacking.

K: We will come to that. Let us go slowly into this.

A: At a lower degree of sensitivity there may be no articulated
thought, but there is listening. That listening is lacking in
sensitivity. So it is not alive.

K: I think we have to begin with what it means to communicate ( or share insight?) . I want to tell you something which I am deeply concerned with. You must be prepared (ready, able & willing ?) to enter into (finding the truth of the ) statement which one is proposing; which means, you must have the same ( passionate?) interest as the speaker or the same 'intensity', and also to 'meet him' at the same level. All this is implied in ( totally insightful?) communication.

S: 'Interest' one can understand, but the 'meeting at the same level' is very difficult to know...

P: May I say something? In introducing the word 'communication', you are introducing the two people who are communicating . In listening from the heart there may not be the two.

K: Yes. We will come to that. ( But first?) what is ( involved in) listening with one's heart? I want to (or share with?) you something which I feel profoundly. How do you 'listen' to it? I want you to feel ( the truth of?) it with me, otherwise how can there be (anything more than a verbal) communication?

S: How does one know the ( being on the same) 'level'?

K: The moment it is not ( speculative or?) intellectual, verbal, but a burning human problem that I want to convey to you, to share with
you, we ( obviously ) must be on the same level, otherwise you cannot
listen.

S: If there is a deep seriousness, will the right level be there?

K: I want to tell you something which is profoundly important. I want you to listen to it because you are a ( responsible) human being, so it is also your problem. So, in sharing it with me you are exposing your own intensity to it. Therefore ( the holistic?) listening implies a
sharing, a non-verbal communication. There must be a listening,
there must be a sharing, which implies an absence of verbal ( intellectual?) distortions.

P: Obviously you can only communicate if there is a certain level.

K: Now, will you listen to me in that manner?

P: To you we listen...

K: Because you have built a ( great spiritual ?) image about me and to that 'image' you give importance, and therefore you listen. But can you listen not only to this (very charismatic?) man who is speaking at the moment, but also listen ( with the same passion for truth?) when somebody else says something? (S)he may try convey to you something
which (s)he may not be capable of putting into words? Will you, in
the same ( holistically friendly ) manner, listen to all of us?

S: We do listen to some, but we do not listen to all.

K: Why?

P: Because of ( our cultural or personal) prejudice. But listening to a voice which is established in truth and which speaks out of silence, can it ever be of the same quality as listening to the voice which speaks
out of thought? Please answer that question.

K: You are too definite.

Raj: We usually listen with ( a personal) motive. The motive may be very subtle or very obvious. When we listen to another we think we will not get anything out of it. That is why, when we listen to K there is much
more attention.

K: So how do we alter that (element of self-interest?) and listen to each other?

FW: Is it that we 'interpret'?

K: No, don't ( bother to?) 'interpret' what I am saying, just 'listen' !
If I start from (the position of total ) 'not knowing', I am listening. But we 'know' - and that is our difficulty. You say this should be this way, this should be that way - all conjectures, opinions...
So, the first thing to be learned is the 'art of listening'.( Hint:) Art means to put everything in its right place. You may have your (cultural) prejudices, you may have your conclusions, but when you are 'listening' put away the interpreting, comparing, judging, evaluating, put all that
away. Then ( a shared?) communication takes place.

R: This 'putting away of everything (one knew before?) ' is the same as having the same intensity and being at the same level ?

K: Otherwise what is the point of it?

R: I have seen this but I am not doing it.

K: Do it now !
So (to recap:) what does it mean to listen with one's heart? If you listen with a sense of care, attention, affection, a deep sense of communion with each other, it means, you 'listen with all your senses', does it not?

P: With 'fullness'.

K: Will you listen that way to somebody whom we don't like, or who we think is stupid? When you have that ('not-knowing', innocent?) feeling, the words don't matter any more.

