text:
|Fri, 27 Apr 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
( a'reader friendly' edited) 4TH K SEMINAR MEETING
Krishnamurti: May we go on with what we were talking about the other day : how difficult it is to face 'facts', facts being that which is actually taking place now. That's what we came to in our talk the other day. Shall we go on from there?
Q: Sir, you said something the other day which I hope you'll go into a little bit more. You said, thought is a 'deviation' which had many implications in seeing the actual fact...
K: That's right. ( For instance ) can we face the fact, the actual reaction which we call (' psychological) fear' without the interference of thought, which naturally distorts or deviates (our inner attention) from that which is actually taking place ? And is there the division between 'that which is happening' inwardly, and the 'one who is observing' what is taking place? That's the question we must seriously go into, because where there is ( this subliminal perceptive ) division between the 'observer' and the 'observed', or the thinker and the thought, there must be ( a hidden, or an open ?) conflict (created) by the observer imposing what he thinks is right according to his values, his tradition, his ( cultural) conditioning. So we must really understand this question very carefully and deeply, whether there is such a division between the actual ( 'gut?) reaction' that is going on within us, like fear, and the ( self-conscious entity?) who says, 'I am afraid,' and so there is ( a subliminal) separation from ( the actual fear) and the entity or the thinker that says, 'I am different from fear.'
Because, if this division exists, then the 'doer', the 'actor', the 'observer', the 'thinker' can operate on 'that which he is observing' – by controlling, shaping or altering ( 'what is' going on) . And that's what, traditionally, we have been doing. And (as of ?) now, this division between the observer and that which is actually going on, (has become a solid?) reality. We have made it into a reality because it's become our ( thinking) habit to divide, 'me' and the 'not me', we and they, my belief and your belief and so on. Now, can't the actual fact, 'that that which is happening', be observed ( directly & non-verbally?) without the 'observer' who says, 'I should do something about it.' Then if ( this perceptive duality ?) can be (un)done, then one's mind will ( be able to?) remove entirely and completely the whole question of conflict between 'this' and 'that'. Please don't ( just sit back & ) listen to me, but let's - each one of us - find out ( experientially) the truth of it.
Q: Krishnaji, when something ( totally unexpected) is happening, like I have a (momentary) inclination to hit someone, that inclination, (by the time I try to ) observe it, has already happened, the actual 'fact' has already happened.
K: It's already happened and therefore the 'observer' ( is already processing ?) it. But we are discussing about the direct observation of the 'fact' as it is happening, not 'after' it has happened or 'before' it will happen, but actually as it is happening.
Q: I think you're wrong there. I think there is a 'pure happening' and this is followed by observation. But the 'pureness' is in the happening, not in the observing.
K: What is it you don't agree with?
Q: I think that the happening is the primary thing, and observing is something that follows on
K: I see. In the actual happening, at the very moment of anger, there is no observer. The 'observer' comes into operation only a moment later. Obviously. Then the operator, the doer, the thinker acts upon it, and the whole problem of ( the dualistic) conflict arises. Now can't you observe that ( thing as it is) 'happening' without the whole rigmarole of thought coming into it? Suppose I am (getting) angry - there is ( a sudden reaction of) anger. Is there a (direct & non-personal?) observation of that ( gut) feeling, of that (violent) reaction, without the whole movement of thought coming into it? That's all my question.
Q: Sir, for most of the time there is the ( sudden reaction of) anger and then the observer looking at that anger, and thinking that it's separate. So could we take a look at the process by which we move from that state of the observer being different from the observed, to where the observer would be the observed. In other words, ''the observer being the observed'' is not our normal state, is not the normal frame of mind, is not the normal consciousness. So could we take a look at how that could come about?
K: Would you consider for a moment that which is happening now, just to observe. Can you do it? Can one observe (one's subliminal response of) jealousy as it is taking place, (unfolding as) a flower blooms, just to watch it ?
Q: But the very moment you said 'Can one observe it ?', there's a ( subliminal) duality implied.
K: Agreed. But try it (for homework : ) . You are jealous sometimes. Can you just watch that state of mind, not say, 'I must be more clear, what he's talking about,' just watch it, see.
Q: There seems to be a 'physical' resistance...
K: Are you saying there must be certain ( psychosomatic) relaxation in order to observe (oneself clearly?) ?
Q: No, I meant some disturbance that you feel in the body, a physical reaction to this (strongly recommended inner) watching.
K: Why should there be a ( discomforting) physical reaction to watching (oneself) ? Maybe, I don't know...
Q: I would have thought the reason is because the ( self-conscious) mind always seems to want an answer to a problem instead of just observe it unfolding.
K: There is a certain sense of resistance to the intensity of watching ?
Q: Perhaps, yes.
K: Is it because we're not used to watching anything intensely? The moon, the sky, the trees, whatever it is? To 'watch'...
Q: Occasionally.
K: All right. Can you watch the movement of a cloud, occasionally? Now can you watch your ( mental) reactions in the same way? Just to watch something without any movement of thought ?
Q: There can be and there sometimes is, but it's infrequent.
K: Sir, may I ask another question. Has it ever occurred to you, whether it is possible to live without any conflict?
Q: That's totally different question.
K: No, it is not . I'm asking this question related to what previously we talked about, the conflict of duality - have ever asked yourself whether it is possible to live without this ( 'observer' vs 'observed' ) conflict. Have you? Between yourself, and somebody else and also without any inner conflict within yourself. Have you ever asked it yourself?
Q: Not until you suggested the other day (that ) it was possible.
K: So, I suggested it. All right. Have you found out whether that is possible or not possible?
Q: It is possible.
K: No, then you've blocked (the inquiry into ) it . Or if you say it's not possible, you have blocked it. But to find out whether it is possible to live without conflict implies there should be no ( observer-observed) division.
Q: Sir, what one is observing is often ( the self-centred activities of our ) thought itself, so are you saying that the change comes about in thought itself?
K: Yes, sir. Can thought observe itself?
Q: We can acknowledge (some) thoughts going through our minds.
K: I'm asking a ( holistically friendly ?) question which is, is there an observation of thought by thought? Or can (the thinking brain) itself become conscious of its own movement? Usually, one (controlling segment of) thought can say, I'll watch the other thought as they are moving. And therefore try to control them and so on. But I'm asking a different question, which is, can thought become ( objectively ?) conscious of itself as a movement?
Q: Are you saying that the whole ( process ) of thinking is becoming conscious of itself ?
K: That's right.
Q: Yes, but usually we are conscious only of one part of our thought.
K: Of course ? One thought is part of the whole. So can thought, which is our whole (mental activity) , be aware of itself?
Q; That raises again the (duality) problem - thought is always fragmentary.
K: Yes, sir. Can thought which is (usually ) fragmentary, can that thought be aware of itself? Say, you have a particular thought - can that thought become conscious of itself ? Not another ( prioritary ) thought becoming conscious of it ?
Q: That thought as it moves, cannot be conscious of itself. It becomes another thought.
K: Let's leave out thought. Can ( our ) consciousness become aware of itself? Consciousness being the ( 'real-time' display of the ) whole content ofthought.
Q: You mean that consciousness must be aware of itself (as a whole) , not of a particular aspect of it ?
K: Yes, put it that way if you like.
Q: What does that mean?
K: What does it mean to you? Don't ask me.
Q: To me it means a confused ( self-conscious) entity (trying to) look at itself.
Q: Krishnaji, isn't this first a matter of seeing something 'false' which is going on in the mind and after this ( false perceptive attitude ) coming to an end, only then there is the possibility of something else (to happen?) ? If I think now about being aware of my whole consciousness, and I make effort to be aware of my whole consciousness, that has no (experiential) meaning.
K: You know we began by asking ''Can we observe a fact ?''. That which is actually taking place (right now within oneself) . Not ' what has happened' and then its (effects) being observed. But the very happening itself. So that is the central issue that we're trying to talk over together - whether it is ( experientially) possible to observe ( without the duality observer-observed ?) that which is actually taking place.
Q: Krishnaji, would you just say it's a simple thing to do? This is how it looks to me. One thought comes into the mind, that's the fact, there's no ( verbal processing) movement, nothing, just to be aware of the fact.
K: It's more than that, sir.
Q: Is this what you're saying, that there must be a form of immediate apprehension ( of our instinctual reactions) in observation which precedes thought?
K: That's right. Can you as Professor Wilkins pointed out ''apprehend that which is happening'' ? Why does it seem so extraordinarily difficult ?
Q: Because in my mind there is so much (mental) movement which rarely tells what is happening ?
K: Sir, look, we have all been envious, haven't we? You know what the feeling of it is. Is there an observation of that ( personal reaction of) envy as it arises, just to observe (non-personally) that which is happening ?
Q: To stay with that ?
K: That's it, stay with that.
Q: No 'observing'.
K: All right, I'll use another word - 'stay with that'. As we were talking about fear. Is there a (non-personal) observation of fear as it is happening? That's all.
Q: Well, the funny thing is, as soon as I try to observe it, it seems to go away , it disappears.
K: Now does it disappear so that it doesn't return, because you are observing with attention and it goes ?
Q: Yes.
K: So fear comes only when there's inattention.
Q: Very much so.
K: So, then what is that attention?
Q: You have simply taken the ( mind's) focus off the sensation of fear and are re-focusing it into something called 'attention'. Therefore the (energy that initially fuelled the ) fear diminishes.
K: As this gentleman pointed out, Maria, when I ( fully) attend to that fear, it disappears. So this indicates that when there is attention, fear is not. So can I attend fear, or that which is taking place, with ( a non-personal quality of loving) attention ?
Q: You put the finger on something important there, which is not just ( an intelligence switch) ''when there is attention, confusion is not'', but equally there is something ( else involved ) there that is not thought, in other words, there's a new state.
K: That's all, sir.
Q: But sir, what is (also involved) this most extraordinary thing, this 'attention' - I don't know what it is, I can't find out, but I know it is an extraordinary thing. I do not know what it is.
K: Let me put the question differently. When there is an (abyssmal existential of) fear, is there a (quality of loving?) attention of that fear, attention ? When there is ( this quality of loving) attention, will there be fear? So does this ( holistic ) attention contain or hold thought?
Q: Krishnaji, there is implied when you say can there be attention there, that there is no ( further) movement of thought. So...
K: You have to find this out (for homework?) sir. I'm asking, is there in that state of ( loving) attention any ( residual) movement of ( the self-centred) thought?
Q: It merely seems to me that this attention doesn't belong to me...
K: It is not yours, I agree. It's nobody's.
Q: But Krishnaji, here is the ( material ) brain, say it's feeling fear or whatever the emotion is. Now the attention comes about. What is going on when the brain is looking at it ?
K: When there is ( this loving) attention, you're asking , what is going on in the brain. Don't you want to find out what goes on?
Q: Does this ( intelligent energy of) attention use the brain?
K: Is 'attention' to be learnt (from somone else), practised and repeated?
Q: No. It's there.
K: I attend, there is a full attention about something and that thing disappears. Then I say, 'By Jove, I've learnt something, I'll attend, I'll keep on attending, and practise attention'. And then, it's gone. So, Maria asks, what is the quality of the brain, when there is total attention ?
Q: It's highly active. The brain is highly active in that state of attention.
K: I don't know, we're going to enquire, sir, we're going to - don't let's state anything definite. What do you say, Dr Bohm, and you Professor Wilkins , you're all experts at this. What is the quality or the state of the brain when there is total attention?
Q: Doesn't the brain become ( naturally?) quiet?
K: The brain, you suggest, becomes 'quiet'. Does attention spring from this quietness or (it's the other way ?) What is the state of your brain, the brain, when there is complete attention?
Q: I think we must say that, the ( 'science) people' who do research on the brain don't understand ( the nature of holistic?) attention, and they admit it openly.
K: This is important to discuss : what is the quality of your brain when you are totally attentive.
Q: Don't we have the most evidence for inattention? I think we can look at inattention, because we don't (always ) have ( this quality of loving) attention.
K: All right, look at your inattention.
Q: Are we talking about focussing our attention on inattention, or are we just talking about something without focus called 'attention'?
K: You are listening now to me, which means, I hope, you're attending. What do you mean by that word 'attending'? We both of us know English, therefore you are able to understand the words, but you also know the words are not the ( real) thing that he is trying to convey. So you're not caught in words. And your whole nervous, physical organism is alert, listening, watching. Right? Would you call that attention?
Q: Well...that's it, that's a rudimentary attention, it seems to me. In your verbal description is left out what to me is the whole of emotion...
K: When you listen totally, is there ( any verbal) registration?
Q: Is the first stage of attention one of a positive, open-minded receptiveness?
K: Yes, sir.
Q: Then there is a sensory sensation, and then the words take a quite different place.
K: Sir, I'm asking, do we ( intelligently & lovingly?) attend to anything ?
Q: If we were so 'attending' now, we would understand what is being said.
K: You'd understand what attention means, not what I mean by attention. Do you know what attention is? Maria says, attention implies ( mind) focusing. You are focusing on what I am saying, and therefore you think you are attending. I say that is not 'attending' ; when I listen to something that you are saying seriously, there is no 'registration' ( no verbal processing?) – just an immediate understanding.
Q: I think perhaps our problem is that our (self-centred thinking) is so quick, it comes in so quickly.
K: I know...
Q: And in a way that seems to be ( part of ) the problem, it's so quick.
K: Is it that we don't (fully) 'listen'? I'm making a statement: is there an observation of that which is actually taking place ? Do you listen (directly, non-verbally?) to that? Or do you say, 'What does he mean by attention, what does he mean by fear,' wait - 'what does he mean by observing.' So you're off.
Q: Yes, that's what happens...
K: Whereas, can you listen to ( the living truth of) that statement, and the impact of that statement, in that ( total) attention is there any registration at all?
Q: You made a statement. Now I've got to understand the ( experiential meaning of your) statement.
K: When I say to you, ''I love you'', do you say, 'Just a minute, let me understand what you mean by that ? When there is a statement made like that (and is expressed ) with full meaning 'I really love you,' - do you go through all this ( registering & verbal processing?) ?
Q: No.
K: I don't know, probably you do (it subliminally?) . So, how do you listen to a man or a woman who tells you from his heart and means it, that ''he loves you'' ? What takes place? Do you 'register ( and file'?) that statement? And say, 'Yes, I remember ( that right now) you told me that you loved me.'
Q: Does it help at all to draw a parallel between this 'giving out of attention' and the 'giving out of love'?
K: Aren't they both the same, sir?
Q: Yes, that's what I'm getting at.
K: Yes, aren't they both the same? When a man or a woman comes to you and says, 'I love you,' because he's so tremendously (in love), do you say, 'Yes, jolly nice, but tell me all about it.'
Q: This is why I'm much more interested in the lack of attention, because that's the problem.
K: That's the problem for all of us . So, if your own responses, say, 'How very nice of him - he's a nice man, he's a beautiful man, I'm so glad (he sait he loves me) ' But you haven't received ( the essence of) what he has told you.
K: You see how we refuse to face a ( potentially destabilising 'psychological?) fact' : that ( deep down) we are frightened human beings ? Now, can we look (with a quality of compassionate intelligence ?) at this ( abyssmal existential ) fear? Can we pay ( a holistic) attention to that fear? Can you observe that (surge of irrational ) fear as it is taking place?
Q: It seems to me that there was this kind of attention when you said what you said, but it seems to me that that's there were the actual fear is, right like when you said, 'I love you', a thousand things that happen and might be there in directly facing the fear.
K: Look, Dr Shainberg, my ( experiential) question is very simple : can you look at your ( deep existential ) fear and 'stay with it' not ( trying to operate on it with (your professional?) thinking deviating ( your attention?) from that fact, the "fact" being that which is happening now, the actual. Can you can you observe that thing without any ( mental) movement, both physical and non-physical.
Q: Sir, the difficulty is, as soon as I do that, it disappears.
K: We've been through that. It disappears because you're attentive at that moment (or just because the 'observer' is regaining full control?)
Q: Then what happens?
K: Then, does that (abyssmal existential?) fear recur, come back? Then 'you' (the 'thinker-in-command' ?) say, (next time) I must be (more) attentive and it will disappear. So you play this ( hopeless 'cat & mouse'?) game. So we have learnt a trick for the moment, that being attentive to that thing, it disappears. You have learnt the trick, so you practise that trick, but (the deeper causation of) that fear hasn't gone.
Q: Right...
K: Which means what, you have merely learnt another 'mental trick'. However, if one is at all 'awake & intelligent', is it possible to be free of ( the deeper causation of that) fear altogether, not ( indulging) in (playing) this superficial trick of attention and disappearance and coming back and so on, that's all too - I want to ask you a much more serious, fundamental question which is, can fear disappear altogether, never to return. Otherwise I'm playing games.
Q: You automatically enter into the field of desire, I think.
K: Of course desire has it's own fears. There are many forms of fear, desire and so on, but we're talking of fear at its very root.
Q: To me the (professional) answer is 'no'.
K: Then what will you do, just live in fear?
K: When you say, 'I don't know' (and...I don't care?) , the thing goes on, under you, like you're standing on a bridge but the water of fear is flowing. Now can you stop that 'water of fear', ( understand its causation & ) end it ?
Q: But that is something we can't attain ( using our conscious mind ?) .
K: You see, you're talking of 'attainment' but I want to understand the whole movement of fear, how it arises, what is its structure, nature, the 'whole works' of fear, I can't stop it, because who is the entity that's going to stop it?
Q: Being attentive twenty four hours a day ?
K: I never said that (is realistically possible) sir.
Q: I am saying that, and this will end the trick, because then it won't come back.
K: So 'be attentive' the whole twenty four hours...
Q: The sense of ( my individualistic) identity ?
K: No, the mental process ( of self-identification) takes place when there is fear. Because I'm afraid afraid of this ( root cause of fear ?) , I must cling on to something which will get rid of it (or... cover it up?) .
Q: Thought ?
K: Have you found this out for yourself? Or are you repeating what this (K) person has said (... repeatedly ? ) ? Look, Dr. Shainberg, what is the beginning of it? Like a river - where it begins, what is the source, where does it begin?
Q: Fear comes with 'time', (thinking in terms of our personal & collective) continuity in ?) time.
K: Is that so? I've stated it many times , that the whole movement of fear comes through ( our self-centred thinking?) which says, I must have ( my temporal) security, I must be attached (to something durable) otherwise I'm lost, and invents beliefs, gods, Jesuses, Christs and the Buddhas, you follow? So we're saying , the root of fear is thought. Can you show us (the truth of it?), sir ?
Q: Well, my personal perception is that you can say that to me (endlessly) , but it doesn't add one inch to my illumination – unlike when you say to me, 'I love you'...
K: No, you're not listening to this. It is ( a total Insight ? ) as potent as 'I love you.' It is as vital as the other. Which is : 'thought is the source of fear'. Do you listen to it (with a selfless & loving quality of attention ?) ? No. You've all kinds of ( all-purpose mental) conclusions.
Q: It is the lack of love which precedes the ( fear-generating) thought, rather than the other way round.
K: All right. If it is the lack of love, then how am I to get it?
Q: That's perhaps a ( Heavenly?) miracle.
K: I don't think it's a ( Biblical ?) 'miracle'. Mankind has not been saved by any Jesus -es
Q: But it seems you are suggesting that here there is the actual possibility of a (psychological) 'miracle'...
K: There is, but we don't capture it, we don't listen to it. I'm saying, the source of fear of every kind that human beings have is born from ( our self-centred?) thinking. Will you 'listen' to ( the truth involved in) that statement, as you will listen when I say 'I really love you'? Or your (thoughtful?) mind immediately says, 'No, that's too damn simple, that's not it, it is much more complicated than that'.
Q: Actually my mind says : the causation of my ( existential) fears may be more complex.
K: Yes, but I'm interested to find out the source of it, not the river that is flowing, the source.
Q: In thought being the source, it implies behind that is (our species') desire for self-preservation.
K: Self-preservation, all right. Now, is it possible to have complete physical security? Never to be ill, never to have to go to doctors, the organism functioning healthily all the time, which is to have ( a life-long) complete physical security. Is that possible?
Q: That's what thought is trying to do all the time ; but thought fails.
K: That's right, sir - thought says that - and if I listen to it with great attention, without any ( intellectual ) abstraction. Then I'll see how extraordinarily complex it is, ( while getting entangled ) in the complexity of it, I may lose ( the contact with its original) 'simplicity'.
Q: I think that what you say is the truth . What's the next step?
K: Dr. Bohm asked if that is so, that is, thought is the source of all fear - then what is the next question ? The next ( experiential) question is, can this movement of time as thought, and thought as movement of time, can that come to an end? Not 'how can I stop thinking ?', but if you see the truth that thought is the root of all ( existential) fear, then your next question would naturally be, can this movement of 'thought as time', (or of ) 'time as movement of thought', can this whole movement come to its (natural) end, unwind itself?
Q: I find myself asking another question : how does thought begin?
K: Oh, that's fairly simple, sir. What is the beginning of thought. You can watch yourself (for homework?) : a pleasant or unpleasant ( sensory?) experience is registered is registered in the brain ( then processed & stored for further use ? ) So all ( conscious or subliminal mental ?) registration is the beginning of thought.
Q: Yes, but I keep registering.
K: No, therefore you ask, is it possible to end ( the 'self-interest' component of ?) registration.
Q: If thought is always time or future, if you only operate in the actual, you're not actually beginning (the 'self'-related) thought. But for me the problem is that I am continually up against this ( almost subliminal ) registration.
K: Sir, is this statement, ''the root of fear is thought'' valid ? ( Apparently) you haven't found that out for yourself. Am I imposing it ( subliminally?) on you ? If you don't accept, and say, ' Is that so?' ( the next step is :) Go into yourself, find out.
Q: Shouldn't one distinguish between different types of fear, psychological fear and other types of fear which may be natural like actual survival-related fears - of fire and that kind of thing?
K: I said ( thought related ) fear. If ( a random act of) violence comes tomorrow and hits me, all right, I'll take it. But to be afraid that it might ( disturb my psychological well-being ?) ... Dr. Shainberg, if you agree with it, all your psychanalytical (infra)structure collapses. Forgive me.
Q: I don't have anything to say...
K: I must stop now because I said we must stop at one o'clock and now it's past one. We'll continue tomorrow, but this is really an important question – that ( all psychological) fears come from the beginning of thought – which is 'registration', the ( brain's conscious & sub-conscious ?) registration, the ( collective) memory collected through millennia, or the (personal) memory gathered through the last few days, from that arises thought.
I'm asking a ( very subtle experiential ?) question - ( so, for homework) you have to 'think about it', you can't just say 'yes' or 'no'. It is like ( a working hypothesis that) a (new age ?) scientist puts forward, he puts it out for you to study ( the truth or the falseness of ) it.
Q: That can only happen if you have understood (what the 'psychological' registration is and how it actually works?)
K: No, not 'if' you have understood.
Q: When ?
K: No. Just to see the truth of it. Either it's the truth or it's a falsehood. Then from ( seeing the whole truth about it) you can explain it ( logically or...holistically ) , but it will always be true, while if it is false your explanation will be also false ( misleading ? )
This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 28 Apr 2018.
|Back to Top
|Sun, 29 Apr 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
5-TH K SEMINAR MEETING 1978 (reader friendly edited)
Krishnamurti: I think we began by asking ourselves, in the first dialogue we had here, whether one can be a light to oneself. And that problem was never touched upon . Then from there we went to the question of relationship and we went into that question rather briefly and then we talked about fear, and what is the root of fear. But somehow I feel we are not facing the ( experiential aspect of the?) problem : to observe the fact, the 'what is happening now', the ( subliminal creation of) attachments, the fears. I'm afraid we've never gone seriously into this ( major experiential ) question, whether it is possible (in real time?) to observe what is actually taking place, whatever that happening is. We never stayed ( long enough?) with that question.
Q: Krishnaji, I think one of the difficulties with ( directly) watching our attachment in relationship is that the relationship (to which we got attached) is is always there to run back to. You can always hide in the relationship, it acts like an umbrella, under which all ( daily) experience occurs.
K: Under that umbrella of relationship, isn't there attachment?
Q: Yes.
K: Now can you, can one ( spend some quality time?) and watch it without any ( personal) deviation, and let the thing that you are watching tell its story, rather than 'you' tell it what it should be ? Can one do that ( as 'meditation homework') ? So that it reveals everything - like when you watch a flower, very closely, you see everything in its detail and the beauty of the whole thing. In the same way, if we could watch ( non-personally?) this burden of attachment, it may contain an extraordinary 'beauty' in it, and from that move on ?
Q: Sir, could we go into just what's actually happening in this (pure ) observation? It seems to me that there is an (subliminal ) interference of ( the all controlling process of) thought, taking it in, examining it, seeing the different parts, the different actions of it. Now that is the destructive aspect of thought. Because to watch the action one has to feel it, one has to see it working.
K: Maria, you watch a flower in the bud, then as it blossoms fully, and then a few days later it dies. In the same way, if we could watch this sense of attachment, let it ( unfold itself & ) flower...
Q: Then, if I understand you correctly, 'thought' is acting as a sort of censor coming in.
K: Yes, the 'censor' is coming in - put it that way.
Q: So, there is something else involved in that seeing.
K: No 'feeling', no 'thought' ; just observing.
Q: But what if you're observing isn't a static outside thing, like a flower, you look at it and it's there. Here we're looking at a (subliminal) 'movement of attachment' going on in the human mind (for ages) . Now is that thought or not?
Q: Krishnaji, I think Mary is raising an important point. If you are ( personally) involved in that attachment, who's going to do the watching? If I'm attached ( to a person , idea, etc) then all my inner life is organized around that attachment, how am I going to watch that (non-personally ) ? There's always going to be a piece that's going to 'get away' (escaping my observation) , as long as I am in that situation of attachment. So, ( one can see it objectively only ) if you stop the ( sublimated mechanism of) attachment, when that's removed. but as long as the attachment is ( the active element ) there, I don't think you ever see it, because you're 'attached'.
K: Are you saying, sir, the very (psychologically sticky nature of ?) attachment prevents you from observing?
Q: That's it, in simple terms. It seems to automatically & habitually rush in.
K: How do I know that I am attached? I discover I'm attached through pain through jealousy, through anxiety, then I realize I am attached. Right, sir? I have realized that I am attached, which means I know ( for fact that?) I'm attached.
Q: I think that the experiencing of pain, jealousy, and anger is a ( post factum) reaction, not ( a real-time) awareness, you're reacting the moment that you have lost the (object of your) attachment.
K: How do I know I'm attached, sir? Let's begin with that. You (K ?) may tell me, as a friend, 'Look, be careful, when you get ( personally) involved with tremendous attachment, you're going to pay for it.' ( However, usually) I don't pay too much attention to you, because I like this attachment. I like this feeling of possessing and being possessed. And there is a sense of gratification in that. So, how do I become aware that it is ( just a psychological) attachment? The actual fact, not the word. I don't know the actual fact till something happens in that relationship or when there is some kind of discomfort, some kind of pain, some kind of...
Q: Insecurity?
K: Insecurity. Now it's only then I say, 'I am attached, this is coming from that.'
Q: But Krishnaji, I think what Dr Shainberg is saying that what you're seeing is not the 'attachment', you're seeing how you are reacting.
K: The reaction I have as pain (is exposing my subliminal ) attachment. So is there an 'instant observation' of this whole ( sticky) thing, as it is this happening, ( a non-personal) seeing of the actual state and the nature of it, instantly? Or must I go through years and years of (mixed joy & ) pain and I at last ( decide to) give it up ? Now (starting with the actual ) fact that there is pain, which is, the reaction to ( the downside of) attachment, does one realize all the implications of attachment by observing it, not letting thought wipe it away or distort it. Why is it we can't 'see' the whole implications of attachment instantly, and finish it ? Where is the difficulty in this?
Q: Are you saying that we see it from its consequences, and therefore we infer the (existence of an) attachment, or that we might see the attachment unfolding from the bud.
K: Through its consequences we realize attachment.
Q: But on the other hand, are you suggesting that we see it from the inception?
K: That's what I'm asking. Why can't we see the whole nature of it, instantly?
Q: From the point of its inception ?
