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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 211 - 219 of 219 in total
Wed, 03 Jul 2019 #211
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


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

(K's Intro:) He was a teacher with little pay and a large family, but he was interested in education. He said he
had a difficult time making ends meet, but he managed somehow, and poverty was not a disturbing
factor. Though food was not in abundance, they had enough to eat, and as his children were being
educated freely in the school where he was teaching, they could scrape along.

Q: What is the function of a teacher?

K: Is he merely a giver of information, a transmitter of knowledge?

Q: He has to be at least that. In any given society, boys and girls must be prepared to earn a livelihood,
depending on their capacities, and so on. It is part of the function of a teacher to impart knowledge
to the student so that he may have a job when the time comes, and may also, perhaps, help to bring
about a better social structure. The student must be prepared to face life.

K: That is so, sir, but aren’t we trying to find out what is the function of a ( holistic?) teacher? Is it merely to prepare the student for a successful career? Has the teacher no greater and wider significance?

Q: For one thing, he can be an example. By the way of his life, by his conduct, attitude and outlook, he can influence and inspire the student.

K: Is the main function of a ( holistically minded?) teacher to be an example to the student? Is it not the function of ( a holistically friendly) education to help the student to be free, to be creative? ? Is it not the function of a teacher to help the student to understand what he (really?) is?

Q: But the teacher must guide the student towards a better and nobler life.

K: To guide, you must know (what you are doing?) but do you? What do you know? You know only what you have learnt through the screen of your cultural conditioning as a Hindu, a Christian, or a Communist; and this form of (fake?) 'guidance' only leads to greater misery as is being shown throughout the world.
Is it not the function of a teacher to help the student to free himself intelligently from all these conditioning influences so that he will be able to meet life deeply and fully, without fear & without aggressive (self-assertion or) discontent? (Man's existential) discontent is part of intelligence, but not the 'acquisitive' (kind ) for it pursues the well worn pattern of acquisitive action. Is it not the function of a teacher to dispel the gratifying illusion of guides, examples and leaders?

Q: Then at least the teacher can 'inspire' the student to do greater things.

K: Again, are you not approaching the problem wrongly, sir? If you as a teacher try to infuse ( higher?) thoughts and feelings into the (mind of the ) student, are you not making him psychologically dependent on you? And does not dependence breed fear, which in turn can cripple (student's natural) intelligence?

Q: But if the teacher is not to be either an inspirer, an example, or a guide, then what in heaven’s name
is his true function?

K: The moment you are none of those things what is your relationship with the student?
Did you previously have any ( authentic) relationship with the student at all? Your relationship with him was based on the idea of ''what was supposed to be good for him'', that he ought to be this or that. You were influenced him according to your particular conditioning so, consciously or unconsciously you moulded him in your own ( socially standardised) image. But if you cease to act upon him, then he becomes important in himself, which means that you have to understand him and not demand that he should understand you or your 'ideals'. Then you would have to deal with 'what is' and not with 'what should be'. Surely, when the ( holistically minded?) teacher regards each student as a unique individual and therefore not to be compared with any other, he is then not concerned with system or method. His sole concern is with ‘helping’ the student to understand the conditioning influences about him and within himself, so that he can face intelligently without fear, the complex process of living and not add more problems to the already existing mess.

Q: Are you not asking of the teacher a task that is far beyond him?

K: If you are incapable of this, then why be a teacher? I feel that nothing is impossible for the true ( for the holistically minded) educator.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 04 Jul 2019 #212
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


( An experientially-friendly edited K Dalogue, cca 1954)

Q: I see the importance of listening, but I wonder if I really can listen to what you say. Somehow I have to make a great effort to listen.

K: When you make an effort to listen, are you ( really) listening? Is not that very effort a ( mental ) distraction which prevents listening? Do you make an effort when you listen to something that gives you great delight? ( The authentic ) listening in itself is never ( becoming) a 'problem'.

Q: But to me it is. I want to listen 'correctly' because I feel that what you are saying has a deep ( spiritual) significance, but I can’t go beyond its verbal (intellectual ?) meaning.

K: If I may say so, you have made listening into a (psychologically motivated ) problem, and (the inward conflict generated by ?) this problem is preventing you from listening. Everything we touch becomes a 'problem', one issue breeds many other issues. Perceiving this is it possible not to breed problems at all?

Q: That would be marvellous, but how is one to come to that 'happy' ( problem-free) state (of being)?

K: ( For starters?) you must be(come ?) aware of the manner in which the ( self-centred) mind is creating the problem. You want to achieve the (ideal) state of a 'perfect listening'; and (in thinking that you ) need time '& effort) to gain that state, you are not simply aware that you are not listening now . When (and if?) you are becoming aware of ( the inward truth of the ) fact that you are not 'listening', this (timeless insight) has its own action - the 'truth' of that fact acts, 'you' (the 'self'-centred entity) do not act upon the fact.
( In a nutshell) Your (mental) effort to act upon the 'fact' breeds problems, whereas seeing the (inward) truth of the 'fact' brings its own liberating action. You are not aware of the truth, nor do you see the false as the false, as long as your mind is occupied in anyway with effort, with comparison, with justification or condemnation.

Q: All this may be so, but with all the ( open & hidden) conflicts and contradictions that go on within oneself, it still seems to me that it is almost impossible to listen (completely to anything) .

K: Listening (with the 'mind-in-the-heart'?) itself is a complete act and this very act of (selfless) listening brings its own freedom. But are you really concerned with ( the act of) listening, or with altering ( the ongoing state of conflict & ) turmoil within? If you would 'listen', sir, in the sense of being ( choicelessly) 'aware' of your ( self- generated inner ) conflicts and contradictions without ( trying to) force them into any particular pattern of thought , perhaps they might altogether cease. You see, we are ( openly or subliminally?) constantly trying to achieve a particular ('special' ?) state (of consciousness?) , to capture one kind of experience and avoid another, so the mind is ( keeping itself) everlastingly occupied with ( thinking about) something; it is never (remaining completely) still to 'listen' to the ('self'-generated) noise of its own struggles and pains.
(Parting words:) Be (inwardly) simple, sir, and don’t try to become something or to capture some experience.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 05 Jul 2019 #213
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


( A 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue from the early 50's)

( K's Intro:) He said he had gone into the question very thoroughly and he was convinced that there were Masters (of Wisdom, located ) in different parts of the world. They did not show themselves physically but exerted a beneficent influence and guided ( the minds of) the leaders of the world’s thoughts and actions, though these 'leaders' were unaware of it; and they brought about revolution and peace. He was convinced that each continent had a group of such Masters, shaping its destiny and giving it their blessing. He was entirely earnest and desired ( to obtain more occult) knowledge about these Masters).

Q: Is it possible to have a direct contact with Them?

