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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 196 in total
Fri, 22 Mar 2019 #151
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

From K's Journal (cca 1975)

ALL ABOUT OUTER & INNER SPACE

Space is order. Space is time, length, width and volume. This morning the sea and the heavens are immense; the horizon where those yellow flowered hills meet the distant sea is the order of earth and heaven; it is cosmic. That cypress, tall, dark, alone, has the order of beauty and the distant house on that wooded hill follows the movement of the mountains that tower over the low-lying hills; the green field with a single cow is beyond time. ( Meanwhile ?) the man coming up the hill is held within the narrow space of his problems.

There is an (inner) space of 'no-thingness' whose volume is not bound by time, the measure of thought. This space the (temporal ) mind cannot enter; it can only observe. In this observation there is no 'experiencer'. This ( holistic) observation has no history, no association, no myth, and so the observer is ( one with ?) that which is. Man's knowledge ( the space of the known ?) is extensive but it has no ( free inward ?) space, for by its very weight and volume it perverts and smothers that Space.
There is no knowledge of the 'self', higher or lower; there's only a verbal ( word based ?) structure of the self, a ( mental) skeleton, covered over by thought. Thought cannot penetrate its own structure; what it has put together thought cannot deny (the 'false' ?) and when it does deny (something) , it is a 'refusal' (in the expectation ?) of further gain. When the 'time' ( the temporal continuity ?) of the self is not (inwardly active ?) , the ( open ?) Space ( of the mind ?) that has no measure is (present) .

The ( psychologically motivated ?) 'measure(ment)' is the ( self-centred) movement of (seeking/avoiding ?) reward & punishment, gain & loss, the activity of comparison, conformity & respectability ( or their denial). This movement ( of self-centred measurement ?) is ( projecting its own continuity in ) time, the ( psychological) 'future' with its hope and the attachment which is the past. This complete (& dynamic ?) network is the very structure of the 'self' and its ( wished for ?) 'Union' with the Supreme Being or the Ultimate Principle is still within its own field (of the known ?) . All this is the ( psychological ?) activity of thought. Thought can in no way penetrate that ( inner ?) Space of 'no time', do what it will. The ( thoughtful) methods or practices that thought has invented are not the keys that will open the Door, for there is no door and no key. Thought can only be aware of ( the vanity of) its own endless (ego-centric ?) activity, of its own capacity to corrupt, (ad, not in the least of ?) its own deceits and illusions.

( In a nutshell:) What lies beyond thought, beyond the 'known', may not be imagined or made a secret for the (self-selected ?) few. It is there for you to (look non-dualistically & ?) 'see'

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 23 Mar 2019 #152
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

A Dialogue on Death

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1981 )

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, one of the questions which I feel is at the very depth of the human mind is ‘the coming to be’ and ‘the ceasing to be’ - life and death. The whole of man’s life revolves around the wonder of birth and the fear of death. All his urges, his demands, his desires, his fears, his anxieties, rest between these two poles—birth and death. At one ( intellectual) level we understand ( the natural logic of) birth and death, but this understanding is only at the superficial level ; so, unless we understand at depth, the whole problem that lies in the ending of anything—fear, anxiety and the darkness and shadows which surround that one word ‘ending’ will always be with us.

K: Why do you use the word ‘problem’?

PJ: It is a ‘problem’ because of the shadows that surround that one word ‘ending’. There is the joy and splendour of what we see as life and the demand to hold on to it at any cost and to evade that which means an ending. This is a ( major existential?) problem. Out of it arises fear, sorrow, all the demands...

K: So what is the question?

PJ: How do we explore it ? How can our minds look at ( the inward significance of?) death with simplicity and observe it for what it ( actually) is?

K: In your consideration of (the true significance of?) ending are you also including the whole process of man's everyday existence with all its complexity, misery, confusion to which we cling in the avoidance of the other?
Aren't you concerned with the whole movement of it?

PJ: You see, there is a whole movement of existence in which life and death are. But if you make the scope so wide, I don’t think you can get to the anguish and the sorrow of ( one's personal) ending. And I want to investigate into the sorrow of ending.

K: Are you inquiring into the sorrow of ending or are you inquiring into the whole process of living and of dying, which includes sorrow, fear, and all the rest of it?

PJ: You generally talk of the 'ending of sorrow'; but I'd like to talk of the (personal) anguish, which is surrounding the sorrow of ending. The two are slightly different. There is the sorrow, the anguish, of ‘something which is’ ceasing to be... There is something which is marvellous, something which is beautiful, which fills one’s life, and there is always the knowledge that it must end which lurks behind it.

K: What is ‘ending’?

PJ: Something in the very nature of our 'is'-ness ; there is the sense of the ending of the disappearance of that for eternity.

K: Why do you use that word ‘eternity’?

PJ: Because there is an absoluteness in that 'ending'. There is no tomorrow in it.

K: Now just a minute—ending what?

PJ: Ending that which sustains. There is the sorrow of something so marvellous ending.

K: ( The physical?) Death is inevitable. This person—K—is going to end some day. To him there is no ( personal) fear, no anguish. I think it is really important to understand the ( spiritual significance of?) 'ending', because there is something totally new (born inwardly?) when there is an ending to everything ( one had before assumed to 'know'?) .

PJ: Is this related to man's existential sorrow?

K: I know that death is ( causing a great sense of ) sorrow; it is as if the whole of my existence were uprooted. It is like a marvellous tree torn, cut down in an instant. But ( inwardly-wise?) why does man have to carry (over?) this burden of sorrow?
I’m in sorrow because I’ve never really understood deeply what is ( the inward challenge of ) 'ending'. I’ve lived for forty, fifty, or eighty years and during that entire period I have never realized the meaning of putting an end to ( my subliminal attachment to ) something which I hold dear. I have never totally ended it, so that it does not continue ( as a 'thought-time' projection ?) in another direction.

PJ: What makes the (average human ) mind incapable of 'ending' (its psychological attachments?) ?

K: It’s ( this ancestral ?) fear (of 'not being'?) of course. Let’s take the ordinary example - common to all of us - attachment . Can one end (the 'self' projected continuity) of the attachment to one’s (inner) experience, knowledge, memory? After all, the 'ending of knowledge' (aka : leaving the 'shores of the known' ?) —that’s ( exactly) what is going to happen when death comes. ( It is to one's 'emotionally loaded' ? ) knowledge that one is clinging to. The knowledge of a person whom I’ve cherished, whom I’ve looked after, and lived with. There is the memory of the beautiful moments and/or the conflict that was involved in it. Now, to end totally, absolutely, the ('psychological' attachment to the ) memory of all that, is ( the spiritual challenge brought by ?) death.

PJ: You have often said (metaphorically) : ‘While living, to enter the house of death’.

K: Yes. I have done it (personally ?) .

PJ: What exactly is meant by this ( obscure psychological metaphor?) ?

K: Obviously it does not mean to commit suicide... You see, the word ‘ending’ itself contains a depth of ( psychological) meaning. Let us say that there is ( a subliminal attachment to ) the memory of an experience that has given me great delight, a sense of depth and well-being. I cling to that memory. I go to the office, I work, but the ( psychological imprint of that) memory is so extraordinarily enduring and vital that I hold on to it; therefore I never find out what it means to end (the psychologically charged attachment to it ?) . I think there is a great deal (to learn experientially ?) in ending, every day, everything that one has psychologically gathered.

PJ: You can end ( any outward?) attachment. But that is not ( an actual ?) death.

K: What would you call 'death'? The (continuity of the physical) organism coming to an end? Or of the 'image' that I’ve built of (myself?) ?

PJ: When you reduce it to that, I’d say that it is the ending of image which you have built about yourself or about someone else; but there is much more to it than that (involved in the mystery of death?) .

K: Of course. But I’m talking of the ending of that (self?) 'image'.
( Experiential clue:) The (meditating?) mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension (of Consciousness ) if there is a shadow of a memory of anything. Because that ‘other’ (spiritual dimension ?) is timeless. That other dimension is eternal and if the mind has to enter (meditatively?) into that, it must not have any element of 'time' in it. I think this ('absolute' statement?) is logical, rational.

PJ: But (man's everyday) life is not always logical and/or rational.

K: Of course not. But in order to understand 'That' ( timeless dimension of Universal Consciousness?) which is everlasting, the ( meditating?) mind must be free of all that one has gathered psychologically, which is time. Therefore, there must be an 'ending (of the 'thought & time' psychological process ?) .

PJ: Therefore there is no possible ( possibility of a holistic) ) exploration into this 'ending'?

K: Oh yes, there is.

PJ: What is it ?

K: What is ( involved in this?) 'ending'—the ending of the continuity of a particular ( thread of self-centred ) thought, of a particular ( pursuit of) desire; it is these (psychological threads?) that give to our life a ( sense of its ) continuity. In that great ( long chronological) interval between our birth and our death—there is a deep continuity, like a River. (Unfortunately?) we cannot see the beauty of the River, because we live on the surface of this vast River of Life ( driven by a deeper collective current?), and we cannot see the beauty of it because we are always 'swimming on the surface'. And the ( meditational significance of ) 'ending' ( our psychological attachments?) is the 'ending' of the surface ( time-bound living ) .

PJ: And what exactly 'dies' (ends?) ?

K: (The temporal continuity of my psychological 'attachments' to ?) all that 'I' have accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly. I’ve built up a good business, a nice house, nice wife, nice children & a nice garden. My (self-centred) life has given an (unbroken) continuity to it all. To end ( living in that field of the 'known') .

PJ: Are you telling me that with the death of K's physical body , the consciousness of K will also end?

K: The body will end through accident, disease. That is obvious. But...what is the consciousness of that (K) person?

PJ: Enormous, unending, abounding compassion.

K: Yes. But I would not call that 'consciousness'.

PJ: Could I call it ‘the mind of K’.

K: Let’s first clarify the word ‘consciousness’. The ( temporal?) consciousness of a human being 'is' ( generated by?) its content - the whole movement of (one's self-centred) thought. If this 'movement of thought' ends, the ( self-identified) consciousness- as we know it now- is not (present anymore?)

PJ: Agreed, (the self-centred process of ) thought as a 'movement' in consciousness does not exist in the mind of K. Yet there is a ( Compassionate & Intelligent?) state of being which manifests itself when I’m in contact with him, even if you do not reduce it to thought.

K: No, no. One must be very careful in pointing this out : the 'consciousness' (as we know it now ) 'is' (entangled in ?) the movement of thought (projecting its own continuity in ) time.

PJ: Yes... ?

K: See that very clearly. ( The self-centred ) consciousness - as we know it- is (presently caught in?) the ( mental) movement of thought. Therefore, when thought, after ( a meditation -friendly?) investigating, comes to an end— in the psychological world—( a content coloured?) consciousness as we know it is not.

PJ: Yes, but still there is a (self- transparent?) 'state of being' which manifests itself as K.

K: Yes; you are perfectly right.

PJ: What word shall I use?

K: Let us say, that through a 'real meditation' you have ve come to a point ( of reaching an universal consciousness?) that is 'absolute'. A most extraordinary state. Through my contact with you, I feel this immensity. But you too have ( free access to?) it. It is ( in-?) there. It is not 'yours' or 'mine'; ( but) It is there.

PJ: It is...where?

K: It has no ( spatio-temporal ?) place.

PJ: I only know that it is manifest in the person of K. Therefore when you say that it has no place, I cannot accept it.

K: Because you have identified ( the physical presence of) K with That.

PJ: But ( the Presence of?) K 'is' (the manifestation of?) That.

K: May be. But It has nothing whatsoever to do with K or anybody else. It is 'there'. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is ( Present in?) there. In a tree, in a flower—it’s there.

PJ: But, sir, the healing and the compassion in K is not something 'out there'.

K: Of course it is not 'out there'. But That is not K. That is not this. (Pointing to the body)

PJ: But ( when K dies?) It ( That Intelligent & Compassionate mind) will cease to be manifest.

K: I understand what you are trying to say, but I question that.

PJ: What do you mean ?

K: It may ( now) manifest through 'X'. But 'That' which is manifesting does not belong to X. It has nothing to do with X. It has nothing to do with 'K'.

PJ: I’m prepared to accept that it does not belong to K. But K and ‘That’ seem inseparable.

K: All right, but when you identify ‘That’ with this ( K) person, we enter into a very delicate thing.

PJ: Take the Buddha. The 'Enlightened Consciousness' which was manifesting through him, has ceased to be.

K: I question it. You say that the (Enlightened?) consciousness of Buddha ceased when he passed away, right? It manifested through him and he was ‘That’, but when he died you say ‘that’ disappeared ?

PJ: I have no knowledge of saying that it disappeared. I only say that it could no longer be contacted (in the material world)

K: Naturally not.

PJ: Why do you say ‘naturally not’?

K: Because he meditated, and ( got) Illumined, and therefore between him and ‘That’ ( Enlightened ) Consciousness there was no division. I, his ( hapless?) disciple, say, ‘My God, he is dead and with his death the whole thing is over’.

PJ: Yes, it is over.

K: I say it is not. That ( timeless Source of ?) Good can never be over. Just as 'evil' continues in the world, right? 'Evil' is totally different from That which is Good. The (Consciousness of the?) Good exists and has always existed, but not as the opposite of 'evil'. ( Unfortunately...?) The 'evil' has in itself continued...

PJ: So, you're saying that It (the timeless Presence of Goodness?) does not disappear ?

K: Good can never disappear.

PJ: Talking of that great Illumined Compassion, now I can contact it.

K: But you can contact It even if this ( K) person is not (around anymore?) . That’s the whole point. It has nothing to do with a particular ( chosen & prepared ?) person.

PJ: So, when you talk about 'being a light to oneself' you mean the contacting of ‘That’ without the ( intermediary 'X' ) person?

K: Not ( physically?) ‘contacted’, but can it be perceived, lived; It is there for you to (meditatively) reach out to and hold it . ( Except that...?) for reaching out and receive it, thought or ( the self-centred) consciousness (as we know it) has to come to an end, for thought is really the enemy of That. Self-centred thinking is the enemy of compassion, obviously—right? And to have that ( timeless?) 'flame' it demands an awakened intelligence, an intelligence which sees ( what is wrong with?) this movement of thought. And that (holistic ?) awareness of the ( time-binding aspects of the ) movement of thought ends it. That’s what real ( the authentic?) Meditation is (good for?) .

PJ: What significance then has 'death' (for the 'Good'-illumined mind & heart ) ?

K: It has no ( other?) meaning as you are 'living with death' all the time, you are 'ending' ( the psychological attachment to?) everything, all the time. I don’t think we see the ( spiritual) importance and the beauty of ( such an) 'ending'. We see (Time & Thought's) continuity with its waves of beauty and all its ( vulgarity &?) superficiality.

PJ: ( Bonus Question) I drive (or fly?) away tomorrow. Do I cut myself completely from you?

K: No, not from me; ( but by thinking in dualistic terms?) you cut yourself from ‘That’. You cut yourself from that (holistic consciousness of?) 'Eternity' with all its Compassion, and so on.
I ( had the opportunity to meet) the Buddha. I would listen to him very carefully. He makes a tremendous impression on me and, then, he 'goes away'. But the (Seed of?) Truth of what he has said : ‘Be a light to yourself so that the ( Enlightened Presence of?) Truth is in you’ is flowering in me. He goes away, but the seed is flowering. That seed which has been planted by my awareness, alertness, and intense listening, that seed will flower. Otherwise, if only 'X' has this extraordinary 'Illumination' (Enlightened Presence?) —I’m using that ( holistic) word as a sense of immense compassion, love, and all that—if only that person has it, and he dies—what then?

PJ: May I ask another ( bonus?) question, please? What, then, is the reason for his (K's) being?

K: To manifest ‘That’, to be the embodiment of ‘That’. Beauty has no reason; it exists. And as I said, it is there for anyone 'to reach and to hold'.

( Parting words:) Death, like birth, is an extraordinary event. But birth and death are so far apart (in terms of time) . And the travail of ( thought's self-centred ) continuity is the misery of man. But if this ( self-projected) 'continuity' can end each day, you will be living with death. That is a 'total renewal'; that is the renewal of a mind which has no ( psychological) continuity. That is why it is important to understand ( as meditation homework?) the meaning of 'ending totally' that which has been experienced and remains in the mind as ( psychological) memory.

PJ: ( One last bonus question?) Can the ( holistically friendly? ) mind learn to face the ultimate death?

K: ( If living & dying are going together?) There is nothing ( left) to learn.

PJ: The ( listening ) mind must receive such a ( totally insightful) statement without ( any mental) agitation. Then, perhaps, when death ultimately comes there will be no agitation.

K: Yes, that is right. And that is why death ( leaving one's moorings to the 'known'?) has an extraordinary beauty, an extraordinary vitality.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 24 Mar 2019 #153
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

What is the 'ground' of the creative mind?

A K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR (reader 'friendly edited, 1982)

K: What would be the ( subject of the?) greatest interest, not only to appeal to the Western mind, but also to the Indian mind that has thought about these things, perhaps, much longer than the Western world – something that is enduring, that is worthwhile?

PJ: Sir, most of our lives are so futile . And unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to 'leap out' of this futility and have the Creative Spring so that it can move beyond the immediate circumstances to something which is New, which is not tainted. I have been wondering for the last few months : what is the 'Ground' of the creative mind?

K: I wonder what you mean by 'creative' ? One may be a great scientist, and still may lead very mediocre ( time-bound?) existence . And the scientist may discover extraordinary things and call that creative.

PJ: You see, that's why I did not speak of 'a creative action' but of ( the holistic) perception which rests in the creative (dimension of one's being ?) .

K: I think we should make it a little clearer. Are you asking, what is the source of all life, both the manifest and not manifest?

PJ: Yes. I would like to probe, if it is possible to probe into that (timeless?) instant before the manifestation (of creation is taking place) .

K: Are we probing into something which you and I don't 'know' ?

PJ: One may know how a baby comes into being but one still does not know the quality of life which pervades it. The actuality of his birth is very different from the description of birth. It is the same with everything.

K: Are you asking about the ( creative) origin of all life, what is the beginning of all existence, not go back and back and back in time, but try to come upon something which is the beginning of all things.
Various religious(ly minded) people have said : ''God is the origin of everything''. But that is just a ( generic ?) word that doesn't convey (any experiential clues for ?) the ( spiritually earnest?) mind that investigates into what is the Origin. You follow?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now, are we having an (experiential?) dialogue about That – in the ( meditative?) sense of delving very, very deeply into the origin of all life, without any belief, without any dogma, and so on? Or are we trying to probe into it by ( using the mental powers of?) thought?

PJ: I understand what you are saying, since (by using our materialistic thinking) we have narrowed the word 'creative' to mean painting, writing a book, or discovering something nex in science, but basically the whole (existential) meaning of a tree, of a human being, of the earth & of the sky (is still eluding us?)

K: ( Any thoughtful?) man must have asked this question : what is the meaning of all this, and what is the origin of all this ?

PJ: And where does it arise?

K: What is the 'ground' from which this all (creative forms of?) life arises? That is what you are asking, isn't it?

PJ: Yes...

K: Now how does one enquire into that? How do we come to investigate into something that demands the extraordinary freedom ( of a non-conditioned mind ?). And perhaps the very origin of this (inner) 'freedom' is Love – the quality of mind that is both practical, sensitive, and has this quality of great compassion.

PJ: I can't start with that because I don't know what it is...

K: How do we come to that point ( of the 'freedom from the known'?) and from there move?

PJ: If you put it that ( absolute?) way, then I am stuck. I can't move.

K: I don't say 'it must be there', but isn't this ( a basic requirement in ? ) the ( any authentic ) process of ( inward) enquiry?

PJ: I would like to move with this question into it. But if you (postulate ?) that the mind must be free and therefore it has love, then what do I do?

K: How do you enquire into something that man has asked for millions of years, gave it a (holistic?) name and got satisfied with it ?
We are not doing that ; we are saying, how does a mind enquire into something that must be extraordinary, that must have a 'cosmic' quality, how does the ( meditating) mind go into something of supreme order?
So, where does one's enquiry begin ? If you enquire with 'thought' ( creatively thinking within the field of the known?) , that doesn't lead very far.

PJ: So, how does our enquiry begin ?

K: What is the ( inwardly humble ?) approach of a mind that wants to enquire into something that it doesn't know, something that demands an extraordinary quality of deep subtlety, deep (feeling of?) of order, and so on. Where do I begin?

PJ: By being aware of the ongoing disorder within oneself ?

K: After all I am the 'manifest' ( the material expression of that original source of Creation) . And now I ( endeavour to?) enquire into myself. Where do I begin?

PJ: I begin by what observing what is happening around me, and what is (going on?) within me.

K: Yes....

PJ: Obviously, there can be no other starting point.

K: ( Observing what is going on both in ?) the world outside & in the world inside. And what is the criterion ( by which) which one 'measures' the outer and the inner world ?

PJ: Is it really necessary to ' measure' it ?

K: If I have a 'measure' ( an objective reference?) of what is actually happening in the world outside of me, to observe all that without any ( personal prejudice or?) bias, and to relate it to what is happening inwardly, I can see that it is one ( tidal?) movement, not two separate movements.

PJ: Sir, being in the midst of life I can see the human action at various levels, connected with things, connected with me. I also see the responses within me with the ( objective) capacity (of observation) which I may have acquired over the years, been able to even remain without reacting. I see all that. And I move into that - I move not 'into it', but 'with it'.

K: You 'are' (not separated from ?) it. You move with it.

PJ: Yes, that's right. : It is easier with the interior movement to see that I 'am' it; but it is much more difficult with an exterior thing to see that I 'am' it. If you tell me that I 'am' ( responsible for ) all the wars which are taking place, that is very difficult for me to ( see the actual truth of it ? ?).

K: ( Consciousness-wise?) we are responsible for all the wars that are taking place.

PJ: Yes. But that is a distant ( indirect responsability?) for me. I say, yes, perhaps if I take it to its ultimate consequences I am responsible (for not doing anything to prevent all those wars?) . But I can't link it to saying in the same way with which I link to a ( violent ) response within me.

K: Quite.

PJ: Actually a response within me is a living response, which has much more reality.

K: My next question is why don't we feel totally responsible for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world ?

PJ: How is one ( feeling) 'totally responsible'?

K: As a grown-up human being with all my ( cultural) tradition, all my thinking & acting as a 'nationalist' has contributed to the present state of the world.

PJ: Sir, when you take it to that extent it is impossible for me to feel the reality of it.

K: Let's leave that for the moment.

PJ: It is better to leave that. But let's probe into the ( Creative) Ground of one's existence - the only way to probe is to 'move into' oneself, whatever that means.

K: All right, enter into the whole complex of oneself. Enter into it, not as an outside 'observer' - ( but by a total immersion?) I 'am' all that.

PJ: And in uncovering what I am (inwardly) one is uncovering the whole existence of man. That is possible to see.

K: That is fairly simple.

PJ: The superficial things are relatively easy, so we won't go into that. But once the ( inner) room has been swept...

K: Is this sweeping (of one's inner house) , the completely moving away from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditioning, and trying to enter into the nature, or the ( central) movement that conditions the ( human) mind ?

PJ: Obviously, sir, you can't say you have swept the room and it is over, dust gathers again. So sweeping is a movement which is part of living. But the grosser elements can certainly be eliminated. The subtler things survive in corners in which you have not been able to get to. But the more obvious (inwardly visible) things it is possible to sweep away.

K: Yes. What are these 'obvious' things?

PJ: For instance, ( the personal ) ambitions, envy....

K: Yes, and (the resentment &) hatred.

PJ: Hatred ?

K: Pupulji, really to be free of ( any personal resentments or?) 'hatred', to wipe it away- means to be free of all sense of aggression, all sense of enmity. The ( creator of the?) 'enemy' is you.

PJ: But isn't hatred different from the quality of aggression ?

K: Aggressi(vity) is related to hatred because an aggressive person or nation, inevitably hurts other people, and that hurt breeds hatred. It is part of the same ( cause & effect) movement (of violence?) .

PJ: Yes, that is why I say that there are the 'coarser' things and then the subtler things. Anyone who has known 'hatred' knows that (the accumulation of personal or collective) hatred is a very destructive thing. But aggressivity may be to some extent part of one's nature even. It may be that from one's psychological make-up - ( as a particular) human being you are more ( or less?) assertive than another. And to be more assertive (by nature) is not hatred.

K: All right. Let's move on....

PJ: That is why I made the distinction of the 'grosser' things which are possible to sweep clean.

K: But how does one know what is gross and what is subtle?

PJ: That's why I think the ( best) way to move into this is to see that nothing is trivial.

K: Any ( mental, emotional or physical ) reaction has its source in one's conditioning.

PJ: Sir, without ( a quality inward) diligence nothing is possible.

K: Let's go slowly. To be diligent, that means to be aware (in real time?) of what you are doing, & of what you are thinking. To be aware of your reactions, and from those reactions observe the action taking place, and this act of (integrated?) learning is ( generating ) its own discipline.

PJ: Yes. But from where does the need for observation arise?

K: Need?

PJ: Why should I observe (whatever is going on inwardly) ?

K: For a very ( 'holistically?) simple' reason : whether it is possible for a human mind to change itself (radically and implicitly) to change the ( consciousness of the ) world which is entering into such a catastrophic area.

PJ: All right. If I start there, or if I start with ( the personal & collective) 'sorrow', which is very (realistically) the 'psychological' ground from which one starts.

K: Yes. It is very complex.

PJ: But...I think we have moved away. So let's go back to this question...

K: ...of what was the origin, the ground of all life? So, to enquire into that you have to enquire into oneself, because you are the expression of all that.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: You 'are' life. Now the origin of that we are trying to discuss. Right?

PJ: Yes, the state from which that arises.

K: I can only do that by 'understanding myself' - and how do I approach ( the real?) 'myself' that is ( psychologically speaking?) a living, complex, messy, disordered entity. Now how do I comprehend, or become aware of the origin of ( my inner) disorder? You follow what I am saying? If I can begin to understand the origin of (my inward) disorder I can move more and more deeply into something which is ( naturally) orderly. You follow what I mean?

PJ: This can be done only by being as simple as possible about it.

K: Yes, that is what I am trying to be.

PJ: So, I have certain instruments of enquiry. I have my eyes, my ears, my senses.

K: Yes, yes. You don't enquire with your sensory ears, or with your sensory eyes.

PJ: Don't you also 'enquire' with your eyes and your ears?

K: A little bit. I enquire when I look around. But I can't see the (dynamic inward) complexity of myself with my physical eyes. I must become aware without any choice of all this ( inward) conditioning.

PJ: Why do you say, sir, that you cannot be aware with your ( mind's?) eyes?

K: The inward eye?

PJ: There is a way of looking in, listening in.

K: Yes. We must be a little careful here, we can mislead.

PJ: Yes, let's go into it. Is there any other way ?

K: Yes, I think there is.

PJ: Isn't the ( mind's) eye & ear, not part of the other way?

K: Hearing, seeing, feeling, are actually sensory responses. Right? Actually I see that colour. I hear noise. I taste something, and so on. These are sensory responses.

PJ: Yes, but is there not a 'seeing' and a listening to a reaction of anger ?

K: Do you listen to it with your 'ears', or do you 'observe' ( holistically that reaction of ?) anger?

PJ: How do you observe (holistically the ?) anger?

K: When you are angry, ( by) looking (in real time) at the cause and effect of anger.

PJ: When you are getting really angry you can't (really do all that?) .

K: But later on you...

PJ: ...can 'see' the nature of the mind which has been in a state of anger ?

K: All right, but you see it with your (optical) eyes, hear with sensory ears?

PJ: If you put it that way we will never get to the point because the listening with sensory ear is so accustomed to listening to the outer reality that if you try and push it inwards , you will never get to it.

K: But would it help if we talked about ( the holistically integrated?) perception? What is the state of ( inwardly perceptive) action that is born out of complete attention? This 'attention' means there is no centre from which you are attending.

PJ: No, of course not, but I would like to ask you one thing: are we still 'dusting the periphery'?

K: No.

PJ: Then unless I can ( experientially) understand what is this ( awakened presence of?) attention I can't even take the first step.

K: This attention means that one 'attends completely'.

PJ: To see, to attend completely is for the 'I' not to be there.

K: That is the real thing. When there is this (quality of) attention there is no 'I'. There is only that 'state of mind' which is wholly attentive.

PJ: So all the senses, one's whole being is awakened ?

K: Yes.

PJ: And if you are in that ( blessed?) state where ( your whole) being is awake then you can 'listen' and/or 'observe' (holistically?) .

K: Yes, yes.

PJ: Now can we proceed from there?

K: We are wandering off. I want to enquire into myself. Right? Because myself is life. In enquiring about what I am, I may, if my enquiry is correct, accurate, not distorted, the ( creative) Ground, the beginning of all life may be may be uncovered. First step: see clearly, hear clearly.

PJ: But (for starters?) the 'I' is there. So there is the ( subliminal division between the ) 'observer' and the 'observed'.

K: Oh, of course. I know there is the 'observer' and the 'observed'. But is that (division true?) ? I have taken it for granted.

PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first started enquiring I started from the ( observing-) 'observer'.

K: Yes, I start with ( from) 'observer's ( psychologically safe platform) .
But is there an 'observer' different from the observed?

PJ: Now having that ( warning) statement within me I look for the 'observer'.

K: Yes, yes, who is the observer ? Enquire into the nature of the observer. Go slowly into that. Because if there is a (holistic) understanding of the observer, then perhaps the ( intelligence of the mind self-identified as the ?) 'observer' may see the falseness of this division between the observer and the observed.

PJ: Who will see it?

K: Not 'who' will see it ?, but the ( insightful) perception of what is the truth (of the matter) . Perception, not who is perceiving.

PJ: So the seeing of what is the truth of the observer will end the state of division.

K: Of division, yes. Yes, that's is what I have said a thousand times.

PJ: But it is not by a ( single insightful) action that I end the process of ( the observer-observed) division. You (K) might say that it happened only once and you have seen everything. But (for most of us …?) it doesn't happen that way.

K: No... It is stated that way ( holistically ?) . But what are you trying to say?

PJ: That (the true meaning of an authentic ) 'diligence' or of ( holistic inner) discipline is to have that ( spirit of) enquiry alive within oneself.

K: And I am saying that it does not need training.

PJ: I am not talking of training. I said that I cannot expect to have an understanding of this unless the mind is awake to this and is 'diligent' about being awake to this. You can't deny that.

K: No, it (the holistically friendly mind ?) has to be diligent, it has to be watchful, it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant, it has to be all that.

PJ: It has to observe, and find itself a new home in ( the inward quality of holistic?) observation.

K: So, how do I enquire into myself except through ( observing) my reactions - the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, my relationship to another.

PJ: If I am starting from there, I find that all these responses, these (self-centred) reactions, are rapid, confused, continuous...

K: I know, contradictory....

PJ: ...contradictory, but in the very act of observing some ( free inner) space comes into this.

K: Some space, some order.

PJ: This is just the beginning.

K: I know, I know. I am bored with the beginning.

PJ: So let us proceed further.

K: Pupul, I would like to ask a question. Is it necessary to go through all this? To watch my reactions, to watch my responses, to observe diligently my relationship with another, intimate or not? Must I go through all this?

PJ: Sir, the fact is that one (such as myself) has gone through all this.

K: You may have gone through it because you have accepted the ( traditional) pattern. You see, we have all done that: the thinkers, the sannyasis, the monks and...

PJ: ...and Krishnamurti ?

K: I am not sure. I want to discuss this point very seriously.

PJ: Or, in the last thirty years you might have 'jumped' ( the traditional preparatory stage?).

K: Wait a minute, let's see it for a moment. We have accepted (to function inwardly within) this pattern of ( self-) examination, analysis and investigating these (psychological) reactions, paying attention to them, and watching, self-recollecting and so on and so on. To me (personally) there is something in ( this linear approach?) which 'rings a false note'.

PJ: You mean to say that a person caught in the whole confusion of existence... ?

K: He won't even ( care to) listen to all this.

PJ: So, there has to be some (free inner) space in order to even listen. How does that space arise?

K: Pupul, either you have suffered and you say, "I must find out (the whole truth?) ", or you suffer and say, "God exists, I love him and I am comforted by him".

PJ: But you have still not answered me. You have asked: Is it necessary to go through all this ?

K: I think it may not be necessary .

PJ: Then... show me 'how' (you would 'do it' ? ) .

K: I will show it to you in a minute. Let's go into it. If as long as you accept ( the experiential validity of) this cummulative process of self-inquiry - watching diligently your ( psychical  ?) reactions and constantly enquiring - man has done it for thousands of years.

PJ: He has not, sir. He has done something quite different.

K: What has he done?

PJ: He has looked at ( the workings of his own?) mind and tried to suppress (the bad stuff?) .

K: That's part of the same pattern: suppress, escape, substitute, transcend, that's all within that same old framework.

PJ: It is not the same thing as 'observing' without trying to do anything about the observation.

K: But I was asking, Pupul, must I go through all this? Is it ( holistically-wise ?) essential to go through this?

PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of ( your inner) chaos you can leap to a state of total 'non-chaos'?

K: No, I wouldn't put it that way.

PJ: Then what are you saying?

K: I am saying very clearly that ( at least a tiny part of the collective consciousness of?) humanity has gone through this process, some very diligently, some sacrifice everything and so on. This has been the ( self-becoming ) pattern of our existence. Some have done it (with variable results?) . Enquired, analysed, searched, introspective examination, diligently watching every action and (wrote remarkable books?) & so on, at the end he may be just a dead entity, with some illusory concept.

PJ: Or...he may not be.

K: I said, 'may be'. But very few, very, very few have gone out of it.

PJ: But when you say, is it not necessary, then you have to...

K: … to show me the other way ? I'll show it to you. But first 'step out' of this (mental pattern of self-becoming?) .

PJ: Sir, if I could 'step out' of it, the Other it is already there.

K: Of course. 'Step out'. That's what I am saying. Don't take time to go through all this ( diligent self-introspection?) .

PJ: But what is meant by 'step out of it'?

K: I'll tell you what I mean. ( For starters it means ?) to recognize very clearly that this process of introspective observation, man has tried a great deal, for a million years, in different ways. And somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it, he has got some (ego-centric?) 'fixations' ( simply because) this movement is very, very shallow. Now if you 'listen' to ( the inward truth ?) that it is very shallow (& vain?) to do all this, your ( previously) disordered mind is now quiet, listening to find out. Right? If you see the whole truth of that superficiality, you are ( ASAP?) out of it. It's like putting away something utterly meaningless.

PJ: Do you mean to say, Krishnaji, a mind that is not capable of observing (in real time what is going on within itself?) ...

K: No, I am just saying, a mind that is willing to listen (& learn?) .

PJ: But do you really think that ( a time-bound?) mind can be in that state of listening ?

K: That is ( holistically-wise ?) very 'simple'.

PJ: Is it?

K: Yes. If I say just 'listen to the story that I am telling you', (and if?) you are ( really?) interested (by it?), your mind is ( ASAP getting naturally?) quiet,as you are eager to see what the ( end of the?) story is and so on.

PJ: I am sorry, sir, but it just doesn't happen that way !

K: Just a minute. I am going to explain what I mean by ( the holistic) 'listening'. Not only with the sensory ear, but with the ( mind's inner ) ear that is not translating, that is not comparing, that is not expecting (a long expected reward) - ( a pure, non-verbal) listening. I am listening ( or 'attending'?) to what you say so completely, then 'if' you are so listening, to the man who says, "Don't go through all this diligent process, it is false (ineffective?), superficial". If you hear the (inward) truth of it, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?
( Not to mention that this 'diligent' process of self-introspection , is it time (& $) consuming - right? I have got so many problems, and you are just adding another one - be diligent. So, I say : I know you have got many problems which are all interrelated. Forget this ( inward) struggling for the moment and 'listen' to it. That's all.

PJ: Sir, if that were so (simple ? ) as listening to ( a fascinating story or to ) music, it should change me totally. It does not.

K: Of course not.

PJ: So, you are talking of a mind which is already 'mature' ( and capable of) listening to a statement like that.

K: Have we made our minds ( & hearts ?) so immature that we are incapable of 'listening' to anything ?

PJ: But Krishnaji, you start by making these things look 'impossible'...

K: Of course! To 'see the truth' is something 'impossible' ( for a mind saturated with superficial knowledge) …

PJ: But what is the ( inward quality of the?) mind that can deal with an 'impossible' statement like that? What is the nature of that mind?

K: That which is utterly impossible is 'non-existent' (the unmanifested energy of Creation?) . We are ( generally) thinking that everything is possible.

PJ: Are you asking us to listen with a 'non-existent' mind  ?

K: Look, Pupulji, both of us agree that the diligent ( activity of the thought) process has led to various ( outward) activities which may be beneficial and so on, but the ( inward) enquiry to the very 'source of things' – is not happening this way, obviously.

PJ: Obviously, that I would accept ; but even to come to the point when I see it cannot come to it through all this...

K: What has happened to an (inwardly mature ) mind that says, ''this is too trivial, too superficial'', and has put it out, what is then the quality of your mind?

PJ: I know what you are trying to say, sir.

K: You answer my question. What is the quality of a mind which has been caught in the process of diligent enquiry, this time consuming diligence, when it sees that it has no deep fundamental value - in the sense that this diligent process will never come upon the Origin? This process is obviously not (able to do it?) because it is time consuming ; the other ( knowledge-free?) way' may have no time at all.

PJ: But look at the ( self-delusory) danger in what you are saying : I will not be concerned with sweeping the room.

K: No, no. If I am ( seriously?) enquiring into myself. That very enquiry demands that the ( quality of my) 'mind and the heart', the whole existence is orderly.

PJ: So, you start with the 'impossible' ?

K: Of course I start with the 'impossible', Pupulji, otherwise what is possible - you have done all the possible. One has fasted, sacrificed, done everything to find the Origin of All Things (aka: God?) . All that has been possible. And the 'possibility' has led to certain social benefits and so on, but also it has led to a great deal of (accumulated psychological) misery of mankind.
So you (K) tell me that this diligent process is time consuming and therefore time-binding, and as long as you are doing this you are just scratching the surface (of human existence) - (living on ) the surface may very nice and pleasant and ennobling and all that but it is just on the surface. If you actually see it, feel it in your blood, that this is false, you have already 'stepped out' of the 'ordinary' into something 'extra-ordinary'.
And are we willing to 'do it'  ? We treat it like learning a language. Learning a language is a matter of disciplined action, diligent attention and so on and so on. We carry the same mentality into the Other. That's what I object to.

PJ: But I have put it aside the other. Which means the ('known-based'?) seeing, listening has come to an end - if I may put it this way.

K: Which means what? The ( introspective) movement of ( self-centred) 'diligence' has stopped. Of course. If that is ( seen as) false, it has gone (down the drain?) . So what has happened to ( the inward quality of ) my mind which has been caught in the diligent enquiry and so on ( which is karmically ?) time-binding, and now it says, "By Jove, I see this to be utterly superficial ! ". What is the ( inward) state of the mind which has put away ( a psychological burden ) which man has carried for a million years? What is that state of this mind? It is this a totally 'new' ( inward quality of?) mind that mind is necessary to uncover the Origin.
First of all, such a mind has no 'time bondage' , which is, (it does not rely on) this diligent process of 'becoming ' ( inwardly better in time) hoping to understand & go beyond. (In a nutshell:) this mind has 'no beyond', it is not ( involved inwardly in ) becoming something (or...someone ?) .
Would you go so far as to see the fact that such a mind cannot have (does not need to have ?) any kind of (psychological) dependence, attachment and so on?

PJ: Yes, I can see that , because all these are involved in the movement of becoming.

K: Which is, the perpetuation of the self (centred consciousness?) in a different form, in a different network of ( emotionally loaded images & ) words. To me all this (psychological emptying?) is utterly necessary ; and when there is that 'uncovering' ( of the Inward Creative Source) my whole life, my actions, everything is different. Must be !
But ( pursuing?) the other 'diligent process' has a 'time consuming' factor which is so destructive. Time is necessary to learn a technique but this is not a new 'psychological technique' to be learnt.

( Any other questions?)

PJ: Sir, you have really an antique mind, a mind of great antiquity. Antique in the sense of containing the whole of human...

K: You see, Pupul, that is why it is important to understand that 'I am the world'. You understand? I 'am' the world.

PJ: No one else can ( honestly?) make that kind of statement, Krishnaji.

K: One must make it when you see all the extent of this ( vulgarity?) brutality, wars, killing which has never stopped. A man who 'loved' (the whole world?) wouldn't be British, or Argentine or Israel, or Arab, or something, he couldn't kill another.
( To recap:) this ( self-becoming ) process has been going on (in the collective consciousness of mankind?) for thousands and thousands of years, everybody trying to become something. And all the 'diligent' workers ( on the field of consciousness?) are helping man to become something. Like ( the?) Buddha is supposed to have achieved ( Nirvana or?) Enlightenment by sitting under a ( Bodhi) Tree & meditating, fasting, striving - and ultimately one day it happened. That's too utterly meaningless. That means you are allowing time to be the factor of enlightenment, ( accepting the psychological) time as the factor of deep profound understanding.

PJ: You see, sir, with you this whole inner movement of the 'dormant' (temporal consciousness ?) has ended.

K: That is ( the inner activity of self-centred of ) 'diligence' is ended.

PJ: The whole 'thing' which is dormant.

K: (Parting words : ) Don't let us make this into something 'elitist' (by infering that?) only a (priviledged self-selected?) 'elite' can have this kind of ( holistically integrated?) mind. I refuse to accept that. Any ( naturally selfless?) person who really says, "I must find (within myself?) that (Original ) Source of Life", if (s)he is passionate about it, not just casual, then (s)he will 'listen' - it is (floating?) 'in the air'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 25 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 26 Mar 2019 #154
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

Discussing the nature of a New Birth in the Human Consciousness

( 2-nd 'reader-friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH PUPUL JAYAKAR 1982

PJ: Sir, I was wondering whether one could discuss the wonder and nature of ( a re-) birth in the human mind that is getting old, and incapable of direct perception ; can it renew itself, or can it have ( a totally insightful) new perception? I think that is a ( major existential ) problem with many of us, as the original quickness of the mind, of the capacity to perceive, and take in deeply, perhaps dims.

K: Are you asking: is it possible to keep the mind very young, and yet 'ancient'?

PJ: Yes. I have heard you use several times this word 'ancient', I also would like to go into the nature of what is meant by the word ancient. Obviously that 'ancient' quality is unrelated to time as yesterday ?

K: After all, the human brain is very, very old. It has evolved through time, through tremendous experiences, acquired a great deal of knowledge, both the outward knowledge as well as inward knowledge, and so it is really very, very ancient. And, as far as I can see, ( beneath its superficial identifications?) it is not a 'personal' brain, it is not 'my' brain and 'your' brain.

PJ: But obviously your brain and my brain have a different quality of the 'ancient' in them.

K: Don't let's talk of 'mine' or 'yours' for the moment. I am just exploring the beginning, laying a few bricks. If that is granted, that we are very old, very ancient, in that sense, and that our brains are not the 'individualistic' ( selfish?) brains, we may have reduced it to 'my brain', but it can't have evolved through time as ( a particular) brain.

PJ: No, obviously...

K: Now are we saying that this ancient brain which has been so conditioned (both environmentally & culturally?) is ( increasingly) becoming very, very coarse, superficial, (trivial?) and vulgar . You follow what I mean?

PJ: Now, the ( spiritual) search of mankind which has gone on for centuries...

K: Since the beginning of time man must have asked (such serious existential questions?) .

PJ: ...whether it is possible to free the (human mind & brain?) of this 'aging' quality, in-built in the sense of the ancient.

K: Yes. Because ( mankind's materialistic ?) experience & knowledge has limited it, has conditioned it, has narrowed it down. The more ( indiscriminatedly ?) we acquite knowledge, the more there is the limitation of itself.

PJ: But the 'ancient' (holistic quality?) you are talking about has ( been acquired by an ) experience through time?

K: We will go into that in a moment. First let us see how 'ancient' it is in the normal ( 'old-timer'?) sense of that word. And how in its own million years of experience it has limited itself (its consciousness ?) . Therefore there is the quality of deterioration. And the modern world, living in the modern world, with all the noise, with all the terrible shocks of war and so on, has made it still more limited, more (entangled) in conflict. Because the ( very mentality of its self-centred  ?) limitation brings its own conflict.

PJ: Sir, there is a mind which because the sense of these millions years, gives to it a density and weight. Then there is a mind which is brittle.

K: Are you talking about of the human mind or of the brain ?

PJ: I am talking about the brain.

K: The brain, don't use the word 'mind'.
PJ: All right, the human brain has a certain weight to it, and a density to it, which...

K: Yes, a coarseness to it, a 'heaviness' to it, quite.

PJ: A 'heaviness' to it. Now, is that what you mean by the 'ancient'?

K: Not quite. But if the ( entropic?) quality of its deterioration can ( miraculously?) be stopped , can the ( energy matrix of the?) human brain can renew itself so as to achieve its 'originality', in the sense of its ( natural) origin.

PJ: Would you say that the brain cells of the ( new born) baby are 'original' in that sense?

K: No. Of course not.

PJ: So what is meant by 'original quality' of the brain cells?

K: Let's go into it a little bit. What does the word 'original' mean?

PJ: A quality of 'for the first time'.

K: A pristine quality. Untouched, uncontaminated by ( the 'on duty' psychological ? ) knowledge. Can it - that's the ( 64,000 $ ) question - can such a ( knowledge saturated human?) brain which has been conditioned for a million, or two million years, reach 'that' (original Source?) , or wipe away (delete?) its ( psychologcal?) conditioning and reach that quality of pristine freshness of the brain?

PJ: But I think some ( brain-knowledgeable scientists?) would say that the brain cells are dying (at a slow but steady rate?) all the time.

K: But also, some brain cells are renewing itself. Apparently certain cells die and certain cells are reborn. It is not dying all the time so that the brain goes to pieces, dies.

PJ: No, but the very fact of aging is that the rate of renewal does not keep pace.

K: Yes, that's the whole point really, isn't it, is it possible for a brain that has been conditioned, and therefore has a built in quality of its own deterioration, can that ( entropic?) quality stop, end, disappear? That is, can the brain keep young, young in the sense fresh, alive, has a quality of its originality ?

PJ: Yes, but how would you...

K: ...proceed from that ? I think we have to (take a brief detour & ) go into the question of what is our consciousness? That's part of ( the living energy matrix of?) our brain, part of our whole being.
What is 'consciousness'? Not only 'being conscious of the things (that are going on?) , outwardly and inwardly, but the whole ('psychological' ) content of our consciousness. Because without this content there is no (ego-centric?) consciousness, as we know it. So can this ( dynamic?) 'content' ( come to an ) end by itself so that there is a totally different dimension to consciousness? You follow? Because the brain or the mind has the quality of ( being) conscious. And the ( psychologically active?) content is ( expressed as the personal or group ) consciousness.

PJ: Yes, that is so (true?)...

K: This (self-centred 'psychological') content is ( a personalised compound of?) pleasure, belief, excitement, sensations, reactions, faith, agony, pleasure, suffering, affection, and so on, the whole of that is (very lively displayed in our time-bound?) consciousness. And as long as this 'content' exists, the brain must wear itself out, because of its conflicts, its confusion... And that's why the brain becomes 'old' - in the sense that here is no freshness to it.

PJ: Is this (psychologically active) content of consciousness identically with the functioning of the brain cells?

K: Yes, of course.

PJ: Then this very process ( of living constantly in that field?) is wearing out the brain cells ?

K: As conflict, the disturbance, the shocks, the pressures.

PJ: So the physical and psychologically are the same thing really then?

K: Yes, that's right. Physical reactions & psychological reactions, they are both reactions.

PJ: Because the brain is physical. The content of consciousness is psychological.

K: Which is also a ( residual) process of the physical. So it is psychological as well as the physical, with all their reactions bring about the thought of pain, the thought of agony, the thought of pleasure, the thought of achievement, ambition and so on and so on, and belief, faith, is all this.

PJ: It creates disturbance. But the nature of the brain cells is to...

K: ...to (constantly update this content &?) carry on. The tradition carries on.

PJ: It is inbuilt.

K: Of course. And also the cells with their ( self-centred) reactions, they produce their own chemical to protect (the brain ) itself.

PJ:And so is inbuilt (the sense of our continuity in) 'time', .

K: Of course, after all that is the product of ( a long & tedious evolution in?) time.