K: From the point of inception, the whole story of it.
Q: It seems only logical that if we become aware of it from its consequences, we don't go to it directly , we go to the ( temporal) solution of it .
K: Yes, sir. Either through consequences we realize we're attached, or we have instant realization what ( our psychological) attachment implies and end, finish it. Which is it we do? And why don't we see the nature and the structure of attachment instantly, all its ( psychological) implications. That's apparent, we can't do it. But what we generally do is ( rationally dealing with its) consequences, realizing I'm attached and therefore pain.
Q: And then try to 'fix it up'.
K: Yes.
Q: I think pain is the obstacle in every direction, because surely we became attached in the first instance because we felt 'here is one person who's not going to hurt me'. And then when we feel we've lost that, we're going to be exposed to other hurts, we've got no refuge.
K: Yes, sir, but can you watch ( non-personally?) your attachment ?
Q: This implies that we have to learn to 'watch'.
K: Do it now, sir, not ( learn first and then watch) - this learning implies, doesn't it, that you accumulate (skills & ) knowledge and then watch with that ( well seasoned?) knowledge.
Q: Are you suggesting that there's another kind of (holistic) learning where you 'listen, observe and learn' ( all in one) ?
K: Yes. You see, sir, what is happening now? We are dissipating ( our directly perceptive energy) by talk & explanations, so we're not actually saying, 'Yes, I am attached, let me look.'
Q: Krishnaji, when I 'try to do' that, my ( intellectual) mind immediately brings an abstraction of what it is, and then I find myself looking at that (mental image) , not looking at the real thing.
K: Which is, that you're making a (mental concept of your) attachment and (by the same stroke avoid dealing with?) the actual fact. Isn't that what you're doing? 'Attachment' is just a (comforting intellectual) idea for you and you're not looking at attachment.
Q: That's what is happening but perhaps we could go into how can one 'step out' of that ('status-quo' solution)
K: Let's first ( try to) watch it ( unfolding) and then see whether it continues or whether it stops. Let's first 'remain with that fact' and let the fact tell its whole story. Gosh, how difficult this (exercise of 'live meditation' ?) is .
Q: It's a very painful thing to do.
K: Is it? I said, let it tell its story, not 'you' saying 'it is painful'.
Q: I just got the ( gut) feeling of 'pain'.
K: Pain is the consequence ( or the 'effect' ) of your (subliminal) attachment (to those childhood wounds) . So when you say 'it is painful', are you watching the thing, or you have assumed that 'It will be painful'.
Q: Isn't there a ( Karmic) chain in all this, the attachment is arrived at as a defence against another previous pain, or whatever it is, so that there's a series of attachments.
K: Yes, but - please, can you remain with the 'fact' ?
Q: We are attached to so many things. So, I don't even know which 'fact' to stay with.
K: I am trying to ask (holistically?) whether the mind can remain quietly observing (contemplating ) the fact of 'what is'. What is the ( experiential) difficulty in this ?
Q: It was our first question, Krishnaji. You asked 'Why don't we look at a fact ?'
K: That's all I'm saying.
Q: Well, we're not getting any closer to seeing 'why'.
K: I think, sir, that we are ( subliminally?) trying to avoid the issue, because there is a sense of ( personal) apprehension about 'what might happen' - which prevents you from looking at the fact.
Q: Are we saying that fear prevents us from looking at facts then?
K: It may be ( a subliminal) fear (of opening Pandora's Box ?) , or it may be that you're not really concerned about such watching ( you simply like the 'comfort zone' in which you are.) Don't disturb me, for God's sake. I may be attached, I may be wounded, but don't disturb that because I got used to it, and gives me a certain sense of (my identity & ) security. You follow? Don't disturb that security. Is that what is happening (surreptitiously ) ?
Q: One problem is, it's very difficult to see the 'attachment' here, in this room. In this room the attachment is ( on stand-by or maybe just ?) sleeping.
K: Throw out ( the 'scholastic' example of) 'attachment', sir, you have something or other, why can't you take your own ( 'gut) feeling' of anger, jealousy, whatever it is, just watch it.
Q: It's the same problem, you're ( safely installed ) in the room, and the attachments are ( happening) outside, when you go out.
K: You see, you're not 'watching'.
Q: I don't think we can get at it by going from (seeing its) consequences (to the rational ending of our attachments) . It seems that there has to be another kind of watching.
K: There is, and I think the watching ( motivated by analytically examining the dire ) consequences has no ( truly experiential) meaning.
Q: That is an (intellectual) deviation in itself.
K: Yes. Now please ( can we learn how to ?) watch (live the inner ?) facts, because if we can understand this very seriously and integrally, the thing that we call fear may 'disintegrate' through its own flowering.
Q: But as he said, we can see that 'anger' as an abstraction - but we are not (really) angry.
K: No, I took that as an ( scholastic?) example.
Q: Yes, but it's the same for whichever ( scholastic) example you take.
K: Yes. What are you trying to say, sir?
Q: That right here & now we are not feeling 'angry', here we are not feeling 'attached'.
K: Then, why are you (coming) here? ( …) Absolute silence.
Q: To understand oneself.
K: Comment?
Q: Pour se comprendre soi-meme. ( in plain English ) To know oneself?
K: Is that why you're (coming) here?
Q: To learn.
K: Learning implies that you listen, that you're sufficiently curious, sufficiently intense, sufficiently eager to find out ( the truth for yourself) . But apparently you're not learning (anything) ; we're telling each other what each one of us thinks.
Q: So we are ( surreptitiously) attached to 'what we think'. And also to what you think.
K: I haven't told you what 'I' think.
Q: Oh yes, you have.
K: All right, sir – then please think it out, why are you here. You're free (people, so why have ) you came here - why? Mr Maroger said, to learn about oneself. Have you learnt anything about yourself?
Q: Yes.
K: Learnt at what level ? At a superficial level? Have you learnt about all of yourself, not just about one layer of yourself - the whole 'content' of yourself. We're coming back to the same thing - can you watch the whole ( psychologically active) 'content' of yourself? Can I know myself totally - all my anxieties, fears, sorrows, pain, my psychological wounds, my attachments, my hopes, my fears, my longings, my loneliness, the whole of it ?
Q: Can you? It seems so ( impossibly) difficult.
K: You said you came here to learn about yourself. I say, have you learnt ( and finished with?) anything? Or have you just scraped the surface and say, yes, I've learnt a little bit. That's ( certainly) not good enough.
Q: Perhaps we could go into what happens ( insight-wise) when you ask that question.
K: Ye I've asked a question, sir. Do you want to learn about yourself (once & for all?) 'completely'?
Q:... Do we want to learn ( all ) about ourselves (right here & now?) . My response to that is, how is this possible?
K: If I say 'Yes', what will you do?
Q: That I still don't know (what you are talking about?)
K: Learn whether you can have a (total) insight into the whole nature of it.
Q: Yes...
K: Now, who is going to teach you? The ('K' ) man sitting here?
Q: No. I have to learn it for myself.
K: Remain with the question for two seconds. Is that so? Or you want me to do all the work and then you listen to it, and then you take it home with you or not.
Q: And in that way we make it into another set of 'ideas'....
K: Yes, so, are you depending on me?
Q: Yes, I think we are...
K: Why? Is it a ( cultural) habit, to depend on ( the spiritual 'light' of?) another? Is it what you have been educated to accept (another person's authority) to help you to understand the totality of yourself?
Q: Sir, it's a state of ( spiritual) immaturity .
K: Immature? Yes, if you like to put it that way. But, sir, who will 'teach' you (to become spiritually more mature?) Or the whole ( teacher-taught) question is wrong ?
Q: What you're really saying is, that no one really wants to learn (totally about oneself) .
K: That's all. Nobody wants to.
Q: I would like to ask whether this whole ( sequential) approach is wrong - approaching things one by one, because there are so many things, you know, one can go on and on in this way. Or whether there is a stage where one prepares oneself to learn how to question (holistically) learn the 'art' of questioning, to learn how to approach things, to learn how to 'see' ?
K: Yes, looking at something holistically, as a whole. Is that what you are trying to say?
Q: I'm asking whether there is something that happens before that, one prepares oneself for that.
K: No, there's no preparation (for a total insight?) Do I actually want to know myself irrevocably, implying that you are so completely committed (to finding the whole truth about myself ?) .
Q: Sir, when you say 'nothing', I have the feeling of ( being just) an empty room.
K: Oh, sir, you know the meaning of the word 'nothing'? Not-a-thing.
Q: If we were not attached to 'things' there would be no problem, but being attached to all these 'things'...we don't learn (about the deeper levels)
K: If you understand, sir, the whole of 'my' ( known?) existence, the whole content of ( my self-consciousness?) , is put together by thought. Right? And thought is ( the response of?) memory. I am a whole ( virtual ) structure made by memory. And it is totally unreal, living on memory.
Q: Sir, the interesting question is how I have made the illusion that I 'am something'. You see, it appears in ordinary life, to each person, he is really something. And one creates ( and sustain?) that illusion.
K: Yes, the illusion is created by thought – that I am something. When that (self-identified) 'thing' is not, I am ( as ) nothing. ( And even when I say I'm nothing, it is still another thought. It is not an actuality.)
Q: Because there is this ( very realistic) illusion that thought is always creating.
K: So, why do we accept ( the reality of) this illusion, about which we must learn. Spend years, spend money, books – for what? No, this is too radical, I won't go into this, much too...
Q: It's not too radical, we want to go into it.
K: You don't understand it, then. To understand what it really means one has to ( seriously meditate for homework upon?) rejecting , psychologically, everything that thought has put together. And since that's ( sounding) too radical, you won't, I mean - it feels like '' By Jove, there's something in it !'', but one has to go into ( meditating about?) it very, very deeply.
So ( to recap:) We asked the ( rhetorical?) question, ''why are you all here ?''. To learn, about oneself. And have you learnt anything about yourself, while you're here? (Holistically?) have you learnt anything? Or are we all playing (mental) tricks with each other?
Q: Sir, when we say we come to learn about the nature of the self, we are really learning about the nature of illusion.
K: Sir, I am asking a question. Why are you here? I'll tell you why I'm here. I want to tell you something which is tremendously important - K knows exactly what he wants to do. Are you ( so holistically) clear? Or you've got innumerable ( open & hidden?) motives ?
Q: Innumerable contradictory motives.
K: Yes, that's it - innumerable contradictory motives - so how can we communicate with each other ?
Q: Krishnaji, I feel that the basic difficulty is that our ( sublimally self-centred) learning process is twisted, so if we continue in this twisted process we won't be able to learn (anything straight)
K: All right, now, can we take up ( what is the holistic approach to) learning, go into it completely, what is implied, and actually find out what it means to learn ? What does it mean, the art of ( holistic) learning? The 'art' of it, what it is, you know, the whole business of it. Do you want to learn? If you want to learn, if you want to learn the 'art of learning' what price do you pay for it? What are you willing to pay, not in coins, not in paper money , but actually, to say, 'Look, I'll give everything to find out.' Nobody has said that to me, here or in India or anywhere else. ( On a second thought...) Perhaps one or two have. But I'm asking what do you pay for something which is unpayable ; how much are you giving to find out for yourself, ( and learn the contemplative art of ) staying with the fact. To stay with a falsehood, with an illusion and don't call it an illusion, to stay with the fact that one is caught in some ( self-projected) ideal, you follow? What amount of ('passion') energy are you giving to stay with one fact.
If you want to go into the question very deeply then ( the holistic approach to?) meditation is to remain so completely with the fact, with 'what is happening' , so that it is totally dissolved, every reaction allowed to flower, wither away, so that there is no more 'psychological', inward reaction to any challenge.
Q: To become totally aware of one's (inner conditioning?)
K: Yes, sir, can you, can I or you be aware totally of our conditioning, not bit by bit, bit by bit ( nationalism, superstition, the beliefs, the educated, sophisticated self) but of the whole thing.
( Any students & staff questions?)
Q: Implied in staying with the fact ( there is still another fact) that the illusion itself is trying to survive.
K: No, illusion survives because you are strengthening it by fighting it, by saying I must be free of illusion. But if you say, yes, what is an illusion? What's the root meaning , sir?
Q: The root word is 'ludere', to play, to have a 'false play' really.
K: Now I'm asking, what do you call illusion? Those of us who have been brought up in this religion, Christian religion, with their symbols, with their Saviour, with their Virgin Mary, with their rituals, etc., etc., is that not a (very well organised) illusion? Would you say anything ( the self-centred) thought has created, psychologically, is illusory ? Can one remain with that fact, and not let thought move away from that?
Q: But it seems at first sight that our self-consciousness is something touchable, that it has its own reality.
K: If I remain with that 'fact' of my ( self-) attachment, see how quickly it withers, sir? I wonder if you see this, if you actually 'do it'.
Q: I wonder if there's a problem, you see, it's clear what you mean by watching something outside but in a sense it's not so clear what you mean by watching something inside.
K: Dr Bohm is asking, there is the watching something outside of you, and watching inside of you. Isn't there a ( qualitative) difference? Now how do you watch something inside yourself, how you observe it, hear the music of it, the story of it. You understand the question, sir? It is easy to watch ( objectively ) outside - like the moon, the trees, the birds, or your wife, your husband - it's easy to watch. But is it as easy as that to watch what is happening inside? Suppose that psychologically I've been hurt. And ( the memory of) that wound is still recorded there even though you haven't thought about it.
Q: Even though it hasn't come awake.
K: Yes, that's right. The moment you 'think about it', it becomes alive. If you don't think about it, it is dormant. Now, can you see that psychological wound as it is now? Is that wound a 'reality'?
Q: Yes, it's real.
K: Yes. So can the mind watch this 'reality', and let that ( active memory of the?) wound flower, just watching it. Can you watch that thing and let the wound tell you all its story, from the first word to the last chapter.
Q: Don't we watch that also with the senses?
K: Sir, that brings a very interesting ( metaphysical ?) question (left for homework study ) The 'psychological' state (a.k.a. the 'psyche') , is it the result of senses at all?
Q: What do you mean - it's not clear.
K: That is, have the senses put the ( 'Psyche' or the 'Soul') there, or it lives apart from the senses.
Q: Perhaps it lives in memory.
K: I don't want to go into it for the moment, it's too...
Q: It is a part of the senses - the psychological state is a part of the senses.
K: I'm sorry forget what I said - let's go back to this. Sir, I want to find out how to look ( holistically) at my ( psychological) wounds, since the more I try to do something about them , the more the wound survives.
Q: Sir, I can bring that feeling up inside me, but you talk about going a stage further, where you've 'read' ( the whole chapter of ) it from the beginning.
K: Watch it, take time. If you watch it , doesn't it grow, flower? Doesn't it tell you how it came into being, how it...
Q: It certainly doesn't have the same power, it doesn't hurt so much, just by the fact of being with it.
K: This is ( the secret of ) all the flowering, because I'm watching it (with loving care?) . And all its story which is being told by watching the wound, how it arose. It arose because I had a ( very good) good 'image' of myself, and that 'image' the 'idea of myself' has been hurt. By watching (affectionately & non-personally) the wound, the wound is telling me the whole thing. One is giving it freedom to open itself up, and because of that( affectionate) freedom, it opens and withers away. So ( at the end of the chapter?) there is no more wound. I wonder if you see it ?
Q: So the wound is there because one has inhibited it from 'flowering'.
K: The wound is there (for various reasons) , but you have never looked at it saying 'Look, old boy, I'm hurt, let me look at this hurt.'
Q: I think you underestimate the fact that even approaching the wound hurts itself. There is tremendous pain on approaching the ( protective shielding of the ) wound.
K: Of course. That's why I talked previously, I said how do you approach a problem, do you come to it ( lovingly & ) freely or with a ( dry mental) prejudice, a conclusion. Then ( the approach is right) the problem is like a wave that breaks down, withers away.
Q: Yes, but even if you want to stay with the fact, the fact is that when you approach it there is tremendous pain.
K: Is it?
Q: I think it's more than pain.
K: The very approach awakens ( a subliminal reaction of ) fear. I say, is that so? Or I have an idea that it might cause pain and therefore I'm afraid. Therefore I'm not approaching it ( holistically ) at all.
Q: Isn't that what fear is all about, the idea that I will have pain?
K: Yes, that's an ( emotionally charged?) idea.
Q: Let's stay with this issue of the ( psychological) fear on approaching the wound.
K: All right. I am psychologically wounded, if I am. And what is my approach to that wound. What's your approach to the wound that you have, if you have any? Come on, sir, tell me what's your approach?
Q: There is no approach, that's just it. We simply run away from it.
K: It's not a (holistic) approach, I agree, but the fact is you run away from it.
Q: We also can 'think about it'.
K: That's your approach. How do you 'think about it'?
Q: There's is an (observation) process but after a while it stops and is a stumbling block and it won't go further.
K: So your approach is that you have a block. That is - keep it there. Your approach is you can't approach it, because you have a wall.
Q: And then I am no longer able to see it.
K: So, ( to sum it up) your approach is with conclusions, another is with ideas, the other is to run away from it. So our approaches are preventing you looking at it. Right? Now if you want to look (holistically) at it, want to observe the fact that you're wounded, then you have to be free of your conclusions, you can't run away from it, you can't approach it with an idea. Can you approach it 'freely' ( just for the fun of it?) ? It is like when you are reading a detective thriller, if you know the whole plot before, you'd throw the book away, but if you don't know it, and it's rather exciting, you go through the whole book.
Q: So is it that we are not afraid of the wound itself but of what happens if the wound disappears.
K: Partly. Because the ( knowledge of that) wound has given me some (sick) sense of my identity . You follow? With a (+/- glorious?) wound I am somebody, but without (my pet ) wound, I'm a 'nobody'.
Q: Can it be said that the wound was caused because we wanted in the first place to have a pleasant image of ourself ?
K: About yourself...(We'd better stop ).
|Back to Top
|Mon, 30 Apr 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
( A "reader friendly" edited version of the 6-th K seminar meeting, BPk 1978)
Krishnamurti: Can we now go back to observing actually what is taking place in our everyday relationship, whether it be husband and wife, girl or boyfriend, etc . Or, do you want to go back to what we were talking about the first day, which we haven't really touched on at all - to be a light to yourself, and not depend on anybody else ( when it comes to spiritual matters) ?
Q: Aren't they both related?
K: Maybe.
Q: Could we discuss both of them?
K: Can we remain with the ( inner) facts without the (all controlling?) interference of our accumulated memories of the past, which is 'thought' (our self-centred thinking) , to observe what is taking place without all that, the past, thought acting as a barrier in observation ? Then we can can we talk over together the question if it is possible to be a light to oneself, not to dependend (inwardly) on anybody. Is that possible, to be so completely, totally free from all influence, from all (ideological) propaganda, from all the tradition man has built, superstition, every form of ( psychological ) influence, both external and inward? Then only it is possible to be free from all psychological pressure, and discover what it means to be a light to oneself.
Q: The actual problem (here & now) is ( our mutual) relationship, obviously.
K: Let's start - are we each one of us aware of what is our actual relationship with another ? What is involved in it, what are the reactions, pressures, you know - whole interaction between people. Are you aware of it? ( Conformity ?) domination, attachment, the fear, the pleasing another and the other liking to be pleased and so on, the whole area of our ( mutual) relationship. Are we aware of it?
Q: Well, deeper down it includes the ( existential) loneliness of our own life and the desire for companionship .
K: All that's implied. Are we aware of all the implications and the consequences of our relationship ? Do you know exactly what is ( the condition of) our relationship with each other?
Q: I think we are superficially aware, but we're not deeply aware of all the implications.
K: All right, are you aware that your relationship is confused, mixed up, one moment ( expecting) this, next moment, that - it's a kind of, you know...
Q: I think to that extent we are aware.
K: Let us begin with this simple thing. Are we aware, each one of us, that in our ( mutual) relationship there is a great deal of confusion going on ? Would you accept that (for fact )?
Q: I'm aware of that at some moments but most of the time I'm not aware of it.
K: Now, sir, are we aware that our relationship is so mixed up, so unclear, so confused, so there is never a (total) clarity in it. Could we say that?
Q: Yes. I'm not totally aware of what is going on .
K: Which means that inwardly you are confused.
Q: That's right, but I don't know I'm confused because I'm not aware of it.
K: All right, but can one become aware of it now? I told you, this is really a very serious subject, and you may not want to enter into all the complexities of it, the fear of what might happen.
Q: Are we looking at the whole ( existential ) problem of relationship, or relationship with our fellow man in a certain closed environment
K: No, Maria, are you (choicelessly aware of) what your relationship is actually?
Q: My relationship to whom or to what ?
K: To your husband, son, wife, boy friend or girlfriend.
Q: In other words, with other human beings?
K: Of course, I said that at the beginning.
Q: And is that encompassing only my close relationships or...
K: Close, intimate, personal, extended, far, near - all that is involved in relationship. What's my relationship when I go to India, or America, and, the whole problem of it.
Q: It seems to me that I do see all this but still it goes on, it doesn't prevent the difficulties.
Q: Everyone seems to admit that there is at least some confusion.
K: You're very clear that you 'love' a woman or a man. And in that love you ( are becoming dependent?) on her, you're getting attached to her. In that, isn't there ( a vast potential of ) anxiety, disappointment, hurt? She might get rid of you one day and your heart is 'broken', and you cry over it. Right? Do you want to live ( forever?) in that kind of relationship? To know what it is to live that way and to pursue it is the essence of neuroticism. No?
Q: Sir, the question that comes up is, how can a man and wife, if we're talking about that relationship, be related in any other way?
K: If this is not the right way to live, in a relationship involving fear, attachment, all that - why don't you drop it?
Q: That's easily said.
K: Is it easily said? If you see that a certain ( course of) action leads to pain, and you keep on acting in that way, what does it indicate? If you like to act that way, that's perfectly all right. But here we're trying to be serious, to find out (the truth of the matter) You follow?
Q: We may think there is more ( disturbance & ) pain in trying something else.
K: But that's again not facing what actually is going on. You project what might happen and therefore be afraid of what might happen and pain and all that. You don't say now, this is my actual relationship with another. I'm attached, I depend on her, physically, morally, sexually, you know - depend on her, so I am attached to her. And in that attachment the ( next) sequence of that thing is pain & all the rest of it. And this is the actual fact.
Q: Isn't it that we are unable (or unwilling?) to face the 'fact'?
K: That's just what I'm saying - we are unable (or unwilling ?) to face something actual (and potentially disturbing?) . Why? If I have great ( prostate?) pain and it may be cancerous, I must do something about it.
Q: Krishnaji, I think that my relationship is functioning to protect me from (my loneliness) pain. And then it creates more pain.
K: So what do we do? Wait till that person leaves us, till a calamity takes place? Psychological earthquake?
Q: Well, with the pain always comes the pleasure, and I think that because there's pleasure involved in it, we accept the pain as part of it.
K: I see. In this relationship there is greater pleasure than pain, and so you accept it (as it is) . Is that a fact, that (for the time being) there is greater pleasure and not so much fear ? But eventually the greater pleasure does end up in ( frustration, pain & ) fear. Obviously !
Q: Why is it so 'obvious'?
K: Because you are giving another great pleasure, and therefore he holds on to you. Right? He won't let you go, he wants to possess you, he says, 'she's mine'. And even if you both like this thing, one day it's going to (fizz?) - you follow?
Q: What can a person do if he finds he is ( unconsciously?) unwilling to face the problem ?
K: His own intelligence, observation of what is happening must show him this.
Q: But Krishnaji, David has raised a good point, because if I could say, the drug addict goes down to the corner and takes some heroin, his consciousness is blurred to see what he's done, he's just getting a kick out of it.
K: So ?
Q: The same thing with relationship.
K: All right. Are we in that position that ( the holistic qualiy of ) our brains is affected ? Maybe - sir, don't deny it so quickly. May be.
Q: Personally, I am not.
K: That's one of the most difficult things to say, 'I am not'. I may be...
Q: Perhaps the question, Krishnaji, is that we actually know what our relationship is, if we're very honest. But we also have the idea that it really shouldn't be that way, and in that way we 'falsify the evidence'.
K: We say, 'Yes, it should not be that way,' and just carry on ?
Q: Quite.
K: So I am saying, face the fact that it should not be that way and 'look' at it.
Q: As Dr Shainberg said, many relationships ore painful but we stick to then because we are trying to cover up another (still deeper) pain, like our own ( existential) inadequacy.
K: Yes, that's right.
Q: It seems we should perhaps give attention to that first inadequacy.
K: So, you are trying to cover up other pains? And establish ( a safe psychological) escape through relationship?
Q: But that seems to be how most relationships came about.
K: Now, just a minute. (As an 'in class' example ?) What is your actual relationship to the ( K) person who is speaking here, on the platform - you must be related somehow, otherwise you wouldn't be here. So what is your actual relational with this person?
Q: Well, I've told you, sir, I've reached a (psychological) block, I come to a position where I cannot experience it.
K: There you are and here I am, two people. Dr Shainberg, you and I have met for years, talked to each other a great deal etc,. Now what is your relationship with this person?
Q: I have a feeling of 'working together' in some ( obscure?) way...
K: I am asking you, before we do something together, what's our relationship?
Q: There are no words for it.
K: No, come off it, you're full of words, Doctor, come off it. (Laughter) Don't say there's no word for it.
Q: Can I try to answer it for myself ? I have come to get something from you.
K: Yes, So - that's good enough, sir - that's good enough. You want something from me. Right?
Q: Yes.
K: I come to you to get something from you, whether it is - money, sex, psychological freedom, etc. Then what is that relationship?
Q: Attachment and dependency ?
K: No, Tunki, be simple. It's a 'merchandise'.
Q: An utilitarian relationship ?
K: I want something from you, I'll give you this, and you'll give me that.
Q: Ok, sir, we'll ask that question: what is your relationship to us?
K: No sir, this becomes too serious. I'm not going to play games with you. What's your relationship to the man that's speaking here? Is it a transaction, is it a business thing, that you give me this and I give you that, you have something and I want that something from you?
Q: You ( presumably?) don't want anything from us - we haven't got anything to give, but if he says he wants something from you, then surely his relationship to you is one of depending on you.
K: That's just what I'm pointing out. Am I willing to face the fact that when I want something from another, that brings about the ( time-delayed ? ) pain of psychological dependence, which we are unwilling to look at ( as long as the 'pleasure' or 'hope' factor is predominant ? ) .
Q: Are we trying to distinguish which one is going to give me the more pleasure?
K: Yes, put it like that - which is more ( instantly rewarding & ) pleasurable, to be a light to oneself, ( with the demanding implications of that, which haven't gone into ) , it is a tremendous thing, being a light to oneself, will that give me greater pleasure than the other?
Q: Can I say until I'm being a light to myself?
K: Therefore, what will you do. You want to find out, don't you, if being a light to oneself,( the implications of which most of us don't understand) will that give me greater strength, greater energy, much more vitality and passion, than ( indulging in any psychological?) dependence. Will dependence give me vitality? Deep abiding strength? Or it's going to waste away my energy? So, if I think ( that my complex network of psychological?) dependences may have the greater ( potential for?) pleasure, I will pursue that ( well trodden path?) till I am being awakened to ( the illusory nature of ?) it through pain. Then I say, 'My God, I must struggle to be independent,' or that ( fake spiritual ) person is not right, I'll go and take on this person. Right? ( But relying on ) this person is in the same field as ( relaying on ) the other, because ( my subliminal attachment) is going to cause the same problem.
So I'm asking, does dependence give great pleasure?
Q: If one realizes the limitations of that dependence, then it stops.
K: Do you realize the actuality of ( your psychological) dependence and see the whole consequence, seeing step by step what is involved. Not forecast what might happen, but actually see the truth ( regarding that) dependence, having an insight into dependence ?
Q: I may not see the full extent of it, but I certainly do see that I am dependent on others.
K: All right, then don't you see that in that (condition of psychological) dependence, that there is a great potential of ( time-delayed) pain? Though it may be pleasurable for the time being, in that pleasurable state for the time being, can't you see the ( subliminal accumulations of frustration & ) pain going on at the same time ? So, why don't you drop it ?
Q: I'm afraid that all my (real world?) relationships will stop, if I drop it.