Let us proceed. Suppose I do listen and I have done it
often in my life. I listen very carefully, I have no prejudices, I have
no ( self-protective images?), I have no conclusions, I am an ( inwardly simple?) human being listening to somebody. I just 'listen' (to the truth of?) what he's telling me about himself.
However, because he has got a ( glamorous ?) image of me, he generally comes to see me (wearing a 'politically correct' ?) mask. But if ( I notice that) he wants to talk seriously with me, I say 'Remove the (politically correct?) mask, let us look at your problem together.' (Clue:) I don't want to 'look behind the mask' unless (s)he invites me. If he says ''All right, sir, let us talk (openly?) about it'', in ( this free space of?) listening he tells me something which is so utterly, completely
common to all human beings. He may put it wrongly, he may put it
foolishly, but it is ( pretty much?) something of which every man or woman suffers ; therefore he is telling me the ( ongoing?) history of mankind. So I am listening not only to the words, the superficial feeling but also to the profound depth of what he is saying. If it is 'superficial', then we discuss superficially and ( try to?) 'push it' (deeper down?) till he feels this thing profoundly . And in going deeper and deeper, he is expressing something which is totally common to all of us. So there is no inner sense of division between him and me.

P: What is the source of this (transpersonal ) 'listening'?

K: Compassion. So how am I to have that extraordinary intelligence
of compassion? I would like to have that flower in my heart.
Now what is one to do?

FW: Compassion is not in the field of thought (of the known) . Therefore I can never have the feeling that I have it.

K: It is like an (oil) drill, you have to push, push ( the 'meditative' way?)

P: There must be a 'perfume to it'.

K: Of course. You cannot talk about compassion without its perfume...

P: It is either there or not there. But why is it that when we
are in (a 'sharing insight'?) communication with you, there is this tremendous impact which knocks away all prejudices, all obstacles and makes the mind ( ASAP?) silent?

K: It is like going to the Well with a small bucket or with an
enormous bucket which one can hardly carry. Most of us go with a
small bucket and pull out of the well insufficient water. It is like
having a fountain in your yard, flowing, flowing. I would like to
have it too inside (myself) . So what am I to do?

S: I can also see that ( purposedly?) sitting in meditation regularly, being in silence, none of these things have any relationship to That. Every kind of 'experience' that one has gone through, has also nothing to do with It.

K: Listen Sunanda, ( Suppose that?) Radha and Pupul have got this thing 'in their backyard'. They don't talk about it because it is there, flowering,
flowing, murmuring, all kinds of things happen. And I say, I would like to look at it like at a precious jewel. How is it to happen to me?
Don't 'take time' to meditate about it. You have no (more deliberation ) time when there is a tremendous crisis. You have no time then to
analyse it , you 'are' (totally immersed ) in it.
So, the (timeless spiritual crisis is :) (S)he has got that extraordinary perfume which is so natural to her. (S) he has got ( free access to?) it somehow, and I would like to have it too, since without it nothing matters. So 'It' must be (in) there (freely available for anyone) .
So, I am in the middle of this ( ultimate existential) Question. The (inner) house is on fire and 'I' am caught in that fire.

R: Sir, when at a certain moment one is filled with this, the 'I want it' does not even arise...

K: Be simple, Radha. You ( may?) have something in your backyard, a
'fountain' which very few people have, very very few. And as a (fellow) human being, I can see how marvellous that is and I go towards it. What
am I do to?

FW: Is there anything that 'I' can do?

K: May be or may be not. If the demand (for It?) is so great, the demand itself puts everything aside.

P: Is it not very closely linked up with the 'volume of energy'?

K: All right. She says it is linked up with the 'flame' of energy.
Pupul, when you really 'want' something you burn like hell. Doesn't one? When you want that girl or that man, you are at it.

FW: That makes the difference...

K: I want to create ( or quicken ?) a ( spiritual ) 'crisis' . Then there is action. (If it happense ?) one can ( openly or subliminally) avoid the 'crisis' or one 'acts'. So, Pupul, is this (psychological?) crisis taking place? I come to you and talk about all this. You listen as far as
you can listen, as far as you can go, but nothing happens. You hear
it year after year, you take a little step each time, and by the end
you are dead (better luck in the next life?) . What he (K) wants to do is to bring about (or trigger?) an action which is born out of a tremendous ( existential) crisis. Is that 'crisis' the ( subliminally induced?) result of his urgency or is it a crisis which 'you' have got to break through? That is his intention. He says that is the only thing that matters.

A: Such ( a major existential) crisis is usually ( the direct result of?) an external challenge to which I am unable to find an adequate response ; but (the inner) 'crisis' of which you to speak of is not at all triggered by any external fact but it is a projection from within.