PJ: Time is inbuilt in the brain cells.

K: The question really is whether all this (time-bound ) consciousness with its self-conflicted content can ( come to an?) end, in the ( meditation related ? ) sense totally end ( the time-thought movement?) .

PJ: But with conflict totally ending will time end?
K: Yes. After all that is what the really thoughtful (& holistically minded ?) people have enquired : whether time has a stop. Right? Of course, they have all asked this question.

PJ: You are talking of ending 'time' as (ending) the psychological process of conflict ?

K: Conflict, yes.

PJ: Not of ( ending) 'time' as (chronological) duration, or (by stopping?) the watch.

K: No, no.... So ( after this brief detour through the psychologically active content of man's temporal consciousness ?) what are we trying to investigate together?

PJ: What is it that will bring this ( original) quality of (a spiritual re-) birth in the human mind?

K: Let's be clear what you mean by 'birth'. A new, a fresh element enter into it ?

PJ: Any 'birth' has that quality of the new. Birth is : it was not, and now it is.

K: The ancient brain, which is neither yours nor mine ( the 'universal' human brain) is reborn in a baby ?

PJ: It is reborn in a baby...

K: And the baby as it matures, the brain is the common (temporal) brain.

PJ: But what is reborn in a mind which is free (of its time-related inner conflicts ) ? Is it the ancient reborn?

K: (For starters?) is it possible to be free of this ( time-binding) conditioning of the brain, whether ( a holistically friendly human ?) consciousness can totally end all its ( ongoing state of inner ?) conflict ? Then out of that comes the 'new (re-) birth'. ( Experiential hint:) As long as one's brain, that is one's ( self-centred) consciousness, is in ( an inner state of) conflict, there can be no 'new' element enter into it. Would you grant that as long as I am fighting, struggling to become ( 'someone' or?) 'something'....

PJ: I think one sees that.

K: All right. Now if one actually sees ( the truth of?) it inwardly , then the question arises whether it is possible to 'end' it - end, I mean end ( the self-sustained continuity of my ) suffering, end fear...

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, you can 'end it' without renewal.

K: Then we mean two different things by the word 'ending'.

PJ: 'Ending' what?

K: Ending 'that which is' - which is ( ending) my ( self-centred ) consciousness - all the thoughts that I have had, all the complexities that have been accumulated through time, the ending of that. Now, we will have to be clear whether 'you' try to end it by a deliberate act of will( -power) in order to achieve a 'superior' goal...

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, when actually such an ending happens - the real standing still of the mind - it happens without any reason.

K: Yes, sometimes....

PJ: Sometimes it happens without reason. It is not due to any single thing. So is it that you throw yourself to chance?

K: No, no. Let's be clear first, Pupulji, what do we mean by 'ending'. Is the ending create its own 'opposite' - I end this ( poor 'psychological ' condition ) in order to get 'that' ( a more rewarding one ? ) .

PJ: No, I am not talking of that (kind of fake ?) 'ending'.

K: So I mean by 'ending', the total perception of (the truth regarding ) 'that which is' ( going on inwardly) , a total perception of ( the intrinsical limitations of) my (time-bound ?) consciousness, the whole, the complete perception of that consciousness , which is ( coming in a flash of?) insight, that insight is an immediate (trans-personal?) perception, and in the ending of it, is there is 'something beyond', which is not touched by ( the self-centred) thought. That is what I mean by 'ending'.

PJ: : Is it that the totality of that million years ( of time-bound evolution) sees itself (in a different light?) ?

K: Yes, that's right. That's the real problem (involved) .
Now, Pupul, let's make it a little more simple (& experientially friendly?) , or a little more definite : ( a) Do we see the point that our consciousness has been cultivated through time?

PJ: Yes, that's easy.

K: Then (b) : if 'I' desire to end it, then that very desire creates another object to be gained. So, c :) is there a possibility of perceiving ( what is going on inwardly ) without the ( projection?) of the 'future' (inner condition that has to be achieved) ? You understand what I am saying? This ( psychological) 'ending' has no future, only ending. But if the ( time-bound?) brain says, ''I cannot end that way because I need a 'future' to survive'' …

PJ: Yes, because inbuilt in it is the ( instinctual) projection of its future...

K: Yes, of course. So is there an 'ending' of ( thought's projection of its) psychological demands, conflicts, without the (personal after-) thought of ''what will happen (to me?) if I end?'' . Because, look, I can give up something if you will guarantee me something else. I will give up ( the personal involvement in my?) suffering if you will guarantee me that I will be ( forever?) happy with the ending of it. Or there is some extraordinary reward awaiting me. Because the whole (psychological infrastructure of the) brain is constructed as part of this ( time-binding) consciousness based on reward and punishment. Punishment is seen in the 'ending' (the loss of personal property, death, etc) and the reward is the 'gaining'. Now as long as these two ( time-binding) elements exist in the brain, the continuation of my 'present' (inner condition) into the 'future' ( better one?) will go on, modified and so on. Right? So can these two ( driving?) principles, reward and punishment, end? When ( its 'existential anxiety' or ?) 'suffering' ends, the brain is not seeking a future existence in paradise.

PJ: But even if it is not seeking a future in paradise, suffering itself corrodes the brain.

K: You see, Pupulji, this is very important to understand that the brain is seeking constantly ( its temporal) security, it must have security. That's why the tradition of the past has extraordinary significance. The baby needs security. Our brains need security - ( its immediate ) security being food, clothes and shelter. (And the psychologically upgraded?) security is faith in god, faith in some ideal, faith in a future better society, all these are contributory causes which make the brain say, I must have deep security otherwise I can't function.
But...physically there is no ( an all-time) security because it knows ( that eventually) it is going to die. And even 'psychologically' it has no (fool-proof ?) security, actually. Am I going too fast?

PJ: No, it is not that....But beyond ( all your fine explanations?) I still say that there is one central demand : to have a mind, to have a brain which gives the flavour of a new existence.

K: Wait, wait, who actually wants such a brain? Not the vast majority of people. No, they say, ''please keep things as they are''...

PJ: But we are not talking here about the vast majority. I am discussing with you, or 'X' is discussing with you. So, basically there are many ways of getting security.

K: I question whether there is ( a 100% proof?) security in the sense 'we want ( an 'all time' physical & psychological) security' ('as advertised on TV' ?) .

PJ: But the brain will never understand it because inbuilt in its very nature...

K: No, that's why I am saying that ( a holistic?) perception is important.

PJ: Perception of what?

K: Perception of actually 'what is' (actually going on inwardly & outwardly) first. Move from there slowly, slowly.

PJ: Perception of 'what is' includes the creative things it has done, the stupid things it has done, what it considers worthwhile, what it considers not worthwhile, the perception of all these and the ending of all this.

K: No, just a minute : the perception of what is actually going on. Both physically, outwardly, and inwardly. What is going on around me and psychologically, inwardly what is happening. That is 'what is'.

PJ: Yes.

K: Now, the question is: can 'what is' be transformed? Right? Which is my ( egocentric, time-bound) consciousness, which is part of the brain.

PJ: But (the total) emptying of that consciousness...

K: ...is that possible? Is it possible to empty, or to wipe away the whole of the past? The ( psychological) past is the ( residue of) time, the whole of my past, the whole of the ( self-centred) content of my consciousness is the (karmic result of all mankind's ?) past, which may project the future, but it still has it roots in the past. Right? Now is it possible to ( meditatively ?) 'empty' that ? Is it possible not to have ( to carry forward ?) all the 'psychological' burden of ( many?) thousands of yesterdays? ( If it is possible?) the ending of that (time-binding psychical continuity) is the beginning of the New (holistically integrated human consciousness?).

PJ: You used a phrase just now: ''is it possible not to have the burden of a thousand yesterdays''. Is the problem in the burden, or in the thousand yesterdays?

K: The ( residual memory of the?) thousand yesterdays is the burden. You can't separate the two.

PJ: No, no. The (psychological) 'burden' is when I have given a 'special' content to many of these experiences which I have had, but the ( memories of the) thousand yesterdays are a fact

K: Just a minute. Would there be a thousand yesterdays if there was no remembrance of those thousand years of sorrow, or whatever it is, can I separate them ?

PJ: Yes you can, sir. You can separate a thousand yesterdays from the burden of the thousand yesterdays.

K: Show me how.

PJ: You can cut away the pain and the sorrow.

K: What do you mean by 'cut away'?

PJ: Perceive (the truth about it?) . As you said earlier.

K: But it is not a 'cutting away' in the sense - you see cutting away implies two parts.

PJ: You see this is where the ( experiential) difficulty comes in. Can I cut away the fact(ual memory) of my sixty years? I can't do that. My body is sixty five years old.

K: But I am talking about the ( psychological) remembrances ; of course a ( factual memory of) the thousands of yesterdays exists.

PJ: They can be cut away. You can ( discern & ) divide them .

K: Ah, 'I' (the self-conscious entity?) can't divide and cut it away. This whole brain, and all the material processes of the organism is part of it.

PJ: Then what do I do with the ancient mind? One has understood what one has to do with the superficial burden of the thousands yesterdays.

K: Do you know what that means? Have I really wiped (out) or 'ended' (the psychological memory of the ) thousands yesterdays, with all its superficialities, its pettiness, its narrowness, its brutalities, cruelty, and ambition and so on, which are all superficial, can I wipe all that away, can that all end? If you say ' I can cut it away' who is the entity that is cutting it? It is part of that (psychological rememberance)

PJ: No, but I am not cutting away one particular pain. I am cutting away the whole burden.

K: You see I do object to this : when you cut away something there are two parts.

PJ: You see this is where a lot of confusion takes place : the word 'cutting', is wrong.

K: Don't use that word.

PJ: You were using this word (in the context of?) the seeing of 'what is'.

K: ( I was speaking of ) the 'ending' of 'what is' - that is totally different.

PJ: Why do you want to draw a distinction between the ending of 'what is' and cutting away?

K: Ending, to me, means there is no ( psychological) continuation of something that has been.

PJ: What is (wrong ) in 'cutting away'?

K: Cutting away implies that there are two parts of the same thing.

PJ: Well I think it is a semantic thing.

K: Semantic. But I am asking: is it first of all possible to completely 'end' the whole ( psychological) content of human consciousness which has grown (& gained momentum?) through millenia. And this ( residual psychological ) 'content' is all this confusion, vulgarity, coarseness, pettiness, triviality of living a stupid (ego-centric) life.

PJ: But in it there is also the goodness.

K: Oh yes... But ( the inward source of?) Goodness is something entirely different. Goodness has no opposite. Goodness is not the ( upgraded?) outcome of that which is not good. The 'ending' of ( the self-sustained continuity of?) 'that which is not good' is Goodness. That's a different matter. So, is it possible to end all this ( mentality of dualistic ?) conflict? If there is no ending to conflict, conflict can be modified but...

PJ: There is an ending to conflict.

K: Is there? (Is it just ) a forgetfulness of a (particular cause ) which has caused conflict, or a real ending of it ?

PJ: Do you mean to say, sir, the very fact of the ending of conflict is the birth of the new?

K: Yes. But do you really understand all the implications of ( ending one's inner) conflict, the depth of it, not just the superficial (aspects of it ) - like I am no longer ( inwardly identified as ) a British, or as a French, or I don't belong to this or that religion, or race. Those are all very superficial (cultural attachments) . I am talking of the deeply embedded things.

PJ: You are talking of 'conflict' as the (existential ?) sense of one's self-separateness ?

K: That is the real thing. ( The 'self'-protective mentality of?) isolation, which inevitably breeds conflict. Is the 'ending' of that possible?
If it is, what does it mean that 'there is no ( 'self'-created?) conflict' ? (Further psychological) problems may still arise but those problems are dealt with immediately, ended. ( Carrying over a psychological) problem means conflict.

PJ: Why should ( the psychological) problems arise?

K: The ethymological definition given in the dictionary, is that a 'problem' is something thrown at you, which is, a ( personal) challenge. Something that you have to face. We ( generally try to) resolve these 'problems' intellectually, or materially, sociologically and so on - which is still creating further problems. Like the politicians: you ( divide & ) conquer, and the result of that 'conquering' is ( generating ) some other factors which are creating another series of problems. You keep this problem going all the time.
( Speaking for myself?) I am saying : there is no problem. Physically or psychologically there is no problem; if I can't live at Brockwood for a few months (every year?) all right, I won't live at Brockwood, if nobody feeds me, all right (...…???) - you follow ? There is no ( 'self'-created or 'self'- projected ?) problem. But if a new ( personally challenging) thing arises, and my brain is ( unwilling or?) incapable of solving it, therefore it becomes a ('carry-on'?) problem.

PJ: You mean to say, sir, that ( this is a 'must do'?) for the birth of the New...?

K: That's it, you are getting it. And therefore the 'birth of the New' is the ( awakening of the Creative Source of the ?) most ancient.

PJ: Could you say a little more about it?

K: After all that is the ( Creative) Ground beyond which there is no other ground. That is the Origin beyond which there is no other origin.
You see, Pupulji, this is really a ( vital existential?) question whether the brain can ever be free from its own (ages old temporal ?) bondage. After all ending something ( a particular inner condition ? ) is not total freedom. I can end, say for example, my ( psychological) hurts, I can end them very simply (in 'no time' ?) . But the ( self-protective screen of mental ?) 'images' that I have created about myself, those very 'images' that get hurt, and the 'maker' ( owner?) of the 'images' is the problem. So ( meditation-wise?) this leads more and more to something else, which is: to live an (active everyday?) life without a single ( 'self'-protective) image, and therefore there is no futher (psychological) hurts and fears , and if there is no fear there is no (need ) of (projecting an imaginary) safety (in) 'god', 'comfort' and all the rest of it.

Would you say the 'most ancient' ( layer of human consciousness) is the Origin of all life? It must be the 'ancient of ancient', beyond all thought of old or new. That is the ( Creative) Origin of all life. Is it possible that the (meditating?) mind - which includes the brain- reaches that ( Inner Creative?) Ground, which is totally original, new & uncontaminated ?
( Traditionally?) Meditation has been one of the means to reach it. Silencing the mind has been the way that one hopes will help, will bring about That ( creative blessing?) coming to it. And apparently we are all making ( great mental) efforts to come to it. What I am saying is that ( if approached holistically ?) it requires no effort. You see that ( creative dimension of being?) which has no conflict cannot be approached through ( the mentality of) conflict. Of course not.

PJ: In this sense, does it really mean that there is no 'partial' approach at all in your teachings?

K: Impossible. How can there be? If I approach it through various parts, which the ancient Hindus have discovered, Karma ( Bhakti, Raja etc...) Yoga and all the rest of it, it is just 'partial'. You can't approach it this way .

PJ: Then, what can one do as an ordinary (holistically minded?) human being ?

K: First of all, 'you' (the 'self -centred' mental entity ?) can't do anything. You can only do ( lots of ?) physical activities. But psychologically (speaking) you cannot do anything (originating from the field of the known ?)

PJ: What do you mean by ( lots of?) physical activities?

K: Creating a garden, building houses, technological.

PJ: So, the ( action in the sphere of our ?) physical ( existence) is going on.

K: It is going on.

PJ: So ( in the inward sphere ) what does one do?

K: If there are no psychological fears there will be no division of countries and so on and so on. There would be no division. You follow?

PJ: Yes, but the ( real life) fact is that there is a lot of psychologically (motivated) fear (and selfishness, greed, anger, frustration & so on & on... ? )

K: That's just it. Therefore a brain which has (indulged ) living in psychological isolation, which means conflict, can never possibly come to that (Inward ) Ground ( of Creation?) which is the Origin of all Life. Obviously not. How can a petty ( bourgeois?) mind, worrying about its beastly little ( egotistic) self come to ( contact ) It?

PJ: The whole of one's life is seeming even more futile if, after doing ( all your homework within the field of the 'known' ? ) you haven't even taken the first step ( out of it?) . Then where are you?

K: Just a minute, go into it, what is the 'first step'?

PJ: I would say the first step is seeing 'what is'.

K: Seeing 'what is'. And how do you approach it? On that ( quality of one's approach) depends the (seeing of the ) totality of 'what is', or only you see the partiality of 'what is'. If you see the totality of 'what is', finished !

PJ: It doesn't just work like that...

K: Of course not (yet?) Because our ( self-centred) thoughts are fragmented, therefore I will approach the 'what actually is' with my fragmented brain which has broken itself up.

PJ: But again, with time, brain's (ego-centric ) fragmentation gets less. And it is possible for the mind to be still and listen to you, not to make any movements, not to make any effort, but... that is still not the first step (out of the field of the known?)

K: No. When you say : the first step to observe (holisticall) , or to perceive (the truth regarding?) 'what is'. Right? If 'I' perceive it partially (dualistically?) , then as you know, that leads to further complications. Right? Partial perception creates its own partial problems. Now is it possible to see the whole complex of 'what is'? To see the whole and not the fragment. That means to see if I lead a ( self-centred) life of fragmentation. That is where I would begin ( the holistically friendly homework?) . Because if I approach my life, which is my consciousness, which is the way of thinking & feeling & actions and all that, if I approach it 'fragmentarily' then I am lost (in endlessly ploughing & never sowing ?) . That's what is happening in the whole world. They are totally lost (souls?) . Those people who govern us, those people who tell us what is right or wrong, and all the rest of it.
( So, for optional meditation homework ?) Is it possible to look at life as a whole without fragmentation?

PJ: Why doesn't the ( human ) mind see this?

K: It can't, (and...) it won't.

PJ: But you said that the ancient mind ( is still there deeply down)

K: Just a minute, That is the 'ancient', the original Ground is the most ancient.

PJ: And That is (still present?) there.

K: No, no.

PJ: What do you mean by 'no'?

K: It ( may be) there as an idea, which is what all ( religious) people have maintained ( for ages :) ''God is there''. That is just an ( inspirational?) idea, a projection of our own desire to be ( or feel inwardly) comfortable, to be happy, to be - all the rest of it. But ( the real experiential question is:) can a (holistically minded?) human being live a life in which there is no fragmentary action? And if somebody says, "Where am I to begin?", I would say, begin there (at 'ground zero'?) and find out for yourself if you lead a fragmentary (hypocritical) life - saying one thing and doing another, the whole fragmented way of living, which is ( based on self-) isolation, and therefore I have no ( authentic) relationship with my wife, nor with the rest of humanity. So ( as a strongly recommended homework ) begin there. You know what that means? What tremendous enquiry you have to make to find out ?

PJ: What is this ( holistically friendly) 'enquiry'?

K: Observation. To observe (objectively what is going on inwardly & outwardly ?) very clearly, without any ( personal ) bias, without any direction, without any motive, how my life ( within the field of the 'known'?) is fragmented. Just to 'observe' it (selflessly?) . Not say, I am inwardly fragmented, therefore I must become whole. The 'idea of becoming (inwardly) whole' is another ( projection of the ongoing) fragmentation.
So, what are the ( hidden?) implications in observing the way of fragmentation ? Which means, ( the self-centred process of) thought itself is a fragment. Right? And that is the cause of fragmentation. I am becoming something different from you.

PJ: So (to wrap it up ?) the birth of the New (in a holistically friendly human mind ?) ...

K: ...is obviously not possible unless you have ( seen the truth regarding ? ) this (inward fragmentation & stepped out of it ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 27 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Mar 2019 #155
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

WHAT ABOUT 'GOD'  ?

( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1981)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Can we investigate into the (true?) nature of 'God'?

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): Are you asking what is Creation, or whether Reality, or Truth 'is' God?

PJ: Behind the word ‘God’ there is all man's quest for something that is absolute, for something that is untouched by time...

K: Yes, for something that is universal.

PJ: So, is it possible to inquire into the nature of ‘That’—call it 'God' or 'Creation' or the 'Ground of Being'.

K: I think it is possible, but can our brain and mind be totally free ( of the 'known'?) to investigate that which the Israelis call the ‘Nameless’ and the Hindus call ‘Brahman’ or the ‘Highest Principle’? Can we put away all the (man-made?) 'beliefs'? For only then will it be possible to investigate.

PJ: When the mind is free of belief, what exactly does it mean?

K: Can one, consciously as well as unconsciously, be free of the (cultural connotations of this word 'God' ) ?

PJ: At the ( intellectual) level it is possible to say that one is free, as, for example, if you were to ask me whether I believe in God, or whether I believe in Krishna, Rama or Siva. But that is not the final thing. There is a feeling for God that goes much beyond all this. It seems to be integral to the fact of Life itself. You see, there is a sense that without this ( Sacred Presence ?) nothing could exist, the sense that ‘this’ is the Ground.

K: Shall we discuss the ( Creative) Ground from which everything originates? As I said, one's (mind) has to be absolutely free (from the known? ) . Normally, our ( consciousness) is absolutely crowded with both its (physical & ) 'psychological' knowledge

PJ: There is the (meditational) possibility of a state of mind where any movement of belief in any particular 'God' is negated.

K: Does one negate it verbally or deeply, that is, at the very root of one’s being? Can one say, ‘I know nothing (about God) ’ and stop there?

PJ: I can say that the movement (the mental activity) of thought as 'belief' in a particular God, does not arise in the mind. But I still do not know the inward state of 'I-know-nothing' which is a very different state from the outer movement as belief.

K: So could we go into that?

PJ: How does one proceed?

K: Can one negate, completely, the whole ( thought ) movement ( within the inward field?) of knowledge? Not negate the technological '& practical) knowledge, of course. Can one negate the (inward?) feeling that one 'knows'? Can one negate one's (psychological attachment to?) all that one ( assumes that he/she ) 'knows'?

PJ: Let me put it this way. One has comprehended the way of negating the rising movement of thought as belief. But the depth, the dormancy, the thousands of years that form the 'knowledgeable' matrix of one’s being—how does one touch all that?

K: That is what one has to do.

PJ: Yes, but how does one ( get in) 'touch' it?

K: Could we begin by inquiring into why the human mind has struggled ( for ages?) to 'become something'- not only outwardly but also inwardly - a (self-assertive mentality of?) becoming that is based on knowledge ?

PJ: How are these two topics related? We started with an investigation into the nature of God and then you went on to speak of the matrix (of the known) and of becoming—how are these related?

K: I think they are : one’s ( psychological) being is essentially based on that ( matrix of ) knowledge ; this the 'ground' on which one's (conscious mind?) stands. So long as this ( subliminal assumption of knowing?) is there, one is not actually free (to explore any further) . Can one ( take a brief detour and?) investigate into that?

QUESTIONER (Q): Isn't there in every ( holistically minded?) human being an inherent seeking towards some unknown (universally open dimension of ) being? In other words, is there of something that is beyond what one is taught, beyond what one picks up through one’s cultural heritage?

K: That is what I want to get at. Even if it is an 'inherent' thing, can one totally empty one's (meditating mind ?) of all the ( psychological) accumulations of a million years? Let us examine it.
Can one empty one’s self of that which may be implanted from childhood? Can one empty one’s self-(consciousness ) even of the centuries of belief that there is 'something beyond' all this (material existence) ? I think that that is the most deep-rooted belief. It is something that is in the un-conscious (mind) —deep things always are. And I think that if we want to investigate (holistically this major existential issue?) , that (deeply rooted ?) belief must ( first be exposed and/or let ?) go too .

PJ: Can one go into the last movement (spiritual aspiration?) of the unconscious mind? How is it possible for it to end, without the 'unconscious' (layers of one's being ) having been exposed in the first place ? How does one 'experience' that which lies beyond the total particulars of any one person’s knowledge?

K: I understand.

PJ: I can go through the whole of my knowledge, and yet it will not contain it.

K: No... But aren’t you getting an insight into this (very delicate experiential point?) namely, that there must be the total negating of everything man has put together?

Q: You are asking us to negate, everything—even our small insights that bring us to this point, before we realize that there is something in what you are saying. Aren’t you saying that even to begin we have to put aside all things, all beliefs; put aside in fact, the very ground on which we stand? I wonder whether our small insights and perceptions are not mixed up with that.

PJ: I understand now. Even what we consider (as valuable personal) 'insights' have to go.

Q: How then does one begin to investigate? You deny even the basis for perceiving something.

PJ: Once the insight is over, it is becoming part of the (knowledge of the ) past already—it is as much the past as any other memory. I comprehend the ( necessity for the ) negation of all that arises in the brain. But the layers of the unconscious, the ( consciousness?) ground on which one stands, can one negate that? Perhaps one is asking the wrong question. Perhaps there can never be a negating of that. How can one negate that?

K: Just a minute. Man has tried in several ways to negate everything. He has fasted, he has tortured himself (psychologically?) , but he has always remained anchored to something.
Like the Christian mystics; they were anchored to ( the belief in) Jesus, and from there they moved.

PJ: May I ask you a (very personal) question? Do you think we are anchored to your (charismatic & insightful presence ) ?

K: Maybe, but that’s irrelevant (for the present enquiry ?) .

Q: Are we not anchored to our few (insightful) perceptions?

K: If you are, then... weigh the anchor.

Q: One can be free of being anchored to most things, but can one cease to be anchored to this ( major existential?) quest ?

K: Oh yes, oh yes...

Q: In other words, all the ( traditional) answers about God, Reality, etc., are deeply rroted in us. That perhaps can be negated, but...

K: I wouldn’t ask ( intellectually ?) that question: What is God? For then my brain would start spinning a lot of words.

Q: It seems to me that we have already put the question (non-verbally ) and gone beyond the ( traditional) replies. But behind all that remains the inquiry.

K: What do you mean ‘remains the inquiry’?

Q: By the ‘inquiry remaining’ I mean that the question whether there is something else seems to be innately in us. In other words, the movement towards that question seems to be innately in us.

K: If my investigation is a ( directed) movement ( of thought & desire ) towards the understanding of what is called God, that movement itself is ( becoming a new temporal) bondage.

Q: Why?

K: Because obviously it is a movement towards ( understanding or experiencing) something. And any (mentally directed ) movement, implies time. Why are you introducing all this?

Q: I am trying to get behind ( the apparent 'absoluteness' of) what you are saying.

K: Don’t let us use words that have implications of ( a spiritual achievement in ?) time, implications of 'going towards' something. Going towards something, trying to find something (beyond the field of the known) implies (thought's self-projected movement in) time—and that ( mentality ) must stop.

Q: Then how can Pupul ask that question?

K: That is the whole point. Our question is whether it is possible (meditatively speaking) to be so totally in and with 'non-movement'? For otherwise we will be forever (caught ) in (a wishful-thinking) movement, which is ( constantly generated by the industrious process of ? ) 'time and thought'.

First of all why do we want to find the meaning of God? Why do we want to find the meaning behind all this?

PJ: There is a part of us which is still...

K: Still seeking, searching, demanding. Is it ?

PJ: There is a part of us which feels that there is ( something of divine nature)

K: Yes, that’s it. We never say, ‘I don’t know’. I think that that is one of our ( major experiential) difficulties. We all want to 'know' and we put God (or Divinity?) into the realm of knowledge. To (meditatively-wise ) say, ‘I don’t know’ is a state of mind that is absolutely 'motionless'. (not motivated by one's spiritual expectations?)

PJ: Is it not necessary to wipe out this matrix (of the 'known'?) ?

K: Oh yes.

PJ: Should not ( my mind's ) ear listen to you?

K: But can 'you' (the self-conscious mental entity) wipe out the matrix?

PJ: I don’t know (about that) but I only know that beyond the horizons of my mind, behind the obvious beliefs there are depths and depths and depths in me. You once used a very significant phrase ‘Play around with the deep’. So you also point to depths which lie below the surface. Is this 'depth' within the matrix (of the known?) ?

K: I wonder what you call the 'matrix'?

PJ: I mean by ‘matrix’ that which does not come within the purview of my ( physical) eyes and ears, but is still there. I know it is there. It is ‘me’. Even though I am not able to see it, to touch it, I have a feeling that perhaps, if there is a right listening to the truth...

K: Then why do you use the word ‘depth’? For ‘depth’ is of necessity linked with the measurable.

PJ: I am using the word ‘depth’ to connote something that is beyond my knowledge. You see, if it is within the contours of my horizon, if it is available to my senses, then it is measurable. But if it is not available (to the perceptive senses) , I can do nothing about it. I do not have the instruments to reach it.

K: How do you know that it is all not imagination? Do you know it as an (authentic personal) experience? I want to be quite clear, Pupul, that we both understand the meaning of the word. I am talking of a 'feeling'.

PJ: Surely, sir, a word can be uttered lightly, from the surface of the mind, and it can also be uttered with great depth behind it. I am saying that there is this 'ground' ( of any human consciousness?) that contains the whole history of man. There is life in that utterance; it has great weight and depth. Can’t you feel that depth? And if this is so, then there is nothing to be done, but to just look and listen. There is no (knowledgeable ?) question that one can ask oneself.

K: I understand Pupul, but is that ( non-verbal looking & listening coming from) the 'depth of silence'? Silence means that the mind, the brain, is utterly still; it is not something that comes and goes.

PJ: How can I answer that?

K: I think one can if there is no sense of ( personal) 'attachment' to it, no sense of memory involved in it. Let’s begin again (from experiential 'square one'?) I really don’t know what 'God' is. Probably I will never find out, but what I am concerned with is whether the mind, the brain, can be totally, completely, free from all accumulated 'knowledge & experience'. Because if it is not free, it will function always within the field (of the known) . It might expand enormously, but it will always be confined (tethered in)to that area.
My (next experiential ?) concern is whether the brain, the mind, can be completely free from all (anchoring in the psychologically motivated?) knowledge. To me that is tremendously significant, because any movement of the mind ( attempting to pull itself?) out of that area is still a movement that is anchored in knowledge; ( and in this particular case) it will then only be a seeking of (the 'self' trying to acquire a comprehensive) knowledge 'about' God. So ( meditation-wise?) my ( third?) concern is with whether the mind, the brain, is capable of being completely immovable. ( Hint:) When you confront an (impossible) question of that kind, if you deny both the possibility and the probability of it, then what is left?
( And the fourth experiential concern is;) Could I have an indepth insight into this ( psychologically motivated ?) movement of knowledge, so that the ( inner clarity brought by this total ) insight stops the movement? The ( enlightened intelligence of this ) insight itself stops the movement, not 'I' or the ( thoughtful) brain. The stopping of this (mental) movement is the ending of ( being inwardly tethered in the field of?) knowledge and the beginning of something else. So I am concerned only with that—the ending of knowledge consciously, deeply.
( Here's an insightful ) There is this enormous feeling (of intelligence & compassion?) that comes when we realize that we are 'all one'. The feeling that comes from (realising this) 'all-one-ness' is extraordinary, ( but if it is just stimulated by the speaker ?) it is worthless, for then you will only be perpetuating yourself. Right?

Q: Could we talk a little more about this 'questioning' which seems so complete? Could we discuss having no anchor ( in the field of the known?) ? Is having 'no anchor' the putting aside of everything?

K: Don’t you see the importance of it? And, if you do, ask yourself whether it is merely intellectual.

Q: Yes, sir, I do see the importance of it; but apparently that is not enough.

PJ: Somehow, there is something we are all missing.

K: Look, Pupul, suppose this person ('K') were not here. How would you deal with this problem of God - how would you actually deal with it without any reference to anybody?
You see, each one of us is totally responsible to answer this question. You have to answer.

PJ: Why should I have to answer?

K: I will tell you why. You have to answer because you are ( an integral) part of ( the total consciousness of) humanity, and humanity is asking (for ages) this (perrenial) question. Every saint, every philosopher, every human being somewhere in his depths is asking this question.

Q: Sir, is not this question ( of wanting to know God?) in a sense, wrong?

K: I said so. But you have to answer it without any reference to what K has said or not said. I come to you with these questions. To me, as a (holistially minded?) human being, these questions are tremendously important.

PJ: May I ask you something? How does one take ( for homework?) a question like this and 'leave it' ( to germinate & unfold ) in ( the silent depths of one's) consciousness?

K: Either, Pupul, you have thought ( for a long time?) about it and gathered tremendous information from books, or you have never thought about this question at all. This may be the first time you’re facing this question, so go slowly, go very slowly.

PJ: You see, sir, you have a (holistic) way of taking a (major existential) question, asking it and, then, remaining with it.

K: Yes, that is right.

PJ: When we ask such a question, there is a (personally motivated ) 'movement' of the mind towards (finding the answer to ) it. With you, when such a question is put, there is no ( such mental) movement.

K: You’re right. Now are you asking ‘how’ to achieve this ( all-inclusive ) state (of mind) ?

PJ: I know that I can’t...

K: No, but you are right to ask that ( experiential) question. I am asking you as a human being, just as other ( holistically minded) human beings have asked for a million years: What is God? I come and put this question to you. Are you ready to answer it ( from your personal experience ) or do you 'hold the question quietly'? Hold it—do you understand? For out of that very ( silent) holding where there is no reaction, no response, comes (unfolds) the answer.

Q: Could you say something about the ( holistic) nature of this (silent) 'holding'?

K: I am talking of a holding that is without any wave, without any motive or movement, a holding that is ( complete in itself) without any trace of trying to find an answer.

Q: We may also try to remain quietly with an unanswered question, but sooner or later an answer comes that may be coming from the 'deep wells' of the unconscious, and that answer rises up to fill that space.

K: I know. Now, just ( a simple in-class example : ) I ask you a question: ''Do you believe in God? '' Can you say, ‘I don’t know’? Or do you immediately say, ‘I don’t believe’ or ‘I believe’ or ‘Maybe there is’ and so on? Can you look at the question—just look—without saying a single thing? Can you? You see, if you ask any devout Christian that question, he will immediately say, ‘Of course I do believe in God’. You will also get an immediate reaction if you were to ask a Hindu—it’s like pressing a button. But (the truth of the matter is that) 'I really don’t know' whether there is God or not.

PJ: Then there is nothing the ( knowledge trained ) mind can do.

Q: Are you saying, sir, that ‘holding’ is something that takes place outside this area (of the known?) ?

K: Of course.

Q: In this 'holding' isn’t there an inquiry?

K: No, you see, if the brain is not programmed (to respond from the field of the known) , it is watching, looking. Now, can our brains be without a programme?

PJ: You see, sir, when a question is normally put to the ( knowledgeable) mind, it is like a grain of sugar being dropped on the ground—ants from all over come (ASAP) towards it. Similarly, when a question is posed, all the movements, all the mental responses are awakened, and gravitate towards the question. Now the question is: Can the question be asked without the movements?

K: Without the (incoming) 'ants', yes. We are talking of the ( temporal) brain that is in constant movement, the energy of which is thought. To quieten ( the mechanistic activity of) thought is 'the' (real) problem. How will you deal with this question? Can you question thought completely? Don’t answer immediately. Look at it; hold it. This is not an scholastic examination. Can you have a ( meditative?) mind that is capable of not reacting immediately to a question? Can there be a delaying reaction, perhaps a holding of the question indefinitely?

( In a nutshell:) Can one have no ( psychological) 'anchors' at all—either in knowledge or in belief? Can I see that they have no ( experiential) meaning whatsoever?
Is that a state of mind that is out of time? Is that a state of real profound meditation—a meditation in which there is no achievement; nothing? The state in which the meditator is not the ground, the origin, of all things.

PJ: So are you saying that the 'meditator' is not the ground?

K: Obviously, he is not.

PJ: Can the ground be without the meditator?

K: If the 'meditator' is in control?) , the Ground is not.

PJ: But can there be meditation without the meditator?

K: I am speaking of a meditation without the ( self-conscious ? ) 'meditator'.
As long as 'I' am trying ( endeavouring to) to meditate, Meditation is not.

PJ: Yes...

K: There is only a brain, a mind, that is in a ( holistic) state of meditation.
And that is the Ground. The ( Intelligent?) Universe is in a state of Meditation. And that is the Ground, that is the ( Creative?) Origin of everything; and ( sharing?) this is only possible when the 'meditator' is not (around?) .

PJ: And that is only possible when there are no ( psychological) anchors (in the known?) …

K: Absolutely. That is when there is absolute freedom from the sorrow (of self-isolation?) . That state of Meditation comes with the complete ending of the 'self' (-identifcation) .

( Parting words : ) You know, Pupul, 'beginning' may be the eternal process, it (Life itself ?) may be an eternal beginning.
You see, the ( experiential ?) question really is whether it is at all possible for the ( meditating) mind , to be completely, utterly, free of the 'meditator' . This is essential—right? The ( self-centred) 'meditator' tries to meditate in order to get somewhere, in order to hide something, or in order to put his life in order. Whichever way you put it—you meditate to put your life in order or you put your life in order and then meditate—it is still the ( ego-centric mental entity ) in operation – as 'meditator' (or as the 'thinker', 'observer', 'experiencer'...) . The question is whether it is possible to be free of this ( 'known'-anchored) 'meditator'. If it is possible, then there would be no question of whether there is God or no God for then that Meditation 'is' ( sharing) the Meditation of the Universe.
Is it possible to be so utterly free (of the psychological anchors in the 'known'?) ? I am asking that question (as life-time homework ?) . Don’t reply; hold it. Let ( this seed of living truth ( germinate, unfold &) operate. In the holding of it, ( a holistically intelligent?) energy is being accumulated and 'that' energy will act—not you. (Long pause)
So, have we understood the 'nature' of God?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 Mar 2019 #156
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

Brain, Insight & Inward Emptiness

'( a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1983)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, is there in the human brain or mind a 'within' of things, an inwardly (open) space without end, and is it a 'mirror image' of the vastness of the vast cosmic space of the physical universe ?

K: Are you asking whether there is or there can be a space without end, an eternity outside time within the human mind or brain? Are we now, in our conversation, ( indulging in) speculating and theorizing, or are we really trying to find out, within ourselves, whether there is something that is immense, whether there is, in actuality, a ( dimension of our own life?) movement which is not of time, but which is eternal?

PJ: How do you start inquiring?

K: By asking the question: Can the brain realize the truth as to whether there is (within itself a consciousness dimension of) eternity or is man bound to time forever?
Can the ( meditating?) brain realize itself in a ( timeless) state of eternity ? This is a ( transcendental?) question that has been asked ( by thoughtful people) for thousands of years. And that is the question we’re asking too.

PJ: And you start (exploring it?) by drawing a distinction between the 'brain' and the 'mind' ?

K: Yes...

PJ: Would you, please, elaborate?

K: First, we are saying that the brain or at least some part of it (the daily active?) is conditioned through its ( past physical & cultural ?) experience. That conditioning is ( manifesting itself in the everyday thinking in terms of?) knowledge and memory. And... as experience, knowledge and memory are limited, thought is limited.

PJ: Yes...

K: Up to now we have been functioning within the (field of the known in terms of time &?) thought. And to discover something 'new' (beyond it?) , there has to be, at least temporarily, a period when ( the self-sustained activity ) thought is not in movement, when thought is in abeyance.

PJ: The (physical) brain is a material thing. It has its own activity.

K: Yes, it has its own ( natural) activity which is not imposed by thought.

PJ: But for centuries the operation of the brain has been ( dominated by ) the ( self-centred ) operation of thought.

K: That is what we are saying, namely that the whole movement of the brain—at least that part of the brain which has been used (for physical survival purposes?) —is conditioned by thought, and thought is always limited and therefore it is conditioned to (live in ) conflict (with the outer & inner environment?) . That ( existential choice?) which is (intrinsically ) limited must create division.

PJ: So much for the 'brain', then is the 'mind' ?

K: The 'mind' is a wholly different dimension (of our consciousness?) which has no contact with thought. The brain—(or rather?) that part of the brain which has been functioning within the field of the known as an instrument of thought—has been (seriously) conditioned, and as long as that part of the brain remains in that state there is no entire communication with the 'mind'. So, when that ( thinking ?) 'conditioning' is not (active) , then that (timeless intelligence of the ) 'mind' which is ( operating) on a totally different dimension, communicates with the brain and acts—using thought (brain's thinking capacity?) .

PJ: So, you’ve already posited a state ( of intelligent consciousness?) which is outside the realm of thought ?

K: That’s right—outside. And, therefore, outside the realm of 'time'.

PJ: So, 'time' seems to be the essential core of this problem ?

K: Time and thought.

PJ: Thought is a product of ( man's material existence in ) time. I mean, in a sense, thought 'is' (indissociable from) time.

K: That’s it, that’s the real point. So, are asking : where do we start ?

PJ: Perhaps we could go (meditatively ) into this whole business of the ( thought generated?) flow of 'time', and figure out at what instant is its 'interception' possible... ?

K: Who 'intercepts' it ?

PJ: I’m not talking of an 'interceptor', but of 'ending' the flow of it. Now, this flow of ( thought&) time' is coming from a past immemorial and is constantly projecting itself into the future.

K: In terms of the human psyche, its future is conditioned by the (subliminally recorded memory of the ) past.

PJ: Yes. So, unless the human being ceases to be...

K: Ceases to be conditioned (by this mechanistic process of memory)... ?

PJ : The content (of man's consciousness?) will undergo a change, but the mechanism of thought will continue.

K: Now, let’s put it this way. Thought is the chief ( 'all purpose' mental) instrument we have (readily available) . Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: Thousands of years of various ( survival oriented individual & collective ?) efforts and actions have not only made this ( mental) instrument ( inwardly unperceptive & ) dull, but ( holistically speaking?) it has reached the 'end of its tether'. Brain's inward activity in terms of ?) 'thought-time' is limited ( by its self-interest?), conditioned, divided, and in a perpetual state of turmoil. Now, can this (pretty sad psychological condition?) end? That’s the (64,000 $) question.

PJ: Now, in this ( thought-sustained ) movement of the past - as the yesterday, today & tomorrow, what is the (experiential) significance of ‘today’?

K: The ‘today’ is the ( updated memory ) of the past modified ( by responding to the challenges of the present ?). We 'are' a bundle of ( pro-active?) memories.

PJ: That is true, but the actual contact with the psychological process of 'time' can be made only in the 'present', isn’t it?

K: Are you asking: What is the ( experiential signification of the?) ‘now’?

PJ: I'm talking about the ‘interception’ ( of the inward movement of 'thought-time' ?) that I’m talking about. Interception in the sense of making a direct contact with the fact.

K: Contact with the fact that the whole movement of thought is ( constantly updating itself in?) the ‘now’.

PJ: A contact ( in real time?) with 'what is'. ( The inward truth of?) your statement just now, and my listening to it, is the contact with ‘what is’.

K: May I put it in the way that I understand it? The ( memory of the?) 'past' (sneaking into?) the 'present' and ( projecting itself into?) the 'future' is a ( subliminal?) movement of time-thought. Now, how do you come to 'see the truth of it', the 'fact' of it?

PJ: Is it similar to like a 'tactile' ( mental) touch ?

K: Yes, how do you 'touch' this thing? How do you—to use your words—come into contact with this fact that I am ( inwardly identified with?) a whole series of ( personal & collective) memories - which are ( projecting themselves as the ) 'time-thought'?

PJ: Let us be more concrete. That I am going away this afternoon, and that I may be leaving you (forever?) is a thought.

K: It’s not a thought; it’s an actuality.

PJ: Actuality, yes; but out of that there is a certain pain of leaving you, in which the emotional, psychological elements come to cover up the ( actual) fact .
So, what is to be contacted? Not the fact that I’m going away...

K: But what?

PJ: But this pain.

K: Is this ( psychologically active memory of the?) pain of a thousand years and centuries—the pain of loneliness, sorrow, grief; the agony, the anxiety and all that—is that separate from the ‘me’ who feels it?

PJ: It may not be separate.

K: It 'is' me. (Emphatic)

PJ: So, how do I 'touch' (or get in direct contact with?) it? It is only in the present that the whole of this edifice rests.

K: That’s what I said. The ‘now’ contains the past, the future and the present.
This is the ( time-bound active ) 'present'. The present is me with all the memories of a thousand years, and those thousand years are being modified all the time. All that is the ‘now’—the present.

PJ: But this 'present' is also something which is not static. It’s over before...

K: Of course, of course. By the moment you’ve said it, it’s gone.

PJ: It’s gone. So what is it that you actually see, what is it that you actually observe?

K: You actually observe the ( inward truth of the?) fact that the ( ''me-in-the -) present'' is the whole movement of time and thought. You, actually, see the truth of that. You have an insight, a ( holistic ?) perception into the fact that the ‘now’ is all time and thought.

PJ: Does that perception emanate from the brain?

K: That perception is an ( inwardly illuminating?) insight which has nothing to do with time and thought.

PJ: But it arises within the (physical) brain?

K: ...or does it (originate?) outside the brain? That is your question, right?

PJ: Yes, and it’s a very important (experiential point) .

K: That’s why I want to be clear. Is it ( occuring) within the sphere of the brain or that ( inward clarity of ) insight 'comes' when ( within the brain) there is ( an inwardly open space of?) freedom from conditioning ( from the 'known'?) , which is the (transcendental ?) operation of the mind?—That is the ( action of?) supreme intelligence, you follow?

PJ: No, I don’t really follow...

K: Let’s be clear. The brain is ( presently ) 'conditioned' ( to think of itself in terms of ?) 'time' ( the self-sustaining process of?) 'time-thought'. As long as that conditioning remains (subliminally active?) ( the inwardly illuminating?) 'insight' is not possible. You may have 'occasional insights' into something, but not pure insight, which means the ( instant, full) comprehension of the totality (or of the wholeness ) of things. That insight is not of 'time-thought', and it is the 'perception of completeness'. Therefore that 'insight' is ( occurring in the unused ? ) part of that brain which is ( capable to operate ) in a different ( time-free ?) dimension.

PJ: Let us take the ( literal meaning of the ) word ‘insight’. It means ‘seeing into’ .

K: (Having an ) 'insight into', or ( having a holistic) 'comprehension of the ( inward) vastness' of something , is possible only when there is a cessation of ( the subliminal process of?) 'thought and time'. (The self-centred mechanism of thought projecting its own continuity in time?) is limited (inwardly 'blind' ???) ; therefore such limitation cannot have ( a holistic ) insight.

PJ: Now, such insight cannot arise without attention.

K: Don’t introduce the ( tradition-loaded ?) word ‘attention’. Stick to the same thing. That is, insight cannot exist as long as 'time-thought' plays ( assumes the all controlling ?) part.

PJ: But you see, even in ( a very holistically friendly ) approach to ( my time-bound ) consciousness, I can’t start with insight. I can only start with observation.

K: You can only start (on the 'right foot'?) by realizing the ( inward) truth ( regarding thought's psychological ) 'time'. Psychological time and thought are always limited. That’s a 'fact'. (Emphatic) So, start from that. Start from the realization that time-thought is always limited ( an inwardly blind mental process ?) and, therefore, whatever it does will always be limited and therefore contradictory, divisive and giving rise to an endless (string of) ( inner & outer) conflicts. That’s all I’m saying. You can see the fact of that.

PJ: You can easier see the 'fact' of that... outside of yourself.

K: You can see it politically, religiously. All through the world it is a fact that time and thought, in their activity, have wrought havoc in the world. That’s a fact.

PJ: Yes, yes.

K: So, now the question is: Can ( the inward causation of ) this limitation ever end or is man condemned, forever, to live within the 'time-thought' area (within the field of the 'known'?) ?

PJ: How does one see the (inward truth of the?) fact that 'time-thought' is limited? And what exactly does it mean?? It’s like telling me that ( psychologically speaking?) I am an illusion.

K: No, I didn’t say that. You are not an illusion.

PJ: No sir, but it amounts to that, the moment you say, ‘After all, one is a psychologically (active) bundle of ( memories of?) the past, a psychological movement of time and thought which is the 'psyche', and this ( time-bound human?) 'psyche' is limited’...

K: Yes, it is limited, and whatever it does is limited.

PJ: Then, I would ask: What’s wrong with it being limited?

K: There is nothing wrong if you want to live in a perpetual (state of inner) conflict.

PJ: Now, a move further. To 'end' it is not enough to say, or to feel, that it is limited, but there must be an actual 'ending' to it (to the 'time-though' process)

K: I say that there is.

PJ: What is the nature of this ( psychological) 'ending'?

K: I must be clear that we both understand the same thing when we use the words—‘to end something’. To end ( the inward causation of?) 'attachment'. Not to (being attached to) this or that. To put an end to it. The 'ending'.

PJ: The flow ceases to flow ?

K: Yes, if you like; yes. The movement of 'thought and time' ceases—inwardly. What is your difficulty? You are making a ( holistically?) simple thing ( to look) terribly complex.

PJ: No, sir, there is a 'point of perception', a point of insight. In what dimension of time-space do I see it?