K: If you ( would actually) drop it, there may be a different kind ( quality) of relationship. You follow ?
Q: Sir, what on earth do you mean when you say, 'Drop it' ?
K: It's very simple (in the physical world ?) sir. Don't you drop something when it is dangerous, drop, that is, put it aside, avoid it.
Q: But inwardly, what does it mean, to 'put it aside'? I don't understand at all.
K: All right. I see (that any psychological) dependence implies ( a time-delayed accumulation of frustration & ?) pain. Right? Do I want continuous pain for the next thirty years?
Q: I think this is a confusion of words, Krishnaji. When you say 'can we drop it', we're probably thinking 'can we drop the relationship itself ?'. You are actually asking : can we drop our psychological dependency to it ? .
K: Yes, can we drop it - in the sense of being (inwardly) free of it.
Q: But then, what does it actually mean, 'to be free of it' ? What do you mean by being free of?
K: Free of, in the sense, if you have a physical pain, you try to get rid of it, don't you? By going to a doctor or dentist, whatever it is. So in the same way, psychologically dependence breeds ( an accumulation of frustration & ) pain. Do you see ( the 'absolute' truth of) that? Can you face (the psychological fact ) that in ( any attachment & ) dependence is ( involved a gradual accumulation of frustration & ) pain ?
Q: This is what I can see.
K: See it, feel it, know that it is an irrevocable law. If you like to hold on to that ( potentially painful) attachment, then it's perfectly all right ( for the time being?) . But if you see that it is useless, it's not worth it, don't you naturally let wither away ( your addiction to psychological) dependence?
Q: I think there's a step missing, you see, that a person may stick to something ( even if sometimes ) it is painful if he feels that he has a ( long term) necessity for it. One does not always drop the ( momentarily) painful thing because one may feel one has to have it, one needs it (for a higher purpose) .
K: I see. One needs pain?
Q: Not the pain, but one needs the (physical relation of ) dependence ( even if) that produces the pain.
K: I understand. I need to depend on the postman, on the dentist, and on this corner petrol station, I depend on it. Now psychologically...
Q: A person may be convinced that he is too weak to stand alone, for example.
K: You see, when you say ''one is convinced that one cannot stand alone'', How do you know that you can't stand alone (or that eventually you may have to ) ? How do you know you can't stand alone?
Q: Experience seems to indicate that.
K: Whose experience ?
Q: Well, of our own.
K: Has your ( life) experience told you that 'you can't stand alone'?
Q: In a sense, yes.
K: As Dr Bohm pointed out, we are ( all ) afraid to stand alone. Right? And that ( abyssmal collective ) fear makes us rely on another. Right?
Q: All those things....
K: Yes. Therefore, what do you do. Don't you test it out? Why should - sir, the churches have (assumed?) that man can't be a light to himself, and must depend on Jesus. Why do you just accept that statement, why don't you test it out?
Q: Sir, could you deal with the fact of being alone, what happens when you are ( finding yourself all-) alone.
K: Is it because you are afraid that you cannot stand alone, that you (instinctually choose to) depend ?
Q: It's not right to say that you're afraid of standing alone, because we've all stood alone at various times. What happened in that state...
K: All right, what happens in that state when you have occasionally stood alone, can you 'face' ( inwardly contemplate?) that fact and see what happens?
Q: But you've got to 'want' to stand alone. And this may not happen until you really dislike and are uncomfortable with your condition of dependence.
K: Not until you have pain, then you - madam, I'm not being personal - but haven't you had ( that kind of) pain?
Q: Yes.
K: Then why can't you 'stand alone'?
Q: I think I'm starting to stand alone. Because I don't want any more of that particular pain.
K: Is that it, Maria, if I depend ( materially) on you, therefore I am incapable of examining that dependence. Is that it?
Q: More or less...
K: I won't (accept it) I don't see the reason of it.
Q: The reason is that any action that could upset that ( my safe dependency ) is ( subliminally) perceived as a disaster or a worse danger.
K: You're going back again, you're not facing the fact, you're projecting what might happen.
Q: Right, but that is the ( irrational) nature of the dependence.
K: Therefore I say, face the fact (holistically?) even if facing the factof that dependence means pain, ( try to) look at it (with a quality of non-personal affection?) and get in total contact with the fact (of your psycho-dependency ?) And this (K) person is saying that if you (finally manage to?) do this (your existential) conflict totally ends, completely, in your life. You can test it out (for homework?)
All right, let's leave that. Let's face the other fact : What does it mean to be a light to yourself? Why is Dr Shainberg, not throwing his whole ( psychiatric bussiness ?) away and say, 'Be a light to yourself. I will help you to be completely free from all these (inner conflicts) , so that you stand alone.
Q: When you stay stay with that fact, there is no thought.
K: No, sir, look : ( the total consciousness of?) man historically, politically, and even religiously said, 'I must be free.' Right? There must be an individual freedom in life who is not controlled, shaped, driven. Man has always sought freedom, from the most primitive till now. So, nowadays many are rejecting the churches, all the rest of it. ( But inwardly this ) freedom means to stand alone. Which means, freedom from the known.
Q: Which means that you stay with the fact, no words involved. You're with the fact.
K: Yes, sir. The 'fact' being that there must be freedom from the known. The known is all the ( content of our personal & collective ) memory. The (stored memory of the ) past, which is ( expressing itself in terms of?) knowledge, that is the ( mental space of the ) 'known'. Now, ( in order) to become a light to oneself, or to 'stand by oneself', the ( conditioning influence of the?) 'past' with all its tradition must totally vanish.
Q: So you stay with the fact and its implications, totally.
K: Which means, sir, that what has been registered on the 'magnetic tape' of the brain, that ( mechanistic ) registration of the past must end and no present or future registration must take place. Sir, you don't know what this means, you see, this is one of the most...
Q: I really want to know what it means, I'm interested to know what it means.
K: I'll tell you what it means : (for starters?) find out for yourself how tremendously important it is to 'stand alone' ( as 'All-One') , which means to live a life without any ( psychological) pressures from outside or inside. Find out ( for homework) whether it is possible for a human being, who is the representative of all humanity (you are the entire consciousness of) humanity. And this ( survival oriented consciousness of) humanity has said, 'I must depend on God, on this local deity, on the 'book', on this or that. So our ( collective cultural) conditioning is ( based on) this tremendous dependence. And to be completely free of that conditioning, means that you're really a whole, undivided individual. One has to face that 'fact' of what one has been imposed upon through education, through constant repetition of the Mass ; to see the absurdity of it and wipe it out. Then you ask, is it possible to be a light, not only to 'yourself', but because you are (the consciousness of the whole ) humanity, therefore to be a Light to Humanity (the 'Light of the World'?) . You follow? I don't think you captured this (point of one's 'total responsibility' )
Q: There's one important thing you said, you switched over from saying 'can I be independent', to saying 'can ( the holistic) consciousness of any man be free'. Making it universal.
K: Yes, that's right.
Q: Therefore, as long as you say, 'Can I be free?' you're ( getting personally ) stuck ?
K: Of course. That's why I said that - as a human being- I am the rest of mankind. When I said, 'can I be a light to myself' , I am saying, can I as a representative of humanity , be a light globally, not for my petty little backyard light. My backyard light is just ( a local dispatch of ) electricity which can be switched off and switched on from the Main Dynamo. But I'm not talking of such a thing.
This post was last updated by John Raica Mon, 30 Apr 2018.
|Back to Top
|Sun, 10 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
IN LISTENING IS TRANSFORMATION ( 'reader friendly' edited K Seminar in Madras, 1981)
Achyut Patwardhan: Reflective minds have come to realize that there is a certain degeneration at the very source of the human brain. Would it be possible for us to explore this source of degeneration?
K.: I think all of us agree that there is degeneration, that there is corruption - moral, intellectual and also physical. There is chaos, confusion, misery, despair. To think ( ego-centrically) is to be full of sorrow. Now, if we could put aside all our (known) positions , perhaps we can look anew at this problem of degeneration.
Our brain is the common brain of humanity which has existed for five to ten million years, and it has through ( a vast accumulation of life ) experience, knowledge, etc., established for itself a (mental) 'image' of the world - and therefore, there is no (direct & compassionate ?) relationship. If I actually see that and change the whole movement, then perhaps we may know what love is. Then ( our everyday) relationship is totally different.
A.P.: Is this a ( holistic?) description or a fact?
K: It is a description to communicate a fact. Question the fact, not the description.
A.P.: I am questioning the fact. I say the fact is that the world is full of people. They are divided into nationalities, etc. I cannot (totally agree with your ) oversimplification of a ( vastly complex ) situation in which the whole human problem is reduced to what is happening in the brain - because I say something is happening outside, something is happening within me and there is an interaction, and that, that is the problem.
K: You are saying that there is an interaction between my psychological world and the world. I am saying ( that consciousness-wise?) there is only one world - my psychological world. It is not an oversimplification; on the contrary.
P.J.: We are talking of degeneration. Anyone who has observed (one's own) mind in operation sees the validity of what Krishnaji says, that you may be physically a human being but you exist in terms of an image in my mind and my relation is to that image in my mind.
K: The brain is the centre of all the sensory reactions. I see a woman and all the sensory responses awaken. These sensory responses are stored in the brain. The brain then reacts as ( a process of self-identified) thought, through the senses, memory and all the rest of it. When this sensation ( based thought) meets a woman, all the biological responses take place and a (mental) 'image' is created. This 'image' then becomes all-important (for the thinker) but there is no relationship with her except on the physical level. This is simple enough.
B.K.: Can we take one more step? As these mental images can be refined, modified, manipulated, can't there be a 'mental' relationship?
K: Of course, our brain is doing that all the time.
P.J.: The real question then arises, what is the action which triggers the ending of this 'image-making' machinery so that a direct ( human) contact is possible (between us?) ? The ( ongoing mind ) trap is that we see it , but we continue in the same pattern.
K: This is so. Why is the brain functioning so mechanically?
P.J.: What is the ( necessary life-) challenge, or what is the action which will break through this mechanical functioning, so that there is a direct contact with 'what is' ?
K: Let us get this point clear ; the human brain has been accustomed ( for ages) to this sensory (skin deep?) 'image making' movement. What will break this chain? That is the basic ( experiential) question.
J.U.: Your implication is that everything that arises (in the human brain) , arises out of the senses. Nothing arises out of outer challenges ?
K: (From the 'psychological'- point of view?) there is no 'outer', there is only the brain responding to certain reactions, which is knowledge.
S.: Are you saying that there is no outer and inner, but only the brain?
K: Yes.
J.U.: You have made a (psychological ) statement which is not part of my brain, namely that the images are born out of the image-making machinery of the brain itself, that the self projects the images of the other.
K: Why?
J.U.: It is something new to me.
P.J.: The question is, what is your relationship to me or to Upadhyayaji or to Y? Are you not a challenge to me?
K: What do you mean by 'you'?
P.J.: Krishnaji's statement or the way he has asked, or what he has been saying, to which I am listening, is it not a challenge to this very brain?
K: It is.
P.J.: If it is so, then there is a 'movement' which is other than the ( common activity or?) of the brain.
K: K makes a statement. It is a ( direct inner ) challenge to you only when you can respond to it. Either you respond at the same intensity as the challenge or you don't respond at all. To meet a challenge you and I must face each other, not bodily, but face each other.
J.U.: If you are a challenge, then why are you denying there can be a challenge from the 'outer'?
K: This is something entirely different. The (everyday) outside challenge is a challenge which ( the self-centred human) thinking has created. (Eg:) The 'communist' challenging the 'believer'. The communist is also a believer (in the materiality of the human condition) ) therefore, he is challenging another belief; so, it becomes a reaction against belief. That is not a (fundamental) 'challenge'. The ( K) 'speaker' has no belief. From that point he challenges, which is different from the challenge coming from the outside.
P.J.: What is the challenge of the no-centre?
K: If you challenge my reputation or question my belief, then I react to it because I am protecting myself and you are challenging from your (own self-centred) image. It is a challenge between two images which thought has created. But the challenge of absoluteness is entirely different.
P.J.: But the ( experiential) question is, how is this ( self-centred mental) movement to end?
K: How is this ( self-sustained mechanism of ) daily experience – (being mentally processed into knowledge – (then stored up in ) memory - from which arises a new thought or a new action - which is again (being processed as ) knowledge, and so on - the 'thought-time' circle in which you are caught - to end?
P.J.: It is really asking, how is the 'stream of (karmic) causation' to end? In this process you have shown - challenge, sensation, action - does the learning of that action return and get stored?
K: Of course. Obviously. This is what the brain (is constantly doing in creating for itself a 'steady state' of self-consciousness ) .
J.U.: In that process, what 'goes out' does not 'come back' exactly as it was before , something new is also added to it. What is the special quality of what is added?
G.N.: ( K ) is certainly not denying the 'reality' of the outer world - the world of nature, there are other human beings, there are lots of other things. Everything is real; war is real, nationality is real, the other person is real. But what you imply is that we have no ( direct ) contact with it ; only through our own (self-protective) image and ( in absolute value) this makes for 'no contact'.
K: Sirs, all that I am saying is that ( the self-sustained cycle of ) psychological knowledge as it exists now, is a corruption of the ( total activity of the ) brain. We understand ( the danger involved in) this process very well. And ask, how is that ( mechanistic mental?) 'chain' to be broken? I think the central ( existential) issue is this 'psychological knowledge' which is corrupting the brain, corrupting the rivers, the skies, our relationships, everything. How is this chain to be broken?
Now, has the 'breaking of the chain' a ( hidden) cause, a 'personal' motive? If it has, then you are back in the same (slightly modified) chain. If ( I want to break it because ( living in its self-enclosed field) is causing me pain and, therefore I want to be out of it - then I am back in the same chain (or...actually I never left it?). If it is causing me pleasure, I will say, please leave me alone. So I must have no ( 'personal' ) direction or motive.
Satyendra: It is a central question and people keep on asking, 'How do I break the chain?' But the question I ask is, given the brain that I have, is it possible to end the chain? Is it a new way of looking at things? Is it a matter of reason, logic?
K: It is not a matter of ( self-introspective) analysis, but of plain observation of what is going on. The brain is the (collecting & processing ) centre of all our sensory responses. The ( self-centred processing of these) sensory response has created experience, thought and action, and the brain being caught in that (cycle of personal knowledge) is never complete. Therefore, it is 'polluting' everything it does (outwardly & inwardly) .
P.J.: Practically every ( spiritual) teaching concerned with the meditative processes has regarded the senses as an obstruction to the ending of this process. What role do you give to the senses in freeing the mind?
K: The ( natural actvity of the ) senses, as ( directed by our self-centred) thought, create ( the time-binding) 'desire'. But without the interference of thought they have very little ( transcendental ?) importance.
P.J.: Senses have no importance?
K: Senses have their place. Seeing the beauty of a tree is astonishing. But where does ( the thought sustained ) desire interfere with the senses? That is the whole point;not whether the senses are important or unimportant, but where desire begins. If one understands that (fine point?) , then why give such colossal importance to it?
R.B.: It sounds as if you are contradicting yourself - you have said, not right now but earlier, ''if you can observe with all your senses''... Therefore, you cannot deny the importance of the senses.
K: I did not deny the ( reality of the ) senses. I said if you respond (with all your ) senses to that tree, there is a total ( holistic?) response, there is no 'me', there is no (self-conscious) 'centre' which is responding. That is ( the essential sense of ?) Beauty, not in the ( man-made) painting, or poem, but the total response of all your senses to that. We don't respond so (holistically) because ( the self-centred ) thinking creates a (sensory rewarding ) 'image' from which the desire arises.
P.J.: If I may ask how does the Buddhism regard the senses?
S: There is ( pure) seeing only when the 'seer' is not. There is no difference between the 'seer' and the 'seeing'.
K: The observer 'is' the observed. But ( brain-wise) this is the whole point: The brain is caught in this ( repetitive mental ) movement. And you are asking, how is the chain which is built by thought to be broken? ( Living safely in the area of time & ) knowledge has created this chain. Then you ask the question, how is the chain to break? Is the (totality of the) brain asking this question, or is the ( thinker's ) desire asking, 'How am I to get out of it?' ( Hint:) I don't ask the question (personally?) . Do you see the ( experiential) difference?
A.P.: When you say, is the brain asking that question, or is ( the self-centred) desire asking it, I am bogged.
P.J.: So, we don't have to ask the question ?
K: There is only ( the 'fact' of ) this chain. That is all. The moment you ask the ( how-to-do-it ?) question, you are (going off the tangent in) trying to find an answer, you are not looking (anymore ) at the chain. But if you 'are' that, you can't ask any ( knowledge oriented?) question. What happens when you do that (mindfully remain with the fact?) ? When you do that, there is no movement. The ('me'-knowing ?) movement has created this, and when there is no movement, that ( inner process of 'thought-time' ) ends. There is then, a totally different dimension (of holistic consciousness?) . So, I have to begin (and end?) by not asking questions.
But ( for meditation homework ?) is this chain a 'fact' to me? This chain is 'desire' - desire in the sense of sensory responses. If all the senses respond (as an integrated whole) , there is no ( time-binding) desire. But when the sensory responses are partial, then ( the self-centred) thinking comes in and creates the 'image'. From that 'image' arises desire. Is this a fact, that this is the chain the brain works in? Whatever it does must operate in this?
B.K.: How can one be more in touch with this ( time-free ) observation?
K: Sceptical investigation is the true spiritual process. This is true religion.
|Back to Top
|Sun, 10 Jun 2018
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 3 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED
Hi John, hope you are good, I rapidly had a quick look at this statement and well as I find it so interesting that I will come back to it at some stage...
garden time now..
talk to you soon
Dan ...........
|Back to Top
|Sun, 10 Jun 2018
|Tom Paine United States 2 posts in this forum Offline
K: There is only ( the 'fact' of ) this chain. That is all. The moment you ask the ( how-to-do-it ?) question, you are (going off the tangent in) trying to find an answer, you are not looking (anymore ) at the chain. But if you 'are' that, you can't ask any ( knowledge oriented?) question. What happens when you do that (mindfully remain with the fact?) ? When you do that, there is no movement. The ('me'-knowing ?) movement has created this, and when there is no movement, that ( inner process of 'thought-time' ) ends. There is then, a totally different dimension (of holistic consciousness?) . So, I have to begin (and end?) by not asking questions.
T: Good discussion John. So there is total inaction in regards to the chain. Thanks so much for sharing this one. ANY movement I make is of the chain.
Let it Be
This post was last updated by Tom Paine Sun, 10 Jun 2018.
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 3 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED
And ask, how is that ( mechanistic mental?) 'chain' to be broken? I think the central ( existential) issue is this 'psychological knowledge' which is corrupting the brain, corrupting the rivers, the skies, our relationships, everything. How is this chain to be broken?
Now, has the 'breaking of the chain' a ( hidden) cause, a 'personal' motive? If it has, then you are back in the same (slightly modified) chain. If ( I want to break it because ( living in its self-enclosed field) is causing me pain and, therefore I want to be out of it - then I am back in the same chain (or...actually I never left it?). If it is causing me pleasure, I will say, please leave me alone. So I must have no ( 'personal' ) direction or motive.
Hello John, I personally stick to that part...I do not see it possible without using a catalyst, the use of it would prevent all personal feeling to be involved in the process..
well of course you see where , for me , it leads ..
OK, now i am off talk to you later..
Dan ...........
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|Daniel Paul. Ireland 3 posts in this forum ACCOUNT DELETED
Hello again, well I knew you would of course...such a consistency into that on my part cannot go unnoticed of course ;-)
what you mention here is quite right , it is right because we have lost the capacity to know it from its birth , then one may feel a wake up call when it is too late..life is gone...next !
then again inquiring will need time , especially because inquiring into that leads absolutely nowhere, life is gone, next !!
then one may removes causes yes, and it works if one does the right think..but it needs time life is gone , next !
then one expect something out of that or out of another approach, it is in the future, it takes time , life is gone , next...
then after 10 000 lives one stops expecting , life is there..who cares then if there is or not a next..this can be lived right now ..but what i see is the refusal to use what is there ..
I am sorry but we have lost a knowledge here, I like some found it again no need to be shy here, s it is a fact ,which knowledge? knowledge a very bad word in k's world indeed, the one to tackle as it arises what will later on by accumulation and need become sorrow, suffering etc it is in fact us aka thought who-which allow time into that process which must used right away so now ...bringing time like in : I am hoping to solve it tomorrow...for me tomorrow will never exist...life is gone, next !!
well for me it works, thought is enough of a word , not to say all of it of course how would it...if one speaks intellectually so based on nothing but wind , then it is one more catch 22..
well this is what properly living what lies behind the stupid word sorrow does by itself..it has many properties one is to prevent thought to pervert what is going on , the seeing is not operated by thought, problem solve , now one of the numerous great danger I see in reading k is to expect all problems to be permanently solved at once ....any expectation if of thought , back to the same old catch 22
Well is there such thing as luck ?? I have no factual view on that ,nevertheless I usually sense that when something takes place without us knowing all the imbrications leading to an event, because we do not know then we call that luck...is it a fact ? I do not know..
living sorrow ( what really lies behind that stupid and wrong word) properly brings some other capacities into the game of life..it is a deep seeing or insight...it cannot be missed, it is powerful, caring, curing , etc
all this bypasses thought....
what else do we search for...??
Dan ...........
This post was last updated by Daniel Paul. (account deleted) Mon, 11 Jun 2018.
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline
When the sensing is not 'holistic', there is 'room' for thought to interfere which then 'judges' what is seen, heard, felt, etc.? This gives rise to possible 'like' and 'dislike', condemnation, comparison, etc. of the 'image' that is being sensed and recorded according to the background memories of the brain/thinker? If the sensing is 'holistic' (no observer separate from the observed), no image is formed? And therefore no 'desire', judgement, recording, related to the image arises?
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|Tom Paine United States 2 posts in this forum Offline
Right, nothing is retained in memory when sensing is holistic. No memory, image...thus no desire. Desire is dependent upon memory. This is how I understand it from moments of such sensing.
Let it Be
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
I think , Dan, that most of us here had their 'Moments of Grace', but with age, one realises that they were given only as a 'sample' and for the many other moments of lack of Grace we are supposed to work them out like you would work in your own backyard garden
You mean, beyond the redeeming opportunities of sorrow ? I believe that we are all - at least subliminally expecting in our hidden forum to be included in the timeless movement of Creation- sorrow is redeemed into passion, which is in turn redeemed into compassion, which in turn...
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
2ND K SEMINAR MADRAS 1981 (reader friendly edited)
J.U.: In Varanasi ( Benares) , you have been speaking over the years. Two types of people have been listening to you. One group is committed to total revolution at all levels and the other to the status quo, that is to the whole stream of tradition as it flows. Both go away, after listening to you, satisfied. Both feel that they have received an answer to their queries.
K: Just what is the question?
P.J.: He sees a contradiction – that both the man who stands for the status quo and the one who stands for a revolution (in consciousness) , takes your teachings and amalgamates it into his. That contradiction needs some clarification from your part. What does your Teaching stand for?
K: Let us take it one by one.
J.U.: Positing a 'state beyond', which is Bliss, etc., there is a contradiction (between 'what is' and 'that') . I say that the stream of sorrow and the compassion which arises upon direct contact with that Stream of Sorrow is the only reality (that can be dealt with) .
K: I don't quite see the contradiction. I would like that contradiction explained to me.
P.J.: He is seeing a contradiction in Krishnaji's making any statement about the 'otherness', because the ( average speculative ) mind picks on that.
K: First of all, I don't quite see the contradiction, personally. One thing is very clear, that there is this enormous River of Sorrow. That is so. Can that sorrow be ended and, if it ends, what is the result on society? That is the real issue. Is that right?
J.U.: There is indeed this vast Stream of Sorrow, but no one can posit whether this sorrow will totally end.
K: I am positing it.
J.U.: There can be an (individual) 'movement' for the ending of sorrow but no one can posit when that sorrow of mankind can end.
A.P.: We know life as irreparably built on the fabric of sorrow. Sorrow is the very fabric of our existence, but you have said that the ending of sorrow can be attained.
K: Yes, there is an ending to sorrow.
A.P.: This is not a statement about the sorrow of mankind ending at a certain time and date; it has no future or past.
K: I think we all agree that (the consciousness of?) humanity is (caught?) in the Stream of Sorrow and that ( consciousness of) humanity is ( shared by) each one of us. Humanity is not separate from me; I 'am' humanity - my psychological structure, is ( shared by all) humanity. Therefore, there is no 'me' - and the 'stream of ( collective) sorrow'. Let us be very clear on that point.
P.J.: Upadhyayaji suggests that there is a stream of sorrow which is independent of the ( personal) sorrow as it operates in any individual consciousness.
K: No, no. The human brain is born through ( a long evolution in) time. It is not (just) 'my' brain. It is the brain of humanity in which the hereditary principle is involved, which is ( the result of many generations living & dying in?) time. Therefore my consciousness 'is' ( not separated from?) the consciousness of mankind ; it is the ( shared) consciousness of humanity because man ( the generic human being) suffers, he is proud, cruel, anxious, unkind, this is the 'common ground' of man. There is no 'individual' ( consciousness?) at all for me. This Stream of ( self-interest & its resulting ? ) sorrow is ( shared by all) humanity; it is not something ( happening) 'out there'.
G.N.: There is a ( collective) stream of sorrow; there is ( personal & collective) violence, greed, going on independently of myself.
K: Outside yourself? But you are ( consciousness-wise?) part of that Stream.
P.J.: The physical fact is that I see myself separate from that child, that man. But the state of ( my self-centred) consciousness which has this perception may, in another situation, act in a violent way.
K: We are part of all this (consciousness stream of self-interest ?)
P.J.: You see, this is a very interesting ( metaphysical) question. Does it mean that when there is the ending of sorrow, does it arise in the individual drop or in the whole stream? Upadhyayaji says that when the light of the sun falls on the stream of water which is flowing, which is composed of individual drops, it draws up drop by drop.
K: Take any river; it has a source. The source (of human consciousness?) is sorrow. Has our sorrow a (personal) source or is the very stream (of collective self-interest?) the source of our sorrow?
B.K.: You said the source (of human consciousness) is (presently caught in?) sorrow. If we translate this into human terms, that really means human beings are born of sorrow, and are also condemned (to live with it?) .
K: I am saying what is a 'fact'. You cannot condemn a fact.
P.J.: You (seem to imply that in the human consciousness ) there is only the stream of sorrow. I am questioning it.
K: I want to start with a 'clean slate', by observing what is actually happening around and inside 'me'. I observe that the 'me' is (the manifestation of a stream of collective) thought. I am the result of all the experience & knowledge (of mankind) stored up in memory, that is, I am the (psychological) result of many thousands of generations. The worries, the anxieties, the misery, the confusion, the uncertainty, the desire for security, the 'psychological' inner world which thought has built, 'is' (an integral part of the whole consciousness of) mankind.
P.J.: Sir, if it were so simple; we would be all 'floating in the air'. How is it important whether that movement of sorrow or violence is part of ( the total consciousness of) mankind or just part of my brain cells?
K: I quite agree. You are concerned with sorrow; I am concerned. My brother dies and I shed tears. I watch my neighbour whose husband has gone; there are tears, loneliness, despair, misery, which I am also going through. So I recognise (that sorrow) is a common thread between us and when I see there is a common factor, there is immense (inner) strength. If you are only concerned with your individual sorrow, you are ( feeling helpless &) weak. You lose the tremendous energy that comes from the perception of the whole of sorrow. This sorrow of the ( self-isolating) 'individual' is a fragmentary sorrow and, therefore that which is fragmentary has not the tremendous energy of the whole. A fragment is a fragment and whatever it does, it is still functioning within a small radius and, therefore, trivial. If I suffer only because my own brother is dead I lose contact with the ( holistic) fact that I am part of this enormous stream of (mankind's consciousness )
P.J.: When my brother is dead and I observe my mind, I see that particular movement of sorrow; but of that Stream of human Sorrow, I know nothing.
