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

Holistic Education

Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 305 in total
Wed, 27 Sep 2017 #1
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

This is definitely the challenge for the education of the future- both for the educators and for those who are supposed to be educated. I would just like to start a serious dialogue with the proposition that any all-comprehensive education should be developped around the concept of an authentic self-knowledge - and in the context of the K Teachings we can find a lot of practical aspects and clues

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Thu, 28 Sep 2017 #2
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline

I just spent a number of days with two children, one 5 and one 3 years old. And thinking about this subject of education for them and others. I don't know about K. schools, a little about Montessori and more about Waldorf ((Steiner). As for the effects of those on my children, now grown, I don't know of any, or can't see anything really different about how they developed except that they are both quite 'decent', caring people and quite creative in their own ways. How much of that is attributable to their education, I have no idea. But with these two little ones, what would be best for them to help bring about a harmonious development? I think 'awareness' is important: awareness of body, of movement, of color and form, of music, of dance ('sacred' and 'profane') , creative sensory awareness...I was with another granddaughter age 7 a while ago and sitting talking after breakfast one morning, she announced that she was "bored". So I half jokingly said "well let's just sit and be 'bored' together." That lasted a few minutes and then she said "you don't understand, children like to have fun and do things." OK but perhaps a class on 'boredom' might be an interesting see what it is all about,this so-called state that is so objectionable and which everyone seems to avoid like the plague. A 20 or 30 minute class that is totally boring. And discuss it. What does it mean: "I'm bored". Could have a positive effect to at least know what we're always running away from.

This post was last updated by Dan McDermott Thu, 28 Sep 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 01 Oct 2017 #3
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline

K:" When you feel responsible, you feel responsible for education of your children, not only your children ? children. Are you educating them to conform to a society, are you educating them to merely acquire a job? Are you educating them to the continuity of what has been? Are you educating them to live in abstractions, as we are doing now? So what is your responsibility as a father, mother, it doesn't matter who you are, responsible in education, for the education of a human being. That's one problem. What is your responsibility, if you feel responsible, for human growth, human culture, human goodness? What's your responsibility to the earth, to nature ? you follow? It is a tremendous thing to feel responsible"

Conversation with Alan Anderson

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #4
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
But does one SEE that one IS attached? CAN one deliberately detach oneself?

K spoke quite a lot about detachment. His idea was that it was not the way. Quite the contrary, he thought one should be vigorously engaged with every aspect of life . . . vigorously and intelligently.

When I really understood what letting go of all attachments meant I saw that I was not willing to do it so I looked at the 'will' involved. Okay, I could see how I was uselessly attached to material things here and there, to ways of doing things, to expectations and so on, and the seeing of that is a constant thing one can do. One can be attentive to it all the time, so long as the tendency to attach remains one can be alert to it and to the dangers. But attachment to people? To friends, family, to one's children?

The easiest thing for most of us is to give up nationalism and religion. But look more carefully because we can condemn such attachments rather glibly, especially to the extent we do not ourselves have them. Easy to preach giving up nationalism when one is not a nationalist etc.

But will you give up your children, your partner? And how about ones ideas? The idea that one should detach is also rather persuasive if you are looking for the golden key to freedom and then it becomes a symbolic hope.

Why did the Buddha never vacuum? Because he lacked the attachments.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #5
Thumb_leaping_fire_frog_by_sirenofchaos natarajan shivan India 1 post in this forum Offline

As I see, Paul's larger point was on why such insight's reflected by ideas are not prompting an action, but instead circling around it by mutually cancelling out all opposing value systems and courting a position of 'nothingness'. A natural progression to action which the situation calls for is what is expected to follow.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #6
Thumb_dm Dan McDermott United States 10 posts in this forum Offline

As long as the model is thought of as an 'attacher' and that which h/she is 'attached to', the deeper 'problem' is missed. That is, that there is no real duality here. The 'self' is its attachments. The 'self' can't 'detach' itself and become 'free'. The 'self' is the absence of freedom. It's not a matter of giving up this or that but of a 'dying' to the 'center', to the 'I' process which is behind the 'me' and the 'mine'. 'Personal' freedom is a myth, as I see it.