K: Look, Pupul, let’s be simple. Outwardly, ( the ego-centric process of?) 'time-thought' has divided the world: politically, geographically, religiously. That’s a fact. Can’t you see the fact?

PJ: When I look at the outside world I can see (the ongoing divisions & conflicts?) But
I don’t see the ( inward truth of this?) fact.

K: What do you mean ‘I don’t see the fact’?

PJ: Because if I really saw the fact...

K: ... you would stop that kind of thing ?

PJ: It would be all over.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: I don’t think it is such a simple thing, because it has such devious ways...

K: (Emphatic) That’s the whole point. If you have an 'insight' that the movement of thought-time is divisive—at whatever level, in whatever realm, in whatever area—that it is a movement of endless conflict...

PJ: Yes, you can see it very clearly when it’s a matter outside you.

K: Now, can you see this movement outside, can you see what it does in the world, what misery it has caused in the world? The inward movement ( of thought-time) has created that. Holistically ( sooo?) simple ! The divisive psychological movement has created the external 'facts ' . I am a Hindu. I am a German. I feel (inwardly pretty) secure in the feeling that I 'belong' to something.

PJ: You see, Krishnaji, I would say that all these—being a 'Hindu' or being 'greedy'—one has seen as a product of this movement of time-thought.

K: That’s all I’m saying.

PJ: But it’s not quite sufficient

K: What is your difficulty?

PJ: There is, within it all ( this time-thought psychological continuity) , the (very realistic ) sense that ‘I exist’.

K: That’s the whole point ( left for optional meditation homework:) . You don’t realize that the psyche 'is' ( subliminally identified with ? ) that.

PJ: Yes, that’s essentially the nature of the problem.

K: Why don’t you (see the inward truth of it 'now'?) ? Because you think that ( the Soul or the ?) 'Psyche' is something other than a conditioned state. You think (assume?) that there is something in you—in the brain or in the mind?) —which is timeless and that if only you can reach that, everything will be all right. That’s part of your conditioning. Because you are uncertain, because you are confused, God or the highest principle or some kind of conviction gives you safety, protection, certainty. That’s all.

PJ: What is the nature of the Ground from which a (total) insight springs?

K: I’ve told you. Insight can only take place when there is freedom from 'time and thought'.

PJ: Time and thought. But it seems an unending process .

K: No. It is not. You are complicating a very ( holistically?) simple fact, as most of us do. To live in peace (with oneself & with the whole universe ?) is to flower (in Goodness) ; it is to understand the extraordinary world of peace. Peace cannot be brought about by thought.

PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, it is the ( thought addicted?) ) brain itself which listens to that statement.

K: Yes, it really listens, then what happens? If it listens, it’s ( ASAP getting inwardly) quiet. It isn’t ruminating. It’s not going on rattling. It’s quiet.

PJ: Yes, it’s quiet.

K: When it really, actually, 'listens', and there is ( a state of meditative ) quietness that is not induced, then there is insight. I don’t have to explain in ten different ways the ( time-binding) limitation of thought. It is so.

PJ: I see what you are saying. Is there anything further than that (in meditation?) ?

K: Oh yes, there is a great deal more. Which is: if you want to convey to me something much more than the ( verbal meaning of the ) words. If the words are making a ( mental) sound in my hearing, I cannot deeply understand the depth of what you are saying.
I want to go back what we started with, namely, the 'present'. The present is the ‘now’. The ( time-bound) ‘now’ is the whole movement of time-thought. But if this ( mentally active) structure of 'time and thought' ends, the ‘Now’ has a totally different meaning. The ‘now’ then is (containing) no-thing. And ( this state of inward ) 'nothing'-ness contains all. Right?

PJ: Yes.... ?

K: But we are afraid to be ( inwardly as) 'nothing'.

PJ: When you say that ( this inward no-thingness ) ‘contains the all’, do you mean that it is the essence of all humanity, the environment, nature and...

K: Yes, yes. There is 'not-a-thing'. The ( temporal) 'psyche' is a bundle of memories, and those memories are the outcome of past experiences, which are ( dead & ) gone.
I am a 'movement of memories'. Now, if I have a ( timeless ) 'insight' that ( inwardly) there is no-'thing', then ‘I’ ( the time-bound consciousness?) don’t exist.

PJ: You said something about sound and listening.

K: Yes, when the brain is absolutely quiet, there is no 'sound' (no mental reverberation?) made by the word. That is real listening.

PJ: But generally the brain is (mentally) active in listening.

K: Yes, but when it is active, it is (generating its own mental ) noise. Let’s come back to this business of 'sound', because it’s very interesting. What is sound? Sound—( the pure listening to) sound—can only exist when there is ( free inner) space and silence. Otherwise it’s just noise.

....(Intermission)....

K: I’d like to come back to the ( inwardly observable?) 'fact' that all one’s education, all one’s past experience and knowledge, is a movement in ( terms of temporal) becoming—both inwardly and outwardly. ( Inwardly, the activity of ?) becoming is ( expressing itself as an indiscriminate?) accumulation of memory—more and more and more memories which ( after being mentally processed?) constitute ( the whole field of human ) knowledge. Now, as long as that 'movement' (mental activity within the 'known') exists, there is (a colateral ?) fear of being (inwardly left with ) 'nothing'. But when one has an 'insight' that ( inwardly) there is no-thing , when one really sees the illusion of psychological becoming—which is an endless ( process of) time-thought and conflict—then there is an ending of that movement which is the 'psyche' (the temporal 'self'?) , which is time-thought.
The 'ending' of that ( self-centred continuity?) is to be ( inwardly 'as?) nothing'. ( This open-ended state of inward) 'no-thingness' then contains in it the ( Intelligent Consciousness of the?) whole Universe—not my petty little fears, petty little anxieties and problems, and my sorrow with regard to dozens (or...hundreds?) of things. After all, Pupulji, ‘no-thing’ means the entire world of compassion. Compassion is no-thing (not of material nature ?) . And, therefore, that (inner state of ?) 'no-thingness' is the supreme intelligence. That’s all there is.

PJ: Yes... ?

K: So (to recap:) why are the human beings frightened of being ( inwardly 'as?) nothing', frightened to see that (inwardly) they really 'are' (strongly attached to ) verbal illusions, that they are nothing but ( constantly ressucitated) ) 'dead' memories? That’s a fact. I don’t like to think I’m just nothing but memories, but the truth is that I 'am' ( or my temporal consciousness 'is' a self-sustained compound of personal & collective ?) memories.

Now, I have no (particular attachments to this ?) 'memory', I can understand the whole movement of memory, which is ( holistically termed ?) 'time-thought' , and see the ( truth of the) fact that as long as this movement is (in command) , there must be ( a residual ) endless conflict, struggle, pain. When there is a (comprehensive) 'insight' into all that, the state of (inward) 'no-thing'ness means something entirely different. That ‘nothing’ is the ( Eternal) Present, and it’s not a ‘varying’ present.

PJ: Not a 'varying present'.. ?

K: It isn’t that one day it’s this, and the next day it is different. That ( state of inward) 'no-thing'- ness ' (not being identified with anything inwardly ?) is timeless . Therefore it’s not ending one day, and being another day. You see, Pupul, that after all is ( the ) real Meditation. That’s what '??nya' ( the Inner Void?) means in Sanskrit. We have interpreted it in a hundred different ways; we have commentaries about this and that. But the actual fact is that ( psychologically- wise) we are ‘nothing’ except ( nice sounding) words, personal opinions and (lots of personal & collective ?) judgements. ( As a result...) we’ve made our ( inner) lives 'petty'.
So, ( for optional homework?) we have to understand (experientially ?) , that in ( being inwardly 'as?) nothing', is contained all the (compassionate responsability for the ) world—not the pain and the anxiety which are all so small. Of course, when I’m ( totally immersed in my personal ) suffering, that’s the only thing I see , but I don’t realize that it is such a petty little thing.

So, having listened to all this, what is your comprehension? What is it you realize? If you could put it into words, Pupul, it would be rather good. What is it that you, and those who are going to listen to all this, what do you capture, realize? Do you see the immensity of all this?

PJ: It’s really an ending of the psychological nature of the 'self'...

K: Yes.

PJ: Because this ( self-centred entity is involved in its own ) 'becoming'.

K: Wait a minute, Pupulji. As you have listened to all this, what have you realized? Do you say, ‘By Jove, I’ve got it ! I’ve got the ( holistic?) perfume of it’?

PJ: Sir, don’t ask me that question. As you were speaking there was (that sense of ) Immensity.

K: Yes.There was (the Presence of?) That. I could feel it, you could. There was the tension of that, but is it temporary—for the moment, for a second—and it’s gone, and then is there once again the whole business of recapturing or inviting it?

PJ: No, no. One has 'moved' (on) from there, but I do realise that the most difficult thing in the world is to be totally simple (inwardly) .

K: Yes. To be ( inwardly) 'simple'—that’s right. If one is really simple (free of the anchorage in the known) ?) , one can understand the enormous complexity of things. But if we start with all the ( knowledge of ) complexities we never ( get to) see the simplicity. We have trained ( schooled?) our brains to see ( all the details of the outer life ) complexity, and then try to find an answer to the complexity. But we don’t see the extraordinary simplicity of the actual 'facts' of life.

PJ: May I (ask you a bonus squestion?) ?

K: Yes please do; I’m glad.

PJ: In the Indian tradition, out of Sound were born all the elements. There is the sound which reverberates, and is yet not heard.

K: That’s it. There is ( the Silent Sound of ) that state of 'no-thingness', in which, as they said, you must deny the whole thing.

PJ: Yes, every ( mental) movement of the brain cell as we...

K: Yes, it is there in the books; it is there in the ancient Hindu tradition. Now, why haven’t they pursued that (spiritual thread) by denying, not the ( total consciousness of the ) world but the (time-bound consciousness of the ) ‘me’? They have not totally negated the ( psychological continuity of the?) ‘me’. What they have done is to deny the ( reality of the outer) world and ended up only making a mess of their own lives.

PJ: Sir, ( the inward meaning of ) renunciation is the negation of the ‘me’. So, basically, renunciation is never in the outer (world)

K: Yes, never 'outside' but 'inside'—which means what? Don’t be ( mentally?) attached—even to the Highest Principle. Don’t be attached even to the loincloth. I think what is happening is that we are really ( getting) caught in a complex mental network of ( nice sounding?) words, in theories, and not living in 'actuality'. ( If the actual inner fact is that?) I suffer, I must find a way to 'end' this ( sad existential condition ?) , and not escape into some kind of silly illusion. Why have human beings not faced the fact, but tried to ( conveniently modify?) the fact? Is it because we are living in ( a mental space built on ) illusions, with ideas and conclusions and all those unrealities? All this is so obvious.

PJ: We are living with the history of mankind. That is the history of mankind.

K: Yes, mankind 'is' me, and the ‘me’ ( 'my' time-bound consciousness?) is ( perpetuating) this endless misery. So, if you want to end ( mankind's psychologicall) misery, end the ‘me’. ( Hint:) The ending of ‘me’ is not an action of will-power.

PJ: It’s really the 'ending of time', isn’t it, sir?

K: Yes, the ending of 'time-thought'. That means to 'listen' without the (verbally induced) sound . Listen to the ( Silent harmony of the whole ?) Universe without a sound....

PJ: What is 'sound' to you, sir?

K: Sound is the ( life-vibration of the ) tree. Take music. Pure Indian chanting, Rig Vedic chanting or the Gregorian chants—they are extraordinarily close together. Then, you listen to the sound of the waves, the sound of strong wind among the trees, the sound of the person whom you have lived with for many years; if you don’t just 'get used' to all this, then ( listening to ) Sound has an extraordinary meaning. Then you hear everything afresh.
Say, for instance, you tell me (share the the total insight ?) that ''' Time-thought' is the whole movement of man’s life - which is limited''. Now, you have communicated to me ( the holistic truth of ) a simple fact, and (if???) I can listen to it without the ( superficial ) sound of the words, I’ve captured the (inward truth ) of that ( holistic ) statement ; then, I can’t lose it. It isn’t that I’ve heard it now, and it’s gone( with the wind?) when I go outside. I’ve 'listened' to it in its entirety. That means, the sound has conveyed the ( inward truth of that ) fact, that it is 'absolutely so' . And 'what is so' ( the Truth?) is absolute—always. I believe that in the Hebraic tradition only the Nameless One- can say ‘I am’. ( Same as) Tat tvam asi ( Thou Art That ) in Sanskrit.
We were talking the other day, in New York, to a ( Science ) doctor who said, ‘All these (holistically friendly ?) questions are all right, but the fundamental issue is whether the brain cells—which have been conditioned for centuries—can really bring about a mutation in themselves ? Then the whole thing would be simple’. And I said, ‘It’s possible ( but...) only through 'insight' ’, and then we went into it as we’ve gone into it now. But (apparently ?) nobody is 'willing to listen' to all this, in its 'entirety'. They listen ( selectively?) partially. They 'agree' (intellectually and/or emotionally?) , in the sense, they go together up to a certain point (where their 'self'( consciousness) feels challenged personally ? ) and stop there.

( Parting words:) If ( a holistically minded) man really would says, ‘There must be peace in the world, therefore, I must live peacefully’, then ( sooner or later?) there will be Peace in the world. But he—(the time-bound) man—doesn’t ( really) want to live in peace. He does everything that is the 'opposite' of that - continues with his ambition, his arrogance, his petty fears and all that. So, we have reduced the Vastness of all this (Field of Existence ) to ( a very intricated network of ) petty (egocentric ) reactions. Do you realize Pupul that we live such petty lives ? This applies to everyone—from the highest to the lowest.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 30 Mar 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 Mar 2019 #157
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

A holistic approach to reading the Book of Oneself

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1982)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, yesterday you spoke (metaphorically?) of 'Reading the book of oneself', which 'is' (essentially ?) the Book of Mankind. Now, this 'book of oneself' is never complete : as you are reading it, you are creating it. In the very observing of something, the future is also being created. And there are one or two (experiential) questions which have to be clarified : First: What is there to be 'read'? And the second: 'What is the instrument with which we read that Book?''

KRISHNAMURTI (K): The whole history of man for forty thousand years or more is part of our (collective ?) consciousness; it is part of our story. The whole movement of 'man-in-time' is ( enfolded) in the ( psychological ?) background of every human being. Once we see this 'fact' , we can start (reading the Book ) from here. Unless we are clear about this, how can we read this immense and complicated book of self-knowledge ?

PJ: Obviously the human heritage is my heritage. All that has taken place, all the ideas that have formed in the human brain, in fact, the whole development of the human race is common to all of mankind.

K: Pupul. most people have not thought seriously about this. And even if they had, I doubt whether they would see the ( inward truth ?) of this fact. But if a few of us see the truth that we carry—all the time—( the psychological burden of?) this vast (cultural) heritage, then we can proceed. ( Hint:) we should 'see the (inward) truth of it', not ( indulge in ?) the intellectual argumentation of it.

ACHYUT PATWARDHAN (AP): You see, sir, when I say that ( consciousness-wise) I am the inheritor of all the ( psychological) heritage of mankind , it is not the result of a sequential thought process.

K: Do you as a ( holistically minded?) human being who has studied the history of the world, see the truth that you are the result of the whole of human heritage? Do you see that you 'are' (actually not separated from) this vast and complex ''book of the story of man''? Do you 'see' it as a ( true inner ?) fact?

AP: If it is (seen ) in (with?) my whole being, then it is a totality.

K: It is so. So, if we three, at least, see the ( inward?) truth of it, we can proceed from here.

PJ: It is as much a truth as the fact that the human body has evolved. Let me put it this way: it is a universal phenomenon. To that extent, I accept that I 'am' ( responsible for all this ) human heritage.

K: Right. In 'me' (in my self-centred consciousness?) abides the whole story of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, and so on. This vast story 'is' me. Now, we can proceed to the second (experiential) question: ''What is the instrument with which we read that book?''

PJ: But even before we talk about the 'instrument' with which we read the book, what are we ( supposed to) read? We have to be clear about the nature of this ( very dynamic content of?) ‘what is’ which we have talked about for years...

K: As you are reading it, it is 'moving' (on) .

PJ: Yes. As I read it (or...choose to ignore it ?) the 'future' is projected.

K: Let us be clear by what we mean by this ( time-bound) ‘future’. The future is the past modifying itself in the present and going on to the future. So the ( self-centred memory of the?) past becomes the ( updated & upgraded self-centred memory of the?) future.

PJ: The very thought that arises now, contains in it the germ of the 'future'.
But first of all we have to be clear what is the nature of this 'what is' which we have talked about.

K: (If consciousness-wise?) I 'am' the totality of mankind, (the holistically friendly approach is to consider ) this consciousness, not as 'mine', but as the consciousness of man which is the (compounded result of all mankind's evolutionary ) 'past'. It is not 'your' ( personal) consciousness .

PJ: The moment you are 'reading' the ( whole) consciousness of man the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.

K: A total change. Agreed. But if one is under the ( very realistic?) illusion that this consciousness is ( only) 'mine', separate from every other consciousness - which most people (like to ) believe, then we are moving (along) two different directions.

PJ: But there seems an (intellectual) trap there : if is we say we are the history of mankind but when we start investigating by objectively looking at the history of man, you would read it one way, that book. If it was ( scholarly detailed ) in twelve encyclopaedias you would read it one way.
But the moment you see it as (a living story) which sprouts within my consciousness immediately, my response to it is of a totally different nature.

K: That's is what I was coming to - if one sees that the consciousness which exists in me 'is' the ( shared) consciousness of all ( past, present & future?) human beings - if you accept (or...see the inward truth of) that, then our whole activity of perception changes. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: So, do I regard this consciousness as 'mine', as my private property ?

PJ: I would say that consciousness of mankind is revealed on my private ground.

K: All right, I'll go along with that. But I mustn't insist that it's mine.

PJ: The only thing which I can come with you so far is to say that what is revealed (within myself) is not unique to me. It is part of the total consciousness of man.

K: But.. ?

PJ: But it is revealed within my ( private?) ground.

K: Are you saying that in the investigation of my consciousness, which I had thought to be separate from everybody else, in that investigation there is the discovery that what I have called 'my' consciousness, is not my private ground, but it is the consciousness which is the rest of mankind ?

PJ: But you see, the (first observation of ) the arising in consciousness of (for instance , one's existential ) loneliness and the ( objective) observing of this sens of loneliness doesn't (necessarily) bring in the other (holistically friendly ) factor that it is the loneliness of mankind. It is 'loneliness'.

K: In investigating the sorrow of my (personal) loneliness, which I have been scrupulously taking in my private ground, there is the ( holistically-open?) discovery that it is ( shared by all ) the rest of man(kind) . All men are ( sometimes or other feeling ?) lonely, all people suffer. The ( holistic) discovery that it is (shared by) the whole of mankind is an enormous perception.

PJ: What brings that perception about? Let us take it minutely through a microscope. Loneliness arises, or sorrow arises: there is an (ongoing) observing of that 'sorrow of loneliness' . What brings in the ( holistic) element that is not the observation of my petty sorrow, but that one is observing of the sorrow of all mankind ?

K: Look, Pupulji, wherever you go this factor is there: loneliness and sorrow are linked together. Go to America, it is there, in Europe it is there, in China, Russia, India, anywhere you go this factor is shared by all of us. To realize that, or even to admit to oneself how extraordinary is this thing is shared by all of us, is a great change has already taken place ( in the observer's consciousness ?). Right?

PJ: Yes. Can we proceed. I still go back to these two things. One is with what instrument...

K: I'm coming to that a little later.

PJ: And the other was : what is it that has to be observed?

K: ( For starters?) one can observe loneliness, sorrow, they are synonymous those two.

PJ: Which are emotional responses to a ( critical ) situation.

K: To a crisis.

PJ: To a crisis, to a situation. I suddenly have a feeling of shrinking, a feeling...

K: Yes. A feeling of some great loss.

PJ: And I look.

K: No, no. It is not 'you'  ( that) looks.

PJ: That's what I wanted to come to.

K: Suppose one has lost a great friend, a person whom you loved ; what has actually taken place there? The ending of all 'your' relationship with that person. And suddenly realizing how utterly lonely you are (now) because that has been the only relationship that has meant something. And suddenly that has gone. And there is the sense of ( a great personal) loss. Either I remain with it, without letting ( my self-centred) thinking or any other feelings interfere with that state, or I try to 'escape' from its (pain) by suppressing or analysing it. ( In the first case?) I can suddenly discover that with the loss of that person, or with the loss of some profound concept which I have held most dear, suddenly that ( this self-rewarding relationship ) has been shattered. And then I realize what an extraordinary state of mind (happens when) that ( thought-projected continuity) has come to an end. Right? Come to an ending without any 'future'. Now can this mind remain ( holistically?) with that 'fact'? Not as a (separate) 'observer' observing the 'fact', but without any division between the observer and the thing he is observing. He 'is' the suffering and he 'is' that ending. It's like an (uncut?) jewel that you are holding and looking at. But... the moment you want to part with it you have entered into into a different state altogether.

PJ: I understand.

K: So, (back to the original question) all the history of mankind is (holistically enfolded in ? ) my history - a most extraordinary book which has not been written, there is no chapter, first or tenth chapter, there are no paragraphs, it is a tremendous ( self-unfolding ) movement (of Life) . Right?

PJ: Can the human mind, or any mind contain the enormity of it?

K: We must begin here. What is the 'mind' (that is capable to read this book of mankind) - may I go into ( differentiating ) what is the mind and what is the brain? Please question as we go along. The human brain has an infinite capacity (to invent new stuff?) . Look what it has done in the technological world, something incredible. But psychologically it has been conditioned through its own evolution in 'time'. And because it has not moved (inwardly) , it has not flowered, it is conditioned, it is limited. And the 'mind' is not limited.

PJ: When you talk (so 'holistically' of the?) 'mind', you speak of what?

K: This is difficult. I'll go into it. The whole – the ( Intelligent ) Mind of the universe, the ( Intelligent ) Mind of Nature, you follow, everything that has been created and is creating is the 'movement of ( an Universally Creative) Mind'. Therefore there is no limit to Creation...

AP: Are you suggesting, sir, that when we say that 'I am the entire heritage of man', it is not the brain that can take in this fact?

K: It is the brain that takes in the (verbal description of the ) fact because I have communicated through words, through thought, and you are looking at it through thought and through words, therefore the communication is verbal and thought. Sir, don't let's go back to that for the moment.

AP: I am trying to pin myself down to this fact that at present whatever I understand I understand through the brain.

K: Ah!

PJ: You see he (K) has moved to another dimension of thought altogether, which if I understand it properly is this: the brain has done tremendous things in the field of technology, psychologically it is static. The reading of the book...

K: Yes, that's the whole point.

PJ: ...of mankind - I asked a question, can a single brain contain it, and you came to the brain and the mind. That the brain being limited and not having moved can only move within its own circle (of accumulated knowledge) . The Mind being the very source of Creation, has no ( such) limits.

K: That's right.

PJ: But when you talk of ( an Universally Intelligent ) Mind it is all that is created and in the process of creating...

K: Yes. That is, Pupil, let's be clear on this point. We are saying that as long as the human brain is conditioned ( to function in its familiar 'self'-protective mode?) it can never understand the Immensity of the nature of the Mind. Right?

PJ: Yes.

K: If you see (the inward truth of ) this , ( your holistic) responsibility then is to uncondition the brain, uncondition the ( self-centred) limitation which thought has imposed upon it. ( Finally...?) I've got it!

PJ: Sir, is it a question of of unconditioning the brain which is conditioned (by its own karmic past?) and cannot move out of its groove, or is it a matter of ( the 'mind' ) ending the (time binding activity ) movement of the brain?

K: It comes to the same thing.

PJ: No, sir. The ( totally insightful) perception is (occurring) in the mind itself. So, is it a matter of (meditatively?) hold the brain in abeyance so that the ( insightful) perception which is ( originating in ) the mind can operate?

K: You are putting in modern language what the old traditions say, 'there is in me ( a transcendental spark of) God. There is in me some element which is not contaminated, which ( once awakened?) then operates on that (time-binding conditioning)

PJ: But as you have drawn the difference between 'brain' and 'mind', you have drawn the distinction between the conditioned and the non-conditioned.

K: Wait a minute. I said we must differentiate the two meanings of the words. And I say that the ( thinking) brain which is limited (inwardly ) cannot understand what the the 'mind' is. It can only apprehend, be aware of it, when there is no ( further interference of its past) conditioning.

PJ: But you went further. In speaking of the ( Intelligent) Mind of the Universe ….

K: Later. I shouldn't have spoken (explicitly about That?) .

PJ: But you have spoken.

K: I know, unfortunately. Because as a matter of fact Dr Bohm and a few others, we were discussing the very same matter.
Let's leave the Universal Mind alone for the moment. When you once see what extraordinary capacity the brain has, in the technological, scientific, communication world, surgery, etc, it is incredible what is going on, which is the activity of thought. Thought is limited (to function in terms of its previously accumulated) knowledge) Now can thought (the thoughtful brain) ever be free from its ( self-enclosing) limitations? Thought can never be free from its limitation because it is born out of limitation. I don't know if you would see this.

PJ: May I ask a ( bonus?) question? What is the distinction between 'thought' and the 'brain'?

K: Thought is the ( time-binding) activity of the brain.

PJ: Is there anything else in the human brain apart from thought?

K: I won't fall into that trap! You are now going back to the old...

PJ: No, sir, I am not. If you accept that the brain has this tremendous potential...

K: And we are only using a very, very small part.

PJ: Obviously. Even at the ordinary level, if you could do with the psyche what you have done with technology...

K: That's all I am saying. Then the (Intelligent Mind of the?) universe is open to you. I am saying that then the brain 'is' (working in harmony with ) the mind when it is totally free (of its self-divisive mentality) . Then there is no sense of division, it is the sense of whole, completeness, wholeness. That's all. You understand what I am saying?

PJ: I understand. Now if I may go further. If the brain has had that thrust, that drive, that insight, the energy to pursue technology, why is it...

K: ...that it hasn't turned the other way?

PJ: ...that they go up into space and are prepared to disintegration.

K: No, there is a great deal behind it: national pride, hero, praise by the country. They are not prepared to die, they have been propagandized to die in the name of your country: or in the name of god, in the name of the saviour, what they have done, burnt people, tortured people.

PJ: No, you are not answering what I am saying. What is that element which enabled man, gave him the curiosity, curiosity to drive in the other direction?

K: I think our ( materialistic) education is responsible for it. Because we have all emphasized, every culture, except perhaps a few dead cultures, that you must earn a livelihood, work, work, work. And to do that study, you know, memorize, repeat, repeat, repeat. That's all we do (on a regular basis?)

AP: Even among the scientists, there are only a few who go to the impossible question.

K: What we are saying is very simple, sir. The brain has extraordinary capacity and it has done extraordinary things (in the material world) . But 'psychically' it has not moved an inch after all these forty thousand years. Now if there is a 'breakthrough' of that cycle then there is no division between the 'mind' and the (living ) energy of the brain. You understand? This (very enthusiastic inventive ) energy of the brain has created all the technological world.

PJ: Yes, but it has never been released for this (inward search) .

K: For the 'other' (for releasing an inwardly open intelligence) .

AP: I think the word 'energy' is much better than the word motivation because it is the (inner ) energy of attention.

K: No, sir, don't say 'attention', just ( brain's intelligent ?) 'energy' for the moment. Psychologically my (inwardly available free ) energy is practically nil. But I am saying that when ( the brain's ego-centric ) limitation has been broken through, then there is ( an awakening of?) a totally different ( intelligent?) energy, which now is channelled through technology which is merely the activity of thought, and therefore that energy is limited.

AP: I am making a very simple statement regarding ( the breaking through of ) the limitations of thought : I say that man has within him an energy which can transcend the limits of thought, and that is the energy of attention.

K: No. Don't (assume it?) .

AP: We must feel that we have a faculty other than thought to pursue the mind.

K: No, I won't accept that. You are introducing again the same old pattern (concept) which is there is a faculty which is hidden, which is the energy of God, or whatever you like to call it.

AP: I am saying that when I am really looking at the tree, this is just plain 'attention'.

K: No, it is ( brain's natural?) energy. Man has used ( extensively) the energy of thought in ( in the field of practical life & ) technology. It is the energy of thought, therefore limited. Now the breaking down of the ( inward limitations of the?) psyche is not the energy of thought.

AP: Agreed. That's obvious.

K: Ah, no, sir, it is not ( so) 'obvious'...

PJ: Let us examine the (perceptive) instruments that man has ( free access ) : One is thought. The others are the senses themselves.

K: The sensitivity of the senses ?

PJ: Yes.

K: The sensitivity of the senses and thought are both the same.

PJ: How are they the same?

K: I'll show it to you in a minute. ( The natural responses of ) our senses are now shaped, controlled by thought. That is, my sense of taste, if I like it, thought comes in. Or other thought comes in and says, 'Look, be careful, that is painful, don't go through there'. Now is there an (integrated ) movement of all the senses, of one's total sensitivity , without the interference of thought? Just look at the ( experiential aspect of the ) question first before you throw it out or accept it. Have you ever looked with all your senses at the movement of the sea - the vast movement of the tides, the beauty of the waves, the enormous power of the waves ? In this ( intensity of looking?) there is no (place for the ) interference of thought. Now, when thought interferes with the senses it must inevitably limit it or control it.

PJ: I'm not wanting to argue with what you have said just now. There is a challenge, and my senses respond according to the conditioning of the mind, but there is a response of the senses...

K: Partial, always partial because thought is always watching, controlling it, trying to say, 'I must', 'I must not', 'This is wrong', 'That is right'.

PJ: Yes, but there can be a state of sensitivity when the senses do not operate from thought ; when they do not contain thought, the place of operation changes.

K: That's right. When the senses are observing completely, heightened senses, and when you look at the movement - I am taking purposefully the seeing - or one of those extraordinary sights of the Himalayas, when there is not a cloud, the sky line of the hills against the blue, is an extraordinary sight. When you look at the sea completely that way there is no centre, there is no thought. Right? The moment thought comes in there is a centre (of self-interest ) in the senses. Right?

PJ: We are part of thought, we are part of the senses. Is there a third movement?

K: Yes, that's the whole point. Is there an action, a movement, a state (of being) which is not ( controlled by ) the movement of thought? When you observe the sea with all your senses, the senses are not aware that they are heightened. I wonder if I have made myself clear : anything that is ( functioning ) excellently is not aware of its own excellency. Goodness in the highest sense, has no sense of (itself as ) being good.

PJ: You see, you are taking the essence of all thought, the essence of all senses, and it is this essence itself then is the ( new, holistically perceptive) instrument.

K: I understand what you are saying, but first of all I would like to get this clear between ourselves : When there is the heightened excellency of the ( holistic integration of the ) senses, the senses are not "aware that they are aware". This awareness (of their excellent?) functioning comes when thought comes in (& takes full control)

PJ: It has already gone.

K: Now when thought is ( becoming fully) aware of its own tremendous limitation, then it has broken through.

PJ: What about the new perceptive instrument for reading read the story of mankind ?

K: I will tell you. The ( living) story of mankind is an endless movement. It had no beginning and it has no ending. But my brain being limited ( unable to see inwardly) is looking for ( its happy?) ending. Right? So I am approaching the book with ( the subliminal desire to find ?) 'where is the end of all this (book reading ) ?'

PJ: The search is for its ending.

K: Of course, of course. But to realize ( the profound existential truth that life ) has no (beginning & no) ending, you enter into something (of a timeless nature ) called Love. Love has no ending. So, if you have come to that point....there is no Book ( left ) to read.

PJ: And without coming to that point... ?

K: You merely examine, analyse, change the chips (& place your bets?) in the same field (of the known) .

( Parting words:) When you have come to this really deep point that the (Living) Book of Mankind has no ending and no beginning, you 'are' that Book. Not that 'you' (the self-centred entity ?) become eternal, but (in joining) this ( timeless?) Movement (of Creation) which has no beginning & no ending, (the human mind?) is then (becoming one with the Mind of?) the Universe. Then this whole thing is ( the Universal Order of the?) Cosmos.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 01 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Apr 2019 #158
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

The Unfolding of the K Teachings

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue cca 1978)

PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I have heard you for thirty years and I feel that through these years there has been an 'unfolding movement' in (K's holistic ) Teaching. In 1948 you were very concerned with the problem of (integrating?) the 'thinker' (with its) 'thought', with ( a real-time) approach to) self-knowledge - the observation of one thought as it arises in consciousness, the pursuance of that thought to its end, the pursuance of another thought that intervenes, and you went on to say that the ending of thought was ( opening the door to an authentic inner) silence.
Today, you hardly speak of the (experiential necessity to integrate the?) 'thinker' and its 'thought'. You speak of a holistic seeing (aka : insight?) , which appears to wipe out the need for all the rest. My question is: Has your Teaching moved (or evolved) from what it was then to what it is today, or is it only a deepening of the Teaching? Do you think that one can arrive at the new holistic position (one 'total insight' does it?) without going through the whole process of observation and self-knowing? For you see, sir, you no longer take the person by the hand and enter into the process (of self-knowing) . I would like to know ( from the horse's mouth ? ) whether you have turned away from the earlier position.

J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): I think the word ‘unfolding’ is correct. You see, the questioning is (going ) in the same direction. It is a widening, a deepening and, as you said, it has become a ‘holistic’ position, rather than a going minutely into detail as we did, if I remember rightly, and from what you say, thirty years ago. The (K) Teaching is now more direct, ( holistically) simple and comprehensive. Would you accept that?

PJ: Sir, this may be from your point of view, but what about the ( newcomer) person who 'listens' to you (& reads or watches a video) for the first time ? Is it possible, without going through the ( vast labyrinth of traditional self-knowledge ?) , to immediately 'jump' (out of the 'field of the known' ?) ?

K: Yes.

PJ: The query is: Can a person who has not observed in his/her consciousness the ( process of thought projecting its own continuity in ?) time as ( psychological) becoming and who is not familiar with the process of becoming, suddenly leap from this state of ( self-centred) becoming—a (psychological condition ) of whose implications he is totally unaware of—into the 'Other'?

K: Obviously not.

PJ: Then we are back ( to square one ?) where we were (30+ years ago ?) .

K: Not quite. Could we begin from (what we are ?) today and look back to yesterday? That is, could we look not from ( the mentality of ) yesterday to today, but from today to yesterday? Could we do that?

PJ: But, a person like me actually had a 'yesterday'.

K: Yes, but you are looking at yesterday with a different mind, with a different (perceptive quality?) which you hadn’t yesterday ?

PJ: I agree, sir, but my point is that ( inwardly speaking) I cannot 'be' ( totally awake?) today.

K: You cannot 'be' today (at 100%) , obviously. But I did not introduce the ( absolute requirement of) 'not having a yesterday'. You carried on a little further. Let's proceed slowly : would you say from the position of today that there has been a change when you look back to thirty years ago? I am only asking you this (roundabout question?) in order to find out how you look at the past from your position today, and not in order to 'catch you' out. You see, I think it is an (experientially ) valid question. (Long pause)

PJ: Yes, I will answer it : basically there is no change.

K: Why do you say that?

PJ: Because inbuilt into this (new concept of) 'holistic seeing' is the seeing and listening to which I came to yesterday. The 'holistic seeing', or the ( mental) immobility that you speak about now, holds all that.

K: The 'present' holds the entirety of the past.

PJ: It holds the totality (of time?)

K: So, when you look from today to yesterday, you are looking not with the ( time-binding) memory of yesterday, but you are looking at it with different eyes.

PJ: Yes, sir, but my query still is not answered.

K: Perhaps not; but I think that this is an extraordinary question which invites a great deal of debate.

PJ: My query is: Without the process of self-knowing and the observation of ‘what is’, is this ( inward 'exit from the known'?) possible?

K: Yes, it is possible ; one can be(come) aware of and have an insight into this whole thing immediately.

PJ: Sir, thirty years ago the people around you felt that you took them by the hand...

K: Yes, I know; they have told me.

PJ: Now you have taken away your hands.

K: Perhaps because we are a little more mature (inwardly)

PJ: But what has brought about this (spiritual) 'maturity'? Wasn't it the thirty years ( inward listening & self-observation?) ?

K: I am just asking you, why do you ( need to) go back (in time) thirty years?

PJ: I will tell you why, sir. I have been wanting to see, very objectively, what has been taking place in the (unfolding of these ?) Teachings over the last thirty years - not only as it has come through in the ( spoken or) written words but as it comes through within me.

K: Yes...

PJ: As I was going into it for myself, certain things became very obvious. There are three distinct periods in your Teaching when ( qualitative) changes took place and a totally different position was evident : (1) There was the period when you spoke of self-knowledge and what I have discussed already... (2) Around the sixties you moved away from there and you talked about this 'totality of seeing'. You were concerned about this totality of seeing and you spoke of the ending of thought as being Silence. (3) Today (in 1978) you have put all that aside. You never discuss any particular subject but take the whole. Today you have a more cosmic’ way of speaking and you are more 'precise' in the ( experientially holistic ) language you use. You ask, in almost scientific terms: ''Can the brain cells themselves hold the holistic (quality of perception?) ?''

K: So let’s begin (again from square one:) What is the first thing you are asking?

PJ: If you say that the process of self-knowing, the process of going into the (various aspects of the?) 'self' through ( a diligent inward ) observation are not necessary and that the holistic position is possible immediately, then the question is: What is it that 'triggers' (the awakening of) it? That is the major query.

K: Are you asking: How can one, without any preparation, have a holistic view? It comes to that, doesn’t it? Without going through all the examination, all the exploration and detailed observation, without all that activity, can one see, immediately, the totality of all existence? That is your basic question, isn’t it?

PJ: Yes.

K: That is, without thirty years ‘preparation’, is it possible to see the totality of all (one's) existence, to see the whole of (one's) consciousness?

PJ: Which means to totally empty ( the psychological content of one's) consciousness ?

K: Let’s go slowly. Without ( any psychological) preparation, without all that examination, is it possible to see the total content of consciousness and move out of it?

PJ: And ( meditation-wise?) to be totally immobile.

K: That is the question. Is that possible? I still maintain that it is possible to see instantly the whole content of consciousness which is (constantly generated by the ) the movement of thought, and to 'move out of it', reaching the point where thought comes to an end. Let’s put it that way for the time being. Yes, I will stick to that (possibility?) .

PJ: Was the (previous) position then not true?

K: No, I wouldn’t say that it was not true.

PJ: The position then was true, because the ( inwardly integrative) perception of the thinker and thought was a total perception.

K: Yes, quite right. However, in explaining the totality of that perception, one had to go into ( the more intricated) details. But then, as now, it was a total perception.

PJ: But, if there had not been a 'listening' & ( a real time ) observation of the (self-centred) mind, judging, condemning, wanting—and if there had not been an actual perception, this ( holistic insight) would not have been possible.

K: Without going through all that (psycho-prepping) , Pupul, could we just say: Is it possible? That is the real crux of the question.

PJ: But what you said then was as total and as true as anything you say today ?

K: K may have said then something out of ( a holistic perception of the ) totality, just as he is now saying something out of totality. In that ( earlier) saying there may have been a more detailed (& more analytical ?) examination.
PJ: Yes, yes.

K: But that examination was born from the totality of perception.

PJ: Yes.

K: And therefore it is still ( a ) 'total' (perception) .

PJ: I agree sir, but, for the person who comes ( to your Teachings?) for the first time, the question as to whether that (homework of preparation) is still not necessary, remains.

K: You see, Pupul, you are saying the same thing.

PJ: Must one not see (the inward truth regarding) the process of ( self-) becoming?

K: Must you not go through school, through college, through university to reach the final examination? Without going through all that, can you come to this?

PJ: I know you will say no, but for the ( holistically minded?) person who starts (his/her spiritual journey) if you say that he can plunge (head-on ?) straight into this holistic position, the natural question then is ‘how ?. So... show it to us now.

K: All right; can one observe without the ( all controlling interference of the memory of the?) past? Right? Can one have an insight without the weight of yesterday and can that insight be instantaneous? Am I stating the question correctly?

PJ: Yes.

K: The perception of the totality (of whatever is going on ) can only come about instantly. It cannot come through time, through thought, through exploration. That perception of the whole can only take place instantly. Now, if that is so, then what is the need for preparation?

PJ: Would you call all this self-observing and learning, preparation? If you see the thirty years as ‘time’, I want to drop the thirty years (of self-knowledge?) .

K: Pupul, I would like to point out (this experiential aspect) : It is possible to have a complete, a total insight only immediately, instantly and that ( enlightening moment ?) is not contained in time. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: X cannot see this. He says: Tell me what I have to do ( for homework?) in order to have this extraordinary insight 'immediately'. And K tells him: Observe the ( subliminal division between ?) 'thinker' and ( his) thoughts . He also ( points out) there is no ( real) division between the thinker and the thought. Now, as this is being explained (holistically) , is X really 'listening', or is there a ( mental) abstraction taking place which pushes X away from the instantly (perceptive) action? K says that the thinker and the thought are identical; they are not separate. Can you instantly, see the ( inward) truth of it or do you say: I must think it over?

PJ: I understand. But if this is so simple...

K: ...why haven’t people seen? They don’t 'see' it because they are not actually 'listening'. This (K) person, says that the ( flash-) perception of the totality (of what is going on inwardly?) is instant. And the questioner then says: Tell me what to do; please help me to understand what you say.

PJ: It is like asking someone else—or you—to give me insight (to turn on my inward sight?) .

K: And obviously, nobody can give it to you.

PJ: Then I am ( forever?) stuck (in the 'field of the known'?) ?

K: No, wait a minute. What is your reaction to that statement, namely, that nothing and nobody—no guru, no time, no evolution, no experience—can give it to you?

PJ: To that I would say, yes, ( agreed)

K: But don’t you also ask: what am I to do? That would be a normal, healthy reaction. (Pause) To that K says: 'Listen' to ( the inward truth of) what K is saying. 'Listen'. Don’t weave it into a theory or a speculative abstraction. Just listen to that ( immovable) statement: ''Nobody can give it to you''. If you (really) listen, and if this is the truth, it must have a tremendous effect on you because your whole attention is now (present) in listening to the fact that no time is necessary, no preparation is necessary.

PJ: But do you really think that a person who has not delved into the ( image factory of the?) 'self' can listen like this?

K: He ( probably) cannot, because even though he may be (diligently ) delving into himself, he won’t ( have the necessary freedom from the known to ) 'listen' to this. But do you, Pupulji, listen to the ( truth of the ) fact that nobody can give it to you?

PJ: Yes....

K: If you so listen, what has happened to ( the inward quality of) your mind?, what has taken place? ( But generally?) I may be (subliminally?) frightened to listen to ( the inward truth of?) what you are saying, because that means I have to abandon everything? I may have to give up my whole ( collective mentality of) dependency which we have cultivated for millennia. That is the ( experiential) difficulty, Pupul.

PJ: You still have not answered my first query whether there has been a deep change in your Teaching.

K: None at all. He talked about authority, he still speaks about authority; he talked about fear, he still talks about fear; he talked about ( man's self-centred) consciousness in different sets of terms, he still talks about it. He said thought must end, and he still speaks of it. He spoke of the nature of desire, and he still speaks of it.

PJ: May I ask a personal question, Krishnaji? During all these years, has there been any inner change in you? I am asking this very seriously.

K: Let me observe it. I have never been asked this ( kind of personal?) questions before. Has there been a deep change in me from thirty years ago or from when I started, in the beginning? To be really truthful and accurate: ''No''. However, there have been changes in expression, changes in vocabulary, changes in language and gesture—you know all that—but there has been no fundamental change from the beginning till now.
That is the (timeless?) 'immovibility' (of Truth?) .
( To recap today's lesson:) Listen to this statement, namely, that ''the perception of the totality ( of anything) is immediate''. Time is not necessary; preparation is not necessary. Examination, exploration, will not help you to perceive that totally '. You say to me: What is your next instruction? What am I to do? Right? To which I naturally reply: Don’t do anything, just 'listen' (to the living truth of it ?) . For if you listen, accurately, to the statement that time, preparation, the whole process of evolution is unnecessary, if you 'listen' you will ( eventually) have that 'instant perception'.

You see, Pupul, the point is that our whole way of life, is based on (the evolutionary mentality) —on becoming, on growing, on achieving, and ( optionally?) on finally reaching God. I think that (inardly-wise?) this basic assumption is radically false. Do you 'see the falseness of it' instantly, or do you say, ‘Wait a minute, (let me think about it) ’?

PJ: No sir, I would say that I see the truth of that.

K: Go slowly, Pupul. What do you mean when you say that you see the truth of it?

PJ: I can listen to that ( statement) without a ripple, without a movement in consciousness.

K: If you so listen, what takes place? Let us say that the Buddha said to me, ‘The ending of sorrow is ( opening the inner door to?) the Bliss of Compassion’. I don’t try to translate this ( holistic) statement into my ( linear) way of thinking. I don’t say, ‘What do you mean by it?’ I am only in a state of total attention of listening, because ( I realise that?) this statement has an enormous truth and there is a tremendous content (of universal truth enfolded) in that statement.
Then I would say to the Buddha, ‘Forgive me, sir, but I am not capable of such intense action (or non-action) of listening, so please help me’. So the Buddha says, ‘First listen to ( the inward truth of) what I have said, namely, that no ( outward) agency that thought has invented, will help you to have this tremendous “insight”.’ I listen and I am frightened. For that means that I must drop every (piece of psychologially supportive knowledge) that I am attached to. And I ask, ‘How am I to be detached?’ You see, the questioner’s reasoning—is false. The moment I ask, ‘How am I to be detached?’, I am lost (in time?) .
He says, ‘Be detached (of the psychologically protective knowledge ?) , but I am not 'listening' because ( this subliminal) attachment has been a tremendous thing in my life, and in one stroke he says, ‘Throw it out’. And in one instant I must throw it out...

QUESTIONER (Q): Is this 'dropping' (occurring in) the moment of perception?

K: Yes. The moment you see the ( inward truth of the?) fact that you must be free of all ( mental addiction to?) knowledge... But the man who has spent his life collecting knowledge from books and all the rest of it, says, ‘What are you talking about?’

PJ: Krishnaji, may I ask one ( last bonus?) question?

K: You may ask lots of questions; we’ve got today and tomorrow, so come on.

PJ: Is it a question of holding 'non-verbally' the totality of that ( holistic ) statement ?

K: Yes, of course. The ( verbal) description of the ( inward) flowering is not the thing; therefore there must be freedom from the word. But then, the ( opportunistic ?) questioner says, ‘Please help me to be free of the word’. You see, then one is again lost (in time?) . That’s why I am saying that the ( selfless purity & ) intensity of listening is the real crux of it.

PJ: What is it that gives that intensity?

K: That intensity? Nothing (Not-a-thing ?') Our whole way of thinking is based on ( personal) growth; it is based on becoming, on evolving. I see a child and he grows to manhood. I see technological growth—it takes years and years for some scientific discovery or technique to be perfected. So everything (in the physical world?) is a becoming, a growing, an expanding. Now somebody comes along and says, ‘That’s right in certain (technological) places but it has nothing whatsoever to do with ( the mind's inward?) Enlightenment’—let’s use that word for the moment. But the ( self-centred human ) mind being heavily conditioned by the tradition of growth, won’t even (care to) listen.

( Parting words:) You may say something which is totally accurate, totally true, something that is immovable, irrevocable: and what you say may have tremendous insight behind it. But the difficulty is that one ( does not or) cannot 'listen' to it because I have (physical & psychological ) commitments to which I am ( knowingly or not?) attached. And because of this ( hidden variable?) I don’t listen to this extraordinary statement.
So, to answer your initial question whether there has been, between the thirties, the forties and now (in the late seventies) a fundamental change in me, I say: No ; there has been a considerable change in ( the clarity of) expression, in the way I use words and so on, but the basic Teaching is the same.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Apr 2019 #159
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

THE ART OF LISTENING

( a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue with Professor Allan Anderson - cca 1974)

A: Mr Krishnamurti, last time we came to the the question of a 'seeing' which is not dependent on knowledge or time, and promised (to our PBS viewers?) we would take up next time we could come together.