K: Then stop there. My ( beloved) brother dies and I am in sorrow. But then, I see this happening to my neighbour on the left and on the right. I see this happening right through the world. They are going through the same agony, though not at the same moment I go through it. So, I discover something (of holistic nature) , that it is not only me that suffers but mankind. Then I discover that ( human) sorrow is a stream that has been going on for generations.
J.U.: The particular ( sorrow) and the Stream (of collective sorrow ) , are they one?
K: There is no 'particular' (sorrow) .
J.U.: The 'particular' (sorrow) is something experienceable, it is manifest, but even when we see the Stream (of collective sorrow) , we see it as 'particular' (sorrows ) put together. As long as the 'self' is (in charge with observation) , the 'particular' (element) will have to be (present) .
K: I understand that when I see the 'fact' that my neighbour is going through the same thing as I am, what happens? Either I remain caught in my little sorrow or I perceive ( my holistic responsibility for) this enormous sorrow of man.
P.J.: What is the factor, or the instrument, which enables one to see (this fact) directly?
K: See what has happened to my mind, my brain. My brain has been concerned (exclusively) with the loss of the brother. The visual eye sees this enormous suffering in my neighbour here or a thousand miles away. How does it see it? How does it see the fact that my neighbour is ( inwardly) igoing through the same hell? The neighbour all over the world is my neighbour. This is not a theory; I recognise it, see it.
J.U.: When Krishnaji talks of seeing people dying a thousand miles away,the sense of sorrow which he sees is not individual. He can do it because he has negated the self totally; K has negated time totally. There is no movement which is fragmentary in him. But when my own brother dies, I can't see it with the same (compasionate) eyes. K is standing on the bank of the river and watching, while I am floating in the river.
K: What has happened (with the young man K?) My brother dies and I am shocked. It takes a week or two to get over it. When that shock is over, I am looking around and see this thing going on everywhere. It is a fact.
P.J.: You still have to tell me with what 'eyes' I must see (holistically) .
K: Am I so ( safely self-) enclosed that I don't see anything except 'me' and something outside of me? That is the first thing to be established. I want to go back to this point - why can't I see it as a fact, as me suffering and, therefore, the world suffering? Why don't we see it? That is the point we have come to.
P.J.: I don't see it, the sorrow of another. That passion, that intensity which is born in me when there is sorrow arising in me, does not arise when I see the sorrow of another.
K: All right. When you suffer, you close your ears and eyes to everything else. Actually, when my brother dies, everything is 'shut out', but if (later on) the brain says, 'Yes, I won't move from that, I won't seek comfort,' there is no movement. Can I hold it, perceive it? What happens to the mind? That is my point. If you remain with sorrow, you have denied everything.
J.U.: That is so only for Krishnaji.
K: Panditji, throw ( the spiritual authority of) K away. If the brain remains completely with that sorrow , what happens then to the brain that has been chattering, making noises about sorrow, chasing its own tail?
B.K.: There is always some other interference.
K: There is no interference when you observe something totally; to observe totally is not to allow thought to interfere with what is being perceived totally.
J.U.: Sorry for going back to my original question. You have said that when sorrow has ended, happiness will be there ?
K: (I have said :) when sorrow has completely ended, then there is compassion ( the 'passion for all' ?)
J.U.: So, the perception that ( the predicament of any ) human existence is sorrow gives rise to compassion ?
K: No. I will make my position very clear. There is only the ( consciousness) Stream of mankind.
J.U.: Is there Bliss after ending sorrow? Will everyone be happy?
K: I never said that. I said the ending of sorrow is the beginning of Compassion, not of Bliss.
P.J.: You must take the question as Upadhyayaji stated it in the beginning. He said people come to hear your talks, and at the end of the talk you say, 'Then there is a benediction, then there is a state of timelessness.' And that makes them thinking that this is the 'final' (ultimate) state (to be reached)
K: To them 'That' is a (traditionalistic) theory which they have ( collectively) accepted. I would like to ask something (personal?) : Are we discussing this as a theory, as something to be informed about, or is it a fact in our lives? At what level are we discussing all this? If we are not clear on this, we will mess it up.
Sir, I still insist 'It' exists and I don't know why you say it is a contradiction. If you found something astonishingly original which is not ( to be found) in books, not in the Vedas, if you discovered something of an enormous (inward) nature, would you not talk about 'It' ? He ( K) would do it, sir, because that is a part of the whole thing; it is part of the Tree (of Life) . The tree is (nourished by its ) hidden roots, and if you ( get to) look at the beauty of these 'roots', you (would certainly ) talk about them since this Tree ( of Life) 'is' (at the same time) the roots, the trunk, the leaf, the flower, the Beauty of the whole thing.
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline
This is a marvelous discovery; I have a physical pain. I don't know whether it is something serious or something that will pass. There is some anxiety, some fear that it could be something major, even deadly, etc. then I recall that others suffer from pain, all kinds of pain from the minor to the excruciating. In realizing that this is not only 'my' pain but it is what all humanity (and the animals) go through...(to be sure the pain is still there in 'my' body) but the 'Pain' is not 'mine'...rather than thought being concentrated on my body's condition exclusively, it gives way to the realization that pain is what we all feel at times and rather than there being only the isolated energy of 'my pain', 'my fear', it becomes something different.
|Back to Top
|Mon, 11 Jun 2018
|Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline
'Not only' is a key phrase here. To have said "It is not me but . . . " would have been to discount that each of us feels it as well as it being common.
That being the confluential point. When someone is cruel with you, do you hold onto it as your own? If you do you are likely to then pass it on, from one to the other, making the chain. To understand that psychological hurt only turns to suffering when you take ownership of it and possess it, creates the possibility of breaking the chain.
An example of which might be when you blame your parents for what you are or what you became. Your parents were working with the material their own parents presented them with, albeit changed in some ways. The question is, are you able to break the chain, stop blaming and start acting? If not, you only change the form of the problem and you pass on the same problem in changed form to your offspring.
|Back to Top
|Tue, 12 Jun 2018
|Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline
Isn't this where compassion comes in?
|Back to Top
|Tue, 12 Jun 2018
|Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline
Yes Paul, I think it is.. When (or if) it's seen that 'our' troubles, 'our' travails, 'our' hardships, 'our' anguish, 'our' fear is not 'ours' at all but the "stream" of human suffering of which you/I are a part...that everyone goes through what we are going through, it dissolves the wall of self pity that confines our sorrow to only ourself. That dissolution is compassion, isn't it?
|Back to Top
|Tue, 12 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
3RD K SEMINAR MADRAS 1981 (reader friendly edited)
P.J.: Rimpocheji has asked an ( excellent experiential ?) question: In listening to you over the years, one feels that the 'Door' ( of a timeless perception ) is about to open, but... it does not . Many of us have had this feeling that we are ( getting stuck ) at the threshold. Is there something inhibiting us?
K: What is it that prevents one (an authentic truth seeker?) , after exercising a great deal of intelligence, reason, rational thinking and watching one's daily life; what is it that blocks us all? Something does not 'click'.
P.J.: I say we have done what had to be done.
K: What is it that a man or a woman can do who has studied K, talked (with him) all these years but finds himself up against an (invisible inner ) wall? Are you like the bud which has moved through the earth; the sun has shone on it but the bud never opens to become a flower? Let us talk about it.
B.K.: I think the answer has been suggested by you for several years and the (block) consists in is the 'intellectual' answer we give , (while ) the irrational part of the mind is repressed.
P.J.: No, it is not so. I have gone into the process of psychological time. I have seen its movement. But there seems to be a point at which some Leap (of Faith?) is necessary.
K: In Christian terminology, you are waiting for ( the Divine) Grace to descend on you ?
P.J.: Perhaps...
K: Did you ever come ( in your meditations?) to the point where your brain is no longer seeking, searching, &asking, but is absolutely (immersed?) in a state of 'not-knowing', when the ( innocent?) brain realizes, 'I don't know a thing' except the technological - did you ever come to that point?
P.J.: I would not say that, but I do know a state in which the ( all-knowing ?) brain ceases to function. It is not that it says, 'I don't know,' but all (its mental) movement ends.
K: You are missing my point. An (inwardly humble) state of 'not-knowing' - I think that is one of the first things that is demanded. We never come to this point of utter (inner) emptiness, of not-knowing. Is there a state of the brain when it is not ( openly or subliminally?) occupied with itself? Isn't that our ( karmic ?) psychological blockage?
J.U.: All action (in the field of reality ) is bound within a time-space framework. Are you trying to bring us to the point where we see that all action as we know it is bound by ( the intrinsical limitations of) time and space, is ( psychologically speaking ?) illusory, and so has to be negated?
K: Yes, negated. Shall we begin by enquiring into what is 'action' in itself, the doing ?
P.J.: Is this the fundamental question?
K: I am trying to ask the fundamental question which you raised at the beginning: What is keeping us not flowering (inwardly) ? Is it basically ( the self-centred) thought, is it time, or is it because I have not really, deeply, read 'the book of myself'? I have read certain pages from some chapters but I have not totally finished the book.
P.J.: At this point, I say I have read the book (selectively?) , but there is no saying I have read the book completely because every day, every minute, a new page or chapter is being added.
K: No, no. Here we are - at last. I am asking a question: Have you ever read the whole Book ?
P.J.: Can one ever ask: Has one read the whole Book of Life?
K: You will find, if you have read the Book at all, that there is nothing to read.
M.L.: We have come to a certain point. We have explored.
K: Yes, I admit it. You have come to a certain point and you are stuck there. Is that it?
P.J.: I have come to a certain point and I do not know what to do, where to go, how to turn.
K: Why don't we try to be 'simple'? I have reached a point and that point is all that we have said, and from there I will start anew. So why does the flower (of Goodness?) not blossom, or the bud doesn't open up ?
P.J.: I have wept in my time. I have had despair in my time. I have seen darkness in my time. But I have also had the resources to move out and, having moved out of this, I have come to a point when I say, 'Tell me, I have done all this. What next?'
K: If I would come to you and ask you this question, what would you tell me? How would be you answer?
P.J.: The ( traditionalistic ) answer is 'tapas' - which means, burn the impurities which are clouding your ( inner) sight.
K: Thought is 'impure'- in the sense that it is fragmented, not whole, therefore it is 'impure' or whatever word you would like to use. A mind which is whole is beyond the impure and pure, shame and fear. When Pupulji says, burn the 'impurity', do please (ask yourself :) why is the brain incapable of 'seeing the whole' and from that perception of the wholeness, of acting (holistically?) ? Is the root of it - the block, the inhibition, the cause of not flowering - the fact that (the self-identified process of) thought is incapable of perceiving the whole? Thought is going round and round in circles. And I am asking myself, suppose I am in that position, I recognise, I see, I observe that my actions are incomplete and, therefore, thought can never be complete. And, therefore, whatever thought does is impure, corrupt, not beautiful. So, why is the brain incapable of perceiving the whole? If you can answer that question, perhaps you will be able to answer the other question.
RMP.: You have correctly interpreted our question.
K: So, could we move on from there - that is, we have exercised thought all our life. ( Our self-centred way of ) thinking has become the most important thing in our life, and I feel that is the very reason there is ( inner fragmentation or ) corruption. Is that the block, the factor, that prevents this marvellous flowering of ( Goodness) in the human being? If that is the factor, then is there the possibility of a ( holistic?) perception which has nothing to do with time, with thought?
J.U.: My mind has been trained in the discipline of (thinking in a logical) sequence. So, there is no possibility of saying, ''can this be?'' Either it is possible or it is not. But I can agree that thought is not complete.
K: The moment you agree that thought is incomplete, whatever thought does is incomplete and it must (eventually) create sorrow, mischief, agony, conflict.
J.U.: Supposing we have a disease, and no outside agency can heal it. We ourselves have to be free of the disease. So, we have to discover an instrument which can 'open the door' from disease to good health. That 'door' is our (inner clarity of) thinking which, in one instant, breaks the grip of the false. There is a constant process of the dissolution of ( our egocentric) thinking and (the thinking brain?) itself accepts this and goes on negating. The whole process of ( thinking clearly) is discrimination. It leaves any (personal attachment) the moment it discovers that it is false. But that which perceived it as false is also thought. Therefore, this process of ( thoughtful?) perception is still riding the instrumentality of thought.
K: You are saying perception is still ( supervised by) thought. We are saying something different - that there is a perception which is not of time, not of thought.
RMP.: We want to know your position more clearly. Please elaborate.
K: First of all, we know the ordinary perception (backed by) thought: discriminating, balancing, constructing and destroying, moving in all the human activities of choice, freedom, obedience, authority, and all that. That is the movement of the 'thought which perceives'. We are asking : is there a (direct, non-verbal) perception which is not ( supervised by) thought?
P.J.: I often wonder what is the value of asking a question like this. Is an (experiential) answer possible?
K: Yes. We know the nature of ( the self-centred) thought (and how it works?) : thought distinguishes, or chooses ( according to its cultural background) between the 'right' and the 'wrong', the false and the true, hate and good. We know that and, as we said, that is time-binding . Now, do we remain there, which means, do we remain in perpetual conflict (between 'what is' and 'what should be'?) ? So, is there a perceiving which is not born of 'knowledge' - ( free of the repetitive cycle of ) experience, memory, thought, action? Is there a perception which is totally denuded of the past? Would you enquire with me that way? I know this (thought-controlled perception) , and I realize that this implies an everlasting (inner & outer) conflict.
A.P.: This process of thinking in the field of cause and effect has no way of escaping out of the chain reaction. It is only a bondage. Therefore, observing this, we let go of it, right 'here and now'. Next we ask the question, is there a perception which does not get involved in the past, the 'past' being -( the stand-by memory of) all that we have done and been concerned with?
K: Isn't it a rational question to ask whether this can end ?
A.P.: Absolutely, because we have learnt by our own experience that thinking through the medium of cause and effect cannot free us from the wheel of sorrow.
J.U.: So, whatever instrument we had (ready to use ?) , you have broken that. But the 'sick mind' will continue to live and therefore, when it wants to be free from disease, it is necessary to point out to him some process by which he achieves this. I can see the difficulty of doing this, but (the moral problem is :) can the patient be allowed to die before the ailment is cured?
K: If you say life is conflict, then you remain where you are.
P.J.: Don't forget that conflict is the 'I'. Ultimately society and all can go down the drain. Ultimately it is 'I' that matters . All human experience, all ( spiritual) search, centres round ( our self-centred) thinking, caught in time as ( creating an endless chain of personal & collective ) conflicts.
K: So (the nature of the temporal ?) 'I' is conflict.
P.J.: I see this, but in an abstract way.
K: No, not 'in an abstract way'. It is (really) so.
P.J.: Maybe this (ongoing inner conflict) is the ultimate thing which is stopping us... ?
K: Let us be very simple. I recognise conflict is my ( way of) life. Conflict is 'me'.
A.P.: Even after accepting the futility of ( thinking in terms of) cause and effect, what remains is an identification with a certain 'habit reflex' ( of self-identified thinking) . Does the self- identification break or not? If it does not break, then our dialogue is only at the theoretical level.
K: Don't introduce more words. When you say 'conflict' ( the conflicting attitude to life) ends, the 'me' ends, there is ( the psychological) block.
P.J.: I know conflict.
K: 'You' can't know 'it'. Do you actually realize that you 'are' conflict? Do I realize in my blood, in my heart, in the depth of (my psyche) that 'I am conflict', or is it just an 'idea' in which I am trying to fit ?
J.U.: If you accept that the chain of causality includes the impact of time, space and circumstances, we must recognise that this is a major (existential) problem. This is like a ( fast spinning) wheel, and any movement of this 'wheel' is not going to dissolve the problem. What I was seeking to explain by my ( 'poor doctor') simile is that any (mental?) process must remain within the wheel of sorrow. But even if the disease is not, and the wheel of sorrow is not, still some life principle must be left.
K: I only know that my life is an (endless) series of conflicts till I die. Can man admit this? This is our life, and you come along and say to me, must you go on doing this? Find out if there is a different way of looking, acting, which does not contain this (dualistic cause of conflict ?) . That is all I am saying. Next, ( supposing that?) I am a 'reasonable' man, ( a straight-)thinking man, I say, ''must I go on this way ?''. You come along and tell me that there is a different way which is not this and (K) says ''I will show it to you''.
J.U.: I accept that this circle of ( self-) continuity in which I am moving is not taking us anywhere. I come with you up to there. And I clear my position with the help of a (metaphorical) example. But you cut the ground under that example by saying that I must discard the continuity. If continuity is cut, the question itself disappears, but unless there is an ending, how can there be a new beginning?
K: Who is saying that?
A.P.: You have said that this ( thought aided perception?) is 'time'; you say 'negate time'.
R.B.: What Upadhyayaji is saying is this: Life is conflict, time, thought. He accepts they have to go...
J.U.:...and if that goes, then what is the connection between that and what is to be (the new instrument) ?
K: (Suppose) I am that man who is suffering, in conflict, in despair, and says : Please show me a different way of living ! If you agree with it, then the next ( experiential) question is, is there a ( direct) way of looking or of observing life without bringing in all the ( lingering memories of the?) past, a new way of acting without the (distorting interference) of thought which is (my personal) remembrance? He comes along and tells me, ''let us find out what is true perception''. I don't know (anything about) it, but I am 'listening' to what he says. ( Hint :) It is important not to bring into this 'listening' my logical mind; I am (silently?) listening to him. Is that happening now? The 'speaker' is saying that there is a perception without remembrance. Are you listening to it ? I say, Achyutji, there is a way of living without ( any inner sense of) conflict. Will he listen and not translate it immediately into a ( knowledgeable personal) reaction ?
A.P.: When you are faced with ( a major life) challenge, there must be such a total listening without any reaction. Only in such a state can there be no relationship whatsoever with the ('psychological' memory of?) the 'past'.
K: Therefore if there is no such reaction, you are already 'seeing'. You get it?
J.U.: For instance, if one observes with attention all one's illusions, then in the light of that attention the whole process of illusion is dispelled. So, this moment of attention is the moment of true observation. Is that so?
K: Sir, you are a great Buddhist scholar. You know all that the Buddha (literally : the Enlightened One?) has said, all the intricacies of Buddhist analysis, exploration, the extraordinary structures. Now, if the Buddha came to you and said, 'Listen,' would you listen to him? And he says to you, 'If you listen to me, that is your transformation.' This ( quality of total) listening is the listening to the ( inner sound of?) Truth.
J.U.: This pure attention is the (truly holistic) action, which itself is the Buddha.
K: But ( right now) would you (so) listen? If the Buddha talked to me, I would say, 'Sir, I listen to you because I can see what you say is true, and I love you.' That is all. That ( inner listening to truth?) has transformed everything.
J.U.: There is no use to speak of the Buddha. There is only listening and in the right listening the quintessence of 'That' ( universal) wisdom which transforms is there. The name 'Buddha'( The Enlightened One) is not the truth. This 'attention' itself is the Buddha. This (compassionate) attention is the only reality. In this attention, there is pure perception.
K: Now, just 'listen' : There is ( your inner state of) conflict. And a man like me comes along and says, there is a way of living free of conflict. Just listen without knowledge, which means without the operation of thought.
A.P.: That moment of attention is totally unrelated to the thought process, free from causality.
K: I know that my (inner) life is ( a battlefield of ) conflicts. And I am saying, is there a way of looking, listening, seeing, which has no relationship to (my past) knowledge ? I say there is. Now, the brain is full of (egotistic ?) knowledge, how can such a brain understand a (holistic) statement? I say that the ( outwardly oriented) brain cannot answer this question. This brain is used to conflict, habituated to it, and you are putting a (totally) new (& directly challenging) question to it. So the brain is in revolt; it cannot answer it.
J.U.: The question that you have put is also my question. You have posed it with clarity.
K: The 'speaker' says, don't be in revolt, but try to listen without the (all-knowing ? ) movement of thought, which means, can you see something (directly) without naming ? The (the verbal recognition & ) naming is the movement of thought. Then ( for 'meditation homework'?) find out what is the ( inner) state of the brain when it has not used the ( naming) word in seeing, the word which is the movement of thought. Do it.
J.U.: This (sounds) 'right'.
K: My whole (inner) life has changed. Therefore there is a totally different learning process going on, which is Creation.
P.J.: If this is in itself a learning process, this 'is' (the essential) creativity.
K.: ( To recap:) I realize my (conflicted inner) life is wrong. Nobody has to point that out; it is so. That is a fact and you come along and tell me that this (pretty sad inner ) way of living, can be ended immediately (ASAP?) and says, look, I will show it to you step by step, but 'listen', take time, in the sense, have patience. Patience is not time. Impatience is time. Patience has no time.
S.P.: What is this 'patience' which is not time (binding?) ?
K: I come along and tell you there is an ending to conflict but the (knowledgeable?) brain resists. I say let it resist, but keep on listening to me, don't bring in more and more resistance. Just listen & move (on?) . To watch your resistance and keep moving - that is ( the real timeless?) 'patience'. So he says, don't react but listen to the ( inner truth of the ) fact that your (thinking) brain is ( entangled in ) a network of words and you cannot see anything new if you are all the time using words, words, words. So, can you look at something - your wife, the trees, the sky, the clouds - without a single word? Don't say ' This is a cloud !'. Just look. When you so look, what has happened to the ( perceptive quality of the ) brain?
A.P.: That which it sees now is non-verbal. But what then happens to the accumulated knowledge?
K: What happens actually to your brain when you are looking without the 'word'? ( Hint : the generic term 'word' is including the symbol, the memory, the knowledge and all that.)
A.P.: When I am keeping aside all my verbal knowledge and watching that which is non-verbal, my mind feels like its whole existence is threatened.
K: It is in a state of shock, it is staggering. So have patience. Watching it staggering, that is (a timeless) patience. See the brain in a staggering (unsettled inner ?) state and be with it. As you are watching it, the ( totality of the ) brain quietens down. Then, with that (inwardly) 'quiet' brain, look at things, observe. That is ( the essence of holistic) learning.
So, sir, let us proceed. There is now a (non-verbal quality of) listening, there is a seeing and there is a 'learning', without (residual) knowledge. Then, is there anything to learn at all? Which means you have wiped away the whole 'self (- identification'?) . I wonder if you see this. Because the (temporal) 'self' is made up of experience, knowledge, thought, memory; memory, thought, action - that is the cycle. Now has this (qualitative mutation actually) happened? If it has not happened, let us begin again (from square one?) . That is patience. That patience has no time. Impatience has time.
J.U.: What will come out of this ( non-verbal) observing, listening? Does this state go on, or will something come out of it which will transform the (total consciousness of the?) world?
K: The ( consciousness of the ) world is 'me', the world is the self, the world is different 'selves'. That 'self' (- centred consciousness of the world?) 'is' me. Now what happens when this (inward mutation) takes place, actually, not theoretically? First of all, there is tremendous energy, boundless energy, not the energy created by ( the self-centred) thought ; there is a totally different kind of ( intelligent mind-) energy, which then acts. That energy is (born of ) compassion & love. Then that love and compassion 'are' (backing this) intelligence and this intelligence 'acts' (in our everyday) life. When the 'self'(- consciousness) is not (present) , the 'Other' is. This 'Other' (-ness) is Compassion, Love and this boundless energy. This ( quality of compassionate?) Intelligence acts. And that intelligence is naturally ( non-personal ?) not 'yours' or 'mine'.
|Back to Top
|Wed, 13 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
The Unfolding of the (K) Teachings
(reader friendly edited ) cca 1978
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I have heard you for thirty years and I feel that through these years there has been an (unfolding) movement in your Teaching.
J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): No, but the word 'unfolding' is correct. You see, the questioning is in the same direction. There is a widening, a deepening which ( resulted in ) a 'holistic' position, rather than a going minutely into detail as we did thirty years ago.
PJ: Sir, your saying that there was nothing but a deepening & widening may be true from your point of view, but what about the person who listens? Is it possible, without moving through the other (countless intricacies of self-knowing) , to immediately 'jump'?
K: Yes.
PJ: But you speak today, as you never did before, of a total immobility in consciousness...
K: I would say that the space (silent interval) between two thoughts is not 'the' Silence but that the total ending of ( the 'thinker' & its ) thought is silence. This means the total ending of time. ( Thought's inner continuity in ) time coming to a (full) stop is complete silence.
PJ: Can a person who is not familiar with the inner process of ( psychological ) becoming, suddenly leap from the ( time-bound) state of becoming - of which (s)he is perhaps totally unaware —into the 'other'?
K: Obviously not.
PJ: Then... we are back where we were (30 years ago) .
K: Not quite. Could we look ( at the whole issue of self-knowin) not from yesterday to today, but from today to yesterday? Do you follow what I am saying?
PJ: But a person like me looking from today to yesterday, actually had a yesterday.
K: Yes, but you are looking at yesterday with a different mind, with a different eye which you hadn't yesterday.
PJ: I agree, sir, but my point is that I had a 'yesterday' and, therefore, from today I can look back at the yesterday. If I did not have a yesterday I cannot be (here) today.
K: Obviously. But let's proceed slowly. Thirty years ago, which is (like?) 'yesterday', there was a certain ( learner friendly) expression of this Teaching. Now, would you say from the position of today that there has been a change when you look back to thirty years ago? Please, don't think that I am turning the tables on you. I am only asking you this in order to find out how you would look at the past from your position today. You see, '' how you look ( from today) at yesterday ? '' is a valid question . (Long pause)
PJ: Yes, I will answer it : basically there has been no ( qualitative) change, because inbuilt into this holistic seeing is the seeing and listening which I came to ( learn from you) yesterday. The holistic seeing, or the 'immobility' that you speak about now , holds all that.
K: Wait, Pupul, wait. The 'present' holds the entirety of the past. Therefore, when you look from 'today' to yesterday, you are looking at it with different ( holistically friendly) 'eyes'.
PJ: Yes, sir, but my query still is not answered.
K: No, perhaps not, but I think this is an extraordinary question which invites a great deal of debate. Thirty years ago there was a certain ( learner friendly) Teaching and today, I am saying, that it is a ( non-personal) holistic Teaching. I would say that ( content-wise) there is no basic change.
PJ: My query is: Without the process of self-knowing and the observation of 'what is', is this possible?
K: Yes, it is possible (even) without thirty years of ( diligent inner) exploration, without those thirty years of discussions and examination of consciousness and its content and so on and so on—without all that—one can have a (time-free) insight into this whole thing immediately. Right?
PJ: Sir, thirty years ago the people around you felt that you took them by the hand...
K: Yes, I know; they have told me...
PJ: Now you have taken away your ('helping) hands'.
K: Because we are also a little more mature.
PJ: But what has brought about this maturity?
K: Why do you need to go back thirty years?
PJ: Because I have been wanting to see, very objectively, what has been taking place in the Teaching over the last thirty years, not only as it has come through in your written word but as it comes through within me. And as I was going into it for myself, certain things became very obvious. There are three distinct periods in your Teaching. These are periods when changes took place and a totally different position was evident.
K: Would you explain it a little bit?
PJ: There was the period when you spoke of self-knowledge and what I have discussed already... Then around the sixties you moved away from there and you talked about this totality of seeing. You were concerned about this totality of seeing and yet you spoke of the ending of thought as being silence. Today, you have put all that aside. You never discuss any particular subject but take the whole. Today you have a more 'cosmic' way of speaking.
K: Yes.
PJ: And you are also more precise in the language you use. You ask, in almost 'scientific' terms: Can the brain cells themselves hold the holistic (quality of mind) ?
K: So let's begin. What is the first thing you are asking? Leave the three (stages) , we will come to them later (or...not?) .
K: Are you asking: How can a 'blind' man see the light or, to put it differently, how can one, without any preparation, have a holistic view? It comes to that, doesn't it? Without going through all the diligent (self-) examination, all the exploration and detailed observation, without all that activity, can immediately see the wholeness of human consciousness?
PJ: Which is ( the result of our evolution in the historical ?) past.
K: I know it is the ( result of ) past. You are asking a ( totally holistic?) question which is: Without preparation, without the drill, without all that examination, is it possible to see the total ( self-centred) content of one's consciousness and move out of it?
PJ: And be totally (time-free)
K: Is that possible? I say: Yes. I still maintain that it is possible to see the whole content of consciousness which is the movement of thought instantly and to move out of it, reaching a point where thought comes to an end. Let's put it that way for the time being. Yes, I will stick to that.