Sign in to recommend  This post has been recommended by 1 reader
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #7
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline

Huguette . wrote:
Does the ending of attachment mean that one no longer cares about loved ones?

I think the question deserves a serious consideration. First, what does the question imply . . . that one has "loved ones" which means special ones to love. Why is ones love then different for "loved ones" than for anyone else? What makes one person special to one while others are not if it is not attachment? This is a serious question which one has to go into. I hop-e you realise just how serious it is.

Huguette . wrote:
Attachment is not love, is it?

Quite so, but then is having "loved ones" actually love or attachment? It begs an answer, doesn't it? You can't have it both ways. The Jesus story attempted to get to grips with this when it had Jesus ask, "Who is my mother?"

Huguette . wrote:
My dependency on being “properly” reflected by the behaviour and achievements of my children is attachment, as I see it. I might believe it's love, but is it?

Your points are very clear here, Huguette, and I appreciate that, Thanks. A child is dependent on its parents or carers, right? But the parent also becomes unnaturally and psychologically dependent on the child and his/her outcomes. In fact the child has become a projection of the parent, or an extension of them, their desire to achieve, by proxy. But leave that aside for a moment. The child grows up and becomes independent. S/he can find and define his/her own means of existence now. What is the relationship between child and parent then? Is it not adult to adult? Well, it could be but we need the child to remain a child so that we remain the parent, even when he or she is way into adulthood, old age even, they are still "my child." We never quite allow our children to grow up because we fear losing the relationship of dependency and it is cross-generational, both the child and the parent enjoy the game.

But I am asking a slightly different question: Why do we have a 'special love' for one or two? Is it merely a repetition of the roles we have learned?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 06 Oct 2017 #8
Thumb_screen_shot_2017-04-11_at_14 Paul David son Brazil 8 posts in this forum Offline

Dan McDermott wrote:
The 'self' can't 'detach' itself and become 'free'. The 'self' is the absence of freedom.

Correct . . . or maybe it is 'freedom to circulate within a circle.' K takes a very radical position in opposition to most philosophy when he denies that freedom can be circumscribed. He said that freedom is not relative. The suggestion is that it is either absolute or it is nothing. Take 'freedom of speech' as an example. But he also says that to be free does not mean to be without relationship. I cannot say that I agree with K but I do recognise the radical thrust of his argument.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Oct 2017 #9
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

This is perhaps the only 'first & last step' in any approach to a holistic education rightfully deserving its name :


K: One can see that ( the self-centred process of?) thought has built the "me" , ( which is then generating its own temporal
continuity as ?) the past (personal & collective memory?) which passing through the present and modifies itself as the future. It is ( a mental entity ?) put together by thought, and which has become independent of thought. That "me" identifies ( itself?) with the name and with the (physical) form, and with the ideals which it wants to pursue. Also with the desire to change the "me" into another form of "me", with another name. This "me" is the (by) product of time and of thought, ( constantly identifying itself with nice sounding ?) words - remove the words, what is ( left of ?) the "me"?

But ( our self-identified way thinking presents an inconvenient ?) this "me" as well as 'you', suffers. Deep down this "me" ( mental entity ?) is moving in the Stream of (collective) Selfishness, of greed , fears, anxiety and so on - please see the truth of it. That is the (vast consciousness) Stream in which we are all caught - while we are living - and when the physical organism dies, this stream of selfishness goes on.