K: His intention is to create a crisis, not superficial, not external
but inside. He has created that (major existential) crisis in you (becaudse) he is talking of Truth. His demand is that there
should be a ( Truth generated ?) crisis in you, not a superficial crisis. I think that is ( also implied in) 'listening with the heart'. He has turned you inwards so deeply, or he has taken away all (time-binding?) anchorage. The Monsoon says to you: 'Please collect all the water you
can, next year there will be no Monsoon.' That makes you build every kind of (reservoir?) to collect water. So where are we at the end of it?

P: In a strange way it also implies 'lifting your hands off everything'...

K: It could also mean that a (holistic inner ) action which you have not premeditated may have taken place. If there is a ( truth induced existential ?) crisis, then it will happen.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
1 day ago #132
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

Holistic Consciousness in relation with the Brain Cells
( An 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1972)

P: Shall we discuss the relationship of one's consciousness to the brain cells? Are they of the same nature or is there something which gives them separate identities?

K: That's a good question. You begin.

A: Quite correct. The brain is a very complex conglomeration of cells, a
forest of cells, but although each cell is dependent on all the others, every brain cell can act by itself. So we may ask: Is there a co-ordinating factor?

K: Let us start from the beginning: What is consciousness? What does it mean 'to be conscious of' ? One is conscious, for instance, of this microphone. I am ( becoming ) conscious of it and then I ( recognise it by ) using the word 'microphone'. So, when you are conscious of something, ( the process of) naming begins; then like and
dislike.

A: I feel that consciousness is prior to sensation. It is the feeling (of one's whole existence) and at any one time I may aware of some part of it through sensation; I feel consciousness is much more vast, but I am
aware of only a part of a very wide thing. That whole field is not in
my awareness. So, I do not want to restrict my consciousness to
something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not
be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.

K: Pupul asked what is the relationship between the brain and consciousness. What is their relationship?

P: When you say that the content of consciousness 'is' (displayed in one's?) consciousness, does it imply that the memory content of the brain cells is all there is to our consciousness ? Isn't there an ( intelligent ?) 'mind' field which is outside the brain cells ?

K: What is outside the field of one's consciousness is not its ( temporal) content.

A: Is the 'known' a part of our consciousness, consciousness
being the content?

P: The major difference between K's position and the Vedantic
position is that K uses the word 'consciousness' in a very special
sense ( of what one is conscious of?) . The Vedantic position is: Consciousness is that which exists before anything exists.

A: Basically, they say that the source of all existence is a vast incomprehensible energy which they call 'Chaitanya' the ( Mind?) energy, the ( unmanifested ) Source. The Buddhist position does not say anything ( specific) about this at all. It refuses to say a word about it. The Buddhist will say: 'Don't talk about it; any talk about it will be speculative and speculative processes are not meant for actual
practice.'

K: (Quoting : ) 'Ignorance has no beginning, but has an end. Don't enquire
into the beginning of ignorance but find out how to end it'.

A: Buddhists say: 'There is no such thing as consciousness in
general. Ignorance has no beginning. Ignorance can end. Don't let
us investigate into the beginnings of ignorance because that would
be speculative, would be a waste of time. But how is it possible to
end ignorance ( experientially )? This ignorance 'is' consciousness.' Consciousness as ignorance is a position into which we will have to investigate. The Vedantins will say that the source which you refer to
as ignorance is of the same ature as ' Sat, Chit and Anand'. It is
constantly renewing itself, it is constantly coming into being; and
the entire process of birth, death, decay is a ( spiralling) movement in it. I feel that a man who does not accept the Buddhist position, will not
immediately accept what you say, that the beginning is ignorance
and that it is a self-sustaining process. You cannot trace its
beginning, but it can be brought to an end.

K: We simply say that ignorance has no beginning; one can see it within ( one's) consciousness, within that field.

P: If it is within this field, then has it existence apart from the
brain cells which contain the memory about it? The scientific
position is: whereas the brain cells and their operation are
measurable, consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two
are not synonymous.

K: Wait a minute. What you are saying is that the brain cells
and their ( mental activity or?) movement are measurable, but consciousness is not measurable.

A: May I suggest something? When we look through the
biggest telescope, we see the expanse of the cosmos as far as that
instrument will show it. If we get a bigger instrument, we get a
bigger view. Though we measure it, that measurement is relevant
only to the instrument which is a relative element. Consciousness
is immeasurable in the sense that there is no instrument to which it
can be related. Consciousness is something about which one cannot
say that it is measurable or immeasurable. Therefore, consciousness is something about which one cannot make any statement.