K: We are 'odd' people; we wander in search of something in far-off places when it is so close to us. Truth is never ( to be found) in our homes but in some distant place. We would go to the other side of the world to find the Master, but we do not understand the common things of our own life, the everyday struggles and joys, and yet we attempt to grasp the mysterious and the hidden. We do not know ourselves, but we are willing to serve or follow him who promises a ( major spiritual) reward, a hope, a Utopia.( But...) as long as we are ( inwardly) confused, whatever we 'choose' ( for psychological reasons?) must also be confused. We cannot perceive clearly when we are half-blind (inwardly?) ; and what we then see is only partial and so not ( the ) 'real' (thing) . We ( kind of?) know all this, and yet our ( self-identified ) desires, our cravings are so strong that they drive us into illusions and endless miseries.

The 'belief' in the ( existence of a ) Master ( of Wisdom) creates the ( mental image of the?) Master, and ( one's further) experience is shaped by that belief. The ( direct) understanding of 'what is' ( going on inwardly or outwardly) does not require (having any personal assumptions or strong ? ) 'beliefs' ; on the contrary, the 'prejudiced belief' is a definite hindrance to ( a holistic ) understanding. If we understood the ( convoluted?) way of our ( personal assumptions & ) beliefs and why we cling to them, one of the major causes of our antagonism would disappear.

The desire to gain (physical or spiritual powers ) - individually or for a group, ( ultimately) leads to destruction and misery. This ( thought-sustained) desire for gaining the power of money, of knowledge, or (of a self-centred ) identification is the beginning of man's inner) conflict and misery. We may try to escape from( the existential pain of ) this (inner) misery through every form of self-deception, through substitution and sublimation; but this (basic) craving (to 'become' something ) continues, perhaps at a different level.
One of the easiest of 'escapes' (from this condition of inner misery ?) is the ( belief in the providential ?) Guru, the ( Ultimate) Master (of Wisdom?) . (Further down the road ?) this ( imaginary) 'escape' becomes all-important, and then it does not matter what you are (now inwardly) ; it is the (glorified image of the ) Master who is important. You are important only as his (top ?) disciple. To become that you just have to conform to certain ( strongly recommended?) patterns & undergo certain hardships. But you are willing (ready & able ?) to do all this and more, for ( the resulting power of self-) identification gives ( a peculiar sense of inner safety & ) pleasure : in the name of the Master, your ( ancestral?) desire for pleasure and power has become respectable. You are no longer lonely & confused ; you belong to the (winning?) party, to the ( noble) ideal and you are ( feeling) safe.

After all, that is what most of us want: to ( feel inwardly) safe, to be secure. To become identified with a group or with an ideal, secular or spiritual, is to feel safe. That is why most of us cling to nationalism, even though it brings; increasing destruction and
misery; that is why organized religion has such a strong hold on people, even though it divides and breeds antagonism. This (addictive ) craving for individual or group security (eventually) brings its own destruction, ( not to mention that ?) to be 'psychologically' safe engenders its own illusions. Our life is illusion and misery, with rare moments of clarity and joy, so anything that promises a haven we eagerly accept. Some see the futility of political Utopias and may turn religious, which is to find security and hope in Masters, in dogmas, in ideas. As our ( root assumptions & ) beliefs shape our ( inner) experience, the Masters became an inescapable reality. Once it has experienced the pleasure which such (selfless) identification brings, the mind is firmly entrenched and nothing can shake it; for its criterion (of truth) is ( its past) experience.

(However, one's personal) experience is not ( necessarily leading to the actual perception of?) Reality. ( The timeless dimension of ?) Reality cannot be 'experienced' (dualistically ?) . It 'Is'. If the ( 'self'-identified?) 'experiencer' thinks he experiences Reality, then all he 'knows' is the ('realistic'?) illusion (of his own projections) .
All ( ultimate?) 'knowledge' of Reality is an illusion. ( One's previous inner ) 'knowledge' and/or 'experience' must cease for the being of Reality. ( One's accumulated ) experience cannot meet Reality. ( The time-binding illusion of one's psychological) experience and knowledge must cease for Reality to be.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Jul 2019 #214
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline

Can we discuss the relation between Krishnamurti's teaching and Truth?

( An 'experientially-friendly' edited K small group dialogue, Ojai 1977)

KRISHNAMURTI: Is it the expression of truth? The 'speaker' is either talking out of the silence of truth, or he is talking out of the ( mental) noise of an illusion which he considers to be the truth.

Q: There could be a ( subtle mental) confusion between the word (the verbal expression ) and ( the actual perception of ?) Truth.

K: The 'word' (the verbal expression) is ( obviously?) not the (living spirit of?) truth. So, either he is talking out of the 'silence of truth' or out of the noise of illusion.

Q: One does feel that K is speaking out of the silence of truth , but ( for the average listener?) there is a greater possibility for K's words to be taken as (the ultimate expression of ?) truth.

K: What is the criterion, the measure that you apply so you can say: "Yes, that is it." Or you (honestly acknowledge that you?) don't know but you are examining, investigating by watching (within yourself) the truth of what he is saying. I am going to listen to what he is saying and see ( within myself) if it is true (or not ?)

Q: But what sees it as 'true'?

K: Say, one is fairly alive to (these inward) things. My ( whole ) life is concerned with this problem and I want to know the ( ultimate?) truth of this matter. Is he speaking out of ( the well-rounded memory of his past ?) experience & knowledge, or not out of any of these things?
I don't know how you would find out, but I'll tell you what I would do (if I were in your shoes?) . I would put his (very charismatic & dynamic ?) personality, his ( open or subliminal psychical ?) influence completely aside. I would just listen to him (non-verbally) and being 'sceptical' - in the sense that I don't accept everything that is being said (unless they are seen as facts?) .

P: But this is not just 'doubting'. It is a ( total) negation.

K: I would rather use the word 'doubt', in the sense of questioning. So, I would put aside all (K's ) personal reputation, charm, looks, this and that - I am not going to 'accept' or 'reject', but I am going to 'listen' very carefully to what he has to say. And if I am not comparing, judging or evaluating I can find out ( for myself?) whether what he is saying is the truth. Now am I capable of ( transpersonally?) listening to what he is saying with complete abandonment of ( my knowledgeable memories of ) the past? Then I am listening out of silence.
So, I have answered ( this question ) for myself, would you answer it?

Q: I think that first of all you can become sensitive to what is 'false'. In other words, to see if there is ( in what K is saying) something false, or something incoherent.

K: If I were a (total?) stranger I might say: You have listened to this man for a long time, how do you know he is telling the truth? How do you know anything about it?

Q: I could say that I have looked at ( the inward validity of) what you have said, and each time I was able to test it to see if it was right. I have not found anything which was contradictory.

K: The ( gist of the ) question is: one's own sensitivity, one's own investigation, one's own delving - is that enough?

Q: In the moments when one is really listening one feels there is a ( qualitative à change in oneself. It may not be a total revolution, but there is a change.

K: That can (also) happen when you go for a walk and look at the mountains and are quiet, and when you come back to your home certain things (within yourself) have taken place.

Q: I have listened to scores of people and I listen to K. It is totally different - there is a 'ring of truth' in it.

Q(1): I think that for thought it is not at all possible to be sure about this matter. It is typical of thought that it wants to be sure that it is not deceiving itself, whether it is really 'listening to truth'. Thought will never give up that question, and it is right for thought never to give up questioning, but thought cannot touch it, cannot know about it.