Suppose I have lived a very common selfish life, with the importance of my desires, ambitions, greed, envy, the accumulation of property, the accumulation of knowledge, the accumulation of all kinds of things which I have gathered - all of which I have ( globally ?) termed as "selfishness". So while we are living, we are flowing ( and interacting?) in this Stream of ( collective?) selfishness. This is a ( basic psychical?) fact - if you observe ( non-personally?) you will see it, whether you go to America, to India, or all over Europe, modified by the environmental pressures and so on, but basically that is the movement. And when the ( physical) body dies, this movement goes on... That stream is ( generically called?) 'time'. That is the (basic) movement of ( the self-centred human thought) which has created the "me" from which (in its turn has) asserted itself as being an independent (thinking entity ?) , dividing itself from 'you'; but this "me" is an 'imagined' structure of thought. In itself it has no reality, except that ( our thinking brain?) has invested in it all its ( hopes for continuity and ?) certainty. While we are living we are being ( unconsciously) carried in that stream, and when we die that Stream ( of collective thought - time?) does still exists.

Is it possible for that Stream - with all its (interior) decorations, with all its ( mental) subtleties - to come totally to an end ( here & now ?) ? This is the 'ending of time'. Therefore after this ending, there is ( the actual possibility of?) a totally different ( psychical ?) manifestation which is: no selfishness at all.
When there is suffering, is there a "you" and "me"? Or there is only the factor of suffering ? Do you know what it does when you realize that? Out of that non-personalised suffering, comes ( is born?) a tremendous sense of Compassion.
So I have got this ( major existential?) problem as a (responsible?) human being : knowing that I exist in this stream of selfishness, can that movement of ( thought & ) time, come totally to an end - both at the conscious as well as at the deep levels?

Now, how will you ( experientially?) find out whether you, who are ( un-consciously ) caught in this Stream of (Collective?) Selfishness, and whether you can completely 'step out' of it? - which is the 'ending of ( thought created?) 'time' . Can you, living in this world, that (our self-centred?) thought has made, the dictatorships, the totalitarian authority, the destruction of human minds, destruction of the earth, the animals, everything man touches he destroys, including his wife or husband. Now can you live in this world no longer being caught in that stream of selfishness ?
You see there are many more things involved in this mystery called 'death' : is there a possibility of ending suffering in that world of reality?

( For meditation homework:) Think about it. Look at it. Don't say yes, or no. Find out if there is an ending of suffering in the world of reality - which is the full significance of 'ending time'- to bring about order in the world of reality, in the world of everyday relationships, of action, of rational thinking, of fear and pleasure. So can one, while living in the world of reality as we are, end selfishness? You know it is a very complex thing to end ( the personal attachments to this collective stream of ?) selfishness, it isn't just, "I won't think about myself".... This selfishness in the field of reality is creating chaos. And ( since) you are the world and the world is you, if you change deeply you ( also ?) can affect the whole Consciousness of Mankind.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 22 Nov 2017 #10
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline



B: Could we ask why there is (this strong tendency of self-) identification, why is it that this is so prevalent?

K: Why does thought identify ?

B: With sensation and other things.

K: Why is there identification with something?

B: Specially with sensation.

N: If I can't identify even with my (psychosomatic) sensations, I have nothing else to identify with.

K: So why do you give importance to sensation (to the sensory responses?) ?

B: Isn't there a (hidden?) duality involved in this identification? Could we make it more clear ?

K: In identification, as you pointed out sir, there is the duality between the 'identifier' and the 'identified'.
But I'd really want to find out in talking over together, is there an action in which the 'self' ( interest ) is not (involved) ? Which means, the mind has to find out an action which has no cause, which means no motive, an action which is not the result of a ( previous) series of causes and effects. If that ( karmic causation?) exists, our action is always (time-) bound, chained. So is there such a ( time -free?) action?

B: Well, it seems to me we can't find it (experientially) as long as we are identifying.

K: That's right. That's why I said as long as ( a personal or collective ?) 'identification' exists, one can't find the answer.

B: But why does thought identify? Is it an irresistible ( biological tendency ?) or is that just something you can ( 'happily and freely'?) put aside?

K: I don't know if this (tendency of self-identification?) is irresistible, or if it is part of (the pleasure/pain factor of ?) sensation.

B: You think that sensation is behind that?

K: It may (well?) be but let's investigate why have sensations become so important in our (everyday) life - sexual sensations, the sensation of power, whether political or economic, or (tressful?) sensations induced by the pressures of (our social & economic?) environment, why has thought yielded to this pressure?