K: Sir, what is seeing, what is listening, and what is learning? I think these three are ( holistically?) related to each other.
( For starters?) What is 'seeing' ? Do we actually see (anything directly?) , or do we see through a (self-protective) 'screen' of (knowledgeable mental) images about that which we see ( outwardly) and about ourselves? So, do we ever see the ( ongoing ) facts at all, or is our seeing is 'coloured' by our past knowledge, or by the beliefs or ( self-protective) memories which the ( self-centred) mind has cultivated prevents the actual 'seeing' (or the direct contact with 'what is' ) ? And is it possible for the mind to look without having those 'screens' ? I think that there is an (insightful?) 'seeing' (of what is 'true' or 'false' in whatever is going on inwardly or outwardly ?) where you can't help but acting. There is no question of postponement.
( On the other hand ?) when our action is based on a belief, or on an (intellectual) conclusion, then that action is time-binding (the 'seeing' & the 'action' are offset in time) . And the resulting action will inevitably bring conflicts, regrets and all the rest of it. So it becomes very important to find out what it is to see, to perceive (what is going on, in real time?) . (Same with ) 'hearing' . Do I ever 'hear' ? directly what you say, without translating, without transforming it, without twisting it? Do I ever hear ( the chirping of ) a bird, or a child weep, or a man crying in pain? You follow, sir? Do I ever hear anything?

A: In a conversation we had about a year ago, you said something which I regard as immensely valuable. You said that ( the verbal) hearing was doing nothing to stop, or interfere with ( the direct) seeing. That is very remarkable because in the common conversation the notion of 'hearing' is regarded an intimately associated with command. We will say, ''Hear me out !'' And the other person thinks that he has to 'lean forward' in the sense of do something voluntarily.

K: Quite... So do we 'listen' at all? And what takes place when I do listen without any ( mental) interference, without any interpretation, conclusion, like and dislike, what happens when I actually 'listen' ?
(EG : ) For instance, we said ( last time ?) , that we cannot possibly understand what (the sense of inner) beauty is if we don't understand suffering & passion. You hear that statement, what does the mind do? It hears the words, draws a conclusion, and ( makes it into ) an 'idea'. And if one says, ''how am I to carry out that idea?'' this ( time-related question) becomes a problem.

A: Yes, and if this idea doesn't conform to (the culturally standardised?) ideas, we are up against a clash.

K: Yes. So can the ( holistically friendly?) mind listen to that statement without any forming an abstraction ? Just listen completely to that statement ?

A: If I am following you, what you are saying is that were I to listen adequately, it's not a question of ( paying ) more or less (attention) - I am absolutely listening or I am absolutely not listening.

K: That's right, sir...

A: And I would not have to contrive an answer.

K: No. You are ( totally immersed ?) in it.

A: Yes. So, it's like ( for my wise ?) cat : the action and the seeing are one act.

K: That's right. So can I listen to ( contemplate the experiential validity of?) that statement and see the truth of the statement or the falseness of the statement, not by comparison but in ( silently listening to ?) the very statement that you are making: (the presence of inner ?) beauty can never exist without passion, and passion comes from (the ending of) sorrow.
So, when I listen to that statement without abstracting it or making it into an idea (to be examined later?) what takes place? You may be telling the truth, or you may be making a false statement. I don't know because I am not going to compare.

A: You are going to see ( its truth or falseness?) for yourself.

K: Which means I am giving my total attention to ( contemplating the truthfulness of?) what you are saying. Then ( once I have learned the art of silent listening?) it doesn't matter what you say, or don't say. What is important that this act of listening has brought about a 'miracle' of complete freedom from all your (previously known ) statements - my mind is now completely attentive. Attention means no (self-confining mental ?) borders. The moment I have such a border I ( may instinctively?) begin to fight you - agree, disagree. The moment attention has a ( self-projected?) frontier then ( the intellectual) concepts arise. But if I listen to you completely without a single interference of thought or mentation, just listen to that, the miracle has taken place. Which is, this total (presence of) attention absolves my mind from all (thought projected) statements. Therefore my mind is extraordinarily free to act (through direct perception?) .

A: This has happened for me on this series of conversations : I've been listening very intensely, and yet, I could afford not to make the distinction between paying attention to the aspects of the video-production aspect of it, and still 'engage' in our discussion.

K: Quite.

A: And the more intensely the discussion is engaged, the more efficiently all the 'dialogue & production' mechanism is accomplished.

K: Yes...

A: There is no guarantee from anybody in advance. What we are told rather is this, ''well you get used to it''. And yet many (public TV) performers have stage fright all their lives, so clearly they don't get used to it.

K: Don't you think it is because our minds are becoming so commercial: I give you this, you give me that ?

A: And there's a 'time (is money' ?) interval in between. The Christian fundamentalists are using a similar a phrase with respect to their devotional life. They say, ''I am claiming the Promises of God''. But in the context of what you were saying... my goodness, what could that lead to in such a mind !

K: So ( in a nutshell:) When action is not based on an idea, formula, belief, then the 'seeing' is the 'doing'. Then the seeing is complete attention, and the doing is ( happening ) in that attention. But the ( experiential) difficulty comes people will ask, ''how will you maintain that attention''? Which means they are looking for a ( long term psychological ) reward.

A: Exactly...

K: I practise it, I will do everything to maintain that state of attention in order to get something in return. ( Hint:)( The trans-personal quality of?) Attention is not a result, attention has no cause. Attention doesn't give you a ( personal) reward. Attention, on the contrary, there is no reward or punishment because it has no frontier.

A: Yes, this calls up the (old dictum) ''virtue is its own reward''.

K: Oh, that's just an idea, sir.
Now, after discussing the seeing and the hearing, then what is learning? Because they are all interrelated: learning, seeing, hearing, and action, all that is one movement. They are not four separate chapters, it's one chapter (previously called Mindfulness?) .
So what is learning? Is ' the outward) learning a process of accumulation? While ( the inward ) learning is 'non accumulative'? Let's look at it.

A: Let's look at it, yes.

K: One learns a foreign language - Italian, French, whatever it is - and accumulate words and the irregular verbs and so on, and then one is able to speak. There is the ( skilled) learning how to ride a bicycle, learning how to drive a car, learning how to put together a machine, electronics and so on. Those are a learning to acquire ( practical skills & ) knowledge in (the context of daily) action. And I am asking, is there any other form of learning? A learning which is not first accumulated, and then acted upon ?

A: Yes, and even if we have accumulated it all we haven't ( necessarily) understood anything on that account.
K: Yes. ( Traditionally) I 'learn' in order to gain a reward, or in order to avoid punishment. I learn a particular job, or particular craft in order to earn a livelihood. That is absolutely necessary, but that's ( originally a survival oriented ?) routine – storing our practical experience & knowledge in the ( long term) memory of the brain, and that operates, when you ride a bicycle, drive a car, and so on. When one says, ''I have learned from my experience'', it means I have learned, stored up from that experience certain memories, and those memories either help preventing (the bad things to happen) or ( are helping us to get a well deserved ) reward. So (basically?) all such forms of learning are 'mechanistical ' (easily predictable & programmable?) and (our mainstream) education is training the brain to function in routine, mechanically. In that there is great ( sense of) security. Now, is there a non - mechanical ( activity of the?) brain at all? A non-utilitarian learning which has neither future not past, therefore not time-binding.
You see, sir, (humanely speaking) have we learned anything from experience? We have had, since the written history began , five thousand wars. Killing, killing, killing, maiming. And have we learned anything? Have we learned anything from ( the resulting) sorrow? Man has suffered (for personal & collective reasons?) , but have we learned anything from the experience of the agony of uncertainty and all the rest of it? So even when we say, we have learned something , I question ( the inward validity of) it. You follow? It seems such a terrible thing to say, I have learned from experience. You have learned nothing, except in the field of ( practical) knowledge.

A: Yes, that's really very remarkable...

K: You see, sir, that's why our education, our civilization, all the things about us, has made our mind so mechanical, repetitive reactions, repetitive demands, repetitive pursuits. Now that means the mind can never be free. Thought is never free, thought is always old. There's no new thought.

A: Some persons I imagine would object to the notion that we don't learn from experience in terms of the succession of wars, because wars tend to happen sequentially, from one generation to the next generation, and you have to grow up. But that is not true because more than one war will happen very often in the same generation and there hasn't been anything learned.

K: That is what we have been talking about, two World Wars...

A: But still, it's a terrifying thing to hear someone say, nobody learns anything from experience.

K: But the word 'experience' also means 'to go through' ( & finish with it ?) . But you never go through. You always stop in the middle. Or you never begin.

A: Right. It means, if I'm remembering correctly, in terms of its original root means to put something to the test and ( in order to) behave correctly while that's going on, you certainly have to see, you just have to look, don't you ?

K: Of course. So as our civilization, our culture, our education has brought about a (predominantly materialistic?) mind that is becoming more and more mechanical, and therefore time-binding, and therefore never a sense of ( inward ) freedom. Freedom then becomes an idea, you play around philosophically, but it has not meaning. But the ( holistically minded) man who says, ''now I want to really go into this and discover if ( inwardly) there is any freedom'' he has to (do his homework and) understand the limits of knowledge, and whether in the ending of ( living exclusively in the field) knowledge there is the beginning of something totally new.
I don't know if I am conveying anything?

A: You are. Oh yes, yes...

K: Then sir, what is learning? If it is not the mechanical (accumulation of experience & knowledge) then what is learning? Is there a learning in any other field, psychologically, spiritually? Can I learn - can the mind learn about God?

A: When one learns about God, one can't be doing it as something added on the list (of what we know already) .

K: Sir, it is so clear. I learn a language, ride a bicycle, drive a car, put a machine together. That's essential. But learning about 'God' , one can only learn about the 'images' which mankind has built about Christ, Buddha, whatever it is. The image I have built. So I am learning what?

A: To talk about ( other people's) 'talk'. Yes...

K: Learning about the ( God) 'image' which I (and/or my ancestors?) have built.

A: That's right.

K: Therefore is there any other kind of learning except mechanical learning? I don't know if you see? You understand my question?

A: Yes, I certainly do...

K: So there is only ( a knowledgeable ) learning about the mechanical process of life. There is no other learning. See what that means, sir ?

A: It means (an inward) freedom (from 'knowing' ?)

K: The human mind is used (& trained ) in the acquisition of knowledge in the world of matter. In 'mechanical' things. And when the mind is employed there, are there any other processes of learning? The inward (psychological world ) is the ( self-protective) creation of thought as opposed to the ( impermanency of the?) outer existence . I don't know if you see that If I have understood ( holistically) the outer (world) I have also understood the 'inner' (content of temporal consciousness) . In fact the 'inner' ( world of thoughts?) has created the 'outer' (man-made world) . The 'outer' in the sense the structure of society, the religious sanctions, all that is invented or put together by thought - the Jesus's, the Christ, the Buddhas, all that.
So, what is there ( left ) to learn? : See the beauty of what is coming out ?

A: Oh yes, yes, it goes back to your remark about 'Vedanta' as meaning 'the end of knowledge'.

K: That's what I was told (by highly knowledgeable people)

A: Yes. The interesting thing to me about this Sanskrit construction is that it doesn't mean the end of it as a 'terminus' that would simply start a new series. But it is the 'consummation of it' in the sense that a 'totally new beginning' is made at that very point.

K: That means, sir, the ( time-bound ) mind knows the activity ( within the field of ) knowledge. Now what is the state of the (same human) mind that is free from that (field) and yet functions in knowledge?

A: ( Is free from it) and yet functions in it... ?

K: Do go into it (experientially?) and you will see very strange things taking place. Is this possible first? We are asking the human brain, which has become mechanical, trained for centuries (within the known) to see the other field (inward dimension?) which is not mechanical. Is there another field?
Now unless the brain and the mind understands the movement of (its past) knowledge, it cannot possibly ask that other question.

A: Exactly. Exactly...

K: And when it does ask that question, what takes place? Sir, this is (entering into the field of ) real meditation, you know. So, is there a listening out of silence? And that is attention. And that is not time-binding, because in that silence I don't expect anything. It isn't that I am going to learn about myself in order to avoid to be punished, (or...) rewarded. In that absolute silence I 'listen'.

A: The wonder of the whole thing is that this 'meditation' isn't something which is done in succession.

K: Sir, when we talk about 'meditation' we will have to go very deeply into that because these shoddy ( bearded?) little men coming from India or from anywhere (in your neighbourhood?) , have destroyed ( the profound significance of ?) that thing.

A: I heard the other day about someone who was learning Transcendental Meditation. They had to 'do it' at 3 o'clock in the afternoon (PST ?). That is, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon was 'judgement day'. If you didn't do it according to your schedule then the ( spiritual salvation of the modern ?) world has obviously ( doomed to) come to an end...

K: So you see, sir, that's what takes place - our (natural capacity of) 'seeing' and 'listening' has become mechanical and we never see anything new. It's always ( a mental continuity ) from the 'known' to the 'known'. A ( self-projected?) movement in time which is time-binding and therefore never free. And yet we are talking about freedom, but when you limit it to (the familiar domain of?) knowledge it is foolish to talk about freedom. But there is an (authentic inner) freedom when you understand the whole ( limitation of the?) movement of knowledge.
So ( for optional meditation homework?) can you observe out of silence, and observe and act in the field of knowledge, so both together in harmony?

A: 'Seeing' then is not scheduled (or thought-controlled) . And it occurred to me in the context of what we have been saying, what a pity that one could read that statement and not let it disclose itself to you.

K: Quite...

A: If it ( the inward truth of it?) 'discloses itself' to you, you'd have to be serious. If you were a philosophy student and you read that and that thing began to operate in you, you'd say, I've got to get this settled before I go on.

K: And I was thinking, in the West as well as in the East you have to go to the factory, or the office, every day of your (adult) life. Get up at 6 o'clock, drive, walk, work, work, work for fifty years, routine, and worship ( a rather illusory?) success. Again repetition. And occasionally talk about God if it is convenient, and so on and so on. That is a (pretty sad ?) life. Is this what we are educating our children for ?

A: That's the real 'living death' !

K: And nobody says, for God's sake let's look at all this anew. Let's wipe our eyes clear of the ( psychical residues of the?) 'past' and look ( anew) at what we are doing, give attention & (a loving?) care what we are doing.

A: Now we have this ( new ) question: what shall we do about it? (Which, more often than not?) becomes the 'next thing to be done' that is added to the list.

K: It is a continuity of the past, in a different form.

A: And this (endless ) chain (of Time?) is endlessly linked, linked, linked, linked.

K: The cause becoming the effect and the effect becoming the cause. So when we ( finally endeavour to?) talk about all this, life becomes dreadfully serious. And it's only this 'serious' (holistically minded?) person that ( really) lives. Not those people who seek entertainment, religious or otherwise.

A: I had a very interesting occasion to understand what you are saying, in my class yesterday. I was trying to assist the students to 'see' that the classical understanding of the causes in operation ( inwardly) is that they are non-temporarily related. And I said : when the potter puts his hand to the clay, the hand touching the clay is not responded to by the clay after the hand has touched it. And this well educated person, a professor who was visiting the class, I could tell by the expression on the face that there was a little anguish here, so I said, well, my 'radar' says that there is some difficulty going on, what's the matter? So I asked him to pick something up that was on the desk. And I said, touch it with your finger and tell me at the moment of the touching with the finger whether the thing reacts to the finger after it is touched. Well, even to ask somebody to apply a practical test like that with respect to a datum of knowledge like the 'four causes' are... is to interrupt the process of education as we have known it. Because you teach a student about the four causes and he 'thinks' about them, but he never goes out and looks ( anew) at things, or does anything about it. And so we were picking stuff up in class, and we were doing this until finally it seemed like a revelation that what has been said, in the classical teaching of it, which of course in modern society is rejected, happens to be the case. And I said, this has to be seen, watch. This is what you mean ?

K: ( The act of direct?) 'seeing', of course.

A: Of course, of course. But why was that ( highly knowledgeable) person and so many other students following suit, anguished at the point where the practical issue arose? Because their natural alertness was required. But...if this alertness registers that we are on a cliff, so therefore the best thing to do is to turn around and run back. Yes, yes...

K: Sir, I think that we are so caught up in words (in a mental network of verbal structures) . To me the 'word' is not the ( actual) thing. The description is not the described. (But to most of?) us the ( politically correct?) verbal description is all that matters because we are slave to ( a collective mentality operating on the rolling carpet of ?) words.

A: And to rituals ?

K: Ritual and all the rest of it. So when you say, look, ( the direct perception of the actual) 'thing' matters more than the word... then they say, how am I to get rid of the word, how am I to communicate if I have no word? You see how they have gone off? They are not concerned with the thing but with the word.

A: Yes...

K: And the Door (to Truth ?) is not the word. So when we are caught up in words the words are becoming extraordinarily important, and not (the walking through ) the door.

A: ( Not to mention that?) I don't really need to come to terms with ( opening?) the actual Door (of Perception) , I say to myself, because I have the words I have it all (& go back to sleep?)

K: So ( the culturally standardised?) 'education' has done this (monumental blunder?) . A great part of this education is the acceptance of words as an abstraction from the 'fact', from ( directly perceiving) the 'what is' ( going on inwardly ) . All ( our social) philosophies are based on theorizing endlessly, how one should live, but the 'philosopher' himself doesn't 'live'.

A: Yes, I know. I have asked my (academic) colleagues from time to time, if you believe that stuff why don't you do it? And they look at me as though I am out of my mind, as thought nobody would really seriously ask that question.

K: Quite, quite.

A: But if you can't ask that question, what question is worth asking?

K: Quite right...

A: I was thinking about that marvelous ( real life ) story about the monkey, who shook hands with you, nobody had told her how to shake hands.

K: No, it 'stretched out' her hand and I took it.

A: It wasn't something that she was taught 'how to do it' through a verbal communication, it was the appropriate thing at the time, without anyone measuring its 'appropriateness'.

K: Quite.

A: Isn't that something ? I can't tell you how grateful I am to have been able to share this with you. I have seen in respect to my own activity as a teacher where I must perform a similar 'therapy' even on my language.

K: Quite, quite...

A: So that I don't give the student an occasion for thinking that I am simply adding to this endless chain ( of knowledge) , link after link after link. There are two therapies involved here then: there's the therapy that relates to words and that flows out naturally from the therapy within. Now this relates directly, as you were saying earlier, to meditation. Are we ready to (tell us more about it?) ...

K: I think that's too (un-necesarily?) complicated.

A: I don't mean right now. But maybe in one of our next conversations ?

K: Oh yes, but we must discuss several other things - what is love, what is death, what is the whole movement of living. We've got a great deal to do.

A: Oh, I do look forward to that very much !

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 05 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Apr 2019 #160
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

A HOLISTIC VIEW OF DESIRE

A (reader-friendly edited ?) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON

A: Mr Krishnamurti, last time you made the remark that fear and pleasure are opposite sides of the same coin (of man's self-centred thinking ?) . And perhaps we could move from 'fear' into the discussion of 'pleasure'. Unless, perhaps there is something more about the 'freedom from fear' that we need still to look into ?

K: Sir, I think for most of us, ( the accumulation of psychological?) fears has created such misery, so many activities are born of fear, ideologies and gods, that we never seem to be free completely from fear. Now, the freedom from ( any particular) fear, and the feeling of being completely free ( of all the burden of the past?) are two very different things .

A: Yes, do please go ahead...

K: Yes. The freedom from fear has ( an inherent dualistic) contradiction and therefore ( a psychological implication of ) conflict and struggle. When one understands that rather deeply, then one can see the meaning of what it means to be free – not from something (in particular) but intrinsically, deeply free in itself.
( Experiential Hint:) Probably it is a 'non-verbal' happening. A feeling that all the burden (of the past?) has fallen away from you. Not that you have struggled ( successfuly ) to throw it away. This burden simply, does not exist. All one's ( personal) conflicts don't exist. As we were saying the other day, all our relationships are happening in (a spirit) total freedom.

K: So ( to recap:) these two principles, of 'pleasure' and 'fear' seem to be deeply rooted in us – and I don't think we can understand ( thought's projections of ?) pleasure without understanding (thought's projections of) fear.

A: I see. I see.

K: You can't separate them, really. But for investigating them (with the rationality of thought ?) one has to separate.

A: Yes, were it not for ( giving psychological continuity to) fear do you think we should ever have ( giving any continuity to our ) thought of pleasure?

K: We would never have thought of (in terms of fear & ) pleasure. It's like punishment and reward. If there was no ( fear of) punishment at all nobody would talk about ( a compensating ? ) reward.

A: Yes, yes I see...

K: And I think we think we ought to be clear that we are not 'condemning' pleasure. We are not puritanical, nor permissive. We are trying to investigate the whole structure and nature of pleasure, as we did with fear. And to do that properly and deeply the ( judgemental) attitude of condemnation or acceptance of pleasure must be set aside. I must be free from my inclinations, prejudices.

A: The 'looking forward to it' is, beginning to emerge from what you are saying. We look forward to pleasure, and we get nervous in thinking that perhaps we won't meet it, Now there is the anticipation of ( a future) gratification (involved) here. Would that be right?

K: That's right. Gratification, satisfaction and a sense of ( personal) fulfillment. We will go into all that, but we must be clear that we are not condemning it.

A: Yes, in many religious the notion of ( spiritual) freedom is associated with the freedom from desire.

K: To really go into the question of pleasure I think one has to look into the way in which by (sophisticated) commercial propaganda ( the sensory) desire is nourished, expanded.

A: Nurtured ?

K: Inflamed ; and you see this happening right through the world, now. In India, for example, there was a certain traditional inclination for ( self-) discipline which says, don't be concerned with the worldly things since ( inwardly-wise?) they are not important. What is important is the discovery of Truth, of the Ultimate Reality and so on. But by now, all that's gone, now desire is being (artificially) 'inflamed' to buy more. This feeling of (self-) excitement in possession is stimulated through consumeristic propaganda.

A: And there's a lot of terror on the part of those who are purveyors in this, because if the pleasure fades off and this requires a stronger stimulus next time.

K: Look, there is this (commercially profitable) stimulation of desire. It is really quite frightening in a sense, how people are stimulating their desire to acquire more money & possessions, this whole ( vicious?) circle of a life in which there is an instant (opportunity for) fulfillment of one's desire, and the (collateral ) feeling that if you don't fulfil, if you don't act (along this consumeristic direction?) , there is frustration. So all that's involved.

A: Wouldn't you say that all of what you have described, is on the basis of frustration ? Frustration itself is regarded as the proper incentive.

K: Yes. Like in the modern education of the children - don't frustrate them. Let them do what they like.

A: Yes, I was brought up as a child in England, in a rather strict way compared with the permissiveness of today. And one of my graduate colleagues told me that he had been brought up by his parents in a totally permissive way. This was at Columbia University. And he looked at me, and he said, I think you were better off, because a least you had some intelligible reference against which to find out who you are, even if what you found out wasn't right, there was something to find out. Whereas I had to do it entirely on my own and I still haven't done it. And he talked about himself as being constantly trying to hide the fact that he was a nervous wreck. We had a long conversation over dinner...

K: Sir, I think that before we enter into the complicated field of pleasure, we ought to go into this question of desire.

A: Yes, yes. I'd like to do that.
K: Desire seems to be a very active and demanding instinct, demanding activity that is going on in us all the time. So, what is appetite and what is desire? I have an appetite because I am hungry. It's a natural appetite. I see a car and I have read a great deal about it and I would like to possess it, drive it feel the power of it, going fast, the excitement of all that. That is a form of ( mental) appetite.
And what is desire? How does it come about? I think it's fairly clear: visual perception, then there is ( the rewarding sensory?) sensation, then there is (a mental) contact, and ( a mentally formulated?) desire comes out of it. That's the process isn't it? So the religious people throughout the world said, be without desire (or eventually try to?) transfer it to something that's worthwhile - God, or Enlightenment or Truth.
( In a nutshell:) Control desire. Because you need energy to serve God and if you are caught in ( the tribulations of) desire this which dissipate your ( spiritual) energy. I walked once behind a group of monks, in India. And they were very serious monks. The elderly monk, with his disciples around him, they were walking up a hill and I followed them. They never once looked at the beauty of the sky, the blue, the extraordinary blue of the sky and the mountains, and the blue light of the grass and the trees and the birds and the water - never once looked around. They had bent their head down and they were repeating something in Sanskrit, and going along totally unaware of nature, totally unaware of the passers-by. So ( a 'spiritual' form of ) desire there acted as a suppressive limiting process.

A: Would you say that appetite is a specific focusing of desire?

K: Yes, put it that way if you want. They are two different words for the same thing. Now this ( holistically friendly) problem arises, need there be a control of desire at all? You see, self-discipline is ( generally understood as ) a form of suppression and control of desire or controling your thoughts. And this control gradually squeezes out the flow of free (intelligent) energy.

A: Oh, yes. And yet, amazingly he Upanishads in particular have been interpreted in terms of 'tapas' (austerities ) encouraging this control.

K: I've met so many ( truth seekers who) have tortured themselves for an ideal, for a concept. Once I met a man who was high up in bureaucracy and one morning he woke up and he said, I'm passing judgment in court over others, punishment, and I seem to say to them I know truth, and if you don't you are finished. So one morning he said, this is all wrong. I must find out what truth is, so he resigned, left and went away for 25 years to find out what truth is. Sir, ( such spiritually minded) people are dreadfully serious, hey are not like cheap repeaters of some mantra, and such rubbish. So somebody brought him to the talks I was giving. He came to see me the next day. He said ''You are perfectly right. I have been meditating on ( What Is ) Truth for 25 years. And it has been self hypnosis, as you pointed out. I've been caught in my own verbal, intellectual formula, structure. And I haven't been able to get out of it.

A: That's a very moving story...

K: And to admit that he was wrong needs courage, needs perception.

A: Exactly.

K: Not ( just) courage, but perception. So, now we are seeing all this modern permissiveness, as a eaction to ( the virtuous ?) restraint & (self-) control in the pursuit of an idea as God.
So (holistically?) looking at all this sir, one inevitably asks the question, how to live with ( by intelligently integrating the natural energy of) desire? You can't help it, desire is there. The moment I see something, a beautiful flower, the admiration, the love of it, the smell of it, the beauty of the petal, the quality of the flower and so on, the enjoyment, one asks, is it possible to live without any ( self-imposed ) 'controlling' of it whatsoever?
So, sir, unless we understand the nature and the structure of appetite and desire, which are more or less the same, we cannot understand very deeply ( man's inherited drive for) pleasure.

A: Yes, yes. I see why you have been good enough to lay this foundation before we get to the opposite side of the coin.

K: Because 'pleasure' and 'fear' are the two ( basic) principles that are active in all human beings. And they are (generally expressed in terms of ) reward and punishment. But if we understand the ( natural ?) nature of pleasure, what is wrong in seeing a beautiful thing and enjoying it ?

A: Nothing. But I was thinking a little while ago when you were speaking about the attempts to negate desire through ( will ) power. Would you say that one may use (will) power in order to secure a ( higher) pleasure that has not yet been realized?

K: Yes...So ( to recap ?) pleasure is a very active principle in (the human psyche) as is fear. And again (the institutionalised morality of ) society has said : control ( both ?) , while commercialism says, don't control, enjoy, buy & sell. And the human mind, says this is all right as my ( natural) instinct is to have pleasure and I'll go after it.

A: Yes....

K: And this game has been going on forever. Let's be very clear that we are not 'condemning' pleasure. We are not saying that it must be suppressed, or justified. We are trying to understand why pleasure has become of such extraordinary importance in ( the modern way of) life. Pleasure of sex. Pleasure of possession. Pleasure of knowledge. Pleasure of power...

A: And 'heaven' is regarded as the ultimate pleasure - is usually spoken of theologically as the 'future state' and then there's the terror that I won't be good enough, so I'm tightening up my belt to pay my heavenly insurance policy on Saturday and Sunday, for what you got caught from Monday through Friday...

K: So ( to wrap it up:) There are three things involved : ( the constant search for) pleasure, ( the timeless beauty of?) enjoyment and (the creative) happiness. And what is the relationship of ( seeking one's selfish ? ) pleasure to enjoyment & ( creative) happiness?. If you are sensitive and if there is a feeling of relationship to nature, when you see something really marvelously beautiful, like a ( Swiss?) mountain with all its shadows valleys and the line it is a tremendous delight. Now see what happens: at that moment there is nothing but that beauty of the mountain, lake or the single tree on a hill - that ( intoxicating) beauty has knocked out everything ( all my self-centred thinking)

A: Oh yes...

K: And at that moment there is no division between 'me' and ( that overwhelming sense of Beauty). There is a sense of great purity and enjoyment.

A: Exactly...

K: ( For optional homework?) See what takes place then.

A: I see we've reached a point where we are going to take a new step, I feel it coming on. In our next conversation I would just love to pursue this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Apr 2019 #161
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

ON INWARD BEAUTY

9TH ('reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH PROFESSOR ALLAN ANDERSON (1974)

A: Mr Krishnamurti, just as we reached the end of our last conversation the question of (inward) beauty arose. And if it's agreeable with you I should like very much for us to explore that together.

K: I wonder what is ( generally named?) 'beauty'. Because when you read a poem that a man writes with with very deep feeling, he wants to convey something to you of what he feels, what he considers to be the most exquisite essence of beauty. But what is ( the inward) beauty? Does it need the ( skilled use of ) words, stones or colours? Or it is something that cannot possibly be expressed in words, in a building, or in a statue?
But to really go into it very deeply one must know what is ( the existential?) suffering, because ( ending the causation of ?) that suffering brings passion. Passion the complete abandonment of the 'me', of the self, the ego. And therefore the austerity of great (inward?) beauty. The root meaning of that word 'passion' is ( in Greek ?) suffering . But you see, sir, people have (traditionally) escaped ( avoided facing their existential) suffering.

To find out ( within oneself ?) the depth of beauty, the depth of colour the depth of feeling, the mind must start with a great sense of (authentic inward) humility, with ''I don't know''. So, if one is enquiring into beauty with a great sense of humility, one must start with 'not knowing'. This (state of inward ?) 'not knowing' is ( in itself?) beautiful.

A: Yes, I've been listening and trying to open myself to this ( holistic?) relation that you are making between 'beauty', 'sorrow ' and 'passion'...

K: Let's start (examining it ) : man suffers, not only personally, but there is immense (pool of accumulated ) suffering of mankind. It is a thing that is pervading ( man's inner ) universe – he has suffered physically, psychologically, spiritually, in every way for centuries upon centuries. The mother cries because her son is killed, the mother cries because her husband is mutilated in a war, or accident - there is tremendous (darkness of ?) suffering in the (collective consciousness of the?) world. And it is really a tremendous thing to become aware of this suffering.

A: Yes...

K: I don't think people are aware, or feel this immense ( existential) sorrow that is ( accumulated) in the ( consciousness of the ) world. They are so concerned with their own 'personal' (self-centred frustration & ) sorrow, that they overlook the sorrow that a poor man in a little village in the ( third?) world, where they never possibly have a full meal, clean clothes, comfortable bed. And there is this sorrow of thousands of people being killed in wars, or of those having been executed for ideologies, tyranny, the terror of all that. So there is all this ( pool of collective ) sorrow of the world, and (on top of it?) there is also the personal sorrow. And without really understanding ( the inward causes of ) it very deeply and resolving it, ( the intelligence of com-) passion won't come out of sorrow. And you need this inward explosion of passion that creates ( gives birth to?) the sensitivity that can see beauty. So it is I think rather important to understand sorrow. I think these are all related - beauty, passion, sorrow.

A: To come to beauty I take it, it's an (inward?) passage from sorrow to passion to beauty ?

K: That's right, sir.

A: Yes. Please do go on.

K: You see, in the Christian world, if I am not mistaken, (the redemption of all human) sorrow is delegated to a person, and through that person we hope we escape from sorrow. While in the Eastern world 'sorrow' is rationalized through the statement of karma ; what you have done in the past life you pay for in the present or reward in the present, and so on, and so on. So that there are these two categories of ( metaphysical?) escapes. And there are thousands of ( physical) escapes - whiskey, drugs, sex, going off to attend a mass and so on, and so on. Man has never stayed (inwardly) with this thing, he has never said, look, I must see what is (the truth about it?) , I must 'penetrate' (meditatively into it?) it (rather than) delegate it to somebody else. I must go into it, I must face it. I must look at it. I must know what it is.
So, when the ( holistically friendly ?) mind doesn't try to 'escape' from ( dealing directly with ) this sorrow, either/or personal or the sorrow of mankind, then you remain (abide?) with ( the inward actuality of) it. Because ( in the context of an holistically friendly meditation?) any movement away from 'what is', is a dissipation of ( intelligent?) energy. It prevents you actually understanding 'what is'. ( And in our case?) the 'what is', is ( the subliminal darkness of?) sorrow. I do not know if you have ever ( tried to ) do it ? Because in everyone's life there is a incident, an accident, a shattering sense of your own loneliness, that brings (to one's attention) this tremendous ( inward darkness of) sorrow – it might be (awakened by ) an incident, a word, and so on. Now when the mind can (afford inwardly to ) remain ( or abide completely ?) with that, a total movement of passion is born out of this non-withdrawal from sorrow.

A: If I have understood you correctly, I become able to undergo what is there.

K: So, if, when there is no ( mental movement) away from 'what is', then out of that absolute inescapable reality comes this 'flame of passion'. And without this inward quality of passion which is the outcome of a great (transcendental ,) understanding of sorrow, I don't see how beauty can exist. Also one observes ( how the modern?) man has lost touch with ( the intrinsical beauty of) nature - especially in big towns, man is always 'going outwardly' ( for fame & fortune?) pursuing his own ( ego-centric) thought, and so he has more or less lost touch with nature.

A: I remember a profound shock that I had in my college days, I was standing on the steps of the administration building and watching a very, very beautiful sunset and one of my college acquaintances asked me what I was doing, and I said, well, I am not doing anything, I'm looking at the sunset. And you know what he said to me? This so shocked me that it's one of those things that you never forget. He just said, ''well there's nothing to prevent it, it is there''.

K: So, sir, as you see we are becoming more and more artificial, more and more superficial, more and more verbal, no 'vertical(ityà' at all, but linearity . And so the artificial things become more important - and very few have the sense of beauty within themselves and in their behaviour. Beauty in their usage of their language, the voice, the manner of walking, the sense of humility. With that ( inward ) 'humility '( humbleness of 'not-knowing'?) everything becomes so gentle, quiet, full of beauty.
So now how can you as a ( holistically minded?) Professor and Teacher, how can you educate your students to have this (inward) quality? Can a human being educate another human being to 'grow in beauty', grow in goodness, to flower in great affection and care? Because if we don't do that we are destroying everything we touch. So this becomes a very, very serious thing when we talk about beauty, when we talk about pleasure, fear, relationship, order and so on, all that, none of these things are being taught in any ( conventional ?) school.

A: . I brought up in my class yesterday this very question. And they were very ready to agree that we are in an 'upper division' course and we had never heard about this... And furthermore we have yet to find out whether we are really listening.

K: Is the ( holistically minded) teacher honest enough (in his inner forum) to say, ''I don't know'' ? And I ( have to learn anew) about all these things ? So sir, when we talk about a ( holistic) transformation of man, not in the field of knowledge or the field of time, but beyond that, who does really care about it?

A: It makes one think of Socrates, who was saying that he knew only one thing : that ''he didn't know'', and today I think he might be put in some (mental) institution for study. The whole thing would have to be checked out.

K: And when discussing 'beauty,passion and sorrow' we ought to go also into the question also of what is ( the holistically friendly) 'action'? Action, obviously means, 'acting now'. Not having acted or will act. It is the 'active present' (tense) of the verb 'to act', both as a movement in time and out of time. We will go into that a little bit later. ( But for today:) what is the ( holistically integrated way of ?) action that does not bring sorrow? You follow ? Every ( self-centred?) action, as we do it now, is contradictory , ( generating an inward) sense of 'meaningless' movement- the routine, the ( subliminal ?) 'remembrance' of things past and the acting according to that remembrance. So unless one understands very deeply what is ( one's time-bound) 'action', one will not be able to understand what is (the ending of?) sorrow. So 'action', 'sorrow', 'passion' and 'beauty' are all ( to be considered) together.

So, what is ( the 'time-binding') action? ( Generally speaking?) it is the approximation of an idea. I act according to my concept. That concept is traditionally (accepted) , or put together by myself , or put together by an (action?) expert. (Eg : ) Karl Marx has formulated (the concept of anti-capitalistic action) , and they ( the inevitable activists ?) conform according to what Marx formulated.

A: Yes, they are literally 'driven' (highly motivated by his ideas)

K: Absolutely. Driven, conditioned, brutalized. You don't care for anything, except for carrying out those ideas . And here too, ( in the US & A?) the same thing is going on in a ( commercially upgraded ?) form. So ( the 'time-bound' way of ) action - as we know it now - is based on the (inward) conformity to a (collective) pattern (of outward behaviour) , either ( projected ) in the future or/and ( rooted?) in the past, an idea(tional pattern?) which I ( endeavour to) carry out. A (thoughtful???) decision which I fulfil in acting. ( Hint:) The ( 'thinking memory' of the ) past is acting, so, it is not ( the holistically integrated) action.

A: Yes, yes, but this (time-binding action) may come from the radical conviction that if we don't generate a ( rational ?) 'pattern' ( of action) there will be no ( inward & outward) order.

K: So you follow what is happening, sir? ( The concept of ) order is in terms of (projecting a safe temporal ) pattern.

A: Yes, 'preconceived'....

K: Therefore it is ( generating a disorder) against which any intelligent man revolts. So that's why it is very important if we are to understand what beauty is we must understand what an there be action without the idea? Idea means, you must know this from Greek, means to see. See what we have done, sir. The word is to see. That is, 'seeing and doing' not the seeing, draw a conclusion from that and then act according to that conclusion. You see ?

A: Oh yes, oh yes...

K: Perceiving (what is going on?) , and from that perception draw a belief, an idea, a formula, and act according to that belief, idea, formula. So we are removed from perception. We are acting 'mechanically' according to a formula, therefore. You see, sir, how our minds have become mechanical.

A: Because you're 'doing' something that you must wait to come to pass.

K: You see sir, that's why one must ask this essential question: what is 'action'? Is it a repetition? Is it a (convenient) adjustment between 'what is' and 'what should be' or 'what has been'? Or is it a conformity to a ( socially accepted) pattern? Or to a belief, or to a formula? If it is (any or all of the above) , then inevitably there must be conflict. Because idea, action, there is an interval, a lag of time between the two, and in that interval a great many things happen. A division in which other incidents take place and therefore there must be inevitably conflict. Therefore (our) action is never complete, this ( time-binding) action is never total, it is never ending. ( Psychologically-wise?) 'action' means 'ending' - the ending of knowledge, I was told. Not the continuation of knowledge, but the ending. So now, is there an action which is not tied to the past as time or to the future or to a formula, or to a belief or to an idea, but a (directly perceptive?) action in which the seeing 'is' the doing.

A: Yes...

K: Now, the ( intelligent action where ) seeing is the doing becomes an extraordinary movement in freedom. The other is not freedom. This is what we do in the western world, the eastern world, all over the world, acting according to a formula, idea, belief, a concept, a conclusion, a decision; and never the seeing and the doing.

A: I was thinking about my cat, the marvelous animal the cat.

K: The ancient Egyptians worshipped cats.

A: And I think one of the most profound occasions for gratitude in my life was the living with a cat, and she taught me how to 'make an end'. But I went through a lot of interior agony before I came to understand what she was doing. It's as though one would say of her that she was performing a (spiritual) 'mission', you might say, without, of course, being a 'missionary' in the ordinary sense of that word.

K: Sir, you see one begins to see what is 'freedom in action'. But this ( time-free action of) 'seeing in the doing' is prevented by the 'observer' who is the past, the formula, the concept, the belief. The (known-based?) 'observer' comes in between perception and the doing. This 'observer' (mental entity?) is the factor of division, (as the ) 'idea and the conclusion' in action. So can we act ( holistically?) only when there is perception? We do this ( exceptionally ) when we are at the 'edge of a precipice'; the 'seeing' of the danger is ( generating an) instant action.

A: If I remember correctly the word 'alert' comes from the Italian which points to standing at the edge of a cliff.

K: You see, we are conditioned (to react instantly ) to ( seeing ) the danger of ( finding oneself on the edge) a cliff, of a ( facing a ) snake or a dangerous animal and so on, we are conditioned. But ( inwardly) we are conditioned to the idea that you must act according to an idea, otherwise there is no ( fool proof?) action.

A: Oh, yes, so terribly conditioned ....

K: Terribly. So we have this ( survivalistic) conditioning to ( react cvasi- instantly when seeing an outward ) danger. But inwardly we are conditioned to the ( good- old concept) that you cannot act (safely) without a formula, without a concept, belief and so on. So these two are the factors of our conditioning. And now, someone comes along and says, look, that's not the ( intelligent) 'action', but merely a repetition of what has been, modified, but it is not action. Action is when you 'see and do' (in real time?) .

A: And the reaction to that is, ''Oh, I see he has a new definition of action''.

K: I'm not defining it; I've done this all my life. I 'see' ( the truth or falseness of) something and I ( just?) 'do' it.

A: Yes.

K: Say, for instance, as you may know, there was this great 'spiritual' organization ( TS) , with thousands of ( wealthy?) followers and with a great deal of land, 5000 acres, castles and money and so on were formed around me as a boy. And in 1928 I said 'This is all wrong'. I dissolved it, returned the property and so on. I saw how wrong it was. The seeing of how ( the organised) religions have done it. I 'saw and acted'. And therefore there has never been a regret.

A: Marvelous !

K: Never said , Oh, I have made a mistake because I shall have nobody ( except the R&R's ) to lean on. You follow?

A: Yes, I do. Could we next time, in our next conversation relate beauty to this ( holistic ) 'seeing' ?

K: I was going there.

A: Oh, splendid ! Yes ...that's wonderful.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 10 Apr 2019 #162
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

8TH ( reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON (1974)

LEARNING ABOUT THE INWARD NATURE OF JOY & PLEASURE

A: Mr Krishnamurti, as we left off last time we were still talking of pleasure and I hope we can begin now to move along.

K: We were asking what relationship has ( man's constant search for ever wider excitement & ) pleasure with (the creative) happiness?

A: Within pleasure itself there is the intimation of joy, an intimation of it that is not strictly reduced to the word.

K: I would like to question whether pleasure has any relationship with (the holistic sense of ?) joy. Is there a connecting link between pleasure and joy? Because, what is pleasure? I take pleasure in eating, I take pleasure in accumulating money or in a dozen of other things, sex, violence. And this ( rarely questioned pursuit of) pleasure, when it is distorted becomes violence, anger, jealousy & all kinds of neurotic activities and so on. So what is ( behind this momentum of ) pleasure and what keeps it going?
Take that (elementarily) simple thing that both the child and the grown up man, ( including) the priest, they all have the pleasure of possession - a toy, or a house ; or possessing ( esoteric) knowledge ( about) God.
What is ( hidden behind man's constant search for a rewarding) pleasure ? EG : There is this single tree standing on the hill and you see that its astonishing beauty of the whole movement of the ( living) earth, the flowers, the deer, the meadows and the water and the single tree, the shadow. You see that and it's almost breathtaking. And as you turn away to go home, thought ( remembers the rewarding sensation and  ?) says, how extraordinary it was.

A: Compared with what now is.

K: I must have it again. I must get that same feeling which I had then, for two seconds or five minutes. So, what has taken place - there was the immediate (holistic) response to that beauty, non-verbal, non-emotional, then thought comes along and says, '' What a delight that was ! ''. And then (arises ) the desire for the repetition.

A: When we go to ( artistical) performances, we call it the 'encore', don't we ?

K: Of course.

A: And with 'encores' there's a creeping ( sense of) embarrassment. Because with the first reappearance this is a sign of adulation praise and everybody is happy. But then, of course, there's the problem of how many more encores can be made, maybe the last encore is a signal that we are fed up by now...

K: Quite, quite. So ( the 'self-interest' central thread of ) thought gives nourishment, sustains it and gives a 'direction' to ( this search for) pleasure. There was no ( demand for?) pleasure at the moment of perception, of that tree, the hill, the shadows, the deer, the water, the meadow. The (first) perception had nothing to do with 'me' or 'you', it was there. Then thought comes around and ( demands the repeat ?) memory of it, the continuing of that memory tomorrow and the pursuit of that. But... when I come back to it tomorrow it is not ( feeling) the same. I say, I was 'inspired', I must find a means of getting again 'inspired' therefore I take a drink, or a tea, or this or that. You follow?

A: Yes, yes. Do you think the establishment of 'festivals' would be related to what you say?

K: Of course of course, the Mardi Gras, & the whole business of it. So there it is : ( the rewarding sensation of) pleasure is sustained by ( the 'thinker' & its?) thinking - sexual pleasure, the image, the thinking of it, all that, and the repetition of it. And this (constant search for) pleasure becomes the daily routine. Now, what is the relationship of ( our routine search for self- rewarding pleasure?) and the (transpersonal?) 'delight' of the moment ? Enjoyment becomes pleasure when thought says, I have enjoyed it, I must have more of it.

A: But it's actually a 'falling out' of joy...

K: Yes. That's it, you see, sir. So pleasure has no relationship to ecstasy, to delight, or to ( the creative) joy & happiness. Because pleasure is the movement of thought in a ( self- rewarding ?) direction. The others have no direction. ( The sense of) Joy is something you cannot invite. Happiness you cannot invite. It happens and you do not ( even ) know that you are happy at that moment. It is only the next moment you say, how happy, how marvellous that was. So, can the brain register the beauty of that hill, the tree, the water the meadows and end ( stop fantasising about ?) it ? Not say, ''I want to experience it again !''.

A: Yes. This would take us back to that word 'negation' that we spoke of before – as it appears that something must be done.

K: You will see it in a minute what an extraordinary thing takes place if the ( holistically intelligent) mind asks ''can there be non-interference of thought in pleasure?'' Why should thought come into it at all?

A: There's no reason at all.

K: But it does ! Therefore the ( experiential) question arises how is the brain to stop thought entering into that enjoyment? You follow?

A: Yes...

K: Not to interfere. The ancient (wise men?) said : control thought. Don't let it creep in.

A: The minute it raises its head, 'whack it off'.

K: Now, ( in a more holistically friendly context ?) is it possible to enjoy, to take a delight in that lovely ( natural) scenery, and not let thought creep in? I'll show you that it is completely possible if one is ( completely?) attentive at that moment. You follow sir? Just be wholly ( present?) there ( be in the 'presence of attention'?) . When you 'see' the (beauty of the?) sunset, see it completely and don't let this (selfish interference of) thought begin. That means at that moment 'be supremely attentive', with your mind, with your (psychosomatic) body, with your nerves, with your eyes, ears, everything (awake & ) 'attentive'. Then thought doesn't ( have the opportunity to) come into it at all.
So ( to recap : the selfish pursuit of ?) pleasure is related to thought and thought in itself brings about ( its own momentum of ) fragmentation : ''I haven't ( enough) pleasure, I must pursue ( new avenues of) pleasure'' (As Seen on TV?)

A: It makes a ( value) judgment.

K: A (personal) judgment And the ( collateral) feeling of frustration, anger, violence - all that come into it. And what the religiously (minded) people have done is is the ( will-powered ) denial of pleasure - no ( more) pleasure.

A: In the classical thought you have the ( highly educational) works of St. Thomas Aquinas who never tires of saying in his ( self-introspecting) examination of thought, and the realisation that ''one must distinguish in order to unite''. We have managed to distinguish, but if we never see the whole thing the 'uniting' ( part) just vanishes.

K: That's the whole point, sir. So unless the mind understands the (hidden?) nature of (the self-centred) thinking, really very, very deeply, the mere attempt to control it means nothing. Personally I have never controlled a thing. This may sound rather absurd (strange ?) . But I've watched it and this (transpersonal) watching is its own discipline and its own action. Discipline in the sense of 'excellence'. When you 'see' (the whole truth about ) something ( going on inwardly?) why should you ( try to?) control it ? Why should you control ( your hidden desires ?) when you see a 'Poison' (marked) bottle' on the shelf? You don't (even) touch it. It's only when I don't (care to) 'read the signs' properly and I think it is a 'sweet' (drink) , then I take it. But if I read the label, if I know what it really is, I won't touch it. There's no ( need to ) control it.

A: Of course, it is self evident. I'm thinking of that wonderful story in the Gospel about Peter who in the storm gets out to walk on the water because he sees his Lord coming on the water and he's invited (by Him) to walk on the water. And he actually makes it a few steps and then...he loses his faith. And in terms of what you are saying, at the point where 'thought' took over, he started 'going down'...

