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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 304 in total
Sun, 26 May 2019 #181
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( a 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

( K's Intro:) Several people had come together, and as each one tried to state their problem and the other (discussion participants) began to explain it and to compare it with their own trials. But sorrow is not to be compared. Comparison ( of your personal sorrow with another's) breeds self-pity, and then misfortune ensues. Adversity is to be met directly, not with the ( presumptious) idea that yours is greater (& more significant ? ) than another’s.)

Q: My mother has been dead for some years. Quite recently I have lost my father also, and I am full of remorse. He was a good father, and I ought to have been many things which I was not. Our ideas
clashed - he was a religious man, but my religious feeling
is not so obvious. The relationship between us was often strained, but at least it was a (reassuring?) relationship,
and now that he is gone I am stricken with sorrow. My personal sorrow is not only due to remorse, but also to the feeling of suddenly being left alone. I have never had this kind of sorrow before, and it is quite acute. How am I to get over it?

K: If one may ask, do you suffer for your father, or does your sorrow arise from having no longer a relationship to which you had grown accustomed?

Q: All I know is that I suffer, and I want to get away from it (ASAP ?)

K : You are suffering ( inwardly ) because you are lonely, so ( basically) your sorrow comes from self-pity.

Q: What exactly is this 'loneliness'?

K: Have you never felt lonely?

Q: Yes, I have often taken solitary walks. I go for long walks alone, especially on my holidays.

K: Isn’t there a difference between the (inward) feeling of ( existential) loneliness, and being alone as on a solitary walk?

Q: If there is a (qualitative?) difference , then I don’t think I know what loneliness means.

K: Have you never experienced for yourself the ( self-isolating) feeling of loneliness, as ( acutely as ) you might ( feel) a toothache? When we talk of loneliness, are we experiencing the psychological pain of it, or merely employing a word to indicate something which we have never directly experienced? Do we really suffer, or only think we suffer?

Q: I want to know what (this inner sense of ) 'loneliness' is.

K: You mean you want a verbal description of it ?
( In a nutshell:) It’s an experience of being completely isolated; a feeling of not being able to rely on anything, of being cut off from all relationship. The ‘me’, the
(temporal) 'self', by its very nature, is constantly building a ( 'fool proof' ?) wall around itself; all its activity leads to ( this sad sense of one's existential ?) isolation. (And when it is) becoming aware of (the existential pain of) its ( self-) isolation, it tries identifying itself with ( noble acts of) virtue, with (the image he has of?) 'God', (or just ) with (its material) property, or with ( the admiration & love for a particular ) person, country, or ideology; but its ( conscious or subliminal?) identification is ( still) part of the process of self-isolation. In other (K friendly?) words, we 'escape' (or try to avoid?) the pain of ( one's existential) loneliness, from this (rather depressing ?) feeling of (one's own ) isolation, and so we never get to experiencing it directly. It’s like being afraid of something round the corner and never facing
it, never finding out what it is, but always running away and taking refuge in somebody or something,
which only breeds more fear. Have you never felt lonely in this sense of being (inwardly) 'cut off' from everything & completely isolated?

Q: I just don’t know what to do about it , and that’s why I’m here.

K: Before you can know what to do, must you not find out what ( this profound sense of existential?) sorrow actually is? When you are suffering from a real toothache you don’t ( have time to?) form ideas and opinions about it; you just have it and you act (try to do something about it) . But here (in your particular case ) there is no action, immediate or remote, because you are really not (directly experiencing this) suffering. To understand suffering, you must look at it (with compassionate eyes?) , you must not run away.

Q: My father is gone beyond recall, and so I suffer. What must I do to go beyond the reaches of suffering?

K: We suffer because we do not see the truth ( regarding the nature of our) suffering. ( Facing directly) the 'fact' and ( indulging in speculative?) ideation about the fact are two entirely distinct (attitudes?) , leading in two different directions. If one may ask, are you concerned with the actuality of the fact, or merely with (understanding) the 'idea of suffering'?

Q: You are not answering my question, sir : what am I supposed to do about it ?

K: If you merely want to escape from the pain of it , then any ( golden?) pill, any belief or rational explanation, an amusement may ‘help’, with the inevitable consequences of (psychlogical & psychosomatical ?) dependency and so on. But if you wish to be free from sorrow, you must ( for starters?) (a) stop running away (from facing it) and (b) become aware of it without (any personal) choice; then c) you must 'observe & learn' about it, know ( by direct experience?) all the intimate intricacies of it. Then (d) there will no longer be the (psychological) poison of self-pity ; and (e) with the understanding of ( the inward truth regarding your ) sorrow there is freedom from it.
( In a nutshell:) To understand sorrow there must be an actual experiencing of it (in real time?) , and not the verbal fiction of sorrow.

Q(1) May I ask one (more bonus) question? In what manner should one live one’s daily life?

K: As though one were living for that single day, for that single hour.

Q(1) : How is this to be done ?

K: If you had only one more hour to live, what would you do?

Q(1) : I really don’t know...

K: Would you not arrange (ASAP ?) what is necessary outwardly, ( & try to put order in) your ( worldly?) affairs, and so on? Wouldn't you call your family and friends together and ask for their forgiveness for the harm that you might have done to them (unknowingly?) , and/or forgive them for whatever harm they might have done to you? Would you not 'die' (let go ?) completely ( your personal?) attachments to the 'things' of the mind, to ( the time-binding ) desires and to the world? And if it can be done ( successfully?) for an hour then it can also be done for all the days and years that may remain.

Q (1) : such a thing really possible, sir?

K: Try it (for homework in the 'suspended time' of meditation?) and you will find out.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 27 May 2019 #182
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaries of Living cca 1955)

THE RAIN-WASHED hills were sparkling in the morning sun and the sky behind them was very blue. The valley, full of trees and streams, was high up among the hills; not too many people lived there, and it had a purity of solitude. There were a number of white buildings with thatched roofs, and many goats and cattle; but it was out of the way, and you wouldn’t ordinarily come upon it unless you knew or had been told of its existence. At its entrance a dustless road went by, and as a rule no one came into this valley without some definite purpose. It was unspoiled, secluded and far away, but that morning it seemed especially pure in its solitude, and the rain had washed away the dust of many days. The rocks on the hills themselves seemed to be watching, waiting. These hills extended from east to west, and the sun rose and set among them.

A path wound its way from one end of the valley to the other, and by the side of the path was stream gently whispered, moving eastward towards the sun, and the wide wells were full of water which held hope for the summer and beyond. Innumerable frogs were making a loud noise all along the quiet stream, and a large snake crossed the path. It was in no hurry and moved lazily, leaving a trail in the soft damp earth. Becoming aware of the human presence, it stopped, its black, forked tongue darting in and out of its pointed mouth. Presently it resumed its journey in search of food, and disappeared among the bushes and the tall, waving grass. It was a lovely morning, and pleasant under a big mango tree which stood by an open well. The fragrance of fresh washed leaves was in the air, and the smell of the mango. The sun didn’t come through the heavy leaves, and you could sit there for a long time on a slab of rock which was still damp. The valley was in solitude and so was the tree. These hills were some of the oldest on earth, and so they knew what it is to be alone and far away. Loneliness is sad with the creeping desire to be related, not to be cut off; but this sense of solitude, this all-oneness was related to everything, part of all things. You were not even aware that you were alone, for there was the trees, the rocks, the murmuring water. The hills, the streams, that man passing by, were all part of this solitude whose purity held all impurity within itself, and was not soiled by it. But impurity could not share this solitude. It is impurity that knows loneliness, that is burdened with sorrow and pain of existence.

Sitting there under the tree, with large ants crossing your leg, in that measureless solitude there was the movement of timeless age. It wasn’t a space-covering movement, but a movement within itself, a flame within the flame, a light within the emptiness of light. It was a movement that would never stop, for it had no beginning and no cause to end. It was a movement that had no direction, and so it covered space. There under that tree time stood still, like the hills, and this movement covered it and went beyond it; so time could never overtake this movement. The mind could never touch the hem of it; but the mind was this movement. The watcher could not race with it, for he was able only to follow his own shadow and the words that clothed it. But under that tree, in that 'aloneness', the watcher and his shadow were not.


A man and his wife and their friend were sitting in the sunlit room. They had come especially to hear the (K) talks and discussions, but during the three weeks of the meetings their particular problem had not been touched upon, and so they were here.

Q: What we want to talk about is rather complex, at least as far as I can see. My friend and I have been interested for many years in religious matters and speaking for myself, I may say that I have meditated for a number of years on various questions pertaining to the inner life, and I always find myself wandering about in circles. For the present I do not want to talk over the wider implications of meditation, but to go into the question of (inner) simplicity. Like most people, I am (inardly) a very complex being; and how is it possible to become (inwardly integrated & ) 'simple'?

K: It is not possible to 'become' (inwardly) simple (overnight?) but one can approach the (psychological) complexity with simplicity.

Q: But how can the ( average self-centred) mind, which is very complex, approach any problem simply?

K: Only when the (self-centred) desire to become (simple) ends is there the new action of being simple . But before we go into all that, may one ( take an analytical detour & ) ask why you feel that you must have the quality of simplicity? What is the motive behind this urge?

Q: Our modern life is getting more and more complicated; there is greater struggle, with growing indifference and wider superficiality. Most people are living (happily?) on the surface and making a lot of (largely mediatised?) noise about it, and my own life is not very deep either; so I feel I must become simple.

K: Simple in outward things, or inwardly?

Q: In both ways.

K: Is the outward manifestation of austerity - having few clothes, taking only one meal a day, doing without the usual comforts, and so on - an indication of (an authentic inner) simplicity?

Q: A certain outward austerity is necessary, is it not?

K: We will find the truth of the falseness of that presently. Do you think the inner simplicity ( can be found by a ) mind cluttered with beliefs, with desires and there contradictions, with envy and the pursuit of power? Is a (constantly) occupied mind a simple mind?

Q: When you put it that way, it becomes obvious that it is not a simple mind. But how can one’s mind be cleansed of its (psychological) accumulations?

K: We haven’t come to that yet, have we? We have only seen that simplicity is not a matter of outward expression, and that as long as the mind is crowded with knowledge, experiences, memories, it is not truly simple. Then what is (the way of inner ?) 'simplicity'? Do we ever feel anything directly? Or do we feel everything through words, through concepts and definitions? Do we ever look at a tree, at the sea or at the sky, without forming words, without a (knowledgeable?) remark about them?

Q: But how is one to feel the nature or quality of simplicity?

K: Are you not preventing yourself from feeling its nature by asking for a (fool-proof?) 'method' which will bring it about? When you are hungry and there is food before you, you do not ask ”How am I to eat?” You just 'eat'. The (time-delaying question) ‘how ?’ is always a digression from (dealing directly with ) the fact. ( To recap:) The feeling of simplicity has nothing to do with your personal opinions and/or conclusions about that feeling.

Q: But the (practical thinking ?) mind, with its complexities, is always (trying to help by) interposing what it thinks it knows about simplicity.

K: Which (from the same stroke?) prevents it from staying with the ( actual) feeling. Have you ever tried to stay with the feeling?

Q: What do you mean by ''staying with the feeling''?

K: Can one stay with the ( holistic ) feeling which the word ‘simplicity’ represents?

Q: I don’t think I know what this (holistic?) feeling is, so I can’t stay with it.

K: Isn't there a (non-verbal ) 'feeling' apart from the mental reactions aroused by that word ‘simplicity’? The feeling itself and the naming of it are almost simultaneous, and it is very arduous to separate the authentic inner feeling from the word.

Q: Is such a thing possible?

K: Is it not possible (for a holistically friendly mind ?) to feel intensely, purely, without contamination? To feel intensely about something (which the mind got attached or identified with?) - about one's family, about one's country, or about a (very noble?) cause - is comparatively easy. Intense feelings or (spontaneous?) enthusiasm may arise through identifying oneself with ( the local sports team or with?) a belief or ideology, for example. Of this one knows (a lot of handy examples) . Or, ( in the contemplative register ?) one may see a flock of white birds in the blue sky and almost faint with the intense feeling of such beauty, or one may recoil with horror at the cruelty of man. All such (inner or outer) feelings are aroused by a word, by a scene, by an act, by a material object. But is there not an intensity of ('holistic ) feeling' without an object? Is not that (pure) feeling incomparably greater? Is it then a feeling, or something entirely different?

Q: I’m afraid I don’t know what you are talking about sir. I hope you don’t mind my telling you so.

K: Not at all. (In existential terms?) is there a (contemplative?) state (of mind?) without (any material ) cause? If there is, then can one feel it out and be actually aware of that state? ( Hint:) To be thus acutely aware, verbalization in every form, and all (the observer's)
identification with (its past?) memory, must wholly cease. Is there an inward state (of mind) without ( any material) cause? Is not Love such a state?

Q: But ( for most people ?) love is 'sensual', and beyond that is the 'divine'.

K: We are back in the same (ages old?) confusion, are we not? To divide Love as 'this' and 'that' is ( the very essence of the ) worldly (mentality?) ; as from this division there is ( a temporal ?) profit. To Love without the 'verbal & moral' hedge around it, is ( to access?) the state of (universal intelligence &) compassion, which is not aroused by a (physical or mental?) object. ( The holistic feeling of Compassion, Intelligence &) Love is (the simple) action, and all else is reaction. Any action born of (psychological) reaction only breeds conflict and sorrow.

Q: If I may say so, sir, this is all beyond me. Let me be simple, and then perhaps I shall understand the profound.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 28 May 2019 #183
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


(A reader-friendly edited K dialogue cca 1954)

Q: I have been wanting to see you for many years. You may not remember it, but I was once on the same boat with you going to Europe before the second world war. My father was very interested in your teachings, but I drifted away into politics and other things. My desire to talk to you again finally became so persistent that it could not be put off any longer. I want to expose my heart - something I have never done to anyone else, for it isn’t easy to discuss oneself with others. For some time I have been attending your talks and discussions in different places, but recently I have had a strong urge to see you privately, because I have come to an (meditation related ?) impasse.

K: Of what kind?

Q: I don’t seem to be able to ‘break through’ (the limitations of the known?) . I have done some meditation, trying to be aware of my own thinking & feeling , but in this process I invariably fall asleep. I have even fasted, and tried various (meditation friendly?) diets, but this lethargy persists.

K: Is there (in the very depths of your consciousness ?) a profound inward frustration? Hasn't your mind (& heart?) been made dull, insensitive, by the events of your life? Or is it that (the compassionate intelligence of?) love is not there?

Q: I have vaguely thought about these matters, but have never been able to pin anything down. Perhaps I have been smothered by too many good and evil things. In a way, life has been too easy for me, with family, money, certain capacities, and so on. Nothing has been very difficult, and that may be the trouble. This general feeling of being at ease and having the capacity to find my way out of almost any situation may have made me (inwardly asleep & ) soft.

K: Is that it? Is that not just a description of superficial happenings? If those things had affected you deeply, you would have followed the easy course. But you have not, so there must be a different process at work that is making your mind sluggish and inept.

Q: Then what is it? I am not bothered by sex; I neither condemn nor pursue sex. It’s not a problem to me, anyway.

K: Has this indifference destroyed sensitivity? After all, love is vulnerable, and a mind that has built (a wall of psychological ? ) defences against life ceases to love.

Q: I don’t think I have built a defence against sex; but love is not necessarily sex, and I really do not know if I love at all.

K: You see, our ( intellectual) minds are so carefully cultivated that we fill the ( authentic feelings of the ) 'heart' with the things of the mind. We give most of our time and energy to the earning of a livelihood, to the gathering of ( second hand?) knowledge, to ( fueling ?) the fire of belief, of patriotism and to the pursuit of (very noble?) ideals and virtues, (not to mention?) the many other ( time consuming) things with which the mind keeps itself occupied; so the 'heart' is made empty, and the mind becomes rich in its cunningness. This does make for your (inner) insensitivity, doesn’t it?

Q: It is very true that we over-cultivate the ( abstractly thinking ) mind. We worship knowledge, and the man of intellect is honoured, but few of us 'love' in the sense you are talking about. Speaking for myself, I honestly do not know if I have any 'love' at all. I like nature. I like to go into the woods and feel their silence and beauty; I like to sleep under the open skies. But does all this indicate that I 'love'?

K: Sensitivity to nature is part of Love; but it isn’t Love, is it? To be gentle and kind, to do good works, asking nothing in return, is part of love; but it isn’t love, is it?

Q: Then what is Love?

K: Love is (including?) all these parts, but it is much more. The totality of Love is not within the measure of the ( self-centred?) mind; and to 'know' (or to have free access to ?) that totality, the ( meditating?) mind must be empty of its (temporal ?) occupations however noble or (naturally?) self-centred.

However, to ask ( someone else?) 'how to empty the mind?, or 'how not to be self-centred ?' , is (generally leading?) to pursuing a ('fool-proof'?) method ( not realising that this ) pursuit is creating another (time-binding ) occupation of the mind.

Q: But how is it possible to empty the mind without some kind of (mental ) effort?

K ( In the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation) all effort, the ‘right’ as well as the ‘wrong’, sustains the 'centre', the core of (one's personal) achievement, the ( temporal?) 'self'. (In a nutshell:) Where the 'self (-consciousness' is active ?) , Love is not (anywhere in sight?) .

But talking of the ( spiritual?) lethargy of your mind, of its insensitivity, could not ( the self-centred desire to acquire ever more ?) knowledge be part of this process of ( inward) insensitivity?

Q: I am not a 'scholar', but I read a lot, and I like to browse in libraries. I respect knowledge, and I don’t quite see why you think that knowledge necessarily makes for (inward) insensitivity.

What do we mean by knowledge? Our life is largely a repetition of what we have been taught, is it not? We may add to our learning, but the repetitive process continues and strengthens the habit of accumulating. What do you know except what you have read or been told, or what you have experienced? That which you experience now is shaped by what you have experienced before. Further experience is what has been experienced already, only enlarged or modified, and so the repetitive process is maintained. Repetition of the good or the bad, of the noble or the trivial, obviously makes for insensitivity, because the mind is moving only within the field of the known. May not this be why your mind is dull? ”But I can’t put away all that I know, all that I have accumulated as knowledge.”

K: You 'are' ( subliminally identified with?) this (habit of constantly searching & gathering ) knowledge, you 'are' the things that you have accumulated; you are the 'recording & playing back' (mechanism) that is ever repeating what is impressed on it. You are the song, the (constant ) chattering of society, of your culture.

Is there an uncorrupted (a timeless) ‘you’, apart from all this (www.) chatter? This 'self'-centred (entity) is now anxious to free itself from the things it has gathered; but the (mental) effort it makes to be free is still part of the accumulative process. You may have a new record to play, with new (updated?) words, but (inwardly speaking?) your mind is still dull, insensitive.

Q: You have described very well my present state of mind. I have learnt, in my time, the jargons of various ideologies, both religious and political; but, as you point out, (inwardly) my mind has in essence remained the same. I am now very clearly aware of this; and I am also aware that this whole process makes the mind superficially alert & clever and outwardly pliable, while below the surface it is still (anchored in) that same old self-centre which is the ‘me’.

K: Are you aware of all this as a 'fact', or do you know it only through another’s description? If it is not your own discovery, something that you have found out for yourself, then there are only the (K's?) words and not the ( inward perception of) fact that is important.

Q: I don’t quite follow this. Can you explain it again ?

K: Do you 'know' anything ('live'?) or do you only 'recognize' ( acknowledge) it ? Recognition is a process of verbal association, memory, which is ( the mechanism of temporal ) knowledge.

Q: I think I see what you mean. I know that bird is a parrot only because I have been told so. Through association, memory which is knowledge, there is (a mental) recognition, and then I say: ‘It is a parrot’.

K: And (the mechanical recognition involved in using ) the word ‘parrot’ has blocked you from looking at the real bird, that living thing that flies. We almost never (spend the necessary 'quality time' to ) look at the (ongoing) fact, but (skip the directly perceptive step & deal ) with the words or the symbols that stands for the fact. So, the ( direct impact of the ) fact recedes and (thought's routine dealing with) the words or the symbols, becomes all-important. Now, can you look at the 'fact', whatever it may be, dissociated from the word, the symbol?

Q: It seems to me that the ( visual) perception of the fact, and the awareness of the (naming) word (used to) represent the fact, occur in the mind practically at the same time.

K: Can the ( contemplatively friendly?) mind separate (dissociate the direct perception of ? ) the 'fact' from the 'word' ( from the naming process) ?

Q: I don’t think it can.

K: Perhaps we are making all this (sound) more difficult than it is. When you look at the actual thing which is called a 'tree'; the word (the verbal symbol) and its (physical) object are two separate things, are they not?

Q: This is true but, as you said we always look at the object through the (knowledge background related to the naming ) word.

K: Can you separate the (direct perception of the ) object from the word (used to describe it) ? The word ‘love’ is obviously not the actual feeling, the 'fact' of love.

Q: But, in a way, the ( usage of the ) word is a fact too, isn’t it?

K: In a way, yes. Words exist to communicate ( knowledge-processed information about the fact?) and also to remember, to fix in the mind a fleeting experience, a thought, a feeling; so the mind itself is (getting subliminally identified with ?) the words, or with the ( verbally recognised) experience, it 'is' the (psychological) memory of the fact in terms of pleasure and pain, good and bad. This whole process takes place (cvasi-mechanically?) within the field of the 'known', (aka:) in the field of 'time', and any ( inner) revolution within that field is no revolution at all, but only an (opportunistic?) modification of what has been.

Q: (To recap:) if I understand you correctly, you are saying that I have made my mind dull, (inwarly) lethargic, & insensitive, through a traditional process of repetitive thinking, of which self-discipline is a part. And in order to bring this ( mechanistic) repetitive process to an end, the ( dualistic creator & user of the ) recording process, (aka:) the 'self', must be 'broken' (down?) ; and it can be broken (down) only by (directly) seeing ( the ongoing ? ) fact , and not through effort. Effort, you say, only keeps the recording machine wound up, so in that there is no ( self-transcending ?) hope. Then what?

K: See the 'fact', the 'what is' (going on inwardly ?) , and let (the inward truth of ?) that fact operate; don’t you (try to) operate on the fact - the ‘you’ being the (core of that) repetitive (thought-time) mechanism, with its personal opinions, judgments, knowledge.

Q: I will try ( this in my future meditations).

K. ( The meditator's endeavour ?) to 'oil' (or to upgrade ?) the repetitive mechanism, is not putting an end to it.

Q: Sir, you are taking everything away from one, and nothing is left. But then, that may be the 'new' thing...

K: It is.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 28 May 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 03 Jun 2019 #184
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A' reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living cca 1956)

( K's Intro:) The room was not very large, and the few who had come rather crowded it. They were of all ages - the old man with his very young daughter, a married couple, and a college student. We all sat for a while without saying a word. The college student waited for age to speak, but the old man preferred to let others speak first. At last, rather nervously, the young man began:

Q: I am now in my last year at a college, where I have been studying engineering, but somehow I don’t
seem to be interested in following any particular career. I simply don’t know what I want to do. My father would like me to be an engineer; but I have no real interest in it. I have told him this, but he says the interest will come when once I get working at it for a livelihood. I have several
friends who studied for different careers, and who are now earning their own way; but most of them
are already becoming dull and weary, and God only knows what they will be like a few years hence,
I don’t want to become like that. It isn’t that I’m afraid of the exams, I can pass them easily enough, and I’m not boasting. I just don’t want to be an engineer,
and nothing else seems to interest me either. I have done a spot of writing, and have dabbled in
painting but that kind of thing doesn’t carry very far. My father is only concerned with pushing me
into a job, and he could get me a good one; but I know what will happen to me, if I accept it. I feel
like throwing up everything and leaving college without waiting to take the final exams.

K: That would be rather silly wouldn’t it? After all you are nearly through college; why not finish it? There’s no harm in that, is there?

Q: I suppose not. But what am I to do then?

K; Apart from the usual ( time-binding?) careers, what would you really like to do? You must have some interest, however vague it may be. Somewhere, deep down, you know what it is, don’t you?

Q: You see, I don’t want to become rich; I have no interest in raising a family, and I don’t want to be a
slave to a routine. Most of my friends who have embarked upon a career, are tied to the office from morning till night; and what do they get out of it? A ( suburban life ?) a house, wife & some children and ( the familiar ) boredom. To me, this is really a frightening prospect, and I don’t want to be caught in it; but I still don’t know what to do.

K: Since you ( seem to) have thought much about all this, haven’t you tried to find out where your real interest lies?

Q: On my solitary walks I have thought a great deal about what I would really like to do, and I have also talked it over with friends. But most of my friends are bent on some career or other, and it’s no good talking to them. Once they are caught in a career, whatever it may be, they think it’s the right thing to do - duty, responsibility, and all the rest of it. I just don’t want to get caught
in a similar 'treadmill' that’s all. But what is it I would really like to do? I wish I knew.

K: Do you like ( working with) people?

Q; In a vague sort of way, Why do you ask?

K: Perhaps you might like to do something along the line of social work.

Q; I have thought of doing social work, and for a time I went around with some of those who have given their lives to it. Generally speaking, they are also a dry, frustrated lot, ceaselessly active in trying to improve social conditions but unhappy inside. It’s all idealism without flare, without inward joy.

K: I suppose religion, in the accepted sense, means nothing to you?

Q: As a boy I often used to go with my mother to the temple, with its priests, prayers and ceremonies,
but I haven’t been there for years.

K; ( The true spirit of?) religion is something much more than all that. Are you adventurous?

Q: Not in the usual meaning of that word
- mountain climbing, polar exploration, deep-sea diving, and so on. I’m not being superior, but to
me there’s something rather immature about all that.

K: What about politics?

Q: The ordinary political game doesn’t interest me. I have some Communist friends, and have read
some of their stuff, and at one time I thought of joining their party; but I can’t stomach their double
talk, their violence and tyranny. These are the things they actually stand for, whatever may be their
official ideology and their talk of peace. I went through that phase quickly.

K: We have eliminated a great deal, haven’t we? If you don’t want to do any of these things, then what’s

Q: I don’t know. Am I still too young to know?

K: It’s not a matter of age, is it? Discontent is part of ( the human ) existence, but we generally find a way to tame it, whether through a career through marriage, through belief, or through idealism and good works. One way or another, most of us manage to smother this flame of discontent don’t we? After successfully
smothering it, we think at last we are happy - and we may be, at least for the time being. Now, instead of smothering this flame of discontent through some form of ( personal) satisfaction, is it possible to keep it always burning? And is it then ( the same old ) discontent?

Q: Do you mean I should remain as I am, dissatisfied with everything about me and within myself, and not seek some satisfying occupation that will let this fire burn out? Is that what you mean?