B: Does sensation necessarily produce a (psychological?) pressure?

K: It does when it is ( self-) identified. Now, what do we mean by sensation - the operation of the senses - touching, tasting, seeing, smelling, hearing.

B: The sensory experience that happens (there &) then; but also the (personal ?) memory of it.

K: The ( personal?) memory is ( recorded & stored ?) only when there is an (ongoing?) (self-) identification.

B: I agree, yes.

K: When there is no ( self-) identification the senses are senses. But why does ( the self-centred?) thinking identify itself with senses?

B: Yes, that is not yet clear.

K: We are going to make it clear. When one is seeing a beautiful lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only the (visual) seeing by the eye, but also the ( other) senses are awakened, the 'smell' of the water, the trees on the lake...and the other senses start operating. Why doesn't it stop there?

B: What is the next step?

K: The next step is : thought comes in - 'How beautiful that is, I wish I could remain here longer' .

B: So thought 'identifies' it.

K: Yes, because in that there is ( a possibility for time-stretching the sensation that brought us?) pleasure. Then ( our self-centred?) thought coming into operation saying, "I must have more, I should build a house here, it ( the comforting sense of pleasure will be forever ?) mine".

B: But why does thought do that?

K: Why does thought interfere with senses ? Now wait a minute, sir. Until the moment the senses take in the (rewarding sensation of) 'pleasure', ( the egocentric ?) thought doesn't enter. Right? So, why does thought enter? If it is a pleasurable ( a stimulating sensation?) , when the senses begin to enjoy then thought begins to identify itself with it .

B: But why ?

K: Why, because of ( the rewarding?) pleasure.

B: But why doesn't it give it up when it sees how futile this is?

K: Oh, that's much later. Only ( later on?) when it becomes aware that this identification ( or strong attachment?) breeds both pleasure and fear, then it begins to start questioning.

B: Well, are you saying that thought has made a simple (honest?) mistake in the beginning, a kind of innocent mistake?

K: That's right. Thought has made a (karmic?) mistake in identifying itself with ( the mental image of?) something that brings to it pleasure.

B: And then it (keeps thinking about it?) to make it 'permanent', perhaps ?

K: Permanent, that's right, which means ( processing and storing it in its 'personal'?) memory. A remembrance of the lake with the daffodils and the trees and the water and sunlight, and all the rest of it.

B: I understand thought has make a mistake and later it discovers that mistake, but it seems to be too late because it doesn't know how to stop (the unconscious recording/remembering mechanism?) .

K: It is now 'conditioned' ( self-programmed ?) .

B: So, why it cannot give it up later ?

K: Why it cannot give it up. That's our whole ( existential ?) problem.

B: Can we try to make it more clear ?

K: Why doesn't thought give up something when it becomes aware of being painful?

B: Yes.

K: Let's take a simple (in class?) example: psychologically one's (personal image ) is hurt.

B: Well that is coming later.

K: I am taking that as a (scholastic ) example : one's (self-identified 'image'?) is getting hurt, why can't one immediately give up ( the personal recording of ?) that hurt, knowing that ( keeping that memory of ?) hurt is going to create a great deal of ( psychological ?) damage (like) Building (or updating the existing 'fire-) wall' round myself not to be hurt anymore, the result is self isolation, neurotic actions, all that follows.
( Recap : ) Thought has (already) created an 'image' about myself, and that image gets hurt. Why doesn't ( my thoughtful?) thinking say, "Yes, by Jove, I have seen this", and drop it immediately ? Because when it drops the self-image there is nothing left (to live for?) .

B: So, we have another (active ) ingredient because thought wants to hold on to the memory of its (self- protective) image.

K: Hold on to the ( personal?) memories which have created this ( self-) image.

B: So, thought feels they are very precious.

K: Yes, they are very precious, nostalgic and all the rest of it.

B: So somehow it gives a very high value to all that. How did it come to do that?

K: Why has it made the ('self-) image' so valuable ?
Sir, if thought gives up (all its memories of happiness , pain & ?) pleasure , what is there left?