PJ: Was this position not true earlier ?
K: I wouldn't say that it was not true.
PJ: The position then was true, because the perception of 'the thinker is the thought' is also a total perception.
K: Yes, quite right. However, (earlier on) in explaining the totality of that perception, one had to go into details. But then, as now, it was a total perception.
PJ: But, if you had not spoken and there had not been a listening to that observing—observing the mind judging, condemning, wanting—and if there had not been an actual perception, this would not have been possible.
K: Without going through all that, Pupul, could we just say: Is it possible? That is the real crux of the question.
PJ: What you said then was as total and as true as anything you say today.
K: I agree. K may have said something out of totality, just as he is now saying something out of ( a perception of) totality. In that older saying there may have been a detailed examination. But that examination was born from the totality of perception.
PJ: I agree sir; I think it is so, but for the person who comes for the first time, the question still remains whether all that ( groundwork) is not necessary. Must one not see the process of (self-) becoming?
K: Must you not go through school, through college, through university to reach the final examination? Without going through all that, can't you come to this?
PJ: I know you will say that would involve a process of time. I know that; but I say that for the ( absolute beginner the necessity of understanding 'what is' ) seems the most crucial thing.
K: I understand this.
PJ: If you say that you can plunge straight into this 'holistic' position, the question then is 'how' ? As you showed us then, sir, please show us now.
K: Yes, all right; K is saying that there is no preparation necessary—the preparation of thirty years (of diligent self-observation) Now is that valid? That is: Can one have an insight without the weight of yesterday and can that 'insight' be instantaneous? Am I stating the question correctly?
PJ: Yes.
K: The perception of the totality can only come about 'instantly'. It cannot come through time, through thought, through exploration. That perception of the whole can only take place instantly. Now, if that is so, then what is the need for preparation?
PJ: Would you call all that self-observing & learning 'preparation'?
K: Pupul, I am talking of ( doing it diligently for?) thirty years. I would like to point this out: It is only possible to have a complete insight immediately, instantly and that 'instant' is not contained in time. Now, (the person) X cannot see this (the timeless nature of insight) . He says: Tell me what I have to do in order to have this extraordinary insight immediately. And K tells him: Observe the (interaction of the ) thinker and the thought and see that (inwardly) there is no division between the thinker and the thought. Now, as this is being explained, is X 'listening' (totally) , or is there a mental process of abstraction taking place which (surreptitiously) pushes X away from the (opportunity of an) instant action? K says that the ''thinker and the thought are identical''; they are not separate. Can you see instantly, the truth of it or do you say: I must think it over?
PJ: I understand. But, sir, a brain that has observed—and that observation has deepened—is more capable of receiving ( the truth of) what you speak.
K: No, Pupul, I question whether it is not capable of receiving without the thirty years.
PJ: If this is so...
K: ...why haven't people seen it? That would be the normal question. They don't see ( the inner truth of it?) because they are not actually 'listening' (while the brain is routinely functioning in the 'self'-protective mode?)
PJ: The moment that question is asked, it is like asking someone—you—to give me insight.
K: Nobody can give it to you.
PJ: Then I am stuck ( in the field of the known) .
K: No, look at the question. You ask: Can you give it to me? And K says: No, it cannot be given to you by anyone. What is your reaction to that statement, namely, that nothing and nobody—no guru, no time, no evolution, no experience—can give you (this timeless insight) ?
PJ: To that I would say, yes.
K: Yes, but don't you also ask: Since it cannot be given and I haven't got that insight, what am I to do? That would be a normal, healthy reaction. (Pause) To that K says: 'Listen' (in a 'non-self protected' mode ) to what K is saying. Listen. Don't weave it into a speculative abstraction. Just listen to ( the truth of ) that statement: ''Nobody can give it to you''. If you do really listen, and if it is the truth, it must have a tremendous effect on you because your whole attention is (aroused?) in listening to the ( good news?) 'fact' that no time is necessary, no ( special training or?) preparation is necessary.
PJ: But do you think, sir, that a person who has not delved into the ( complexities of the ) self can 'listen' like this?
K: He cannot, because even though he may delve into himself, he won't listen to this. But would you, Pupulji, listen now to the fact that nobody can give it to you?
PJ: Yes.
K: Then, what has happened to your mind? If you so listen, what has taken place?
PJ: You have said something ( totally true) just now. But you still have not answered my first query whether there has been a deep change in your Teaching.
K: None at all. He (the young K) talked about ( the psychological) authority, he still speaks about authority; he talked about fear, he still talks about fear; he talked about ( man's self-centred) consciousness in different sets of terms, he still talks about it. He said ( the self-centred continuity of ?) thought must end, and he still speaks of it. He spoke of the nature of desire, and he still speaks of it.
PJ: May I ask a very personal question, Krishnaji? Do you think that during these years that there has been any inner change in you? I am asking this very seriously.
K: Let me observe it. I have never been asked this question before. Has there been a deep change in me from thirty years ago or from when I started, in the beginning? To be really truthful and accurate: No. There have been changes in expression, changes in vocabulary, changes in language and gesture—you know all that—but there has been no fundamental change from the beginning till now. That is 'immovability' . Have you got it?
( To recap:) Listen to this statement, namely, that the 'perception of totality' ( aka : total insight) is immediate. Time is not necessary; preparation is not necessary. Examination, exploration, will not help you to perceive that instant totally. So, if you say to me: What is your next instruction? What am I to do? I naturally reply: Don't do anything, just 'listen'. ( in 'non-self protected' mode?) For if you listen ( openly &) accurately, to the ( truth of the ) statement that time, preparation, the whole process of ( inner ) evolution is unnecessary, if you listen and observe it and say, 'Yes, I have understood it'—you will have (ASAP?) that 'instant perception' ….
You see, Pupul, the point is that our whole attitude, our whole way of life, is based on evolution—on becoming (better) , on achieving (noble virtues) , and on finally reaching God. I think this root assumption, (basic cultural conditioning) is radically false. Now do you see the falseness of it instantly, or do you say, 'Wait a minute; this, that, and the other'?
PJ: I would say that I see the truth of that.
K: Go slowly, Pupul. What do you mean when you say that ''you see the truth of it''?
PJ: I can listen to that without a ripple, without a movement in consciousness.
He also says, 'Be detached', but ( safely installed in my self-protected thinking mode ?) I am not (capable of free) 'listening'. I (may) have a great reverence for him, but I am not listening. I am not listening because ( my psychological) attachments have been a tremendous thing in my life, and in one stroke he says, 'Throw them out'. And in one instant I must throw out...
QUESTIONER (Q): Is the 'dropping' (of one's personal attachment triggering ?) the moment of perception?
K: Yes. The moment you see the fact that you must be free of all knowledge... But the (scholarly) man who has spent all his life collecting knowledge from books and all the rest of it, says, 'What are you talking about?'
PJ: Krishnaji, may I ask one last question?
K: You may ask lots of questions.
PJ: In listening to that statement that the Buddha (the 'Enlightened One'?) makes: Is it a question holding the totality of that statement without the word ( or processing it verbally?) ?
K: Yes, of course. The word is not the thing, therefore there must be freedom from the word. And then the ( hapless?) questioner says, 'Please help me to be free of the word'. You see, then one is lost again (in the corridors of Time) . That's why I am saying that the intensity of 'listening' is the real crux of it.
PJ: What is it that gives that ( special) intensity?
K: That intensity? Nothing (not-a-thing?)
You see, Pupul, you may say something which is totally accurate, totally true, something that is immovable, irrevocable: and what you say may have a tremendous (clarity of) insight behind it. But the difficulty, Pupul, is that we may not listen to it because we have ( our temporal) commitments. I am attached (time-bound) - and because of this I don't listen to this extraordinary statement.
|Back to Top
|Wed, 13 Jun 2018
|Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline
Insofar as the "wall of self-pity" is dissolved through this understanding, then we can call both the process of understanding and dissolution 'compassion' as well as the results.
The problem is however, that in daily life the understanding falls back and the routine of self-pity prevails. We have insightful moments but they fall away. I think that for the rest of the time we are more or less comfortable in our discomfort. We have become accustomed to it and to dealing with it in other ways such that the challenge to renew our understanding takes second place to our habits.
So long as the mind is fragmented, the insights do not hold for long. Isn't that the tragedy!
And K said there is no method or practice suited to transforming the situation.
|Back to Top
|Wed, 13 Jun 2018
|Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline
That is the way it seems to work in me also, "insightful moments but they fall away"...now I don't understand why they come and go but if I 'desire' them to be continuous there is a certain 'greed' in that isn't there? A wanting to 'become' something other than what I am at that moment? I want the 'insight' to stay, to become permanent etc. I was just reading the QOTD where K. is asking why we wish to escape from sorrow? We don't wish to escape from our pleasure but sorrow yes. Why? It points out for me the fact that any attempt "conscious or unconscious" to escape from our 'sorrow' is the root of conflict...that any attempt to escape creates conflict with 'what is'. So insights come but they must be left behind, let go. Attempting to hold them, and make them static memories, it seems, is of no use in 'all of this'.
|Back to Top
|Wed, 13 Jun 2018
|Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline
Right Dan. You cannot desire an insight to be permanent. Maybe what one desires is the ability to be permanently attentive so that the insights come as and when needed, naturally. But that is also a folly because you cannot make yourself permanently attentive.
K suggests dealing with the substantive matters that he says limit your attention to what is and bend your attention towards escapes. But that also demands the very attention we so evidently lack. That's quite funny.
|Back to Top
|Thu, 14 Jun 2018
|Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline
That's why I suppose, the 'whole thing' has to be seen instantly. When thought/time enters, it all gets twisted into knots.
|Back to Top
|Thu, 14 Jun 2018
|Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline
I know the sense of it, Dan, and I see the logic. But I kinda jump nowadays when I hear or read the word 'instantly.' It reminds me of the old storybooks where it is written of the hero, "In one leap he was free."
Maybe you're right, it can't be any other way, but that does not lead me any nearer the conclusion that the 'one leap' is any kind of possibility either. I mean, I have to admit, I am stumped for an answer.
As tantalising as the idea of seeing something 'instantly' is, I imagine that if I were to have told K that I'd seen it 'instantly' but nothing had changed he'd have said that I hadn't see it 'instantly' enough. :-)
|Back to Top
|Thu, 14 Jun 2018
|Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline
In the recent discussion John posted between K. and P.J., it is addressed and K. gives a number of examples of how our 'attachments' keep us from listening...there is a lot at stake,... 'everything', I guess. Interesting statement is that thought has no place in "enlightenment".
I think "jumping" is what it takes.
|Back to Top
|Fri, 15 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
( a 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue with Mrs Pupul Jayakar, cca 1978)
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Could we inquire into some of the (basic experiential ) terms that you use, for through the years these words have been used by you with different meanings? The words I want to inquire today into are 'consciousness', the 'mind', the 'brain cells' and 'thought'. For instance, you use the words 'consciousness' and 'mind' in various ways. Sometimes you use them as if they were one, sometimes other you use the word 'mind' as synonymous with 'thought', while at other times you seem to suggest that the 'mind' contains thought but that in itself it is not thought.
J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): So, shall we begin with the word 'consciousness'? What does the word 'consciousness' and its (experiential) content of this word mean to you?
PJ: It means the (awareness of one's) existing, of being, the sense that one is.
K: Are you using the word 'consciousness' as synonymous with ( the awareness of one's) existence? I am using the word 'consciousness' in a different way. I am using the word 'consciousness' not only as a mere ( awareness of our physical ) existence but also to include the (psychological) turmoil ( going on ) in this existence -all the mischief, all the trouble and anxiety, all the fear, the pleasure, the sorrow, the love, the hate, and the hurts that one receives—all that is the ( active content of our ?) consciousness.
PJ: Yes...
K: So, you see, we are never concerned with the totality of human consciousness; we are only concerned with parts of it.
PJ: Because its various parts are revealed in the mind fragmentarily.
K: Wait a minute. I'd like to be clear on this point. Does consciousness reveal its fragmentary parts part in the mind, or is it that (our self-centred) thought in itself is a fragment, so ( through its perspective) we can only see the fragmentation of consciousness?
PJ: I don't quite follow that, Krishnaji.
K: Wait, wait. I am hurt psychologically. Somebody says something brutal to me and I am hurt. That hurt is ( becoming a recorded ) part of my consciousness.
PJ: Yes, it is.
K: ( And also the all-controlling process of ) thought is part of our consciousness. Thought is a limited ( self-centred ?) movement which (by processing the psychological pain) says, 'I am hurt'. Now, as (the self-centred process of ) thought is in itself a fragment, it cannot see the whole.
PJ: Sir, when thought says, 'I am hurt'...
K: No, thought doesn't say, 'I am hurt'. I say, 'I am hurt'; I say, 'I am jealous', 'I am anxious'.
PJ: Yes. But that momentary (self-consciousness?) of 'I am', is a ( self-focalising) thought formation.
K: We have to go very slowly into this question of the 'I'. The ( temporal structure of the?) 'I' is put together by thought - (the identification with) the name, with the physical form, the personal attributes, qualities & characteristics—all that (it is the self-centred ) thought that has put together. That ( self-conscious mental?) structure—which is the 'me', the 'I'—has been put together by thought.
PJ: Yes...
K: So when somebody says something brutal, I say, 'I am hurt'; thought doesn't say that.
PJ: Who says, 'I am hurt'?
PJ: Yes...
K: So thought (the thinking brain?) is never aware that it is (psychologically) hurt. Thought thinks that 'I' am hurt. Thought thinks that it is different from the (temporary ID) structure which it has built. So, the (self-centred process of) thought can never be aware of the total content of human consciousness. It can only be aware of the fragments.
PJ: What is the 'total content' of consciousness ?
K: The ( psychologically active?) content is everything that thought ( our self-centred thinking?) has put there. So thought cannot fundamentally perceive or comprehend the totality of (human) consciousness. Now, when someone ( holistically minded?) like me uses the word 'consciousness'—for him it means the ( consciousness of the?) 'totality of life' - not just that of my life, or your life, but also of the animal (world) and that of the trees; it encompasses the totality of all that (the consciousness of all living beings) .
PJ: Sir, even today you are using this word 'consciousness' differently. In this last sentence you referred to (an intelligent?) consciousness of the totality of life.
K: It 'is' the totality of life.
PJ: So it includes the insect, the bird, the leaf...?
K: They have their own ( inteligent ) feelings and I have my own—you follow? You see, Pupul, I think that (this holistic term) 'consciousness' is global but ( still) limited.
PJ: What you have said just now is very new and I'd like to pursue it. You have always said that consciousness 'is' ( limited by) its content. Now you are saying that consciousness is (including) the totality of (all intelligent?) life.
K: Yes.
PJ: And you are also saying that what is within ( the human psyche?) may be the experiences of man.
K: Yes. Let's limit it to that. Your life is the life of all humanity. Right? You are not, basically, different from humanity. You might have different coloured hair, a different face, name, and so on, but your consciousness is the (unconsciously shared?) consciousness of mankind. ( This global consciousness of?) mankind goes through all kinds of travail, all kinds of ( existential) trouble ( besides the temporary fun & excitement?) . Every human being goes ( knowingly or unknowingly?) through the most terrible times.
PJ: Yes...
K: Now, doesn't everything else go through it also? Insects, birds, every animal and tree—all nature goes through various kinds of turmoil. (clue : I am using the word 'turmoil' in the sense of disturbance) .
PJ: Do you mean by this, Krishnaji, that 'consciousness' is (encompassing ) the whole phenomenon of life?
K: I'll have to go awfully carefully here. What do you mean by the word 'phenomenon'?
PJ: The 'phenomenon' is that which is open to the senses.
K: But that's only (the visible ?) part of it, isn't it?
PJ: What is the other ( less visible?) part?
K: All the accumulated knowledge & experiences, the psychological agonies of man, which you cannot touch, which you cannot taste. The resulting psychological turmoil may affect the body, and then the organism tastes the pain of (existential?) anxiety.
PJ: Yes, it is the ( shared existential?) anxiety of all mankind.
K: Yes. it is common to all ; it is the 'fate of man'; it is ( manifested in all that?) is happening in the ( outward) world.
PJ: But then, how do you bring into this human consciousness the total content of life?
K: We have not understood each other. I am just saying that ( the self-centred?) consciousness, is the common factor of man. This ( collectively shared?) consciousness with its content is ( presently in a condition of generalised ) confusion, conflict, and all the rest of it. (Obviously ) that consciousness cannot be called 'cosmic'.
PJ: I agree. But you have gone much beyond this by saying that is not just the individual confusion...
K: No, you see, I question whether ( in the stream of time & thought ? ) there is (any authentic ? ) 'individuality' at all.
PJ: Well, remove the word 'individual'. But when you talk of the total fact of life...
K: My point is: Can ( the self-centred) thought be aware of the totality of consciousness ?
PJ: And we said that it cannot be (totally) aware.
K: Yes, it cannot be. So, now, what is the question you are raising?
PJ: My initial question was about the distinction between consciousness, the mind, the brain and thought is.
K: Right. We have now, more or less, understood what we mean by 'consciousness'.
PJ: Yes. And what we mean by thought also.
K: So, if thought cannot be aware of the total content of human consciousness, then what is it that's going to perceive the totality? There must come into operation a ( holistic) factor that sees the totality of consciousness. Right?
PJ: Yes...
K: So, what is that ( holistic?) factor? Can the 'mind' perceive the totality? What is the 'mind'?
PJ: Yes, what (do you really mean by ) the 'mind'? I really would like to know.
K: You see, I want to find out whether there is an (inward dimension ?) beyond ( the thought-time ) consciousness. Do you follow?
PJ: Yes. That's basically the reason for our inquiry.
K: So, we were asking: Can the 'mind' perceive the totality of ( human) consciousness? From that question follows: What is (meant by) the 'mind'?
PJ: Is the intellect separate from thought, separate from reason?
K: No, of course it's not. But we ( commonly ) think that the intellect is the most extraordinary thing we have. Right? We 'worship' the ( powers of the?) intellect.
PJ: Yes...
K: So, can the intellect perceive the totality of consciousness? Obviously not. Because the intellect is part of ( our self-centred) thought and the usage of thought whether brilliantly or negligently, or efficiently or loosely, is all the same. So, the intellect is part of the 'mind', as well as our emotions & feelings. Right?
PJ: Yes.
K: Now, can our sentiments & emotions, perceive the totality?
PJ: But you seem to be using the ( holistic term?) 'mind' as if it were a (new inwardly perceptive) instrument. You asked, 'Can it perceive?'
K: Can it become aware? Put it differently, it doesn't matter.
PJ: Yes, but I would like to ask you whether the 'mind' is an instrument or whether it is a 'field' (of intelligence?)
K: Are you asking whether the 'mind' covers the whole field or only a part, a segment, a tiny corner of the field?
PJ: You see, sir, I want to get a (more precise) clarification from you on your ( holistically encripted ) usage of words.
K: We are finding clarity, Pupul.
PJ: No, sir, ( but as a casual listener) I might see the mind as synonymous with thought. I might see it as such.
K: Wait a minute, Pupul. ( To recap:) The mind includes the intellect and the intellect is part of ( our self-centred) thinking & feeling, emotions, sentiment, romanticism, imagination—all that is also a part of 'thought'...
PJ: And the senses?
K: No, the ( natural activity of the ) senses are not; but ( usually) thought identifies itself with the senses (thereby creating the psycho-somatic habits?) .
PJ: What part do the senses, the sensations and all that play in all the process of perception ?
K: I don't think emotions, sentiment, and all that can possibly bring about a perception of the whole. I don't think that (the joint activity of) sentiment, emotions and sensation can ever offer a perception of the whole.
PJ: So you would rule out the senses as such?
K: No, no. I don't rule out the role of the senses – I feel pain when you stick a pin...
PJ: Then, are they being wrongly used?
K: As I said, when thought ( the self-centred thinking?) identifies itself with the senses, then the ( self-conscious?) sensation becomes the 'me'.
PJ: Yes, and then there is an outward movement 'towards' ( or 'away from') something .
K: Yes. 'I want (this) ', 'I don't want (that) ', and all the rest of it. So, I'm just asking whether the 'mind' - which includes the brain, thought, the emotions, the intellect and ... wait a minute. Is Love also part of the mind? ( The sensuous ) love is part of ( our self-centred) consciousness.
PJ: (Correction:) Love -as we know it- (as 'personal' experience) ', is part of our consciousness.
K: Yes, 'as we know it'. Now, what we (generally) call 'love' is based on ( personal) sensation, desire, pleasure. 'I love you'; 'I love something'. So, love, as we know it, is part of the ( temporal) consciousness - with its jealousies, antagonisms, quarrels, and all the rest of it, is part of ( the 'personal') consciousness.
PJ: But you didn't use 'Love' in that sense. Because if you did use it in that sense, then it would be no different from any other (personal) emotion.
K: So, is there a Love, or is there an (intelligent & compassionate) quality which is not part of our ( personal) consciousness ?
PJ: You see, ( an experiential) problem arises here, because you only discuss the ( generic activity of the ) senses as identified with desire, which go to build up the structure of the self. My ( holistically friendly?) question is: Haven't the senses any other role?
K: Yes. When you observe with all your senses ( working together in harmony? ) , there is no thought-identification with a particular sense. Right?
PJ: Yes.
QUESTIONER (Q): Are you implying that the senses become (all-)one?
K: I am just asking you whether you can look at something with all your senses awakened.
PJ: Isn't it, like 'looking and listening' at the same moment in time?
K: You see, the ( still deeper) question is whether it is possible to observe anything with all your senses, and whether, in that state, there is not a single (interfering) movement of ( the self-centred) thought. When there is a movement of thought, then it is a particular sense operating.
PJ: Yes.
K: Let us pursue this further because as human beings there is (in us all) a 'natural' curiosity, a natural urge, to find out if there's a totally different (inner) dimension which is not the ( usual ego-centric ?) dimension of consciousness as we know it.
PJ: Yes.
K: And it becomes ( experientially?) important to find that out.
PJ: You see, you have examined and negated all the 'known' instruments that we have and with which we operate. But the only thing which you don't totally negate is the ( holistic) quality of sensory movement.
K: How can I negate the ( reality of the ) senses?
PJ: Yes. So, that ( non-personal activity of the senses) being quite independent or, to put it this way, that having the capacity to contain in it no (thought-projected?) illusion...
K: The illusions are created by ( the self-centred activity of ?) thought.
PJ: Yes. So, this (integrated activity of the senses) having in itself the capacity to be free of illusion...
K: ...which is (becoming) possible only when there has been an awareness of the whole ( self-interest motivated ) nature of thought. Then the senses do not produce (nor sustain?) the 'psychological' structure of the 'me'. That's all.
K: Now, Pupul, let's 'come down to earth'. As a human being, ( in a flash of inner clarity?) one perceives that one's consciousness is (entangled in a condition of?) total ( 'inner') disorder. And also that any movement away from that disorder inevitably leads to ( convenient self-projected ?) illusions. Now my question is: Is it possible to bring about ( an authentic inner) order? Let us go (into this very y sensible issue?) step by step.
( step #1) Am I aware that my consciousness is in disorder ? Am I aware of all the things that are going on endlessly in my (daily & nightly?) consciousness: anger, jealousy, hatred, possessiveness, attachment, domination ( not to mention the nightmares & other dreams ?) (If yes, go to : )
(Step #2) I want to bring about order in my consciousness, because I see the necessity of order. Order means harmony. The question is: (a) How is it possible to bring it about?
(Step #3) What instrument or what (holistically perceptive) quality is necessary to move out of this enchaining (time binding) consciousness ( stuck in the 'known'?)
PJ: You see, sir, this last question is very valid. The previous statement, namely, that I want to bring about (a sense of inner harmony & ) order, is one of the things I have never understood.
K: Pupul, let's be clear. I am using these words to convey that there must be a total (inward) order for the 'cosmic' order to be. I don't know what the ( cosmic order ) is, but I may easily realize (or ...just ignore?) that there is total disorder in my (inner) life - there is misery, confusion, uncertainty, quarrels, and all the extraordinarily (chaotic) things that go on in everyday life. So, ( establishing some inner) order is absolutely necessary. Now, who is to bring that order? Will my (personal) feelings, sensations, imagination—all that—bring order? Will thought bring order?
PJ: No, all these are fragments.
K: Yes, fragments. So, what will? Let's discuss it; let's go into it.
PJ: That is why I say, sir, that you allow only one instrument the possibility of being free of taint.
K: The (integrated functioning of the ) senses?
PJ: Yes, the senses. You have blocked every other instrument...
K: Yes, we have blocked every ( loop-) hole that the human mind has invented. Have we also blocked the senses?
PJ: I can see that when the senses operate as identified ( or subordinated by) thought they only strengthen the ( ego-centric) structure which is the basic cause of confusion.
K: So, can there be a separation between thought and the senses, so that thought is not active but only the senses?
PJ: Krishnaji, there is a ( natural capacity of ) seeing or listening per se, independent of what is seen or what is heard. That instrument is in itself not corrupted, but it gets corrupted when it gets identified with thought.
K: That's right. It gets corrupted when it is identified with (one's personal) opinions, with judgements, with evaluations. So, listening correctly, listening accurately, is incorruptible. Yes, that is so. But is that the instrument that will help human beings like us bring about order?
PJ: And yet, you say that there is the 'other'.
K: Oh yes, definitely. Now, countless 'gurus' have come and said, 'Do this, this, this, and that will help you', but that hasn't brought about order. So if one rejects all that totally, completely, what is one to do?
PJ: What is actually meant by 'being a light unto yourself'?
K: Actually it means: Don't look to another; don't rely on another; don't depend on another; don't ask another to help you.
PJ: Is the word 'light' at all significant?
K: 'Be a light to oneself' in the sense: Don't live in the (spiritual) shadow of others. Don't be a second-hand human being. So, I don't rely (inwardly) on anything. But I can rely on the common intention of mankind to find something beyond this chaos, something which is not the priest's invention. Do you understand? And that is not the reliance on another. It is a cooperative inquiry; it is not a matter of my 'personal' salvation.
So, to come back: (Step#4) What is to be done? We have abolished the (self-centred) activity of thought, we have abolished the activity of the (temporal) brain which, as we know it now, is limited. We have also denied any pressure of the environment, of tradition, and we ask: How are we, as human beings, to discover the 'other' (holistic intelligence?) ?
PJ: So, you do not deny the energy which (the human mind & brain) holds; and that energy is an unlimited energy.
K: What are you trying to say?
PJ: I am saying that the moment the 'I' uses the (partial activity of the ) senses for (achieving) something, they are identified with (or subordinated to?) thought.
K: Yes, that's obvious.
PJ: But the senses in themselves are not corrupt.
K: Yes. The senses in themselves are not corrupt. When the senses do not identify with thought which builds the 'I'—psychologically—then those senses are natural, healthy and normal. Now, will those senses which are healthy bring about a different dimension?
PJ: I don't know, because now, the common way one operates, they are never in that (original) state.
K: Therefore is it possible for ( the self-centred ) thought not to identify with the senses? It is possible, obviously. I see a beautiful object and I can observe it without saying, 'I must have it'. Of course I can; there can be mere observation.
PJ: Yes, it's like having a (non-personal?) discussion with you; then all the senses are operating. So there is the possibility of such a situation.
K: Oh yes, there is the possibility, but as a human being, my only problem is this: how to get out of this (inner) disorder.
PJ: But how do I posit the 'other'?
K: I don't know what order is. I can spin a lot of theories about it, but actually they have no (experiential) meaning. What has meaning is this (to see the fact that inwardly ?) there is disorder. What is necessary to happen to move from this dimension to a totally different dimension which is not the invention of thought? That is the (1000 $) question.
PJ: Yes, that is the question, but we started out by defining each term as it came along so that we could have a clear picture.
K: Now, what is the action or the 'non-action' necessary to move from this to that? (Pause) This has been an age-old problem, what is the action - which is, inaction- that will negate, completely, this inner disorder? (Pause) Is there a total negation or is it always bound to be partial? Do I negate first a particular attachment, then negate (its related) jealousy, then negate all the hurts (it has caused?) , and so on? You see, following that (sequential) way is endless. Right?