K: That is right. Consciousness is not ( physically?) measurable. What Pupul is asking is: Is there outside one's everyday consciousness, as we now know it, a state which is not pertinent to this consciousness?

P: Is there a state ( of being) which is not divisible, not knowable, not
available within the (time-conditioned ) brain cells?

K: Have you got it Achyutji? Not knowable, in the sense, not
recognizable; something totally new.

A: I am coming to that. I say that ( our personal & collective?) consciousness as we know it is the source of all the recent memories and all the memories man has had. The brain cells will recognize everything that comes out of their racial memories; everything that comes within the field of the past, out of that which has been known.

K: Let's keep it very simple. We said the content of ( our temporal) consciousness is the 'known'. Now, is there something outside this, something which is not known, totally new and which does not already exist in the brain cells? And, if it is outside the ( field of the?) 'known', is it recognizable (and/or experientiable?) ? - for if it is recognizable it is still in the field of the known. The (time-free dimension of consciousness?) is available only when the 'recognizing and experiencing' process comes to an end.
Pupul asked: Is it in the 'known' or outside the 'known';
and if it is outside the known, is it already in the brain cells? If it is
in the brain cells, it is already the known because the brain cells
cannot contain ( the memory of ) something totally new. The moment it is in the brain cells, it is tradition.

( To recap:) Outside the ( temporal consciousness of the?) brain, is there anything else? I say there is. But every process of recognition,
experience, is always within the field of the known and any
movement of the brain cells moving away from the known, trying
to investigate into the other is still the known.

M: Then... how do you know that there is something?

K: You cannot 'know' it, but there is a (holistic ?) state where the mind does not ( need to?) recognize or experience anything. There is a ( purely perceptive?) state in which 'recognition and experience', which are the movement of the known, has totally come to an end.

A: In what way is it differentiated from the common state of recognition & experiencing? Is it of a different nature?

K: You see, (when) the organism, the brain cells, come to an end, there is a different state altogether.
P: When the processes of recognition (& experiencing) comes to an end, and yet it is a living state, is there a sense of one's existence, of being?

K: The words, 'existence' and 'being' do not apply.

A: Then, how is it different from deep sleep? In deep sleep the processes of recognition and recording are for the time being put in total abeyance.

K: That is quite a different thing.

P: What has happened to the senses in the state you just mentioned ?

K: The senses are in abeyance.

P: Are they not operating?

K: In that state, I might scratch myself - that is the action of the senses, but it does not affect that (holistic quality) .
( To re-recap:) any ( mental) movement of the brain, real or imaginary , is within the field of the known. But when the ( self-centred ) content of consciousness with its ( past) experiences, demands,
its craving for something new, including its craving for freedom
from the known, has completely come to an end, then only does the
other (holistic inner ) quality come into being. The former has a motive; the latter has no motive. The mind cannot come to 'that' (timeless dimension?) through motive. Motive is (part of the dynamic of?) the known. So, can the ( time-binding activity of the?) mind come to an end ? When the ( 'time-thought' activity of the ?) mind comes to an end - then the 'other thing' is there.

M: The 'other thing' is there... Right now, do you know that?

K: Of course, I see the colour of your shirt, the senses are in operation. Recognition is in operation normally. The 'Other' is there. It is not a duality.

A: But trying to translate what you are saying ( in terms of our own experience?) is preventing one from getting at it because that would immediately be duality. When you say something about the 'other' , any movement in our mind is again preventing one from (accessing?) it.

K: Achyutji, what are you trying to get at?

A: I am pointing out that the (verbal) communication about the 'other' is not possible. I am trying to understand the state of the mind of the man who talks to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something?

K: The basis is that when there is no ( mental) movement of
recognition, of experiencing, of motive, the freedom from the known
takes place.

M: That is pure cognition without recognition.

K: You are translating it differently. The (self-conscious ) movement has come to an end for the time being; that is all.

M: The movement of recognition of That. Where does the time
element come in? Is there another ( dimension of?) time?