B: ( But it also would have the opportunity ?) to return to the state it had in the beginning when there was nothing.

K: Ah, that is the 'pristine' state.

B: So, it seems (unwilling and/or?) unable to return to that ( original) state ?

K: It can't because ( all the attachments & identifications of?) thought & the rest of it.

B: Well, when thought thinks of giving up a pleasure which has become very precious, then the mere thinking about that ( eventuality is ?) painful.

K: Yes, the 'giving up' is ( psychologically resented as) painful.

B: And therefore thought simply discards this (experiential option)

K: Yes, so it clings to ( seeking a new?) pleasure.

B: It does not wish to face the pain (of losing everything?) .

K: ( Foresees the possibility that ?) it has nothing else then afterwards, then it is frightened.

B: But you see in the beginning it was not frightened to have nothing else.

K: In the beginnings of man ?

B: Yes.

K: Can we question even that? The beginnings of the ( 'sapiens'?) ape ?

B: It has been going on for a long, long time, but thought has built this ( psychological) trap, which has gradually got worse.

K: Sir, as all our brains are very old - merely tracing it back further and further and further, you can never find out. But I can take my brain as it is now - deeply conditioned in terms of pleasure and pain.

B: They (the Science Guys?) say the old brain is also the emotional product of the brain.

K: Of course, emotional and all the rest of it, sensory. So where are we now?

B: Well, we say this brain has conditioned itself by continual memory of the image of pleasure, the unpleasantness of giving it up and the fear.

K: So it clings (instinctively?) to something which it knows.

B: ... and which is very precious to it.

K: But it doesn't know that it is ( eventually?) going to breed fear (sorrow & other collateral damage?) .

B: Even when it knows this (rationally) it still clings ( subliminally?) .

K: It would rather run away from this (compounded sorrow &?) fear hoping the pleasure will continue.

B: Eventually it starts to become irrational because it creates ( compensatory psychological ?) pressures which make the brain irrational and unable to 'think straight'.

K: So (to recap :) we started off with : Is there an action in which there is no motive, no cause, where the self doesn't enter into it at all? Of course there is... but only when the 'self' (consciousness?) is not (active?) , which means no ( self-) identifying process takes place. There is the ( pure) perceiving of that beautiful ( Swiss?) lake with all the colour and the glory and the beauty of it, that's enough. Not the cultivating of ( a recyclable personal ?) memory, which is developed through the identification process. Right?

B: This raises the question, how are we going to stop this identification?

K: I don't think there is a 'how' ( a 'fool-proof' procedure to be followed ?) such as practicing self-control & meditation since ( following ) that way makes the mind mechanical, dull (unperceptive & ) incapable of ( experientially) receiving anything new.

Dr Schloegel: If it just imitates, this is precisely what happens.

K: What do you mean 'imitation'?

S: To make it very simple : if you tell me : if three times a day you will sit down quietly and relax , something good will happen to you ; and if I do not question it, if I just do it mechanically... nothing will happen, I will get only more and more fuzzy (or ...more conceited?) . But if I enquire into it why, what for, what is my reaction...

K: You see our minds have been made mechanical. Can't we investigate why we have become mechanical, rather than practice that which is non-mechanical, which may become (still more subtly ?) mechanical.

S: We can, since there have been people who have become 'whole' before us...

K: I don't know (anything about them?) . I start with myself. I don't look to somebody who is ( presumably ?) enlightened. They may deceive themselves.

S: This is why I am trying to find...

K: So one must start with oneself. It (the 'pathless approach'?) is ( at least ...theoretically?) so 'simple', whereas the other ('followable' ones?) lead to so many complications.

S: I do not necessarily see it as a 'complication'. If I have an idea that there is something in my life that is more than my illusion, my suffering, my general state of dissatisfaction in which I am and which I have to face, if I do not think that there is any possibility (to reach it?) then I might not even try. If I see that there might be a possibility, I do not need to take it for truth, but it gives me the sense that it is worthwhile trying to work with myself as my own subject of experiment, to work it out.