K: We are discontented because ( by looking at other people) we think we should be contented; the very idea that we should be at peace
with ourselves makes discontentment painful. You think you ought to be a responsible person, a useful citizen, and all the rest of it. With the understanding of ( the true nature of your) discontent, you
may be these things and much more. But you also want to do something satisfying, something which will
occupy your mind and so put an end to this inner disturbance; isn’t that so?

Q: It is, in a way, but I now see what such occupation leads to.

K: The ( self-) occupied mind is a dull, routine mind; in essence, it’s mediocre. Because it’s established in
habit, in belief, in a respectable and profitable routine, the mind feels secure, both inwardly and
outwardly; therefore it ceases to be disturbed. This is so isn’t it?

Q: In general, yes. But what am I to do?

K : You may ( eventually ?) discover the ( holistic ?) solution if you go further into this feeling of ( man's existental?) discontent. Don’t think about it in terms of (hoping to be) contented. Find out why it exists, and whether it shouldn’t be kept burning . After all, you are not particularly concerned about earning a livelihood,
are you ?

Q: I am not. One can always live somehow or other.

K: So you just don’t want to be caught in a routine, in the wheel of mediocrity; isn’t that what you are concerned about?

Q: It looks like it, sir.

K: Not to be thus "caught" ( in the clutches of time?) demands a hard ( home-)work of incessant watching, without coming to ( clever?) conclusions from which to continue further thinking; for to think from a conclusion is not to think ( creatively?) at all.

Q: I now understand what has really been on my mind.
I didn't want to be like those whose daily life is (caught in a safe & comfortable?) routine ( with its inevitable ) boredom. I have begun to see a ( new) direction which I never knew even existed. Is this new direction what you were referring when you
spoke of a state of being which is timeless and ever (fresh & ) creative?

K: Perhaps. ( The authentic spirit of) Religion is ( to be found in ) the 'moment-by moment' discovery of That ( inwardly creative?) movement, which has no name.

Q: I’m afraid I have taken more than my share of the available time, I hope you don’t mind.

(Q 1) On the contrary, I for one have listened very attentively, and have profited a great deal; I, too, have seen something beyond my ( particular) problem. In listening quietly to the troubles of another, our own burdens are sometimes lightened. Personally, I have reached an age, when I no longer have to ask what I am going to do; instead, I look back and consider what I have done with my life. I too went to college, but I was not as ( thoroughly) thoughtful as our young friend here. Upon graduating from college, I went in search of work, and once having found a job, I spent the next forty years and more in earning a livelihood and maintaining a rather large family. During all that time I was caught in the office routine to which you
have referred, and in the habits of family life, and I know its pleasures and tribulations, its tears and
passing joys. I have grown old with struggle and weariness, and in recent years there has been a fast decline. Looking back on all that, I now ask myself, ‘What have you done with your life? Apart
from your family and your job, what have you actually accomplished?

Over the years, I joined various associations for the improvement of this and that; I belonged to several different religious groups, and left one for another; and I hopefully read the literature of the
extreme left, only to find that their organization is as tyrannically authoritarian as the church. Now that I have retired, I can see that I have been living on the surface of life; I have merely drifted.
Though I struggled a little against the strong current of society, in the end I was pulled along by it. But don’t misunderstand me. I’m not shedding tears over the past; I don’t bemoan the things
that have been. I am concerned with the few years that I still have left. Between now and the fast-approaching day of my death, how am I to meet this thing called life? That is my problem.

K: What we are (inwardly) is made up of ( the personal memories of?) what we have been; and what we have been also shapes the future, even without definitely giving substance to every thought and action. Our 'present' is a movement of the past to the future.

Q( 1) What has been my past? practically nothing at all. There have been no great sins, no towering
ambition, no overwhelming sorrow no degrading violence. My life has been that of the average man,
neither hot nor cold; it has been an even flow, a thoroughly mediocre life. I have built up a past
in which there’s nothing to be either proud or ashamed of. My whole existence has been dull and
empty, without much meaning. It would have been the same, had I lived in a palace, or in a village
hut. How easy it is to slip into the current of mediocrity! Now, my question is, can I stem in myself
this current of mediocrity? Is it possible to break away from my petty past?

K : When you use the word ‘past’, what does it signify? Do you mean the totality of ( our past) memory, or just the memory of everyday incidents? Incidents that have no ( personal) psychological significance, while they may be remembered, do not take root in the soil of the mind. They come and go; they do not occupy or burden the mind. Only those remain which have psychological significance. So what do you mean by the past? Is there a ( memory of the ) past that remains solid, immovable, from which you can cleanly and sharply break away?

Q (1) : My past is made up of a multitude of little things put together, and its roots are shallow. A good shock like a strong wind, could blow it away.

K: And you are waiting for the wind. Is that your problem?

Q (1) ; I’m not waiting for anything. But must I go on like this for the rest of my days? Can I not break away
from the ( psychological attachments to the ) past?

K: Again, is this ( psychologically active memory of the ) past static, or is it a living thing?
If it’s a 'living' thing, how does it get its life? Through what means does it revive itself and (how) can you break away from it? And who is the ‘you’ that wants to break away?

Q (1) : Now I’m getting confused. I have asked you a simple question, and you counter it by asking several more complicated ones. Would you kindly explain what you mean?

K: You say, sir, that you want to be 'free from the ( psychological burden of the ) past'. What is this past?

Q( 1) : It consists of ( one's life) experiences and the memories one has of them.

K: Now, ( most of ) these memories are on the surface, they are not deep-rooted. But may not some of them have roots deep in the ( mankind's collective?) unconscious?

Q (1) : I don’t think I have any deep-rooted ( personal) memories. Anyway, they don’t play a very significant part in my life.

K: If the ( psycholohical burden of the ) past is to be dismissed so easily, there’s no problem; if only the outer husk of the past remains then you have already broken away. But there’s more to this problem, isn’t there? How are you to break through your mediocre life? How are you to shatter the (inherited self-centredness?) of the mind? Isn’t this also your ( homework?) problem, sir?

Q( 1) : I came with the intention of dispelling my (conscious ) past, which is without much significance, but I am now being confronted with another problem.

K: Why do you say that your past is without much significance?

Q (1) : Because I have drifted on the surface of life, and when you drift, you can’t have deep roots, even in your family. I see that to me life hasn’t meant very much; I have done nothing with it. Only a few years
are now left to me, and I want to stop drifting, I want to make something of what remains of my life.
Is this at all possible?

K; What do you want to make of your life? Doesn’t the pattern of what you want to be, evolve from what
you have been? Surely, your (self-projected ) pattern is a reaction from what has been; it is an outcome of the past.

Q( 1) ; Then how am I to make anything of my life?

K: What do you mean by ( your) life? Can you act upon it? Or is 'life' incalculable, and not to be held within the (self(centred) boundaries of the ( temporal) mind? Human life is ( containing) everything - vanity, inspiration and despair; social morality, the holistic virtue which is outside the realm of cultivated righteousness; the knowledge gathered
through the centuries; character, which is (formed in the ) the meeting of the past with the ( reality of the ) present; the ( carefully organized (systems of) belief called 'religions', and the truth that lies beyond (& avoids?) them; hate and affection; love and compassion which are not within the field of the ( temporal) mind - all this and more is life, is it not? And you want to give it shape, direction, significance. Now, who is the ‘you’ that wants to do all this? Are 'you' different from that which you seek to achieve

Q( 1) : Are you suggesting that one should just go on drifting?

K: When you want to (re)direct & reshape your life, your ( projected) pattern can only be acording to the ( available memories of the ) past; or, being
unable to shape it, your reaction is 'drift'.
But ( a more holistically friendly outlook is that ?) the ( transpersonal) understanding of the totality of life brings about its own action, in which there is neither drifting nor the imposition of a pattern. This 'totality' ( the wholeness of life?) is to be
understood from moment to moment. There must be the death of the past moment.

Q( 1) ; But am I really capable of understanding the wholeness of life?

K: If you do not ( endeavour to?) understand it, no one else can understand it for you. You cannot learn ( borrow?) it from another.

Q( 1) : How shall I proceed?

K : Through self-knowledge; for the totality, the whole treasure of life, lies within yourself.

Q( 1) ; What do you mean by 'self-knowledge'?

K: It is to perceive the (truth or the falseness of the?) ways of your own ( self-centred?) mind; it is to learn about ( the vanity of?) your cravings, your desires, your urges and pursuits, the hidden as well as the open. ( Hint : ) There is no ( 'observer'-free ?) learning where there is the accumulation of knowledge. With self-knowledge, the mind is free to be still. Only then is there the coming into (one's integrated?) being of 'that' which is beyond the measure of the ( temporal ?) mind.

(The married couple had been listening the whole time; they had been awaiting their turn, but never
interrupted, and only now the husband spoke up.)

Q ( 2) Our problem was that of jealousy, but after listening to what has already been said here, I think that we have understood more deeply by quietly listening than we would have by asking (our home-made ?) questions.

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 03 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 04 Jun 2019 #185
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living, cca 1955)

(…) Coming to the edge of a cliff, you could see far below a stream flowing from the distant glaciers. It was fed by several waterfalls, but their noise didn’t reach that far, and there was complete silence.
You couldn’t help being quiet too. It wasn’t a self- enforced quietness; you became quiet naturally and
easily. Your mind no longer went on its endless wanderings. Its outward movement had stopped,
and it was on an inward journey, a journey that led to 'great heights' and 'astonishing depths'. Soon even this (imaginary?) journey stopped, and there was neither an outward nor an inward movement of the
mind. It was completely still, yet there was an (inward) movement wholly unrelated to the going
out and the coming back of the ( self-centred?) mind, a movement that had no cause, no end & no centre. It was a ( holistic?) movement within the mind, through the mind, and beyond the mind. The ( self-conscious?) mind was unable to follow this 'other' movement, which did not originate from itself. So the mind was still. Its stillness had not been brought
about by any desire to be still. It was simply still, and because it was still, there was (the manifestation of?) this timeless movement. The mind could never capture it and put it among its 'remembrances' because there was no ( mental) recognition of this movement. The mind did not know it, for it had never known it;
therefore the mind was still, and this timeless movement went on beyond ( one's) recall.

Q: I have been looking forward to this (personal interview) for many days, and now that I’m here, I don’t know where to begin. I could easily enough talk about some superficial things, but what I really want to talk about seems so complex and difficult.
I am an only son, and was rather pampered. Though I am fond of literature, and and could make something of my life, but I have one consuming problem: I want to possess ( stuff &?) people, 'body and soul'. I have watched others, and though they also are possessive, ( the ethical code of) society and its notion of good manners hold them within bounds, But I have no (such mental ) 'bounds'; I just want to 'possess', without any qualifying adjectives. Outwardly I manage to control myself, and I probably seem normal enough; but I am raging inside.

K: What makes us want to 'possess' (psychologically) , people, things and ideas? Why this ( ages old?) urge to own, with all its struggle and pain? If one may ask, do you know 'why' you want to possess, and what ( this desire for) possession means?

Q: To possess property is different from 'possessing' people. You can take measures to safeguard your material property, but with people it’s different : sooner or later they 'slip out' of your grasp, and then...your inner torture begins.

K: But why this urge to possess? In the feeling that you 'own', there is a certain sense of power and prestige, is there not? There is pleasure in knowing that something is yours, be it a house, a rare picture (or just a cloth?) . The possession
of capacity, talent, the ability to achieve (fame & fortune?) , and the ( 'fake' public ?) recognition that it brings - these also give you a sense of self- importance, & a secure outlook on life. As far as (married) people are concerned, to possess and to be
possessed is often ( generating ) a mutually satisfactory relationship. But there is also (a subtler sense of) possession in terms of beliefs, ideas & ideologies, is there not?

Q: Aren’t we entering too wide a field?

K: But 'possession' implies all this. You may want to possess people, another may possess a whole
series of ideas, while someone else may be satisfied with owning a few acres of land; but however
much the objects may vary, ( the desire for) possession is essentially the same, and (if it is challenged) each will defend what he owns - or in the very yielding of it, will want to possess something else at another level.
Now, is there ever a ( silent ) moment ( of inward peace?) when the mind is not (actively involved in ) possessing or being possessed? And ( ask itself) why doe it want to possess?

Q: I suppose it is because in ( the very realistic illusion of?) 'owning', one feels strong & safe; and of course there’s always a ( self-) gratifying pleasure in ownership, you have mentioned. Personally I want to 'possess' for several reasons : it gives me a feeling of self- importance. In possession there’s also a ( fake?) sense of well-being; one feels comfortably secure...

K: And yet ( further down the line?) with it, there is ( lurking) conflict and sorrow. You may want to keep on with this pleasure of possessing, and still
avoid the ( collateral ) pain of it. Can this be done?

Q: Probably not, but I go on trying. I enjoy riding on the stimulating wave of possession, even knowing what is going to happen; and when the 'fall' comes, as it always does, I pick myself up and get on the
next 'wave ( of pleasure surfing'?)

K: Then you have no problem, have you?

Q: I'd rather want my (psychological ) torture to end. Is it really impossible to possess completely and forever?

K: It seems impossible even with regard to property and ideas; and isn’t it much more so in regard to people? (Real) people are alive; like you, they also may want to dominate, to possess or be possessed .
( In a nutshell:) There’s no such thing as complete (forever guaranteed ?) possession of anything at any time. Love is never possession or attachment.

Q: Then what am I to do? Can I be free from this misery?

K: Of course you can, but ( how you will do it ?) that’s entirely another matter. You are aware ( of the inner drive to) possess; but are you ever aware of a moment when the mind is neither possessing nor being possessed? We ( desire to?) possess because in ourselves we ( feel that we) are nothing, and in possessing (a lot of stuff?) we feel we have become somebody. Even when we call ourselves 'Americans', 'Russians' or 'Hindus', or what you will, the label gives us an (enhanced) sense of (self-) importance. ( Consciousness-wise ?) we are 'nothing' ('not-a-thing'?) but ( the psychologically active memories of) what we possess – the cultural label, the bank account, the ideology or the person - and this ( subliminal self-) identification breeds enmity and endless strife.

Q: You said something which struck a chord in me. Am I ever aware of a moment when the mind is neither ( thinking of) possessing nor of being possessed? I don’t think I am (aware of such moments)

K: Can't the ( holistically friendly ?) mind cease possessing, or being possessed by ( the time binding memories of the ?) past and ( /or by its imaginary projections of ? ) the future? Can it be free from both the influence of (its past) experience, and the urge to experience (forever more exciting stuff in the future?)

Q: But is this (timeless condition) possible (in the 'real world'?)

K: You will have to find it out ( for 'homework'?) by becoming fully aware of the ( convoluted ?) ways of your own mind. You may know the ( inward) truth of possession & of its (collateral ?) sorrow and pleasure, but (instead of) stopping there you try to overcome the one by the other. (As a result?) you do not know a ( single) moment when the mind is totally free from the (subliminal?) influence of what has been, and from the desire to 'become' ( or 'be' better in the future ?) . To discover for yourself the truth of this ( inward) freedom is the liberating factor, and not your ( self-centred) 'will' to be free.

Q: Am I capable of such a subtle self-inquiry and discovery? In a curious way, I (like to think that I ) am. I have been very purposeful in possessing, and with that same energy I can now (switch gears & ) begin to inquire into the freedom of the mind. I should like to come back, if I may, after I have experimented with this.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 05 Jun 2019 #186
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living -cca 1955)

Q: Ever since I can remember, I seem to have been in a state of ( self-) contradiction. I have always had ideals, and have always fallen far short of them. From my earliest years I have felt a pull towards a life of solitude and meditation, and I have ended up with a family. I once thought that I would like to be a scholar, but instead I have become an office drudge. My whole life has been a series of disturbing contrasts, and even now I am in the midst of self-contradictions which bother me greatly; for I want to be at peace with myself, and I don’t seem able to harmonize these
conflicting desires. What am I to do?

K: Surely, there can never be an (authentic) harmony between opposing desires. Can ambition and the desire for peace ever be brought together? Mustn’t they always be contradictory?

Q: But cannot these conflicting desires be brought under control? Cannot these 'wild horses' be tamed?

K: You have tried, haven’t you?

Q: Yes, for many years.

K: And have you succeeded?

”No, but that is because I haven’t properly disciplined desire, I haven’t tried hard enough. The fault
is not with discipline, but with him who fails in discipline.

K: Is not this very 'disciplining of desire' the breeder of contradiction? To discipline is to resist (temptation?) , to suppress; and is not resistance or suppression the way of conflict? When you try to discipline desire, who is the ‘you’ that is doing the disciplining?

Q: The higher Self ?

K: Is it? Or is it merely one ( 'higher') part of the mind trying to dominate the other, one ( central) desire suppressing other desires? This ( dualistic) suppression of one part of the mind, by another which you (improperly?) call the ‘higher Self’, can only lead to ( an inner state of ) conflict. However much one desire may suppress or discipline another, that so-called 'higher desire' breeds other ( compensatory) desires which soon are in revolt. Desire multiplies itself; there isn’t just one desire. Haven’t you noticed this?

Q: Yes, I have noticed that in disciplining a particular desire, other desires spring up around it. You
have to go after them one by one.

K: Will (-power ?) is ( a sublimated form of ?) desire, and it can tyrannically dominate all other desires; but what is thus conquered has to be conquered again and again. Will can become a ( reliable self-controlling ?) habit; but a mind that functions in the groove of habit is mechanical, ( as good as?) 'dead'.

Q: I’m not sure I understand all the fine (holistic) points of what you are explaining, but I am aware of the entanglements and contradictions of desire. If there were only one contradiction in me, I could put up with its strife, but there are several of them. How am I to be at peace (with myself?) ?

K: To understand is one thing, and to desire to be at peace is another. With understanding there does
come (at least some inner ? ) peace, but the mere desire to be inwardly at peace strengthens ( the self-centred ) desire, which is the source of all conflict. A strong, dominant desire never brings ( an authentic) peace but only builds an imprisoning wall around

Q: Then how is one to get out of this net of self-contradictory desires?

K: Is the ‘how’ an inquiry, or the demand for a (fail-safe ?) method by which to put an end to contradiction?

Q: You seem to be against any ( self-imposed ) discipline ?

K: I am only pointing out that a disciplined moulded
mind is not a free mind. With the ( non-dualistic?) understanding of desire, ( thought's self-imposed) discipline loses its significance. The
understanding of ( the pdychological mechanism of) desire is of far greater ( experiential) significance than ( the self-imposed?) discipline, which is mere conformity to a pattern.

Q: If there’s to be no (inner) discipline, then how is the mind to be free from desire, which brings all these

K: Desire does not (just) bring contradictions. Desire 'is' contradiction. That is why it’s important to (holistically?) understand desire.

Q: What do you mean by understanding ( desire (holistically?) ?

K: To be ( choicelessly?) aware of (the total movement of ) desire, without naming it, without rejecting or accepting it. It is to be simply aware
of desire (in real time) as you would be of a ( restless ?) child. If you would (really want to?) understand ( such ) a child you must ( pay full attention to) observe it (hint : such objective )observation is not possible if there’s any ( personal) sense of condemnation, justification or comparison. Similarly, to understand ( & transcend?) desire, there must be this 'simple' (& transpersonal?) awareness of it.

Q: Will there then be the cessation of any self- contradiction?

K: Is it possible to guarantee anything in these (psychological?) matters? And this very 'urge to be sure' - is it not another form of desire?
Have you ever known a moment when there has been no inner self-contradiction?

Q: Perhaps in sleep, but not otherwise.

K: Sleep is not necessarily ( bringing) a state of freedom from self-contradiction - but that’s another (academical?) matter.
Why have you never known such a moment? Haven’t you experienced ( an inner state of) total action – a (holistically integrated ? ) action involving ( a spontaneous harmonisation of?) your mind and your heart well as your body, the totality of your whole being?

Q: Unfortunately, I have never known such a pure moment. This state of complete self-forgetfulness must be a great ( heavenly?) bliss, but it has never happened to me, and ( quite honestly?) I think that very few are ever blessed in that manner.

Q: Sir, when (one's ) self (-consciousness?) is absent, do we not know ( a state of transpersonal ?) Love without the ( interference of the ?) interpreting mind?

K: Sometimes, when I am sitting at my desk in the office, a strange feeling of ‘otherness’ does come
over me - but it’s such a rare thing. I can only wish that it would last and not fade away.

K: How ( subtly?) acquisitive we are! We want to hold 'that' which cannot be held; we want to remember 'that' (inward clarity of Love?) which is not the ( 'ordinary ) stuff' of memory.

( To recap :) All this wanting, pursuing or reaching, which is the ( time-binding activity of the ) desire to 'be', or to 'become' (something other than one is?) , makes for ( a state of inner) contradiction, the building up of (one's temporal) 'self' (-consciousness ?) . This self (-centred mental entity) can never know Love; it can only know ( the time-binding tribulations of ?) desire, with its (collateral?) contradictions and miseries.

( Parting words:) Love ( the inward sense of All-Oneness ?) is not a thing to be pursued, to be gained; it is not to be bought through the practice of ( any selfless ? ) virtue. All such pursuits are the ways of the ( temporal?) 'self', of desire; and with desire there is always the ( collateral ?) pain of (inner conflict & ? ) contradiction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 06 Jun 2019 #187
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue from Commentaries on Living cca 1955)

(K's Meditative opening) "You sat there completely motionless, your mind going with that stillness, expanding immeasurably without a ( self-conscious ?) 'centre', without a point of recognition or reference. Seated at the edge of that meadow, your body was unmoving, but very much alive. The mind was much more so; in a state of complete silence, it was nevertheless aware of the lightning and the shouting children, of the little noises among the grass and the sounding of a distant horn. It was silent in the depths where thought could not reach it, and that 'Silence' was a penetrating bliss which went on and on; it was not a movement in terms of time and distance, but it was without an ending. It was strangely massive, yet it could be blown away by a breath".

Q: I wonder why I dream so much? I have some kind of dream practically every night. Sometimes my dreams are pleasant, but more often they are unpleasant, even frightening, and when I wake up in the morning I feel exhausted. A friend took me to hear one of your evening talks, and with him I also attended a morning discussion. But what I am concerned with now is this nightly dreaming. My dreams are very disturbing and I want to get rid of them; I want to have peaceful nights.

K; What do you mean by 'dreams'?

Q: When asleep, I have visions of various kinds; a series of pictures or apparitions arise in my mind. One night I may be about to fall over the edge of a precipice, and I wake up with a start; another night I may find myself in a pleasant valley, surrounded by high mountains and with a stream running through it; another night I may be having a terrific argument with my friends, or I may suddenly see the dead body of my wife, and so on.

K: When you are dreaming, does it ever happen that there is an interpretation of it going on almost at the same time?

Q: No, I have never had such an experience; I just dream, and afterwards groan about it. I have talked the problem over with some of my friends, but they are not of much help, and I feel rather wary of going to an analyst. Can you tell me why I dream, and what my dreams mean?

K: If you really want to understand (experientially) this complex problem of dreaming you must discover for yourself the truth or the falseness of the whole process which we call 'dreaming'. This discovery is far more important than to have your dreams interpreted (by a specialist) , is it not?

Q: Of course. If I could perceive for myself the full significance of dreaming, it would relieve me of this nightly anxiety and unrest. But I have never really thought about these matters, and you will have to be patient with me.

K: There’s no impatience on either side. We are both taking the journey of exploration, which means that we must both be alert, and not held back by any prejudice or fear which we may uncover as we go along.

( To start with:) ( The psychologically active content of your) 'consciousness' is the totality of what you 'think and feel', your purposes and motives, whether hidden or open; your secret desires; the obscure urges and compulsions in the depth of your 'heart', your 'character' & your ( karmic?) tendencies, your temperament, your fulfilments and frustrations, your hopes and fears. Regardless of whether you believe or disbelieve in God, in the soul, or in some super-spiritual entity, the whole process of your thinking is ( the constantly displayed in your everyday ?) consciousness, is it not?

Q: I can see that my consciousness is made up of all these (interacting) elements.

K; Consciousness is the whole field of thought, desire, affection and still more: it’s the battleground of contradictory desires, the field of strife, struggle, pain, sorrow, It is also (including man's ) the revolt against (the limitations of ) this field, which is the inward search for Peace & Goodness, & for an abiding affection. Self-consciousness arises when there is an awareness of this conflict and of its sorrow, and the desire to be rid of them; also when there is awareness of joy, and the desire for more of it. ( In a nutshell:) The totality of our consciousness is a vast process of 'time' - the ( constantly updated?) memory of the past, using the present as a passage to the future.

Q: Can one ever be fully aware of this whole totality of consciousness?

K: Most of us are aware of only a small corner of it, and our lives are spent in that small corner, making a lot of ( collateral) noise in pushing and destroying each other, with a little friendliness and affection thrown in. But of the major part of it we are unaware, and so there’s the 'conscious' and the 'unconscious'. There’s no actual division between the two, but we give more attention to the one than to the other.

Q: That much is clear - too clear, in fact. The (waking) 'conscious' mind is occupied with a thousand and one things, almost all of them rooted in self-interest.

K: But there’s the rest of it, ( subliminally?) hidden, but much more dynamic than the 'conscious' mind. This hidden ( survivalistic ?) part of the mind is constantly urging, influencing, controlling, but it often fails to communicate its purpose during the waking hours, because the upper layers of the mind are occupied; so it gives hints and intimations during so-called 'sleep'. The superficial mind may revolt against this unseen influence, but it is quietly brought into line again, for the totality of ( man's temporal) consciousness is concerned with being secure, permanent; and any (acceptable) change is always (sought) in the direction of seekingb greater permanency of itself.

Q: But isn’t that natural?

K: We are ( traditionally) educated to think that it’s 'natural'; but is it? Surely, only a (transpersonal ?) mind that’s not clinging to (its temporal) security is free to discover 'that' which is wholly untouched by the past. But the ('time-) conscious' mind starts with this urge to be secure, to be safe, to make itself permanent; while the hidden or neglected part of the mind, the 'unconscious', is also watchful of its own interests. The 'conscious' mind may be forced by circumstances to re-form or change itself at least outwardly. But the unconscious part of the mind , is conservative, cautious, aware of the deeper issues and of their more profound outcome; so there’s a (latent?) conflict between the two parts of the mind. This conflict does produce some kind of change, a modified continuity, with which most of us are concerned; but the real revolution is outside this dualistic field of consciousness.

Q: And where do 'dreams' come into all this ?

K: The ( self-identified ) 'conscious' mind, being occupied during its waking hours with ( thousands of) daily events and pressures, has no ( free ) time or opportunity to listen to the deeper parts of itself; therefore, when the conscious mind ‘goes to sleep’, that is, when it’s becoming fairly quiet, the 'unconscious' can communicate with it and this communication takes the form of symbols, visions, scenes. On waking you say, ”I have had a dream”, and you try to search out its meaning; but any interpretation of it will be (mechanistic ?) biased, conditioned.