K: Let us begin again. The brain functions ( in the 'safe mode'?) within the field of the known; in that function there is (the verbal) recognition. But when the (holistically friendly ?) brain is completely still, there is no (self-consciousness?) that your mind is still. The inner stillness
which we are talking about is 'non-recognizable', 'non-experienceable'.
Something (measureless ?) comes out of it. It is there for man. I am not saying it is always there. It is there for the man who understands the (limitations of living exclusively within the field of the ?) known. It
is there and it never leaves; and though he( K) communicates it, he
feels that it is never gone, it is there.

M: Why do you use the word 'communicate'?

K: That is ( true communion or?) communication.

M: But who 'communicates' when ou talked to me just now.

K: Just now? The brain cells have acquired the knowledge of
the language. It is the ( illuminated?) brain cells that are communicating.

M: The brain contains its own 'observer'.

K: The brain itself is the 'observer' and the (silent?) 'operator'.

M: Now what is the relationship between 'That' and 'this' ?

K: When the brain is (inwardly) completely stable, completely still, there is no verbal statement or communication, what is the relationship between the brain (cells?) and That?

M: By what magic does the still mind make a bridge to That ? How do you manage to create a permanent bridge between the brain and That, and maintain that bridge?

K: If one says 'I don't know', what will you answer?

M: You have either inherited it through some good karma or 'somebody' has given it to you.

K: Is it by chance that 'That' event can happen to us, is it an exception?
If it is not something 'given from above' , one can ask: How did this
happen with this person and not with another – right?

M: What can we do?

K: 'You' ( personally?) can do nothing – but this does not mean 'doing
nothing'!

M: What are these two meanings of 'doing nothing'?

K: I will tell you the two meanings of ( doing) nothing: the one refers to
the (profound experiential ) desire to experience 'That', to recognize 'That' and yet to do nothing about ( capturing?) 'That'. The other meaning of 'doing nothing', is to see or to be (passively?) aware, not theoretically but actually, of the ( limitations of living in the?) known.

M: You say, 'Do nothing, just observe.'

K: Put it that way if you want.

M: It brings down 'enlightenment' into ( the everyday) action.

K: You must touch this thing, very very lightly. You must touch it very lightly - food, talk – and, as the body and the senses become very light you will see that there is a 'dying' (an inner 'dissolution' ?) every minute. Have I answered, or... 'nearly answered', the question?

P: You have not answered specifically.

K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call 'That', for
the moment, ( the Universal Mind's?) infinite energy  and the ( self-conscious ?) energy created by strife and conflict - it is entirely different from 'That'. When there is no (self-divisive ) conflict at all, the infinite Mind energy is always renewing itself. The energy that 'peters out' is what we know (on a daily basis) . What is the (2-way communicating ) relationship of the 'energy that peters out' to 'That'? There is none.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
9 hours ago #133
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 276 posts in this forum Offline

THE TIMELESS NATURE OF HOLISTIC ENERGY (and of the necessary 'spade-work'... )

( a 'reader & experientially' friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1972)

P: Could we discuss one of the chief blockages to understanding (the ages old tendency for ?) self-centredness ?

K: ( In a consciousness ?) where there is a ( self-identified?) 'centre' there is a ( dualistic) limitation and all its action must be ( confined to a mental space ) within the circle of centre and periphery? That is the self-centred activity.

P: What are the boundaries of the self?

K: You can push them as far as you like. As long as there is a centre (of self-interest?) that centre may expand itself (endlessly?) but all action takes place within that (perimeter?) . You can stretch it (outwardly) as far as you like, through social service, democratic or electorate dictatorship and tyranny, everything is within that area.

A: The point is, sir, is action possible which does not nourish a
centre?

K: Or, can there be no ( subliminal identification with this ) centre?

A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
with a centre and every ( psychological) activity nourishes that centre.

K: The ( holistically friendly ) point (of view ) is this: the ( mental) energy that is expanded within the circumference and the centre is a limited energy, a 'mechanistic' energy and therefore a wastage of energy?

VA: So, to realize ( thought's subliminal ) 'self' (- identification) in ourselves would be the first problem ?

K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish (psychical?) entities. We are self-centred human beings, we constantly think about ourselves, our worries, our family – in fact, we 'are' (identified with?) this ( self-focussing) centre. We can expand the (activities of this) centre to social work, ( various cultural & educational?) work (of public interest) , but ( in the background) it is still the centre operating.

P: That is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
yourself with something in which you feel the centre is not
involved.

K: You may ( like to?) think that 'I' who work for the poor, but I am
still working within ( the boundaries of) this(self-centred) limitation.