PJ: Yes...
K: So, is there a total negation of disorder? (Pause)
Q: Sir, you are speaking of a 'non-action' but this ( negation of the false?) cannot be a ( directed mental) movement, because movement implies time.
K: Yes, I know, but I just used the word 'non-action' to imply an (unconditional) negation of disorder which does not entail a (further) movement towards order. Do you understand what I am saying? Can one deny (the inner) disorder totally?
Q: Is this the action of being completely still?
K: Look, suppose that I (realise that?) am living inwardly in disorder. I can separate ( itemise this inner ) disorder. There is disorder here, there is disorder there, and so on. And in the very denial of a (disorderly) part, there is a certain type of (relative inner) order. Right? But that is not 'total' order. There is water in the harbour, it is the same water, but it is not the Sea. So, I can deny the parts, but those denials are never the whole. Right? So, I'm asking: Can there be a total denial of (one's inner) disorder?
Q: Are you asking if there is any action that can lead to that ?
K: No, no; I am speaking of 'denial' (of one's inner disorder) and not of ( a positive) action. Let me put it this way : Is there a denial of the whole (self-centred) content of consciousness which is disorder?
PJ: Sir, ( for most people ?) this 'total denial of disorder' is ( just another holistic) concept.
K: (Forcefully denying) It is not a concept.
PJ: Regarding the disorder as it operates within me, yes.
K: Disorder as it operates in you—is that operation partial, fragmentary?
PJ: Each ( expression of inner ) disorder as it arises is fragmentary. The inner disorder is not fragmentary; the way I meet it is fragmentary.
K: Fragmentary denial is only creating ( further) disorder; fragmentary denial is disorder. And all my life I've operated fragmentarily. Right? We say that partial denial is contributing to disorder. From there we ask: Is there a non-partial denial and, therefore, total order?
PJ: The 'Other', namely, the Total innet Order, one cannot even think of; so let us put it aside. Let us talk about whether it is possible to 'deny anything totally' , that is to deny non-fragmentarily.
K: All right, let's stick to that; it's good enough. When the (thinking) mind, when the intellect—which is itself fragmentary—says, 'I plan to deny my inner disorder', then it is still disorder because the intellect, the reason are all fragments. Now what is the ( holistic) action or ( 'meditative?) inaction' that will say, 'No partial denial at all'?
PJ: You use the word 'inaction'. Is it that one is incapable of (meditative) inaction? Is it a matter of not doing a thing about it?
K: Yes. That's what I'm trying to get at. We have done everything possible to clean up the consciousness. We prayed; we fasted, we sacrificed; we denied . There is this constant activity to bring about order. Right?
PJ: Yes, sir.
K: Now, the ( holistic) question really is whether there is an action which is 'non-action'. You see, that is only possible when I really, totally, completely, negate everything ( previously 'known' in terms of spiritual experience ? )
This post was last updated by John Raica Sat, 16 Jun 2018.
|Back to Top
|Mon, 18 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
( Mrs Pupul Jayakar questioning the intimate working of Krishnamurti's mind - a 'reader friendly' edited dialogue )
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): In listening to you over the last thirty years, I have observed a certain manner in which you approach a problem, a certain manner in which you 'unfold' a psychological problem during a dialogue. I know that you have maintained that there is no 'way' (to Truth?) but, as I have observed, a certain quality of approach has revealed itself.
J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): You want to explore my mind?
PJ: You see, sir, in exploring ( the inner working of ) your mind, I feel that we can, possibly, understand (what is going wrong in ) our own inner exploration, in which we get bogged down.
K: All right, let's begin.
PJ: To begin at the beginning : : How do you receive a question which is put to you? What is the state of your mind which (listens & ) receives ?
K: Your question is: How does K, when a question is put to him, receive it and proceed to answer it? (Silent pause) I think he (K) would say that first he listens; he listens without any (personal) 'conclusions', without any barriers. And, you see, because there is no hindrance, the mind is 'empty' - in the sense that there are no preconceived (ready made) answers and no recording and remembrance of (his previous) answers. I am using the word 'empty' in that sense. There is a state of 'emptiness' (of the known?) and out of that K answers.
PJ: Now, in this state, what is the function of 'attention'? You see, sir, the common function of attention is to search, but if attention does not search anything, what happens to the question? You may receive it in emptiness, but what actually happens to the question? Because you do respond.
K: Yes. The question is put, and there is a ( holistic) 'hearing' of it— not only with the physical ear but also without the usual process of hearing. It is like a seed that is put into the earth—the earth acts upon the seed, and the seed acts upon the earth and, gradually, out of that ( interaction) comes a plant or a flower. You see, Pupul, there is the normal, physical, state, wherein a question is heard with the ear; but there is also a state in which the question is heard not with the ear (by mind's ear ?), and out of that state there is the answer.
PJ: You say that there is a listening with the ear and that there is a listening without the (physical) ear. Is it that a new 'listening' instrument comes into being—a new capacity, a new (perceptive) instrument? You see, sir, when one observes you, it is as if your eyes are participating in the listening process as much as your ears. You have, if I may say so, a 'listening eye'.
K: I think so. Now, I would like to answer your last question (about the new perceptive instrument?) by bringing in the word 'insight'. 'Insight' is a (thought & time - free?) state of mind in which there is no memory, no remembrance; there is no conclusion; there is no sense of anticipation; there is no quality of ( personal) reaction and much more than all that)
PJ: Does this hearing with the non-ear come into being with the very ending of the processes of the (thinking) mind, or is it something else?
K: When there is an insight the brain cells themselves undergo a ( qualitative) change. When there is ( a timeless flash of) insight, the ( light-energy of that?) insight transforms the ( behaviour of the ) brain cells.
PJ: You have said that there is a hearing with the ear and a hearing with the non-ear. You say that insight brings about a change in the brain cells. Does insight arise because of the 'non-hearing'?
K: Yes, because of the hearing with the 'non-ear' (the mind's ear?)
PJ: Can we investigate this 'hearing with the non-ear' ?
K: It is an (inwardly open?) state similar to that of dropping a stone into a tranquil, completely quiet pond. When you drop a stone into such a pond, it makes little waves which soon disappear. The (silent) state of listening with the 'non-ear' is a state of absolute quietness of the mind. Now, when a question is put to such a mind, it is like a little stone that is dropped into a tranquil pond. The response is the wave, or the little waves.
PJ: Now, is this (totally tranquil) 'pond' (a holistic metaphor meant to describe) the (spiritual) matrix of the mind? Is it 'mind only' (of a purely spiritual nature) ?
K: When you say 'mind only' what do you mean?
PJ: That it is the totality of what is and what has been. You see, ( our everyday) consciousness is ( constantly displaying) its 'content'. So, when a question is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pond —is it the totality (of our consciousness?) which receives?
K: It is. And can the mind be so extraordinarily receptive that the (memory content of the ) past has no place in it at all?
PJ: The (memory of the ) past is a fragment (of our total consciousness ) ?
K: The past is a fragment and, so, does not enter into it at all.
PJ: You say that there is a listening with the ear and that there is a listening with the non-ear. Has the listening with the 'non-ear' the same quality as the common listening?
K: Oh yes; obviously.
PJ: What is the difference?
K: Listening with the ( sensory) ear implies the recording and the remembrance and from using that past knowledge, (thought) is answering the question. However, as there is no ( active memory of the ) past involved in the listening with the 'non-ear' (with mind's ear?) , there is no fragmentary (no partial?) answer.
PJ: Is the 'non-ear listening' different from that ('tranquil mill pond' quality of mind ) which receives?
K: We are saying that the 'pond' is absolutely quiet, and that the pond is nothing but clear, clean water. The ( energy matrix of the?) 'pond' is totally without all the pollution that man has put into it—the pollution is the past, and all the rest of it—and the question is put into that pond just as a pebble is, and the reply is the wave. At least with me, this is how it functions.
PJ: Now, as there is a non-ear listening, is there also a 'non-eye' seeing (seeing with the mind's eye?) ?
K: Yes, and to put it simply, when the (insidious memory of the?) past does not interfere in either case, they are the same.
PJ: Sir, tradition maintains that the outward movement of the eye is (intimately related to) the movement of mental focusing, of naming. When this same movement ( of seeing) turns backwards, it breaks through the naming process and it dissolves the naming process. Is that so?
K: Are you saying that there is an optical seeing going out and then it can reverse its outward movement to the inner movement?
PJ: No sir, that is not it. There is an outer movement which we all know; it is the movement of seeing, of registering, of focusing, etc. Then there is for the s?dhaka (for the earnest truth seeker), or for a man who is on the path of search—a movement of the eye within. That is, the very optic seeing is thrown within and it breaks the naming process, the divisive process. In fact it is known as the 'backward flowing movement', and it is a term that is used in various ways also by the ancient Chinese (wise men)
K: The forward movement and the backward movement.
PJ: No sir, it is not the forward movement turning backwards. There are the senses moving out and there is an 'inner sense' that does not move out.
K: Ah, I understand. It is not like the same (perceptive) tide going out and coming in. There is only the going out, and another movement altogether which is going in. So that is what tradition—Chinese, and all the rest—says. But what do you say?
PJ: You see, the looking out—like when you're looking at a tree—focuses, but the looking within ends focusing; it ends the very instrument which focuses. It is as if...
K: I understand that this 'looking inward' is not like the tides of the sea going out and coming in, but that it is an entirely different way of looking inward.
PJ: Would you say that the seeing without the outer seeing is of this nature?
K: You see, Pupul, this looking within may imply a ( recycling of the outward movement of?) thought.
PJ: Yes sir, but not necessarily.
K: All right. Then if there is no movement of thought, what do we mean by 'looking within'?
PJ: By 'looking within' I mean a (simultaneous) seeing of that which exists at any particular instant, both within and without. There is no ( separation between the ) 'within' and 'without' in that state.
K: That's the whole point, you see, but let's be very clear. You are also saying that the 'inward looking' dispels the whole structure of thought. Right?
PJ: Yes.
K: (Long pause) I question whether there is an 'inward looking' at all. One can look inwards, from what you're saying, into the whole movement of thought. Is that (what you're calling) inward looking?
PJ: I would say it is inward looking. But it is a non-physical looking. Let me put it this way: the looking is physical, but what is seen is not physical. Thought is not something that can be 'seen' as such.
K: Pupul, all thought is a material process. . The recording of ( any material) experience & knowledge, and the remembrance of it—all that is an ( endlessly recycled) material process.
PJ: Yes, but there is a distinction between seeing a microphone and seeing a flashing movement of thought.
K: But that flashing movement of thought is still a material process.
PJ: Yes, all right; but its existence is in a dimension which we call the 'within'.
K: Yes, I know that you call it the 'within', but I question why should it be either a 'within' or a 'without'.
PJ: Because it is not something which is visible 'without'.
K: You are saying that thought is not physically visible; it cannot be perceived as one's face is in a mirror. So that which is not physically perceivable you call the 'inner' ?
PJ: Yes, it is not perceivable and, yet, it exists.
K: But I would question whether it is the 'inner' at all. When the Eskimos use the word 'thought' they mean ( thinking about) something (happening) outside. Think about it...
PJ: You said something just now: I don't think there is ( an inward) 'seeing' at all. Can we investigate that statement, please?
K: You can see your face in the mirror, but the seeing of thought in the mirror is not possible. You see, Pupul, I don't think (one can experiment the) 'seeing' of thought, for 'seeing' implies that there is a 'seer' and the 'thought' (that has to be seen) – meaning that the 'seer' and 'thought' are separate. The (self-conscious?) 'seer' is ( the supervising part of) thought. So there is only (the mental movement of) thought which cannot be seen in the mirror. So, for me, there is no inward looking.
PJ: Then what do you mean, sir, when you talk of the seeing of 'what is', for you say that ( the movement of) thought cannot be seen?
K: Thought cannot be seen with the (dualistic?) inward look.
PJ: Then by what is the nature of inner seeing .
K: I wouldn't use the word 'seeing'. I would say that thought ( or the 'thinking brain'?) becomes aware of itself, of its own activity.
PJ: But you have been talking all these years of the seeing of 'what is'.
K: The seeing of 'what is' is the seeing of what is actually happening inwardly which is not the observation of what is happening with the optical eye or with another thought (created 'thinker') . 'Seeing' (commonly) implies that (perceptive duality) .
PJ: What is that (holistically perceptive ?) state, sir?
K: 'Seeing' implies that there is no opposite (no observer-observed duality?) .
PJ: Yes, of course, because it has the same quality as the lake.
K: Yes. That's why, Pupul, when you speak of 'inward looking', it sounds, to me, artificial and traditional. I think this thing (the holistic perception?) works like a tranquil mill-pond. Thought itself has to be quiet; it has to be as quiet as the lake. When you put a question to that lake, the question is answered from the lake.
PJ: But, sir, suppose that a reaction of jealousy arises. Jealousy is a material thing.
K: Yes, absolutely.
PJ: But by the time I become aware of it, it is already over. You see, sir, I cannot see that which is over. Now, one of the things which has always puzzled me (in your teachings) is this: Can there be a watching of the actual state of jealousy, as it is arising? For in such a state it would not arise.
K: The 'fact' of jealousy is a ( self-centred) reaction, which you later name 'jealousy'. The question is: Before you name it as 'jealousy', can there be a watching of that reaction without the 'watcher'? Can there be a watching in which there is no opposite ? Can one just 'see' the reaction?—And I mean by that word 'seeing' an observation without the physical eye or the ear.
PJ: Could you say that again, sir?
K: The ( direct ) observation of the arising of that reaction—of jealousy, in this instance—is the 'hearing without the ear' and the 'seeing without the eye'.
PJ: You say that it is neither 'optical' nor 'aural' and yet you use the word 'observing'.
K: I use this word in the (holistic?) sense that in this observation there is no ( personal?) remembrances regarding the (inner) thing which is being observed.
PJ: Sir, in the beginning you implied that the 'ripple' is the response.
K: Yes, the ripple is the response. It is a marvellous idea.
PJ: I have observed you, sir, and I feel that you listen to your own responses with the same attention as you listen to a question that is put to you. Do you listen to your own response?
K: Yes, I listen to it to see if it is accurate.
PJ: So, listening to your own response and to what the other person is saying—as far as this 'non-ear' is concerned—are at the same level. Now, when another person responds, he normally never listens to his own response.
K: No, he never 'listens'.
PJ: He is always listening ( attending?) to what the other is saying. He never listens to his own response. At least I don't listen to it, or (at best?) I listen to my own response afterwards.
K: You see, Pupul, there is an act of listening which is not 'me' listening to ( the other person or to?) my responses. If you are talking seriously there is only listening.
PJ: Yes, but when you listen there is a total flexibility, with you there is no 'holding on' to an answer.
K: You see, if the pebble is very light, the ripple is just two waves. But if it is a rock it goes down and causes a great many waves. If the challenge is great, the waters must move in a series of waves; but if the challenge is very small, there is just a ripple. So the act of listening is not only to the person who questions, who challenges you, but also to the answering. It is, in other words, a total state of listening—a listening to both the questioner and the person who replies. And, yes, when the reply, is not quite 'as it should be', there naturally is a movement away. Because you are listening, there is a withdrawal from that and, then, you change the movement.
PJ: What is that 'mill-pond' (totally tranquil mind) , sir?
K: You are asking: What is the state of the 'mill-pond' ( mind) that, apparently, K has? I don't think K is ( self-consciously?) aware of the mill-pond (mind) . If 'K' is ( personally ) aware of it, it is not ( the real?) mill-pond.
PJ: Sir, if I may ask, what is the inner nature of yourself?
K: If I were to reply ( honestly?) I'd say: Nothing, which (actually) means 'not–a-thing'. Yes, there is no-thing. Would you comprehend this ('emptiness' ?) state of K's mind, of K's inner being, which says that there is absolutely 'not-a-thing'?
Q: Sir, you said that K cannot be aware of the 'mill-pond' .
K: It is like (personally attempting to ? ) measure the Immeasurable, you follow?
Q: Are you saying that the examination of it is at a totally different level?
K: You can't examine it; it can't be examined. First of all, with what would you be examining it? You see, the ordinary person's 'mind' is constantly in agitation. Now, from that ( state of mental) agitation you are asking ( foolish?) questions about the examination, what the tools, and so on. I am telling you that that 'mill-pond' (of an universally integrated mind) just cannot be 'examined' - because ( for the average self-centred person ?) examination implies measurement, and there is no measurement of ( the inner) 'nothingness'; full stop.
PJ: Sir, I find that in your dialogues, in your discussions, there is a great use of the (silent) 'pause'. What is the significance of these (silent) pauses?
K: What is ( creating the sense of beauty in listening to ?) music, Pupul?— the space ( of silent listening ) between two notes, right? K pauses—why does he pause? Probably to see that the answer is ( really coming ) from the 'mill-pond' (tranquility of mind?) .
PJ: Also, during a dialogue it appears to any person observing you, that you start at the same level as the person with whom you are discussing.
K: No, no, no. ( Hint:) There is no ( personal) remembrance of that no-thingness. All we can say is that It is there (has its own Presence?) ; we cannot enter into that. (Pause)
PJ: Then how do you comprehend my (inner state of?) duality?
K: By 'listening' (non-verbally?) to what you are saying. How can 'I' be rid of 'jealousy'? How can 'I' be rid of something or other? And my instant reply is that there is no ( personal) riddance of anything.
PJ: There is also another thing. I make a verbal statement. You will immediately 'see' whether that is a theory or a fact. There is a (holistic) capacity within yourself to 'see the truth'.
K: Obviously, but everybody has that (potentially?) .
PJ: Not always, sir. You have been questioned for the last fifty years or so. Now, out of this questioning, which grows intense, you suddenly say, 'I see !'. My question is: What is it that brings about that (inner light of) 'insight', what is it which suddenly makes everything clear?
K: As I told you, K 'listens' (intelligently & compassionately ?) and, suddenly, there comes (the total insight ?) , out of (the universally open inner ?) 'no-thingness'...
PJ: So are you saying, sir, that (the illuminating insight?) arises in the very listening?
K: Yes. To me what is important is the 'act of listening'. There is a ( total) 'listening' to the question—the question that is dropped like a pebble into a tranquil pond. It is (that ?) simple.
PJ: Is this state the same as what takes place when you have a (personal) interview and when you sit on a platform?
K: When K sits on the (Public Speaker's) platform it is quite different. In an interview the person 'is' (impersonating?) the problem; so the discussion is much more concentrated.
PJ: One thing that a person sees very clearly when (s)he is having an interview with you—with K—is that (s)he is facing a totally empty state (of mind) .
K: Yes.
PJ: There is nothing except the (interviewer's) 'self' reflected. You see, sir, you throw back on the person exactly 'what is' in the person.
K: Yes. (Long pause) Suppose that I am Pupul and you are K. I ask you: How did you come to this extraordinary quality of the mill-pond? That would be my (passionate spiritual) ) inquiry. How did you capture, how did you come by it? What are its characteristics? How comes that it did happen to you and (it does not happen) to me? Tell me the things that prevent the 'mill-pond' (state of 'universally open' inner tranquility?) ?
All right, how did you (K) get to it? First of all you have no (sense of self- ) comparison; you have no sense of it at all. You don't even feel that you have got it and that I haven't got it. The ''you-have-it-and-I-haven't-it'' means ( implies a psychological) comparison. So, (for starters?) you tell me : 'Don't compare (yourself with anybody else ?) Can you be totally free (inwardly) of comparison?' Now that is something new to me (the earnest truth seeker?) since I have lived all my life by comparison and you are now asking me to throw away all the things that I have learnt through comparison'. Then you ( the K person) tell me that the (inward) struggle, the pain, the envy, the jealousy, the drive—all that—must completely be dissipated, but (experiential hint:) 'Don't take time over it. Don't say, "I will do it tomorrow", for then that will never happen. It must be done instantly'.
Now, iff I have 'listened' to you very carefully—with the hearing and the non-hearing ear—I am becoming very alert inwardly to ( the experiential significance of ) what you are saying 'Yes, I can't possibly dissipate it through time. It must be (done right 'here & ) now'. Your very ( challenging Presence?) being very vital, very urgent, very forceful, awakens in me the quality of urgency and, so, I understand (the whole thing) completely.
And you also tell me (a few clues for the daily living) , 'Don't accumulate; don't accumulate (any psychological) problems; don't accumulate hurts, memories, names, forms; just don't accumulate'. Again (iff ?) my whole being is 'listening' to you, I understand it instantly. ( And for extra homework?) You say to me, 'Every problem must be resolved instantly'. Now that, of course, would require a great deal of 'back and forth', but at the end of it I would see what you mean. And then I would understand (in real time?) the ordinary things. I would understand fear; I would understand pleasure. I would not suppress it, but understand the whole movement of it. And ( hopefully?) with this (holistic ) understanding would come the ending of sorrow; the whole thing would be wiped away (ASAP?) .
If you were to put it to me, that's how I would act...
|Back to Top
|Tue, 19 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
A K Dialogue on the psychological significance of Death (reader friendly edited)
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Krishnaji, one of the questions which I feel is at the very depth of the human mind is 'the coming to be' and 'the ceasing to be' (in other words, life and death). The whole of man's life revolves around the wonder of birth and the inevitability of of death. All his urges, his demands, his desires, his fears, his anxieties, rest between these two poles—birth and death.
K: Why do you use the word 'problem'?
PJ: It is a 'problem' because of the shadows that surround that one word 'ending'. There is the joy and splendour of what we see as life and the demand to 'hold on' to it at any cost and to evade (facing) that which means an ending. This is a problem. Out of it arises fear, sorrow, all the demands...
K: So what is your question?
PJ: How do we explore (the mystery of life & death?) How can our minds look at death with simplicity and observe it for what it is?
K: Are you concerned to find out what death means and what is our (life) long struggle, conflict, misery, etc., to which we cling in our avoidance of the other ? Are you concerned with the whole movement of it?
PJ: I'd want first to investigate the sorrow of ending. You talk of the ending of sorrow; I talk of that fear, that anguish, which is the sorrow of ending.
K: What is 'ending'?
PJ: Ending is that process in which something that exists, that sustains (our physical life) , ceases to be; it is no longer available to our senses. In the very nature of our 'is'-ness there is the sense of the ending of that; there is the disappearance of that for eternity.
K: Why do you use the word 'eternity'?
PJ: Because there is an absoluteness in the physical ending. There is no 'tomorrow' in it.
K: Now just a minute—ending what?
PJ: Ending that which sustains. Let me come to something which is more (personal &) direct. You 'are'. And thinking about a time when you 'will not be' (around?) causes the great the anguish of K ceasing to be.
K: ( The physical) death is inevitable. This person—K—is going to end some day. To him it doesn't matter; there is no fear, no anguish. But you look at that person and say, 'Oh my God, he is going to die'. So, it is 'your' anguish. Now, why?
PJ: Why do you ask 'why'?
K: I've loved that person. He dies and why am I a state of despair, a state of loneliness? Why am I in tears, in anguish? Why am I in sorrow? I think it is really important to understand the (inner significance of the ) ending, because there is something totally new ( in the human psyche) when there is an ending to everything.
PJ: What makes the (conscious?) mind feel incapable of 'ending'?
K: It's ( a deep existential?) fear, of course. Let's take a very ordinary example—( the emotional?) attachment. Can one end—without any ( hidden?) motive or direction—attachment, with all its ( psychological) complexity, and all its (existential) implications? Can one have no ( psychological) attachment to anything—to one's personal experience, knowledge, memory? After all, the ending of knowledge (of the known?) —that's what is going to happen when death comes. Knowledge is what one is clinging to. The knowledge of a person whom I've cherished, whom I've looked after, and lived with. There is the ( reassuring?) memory of the beauty and the (minor) conflicts that were involved in it. Now, to end totally the (personal attachment) to the (psychological) memory of all that, is ( the redeeming aspect of?) death.
PJ: Like you have often said: 'While living, to enter the house of death'.
K: Yes. I have done it.
PJ: What exactly is meant by that?
K: I think it is very important to invite ( the psychological challenge of) death while living. You see, the word 'ending' itself contains a depth of meaning. Let us say that there is (the subliminal?) memory of a (personal) experience that I hold on to because it has given me great delight, a sense of depth and well-being. I cling to that memory. I go to the office, I work, but the memory is so extraordinarily enduring and vital that I hold on to it; therefore I never ( wabt to?) find out what it means to end.
PJ: You can end ( any particular) attachment.
K: That is ( the inner significance of ) death.
PJ: That is not ( the 'real' ?) death.
K: What would you call death? The physical organism coming to an end? Or the ( emotionally loaded) 'image' that I've built about you ending?
PJ: When you reduce it to that, I'd say that it is the image which you have built about someone; but there is much more to it than that.
K: Of course, (but for holistic educational purposes?) I'm talking of the 'ending' of that image. The mind cannot enter into a totally new dimension if there is a shadow of a memory of anything. Because that 'Other' ( dimension of Consciousness?) is timeless. That other dimension is eternal and if the mind has to enter into that, it must not have any element of time in it. To understand—without ( the interference of thought & ) time—that which is everlasting, the mind must be free of all that one has gathered psychologically, which is time. Therefore, there must be an ending (of the psychological time continuity ?) .
PJ: Therefore there is no possible exploration into ending?
K: Oh yes, there is. What is the ending to the continuity of a particular thought, a particular direction, a particular desire; it is these (personal 'life lines'?) that give ( to our self-centred) life ( the sense of a temporal) continuity. In the great (time) interval between our birth and our death—there is a deep (psychical?) continuity, but if we live on the surface of this vast River of Life, we cannot see the whole beauty of it because we are always on the surface. And the ( psychological significance of ) 'ending' is the ending of ( living attached to ) the surface.
PJ: What dies?
K: All that I've accumulated, both outwardly and inwardly, and my life has given a continuity to it all. To end that.
PJ: Sir, do you mean to tell me that with the death of the body of K, the consciousness of K will end?
K: You have said two things: The consciousness of K and the ending of the physical body. The body will obviously end through accident, disease. That is obvious. But what is the consciousness of this ( K) person?
PJ: An enormous, unending, abounding Compassion.
K: Yes. But I would not call it ( K's personal) consciousness.
PJ: Can I call it 'the mind of K'.
K: Let's keep to the word 'consciousness' and look at it (more closely) . The ( personal) consciousness of a human being is ( the mental display of ?) its 'content'. The ( generic) content (of human consciousness?) is the whole movement ( activity of one's self-centred ?) thought. Language, specialization, beliefs, dogmas, rituals, pain, loneliness, desperation, a sense of fear—all that is the ( self-conscious?) movement of thought.
PJ: But (even if the egocentric process of ) thought does not exist in the mind of K, there is a state of being (a 'Presence'?) which manifests itself when I'm in contact with him. It manifests itself even if you do not reduce it to thought.
K: One must be very careful in pointing out something: 'Consciousness' as we know it is the movement of thought; it is a movement of ( thought projecting itself in) time.
PJ: Sir, you can use any other word but there is a 'state of being' ( or... a spiritual Presence?) which manifests itself as 'K'.
K: Yes; you are perfectly right. Let us say that through Meditation you've come to a point that is absolute. And to me this is a most extraordinary state (of Mind?) . Through my contact with you, I feel ( the Presence of?) this immensity. And your whole striving, says that you must capture it. But you have it—of course, it is not you, Pupul, having it. It is there. It is not yours or mine; it is there (in the shared 'non-personally' polarised human Consciousness?) .
PJ: But it is there because of you.
K: It is there not because of me. It is there.
PJ: Where?
K: It has no ( spatio-temporal ?) 'place'.
K: Naturally, because you have identified 'K' with That.
PJ: But K 'is' That.
K: May be. But K says that It has nothing whatsoever to do with K or with anybody else. It is there. Beauty is not yours or mine. It is 'there' and it gets manifested in a tree, in a flower—it's there.
PJ: But, sir, the healing and the compassion in ( manifested in?) K is not 'out there'.
K: Of course it is not 'out there'. But 'That' ( Intelligent Compassion?) is not ( produced by?) K. That is not this. (Pointing to the body)
PJ: But it will (eventually) cease to be manifest; that is what I'm inquiring about.
