Firstly there are the teachings themselves. What are these teachings? They are not concerned with the future except as a consequence of the present. It is this present and the reality that is daily unfolding in it that is of primary importance. In fact, the essence of the teachings is the ending of time as a psychological instrument of change or becoming. This places them squarely in the now. Further, they represent an insight into the workings of the very psyche that generates the illusion of time, preferring to carry on with its delusions rather than facing what is. They begin with an inquiry into the art of observation, which is the first and last step of the inward journey and its possible encounter with the origin. This may be the primary difficulty, namely that the movement of time, as centered on the division of the observer and the observed, is the very blind spot or source of misperception that prevents us from seeing for ourselves the truth of what he was talking about, the truth of ourselves. So the question is not one of evolution but of dissolving the very illusion of time. And will it take humanity a long time to work itself up to such a liberating insight?

In this same connection, we had mentioned K’s last recorded statement, where he lays emphasis not on a mind free from self and time, but on the body as a powerful engine capable of channeling the most extraordinary energies. This body, it would seem, had been carefully prepared, not just during his lifetime but over many centuries, for just this event. And after its disappearance many centuries must pass before another such body should be found. He said people might pretend that they could get in touch with that and left one narrow opening for those who might live the teachings. So there are these two elements, the body with its esoteric preparation and the teachings. These two aspects may in fact be one and the same, although the implications are somewhat different.

The common factor is the emptying of consciousness of all its content. This is the essential meaning that K gives to meditation, which is at the heart of the teachings, and is also how he described the ‘process’, which could be taken as the extreme manifestation of the preparation of ‘the body’. So in this connection they both come to the same thing, but the one implies a timeless state independent of any outside agency and the other suggests a process of evolution, reincarnation, karma and the timely aid of external or esoteric entities. These two approaches open up again the argument between evolution and the timeless. Or maybe they are in fact complementary, the two sides of the same coin, as it were? Something like this: the ending of psychological time is the opening of non-dual perception, which is the key to the emptying of consciousness of all its content, but it may take chronological time for this emptying to take place, perhaps even spreading over several centuries.

I cannot myself resolve this question. What remains of importance is to lay the foundation of order and open the doors of non-dual perception so that a meditative quality of mind is awakened. And the rest is silence.

One of the difficulties I can see in terms of the teachings becoming popular or common cultural currency, is their sense that in order for life to have meaning one must be nothing short of a mystic, i.e. someone endowed with a quality of direct, undistorted perception of the truth and almost daily visitations of the beyond. This seems like a far cry from the normal busy life of the average human being. K’s outline of this journey of self-discovery as the way to end conflict and sorrow in the world makes eminent sense and stands both the test of reason and the test of fact. His analysis of the causes of suffering and his prescription for its ending are impeccable. But it means doing it all oneself, observing from moment to moment, leaving no stone unturned in the field of consciousness, staying with such things as fear, jealousy, anger, pain, hatred, ambition, violence, etc., not separating oneself in any way from what is, and dissolving the great divide between inner and outer.

Most of us would prefer to have some technique that might offer a secure path to this same ecstatic end. To be told that there is no way and no hope, that the beginning is the end, can generate a sense of confusion and paralysis, used as we are to the structure of ends and means, cause and effect, setting and achieving of goals, etc. This very sense of not separating ourselves from ourselves is a seemingly insurmountable obstacle to living the teachings. This is our chief difficulty, I feel. We have evolved structures of avoidance and escape that give us the illusory feeling of safety and that function in a reflex manner. But it is here, as K tirelessly pointed out, that lies the only real way out of our predicament. So the way out is the way in and the going beyond is the direct contact with what is. It sounds paradoxical and yet it is the farthest thing from it.

As the teachings lay emphasis on the quality of perception rather than on the generation of formulas by which to order the conduct of one ’s life, there is naturally a sense of openness and spontaneity that cannot be organized or treated as a mere philosophical system. So this makes it elusive, a living thing that cannot be bandied about like a theory, because it is a way of life rather than a way of thinking or believing. This can be rather disconcerting for those of us used to identifying culture with formulas and systems of one kind or another. The sense of culture involved in the teachings goes much deeper than this surface acquaintance with what is current in thought, science and art. Culture is the flowering K so often talked about and this flowering involves a radical revolution in the psyche.

There is also a good deal of evidence to suggest that the present sociopolitical context is not a fertile soil in which the seed of the teachings could take root. The emphasis on outer, material aims and achievements is still going strong and reaching ever higher pinnacles of technological, financial and militaristic frenzy. The conditioned instinctual forces at work seem to leave no room for much else than this careering after pleasure, security and success. Of course this is yet another version of the self-imposed blindness inbuilt into the operation of our collective consciousness. Becoming aware of it and removing some of the darkness might create an opening in terms of giving the seeds of a new culture a chance to germinate.

It would seem, therefore, that on the one hand the relevance of the teachings is undeniable and the interest that they awaken extensive, while on the other it all seems to lie dormant, as though awaiting more propitious times. It may very well be that this very dormancy of the teachings is a necessary aspect of their future cultural blooming. A look at such major universal religions as Christianity and Buddhism, that came about as the expression of a particular individual’s discovery and voicing of the truth, would indicate that it takes about two hundred years before their message permeated the collective consciousness and became the ground of the new values and attitudes of an emerging culture. I feel that this silence, this state of abeyance of the teachings in the consciousness of our time may be just such a period of underground gestation. I feel it in my own life as a gathering quality of inward retirement and contemplation, as a tendency to passive watchfulness. And this very anonymous quality of the teachings in our time may be the silent testimony to their being something alive rather than a crystallized form in the process of becoming its own tradition.

Some people would seem to be somewhat discouraged or even feel pessimistic on account of this lack of a clear outward echo in the common cultural life of society. However, one of the things that seems to come through the teachings and their grounding in the pathless field of life is the importance of doing the right thing independently of the results. The negative way or the way of denial seems to be the right approach to these questions of the spirit affecting our relations and social organization. Another salient aspect is to take a long view of things, namely that what one is working for is not just a momentary effect, something for one ’s own immediate benefit, but rather a concern for the plight of humanity as a whole and for as long as it shall endure. So it is not a personal matter but a human issue transcending one’s own lifetime, generation and historical period. This kind of perspective lends universality to one ’s own existence and awakens a sense of purpose beyond the pale of self-interest. This makes it that one’s responsibility is inalienable and total, whichever way it may manifest itself. Which brings me back to the fact that, as K would say, ‘the future is now’ and so are the teachings.

I thought I’d share some of my musings on this question with you, since you are also concerned with it. Perhaps a dialogue on such questions might throw some additional light on them. Let me know whenever you get a chance.