K: Dr Bohm and I had a discussion of this kind in a different way. If I remember rightly we said: Is there such a ( quality of inner) silence which is not the word, which is not imagined or induced? Is there such a silence, and is it possible to speak out of that silence?

Q: The question was whether the words are coming from ( a direct insightful?) perception, from an ( inwardly open ) 'silence', or from the memory. As we used to say: like the drum which vibrates to the emptiness within.

K: Yes. Are you satisfied by this answer?

Q: Not really....The very words you are using deny the possibility of being satisfied and to work at it intellectually. It is ( an experiential challenge?) that has nothing to do with those things.

K: Look, suppose I love you and trust you. There is a relationship of trust, confidence, affection, love; like a man and a woman when they are married, they trust each other. Now is that possible here?

Q: Can we say that Truth is ( to be found ) in the ( loving quality of) silence out of which the Teachings come?

K: But I want to know how this 'silence' comes! I might have worked to have a silent mind for years, conditioned it, kept it in a cage, and then say, "Marvellous, I am silent". That is a ( very realistic ?) danger.

Q: Are we saying that perception has to be pure and in the 'realm of silence '- the real realm of silence, not a fantasy - in order to be able to even come close to this question?

K: Dr Bohm is a scientist, a physicist, he is clear-thinking, logical; suppose someone goes to him and asks, "Is what Krishnamurti says the truth?" How is he going to answer?

Q: The other day when that man said you may be caught in a groove, and you looked at it first, what happened then?

K: I looked at it in several different ways and I don't think I am caught in a groove, but yet I might be. So after examining it very carefully, I left it. Something takes place when you leave it alone after an examination, something new comes into it.

Q: For me it is a reality. I can't communicate it to you. This is what I have found out and you have to find it out for yourself. You have to test it in your own mind.

K: How do you in your heart of hearts, as a human being, know that he is speaking the truth? I want to 'feel' (the truth of) it. Dr Bohm has known Krishnamurti for several years. He has a good, trained mind so I go to him and ask him.

Q: I think I could say to him that when we did discuss these things it was from the emptiness, and that I felt it was a direct perception

K: So you are telling me: I have found out that man is telling the truth because I had a direct perception, an insight into what he is saying.

Q: Yes.

K: Now be careful, because I have heard a disciple of some guru saying exactly the same thing.

Q: I have also heard a guru say this but a little later by looking at it logically I saw the thing was nonsense. When I was looking at the fact and the logic I saw that it did not fit. So I would say that in addition to direct perception I have constantly examined this logically.

K: So you are saying that perception has not blinded you and with that perception goes logic also.

Q: Yes, logic and fact.

K: So perception first, then logic. Not first logic, then perception.

Q: Yes. That is what it always has to be.

K: So I have learned from talking to him that this is a very 'dangerous' (slippery?) thing. He has said you can only understand whether Krishnamurti is speaking the truth if you are really prepared to walk on the razor's edge path. Are you prepared to do that when one's whole being says "Be secure" ? Can the ( holistically friendly) mind - which has been conditioned for centuries to be ( 200%) secure - abandon this (fail-safe attitude?) , and say, "( Meditation-wise?) I will ( be inwardly ready to ?) walk into 'danger' (very slippery zone) "?

Q: In principle that is the way all new discovery in science works. But the word ( psychological) 'danger' has to be explained too. From one point it is dangerous, and from another it isn't. I have to investigate. My conditioning is very dangerous.

K: So we're saying: " Through the perception of the ( potential ) dangers (of self-delusion?) I have found ( experientially?) the truth of what Krishnamurti is saying. ( Hint:) There is no ( psychological) safety in this. Whereas all the others give me ( a very realistic illusion of protection & ) safety.

Q: What you have just described is actually the (authentic) scientific approach. They say every statement must be in danger of being false; it has been put that way.

K: That is perfectly right. So (to recap  :) A man comes from Seattle and is told (by the K-correct host?) : "I have found that what he( K) says is the truth because I have had an (insightful) perception and that perception stands (even when examined) logically". (However) in that ( insightful) perception I see that ( the inner terrain ) where I walk is full of ( psychological ) dangers. Therefore I have to be tremendously aware. This 'danger' (of self-delusion) always exists when there is no (mental guarantee of ) security. And the gurus, the priests; all offer ( the very realistic illusion of everlasting ?) security.
Are we saying (as a holistic conclusion?) that a direct perception ( of the truth or falseness of anything  also known as ?) 'insight' and the working out of it demands a great capacity to think clearly? But ( conversely?) the capacity to think clearly will not ( necessarily) bring about insight.

Q: Then what does the logical thinking it do exactly?

K: It sharpens the mind. Logic makes the (temporal) mind sharp, clear, objective and sane, but... it won't give you the 'other'. Your question ( for homework meditation?) is: How does the 'other' ( holistically friendly perception) come about?

Q: If the ( insight-based) perception is a real perception and so the 'truth', why does it then need the discipline of logic to examine it?

K: We said that ( the insightful) perception 'works out logically' (afterwards?) . It does not need ( the scaffold of?) logic. But whatever it does is reasonable, logical, sane, objective.

Q: It is like saying that if you see what is in this room correctly, you will not find anything illogical in what you see.

K: All right. Will the ( insightful) perception keep the confusion, the debris away all the time so that the mind never accumulates it and doesn't have to keep clearing it away? That was your question, wasn't it?

Q: I think ( one's inward?) perception can reach the stage at which it is continually keeping the field clear.

K: At a certain moment I have ( a timeless flash of insightful ?) perception. But ( unfortunately?) during the ( time gap or ) interval between the perceptions there is a lot of ( psychological) debris being gathered. Our question is: Is perception continuous so that there is no collection of the debris? Put it round the other way: Does one perception keep the field clear?

Q: Can one make a difference between insight and ( holistic) perception?

K: Take those two words as synonymous We are asking: Is perception from time to time, with ( inherent ) intervals (of inattention?) . During those intervals a lot of ( personal & collective 'psycho-) debris' collects and therefore the field (of one's inward house) has to be swept again. Or does perception in itself bring about ( a timeless state of) tremendous clarity in which there is no (further accumulation of psycho-) debris?

Q: Are you saying that once it happens it will be there 'for ever'?

K: Don't use the ( time-binding) words "forever " or "never again". Keep to the ( suggested homework meditation ?) question; Once ( an insightful) perception has taken place, can the ( holistically awakened?) mind ( refuse to?) collect further ( psycho-) debris & confusion? It is only when that perception becomes darkened by the debris, that the (time-binding) process of ( trying to) get rid of them begins. But if there is ( a time-free enlightened) perception, why should there be a gathering ( of 'psycho-debris') ?

Q: There are a lot of 'difficult' ( sensitive ?) points involved in this ( holistic ?) question ...(to be continued)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 09 Jul 2019 #215
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


( The 'experientially-friendly' edited continuation of the previous K SMALL GROUP DIALOGUE held in OJAI 1977

KRISHNAMURTI: We were discussing how one can know what Krishnamurti is saying is true and Dr Bohm said that when one has an insight, a direct perception into ( the truth of?) what is being said, having that insight you can work it out logically to show that the perception is true.
And (we ended the discussion with an open question : ) is that perception brief, only to be had at intervals and therefore gathering a lot of ( psycho-) debris or is one perception enough? Does it 'open the door' (the inward door of Perception?) so that there is (the inward clarity of ) insight all the time?