K: It may manifest through X, but 'That' which is manifested, or which is manifesting does not belong to X, it has nothing to do with ( the person of) K.
PJ: I'm prepared to accept that also, namely, that it does not belong to K. But K and 'That' seem inseparable.
K: All right, but when you identify 'That' with the (K) person, we enter into a very delicate thing.
PJ: Take the case of Buddha (The Enlightened One) . Whatever the 'Buddha-Consciousness' was, or whatever was manifesting through him, has ceased to be.
K: I question it. I doubt it. L You say that the 'Consciousness of Buddha' ceased when he passed away, right? It manifested through him and he was 'That' and when he died you say 'That' disappeared ?
PJ: I have no knowledge of saying that it disappeared. I only say that it could no longer be contacted.
K: Naturally not.
PJ: Why do you say 'naturally not'?
K: Because he meditated, and all the rest of it. He was illumined, and he came to it. Therefore between him and 'That' ( Intelligent source?) ther was no division. And his disciple, says, 'My God, he is dead and with his death the whole thing is over'.
PJ: Yes, it is over.
K: I say it is not. That which is good can never be over. The Good exists and has always existed, but not as the opposite of evil.
PJ: So, you're saying that It does not disappear.
K: Good can never disappear.
PJ: I'm talking of that great 'illumined compassion'. Now I can contact it (as manifested in your Presence?) .
K: But you can contact it even if the (K) person is not (around anymore?) . That's the whole point. It has nothing to do with any particular person.
PJ: Is 'being a light to yourself ' connected with the contacting of 'That' without the (K?) person?
K: Not 'contacted'. It can be perceived and lived; it is there for you to reach out to and receive it, when thought or ( the self-centred) consciousness as we know it, has to come to an end, for thought is really the 'enemy' of That. Thought is the enemy of compassion, obviously—right? And to have (access to?) that flame, it demands an awakened intelligence, an intelligence which 'sees' (or 'reads between the lines' of?) the movement of thought. And the very awareness of this (self-interest based?) movement of thought ends it. That's what ( the purpose of the ) real meditation is.
PJ: What significance then has ( one's physical) death?
K: None. It has no meaning because then you are living with death all the time, you are ending everything (the psychological attachments?) all the time. I don't think we see the importance and beauty of the 'ending (of time' ) . We commonly see only thought's continuity with its waves of beauty and all its superficiality.
PJ: I'm leaving tomorrow. Do I cut myself completely from you?
K: No, not from me; you cut yourself from 'That'. You cut yourself from that eternity with all its compassion, and so on.
PJ: May I ask a (bonus personal ?) question, please? What, then, is the reason for his being?
K: What is the reason for his being, for (K's) existence? To ( help ) manifest 'That', to be the embodiment of 'That'. But as I said, It is ( available in?) there for anyone to reach and to hold.
Could we also go into the question of whether a human being can live, apart from ( the necessary) physical knowledge, without time and (free from living safely enclosed in the field of ?) knowledge ?
PJ: Isn't this 'living with ending', the very answer to your question? That is, when the mind is capable of living with ending, it is capable of living with the ending of time and knowledge. But can be a way of learning (how to die?) in order to face the ultimate death?
K: What is there to learn, Pupul? There is nothing to learn.
PJ: The mind must receive a statement like this without agitation. Then, perhaps, when death ultimately comes there will be no (useless stress or ?) agitation.
K: Yes, that is right. And that is why ( seeing the positive aspect of psychological) death has an extraordinary beauty, an extraordinary vitality.
|Back to Top
|Wed, 20 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
Reading the ('Psychological') Book of Mankind
( a 'reader friendly' edited K Dialogue with Pupul Jayakar & Achyut Patwardhan)
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, yesterday you spoke (metaphorically) of reading the 'Book of Oneself', which is also the book of mankind. And you asked a question: With what instrument will I look?
KRISHNAMURTI (K): The whole history of man for forty thousand years or more is part of our consciousness; it is part of our ( collective 'life?) story'. We as human beings are ( consciousness-wise ?) the whole (unwritten?) history of man. If we grant that, then the only instrument with which we can 'read' this vast complex history is thought. In fact, thought is the only instrument we have (handy) . Thought has built the past, and the human mind is the storehouse of the entire accumulation of the past: past experiences, all the superstitions, all the beliefs, the various Gods, the various rituals, and so on. The whole movement of man-in-time (of our evolution in time?) is ( embedded) in the background of every human being. If once we see the 'fact' (the actuality?) of this, then we can start from there. Unless we are clear about this, how can we read this immense and complicated book of knowledge?
PJ: Obviously the human heritage is my heritage. The two are not separate.
K: But very few are willing to accept ( their individual responsability about ?) that.
PJ: It is as much a truth as the fact that the human body has evolved. To that extent, I accept that I am ( consciousness-wise?) all the human heritage.
K: Right. In myself abides the whole ( unwritten ) story of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his happiness, and so on. This vast story 'is' me. Now, what is the instrument with which we read this 'Book'?
PJ: Before we go to the instrument with which we read the book, what is it that we have to read?
K: As you are reading it, its (embedded content?) is ( constantly) moving.
PJ: Yes. As I read it the 'future' is projected.
K: Let us be clear by what we mean by this word 'future'. Our (psychological) 'future' is ( generated by the constantly refreshed memory of the?) 'past' modifying itself with ( the various challenges of ) the 'present' and going on to the 'future'. So ( all that we knew in) the 'past' becomes ( our subjective projection of the ) 'future'.
PJ: The very thought that arises now, contains in it the germ of the 'future' (thoughts) .
K: It contains in it the germ of the future, if there is no alteration.
PJ: So we have to be clear about the nature of this 'what is' of which you have talked about for years.
K: Let us begin ( with the fact that consciousness-wise) I am the storehouse of all human endeavour—( although that?) I may not be totally aware of it, or not know the whole content of it, but (on the 'plus' side?) I want to study it, I want to learn if it is possible to explore the nature of consciousness.
PJ: The moment you say that 'I' am reading the consciousness of man - not my consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.
K: That's right. If you are under the illusion that this consciousness is 'yours'—separate from every other consciousness—then we will be moving in two different directions. Unfortunately, most people—including many (amateur?) 'psychologists'—believe that our consciousness is separate, that it is 'individual'.
PJ: There is a trap (potential loophole?) here : if we are 'objectively' looking at the history of man, we would read it one way. We would read that history in encyclopaedias. But the moment we see that this 'history' arises within us, within our consciousness, our response will, immediately, be of a totally different nature.
K: Naturally, if one actually sees that one's consciousness is universal, if one can see that the consciousness that exists within the individual is the ( collectively shared?) consciousness of all human beings, then one's whole activity of perception changes. You see, it is in the (compassionate ?) discovery that all human beings are ( often feeling) lonely and that all people suffer (for various reasons & in various degrees ? ) that I discover something tremendous. To discover ( that everyone is sharing the aching ?) consciousness of the whole of mankind is a tremendous ( holistic?) perception.
PJ: I cannot say that what is revealed to me in my consciousness is unique to me. It is part of the total consciousness of man, but it is revealed on my ground and, therefore, my relationship to it is very different.
K: Are you saying that in the investigation into 'my' consciousness there is the discovery that it is not only my private ground?—That in the investigation into what I have called 'my' consciousness as separate from everyone else's, there is the discovery that what I have called 'my' consciousness is nothing but the consciousness of the rest of mankind.
PJ: But this is not quite so. For example, an instance of observing the arising of ( the sense of self-isolation & ) loneliness in my consciousness—does not bring to the forefront the factor that it is the 'loneliness of all mankind'. At that point, it is (felt as my?) loneliness.
K: It is in a (compassionate) investigation of my personal loneliness or of my sorrow that I discover this ('universal' ?) fact that all men are lonely and that all men suffer. The discovery that it is the whole (consciousness ) of mankind that suffers is an enormous ( holistic) perception.
PJ: But what brings this perception about? What brings in the other (compassionate) element, namely, that I am observing not my petty sorrow, but the sorrow of mankind?
K: Look, Pupulji. Wherever you would go, you can see that loneliness and sorrow ( the sorrow of loneliness?) live together. This is so in Europe, in America, & in India. To realize that this ( 'lonely planet'?) thing is shared by all of us, is a great beginning. You see, an ( infinitesimal qualitative?) change has already taken place (in one's consciousness?) .
PJ: Yes...but to go back. What exactly has to be observed?
K: I observe sorrow. Loneliness and sorrow are synonymous.
PJ: Which are 'emotionally (charged' personal) responses to a situation. I feel suddenly a sense of shrinking and I look...
K: No, no, no; 'you' don't look. Let's be clear. Suppose you have lost a great friend or a wife whom you really loved. What has actually taken place here? There is the ending of that person, and with that ending there is the ending of your entire relationship with that person. And suddenly there is the realization of how utterly lonely you are, because that has been the only relationship that meant something. So when, suddenly, when that ( special ) person ( or special... opportunity ?) is gone, there is a sense of great loss.
Now, just 'hold it' for a minute. Remain with ( the actuality of?) it; don't let thought or any other ( self-controlling ) feeling interfere with that state. If you don't 'escape' from it, suppress it or try to 'analyse it', you will have suddenly discovered (by diect experience) this extraordinary phenomenon, namely, that with the loss of some person or of something that you have held most dear, a certain ( care-free?) state of mind has come to an end. The ( full impact of this) 'ending' is the ending (of psychological time) without any (further projections for the?) future. Can the mind remain with this 'fact' ( of loneliness?) - not as an 'observer' observing the fact? For the observer 'is' ( part of the same 'stream of self-interest' which generated ?) the fact. The observer 'is' that state and, therefore, he is (both the cause & the effect of his ?) suffering; he 'is' that ending. It is like a ('Truth) jewel' you are holding : the history of mankind 'is' my history. Right?
PJ: Yes.
K: I want to read this ( unwritten) Book of Mankind. It must be an extraordinary ( living) book. There are no chapters & no paragraphs, just one tremendous movement.
PJ: Can the average human mind contain the enormity of it?
K: We must begin here (by making the qualitative distinction between ) the 'mind' and the 'brain'? The (temporal) brain has an infinite capacity (of invention?) . Look what it has done in the technological world—something incredible! But (inwardly or?) 'psychologically' it has been conditioned through ( a tough?) evolution in time – therefore ( for some obscure safety reasons?) in the 'psychological' world, it has not moved at all, it has not flowered. It is conditioned ; it is limited. ( On the other hand?) the 'mind' is not limited.
PJ: When you speak of the 'mind', what is it you speak of?
K: The (Intelligent) Mind of the universe, the Mind of Nature; everything that has been created and is in the process of creation is the movement of (an universal intelligent?) Mind. And therefore there is no limit to Creation.
PJ: When you talk of the 'mind', it is all that is created and is in the process of creation ?
K: Pupul, let us be very clear when we speak of Creation. Thought has created, in the physical world, not only the churches, the temples and the mosques but also all the things that are in them. And we are saying that as long as the brain is conditioned, it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the ( compassionate?) mind. If you see this, you will also see 'your' responsibility to 'uncondition' the brain, to uncondition the limitation which ( the survivalistic mentality of?) thought has imposed on it. That's it.
PJ: Is my responsibility to uncondition the brain which is (entangled in the known and ?) cannot move out of its grooves, or to end this movement of the brain?
K: Which is ( amounting to?) the same thing.
PJ: But everything that is taking place in the ( time-bound) brain as it now functions is fragmented.
K: Yes. I have said that we must differentiate between the two meanings of the words. I say that the brain which is limited cannot understand what the ( quality of an intelligent & compassionate?) 'mind' is. It can only grow aware of it when there is no ( self-isolating?) conditioning.
PJ: But you went further.
K: That I shouldn't have spoken. (Laughs)
PJ: May I ask a ( straight?) question? What is the distinction between thought and the brain?
K: Thought is the activity of the brain.
PJ: Is there anything in the brain apart from thought?
K: (Laughs) I won't fall into the trap. You are now going back to the old...
PJ: I'm not. If you accept that the brain has tremendous capacity and that it is using only a very small part of it, and if we could do with the psyche ( the same advances as those ) we have done with technology...
K: Then the ( Mind of the?) Universe is open to you. If the human brain can free itself from the limitations of the ( self-centred?) 'psyche', it will be incredible what it can do. Then the brain 'is' (integrated with the compassionate ?) mind; then it is totally free - no sense of (ego-centric) division. There is a sense of completeness, wholeness...
PJ: Now, if the human brain has had the necessary energy, (the motivation & ) the insight to pursue ( the great advances of) technology, why is it...
K: Why are you not willing to turn the other way? I think that our education ( dominated by what was previously 'known' ?) is responsible for that. Every culture has emphasized that you have to earn a livelihood, that you have to study, memorize, repeat, repeat. That is all that they say.
AP: You see, sir, scientists who go to ( what you were calling) the 'impossible questions' are very few. But now there are ( here & there?) a few (good people?) who can see the ( gravity of the ) present crisis of the survival of humanity. There are a few people today who have sufficient motivation to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man and that the brain must be explored.
K: Sir, the human brain has an extraordinary (potential of intelligence ) capacity— ( and outwardly) it has done extraordinary things in the technological world, but ( inwardly or?) 'psychologically' it has not moved an inch (from prioritarily pursuing its own self-interest ?) after all these thousands and thousands of years (of physical 'evolution')
AP: Is it the energy of attention ?
K: Don't use the word 'attention'; just stick to the word ( intelligent?) 'energy' sir. Psychologically my (available intelligent?) energy is practically nil. And I'm saying that when that limitation (of self-interest?) has been broken through, there is a totally different energy. So far it has been only channelled through technology, which is merely the activity of thought and, therefore, that energy is limited. The ( intelligent & compassionate energy involved in the ) 'breaking down' of the (ego-centricity of the ?) psyche is not the energy of thought. Technology is the energy of thought, and the ( intelligent ressources of ) energy of thought are limited.
PJ: We still have to probe into the ( validity of the intelligent ?) instruments that man has. Let us examine those (readily available perceptive) instruments. One is (the intellectual capacity of) thought, and the others are the sensitivity of the senses.
K: But the sensitivity of the senses and thought ( as of now?) aren't they both the same?
PJ: What you have said is so. There is a challenge and my senses respond according to the conditioning of thought. But there is a response of the senses...
K: Always partial—because thought is always watching, always controlling the senses. I must, I must not.
PJ: But at some other instant there can be a state where there is nothing contained in those senses. You see, sir, when you think of your brain, you think of it as there (Touches head) somewhere in the head. But when the senses do not operate from thought, do not contain thought, their place of operation changes.
K: That's right. When the senses are observing completely, there is no ( thought controlling ?) 'centre'. When you look completely at the movement of the sea, or at the extraordinary sights of the Himalayas when there is not a cloud in the sky, there is no ( personal) centre; there is no thought. The moment thought comes in, there is a ( self-conscious?) centre. Right?
PJ: We have discussed ( the intellectual capacities of?) thought, we have discussed the senses. Is there a third movement?
K: Yes. That is the whole point. Is there an ( third?) 'instrument'—no, not a (thought controlled?) instrument but an action (of intelligence) ? When you observe the (movement of the?) sea with all your senses awakened, the senses are not (individually) aware that they are heightened. Anything that is 'excellent' is not ( self-consciously?) aware of its own excellence. Goodness in the highest sense of the word has no ( conscious?) sense of (itself) being good. We only realize that the senses are fully awake when ( the self-centred) thought comes in. ( But by then...) the 'heightened state' has already gone (or is being dissipated) .
PJ: So, we have started this dialogue with the story(book) of mankind and we were asking what is the (holistic?) instrument with which we can 'read' it
K: I will tell you. The story(- book?) of mankind is an endless (life-) movement. It has no beginning and no end. If you once grant that it has no ending... But my brain being limited, is looking for a (happy?) ending. So I am approaching the Book to find out what the end of all this is about.
PJ: The search is for a (personally rewarding?) 'end'.
K: Of course, of course. But to realize that there is no 'ending'—do you realize what it means? To realize that there is no 'ending' (to the Book of Life ) is to enter into something called Love. Love has no end. I may love my wife—she dies or I die, but the ( Life-sustaining?) thing called 'Love' goes on; it has no end. But as I have identified myself with my wife, I either say that my love has gone or I begin to 'love' someone else. And all this (personal 'love') is no more than (a mutual search for?) pleasure.
So, ( to make this endless story short?) how do you read the Book? When you come to this really deep point, namely, that the Book ( of Life) has no ending and no beginning, you realize that you 'are' the Book. This does not mean that 'you' become eternal, but that life as ( integrated with ?) this movement has no end. It is then (one with?) the ( Compassionate Intelligence of the?) Universe. It is then the ( total order of the?) Cosmos. It is then the 'whole thing'.
PJ: May I ask a ( trick ?) question? What is the distinction between thought and the brain?
K: Thought is the ( time-bound ?) activity of the brain.
PJ: Isn't there anything in the brain apart from thought?
K: (Laughs) I won't fall into the trap. You are now going back to the old...
PJ: I'm not. If you accept that the brain has tremendous capacity and that it is using only a very small part of it, and if we could do with the psyche ( the same advances as those ) we have done with technology...
K: Then the ( Mind of the?) Universe is open to you. If the human brain can free itself from the limitations of the ( self-centred?) 'psyche', it will be incredible what it can do. Then the brain 'is' (integrated with the compassionate ?) mind; then it is totally free - no sense of (ego-centric) division. There is a sense of completeness, wholeness...
PJ: Now, if the human brain has had the necessary energy, (the motivation & ) the insight to pursue ( the great advances of) technology, why is it...
K: Why are you not willing to turn the other way? I think that our education ( dominated by what was previously 'known' ?) is responsible for that. Every culture has emphasized that you have to earn a livelihood, that you have to study, memorize, repeat, repeat. That is all that they say.
AP: You see, sir, scientists who go to ( what you were calling) the 'impossible questions' are very few. But now there are ( here & there?) a few (good people?) who can see the ( gravity of the ) present crisis of the survival of humanity. There are a few people today who have sufficient motivation to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man and that the brain must be explored.
K: Sir, the human brain has an extraordinary (potential of intelligence ) capacity— ( and outwardly) it has done extraordinary things in the technological world, but ( inwardly or?) 'psychologically' it has not moved an inch (from prioritarily pursuing its own self-interest ?) after all these thousands and thousands of years (of physical 'evolution')
AP: Is it the energy of attention ?
K: Don't use the word 'attention'; just stick to the word ( intelligent?) 'energy' sir. Psychologically my (available intelligent?) energy is practically nil. And I'm saying that when that limitation (of self-interest?) has been broken through, there is a totally different energy. So far it has been only channelled through technology, which is merely the activity of thought and, therefore, that energy is limited. The ( intelligent & compassionate energy involved in the ) 'breaking down' of the (ego-centricity of the ?) psyche is not the energy of thought. Technology is the energy of thought, and the ( intelligent ressources of ) energy of thought are limited.
PJ: We still have to probe into the ( validity of the intelligent ?) instruments that man has. Let us examine those (readily available perceptive) instruments. One is (the intellectual capacity of) thought, and the others are the sensitivity of the senses.
K: But the sensitivity of the senses and thought ( as of now?) aren't they both the same?
PJ: What you have said is so. There is a challenge and my senses respond according to the conditioning of thought. But there is a response of the senses...
K: Always partial—because thought is always watching, always controlling the senses. I must, I must not.
PJ: But at some other instant there can be a state where there is nothing contained in those senses. You see, sir, when you think of your brain, you think of it as there (Touches head) somewhere in the head. But when the senses do not operate from thought, do not contain thought, their place of operation changes.
K: That's right. When the senses are observing completely, there is no ( thought controlling ?) 'centre'. When you look completely at the movement of the sea, or at the extraordinary sights of the Himalayas when there is not a cloud in the sky, there is no ( personal) centre; there is no thought. The moment thought comes in, there is a ( self-conscious?) centre. Right?
PJ: We have discussed ( the intellectual capacities of?) thought, we have discussed the senses. Is there a third movement?
K: Yes. That is the whole point. Is there an ( third?) 'instrument'—no, not a (thought controlled?) instrument but an action (of intelligence) ? When you observe the (movement of the?) sea with all your senses awakened, the senses are not (individually) aware that they are heightened. Anything that is 'excellent' is not ( self-consciously?) aware of its own excellence. Goodness in the highest sense of the word has no ( conscious?) sense of (itself) being good. We only realize that the senses are fully awake when ( the self-centred) thought comes in. ( But by then...) the 'heightened state' has already gone (or is being dissipated) .
PJ: So, we have started this dialogue with the story(book) of mankind and we were asking what is the (holistic?) instrument with which we can 'read' it
K: I will tell you. The story(- book?) of mankind is an endless (life-) movement. It has no beginning and no end. If you once grant that it has no ending... But my brain being limited, is looking for a (happy?) ending. So I am approaching the Book to find out what the end of all this is about.
PJ: The search is for a (personally rewarding?) 'end'.
K: Of course, of course. But to realize that there is no 'ending'—do you realize what it means? To realize that there is no 'ending' (to the Book of Life ) is to enter into something called Love. Love has no end. I may love my wife—she dies or I die, but the ( Life-sustaining?) thing called 'Love' goes on; it has no end. But as I have identified myself with my wife, I either say that my love has gone or I begin to 'love' someone else. And all this (personal 'love') is no more than (a mutual search for?) pleasure.
So, ( to make this endless story short?) how do you read the Book? When you come to this really deep point, namely, that the Book ( of Life) has no ending and no beginning, you realize that you 'are' the Book. This does not mean that 'you' become eternal, but that life as ( integrated with ?) this movement has no end. It is then (one with?) the ( Compassionate Intelligence of the?) Universe. It is then the ( total order of the?) Cosmos. It is then (one with ?) the 'Whole Thing'.
This post was last updated by John Raica Thu, 21 Jun 2018.
|Back to Top
|Sat, 23 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
Can there be a birth of the New in the human brain ?
( A 'reader friendly' edited K dialogue, 1982)
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): I was wondering whether we could discuss the nature of a rebirth in the human mind, that is, whether a mind that has grown old and is incapable of direct perception can renew itself totally ? The problem with many of us, as we grow old we find that the (original ) quickness of our minds...
J. KRISHNAMURTI (K): ...is lost ?
PJ: Yes, that the capacity to perceive (directly the inner facts of life?) and to take in deeply, grows dim.
K: Are you asking whether it is possible to keep the mind very young and yet (timelessly?) ancient?
PJ: I would like to know what is meant by the word 'ancient'. Obviously the 'ancient' you speak about is unrelated to time as yesterday. What then is the nature of this ancient?
K: ( For starters?) the human brain has its own (self-) protective nature; there is a protective bio-chemical reaction when it experiences shock, or pain. The human brain is very, very ancient, very, very old. It has evolved from the ape to the human. It has evolved through time, through tremendous experience. It has acquired a great deal of knowledge—both outward as well as inward—and so (temporally ?) it is really very 'ancient'. So, as far as I can understand, it is not a 'personal' brain. It is not 'my' brain or 'your' brain.
PJ: But, sir, obviously your brain and my brain have a different quality of the 'ancient' in them.
K: I am just exploring ; is it granted that the brain is very old, very ancient and that our brains are not 'individual' ('personal'?) brains? We may have reduced the brain to a 'personal' thing—in fact most of us think of it as 'my' brain and 'your' brain—but the brain could not have evolved through 'chronological?) time as 'my' brain (since all its 'particular owners' are subject to dying ?)
PJ: Yes...
K: Now, are we saying that such an ancient (ages old?) brain has been so conditioned that it has become ( skin-deep?) superficial, rather coarse, rather vulgar and artificial, having lost ( an intimate contact with?) what is imbedded very deep down in the unconscious?
PJ: But an ancient mind—as you said just now—is the result of evolution in time and (in the collective consciousness of ) mankind the search (for wisdom & truth) has been going on for centuries...
K: Since his beginnings man must have asked whether it is possible to free the brain of time—time which is built into this aging process. Sir, when you talk of the traditional 'ancient' brain, aren't you talking of a brain which has also inbuilt in it the quality of its own deterioration?
PJ: Why is that so?
K: It is so because experience and knowledge has limited it, conditioned it, narrowed it down. The more the brain acquires knowledge, the more it limits itself. Right?
PJ: You seem to be implying two things, Krishnaji. One is the sense of the ancient as the weight of the past which gives it a sense of being very old, because it is many thousands of years. But the 'ancient' you are talking about—are you talking about a brain that has experienced through time?
K: First let us see how 'ancient' it is in the normal sense of that word, and how it has—in its thousands of years of experience it has limited itself. Therefore, in it there is the quality of its own deterioration. And, living in the modern world with all the noise, with all the terrible shocks and the agonies of war, and so on—has made the brain still more limited, still more enmeshed in conflict. The (millenia of self-interest induced ?) limitation brings its own (inner & outer ) conflict.
PJ: Sir, there is a mind which, because of the sense of the thousands of years, gives to it a density and weight. Then there is a mind which is brittle, which is easily corroded.
K: You use the words 'mind' and 'brain'. What are you talking about?
PJ: The brain.
K: Then keep to the brain. Don't use the word 'mind'.
PJ: I'll use the word 'brain'. The brain has a certain weight and density to it.
K: Yes. It has a coarseness to it, a heaviness to it.
PJ: Now, is that what you mean by the 'ancient'?
K: Not quite. Do we admit that the brain by its own evolution has conditioned itself and, therefore, it has in it the inherent quality of its own (decay with age ) ?
PJ: Yes.
K: Now, the ( 1000 $) question is whether that quality of its inbuilt deterioration can ever be stopped. Can the brain cells renew themselves in spite of their conditioning, in spite of the failures, miseries, and all the other complexities of this modern world in which we live, can the brain renew itself so as to achieve its (true) 'originality'? By 'originality' is meant not a sense of individuality, but the sense of its origin.
PJ: What is meant by the 'originality' of the brain cells?
K: A pristine quality. 'Original' means untouched, uncontaminated by knowledge.
PJ: Yes.
K: Can such a brain, which has been conditioned (to live in the field of the known) for many thousands of years, wipe away its conditioning and achieve a quality of pristine freshness?
PJ: How would you proceed from here?
K: Before we proceed, I think we have (take a small detour and?) go into the question of what our consciousness is, for that is part of our whole being. We have to go not only into the being-conscious-of-things, both outwardly and inwardly, but also into the whole (psychological) content of consciousness. Because without this (self-interest generated?) content there is no (ego-centric) consciousness as we know it. The question is: Can the ( self-focussing ?) content which makes up the (ego-centric) consciousness end by itself, so that there is a totally different dimension to (the everyday ) consciousness?
Now, this (self-interest generated?) content of our consciousness is (made up of) : pleasure, belief, excitement, sensation, reaction, faith, agony, suffering, affection. The whole of that is ( defining the self-) consciousness.
PJ: Yes.
K: And, as long as all this (psychological) content exists (is active?) , the brain must, because of the ( self-generated ) conflicts within this consciousness, wear itself out. And that's why there is no 'freshness' to it. The brain grows old; it ages and dies.
PJ: Is the content of consciousness identical with the (active memory of the) brain cells?
K: Of course; after all, the brain is a product of ( a long evolution in ) time.
PJ: But with conflict totally ending, will ( the psychological) time end?
K: Yes. After all, that is what the really thoughtful people have inquired into. They have all asked the question whether time stops, whether there is an end to time.
PJ: So you are talking of the 'ending of time' as the ending of the psychological conflict ?
K: Yes, of course.
PJ: So, because of the conflicting nature of (our self-centred) consciousness the brain wears itself out... ?
K: Through conflict.
PJ: Yes, I understand that. That very process is wearing out the brain cells.
K: That is (the psychological) 'conflict': the ( compounded result of all the personal & collective ) disturbances, shocks, ( including the environmental & economical) pressures.
PJ: So the physical and the psychological are really the same. The pain is physical. The content of consciousness is 'psychological'.