Q: In that case, how am I to interpret them for myself?

K: (Such ?) irrelevant questions can only produce unimportant answers. The ( experientially significant ?) question is not how to interpret (one's) dreams, but are dreams necessary at all (for a harmoniously integrated mind?) ?

Q: Then how can I put a stop to these ( annoying) dreams of mine?

K: Dreams are a (symbolic mental ?) 'device' by which one part of the mind communicates with the other. But cannot this (interactive) communication go on all the time, during the waking period as well? For instance, isn’t it possible to become aware (in real time) of your own responses when you are getting into the bus, when you are with your family ? Just to be aware of all this (non-personally) - to be aware of the trees and the birds, of the clouds and the children, of your own habits, responses and traditions - is to observe it without judging or comparing; and if you can be so aware, constantly watching, listening, you will find that you do not (really need to) dream (nightmares ?) at all. When your whole mind (& heart?) is intensely active; everything has a meaning, a significance. To such an (inwardly awakened?) mind, dreams are ( psychologically-wise?) unnecessary. You will then discover that in (the state of dreamless?) sleep there’s not only complete rest and renewal, but a (higher) state (of consciousness?) which the ( time-bound ) mind can never touch. It’s not something ( like a memorable inner experience ?) to be remembered later and returned to; but a total inner renewal which cannot be formulated (verbally) .

Q: Can I be so (holistically) 'aware' during the whole day? ( he asked earnestly). But I can see the necessity of it. Sir, I have learnt a great deal, and I hope I may come again.

This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 06 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 08 Jun 2019 #188
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue from Commentaries on Living, cca 1956)

(He had been going regularly for several years to a certain (spiritual) teacher in the north of India to listen to his explanatory discourses on the Scriptures, and was now on his way to join his family in the south).

Q : A friend told me that you were giving a series of talks here, and I stayed over to attend them. I have been listening with close attention to all that you have been saying, and I am aware of what
you think of (the spiritual) guides and authority. I do not entirely agree with you, for we human beings need help from all those who can offer it, and the fact that one eagerly accepts such help does not make one a (blind) follower.

K: Surely, the desire for ( spiritual) guidance makes for conformity, and a mind that conforms is incapable of finding (for itself ) the 'true'.

Q: But I do I follow blindly; on the contrary, I use my own mind, I question all that’s said by this teacher I go to.

K: To look for ( getting spiritual) 'light' from another, without ( doing one's homework of ?) self-knowledge, is to follow blindly.

Q: I do not think I am capable of penetrating the deeper layers of my consciousness , and so I seek help. My coming to you for help does not make me a ( K) 'follower'.

K: If it may be pointed out, sir, the setting up of (a spiritual) authority is a complex affair. Following ( the spiritual light of) another is merely
an effect of a deeper cause, and without understanding that cause, whether one outwardly follows or not has very little meaning. The desire to reach the 'other shore' is the beginning of
our human search. We crave success, permanency, comfort, love, an enduring state of peace, and unless the mind is free of this ( self-centred?) desire, there must be 'following' in direct or devious ways. Following is merely a ( herd inherited ?) symptom of a deep longing for security.

Q: I do indeed want to 'reach the other shore'( of Non-duality ?) , as you put it, and I will take any (available?) 'boat' that will carry me across the River (of Time ?) . To me the boat is not important, but (reaching) the 'other shore' is.

K: ( For starters?) it is not the 'other shore' that is important, but the River and this bank you are on. The river is the everyday human living with its extraordinary beauty, joy and delight (and/or?) its ugliness, pain and sorrow. Our life (on Earth?) is a vast complex of all these things, it is not just a 'passage' to be 'got through' somehow, and you can't understand it, ( if you ) have your (mind's) eyes ( focussed ) on the other shore. You 'are' (inwardly part of ) this life of envy, violence, passing love, ambition, frustration, fear; and you are also the longing to escape from it all to what you call the 'other shore' - the 'permanent soul' , the Atman, God, and so on. Without understanding this life, without being free of envy, with its pleasures and pains, ( reaching) the 'other shore' is (remaining) only a myth, an illusion, an ideal invented by a (time-bound ?) mind in its search for security. A right foundation must be laid, otherwise the 'house', however noble, will not stand.

Q: I am already (afraid of it?) , and you only add to my ( existential) fear, you do not take it away. My friend told me that you are not easy to understand, and I can see why you are not. But I think I’m in earnest, and I do want something more than mere illusion. I quite agree that one must lay the right foundation ( of one's spiritual life) ; but to perceive for oneself 'what is true' and 'what is false' is another matter.

K: Not at all, sir. The ( dualistic ) conflict of envy, with its pleasure and pain, inevitably breeds confusion, both outwardly and within. It is only when there is freedom from this (psychological) confusion that the mind can discover what is true. All the (self-centred) activities of a confused mind only lead to further confusion.

Q: Then, how am I to be free from confusion?

K: This confusion cannot be cleared up bit by bit, while the rest of the mind remains confused, for that part which is cleared up soon becomes confused again. The question of 'how' to clear up this confusion arises only when your mind is still concerned with the
(subliminal desire to reach?) other shore. You do not see the full significance ( the danger of inwardly indulging in) 'greed', or 'violence', or whatever it is; you only want to 'get rid of it' in order to arrive at something else. If you were wholly concerned with ( understanding the whole truth about your) envy,
and its resultant misery, you would never ask ( from someone else) 'how' to get rid of it. The ( holistic?) understanding of envy is a
total action, whereas the (psychological 'know-) how’ implies a gradual achievement of freedom, which is only the (time-delaying?) action of ( the inner state of ) confusion.

Q: What do you mean by 'total action'?

K: To understand 'total action', we must (take some quality time to ?) explore the (subliminal) division between the 'thinker' and his 'thought'.

Q: Is there not a 'watcher' (a transpersonal 'witness'?) who is above both the 'thinker' and his 'thought'? I feel there is. For one blissful moment, I have experienced that state.

K: Such (personal?) 'experiences' are ( more often than not ?) the result of a (time-bound) mind that has been shaped by tradition, by a thousand cultural influences. The religious visions of a 'Christian' will be quite different from those of a 'Hindu' , since all are essentially based on the mind’s cultural conditioning. The (experiential) 'criterion of truth ' is not ( one's personal) experience, but that ( non-dualistic state in which neither the 'experiencer' nor the 'experience' any longer exists.

Q: You mean the state of samadhi?

K: In using that word, you are merely quoting the description of another’s experience.

Q: But is there not a 'watcher' beyond and above the thinker and his thought? I most definitely feel that
there is.

K: To start with a ( personal) conclusion puts a stop to all creative thinking, doesn’t it?

Q: But this is not a ( personal) conclusion, sir. I 'know' , I have felt the truth of it.

K: He who says he knows does not 'know'. What you know or feel to be true is ( a recognition based on ?) what you have been taught.
Both the 'believer' and the 'non-believer' start
with a conclusion, and with (personal) experiences based on their (cultural) conditioning, don’t they?

Q: When you put it that way, it does seem to put me in the wrong, but I am still not convinced.

K: I am not trying to 'put you in the wrong', or to convince you of anything; I am only pointing out certain things for you to examine (for homework ?) .

Q: After considerable reading and study, I imagined I had thought out pretty thoroughly this question of
the 'watcher' and the 'watched'. As the eye sees the flower, and as the mind watches through the eye, so, behind the mind, there must be an ( intelligent spiritual) entity who is aware of the whole process, that is of the mind, the eye, and the flower.

K: Let us inquire into it without assertiveness, without haste or dogmatism. How does (the process of) thinking arise? There is (a visual) perception, (a direct mental?) contact, (or a) sensation, and then thought, based on the ( 'search & fetch' action of ?) memory , says, ”That is a rose.” And it is the same thinking process that brings the 'thinker' ( pro-active mental interface ) into being. Thought comes first, and later the ('thoughtful ?) thinker'; it is not the other way round. If we do not see this to be an ( actual 'psychological' ) fact, we shall be led into all kinds of confusion.

Q: But there is a division, a (time-) gap between the thinker and his ( more knowledgeable) thoughts - does this not indicate that the thinker came into being first?

K: Let’s see. Perceiving itself to be impermanent, insecure, and desiring permanency, security,
thought (or...the thinking brain ?) brings into being the 'thinker', and then pushes the 'thinker' on to higher and higher levels of permanency. So there is seemingly an unbridgeable gap between the thinker and his thought, between the watcher and the watched; but this whole process is still within the area of thought (of the thoughtful brain?) , is it not?

Q: Do you mean to say, sir, that the watcher ( the transpersonal witness?) has no reality, that he is as impermanent as thought? I can hardly believe this.

K: You may call him the 'Soul', the 'Atman', or by whatever name, but this ( self-identified?) 'watcher' (mental entity) is still the product of 'thought' (of the 'thinking brain'?) . As long as the 'watcher' (aka the 'thinker' ) is controlling, shaping thought, he is still within the field of thought, within the process of ( psychological) time.

Q: How my (thoughtful?) mind objects to this! Yet, in spite of myself, I am beginning to see it to be a fact; and if it is a fact then there’s only a process of thinking, and no 'thinker'.

K: That is so, isn’t it? Thought has bred the 'thinker' (personalised mental interface ?) , the censor
who is everlastingly judging, condemning, comparing. It is this ( self-identified mental ) 'watcher' who is ever in conflict with his thoughts, ever making an effort to guide them.

Q: Please go a little slower; I really want to feel my way through this. You are indicating - aren’t you? -
that every form of (psychologically motivated ) effort, noble or ignoble, is the result of this artificial, illusory division between the thinker and his thoughts. But isn’t ( an intelligent ) effort necessary to all change?

K: We shall go into that presently. Between the 'watcher' and the 'watched' there is the ( subliminal) conflict of effort made by the one to overcome or at least to change the other. This ( mental) effort is vain, it can never produce a fundamental change in thought ( in brain's way of thinking?), because the 'thinker' is ( an intrinsical )
part of that which he wishes to change. One ( higher end) part of the mind cannot possibly transform another (lower end?) part ( even if) one (superior ) desire may, and often does (temporarily?) , overcome another desire. But the ( self-centred) desire that is dominant breeds still another (compensatory?) desire, which in its turn becomes the loser or the
gainer, and so the conflict of duality (self-focussed 'desirer' vs his random 'desires') is set going. There’s no end to this process.

Q: It seems to me you are saying that only through the elimination of (this subliminal inner ) conflict is there a possibility of a fundamental change. Would you kindly go into it a little further?

K: The 'thinker' and his 'thought(s) ' are a unitary process, neither has an independent continuance; the
watcher and the watched are inseparable. All the qualities of the watcher are contained in his
thinking; if there’s no thinking, there’s no watcher, no thinker. This is a fact, is it not?

Q: Yes, so far I have understood.

K: If your 'understanding' is merely intellectual, it is of little ( experiential ) significance. There must be an actual experiencing of the thinker and his thought as one, an integration of the two. Then there’s only the
process of ( a holistically integrated) thinking.

Q: What do you mean by that?

K: The ( self--centred) direction in which ( man's ) thinking has been (traditionally) set going must wholly cease, for it breeds confusion and misery. There’s no better or nobler way of thinking. All (self-centred) thinking is conditioned.

Q: You seem to imply that only when ( the continuance of one's self-centred) thinking ceases is there a radical ( qualitative) change (in the human consciousness?)

K: ( To recap: ) The (self-centred ) mind, being the storehouse of ( all our personal & collective) memories, and from which thought arises, is in itself conditioned; therefore and any movement (purposeful activity) of this mind, in any direction, produces only its own limited results. (But in the psychological area ?) every effort of the mind to free itself ( of its own past ?) is the continuance of thought; it may be at a higher level, but it is still within its own field (of the known) , the ( self-centred) circle of thought & time.

Q: Yes, sir, I am beginning to understand. Do please proceed.

K: When the ( holistically friendly) mind is ( becoming) totally aware of this fact, as it is totally aware of a 'poisonous snake', then you will see that the ( self-projected ) movement of thought comes to an end. Then only is there a total (inner) revolution, not the continuance of the old in a different form. ( Unfortunately?) this 'new' state ( of consciousness?) is not to be described; he who describes it (verbally) is not (anymore ?) aware of it.

Q: I really feel that I have understood not just your ( convincing ?) words, but the total implication of what you have been saying. Whether I have (really?) understood or not will show (or not?) in my daily life.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 09 Jun 2019 #189
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( an 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialoue from Commentaries on Living, cca 1955)

Q: I am only concerned with myself, in the sense that I alone can break through the barrier of centuries (of cultural conditioning ) and set my mind free. It is most definitely influenced by the culture or society in which one has been brought up; but whether this conditioning is total, or only segmentary, I am not at all sure.

K: Do you want to find out?

Q: Of course I do, that’s why I am here.

K: So, we are attempting together to find out is whether only a part of it, or the whole of our consciousness, is thus influenced, conditioned ?

Q: Yes, that is the question.

K: What (are the active factors in our everyday ?) consciousness? a) The ( personal & collective) motivations and actions ( dictated by self-interest?) ; b) the desire for (self-) fulfilment and (its collateral) frustrations; c) ( the ancestral) fears and envy ( greed?) ; d) ( the subliminal pressure of our cultural) traditions, e) the 'individual' experiences based upon the collective ( memory of the ) past; and (not in the least) f) thought's self-projected continuity in ) time as 'past', 'present' and 'future' - all this (very dynamic psychological content ?) is the essence of ( man's temporal) consciousness,  the very centre of it, is it not?

Q: Yes, I quite perceive the vast (interactive) complexity of it. I can feel many of these particular aspects in my own consciousness, but it helps to have a (more holistic) description of it.

K: To feel out for oneself the nature of (one's own) consciousness is an entirely different experience from (intellectually) recognizing its nature through a description.

Q: Of course it is. One is the influence of words, and the other is the direct experiencing (in real time) of what’s taking place within your own consciousness.

K: The state of directly experiencing 'is' ( one of holistic ? ) attention without ( 'personal' ) motive. When there is the desire to achieve a (certain psychological) result, there is a ( dualistic) experiencing (from a background of personal) motivation, which only leads to a further (slightly modified) conditioning of the mind.

To learn (inwardly free of the 'known'?) , and to learn with a ( hidden or open ) motive (of self-interest?) , are contradictory processes, are they not? When
there’s a ( self-centred) motive to learn there is accumulation of knowledge, or the acquisition of technique, ( but this ) is not (applicable to ) the (inward) movement of learning. ( The holistic quality of inward) learning ceases when there is a (mechanistic) accumulation of ( observed facts & ) knowledge in order to achieve ( a 'higher' level of consciousness?). Feeling out the (true) nature of (one's own ) consciousness, learning about it, is without ( any selfish?) motive; there is no (experienced 'experiencer' who is ?) experiencing it , or ( who is ) being taught 'to be, or... not to be' something. To have a (hidden) motive, or a (conscious) cause (for one's inward enquiry) brings about ( a redundant ) pressure & compulsion.

Q: Are you implying, sir, that the true (inner ) freedom is without a cause?

K: Of course. ( This inner) freedom is not a reaction to ( the ongoing temporal ) bondage; but when it is, then that ( newly acquired ? ) 'freedom' (soon) becomes another (mentally upgraded ?) bondage. That’s why it’s (experientially) very important to find out if one has an (open or hidden personal) motive to be free. If one has, then the result is not freedom, but merely the opposite of 'what is' ( of 'what was'?) .

Q: So, to feel out ( holistically) the nature of one's consciousness, is already (triggering?) an (inward) freeing of the mind from all (outer) influence. Is that it?

K: Isn’t that so? Haven’t you found that ( starting the inward quest with a personal) motive invites (the acceptance of) influence, coercion & conformity?
( In a nutshell:) for the ( self-enquiring) mind to be free from ( all 'psychological' influences & ) pressures, pleasant or unpleasant, all motivation , however subtle or noble, must (effortlessly ) wither away.

Q: I see, ( man's temporal) consciousness is a whole complex of interrelated motives. To
understand this (very dynamic) complex, one must feel it out, learn about it, without any further motive; for all motives inevitably bring about some kind of influence, pressure. ( Not to mention that ) where there’s a (hidden psychological) motive there’s no freedom. I am beginning to understand this very clearly. But it seems to me that the motive is inseparable from action.

K: What do you mean by 'action'?

Q: The village needs cleaning up, the children must be educated, the social reforms must be carried out, and so on. All this is ( happening in the area of our spatio-temporal) action, and behind it there’s definitely some kind of motive. So, if the action with a motive is ( holistically-wise?) wrong, then what is the 'right' action?

K: We are not condemning or defending any way of life, any leader or teacher; we are trying to
understand what the 'right' action is. All kind of individuals and organizations, with their proposals and counter-proposals, are trying to influence man's thought in this or that direction, and what
is called 'right' action by some group , is considered by others to be 'wrong' action. So, trying to 'bring together' all these conflicting notions does not make for right action, does it?

Q: Of course not.

K: Seeing the mess the world is in, the 'individual' (consciousness ) reacts to it in different ways- either by saying that he must understand himself first, that he must cleanse his inward being, and so on; or else he becomes a 'reformer politician' seeking to influence the ( gullible?) minds of others to conform to a particular pattern. But the 'individual' (consciousness) who thus reacts to the (ongoing) social confusion and disorder is still part of it, and its
action, being really a 're-action', can only bring about confusion in another form. So, none of this is ( a 'holistically) right' action. Right action, surely, is not fragmentary or contradictory; and it is total action
alone that can respond adequately to all political and social demands.

Q: And...what exactly is this 'total action'?

K: Don't you have to 'find it out' for yourself? If you are told (by someone else) what it is, and 'you' will agree or disagree, it will only lead to another fragmentary action, won’t it?
( In a nutshell:) The reformatory activity within society, and/or the activity of the 'individual' (consciousness) as opposed to, or apart from, society, is ( obviously an) incomplete action. The total ( holistically friendly?) action lies beyond these two, and that 'total' action is ( spontaneously generated by the Compassionate Intelligence of ?) Love.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 09 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 #190
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( a "reader-friendly" edited K dialogue from the early 50's )

Q: The other day I was present at your public talk, in which you were saying that Truth cannot be organized, and that no organization can lead one to Truth. You were very definite about it, but to me your
explanation was not altogether satisfactory, and I want to talk it over with you. I know that you were once the head of a large organization, the Order of the Star, which you dissolved, and if I may ask, was it motivated by a principle?

K: If you renounce (to all TS priviledges) because of a principle, an 'ideal', or a (personal) conclusion, is it renunciation? If you give up one thing for the sake of obtaining something greater, or for some person, is that giving up?

Q: Reason doesn’t play a part in giving up anything; is that what you mean?

K: Reason can make one behave (opportunistically ?) in this or in that manner ; and what reason has put together, reason
can undo. If reason is the ( only?) criterion of action, then the ( totality of the?) mind can never be free to act. Reason is a ( cultivated?) process of thinking, and one's thinking is ever influenced by personal fancy, by desire, or a conclusion, whether imposed or self-induced.

Q: If it wasn’t a personal desire that made you do it, then was it something outside of yourself, a 'divine' agency?

K: No. But perhaps (the truth of this matter?) will be clear if we can approach it differently. What is your (personal) problem?

Q: The (same ?) organization to which I belong maintain that man can be led to Truth through certain principles of action, through right personal endeavour giving oneself to good works, and so on. My problem is, am I on the right path?

K: Do you think there’s a 'path' to (find the?) Truth?

Q: If I didn’t think there were, I wouldn’t belong to this (spiritual) organization. According to our 'leaders', this organization is based on Truth; it’s dedicated to the well-being of all, and it will help both the illiterate villager as well as people who are highly educated and who hold responsible positions. However, when I heard you the other day, I was disturbed, and so took the first opportunity to come to see you. I hope you understand my (metaphysical) difficulty.

K: Let’s go into the ( very subtle?) matter slowly, step by step. First, is there a 'path' to (the living spirit of?) Truth? As a living entity, you are changing, pushing, questioning yourself, hoping to find a permanent, immutable Truth. Isn’t that so?

Q: Yes. I want to find Truth, or God, in order to do good.

K: Surely, there’s nothing permanent about you except what you think is permanent; but even your thinking is also transient, is it not? And has Truth a fixed place, is it without any movement?

Q: I don’t know. One sees so much poverty, so much misery and confusion in the world, and in one’s desire to do good, one accepts a philosophy that offers some hope. Otherwise life would be terrible.

K: All decent people want to do good, but most of us don’t think the problem through. We say that we cannot 'think it through' for ourselves, or that the leaders know better. But do they? Look at the various political leaders, the so-called religious leaders and the leaders of social and economic reform. They all have their (fail-safe?) 'schemes', each saying that his scheme is the way to salvation, to the eradication of poverty, and so on; and individuals like you, who want to act in the face of all this misery and chaos, get caught in the net of propaganda and dogmatic assertions. Haven’t you noticed that this very action breeds further misery and chaos?
Truth has no fixed abode; it’s a 'living thing', more alive, more dynamic than anything the (human) mind can think of, so there can be no 'path' (leading) to it.

Q: I can see that, sir. But are you against all such organizations? I am talking about churches, spiritual groups, religious societies, and so on. The (TS?) organization to which I belong embraces all religions, and anyone who is concerned with the physical and spiritual improvement of man may be a member. Of course, such organizations always have their leaders who say they know the truth, or who lead saintly lives.

K: Can (the living spirit of) Truth be organized, with a president and a ( personal ?) secretary, or with high priests and (highly knowledgeable ) interpreters?

Q: If I understand you correctly, it looks as though it can’t be. Then why do these 'saintly' leaders say that their organizations are necessary?

K: It doesn’t matter what these 'leaders' say, for they are as blind (inwardly) as their 'followers', otherwise they wouldn’t be ( chosen as) 'leaders'. But what do you think, apart from your leaders? Are such organizations necessary?

Q: They may not be strictly necessary (for finding the ultimate Truth?) , but one does find comfort in belonging to such an organization, and in working with others of the same mind.

K: That’s right. And there is also a (subliminal ?) sense of security in being told what to do, is there not? To have someone to guide you, is very comforting inwardly , especially when on all sides there is so much chaos and misery.
But ( conscience-wise?) it is 'you' (along with billions of other self-centred 'you's ) , the ( psychologically standardised ? ) human being who have made all this mess in the world .

Q : I do see the truth of this, as you explained it. But then what is the important (action) in the midst of all this confusion?

K; The important thing ( inwardly-wise?) is to free your mind of ( its karmic residues of ?) envy, hate and violence; and for this you don’t need an 'organization', do you? The so-called 'religious organizations' never liberate the mind, they only make it conform to a certain creed or belief.

Q: I can see this need to change (inwardly) ; there must be love in me, I must cease to be (inwardly greedy or?) envious, and then I shall (probably ?) always act rightly. I won’t have to be told what 'right action' is. I see now that this (inward clarity?) is the only thing that matters, not what 'organization' I belong to.

K: One may follow what is generally considered to be the ( politically correct?) ''right action'' but that does not (necessarily ?) bring about ( the compassion & intelligence of) Love, does it ?

Q: Quite obviously it does not, since one is merely pursuing a pattern ( of behaviour) created by the (time bound) mind. I see this very clearly, sir, and I now understand why you dissolved the ('inner') organization of which you were the head. One has to be a light unto oneself; following the 'light' of another only leads one into darkness.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 11 Jun 2019 #191
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1955)

Q: I have a guru of my own and I go to him as regularly as possible, but I am not one of those blind followers. As I travel a good bit, I have met many teachers, from the far north to the southernmost tip of the country. Some are obviously fakes, with a smattering of book knowledge cleverly disguised as their own experience. There are others who have done years of (silent) meditation, who practise various forms of yoga, and so on. A few of these are very advanced, but the majority of them are as superficial as any other 'specialists'. They know very well their limited subject, and are (thriving & totally ) satisfied with it. There are ashramas whose spiritual teachers are efficient & capable, yet... full of their own sublimated ego. I have attended some of your talks, when time has allowed; and while I have to write for a living, and can’t give all my time to the religious life, I am entirely serious about it.

K; If one may ask, what significance do you give to the word ‘serious’?

Q: I do not trifle with religious matters, and I really want to lead a religious life. I set apart a certain hour of the day to meditate, and I give as much time as I can to deepening my inner life. I am very serious about it.

K: Most people are 'serious' about their problems, about the fulfilment of their desires, about their position in society, about their looks, their amusements, their money, and so on.

Q: Why do you compare me with others? I am very earnest in my endeavour to lead a religious life.

K: Does the desire for (achieving) something make for seriousness? If it does, then practically everyone is 'serious', from the cunning politician to the most exalted saint. The object of desire may be worldly or otherwise; but everyone is serious who is after something, isn’t he?

Q: Surely there is a difference between the seriousness of the politician or the moneymaker, and that of a religious man. The seriousness of a religiously (minded) man has a quality which is wholly different.

K: Has it? What do you mean by a 'religiously(-minded) man?

Q: The man who is seeking God. The hermit or sannyasi who has renounced the world in order to find God, I would call truly serious. The seriousness of the others, including the artist and the reformer, is in a different category altogether.

K: Is the man who is seeking God really 'religious'? How can he 'seek' God if he does not know Him? And if he knows the God he seeks, what he 'knows' is only what he has read; or else it is based on his personal ( transcendental) experience, which (may be subliminally shaped ) by his own desire to find security in another world.

Q: Aren’t you being a little too 'logical'?

K: Surely one must understand the myth-making mechanism of the (self-centred) mind before there can be the experiencing of 'that' which is beyond the measure of the (temporal) mind. There must be freedom from the 'known' for the Unknown to be. The Unknown is not to be sought after. Is he serious who pursues a projection of his own mind, even when that projection is called 'God'?

Q: If you put it that way, none of us are serious.

K: We are serious in pursuing what is pleasant & (self-gratifying)

Q: Speaking for myself, I do not think that I am seeking God for my own gratification. Besides, to seek God is not a matter of gratification.

K: One may see the foolishness of pursuing worldly things, or be frustrated in the effort to achieve them, or be put off by the pain and strife which such (material) achievement involves; and so one’s mind turns to 'other-worldliness', to the pursuit of a bliss which is called 'God'. In the very process of self-denial ther is a ( subliminal?) seeking for self- permanency, aren’t you?

Q: We all are; that’s the nature of man.

K: So you are not (really) seeking God, or the Unknown, 'That' which is above and beyond the transient, beyond strife and sorrow. What you are really seeking is a permanent state of undisturbed satisfaction.

Q: To put it so baldly sounds terrible.

K: But that is the actual fact, is it not? It is in the hope of attaining total gratification that we go from one teacher to another, from one religion to another, from one system to another. About that we are very serious.