K: Why do you want a 'motive' (a personal incentive?) ?
I just want to know ( who or?) 'what' I am, not according to anybody else . So I begin to enquire, I begin to look in the 'mirror' (of my everyday relationships). This (non-personal?) mirror says : your reactions are these, and as long as you have these ( self-interest based?) reactions you are going to suffer. So how am I to bring about this (non-personal quality of?) observation in which there is no motive to restrain, or to expand (redirect my ?) reactions?

S: Yes... ?

K: How am I to observe myself without a ( self-interest motivated?) cause? The cause generally is ( the expectation of a) reward ( and the avoidance of?) punishment . Which is obviously how a dog is being trained. So can't I look at myself without any ( temporal ?) motivation ?

S: At the ( beginner's) stage of enquiry, when I just 'try to do it', I may find that I cannot do it, I am too conditioned ( to the 'duality paradox' of the 'observer' trying to observe... 'himself' ?)

K: No, I wouldn't admit that. You are always asking for help.

S: Not necessarily. I can learn slowly to look those things that normally I do not like to see in myself.

K: I understand that madam. I have no muscles to do certain exercises, in a week's time I have those muscles by doing exercises. That same mentality is carried over - I don't know myself but I will gradually learn about myself.

S: It is not that I need to gradually learn about myself, it is only that I have to develop the strength to bear myself.

K: The same mental operation goes on psychologically, 'I am weak' but 'I must become strong'.

S: When one gets oneself into a critical state it is in the very suffering and looking (at its causes?) that there is a changing factor that 'makes it possible'.

K: Which is again gradual, evolution. If I may point out, that will lead nowhere, that is an illusion. Either you have insight immediately, or you don't have it.

S: Yes, that is true but...

K: Ah, ( for this Insight ) there is no preparation, the moment you allow time it is the cultivation of the 'self' ( leading to a more 'insightful' self?) .

S: Not necessarily. But if I expect to gain something out of it , this is certainly a cultivation of the self.

K: Madam, we said just now (non-authoritatively... ?) that 'insight is devoid of time and memory'. Insight is timeless, it must happen. 'You' can't gradually come to it, it is not a thing cultivated by thought. So to have a (complete ?) insight into oneself instantly, is that possible?

S: From my own conviction and experience, yes, it is possible.

K: That means if one has ( such a total?) insight, that insight wipes away the 'self', not momentarily. So would you say your action then is without motive? Do you know such action - not occasionally, but living an everyday life?
Is there such an action born of insight?

R: If you have insight, there is no exception, all your actions are without motive.

K: Forgive me - are we talking theoretically or actually?

R: Actually.

K: That means your action is correct, accurate, right throughout your life ?

R: Yes. There is no self, there is no motive if you have that insight. Every action...

K: But...have 'you' got that insight into the whole nature of the self ? And therefore, if there is an insight through the self then action will inevitably follow from that insight.

S: May I make one point clear ? It is not that 'I' have the insight, but there is that insight.

K: So, what were we talking about?

R: There is another question also dealing with Intelligence. Perhaps you are aware of this theory - that we think in a particular language. Thought itself has no language, but the thought is immediately interpreted (by the brain and ASAP translated ? ) into the nearest ( available?) language.

K: Sir, could you convey your thought to me without (using) words?

R: That depends on the level (of the listener?) .

K: Which means what?

R: I don't know whether you had that experience, without talking, without words, there is ( a direct, mind-to-mind?) communication.

K: That is, sir, there can only be such a 'communion', when you and I are on the same level (of inner integration?) , and with the same intensity, at the same time. Then the words are not necessary. Now, what is the quality of that state (of shared communion?) the perfume of it ? Wouldn't you call that Love?
When that quality of Love (integration with All That Is?) exists, words become unnecessary. There is 'instant communication'.