K: That opens a door to the ( transcendental ) idea that in you there is the Higher self, the Atman, the Permanent.

A: Maybe we shouldn't say anything about That ?

K: That's it. But we can say this though: to see - look what we have done this morning - to see thought's (insatiable) appetite, to see the implications, the structure of pleasure, and that there is no relation to (inward) joy, to see all that, not verbally but actually, (in the presence of?) attention, that brings an extraordinary quality of ( compassionate) intelligence. After all intelligence is sensitivity. You (may ) call this ( inward Presence of) Intelligence, the Higher Self, or whatever (you like?)

A: It's as though at that instant it is 'released' ?

K: Yes. That ( time-free?) Intelligence comes in observation. And it is operating all the time if you 'allow it' - if you are seeing (holistically?) . But you need a completely healthy mind, a mind that is whole ( a mind that is holy) in itself. Unless the mind 'is' (touched by the?) Sacred, you cannot see what is 'sacred'. So, I don't know how this happened that I never for a second (tried to) 'control myself'. I don't know what it means.

A: And yet, amazingly you know what it is (going on) in others.

K: Oh, obviously, you can see it.

A: So this is something that you are able to see without having...

K:...gone through it.

A: Without having gone through it. Now this to me is a profoundly 'mysterious' (spiritual gift) . I mean it's 'miraculous' !

K: No, not necessarily, sir. Must I get drunk in order to find out what it is to be sober?

A: No, not (necessarily?) …

K: Because I see a man who is drunk, I say, for god's sake, see the whole movement of drunkenness, what lies behind it, what he goes through, see it, finished.

A: But it seems to me that in my listening to you there's something that is very deep here...The (authentic self-) control, in the very, very deep sense is an activity of 'something' that you haven't experienced but is nevertheless acutely present to you.

K: Yes, yes.

A: And I take it from what you've said, that intelligence reveals that. Intelligence, if intelligence is allowed to reveal it.

K: I think, sir, that there is a ( hidden) danger, in 'allowing intelligence to operate'. Which means 'you' (the 'thinker') have (free access to this ) intelligence and then you 'allow it'...

A: Yes, I see the trap of this verbal construction, because now we've got an 'observer' who's got a new ( inwardly perceptive) gimmick. Yes, I see what you mean.

K: So, you see that's why ( in the context of holistic perception  ?) discipline has a different meaning. When you understand ( the time-binding nature of?) pleasure, when you understand its relationship to enjoyment and to the joy and happiness and the beauty of happiness, beauty of joy and so on, then you understand the necessity of a different kind of (inner) discipline that comes naturally ( in the process of holistic ) learning . To 'learn' means one must be capable of 'hearing', of 'seeing' - a capacity which is not 'cultivable' (at will?) . You can cultivate any mental capacity, but that is not the same as the act of listening (with compassion ?) . I don't know if I'm...

A: Oh, you are. Yes I follow, very clearly.

K: The capacity to learn (in the outer world?) demands a certain discipline. I must concentrate (on the task ?) , I must direct my (mental) efforts in a certain direction and all that. That is, developing a certain ( mental ) capacity needs ( a significant amount of ?) time.

A: Yes...

K: But ( the inwardly insightful ?) perception has nothing to do with time. You 'see' ( instantly the whole truth about?) it and 'act' ( in real time?) , as you would do when you see a physical danger. You act instantly. You act instantly because you are so ( biologically) conditioned to ( react very fast in case of seeing an imminent physical ) danger.

A: Exactly.

K: That ( biological) conditioning is not (necessarily an act of?) intelligence. You see a dangerous animal and you run. It's self protective conditioned response. That's very simple. But ( the insightful ) 'perception and action' is not conditioned.
That means sir, that the ordinary human beings are conditioned now by the ( values of the ) civilization they are living in. For instance, they accept 'nationalism' -the flag and all the rest of it- although (modern history shows that) 'nationalism' is one of the ( 'psychological' ?) causes of war.

A: Oh yes, yes, indubitably.

K: Now, we don't see the ( psychological ?) danger of nationalism because we are conditioned to ( accept) nationalism as ( providing a collective) security.

A: But we do see ( the illusory nature of) our 'fear of the enemy'. And that 'fear of the enemy' dulls our capacity to deal with the 'inward) dangers.

K: ( So, to recap:) As the (inwardly open) mind is learning about pleasure, the very act of learning brings its own ( self- discipline &) order.

A: Yes. That's what l've been calling the 'miracle of learning' . It just asks you to jolly well leave it alone.

K: It brings its own order, and that ( holistic sense of inward) order says, ''don't be silly, control is out, finished''. I talked to a monk once. He came to see me. He had a great many followers. And he said, ''I have taught my disciples and I have arrived (where I am now) because I have learned to control my senses, my body, my thoughts, my desires. I've held them as the Gita says: you are riding horse, you know, reigning it . He went on about it for some length, I said ''Sir, where are you at the end of it ?'' He said, ''What are you asking, I have achieved enlightenment ! '' (Hint:) Follow the ( thinking ) sequence of a human being who has (chosen to follow a mental ) direction, which he calls Truth. And to achieve that there are the traditional steps, the traditional path, and he has done it all . And therefore he says, ''I have got it in my hand. I know what it is''. I said, ''All right sir'' . He began to be very excited about it because he wanted to convince me about himself being a big man and all that. So I sat very quietly and listened to him and he quietened down. And( as we were sitting by the sea ) I said to him, ''You see that sea, sir ?'' He said, ''Of course''. Can you hold that ( sea) water in your hand? When you hold that water in you hand it's no longer the Sea.

A: Right...

K: He couldn't make out. I said, All right. And the wind was blowing from the north, a slight breeze, cool. Can you 'hold all that' ? No. Can you hold the earth? No. So... what are you 'holding'? Words? He got angry and said ''I won't listen to you any more. You are an evil man''. And...he walked off.

A: I was thinking of the subtle irony of that. All the time he thought he was holding on to himself and he just let go ( his anger ) as he got up and walked away...

K: So you sir, that's what I am saying. Learning (in real time ) about (thought's pursuit of) pleasure, or about fear, really frees you from the (psychological) tortures of ( trying to keep under control) fear and the pursuit of pleasure. So ( ASAP?) there is a sense of real enjoyment in life. Everything then becomes a great joy, you follow, sir ? It isn't just a monotonous routine, going to the office, sex and money.
So ( to recap) (the self-imposed) discipline in the orthodox sense has no place in a ( holistically inclined) mind that's really wanting to learn about Truth, or to learn about pleasure. Out of that ( freedom of ) learning comes the extraordinary sense of ( an universally open) order which we were talking of the other day. And the marvellous sense of 'ending' each enjoyment as you live each moment. You don't ( need to) carry over the ( memories of) past enjoyments. ( But...if one is trying to ?) that becomes ( a 'thought certified'?) pleasure. Then the mechanistic repetition of pleasure is monotony, is boredom.

A: I was just thinking that there's been a profound confusion between perception and practice. The general idea is that perception is perfected at the end of ( a long) practice.

K: You see, sir, they always say that freedom is at the end. Not at the beginning. On the contrary, sir, it is the first step (the perceptive attitude) that counts, not the last step. ( An insightful) understanding can only come in freedom to observe. And in this (initial freedom from the known?) the 'seeing, learning and acting' are happening at the same moment, not see, learn & then act. The 'seeing' & the 'doing' are taking place at the same time. That ( quality of integrated perception) is whole.

A: Yes, a little while back it occurred to me that if we paid attention to our language as well as to the flowers and the mountains and the clouds, it would through perception, intelligence disclose themselves completely.

K: Quite...It is a question of (inward?) attention, isn't it, whether you are eating, whether you are observing pleasure. ( This inward presence of?) attention, that's the thing we have to go into very, very deeply ( for meditation homework) . Attention, I feel, has nothing to do with knowledge, or with ( temporal) action. In the very attending 'is' action.

A: Yes, I remembered when I was staying at one of the Indian ashramas, actually the ''Vedanta Forest Academy'', and when I got to my quarters a monkey and sat on the window sill with her little baby, and she looked full into my face, and I looked full into her's, but I think she looked fuller into mine; I had that strange feeling that I was actually a human being being...

K: Investigated ?

A:...investigated, or as my students say today, being 'psyched out' by this monkey. And it was a profound shock to me.

K: Talking of monkeys, sir, I was in Benares at the place I go to usually, I was doing my Yoga exercises, and a big monkey, with black face and long tail, came and sat on the veranda. I opened my eyes. I looked and there was this big monkey. She looked at me and I looked at her. A big monkey, sir. They are powerful things. And it stretched out its hand, so I walked up and 'held her hand'. And it was rough but extraordinarily supple. And we looked at each other. And it wanted to come into the room. I said, look, I am doing my daily yoga exercises, I have little time, would you come another day ? I kind of talked to it. Come another day. So it looked at me and I withdrew, went back. She stayed there for two or three minutes and gradually went away.

A: Marvellous, just marvellous. A complete act of attention between you two...

K: There was no sense of fear. It wasn't afraid. I wasn't afraid. A sense of, you know...

A: This reminds me of a story I read about Ramana Maharishi, how when he was a young man he went and lived in a tiger's cave. And it was also ( time-shared?) occupied by the tiger. And the tiger would come back after the hunt in the early hours of the morning and sleep with him. To read that within the 'environs' of our (western) culture you may think for a moment whether you could allow yourself to believe it. But in the context of what we have been saying about the monkeys, and this marvellous story you told me, I wish I could have shaken hands with that little mother with her baby. I wasn't ready to...

K: I don't know, there must have been a 'communication', there must have been a sense of friendship, you know, without any antagonism, without any fear of it. It looked at me, you know....
So ( this inward 'presence' of?) attention is not something to be practised, not to be cultivated, go to a school to learn how to be attentive. There is a great sense of care and affection in being attentive, which means diligently watching. That word diligent comes from legere, you know, of course, to read. To read exactly what it is, what is there. Not interpret, not translate it, not contrive to do something with it, but to read what is there. There is an infinite lot to see. There is tremendous lot to see in pleasure, as we said. And to 'read it' one must be watchful, attentive, diligent, careful.

A: There's a colloquial remark in our tongue when somebody wishes to secure attention, they will say, ''Do you read me?'' That, of course, has been taken over in technology into a different aspect, but quite apart from what someone would be saying with ear phones on in a plane, just common ordinary practice, sometimes a person will say that.

K: So that what we have done here : 'reading this whole map (of the human psyche) '. From the beginning of responsibility, relationship, fear, pleasure. All that. Just to observe the extraordinary map of our life.

A: And the beauty of it is, we've been moving within the concern for the question of the transformation of man which is not dependent on knowledge or time without getting worried about whether we are getting off the track. It is happening naturally.

K: And that's why, sir, it is right to ''live in the company of the wise''. Live with a man who is really wise. Not with people who are 'faking it' , not attending classes where you are taught wisdom. Wisdom is something that comes with self knowing.

A: It reminds me of a hymn in the Vedas that talks about the Goddess of Speech who never appears except among friends.

K: Yes.

A: Marvellous. Actually that means that unless there is the care, the (intelligence of ) affection that you mentioned, that is continuous concurrent with attention, there can be nothing but 'verbal babble'.

K: Which the modern ( media) world is ( actively) encouraging, you see ?

A: Yes...

K: Again which means ( pursuing) the superficial pleasures, not 'enjoyment'. You follow? Superficial pleasures become the curse (of modern world) And to go behind that is one of the most difficult things for people to do.

A: Because it goes faster and faster.

K: That's what is destroying the earth, the air. Everything they are destroying. ( But fortunately enough ?) there is a place I go to every year in India, where there is a ( K) school: the hills the oldest hills in the world. And when you go there you feel this utter quietness which time has not touched it. And when you leave it and come to 'civilization' you feel rather lost, a sense of what is all this about? Why is there so much noise about nothing?
( Parting words:) That's why it is a great delight to ''see everything as is'', including myself. To see what I am, not through the eyes of a Professor, a Psychologist, or a Guru – but just to 'see what I am' and to read what I am. Because all (the human) history is (enfolded ?) in me. You follow?

A: Of course. There is something immensely beautiful about what you have said... Thank you so much.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Apr 2019 #163
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

11TH ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON (1974)

THE HEALING ROLE OF ATTENTION IN DEALING WITH 'PSYCHOLOGICAL' HURTS

A: Mr Krishnamurti, I wonder whether you would agree that perhaps in the history of human existence the concept of God has been very badly abused. And it raises the whole question of the phenomenon of religion itself. I wondered if we might discuss that today?

K: You know, words like 'religion', Love, or God, have almost lost all their ( authentic ) meaning. They have abused so enormously, and (organised?) religion has become a vast superstition, a great ( machinery of) propaganda. So when we talk about 'religion' I would like to be quite clear that we are both of us using it in the real (experiential?) sense of that word : gathering together all energy, at all levels, physically, moral, spiritual, at all levels, gathering all this energy which will bring about a great (inward presence of?) 'attention' in which there is no frontier, and then from there move.
Thought (the 'self'-centred thinking within the field of the 'known'?) is never new, never free, and therefore it is always conditioned and fragmentary. So ( an authentic) religion is not something put together by thought, by fear, or by the pursuit of satisfaction and pleasure, but something totally beyond all this. And I think if we could keep to that (experiential) meaning of that word, we could from there start.

A: Yes. I was thinking while you were speaking concerning this act of attention, this gathering together of all energies of the whole man at the very simple (Biblic statement) , ''Be still and know that I am God''. Be still. It's amazing when one thinks of the history of religion, how little attention has been paid to that ( contemplative approach ?) as compared with ritual.

K: I think that when we lost touch with nature, with the universe, with the clouds, lakes, birds, then the priests came in with all the superstition, fears, exploitation, all that began. The priests became the 'mediators' between the human and the so-called divine. And if you have read the Rig Veda there is no mention of God at all. There is only this worship of 'something immense', expressed in nature and in the earth, in the clouds, in the trees, in the beauty of vision. But that being, very, very simple, the priests said, that is too simple.

A: Let's mix it up ?

K: I believe this (trend) is traceable from the ancient Vedas to the present time, where the 'priest' became the interpreter, the mediator, the explainer, the exploiter, the man who said, this is right, this is wrong, you must believe this or you will go to perdition, and so on and so on. He generated ( a sense of submission by) fear, not the adoration of beauty, not the adoration of life lived totally wholly without conflict, but something placed outside there beyond and above what he considered to be 'God' and made propaganda for that.
So ( to start anew?) I feel that from the beginning use the word religion in the simplest way. That is, the gathering of all energy so that there is total attention, and in that quality ( or 'presence'?) of attention the Immeasurable ( may?) come into (one's inner ) being.

A: Yes. I was thinking of a remark of Sri Aurobindo's in a study that he made on the Veda, where he traced its decline in the sentence. He said ''it issues as language from sages, then it falls to the priests, then after the priests it falls to the scholars or the academicians''.

K: I think it is fairly simple, sir, how the priests got hold of the whole business. Because ( the time-bound) man is so concerned with his own 'petty little affairs' (or just with struggling to survive in a highly disturbed environment ?) he hopes to find something other than the daily routine of living. He says, after all I'll die but there must be something more.

A: So fundamentally it's a matter of securing for himself some Heavenly Grace that will preserve him against falling into this mournful round of coming to be and passing away. Thinking of the past, on the one had, anticipating the future on the other, you're saying he 'falls out' of the present now.

K: Yes, that's right. So, if we could keep to the ( ancient?) meaning of the word 'religion' , the (ultimate experiential ?) question arises : can the mind be so attentive in the total sense that the Unnameable comes into being? You see, personally I have never read (seriously?) any of these things, Veda, Gita, Upanishads, the Bible, all the rest of it, or any philosophy. But I questioned everything.

A: Yes … 

K: Not only 'question' but 'observe'. And one sees the absolute necessity of a mind that is completely quiet. Because it's only out of ( inward) quietness you perceive ( the whole truth about ?) what is happening. If my (materialistic?) mind is constantly rattling away, I won't pay attention to what you are saying. To pay attention means to be quiet (inwardly silent ?) .

A: There have been some Christian priests, who had a grasp of this. I was thinking of Meister Eckhardt's remark that whoever is able to read the Book of Nature doesn't need ( to read?) any scriptures at all.

K: That's just it.

A: Of course, he ended up in very great trouble towards the end of his life, and after he died the church denounced him.

K: Of course, of course. The organized belief as ( generally propagated by) church hasn't got the quality of real depth and real spirituality.
So what is the quality of a ( holistically friendly?) mind that can perceive something beyond the 'measurement' ( mechanistic activity ?) of thought? Because the 'religious' mind has this feeling of being sacred in itself, and therefore is capable of seeing something immeasurably sacred.
We were talking the other day about suffering, personal and the sorrow of the world - it isn't that one must go through it, but as it is there, one must understand it and go beyond it. And that's one of the qualities of a religious mind, that is incapable of suffering. It has gone beyond it. Which doesn't mean that it becomes callous. On the contrary it is a compassionate mind.

A: Regarding the (accepted significance of the ) word 'religion' the scholars differ as to where that came from: on the one hand some say it means to 'bind' (re-ligare?), the church fathers spoke about that. And then others say, no, no, it means the ''splendour that cannot be exhausted by thought''. Wouldn't you say, that there is another sense of ('un-) binding' in the sense that in the act of attention, one isn't bound as with cords of rope ?

K: Sir, let's be clear. When we use the word 'attention' there is an (experiential) difference between ( mental) 'concentration' and 'attention'. Concentration is exclusion. I direct all my thinking on a certain point (or topic ?) , and therefore it is excluding (every potential distraction?) so that it can focus its whole concentration on that. Whereas ( the holistically friendly?) attention is something entirely different from concentration. In that there is no exclusion, no resistance and no effort. And therefore no ( self-protective) frontiers, no limits.

A: How would you feel about using 'being receptive', in this respect?

K: I think the word 'attention' is really a very good word. Because ( a holistically attentive mind ?) not only understands ( the limitations of mental) concentration, but it also sees the nature of the (observer-observed?) duality and (its subliminal) conflict of the opposites.
Now, ( the holistic quality of ) 'attention' means not only the brain giving its energy, but also the mind, the heart, the nerves, the total entity, the total human mind giving all its energy ( in order ) to perceive (the truth of the matter ?) . At least for me, that is the meaning of attention- to attend. That means listen, see, give your heart to it, give your mind to it, give your whole being to 'attending' otherwise you can't attend (anything completely) .
So when we come (the inward quality of ) such a mind, I think it would be worthwhile if we could discuss the nature of ( psychological) 'hurt'.

A: Yes... ?

K: Why human beings are ( getting ?) hurt ?

A: You mean both physically and psychologically?

K: Psychologically especially. Physically we can bear up with a pain and say I won't let it interfere with my thinking. I won't let it corrode (my inward) quality of mind. The mind can watch over that. But the psychological hurts are much more difficult to grapple with and understand. I think it is necessary because a mind that is hurt is not an innocent mind. The very word innocent comes from innocere, not being hurt. A mind that is incapable of being hurt. There is a great ( inward) beauty in that.
So we ought to enquire very, very deeply into the nature of hurt, because a mind that is not hurt is an innocent mind. And you need this quality of innocency to be so totally 'attentive'.

A: If I have been following you correctly I think may be you would say, wouldn't you, that man becomes hurt when he starts (when he remembers?) to think that he is hurt'.

K: Look sir, it's far much deeper than that, isn't' it? One is getting hurt (psychologically?) because one's (brain) has built a (self-protective?) image about oneself, a ( defence) wall between you and me. So, that's one of the most important things in ( a holistically friendly way of?) life, not to (to identify inwardly with ?) a (self- protective) 'image' about oneself. If you have, you are inevitably going to be hurt.

A: Doesn't this raise the question of the child identifying himself with the name ?

K: Yes, the child can identify itself but without the 'image', but the moment he builds an image of belonging to a certain class, when that (elitistic self-image?) is sustained by thought, then you are inevitably going to be hurt.
So can the ( holistically minded individual ?) be (re-)educate (himself/herself in order to) never to get hurt? Unfortunately through the nature of the society in which we live, we have already been 'hurt', we have ( subliminally identified with self-protective?) ) images about ourselves which are going to be hurt, but ( the 64,000 $ question is?) Is it possible not to create ( & identify oneself with such ?) 'images' at all? I don't know if I am making myself clear ?

A: You are....

K: That is, suppose I have a (great?) image about myself is it possible to understand it and therefore dissolve it, and never to create a new image about myself? You understand?

A: Wouldn't it disappear with this complete act (inward presence ?) of attention?

K: Using attention as a ( quick?) means of wiping it out - it doesn't work that way. In understanding the ( psychological damage created by this self-identified ) 'image', in understanding the hurts, in understanding ( what was wrong with the ) education in which one has been brought up in the family, the society, all that, in the understanding of all that, out of this (holistically friendly ) understanding comes ( the quality of compassionate?) 'attention'; not the attention first and then wipe it out. You can't attend (holistically) if you're 'hurt' inwardly, because ( the intelligent energy entangled in) that hurt is going to keep you ( un-consciously!) from ( freely giving) a total attention.

A: The amazing thing, if I'm understanding you correctly, is that even in the study of one's dysfunctional history, provided I bring total attention to that, there's going to be a 'non-temporal' relationship between the act of ( compassionate) attention and the ( inward) healing that takes place.

K: That's right.

A: While I am attending ( the inward hurts with loving care?) the thing is leaving.

K: The thing is leaving, yes, that's it. So, there are two (experiential ?) questions involved: (a) can the hurts be healed so that not a mark is left; and ( b) can future hurts be prevented completely, without any resistance. You follow? Those are two problems (left for meditation homework ?) . And they can be ( holistically?) understood and resolved only when one gives 'attention' to the understanding of my hurts. Just to see the hurts I have received, the insults, the negligence, the casual (or mean?) words, the gestures, all those hurts.

A: There seems to be a relationship between what you are saying and the (inward ) meaning of the word, 'salvation'. To make (oneself) whole.

K: To make ( oneself) whole. How can you be whole, sir, if you are hurt?

A: Impossible.

K: Therefore it is tremendously important to understand this question.

A: Yes, it is. But I am thinking of someone who has already got a 'freight car' filled with hurts. We are not dealing with a 'little one' in a crib now, we're already...

K: We are already hurt.

A: Already hurt. And hurt because it is hurt. It multiplies endlessly.

K: Of course. From that (self-image being) 'hurt', he's reacting in a violent way, or he is frightened ( to be hurt again) and therefore withdrawing. From that ( memory of having been ) hurt he will accept anything that gives him safety – like this idea of a God who will never hurt.

A: Sometimes a distinction is made between ourselves and animals with respect to this problem. An animal, for instance, that has been badly hurt will be disposed toward everyone in terms of emergency and attack. But over a period of time if the animal is treated with loving care …

K: So, sir, (in a nutshell:) a human mind cannot be 'made whole' unless this issue is understood very, very deeply.

A: The question that I had in mind is that this animal, if loved, will, provided we are not dealing with brain damage or something, will in time love in return. But with the human person such love cannot be in that sense coerced. It isn't that one would coerce the animal to love, but that the animal, because ( it is psychologically?) innocent, does in time simply respond, accepts it (for what it is) . But then a human person is doing something we don't think the animal is.

K: The human being is being hurt and is ( knowingly or not?) hurting (himself & others?) all the time.

A: Exactly. He is likely to misinterpret the very act of generosity of love that is made toward him. So we are involved in something very frightful here: by the time the child comes into school, seven years old...

K: He is ( holistically wise ?) already finished - the 'tragedy' of it, sir, that is what I mean.

A: And when you ask the (holistically minded?) question, as you have, is there a way to educate the child so that the child is never hurt...

K: That is part of our (survivalistic?) culture. ( Modern) civilization is hurting people by this ( insidious mentality based on) comparison, constant imitation, constant saying, you are that, I must be like you. That's a hurt.

A: A child is born to a hurt parent, sent to a school where it is taught by a hurt teacher. Now you are asking, is there a way to ( re-) educate this child ( and/or...his teacher?) so that (s)he recovers ?

K: I say it is possible, sir, when the educator is (becoming) aware of his (inward) hurts and he is aware also of the child's hurt then their (interacting) relationship changes (qualtatively). So I say, all right, we both are hurt my friend, let's help each other to wipe it out. That is the (intelligent & compassionate ) action of Love.

A: Can such a relationship to another human being must bring about his healing ?

K: Obviously, sir, when there is no ( self-isolating ) image between you and me.

A: Let us say there is a ( holistically minded?) teacher who has come to grips with this (psychological issue) in himself, very, very deeply, and has come to a place where he no longer is 'hurt-bound'. The child or the young student that he meets, or even a student his own age, because we have adult education, is a person who is hurt-bound and will he not be prone to 'misinterpret' the activity of the one who is not hurt-bound?

K: As a (holistically minded ?) educator it is my (primary) responsibility to see he is never ( feeling) hurt, not just teach some 'beastly' (academic?) subject. So in (the context of a holistically friendly?) education can the educator, observe his hurts, become aware of them, and in his ( interacting ) relationship with the student ( try to?) resolve his hurt and the student's? That's one ( still an unsolved?) problem. But it is ( becoming) possible if ( and when?) the educator is really, in the deep sense of the word, educated, that is, cultivated.
And from that arises, our next (existential?) question : is the human mind capable of not being hurt ? Or even knowing it has been hurt, not add more hurts. Right?

A: Yes... ?

K: I have these two problems: one, being hurt, that is the past; and never to be hurt again. Which doesn't mean I build a wall of ( aggresive?) resistance, or I withdraw, or some silly thing like that, but 'no hurt'. Is that possible? You see the two questions? Now, what is hurt? What is that (inner) 'thing' that is hurt? The ( temporal 'self '), the ( mental inner ?) image which I have about myself?

A: It is a (very personal) investment that I have in it.

K: Yes, it's my ( psychological) 'investment' in myself. Now, what is this 'myself' ( the temporal 'self' made of ?) The name ( & form ?), the (personal ?) qualities, the education, the bank account, the furniture, the house, the hurts, all that (psychologically active memory ) is 'me'.

A: I see what you mean. But going back to what you were saying : how it is possible for the ( holistically minded?) teacher to come into relationship with the student so that a work of healing, or an act of healing happens ?

K: See sir, if I were in (charge of such ?) a class, that's the first thing I would begin with, not some ( highly academic ?) subject. I would say, 'look, you ( have been psychologically ) hurt and I am hurt, we are both of us hurt''. And point out what ( giving continuity to this ?) hurt does, how it destroys people (inwardly and?) out of that ( resentful accumulation) there is violence, brutality, out of that I want to hurt ( back those ) people (who hurt me) . You follow? All that comes in.
So, I would spend ( some quality time in) talking about that, every day, in different ways, till both of us 'see' it (or...refuse to see it ?) . Then we are both ( getting personally ? ) involved in it. So...if I was such an educator, whether with the older people, or the younger people, I would ( try to) establish this ( sharing) relationship. That's my ( true educational?) function, not just to transmit some ( 'living dead'?) information.

A: Yes, that's really very profound. I think one of the reasons that what you have said is so difficult for an educator reared within the whole academic background : we want not only to hear (from the horse's mouth?) that it is possible for this ( holistical) transformation to take place, but we want it demonstrably proved and therefore not merely possible but predictably certain.

K: Certain, yes.

A: And then we are back into the whole 'thing' (Psychological Labyrinth?) .

K: Of course we are back into the old rotten stuff. Quite right.

A: Next time could we take up the relationship of ( an Universally Intelligent ?) Love to all this? I would very much enjoy that...

K: ( Hopefully ?) it would all 'come together'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 12 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Apr 2019 #164
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

LOVE OR PLEASURE ?

12TH (reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON

A: Mr Krishnamurti, in our last conversation we were talking about an (inward ) transformation of each individual human being that is not dependent on knowledge or time, and you were speaking about what you regarded to be 'religion' in the true sense, and its relation to the act of attention and how when the whole personal history of hurt is a reference, this act of attention simply is vitiated, it cannot come to pass. And as towards the end of the discussion, you spoke of Love, could we now explore more in depth this question ?

K: Sir, when you use the word 'explore', are we using it intellectually, exploring with the intellect, or exploring of seeing in the words the mirror which will reveal ourselves ?

A: I hope the latter.

K: That is, the word (the verbal description?) is the 'mirror' in which I, as a human being, observe. So ( in this inward obseration) the words then become the thing.

A: It could be the beginning of an (authentic) meditation ?

K: So I when we explore (the inward) significance this word 'love', one has to very, very serious about this matter because most people are using this word so loosely : love of my wife, love of my property, I love to read, I love to go to the cinema. And one of our difficulties is, that our modern (culturally standardised) education is not (very helpful in ? ) making us serious. We are becoming specialists. ( The role of a holistically friendly?) is to see that the human mind is serious. Serious (regarding) what it is to live, not just become a ( narrow minded) specialist.
So if that is all understood what is 'love'? Is 'love' the ( sugar-coated?) expression of desire? Is love a thing that can be cultivated (by thought?), that can be made to grow by doing all kinds of things so that I will know how to love my neighbour?

A: We sometimes hear the admonition that 'one has to work at it'. So, in terms of our conversations up to now, that would be a denial of it ?

K: So, is 'love' ( synonimous to ?) pleasure? Apparently it is, now. So what is pleasure in relation to love? What is enjoyment in relation to love? What is ( the selfless feeling of) joy?
Can a mind that is ( actively) pursuing pleasure, an ambitious mind, a competitive mind, can such a mind ( have access to ) Love? Unless really one goes into this very, very deeply, the 'other' thing is not even possible to understand. We can talk endlessly about what love is, what love is not theoretically. But if we use the word love as a mirror to see what is happening inwardly, then I must inevitably ask the question whether it is ( a convenient word for describing the instinctual drive for ) pleasure in its multiple forms?
So, if a ( holistically minded?) person who is really concerned to come upon this thing called love, must 'negate' this whole ( self-deception?) , which means he must understand the right place of pleasure . Otherwise your talk of love, it's just another ( empty?) word which has no ( true inward) meaning.

Love is (spontaneously occurring in ?) the total absence of the 'me' – of my personal ambitions, my greed, all that, which is ( the time-bound?) 'me'- the total negation of all that. Negation, by the understanding of all that. When the 'me' is not, the 'Other'( the Presence of Compassionate Intelligence & Love ?) is. You know, sir, even the Christian sign of the cross, I was told is a very, very ancient symbol which meant, wipe out (or... 'cross' out?) the I.

A: Never heard of that....

K: The 'I' ( the ego-centric time-bound entity ?), wipe it (or, optionally cross it?) out. You understand, sir?

A: Yes, in a 'non-canonical' statement of Jesus, it's written that he said that the ( realisation of the ) Kingdom of Heaven doesn't come by ( outward) observations, it's not here, it's not there, it's within one. Or in the ancient Greek texts it doesn't mean a 'locus' but a presence.

K: It's a 'presence', yes. So when we are enquiring into this question of love we must ( take a large detour &?) enquire into pleasure; in all its varieties, and the relation of real joy, this ( imponderable?) 'something' which can never be invited, and its relation to love.
So why have we made Love into such a fantastic, romantic, sentimental affair ? Is it because intellectually we have become secondhand people ? My escape is sex, the only place where I say, ''I feel free'' . And what is celibacy? Is it in there, in your heart and your mind? Or just the ( negation of the physical ) act? Is it the act or the mind that is chaste?

A: It must be the mind ?

K: The chaste mind. Which means a tremendously 'austere' mind.

A: This goes back to the earlier conversation when we were talking about a chaste mind which would never be hurt.

K: Never. And therefore an innocent mind. Which has no picture of the woman or the man or the act. None of that imagination.

A: This is very fundamental. I know in our conversations that I keep bringing up things that I've read and studied because that has largely been the occupation of my life. And the thing that moves me so deeply in listening to you is that so many of the things that have been said over the centuries, and written over the centuries, ought to have been understood in the way in which you've been presenting them now . We even have a ( mystical) tradition in Christian theology that what is called the 'fall of man' began at the point of imagination. And yet that hasn't been properly understood, it seems to me. Otherwise had it been properly understood we would not be in this immense conflict that we are in.

K: So, can the mind be ( inwardly) chaste? And... can such a mind exist in this world? Otherwise Love is not.
So is Love (synonimous to) pleasure? I can only answer ''it is not'', only when I have understood pleasure. And understand not just intellectually , but deeply, inwardly, see the nature of it, the divisive process of it.
( Hint : the search for personal) pleasure is always divisive. Joy is never dividing. ( Ethically-wise?) this also means, don't kill under any circumstances, don't kill an animal to eat.

A: I was just 'thinking' that an (inwardly) 'chaste' mind would have to be an undivided mind. And the relationship between seriousness and love has also been come into my awareness here.

K: Yes, sir, if I am ( holistically) serious then I will never kill, and love then it is really compassion. Passion for all, compassion means, compassion for all. And because I love, & have compassion, this (holistic state of mind?) generates its own intelligence, that will operate at that moment. Whether I enjoy a good meal, or a good sunset, or see a beautiful tree or woman or whatever it is, at that moment, if the ( natural intelligence of the mind?) doesn't 'end it', it becomes pleasure. If the mind, thought carries over that enjoyment and wants it to be repeated the next day it has become pleasure, it is no longer enjoyment. I enjoy and that's the end of it.

A: William Blake has a beautiful little stanza that goes: ''He who kisses a joy as it flies, lives to see eternity's sunrise''. And what you have said is, that if you won't let it fly, holds it, then we have 'fallen out' of the act of joy into this...

K: ...pursuit of pleasure.

A: ...endless, repetitive in the end mournfully boring thing.

K: And I think, sir, that ( unfortunately?) this is what is happening in this country, as well as in Europe and in India, the desire to fulfil ( the senses?) instantly - the ''pleasure seeking principle''. ( The subliminal expectancy of ) being constantly entertained.

A: This goes back to what you were pointing out earlier in the last conversation- an inward emptiness that needs to be filled. Feeling inwardly lonely, and looking for what we call 'fulfillment'.

K: Of course...

A: So, it would seem that if one doesn't begin with Love, one will not make this act of 'attention' in a non-utilitarian way.

K: It is not in the market place, quite.

A: And in an early conversations we had, you said that the beginning is the the end.

K: Yes. The first step is the last step.

A: The first step is the last step. We are speaking about an act that is a radical end to all this nonsense that's been going on which is terrifyingly destructive nonsense. There is the doing of something....

K: ...that ( consists in ) the seeing of all this.

A: And you have said, the seeing 'is' the doing, it is the action .

K: If I see the ( psychological) danger of the continuity of thinking in terms of pleasure, therefore I end it instantly.

A: May we relate here just for a moment, this ( instant ) action of love to education? As a teacher I'm immensely concerned in this.

K: Sir, what we have been discussing in our dialogue this last week and now is part of (a holistically friendly) education. It is educating the mind to a different thing.

A: Once in a while you will find the (holistically minded ) student who has really had it (with the routinely way of life) and the first question they will usually put to you is, ''What must I do ?''. Now, of course, that's a trap, because they are looking for a 'means' when they say that. We are not talking here about a 'means' (for a definite course of action) .

K: The 'means' (used) are ( determining ) the 'end'. Quite.

A: In Christianity you've got the question, ''What must I do to be saved ?''. And the traditional answer is ''to believe'' ; but then the poor person is stuck with what this means and ends up in believing ...in (the spiritual virtues of) belief. Now in our earlier conversation together we reached the point where the teacher and the student were talking together.

K: We are doing that now. I am not your teacher, but we are doing that ( shared learning ?) now.

A: Well, I understand in our conversations that is not your role, but I must confess that it has been working out in this sense, because I have learned immensely. Now, there are two things here that need some clarification and I need your help : On the one hand to make this pure act of attention, I need only myself. Is that correct?

K: The question is, what am I to do in this world?

A: Yes...

K: First of all, ( consciousness-wise?) the world 'is' me and I 'am' the world. That is an absolute fact (to be meditated upon for homework ?) And what am I to do if this ( time-bound consciousness of the?) world is corrupt, immoral, and ( devoid of) love. There is superstition, idol worship, of the mind and the hand. There is war. That is the (ongoing state of the ) world (in 1974) . What is my ( holistically responsible ) relationship to it? There is an authentic relationship to it only if I 'am' that. If I am not that I have no relationship to it.

A: I understand that in terms of ( a holistically perceptive ) action .

K: That's it. For me the world is corrupt, is geared to kill. And I won't kill. I say, my god, how can you do such a thing ? How can you 'educate' a society which allows such a thing to happen?

A: Then perhaps I should rephrase the question and say, that in this pure act of attention, I am not separated from the world in which I am, and the world is not separate from me.

K: I look at it from a different angle altogether, because then there is something different in me operating. Compassion, Love & Intelligence, all that (holistic quality ) is operating in me.

A: But it seems that there are two possibilities (of action) here. On the one hand, this pure act of attention doesn't require that I be in the physical presence of another human being, since ( consciousness-wise) I am always in relation with him whether I am there or not.

K: Of course.

A: Yes, I fully grasp that. But then the second possibility is that within conversation, as we are enjoying it together now, some (new perception) occurs, something takes place. It's not that we must be together for it to take place. And it's not that we must be alone for it to take place. Something occurs which is quite beyond all these distinctions of 'inner' and 'outer', you over there, I'm over here.

K: See what takes place ? First of all we are really serious. Second, the (group mentality of ) killing, & corruption we have finished with it. So we stand alone : all-one, not isolated. Because when the mind is not ( inwardly entangled) that , it is alone (all-one) . It sees that ( this dualistic mentality) is false, that is corrupt ; inwardly I won't touch it . Therefore the mind is completely ( standing) alone.

A: And it is saying this amidst all this mournful round.

K: Therefore, being alone (all-one) it is pure.

A: Chaste.

K: This purity can be cut into a million pieces and still remain pure. It is not my purity, or your purity, it is pure. Like pure water remains pure water.

A: That takes us back to that Sanskrit (saying ) : 'Fullness is issued forth from fullness''.

K: But you see sir, we are afraid of being alone. Which is, we are frightened of ( facing the condition of ) being (inwardly) isolated, although by every act ( of selfishness?) the human being does, it is isolating himself. ( EG:) his ruthless ambition is isolating himself, his nationalistic ( mentality) is isolating himself. When he says, this is 'my' ( beloved?) family, he is isolating himself, when he says ''I want to fulfil myself '', he is isolating himself.
Now, when (and if?) you negate all, by seeing the (subliminal) stupidity of all that, then you are ( standing) alone. And that has tremendous beauty in it. And therefore that ( inward) beauty (of all-oneness?) , you can spread it everywhere, but it still remains alone. So that is the quality of compassion. It happens, it comes with ( its own ) intelligence. So ( the intelligent presence of) love is something, sir, that is really chaste. Chastity is the quality of 'all-oneness' and therefore it is never hurt.

A: It's interesting that in this (all-) one action one neither hurts himself, nor another. It's a total abstention from hurt.

K: That's what I am saying. Love is not ( just) forgiveness - you follow - I forgive and walk away. Love 'is' Intelligence. And this Intelligence means to be sensitive to any given situation. And if you are ( inwardly) sensitive, the situation will tell you what to do. But if you are insensitive, or if you are already determined what to do, or if you are hurt by what others have done, then an 'insensitive' action takes place.

A: Yes, yes, of course. This raises very, very interesting questions about what we generally mean by 'conscience' - it seems to me has invited an astonishing amount of miscomprehension of what's going on.

K: Therefore, sir, one has to investigate for homework) what is 'consciousness' and what is the 'conscience' that tells you to do or not to do?

A: Consciousness in its relation to human relationship is something that I should like to explore with you.

K: We have to discuss living ( one's daily existence ) , love and this enormously (challenging?) thing called 'death'. Are they interrelated or are they separate - living, existing, is it different from Love?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Apr 2019 #165
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

13TH (reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON

ALL ABOUT LIFE, DEATH & LOVE

A: Mr Krishnamurti, at the end of our last conversation, we were looking into the relationships among living, and love and death. I was hoping today that we might pursue this in terms of our continuing concern for the (psychological) transformation of man.

K: Sir, this is such a complex question . Perhaps we should begin with what is 'living' and then go from there to (the topics of?) 'love' and 'death'.

A: Good.

K: Shouldn't we actually look at what actually is going on which we call human existence, living, those two words to cover this whole field of man's endeavour to better himself, not only in the technological world but also psychologically, he wants to be different, he wants to be more than what he is, and so on. Now, when we look at it (from the psychological point of view?) it is a matter of constant ( survivalistic ?) struggle from the moment you are born to the moment you die, it is one battle -not only in relationship with other (fellow?) human beings, but also economically, socially (& inwardly) , it is a vast battle. Spending 40, 50 years in an office, in a factory, with occasional holidays for a month – a rather 'wild' kind of holidays because the holidays are a reaction to their monotonous life. That is what we call (the present condition of our ) 'living' : a constant ( egocentric) struggle, and nobody seems to question ( seriously ) why should it be that way? We say, yes, it (the survialistic mentality?) is part of our existence. It is a part of our natural inheritance. ( Coming in straight line from) the animal world we can see (their everyday ) struggle (to survie and/or dominate?) , and ( consciousness-wise?) we are still part of it. (And apparently?) we have never asked (ourseles seriously )  : is this the way to live? Is this the right way to behave, or to appreciate the beauty of living?

A: The usual question turns on how to engage the battle more effectively.

K: But the (psychological back-) ground is prepared for struggle. And the (holistically inclined?) man who looks at it ( compassionately & ) intelligently, might say, ''For God's sake, that's not the way to live ! Let's find out if there is a different way of living''. (As of 1974 ?) nobody ( seems to ) say, ''this is wrong, this isn't living ! '' And this is an authentic question, it's a question that must be put (by the coming generations?) .

A: Exactly. I was reflecting as you were speaking that even in the class room it's taken for granted that this Battle (of Survival?) is... what it is. It is to be related to with fortitude, and so forth, but the question concerning it doesn't arise.

K: To some ( holistically minded) young people it has arisen, but ( more often than not?) they ''go off the tangent''. Either try to form a commune, or go off to some ancient country and just disintegrate, do nothing, think nothing, just live (enjoying the moment ?)

A: Which is just a (side-way ) movement into the question , not a 'vertical' one.

K: That's right. So if it is a valid question, it must have a valid answer & say, well, I will (try to) live without a single conflict. That means without ( the ordinary self-) divisive ( mentality) . Conflict means division between you and me, we and they, ( thinking in terms of ) fragmentation not only inwardly but outwardly.
( As a holistic 'rule of thumb'?) where there is a fragmentation (of human consciousness?) there must be battle. One fragment assuming the ( controlling) power and dominating the other fragments.
So, an 'intelligent' ( holistically minded?) person, has to find out a way of life, in which ( the dualistic mentality of ) conflict of any kind has come to an end. ( For the 'speaker'?) it is possible ( even as ) I have watched for the last 50 years, the battle going on around, spiritually, economically, socially, one class battling the other class, and the various dictatorships. All of them have their roots in this (divide & conquer?) mentality : encouraging obedience, imitating, conforming, obeying. So our life has become a battle. To me personally, to live that way is the most ( humanely destructive & ) uncreative way of living. I won't live that way. I would rather 'disappear' (...?) .

A: I think that perhaps some sort of ( intellectual ) confusion is arising in our minds when we look at the human conflicts in terms of the analogy with the animal world - if I have understood you correctly, it simply doesn't apply.

K: Doesn't, no. We study the animals or the birds in order to understand ( the total consciousness of ) man. Why not study yourself ? You don't have to go to the animal (behaviour) to know man. So that is, sir, really a very important ( existential) question we have : this sense of deep anxiety that if we don't struggle we will be (human) failures, and therefore the 'way of becoming' (something or someone within the field of the 'known'?) is the only righteous way of living.

A: To drive oneself to be what is called 'productive' ?

K: Productive, progressive. And we are taught this from childhood (or just go for it instinctively?) to battle, not only with ( the physical environment but also with?) ) yourself, & with your neighbour.
So, having stated that, is there a ( holistically friendly?) way of living (inwardly) without conflict? I say there is, obviously. Which is (requiring) to understand this (whole mentality of) division, to see (the inward truth of) how 'fragmented' we are and ( hopefully?) that very perception brings an action which is totally different from the action of conflict. Because the (holistically integrated) energy of 'perception and acting' is entirely different. And that energy is the energy of Creation. Anything that is ( spontaneously) 'created' cannot be in conflict.

A: It interests me very much that you used the word energy here in relation to both activities. And you haven't said that the energy at root is different. If I have understood you correctly, ( thought's) energy is released in fragmentary patterns, whereas the energy that's released with (direct) perception is the same energy but it is always whole.

K: Yes, sir, that's right. Therefore itis sane, therefore healthy, therefore holy.

A: I am thinking about Socrates, who refers to his 'demon', meaning the energy that operates in wholeness. And we have taken that word from the Greek clearly out of the context and turned it upside down and now it means a projection of our own 'demonic' behaviour which we have generated ourselves.

K: That's right.

A: Sir, this makes tremendous sense to me. Yes, please go on.

K: Now, so, the way we live is ( holistically speaking?) the most impractical, insane way of living. We never say, let's find a way of living which is whole, and therefore healthy, sane and holy.
So the ( non-dualistic ) ' seeing & acting' is ( allowing) the release of the ( brain & mind's) ) total energy , which is non-fragmentary. Now, to bring about such a mind, such a way of living, one has to observe ( for homework?) what actually is taking place outside and inside of us. And look at it (as is ?) , not try to transform it, not try to bring about different adjustments, just see it . When I look at ( the beauty of a Swiss?) mountain, I can't change it. But (inwardly ) we would like to 'change' what we see. But if the 'observer' is ( not dividing itself from what is inwardly ? ) 'observed', therefore, there is no ( point in thinking to operate a ) change in that. There is only 'seeing and acting'.

A: This holds a mirror up to an earlier conversation when we talked about the inward perception of the suffering which generates passion.

K: That's right.

A: One doesn't have to 'work it out'. It happens. And behold, upon the same instant beauty breaks out, and love. So the passion itself is (becoming )compassion.

K: Now, sir, if you could as a ( holistically minded?) professor, teacher, or parent, show the impracticality of the way we are living and point out a way of living in which there is no conflict, this is the highest form of education.

A: Yes... but it has a (pre-) requirement in it, namely the teacher himself must be ( in a state of mind which is ) without conflict. This is a very different point of departure from what occurs in our general educational structure, where a tremendous emphasis is placed on 'techniques of education', while the question of the individual teacher as having undergone a transformation of the sort that you have been discussing is not a factor of radical concern. What is a matter of concern is that the teacher has the interests of the students at heart which, of course, is laudable in itself, but it's after the fact of this first transformation.

K: So, must I first transform myself (inwardly?) so that I can teach (the holistical way?) .

A: Precisely, precisely.

K: You see, ( the time-delay involved in this 'all-or-nothing' approach) is not quite accurate. I have to wait until I change ( 100% inwardly ) . Why can't I change (inwardly in the very (interacting ) act of teaching?
( EG : take the real-life case when ) the students live in conflict and the educator also lives in conflict. Now if I were an ( holistically minded  ?) educator with a lot of (+/- holistically minded ) students, I would begin with saying , ''Let us see in discussing, in becoming aware of our relationship, in teaching, if it is not possible for me and for you to resolve this ( inward) conflict''. Then it has action (a potential impact ?) But if I have to wait till I'm ( 100%) free of all (inward) conflict I can wait until Doomsday.

A: I see now exactly what you are saying. What you are saying is literally this: the teacher, who is presently in conflict, simply acknowledges this. Walks into the classroom not as somebody who is (or...pretends to be?) free from conflict.

K: That's right. That's the first thing I would discuss (in a holistically friendly school?) , not the technical subjects. Because that's (an integral part of our everyday ) living . And also in the very teaching of a particular subject I can learn from that so that both the student and that produces an extraordinary ( interacting) relationship. Because I have watched it. I go to several schools in India and in England and it takes place.

A: In this taking place ( the natural intelligence of?) love breaks out.

K: Of course. That is the very essence of it. Because I care, I feel responsible.

A: May I go into this just a little bit ? One of the things that has concerned me in this series of dialogues is that ( the casual reader or viewer ) could get the impression that thought is a disease or that knowledge is a disease, rather than giving the impression, as I have understood from you that thought and knowledge have their proper uses.

K: Of course...

A: Their natures are not corrupt as such.

K: Certainly not. It is the (psychological) usage of it...