P: Sir, it is not the work for the poor which you are questioning?

K: No. It is the ( psychological ?) identification of myself with the ( cause of the?) poor, my identification of myself with the nation, identification of myself with some ( larger than life?) ideal and so on, that is the problem.

Apa: Can this (self-centred activity or ?) movement of the mind, along with its ( collateral dependencies & ) habits,  can it be stilled? Is there a ( dormant intelligent?) energy which will silence it or make it irrelevant, make it seem a shadow?

P: It is really like this: we have done everything (knowable ?) to understand the nature of this self-centred activity. We have observed, we have meditated, but the ( subliminal identification with this) centre does not cease, sir...

K: No, because we don't actually see in our 'heart & mind', see (the truth ?) that any action from the centre to the periphery and then from the circumference to the centre, this movement back and forth is ( holistically-wise?) a wastage of energy and must be limited and must ( eventually) bring sorrow. Everything within that area is (ultimately leading to self-isolation & ?) sorrow. We don't see that (holistic fact?) .

P: Isn't it part of the ( genetic heritage of the ?) brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples of (self-interest) and create the sense (of temporal continuity of their) self-centred existence, then...

K: Pupul, the brain needs two ( basic) things: security and a sense
of (temporal) permanency.

P: Both are provided by the 'self' (-centred consciousness?)

K: That is why it has become very important.

Apa: Sir, the brain is a physical entity in its habit of seeking security or continuance. Now, how do you 'break out' of its (time-binding attachments & ) habits, its mechanical operations?

K: Any movement ( of thought intended ?) to 'break out', is still within the perimeter ( of the known) . Is there an action, a movement which is not self-centred?

P: We know states (of Grace?) when it appears as if the self is
not, but then if the seed of self-centred activity is held within the
brain cells, it will repeat itself again. Then I say to myself there
must be another energy, there must be another quality which will
wipe it out.

Apa: What is the nature of this energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it from the exterior, or is it something from the interior?

K: Our brain is ( survivalistically ?) programmed to function from the centre to the periphery and from the circumference to the centre, this back-and-forth movement. Is it possible to 'break' ( stop ?) this ( time-binding) momentum of the brain cells? Can this 'programme' of the brain, for which it has been conditioned for millennia, can that stop?

Apa: And the brain to start deconditioning itself ?

K: The moment it stops, you have 'broken' it. Now (in order for this psychological breakthrough to happen?) is there a (different inner source of ) energy which is not ( dependent of the ) self-centred movement, a (source of intelligent?) energy without a motive, without a cause, an energy which is without a cause, an energy which is
inexhaustible and therefore non-mechanical and endless?

P: Is it possible to investigate ( the nature of?) this (holistically friendly ?) energy?

K: We have ( already ) discovered something. That is, the brain has been conditioned through ( its long survival through many ) millennia to move from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to move to the centre, back and forth, extending or limiting it and so on. Is there a way of ending that movement? We just now said ( that the programme ) ends when the plug is pulled out. The ( holistically friendly) brain can stop moving along that direction, but... if there is any causation ( self-interest ) for the stopping, you are back again in the circle.

( In a nutshell:) That is, can the ( outwatdly oriented human ) brain which has been so (accustomed ?) for millennia to act from the centre to the periphery and from the periphery to the centre, can that ( mental) movement stop? (The very moment) when the brain itself sees the ( inward ) necessity of this (self-centred mental) movement ceasing, it 'stops'...

Q: Momentarily it does stop, but then... it starts again.

K: No, sir, the moment you say you want it again, you are back ( stuck )
in the centre.

Q: Probably because I want to bring about a 'permanent' stopping ?

K: That is ( the time-binding action of ?) greed. But if I see (holistically?) the truth ( regarding the necessity of?) ending that movement, the thing is over. ( Hint:) It is not a 'continuous' (a time-stretched?) stoppage. When you want it to be continuous, it is a thought & time movement.

Apa: The ( holistic) 'seeing' then is without ( any mental) movement.

K: Observing (transpersonally?) the whole ( acquisitive) movement of the centre to the circumference & from the circumference to the centre, is seeing the 'what is'.

Apa: But this ( holistic) seeing is without any centre.

K: Of course.

Q: So, sir, that seeing is on a different dimension altogether.