Q: Conceded....

K: Sir, this is not a matter of verbal agreement. It is a fact that we are all serious in our search for contentment, deep satisfaction, however much the manner of achieving it may vary. One pursuit may not be as socially harmful as the other, but both of us are seeking gratification, the continuation of that 'centre'( of self-interest?) which is ever wanting to succeed, to 'be' or to 'become' something.

Q: Am I really seeking to become something?

K: Aren’t you?

Q: I don’t care about being known as a writer, but I do want the ideas or principles of which I write to be accepted by the important people.

K: And...aren’t you identifying yourself with those ideas?

Q: I suppose I am (subliminally?) . One tends, in spite of oneself, to use ideas as a means to fame.

K: That’s just it sir. If we can think simply and directly about it, the situation will be clarified : most of us are concerned, both outwardly and inwardly, with our own advancement. And to perceive the facts about oneself as they 'are' demands an unbiased perception, without the memory recognising them as 'right' and 'wrong'.

Q: You are surely not totally condemning (any personal) ambition ?

K: To examine (objectively the ) 'what is', is neither to condemn nor to justify. (The desire for?) self-fulfilment in any form is obviously the perpetuation of this centre (of self-interest?) that is ( openly or subliminally?) striving to be or become something. Your pursuit is called worldly, and mine is called spiritual; but the underlying motive is the same. (However this intimate ?) ambition to fulfil oneself , or to become something, has always within it the ( karmic?) seed of frustration, fear and sorrow. This ( central) self-centred activity is the very nature of egotism, is it not?

Q: Good heavens, you are stripping me of everything: of my vanities, my desire to be famous, even of my drive to put across some worthwhile ideas. What shall I do when all this is gone?

K: Your (iffy?) question indicates that nothing is gone, doesn’t it? No one can take away from you, inwardly, what you don’t want to give up. You will continue on your way to (reaching) fame, which (ultimately) is (becoming ) the way of sorrow, frustration, fear.

Q: What will stop me from taking that path (of self-becoming) ? Sorrow, I suppose?

K: Is sorrow the way of (self-) understanding? Or does sorrow exist because there’s no understanding? If you examined this whole (subliminal) urge to 'become' something, and to follow the path of self-fulfilment, then Intelligence (& its insightful) understanding, would come into being and destroy the very root of sorrow. But sorrow does not bring understanding.

Q: How is that, sir?

K: Sorrow is the (compounded result of the ) temporary shaking up of a mind that has accepted the routine of life. Something happens - a death, the loss of a job, the questioning of a cherished belief - and the mind is disturbed. And... what does a disturbed mind do? It finds a (new & ingenious?) way to be undisturbed again; it takes refuge in another belief, in a more secure job, or in a new relationship. Again the 'wave of life' comes along and shatters its safeguards, but the mind soon finds still further defence; and so it goes on. This is certainly not the way of intelligence, is it?

Q: Then what is 'the way of intelligence'?

K: Don’t you want to find out for yourself (as optional homework?) ? If I were to give you an answer, you would either refute or accept it, which again would impede (the awakening of your own?) intelligence & understanding.

Q: I see what you have just said about ( the deep causation of) sorrow to be perfectly true. That’s exactly what we all do. But how is one to get out of this (time-) trap?

K: To understand (non-dualistically?) the whole (subliminal) nature of this ('time-) trap' is to be free of it(of sorrow ?); no (holy?) person, no system of belief can set you free. (Seeing ) the (inward) truth of (all) this is the only liberating factor - but you have to see (the inward truth of) it for yourself,
(Parting words :) You have to take (alone ?) this (inward) voyage on an uncharted Sea.

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 11 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 12 Jun 2019 #192
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A "reader-friendly" edited K Dialogue cca 1955)

( K's Educational Intro:) You never remain with any feeling, pure and simple, but always surround it with the paraphernalia
of ( knowledgeable) words. The words distort it and thought, whirling round it overpowers (the spontaneous feeling) with its
mountainous longings and fears. You never remain with that strange feeling of beauty. Or, when a feeling of hate (personal resentment) arises, you say how bad it is; and there the (righteous mental?) struggle (aimed at) overcomng it. You would rather remain with the feeling of love; but again you cover it with words, giving it the ordinary meaning, or saying that it is universal; you explain how to feel it, how to maintain it, and why it fades away; you think of someone whom you love, or who loves you. There is every kind of verbal movement (mental activity?) .
( For meditation homework?) Try remaining with the (gut?) feeling of hate, or with the feeling of envy, jealousy, with the venom of (personal) ambition; for after all, that’s what you have (on the psychological 'menu'?) in your daily life, though you may want to live with love. As you may have a (resentful) feeling of hate, of wanting to hurt somebody with a gesture or a burning word, see if you can stay with that feeling. Can you? Have you ever tried? Try to remain ( silently ?) with (such) a ( spontaneous) feeling, and see what happens. ( For (starters ?) you may find it amazingly difficult ( and/or confusing ?) Your ( self-centred ?) mind will not leave that feeling alone; it comes rushing in with its remembrances, its associations, its do’s and don’ts, its everlasting
chatter. Pick up a piece of shell. Can you look at it, wonder at its delicate beauty, without saying how
pretty it is, or what animal made it? Can you look without the movement ( verbalising activity ?) of the mind? Can you live with the (purity of a ) feeling without the (artificial ) feeling that the word builds up? If you can, then you will (probably?) discover an (inner) movement beyond the measure of time, a spring that knows no summer.

She was a small, elderly lady, with white hair and a face that was heavily lined, but there was nothing weak or feeble about her, and her smile conveyed the depth of her feeling. For a while neither of us spoke; she was gathering herself, and was not sure how to begin. She
looked around the room, and seemed to approve of its bareness. There wasn’t even a chair, or a flower, except for the one that could be seen just outside the window.

Q: Speaking for myself, I don’t want anything from anybody; I don’t want more money, or a bigger house. I mean to live a simple life to the very end. My children laugh at my (brahminic)
orthodoxy, but I mean to continue in it. They smoke, drink and often eat meat, thinking nothing of it.
Though I love them, I will not eat with them, for they have become unclean; and why should I, in my
old age, pander to all their nonsense? They don’t perform the religious rites, or practise meditation, as their father did. But...I didn’t come here to talk about my family. My sons will go their way, and I cannot hold them, though it saddens me to see what they are coming to. They are losing and not gaining, even though they have money and position. They are all becoming merchants, selling their talents, and I can’t do anything to stem the tide.
Though as a child I used to play with my brothers and sisters, I spent a great deal of time by myself, and I always felt apart, alone. In living with my husband, that feeling was pushed into the background; there were so many things to do. I was kept very busy with housekeeping, and with the joy and the pain of bearing and raising children. Nevertheless, this feeling of being alone would still (occasionally?) creep over me, and I would want to think about it, but there wasn’t time; so it would pass off like a wave, and I would go on with what I had to do. When the children had grown up, my husband and I lived quietly until he died five years ago. Since his death, this feeling of being alone has come over me more often; it has gradually increased until now, and I am fully immersed in it. I have tried to get away from it by doing puja, by talking to some friend, but
it’s always there; and it’s an agony, a fearsome thing. I go to the temple; but this sense of being utterly alone is with me on the way, while I am there, and coming back. The other day my son brought me along to your talk. I couldn’t follow all that you were saying, but you mentioned something about 'aloneness', and the purity of it; so perhaps you will understand.

K: To find out if there is something deeper, something beyond this feeling (of one's existential loneliness) that comes upon you, and in which you are caught, you must first understand ( what is causing) this feeling, must you not? What do you mean by 'being alone'?

Q: It is difficult to put that feeling into words, but I will try. It is a fear that comes when one feels oneself to be completely alone, entirely by oneself, utterly cut off from everything. Though my husband and children were there, this wave would come upon me, and I would feel myself to be like a dead tree
in a wasted land: lonely, unloved and unloving. It was fearful and breathtaking; I didn’t belong to anyone; there was a sense of complete isolation. You understand, don’t you?

K: Most people have this (subliminal ?) feeling of loneliness, this sense of ( total inner ) isolation, with its fear, but they 'loose themselves' in some form of activity, religious or otherwise. The activity in which they indulge is their 'escape' , they can get lost in it, and that’s why they defend it so aggressively.

Q : I have tried my best to run away from this feeling of isolation, with its fear, but I haven’t been able to. Going to the temple doesn’t really help; and even if it did (momentarily?) , one can spend one’s life performing rituals.

K: Not to have found any (psychological) escape may be your ( unique opportunity for spiritual?) salvation. Those who ( are successful in?) avoid(ing their existential loneliness?) do a great deal of mischief in the world; for they give (a disproportionate) importance to things that are not of the highest (spiritual) significance. Often they ( can even) mislead others by their (dedication &) devotion to the activity which is their escape; they may seem to be selfless, but (subliminally) they are actually still concerned with themselves, only in a different way. They become followers of some teacher; they always belong to something, or practise some method, or pursue
an ideal. They are never (true to) themselves; they are not human beings, but (human) labels. So you see how fortunate you are not to have found such an 'escape'.

Q: You mean it’s (psychologically) 'dangerous' to escape?

K: A deep (karmic?) wound must be examined, treated, healed; it’s no good covering it up, or refusing to look at it.

Q: That’s true. And this feeling of isolation is such a wound?

K: Something ( about yourself) that you don’t understand, is like a (psychological) disease that will keep on recurring; so it’s meaningless to run away from it. You have tried running away, but it keeps on overtaking you, doesn’t it?

Q: It does. I think I could understand what you have explained, and I am relieved that there’s some hope.

K (...Dr K?) : Now let’s both examine the wound. (For starters?) to (objectively) examine something, you mustn’t be afraid of the thing you’re (eventually) going to see, must you? When you had babies, you looked at them (with love?) as soon as possible after they were born, didn’t you?

K: That’s exactly what I did. I looked at each new baby with love, with care, and pressed it to my heart.

K: In the same way, with (compassionate intelligence &) affection, we must examine this feeling of being cut off, this sense of isolation, of loneliness, mustn’t we?

Q: Yes, I see (my experiential) difficulty. I haven’t really looked at it before, because I was fearful of ( not knowing how to deal with ?) what I might see. But now I think I can (afford to?) look.

K: Surely, this 'ache of loneliness' is only the final exaggeration of what we all feel in a minor way every day, isn’t it? Every day you are isolating yourself, cutting yourself off, aren’t you?

Q: How is that ?

K: In so many (personalised ?) ways. You ( may like to think that you) belong to a 'special' caste; they are 'your' children, it is 'your' God, 'your' property; 'you' are more virtuous than somebody else. All this (subliminally self-centred mentality?) is a ( sure?) way of cutting yourself off, a way of isolation isn’t it?

Q: But we are brought up that way, and one has to live in this world . We can’t cut ourselves off from society, can we?

K: Is this not what you are actually doing (inwardly ) ? In this ( standardised form of) relationship called society, every human being is cutting himself off from another by his ambitions, by his desire for ( money) fame & power, and so on; but he has to live in this brutal relationship with other people like himself, so the whole thing is 'glossed over' and made respectable by pleasant-sounding words. In the everyday life, each one is devoted to his own (set of personal ) interests, though ( for reasons of political correctness?) it may be (labeled?) in the name of the country, in the name of Peace, or God, and so the (self-) isolating process goes on (& on...) . One becomes aware of this whole process in the form
of ( a sense of) intense loneliness, a feeling of complete isolation. Thought, which has been giving all importance to itself, isolating itself as the ‘me’, the ego, has finally come to the point of realizing that it’s held in a (transparent?) prison of its own making.
Now, doesn’t your ( experiential) difficulty (in dealing with this deep feeling of loneliness) lie in the fact that the word 'loneliness' makes (is creating its own ?) trouble?

Q: I don’t understand what you mean.

K: You have associated certain words with this feeling that comes over you, words like ‘loneliness’, ‘isolation’, ‘fear’, ‘being cut off’. Now, just as your son’s name doesn’t prevent you from perceiving and understanding his real qualities and make-up, so you must not let such words as ‘isolation’, ‘loneliness’, ‘fear’, ‘being cut off’, interfere with your (direct) examination of the feeling they have come to represent.

Q: I see what you mean. I have always looked at my children in that direct way.

K: And when you look at this (deep existential) feeling in the same direct way, what happens? The feeling itself isn’t frightening, but only what you think about the feeling? It is thought, that
brings fear to the feeling, isn’t it?

Q: Yes that’s right; at this moment I understand that very well. But will I be capable of understanding it when I leave here, and you are not there to explain?

K: Of course (one can?) . It is like seeing (the danger of ) a cobra. Having once seen it you don’t have
to depend on anybody to tell you what a 'cobra' is. Similarly, when (and if?) you have understood ( the inward causation of) this feeling, ( the inward clarity brought by?) that understanding is always with you. ( In an experiential nutshell ?) Once you have learned to 'look' (directly & non-verbally ?) , you have the capacity to 'see'(the inward truth of it ?) .

However, ( for further meditation homework?) one must go through and beyond this (lonely?) feeling, for there is much more to be discovered : there is a (feeling of an integrated?) all-oneness which is not this loneliness, this (depressing?) sense of (one's self-) isolation. That (holistic) state of 'all-oneness' is untouched by the (self-centred) mind, by (the standardising mentality of) society, or by ( man's cultural) tradition. It is a (heavenly?) benediction.

Q: In this one hour I have learned more than in all my seventy - five years. May 'that' benediction be with you and with me.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 13 Jun 2019 #193
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1955)

K's Intro : The visitor said he had held a government position, he was married and had a couple of children. Life was fairly enjoyable, for success was assured; he owned the house they were living in, and he had put aside money for the education of his children. He knew Sanskrit, and was familiar with the Hindu religious tradition. Things were going along pleasantly enough, he said; but one morning he awoke very early, had his bath, and sat down for meditation before his
family or the neighbours were waking up. Though he had had a restful sleep, he couldn’t meditate; and suddenly he felt an overwhelming urge to spend the rest of his life in meditation. There was no
hesitancy or 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, who were at college, 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.
This happened twenty-five years ago; ( meanwhile) he disciplined himself rigorously, but he found it difficult after a life of ease, and it took him a long time to master completely his thoughts and the passions that were ( still active ) in him. 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' and it was amazing that he had survived it all.

Q: I have now 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 in this town, where I
happened to be for a few days. More to please him than to listen to the 'speaker', I went to the talk,
and I was greatly impressed by what was said in reply to a question on Meditation. It was stated (by you) "Without self-knowledge, which in itself is part ( of an authentic) 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 say is perfectly true, and it’s a great shock to me to perceive that I have been caught in the images or projections 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 'visions' were the outcome of my particular culture and of the things I
have desired, studied and absorbed. I now understand the (illusory?) significance of what I have been doing, and I am more than appalled at having wasted so many precious years.
What am I to do now? Is there any way out of this (very comfortable inner) prison I have built for myself? I can see that what I have come to in my meditations is a dead-end, though only a few days ago it seemed so full of glorious significance. However much I would like to, I can’t go back to all that self-delusion and self-stimulation. I want to tear through these veils of illusion and come upon that which is not put together by the (man-made?) mind. From where am I to start?

K: May it not be that the perception of the false as (being) 'false' is the beginning of understanding (oneself ) ? What 'blinds' us ( inwardly) is the desire to achieve an end - result; but if we perceive (the inward truth?) that the (end-) 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 (actually) being 'false', and seeing the true as ( actually being) 'true', 'is' wisdom.

Q: But do I really see (all that was false in?) what I have regarded as meditation?

K: (For starters:) The craving for (any transcendental?) experience is the beginning of illusion. As you now realize, your (mystical) 'visions' were but the projections of your (cultural) background, of your (religious?) conditioning, and it is these projections that you have experienced. Surely this is not (the right start for?) meditation. The (right?) beginning of meditation is the understanding of one's (self-centred) background, of the ( time - bound?) 'self' (consciousness?) , and without this (basic) understanding, what is generally called 'meditation' is merely a (sophisticated?) form of self-hypnosis. Your mastering of thought, and concentration on the furthering of (mystical) experience is ( subliminally ? ) a self-centred (mental) occupation, and to see the truth (regarding) this false (approach to meditation) sets the mind free from the false. ( However, the inward ) freedom from the false does not come about through the ( 'positive'?) desire to achieve it; it comes when the mind is no longer concerned with ( its own spiritual) success. There must be the cessation of all (self-centred ?) search, and only then is there a possibility of the coming into being of that ( inner spiritual essence?) which is Nameless.

Q: I do not want to deceive myself again.

K: ( The 'psychological' danger of?) self-deception exists when there is any form of (personal?) craving or attachment . Consciously or unconsciously, the ( self-identified?) 'experiencer' is always seeking greater, deeper & wider experiences; and as long as this 'experiencer' (mental entity ?) exists, there must be (self-) delusion in one form or another.

Q: All this involves ( lots of?) time and patience, doesn’t it?

K: Time and patience may be necessary for the achievement of a (material) goal. An ambitious man, worldly (minded) or otherwise, needs (to think in terms of) time to gain his (long desired) 'end'. ( The self-centred human ) mind is the product of ( a very long evolution in?) time, and ( generally speaking?) its own thinking working to free itself from ( the psychological residues of?) time only strengthens its enslavement to time.
( Experiential Hint:) 'time' exists only when there is a 'psychological' gap between 'what is' and 'what should be', - the ideal, or the (expected) 'end' (result) . To be(come) aware of the ( inward ?) 'falseness' of this whole manner of thinking is to be free from it – which (realisation?) does not demand any ( mental) efforts, any (regular ?) practice.
(In a nutshell) ( The insightful?) understanding is immediate, it is not of time.

Q: The 'meditation' I have indulged in can have meaning only when it is seen to be false, and I think I see it to be 'false'. But...”

K: Please don’t (bother to ?) ask the inevitable question of what ( new perceptive instrument ?) will be in its place, and so on. When the (psychological attachment to the?) 'false' has dropped away, there is (the inward) freedom for 'That' which is not false (aka : the Truth?) to come into being. You cannot seek the 'true' through the 'false'; the 'false' must cease wholly, not by comparison with ( what is thought to be) the 'true'. There is no (possible) comparison between the 'false' and the True; ( eg:) (the psychologically active ?) violence and Love cannot be compared. Violence must cease ( naturally ) for Love to be and the ( 'ending' of the inner thread of ) violence is not a matter of time. ( In a holistic nutshell) the perception of the false as ( being) the 'false' is the ending of the false.

( Parting words:) Let the (meditating?) mind be empty, and not filled with the 'things' of the ( temporal ?) mind. Then there is only Meditation, and not a (subliminally ego-centric) 'meditator' who is meditating.

Q: I have lived in a very pleasant inner garden of my own creation, and became a ( voluntary?) prisoner therein. I now see the 'falseness' of all that - dimly, but I see it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 14 Jun 2019 #194
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An "experientially-friendly" edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

He was a very old man with a white beard, and his lean body was scarcely covered by the saffron robe of a sannyasi. He was gentle in manner and speech, but his eyes were full of sorrow - the
sorrow of a vain (spiritual) search.
At the age of fifteen he had left his family and renounced the world, and for many years he had wandered all over India visiting ashramas, studying & meditating .

Q: I have searched for God in every possible way from the age of fifteen, but I have not found Him, and now I am past seventy. I have come to you as I have gone to others, hoping to find God. I must
find Him before I die - unless, indeed, He is just another of the many myths of man.

K: If one may ask, sir, do you think that the Immeasurable can be found by 'searching' for it? By following different paths, through discipline and self-torture, will the "seeker" come upon the Eternal? Surely, sir, whether the Eternal exists or not is (experientially - wise ?) 'unimportant', (although?) the truth of it may be uncovered later; but what is important is to understand 'why we seek ?', and 'what it is that we are seeking' ? So, why do we seek?

Q: I seek because, without ( finding ?) God, our life (on earth) has very little meaning. I seek Him out of my (existential) sorrow and pain. I seek Him because I want (to have inner) peace. I seek Him because He is the permanent, the changeless; because there
is death, and He is deathless. He is Order, Beauty and Goodness, and for these reasons I seek Him.

K: That is, being in (an inner condition of incertitude & ) agony over the impermanent (nature of our physical existence ?) we hopefully pursue what we call the 'permanent'.
The ( hidden ?) motive of our search is to find comfort in the ideal of the permanent, but this 'ideal' is born of impermanency, it has grown out of the pain of constant change. This (self-projected) ideal is unreal, whereas (man's existential?) pain is real; but we do not seem (willing to face & ) to understand the 'fact' of(our inward) pain, and so we cling to the ideal, to the hope of painlessness. Thus there is born in us a dualistic state (between ) fact and ideal, with its endless conflict between what (one) 'is' and what (one) 'should be'.
( In a nuthshell ?) The ( subliminal ?) motive of our search for God is to escape from impermanency, from sorrow, into what the mind thinks is a state of permanency, of everlasting bliss. But this very (attempt of ?) thought is impermanent, for it is born of sorrow.
Such search, is merely ( motivated by) the urge to escape from 'what (one ?) is'.

Q: Do you mean to say that we must cease to search for God ?

K: If we (would) give our undivided attention to the understanding of 'what is' (going on within ourselves ?) , then (this 'blind'?) search (for God) as we ( generally?) know it, may not be necessary at all.
( Clue:) When the mind is free from sorrow, what need is there to search for 'happiness'?

Q: But...can the human mind ever be free from sorrow?

K: We must give our full (undivided ?) attention to the (holistic ?) understanding of sorrow and we cannot do this if we are trying to 'escape' from sorrow, or if our minds are (constantly) occupied with (intellectually ?) seeking the cause of it. There must be an ( integrated inner state of) total attention, and not an 'oblique' concern. When the (temporal) mind is no longer breeding (its self-generated ) conflicts through its (ever-changing ?) wants and cravings, when it is (remaining) silent with 'understanding', only then can the Immeasurable come into (one's) being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 14 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 15 Jun 2019 #195
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


(A reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1955)

Q: I have been involved in politics for many years, and have really worked for what I genuinely thought was the good of the country. That doesn’t mean that I didn’t seek power and position. I fought others for it, and I have achieved it. I first heard you many years ago, and though some of the things you said hit home, but your (holistic?) approach to life was for me only of momentary interest. However, through the passing years, with all their struggle and pain, something has been maturing in me, and recently I have been attending your talks and discussions whenever I could. I now fully realize that what you are saying is the only way out of our confusing difficulties. I have been all over Europe and America, and for a time looked to Russia for a solution, but now I am resigning from everything. It has all become corrupt and ineffectual, though in certain directions good progress was made. Having thought a great deal about these matters, I now want to examine the whole thing afresh, and I feel I am ready for something new and clear.

K: To examine afresh the whole issue of human existence the ( self-centred?) mind must be stripped clean of any personal motive, of any sense of frustration, of any seeking of power, whether for oneself of for one’s group, which (inwardly speaking?) is the same thing.

Q: Of course, that is the only way to examine and to understand anything, but I don’t know if I am capable of it.

K: The capacity ( for a 'holistic' understanding ? ) comes with direct and immediate application. This capacity to comprehend is not a matter of time; it is an immediate perception is it not?

Q: ( As you have often explained?) if I perceive something to be 'poisonous' (or...psychologically toxic?) I simply don’t touch it. Is that it?

K: Yes but to be really free from ( one's psychological) 'conclusions' is quite another mater. Out of (the inertia of its own thinking?) habits, the ( subliminally self-centred?) mind tends to fall back on the 'authority' of its deep rooted tradition; and being aware of this tendency is also necessary. With these (basic requirements for any insightful ?) understanding, shall we proceed? What is man’s most fundamental need?

Q: Food, clothing and shelter; but this becomes a problem, because man is by nature greedy and exclusive.

K: You mean that he is (also?) encouraged and 'educated' by society to be what he is? To bring about an equitable distribution of food, clothing, shelter, a totally different kind of social organization is necessary, is it not? Separate power blocks and conflicting economic structures, as well as the organized religions ( in short?) the whole hierarchical & authoritarian attitude towards life must come to an end.

Q: I can see that this is the only real revolution.

K: It is a complete 'psychological' revolution , and such a 'revolution' is essential if any human being throughout the world is not to be in want of the basic physical necessities. And (this radical change in man's ego-centric mentality ?) must start (ASAP?) with you and me.

Q: Can I act politically to help bring about such a ( qualitative psychological) revolution?

K: Surely, if (the outward) political action is separate from the total (inwardly integrated ?) action of man, if it does not take into consideration his own psychological (condition?), then his (lopsided action), is bringing further confusion and misery; and (incidently?) this is exactly what is taking place in the world at the present time. Can't one act as a 'complete' (inwardly integrated?) human being, and not as a geo-political entity, separated from his ‘spiritual’ state? Any action which is not all comprehensive always leads to conflict both within and without.

Q: This means that any 'political' action is impossible, doesn’t it?

K: Not at all. The (inward) comprehension of the 'total action' surely does not prevent political, educational or religious activity. But what is (proritarily?) important is this unitary process, and not a separate political action, however apparently beneficial.

Q: I think I see what you mean. If I have this total understanding (that I 'am' the world ?) all my actions will be in direct relation to the whole (consciousness of mankind?) . Seeing all this as a ( holistically minded?) 'human being', my outlook on life utterly changes; I am no longer of any country, of any party, of any particular religion. I need to know God, as I need to have food, clothing and shelter; but if I seek the one apart from the other, my search will only lead to various forms of conflict and confusion. Yes, I see this is so : politics, religion and education are all intimately related to each other. So, can we now consider (the practical aspects of ) educating my son ?

K: ( The inwardly) integrated life and action 'is' ( the goal of holistic?) education. Such integration comes into being through understanding the many influences that impinge on the human mind. ( Hint:) Through becoming aware of them without being caught in them. The parents and society are conditioning the child by suggestion, by subtle, unexpressed desires and compulsions, and by the constant reiteration of certain dogmas and beliefs. To help the child become aware of all these influences, with their inward, psychological significance, to help him understand the ways of authority and not be caught in the net of society is ( the true purpose of?) education.

( In a nutshell :) self-knowledge 'is' education. In education there is neither the teacher nor the taught, there is only learning; the educator is (hopefully?) learning, as the student is. Freedom has no beginning and no ending; to understand this is education. Each of these ( fine?) points has to be carefully gone into, and ( unfortunately?) we haven’t the time now to consider too many details.

Q: I think I understand, in a general sense, what you mean by ( holistic) education. But where are the people who will teach in this new way? Such (holistically friendly?) educators simply don’t exist.

K: For how many years did you say you worked in the political field?

Q: I am afraid it was well over twenty.