Q: You also said that the mind tries to find security in all this.

K: The ( temporal?) mind has always been seeking security and when that security is threatened it tries to find security in insight, in direct perception.

Q: In (rather in) the illusion of insight ?

K: Yes, it makes the ( assumption of having total) insight into ( an instrument of psychological) security. The next question is: Must there be a constant breaking of perception? That is, one day one sees very clearly, one has direct perception, then that fades away and there is confusion. Or is there no further confusion after these deep insights?

Q: Are you saying this perception is whole?

K: Yes, if the perception is complete, whole, then there is no confusion at any time. Or (optionally?) one may deceive oneself that it is whole and act upon it, which brings confusion.

Q: There is also a possible danger that one has a genuine perception, an insight, and out of that comes a certain action. But then one could fall into making whatever that action was into a (fool-proof?)formula and stop having the insight.

K: That is what generally happens.

Q: I am trying to find out what we are driving at. Perhaps you are saying that there may be an insight which never goes back into confusion. But we are not saying there is one.

K: Yes, that's right. Now would you say, when there is a 'complete perception' - not an illusory perception - there is no confusion at all.

Q: Are we seeing this as an insight now? - that when there is an insight of that kind there is no further confusion? But we may deceive ourselves nevertheless.

K: Yes. Therefore we must be watchful. (Suppose ) you have a deep insight, complete, whole. Someone comes along and says: "Look, you are deceiving yourself". Do you instantly say, "No, I am not deceiving myself because my perception was complete"? Or do you listen and look at it all afresh? It doesn't mean that you are denying the complete perception, you are again watching if it is real or illusory.

Q: That is not necessarily an intellectual process?

K: No, no. I would say both. It is intellectual as well as non-verbal.

Q: Is ( the potential for a totally insightful ) perception something that is always there and it is only that we...

K: That leads to 'dangerous' (very slippery?) ground. The Hindus say that God is always there inside you - the abiding deep divinity, or soul, or Atman, and it is covered up. Remove the confusion, the debris and it is found inside. Most people 'believe' that. I think that is a ( thought-projected ?) 'conclusion'. You conclude that there is something (of a ) divine (nature) inside, a Soul, the Atman or whatever you like to call it. But, (experientially-wise?) from a conclusion you can never have a total, complete perception.

Q: But this leads to another problem, because if you deny that, then what makes one step out of the Stream (of collective time-thought?) ? Does it mean that the stepping out is for certain individuals only?

K: When you say "certain individuals" I think you are putting the ( 'holistically?) wrong' question, aren't you?

Q: Then, the possibility exists for everyone  ?

K: Yes, the possibility exists for 'human beings' ( for the human consciousness  ?) .

Q: Then there is ( already) some ( time-free intelligent?) energy which...

K: Which is ( located ) outside of them or which is in them.

Q: Yes. We really don't know.

K: Therefore don't come to any conclusion. If from a conclusion you think you perceive, then that perception is conditioned (by one's wishful thinking) , therefore it is not whole .

Q: Does that mean that there would not be the possibility of a deepening of perception?

K: You can't 'deepen' insight. You perceive the whole (truth?) - that's all.

Q : You mentioned ( the necessity of a ) watchfulness even after ( a totlly insightful) perception ?

K: What happened was: A man came up to me and said, "You are getting old, you are stuck in a groove." And I listened to it. For a couple of days I thought about it. I looked at it and said to myself, "He may be right."

Q: You are almost suggesting that it could be possible ?

K: I wanted to examine it. Don't say it could, or could not.

Q: I was going to ask: to be caught in a (mental) habit after a perception, could that not ever happen again, at certain levels?

K: There is partial perception and total perception - let's divide it into those two. When there is total perception there is no further ( psychological?) confusion.

Q: You don't get caught in habit?

K: There is no further confusion. Because ( you see that ) it 'is' so.

Q: What if something happens to the brain physically?

K: Of course, ( we are imlicitly) assuming that the whole (psychosomatic) organism is healthy. If there is an accident, your brain suffers concussion and something is injured, then it is finished ('game over'?)

Q: But it still means that it is "here". You are not tapping it from "out there". That ( timeless source of intelligent?) energy is within you, isn't it?

K: One has to ( take an experiential detour and) go into this question of what is perception. How do you come to it? You cannot have perception if your daily life is in disorder, confused, contradictory. That is obvious. Can I have ( a transcendental ?) perception if I am 'attached' ( 100% identified with?) to my position, to my wife, to my property?
So (in a holistic nutshell ) we are saying that a total ( insightful) perception can only take place when in your daily life there is no confusion (no psychological conflicts of interests?)

Q: Can we look more closely into that, because a total perception can take place in spite of all that (inner confusion?) and wipe it away?

K: If (mind's perceptive) 'windows' are not clean my view is confused.
(for instance ) if I am in (a condition of psychological) fear my perception will be very partial. That is a fact.

Q: But don't you need ( an insightful) perception to end fear?

K: In investigating, observing, going into fear, understanding it profoundly, in delving into it I have 'perception'.

Q: Are you implying that there are certain things you can do which will make for perceptions?

K: I realize I am distorting perception through ( my personal) fears.

Q: That's right, then I begin to look at fear.

K: Investigate it, look into it.

Q: In the beginning I am also distorting it.

K: Therefore I am watching every distortion. I am ( becoming?) aware of every distortion that is going on.

Q: But you see, I think the difficulty lies there. How can I investigate when I am ( unconsciously?) distorting?

K: Wait, just listen. I am afraid and ( afterwards?) I can see that my fear has made me do something which is a distortion. That means that you become ( inwardly ) aware of the fact that there is fear. And you observe also what that fear has done. And ( in your 'meditation homework' ?) you look more and more into it. In looking very deeply into it you have an insight.

Q: What you are saying implies that this confusion due to fear is not complete, that it is always open to mankind to have insight.

K: To one who is investigating, who is observing.

Q: If you try to investigate something else while you are afraid you get lost in fear. But it is still open to you to investigate fear.

K: Yes, quite right. (Another quick example:) One suffers and you see what it does. In observing it, investigating it, opening it up, in the very 'unrolling' of it you have a certain insight. That is all we are saying. That insight may be partial. Therefore one has to become (responsibly) aware that it is partial. Its action is partial and it may appear complete, so watch it.

Q: Very often it looks as if it is totally impossible to have an insight, since you say: "If you are distorting how will you look?" But you are also saying, that as a matter of fact, when you have a distortion, the one thing you can look at is the distortion.

K: That's right.

Q: That factually you have that capacity.

K: One has that capacity (to observe) without any choosing – jost being aware (of what is going on) . And ( eventually?) you see what fear does. In looking at it more extensively, deeply, widely, suddenly you have an insight into the whole structure of ( the thought-generated) fear.

Q: But there is still the question: in that moment of fear, I 'am' fear.