( But as of?) now, most of our minds are ( mentally ) conditioned by ( the traditional meanings of our particular?) language, which is, the words drive us, force us (to think along well trodden patterns?) . ( EG:) 'I am an Englishman' – (conveys the whole socio-cultural ?) content of that language. Right? Now, if we use ( the same English ) words without the ( traditional 'thinking patterns' of this ?) language directing us, our words then would have an entirely different meaning.

B: I think that ordinarily we are ( getting subliminally?) identified with our language and therefore it is driving us, but if we are free of identification...

K: That's right, sir, It is extraordinary how language has made us (think & behave?) . 'I am a communist'.

B: That's a ( rather superficial?) identification. But do you think that language is the major source of our (self-) identification ?

K: One of them...

B: One of the big ones ?

K: Yes.

R: I would like to remind here of a very important Mahayana Buddhist philosophical attitude : It is said ''the ordinary man is stuck in words just like an elephant in the mud''.

K: Are you?

R: Are you asking me personally?

K: Yes. Are you, am I, or is Dr.Bohm driven by language?

R: That I can't see. You answer it !

K: I can answer for myself, but I am asking you.

R: You can answer only for yourself.

K: Absolutely.

R: That's enough.

N: I think that the more 'scholarly' one becomes in language, there is a great possibility of being caught in your own ( patterns of?) language.

R: Yes.

N: Whereas the rustic might just use it for simple communication.

K: Sir, that was your ( personal) question?

B: You once asked the question, 'Is there a thought without the word?'

K: That is very interesting, sir, shall we go into it a little bit? Do you want to go into it, sir (R) ?

R: I think thought has no word. Thought is (using mental ?) images.

K: We are using ( holistically this term ?) 'word' in the sense of the symbol, the image, the picture, ( and also the literal) word.

B: You see, the words can easily be turned into an 'image', for example, by an artist, a verbal description can be turned by an artist into a (visual) image, or vice versa, the image could be described and turned into words. So they have an equivalent content.

K: Sir, what is the origin of thought? If you had to find it out or... otherwise your head will be chopped off, what will you do ? Please sir, answer that (capital?) question.

R: Is there an origin?

K: In your (own brain?) sir, what is the origin?

R: No origin. It is a wrong way of looking at it, by just asuming that everything must have a beginning.

K: How did thought begin ( biologically speaking?) ? With the animals, everything that is living, they all 'think' in various ways, or 'feel', and so on - there must be a beginning of that. What is ( the origin of?) that (animal thinking?) in human beings.

B: Are you discussing about a thinking without (self-) identification?

K: No, sir. How did ( this self-centred?) thinking begin in myself? Was it handed down by my father, by my parents, by education, by environment, by the past? I want to know. What made me 'think'?

R: You are putting some ( temporal) cause behind it, but I would say, nothing made me think, thinking is in the very nature of yourself. There is no other cause.

K: Oh yes there is. I'll show you.

R: What is that?

K: If I had no memory, would there be thinking?

R: Then, I could ask you again, what is the origin of memory?

K: That's fairly simple to answer (empirically?) . I remember seeing you a few years ago in Paris : that is being recorded, isn't it? And then I say, yes, I recognize you. How does this recognition take place? Very simple : the brain has recorded that memory of meeting you and recorded your name. So that is sored in my ( short term?) memory, and when I meet you next time I may 'recognize' you (or...not?) . It is so simple.

R: It is not so clear to me. Let us admit it is recorded, how does that record come up when we meet next year?

K: When I see you again, that memory comes up and says, Oh, he is Mr. Rahula. And the recording is ( conveniently associated with a personal ) 'image', pleasurable or not pleasurable. And... if it is not pleasurable I say, ' Oh, what a bore !'. So this whole process is being recorded. No?

R: Certainly it is so, but the recording is not in the (physical) brain. It is in the nature of what we call generally the 'mental faculty'. That is one possibility.

K: It is the faculty of the brain to record.

R: It is not the 'physical' brain. That is my point.

N: You are saying that this 'mind faculty' is spread all over the body, not necessarily in the head?