K: Surely, to 'educate the educator', one must work for it as arduously (earnestly?) as you worked in politics – only it is a much more (delicate?) task which demands deep psychological insight. Unfortunately, ( as of now?) no one seems to care about 'right education', yet ( on the long term?) it is far more important than any other single factor in bringing about a fundamental social transformation.

Q: Most of us, especially the politicians, are so concerned with obtaining immediate results, and have not a 'long-range' view of things. May I ask one more ( bonus?) question? In all that we have been talking about, where does 'inheritance' come in?

K: Are you referring to the inheritance of property, or to psychological inheritance?

Q: I was thinking of the inheritance of property. To tell you the truth, I have never thought about the other.

K: The 'psychological' inheritance (aka : personal & collective karma ?) is as conditioning (time-binding?) as the inheritance of property; both limit and hold the mind in a (mental) pattern of society, which prevents a fundamental transformation of society. If our concern is to bring about a wholly different culture, a culture not based on ambition and acquisitiveness then ( one's own ) 'psychological' inheritance becomes a hindrance.

Q: What exactly do you mean by 'psychological' inheritance?

K: The imprint of the ( collective memory of the?) past on the young mind; the conscious and unconscious conditioning of the young mind to obey, to conform. Parents and society (in a joint effort?) are ( subliminally?) shaping the minds of the children through tradition, belief, dogma, conclusion, opinion, and this (kind of?) 'psychological' inheritance prevents the coming into being of a new social order.

Q: I can see that; but to put a stop to this (subliminal?) form of inheritance is almost an impossibility, isn’t it?

K: If you (would?) really 'see' the necessity of putting a stop to this form of inheritance, then will you not give immense attention to bringing about the right kind of education for your son?

Q: Most of us are so 'caught up' (entangled?) in our own preoccupations and fears that we don’t go into these matters very deeply, if at all. We are (becoming) a ( lost?) generation of double-talkers and word-slingers. But the inheritance of property is another problem. We all want to 'own' something, a piece of land, however small, and if it is not that, then we want to 'own' ideologies or beliefs. We are incorrigible in our pursuit of (wordly) possessions.

K: But ( if & ) when you realize very deeply that inheriting property is ( on the long run?) as destructive as psychological inheritance, then you will set about helping your children to be free from both forms of inheritance. You will then educate them to be completely self-sufficient, not to depend on your own or other people’s favours, to love their work, and to have confidence in their capacity to work without worshipping success; you will teach them to have the feeling of cooperative responsibility, and therefore to know when not to cooperate. Then there is no need for your children to inherit your property. They are ( inwardly ?) free human beings from the very beginning, and not ( psychological?) slaves either to the family or to society.

Q: This is a very noble ideal, but I am afraid it can never be realized.

K: It is not something to be achieved in the never-never land of some far-distant Utopia. ( The opportunity of any insightful ?) understanding is (always present ) 'now', not in the future. ( The holistic) understanding 'is' ( has its own?) action. The ( holistically integrated?) action and (the insightful) realization (or perception of truth ?) are inseparable. ( Eg:) In the very moment of seeing (the imminent danger of?) a ( poisonous?) 'cobra', there is action. If the ( inward) truth of all that we have been talking about this morning is 'seen', then ( the follow-up?) action is inherent in that perception.
But (as of now ???) we are so caught up in the (sensorially) stimulating ( images & ) 'things' of the intellect, that these become a hindrance to action. ( Hint:) The 'intellectual' (or verbal) understanding is only ( the result of?) hearing ( & accepting other people's) verbal explanations, and such (glib) understanding has no ( experiential?) significance, as the 'menu' description of food has no point to a hungry man.

(Parting words:) ( In terms of understanding or 'seeing the inward truth' of anything?) either you understand, or you don’t. Understanding is a total process, it is not separated from action, nor is it the result of time.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 15 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 16 Jun 2019 #196
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1954)

The (visiting) young professor from one of the universities, rather nervous and with a high-pitched voice and bright eyes, said that he had come a long way to ask a ( very serious existential ?) question which was most important to him.

Q: I have known various joys: the joy of conjugal love, the joy of good health, of (scholastic) interest, and of good companionship. Being a professor of literature, I have read widely, and find delight in books. But lately I have found that every joy is fleeting in nature; from the smallest to the greatest, they all pass away in time. Nothing I touch seems to have any permanency, and even literature, the greatest love of my life, is beginning to lose its perennial joy. I feel there must be a permanent Source of all Joy, but though I have sought for It intensely, I have not found it.

K: ( The 'psychologicaly' motivated?) search is an extraordinarily deceptive phenomenon is it not? Being dissatisfied with (what we are in ) the present, we seek for something beyond it. And even (the temporary joy?) which we find is consumed in the present. We never stop to inquire into the full content of the (timeless ?) present, but are always pursuing the dreams of the future; or from the dead memories of the past we select the richest, and give life to it. We cling to that which has been, or (for a change?) reject it in the light of ( a better ?) tomorrow, and so the present instant is slurred over; it is merely a passage to be gone through as quickly as possible.

Q: But I want to find the (inward) Source of Joy. I no longer seek the (material) objects from which ( the temporal) joy is derived - ideas, books, people, nature - but the 'Source of Joy' itself, beyond all ( decay & ) transiency. If one doesn’t find that Source, one is everlastingly caught in the sorrow of ( being caught in) the impermanent (in time ?) .

K: Don’t you think that we must first understand the (psychological) significance of that word ‘search’? Why is there this urge to seek, this anxiety to find, this
compulsion to attain? Perhaps if we can uncover the motive (hidden behind it?) and see its implications, we shall be able to understand the (true) significance of search.

Q: My motive is simple and direct: I want to find the permanent source of Joy, for every 'joy' I have known has been a passing thing. The urge that is making me seek is that I want to get away from this ( subliminal) sorrow of uncertainty, and I don’t think there’s anything abnormal about it. Anyone who is at all thoughtful must be seeking the Joy I am seeking, although they may call it by a different name - God, Truth, Bliss, Freedom, Moksha - but it’s essentially the same thing.

K: Being caught in the pain of (realising its own) impermanency, the (temporal ) mind is driven to seek the permanent, under whatever name; and its very craving for the permanent creates the 'permanent', as an opposite of what is. So really there is not (an authentic spiritual ?) search, but only the desire to find the comforting satisfaction of the 'permanent'.
When the mind becomes aware of being in a constant state of flux, it proceeds to build the 'opposite' of that state, thereby getting caught in the conflict of duality; and then wanting to escape from the resulting (observer vs observed ?) conflict , it pursues still another (subliminally projected?) opposite. So the ( temporal?) mind is bound to the "Wheel of Opposites".

Q: I am aware of this 're-actionary' process of the mind, as you explain it; but should one not seek at all?
The human existence would be a pretty poor thing if there were no (transcendental?) discovering.

K: Do we discover anything new through ( this dualistic?) search? The 'new' is not the (imaginary) opposite of the old, it is not the antithesis of 'what is'. If the 'new' is a projection of the old, then it is only a modified continuation of the old. All recognition is based on the past, and ( the 'new') that is (verbally) recognizable is not the New.
( In a nutshell:) The search (for the everlasting Source of Joy ?) arises from the (existential) pain of the present(reality) , therefore what is sought is already 'known'. You are seeking ( the ultimate psychological ?) comfort, and probably you will find it (or... not?) ; but that also will be transient, for the very urge to find is (born out of the ) impermanent (nature of the temporal mind?) . (In a nutshell:) All (self-centred ?) desire for Joy, for God, or for whatever it may be - is transient.

Q: Do I understand you to mean that, since my search is the outcome of ( self- projected ?) desire, and desire is transient, therefore my search is in vain?

K: If you realize the (inward) truth of this, then (in the timeless perception of life's ? ) transience itself (there ) is ( the inward source of?) Joy.

Q: And how am I to realize the ( inward?) truth of it?

K: There is no ( fail-safe  ?) method. The ( following of a) method breeds (projects?) its own (time binding?) ideal of the 'permanent'. ( As a psychological rule of thumb?) As long as the (temporal) mind desires to arrive, to gain, or to attain, it will be in ( an inner state of self-created  ?) conflict. ( Which) conflict is ( causing inward ?) insensitivity. It is only the ( highly?) sensitive mind that realizes the True.

( Recap:) ( Any psychologically motivated?) 'search' is born of ( an inward condition of existential ) conflict, and with the cessation of (this dualistic ?) conflict there is no need to seek. Then there is Bliss.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 17 Jun 2019 #197
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1955)

Q: I cannot understand, why you are so much against (political) action. Living 'is' action; without action, life is a process of stagnation. We need dedicated people of action to change the social and religious conditions of this country. Surely you are not against the social reforms ?

K: Reform, however necessary, only breeds the need for further reform, and there is no end to it. What
is essential (for the total consciousness of man?) is a revolution in man’s thinking ; (without a profound qualitative?) revolution in the mind and heart of man, reform merely puts him to sleep by helping him to be further satisfied. This is fairly obvious, isn’t it?

Q: You mean that we must have no social reforms?

Q(1) I think he (K) means that reform will
never bring about the total transformation of ( the consciousness of?) man. In fact, reform impedes this total transformation, because it puts man's (mind) to sleep by giving him temporary satisfaction. By multiplying these ( promises for) gratifying reforms, you will slowly drug your neighbour into contentment.

K: Can you separate one part from the whole field of human existence? Can you put a fence around it,
concentrate upon it, without affecting the rest of the field?

Q: To affect the whole field of human existence is exactly what we plan to do. When we have achieved one reform, we shall turn to another.

K: Is the 'totality' (the wholeness?) of life to be understood through the part? Or the whole of it must first be perceived and understood, and that only then the parts can be examined and reshaped in relation to the whole?
( In a 'psychological' nutshell:) Without comprehending the whole (of human existence) , mere concentration on the part only breeds further confusion and misery.

Q: You mean to that we must not act or bring about reforms without (going back to school and?) first studying the whole process of existence? We simply haven’t time to search out the full meaning
of life -we have to deal (ASAP?) with the facts of everyday existence; we have to bring order
out of chaos. We are concerned with dams, with irrigation, with better agriculture; we are occupied
with trade, with economics, and we must deal with foreign powers. We are practical men in positions of responsibility, and we have to act to the best of our ability for the good of the people.

K: If it may be asked, how do you know what’s good for the people? You start with so many conclusions; and when you start with a conclusion, all (creative?) thinking ceases. The (implicit) assumption that you 'know' (what is 'good' for the people?) leads
to a greater ( spiritual) misery than the misery of having only one meal a day; for it is the vanity of conclusions that brings about the exploitation of man. In our eagerness to act for the good of others, we seem to do a great deal of harm.

Q: Some of us think we know what’s good for this country and its people, but of course, the ( political leaders of the) opposition also think they 'know'; but fortunately the opposition is not very strong in this
country, so we shall win and be in a position to try out what we think is good and beneficial.

Every party thinks that knows what is good for the people. But what is truly 'good' will not create antagonism, either at home or abroad; it will bring about unity between man and man; what
is truly good will be concerned with the totality of man, and not with some superficial benefit that
may lead only to greater calamity and misery; it will put an end to the division and the enmity that
nationalism and organized religions have created. And... is the (holistic?) 'good' so easily found?

Q: If we have to take into consideration all the implications of what is 'good', we shall get nowhere; we shall not be able to act. Immediate necessities demand immediate action, though that action may
bring marginal confusion - we literally cannot afford the pleasure of deep consideration, and we leave that pleasure to others.

( Q 2) You appear to be suggesting that before
we perform what we assume to be a 'good action', we should think out fully the significance of that action,
since, even though seemingly beneficial, it may produce greater (collateral) misery in the future. But
is it possible to have such a profound insight into our own actions? At the moment of action we may
think we have that insight, but later on we may discover our blindness.

K: At the moment of action we are enthusiastic, we are carried away by an idea, or by the personality and the fire of a 'leader'. All 'leaders' state that they are acting for the good of mankind and we succumb to their (charismatic?) influence, and follow them. Haven’t you been influenced by such a leader ? (hint:) He may no longer be living, but you still think and act according to his sanctions, his formulas, his pattern of life; or else you are influenced by a more recent leader. So we go from (following?) one leader to another, dropping them when a better leader
turns up with greater promise of some ‘good’. In our enthusiasm we bring others into the net of our
convictions, and they often remain in that 'net' even when we ourselves have moved on to other leaders
and other convictions.
( In a nutshell:) What is 'good' is free of influence, compulsion and convenience and any act which is not good in this sense is bound ( further down the road?) to breed confusion and misery.

Q (2) : I think we can all 'plead guilty' to being influenced by a leader, directly or indirectly, but our problem is this : seeing so much misery everywhere, we feel that we have a responsibility to do something in order to relieve this unending misery. Most of us, however, feel rather lost, and so we follow someone with a strong personality. His dedicated life, his obvious sincerity, his vital thoughts and acts, influence us greatly, and in various ways we become his 'followers'; under his influence we are soon caught up in ( a particular course of?) action, whether it be for the liberation of the country, or for the betterment of social conditions. The acceptance of authority is ingrained in us, and from this acceptance of authority flows action.
What you are (trying to ) tell us is so contrary to all
we are accustomed to that it leaves us no measure by which to judge and to act. I hope you see our

K: Surely, sir, any action based on the authority of a book, however 'sacred', or on the authority of a ( spiritually charismatic?) person, however noble, is a thoughtless action which must inevitably bring confusion and sorrow (in oneself or/and in others )
In this country (India) the leader derives his authority from the interpretation of the 'sacred' books, which he liberally quotes, or from his own experiences, which are conditioned by his austere life, which again is based on the pattern of 'saintly' records. So the
leader’s life is as bound by 'authority' as the life of the follower; both are (psychological) slaves to the 'Book', and to the experience or knowledge of another. With this background, you want to remake the world.
Is that (practically?) possible? Or must you put aside this whole authoritarian, hierarchical outlook on life, and approach the many problems with a fresh & eager ( state of) mind? Our daily living and action are not separate, they are (inter-related in) an unitary process; but (as of?) now you are separating them - you regard daily living, with its thoughts and acts, as different from the action which is going to change the world.

Q(2) Again, this is so, but this is part of our immemorial tradition, and you come along and tell us to set it all aside and rely on ourselves! From what I have heard and read, you say that even 'Atman' ( or the 'Soul'?) itself is without permanency. So you can see why we are confused.

Q: May it not be that you have never really inquired into the 'authoritarian' ( time-binding?) way of existence? The very ( 100% truthful?) questioning of 'authority' is the end of authority. Why do you accept 'authority', in the deeper sense of that word? You accept the guru's ( spiritual?) authority in order to be safe, to be certain, in order to be comforted, to succeed, ( or just ?) to 'reach the other shore' ( aka : enlightenment?) . You and the 'guru' are both driven by (a personal) ambition. But...where there
is ambition, there is no Love; and action without (the holistic intelligence of?) Love has no meaning.

Q: Intellectually I see that what you say is true, but inwardly, emotionally, I don’t feel the 'truthfullness' of

K: There is no 'intellectual' understanding; either we understand, or we don’t. It is (it may be?) better to admit to ourselves that we do not understand, than to maintain that there is an 'intellectual' understanding, which only breeds ( certain mental ?) arrogance and self-imposed conflict.

Q: We have taken too much of your time, but perhaps you will allow us to come again (after the coming elections?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 18 Jun 2019 #198
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

He was a healthy and thoughtful young man, still in his thirties, employed in some government office.

Q: I attended one or two of your public talks and I would like to ask a (bonus) question. I have got
into certain bad habits which are bothering me, and which I want to be free of. For several months
now I have tried to get rid of them, but without success. What am I to do?

K: Let us consider (holistically the problem of ?) habit itself. What do we mean by 'habit'? Let us think it out,
and not depend on a mere verbal definition.

Q: Habit is an oft-repeated act.

K: It is a 'momentum of ( repetitive?) action' along a certain direction, ( generally?) pleasant and it may operate consciously or unconsciously, with ( calculated ) thought, or thoughtlessly. Is that it?

Q: Yes, sir, that’s right.

K: Some (millions of people?) feel the need of ( a good?) coffee in the morning, and without it they get a headache. Their (psycho-somatic?) body may not have required it at first, but it has gradually got used to the pleasurable taste and ( mental) stimulation of coffee, and now it suffers when deprived of it.

Q : But isn't coffee a necessity? Good food is necessary to good health.

K: Surely; but when one becomes accustomed to food of a certain kind or flavour, the body feels deprived and anxious when it does not get what it’s used to. This insistence on food of a particular kind indicates that a habit has been formed, a habit based on pleasure and the (rewarding?) memory of it.

Q: To 'break' (to discontinue?) an unpleasant habit is comparatively easy, but my problem is how to break the pleasant ones.

K: As I said, we are trying to understand ( holistically the psychological mechanism of) habit itself. We see that habit is formed when there is ( a psychologically rewarding sensation of ) pleasure
and the (instinctive?) demand for the continuation of the pleasure.
( In a nutshell:) Habit is based on pleasure and the memory of it.Even an initially unpleasant (mental or sensory ? ) experience may gradually become a pleasant and (addictive) habit. Now, let’s go a little further into the matter. What is your (particular ) problem?

Q: Amongst other (sensory) habits, my sexual indulgence has become a consuming habit with me.
I have tried to bring it under control by disciplining myself against it, by dieting, practising various
exercises, and so on, but in spite of all my resistance the habit has continued.

K: Perhaps there is no other ( more creative ?) release in your life, no other driving interest. Probably you are bored with your work, without being ( consciously) aware of it; and if you are inwardly thwarted, frustrated, then sex becomes your only release. To be inwardly alert and think anew about your (whole life & ) work, and to find out for yourself the true significance of religion - it is this that will free the mind from being enslaved by any habit.

Q: I used to be interested in religion and in literature, but I have no leisure for either of them now,
because all my time is taken up with my work. I am not really unhappy in it, but I realize that earning
a livelihood isn’t everything, and it may be that, as you say, if I can find time for wider and deeper
interests, it will help to break down the habit which is bothering me.

K: As we said, habit is the repetition of a pleasurable act brought about by the stimulating memories
and images which the mind evokes. The glandular secretions, as in the case of hunger, are not ( by themselves?) a habit, they are the normal process of the physical organism; but when the ( self-centred ?) mind indulges in sensation, stimulated by thoughts and 'images' , then surely the formation of habit is set
going. Finding pleasure in certain thoughts and acts, subtle or crude, the ( time-bound) mind insists on their continuance thereby breeding habit.
Even a repetitive act, like brushing one’s teeth in the morning, (can ) become a habit when attention is not given to it. Attention frees the mind from habit.

Q: Are you implying that we must get rid of all (pursuit of?) pleasure?

K: No, sir. We are just trying to understand the
full implication of habit; and we have to understand, too, the problems of ( our instinctive search for?) pleasure. It is a ( holistically friendly ?) pleasure to see the beauty of a tree, of a cloud, of moonlight on the water, or of a human being; and to deny that pleasure is to deny beauty. But on the other hand, want to remain (forever?) in the lovely garden of their own making, and shut out the noise, the smell and the brutality that exist beyond the (sound-proof?) walls. Very often they succeed in this; but you cannot forever shut out the ugly and hold to the beautiful, without becoming (inwardly ) dull & insensitive. You must be sensitive to sorrow as well as to joy and not eschew the one and seek out the other. To love is to be
vulnerable, sensitive, and habit breeds insensitivity; it destroys love.

Q: I am beginning to feel the inward truth of what you are saying. I used to love to go into the woods, to listen to the birds, to observe the faces of people in
the streets, and I now see what I have allowed habit to do to me. But what is this 'love' (of which you are talking so often ?) ?

K: Love is a state of intense vulnerability and beauty, which is ( generally) denied when the mind builds walls of self-centred activity. Love is ( an essential part of) life, and so is the (psychological?) 'death'. To
(inwardly) deny 'death' ( or 'ending' of one's psychological attachments to the known?) and cling to ( the psychological continuity of ?) life is to deny love.

Q: I am really beginning to have a (holistic) insight into all this - without Love, life does become
mechanical and habit-ridden. The work I do in the office is largely mechanical, and I am caught in a vast wheel of routine and boredom. I have been asleep, and now I must wake up.

K : The very realization that you have been asleep is already ( the new beginning of?) an awakened state; there is no need of volition (of exercising one's will power ) Now, let’s go a little further into the matter. There is no (sense of inner) beauty without austerity, is there?

Q: That I don’t understand, sir.

K; ( The authentic inner?) austerity does not lie in any outward symbol or act- ( such as) wearing a monk’s robe and/or living the life of a hermit. ( Inwardly speaking ?) such (self-) disciplined simplicity is merely an 'outward' show without an inner reality. ( The authentic) austerity is ( brought by?) the simplicity of inward 'all-oneness', the simplicity of a mind that is purged of all ( observer-observed?) conflict, and that is not caught in the fire of desire. Without this this (inward) austerity, there can be no Love; and ( the sense of inner) beauty is ( coming out ?) of Love (for All That Is?)

This post was last updated by John Raica Tue, 18 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 19 Jun 2019 #199
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

Q : Is it ever really possible for the mind to free itself from its (time-binding?) conditioning? If so, what is the (inner) state of a mind that has unconditioned itself? I have heard your talks over a period of several years, and have given a great deal of thought to the matter, yet my mind doesn’t seem able
to break away from the traditions and ideas that were implanted during childhood. From childhood we are taught to conform - brutally, or with gentle suggestions - until conforming becomes instinctive, and the mind is afraid of the insecurity of not conforming. I see the absurdity of conforming, but I can’t shake it off; and even if I could, I should probably be doing the same thing in another way - merely comforting to a new ( 'K friendly'?) pattern. As a matter of fact, most of us have never thought very deeply about how our (temporal ) mind is almost entirely shaped by the (subliminal pressures of the ?) society and culture in which we have grown up. We are unaware of our (psychological) conditioning and just carry on, struggling, achieving, or being frustrated within the (existing ) patterns of society. That’s the lot of almost all of us, including the political and religious leaders. Unfortunately for me, I came to hear several of your ( revolutionary?) talks, and then the pain of questioning began. For some time I did not think about this matter very deeply, but suddenly I find myself becoming serious. I have been experimenting, and am now aware of many things in myself which I had never noticed before. I would like to go into this question of ( my psychological) conditioning a little further : after having heard or read most of the things you have said, I saw that one must be free from conditioning - not only from the conditioning of the superficial mind, but also from that of the unconscious. I perceived the absolute necessity of it. But the (main thread of the self-centred ?) conditioning I received in my youth continues, and at the same time there is a strong desire to uncondition myself. So my mind is caught in this dualistic conflict between the ( self-sustained momentum of) conditioning of which I am (becoming) aware, and the urge to be free from it. That’s my actual position right now. How shall I proceed from there?

K : Does not the (reactionary?) urge of the ( self-centred) mind to free itself from its past conditioning set going another ( modified) pattern of resistance and conditioning? Doesn't the (thoughtful?) desire to be free condition the mind again in a different manner? The old pattern ( of cultural conditioning?) insists that you conform to authority, and now you are developing a new (anti-conformistic?) one ; so you have two ( 'self'-projected mental ?) patterns, one in conflict with the other. As long as there is this (dualistic?) inner contradiction, a further ( form of updated?) conditioning takes place.

Q: I know that the old ( culturally imposed life ) pattern is quite absurd and ( creatively -wise ?) 'dead', and that there must be freedom from it, otherwise my mind will go on in the same stupid way.

K: Let’s be patient and go into it more. The old ('strongly recommended' mental) pattern has told you to conform, and for various reasons - fear of insecurity, and so on - you have conformed. Now, for reasons of a different kind, but in
which there is still ( a subliminal) fear and desire for security, you feel you must not conform. That’s so, isn’t it?

Q: Yes, more or less. But the old ( 'known' pattern ) is stupid, and I must be free from ( its time-binding) 'stupidity'.

K: May I point out, sir, that you are not 'listening'. You go on insisting that the old ( existential pattern) is bad, and you must have the new one. But having the new is not the problem at all.

Q: But...that’s ( exactly) my problem, sir.

K: You think so, but let’s see. Please don’t carry on with your own thoughts about the problem, but just 'listen', will you?

Q: I will try...

K: One conforms instinctively ( to a certain existential pattern?) for various reasons: out of (self-centred) attachment, fear, the desire for reward, and
so on. That is one’s first ( 'natural') response. Then somebody comes along and says that one must be free
from conditioning, and there arises the urge not to conform. Now, is there any essential difference between the ( survivalistic?) desire to conform, and the ( revolutionary?) craving to be free of conformity?

Q: I really don’t know. What do you say, sir?

K: It is not for me to tell you (the 'right answer'?) , and for you to accept. Must you not find out for yourself whether there is any fundamental difference between these two seemingly opposing desires?

Q: How am I to find out?

K: By ( taking a psychological 'time out' & ?) neither condemning the one nor eagerly pursuing the other. What is the (inward) state of a mind that is hungering after freedom from conformity, and is rejecting conformity? ( For optional homework meditation try to ?) feel it out & actually experience that ( timeless?) state. Unless you really experience and
understand that state, your (inwardly blind?) efforts to be free will only bring about the formation of other patterns. Isn’t that so?

Q: I don’t quite understand.

K: Surely, not to put an end completely to the ( survival oriented mental ?) mechanism that produces patterns, whether positive or negative, is to ( allow it to) continue ( doing the same routine) in a modified pattern or conditioning.

Q: I can understand this intellectually, but I don’t really feel ( the inward implications of?) it.

K: ( To recap:) There is the ( survivalistic ?) urge that makes for conformity, and the ( existential ?) urge to be free. However dissimilar these two (psychologically active?) 'urges' may seem to be, are they not fundamentally similar? And if they are fundamentally similar, then your 'pursuit of freedom' is vain for you will only move from one pattern to another, endlessly.
(In a psychological nutshell :) The ( 'self'-identified?) desire to 'be', or 'not to be' (something) , breeds ( its own time-binding?) conditioning, and it is this desire that has to be understood ( in one's experiential homework ?) .

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 19 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 20 Jun 2019 #200
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1954)

Q : Like every other human being, I have known sorrow; 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 I want you to speak to me of the immeasurable (inner) void. I think I have touched the hem of it in my wanderings and meditations.

K: If it may be pointed out, truth needs no proof by action, nor does it depend on anybody's authority; so let’s put aside the authority of tradition, and try to find out the truth of this matter for ourselves.

”That would be very difficult for me, for I am steeped in the teachings of the Gita, the Upanishads, and so on. Is it right for me to let all that go? Would
that not be ingratitude on my part?

K: If we are concerned with discovering the
truth or the falseness of that (inner) void of which you have spoken and you walk on the path of authority and tradition, which is (living in the field of) knowledge, you will 'experience' only what you desire to experience, it will not be an (authentic inner ) discovery; it will already be known, a thing to be recognized and experienced. To discover
whether that Inner Void is (something) true or false, whether it (does really) exists, (the meditating?)
mind must be free from the net of authority and tradition.