K: You 'see'. There is ( such a holistic perception) when you are aware without any ( personal element of?) choice. Just be aware of this (constantly reiterated self-centred ?) movement. The ( time-binding ) programme stops.
Now, Pupul's question was : Is there ( within the human psyche?) a (source of creative ?) energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation, and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?

VA: That is the energy of death.

K: What do you mean, sir? Death in the sense of the total ending of the '(center-) periphery' movement ? In one sense that 'ending' is ( the psychological counterpart of) death. Then, is that ( triggering the awakening of the 'other' ) energy which is causeless?

VA: It is causeless, sir. It just 'comes', like the blood in the body.

K: I understand that . But, is it a theory or an actuality?

VA: An actuality.

K: Which means what? That there is no 'centre' ( of self-interest) from which you are acting?

VA: During that period when that 'energy' is there.

K: No, no. Not 'periods'...

VA: There is a sense of timelessness at that time.

K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?

VA: Then... again ( the survival- oriented process of ) thought comes back.

K: So, you are back again ( in the movement?) from the centre to the periphery ?

VA: One gets afraid of that thing happening again because it is like (your) total death.

K: It has happened without your invitation.

VA: Yes...

K Now you are inviting it (in the self-centred field of the 'known'?) (…)

The other question is what Pupulji raised about the 'endless journey'. You want to discuss ( about the awakening of?) kundalini?

P: Yes, sir.

K: First of all, we are entering into a subject which is very
serious. Are you willing to forget what you have heard about
it, what your gurus have told you about it, or your attempts to
awaken it? Can you start with a completely 'empty slate'?

So, you have to start the enquiry from ( the totally honest position) of not knowing anything about kundalini.

Q: Actually, we just want to know whether there is an (inner source of timeless) energy that can wipe out conditioning.

K: So long as self-centred activity (is going on?) , you cannot touch it.
That is why I object to any discussion on whatever that ( purely creative) energy is, because we have not done the 'spade work'. We don't
lead a life of correctness and we just want want to add something new to it and so carry on our mischief.

VA: Even after awakening kundalini, self-centred activity continues.

K: I question whether the kundalini is awakened...

P: Do you (K, personally ?) know of such an energy when self-centred activity ends? We assume that this is the source of the endless energy.
It may not be.

K: Are We saying that in the ending of this 'movement from the centre
to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre', the complete ending of it - is the (awakening of?) of that energy which is limitless.

P: Sir, if we are going to examine it, let us see how it operates in
one. The awakening of kundalini is ( traditionally) linked to ( the activation of) certain 'psychic centres' (or 'chakras') located at certain physical parts of the body. The first question I would like to ask is whether that is so? Has the release of this (holistic life ) energy, which has no end, anything to do with the psychic centres in the physical parts of the body?

K: Unless there is a stoppage of this ('thought-time' mental ) movement from the centre to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre...Pupulji's question is not ( experimentally - wise ?) valid?

P: I take it that when one asks the question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks. It is not possible to investigate
the self which also releases energy, if one's life has not gone
through a degree of inner balance, otherwise what K says has no
meaning. When one listens to Krishnaji, one receives at the depth
to which one has exposed oneself, and therefore I think it is right to
ask the question. Why is this question more 'dangerous' than inquiring into what is thought, what is meditation, what is this, what is that? To the mind which will comprehend, it will comprehend this and that. To
the mind which will not comprehend, it will comprehend neither.
The mind which wants to misuse it , it will misuse anything.

K: Unless your life, your daily life is a completely nonselfcentred
way of living, the 'other' ( timeless spiritual energy) cannot possibly come in.

P: Why is this question awakening so many ripples? Most
people go through a great deal of psychic experiences in the
process of self-knowing. One also understands, at least one has
understood because one has listened to Krishnaji, that all psychic
experiences when they arise, have to be put aside.

K: Is that understood? (The self-centred desire for) 'psychic experiences' must be totally put aside.

Q: Sir, I want to ask a straight forward question. Taking for granted that one is leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?

P: Krishnaji, we are just asking whether there is an energy which,
on awakening, not being awakened, but on awakening completely
wipes out the centre ?

K: I would put it the other ( roundabout?) way. Unless the self-centred movement stops, the other can't be.

P: As it does not seem possible to proceed with the kundalini discussion, may I put another ( more holistically friendly) question? What is the nature of the field which needs to be prepared, to be able to
receive that which is limitless?