K: How you observe 'fear' matters - whether you observe it as an ( independent?) 'observer', or the observer 'is' (immersed in?) that. You perceive the observer is ( not separate from ) the observed but in this action there is distortion, confusion. And you examine that confusion, which is born of fear and in the very process of examination you have an insight. Do it (for homework?) and you will see it – (providing that ) you don't 'limit' yourself by saying, "I am too frightened, I can't look" & you run away from ( facing) it.
That is, ( a totally insightful) perception can only take place when there is no division between the 'observer' and the 'observed'. Perception can only take place in the very act of exploring: to explore implies there is no division between the observer and the observed. Therefore you are watching the movement of fear and in the very watching of it there is an insight. I think that is clear.

And yet... you see, Krishnamurti says: "I have never done this."

Q: Then how do you know somebody else can do it ?

K: Suppose you have not gone through all this, but you see (the totality of) it instantly. Because you see it instantly your capacity to reason explains all this. Another listens and says, "I'd like to get that, I don't have to go through that whole process."

Q: Are you saying that all we have been discussing just now is merely a pointer to something else? Are you saying there is a short cut?

K: Must you go through ( examining sequentially) fear, jealousy, anxiety, attachment? Or can you clear the whole thing instantly? Must one go through all this process? First put the question and see what comes out of it.
Is it possible through investigating, through awareness and discovering that the observer is the observed and that there is no division, in the very process of investigation - in which we are observing without the 'observer' and see the totality of it - to free all the rest? ( Experiential Hint:) I think that is the only way.

Q: Is it possible not to have ( to examine) certain fears, jealousy, attachment?

K: But (still) there may be deeper layers. You may not be totally conscious of them, you may not be totally aware of the deeper fears, etc. You may say, superficially I am all right, I have none of these things.

Q: Couldn't we remove from the problem the personal aspect? We are discussing what is open to man rather than to any individual.

K: Yes. Is it open to any human being without going through alI this process?

Q: By "this process" do you mean involvement with the fear?

K: With fear, sorrow, jealousy, attachment, you go through all that, step by step. Or can an (inwardly awakened?) human being see the whole thing at a glance? And that very glance is the investigation and the complete, total perception.

Q: Which is what you mean when you say ''the first step is the last'' ?

K: Yes, a totally (illuminating?) perception.

Q: Then what would one's responsibility be towards someone who is (entangled in his personal) in sorrow?

K: The response to that human being is the ( intelligent?) response of compassion. That's all. Nothing else.

Q: For instance, if you see an injured bird it is very easy to deal with that because it really doesn't require very much of you. But when you come in contact with a human being, he has a much more complex set of needs.

K: What can you do actually? Somebody comes to you and says, "I am in deep sorrow". Do you talk to him out of compassion, or out of your own particular experience of sorrow which has (already ) conditioned you, and you answer him according to your conditioning? Because a man who is suffering wants some sort of solace, someone on whose lap he can put his head. So what he is seeking is comfort and avoidance of this terrible pain. Will you offer him any of those escapes? Whatever comes out of ( the universal Intelligence of) compassion will help him.

Q: Are you saying that the energy of Compassion itself may be of help?

K: That's right; that's all.

Q: But many such wounded spirits will come to the Centre here and I think it is going to be a problem to know how to deal with them.

K: There is no problem if you are compassionate. Compassion doesn't create problems. It has no problems, therefore it is ( intelligently?) compassionate.

Q: You are saying that total compassion is the highest intelligence?

K: Of course. If there is compassion, that compassion has its own intelligence and that intelligence acts. But if you have no compassion and no intelligence, then your conditioning makes you reply whatever he wants. I think that is fairly simple. To go back to the other question: Must a human being go through the whole process? Has no human being said, "I won't go through all this. So something does take place when reject the whole thing.

Q: But Krishnaji, if you are saying that ( the young ) Krishnamurti never had the need to say it, we can only conclude that you are some kind of 'freak'.

K: You can say he is a 'freak' but it doesn't answer the question. If somebody says to you, "I have never been through all this", what do you do? Do you say he is a freak? Or would you say: "How extraordinary, is he telling the truth? Has he deceived himself"? You discuss with him. Then your question is: "How does it happen?" You are a human being, he is a human being: you want to find out.

Q: You ask: "In what way are we different?" He is a human being that has never been through all that, and yet he points out.

K: No, he has never been through it, but don't you ( stop to ) ask that question: "How does it happen, must I go through all this?" Do you ask that?

Q: Krishnaji, you are taking two widely separate things. One is the uncontaminated person, who never had to go through the process because 'he was never in the soup'.

K: Leave out why he didn't go through it (or...see the K bios?)

Q: But most other people, apparently, are in some form of ( psychological) contamination, it may be fear, or something else. Therefore the person who has already got this sickness - let's call it that - says "This man has never been sick for a day in his life." What good is it to examine that, because one is already sick in some form.

K: Can we put the whole thing differently? Do you seek ( the spiritual?) excellence, not excellence for instance in a building, but the essence of excellence? Then everything falls away, and the essence (of the demand for excellence?) would meet all this. I wonder if I am conveying something? Listen carefully first. That very demand for excellence - 'how' you demand it - brings ( into manifestation) the essence of it. You demand it passionately. You demand the highest intelligence, the highest excellence, the essence of it...

Q: Where does this demand come from?

K: Demand it! There may be a (personal) motive, but the very ( passion of the) demand washes it all away. I wonder if I am conveying anything?

Q: You are saying: Demand this ( holistic) 'excellence' – of which we don't know .

K: I don't know what is beyond it, but ( for starters ) I want to be morally excellent.

Q: Does that mean ''goodness''?

K: I demand the ''excellence of goodness'', I demand the excellent flower of goodness. In that very demand there is a ( transcendental) demand for the essence.

Q: Does ( the holistic ) perception come from this demand?

K: Yes, that's right.

Q: Could you go into what you call this 'demand'?

K: It is not a demand which means asking, a demand that means imploring, wanting - cut out all those.

Q: It doesn't mean those?

K: No, no.

Q: But then... you are back to prayer !

K: Oh, no. Leave out all that.

Q: You are really saying that the impossible is possible to the average intelligent human being?

K: We are saying that, yes. Which is not a conclusion, which is not a hope. I say it is possible for the average human being, who is fairly clean, who is fairly decent, fairly kind, who is not a ( psychologically settled?) bourgeois.
K says to you: "Please listen first, don't bring in all the (intellectual) objections. Just listen to what he is saying : that what is important in life is the supreme excellence which has its own essence." That's all. And to 'demand' it, it does not mean begging or praying, getting something from somebody.

Q: The point is, we find we may confuse this demand with desire.

K: Would the word "passion" be suitable? There is this passion for excellence.
Burning passion - not for something. The Christians have ( had?) passion for missionary work - that passion is born of the love of Jesus. That again is very narrow. So, putting all that aside, I say: "Passion".

Q: As you were just saying, people have had some vision, or a dream of something and that has developed a great energy. But you are saying it is not a dream, it is not a vision; but it is nevertheless some perception of this excellence.

K: All those (time-binding ?) passions feed the ego, feed the me, make me important, consciously or unconsciously. We are cutting out all that. There is a young boy who has a passion to grow up into an extraordinary human being, into something original.