Q: But how can the mind ever free itself from this net?

K: ( The inward ?) Freedom (from the known?) is a state of being which is not the outcome of the desire to be free. But when the (meditatively inclined ?) mind understands this, and sees the falseness of ( relying on the?) authority of tradition, then only does the 'false' wither away.

Q: I have vaguely felt even from childhood, as in a dream, the existence of this Inner 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 now I begin to realize that I have depended almost entirely on the description of the experiences of others, as given in the sacred Scriptures. This 'dependence' I can now throw off, since I now see the necessity of doing so; but can I revive that original, uncontaminated feeling for 'that' which is beyond words?

K: What you have experienced as a youth, or only yesterday, is over and gone; and if you cling to the (psychological memories of the ) past, you prevent the quickening experience of the new.

Q:  : I think you will realize, sir, that 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 'known'; all the (psychologically tinted ?) 'knowledge' that one has gathered must cease to have any influence on the living mind. Knowledge is the very process of ( recycling & updating the memories of?) the past, and the ( meditating?) mind must be free from this process. ( The verbal ?) recognition (of any direct experience) is part of the process of knowledge, isn’t it?

Q: How is that?

K: You may have experienced, once upon a time, this Inner Void, and you now crave for ( re-experiencing) it. The original experience came about without your pursuing it; but the thing that you are seeking now is not the ( actual Inner) Void, but the renewal of an old memory. But 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 it out? This seems incredible!

K: The ( hidden) motive of (self-interest behind your ) search is of greater significance than the search itself. The motive pervades, guides and shapes the search. The motive of your search is the desire to experience the 'unknowable' ( or rather?) to
know the bliss and the immensity of it. This desire has brought into being the ( self-identified) 'experiencer' who craves for ( having that) experience.

( As a psychological 'rule of thumb'?) the 'experiencer' is searching for greater, wider and more significant experience. ( And since in your case?) all the
other ( worldly?) experiences having lost their taste, the experiencer now longs to experience the Inner Void; so there is ( a time- gap 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 point 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 ( hapless?) 'seeker' is, and not just the seeker after Truth, God, the Inner Void, and so on. Every ambitious or covetous man who is pursuing (his/her own ) power, position, prestige, every idealist, every builder of a perfect Utopia - they are all caught in the same net. But if once you understand ( the truth regarding) the total significance of (psychologically motivated?) search, will you continue to seek the Inner Void?

Q: I perceive the inward meaning of your question and I have already stopped seeking.

K: If this be a 'fact', then what is the state of the mind that is not seeking?

Q: I do not know yet. But I do perceive how extraordinarily subtle it is; how difficult it is for the experiencer, the watcher, not to step in. It seems almost impossible for thought not to create the 'thinker'; but as long as there is a thinker, an experiencer, there must obviously be separation from, and conflict with, that which is to be experienced. And you are asking, aren’t you, what is the state of the mind when there is no more conflict (between the 'observer' and what is being 'observed')

K: (This dualistic inner ?) conflict exists when desire assumes the form of the 'experiencer' and pursues that which is to be experienced; but... 'that which is to be experienced' is also put together by desire.

Q: If I understand what you are saying, desire not only builds the 'experiencer', but also brings into being ( the desirable 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 (fake?) division that sustains ( a time-binding mentality of) conflict. Now, you are asking, what is the state of the mind which is
no longer in conflict, which is not ( opportunistically ?) driven by desire? How can this question be answered without the ( subliminal interference of the ) 'experiencer' who is pursuing the experience of desirelessness?
K: What is the state of the mind which is not caught in the ( time-binding ?) conflict of desire? The very urge to find it out is part of the ( same center of thought driven ? ) desire which has brought into being the 'experiencer' and the thing to be experienced, is it not?

Q: That is so true. Your question was an (ego-) trap for me, but I am thankful you asked it. I am seeing more of the intricate subtleties of desire.

K: It was not ( meant to be?) a trap, but a natural and inevitable question which you would have asked yourself in the course of your ( Inner Void ) inquiry. If the mind is not extremely alert, aware, it is soon caught again in the net of its own desire.

Q: One final (bonus) question: is it really possible for the 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, sir, (as experiential homework?) But (if and when?) the mind is entirely free of this (self-identified mental) structure of desire, is the mind then different from the (Inner) Void?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 22 Jun 2019 #201
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

( K's Intro:) A clerk in some office, he was grave and very earnest, with bright, serious eyes and a ready smile. Although still in his thirties, he was anxious about the future, for he had a wife and an old mother to provide for.

Q: What is the purpose of life, of this monotonous, ( boring & time-binding ) routine existence? I have always been seeking something or other: seeking a job when I got through college, seeking pleasure with my wife, seeking to bring about a better world and now I am seeking God. By nature I am not a pessimist, but everything in life has saddened me. We seek and seek, and we never seem to find (what we were looking for) . I want to talk most seriously with you, for I feel that you may be of help in my search

K: Can we go slowly and patiently into this 'movement' ( highly motivated mental activity?) called 'search'? There are those ( 'happy campers'?) who assert that they have sought and found, and being satisfied with what they have found, they have their reward. You say you are seeking, but do you know 'why' you are seeking, and 'what' it is that you seek?

Q: Like everyone else, I have sought many things, most of which have passed away; but search (for Truth?) goes on.

K: Before we go into the whole question of what it is we seek, let’s find out what is the ( actual) state of the mind that is seeking?

Q: It is a state of ( mental) effort in which the mind is trying to get away from a painful or conflicting situation, in order to find a more pleasurable & (inwardly) comforting one.

K: But is such a mind really seeking (Truth?) ? Must all search have a motive, or is there a search which has no motive whatsoever? Isn't 'search' - as we know it now - merely another means by which the mind tries to escapes from itself? Without understanding the full content of the ( self-centred) mind, its 'search' (for Truth?) has little significance.

Q: Could you make it simpler?

K: Let’s begin with the process we know. 'Why' do you seek, and 'what' are you seeking?

Q: One is seeking so many things: happiness, security, comfort, permanency, God, a society which is not everlastingly at war with itself, and so on.

K: But the state you are actually in, and the (final) 'end' you are seeking, are both creations of the ( temporal ) mind, are they not?

Q: I know I suffer, and I want to find a way out of it. I want to move towards a state in which there will be no sorrow.

K: So, the 'end' you are seeking is still the projection of a mind that doesn’t want to be disturbed; isn’t that so? And there may be no such thing, it may be a myth.

Q: If that is a 'myth', then there must be ( deep within oneself ?) something else which is Real, and which I must find.

K: We may come upon that presently. For the moment we are concerned with what we mean when we say we are seeking, so let’s inquire into the whole implication of that word. Being ( feeling inwardly?) unhappy, you are seeking 'happiness', are you not? So you are seeking to fulfil your desire, even though it be for the 'highest'; But... when you already 'know' what the end is, is there ( any authentic) search?

Q: Surely sir, God or Bliss cannot be known beforehand; It must be sought out.

K: How can you seek out 'that' which you do not know? You may think you know what 'God' is, but what you 'know' (of Him?) is according to your own cultural conditioning; so, having formulated what God is, you proceed to (re-) ‘discover’ that which your mind has projected. This is obviously not ( an authentic spiritual) search since you are merely pursuing what you already (thought that you?) know.
( The authentic inward ) Search ceases when you (assume that you?) 'know' , because knowing is a process of recognition, and to recognize is an action of the (personal & collective memory of the?) past, of the known.

Q: But I am really seeking God, by whatever name He may be called.

K: You are seeking 'God', as others are seeking ( eternal) 'happiness' and so on. These are all well-known and well-established motives. Motive brings about the desired end. But is there an (authentic inward) ) search when there is a motive?

Q: I am beginning to see what you mean...

K: If you are really earnest, the moment you perceive that in this whole (time-binding?) pattern of 'search', there is no ( authentic?) search at all, you abandon it (ASAP ?) . However, the actual cause of your search still remains ( hidden) as long as the core of your mind has not understood the whole (truth regarding the ?) problem of seeking, and that is why it moves from one pattern to another, from one guru to another. (Hint:) It is ever moving in the ('self'-centred?) field of the 'known'.
Now, ( for a change?) can the (earnest meditating?) mind remain without seeking? The ( temporal?) mind swings from one movement of search to another, ever groping, ever seeking, is ever caught in the (drag-) net of ( its own dualistic?) experience. This movement is always towards the ‘more': more sensory stimulation, more experience, (or even for a ?) wider and deeper knowledge. Now, once it is becoming aware of the significance of this whole process of ( dualistic) seeking does the mind continue to seek ? And when the ( time-bound?) mind is not seeking, is there an 'experiencer' to experience (the new state ?)

Q: What do you mean by the 'experiencer'?

K: As long as there is ( the inner duality between?) the 'seeker' and the 'thing ( the inner state of mind which is being ?) sought', there must be ( the self-conscious ) 'experiencer', who recognizes (and controls the experience ?) , and this is the core of the mind’s self-centred movement. From this centre, all activities take place, whether noble or ignoble: the desire for wealth and power, the compulsion to be content with "what is", the urge to seek God, to bring about reforms, and so on.

Q: I see in myself the truth of what you are saying. I have approached the whole thing wrongly.

Does this mean you are now going to approach it ‘rightly’? Or are you aware that any ( dualistic ?) approach to the problem, is a self-centred (mental) activity, which only strengthens the 'experiencer'?

Q; How cunning the (self-centred) mind is, how quick and subtle in its movement to maintain itself! I see that very clearly.

K: When the ( temporal) mind ceases to seek because it has understood the total significance of search, do not the ( self-protective?) limitations which it has imposed upon itself fall away? And is the mind not then (becoming one with?) the Immeasurable, the Unknown (aka: 'God' ) ?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 23 Jun 2019 #202
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An experientially-friedly edited K Dialigue, cca 1954)

( K's Intro:) He was a youngish man, in his early forties he said; and though he had faced audiences and spoken with great confidence, he was still rather shy. Like so many others of his generation, he had played with politics, with religion, and with social reform. He was given to writing poetry, and could put colour on canvas. Several of the prominent leaders were his friends, and he could have gone far in politics; but he had chosen otherwise and was content to keep his 'light' covered in a distant mountain town.

Q: I have been wanting to see you for many years. You may not remember it, but I was once on the same boat with you going to Europe before the second world war. My father was very interested in your teachings, but I drifted away into politics and other things. My desire to talk to you again finally became so persistent that it could not be put off any longer. I want to expose my heart because I have come to an impasse.

K: Of what kind?

Q: I don’t seem to be able to ‘break through’ in my daily meditations : in trying to be aware of my own thinking, and so on, I invariably fall asleep. I have fasted, and I have tried various diets, but this lethargy persists.

K: Could it be ( due to) a deep inward frustration (as ) your mind been made dull, insensitive by the events of your life? Or (still deeper down ?) is it that Love is not there?

Q: I don’t know sir; I have vaguely thought about these matters, but have never been able to pin anything down. In a way, life has been too easy for me, with family money, certain capacities, and so on. This general feeling of being at ease and having the capacity to find my way out of almost any situation may have made me 'soft'.

K: Is that not just a description of superficial happenings? If those things had affected you deeply, you would have led a different kind of life, you would have followed the easy course. But you have not, so there must be a different process at work that is making your mind sluggish and ( perceptively?) inept.

Q: Then what is it?

K: Love ( the natural quality of spontaneous affection?) is vulnerable, and a mind that has built defence against life ceases to ( have affection & ) love.

Q: I don’t think I have built a mental defence against sex; but love is not necessarily sex, and I really do not know if I ( have this quality of?) 'love' at all.

K: You see, our ( 'self'-centred ?) minds are so carefully cultivated ( within the field of the 'known'?) that we fill the 'heart' with the 'things' of the mind. We give most of our time and energy to the earning of a livelihood, to the gathering of knowledge, to the ( artificial?) fire of belief & to the pursuit of many other things with which the ( time-bound?) mind keeps itself (constantly?) occupied; so the (natural generosity of the?) 'heart' is made empty, and the (ego-centric?) mind becomes rich in its ( very efficient?) cunningness. This does make for 'insensitivity', doesn’t it?

Q: It is true that we over-cultivate the ( temporal?) mind, but few of us have the 'love' you are talking about. Speaking for myself, I like nature. I like to go into the woods and feel their silence and beauty; I like to sleep under the open skies. But does all this indicate that I love?

K: Sensitivity to nature is part of love; but it isn’t ( the inward wholeness of?) love, is it? To be gentle and kind, to do 'good works' & asking nothing in return, is part of Love; but it isn’t Love, is it?

Q: Then what is this 'love' (you are talking about?) ?

K: The totality of love is not within the measure of the ( self-centred ) mind; and to 'know' that totality ( in one's meditations ? ) , the mind must be empty of its ( time-binding) occupations however noble or self-centred. ( Experiential clue : ) to ask ( somebody else?) 'how' to empty the mind, or 'how' not to be self-centred, is to ( blindly ) pursue a method; as the pursuit of a (fool-proof ?) method is becoming another ('pet'?) occupation of the mind.

Q: But is it really possible to 'empty' the mind (of its time-binding content?) without some kind of ( mental ?) effort?

K: All ( mental) effort (in meditation?) , the ‘right’ as well as the ‘wrong’, sustains the centre, the core of (one's personal) achievement. ( In a nutshell:) Where this 'self' (-identified consciousness?) is ( active?) , ( the inner light of?) Love is not (present) . But talking of the lethargy of the mind & its (perceptive) insensitivity, may not ( the emphasis on gathering ever more ) knowledge be part of this process of insensitivity?

Q: I am not a ( certified?) scholar, but I read a lot, and I respect knowledge. Why you think that knowledge necessarily makes for insensitivity ?

K: Our (mental ) life is largely a repetition of what we have been taught, is it not? We may add ( new stuff?) to our learning, but the repetitive process continues and strengthens the habit of accumulating. What do you 'know' except ( the millions of) things (of which ) you have read or been told, (or even gatherd from) what you have 'experienced', since that which you experience now is ( being subliminally?) shaped by what you have experienced before, so the repetitive ( mental recycling) process is maintained. Repetition obviously makes for insensitivity, because the mind is moving only within the field of the known. May not this be why your mind is dull?

Q: Perhaps yes, but how can I put away all that I know ?

K/ You 'are' ( identified with) this knowledge, you 'are' ( the acting memory of ) the things that you have accumulated; you are the 'record' that is ever repeating what is impressed on it. You 'are' (constantly recycling & updating?) the chatter of society, of your culture. Is there an uncorrupted ‘you’, apart from all this chatter? This 'self' (-identified?) centre is now becoming anxious to free itself from the things it has gathered; but the effort it makes to be free is still part of the accumulative process (of thought -time?) . You may have a new record to play, with new ( copy-pasted?) words, but ( deep down) your mind is still ( loveless?) dull, insensitive.

Q: You have described very well ( the inward poverty of) my state of mind. I have learnt, in my time, the jargons of various ideologies, both religious and political; but, as you point out, my mind has in essence remained the same. I am now very clearly aware of this; and I am also aware that this whole process makes the mind superficially alert clever and outwardly pliable, while below the surface it is still that same old self-centre which is the ‘me’.

K: Are you aware of all this as a ( directly perceived) 'fact', or do you know it only through another’s description? If it is not something that you have found out for yourself, then only the ( K's ) words and not the ( actual inner) fact that is important.

Q: Could you explain it again ?

Do you know anything (at first hand?) , or do you only 'recognize' it ? ( Hint:) Recognition is a process of verbal association which is ( just superficial ? ) knowledge.

Q: I see what you mean : I (may think that I ) know that bird as being a 'parrot' only because I have been told about it . Through mental association there is an ( instant verbal) recognition, and then I say: ‘It is a parrot’.”

K: ( But at the same time?) the ( verbal recognition of the?) ‘parrot’ has blocked your from (actually) looking at that ( green?) living thing (creature) that flies. We almost never ( give our full attention to the ?) looking at the fact, but at the word or the symbol that stands for the fact. The ( direct contact with the ) fact recedes and the ( mental space of the known filled with the standardised knowledge of common words ) becomes all-important
Now (for experiential homework ?) can you look ( directly) at the fact, dissociated from the (mental associations of?) words & symbols ?

Q: It seems to me that perception of the fact, and awareness of the (naming) word representing the fact, occur practically at the same time.

K: Can the ( contemplative ?) mind separate the fact from the word?

Q: I don’t think that it can (do it right away?) .

K: Perhaps we are making this ( sound ?) more difficult than it is. That object is called a tree; the word and the object are two separate things, are they not?

Q: Actually it is so; but, as you say we always look at the object through the ( mental image suggested by the ) word.

K: (But inwardly speaking?) the word ‘love’ is not the actually feeling, the 'fact' of love.

Q: But the (mental use of the ) word is a fact too, isn’t it?

K: In a way, yes. Words exist in order to communicate and also to remember, or to 'fix in the mind' (the memory of?) a fleeting experience, ( like that ) of a thought, or a feeling; so the mind itself is ( giving priority to ) the word, it is ( identfying itself with) the memory of the fact in terms of pleasure and pain, good and bad. This whole ( highly subjective ?) process takes place within the field of ( thought - ) time, the field of the 'known'; and ( quite obviously?) any 'revolution' within that field is only a modification of what has been.

Q: If I understand you correctly, you are saying that I have made my mind dull, lethargic, insensitive, through ( indulging in a ) traditional or repetitive (way of) thinking, of which the self-imposed discipline is a part. In order to bring this (subliminally?) repetitive process to an end, the ( one million years old?) 'gramophone recording' , which is the 'self' (protective mental interface?) must be broken; and it can be 'broken' only by seeing the (inward truth regarding the) fact, and not through a ( mental) effort. Then what?

K: See the fact, the 'what is', and let ( the inward truth of that?) that fact operate; don’t 'you' operate on the fact - the ‘you’ being the ( virtual impersonation of the ) repetitive mechanism, with its opinions, judgments, knowledge.

Q: I will try... .

K: To try (it 'tomorrow'?) is to oil the (subliminally ) repetitive mechanism (of thought-time) , not to put an end to it.

Q: Sir, you are taking everything away from one, and nothing is left. But that (resulting state of inward 'no-thingness') may be the 'new' thing.

K: It is.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 24 Jun 2019 #203
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue , cca 1955)

(K's Intro) : A psychologist, an analyst, and an M.D., he was plump, with a large head and serious eyes. He had come to talk over several points; however, he would not use the jargon of psychology and analysis, but would keep to words with which we were both familiar. Having studied the famous psychologists, and himself been analysed by one of them, he knew the ( intrinsical?) limitations of modern psychology, as well as its therapeutic value. It was not always successful, but it had great possibilities in the hands of the right people. Of course, there were many 'quacks', but that was to be expected. He had also studied the oriental thought and the oriental concept of consciousness.

Q: When the existence of the 'subconscious' was first discovered in the West, no university had a place for it, and no publisher would undertake to bring out the book; but now, of course, after only two decades, the word is on everybody’s lips. We like to think that the Orient is a jungle of mysticism but the fact is that the Orient undertook the exploration of the human consciousness many centuries ago, although they used different symbols, with more extensive (holistic?) meanings. I am saying this only to indicate that I am eager to learn, and have not the usual bias in this matter. We specialists in the field of psychology do help the maladjusted to return to society, and that seems to be our main concern. But personally am not satisfied with this - is it all we psychologists can do? Can we not do more than just help the maladjusted individual to return to society?

K: Is ( the standardised mentality of our) society so 'healthy' that a (maladjusted?) individual should return to it? Has not society itself helped to make the individual unhealthy? Of course, the (mentally?) unhealthy must be made healthy, but why should the individual adjust himself to an unhealthy society? If he is ( inwardly wholesome & ) healthy, he will not be a part of it. Without first questioning the health of society, what is the good of helping misfits to conform to society?

Q: I don’t think (the present) society is healthy; it is run by power-seeking people and is always in a state of convulsion. During the last war I helped in the work of trying to 'straighten out' the misfits in the army who couldn’t adjust themselves to the horrors of the battlefield. They were probably right, but there was a war on, and it had to be won. Even some of those who fought and survived do still need psychiatric help, and to bring them back into society is going to be quite a (tedious) job.”

K: To help the individual to fit into a society which is ever at (a socio-economical ) war with itself - is this what psychologists and analysts are supposed to do? Must one only try to fit into the structure of ( self-centred ) greed, ambition and superstition ?

Q: I admit society is not what it should be, but what can you do? You can’t get out of society; you have to work in it, make a living in it, suffer and die in it. You can’t become one of those people who withdraw and think only of their own salvation. We must save society in spite of itself.

K: Society is ( created by) man’s relationship with man; its structure is based on his compulsions, ambitions, hates, vanities envies, on the whole complexity of his urge to dominate and to follow. Unless the (spiritually earnest?) individual breaks away from this corruptive structure, what fundamental value can there be in the physician’s help? He will only be made corrupt again.

Q: It is the duty of a physician to heal. We are not reformers of society; that department belongs to the sociologists.

K: Life is one (whole fenomenon ) , it’s not ( meant to) to be departmentalized. We have to be concerned with the whole (consciousness ) of man: with his work, with his love, with his conduct, with his health, his death and his God. It is the fragmentation of man's (total consciousness?) that’s making him ( 'existentially?) sick'.

Q: Some of us do realize this, sir, but what can we do? We ourselves are not whole men with an overall outlook, an integrated drive and purpose. We heal one part while the rest disintegrates, only to see that eventually) the deep rot is destroying the whole. What is one to do? As a physician, what is my duty?

K: To heal, obviously; but isn’t it also the responsibility of the physician to (endeavour in order to) heal society (the collective consciousness of mankind) as a whole? (Clue:) There can be no reformation of society; there can only be an (inward) revolution outside the pattern of society.

Q: But I come back to my point: as an individual, what can one do?

K: Break away from ( the self-centred materialistic mentality of?) society, of course; be free, not from ( the dependency on ) mere outward things, but from (the survivalistic mentality of) envy, ambition, the worship of success, and so on.

Q: Probably such ( inward ) freedom would give one more time for study, and there certainly would be greater tranquillity; but would it not lead to a rather useless existence?

K: On the contrary, the freedom from envy, greed & fear would bring to the (holistically minded?) individual ( the right conditions for achieving ) a state of integration, would it not? It would (eventually?) put a stop to the various forms of ( psychological) 'escape' ( avoiding to deal with the actual inner facts?) which inevitably cause ( an increase of ) confusion and self-contradiction, and ( hopefully the human ?) life would have a deeper, wider significance.

Q: Aren’t some of these (psychological) escapes beneficial to a limited intelligence? For instance religion is a splendid escape for many people; it gives significance, however illusory, to their otherwise drab existence.

K: So do ( going to) cinemas, romantic (& thriller ? ) novels and some ( harmless recreational?) drugs; and would you encourage such forms of escape? The intellectuals also have their escapes, crude or subtle, and almost every person has his blind spots; and when such ( charismatic) people are ( eventually getting ?) in positions of (decision & ) power, they breed more mischief and misery (As seen on TV?) . (The authentic role of?) religion is not a matter of (propagating) dogmas and beliefs, of rituals and superstitions; nor is it the cultivation ( of the virtues necessary for) personal salvation, which is a self-centred activity. ( The authentic spirit of) religion is ( encompassing?) ) the total way of life; it is the understanding of a Truth which is not a projection of the (man-made) mind.

Q: You are asking too much of the average ( mentally standardised?) person, who wants his amusements, his escapes, his self-satisfying religion, and someone to follow or to hate. What you are hinting at demands a different ( holistic ) education, a different global society, and neither our politicians nor our average educators are capable of this wider vision. I suppose man has got to go through the long dark night of misery and pain before he will emerge as an integrated, intelligent human being. But for the moment, that is not my concern. My concern is with individual human wrecks, for whom I can do a great deal; although it seems so little in this vast sea of misery. As you say, I shall have to bring about a state of integration in myself, and that’s quite an arduous undertaking. There is another (bonus question), more personal in nature, which I would like to talk over with you, if I may. I realize that I am ( inwardly greedy & ) envious; and although I allow myself to be analysed from time to time, as most of us analysts do, I haven’t been able to go beyond this thing. I am almost ashamed to admit it, but envy is still there, ranging from petty (office) jealousy up to its more complex (existential) forms, and I don’t seem able to shake it off.

K: Isn't a ( holistically friendly?) mind capable of being free from envy, not in little bits, but 'completely' ? Unless there is a 'total' freedom from it, right through one’s whole being, envy keeps repeating itself in different forms, at different times.

Q: Yes, I realize that 'envy' must be wholly eliminated from the mind, just as a malignant growth must be totally removed from the body, otherwise it will recur; but how is this to be done ?

K: The ‘how’ is another form of envy, isn’t it? When one asks for a method(ology) , one wants to get rid of envy in order to become something else; so envy is still ( subliminally) operating.

Q: It was a 'natural' (experiential) question but I see what you mean. This ( dualistic) aspect of the matter had never struck me before.

K: We always seem (prone to) to fall into this (time-binding) trap, and then we are always trying to be free from envy (sometimes ) . ( Meditation Hint : ) Inquiring into the possibility of total freedom from envy is one thing, and seeking a method to help one to be free is another. In seeking a ( 'fool-proof '?) method, one invariably finds it, but then all inquiry into the possibility of total freedom ceases, and one is stuck with ( haplessly?) following a method, a practice, a discipline. Thus ( the deeper causation of) envy goes on and is subtly sustained.

Q: Yes, as you point it out, I see that’s perfectly true. In effect you are asking me if I am really concerned with the 'total freedom from envy'. But (on a second thought...) do I really want to be free from the totality of envy, from both the pleasure and the painful anxiety of it? My first response is, I don’t know if I want to or not. I suppose what I would really like, is to keep the stimulating side of envy and get rid of the rest. But it is obviously impossible to retain only the desirable parts of it, and one must accept the whole content of envy, or be free of it completely. I am beginning to see the ( holistic) meaning of your question. The urge is there to be free from ( l greed & ) envy, and yet I'd want to hold on to certain parts of it. I can see there is (some subliminal) fear involved in this : If I were not driven by ( a natural thread of greed ) envy, which is covered over by professional words and requirements, there might be a (professional) slipping back; I might not be so successful, so financially well-off. There is a subtle fear of losing all this , a (dark) fear of (personal) insecurity, (and as of now ) this underlying fear (of not being & not becoming anything ?) is certainly stronger than the urge to be free from even the unpleasant aspects of envy, to say nothing of being 'totally free' from it. I can see now the intricate patterns of this ( deep existential) problem, and I am not sure I do really want to be free from envy.