A: Right. Therefore it becomes of utmost importance to be aware of this ( psychological) corrective when together we examine the uses of thought and the uses of knowledge and not assuming that the principle of thought, the principle of knowledge is in its own nature corrupt.

K: No.

A: So that in a classroom we could study a text in which a positive statement is made without thinking that name and form are in themselves...

K: Corrupt ?

A: Exactly. Some years ago I went to hear a lecture of yours, and I listened, I thought, very, very carefully. And, of course, one lecture for someone like me, was not enough. Or to put it more honestly, I went away from that lecture with the impression that there was a very close relationship between what you are saying and Buddhism, and I was thinking about this whole label thing as scholars are wont to divide the world up into 'species'. But in our series of conversations now I've come to see that I was profoundly mistaken. And it is a revelation to face it that one doesn't have to have any (scholastic ) credentials to start with before he walks into the classroom, but but simply to come into the room and say, let's have a look without any presuppositions that I have this in hand and you don't, or you have it and I don't. We're going to just hold it together.

K: Right, sir. Share together.

A: Share it together, and behold. Am I following you?

K: Perfectly.

A: Oh, that's wonderful. I'm going to do this, after our conversation comes to an end, I will walk into that classroom. Do go on.

K: So, sir, the ( mental) energy that is created through conflict is destructive, as it produces ( outward) violence, neurotic actions, and so on. Whereas the action of ( the holistically friendly) perception is total, non-fragmented, and therefore it is sane and brings about such an intense care and responsibility. Now that is the way to live: seeing, acting, seeing, acting, all of the time. I cannot 'see' ( the inward truth or falseness of anything) if there is an 'observer' different from the observed. The observer 'is' the observed.

A: This does a very marvellous thing through what we call our 'confrontation with death'.

K: Quite right. After establishing in ourselves this (right foundation) of non- conflicting behaviour, we will proceed next to the question of 'death'. To me living, love and death are not separate. They are one movement. (Inwardly speaking?) 'death' is not something 'over there', which I am going to meet in twenty years or the next day. It is here with love and with living. It is a continuous movement, non-divisive. This is the way I live, think, feel. That's my life.

So, before we enter into the question of 'death' we have to ( take a brief detour and?) go into the question of 'consciousness' . What is our consciousness? To put it very simply, ( Our everyday) consciousness 'is' ( indissociable from?) its ( psychological) content : the thoughts, the anxieties, the identifications, the conflicts, the anxiety, the attachments, the detachments, the fears, the pleasures, the agony, the suffering, the beliefs, the neurotic actions, all that is creating my ( self-) consciousness. Because that 'is' the content.

A: This is an equivalent statement to, ''the world 'is' me and I 'am' the world''.

K: That's right.

A: But there is also a ( thread of self-centred ?) continuity there.

K: Yes, so this (self-identified?) 'content' says, that is 'my' furniture, that's my god, that's my belief, with all its nuances and subtleties, and all that is part of my consciousness, is part of the ( self-centred) consciousness that says, ''I am''. I am that, I am the (owner of that) furniture. When I identify myself (with the content?) I 'am' the ( whole field of ) knowledge that I have acquired and I have been successful with it, it has given me great ( psychological) comfort (but also ?) a house, a ( respectable social) position, power. ( But I am also ) the ( psychological memories accumulated in the ) battles which I have been through, suffering, agony, that's ( also part of ) 'me', of my consciousness.
So (in a holistic nutshell:) the (time bound ?) consciousness 'is' ( undissociable from?) its content. I can extend or widen my consciousness, 'horizontally' or 'vertically', but it is still ( rooted) within that field. Whatever thought has created in the (inner) world, inside me is the content. The whole ( consciousness of the?) world is based on ( the ego-centric activity of ) thought - its explorations, its achievements, its religions, are fundamentally the result of ( the self-centred process of) thought, with its images and so on, so on, so on. So that is the ( psychologically active) content of ( my temporal) consciousness. Right?

A: Right...

K: Now from that arises the ( major existential) question ''What is 'death'? ''
Is ''death'' the ending ( of this self-identified ) consciousness, & of its content? Or is ''death'' (providing) a continuity of thhis consciousness?

K: So, see what happens : 'I' never have examined this ( self-identified psychological ) content and I am frightened of facing something ( a condition) which I call ''death', the 'unknown'. Let us call it for the moment, the ''Unknown''. Somebody comes along and says, yes my friend, there is life after death. I have proof for it. I know it exists because I have met my ( beloved?) brother. So I accept that (piece of good news?) instantly say, yes I am going to be born in the next life. See what is involved ? That my consciousness, with its ( personal & collective memory) content, is going to be born again next life, which is the common ( collective stream of ?) consciousness of you and me, and him and her. That's going to be born next life. And ( as a potential bonus?) they say if you behave properly now you'll be rewarded next life. So, better behave because you are going to be punished next life, or... rewarded next life. The whole of the Eastern world believes in reincarnation. So what happens? I have taken comfort in a belief but actually I don't carry it out: which says behave now, be good now, don't hurt another now.

A: Actually the general idea is that I 'should' behave now because of what will take place later. But then I take comfort in the thought that it's an endless process and it's somehow built into it that I'll get another chance. So I can sort of 'stall'.
K: I can stall. I can postpone, I can misbehave.

A: Yes. Because we are all destined to make it in the end.

K: Eventually. Yes.

A: Which shows that there's no ( responsible) grasp of the immediacy and urgency of (an inward awakening &) acting.

K: That's right. The (ancient ) Hindus probably were the originators of this 'Karmic' idea - cause, effect. The effect will be modified by next causation. So there is this endless chain. And if it's an endless (transcendental opportunity) we'll break it down... sometime. Therefore it doesn't matter what you ( 'are' and/or ?) 'do' now. Belief gives you great comfort in believing that you will continue, you will be (reunited with ) with your ( beloved?) brother, wife, husband, whatever it is. But in the meantime...have a good time. Enjoy yourself, do whatever you want to do, pay a little next life, but carry on.

A: I was speaking to a well known Hindu teacher about this and I made this very remark that you have just stated, and I thought it would have some force. And I said, you see there's no hope of stopping, repeating, if an act is not made immediately with respect to this, therefore in terms of the content of the consciousness of a whole people that bask in this notion, there can be nothing but an endless repetition and no true concern.

K: What did he say?

A: All he did was to laugh as though I had somehow perceived something which most people are not really bothering their heads to look at. But the extraordinary thing to me was that he showed no concern for what he discerned intellectually.

K. Sir, they are 'hypocrites' ( wearing 'fool-proof masks'?) when they believe that and do something quite contrary.

A: Precisely. You are using the word 'hypocrite' the strict Biblical sense ?

K: In the strict sense, of course.

A: Yes, in the very strict sense. In our next conversation could we continue with this because it seems to me...

K: Oh, there is a great deal more involved in this.

A: Splendid. I do so look forward to that.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Apr 2019 #166
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

14TH ( reader-friendly edited) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON

PSYCHOLOGICAL DEATH & IMMORTALITY

A: Mr Krishnamurti in our last conversation we were beginning to talk about consciousness and its relation to death in the context of living as a total movement. I do hope we can continue from there.

K: You see one of the factors in ( exploring the psychological aspects of?) death is that (the temporal) mind is so frightened (to look into it?) . We are so frightened of that very word and nobody talks about it. It is something to be avoided, something that is inevitable, but... for God's sake keep it as far away as possible.
Now what we are discussing a holistic understanding of death, in its relation to living and this thing called love. One cannot possibly understand the immensity of 'death' , unless there is a real freedom from fear. That's why, unless the mind really frees itself from ( this ancestral) fear there is no possibility of understanding the extraordinary beauty, strength and the vitality of death.

A: That's a very, very, remarkable way to put it - ''the vitality of death''. And yet , normally we regard it as the total negation of life.

K: That's right. So if we are enquiring into the ( profoundly existential) question of 'death', fear must be completely non-existent in us. A ( holistically minded?) person who is really serious in exploring this question of death, must understand what this (subliminal fear?) means, the quality of it, not the ending of it.
The ancient Egyptians, the pharaohs and all, prepared for death. They said we will cross that River with all with all our belongings, with all our property; and therefore their tombs are filled with all the things of their daily life, corn, you know all that. So living was only a means to dying. That's one way of looking at it. The other is reincarnation, which is the Indian, Asiatic outlook. And there is this whole Christian idea of a Heaven where you will be rewarded (or...maybe not?) .

Now, if one isn't deeply frightened (to look into it?) , what is the ( inward truth about ) death ? What is it that dies, apart from the ( physical) organism? The organism may continue if you look after it very carefully for 80, 90, or ( even?) 100 years. If you have no disease, if you have no accidents, if there is a way of living sanely, healthily, perhaps you will last 100 years or 110 years. But you live 100 years, for what? For this kind of life - fighting, quarrelling, bickering, bitterness, anger, jealousy, futility, a meaningless existence. It is ( inwardly speaking?) a meaningless existence as we are living now.
So what is it that dies? What is it one is frightened of in death? Losing the known? Losing all the ( temporal) 'content' of consciousness? So, can't this 'content' (psychological burden?) of consciousness be totally emptied?

A: Yes I do.

K: The dying 'is' ( part of) the living, when this (self-identified psychological) content is totally emptied. ( In clear?) that means no ( thought-continuity of this) attachment. It isn't a brutal cutting off (of all one's temporal attachments?) but the understanding ( the inward ature ) of ( psychological) dependency, the understanding of ( the desire for) acquisition, power, position, anxiety, all that. The emptying of that ( psychological content) is the real ( inward significance of) death. And therefore the emptying of consciousness means the ( time-bound) self-consciousness which has created its own (self-protective) limitations is coming to a (natural) ending . I wonder, have you got it?

A: Yes, and it occurred to me that there is a radical relation between birth and death, that the two, when they are looked upon as 'moments' in a total cycle are not generally grasped at the depth level that you are beginning to speak about.

K: So, death becomes an (integral part of ) living when the ( selfishness  ?) content of consciousness, which makes its own ( self-centred) limitation, comes to an end. And this is (spontaneously taking place in) the (insighful) perception of attachment. I am taking an ( in-class) example : being ( viscerally?) attached to one's personal property, the books I have written, or to the knowledge I have acquired. Now can that ( psychological) 'content' be emptied by an act of perception, (or simply... ?) empty itself. Which means can this whole (psychologically active?) 'content' be observed, along with its unconscious content? You follow, sir?

A: Yes, I do...

K: I can be consciously aware of the content of my consciousness - ( the 'self'-sustaining attachment to ?) my house, my property, my wife, my children, my job, & the things I have learned. I can be consciously aware of all that. But also there is a deeper 'content' in the very recesses of my (un-conscious) mind which is collective - the influences, the pressures, the strains of ( trying to survive in ?) a world that is corrupt. All that has 'seeped in', all that has gathered in there.

A: So, this ( active or dormant 'psychological' content) includes what the psychologists are calling ''the collective unconscious '' as well as the ''personal'' consciousness ?

K: The collective (consciousness?) as well. Now can all that ( 'content' ) be ( allowed to unfold itself & be ) exposed ? This is very important if the mind really wants to understand and grasp the full meaning of death, the vastness of it - the great quality of (inward freedom for ) a mind that says, yes that's (finally?) ended - it gives a tremendous vitality, energy. So, my question is: can the ( meditation friendly ?) mind become totally aware of the totally of all its ( psychological) content, hidden as well as the open, the collective, the personal, the racial, the transitory? We (generally consider that ?) it is possible through ( a professional psycho-) analysis.

A: Yes we do...

K: I said, ( psycho-) ''analysis is paralysis''. Because if you have not completed it, you carry over (the newly acquired knowledge ?) as a memory ( data base ?) which will then ( help the 'analyser' to?) analyse the next incident. So each (new session of psycho-) analysis brings its own ( sense of) incompleteness.

A: Oh, certainly, yes...

K: Therefore it is (ultimately leading to ) a total (self-shrinking form of ?) 'paralysis' (by getting stuck in the known?)

A: We usually regard death as terminus (point) in terms of an ( unbroken continuity of our life-) line.

K: Quite, because we think 'horizontally'

A: Exactly. But what you're saying is, on the contrary, we must regard this (opportunity of psychological ending?) 'vertically'.

K: Yes.

A: And in the regarding of it vertically we no longer see death as simply a moment of termination to certain trajectory repetition. But there is a total qualitative change here which is not the 'cessation' of something that we don't have to regret as though we had lost something valuable.

K: You see, sir, if one can go very deeply into this: there is this( psychologically active) content, which 'is' my (time-bound) consciousness - inherited, imposed or influenced by propaganda, attachment, anxiety, fear, pleasure, all that, and also the (unconsciously?) 'hidden' things. I'm asking myself, since (psycho-) analysis can never produce a complete action , I won't analyse because I see the 'paralytic' (mind-shrinking ?) process of it. So if the mind sees the ( inward ) truth of it, then what is the ( holistically-minded?) mind to do with its (psychological) content? Does one see that it has to be emptied ? Otherwise one's life is merely (a boring ?) continuity.

A: Generally we do assume that any self- analytical enquiry is ordered to a revelation. We do believe that.

K: No sir. You can see it in a minute. Analysis implies ( a subliminal duality between the ) 'analyzer' and the ( psychological stuff that has to be) analysed.

A: Yes....

K: But the 'analsyer' is ( not intrinsically separated from) the 'analysed'.

A: Yes, we are back to the ( duality between the ) observer and the observed.

K: (EG:) Suppose that I am analyzing my ( annoying reactions of) anger. But who is the 'analyzer'? Part of the (inward ) fragmentation which is ( leading to ) anger. But the ( highly knowledgeable?) analyzer pretends to be different from the (violent reaction that is being) analysed. But when I see the truth (the inward actuality ) that the analyzer 'is' (not separated from) the (reaction of anger which is being) analysed, then a totally different ( non-dualistic) action takes place (in the sense that) there is no more conflict between the analyzer and the ( reactions which are supposed to be ) analysed. Instead there is an instant action of (insightful ) perception, which is ( both the ) 'ending' and the 'going beyond' the what is.

A: The only reason I asked for this explanation was because of the concern raised earlier about knowledge.

K: After all the 'observer' is (often identifying itself with his ) knowledge .

A: Yes, it is obvious in terms of our discussion, but the thing that concerns me is that the notion ( of self-analysis) is so ingrained is that when I came to hear you years ago, I began doing ( a self-inquiring ) analysis while I was listening to your words and consequently I could hardly end up with anything qualitatively differently from what I came in with. I didn't see that at the time (the psychological inadequacy of ) knowledge, which is so obvious, in the context of our conversation.

K: Not only in the context of our conversation, 'it is so'.

A: Exactly, I couldn't agree (with what you were saying) , and immediately I 'flashed back' to my own behaviour, and I know that I was not alone in that because I listened to other conversations regarding it at the time. But, yes, I see what you mean now about analysis as such. It seems to me very clear.

K: ( Introspective self-) analysis implies, sir, the analyzer and the analysed.

A: Precisely...

K: ( But ) the ( highly knowledgeable?) 'analyzer' is ( actually not separated inwardly from) the ( stuff which is being) 'analysed'. And also analysis implies time, duration. I must take time to uncover, unearth, to uncover, and it will take me rest of my life.

A: This is a confusion we have about death too with relation to time.

K: That's right. I'm coming to that.

A: Yes, of course, please do, yes.

K: So, the ( holistically inclined ?) mind perceiving ( the falseness of this inward duality ?) discards analysis completely. Because it sees the impossibility of emptying the consciousness of its ( psychologically active?) 'content' through the (knowledge?) channel: 'analyzer', time, and the utter futility at the end of 40 years I am still analyzing...

A:...and the content of my consciousness has not qualitatively changed at all.

K: That's right. But the mind must still see its (hidden ?) content, must be totally aware of it, not of fragments of it. So, how is that to be done? Because this (inward emptying) very important in relation to ( understanding the psychological significance of ) death. Because this ( self-dividing) 'content' is me, my ego, my saying, I and you, we and they.
So ( in a nutshell) emptying the consciousness of its ( psychologically active?) content means 'dying to the me'. You follow?

A: But this is where the 'psychological' terror starts. There's the intuition that if I 'empty' the content of this consciousness, I am getting 'wiped out'.

K: Yes, so 'I' ( the self-centred entity) , who have worked, who have lived a righteous life who have have struggled to better myself, ( by becoming ) so kind & gentle, and when you ( K?) say, empty this ( self-) consciousness, you are asking me to 'die' (inwardly) to all that. So, you are touching at the very root of ( mankind's existential) fear.

A: Yes exactly.

K: At the root of the ( inward panic?) of not being. So, look at what man have done (to prevent it?) : the ancient ( wealthy?) Egyptians immortalized themselves, made their life immortal by thinking of carrying on. Tutankhamen is now merely a golden mask with a mummy, and so on. So man has sought immortality through ( good deeds & art?) works, through every way to (endure ) beyond (their physical) mortality. Right?

A: Yes, do please go on.

K: So, what is 'immortality'? The cathedrals are beautiful, marvelous ( an accidental fire) comes, and... gone in smoke . Every statue, every poem, every painting, ( eventually?) becomes a dead thing. ( But inwardly ?) what is ( man's spiritual?) immortality? Because ( finding the truth about ) that is related to ( the meditative emptying of the temporal ?) consciousness and to death. Unless I find that out, I will pray, I will beg, I will obey, I will live a life of poverty, chastity, and so on, in order to have that 'immortal reality' with me. But (unfortunately?) all these (spiritually motivated efforts?) are born of thought. See what happens ?

A: Yes... ?

K: I ( eventually?) come see thought and its (spiritual artifacts?) are the ''children of barren women''.

A: Precisely...

K: Then what is ( man's spiritual ?) immortality? The ( knowledgeable ?) mind cannot grasp it, because ( the timeless inward  ?) Beauty is not in the field of (the temporal) consciousness.
So, ( the man-made ?) 'immortality' is within the field of time because we have created it in the field of time. And ( his physical ) death is also in the field of time. But ( inwardly-wise ?) 'death' is the beginning of a state that is timeless - of which that 'I' ( the time-bound self ?) is frightened. So I'd rather want everything preserved in the field of time : that's what we call 'immortal' - the statue, the poems, the cathedral, although they can be destroyed by one accident, or by an earthquake, everything is gone.
So ( in a nutshell our ) 'immortality' is not ( to be found?) within the field of time. Anything that ( human) thought creates must be within the field of time. And yet thought is trying to seek its own immortality and of the things it has created.

A: Yes....

K: So, then the ( transcendental?) problem is, can the human 'mind' see all this, see it?

A: Actually see (the inward truth of) it ?

K: Actually 'see' it. So, if the ( natural intelligence of the human ) mind is ( awake & ) alert, it must inevitably see its whole ( psychological) 'content' exposed, without making any ( self- introspective) effort. It's ( almost?) like reading a map. You spread it out and look. But if you want to go in a specific direction, then you don't look at the whole map.
What we are asking (meditation-wise?) is, no (preset ) 'direction', just look at the ( psychologically active?) content of your consciousness without direction, without (a personal) choice. Without any exertion ( any will-power based?) 'discernment', (try to?) be 'choicelessly' aware of this extraordinary map (as it unfolds itself in real time ?) . Then that ( trans-personal) awareness gives you that tremendous ( holistically integrated) energy to go beyond it. But you need ( to gather all the intelligent?) energy to go beyond it.

A: This leads me to the notion of 'reincarnation' that we began to touch on a little earlier : I see the 'demonic' root in that.

K: Reincarnate in a next life. Nobody says, ( inwardly die & ) incarnate 'now'.
You can only 'incarnate now' ( inwardly?) when you 'die' to this ( psychologically active) content. You can be 'reborn', ( or spiritually?) regenerated totally if you 'die' (let go the 'personal attachments' ?) to this content.

A: Yes. And there is a terrible truth on the darker side of this doctrine of reincarnation, because if that ( psychological) content of consciousness is not emptied out then it must prevail.

K: It prevails (karmically?) . So ( generally) what happens? I do not ( care to?) know how to empty this thing. I'm not even distantly interested. I'm ( subliminally) frightened (to look at it?)

A: Only 'scared to death'.

K: But I ( still have good hope to?) preserve something ; even as I am burned, or buried under ground, ( my psychological) content goes on. As we said, the content of 'me' is also 'your' content, it's not so very different. Slightly modified, with certain tendencies which depend on your conditioning or ( cultural) environments and so on, so on, but it is essentially the part of same ( time-bound Stream of Human) Consciousness.
And unless a ( spiritually earnest?) human being 'empties' that consciousness, that (Stream of Collective) consciousness goes on like a River (of Time?) - collecting, accumulating (lots of good & bad stuff?) - all that's going on. And out of that River ( of Time) comes the 'manifestation' of the one that is (gone) When the mediums in 'seances' say, '' I see your ( beloved ?) brother, your uncle, your wife is here'' - what has happened is they have manifested themselves out of that Stream ( of Time) which is the continuous consciousness of man's struggle, pain, unhappiness, all that.
But the ( mindful?) man who has looked at his (time-bound ) consciousness and 'empties' it, doesn't belong to that Stream ( of Time) at all. Then he is living each moment anew, because he is 'dying' each moment (to the psychological memories of the past ) . You understand, sir?

A: Oh, yes I do, yes I do....

K: There is no (psychological) accumulation of the 'me' which has to be expressed. He is dying every minute; living every minute, and dying every minute. Therefore in that ( time-free dimension of consciousness ?) there is no ( accumulation of selfish?) content. It is like a tremendous energy in action.

A: This gives a totally different understanding of what we mean by the phrase, ''in the after life''. On the one hand, there is this ( psychical) continuity of the disorderly content of consciousness, which is not radically affected qualitatively with respect to its nature, just because somebody has 'stopped breathing for good'. No. It's on its way (in the Stream of Time?). And therefore the attempt that is often made on the part of persons to contact this 'stream of consciousness' after the death of a person, when made within the same ( time-binding) quality of consciousness, attains nothing but a reinforcement within their own personal life.

K: That's right.

A: And it does a terrible thing to their ( existing) content of consciousness since it also feeds that some more.

K: That's right.

A: Yes, I do see that...

K: This person came to see me after his wife was dead and he said, ''I must see my wife again. Can you help me?'' I said, which wife do you want to see? The one that cooked? The one that bore the children? The one that gave you sex? The one that quarrelled with you? The one that dominated you, frightened you? He said, I don't want to meet any of those. I want to meet the good (part of?) of her. You follow, sir? The 'image' of the good he has built out of her and that is the 'image' he wants to meet. I said, '' You are so utterly immature when you want just the 'image' which you have about her goodness'... And you know, sir, he began to cry. He said, afterwards, I have cried when she died, but the tears were of self pity, my loneliness, my sense of lack of things. Now I cry because I see what I have done. You understand, sir?

A: Yes, I do...

K: So ( to recap:) to understand (the inward significance of ) 'death' there must be no fear (to let go the 'known') . This ( subliminal?) fear exists only when the ( truth about the 'psychologically active') content is not understood. And this content is ( generating the self-centred ?) 'me'. And this 'me' ( is built from all the 'images' thought) got attached to. And I am frightened of ( loosing my psychological safety invested in ) the bank account, the family, you follow?

A: Ah, yes, yes I do...

K: So unless one is deeply serious in this matter, you can't 'incarnate now', in the deep (inwardly creative) sense of that word; and therefore 'immortality' is ( invested in) the things I have put together by thought. That's all the field of time.

A: Right. It just occurred to me what a terrible thing we have been doing to this statement of Plato, who said that the business of the ( authentic) philosopher ('lover of truth' ) is to practice 'dying' ( to the known ?) . I think he puts an '-ing', because he doesn't want to fall out of act. I know I use this phrase all the time but I have to say I learned ( saw the truth of) it from you. But it's possible to 'fall out of act' into the stream of ( Thought & ) Time, but when 'one is in act' the whole thing is an ongoing move.

K: So, sir, Time has a stop. See the beauty of it ! And it is that ( timeless inner ) Beauty which is immortal, not the things which thought has created.

A: Right.

K: So, then living 'is' (not divided from) dying.

A: Right...

K: And Love is essentially ( not separated from the act of ? ) 'dying' to the ( time-binding continuity of the?) 'me'.

A: Yes...

K: Dying to ( thought's self-projected continuity in ? ) time is Love.
Then 'living', 'love' and 'death' are one thing, not separated in the field of time but it is a complete 'living & moving' thing, indivisible. And that (time-free mind?) is immortal.

A: Yes...

K: So, ( in this regard?) most of us are educated wrongly...

A: How true that is.

K: From childhood we are never taught to be 'serious'. From childhood we are taught the cultivation of thought, and the expression and the marvels of thought. All our philosophies, books, everything is based on that. And when you say, (there comes a time to ?) 'die to all that', you really awaken the ( un-conscious) terror of not-knowing. There is a (lot of psychological) security in ( living safely in the field of the known ?)

A: Yes...

K: Then (dealing with everything in terms of ) knowledge becomes the field of my safety. And if you ask me, ''give all that up'', ''die to all that''. I say, you are insane. How can I die to that, that's part of ''me''.

A: There's a very, very beautiful, Zen saying : ''jumping off the cliff with hands free''. The hands...

K: ...that hold ?

A: ...that 'hold' the (memories of the ) past, or reaching out towards the future, and we never get off that track.

K: So then comes the (bonus experiential ?) question, 'What is ''living in the present''? The '(inner door to 'living in the ) present' is the 'death' of the content. You follow, sir? There is an immense beauty in it, because that means no conflict, you follow sir, no ( psychological expectations for) tomorrow. Therefore, sir, can we ( help ?) educating children, (and/or adult?) students, to live totally differently? To 'live and act' with this sense of understanding the ( the psychological) content and the beauty of ( holistically transcending ) it all?

A: If I've understood you correctly there's only one answer to that question: yes, yes. ( Although for many ?) it may sound pretty wild...
I see now what you mean about 'death' and 'birth' as being non-temporally related, because when you say there is this incarnation...

K: ...'now' ?

A: ...now, upon the instant, then...

K: If you see the ( inward ) beauty of it, sir, the (real?) thing takes place.

A: Then it's happened.

K: It is not the result of 'mentation'. It is not the result of 'thinking, thinking, & thinking' ( about it ) . It is actually a ( thought-free?) perception of 'what is'.

A: And the amazement that it is the same energy at its roots...

K: It is the same ( previously) dissipated (intelligent?) energy which now is no longer wasted .

A: Exactly. There is a total ( qualitative inward ) change. And the transformation of each individual is a total one.

K: It is not within the field of time and knowledge.

A: Yes, and then the profound seriousness of it : that it is the responsibility of each. And if I may add just one other thing here : it isn't the responsibility of one against the other to do something. It is that we begin to have a look together

K: 'Learn' together.

A: Or just quietly having a look. And in that activity, which is not planned - one of the amazing things about this conversation is that it 'flowers'.
This has been a wonderful revelation, the whole thing about death, living and love. I do hope when we have our next conversation that we could begin to pursue this in relation to ( a holistically friendly ?) education even further.

K: Further, yes, sir.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 18 Apr 2019 #167
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

  **15-TH ('reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON

INWARD PERCEPTION AND SPIRITUAL AUTHORITY

A: Mr Krishnamurti, we were talking last time together about death in the context of living, and love. And just as we came to the close of what we were discussing we thought it would be good to pursue this in terms of a further enquiry into ( a holistic approach to?) education, what really goes on between teacher and student when they begin 'looking together'. And it seemed to me that it would be a splendid thing if we went deeper into it.

K: Sir, I would like to ask "Why we are educated at all?" What is the meaning of this ( standardising ? ) education that (most young) people receive? Apparently they don't understand a thing (regarding their inner) life, they don't understand fear, pleasure, the whole thing that we have discussed, ( not to mention?) the ultimate fear of death and the terror of not being. Is it that we have become so materialistically minded that we are only concerned with good jobs, money, pleasure and superficial amusements, entertainments, whether they be religious or football. Is it that our whole (cultural) structure has become so utterly meaningless? And when we are educated for (matching ) that, and suddenly have to face something real is terrifying.

And as we were saying yesterday, we are not educated to look at ourselves, we are not educated to understand the whole business of living, we are not educated to look and see what happens if (inwardly) we face 'death'. So I was wondering as we came along this morning, about ( the true meaning of?) religion and why we never ( take the necessary 'time out' to ? ) enquire into what is religion, what is education, what is living, what is dying, the whole business of it. We never ( stop to?) ask, what is it all about ? And even when we ask it we say, well, life has very little meaning. And it has very little meaning, and it has very little meaning as we live it, and so we ( cleverly ?) 'escape' from this utter ( existential) emptiness of the life that one leads. I don't know if you saw ( on TV ?) the other day, a group of people adoring a human being, and they were doing the most fantastic things, and that's what they call 'religion'.

A: I did see a documentary that was actually put on by this (PBS) station, in which the whole meeting operation was being portrayed between the public and this 15 year old guru, Maharaji. It was in many respects revolting.

K: And that's what they call 'religion'. So shall we begin with the ( true meaning of?) religion and go on?

A: Yes, I think that would be a splendid thing to do.

K: All right, sir. Man has always wanted and tried to find out something beyond the everyday routine, everyday pleasures, every activity of thought, he wanted ( to find ) something much more. In the Indian villages they put a little stone under a tree, put some ( magic?) marking on it, the next day they bring flowers, and to the people living there it has become divinity, it has become something religious. That same principle is continued in the (Christian) cathedrals. It all begins there: the desire for a human being to find ( to experience ?) something more than what thought has put together. Not being able to find it ( in their inner life?) they romanticize it, they create symbols, or somebody who has got a little bit of this, they worship. And round that they do all kinds of rituals, which has absolutely nothing to do with their daily life. It is the same principle going on: worshipping an image which they have created, whether it is the Buddha, or Jesus Christ, but it is the human mind that has created (& inflated?) the 'image'. In other words they are worshipping ( a sanctified image of?) themselves.

A: And the split, grows wider.

K: They might not like to call it so, but it is an 'idolatry' of the mind. The human mind has createds the ideal, and the mind through the hand created the statue, the cross and so on.

A: Exactly. But there is a ( subliminal) 'point of terror' here, where the mind faces the negation ( of what is false?) in order to find out (the actual truth ?).

K: Of course, because the ( time-bound) brain needs security, otherwise it can't function. So it finds ( its inward) security in a belief, in an image, in rituals, in the propaganda of 2,000 or 5,000 years. There is this sense of safety, comfort, orinner well-being that somebody ('special'?) is looking after you, the image of somebody greater than me who is looking after me. When you ( the revolutionary 'speaker'?) are asking a human being to negate all that, he is faced with an immense sense of danger, he becomes (openly or subliminally?) panicked.

A: Exactly. I am very grateful to you that we are exploring together this pathology in its various facets. One can begin with the notion that he is going to make this 'negation' (of what is false?) in order to attain to something better.

K: Oh no, that's not ( an authentic) negation. Negation is to deny what is false, not knowing what is truth. To 'see the false in the false' and to 'see the truth in the false' - it is the ( perception of the ) truth that denies the false. You don't 'deny the false', but you 'see' (the inward truth about) what is false, and the very seeing of what is false 'is' the (eliberating action of) truth. And that denies, that sweeps away all this.

A: Well I had a very interesting experience in class yesterday. I had given the class an (experiential) assignment to go and look at a tree. So in fact I am making an (academic) report as to what happened after they came back. Well one young woman described ( her experience) in such a way that the class was convinced, and I was convinced that there was no blockage of her looking between herself and this tree. She was calmly ecstatic in her report. But then I asked her a ( trick?) question : ''Were you thinking of yourself as looking at this tree?'' And she hesitated - and with this hesitation she began to fall more and more out of her own act. Finally she turned around and said : ''The reason that I stopped was not because of what went on between me and the tree – but because I thought that I ought to say the 'right thing', and so I have ruined the whole thing''. It was a revelation not only to her but you could see with respect to the faces all around the room that we are all involved in this (dualistic) nonsense.

K: Yes, sir...

A: And her shock that she could so betray this relationship that she had had in doing this ( 'treat or trick' mental ?) exercise in just a couple of words – it was desperately hard to believe that anybody would do such a thing to himself.

K: Quite. ( The actual ) negation (of thought's interference?) can only take place when the mind 'sees' the false ; the very perception of the false is the negation of the false. Then one can see (the whole truth regarding ?) the religions based on miracles & personal worship, based on the fear that you are so transient. The human brain needs a deep sense of security (and not finding it within itself ?) and it has created all this superficial 'nonsense', an (imaginary?) circus....

A: Oh, yes...

K: So can the human mind observe this whole phenomenon, and see its own (subliminal ?) demand for psychological comfort, safety, permanency, and deny all that (ASAP?) ? Deny in the sense of 'seeing' how the brain, ( via its self-centred process of) thought, creates the ( perfect illusion of this ?) sense of (temporal) permanency, or whatever you may like to call it. And to see all that, one has to go much more deeply into the question of 'thought' – which has become the most important movement ('mental activity' in ?) life ?
Thought has created all this marvelous world of modern technology, marvelous world of science, and the same human thought which has created the religions, all the marvelous chants, both the Gregorian and the Sanskrit chants, thought which has built beautiful cathedrals, thought which has made images of the Saviours, the Masters & the Gurus & the Father image. Unless one really understands ( for oneself ) what is thinking, we will still play the same ( mind ?) game in a different field. Because they want somebody to tell them what to do & what to think, never how to think.

A: No. This raises the question of (the inner) 'experience' that I hope we can explore together : ''I need the experience of an inner awakening''. It isn't the actual 'awakening' that I need, but the ( magic?) 'experience' of this awakening. The whole idea of religion as ( a consciousness-expanding ) experience needs a very careful penetration.

K: Quite, quite. So, if I may ask, why is there this craving for ( psychedelic?) experience? We have ( on a daily basis) sensory experiences of every kind, don't we? Insults & flattery, various cultural influences - we have (lots of personal) experiences all the time. And when we get bored with that, we will go to somebody who will give me the 'experience of God'.

A: Yes, that's precisely what is claimed.

K: Now what is involved in that? If I experience what that Guru or Master (of Wisdom?) tells me, how do I know it is real? I experience 'something', but I can only know what I have experienced only when I have recognized it. Right?

A: Right...

K: Recognition implies ( comparing it with what) I have already known (or been told?) . So if I am experiencing what I have already known, it is nothing really new. All they are doing is ( encouraging ?) self deception.

A: Yes, but the drive for it is extraordinary. I have seen it in many ( such) students, who will go to extraordinary austerities.

K: I know all this.

A: We sometimes think that young people today are very loose in their behaviour, well some are, but many young persons today are extremely serious about acquiring something that someone else possesses and they don't have ; so, if someone claims to 'have found it', naively they are on their way. They can 'stand on their head' indefinitely for that (unless they find an easier way?) .

K: Oh, yes, I have seen all that.

A: Which is called a (consciousness- expanding ?) experience, as such.

K: (S)He may think that it is a new experience, but to experience the new (consciousness) how can the mind recognize it as the new, unless it has already known ( some description of ) it?

A: Yes. And there is something very remarkable ( experientially) : in the recognition of what is called the 'new' (state of consciousness) , the linkage with old thought, old image establishes the notion that there is something gradual in this transition. That there really is some kind of genuine link between where I am now, and where I was before. So, I become the next guru who goes out and teaches the person how to 'gradually undertake' this discipline.

K: Yes, sir, yes, sir.

A: And it never stops ! It's amazing, it's amazing. Driving down in the car this morning I was thinking about the whole business of the religious chants, that you mentioned, the beauty of it all, and I said to myself, well maybe Mr Krishnamurti would say a word about one's own relation to the 'beautiful', when that relation is not seen for what it is. Since there is a narcosis present that it can generate. We had a period in Europe when Protestants & Calvinists, wouldn't allow an organ (inside the church) , no music, because music is 'seductive'.

K: As we were saying the other day, sir, ( the inward sense of?) Beauty can only be when there is the total abandonment of the 'self' . Complete emptying of the consciousness of its ( 'self'-identified ) content, which is the 'me'. Then there is an (inward) beauty which is something entirely different from the pictures, chants, all that. So, what has meaning is how you live in your daily life. And also, sir, inwardly, psychologically, we don't want to (do our home-?) work. We are too lazy, we don't say ''I am going to deny the whole thing and find out''.

A: No, the assumption is that the priest's business is to have worked in order to know so that I am relieved of that ( inwardly disturbing) task.

K: We never ask the man who says, "I know, I have experienced", what do you know? What have you experienced? When you say, 'I know', you only know something that is dead, which is finished, which is in the (memory of) past. You can't 'know' (once & for all?) something that is living. You follow sir?

A: Yes...

K: A living ( human mind) you can never be 'known' because it is 'moving' ( shifting?) . It is never the same. I can never say, ''I know my wife, or my husband, children'', simply because they are living human beings. But those ( Guru?) fellows they say, ''I 'know', I have experienced, I have ( the latest spiritual ?) knowledge & I will give it to you''. But I say, after all, what do you know?
From that arises, sir, another question: why does the ( truth seeking ) mind obey? Spiritually, inwardly, they accept every Tom, Dick and Harry - specially when they come from India. The other day there was a TV man interviewing a certain group of people. And a boy said, "We obey entirely what our Guru says." And the interviewer said, "Will he tell you to marry?" "If he tells me this, I will marry. If he tells me I must starve, I will starve". Just a ( 'conscience?) slave'. He will accept the petty tyranny of a little guru, with his fanciful ideas, although he will reject a political tyranny or a dictatorship. So why does the mind divide life into accepting authority in one way, in one direction, and deny it in another? And what is the importance of ( spiritual) authority? That is, sir, the word authority, as you know, means the one who originates. And these priests, gurus & other ( New Age?) preachers, what have they originated? They are repeating tradition - whether it is the Zen tradition or the Hindu, these people are perpetuating a 'dead' thing. The other day I saw a man, he was explaining how to meditate - put your hands here, close your eyes.

A: Yes, that's the one I saw (on TV) . And there was this woman who had run out of money and had nowhere to go to sleep and so forth, and hysterically she was saying, "I'm in line, I've got all these people ahead of me, but I'm must have this knowledge !" The hysteria of it & the desperation of it.

K: That's why, sir, what is behind this acceptance of ( spiritual) authority? You understand? Is it fear (or...just greed?) ? Or is it a deep sense of ( existential) despair, a sense of utter loneliness & ignorance ( in the deeper sense) which makes me say, there is this ( very charismatic?) man who says he ''knows'', I'll accept him. I don't reason. You follow, sir? I don't say, ''what do you know?'' What do you bring to me, your own tradition from India? Who cares? You are bringing something dead, nothing original, nothing real, but repeat, repeat, repeat what others have done - which in India they themselves are throwing out.

A: It is interesting that the word 'authority' is ( ethymomogically) related to the 'self '– 'autos' ( in Greek means ?) the 'self'.

K: Why do we accept (the psychological authority ) ? The child accepts, I can understand that, he needs security, it needs a mother, it needs care, it needs protection, it needs to sit on your lap and affection, kindness, gentle. It needs that. They think the guru gives them all this? Through their words, through their rituals, through their repetition, through their absurd disciplines. You follow? A sense of acceptance as I accept my mother when a child, I accept that in order to feel ( inwardly) comfortable, that at last something, somebody is looking after me.

A: This relates to what you said in a previous conversation about ( the nature of our psychological) fear, the reaction of the infant is a reaction of his own contrivance - he needs to be fed (in real time?) , he needs to be affectionately held. And in the transition from that (condition of physical dependency) to the point where as he gets older he begins to think about an alternative source of meeting that need. Thought emerges as the ( self-protective screen or?) 'image' that is interposed between the (psychological) sense of (insecurity) and the immediate action.

K: You see sir, that's what I want to get at. Why is it that we accept ( someone's spiritual) authority? In a democratic world, politically, we shun any (tweeting ) dictator . But why I accept the ( spiritual authority of the local) priest as an intermediary to something which he says (assumes?) he knows? Outwardly we see how important it is to have much freedom of speech, as possible. But we don't feel the necessity of the (inward) freedom (from the known) . I've seen intellectuals, professors, scientists, falling for all this trash. Because they have reasoned in their scientific world, and they are weary of reasoning, and they say, at last I can sit back and not reason, just be told, be comfortable & happy ( providing) I'll do all the work for you, and you don't have to do anything, I'll take you over the 'river'. You follow?

A: Oh, yes...

K: So we accept (this kind of stuff?) where there is ignorance, where intelligence is in abeyance ; but you need all that: freedom, intelligence, reasoning, with regard to real spiritual matters. I don't think these gurus realize what they are doing. They are encouraging degeneracy.

A: I must say, in terms of the experience that I had in class yesterday. It was a tremendous shock to the students when I said, ''now we must do this together, not your doing what I say to do.''

K: You have to ''walk together''. Share it together.

A: Right. So as I went into the business, that increased their shock for the students who have been 'devoted', those who do their (homework?) work, who make effort, are suddenly finding out that this man has come into the room and he is giving 'trying' a bad press. But they showed courage in the sense that they gave it a little attention before beginning the true act of attention. That's why I was using 'courage' there because it is a preliminary to that. I've quite followed you when you have raised the question of the relation of courage to the pure act of attention. It seems to me that is not where it belongs ?

K: No.

A: But they did get it up for this preliminary step. Then we ran into what I I called in an earlier conversation, 'dropping a stitch' - where they really saw this abyss (of inward no-thingness?) that caused them to freeze. And it's that moment that seems to me absolutely decisive. It was like water that moved up to the lip of the cup and couldn't quite spill over. I have spoken about this at some length because I wanted to describe to you a real (educational) situation, what was actually happening.

K: I was going to say, sir, I have been connected with many ( K inspired ?) schools, for forty years, and more, and when one talks to the students about 'freedom' (from the known?) , and (non-) acceptance of ( spiritual) authority they are completely 'lost' (phased out?) .

A: Yes.

K: They want to be 'slaves' (of authority) . ''My father says this, I must do this. Or, ''my father says, I won't do that''.

A: Exactly. Do you think in our next conversation we could look at that moment of hesitation?

K: Yes, sir.

A: It seems to me so terribly critical for ( providing an authentic ) education.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 20 Apr 2019 #168
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

16TH ( 'reader-friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH DR. ALLAN W. ANDERSON

THE 'HOLISTICALLY FRIENDLY' APPROACH TO RELIGION

A: Mr Krishnamurti in our last discussion together we touched on the question of ( spiritual) authority : there is a ( critical?) point in going ( meditatively?) deeply into oneself, where there is a real fear ( of leaving the shores of the known?) . And at the conclusion of our former conversation, we were moving toward a discussion of that in terms of its role in (the context of a holistically friendly way of ) life.

K: Why is it always coming to the brink (of the Unknown?) and withdrawing (ASAP) , running away? Why don't we 'see' the ( 'what is' ) and act? Is it part of our (traditional knowledge based) education, that has cultivated functioning in a particular (area of material?) life - as an engineer, as a professor as a doctor, and so on, and never having enquired into what is ( the holistically friendly ?) Intelligence. Where there is intelligence there won't be this hesitation. There is action. When one is very sensitive ( & clear inwardly & outwarly ?) , you ( 'see & ) act'. This (holistic?) sensitivity 'is' intelligence.

Now, ( the mainstream of modern ) education is merely training the mind to function to the ( needs & ) dictates of society. So many engineers are wanted, so many doctors are wanted. So we are trained to function in the field of ( specialised) activity as 'functions' or careers and we hesitate (or simply ignore) to enter into something that demands all your ( presence of ) attention, not fragmentary, all your attention because here we have no ( experiential elements of?) measure. Therefore I don't know how to innquire . I don't say to the ( knowledgeable and/or charismatic person ?) who says 'I know,' 'What do you 'know'? You can only 'know' (once & for all) something that's gone, finished, dead. You can't say ''I know (all) about'' something that's living. And so gradually the ( knowledge addicted) mind becomes (inwardly) dull (and/or ?) restless. Its only curiosity is only in the direction of ( temporal) functioning. And it has no capacity to enquire (inwardly) . To enquire you must have (some degrees of inner ?) freedom first. I can't enquire if I have ( fixed) prejudices or if I have (final?) 'conclusions'. There must be ( an elementary) freedom to enquire – but that is denied if (the materialistic) society and culture laid tremendous importance on 'function'. And function has its own status.

So , if I live ( anchored ) in that ( traditional) field and I want to enquire into what is religion, what is God, what is immortality, what is beauty, I have no basis for reasoning ( truthfully?) So it is partly the fault of our ( mentally standardising) education, and partly our incapacity to look at anything objectively. I never look (contemplatively?) at nature, with all the marvel of it, the beauty of it, the shape, the loveliness of it, but always 'translating' it (in terms of 'known' based activities ?) , trying to paint it, write about it or 'enjoy it' (hedonistically?) .

A: I've been thinking very hard about your (holistic use of the ) word 'intelligence' and the word 'truth' in relation to what you have been saying. And the passage from the gospel came to my mind "When He, the spirit of truth is come He will guide you into all truth and the truth shall make you free." The truth is called a ( living?) spirit here. The terrible thing is that it hasn't been taken seriously.

K: Because we are not allowing (ourselves?) to be serious, sir.
So (to recap :) ( Inner ) freedom and authority cannot possibly exist. Freedom and Intelligence go together. And intelligence has its own innate, natural ( self-) discipline which is ( involved) the act of 'learning' all the time.

A: In attention ?

K: Yes, in attention.

A: So intelligence, beauty, love, truth, freedom & order, they form a complete, total, integral movement in action.

K: That's right.

A: As soon as you say, yes I 'see'. Isn't that marvelous ?

K: So, sir, that means can the (holistically friendly ) mind put aside totally all the ( known based ?) structure of thought with regard to religion? It can't put away the function of thought in the field of knowledge. That we have understood. That's very clear, but ( inwardly) we ( also ) pretend that we know. When a man says, ''Jesus is the Saviour'' it is a pretension, since it is (implying that ) "I know and you don't know." What do you know, in the name of Heaven, you know nothing, you just repeat what you have learned from somebody else ? So, if ( the holistic ) attitude ( to religion?) is the gathering of all energy in that quality of attention. It is this (spontaneous inward presence?) of attention that regenerates man, that brings about real transformation in man with regard to his behaviour, his whole way of relationship. Now, to enquire (into the nature of this 'attention') the ( meditating?) mind must also put aside all ( spiritual) authority of another, however great, however sublime, however divine or no divine, you follow?

A: Because an ( inward) action is required in order to answer this question  the individual must do this on his own. This came home to me with great dramatic force yesterday in ( my 'history of religions') class. On the one hand we have textbooks which have survived the centuries because of their classical value in that sense. And the usual way in which this material is taught, is that one learns, let us say something about the Chinese vision of life. Then we have the Hindu vision of life and so we accumulate over a long period of time through school, and if you hang in there long enough you come into possession of...

K: ...what other people have said. But you know nothing about it (through direct experience?) .

A: Now, in the K schools that you have mentioned the student is going to read ( your or other people's?) books that haven't been written necessarily by somebody who is ( personally involved in) what goes on between the students and the teachers in these schools. So, the teacher must handle this written material in books in a way to indicate to the younger student (or the older student) that it is possible to 'read' ( holistically) this material, without getting self (- conflicted?) in doing it.

K: And also what would you do if there was no ('how-to-do-it'?) book? You'd have to figure it out for yourself.

A: But in this new ( holistic) approach ( to education) we must somehow, bring together the book and the 'other'...

K: ...and the (otherness of inner ?) 'freedom'. Book and freedom.

A: Yes, and this is what hit me with such a shock yesterday in class. And I immediately felt radically responsible for doing this, in so far as I could. And I was surprised to see that though the students were extremely hesitant, there was also a tremendous interest in the possibility. But then, their (condition of subliminal?) hesitation... somehow wasn't passed. And I have the feeling that this has happened through the centuries with persons who have seriously studied the scriptures - they come right up to it...

K: And miss it ?

A: ... they can't 'push it over'. They can't go beyond a certain point.