Q: He sees that it is possible and therefore he has the passion.

K: Yes, that's right. It is possible. Is that what is missing in most human beings? This passion who demands the supreme excellence, not in what he writes in his books, but the ( holistic) feeling of it. That may shatter everything else. Again, that human being didn't demand it. He says: "I never even asked for it."

Q: Perhaps that we are conditioned to ( the inner comforts of) mediocrity.

K: Yes, of course. Mediocrity is lack of great passion.

K: So does 'total insight' bring this passion? Total insight 'is' the passion.
Total insight is the flame of passion which wipes away all confusion. It burns away everything else. Don't you then act as a magnet? The bees go towards the nectar. In the same way don't you act as a magnet when you are passionate to create? Is it that there is this lack of ( inner) fire? That may be the thing that is missing. If there is something missing I would ask for it.
(Hint) There is no relationship from the conditioned (mind) to the unconditioned (one) . But the unconditioned (mind) has a relationship to the other. When ''the world is me and I am the world'', there is no 'me'. Can that state, that quality operate in all directions? It must operate in all directions. When you say, "I am the world and the world is me", and there is no me, there is no (self-centred) conditioning.
I am the essence of the world. When there is a deep perception of that, not intellectual, but profound, there is no 'you' or 'me'.

Q: But there is still another question. Is the unconditioned mind also a product of all this? Then we come to a contradiction.

K: No, there is no contradiction. Without using the word "I" it can be said: the result of the world is this. The result of the world is that also. We are two human beings, which means the result has created the 'I' and the 'you'. When there is an insight into the result there is no "result". Therefore 'you' and 'I' don't exist. That is an actual fact for a man who says, "I am not the result (of time?) ". You see what it means? There is no causation in the mind and therefore there is no effect. Therefore it is whole, and any action born of it is causeless and without effect.

Q: You have to make that clear, in the sense that you still use cause and effect concerning ordinary, mechanical things...

K: Quite. This human being, X, is a result. And Y is a result. X says I see this and investigates, goes into it and he has an insight. In that insight the two results cease. Therefore in that state there is no cause.

Q: There is no cause and no effect although it may leave a residue in the mind.

K: Let's go into it. In that state there is no result, no cause, no effect. That mind acts out of Compassion. Therefore there is no ( expectation of a ) result.
Compassion has no result. A is suffering, he says to X, "Please help me to get out of my suffering." If X really has compassion his words have no 'result'.

Q: Something happens, but there is no result ?

K: That's it.

Q: But I think people generally are seeking a result.

K: Yes. Let's put it another way. Does compassion have a result? When your compassion has a cause then you are no longer compassionate.

Q: But Compassion also acts.

K: Compassion is compassion, it doesn't 'act' (in time?) . If it acts because there is a cause and an effect, then it is not compassion: it wants a result.
(To recap)  When I say 'me', 'you' also exist: both of us are there. The you and the I are the results of man's misery, of selfishness, and so on - it is a result. When one looks into the ( temporal) result, goes into it very, very deeply, the insight brings about a quality in which 'you' and 'I' - who are the results (of time) - don't exist - there is no you and no me. Therefore there is no result - which means compassion. The person upon whom that compassion acts wants a result. We say, "Sorry, there is no (temporal) result." But the man who suffers says, "Help me to get out of this", or, "Help me to bring back my son, my wife", or whatever it is. He is demanding a result. This ( 'compassion') thing has no result. The result is the world.

Q: But does compassion affect the (total) consciousness of man?

K: Yes. It affects the deep layers of consciousness. To the man who sees this deeply with a profound insight, there is no 'you' or 'I'. Therefore that profound insight is ( the timeless action of) compassion - which is Intelligence. And the ( Mind's) Intelligence says: If you want a ( specific temporal) result I can't give it to you, I am not the product of a result. Compassion says: This state is not a result, therefore there is no cause.

Q: Does that mean there is no time either?

K: No cause, no result, no time.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 12 Jul 2019 #216
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


( An "experientially-friendly" edited K Dialogue, cca 1952

Q:  What you say at the various public meetings shows that you have either read extensively in Sanskrit, or have studied the translations of some of the great teachers.

K: It is odd what importance we give to the printed word, to the 'sacred' books. The scholars, as the laymen are concerned with ( gathering of 2-nd hand ?) knowledge, and not with experiencing.
( In fact, one's emphasis on ) knowledge is an impediment to
experiencing (of 'what is' actually going on inwardly ?) .
Knowledge does not bring (self-) understanding. Knowledge can be taught, but not wisdom; there must be freedom from knowledge for the coming of wisdom. Knowledge is not the coin for the purchase of wisdom; but the man who has entered the refuge of knowledge does not (dare to ?) venture out, for the words feed his thought and he is gratified with thinking. There is no ( authentic?) wisdom without experiencing. ( Hint:) An occupied mind is not free, spontaneous, and only in spontaneity can there be self- discovery. An occupied mind is self-enclosing; it not vulnerable, and therein lies its (illusory temporal?) security.
Thought is the ( constantly refreshed) continuation of the ( memories of the ) past, but that which continues cannot be free. There is ( an authentic inner) freedom only in ending . ( In the material world ?) the occupied mind creates what it is working, from the 'bullock cart' to the jet plane.

Q: But surely it is better to be occupied with the things of God than with the things of the world, is it not?

K: ( Psychologically speaking?) what we think, we are; but it is the understanding of the process of thought that is important, and not what we think about.
( In a nutshell:) To be ( inwardly) occupied with one’s own projections, at whatever level, is to worship the 'self'. Whatever thought is occupied with, that it 'is'; and what it 'is', is nothing else but thought.
So it is important to ( return to the experiential 'square one' and try to ?) understand the ( inner working of the) thought process.
Thought is ( brain's) response to challenge, is it not? The process of challenge and response is ( recorded as personal or colective?) 'experience'; and experience verbalized is thought. Man's experience is not only ( the result?) of the past, but also of the past in conjunction with the present; it is the 'conscious' as well as the 'hidden'. This residue of experience is ( stored in brain's temporal )memory and the response of memory, of the past is thought.

Q: But is that all there is to thought? Are there not greater depths to our thinking than the (mechanical) response of memory?

K: Thought can and does place itself at different levels, the stupid and the profound, the noble and the base; but it is still thought, is it not? ( The persistence of) memory is long-lasting, and so may
appear to be 'deep'; but by its very structure it can never be deep. ( The psychologically active ?) memory may be concealed, not in immediate view, but that does not make it profound. Thought can never be profound (or...transcendental?) , or anything more than what it is. ( The subliminally self-identified?) thought can give to itself greater value, but it remains thought ( within the field of the known?) . When the (time-bound?) mind is occupied with (working at ?) its own self-projections, it has not gone beyond thought, it has only assumed a new pose; under the cloak it is still thought.

Q; But then, how can one go beyond ( the time-binding limitations of?) thought?