K: As long as the ( self-interest driven ) mind thinks in terms of the ‘more’, there must be envy; as long as there’s comparison, there must be envy; as long as there’s a goal to be achieved, there must be envy; as long as the additive process of self-improvement, the gaining of virtue, exists there must be envy. The ‘more’ implies ( a time-bound 'thinker'who thinks in terms of its own continuity in ?) time, does it not? It implies time in order to change from what one is to what one should be, the ideal; time as a means of gaining, arriving and/or achieving.

Q: Of course. To move from one point (or inner condition ?) to another, time is necessary.

K: But is 'time' (really) needed to be free from envy? We say, ”I am this, and to become that, or to change this quality into that, needs time.” But is time the factor of ( an authentic inward) change? Or is any such change ( enclosed ) within the field of ( thought &) time and therefore it is no change at all?

Q: I am getting rather confused here. You are suggesting that ( a qualitative inward ) change in terms of time is no change at all. How is that?

K: Such change ( within the field of what was already known?) is only a modified continuity of what has been, is it not?

Q : Yes, I can see that.

K So, as long as the mind thinks in terms of changing itself through time, there is no ( holistic) transformation in the present. This is a fact, isn’t it?

Q: All right, sir, we both see this to be a fact. Then what?

K: How does the ( time-bound) mind react when it is confronted with this 'fact'?

Q: Either it runs away from the fact, or it stops and (tries to) look at it.

K: Which is 'your' reaction?

Q: Both, I am afraid. There is an urge to escape from the fact, and at the same time I want to examine it.

K: Can you examine something when there’s ( a subliminal) fear concerning it? Can you observe a fact about which 'you' (the all-controlling 'observer' ) have a personal opinion, or a value judgment?

Q: I see what you mean : I am not actually observing the fact, but evaluating it. My ( knowledgeable) mind is projecting its ideas and fears upon it. Yes, that’s right.

K: In other words, your mind is ( subliminally) occupied with itself, and is therefore incapable of being simply (transpersonally?) aware of the fact. You not allowing the ( direct perception of the ) fact to operate upon your mind. The (holistic perception of the ? ) fact that any change within the field of (thought-) time is no change at all, and that there can only be a 'total' and not gradual freedom from envy - the very ( seeing of the ) truth of this fact will operate on the mind, setting it free (from the field of the known?)

Q: I really (would like to?) think that the 'truth' of it is making its way through my ( self-protective psychological ?) blockages

This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 24 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 25 Jun 2019 #204
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A "reader-friendly" edited K dialogue, cca 1954)

(K's Intro : ) He was a well-known Indian scholar, and had come with some of his friends and a disciple or two. He had a large head, and his small eyes peered through thick glasses. He knew Sanskrit as others know their own languages and spoke it as easily, but he also knew Greek and English. He was as familiar with the major oriental philosophies, including their various branches, as you are with addition and subtraction, and he had also studied the western philosophers as well, both the ancient and the modem. Rigorous in his self-discipline, he had days of silence and fasting, and had practised, he said, various forms of meditation. For all this, he was quite a youngish man, probably in his late forties, simply attired and eager. His friends and disciples sat around him and waited with that devout expectancy which precludes any questioning. They were all of that world of scholars with encyclopedic knowledge, have visions and psychic experiences, and are certain of their own understanding. They took no part in the conversation, but listened, or rather heard what was going on. Later they would ardently discuss it among themselves, but now they must maintain a reverential silence in the presence of higher authority.

Q: I have come as a (humble) inquirer, not to flaunt what I (already) know. In fact, what do I know beyond what I have read and experienced? To learn is a great virtue, but to be content with what one knows is stupid. I have for many years practised meditation, not only the Hindu and Buddhist forms of it, but western types as well. I am saying this so that you may know to what extent I have sought to find that which transcends the ( temporal?) mind.

K: Can a mind which practises a ( prescribed?) system ( of meditation) ever discover 'that' which is beyond the ( temporal?) mind? Is a mind which is held within the framework of its own discipline capable of ( an authentic inward?) search? Must there not be freedom (from the 'known' ) to discover?

Q : Surely, to seek and to observe (in real time what is going on inwardly ?) there must be a certain ( self-) discipline.

K: Sir, we all seek a way out of our misery and trials; but this search comes to an end when a ( traditional) 'method' is adopted by means of which we hope to put an end to sorrow. Only in the ( holistic) understanding of sorrow there an ending of it, and not in the practice of a method.

Q: But how can there be an ending of sorrow if the mind is not well-controlled, one-pointed and purposive? Do you mean to say that self-discipline is unnecessary for such an understanding?

K: Does one understand ( anything profoundly?) when, through ( a self-imposed) discipline, through various practices, one’s mind is shaped by desire? Must not the mind be free for understanding to take place?

Q: Freedom, surely, comes at the end of (one's spiritual) journey; at the beginning, one is a slave to desire and the things of desire . To free oneself from the ( subliminal) attachment to the pleasures of the senses, there must be (self-) discipline, the practice of various 'sadhanas'; otherwise the mind yields to desire and is caught in its (time-binding) net. Unless the (inner) groundwork of righteousness is well laid, the house will tumble.

K: The freedom (to learn?) is ( necessary) at the very beginning, and not at the end. ( For instance:) the ( insightful ) understanding of ( one's ) greed, of the whole content of it - its nature, its implications, and its (time-binding) effects both pleasurable and painful - must be at the beginning. (If this holistic insight occurs ) there is no further need for the mind to build a ( self-protective) wall in order to discipline itself against 'greed'. When (the inward truth ) is perceived (that) the (pursuit ) of 'that which in enviable' ( ultimately) leads to misery and confusion, ( to) discipline ( oneself) against it has no ( experiential) meaning. If (s)he who now spends time ($$$?) and (lots of intelligent?) energy in the practice of a (prescribed) discipline, were to give the same thoughtfulness and attention to the understanding of the total significance of sorrow, there would be a complete ending of sorrow. But if we are caught in the tradition of resistance & discipline, there is no direct understanding ( in real time?) of the (convoluted ?) ways of sorrow.

Q: I am listening, but I do not understand...

K: Can there be a listening ( with mind's inner ear?) as long as the ( self- centred ?) mind clings to its (past ) conclusions based on its assumptions and experiences? Surely, one 'listens' ( to the truth or to falseness of what is being said?) only when the mind is not translating what it hears in terms of what it knows. ( The self-protective mental matrix of ?) Knowledge prevents ( the inner freedom of) listening. One may know a great deal (of higly knowledgeable stuff ?) ; but to listen to something which may be totally (qualitatively ?) different from what one (already) knows, one must put aside one’s ( encyclopaedic?) knowledge. Isn’t that so, sir?

Q: Then how can one tell whether what’s being said is 'true' or 'false'?

K: The (insightful perception into what is ? ) 'true' and (what is) 'false' are not based on opinion or judgment, however 'wise' and 'old'. To perceive the 'true' in the false, and the 'false' in what is said to be true, and to 'see the truth' as 'truth', demands a mind that is not held in its (time-binding) conditioning. How can one see whether a statement is true or false, if one’s mind is prejudiced, caught in the framework of its own or another’s conclusions and experiences? For such a mind, what is (primordially) important is to be(come) aware of its own ( self-protective ?) limitations.

Q: Then, how is a mind that’s enmeshed in the net of its own making to disentangle itself?

K: Does this question reflect the search for a new (fool-proof?) method, or is it put in order to discover for oneself the whole significance of seeking and practising a method? ( Hint:) When one practises a 'method' of (self-) discipline, the intention is to achieve a (superior) result, to gain certain qualities, and so on. Instead of (pursuing the enjoyment of) worldly things, one hopes to gain the 'spiritual things'; but ( the self-centred desire to) 'gain' is the common (motivation) in both cases. There is no (major qualitative?) difference, except in words, between the man who meditates in order to attain the 'Other Shore' , and the man who works hard to fulfil his worldly ambition. Both are ( openly or subliminally) ambitious, both are concerned with themselves.

Q: That being the fact, sir, how are (these collectively inherited trends of) envy, ambition, greed, and so on, to be put aside?

K: To grasp fully the significance of this (ages old?) problem, one has to consider the whole question of (psychologically motivated ?) 'effort'. A 'petty' (time-bound ?) mind making a (transcendental ?) effort in order not to be petty (anymore) remains (essentially?) petty; a 'greedy' mind disciplining ( & controlling?) itself in order to be 'generous' is still greedy. ( In a nutshell:) The (psychologically motivated?) effort to 'be' or... 'not to be' something is (generating ) the (temporal) continuance of the 'self'. This (apparently very noble?) effort may identify itself with the Atman, the Soul, the indwelling (spark of?) God, and so on, but at the 'core' it is still ( the good-old) greed, ambition, which is the (temporal) 'self', with all its conscious and unconscious attributes.

Q: So, you are maintaining that all ( psychologically motivated ?) effort made in order to achieve a (desired) 'end' (result) - worldly or spiritual, is essentially the same, in the sense that 'selfishness' is the basis of it. Such effort only sustains the ego.

K: That is so, isn’t it? The (authentic inner) humility cannot be ( thought-) cultivated; when it is, it is no longer humility.

Q: That is clear and to the point. Now, since you cannot be advocating 'indolence', what is the nature of the 'true' effort?

K : When we are ( becoming ) 'aware' of the full significance of effort, with all its implications, is there then any effort at all of which we are (self-) conscious?

Q; You have pointed out that any (psychologically motivated) becoming, positive or negative, is the perpetuation of this ‘me’, which is the result of identification with desire and the objects of desire. When once ( the inward truth of ) this 'fact' is understood, you are asking, ''Is there then any effort as we know it now?'' I can perceive the possibility of an (effortless) state of being in which all (psychologically motivated?) effort has ceased.

K: Merely to perceive the 'possibility' of that state is not (necessarily leading ) to understanding the total meaning of ( psychologically motivated?) effort in one's everyday existence. As long as there’s an (all-contolling) 'observer' who is trying to change, to gain, or put aside 'that which it observes', there must be effort; for after all, (any psychologically motivated) effort is the (result of a subliminally dulistic ) conflict between 'what is' and 'what should be', the ideal. When ( the inward truth of ) this fact is (seen &?) understood deeply, then the human mind has entered in that ( blissful?) state of being in which all ( dualistic) effort, as we know it, is not.

Q: To experience that ( transcsndental) state (of mind) is the ardent desire of every truth seeker, including myself.

K: ( Unfortunately?) It cannot be sought (by the self-centred mind?) ; ( but nevertheless?) it (may?) come uninvited. ( Hint:) The ( subliminal ) desire for (reaching) it drives the mind to gather ( volumes of '2-nd hand' ?) knowledge and practise ( a meditative) discipline as a means of gaining it - which is again to conform to a pattern in order to being (spiritually) successful. ( Gathering this kind of) knowledge is an impediment to the direct experiencing of that ( effortless) state (of mind & heart) .

Q: How can ( the right kind of) knowledge be an impediment?

K: ( Gathering, processing & storing) knowledge ( for further use?) is a 'movement' of the past. To 'know' is to assert that which has been (already known or experienced) . He who asserts that he 'knows' ceases to understand ( the living movement of) reality. After all, sir, what is it that we know?

Q: I know certain scientific and ethical facts. Without such knowledge, the civilized world would ( ASAP) revert to savagery - and you are obviously not advocating that. But, apart from these facts, what do I know? I know there is an Infinitely Compassionate ( Intelligence) the 'Supreme'.

K: That’s not ( necessarily?) a 'fact', it is a psychologically (motivated) assumption of a mind that has been (culturally) conditioned to believe in the existence of the Supreme. Again, what is it that we 'know'? We know only what we have read or experienced, what we have been taught by the ancient teachers and by the modern gurus and interpreters.

Q; Again I am forced to agree with you. We ( the temporal consciousness?) are the product of the 'past' in conjunction with the 'present'...

K...And the 'future' is a modified continuity of the 'present'. But this is not a matter of agreement, sir. Either one 'sees' the (inward truth of this ) fact, or one does not. When the fact is seen by both of us, agreement is unnecessary. Agreement exists only where there are ( diverging) opinions.

Q: So, ( in a nutshell) you are saying that we 'know' only what we have been taught; that we are merely the repetition of what has been; that our experiences, visions and aspirations are the responses of our cultural conditioning, and nothing more ? But is this entirely so? Is the 'Atman' (the essence of the human Soul) a mere projection of our own desires and hopes? By your very (logical) reasoning, you are forcing me to see certain (inner) facts, not the least of which is my own state of ( existential) confusion. But there still remains the ( experiential) question, what is a mind to do that is caught in its own (self-) entangling net?

K: ( For starters?) Let it be(come) 'choicelessly aware' of the (inward truth of the ) fact that it is confused; for any action born of that confusion can only lead to further confusion. ( And further down the line?) must not the ( totality of one's ) mind 'die' to ( the psychological dependency to) all its 'knowledge' if it is to discover the 'reality' of the Supreme?

Q. That is a very hard thing you are asking. Can I 'die' (let go my subliminal identification ?) to everything I have learnt, read & experienced? I really don’t know.

K: But is it not necessary for the ( holistically friendly ?) mind – spontaneously, without any ( hidden) motive or compulsion - to 'die' to the ( attachments to the psychological memories of its ?) 'past'? An ( all-knowing ) mind that is the result of time, a mind that has read, studied, that has meditated upon what it has been taught, and is in itself a continuance of the past - how can such a mind experience the timeless, the ever-new ( dimension of) Reality ? How can it ever fathom the Unknown? Surely, as long as one 'knows' ( is psychologically anchored in the 'known' ?) there is no 'dying' (no ending of the time-thought continuity) and a mind ( living in its thought projected ) continuity can never be in that ( original) state of Creation which is the Timeless . When the ( psychologically active memory of the ) 'past' ceases to contaminate, Reality is (present) and there is no need to seek it out (somewhere else?) .
( To re-recap:) With one part of itself the ( time-bound) mind knows that there is no permanency, no corner in which it can rest; but with another part, it is ever disciplining itself, seeking openly or surreptitiously to establish an abode of certainty, of permanence, a relationship (with All That Is ?) beyond dispute. So there is an endless contradiction ( a conflict of interests?), a ( blind inner) struggle 'to be or... not to be' and we spend our days ( as self-made ) 'prisoners' within the walls of our own minds.

( Parting words:) These (self-created psychological) walls can be ( effortlessly ) broken down, but knowledge and technique are not the 'right instruments' of that freedom.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 26 Jun 2019 #205
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1954)

( K's Meditational friendly intro :) A strange thing was going on in the (empty ) space of the 'mind' : suddenly the 'watcher', the disappeared and there was only the vast (inward ) space which is the ( Universal ?) Mind. All the (living?) things of the earth and of man were (contained) in it, but they were at the extreme outer edges, dim and far off. Within this Space (of inner emptiness), with 'not-a-(man-made ?) thing', there was a (living?) 'movement of stillness'. It was a deep, vast 'movement' (of Meditation ?) which began from the outer edges ( of one's consciousness?) and with incredible strength was coming towards the 'centre' - a 'centre' that is everywhere within this stillness. This 'centre' is a (state of) total all-oneness, uncontaminated& unknowable, a ( holistic state of inner) Solitude which has no ending and no beginning. It is complete in itself, and not 'made complete' ; the outer edges are in it but not of it. It 'is' ( present deep down?) there, but not within the scope of man’s (time-bound ?) mind. It is the whole, the totality, but not (personally ?) 'approachable'.

Q: Sir, when you talked to us (college) students two or three days ago (in Bangalore ?) you said how necessary a 'right' education is if we are to be able to face (holistically the challenges of our daily ) life. I wish you would again explain to us what you mean by ' right' education.

K: What kind of 'education' do you all have now?

Q: Oh, we are being taught the usual things which are necessary for a given profession, I am going to be an engineer; my friends here are variously studying physics, literature and economics. We are taking the prescribed courses and reading the prescribed books, and when we have time we read a novel or two; but except for games, we are at our studies most of the time.

K: Do you think this is enough to be 'rightly' educated for life?

Q: From what you have said, sir, it is not enough, but that’s all we can get, and ordinarily we think we are being educated.

K: Just to cultivate memory and pass some examinations, to acquire certain capacities or skills in order to get a job - is that ( all there is to ) education?

Q: Is not all this necessary?

K: Yes, to prepare for a right means of livelihood is essential; but that’s not ( covering) the totality of human life. There is also sex, ambition, envy, patriotism, violence, war, love, death, God, man’s relationship to man, which is society-and so many other things. Are you being educated to meet this vast affair called life?

Q: Who is to so educate us? Our teachers and professors are so (dull inwardly &?) indifferent. Some of them are clever and well-read, but none of them give any thought to this kind of thing. We are pushed through, and we shall consider ourselves lucky if we take our degrees; everything is getting to be so difficult. So who can teach us 'rightly' about life?

K: No one can teach you, but you can 'learn' ( all about it for yourself ?) . Such learning goes on throughout life, while what you have been taught (by others) soon turns to dead ashes; and then life, which is an (intelligent &) living thing, becomes a battleground of vain (self-centred?) efforts. ( In a nutshell:) You are thrown into life without the ease or the leisure to understand it; before you know anything about life, you are already in the middle of it, married, tied to a job, with society pitilessly clamouring around you. Therefore, one has ( to be given the choice ) to learn about life from early childhood on - when one is grown up, it is almost too late. Do you know what life is? It extends from the moment you're born until you die – and perhaps even beyond. Life is a vast, complex whole; it’s like a house (or a mansion?) in which everything is happening at once. (Here's a brief 'holistic' description : ) You love and you hate; you are greedy, envious, and at the same time you feel you shouldn’t be. You are ambitious, and there is either frustration or success, following in the wake of anxiety, fear and ruthlessness; and sooner or later there comes a feeling of the futility of it all. Then there are the horrors and brutality of war, and peace through terror; there is nationalism, sovereignty, which supports war; there is death at the end of life’s road, or anywhere along it. There is the search for God, with its conflicting beliefs and the quarrels between organized religions. There is the struggle to get and keep a job; there are marriage, children, illness, and the dominance of society and the State. The human life is ( containing) all this, and much more; you are thrown into this mess. (More often than not?) and you may sink into it, miserable and lost; and even if you 'survive' by climbing to the top of the heap, you are still ( a 'winning'?) part of the mess. This is what we call ( the time-bound human ) life: everlasting struggle and sorrow, with a little Joy occasionally thrown in. ( In a nutshell:) All this is our life and to go beyond all this is also life.

Q: Fortunately, we still know only very little of that whole struggle, but what you tell us of it is already in us potentially. If I want to be a good engineer, I must work hard and plan & calculate for the future. I must make my way through life.

K: That is just it. Everyone says that he must make his way through life; each one is 'out for himself', whether in the name of business, religion or the country. Thus we build a society based on personal ambition, envy and acquisitiveness, in which each man is the (socio-economic?) enemy of another; and you are ‘educated’ ( standardised mentally) to conform to this disintegrating society, to fit into its vicious frame.

Q: But what are we to do - we must conform to society, or be destroyed. Is there any way out of it, sir? Our parents spend their hard-earned money to enable us to have a college degree, so that we can earn a decent livelihood.

K: You say that your parents love you; but is it so? Love is an extraordinary thing; without it, life is barren. ( An authentic?) love implies that those who are loved be left wholly free to grow in their fullness, to be something greater than mere efficient social machines.

Q : Our parents 'love' us, but not in that way.

K: The (average responsible) parent consider it a necessity for him to conform to ( the needs of) society, to be respectable and secure. But is this love? Or is it ( the old survivalistic) fear, covered over by the word ‘love’?

Q: But who is there to ( so lovingly ) 'educate' us to understand life? We have no such teachers, sir.

K: ( Incidently... ?) the ( holistically friendly) 'educator' has to be educated also. The older people like to say that you, the coming generation, must create a different world, but they don’t mean it at all. Though they may ( like to) talk very differently, teachers and parents, supported by the government and society in general see to it that you are trained to conform to tradition, to accept ( the way of) ambition and envy as the natural way of life. They are not at all concerned with a new way of life, and that is why the ( culturally standardised?) 'educator' is not being rightly educated.

Q: But if we want to be rightly educated, what shall we do?

K: First of all, (1) see very clearly the simple fact: that neither the government, nor your present teachers, nor your parents, ( know or) care to educate you rightly; if they did, the world would be entirely different. So (2) you have to set about it yourself (start from scratch?) ; and when you are grown up, you will then see to it that your own children are rightly educated.

Q: But how can we 'rightly' educate ourselves? We need someone to guide us.

K: ( The holistic ) education is something deeper and wider than the mere gathering of information. Education is the cultivation of a ( non-dualistic quality of attention of one's ) mind so that its action is not self-centred; it is learning throughout life to ( intelligently?) break down the ( 'self'-protecting) walls which the (time-bound?) mind builds in order to be ( temporarily?) secure, and from which arises fear with all its complexities. To be rightly educated, you have to study, eat the right food, and keep physically (& mentally?) fit. Let (your Greater?) mind be alert and capable of dealing with the problems of life as a (fully responsible?) human being. ( And not in the least?) you have to understand yourself; you have to keep on learning about yourself ( being fully aware that) when you stop (living in the key of ? ) 'learning', your life becomes ugly and sorrowful.

( Parting words:) Without ( the inward awakening of Intelligence ?) Goodness and Love, you are not rightly educated.

This post was last updated by John Raica Wed, 26 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 28 Jun 2019 #206
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1953-54)

( K's Intro:) She was very well read, capable and direct. She had studied sciences and religion, and lately had attended several of the K talks and discussions in which she felt that a ( spiritual) source common to all the great teachers was active; she had listened with care and had understood a great deal, and now she has come to discuss the 'Inexhaustible' (source of all consciousness?) 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 creativity' of which you have ( so 'holistically') spoken?

K: Is it possible to be aware of the 'timeless'? By what would you measure it?

Q: We can only judge by its effects.

K: Are the effects of the 'Timeless' to be judged by the measurement of time?
If we can understand what we mean by 'time', perhaps it may be possible for the timeless to 'be'. Timelessness is a state which comes only when ( thought's self-projected ) 'time' is not. So let us rather consider what we mean by 'time' : there are different (dimensions ?) of time: time as growth, time as distance, time as (associated to) movement. Time as growth is the small becoming the large, the
bullock cart evolving into the jet plane, the baby becoming the man. There is the ( physical) growth of the seed into the tree, and there is the process of our 'psychological' becoming. ( The memory of what one 'was'  ?) 'yesterday' using 'today' as a passage to 'tomorrow' is one (unitary) movement of time, not three separate movements. Thought 'is' ( constantly projecting its own continuity in) time - the thought of what has been (updating itself into?) the thought of that will be.
Thought ( the pro-active response of man's past memory ?) is the (by-) product of 'time' (of man's physical existence in time ?) , and without the (memory-based) thinking process, time is not. The ( thinking ) mind is the maker of time, it 'is' time.

Q: That is obviously true... without this mental process, time is not. But is it possible to go beyond the ( temporal ) mind? Is there a ( dimension of human mind) which is not of thought?

K: Let us together discover ( experientially?) whether there is such a (time-free) state or not. Is love (the creation of?) thought?

Q: Do you mean to say that when there is ( the sense of all-) oneness, thought ceases and there is only love?

K: Is love ( the emotional by-product of) the thought process? Thought is ( the child?) of time; but is (tha authentic) love time-binding? Thought is bound by time, and you are asking if it is possible (for the human mind?) to be free from the binding quality of time.

Q: It must be, otherwise there could be no creation.

K : ( The eternal newness of?) Creation is possible only when the process of (thought's self-projected) continuity ceases. The new vision, the new invention, the new discovery, is not (taking place in the unbroken ) continuity of the old.”
( In a metaphorical nutshell:) continuity is death to creation.

Q: But how is it possible to put an end to thought's continuity?

K: What makes for ( thought's) continuity? The 'now' moment is the new, but this new is absorbed into (the mental infrastructure of ) the old and so the ( time-binding) chain of (thought's) continuity is formed. Is there ever ( an authentic experiencing of ) the new, or only the ( subliminal process of) 'recognition' of the new by the old? The old (brain?) can recognize only its own (mental) projections; it may call them the 'new', but it is not (new anymore?) . The ( holistic perception of the ) ' New' is (occuring in ) a state of non-recognition, non-association. The old (thinking brain) gives itself continuity through its own projections; it can never 'know' the new. The new ( insightful perception) may be translated in (terms of ) the old, but the 'new' cannot be with the 'old'. The
experiencing of the 'new' is (occurring in) the absence of the 'old'. The experience (of the past) and its expression is thought & ideation ; thought translates the new in terms of the old. It is the (constant 'refreshing' of the residual memories of the ) old that gives ( the 'old brain' its sense of temporal) continuity; the 'old' (brain) is (the storage of all mankind's ) memory, ( operating mentally through) the word, which is time.

Q: How is it possible to put an end to ( this time-binding process of ) memory?

K: For starters, the ( self-identified mental ?) 'entity' that desires to put an end to memory is himself the very 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. Then what is one to do?

K: Please listen (to the inward truth of what is being said ?) , and you will do naturally, without effort, what is essential. ( The self-identified?) desire (to be, or to become?) 'is' (undissociated from) thought; and ( this self-identified desire?) forges the chain of ( one's psychological) memory. And (here's an experiential clue:) accumulation is the ( natural?) way of desire; to accumulate is to continue. ( But beyond its survivalistic necessity?) the (indiscriminate) gathering of experience, knowledge, power or ( other psychologically motivated) 'things' , makes for ( the old brain's time-binding ) continuity. The 'gathering centre' is ( the self-focussing of) desire. This centre is the ( temporal?) Self, placed at
different levels ( of consciousness?) according to one’s (cultural ) conditioning. Any activity of this 'centre' ( of self-interest) only brings about the further continuity of itself. Any ( such mental) movement is time-binding; it prevents Creation. The timeless ( dimension of human consciousness ?) is not ( to be found) within the time-binding quality of (one's self-centred) memory.

( Parting words:)There is the ( transpersonal experiencing of the ? ) 'Unnameable' only when ( the time-binding momentum of gathering evermore?) experience & knowledge has wholly ceased.
(The inward realisation of this profound ?) 'truth' alone frees the mind from its ( time-binding ?) bondage.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 28 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 29 Jun 2019 #207
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue (cca 1953)

Q: Meditation is of the greatest importance to me; I have been meditating very regularly twice a day for more than twenty-five years. I have repeated the sacred word and fasted for long periods; morally I have been upright, and worldly things have no attraction for me. But after all these years of (self-) discipline and denial, there is not the (inner) peace, the bliss of which the Great Ones speak. On rare occasions there have been enlightening moments of deep ecstasy, the intuitive promise of greater things; but I seem unable to pierce the illusion of my own mind, and I am endlessly caught in it. (And lately) a cloud of confusing despair is descending upon me and there is an increasing sorrow.