K: Yes, sir. It has been my fortune or... misfortune to talk a great deal. And everybody comes to that 'point' ( psychological impasse?) They say, ''please tell me what am I to, I've reached that (subliminal division between the 'observer' & the 'observed'?) point I can't go beyond it.''
Sir, if I had ( to teach in such ) a class, I wouldn't talk about ( anybody's?) 'books' first. I'd say ''freedom'' (from the known?) . You've (been trained to be ?) secondhand people. And you are trying to find something that is original – what God is, or an ( inward) Reality that is Original. Therefore you must have an 'original' mind, which means a ( known-) free mind that can both function in the field of knowledge, and can also that can look (inwardly) observe & learn (everything anew?) .
Now (the big educational question is:) how do you help another ( or is it not possible ?) to be inwardly free (from the 'known' ?) ? You understand?
Look, ( personally?) I never belonged to anything. I have no church, no belief, all that. A man who really wants to find out if there is ( within himself?) something 'eternal', the Nameless, something beyond all thought, he must naturally set aside everything based on ( the assumptions of collective ?) thought: the saviour, the masters, the gurus, the knowledge, all that.
Are there (any serious?) people to do that? Will anybody undertake that ( meditative ?) journey? Or will they say : '' tell me all about it, old boy''  ?

A: Yes, yes this is what is generally going on.

K: I ( K ?) say, I won't tell you a thing about it. To put it into words is to destroy ( the living spirit of ) it. So, let us see if you cannot be free (of the known) . What are you frightened about - of going wrong? But the way you live now has no ( true ) meaning. You follow, sir? Deny the 'spiritual' authority of every kind. What are you frightened of? Going wrong spiritually? (Being inwardly) 'established' in unrighteousness (is going spiritually wrong)

A: Beautifully (said), Yes...

K: And so, can you be free from all that (second-hand spiritual knowledge?) , so that your mind through ( an authentic) meditation, - which we will discuss, perhaps another time. So, to be (inwardly) free (from the known?) implies to wipe away all the things that (other) people have put on you. You understand? So that you are innocent. Your mind is incapable of being hurt. That is what innocence means. And let's take an (authentic spiritual ) journey from this sense of negation, of everything that thought has put together. Because thought 'is' ( the child of?) time, thought is matter. And if you are living within the field of thought, there will be never freedom. You are living in the ( illusory knowledge of the ) past. You may ( like to) think you are living in the present, but when (your self-centred) thought is in operation you are actually living in the past, because thought is the response of all the (past) memory, knowledge, experience stored up in the brain. Unless you understand this (intrinsical) limitation of thought you can't enter into the field of that which you call 'religion'. You follow, sir? This ( inward revelation) comes first. Then you can read the 'books'.

A: Yes... ?

K: Sir, the Buddha never read a book (as there were none?) . He listened (mindfully?) , watched, looked, observed & said, ''all that's rubbish'', and threw it out.

A: I'm speaking now about teaching (all this ) . This point of hesitation is the point where something will or will not get born - that beautiful expression that you used, ''incarnate now''.

K: Now, yes.

A: So here we are, student among students. And there is this boggling, this fear and trembling, and nothing can be done other than simply encourage them.

K: And/or tell them, ''remain (silently) there''. Don't 'run away'.

A: Now I understand what you meant by saying, now let's start the class ten minutes with this. We don't open the (text)book, we start with this. And then when the book is opened perhaps the (true meaning of the ) words will disclose itself.

K: That's right.

A: Because intelligence has 'broken free'.

K: That's right.

A: And behold, it's all splendid !

K: Because, you see, sir, if I was one of the ( holistically minded?) teachers I would say, "Look, sit down. Be quiet for five minutes. Be quiet. Look out of the window if you want to. See the beauty of light on water or the leaf and look at this and that, but be (inwardly?) quiet."

A: We teach in classes that don't have ( such) 'windows' now - just being facetious.

K: Of course, sir. You are trained (and paid?) to be 'functional'. You follow, sir? Don't look at anything else but be ( thoughtful ?) monkeys.

A: Yes. The classroom is looking like a 'tomb'.

K: So, I'd say, 'sit quietly.' Then after sitting quietly I talk about this first, freedom, authority, beauty, love, you know, all that we have been discussing. Then ( if there is any time or interest left?) pick up your (text)book. But you have ( already) learned much more here than ( what is) in the book. The (spiritual ) book becomes a secondhand thing.

A: Yes. Everything is seen with a ''clean eye''.

K: That's why, sir, I personally have never read a single book ( or...forgot completely ) of all this , neither the Upanishads or what the Buddha (is supposed to have) said. It somehow bored me. It meant nothing to me. What has meant anything was to observe: observe the very poor in India; observe the rich, & the ( 'tweeting'?) politicians. And you learn an awful lot (once you realise the real book to be read is within) 'you'. Do you understand, sir? If you can read (in real time ?) your ( psychology text-) book which is ( constantly unfolding in ) yourself you have learned everything, except the ( technologically) 'functional' knowledge.
So when there is self knowing, ( following any spiritual) authority has no meaning. Why should I accept these people who are (importing spiritual ) Truth from India? That's not ( the living) truth they are bringing. They are bringing a ( multi-millenary) tradition, what they believe. So, can the ( spiritually earnest ) mind put away everything that man has invented or imagined about religion, God, this and that? That means, can this common consciousness empty itself of all the things that man has said about ( spiritual) Reality? Otherwise I can't...

A: Can't begin ( my inward journey?) ?

K: Not only begin, but what do I discover? What other people have said? What Buddha, Christ, why should I accept that?

A: Well, the terrible thing is, I'm not in a position to grasp ( the inward truth of) whatever they said until this ( inward freedom from the known) occurs.

K: So ( this inward) freedom, sir, is an absolute necessity.

A: Oh, yes. Absolutely...

K: But none of the ( professionals of spirituality?) say this. On the contrary they say, freedom will come to you much later. Be in the prison for the rest of your life. And when you'll die you'll have freedom. That's what they are preaching, essentially. So, can the mind, the heart, and all the (memory) stored in the brain be free of the things that man has said about reality?
Sir, that's a marvellous ( open ended?) question.
( Storytime:) You know I was staying once in Kashmir right among the hills, mountains. And a group of (local) monks came to see me, and they said they had just come from a group of unworldly people, super monks, who were living high up in the ( Himalayan) mountains. And they said ''they were totally unworldly''. I said, "What do you mean by that word, sirs?" They said, "They had just left the world. They are no longer tempted by the world. They have this great knowledge of the world." And, I said, "When they have left the world, have they left the memory of the world?" They said, "That's wisdom. How can you leave wisdom?" I said, "You mean wisdom is bought from another through renunciation?" You follow, sir, their idea ? That wisdom is something you can obtain from somebody else.

A: So, they went up the mountain with all this baggage.

K: Baggage, that's exactly what I said, but they still carry their (psychological) baggage. You follow, sir?

A: Oh, goodness me !

K: So that is really an important thing if a mind is really very serious to find out what ( the holistic sense of) religion means : to free the mind from all ( its knowledge addictive) accretions, and therefore see all the absurdities.

A: This throws a very, very different light on the word 'worldly'.

K: Yes, That's just it.

A: They are going up the mountain in order to leave the world. But they are taking immense pains to take it with them.

K: That's right, sir. That's what they are doing when they go into the monastery.

A: Of course...

K: So now, to come back: can the mind be completely 'alone' - in the sense of the 'all-oneness' that comes when you put away all this, all the (artisanal?) 'things' of thought. You understand, sir? Because ( the self-centred) thinking is so clever, cunning. It can build a marvellous ( mental?) structure and call that ( the ultimate) ''reality''. But thought, being of time, it cannot create something which has no time. Thought can function ( legitimately) in the field of ( practical) knowledge, but not in the other. And this doesn't need bravery, but just to ''see the truth in the false''.

A: To 'see the truth in the false'  ???

K: Of course. To see what is considered ( by the time-bound consciousness as ) 'truth' as (being inwardly ? ) false.

A: Yes, yes...

K: So my ( mind's ) eyes are stripped of all the 'false' (spiritual assumptions) , so that there is no inward deception whatsoever, because there is no ( hidden) desire to achieve something. ( Experiential hint:) The moment there is an (intense personal) desire to experience, or to achieve Enlightenment, there is going to be illusion, something ( thought &) desire has created. So can the ( meditating) mind be free and free of all the things which are born of fear, and desire and pleasure? That means one has to understand oneself at great depth...

A: The ( tricky?) thing is that one can repeat those questions (for the benefit of one's students) and start to think that he has grasped them.

K: You grasp the words.

A: Exactly. But the repetition of the question does have a functional value ?

K: Yes, sir, it does. That is if the person is willing to listen.

A: If he is ( truly ) willing to listen, because thought is incredibly deceitful. I was just thinking of Jeremiah's words: ''the ( sinner's?) heart is desperately wicked and deceitful above all things''. Surely he must have...

K: ...tasted something ?

A: Yes, of course. When I was very small, growing up in England, I was put to ( a private) school and I always read a great deal of poetry.

K: Yes, in England of course everybody reads (or ...has read?) poetry, Latin, you know...

A: And I was always read poetry by the young woman employed by my parents to look after me and my little sister. I never went to sleep without hearing it. One day when I was very small, at school, the teacher read "The Owl and the Pussy Cat / Went to sea in a beautiful pea green boat", that mad thing, marvelously mad thing, Edward Lear wrote.

K: Edward Lear....(???)

A: Yes, and you know I was never the same again as I came to experience in language a splendour that I never lost touch with, despite all the struggles I had to get to the end of formal education, I have to say that, I had a pretty grim time. And one of the reasons for the grim time was my refusal to give this up, this...

K: ...'' Pussy Cat in the boat'' ?

A: The fact that there's a bird and a cat in the same boat. The poet is describing a movement in which truth and beauty are moving along !

K: Sir, after coming to this ( poetical?) point, we ought to go very deeply again into the question of Meditation. Because, Religion and Meditation ( should?) go together. That is, when ( the true spirit of) 'religion' isn't just an idea but is an actual conduct in daily life. Your thoughts, your speech, your behaviour is the very essence of Religion. You understand, sir? If that doesn't exist religion ( the holistic attitude to life?) can't exist.

A: Exactly.

K: So after establishing that deeply in oneself - the understanding of the inward (spirit of) religion, then the next ( experiential) thing (to ask) is: what is ( the true purpose of) Meditation? That is of tremendous importance, because if Meditation is understood properly, this is the most extraordinary thing that man can have. Meditation is not divorced from daily life.

A: In Homer's writings , this word carries the idea to 'provide for' in the sense of 'to care for'. It is very beautiful. It brings up the question that you raised earlier of true care. That one is not meditating unless he is caring.

K: Caring...

A: Yes. It's all there in the word, but we won't have a look. Yes, do please go on...

K: You see, when we have divorced relationship from religion, divorced death from religion, divorced love from religion (when we have made love into something sensuous & pleasurable) , then ( the ) religious (mind) , which is ( supposed to be) the factor of regeneration, disappears in man. And unless you have this quality of a mind that is really religious, ( man's inner) degeneracy is inevitable. Religion is ( supposed to be?) the ( catalysing) factor that brings a new quality of energy, so that the brain can regenerate. And (the only reason why it ) doesn't, is because ( this regeneration requires an inward space of ) freedom from every kind of ( time-binding pursuit of) security of the 'me'.

A: I noticed this in class yesterday with this business about energy that you are just talking about. There was a quickening that took place, although it was strenuous, because of this terrible hesitation. But even so there was a release of energy - an empirical demonstration of what you are saying. Something that is out there. It's to be seen. It's observable.

K: That's right, sir.

A: And behold ! It sprung up like a green bay tree. Yes, please, please go on.

K: You see, sir, the priests throughout the world have made religion into something profitable, both the worshipper and for the intermediary. It has become a business affair - not only physically but inwardly, deeply: do this and you will reach that. And unless this (materialistic mentality) is put an end to we are going to degenerate more and more and more. And that's why I feel so immensely responsible, personally. Tremendously responsible to the audience that I talk to, when I talk, when I go to the various schools in India, I feel I am responsible for those children. You follow, sir?

A: Yes, I certainly do.

K: I say, "For God's sake, be different. Don't grow up like that. Look !" I go into it very, very (extensively?) , you know, talking a great deal. And they (seem to?) begin to see, but the ( materialistic mentality of ) world is too strong for them. They have to earn a livelihood, their parents want them to settle down and have a good job, and marry, have their own house...you know, all that (traditionalistic) business.

A: Well, surely...

K: And the public opinion, and overpopulation, is much too strong.

A: The tremendous weight of that tradition of ''the four stages of life''.

K: Yes. So I say, let's find out if ( we can create) a ( holistically minded ?) ''elite'' - if I may use that word without any snobbery - a few teachers, ( & still fewer???) students who are really concerned. Even that (apparently small task) becomes very difficult because most ( applicants) are not good at this or that and therefore...( have chosen to?) 'become teachers'.

A: Oh dear, dear, dear... yes.

K: So everything, sir, ( seems to be) against you. The gurus, the priests, the business people, the politicians (& even) the ( school?) teachers (…) everybody is against you. Take that for granted. They won't help you an inch. They want you to go their ( fool-proofed?) way. They've all got vested ($$$?) interests and all that.

A: Yes, I do see that with clarity. In our last two conversations do you think we could explore the activity of 'Meditation' within the context of all that we have described ?

K: Yes, sir, we will.

A: Oh, that's wonderful ! .

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 20 Apr 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #169
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

17-th ('reader friendly' edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH ALLAN ANDERSON

AN INSIGHTFUL APPROACH TO MEDITATION (part one)

A: Mr Krishnamurti, I was hoping that today we could share ( your approach ?) to Meditation ?

K: If I may suggest, could we start by saying that we really do not know what is ( the holistic approach to ) Meditation ?

A: Yes, I'm willing to start there.

K: It's really marvelous if you start from (the position of not knowing?) : It brings a great sense of ( innocence &?) humility.

A:Also one intuits even from afar a (free inward space of ?) freedom.

K: Yes, that's right. 'I don't know' is an acknowledgment of one's freedom from the known, from the established methods, schools and practices.

A: Exactly...

K: For me starting from 'I don't know' has great beauty. Then one is free to 'flow with the enquiry'. First of all, is meditation divorced from one's everyday living, or does it flow through all that, covers all that, includes all that? Otherwise meditation has no ( holistic?) meaning. For me what is important is the (insightful?) perception which reveals the truth or the falseness of anything . And meditation is - when you deny all these systems, methods, gurus, authorities - a deeply religious question.

A: Yes, profoundly religious.

K: Profoundly religious. I start with this feeling of great humility, not knowing, therefore the ( meditating?) mind is capable of a real enquiry. That is, gathering all the energy to move from one dimension to a totally different dimension.
So, in my enquiry I am asking, am I awake? What does it mean to be (inwardly) 'awake'? . What does it mean? I am not awake if I have any (psychological) burden. You follow, sir? There is no sense of being awake when there is any kind of fear. If I live with an illusion, if my actions are neurotic, there is no state of being awake. So I'm becoming very sensitive to what is happening in me, outside me. So is the mind aware during the day completely to what is happening inside & outside of me.

A: Upon every instant.

K: That's it. Otherwise I am not awake.

A: I was just thinking about something that has always given me a great sense of wonder. At home we have some birds and, of all things, a cat too. But they love one another. That is to say, the birds don't run around in the room with the cat, but the cat supervises the birds. When the birds are put to bed in the evening the cat goes into that room and stays with them, maybe an hour or two, watches. Just seems to have the feeling that it must look after the birds. And in the day time, I've often watched the cat sit and look at the birds with an immense intensity, and the ordinary reaction is, "Well for heaven's sake, haven't you seen them before?" What is this everlasting intensity, but she's looking.

K: That's right, sir.

A: And her eyes are always with that jewel-like intensity and clarity. Cleaner than a flame. And it never stops. And when she sleeps, she really - yes. When you asked me what is sleep, there must be a relation between the wonder that we feel for the cat's ability completely to sleep. And when she awakes she's completely awake.

K. That's right, sir. So am I awake? Or is my past (memory?) so 'alive' that it is dictating ( the course of?) my life in the present?

A: Would you say that again? It's very important.

K: I'll put it differently. Is my mind burdened with the (memories of the ) past? And therefore bearing a burden I'm not awake to the ( living?) present.

A: Not awake in the present, exactly.

K: Not awake even as I am talking, because I'm talking from the background of my past, of my experience, of my failures, my hurts, my depressions, therefore the ( interference of the?) past is dominating and putting me to sleep now.

A: It's (acting ) like a narcotic.

K: Narcotic. Therefore what am I to do with the (streaming memory of?) past? You follow, sir? ( The factual memory of the?) past ia necessary.

A: Of course, yes, the whole field of knowledge.

K: ( The factual) Knowledge of the past is necessary. But when the ( psychological memories of the?) past cover the present, then I am 'asleep'. So is it possible to know what the past is and not let it overflow into the present? That question and the reality of it brings its own discipline. Therefore I say, yes, I can keep awake totally and widely and yet operate in the field of knowledge. So there is no contradiction. I don't know if I am conveying it ?

A: Oh you are.

K: So both are moving in harmony. One doesn't lag behind the other. One doesn't contradict the other. There's balance.

A: Well, if I am following correctly is, on the one hand we have knowledge and the grasp of its necessity with respect to know how in practical affairs. On the other hand we have ( the action of direct ) seeing, understanding. And the act of meditation is the nexus...

K: That's right, sir.

A: ...between them so that there is no interruption of flow in the activity of (insightful?) understanding and ( factual) knowing.

K: That is part of meditation. I have understood now what is means to be awake. That means I am watching, I am aware without any choice, choiceless awareness, watching, looking, observing, hearing, what is going on and what is going outside, what people tell me, whether they flatter me, or they insult me. I am watching. So I am very aware. Now, as meditation covers the whole field of life, what is its relationship to sleep? And in sleep, ( with) dreams. So I have to find out why I dream. What are dreams? Dreams are the continuation of my 'daily sleep'. Which is, if I have not understood my daily life which is in disorder; when I go to sleep and the disorder continues. And the brain says, I must have order otherwise I can't function properly. So if the ( waking) mind doesn't put order during the day, the brain tries to bring order during the night.

A: Through the dream.

K: Through the dreams, through intimations. When I awake I say, yes I have a certain feeling this must be done. But when the mind is awake during the day it establishes order out of the understanding of disorder. So when I sleep the brain isn't working out how to establish order in itself in order to be secure. Therefore the brain becomes ( fully) rested, it becomes quiet & sleeps without dreams. So, ( a meditation friendly?) sleep means regeneration of the brain. I don't know if you follow?

A: Yes, I do. But I wonder if I could ask you a ( bonus?) question about dreams here, that might introduce a distinction between dreams in terms of their nature. Sometimes we report that we've had a dream which points to future event.

K: That's another thing.

A: That's entirely different from what you are talking about ?

K: Yes, yes.

A: So we could say that...

K: Sir, we can understand that very simply. You know the other day we were walking high up in the hills in India and there was a river flowing down below. And two boats were coming in the opposite direction and you knew where they were going to meet.

A: Of course, but but that's very objective. That has nothing to do with my subjective unfinished business. What an amazing thing it would be to have all your business done and go to sleep. And if order should present you with a (holistic?) understanding, then this ( quality of?) understanding never stops from waking through sleeping.

K: That's right.

A: Yes. Marvelous !

K: So you see, that way the brain is regenerated, keeps young. No (more psychological ) conflicts which wear out the brain.

A: Yes...
K: So, sleep means not only order, rejuvenation, innocence, but also in sleep there are states in which there is an absolutely freedom to 'see' into something which you have never seen with your physical eyes.

A: Yes...

K: So we have described sufficiently into that. I see that. So does the (meditative ?) mind live that kind of life during the day?

A: That would be ( very?) rare...

K: Otherwise it is not ( a holistic?) Meditation. So I say, am I living that? If not, what is happening (with me?) ? I see this, because I do not separate meditation from daily living. Otherwise it has no meaning. So I see the importance of order during the waking hours. And therefore freeing the mind - the brain from conflict, all that, during sleep, so there is total rest to the brain. That's one thing.

Then, what is ( the point of controlling thought?) ? Why should I control? All religions have said control, be without desire. Don't think about yourself. You follow? All that. I say to myself can I live (& meditate?) without (thought) control? You follow, sir?

A: Oh yes, yes. One has to start that question too at the very beginning.

K: Is it possible to live ( holistically?) without control? Because when I say I must control my thought, the 'controller' is the creation of thought. One fragment of thought controls another fragment, and yet therefore remain fragments. So I say, is there a ( holistically friendly ) way of living without (thought ) control, and therefore with no conflict. Not one desire against another desire, one thought opposed to another thought. Is that possible (in the meditation context?) ? So I say, can I live a life of meditation in which there is no control?

A: When intelligence breaks out, then with it comes order and that order...

K: Intelligence is order.

A: And intelligence is that order. Therefore there is no conflict at all.

K: You see, therefore do I live it? I've got desires: I see a car, a woman, a house, a lovely garden, beautiful clothes, or whatever it is, instantly all the desires arise. Now that desire is there, to allow for the flowering of desire without control. You understand, sir?

A: Yes, I do...

K: So the very flowering is the very ending of that desire. But if you (try to?) 'chop it off' it'll come back again.

A: Yes, yes. It's the difference between a 'terminus' and a 'consummation'.

K: Quite, yes. So I let the desire come, flower, watch it. Watch it, not yield or resist. Just let it flower. And be fully aware of what is happening. Then there is no ( need to ) control it .

A: And no disorder.

K: No, of course. The moment you ( try to?) control it there is disorder. Because you are suppressing or accepting - you know, all the rest of it. So that is disorder. But when you allow the thing to flower and watch it, watch it in the sense be totally aware of it - the petals, the subtle forms of desire, the whole of that movement of desire.

A: Exactly.

K: And for that you need to be very sensitive, and watching choicelessly .

A: This ( very poetical?) 'image' that you have referred to metaphorically with the plant itself, could we pursue that in our next conversation through the continuation of concern to look further into meditation ?

K: We have not finished with ( exploring) Meditation. There's lots more involved.

A: Good, good...

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 21 Apr 2019 #170
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

18-th ('reader friendly' edited) K CONVERSATION WITH ALLAN ANDERSON ( 1974)

DEEPER EXPERIENTIAL ASPECTS OF HOLISTIC MEDITATION

A: Mr Krishnamurti, as we were discussing in our last conversation on meditation you brought up the very beautiful analogy of the flowering of a plant, and it struck me that the order that is intrinsic to the movement of the plant as it flowers is a revelatory image of the order that you have been discussing. And perhaps we could go on from there ?

K: We were talking, if I remember rightly about ( the redundancy of thought's attempts to ) control ( all that is hoing on inwardly) . We said "the controller 'is'(not intrinsically divided from) the controlled". And in the desire to control there is established a 'goal' and a 'direction' and the carrying out is the duration of time. Now, what place has 'will' in ( the context of) meditation and therefore in ( a holistic way of ?) life? Or it has no place at all ? That means there is only "seeing and doing". And that doesn't demand ( thought's excercise of) will or direction. You follow?

A: Yes, I do...

K: The beauty of this, sir, how it works out. When the ( meditating ?) mind sees the (inward) futility of 'control' because it has understood the controller 'is' the controlled, one fragment trying to dominate other fragments, it is like going around in a vicious circle, never getting out of it. So can there be a ( meditation friendly approach of ?) living without control, will, and without direction? There must be ( a sense of ) direction in the field of knowledge , in all the technological things necessary in life. There, direction, calculation, decision in that field is necessary. Choice is necessary between this and that. ( But inwardly ) where there is ( an action based on ) choice there is confusion, because there is no ( direct) perception. Where there is ( a clear inner?) perception there is no choice. Choice exists because the mind is confused between this and that. So, can a (holistically friendly) life be without (thought) control, without ( ego-centric?) will, without ( a pre-determined ) direction, that means ( inwardly thinking in terms of?) time? And that is ( part of a) meditation which has a meaning in (the everyday) living.

A: So, we need to make a clear distinction here between 'will' and its role in relation to the whole field (of our practical existence) - what we call loosely 'know-how' and the ( inner) confusion that occurs when that activity, so necessary in its own right is brought over into the ( field of meditation)

K: That's right.

A: And then we can't do ( properly ) either of them, really.

K: That's just it. Therefore we become inefficient and...'personal'.

A: But you see we don't think like that. What we think is that we can be terribly efficient in knowledge and be what is called unspiritual. And be a success here and not be a success here. Whereas, if I understand you correctly, you don't fail in one or the other, you just 'fail' period. It's a total failure if this confusion is made. You simply can't operate even well here no matter what it might look like in the short run.

K: As long as you are not completely in order inside yourself.

A: Exactly. So the very division that we make between inner and outer is itself a symptom of this terrible ( confusion?)...

K: ...of thought which has divided the outer and the inner.

A: Yes, yes. I hope you'll bear with me in going through that because I know well the weight of this confusion in the religious thought - and as soon as you begin to make a comment of any kind about it, the extreme rigidity and nervousness that occurs is dramatic.

K: You see, sir, meditation (should?) cover the whole field of living, not just one segment of it. Therefore living an (inner) life without ( thought?) control, without the action of will, decision, direction, achievement. Is that possible? If it is not possible life becomes superficial, meaningless. And to escape from that meaningless life we chase all the gurus, the religious entertainment, you follow?

A: You know, in the classical tradition we have a definition of 'will'. We say that it's 'desire made reasonable'. Now, of course, we've long since lost the idea of what the ancients meant, against their contemplative background, by the word 'reason'. We think it means calculation. But of course that's not what the classical tradition means when it says 'reasonable'. It points rather to that order which isn't ( pre-) defined. And it occurs to me that if we understood that statement correctly we'd be saying that 'will' is the focus of desire without 'me' focusing self consciously.

K: Yes, that's right. And watching ( by allowing?) desire to flower.

A: Yes.

K: And therefore watching the will in operation and let it flower and as it flowers as you are watching it withers away. After all it's like a flower you allow it to bloom and then...it withers.

A: It comes to be and passes away in its own time.

K: Therefore if you are choicelessly aware of this movement of desire, (thought) control, will, focusing that will in action, just watch it (non-personally?) . And as you watch it you will see how it loses its vitality. So there is no ( need for trying to ) control it.
So from that arises the next question ( of free inner ?) space. What is space? ( The mental space of the known?) which thought has created is one thing. Then we have the ( outward) space that exists in heaven, in ( the material) universe. There must be ( a vital) space for a tree to grow. There must be space for a flower to bloom. And have we ( enough living) space? Or are we all so limited physically to living in a little apartment, little houses, no space at all outwardly, and therefore having (not enough free ) space we become more and more violent ?

A: Yes.

K: I don't know if you have watched of an evening when all the swallows are lined up on a wire and how exact spaces they have in between ?

A: Yes I have. It's marvelous...

K: It's marvelous to see this (natural need for free ) space. And space is necessary (both outwardly & inwardly) . And we have not (much) space physically with more and more population and all the rest of it. And therefore more and more violence, more and more living together in a small flat, thousand people, you know, crowded.
Breathing the same air, thinking the same thing, seeing the same television, seeing the same, reading the same books, going to the same church, believing the same thing. You follow? The same sorrow. The same anxiety. The same fears. My country - all that. So the brain, has very little space. So can the mind have ( its own inner) space? And there will be no ( inner) space if there is a 'direction' (Clue : 'direction' means (thinking of oneself in terms of?) time.)

A: Yes...

K: And so when (the inner space of the?) mind is constantly occupied with ( thinking about one's) family, with business, with God, with drink, with sex, with (having new?) 'experiences', there is no space (of freedom left) .

A: Exactly.

K: So when knowledge occupies the whole field of the mind as ( self-centred thinking?) there is no ( inner) space. And thought creates ( its own ) self-enclosed) space around itself as the 'me' enclosed, and you enclosed, we and they. So the 'self' (identified entity?) , the 'me',-which is the very essence of thought- has its own little (familiar ) space. And to move out of that space is ( generating ) anxiety because I am only used to that little space.
So, (another important aspect of) meditation is the freeing of the mind of its ( psychologically active ) 'content' ( expressing itself?) as (self-) consciousness which creates its own little space

A: This throws a marvelous light on that saying of Jesus which people have pondered and wondered about and thought it was very strange: foxes have holes and birds of the air have nests but the son of man hath not where to lay his head. He is not inventing a space for himself. It fits perfectly.

K: I don't know...

A: No, I understand. But I was thinking in the context of the whole discourse. It just flashed over me. And our conversations have been such a revelation to me with respect to the literatures that I've soaked myself in for so many years. And it's a demonstration to me of what you've said. And what could be more empirically demonstrable to an individual that ''I am the world and the world is me'' ?

K: That's right, sir. So, can there be ( free ) space inwardly? When there is space inwardly there is space outwardly.

A: Exactly.

K: But the outward space is not ( necessarily) going to give the inner space. The inner space of a mind that is free from occupation - or though it is occupied at the moment with what it has to do, it is occupied, but free, the moment it is finished it is over. I don't carry the office to my home. It is over. So 'space' in the mind means the emptying of consciousness of all its content and therefore the (self-centred?) consciousness which thought as the 'me' has created ends and therefore there is space. But that space isn't yours or mine. It is space. You follow?

A: In the Genesis, this space is called 'heaven'.

K: It 'is' heaven. So space, direction, time, will, choice, control - you understand, sir. Now, all that has importance in the daily living of every human being. If he doesn't know what the meaning of meditation is, he merely lives in that field of knowledge and therefore that becomes an (invisible inner) prison. And therefore being in prison he says, I must 'escape' through entertainment, through God... You know, that is what is actually
taking place.

A: The word 'vacation' says it all. To "vacate" is to exit into space.

K: Space.

A: But then ( usually) we go from one hole to another.

K: Now, if that (free inner space?) is clearly established, perceived in myself, then what takes place? (Free inner?) Space means silence. If there is no silence there is the operation of will, I must do, I must not do, I must practise this, I must get this, you follow? The should be, should not be, what has been, what should not be, I regret. All that operates. Therefore space means silence inwardly.

A: That's very deep.

K: ( This inner) Silence isn't the space between two noises. It comes naturally, inevitably as you (are ) 'open', as you observe, as you examine, as you investigate. So then the question arises, can this (quality of inner) silence, can that operate in my daily life? ( Usually?) I live in the field of noise as ( real or fake?) knowledge. That I have to do. And is there an (inward) living with silence and at the same time the other? The two moving together, like two rivers flowing in balance. No division. You follow? In harmony. Is that ( really) possible? Because if that's not possible I can only live that in the field of ( constantly updated?) knowledge.

A: Oh yes, yes.

K: So, for me it is possible, and I say this in great humility. I think that is possible (for everybody?) . Then ( in this inner space of silence) what takes place? What is then ( the inner meaning of?) creation? It is a 'flowering' in which the flower does not know (is not self-conscious ) that it is flowering.

A: Exactly, exactly.

K: Have I made it clear?

A: Yes, you've made it very, very clear (metaphorically?) . All through our conversations the most important word has been the word 'act'.

K: Yes, sir. So see what takes place with this ( source of) Creation ( acting) in my daily living. Not expressing, creating a beautiful chair, this or that may come, that will come, but in living.

Now, as long as we cultivate thought, and all our actions are based on thought as it is the case now, the search for the Immeasurable (inward dimension of of Creation?) has no meaning. But when the mind is utterly silent what is the Immeasurable? What is the Everlasting? What is the Eternal? So, ( the meditative ?) 'silence' in the deep sense of the word, opens the Door. Because you've got there all your energy. There is no ( further) dissipation of energy at all. Therefore in that Silence there is summation of ( all one's intelligent) energy.

A: Precisely...

K: Therefore all the ( spiritual ?) energy which has previously been wasted is now gathered in that Silence. That Silence has become sacred. So it is only such a sacred mind that can see this the most supreme sacred, the essence of all that is sacred, which is Beauty. You follow, sir?

A: I do...

K: So there it is. When the mind itself becomes (one with the?) Sacred then it opens the door to something that is Immeasurably Sacred. And that (quality of sacredness?) affects the daily living, the way I talk, the way I treat people, the conduct, behaviour - all that. That is the most profound 'religious' way of living.

You see sir, because your (total ) energy is being gathered, you ( may or...may not ?) have other kind of 'extra sensory powers' (ESP's ?) , can do ( spiritual ?) 'miracles', like exorcising and healing. But they are all secondary issues. So, ( the holistic significance of ) religion is the gathering of all energy, which is ( expressing itself in ) attention. And when there is this sense of religious summation of energy that is Love, Compassion, and Care, that (religious mind) operates in daily life. I'm using the word 'mind' in the sense of mind , brain & body, the whole thing, and can the mind be really silent? And does this Silence and the sense of the Immeasurable, does that come about by my questioning?

A: Now, let me ask you a ( collateral ?) question here, if I may. The act of (direct ) perceiving is the 'doing' ?

K: Doing.

A: And there's absolutely no (time) interval between seeing & doing ?

K: I see the danger and I act.

A: Exactly. Now, in this perceiving, the action is totally free and then every energy pattern is free to become changed.

K: Yes, quite, sir.

A. And if I have understood you correctly, there's a corollary to this. Not only is the pattern free to be changed, but the energy is free to pattern itself.

K: Or not to pattern. If it patterns it has become thought again. And therefore thought ( of the self-divisive kind) is superficial. The other day, somebody was saying that in Eskimo language 'thought' means the outside. Very interesting. The outside. When they say, 'go outside', the word is 'thought' (be thoughtful ?) . So thought has created the outer and the inner. If thought is not then there is neither the outer nor the inner. That is ( the open-ended inner) space.

A: A sense of immense (inner) quietude. The proper sense of whatever the word 'tranquillity' points to.

K: That's right, sir. That is the real (inner) 'peace'.

A: There is a very beautiful Biblical phrase, "The Peace that passeth understanding."

K: I've heard that phrase when I was small boy.

A: I've always asked myself since a child, how it's the case that there is so much talk about such a thing and there's so little evidence of it.

K: Sir, how can a mind that has acquired so much knowledge about what other people have experienced about Reality, experience or come up on that (inner) 'thing' which is original?

A: Not through that route.

K: No. So, can the ( meditating ) mind empty itself of its (knowledge ?) 'content'? There is no book in the world that is going to teach me. There is no teacher that is going to teach me. The disciple 'is' the teacher.

A: So, meditation must be (going?) continuously, because we talked about that movement...

K: That means one has to be very, very serious. It isn't a thing we play with.

A: This discussion that you have undertaken concerning meditation is so total. A meditation isn't a thing that you do 'among other things'.

K: Meditation (as integrated in one's daily life) means attention, care. That's part of it, care for my children, for my neighbour, for the earth, for the trees, for the animals. Therefore, sir, all this comes to a sense of deep, inward seriousness, and that seriousness itself brings about attention, caring and responsibility and all that we have discussed. It isn't that one has gone through all this. One sees it. And the very perception is action which is Wisdom. Because 'wisdom' is ( coming with ) the ending of suffering. And this 'ending' means the ( direct) observation, the seeing of suffering. Just to see it. Let it flower. And as you are choicelessly aware of this flowering, it comes naturally to 'wither away'. I don't have to do something about it.

A: Marvelous how ( the integrated ?) energy ( of Meditation?) can be free to pattern itself or not pattern itself. The pattern is free to be energized or the whole thing is simply all round.

K: Yes, sir. It covers the whole of man's endeavour, his thoughts, his anxieties, everything it covers.

A: So, in our conversation we have reached the point of consummation here where it is round.

K: In that (loving ?) Silence time comes to an end, time stops.

A: "In silence time stops"... Immensely beautiful ! I must express to you my gratitude from the bottom of my heart because throughout the whole career of our discussions I have been undergoing a transformation.

K: Because you are good enough to 'listen'. Most people won't take the (quality ?) time or care to 'listen'.

A: I've already seen the beginning of a flowering in the (educational ) activity with my students

K: Flowering, quite...

A: The beginning of an (inward) flowering. Thank you so much again.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 25 Apr 2019 #171
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

INSIGHTFUL SELF-KNOWING OR... INDULGING IN SELF-HYPNOSIS?

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from 'Commentaries on Living' 3-rd series , 1956 )

The visitor said he had held a government position and as he had had
a first-class education he could have climbed quite high. Things were going along pleasantly enough, but one morning he awoke very early and sat down for meditation before his family or the neighbours were up. Though he had had a restful sleep, he couldn’t meditate (as usual) and suddenly he felt an overwhelming urge to spend the rest of his life in meditation. There was no doubt about it; he would devote his remaining years to finding whatever there was to be found through meditation, and he told his wife, and his two boys that he was going to become a sannyasi. His colleagues were surprised by his decision, but accepted his resignation; and in a few days he had left his home, never to return.

That was twenty-five years ago, he went on. He disciplined himself rigorously, but it took him a long time to master completely his thoughts and the sensory passions. Finally, however, he began to have visions of the Buddha, of Christ and Krishna
visions whose beauty was enthralling, and for days he would live as if in a trance, ever widening the boundaries of his mind and heart, utterly absorbed in that Love which is devotion to the Supreme. Everything about him - the villagers, the animals, the trees, the grass - was intensely alive, brilliant in its vitality and loveliness. It had taken him all these years to touch the 'hem of the Infinite' , he said, and it was amazing that he had survived it all.

Q: I have a number of disciples and followers, as is inevitable in this country, and one of them suggested to me that I attend a talk which was to be given by you (K) in this town, where I happened to be for a few days. More to please him than to listen to you , I went to the talk, and was greatly impressed by what was said in reply to a question on meditation. It was stated that ''without self-knowledge, which in itself is (a part of) meditation, all meditation is a process of 'self-hypnosis', a projection of one’s own thought and desire.'' I have been thinking about all this, and I see that what you said is perfectly true, and it’s a great shock to me to perceive that I have been caught in the (self-projected) 'images' of my own mind. I now realize very profoundly what my 'meditation' has been. For twenty-five years I have been held in a beautiful garden of my own making; the personages, the visions were the outcome of my particular culture and of the things I have desired, studied and absorbed. I now understand the ( inward) significance of what I have been doing and I am more than appalled at having wasted so many precious years, but what am I to do now? Is there any way out of the ( psychological ) prison I have built for myself? I can see that what I have come to in my meditation is a 'dead-end', though only a few days ago it seemed so full of glorious significance. I can’t go back to all that self-delusion and ( mental) self-stimulation. I want to tear through the 'veils of illusion' and come upon that (inward Reality ?) which is not put together by the mind. The ( mental) structure which I had so carefully and painfully built up over a period of twenty-five years has no meaning any more, and it seems to me that I shall have to start all over again. From where am I to start?

K: May it not be that there is no ( need for) restarting (in a different direction?) at all, but only ( of the vertical ?) perception of the false as the false - which is the beginning of ( any authentic self-) understanding? What 'blinds' us is the (self-identified?) desire to achieve an end, a result; but if we perceived that the result we desire is still within the self-centred field (of the known?) , then there would be no thought of achievement.
( In a nutshell:) Seeing the false as the false, and the true as the true, is (the Royal Way to?) Wisdom.

Q : But how do I really see (the 'false' in) all that what I have been doing for the last twenty-five years ?

K: The craving for ( transcendental ) experience is the beginning of illusion. As you now realize, your 'visions' (of the Sacred ) were but the projections of your ( cultural) conditioning, and it is these (collective cultural) projections that you have 'experienced'. Surely this is not meditation.
The beginning of meditation is the understanding of the ( psychological) background, of the 'self', and without this ( 'ground zero' ?) understanding, what is called meditation is merely a form of self-hypnosis. The ( thinker's?) mastering of his own
thought, and his concentration on the furthering of ( transcendental) experience is a self-centred occupation ; and to perceive that it is not meditation is the (timeless?) beginning of meditation. Seeing the truth in the false sets the mind free from the false. This 'freedom from the false' comes when the mind is no longer concerned with ( achieving spiritual?) success or with the attainment of a (desired) end. There must be the cessation of all ( self-centred?) search, and only then is there a possibility of the coming into (one's ) being of ''that which is Nameless''.

Q: All this ( approach) involves time and patience, doesn’t it?”

K: Time and patience may be necessary for the achievement of a ( material) goal. Any ambitious man, worldly or otherwise, needs time to gain his 'end'. ( The self-centred?) mind is the product of time and thought's ( effort  ? ) to free itself from ( the psychological residues of ?) time only strengthens its enslavement to time.
Time exists ( inwardly?) only when there is a psychological gap between 'what is' and 'what should be', the ideal end. To be aware of the ( inward) 'falseness' of this whole manner of thinking is to be free from it – which does not demand any ( spiritual) practice. ( The totally insightfully?) understanding is immediate, it is not of time.

Q: I think I see the 'false' ( what was wrong with ? ) the meditation I have indulged.

K: So, when the 'false' has (spontaneously) dropped away, there is ( an inward space of) freedom for 'That' (which is not false) to come into being.
(Experiential hint:) You cannot seek the True through the ( thought-controlling means of the ) 'false'; the (self-centred pursuit of the ) false must cease wholly, not in comparison to the true. There is no ( point in a thoughtful ) comparison between the 'false' and the 'true'; as 'violence' and 'Love' cannot be ( qualitatively?) compared. ( In a nutshell:) Violence must cease for Love to be and the cessation (dropping ?) of
violence is not a matter of time. ( For meditation homework?) let the mind 'empty', itself of the 'things' (psychological pursuits?) of the ( self-centred) mind. Then only there is the 'meditator-free' meditation

Q: I have been occupied with the ( self-projected endeavours of the ) 'meditator',& the 'experiencer' which is myself. I have lived in a pleasant garden of my own creation, and have been a ( psychological) prisoner there in. I now 'see the falseness' of all that - dimly, but I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 27 Apr 2019 #172
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

ACTION IN ATTENTION

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1973)

K: I want to find out the (experiential) meaning of the 'action' which is a ( freely perceptive) movement without any causation .

P: What do you mean by 'action'?

K: To (most of) us 'action' is related to the community we live in, dictated by economic, climatic, personal or environmental conditions. It is ( generally) based on beliefs, ideals and so on. That is the action we know. Now, I want to find out if there is an action (not originating in the field of the known ?) , which is not the result of the environmental pressures.
What is the ( holistic way of) action which is self-energizing? An action which is infinite movement with infinite energy?
All our actions (motivated by self-interest, generally ?) breed division and out of that division arises conflict. They
are always ( originating ) within the field of the known and are therefore time-bound, not free. Now I want to find out if there is any other ( way of) action.

P: How is this 'other action', contacted by or related to the brain cells? If it is not related to the brain cells and consciousness, then it would be synonymous with God.

K: Within the field of (spatio- temporal) consciousness, we know action very well. It is taking place within the field of the known and I feel that such action must lead to various forms of frustration, sorrow, disintegration. Now, I ask myself: Is there any other action which does not belong to this ( self-centred) consciousness with its frustration, failures, sorrows, misery, confusion? Is there any action which is not of time, an action which is not repetitive, which is not conflicting which
is not imitative, conforming and therefore which does not bring conflict ?

M: Wouldn't such action may be disastrous?

K: It won't be disastrous. My intelligence, looking at all the
actions in the field of the known, observing them, paying attention
to them, my intelligence asks this question. Intelligence is in
operation now. Intelligence means not only to have a very alert
mind, but to 'read between the lines' of the known activity. Having read that, my intelligence says that (by being inwardly stuck?) in the field of the known, my actions will be contradictory.

P: We appear to be totally blocked here. You say something and
there is no way to find out, there is no way to talk about it.

K: For instance, in paying attention, I can see that any action based on a belief is contradictory. So, I say to myself: Is there a (self-identified) 'belief' which is acting and therefore contradictory? From that attention, observation, belief ends in me, not in you. It ends. Similarly, in that attention, I see that any form of ( psychological) conformity breeds fear, suppression, obedience. So, in that very attention, I wipe that away in me, and any action based on reward or punishment is out, finished.
Or I see that any action in relationship, based on an image, divides people.
(To make a long story... short ?) in paying attention to all the ( psychologically active?) factors of the known, to their structure
and their nature, they end. And then 'attention' becomes very important - it says: 'Is there any action which has none of these things?'

A: Would you say that attention itself 'is' (the time-free ) action?

K: That is it. Therefore, 'attention' is ( the holistic) perception in action and therefore in that there is no conflicts (of interest?) It is infinite, while the action based on a belief is wastage of energy. Action in attention is producing its own energy and it is endless. The human brain has functioned always in the field of conflict, belief, imitation, conformity, obedience, suppression; it has always functioned that way and when the brain becomes aware of that, then (the holistic intelligence of) attention begins to work. The brain cells themselves become ( spontaneously) attentive.

M: You seem to say that attention calls for ( the awakening of all our intelligent) energy and then this ( holistically integrated ?) energy directs.

K: Attention 'is' ( the time-free ?) action.

P: In that state of ( holistic) attention, do the brain cells themselves undergo change?

K: I think so. (By functioning exclusively in the field of the known?) the brain cells have gone through an (indiscriminate) wastage of ( intelligent) energy in conflict, imitation, all the rest of it. They are accustomed to that. But now the (holistically minded) brain cells have stopped that. They are out of that field , and no longer carry the residue of all that. The brain that sees that life 'is' action and is without conflict, is in a state of ( natural) attention. When there is ( the gathering of) this complete attention, the whole structure is 'alive'; not in the usual sense, but in a different sense. I think there is even a physical transformation.
So, then the freedom from the known is ( giving birth to the ) 'attention in the Unknown'. There is a definite ( qualitative) transformation coming into (one's inner) being.

M: If the brain is clear of 'engrams', that is a physical transformation.

K: This is so (even) logically in the sense that as long as the mind is functioning within the field of the known, it is functioning in a groove (of survival oriented self-interest ) and when (in a holistically friendly meditation?) those grooves are non-existent, the total brain 'acts in freedom', which is ( the integrated 'seeing & doing' action of ?) attention.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 28 Apr 2019 #173
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

WHY HAVE I NO INSIGHT?

a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living (cca 1956)

Q: Although our families are well-to-do, we have chosen to lead a very simple life given to meditation. I know a certain amount of Sanskrit, but hesitate to quote the Scriptures authoritatively. Although their traditional knowledge has little ( experiential) meaning, it is helpful in that it can guide us, keep us on the straight road.

K : I wonder if knowledge is helpful (inwardly) ; may it not be a hindrance?

Q: How can knowledge ever be a hindrance? Surely, knowledge is always helpful in ( the edeavour of) finding God and in leading a righteous life.

K: Knowledge is essential to those who are concerned with the order of ( material) things. But does knowledge set the mind free to discover ( the Truth ?) ? Surely the actual state of discovery is free from knowledge.

Q: Without knowledge, I might wander off the path that leads to God.

K: Why shouldn’t you wander off the path? Is the path so clearly marked, and the end so definite? And what do you mean by knowledge?

Q; By ( spiritual) knowledge I mean all that one has experienced, read, or been taught of God, and of the things one must do, the virtues one must practise, and so on, in order to find Him. I am not referring to engineering knowledge.

K: Is there so much difference between the two? Both of you have been taught a technique, and both of you desire to achieve an end, you in your way, and he in his. You are both after (achieving practical) results. But is God, or Truth, an (achievable) result? Is knowledge helpful in discovering (the Ultimate?) Reality?

Q: I’m not at all sure that it’s not helpful sir, in spite of what you say. Without knowledge, how can the path be trodden?

K: If the 'end' is static, then one or many paths can lead to it; but has Reality, God, or whatever name you may give it, a fixed abode ?

Q ; Of course not.

K: Then how can there be a (known?) path to it? Surely, Truth has no path.

Q: Your statements are so clear and meaningful, one is convinced in spite of oneself.

K: If you are merely convinced, then you do not see the truth of it. (Seeing the truth of an inner) 'fact' needs no agreement; 'it is so'. If once you see for yourself that what has been said is a (true) fact, your mind has undergone a fundamental ( qualitative) transformation - it approaches Truth, or God, without (using its past) knowledge, without any ( psychological) recording. This 'recording' is the 'me', the 'one who knows', the one who is in conflict with the ( ongoing inner) 'facts'.

Q: Isn’t knowledge an essential part of our existence?

K: With the understanding of the (artificial nature of the temporal?) 'self', ( the vast amount of practical) knowledge has its rightful place; but without this understanding, the pursuit of self-knowledge is as exciting and pleasurable as success in the world. There is no understanding of the (temporal) 'self', of the 'ego', through accumulating (tons of?) knowledge about what it has been or what it is (doing now). (The dualistic nature of such?) accumulation distorts perception, and it is not possible to understand the 'self' (one's self-identified consciousness?) in its swift and cunning reactions, when the mind is burdened with (dualistic ) knowledge ; it can never be new, uncorrupted.