K: Which is also a ( residual?) process of the physical. So, it is the psychological as well as the physical which is all this—the reactions which bring about the thought of pain, the thought of agony, the thought of pleasure, the thought of achievement, ambition, belief, faith, and so on...
PJ:... that creates (the inner state of?) disturbance.
K: So what are we trying to investigate together?
PJ: What is it that will bring this quality of (an inner 're-)birth' into the brain?
K: Let's be clear, Pupul. First, is it possible to be free of this ( ego-centric) conditioning of the brain that has brought about its own decay? And, also, is it possible for this ( human) consciousness to totally end all its conflicts? As long as one's brain, that is, one's ( temporal) consciousness, is in conflict, no 'new' element can enter into it. Would you grant that not just verbally but actually? Do you see the fact that as long as I am fighting, struggling to become something (other than what I really am?)...
PJ: Yes, I think one sees that.
K: Now, if one actually sees that, 'inwardly' as it were, then the question arises whether it is possible to end ( the whole causation of?) it—end suffering, end fear, and so on ?
PJ: You see, Krishnaji, the (experiential?) danger is that you can end it—end suffering, and all that—without ( any inner) renewal (taking place) . There is the possibility of ending all these things and yet diminishing.
K: Then, we mean two different things by 'ending'.
PJ: What is it that you're ending ?
K: Ending that 'which is'—which is ( the self-identified content of?) my consciousness. All the thoughts that I have had, all the complexities that have been accumulated through time— ending (the inner continuity of) all that. So, do 'you' end all this by a deliberate act of will, because of (the desire to reach?) some superior goal?
PJ: You see, Krishnaji, when an ending actually happens, which is the (process of self-centred thinking ) coming to a stop, the 'standing still' of the mind happens without any reason. It is not due to any single cause.
K: Yes. Let's go slowly.
PJ: So, (if no-one is in charge with this ending?) is it that you throw yourself to chance?
K: No. No... Let's be clear what do we mean by 'ending'? Does the ending create its own opposite? Generally we (are willing to) end 'this' in order to get 'that'.
PJ: No. I am not talking about that ( conditional) ending.
K: I mean by 'ending' the total perception of ( the truth regarding ?) 'that which is'. In other words, having a complete perception of that ( self-identified ) consciousness which is inside. This total 'insight' has no motive, no remembrance; it is an immediate perception, and in the (natural?) ending of it, there is something beyond, which is not touched by thought. That's what I mean by 'ending'.
PJ: Is it that the totality of a million years (of human experience ?) sees itself?
K: Yes, that is the real question. Look, Pupul, do we see the point that our consciousness has been cultivated through time?
PJ: Yes.
K: So, any ( personal) reaction directed to ending it, is ( engendering) a further series of reactions. Which is, if 'I' desire to end it, then that very desire creates ( subliminally the image of ) another (still more rewarding?) 'object' to be gained.
PJ: Yes...
K: Can't there be a possibility of perceiving (the 'psychological futility' of it?) without the movement of ( projecting a virtual?) ?) future? Do you understand what I mean? Ending has no future. There is only ending. But the (time-bound) brain says, 'I cannot end that way, because I need a future to survive'.
PJ: Yes, because inbuilt in it is the (sense of its own continuity in the?) future.
K: Of course. So ( meditation-wise ?) is there an 'ending' to the psychological demands, conflicts, and so on, without the thought of the future? Is there an ending to all this without the thought, 'What will happen if I end?' You see, we generally give up something if we are guaranteed something else. I'll give up, for example, (all personal attachments which are engendering?) suffering, if you will guarantee me that I'll be happy with the ending of it, or if there is some extraordinary reward awaiting me. This is because my whole brain, my whole (temporal) consciousness, is based on the notion of reward and punishment. Punishment is the ending (of all personal hopes?) and reward is the gaining (of new ones?)
PJ: Yes...
K: Now, as long as these two elements exist in the brain, ( what one is inwardly in ? ) the 'present'—modified, of course—will go on, will continue (in the future?)
PJ: Right.
K: So, ( for some extra meditation homework?) can the two ( inwardly active?) principles of reward and punishment end (intelligently?) , so that, when (their related ) suffering (of time?) ends, the brain is not (surreptitiously) seeking a future existence in 'paradise' (or in summerland) ?
PJ: But even if it is not seeking a future in paradise, the suffering (of time?) itself is still corroding the brain.
K: Yes. But you see, Pupulji, it is very important to understand that the brain is constantly seeking security (at all levels?) . Physically, it 'must' have its security. That's why tradition, remembrance, ( living in the shadow of?) the past, have extraordinary significance. Right? The brain needs security. The baby needs security. Security being food, clothes, shelter, but also our faith in God, our faith in some ideal society in the future.
PJ: But I still say that there is one central existential demand : to have a mind, to have a brain, which has the flavour of a new existence.
K: Who actually wants such a brain? Not the vast majority of people. They only say, '( We're doing pretty well ) as we are now'.
PJ: We are not talking about the vast majority. And what I am getting at is that there are many ways of getting ( the sense of inner?) security.
K: No, no, Pupul, I question whether there is ( a real ) security in the (temporal?) sense we want it.
PJ: Sir, the (time-bound?) brain will never understand this, because inbuilt in it...
K: That is why I am saying that ( the holistic) perception is important.
PJ: Perception of what?
K: The perception of 'what actually is' and to move on from there. We are talking about the perception of 'what is' actually going on : of what is going on around me physically, outwardly, and what is going on or happening psychologically, inwardly—that is the 'what is'. Now the ( 1000$ experiential?) question is: Can 'what is' be transformed? 'What is' is my ( self- centred) consciousness which is part of the brain.
PJ: But in the emptying of that consciousness...
K: That's the whole point : is this 'emptying' possible? Is it possible to empty or to wipe away the whole of my past? The ( active memory of the?) past is (projecting the psychological ?) time. The whole of the content of my consciousness is the ( result of the?) past, which may project the 'future', but this (self-projected) future still has its roots in the past. Do you understand?
PJ: Yes...
K: Now, is it possible ( meditation-wise ?) to 'empty out' everything and not to carry the burden of a thousand yesterdays? (If yes ?) the ending of that (continuity of psychological time?) is the beginning of the 'new'. The ending of that is the new.
PJ: The (memory of a ) 'thousand yesterdays' is a fact. The (psychological) burden is because I have given a special content to many of the experiences I have had.
K: Just a minute. Would there be the (time-binding memory of a) thousand yesterdays if there was no remembrance of the ( personal hurts &) sorrows held in those thousand days? Can I separate the yesterdays by the calendar?
PJ: Yes. ( Intellectually ?) you can cut away the ( objective memory of the ) thousands of yesterdays from the pain, from the sorrow, which is the ( subjective) 'burden'.
K: You see, 'cutting away' implies two parts.
PJ: It is possible to deal with the superficial memories of the yesterdays.
K: Do you know what this ( ending of psychological time?) means? Have I really wiped out or ended the 'thousand yesterdays' with all their superficialities, their pettiness, their narrowness, brutality, cruelty, ambitions, and so on? Can all that end? You say, 'I can cut away', but who is the entity that is cutting?
PJ: Why do you draw a distinction between the ending of 'what is' and the cutting away?
K: 'Ending' to me implies that there is no continuation of something that has been. 'Cutting away' implies two parts of the same thing (& the conflict of duality?)
PJ: But (in the human consciousness there ) is also the goodness...
K: Now, wait a minute. Goodness is not the outcome of that which is not good. The ending of 'that which is not good' is (releasing the inner ?) Goodness. Now, is it possible to end all conflict?
PJ: Yes, there is an ending to conflict.
K: Is there, Pupul, really an ending? Or is there merely a forgetfulness of that which has been and which has caused conflict?
PJ: You mean to say, sir, that the very ending of ( all inner) conflict is the (re-)birth of the New?
K: Yes. But do you see all the (inward) implications of conflict? Do you see the depth of it, not just the superficiality? The superficiality is merely to say that I'm no longer British or French or that I don't belong to this country or that country or this religion or that religion. I am not speaking of the ending of superficial things. I am talking of what is deeply imbedded.
PJ: You're talking of 'conflict' as ( the deep sense of ) separation from another ?
K: Yes, as separateness, as (self-) isolation which inevitably breeds conflict. That is the real thing. When there is no ( such) conflict, and a new problem arises, can one end it immediately?
PJ: Why do such problems arise?
K: A 'problem' is something thrown at you, something which you have to face.
PJ: You mean to say, sir, that for the birth of the New ( the very causation of our psychological problems has to end ?)
K: Yes, you're getting it... And, therefore, the birth of the new is the most ancient.
PJ: Could you say a little more about it?
K: After all, That is the ground beyond which there is no other ground. That's the origin beyond which there is no other origin. (Long pause)
Would you say that the Origin of All Life is the ancient of ancients, beyond all thought of old or new? And when the (meditating?) mind—which includes the brain—reaches that point, it is (reaching ) the Ground ( of Creation ?) which is something totally original, new, uncontaminated?
PJ: In a sense, sir, does it really mean that there is no partial approach at all in your teaching?
K: Impossible. How can there be? If I were to approach it through the various paths which the ancient Hindus have discovered—karma yoga, and the rest, all of which are partial—I would never be able to come near it; I would never be able to approach it.
PJ: Then what does one do? I am an ordinary human being—what do I do?
K: This is the real ( gist of the?) problem. 'You' cannot do anything. You can only do physical activities. Psychologically 'you' cannot do anything.
PJ: But our physical life is also going on. So what does one do?
K: If there is no 'psychological' ( division & its related ) fear, there will be no division of countries, and so on. There will be no division—period.
PJ: Yes, but the fact is that there is psychological fear.
K: That's just it. A brain, which has lived in psychological isolation and all its attendant conflicts, can never possibly come to that (inward) Ground which is the Origin of All Life. Obviously not.
PJ: Then the whole of our life is so futile, sir. If after doing everything I haven't even taken the first step, then where am I?
K: Just a minute; go into it. What is the first step?
PJ: I would say that the first step is seeing 'whatever is'.
K: Seeing 'what is'. Right. And how do you see it? Do you only see the 'what is' partially (from the personal point of view?) ? If you see the totality of 'what is', it is finished.
PJ: You see, sir, it doesn't just work like that.
K: Of course not. Because the (self-centred thinking brain?) is fragmented; therefore we approach life, or 'what is' actually with your fragmented mind, fragmented brain...
PJ: But I'll say that with time the (inner) fragmentation gets less and it is possible when we listen to you, for the mind to be still, for the mind not to make any movement, not to make any effort. But ( you imply ) that's still not the 'first step' ?
K: The first (& last ) step is to observe or to perceive 'what is'. And this is where I would begin—by seeing that I lead a life of (inner) fragmentation. (Pause)
You see, Pupul, if I were to perceive 'what is' ( going on inwardly) 'partially', it would lead to further complications. Right? Partial perception creates ( its own ) problems. Now, is it possible to see the whole complex of 'what is'? Is it possible to see the whole, and not the fragment? Because if I approach my (inner) life—which is my consciousness, the way of thought, feeling, actions—fragmentarily, then I am lost (in the vast labyrinth of the known ?) . That's what is happening in the world. We are totally 'lost' (the blind leading the blind?) . So is it possible to look at life as a whole without fragmentation? Pupul, that is the ( experiential) crux.
PJ: Why doesn't the ancient (traditionalistic) mind see this?
K: It can't. How can it see this? How can total, complete, order...
PJ: But you just said that the ancient...
K: Just a minute, that Original Ground is the most ancient.
PJ: Now that's (deep down?) there.
K: No.
PJ: What do you mean, 'No'?
K: 'It (the Original Ground of Creation ?) is there' is an idea - that is what all (traditionalistic) people have maintained—an idea. ''There is God''—that's just an idea, a concept, a projection of our own desire to be comforted, to be happy. (Long pause)
You see, Pupul, the question is whether a human being can actually live a life in which there is no fragmentary action. If somebody were to ask, 'Where am I to begin?' I would say, 'Begin there; find out for yourself if you lead a fragmentary life'. Do you know what a fragmentary life is? A way of living (safely) in (a self-created?) isolation; therefore you have no relationship with your husband or wife; you have no relationship with the rest of humanity. So, (for homework one can ?) begin from there. Do you realise what a tremendous (meditative) inquiry you have to make to find out?
PJ: What is (the nature of such a holistic) inquiry?
K: To observe (everything, inwardly & outwardly) very clearly without any ( ideological) bias or ( personal) motive, how my whole life is fragmented. It is just to observe it, and not to say, 'I must not be fragmented and, therefore, I must be whole'. The idea of 'becoming whole' is another fragmentation.
PJ: So the birth of the new...
K: Is not possible unless you see this.
|Back to Top
|Mon, 25 Jun 2018
|John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline
Uncovering the Inner Source of Creation
PUPUL JAYAKAR (PJ): Sir, most of our lives are so futile and unless one discovers within oneself the capacity to leap out of this (existential ) futility, one will never be able to have ( free access to ) a creative (inner) spring. You see, sir, when the mind has a creative spring, whatever be the circumstances, one seems to go beyond them. And that happens when the mind is not dependent on anything, and when it has some inner space for (a holistic?) perception. I have been wondering for the last few months—what is the (inward ) Ground of Creation?
K: Would you call the activity of a poet, of a thinker, or even of a scientist who makes a new discovery a 'creative' activity?
PJ: Perhaps...
K: But it is (obviously) limited and partial because it is not related to ( the totality of) his everyday life. A scientist may discover extraordinary things and call his life 'creative' ; but (in private ?) he may lead a very mediocre life.
PJ: But you see, that's why I did not speak of a creative action...
K: But of a 'creative' mind?
PJ: But of the 'Ground' of the human mind which rests in the Creative (sphere of Existence) . You have never answered (plainly) any questions on the Ground of Life's manifestation, the 'coming to be' of anything.
K: Are you asking what is the Source of All Life — both of the manifest and of the non-manifest?
PJ: Yes. I would like to probe into what you have said just now: the 'manifest', the 'unmanifest' and the 'pre-manifest'...
K: Can we talk about the Origin of all Life or of all 'existence' and try to ( experientially?) come upon something which is the beginning of all things?
PJ: I understand what you are saying. You see, sir, we have narrowed the word 'creative' to mean, as you said, painting, or writing a book, or discovering something new in science. But basically, the whole (universal) meaning of a tree, a human being, the earth, the sky...
K: Man has asked ( for ages?) this ( profound philosophical?) question about what is the meaning and the origin of all existence ?
PJ: Yes. Where does it arise?
K: That's it. What is the Ground from which all this arises? What is the Source of all Existence, all Life, of all action?
PJ: This question naturally arises in (any decent human) mind and I would like to move (along) with this question, but if you say that the mind can question only when it is free and, therefore, ( has selfless?) love, what do I do?
K: We are just asking, how does one's inquiry begin? If you inquire with thought, that doesn't lead very far. So, what is the approach of a mind that wants to inquire into something that it doesn't know and which demands an extraordinary quality of subtlety, of order, and so on? Where do I begin?
PJ: Obviously by becoming fully aware of the disorder within oneself.
K: You see, Pupul, I am after all the manifest. I have been born. I am a living human being.
PJ: Yes, but obviously, sir, there can be no other starting point.
K: If I have a (holistic?) measure of what actually is happening in the world outside of me, if I can observe all that without any bias, and if I can see and relate what is happening outside to what is happening inside, then I will see that it is one movement and not two separate movements. You are ( an integral part of) it.
PJ: Yes, I am it ; but it is easier to say, 'I am it' with regard to the interior movement. To see that with regard to an exterior movement is much more difficult. If you tell me that (consciousness-wise?) I am (personally responsible for ) all the wars which are taking place in the world, this is very difficult for me to accept.
K: No. Pupul, we are responsible—in the deepest sense of that word—for all the wars that are taking place. Why you don't feel our total responsibility for the wars, the brutality, the terrible things that are happening in the world? Why don't you feel totally responsible?
PJ: In what sense is one totally responsible?
K: My entire way of (self-centred) living, thinking and acting has contributed to the present state of the world. I have just asked this question ( for further meditative homework?) . Leave it for now.
PJ: Yes, let's probe into the Ground of Existence which is the 'Is'- ness of life. And the only way to probe is to move into oneself, whatever that means.
K: All right. Now, I can't 'enter into it' as an (independent ) 'observer', for I 'am' all that.
PJ: It's not even (necessary to) assume that 'I am it', for I uncover what I am. And in uncovering what I am, I comprehend the whole existence of mankind.
K: Yes, that's very simple.
PJ: So in this journey of (self-) uncovering, the superficial things are swept clean, but once the superficial is over, the room has been swept...
K: What does it mean—to have swept the room? Is this sweeping, or cleansing, or uncovering, a complete moving away from all the superficial reactions, superficial conditionings, and a trying to enter into the nature of the (the deeper) movement (of self-interest?) that conditions the human mind?
PJ: It is quite possible to sweep away the more obvious things, but the subtler things survive in corners which you have not been able to get to.
K: Yes, that's right. But, ( for starters?) let's go into the obvious things...
PJ: Like, for instance, ambition, greed or envy...
K: Yes, and ( also frustration & ) hatred. Can one really be free of hatred? Can one really wipe it away? Can one be free of all sense of aggression, all sense of enmity?
PJ: But hatred is different from the quality of aggressivity . Let's go into it a little, sir.
K: Aggressivity is related to hatred, because it's part of the same movement (of pursuing one's self-interest?) . An aggressive person inevitably hurts another, and that hurt breeds hatred.
PJ: Yes, that's why I say that there are the grosser things and there are the subtler things. ( Teritoriality &?) hatred may be that it is part of your ' make-up' as a human being.
K: Yes, (a survival-motivated response?) , and all the rest.
PJ: That's why I think the only way to move into this is to see that nothing is trivial.
K: Yes, nothing is trivial and that all (these self-centred) reactions, have their source in one's ( ages old cultural ?) conditioning. Now, does ( the necessary inner) watchfulness, which is (a choiceless?) awareness, need training? Does it need self- discipline? Discipline - in the general sense- is connected with training, with conformity, imitation, restraint.
PJ: So can we discard the word 'discipline', and put in the word 'diligence'?
K: 'To be (holistically?) diligent' means to be aware of what you are doing, to be aware of what you are thinking, to be aware of your reactions. And from those reactions, to observe the actions taking place. The very act of learning is ( providing?) its own discipline.
PJ: Yes. But how does the act of learning come to be? From where does the need for ( a diligent self-) observation arise?
K: For a very simple reason, namely, to see whether it's possible for a human mind to change itself, ( and implicitly) to change the world which is entering into such a ( psychologically?) 'catastrophic' area.
PJ: All right. If I start there, or if I start with sorrow—which is very often the (personal) ground from which one starts (a spiritual quest?)
K: Yes...
PJ: The ground is really sorrow. But I think we have moved away.
K: Yes, we started out with was an inquiry into the Origin, the (Creative) Ground, of all life. And to inquire into That, you have to inquire into yourself, because you are the expression of that. You are ( part of that Universal ) life.
PJ: Yes.
K: Now we are trying to discuss the origin of that, and I can only do that by understanding myself. Now, this 'myself' is a living complex; it is (presently?) a messy, disordered entity. So, how do we approach a problem that is complex, a problem that is not to be easily diagnosed?
PJ: Is it not through a quality of (holistic) attention that one finds disorder?
K: I said the world is in disorder. I observe it; I see that it is so. I begin with that.
PJ: Isn't it by becoming (inwardly) as simple as possible?
K: Yes, that's what I am trying to say.
PJ: And I have certain ( ready available) instruments of inquiry: eyes, ears, the other senses.
K: Yes, but you don't inquire with your physical ears or with your eyes. Do you mean the 'inward eye'? You must be more careful here, because it's misleading.
PJ: Is there any other ( experiential ) way?
K: Yes, I think there is.
PJ: For instance, how do you observe anger?
K: When you are angry, you look at the cause and the effect of anger.
PJ: Bu the word you just used is 'see'. You say that you see the nature of the mind...
K: Would it help if we talked about (an insightful) perception?
PJ: You mean, the act of being totally attentive?
K: What is the (insightful) action that's born out of complete attention? But to answer that question, one must first understand what we mean by complete attention - it means that there is no ( self-focussing?) 'centre' from which you are attending.
PJ: Now, unless I understand what ( the quality of non-dualistic) attention is, I can't even take the first step.
K: That's why I want to be clear. What does attention—to attend completely—mean?
PJ: To 'attend completely' implies that the 'I' not to be there.
K: Yes, that is the real thing. When there is ( total) attention, there is no 'I'. It is not the ( self-conscious?) state of ' I am attending', but only a state of mind which is wholly attentive.
PJ: With all the senses...
K: With all the senses and the whole body (& mind?) .
PJ: The whole being is 'awake', if I may say so.
K: Yes, you can use that word.
PJ: And if you are in that state when your being is awake, we can proceed from there.
K: Yes. The first step is to see clearly, to hear clearly.
PJ: But the 'I' is still there...
K: Yes, of course. I know that there is the ( subliminal division between the ) observer and the observed. But I am inquiring whether that ( division) is actually true. So far I have taken it for granted.
PJ: Obviously, sir, when I first start inquiring, I start from the ( very safe safe mental platform of the?) 'observer'.
K: Yes, I start with ( doubting the independent nature of the ?) 'observer' ; is there an observer separate from the (psychological content ) observed? If I understand the observer, then perhaps the (awakening brain?) may see the falseness of the division between the observer and the observed.
PJ: Who will see this ?
K: The ( experiential) point is not 'who' will see, but the (insightful) perception of what is true (and of what is false?) .
PJ: So, the seeing the truth regarding what is this (self-centred) 'observer' (entity?) is will end (the self-divisive mentality?)
K: Yes, that is what I have said a thousand times.
PJ: What I am saying is that a certain inner diligence or discipline is needed so that the inquiry is alive within one.
K: That ( direct perception of the truth or falseness of anything ?) does not need training.
PJ: I am not talking of training. But I cannot have an (insightful) understanding of what you say unless the mind is awake and is diligent about being awake. You cannot deny this.
K: No. It (the holistic mind?) has to be diligent; it has to be watchful; it has to be attentive, subtle, hesitant. It has to be all that. I can only inquire into myself through my reactions—the way I think, the way I act, the way I respond to the environment, the way I observe my relationship to another.
PJ: However, as I first observe myself, I may find these (psychological) responses and reactions are rapid, confused, (almost?) continuous.
K: I know; they are contradictory, and so on.
PJ: In the very observing, some ( free inner) space comes into being.
K: Yes, some space, some order.
PJ: And that's just the beginning, sir.
K: Pupul, I would like to ask a ( time-free?) question. Is it necessary to go through all this? Is it necessary to watch my actions, to watch my reactions, my responses? Is it necessary to observe, diligently, my relationship with another? Must I go through all this?
PJ: There has to be (some free inner) space just in order to listen to anything like that. How does that 'space' arise if it's not necessary to go through all this?
K: I think that it may not be necessary.
PJ: Then show me how.
K: I'll show it to you : let's call, for the moment your' diligent watching' of your reactions, the analytical process of inquiry. Now, this analytical, self-investigative process, this constant watching, ( any spiritually inclined?) man has obviously done for thousands of years. Suppressing , substituting , transcending —all that is within that same ( self-centred?) framework. My question is : Must I go through all this? Is it really necessary, is it imperative, is it essential, that I go through all this?
PJ: No, but are you trying to say that out of the middle of 'chaos' you can leap to a state of total 'non-chaos'?
K: I won't put it that way. I am saying that humanity has gone through this process. It has been along the same (self-centred) pattern of our existence— some have gone through the process more diligently, sacrificing everything, inquiring, analysing, searching, and so on. You do this too, and at the end of it all you may be just a dead entity.
PJ: No, it may not be so.
K: 'May not' be. You see, Pupul, very few got out of it.
PJ: Yes, but if you are saying that this whole process is not necessary, then show me the other option .
K: I'll show it to you. But first ( one has to?) 'step out' of the ( old self-centred mentality?) .
PJ: But then...what is meant by 'step out of it'?
K: I'll tell you what I mean. (For starters ?) to perceive that man has tried this process of self-introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow his mind is not clear at the end of it. (Then?) I see that somehow this (time-consuming ?) movement is in fact very, very shallow. Now, can you listen to ( the truth of?) that statement—that the whole process is shallow—actually see the truth of it? If you do, it means that your (previously) disorderly mind is now quiet in 'listening' to find out (the truth of the matter?) . Once you see the truth of this, you are out of it. It's like putting away something ( which was proved to be?) utterly meaningless.
Let me put it another way. My mind is disorderly. My whole life is disorderly. You come along and say, 'Be diligent; be watchful of your actions, of your thoughts, of your relationship'. 'Be watchful all the time'. And I say that that's obviously impossible because my ( survival oriented) mind won't allow me to be diligent all the time. It is not diligent; it is negligent, and I struggle (or toggle?) between these two.
PJ: But do you mean to say, Krishnaji, that a mind which is not capable of observing...
K: I am talking about a ( holistically inclined?) mind that's willing to listen (to the inner truth of it?)
PJ: But, do you really think the ( average 'time-bound'?) mind can be in that state of listening?
K: That's simple : you just listen (openly & non-personally?) to the 'story' that I am telling you. If you are interested, your mind is naturally quiet; you are eager to see what the story is about and so on.
PJ: Sorry, sir, it doesn't happen that way.
K: I'm asking you now, Pupul, to listen to what I am saying.
PJ: And...I listen.
K: Wait, wait. I am going to explain what I mean by 'listening' - not only ( the verbally oriented?) listening with the sensory ear, but the listening with the ( mind's?) ear that has no movement. That is really listening. Now, when you listen, completely, without any ( self-centred mental) movement, to a man who comes along and says, 'Don't go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial', what takes place? If you 'hear the truth' of his statement, what takes place? What actually takes place when you see something really true?
PJ:Yes, but you are talking of a mind which is already mature. Such a mind, while listening to a statement like this...
K: You see, Pupul, we have made our minds so ( hedonistically?) immature that we are incapable of 'listening' (or 'attending' completely?) to anything.
PJ: But you see, Krishnaji, you start by making these things 'impossible'.
K: Of course. But 'seeing the truth' has a tremendous ( spiritual impact) ...
PJ: But where can I find the (intelligent) energy necessary to deal with an impossible thing? What is the (necessary quality of a ) mind in order to deal with an impossible statement like that? What is that mind?
K: It's very 'simple' (Creation-wise?) : that which is utterly impossible is non-existent ( 'non-manifested'?) . We ( usually ?) think that everything is possible...
PJ: Again, you start with the 'impossible'.
K: (With great energy) Of course, I start with the impossible, Pupul, otherwise... Pupul, what is possible? Man has done everything that's possible. Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find ( within himself?) the ( creative) Origin of all things. Man has done all that has been 'possible', and that has led nowhere. That's what I am saying— the 'possibility' has led to certain material benefits—social, and so on. But it has also led to a great deal of ( residual inner) misery for mankind. So, this (K) man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and, therefore, time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just scratching the surface – which may be the most pleasant and ennobling thing—but it's just the surface (of our Existence) . If you actually feel 'in your blood' - as it were—that this ( spiritual approach) is false, you will have already stepped out of the ordinary into something that is extra-ordinary.
PJ: And if I put aside the other ?
K: Which means—what? That the ( subliminally self-centred?) movement of diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If that is false, it's gone. So what has happened to the mind—the mind that has been caught in diligent inquiry and so on, all of which is time-bound, and has been seen to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? It is a 'fresh' mind. It is a totally 'new mind'. And such a mind is necessary to inquire into, to uncover the Origin (of All Creation) .
PJ: Yes, I can see that all that which you have talked about is the movement of ( self-) becoming.
K: That's right. All that is the perpetuation of the 'self' (-identified consciousness?) in a different form, in a different ('safety?) net' of words. You see, when I start out to uncover the (inward) Source—it is for me, a passion to uncover the origin of all life. When there is that uncovering of Origins, then my life, my actions—everything—is different.
PJ: With you, sir, the whole movement of the 'dormant' (parts of human consciousness?) has ended.
K: That is, (the self-centred ?) 'diligence' has ended. Becoming has ended...
|Back to Top
Not a member yet? Create an Account