K: But during all these years, have you ever ( thought of) stopping to strive after the final end? Do not ( the self-centred?) will (power) and effort make up the (psychological infrastructure of the) ‘I’ ( the self-identified consciousness?) , and can the process of ( thought's self-projected continuity in ? ) 'time' lead to the Eternal?

Q: I have never consciously stopped striving after 'That' for which my heart, my whole being longs. I dare not stop; if I did, I would fall back, I would deteriorate. It is the very nature of all things to struggle ever upwards, and without will (power) and (right mental) effort there would be stagnation; without this purposive striving, I could never go beyond (the limitations of?) my (temporal) self.

K: Can the ‘I’ ( one's self-identified consciousness?) ever free itself from its own bondage and illusions? Must not this ‘I’ cease for the Nameless to be? Does not this constant striving after the 'final end' only strengthen one's self-(enclosed consciousness?) , however concentrated its desire may be? Your struggle after the 'final' end is still ( motivated by ) the desire to gain (the spiritual Jackpot?) , is it not?

Q: I have overcome all passion, all desire, except this one, which is more than desire; it is the only
thing for which I live.

K: Then you must 'die' to (the attachment to ) this (top desire) too, as you are dead to other longings and desires. You may have strengthened yourself ( your will power?) in this one purpose, but it is still within the ('known' ) field of the ‘I’. But you want to experience the Unnameable - that is your longing, is
it not?

Q: Of course. Beyond a shadow of doubt I want to 'know' the final ( spiritual) end, I want to experience 'God'.

K: The ( self-conscious?) 'experiencer' is ever being conditioned (limited?) by his ( dualistic approach of the desired ) experience. If this 'experiencer' is ( self-consciously?) aware that he is 'experiencing' ( the object of its desire ?) , then its 'experience' is the outcome of his self-projected desires.
( Eg:) If you 'know' that you are experiencing God, then that 'God' is the projection of yours (or all mankind's?) hopes and illusions. There is no ( authentic inner) freedom for the (seasoned?) 'experiencer', he is forever caught in ( the residual memory of) his own experiences; he is the 'maker of (his own psychological) time' and he can never experience the Eternal (Universal Consciousness?) .

Q: Do you mean to say that that which I have diligently built up, with considerable mental effort and through
wise choice, must be destroyed? And must I be the instrument of its destruction?

K: ( Probably yes, but?) can the ‘I’ positively set about 'negating' itself? Whatever its activity, however noble its aim, any ( mental)effort on the part of the ‘I’ ( in order to negate itself?) is still within the field of its own memories, idiosyncrasies and projections, whether conscious or unconscious ( within the field of the 'known'?) .
The ‘I’ may divide itself into the organic ‘I’, and the transcendental 'self'; but this dualistic (intellectual ) separation is an illusion in which the mind is caught. ( In a nutshell:) whatever may be the movement ( the action) of the ( self-identified?) mind, of the ‘I’, it can never free itself; it may go from ( a lower) level to
( a higher) evel, from stupid (lame existential choices ?) to more intelligent ones, but its ( evolutionary) movement will always be within the sphere of its own making.

Q: You seem to cut off all hope (for a spiritual redemption?) . What is one to do?

K: ( In the meditational context?) you must be completely denuded (of the 'known'?), without the weight of the past or the enticement of a hopeful
future - which does not (necessarily?) mean 'despair'. If you ( feel that 'you' ) are in despair, there is no (authentic) 'emptiness', no ( psychological?) 'nakedness'.
You ( the self-conscious mind?) cannot ‘do’ anything. But you can and must be ( inwardly) still, without any ( self-projected) desire; ( Experiential Hint:) you cannot (consciously endeavour ) to become ( perfectly) still by suppressing all (mental) noise, for that very effort is ( generating its own background ) noise. ( The authentic inward?) Silence is not the opposite of ( the physical or mental ?) noise.

Q: But in my present ( transition ) state, what is to be done?

K: (Take a short break, since?) you are so eager to get a positive direction, that you are not really listening.

( Early next morning he came back)

Q: In spite of my outward impatience and anxiety, inwardly I must have been ( subliminally) alert to ( the inward truth of) what you were saying yesterday, for when I woke up this morning there was a certain sense of inner freedom and a clarity that comes with ( holistic) understanding. May we proceed from
where we left off?

K: We can ( try to) look at this ( highly sensible ?) problem afresh : the outward and inward ( activity of the self-centred) mind is ceaselessly active, receiving impressions; caught (safely anchored?) in its (past) memories and reactions; it is a (pretty hectic?) aggregate of many desires and conflicts. It functions only within the field of ( thought &) time, and in that field there is this ( all controlling) psychological activity of the ‘I’, of the ‘me’ and the ‘mine’, (which in meditation ) must cease, for such activity causes (time-binding psychological) problems and brings about various forms of mental agitation and disorder. ( Hint:) any ( self-centred mental ) effort to stop this activity only makes for greater activity and agitation.

Q: That is true, I have noticed it. The more one tries to make the mind ( perfectly?) still, the more resistance there is, and one’s effort is spent in overcoming this resistance; so it becomes an unbreakable 'vicious

K: If you are ( becoming fully) aware of the viciousness of this circle and realize that 'you' (the self-identified 'observer'?) cannot break it, then with this ( very mindful ?) realization the 'observer', ceases to be.

Q: That seems to be the most difficult thing to do: to suppress the 'observer'. I have tried, but so far I
have never been able to succeed. How is one to do it?

K: Are you not still thinking in terms of the ‘I’ and the ‘non-I’? Are you not maintaining this ( dualistic mental attitude) by the constant repetition of ( past ) experience and habit? After all, the 'thinker'
and his (self-centred) 'thinking' are not two different processes, but we make them so in order to attain a ( superior ? ) desired end. The ( all controlling mental entity of the ) 'censor' comes into being with ( mankind's natural ) desire (to survive safely ?) .
( Hint:) Our ( homework?) problem is not how to suppress the censor, but to (holistically) understand ( the chaotic activities of ?) desire.

Q: Agreed, but must there not be an (intelligent?) entity which is capable of understanding (holistically?) , a state ( of higher consciousness) which is apart from ignorance ? Otherwise I do not see how this (omnipresent?) 'observer' can be eradicated.

K: Let us see. We were saying that it is essential to understand ( the joint process of thought -) desire. ( The thought-enforced ?) desire can and does divide itself into 'pleasure' and 'pain', 'wisdom' and 'ignorance'; one desire opposes another, the more profitable in conflict with the less profitable, and so on. But though for various reasons (related to survival ?) it may separate itself, ( the thought-enforced ?) desire is in fact an invisible process, is it not?

Q: This ( holistic insight?) is a difficult thing to grasp. I cannot (as yet) be fully aware of ( all the hectic activities of 'thought sustained ) desire' as a single, unitary process; but now that you have pointed it out, I am beginning to feel that it is so.

K: ( This process of the self-centred thinking driven by) desire may break ( fragment?) itself up into many opposing and conflicting urges, but it is still desire. These many urges ( thoughtfully prioritised?) go to make up the ‘I’ (the 'self'-identified consciousness) , with its ( personal) memories, anxieties, fears, and so on, and the entire activity of this ‘I’ is within the field of ( thought &) desire (aka : the field of the 'known'?) ; it has no other field of activity. That is so, is it not?

Q: Do please go on. I am listening ( as suggested?) with my whole being, trying to 'go beyond' the words, deeply and without effort.

K: Our ( experiential?) problem, then, is this: is it possible for the activity of ( thought-sustained ?) desire to 'come to an end' voluntarily, freely,
without any form of ( mental) compulsion? It is only when this happens that the mind can be ( at peace with itself & ) still. If you are (becoming) aware of this as a (true inner) fact, does not the ( thought-sustained) activity of desire come to an end?

Q: Yes, but only for a very brief period; then once again the habitual activity begins. How can this be stopped?.. But as I ask, I see the absurdity of asking ( somebody else to answer it?)

K: Thought's very demand for the cessation of the ‘I’
becomes the new ( source of ) activity for the ‘I' - it is merely another ( spiritually upgraded ?) form of desire.

( Parting words:) Only when the ( meditating) mind is (naturally & ) spontaneously still can the 'Other', That ( Spiritual Essence?) which is not of the (creation of the temporal ?) mind, come into being.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 29 Jun 2019.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 30 Jun 2019 #208
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K Dialogue, cca 1954)

Q: As far back as I can remember, I have had endless conflict, mostly within myself, though sometimes it manifests outwardly. I am not greatly worried by any outward conflict, as I have learnt to adjust
myself to the existing circumstances. But what I cannot understand is this (very annoying state of ) inward conflict, which I am unable to control. It goes on beneath the everyday occupations, and frequently explodes in my more intimate relationships.

K: What do you mean by (this inward state of) conflict? What is the nature of it?

Q: Outwardly I am a fairly busy man, and my work demands concentration and attention. When my mind is thus occupied, my inward conflicts are forgotten; but as soon as there is a lull in my work, I am back in my (inner) conflicts. These conflicts are of varying nature and at different levels. I want to be successful in my work, to be at the top of my profession, with plenty of money and all the rest of it, and I know I can be. At another level,
I am aware of the( existential) stupidity of my ambitions. I love the good things of life, and opposed to that, I want to lead a simple, almost an ascetic existence. Instinctively I am a peaceful person, yet anger is easy for me. Outwardly I give the appearance of being calm and steady, but I am agitated and confused by my inward conflicts. I am well over thirty, and I really want to break through the confusion of my own ( contradicting) desires. Can you tell me whether it is possible for me to have some kind of inward serenity?

K: Instead of trying to 'do away' with ( your inward state of) conflict, let us see if we can understand this agglomeration of ( the various threads of thought-sustained by?) desire. Our problem is to see the nature of ( the thought-sustained ) desire, and not merely to overcome conflict; for it is ( the inner) fragmentation of desire that causes conflict.
( The time-binding activity of self-centred ? ) desire is stimulated by association and remembrance; ( needless mentioning that) memory is part of ( the total process of) desire (Eg:) the recollection of one's pleasant and unpleasant ( experiences ) nourishes ( the momentum of) desire and breaks it up into opposing and conflicting desires. The ( temporal) mind identifies itself with the 'pleasant' ( activities of thought-desire) as opposed to the 'unpleasant' (ones) ; through the (subliminal) choice of pain and pleasure the ( self-centred) mind 'separates' (fragments the activity of the thought -sustained) desire, dividing it into different categories of pursuits and values.

Q: Though there are many conflicting and opposing (threads of thought-sustained ) desires, all desires are one. Is that it?

K: That is so, is it not? And it is really important to understand this (holistic point) , otherwise the (time-binding?) conflict between opposing desires is endless. The 'dualistic (split' between the 'good' & 'bad' aspects of ) desire, which the ( time-bound) mind has brought about, is a (wide spread?) illusion.
There is no ( intrinsical) dualism in desire, but merely different types of desire. There is dualism only between ( thought's self-centred movement in ) 'time' and ( the Consciousness of?) 'Eternity'.
Our concern is to see the unreality of the dualism of ( the 'good' vs 'bad' forms of) desire. Desire does divide itself into 'want (this)' and 'non-want' ( not want that?) , but the avoidance of the one and the pursuit of the other is still ( the continuity of thought &) desire.
(To make a very long story short :) There is no 'escape' from ( your inner state of) conflict through any of the opposites of desire, for ( when it is countered ?) desire itself breeds its own opposition.

Q: I see rather vaguely that what you say is a (very holistic perception of the inward ) 'fact', but it is also a (personally observable ?) fact that (inwardly) I am still torn between my many desires.

K: It is a ( true inward?) fact that all ( the thought- sustained threads or ) activities of desire is (are) one and the same, but (unfortunately we cannot ) use it as an 'instrument' to free ourselves from the conflicts of desire; (on the other hand ) if we see it to be true then it has the ( intelligent?) power to set the mind free from breeding illusions.
So ( to recap:) we must become aware of ( the subliminal fragmentation of the thought-sustained activity of ?) desire breaking itself up into separate and conflicting parts. ( And also to become aware that inwardly ?) we 'are' ( subliminally identified with ) these opposing and conflicting desires – (in fact) we 'are' ( identified with) the whole ( diverging) bundle of them, each pulling in a different direction.

Q: Yes, but what can we 'do' about it?
K: Without first catching a (totally insightful?) glimpse of ( the thought-sustained movement of) desire as a single unit, whatever we may try to do will be of very little ( experiential) significance, for ( trying to control ? ) desire only multiplies ( or diversifies the activities of ?) desire and the mind is ( getting) trapped in this ( all-controlling ?) conflict.
There is freedom from (mind's condition of inner?) conflict only when ( the movement of thought-enforced) desire, which makes up the ‘I’, comes to an end.

Q: Doesn't this imply an end to one’s 'active' life?

K: It may or it may not. It is foolish on our part to speculate about what kind of life it will be without desire.

Q: You surely do not mean that the 'organic wants' must cease...?

K: ( Generally speaking the?) 'organic wants' are moulded and expanded by our 'psychological' desires; we are talking here of ( the ending of?) these ( particular) desires.

Q: Can we go more deeply into the functioning of these inner ( 'psychologically' motivated?) 'cravings'?

K: ( Thought's fragmented activity driven by various ?) desires are both open and hidden, conscious and concealed. ( Hint:) The 'concealed' (ones) are of far greater significance than the more obvious (ones) ; but we cannot come (in touch ) with the deeper if the superficial (ones) are not understood and 'tamed' - they must be (holistically) observed and quieted. With the calming of (mind's) superficial agitation, there is a possibility that the deeper desires, motives and intentions will ( eventually ?) come to the surface.

Q: How is one to quiet the surface agitation? I see the importance of (further meditating upon) what you are saying, but I do not quite see how to approach the problem, how to experiment with it.

K: ( In the contex of a 'holistically friendly' meditation?) the 'experimenter' is not separate from 'that which he is experimenting'. The ( inward?) truth of this must be seen (ASAP?) . 'You' who are experimenting with 'your desires' are not an entity apart from those desires, are you? The ( self-conscious) ‘I’ ( entity) who says, ‘I will suppress this desire and then go after that’, is himself the outcome of all ( thought's previous attempts to control the time-binding activities of ? ) desire, is he not?

Q: One can feel intellectually that it is so, but to actually realize (the inward truth of) it, is quite another matter...

K: If as each desire arises there is a (transpersonal?) awareness of this ( profound inward) truth, then there is freedom from the ( dualistic) illusion of the 'experimenter' as a separate entity unrelated to desire. ( However?) as long as the ‘I’ exerts its (will powers in order ? ) to be free from desire, it is only strengthening desire in another direction and so perpetuating ( a subliminal) conflict (of interests) .

If there is an awareness of ( the inward truth of ) this 'fact' from moment to moment, when the experiencer 'is' the experience, then you will find that ( the time-binding movement of thought-driven by ) desire with its many varying conflicts ( of interest) comes to an end.

Q: ( Just a bonus question:) Will all this help one to have a calmer and fuller life?

K: Certainly not at the beginning. It is sure to arouse more ( open & hidden) disturbances, and some deeper ( profound psychological ) adjustments may have to be made; but ( as a simple 'rule of thumb'?) the deeper and wider one goes ( 'meditatively' speaking ?) into this complex problem of ( thought sustained?) desire and conflict, the 'simpler' it becomes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 01 Jul 2019 #209
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


(A reader-friendly edited K Dialogue, cca 1953)

(K's Intro:) He was a youngish man, and had come from the other side of the country (of India) , a tiresome journey. He had a busy and argumentative mind, and his words could not come fast enough as he quoted endlessly what the ancient philosophers and Teachers had said concerning the purpose of life. He was (looking?) tormented and deeply anxious.

Q: Without knowing the true purpose of life, my very existence has no meaning, and all my action is destructive. I earn a livelihood just to carry on; I suffer, and death awaits me. This is the common way of life but what is the purpose of it all? What do you say?

K: Sir, before going any further, is it not important to ask yourself if you are capable of seeking out the 'true'? Is Truth a matter of personal opinion, of pleasure & gratification? Truth must be something beyond (personal) like and dislike, must it not?
( For starters ?) (An authentic inner) humility must be (at the very ) beginning of all search for Truth. An 'ambitious' man man however subtle and hidden his ( secret?) ambition, is never 'humble'. To pursue ( anybody's spiritual) authority is to destroy any insightful understanding. The pursuit of a (highly recommended) ideal prevents humility, for the (self-projected) ideal is the glorification of oneself , of the ego. And how can he who in different ways gives importance to the ‘me’, ever be (inwardly) humble? Without the humility (of not-knowing?) , Reality can never be (contacted ?)
Wanting to find the true purpose of life, you have (probably) read many philosophers and sought out many teachers. Now, do you want to know the truth of what they say, or the truth of your own inquiry?

Q: When you ask a straight question like that, I feel rather hesitant in my reply. There are people who have studied and experienced more than I ever can, and it would be absurd conceit on my part to
discard what they say, which may help me to uncover the significance of life. But each one speaks according to his own experience and understanding, and they sometimes contradict each other. Please help me to see the truth in all this.

K: To see the false as 'false', to see the 'truth' in the false, and to see the true as 'true', is not an easy (spiritual endeavour) . To perceive all this clearly, there must be freedom from ( the self- identification with  the though-driven activities of ? ) desire, which twists and conditions the mind. ( Experiential hint :) Your very eagerness becomes a hindrance to the ( transpersonal ?) understanding of your own inquiry. So, you want to know the truth of what you have read and of what your teachers have said, do you not?

Q: Yes, most definitely.

K: Then you must be able to find out for yourself what is true in all these statements. Therefore your mind must be capable of 'direct perception'; if it is not, it will be lost in the jungle of ideas, opinions and beliefs. If your mind has not the capacity to see what is true, you will be like a driven leaf. So what is important
is not the conclusions and assertions of others, whoever they may be, but for you to have ( the timeless flash of?) 'insight' into what is true.
Is this not most essential?

Q: I think it is, but how am I going to have this ( heavenly?) gift?

K: ( This gift of insightful) understanding is not a ( spiritual) gift reserved for the few; (but nevertheless ?) it comes to those who are earnest in their self-knowledge.
( In a nutshell:) For the Truth to be (seen?) , the ( enquiring?) mind must be without comparison, for when the ( self-centred ) mind is comparing & evaluating it is not (inwardly) quiet, it is 'occupied'. And an (inwardly ?) occupied mind is incapable of clear and simple perception.

Q: Does it mean that I must strip myself of all the values that I have built up, the knowledge that I have gathered?

K: Must not the mind be free ( from the psychological burden of what one knew before) to discover? Does (the tons of second hand) knowledge & informations - the conclusions and experiences of oneself and others, this vast accumulated burden of ( personal & collective) memory - bring freedom? Is there ( an authentic inner) freedom as long as there is the ( all-knowing mental) 'censor' who is judging, condemning, comparing? ( In short :) The mind is never quiet if it is always acquiring and calculating; and must not the mind be still for Truth to be (perceived?) ?

Q: I see your point , but aren’t you asking too much of a simple mind like mine?

K: Are you ( inwardly really ?) simple ? If you were, it would be a great ( spiritual) delight to begin with true inquiry; but unfortunately you are not (there?) . Wisdom and Truth come to a man who truly says I do not know. "The 'simple' (minded?) & the 'innocent', not those who are burdened with knowledge, will see the light, for they are humble."

Q: I came (to hear from you) only one thing - the true purpose of life, and you shower me with things that are beyond me. Can't you just tell me in simple words what is the true significance of life?

K: Sir, you want ( to know) the 'Immense' without first seeing what is close by. You want to know the (true?) significance of life ?
( In a holistic nutshell;) Life has no beginning and no ending; it is both 'death' (the unmanifested?) and ( the manifested) 'life'; it is Love and its immeasurable beauty, the sorrow of ( self-centred) solitude and the bliss of all-oneness. It cannot be 'measured' (by words ?) , nor can the (self-centred ?) mind discover it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 02 Jul 2019 #210
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 520 posts in this forum Offline


(A "reader-friendly" edited K Dialogue, cca 1954)

Q: I would like to talk over with you about a strange experience
that happened to me quite recently. A group of us had been meeting fairly often to talk things over seriously, and one evening we were discussing rather heatedly the remarkable similarity between Communism and Catholicism, when suddenly there appeared in the room a seated figure (of a Buddhist Monk?) , with yellow robe and shaven head. I was quite startled. I rubbed my eyes and looked at the faces of my friends. They were completely oblivious of the figure, and were so occupied with their discussion that they did not notice my silence. I shook my head coughed, and again rubbed my eyes, but the figure was still there. I cannot convey to you what a beautiful face it had; its beauty was not merely of form, but of something infinitely greater. I could not take my eyes off that face; and as it was getting to be too much for me, and not wanting my friends to notice my silence and my astonished absorption, I got up and went out on the veranda.
The night air was fresh and cold. I walked up and down, and presently went in again. They were still talking; but the atmosphere of the room had changed, and the figure was still where it had been
before, seated on the floor, with its extraordinary head cleanly shaven. I could not go on with what we had been discussing, and presently all of us left. As I walked home the figure went before me. That was several weeks ago, and it has still not left me though it has lost that forceful immanence and something very strange has happened to me. But before I go into that, what is this 'experience'? Is it a self-projection from the unconscious past, or is it something wholly independent of me, without any relation to my consciousness? I have thought a great deal about the matter and I have not been able to find
the truth of it.

K: Now that you have had this 'experience', do you value it? Is it important to you and do you hold on to it?

Q: In a way, I suppose I do, because it has given me a creative release - a deep sense of inner freedom and peace. I value it because it has caused a profound transformation in myself. It is, indeed, vitally important to me, and I would not lose it at any price.

K: Is it a living figure, or the (revived) memory of something that has come and gone?

Q: Sometimes it is a living figure, but more often it is the recollection of a past experience.

K: You see how important it is to be aware of 'what is' and not be caught in what one would like it to be ? It is easy to create a (self-comforting mental ?) illusion and live in it.
Living (inwardly) in the (sweet memories of the ? ) past, however pleasant, however edifying, prevents the experiencing of 'what is' (going on 'now') . The 'what is' is ever new, and the ( time-bound) ) mind finds it extremely arduous and difficult not to live in the 'thousand yesterdays' (aka: the 'known'?) .
Now, because you are clinging to that memory the living experience (of 'what Is' ) is denied. The ( self-projected continuity of the memories of the ) past ( aka : 'time') has an ending, and ( then?) the living is in the eternal (present?) . Most of us never know what it is to live (in the present?) because we are living with the 'dead' (memories ?) .
May I point out, sir, that the apprehension of losing something very precious has crept in. The fear (of loosing it?) has arisen in you.
Therefore, out of that one ( ESP) 'experience' you have brought into being several (previously ignored psychological) problems: acquisitiveness, fear, the burden of experience, and the (existential?) emptiness of your own being. If the (inquiring ) mind can free itself from all acquisitive urges, experiencing will have quite a different significance, and then fear totally disappears. Fear is a shadow, and not a thing in itself.

Q: I am really beginning to see what I have been doing : as this experience was so intense, so has been
the desire to hold on to it. How difficult it is not to be caught in a deep emotional experience! And the
memory of ( such) an experience is as invitingly forceful as the experience itself.

K: It is most difficult to differentiate between (the actual) experiencing and ( its subliminal imprint in) memory is it not? When does experiencing become memory, a thing of the past? Wherein does the subtle difference lie? Is it a matter of time? When the experiencing 'is' (spontaneously happening) there is no 'time'. But in every ( new personal?) experience, the actual state of experiencing is imperceptibly flowing ( is absorbed ?) into the (memory of the) past.

Every living experience, a second later, has become a memory, a thing of the past. This is the ( time-binding) process we all know, and it seems to be inevitable. But... is it?

Q: I am following very keenly what you are unfolding, and I am more than delighted that you are talking of this, because I am aware of myself only as a series of ( self-identified) memories, at whatever level of my being. I 'am' memory. But is it really possible to be, to exist in the state of experiencing? That is what you are implying, is it not?

K: If for a moment we can go beyond these ( known verbal ) references and their reactions, perhaps we shall get at the truth (of this whole matter) .
( To recap:) With most of us, ( the original spontaneity of ) experiencing is always becoming ( 'dead' ?) memory. Why? Is it not (due to) the constant (mechanistic) activity of the (temporal?) mind to absorb and/or to deny? Does it not hold on to what is pleasurable, edifying or significant, and try to eliminate all that is
not useful to ( the temporal continuity of) itself?
Now let us go further. This ( subliminal drive for ) positive or negative accumulation, this 'evaluating' mental process, ( in time?) becomes the 'censor', the 'watcher', the 'experiencer', the 'thinker', the ego. At the moment of ( the spontaneous) experiencing, the 'experiencer' (entity) is not (present) ; but the 'experiencer' comes into being when choice begins, that is, when the living (experience) is over and there is the beginning of (its) accumulation (& processing within the 'known') .

( In experiential terms:) The acquisitive urge 'blots out' the living ( experience) making of it a (memorable?) thing of the past, of ( dead ?) memory. As long as there is ( the interference of the ) the 'observer', the 'experiencer', there must inevitably be acquisitiveness, the gathering-in process; as long as there is a separate ( self-identified mental) entity who is watching and choosing experience is always a process of ( self-) becoming. ( The authentic) 'being' or 'experiencing' is (happening only ) , when this ( self-) separated (mental) entity is not (active?) .
But let us go back to your original question : Was the 'figure' self-projected, or did it come into being uninfluenced by you? Was it independent of you? (The collective?) consciousness (of mankind) is a complicated affair, and it would be foolish to give a definite answer, but one can see that ( your) recognition is based on the ( cultural) conditioning of the mind. You had studied Buddhism, and as you said, it had impressed you more than any other religion, so the conditioning process had taken place. That ( collective cultural) conditioning may have projected the 'figure', even though the conscious mind was occupied with a wholly different matter. Also, your mind being made acute and sensitive by the way of your life, and by the discussion you
were having with your friends perhaps you ‘saw’ a thought (- form) clothed in a Buddhist form, as another might ‘see’ it in a Christian form. But whether it was self-projected or otherwise, is not of vital importance, is it?

Q: Perhaps not, but it has shown me a great deal.

K: It did not reveal to you the (actual) working of your own mind, and you became a ( 'conscience') prisoner to that experience. All such experience has significance when with it there comes self-knowledge which is the only ('time'-) releasing or integrating factor; but without self-knowledge, ( such ESP) experience is ( becoming a potential psychological ?) burden leading to every kind of illusion.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 181 - 210 of 304 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.)