K: One cannot 'go beyond' thought, for the ”one,” the maker of effort, is the (subliminally self-identified?) result of thought. But in uncovering the thought process, which is ( the very purpose of any authentic ?) 'self-knowledge', the ( direct perception of the?) truth of 'what is' puts an end to the ( mechanistic?) thought process.
( Unfortunately, for the dedicated scholar?) the truth of 'what is' is not to be found in any book, ancient or modern. What is found is the words, but not ( the living spirit of ?) truth.

Q: Then how is one to find Truth?

K: One cannot find it (as a self-separated individual?) . The effort to find truth brings about a self-projected 'end'; but that 'end' is not truth. A result is not truth; result is the continuation of thought, ( mentally?) extended or projected.
Only when (the psychological continuity of?) thought ends is there ( the living presence of) Truth.

( Parting words:) Listening to the (unfolding) story of 'what is' brings its own liberation. It is ( the direct perception of?) truth
that liberates, not the ( mental?) effort to be free.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 13 Jul 2019 #217
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly" edited K group dialogue, cca 1952)

Q: Is it really possible to be free of all desire? Without desire, is there life? Is not desire life itself? To seek to be free of desire is to invite death, is it not?

K: What is desire? When are we aware of it? When do we say we desire? ( The process of thought-sustained ?) Desire is not an abstraction, it exists only in ( the context of our everyday?) relationship. Without ( visual, sensory or mental?) contact, there is no desire. The actual contact may be at any level (of our consciousness?) , but without it there is no sensation, no response, no desire. We know how it comes into being: perception, contact, sensation, desire. And we are becoming aware of desire when there is an awareness of a conflict (of interests) , of a disturbance, that there is the cognizance of desire.

Desire is the ( collateral result of an) inadequate response to (the total) challenge (of life) . The perception of a beautiful car gives rise to the disturbance of pleasure. And the ( mental self-) focusing of this disturbance, caused by pain or by pleasure, is ( generating the ) self-consciousness. Self-consciousness 'is' ( the psychological residue of?) desire. We are ( becoming self-) conscious when there is the disturbance of inadequate response to life's challenge. ( And the resulting) conflict is ( sustaining one's ) self-consciousness.
( The next experiential question is therefore : ?) can there be freedom from this disturbance, from the conflict of desire?

Q: Do you mean the freedom from the conflict of desire, or the freedom from desire itself?

K: Are ( the dualistic 'observer' vs the 'observed' inner ) 'conflict' and (the thought-backed activity of ) 'desire' two separate states? If they are, our inquiry must lead to illusion. If there were no (self- stimulating) disturbance of pleasure or pain, of wanting, seeking, fulfilling, would there be desire? And do we want to get rid of ( the unpleasant) disturbances? If we can understand this, then
we may be able to grasp the significance of ( thought sustained ) desire.
(To recap) Conflict is ( generating the time-bound ?) self-consciousness; and ( desire is the result of?) the focusing of ( self-centred) attention through disturbance. But is it that you would want to get rid of the conflicting (& disturbing) elements in desire, and keep the pleasurable element? Both pleasure and conflict are disturbing (factors) , are they not? Or do you think pleasure does not disturb?

Q: Pleasure is not ( necessarily a ) disturbing factor.

K: Is that true? Have you never noticed the ( hidden ?) pain of the craving for pleasure, of ever demanding more and more? Is not the 'craving for more' as disturbing as the urgency of avoidance (of an undesired challenge ?) ? Both bring about conflict. We want to keep the pleasurable desire, and avoid the painful; but if we look closely, both are psychologically 'disturbing' , but do you want to be free only from disturbance?

Q: If we have no ( drive & vitality brought by) desire we will die; and if we would have no inner conflicts (to overcome?) we will go to sleep.

K: Are you speaking from ( your own?) experience, or you are just imagining what it would be like to have no conflict and so are preventing the direct experiencing of that inner state in which all conflict has ceased. Can we not see a beautiful or an ugly thing without a conflict (of opposing desires?) coming into being? Can we not observe, listen without (the time-bound) self-consciousness? Can we not be (what we are?) without desiring (to become something else?) ? What causes ( the state of inner) conflict? This conflict arises when the response is not adequate to the challenge; and this conflict is (due to) the ( self-identified ) focusing of our (total) consciousness as the self. The 'self', the (temporal?) consciousness focused through conflict, is ( generating one's personal) experience. Experience is ( the cummulative result of the ) response to a stimulus or challenge, but without naming ( & processing it) , there is no ( recorded) experience. Naming is ( coming?) out of the storehouse of memory; and this naming 'is' ( sustaining) the process
of verbalizing, the making of images, words, which strengthens memory.
( In a nutshell : ) (The time-bound ? )consciousness - ( generated by) the focusing of the 'self' through conflict - is the total process of experience, of naming, of recording.

Q: Can we be free from this inner conflict? And what is beyond conflict?

K : It is ( thought's sub-conscious  habit ?) naming that gives rise to conflict, is it not? You ( sub-consciously?) approach the new challenge with a ( pre-recorded personal?) conclusion or prejudice, as you name the experience. This 'terming' also gives ( a personal significance or ) quality to the new experience. Your past (personal memories & experience ?) meets the new challenge, but the (pre-recorded?) responses of the past cannot understand ( in real time) the living, the new challenge.

( To re-recap : ) The ( mental ) responses of the past are ( psychologically) inadequate (in meeting life's new callenges) , and from this arises ( a subliminal inner ) conflict, which is ( subsequently generating the temporal?) 'self-consciousness'. ( This state of inner) conflict ceases when there is no (psychologically motivated ) process of  ?) 'naming' ( mental recognition?) . The (silent interval) between (thought's mechanistic ?) response and naming is (providing the inner space for direct) experiencing. ( This non-dualistic state of) experiencing - in which
there is neither the 'experiencer' nor the 'experienced' - is ( a time-free dimension of consciousness) beyond conflict.

( Parting words:) With the cessation of (the inner state of) conflict there is the ending of all ( time-binding activities of ) thought and the beginning of the Inexhaustible.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 14 Jul 2019 #218
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


( A reader-friendly edited K ddialogue, cca 1953)

( K's comment : He said he was a 'man of action', and not a contemplative and he used a Sanskrit phrase which was intended to convey a whole philosophy of action. The very assertion that he was a man of action implied that he was one of the essential
elements of real life ( but... inwardly-wise ?) he had blocked the understanding of himself.)

K: What is ( the true meaning of?) action? Mere activity is not action, surely; to keep (oneself & others?) busy is not action, is it? The housewife is busy, but would you call that action?

Q: No, of course not. She is only concerned with everyday, petty affairs. A man of action is ( keeping himself?) occupied with larger problems and responsibilities. Such a man is not a contemplative, a mystic he is a man of action.

K: Occupation with wider issues you would call action. But what are the 'wider issues'? Are they separate from our everyday existence? Is there ( a holistically friendly way of ) action when there is no (inward) integration of all the many layers of existence? Without understanding (oneself) and so integrating (consciousness-wise ?) the total process of life, is not one's (outward) action mere destructive activity? Man is a total process, and action must be the outcome of this totality.

Q: But that would imply not only inaction, but indefinite postponement. There is an urgency of action, and it is no good philosophizing about it.