Q: May I be permitted to ask a ( bonus?) question? Why it is that one person (like K) has insight, a total perception (of the truth & the false?) , while others see only a multitude of fragmentary details and are incapable of grasping the whole.

K: Do you think it is a ( rare spiritual?) gift?

Q: It would seem so, although that would mean that Divinity is very 'partial', and there would be very little chance left for the rest of us.

K: Let us inquire into it. Now why are you asking this question?

Q: For the simple and obvious reason that I want ( to have access to ) that deep (inward clarity of?) Insight.

K: So your inquiry is motivated by the desire to gain something (of spiritual nature?) . This implies a process of accumulation, and identification with what has been accumulated. Isn’t this true?

Q: Yes, sir...

K: And it also implies ( a subliminal ) comparison, does it not? You, who have not that insight, are comparing yourself with someone who has it.

Q: That is so.

K: But all such ( dualistic) comparison is obviously the outcome of ( greed & ) envy; and is insight to be awakened through ( the will-power of greed & ) envy?

Q: I suppose not...

K: The world (of 'spiritual' becoming?) is full of envy, ambition, which can be seen in the relation of the disciple to the Master – and it does develop certain ( psychic?) capacities. But is ( the inward clarity of an insightful) perception such a capacity? Or does it come into ( one's inner) being only when (thought's) desire to gain has ceased? Do you understand?

Q: I don’t think I do.

K: Thought's desire to gain is based on conceit, is it not?

Q: Now that you point it out, I see that fundamentally it is.

K: So it is your (highly knowledgeable ) 'conceit' that is making you ask this question ?

Q: I’m afraid that’s also true.

K: In other words, you are asking this question out of the desire to become (forever happy & spiritually ? ) successful. Now, can this same question - Why is it that I have no deep insight? - be asked without giving any emphasis to the ‘I’ (who wants to know?) ? As long as your thinking is centred in envy, in conceit, in the desire to be successful, can it wander far and freely ( in the Vast Unknown?)? Must not this 'centre' (of self-interest?) cease?

Q: Do you mean that one's (spiritual) ambition, which is the desire to be or to become something (worthwhile) , must wholly disappear, if one is to have deep insight?

K: If it may be pointed out, 'you' want to possess (& hold) that capacity. 'You', the would-be possessor, are still important, not the (holistically perceptive ) capacity itself. This capacity arises only when the ( truth seeker's ?) mind has no ( hidden?) motives of any kind.

Q: But as you said earlier the ( self-centred) mind is the result of time, of knowledge, of motive; how can such a mind be without any motive whatsoever?

K: Put that question to yourself (in your homework meditation?) as seriously as the 'hungry' man wants food. The (inner) state of the mind which is really inquiring into the capacity of 'total perception' is one of complete (not-knowing?) and stillness; and this (inner) humility, this stillness, is ( providing the creative ground for) that capacity itself.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 29 Apr 2019 #174
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

THE VOID WITHIN

( a 'reader-friendly' edited personal K interview from Commentaries on Living, 1956)

He was very serious but had a pleasant smile and was in good health. He had come to ask several questions about the ( nature of the?) inward void, the emptiness of the mind.

Q: Like every other human being, I have known sorrow; there has been death and the ( existential?) ache of life. I had a wife who died before I left the comforts of my father’s house, and now I know the meaning of voluntary poverty. My heart takes delight in many things; but my father
used to tell me something about your talks, and an acquaintance has urged me to see you; and so
here I am. I want you to speak to me of the immeasurable (inward?) void, since I think I have touched the hem of it in my wanderings and meditations.

K: (The inward perception of?) Truth needs no proof by action, nor does it depend on anybody's (spiritual) authority; so let’s put aside all (the volumes of knowledge of ) tradition, and try to find out the truth of this matter for ourselves.

Q: That would be very difficult for me, for I am steeped
in the teachings of the Gita, of the Upanishads, and so on. Is it right for me to let all that go?

K: If you (are following?) the path of authority and
tradition, you will experience ( prioritarily?) only what you desire to experience. It will not be an (authentic ) discovery; it will be already known, a thing to be recognized and experienced. To discover
whether that (inward) void exists or is merely another invention of the human mind, your (own?) mind must be free from the net of authority and tradition.

Q: Can the ( human) mind ever free itself from this net?

K: The (known-based ? ) mind cannot free itself, for any effort on its part to be free only weaves another (safety?) net in which it will again be caught. The freedom (from the known?) is a (timeless?) state of
being which is not the outcome of the desire to be free. When the mind understands this ( fine point?) , and sees the falseness of (following the spiritual?) authority of tradition, then only does that which is 'false' wither away.

Q: It may be that I have been induced to feel certain things by my readings, and by the thoughts based
on such readings; but apart from all that, I have vaguely felt from childhood, as in a dream, the
existence of this (inward) void. There has always been an intimation of it, a nostalgic feeling for it; and as
I grew older, my reading of various religious books only strengthened this feeling, giving it more
vitality and purpose. But I begin to realize what you mean. I have depended almost entirely on the
description of the experiences of others, as given in the sacred Scriptures. This dependence I can
throw off, since I now see the necessity of doing so; but can I revive that original, uncontaminated
feeling for 'that' (inward Reality?) which is beyond words?

K: What you experienced as a youth, or only yesterday, is already over and gone; and if you cling to the ( memories of the ) past, you prevent the quickening experience of the new.

Q: I think you realize, sir, that I am really in earnest, and for me it has become an urgent necessity
to understand and to be of that void. What am I to do?

K: ( For starters?) one has to empty the mind of the (psychologically active content of the?) known; all such knowledge must cease to have any influence on the living mind. Knowledge is the very (reassuring?) process of the past, and the mind must be free from this process. For instance, recognition (of any personal experience) is part of the process of knowledge, isn’t it?

Q: How is that?

K: To recognize something, you must have known or experienced it previously, and this experience is
stored up as knowledge, memory. Recognition comes out of the ( memory bank of the ) past. You may have once experienced this (inner) void, and you now crave for it. The original experience came about without your pursuing it; but now you are pursuing it, but the thing that you are seeking is not the void, but the renewal of an old memory. If it is to happen again, all search for it must cease, for search is
based on the desire to experience.

Q: Do you really mean that I must not search for Truth ? This seems incredible!

K: The (psychological) motivation of your search is the desire to experience the 'unknowable' , to
know the bliss and the immensity of it. This very desire has brought into being the 'experiencer' who craves for greater, wider and more significant experiences. All other experiences having lost their taste, the experiencer now longs for the void; so there is ( a conflict of duality between?) the 'experiencer', and the 'thing to be experienced'. Thus ( a time-binding) conflict is set going between the pursuer and the pursued.

Q: This I understand very well, because it is exactly the state I am in. I now see that I am caught in a
net of my own making.

K: As every seeker is, and not just the seeker after truth, God, the (inner) Void, and so on. Every ambitious
man who is pursuing power, position & prestige, every ( practical) idealist, every builder of the perfect (K friendly?) Utopia - they are all caught in the same net (of thought & desire?) But once you
understand the total significance of such search, will you continue seeking ( to experience ) the ( inward) Void?

Q: I see the inward meaning of your question and I have already stopped seeking.

K: If this is a fact, then what is the state of the mind that is not seeking?

Q: The whole thing is so new to me that I shall have to gather myself and observe. May I take (silent break) before we go any further? (…)
I perceive now how difficult it is for the 'experiencer', ( or for the 'watcher', 'thinker' etc...) not to
step in. And you are asking, aren’t you, what is the state of the mind when there is no ( such dualistic) conflict?

K: ( The 'observer-observed' ) conflict exists when ( the self-identified ) desire assumes the form of the 'experiencer' and pursues 'that' which is to be
experienced – which is also put together (projected?) by ( thought & ) desire.

Q: So, (the thought controlled) desire not only builds the experiencer, but also brings into being ( the virtual image of ) that which is to be experienced.
So desire is the cause of the division between the experiencer and the thing to be experienced, and
it is this division that sustains conflict. Now, you are asking, what is the state of the mind which is
no longer in conflict, which is not driven by desire? But can this question be answered without the (mental interference of the?) 'watcher' who is pursuing the experience of 'desirelessness'?

K: When you are becoming (self-) conscious of your humility (inward innocence ? ) , has not this humility ceased? So, what is the ( holistically integrated?) state of the mind which is not getting caught in this (dualistic ) conflict of desire?

The urge to find out (the ultimate experiential answer?) is also part of the same (momentum of thought's & ) desire which has brought into being the ( false duality between the ) 'experiencer' and the ' inner void supposed to be 'experienced', is it not?

Q: That’s so. Your (educationally aimed) question proved to be a trap for me, but I am thankful you asked it, since now I am seeing more of the intricate subtleties of ( thought's ) desire.

K: It was not ( meant to be ) a (psychological) trap, but an inevitable question which you would have asked yourself ( eventually?) in the course of your ( inward) inquiry. (Hint : If the truth seeking mind is not extremely alert, aware, it is soon caught again in the (intricate) net of its own desire).

Q: One final ( experiential ?) question: is it really possible for the ( truth seeking ) mind to be totally free of the desire for experience, which sustains this division between the 'experiencer' and the thing to be 'experienced'?

K: Find it out ( as 'meditation' homework ?) , sir. ( Clue:) When the mind is entirely free of this ( time-binding dualistic ) structure of desire, is the mind then different from the ( Inner?) Void?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 30 Apr 2019 #175
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

LIFE, DEATH AND SURVIVAL

(a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living)

Q : I have thought a great deal for a number of years about living and even more about dying, for I have had a protracted illness. I have lived a fairly rich life, and have followed what I thought to be my duty; but of course I am human. Anyway, that life is all over now and I am as eager as ever to know what happens after death. Do I continue, or is there nothing left when the body dies?

K: Sir, why are you so concerned to 'know' what happens after death?

Q: Doesn’t everyone want to know (the truth about it) ?

K: Probably they do; but if we don’t know what a (known-free ?) living is, can we ever know what death is? Living and dying may be the same thing, and the fact that we have separated them (in terms of time ?) may be the source of great sorrow.

Q: I am aware of what you have said about all this in your public talks, but still I want to know (the whole truth ?) . Won’t you
please tell me what happens after death? I won’t repeat it to anyone.

K: Why are you struggling so hard to 'know'? Why don’t you allow the whole ocean of life and death to be, without poking a finger into it?

Q: I have always been afraid of death; and though I have tried to console myself with rationalizations and beliefs, they have only acted as a thin veneer over this deep agony of fear. All my reading about death has been an effort to escape from
this fear, to find a way out of it and it is for the same reason that I am begging to know now.

K: Will any (attempt to) escape (facing this major existential challenge ?) free the mind from fear?

Q: ( Probably not... ? ) but you can tell me, and what you say will be true. This truth will liberate me...( long silence)
That (compassionate & loving ) silence was more healing than all my anxious questioning. I wish I could remain in it and
quietly pass away, but my mind won’t let me. I have acute physical pain, but it’s nothing compared to what’s going on in my mind. So (back to my original question ?) is there an identified continuity after death? This 'me' which has enjoyed, suffered, known - will it continue (after my physical death?) ?

K: What is this 'me' that your mind clings to, and that you want to be continued? - please quietly listen. The ‘me’ (one's temporal self-consciousness ?) exists only through a (subliminal psychological) identification with one's 'name & form' with
your family (ties) , with (the residual memories of one's) failures and successes & with all the things you have been (attached to) and want to be (continued) . You are the ( personal & collective memories) with which you have identified yourself; you are made up of all that, and without it, 'you' are not (not-a-thing) .
So, is it this ( personal ?) identification with people, property and ideas, that you want to be continued even beyond
death ? But is it a 'living' (entity?) ? Or is it just a (dynamic) mass of contradictory desires, pursuits, fulfilments and frustrations with sorrow outweighing joy?

Q: It may be what you suggest, but it’s better than not knowing anything at all.

K: Better (sticking to) the known than (facing ) the Unknown, is that it? But the 'known' is so small, so petty, so confining. The (self-centred living in the ) 'known' is sorrow (a sorrowful condition?) , and yet you crave for its continuance... ?

Q: Be compassionate, don’t be so unyielding. If only I knew (the truth about it?) , I could die happily.

K: Sir, don’t struggle so hard to 'know' (the Truth ) . When all effort to 'know' ceases, then there is (the awakening of) 'something' which the (man-made ?) mind has not put together. The Unknown is greater than the 'known'; the 'known' is but as a (leaking?) barque on the Ocean of the Unknown. Let all 'things' go and be.

Q: I know in my heart that what you say is true, but my mind is like a galloping horse without a rider. Will you help me, or am I beyond all help?

K: Truth is a strange thing; the more you pursue it, the more it will elude you. You cannot hold it in the (drag-) net of your thought. Do realize this, and let everything go. On the journey of life and death, you must walk alone; on this journey
there can be no taking of comfort in knowledge, in experience, in memories. The (time-bound) mind must be purged of all the (psychological memories of the ) 'things' it has gathered (subliminally?) in its urge to be secure; its 'gods' and 'virtues' must be given back to the society that bred them. There must be complete, uncontaminated aloneness (all-oneness?) .

Q: You are asking a very hard (to digest?) thing: that I die without 'knowing' what is (happening to me ?) after death. But (experientially speaking ?) I am well instructed (to face it ?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 13 May 2019 #176
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

ALL ABOUT THE FEAR OF DEATH

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living, 2-nd series, cca 1955)

Q: I have always been haunted by some kind of fear. As a child I was very shy and sensitive, and
now I am afraid of old age and death. I know we must all die but no amount of rationalizing seems
to calm this ( abysmal?) fear. I have joined the Psychical Research Society, attended a few seances, and read what the great (spiritual) teachers have said about death; but the fear of death is still there.
I have even tied psychoanalysis, but that was no good either. The (2-nd world) war was a continual nightmare to me, and now I am really very disturbed. I have listened to a few lectures on reincarnation, and have somewhat studied the Hindu and Buddhist literature concerning it - very unsatisfactory, at least to me. I am not just superficially afraid of death, but a very deep fear of it.

K: How do you approach the (unknown?) future, the tomorrow's (encounter with?) death? Are you seeking a gratifying assertion of continuity or annihilation, or the truth regarding death?

Q: What do you mean by 'the truth regarding death'?

K: Death is an unavoidable fact (of our physical life) ; do what you will, it is irrevocable, final and true. But do you want to know the truth of what is beyond death?

Q: From everything I have studied and from the few materializations I have seen at (spiritualistic?) séances, there is obviously some kind of (conscious?) continuity after death. Thought in some form, does continue, which you yourself have asserted. Just as the radio & TV broadcasting of songs, words and pictures requires a receiver at the other end, so the thought which continues after death needs a (receiving) instrument through which it can express itself. The instrument may be a (psychic) medium, or thought may incarnate itself in another manner. This is all fairly clear and can be experimented with and understood; but even though I have gone into this matter fairly deeply, there is still an unfathomable fear which I think is definitely connected with death.

K: Death is inevitable. (Thought's?) continuity can be ended, or it can be nourished and maintained, but that (time-bound consciousness?) which has continuity can never renew itself, it can never be the new, it can never understand the Unknown.
(Hint:) That which is 'everlasting' is not the timeless. Through time, duration, the timeless is not. There must be an 'ending' ( of thought's self-projected continuity?) for the New is (to be born ?). Thought is a continuous movement in time; this movement cannot enclose within itself a state of being which is not of time. Thought is founded on the (active memories of the ) past, its very being is of time.

( The 'psychological' ) time is ( subliminally projected by) thought as a ( virtual ?) 'movement' of the (active memories of the ) past, ( being modified ) through the present ( and going on?) into the 'future'; it is this (self-sustaining activity ) of memory, of the 'images' , verbal symbols, by constant recording & repetition . So, thought (as the mechanistic response of one's ) memory, is continuous through words and repetition. However, the ending of (the self-centred?) thinking ( within the field of past ?) memory is the beginning of the New; the (inward) 'death' of thought is (the door to ?) life eternal. There must be a constant 'ending' for the New to be. That which is (eternally?) New is not 'continuous'; the New is (being born?) only in (thought's) ending ( from moment to moment. There must be (an inward dying ) every day for the Unknown to be (Present?) . This 'ending' is (allowing?) the beginning (of something new) , but fear prevents the ending.

Q: All I know is that I have this fear (of death?) , and I don’t know what is beyond it.

K: What is this fear? Fear is not an abstraction ; it comes into being only in relation to something. You say that you are afraid of death, and although there are certain (psychically?) observable facts, death is still (an Open Door to ? ) the Unknown. Death itself cannot be brought into the field of the known and the Unknown cannot be made familiar. Can the 'known', the (knowledgeable ?) mind, ever comprehend or contain the Unknown? The hand that stretches
out can receive only the knowable, it cannot hold (or grasp ?) the unknowable.
Though living, you want to know what death is. But do you know what living is? You know life only as conflict, confusion, passing joys and (existential) pain. But is that life? Are struggle and sorrow life? In this (self-conflicting) state which we call 'life' we
want to experience something that is not in our own field of consciousness.

( To recap :) This (deep existential) pain, this struggle, the personal resentments (eventually) enfolded in joy, is what we call 'living'; and we want to experience something which is the 'opposite'(state) of what we call living. The opposite (state) is (a modified ) continuation of what is (going on now?) .
But 'death' is not the 'opposite' (of our physical living) . It is ( entering into ) the Unknown. The 'knowable' (the knowledgeable mind ?) craves to experience the (mystery of the?) Unknown; but, do what it will, it cannot experience it, therefore it is fearful. Is that it?

Q: You have stated it pretty clearly. But if I could know what the actual experience of death is, while living, then surely my fears would cease.

K : Can the (self-) conscious (mind) experience that state which is not brought into being through the conscious? The ( temporal mind living in the ) 'known' can only experience (that which is knowable?); it cannot experience what is beyond its field.
(The actual ) experiencing (of 'what is' ) is utterly different from (the personal ) experience, but as experiencing fades, ( a subliminal separation between ) the 'experiencer' and the 'experience' come into being, and then (the conclusions of the direct) experiencing are brought into the field of the known. The knower, the experiencer, craves for experiencing the unknown; and as it cannot enter into the state of experiencing, he is afraid. He 'is' (the actual creator of) fear, he is not separate from it. The 'experiencer' of this fear is fear itself, the very instrument of fear.

Q: I know that I am afraid of death, but I don’t feel that I 'am' fear ; I am the 'observer', and fear is the 'observed'. How can the 'observer' and the 'observed' be one?

K: You say that you are the 'observer', and fear is the observed. But is that so? Are you an entity separate from your qualities? Are you not identical with your qualities? Are you not (subliminally identified with?) your thoughts & emotions? You are not separate from your qualities, thoughts. Thought creates the 'I' the supposedly separate entity; seeing the impermanence of itself, thought creates ( identifies itself with?) the 'thinker' as a permanent (personality?) and ( for practical purposes?) the 'thinker' becomes the 'observer' separate from the transient (events of life). The (more thoughtful?) thinker then proceeds to buildup higher states of permanency: the 'soul', the higher self, and so on. (In a nutshell:) Thought is the foundation of this whole structure.

(Anyway ?) we were concerned with your fear of death. Let us see what is this fear  : you are really afraid not of the 'Unknown', of 'death', but rather, of loosing the (psychological comforts of living in the field of the ) known, because that ( final encounter with the Unknown?) might take away all your familiar pleasures & gratifications. It is the (personal attachment to the?) 'known' that causes fear, not the Unknown. How can the Unknown cause fear? It is not measurable in terms of pleasure and pain: it is unknown. You are actually afraid of the known in its relation to death, are you not? Because you cling to the known, to a (rewarding life) experience, you are frightened of what the future might be. But the ‘what might be’, the 'future', is merely the opposite of what is. This is so, is it not?

Q: Yes, that seems to be right...

K: But do you really know the 'what is'? Have you opened the 'cupboard of the known' and looked into it? Are you not also frightened of what you might discover there? Have you ever inquired
into the known, into (the subliminal attachments to?) what you possess?

Q: No, I have not. I have always taken the known for granted. I have accepted the past as one accepts
sunlight or rain. I have never considered it; one is almost unconscious of it, but now that you mention it, I suppose I am also afraid to find out what might be (still hidden) there.

K: Are not most of us afraid to look at ourselves? We might discover unpleasant things, so we would
rather not look, we prefer to be ignorant of what is. We are not only afraid of what might be in the
future, but also of what might be in the present. We are afraid to know ourselves as we are, and this
avoidance of ( understanding ) what is (actually going on inwardly) is making us afraid of what might be (coming in the future?) .

( To recap: ) We approach the 'known' with fear, and also the 'unknown', death. The avoidance of ( looking at) 'what is' is (born of the ) the desire for gratification. We are seeking (psychological) security, constantly, demanding that there shall be no disturbance; and this 'desire of not being disturbed' makes us avoid ( looking at) 'what is' and fear 'what might be'. Fear is (due to ) the ignorance of what is, and our life is spent in a constant state of ( subliminal) fear.

Q: But how is one to get rid of this fear?

K: To get rid of something you must first understand (the whole truth about ) it. Is there an actual fear, or only the desire not to see (the truth about what is going on within oneself?) ? It is the (escaping ?) 'desire not to see' that brings on fear; and when you don’t want to understand the full significance of
'what is', (a subliminal?) fear acts as a preventive.

You can lead a gratifying life by deliberately avoiding all inquiry into 'what is', and many do this (with variable success ?) ; but they are not ( creatively?) happy, nor are those who 'amuse' themselves with a ( highly lucrative ?) superficial study of 'what is'. Only those who are earnest in their (truthful self-) inquiry can be aware of ( the creative) happiness; to them alone is there freedom from fear.

Q: Then how is one to understand what is(really going on within oneself?)

K: 'What is' (going on within oneself ?) is to be seen in the mirror of one's relationship with all things. The (truth regarding) 'what is' can be understood only when the ( holistically friendly ?) mind is utterly passive, when it is not trying to operate on ( or to optimise?) what is.

Q: Is it not extremely difficult to be so passively ( & transpersonally?) aware?

K: It is, as long as there is ( the interference of the self-centred ) thought.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 May 2019 #177
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

THE TIMELESS AND THE PSYCHOLOGICAL CONTINUITY

( a reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

(K's intro : ) She was very well read, capable and direct. She had studied sciences and religion, and had carefully followed modern psychology. Her studies had opened her mind to possibilities beyond the personal and the collective gatherings of the past. She had attended several of the K talks and discussions and felt that a (creative ) source common to all the great ( spiritual) teachers was active; she had listened with care and had understood a great deal, and had now come to discuss the 'inexhaustible' and the problem of 'time'.

Q: What is the 'Source' beyond time, that state of being which is not within the reasoning of the mind? What is the 'timeless', that creativity of which you have spoken (so inspiredly ) ?

K: Is it possible to be aware of the 'timeless' ( spiritual essence of the human psyche?) ? What is the test of being aware of it? How would you recognize it? By what ( standards ?) would you measure it?

Q: We can only judge by its effects.

K: But how are the effects of the timeless to be judged by the measurement of 'time' (of one's temporal consciousness?) ? If we can understand what we mean by 'time', perhaps it may be possible for the 'timeless' to be; but is it possible to discuss what that timeless is? Even if both of us are aware of it, we may talk about it, but our experience will not be the 'timeless'. It can never be talked about or communicated except through the means of time; but the words (we use) are not the actual thing, and through ( the mentality of?) time the 'timeless' (dimension of one's consciousness) obviously cannot be understood. 'Timelessness' is a state (of consciousness?) which comes only when ( thought's psychological continuity in ? ) 'time' is not (present?) . So let us rather consider what we mean by 'time':
( a) There is the (chronological ) time (necessary to any physical ) 'growth' - the small tree becoming the large tree , the bullock cart evolving into the jet plane, the baby becoming the man - the heavens are filled with growth and so is the earth. This is an obvious fact, and it would be stupid to deny it.
and (b) Time as (psychological) 'becoming ' is a little more complex. I am this and I shall become that, using time as a means; the 'what has been' is becoming the 'what will be'. Thought is (projecting this psychological ?) time between 'what is' and the 'ideal' (condition it wants to achieve) . Thought is the product of ( mankind's long evolution in) time, and without the thinking process, (the psychological dimension of ?) time is not. The ( thinking?) mind is the maker of time, it 'is' time.

Q: That is so obviously true. ( The human ) mind is both the maker and the user of ( psychological) time. Without the mental process, time is not. But is it possible to go beyond the ( limitations of our temporal) mind? Isn't there a ( timeless ) state (of mind?) which is not ( created by) thought?

K: Let us discover together whether there is such a ( timeless) state or not. Is Love (related to) thought? We may 'think' of someone we love; when the other person is absent, we have a (mental) 'image', or a photograph of
him. The ( very feeling of ) separation makes for thought.

Q: Do you mean that when there is a feeling of 'all- oneness', thought ceases and there is only love?

K: (Thinking about the ideal state of ) 'Oneness' implies duality, but that is not the point. Is Love ( the emotional response of ) a thought process? Thought is of time; and
is Love time-binding? Thought is bound by ( its self-projected continuity in?) time, and you are asking if it is possible ( for the totality of the mind) to be free from the binding quality of time.

Q: It must be, otherwise there could be no Creation.

K : ( The timeless activity of?) Creation is possible only when the process of (thought's 'psychological' ) continuity (aka : 'becoming') ceases. Creation is the ( birth of the ) 'new', the new vision, the new invention, the new discovery, not the continuity of the old. ( Thought's 'psychological' ?) continuity is ( synonimous to the ) death of creation.

Q: But how is it possible to put an end to ( thought's psychological) continuity?

K: What makes for ( this 'psychological' ) continuity? What is it that joins moment to moment, as the ( invisible) thread that joins the ( memory's) beads in a necklace? The ( transpersonal awareness of the ?) moment is the 'new', but the 'new' is ( subliminally ) absorbed into the old ( temporal consciousness ) and so the 'chain of continuity' is formed.
Is there ever the ( total awareness of the ) 'new', or only the ( brain 's constant recording & ) recognition of the 'new' by the old ( memories) ?
The 'old' (self-centred thinking ) can recognize only its own projection; it may call it the 'new', but it is not. The 'new' is not recognizable ; it is a state of 'non-recognition', & 'non-association'. The old ( temporal consciousness) gives itself continuity through its own ( mental) projections; it can never 'know' the new. The new (insightful perception) may be (verbally ) translated into the old, but the 'new' cannot be (cohabit?) with the old.

( In a nutshell:) The 'experiencing' of the new is ( happening only in ) the absence of the old ( outside the field of the 'known' ?) . The ( recordable ) experience ( of it) and its expression is thought, idea; thought translates the new in terms of the old. It is the (memory of the ) old that gives ( the 'thinker's ) continuity; the old is
memory, the words, which is ( the result of) time.

Q: How is it possible to put an end to ( the psychologically active?) memory?

K: The ( thinking ?) entity that desires to put an end to memory (ignores that ) himself is the forger of memory; he is not apart from memory. That is so is it not?

Q: Yes, the 'maker of effort' is born of memory, of thought; thought is the outcome of the past, conscious or unconscious. Then what is one to do?

K: Please 'listen' (to the inner truth of this and... hopefully?) you will do naturally, without effort, what is essential : Desire 'is' thought; it is (thought's survival oriented ?) desire that forges the ( time-binding) chain of memory. Accumulation is the way of desire; to accumulate (anything that can be used inwardly or outwardly ) is to continue. Gathering experience knowledge, power or things, makes for ( consolidating one's self-centred) continuity. The gathering (factor?) is desire, the desire for ( accumulating anything that may help one to survive ). This centre is the (temporal) 'self', placed at different levels according to one’s conditioning. Any (positive or negative?) activity of this centre only brings about the further continuity of itself. Any (mental) movement (originating from this centre ?) is time-binding; it prevents ( the regenerating inner action of) Creation.

( To recap : ) The 'timeless' ( dimension of one's being ?) is not ( to be reached through ) the time-binding quality of ( thought & ) memory. The 'limitless' is not to be measured ( or evaluated) by ( one's old knowledge & ) experience. There is the ( inward realisation of the ) Unnameable only when (the desire to?) experience It has wholly ceased. Truth alone frees the mind from its own bondage.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 23 May 2019 #178
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

CONFORMITY AND INNER FREEDOM

( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue cca 1954)

( K's intro) She had managed to come to India only after many years. When she first started out she had no idea where she would end up; her husband and her whole family were interested in religious matters, but nevertheless she had made up her mind to leave them all, and had come in the hope of finding some (authentic inner) peace. She went first to a certain ashrama about which she had read. The 'guru' there was a mild old man who had had certain religious experiences on which he now lived, and who constantly repeated some Sanskrit saying which his disciples understood. She was welcomed at this retreat, and she found it easy to adjust herself to its rules. She remained there for several months, but found no ( inner) peace, so one day she announced her departure. The disciples were horrified that she could even think of leaving such a master of wisdom; but she left. Then she went to an ashrama among the mountains and stayed there for some time, happily at first, for it was beautiful with trees, streams, and wild life. The discipline was rather rigorous, which she didn’t mind; but again the living were worshipping dead knowledge, dead tradition and a dead teacher. When she left they also were shocked, and threatened her with spiritual darkness. She then went to another a well known retreat where they repeated various religious assertions and regularly practiced prescribed "meditations"; but gradually she found that she was being entrapped and destroyed. Neither the teacher nor the disciples wanted freedom, though they talked about it. They were all concerned with maintaining the centre, with holding the disciples in the name of the guru. Again she broke away and went elsewhere; again the same story with a slightly different pattern.

Q: I assure you, I have been to most of the serious ashramas, and they all want to grind one down (in order ) to fit the pattern of thought which they call truth. Why is it that they never give freedom but only promise freedom?

K: Conformity is gratifying; it assures (material & psychological) security to the (obedient ?) disciple, and gives power to the disciple as well as to the teacher. (On the down side?) conformity makes for ( a certain mental ) dullness, which they call 'peace'. Conformity anaesthetizes the mind to ( feeling the pain of) its own inner ) conflict. It would be foolish for you to try to find out anything for yourself when your comforting teacher already knows; so you become his ( psychological?) slave, and (accepting) this ( form of) 'slavery' is ( looking ) better than confusion. The teacher and the disciple thrive on mutual exploitation. You really don’t go to an ashrama for (finding spiritual) freedom, do you? You go there to be comforted, to live a life of enclosing discipline and belief, to worship and in turn be worshipped - all of which is ( peremptuously?) called the 'search for truth'. They cannot offer you ( an authentic inner) freedom, for it would be their own undoing. Imitation as a means to freedom is the very denial of freedom, but as we (generally?) like to deceive ourselves, the promise of ( a spiritual) reward continues to exist in different and subtle forms. ( In the psychological field?) hope is the denial of ( facing the facts of one's inner ) life.

Q: I am now avoiding all ashramas like the very plague. I went to them to find ( inner) peace and I was given authoritarian doctrines and vain promises. How eagerly we accept the guru's promise! At last, after these many years, I am completely denuded of any desire to pursue their promised rewards. Physically I am worn out, as you can see; for very foolishly I really did try their formulas. At one of these places, where the teacher is on the rise and very popular, when I told them that I was coming to see you, they threw up their hands, and some even had tears in their eyes. That was the last straw!
I have come (to see you) because I want to talk over something that is gripping my heart. I hinted at it to one of the teachers, and his reply was that I must control my thought. My problem is this : the ache of solitude is more than I can bear; not the physical solitude, which is welcome, but the deep inner pain of being alone. What am I to do about it? How am I to regard this void?

K: When ( in psychological matters ?) you 'ask the way', you become a follower. Because there is this ache of (inner) solitude, your very demand for guidance opens the door to compulsion, imitation and fear. So (for starters?) let us ( try to) understand the nature of this pain (of loneliness) rather than try to go beyond it. Till there is complete understanding of this ache of ( one's inner isolation & ) solitude, there can be no ( sense of inner) peace, no rest, but only incessant struggle. Whether we are aware of it or not, most of us are subtly trying to escape from (the obscure fear of it?) . 'What is' (going on within our psyche?) has to be discovered not intellectually or theoretically, but directly experienced. And to understand it (experientially ) must you not come to it with a fresh mind, unclouded by your past memories, or by your habitual ( knowledgeable) responses? Please do not ask how the mind is to be free to see the new, but 'listen' to the ( inward) truth of it. ( The inward perception of the ?) truth ( regarding this sense of inner loneliness) liberates, and not your desire to be free (from it) . The very effort to be free is a hindrance to (the inner) liberation.

To understand the new, must not the ( temporal ?) mind, with all its ( personal ,) conclusions & safeguards, (take a silent break & ) cease its ( time-binding ) activities? Must it not be ( inwardly ) still, without seeking a way of escape from this solitude, or a ( quick) remedy for it? Must not this (self-inflicted ?) 'ache of inner solitude' be observed, along with its ( evading ?) movement of despair and hope? Is it not ( the subliminal identification with) this very movement that makes for solitude and its fear? Is not the very activity of the ( self-centred) mind a process of isolation, resistance? Is not every relationship of this mind a way of ( self-) separation & withdrawal? Is not ( one's desire for ) experiencing (the ultimate inner peace) itself (becoming) a process of self-isolation? So our actual problem is not the ache of solitude, but the ( restless self-centred ? ) mind which projects the problem. Understanding of ( the inner workings of ) this mind is the beginning of freedom. This freedom ( from the time-binding limitations of the 'known') is not something in the future, it is ( available from) the very first step.

The ( time-binding) activity of the ( self-centred) mind can be understood ( in real time?) only in its responses to every kind of stimulation. Stimulation and response are (involved in our) relationships at all levels, but (the psychological) accumulation as 'knowledge', as (existential ?) experience, or as 'belief', prevents ( the perceptive) freedom; and it is only when there is ( this climate of inner) freedom that the truth ( of 'what is' ?) can be (seen ?) .

Q: But is not necessary ( a mental ) effort in order to understand all this ?

K: Do we understand ( see the truth of ?) anything through ( a mental) struggle, through ( the bias of the observer vs observed) conflict? Does not (the holistic) understanding come when the ( totality of the ) mind is utterly still, when the action of effort has ceased? The mind that is 'made still' (by exercising one's will power ?) is not a tranquil mind; it is a dead, insensitive mind. When desire is (at work?) , the beauty of Silence is not.

( K's Commentary :To live alone, without the walls of self-enclosing gratifications, needs extreme alertness; for a solitary life
encourages sluggishness, habits that are comforting and hard to break. Only the wise can live alone without harm to themselves and to others. Wisdom is alone, but a lonely path does not lead to wisdom. Isolation is death, and wisdom is not found in withdrawal. There is no path to wisdom, for all 'paths' are separative, exclusive. In their very nature, paths can only lead to isolation, though these isolations are called unity, the whole, the one, and
so on. A path is an exclusive process; the means is exclusive, and the end is as the means. The means is not separate from the goal, the 'what should be'. Wisdom comes with the understanding of
one’s relationship with the green field, with the passer-by, with the fleeting thoughts. There must be an aloneness, not of the enclosing mind, but of freedom. The complete is the all-one, while the incompleteness seeks the way of isolation.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 24 May 2019 #179
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

WHAT IS LOVE?

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

Q: We are not very well-educated and though we have read a certain amount of serious literature, our reading isn’t intensive. A mutual friend brought us to your talk the other day, and we asked if we could see you. May we ask you what 'is' love? There are so many ideas about what Love should be, that it’s all becoming rather confusing

K: You have certain ideas and opinions about 'love', haven’t you? How did you get them?

Q: I have read what the 'saints' (the 'holy men'?) and the great religious teachers have said about love, and having thought it over, I have formed my own conclusions.

K: Which are shaped by your likes and dislikes ( & inner afinities?) , are they not? You like or you don’t like what others have said about love, and you decide which statement is right and which is wrong according to your own predilection. Isn’t this what you do?

Q: I choose that which I consider to be true.

K: On what is your choice based?

Q: On my own knowledge and discernment.

K: What do you mean by your knowledge? I’m not ( really?) trying to corner you, but trying to understand together why one has ( acumulated ) ideas & conclusions about 'love'. Once we understand this ( subliminal handicap ?) , we can go ( experientially ?) much more deeply into this matter. So, what do you mean by knowledge?

Q: By 'knowledge' I mean what I have learnt from the teachings of our sacred books. But knowledge does also embraces the techniques of modern science, and all the information that has been gathered by man from ancient days up to the present time.

K: So our knowledge is ( the result of) a process of accumulation, is it not? It is the cultivation (& enrichment of?) of memory. The knowledge accumulated as scientists, musicians, scholars & engineers, makes us
( function efficiently) in the various departments of ( material ) life. But (the human) life is a total action, not a separate, partial activity; yet our thinking about life, about love, is shaped by opinions, conclusions, tradition. If you were brought up in a ( materialistic) culture which maintained that 'love' is only physical, and that 'divine love' is a (religious) nonsense, you would (probably?) repeat what you had been taught, wouldn’t you?

Q: Not necessarily. I admit it’s rare, but some of us are trying to think for ourselves. And that's why we have come (help us understand) what love actually is ?

K: The words which define 'love' are not ( the actual experiencing of ?) love, are they? Merely to seek an explanation of what 'love' is, is still to be caught in words, & opinions, which are accepted or rejected according to your ( cultural) conditioning.

Q: Aren’t you making it ( look) impossible to inquire into what 'love' is?

K: To inquire rightly, thought must be freed from the (false?) security of past knowledge, tradition. And isn’t thought itself a movement from one ( cultural) influence to another? Do you see what I mean?

Q: I’m not at all sure that I do...

K: Perhaps you will (see ) as we go along. Let me put it this way: is thinking the right instrument of inquiry? Will ( one's self-centred ) thinking help one to understand what 'love' is?

Q: How am I to find out what 'love' is if I’m not allowed to think?

K: Please be a little more patient. You have thought about ( what is) love, haven’t you?

Q: Yes. My friend and I have thought a great deal about it.

K: If one may ask, what do you mean when you say you have 'thought about love'?

Q: I have read about it, discussed it with my friends, and drawn my own conclusions.

K: And has it helped you to find out what 'love' (actually) is? You have read, exchanged opinions with each other,
and come to certain conclusions about love, all of which is called 'thinking'. Isn’t that so?

Q: Yes, that’s exactly what we have been doing, and our thinking has helped to clarify our ( thinking?) minds.

K: But...has it? Or have you become more and more entrenched in an opinion? Surely, what you call
clarification is a process of coming to a definite verbal or intellectual conclusion.

Q: That’s right; we are not as confused as we were.

K: In other words, one or two ideas stand out clearly in this ( hectic?) jumble of teachings and contradictory
opinions about love. Isn’t that it?

Q: Yes; the more we have gone over this whole question of what love is, the clearer it has become.

K: Is it ( the fact of?) 'love' that has become clear, or what you think about it?
Let us go a little further into the (experiential aspect) , shall we? A certain ingenious mechanism is called a 'watch' because we have all agreed on the use this word to indicate that particular thing; but the ( generic) word ‘watch’ is obviously not the mechanism itself. Similarly, there is a ( personal) 'feeling' or a ( wider ) state ( of Consciousness?) which we have all agreed to call 'Love';
but the word is not the actual feeling, is it? And the word ‘love’ means so many different things (for so many different people) .

Q: Couldn't it be that all these feelings are just varying expressions of the same thing?

K: How does it appear to you?

Q: I’m not sure. There are moments when 'love' seems to be one thing, but at other moments it appears
to be something quite different. It’s all very confusing.

K: That’s just it. We want to 'peg it down', so that it won’t elude us, but somehow it’s always slipping away when we least expect it.

Q: I don’t quite follow where all this is leading...

K: As we have said, the feeling ( of love) is not the verbal
description of it. That much is clear, isn’t it?

Q: Yes...

K: Now, can you separate (dissociate ?) the (actual) feeling (not only ) from the word ('love') , but also from your preconceptions of what Love should or should not be?

Q: What do you mean by ‘separate’?

K: There is the ( actual) feeling, and the words which describe that feeling. Can you ( perceptively?) separate the feeling from the verbal description of it? To dissociate the actual feeling from the word ‘love’, with all its (cultural ) implications requires a great deal of ( non-verbal inner) attention.

Q: And what good will that do?

K: When you ask this you are thinking of (obtaining ) a (concrete) result; therefore you are not really inquiring to find out ( the truth about ) what that feeling is, are you?
If you want to understand (it experientially) , you will have to give your ( undivided ?) attention, and there’s no (such) attention when one ( practical) part of your mind is concerned with results, and the other (more philosophically inclined part ?) with 'understanding'. In this ( dualistic) way you get neither (completely) , and so you ( eventually) become more and more confused.
( In a nutshell:) If we don’t (meditatively endeavour to?)
dissociate the word ('love') , which is (thought's activity in the field of past) memory and all its reactions, from the feeling, then that word destroys the (authenticity of the ) feeling; and then the ( verbal) memory is the ash without the fire. Isn’t this what has happened to you both? You have so (efficiently) entangled yourselves in a ( safety-?) net of words, of speculations, that the ( the actual ) feeling (of love?) , which is the only thing that has deep and vital significance, is lost (in translation?)

Q: I am beginning to see what you mean : we are not inwardly simple; we don’t ( try to) discover anything for ourselves, but just repeat what we have been told. We really don’t know what ( the inward source of) love is, but merely have opinions about it. Is that it?

K: Don’t you think so? Surely, to 'know' Love, Truth, God, there must be no opinions, no beliefs, no (intellectual) speculations with regard to it. If you have an opinion about a 'fact', the opinion becomes important,
not the fact. If you want to know (have an insight into) the truth or the falseness of the 'fact', then you must not live in the (mental space of the ) word, in the intellect. You may have a lot of (glib?) knowledge & information, about the fact, but the ( direct perception of the ) actual fact is entirely different.

( For optional meditational homework:) (Try to) put away the book, the ( intellectual) description, the authority of tradition, and take the (inward) journey of self-discovery. Love, and don’t get caught in ( nice-sounding?) opinions and ideas about what love is or what it should be. When you ( endeavour to create a free inner space for the intelligence of?) Love, everything will come right (find its proper place ?) . ( The Universal Intelligence of?) Love has its own action.

( Parting words:) Love, and you will know the blessings of it. Keep away from (anybody's 'spiritual' ) authority who tells you what 'love' is and what it is not. No ( such ?) 'authority' knows; and he who 'knows'... cannot tell. Love, and there is (the inner light of timeless ?) understanding.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 25 May 2019 #180
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 401 posts in this forum Offline

THE INWARD FREEDOM FROM THE KNOWN

( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

( K's intro) The elderly man who had come was a sannyasi, a religious ascetic who had given up the world. His face was clear and fresh, and he had about him the dignity of 'otherworldliness'. He had travelled on foot all over the land going from village to village and from town to town. Being a sannyasi and a member of the highest caste he was received with respect and fed with care. When, on rare occasions, he travelled by train, it was always without a ticket, for he had the air of one whose thoughts were not of this world.

Q: From one’s youth the world has had little attraction, and when one left the family, the house, the property, it was for always. It has been an arduous life, but the mind is now well-disciplined. One has listened to spiritual teachers in the north and in the south; one has
gone on pilgrimages to different shrines and temples, where there was holiness and right teaching.
One has searched in the silence of secluded places, far from the haunts of men, and one knows the beneficial effects of solitude and meditation. One has witnessed the upheavals this country has
passed through in recent years - the turning of man against man, of sect against sect and the coming and going of the political leaders, with their schemes and promised benefits. (He was silent for a minute or two, and then continued :)
In the talk of the other evening, it was said that the mind must be free from ideas, formulations, conclusions. Why?

K: Can ( one's spiritual ?) search begin from that which is already known? Must not this search begin in freedom?

Q: When there’s (inner) freedom, is there any need to search? Freedom is the end of search.

K: Surely the freedom from the known is only the beginning of ( the spiritual) search. Unless the ( meditating?) mind is free from ( the crystallised 'psychological') knowledge as ( personal) experience and conclusions, there is no ( new inner) discovery, but only a ( modified) continuance of what has been. The ( psychological memory of the ) past dictates and interprets further experience, thereby strengthening itself.

Q: The ( collective & personal memory of the?) past is (determining) what one is ( thinking) now and it is made up of the things that one has put together through desire
and its activities. Is there a possibility of being free of the ( psychological burden of the?) past?

K: Isn’t there? Neither the past nor the present is forever fixed & finally determined. The ( psychological burden of the ) 'past' is the result of many pressures, influences and conflicting experiences, and (before we know it?) it becomes the moving ( ongoing?) present, which is also changing, being transformed under the ceaseless pressure of many different influences. The ( time-bound ) mind is the result of the past, it is put together by circumstances, by ( the real life ) incidents and experiences based on the past. Everything that happens to us, outwardly and inwardly, affects it. It does not continue ( exactly) as it was, nor will it (remain forever ?) as it is now.

Q: Is this always so?

K: Only a ( genetically) specialized (living) thing is set forever in a mould. The seed of rice will never, under any circumstances, become wheat, and the rose can never become the palm. But fortunately the human mind is not ( genetically programmed to be?) specialized, and it can always break away from what has been; it needn’t be a slave to tradition.

Q: But our 'karma' is not so easily disposed of; that ( conditioning) which has been built up through many lives cannot be so quickly broken.

K: Why not? What has been put ('psychologically'?) together through many centuries or only yesterday, can be undone immediately (or...ASAP?) .

Q: In what manner?

K: Through understanding ( the relativity?) of this chain of cause-effect. Neither cause nor effect is ever final,
unchangeable and through an (earnest) understanding ( in real time?) of what is actually taking place (within one's psyche?) , this process (of thought projecting itself in time ?) can be stopped 'instantaneously', and there is freedom from ( the karmic effects of?) that which has been (done before?) .
Karma is not an ever-enduring chain; it’s a chain (of thought-time) that can be broken at any time. What was done (poorly?) yesterday can be undone today; there’s no permanent continuance of anything (within the human consciousness?) . ( Thought's 'psychological'?) continuance can and must be dissipated through ( a holistic ) understanding of its process.

Q: All this is clearly seen (at least intellectually?) , but there’s another ( psychological  ?) problem which must be clarified : one's attachment to family and (physical) property ceased long ago; but the mind is still attached to ideas, to beliefs, to visions. It was easy to shake off one's attachment to worldly things, but with the things of the mind, it’s a different matter. The mind is made up of thoughts, and it dare not be empty, for if it were empty, it ( the 'thinker' entity?) would cease to be; therefore it is ( indulging on being) attached to (higher) ideas and to its belief in the things that lie beyond itself.

K: You say it was ( comparatively?) easy to shake off the ( psychological) attachment to your family and property. Why then is it not easy to be free of (one's ) attachment to ideas and beliefs? Are not the same ( psychologically active?) factors involved in both cases ? A ( materialistically minded ?) person clings to family and property because without them (s)he feels lost, empty, alone; and is it not for the same reason that the (spiritually inclined?) mind is ( remaining) attached to its ( noble?) ideas, visions & beliefs ?

Q: ( Generally speaking ?) that is so. Being physically alone, in solitary places, causes one no concern, for one is alone even among the multitude; but the mind shrinks from being left without the (inwardly familiar) things of the mind.

K: This 'shrinking' is ( the expression of a subliminal form of ) fear, is it not? And it is caused, by (thought's) anticipation of the feeling of being ( isolated & lonely ?) . We are afraid not of the 'fact', but of the anticipated (psychological) effect of the fact. The mind foresees (its self-projected future?) and is afraid of what 'might be'.

Q: Then is ( this profound existential) fear always of the anticipated future and never of the 'fact'?

K: Isn’t it? The mind is afraid, not of the unknown, but of losing (its psychological anchors in) the known. There is no fear of the past; but fear is caused by the (thinker's ) thinking about of what the effects of ( letting go the ) past might be. One is ( subliminally?) afraid of the sense of ( inner vacuity or ) 'emptiness' that might arise
if the mind no longer had something to cling to; so ( as a result?) there is (the self-protective) attachment to an ideology, or to a belief, which prevents the understanding of 'what is' (actually going on within itself) .

Q: This ( fine point ?) also is clearly seen.

K: And must not the ( meditating?) mind be alone (all-one?) & empty (of its temporal content) ? Must it not be untouched by the past, by the ( pressures of the ) collective (consciousness ) , and by the influence of one’s own desire?

Q: That is yet (left for one ? ) to be discovered (as homework?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 151 - 180 of 196 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.)