K: Are you cultivating the soil of the brain, of the mind, in order
to receive it?

P: I understand your (trick?) question. But I can neither say yes nor no
to it.

K: Then, ( for homework): find out if you can end sorrow, the whole of human sorrow and enquire into the nature of compassion. But as long as you have ( a personal) motive to cultivate that 'soil' in order to receive 'that' ( 100% pure creative ?) energy, you will never receive it.

S: To see the whole prison (of the known) and ask whether there is any other way out of this, is it a (personal) motive? Then, one gets caught in a vicious circle, in a (hopeless mental) trap .

K: I live an (inner) life of ( psychological) misery, confusion. That is my basic ( existential) feeling and can that end? ( In the ending of something which is seen as false?) there is no ( personal) motive.
So, can that (fake?) process end? Only then can I answer the other questions, which have a tremendous ( existential) significance.

P: We have asked about is the nature of the soil of the human mind which has to be cultivated to receive the 'other' ? You tell me that is also a wrong question. You say I am in conflict, I am suffering and I see that a life of conflict and suffering has no end.

K: That is all. If it cannot end, then the other enquiry and investigation, and the wanting to awaken the 'other' in order to wipe this out is like asking an 'outside agency' to come and clear up your house.
I say in the process of clearing the house, this house, there
are a great many things that are going to happen. You will have clairvoyance, 'siddhis' and all the rest of it. They will
all happen (or... not?) . If you are (getting) caught in (using?) them (for personal profit?) , you cannot proceed further. But if you are not caught in them, the 'heavens' are open to you. Then, if you come along and
say there something known as kundalini power, then I am
willing to listen : is there ( within the human psyche) a (dormant) energy which is non-mechanistic, which is endlessly renewing itself? I say there is. Most definitely. But it is not what you (glibly?) call 'kundalini'. The body must be sensitive. If you are working, clearing up the house, the body becomes very sensitive. The body then has its own intelligence, not the ( mechanistic) 'intelligence' which the ( self-centred) mind dictates to the body. The body then becomes extraordinarily sensitive 'per se'.
Then Pupul says, 'Can we talk about a (psychic?) energy which I feel must exist?', as she has had a glimpse, the feeling of it, an energy that is endless; and K comes along and says 'Yes', there is such a thing. There is an energy which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic,
which has no cause, which has no beginning and therefore no
ending. It is an eternal movement. I say there is, but what value has that to you? Will you go off ( meditating?) into that and not clear up the (temporal) house?

P: That means, sir, that the 'cultivation of the soil' - in the sense of ending one's suffering, which is essential.

K: The only ( readily available psychological ?) job. But (the 'other' energy) is the most sacred thing, therefore 'you' can't invite it.

( To recap:) Clearing one's (inner) house demands a tremendous (self-) discipline, in the sense that it demands a tremendous ( holistic) attention. When you give your complete attention, then you will see a totally different kind of ( inner awakening) taking place, a (intelligent & creative ?) 'energy' in which there is no repetition, and energy that isn't coming and going. It is not as though I have it one day and a month later I don't have it. ( Hint : ) It implies keeping the mind completely empty (of the 'known' ) . Can the mind keep itself 'empty'? Then,
there is that energy. You don't even have to ask for it. When there
is (a free inner) space, which is 'empty' (with 'not-a-thing') and therefore full of energy. So, in cleansing the (inner) house of ( the psycho-residues of personal & collective?) sorrow, can the ( meditating) mind be completely empty, without any motive, without any ( personal) desire? When you are keeping the house clean, other things ( from an Universal Mind) come naturally. That is Meditation.

P: And the ( creative) nature of That is ( allowing the holistic) transformation of the human mind.

K: ( To re-recap:) we are ( inwardly) programmed by centuries of ( survivalistic) conditioning. When there is the stopping of ( the internal mechanism of?) it, there is an ending of it. ( Hint : If you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't function any more) . Now, the question is: Can that ( self-identified?) centre of selfishness, end?
When that ends, there is no movement of (thought-) time. That is all. When ( in a 'meditator-free' meditation ?) the ( ages old?) mental movement from the centre to the periphery stops, (thought's) 'time' stops. When there is no ( 'self-becoming') movement of selfishness, there is a totally different kind of ( inwardly Creative ) Movement.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 121 - 133 of 133 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.)