K: We are not philosophizing, but only wondering if your so-called ( activistic?) action is not doing infinite harm ( on the long term?) . Reform always needs further reforms. Partial action is no action at all, it brings about disintegration.
( However?) if you will have the patience, we can find now, not in the future, what is that (way of?) action which is 'total' - ( inwardly) integrated.
When one's action is directed to (obtaining) a ( temporal) result, is it (a holistic) action?

Q: How else can you act?

K: Working towards an object, a goal, factual or psychological, is what is generally called action. This process can be understood in relation to some
physical facts, such as building a bridge; but we are talking of the 'psychological' purpose, the ideal or the belief towards which you are working. Would you call 'action' this working towards a psychological purpose?

Q: Action without a purpose is no action at all, it is death.

K: Inaction is not the opposite of action, it is quite a different state, and we may discuss that later, but let us come back to our point. Working towards an end, an ideal, is generally called action, is it not? But how does the ideal come into being? Is it entirely different
from what is ? Is the ideal of 'non-violence' wholly other than ( the ongoing) 'violence'? Is not the ideal self-projected? Is it not homemade? In acting towards an ideal, you are pursuing a self-projection, are you not?

Q: Is the 'ideal' a self-projection?

K: You are 'this', and you want to become 'that'. Surely, that is the outcome of your ( self-centred) thought. Thought projects the ideal; the ideal is part of thought.

Q: What’s wrong with thought? Why shouldn’t thought create the ideal?

K: You are 'this', which does not satisfy, so you want to be 'that'. If there were an (indepth?) understanding of 'this', would 'that' come into being? But because you do not understand 'this', you create 'that', hoping to escape from 'this'.

( In a nutshell:) Thought creates the (future?) ideal as well as the (existing ) problem; the ideal is a self-projection, and your working towards that self-projection is what you call action with a purpose. So your action is within the ( known) limits of your own projection. This movement within your own bounds ( of the field of the known?) is ( psychologically-wise?) the activity of the dog chasing its tail; and is that action?

Q: But is it possible to act without a purpose?

K: Of course it is. If you see the truth ( regarding) the (time-binding) action with a purpose, then there is just action. Such ( 'goal-free' inner) action is the only ( spiritually ? ) effective action, it is the only radical (inner) revolution.

Q: You mean action without the 'self' (aka : the selfless action?) , don’t you?

K: Yes, action without the 'idea'. The 'idea' is the 'self (-interest'?) identified with God or with the State. Such (self-) identified action only creates more (inner & outer) conflict, more confusion and misery. But it is hard for the ('dedicated?) man of action' to put aside his ( all purpose 'shield of) ideology' – without it he feels lost as a man caught in his own self-projections whose activities are( ultimately aimed at) the glorification of himself. Such (self-centred) activities contribute to separation, to disintegration.

Q: Then what is one to do?

K: Understand ( the truth regarding ?) what your ( self-centred) activity is, and only then is there ( the authentic holistic ?) action.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 16 Jul 2019 #219
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 427 posts in this forum Offline


Q: I know you have healed and will you not heal my son? He is nearly blind. I have seen a few doctors, and they can do nothing. They advise me to take him to Europe or America, but I cannot afford it. Will you not please do something? He is our only child, and my wife is heart-stricken. There must be a ( karmic?) cause for this calamity, hidden in some past action.

K: There may be an immediate cause for this blindness which the physicians have not yet discovered - some inherited disease may have brought it about. If the doctors cannot discover the physical cause, why do you seek a metaphysical one in the distant past?

Q: By seeking the cause I may be better able to understand the effect.

K: When you say that you will understand the effect by knowing the cause, you mean that you will take comfort in knowing how this thing has come about, do you not?

Q: Of course, that is why I want to know what action in the past has produced this blindness. It will
certainly be most comforting.

K: Then you want comfort and not understanding.

Q: But are they not the same thing? What is the good of understanding if there is no joy in it?

K: Understanding ( the inward truth of?) a fact may cause disturbance, it does not necessarily bring joy. You are disturbed by the fact of your son’s ailment, and you want to be pacified. This pacification you call understanding. You start out, not to understand, but to be comforted; your intention is to find a way to quiet your disturbance, and this you call the search for
the cause. Your chief concern is to be put back to sleep (psychologically?) , to be undisturbed, and you are seeking a way to do it. We want to escape from disturbance, and one of the escapes is this search for the cause.

Q: Why shouldn’t one seek freedom from disturbance? Why shouldn’t one avoid suffering?

K: Through avoidance is there freedom from suffering? You may shut the door on some ugly thing,
on some fear; but it is still there behind the door, is it not? What is suppressed, resisted, is not
understood, is it? You may suppress or discipline your child, but surely that does not yield the
understanding of him. You are seeking the cause in order to avoid the pain of disturbance; with
that intention you look, and naturally you will find what you are seeking. There is a possibility of
being free of suffering only when one observes its process, when one is ( becoming?) aware of every phase of it, cognizant of its whole structure. To avoid ( (facing one's existential?) suffering is only to strengthen it. Through explanation you are not freed from suffering; the suffering is still there, only you have covered it over with words, with conclusions, either your own or those of another. The study of explanations is not the study of wisdom; when explanations cease, then only is wisdom possible. Truth. ( The perception of?) Truth comes when there is observation without conclusions, without explanations, without words. The 'observer' is built out of words, this ( temporal?) 'self' is made
up of explanations, conclusions, condemnations, justifications, and so on. There is communion with
the (inner facts which are being?) ) observed only when the 'observer' is not (mentally active?) ; and only then is there understanding, freedom from the

Q: I think I see your point, but is there not such a thing as karma? Present circumstances are the result of previous actions, immediately past or far back in time

K: That is only a (generic?) explanation, but let us go beyond the words. Is there a fixed cause producing a
fixed effect? When cause and effect are fixed, is there not ( a time-binding form of?) death? Anything static, rigid, specialized, must die. The specialized animals soon come to an end, do they not? Man is ( inwardly-wise?) unspecialized, and so there is a possibility of his continued existence. That which is pliable endures; that which is not pliable is broken. The acorn cannot become anything but an oak tree; the cause and the effect are (both engrammed in the genes of the?) in the acorn. But ( the total consciousness of?) man is not so completely enclosed, specialized; hence, if he does not destroy himself through various ( over-specialised?) ways, he can survive. Are cause and effect fixed, stationary? Surely ( within man' s consciousness?) the cause-effect is a ( time-binding?) continuous process - ( what he is thinking ?) today is the result of ( what he thought ?) yesterday, and ( what he will think?) tomorrow is the result of today . It is a ( mechanistic?) chain-process, is it not? One thing flows into another, and at no point is there a halt ( a silent break?) . It is a constant movement, with no ( time-out & no?) fixation. There are many factors that bring about this 'cause-effect-cause' movement, but when you try to cover the living ( facts of life?) with explanations, there is death to the living.

( Parting words: ) Thought cannot be free nor can it ever make itself free. Thought is the result of ( man's past) experience, and ( his temporal) experience is always ( psychologically?) conditioning.
Awareness of the false as ( being) false is (opening the door to?) the freedom of truth.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 211 - 219 of 219 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.)