R: Our mental faculty is one of the ( inner ) sense organs - there are five physical sense organs, but this 'mind faculty' has many, many aspects, many potentialities; one of them is the memory. Now, what I wanted to clarify from you is how does it happen, and of course you begin with this ( 18-th century) idea of the recording in the brain, and with which I disagree.

K: Sir, suppose I meet you today and I see you a week later. There is the process of (mental) recognition. All right. That's one part of the faculty. The other part of the faculty is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, faculties which are made up in the mind. However, you cannot have 'mind' without the 'brain'.

R: Agreed, without the physical existence you can't have the mind.

K: That's all. Therefore the mind ( the spatio-temporal consciousness?) is part of the senses, the mind is part of the thought, emotions, certain faculties and so on.

B: Are you saying 'mind' is only thought, or is it more than thought as well?

K: I don't want to say that (yet?) . I'd only say the human mind (aka : 'consciousness'?) as long as it is functioning within the field of thought is limited.

B: You mean our consciousness, the mind is that ?

K: Yes, ( our self-) consciousness is limited.

B: We say it is limited by these faculties, wherever they are.

K: Yes, that's right, 'whatever they are'.

B: But as far as recognition goes, you can recognize a lot of things already by means of a computer.

S: And yet, if I have met you just for a moment, and there was not a sufficient (mental -) 'impact' of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by and not recognize you.

B: That's the other point, you see, it has to be recorded with some energy.

S: That is what I mean, there must be sufficient energy.

K: All recording must have energy.

R: And many things that we see and hear we don't remember, only things that leave a certain impression.

B: You see I think it is fairly clear how the record could give rise to a recognition from the next experience. The next time you see the person the record (the image recognition?) is compared with.

R: It 'comes back', exactly like the computer.

K: So our brains are computers.

R: Why do you only say brain, why not the whole body, whole heart, without heart can you think?

K: Therefore the 'mind' (the totality of our consciousness?) contains the brain, the feelings, the heart, the whole structure.

B: All the nerve centres.

K: We are using the 'mind' as 'consciousness', which is I cannot have consciousness if the heart doesn't function.

R: That is why I used the word 'mental faculty' instead of the mind, or consciousness, the word faculty embracing, involving all that department.

K: What do you mean by ' mental faculty', sir?

B: To have some capacity and ability – the capacity to do something.

K: No, sir, the 'ability' to do something depends on knowledge. If I didn't know how to play the piano, that is learnt it...

R: No, excuse me, sir, you are going away from the point. I said the 'mind faculty' -( aka : the 'mind' ) has the power, the capacity, the potentiality, to do all that. And this faculty is inborn.

K: I won't accept the mind has the inborn faculty...

B: think ?

K: The mind is the 'active energy' to do all this.

B: I think the infant has this 'ability to think' already built into him because of the heredity.

K: How has this 'built in' come into being?

B: By growing in the same way that our visual faculty developped .

K: Which means, by evolution ?

B: Evolution, yes.

K: Which means that right from the beginning it has evolved until we are now greater ( superior?) monkeys. Sorry!

R: I question that. When you say we are evolved from the monkey, you took for granted Darwin's theory.

K: We have evolved from the 'imperfect man' ; or 'not evolved' from the perfect man. We are going down the hill instead of up the hill, or we are going uphill, therefore we are imperfect man.

B: I wonder if we (really) want to discuss all these ( speculative?) things, they are really details that are not certain.

R: That is why I object to that statement about the monkey evolving. We don't know.

K: I don't know sir, I don't know how we have evolved but I do know this very simple fact : without recording there is no thought.

R: That means that thought is (just the mechanical response of our ?) memory ?

K: Of course. Thought 'is' memory, which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up, and when it is challenged it operates.

B: Well we have also said that thought is the ability to reason logically, along with the ( past knowledge stored in?) memory, all that together. All that is what you have called ('mental) faculties'.

R: Yes, I used that word because it uses a bigger field.

B: But you are saying it still depends on memory. And without memory none of the other ( mental) faculties could operate ?

K: Of course. Without recording there is no thought. So what is the beginning of this conditioning? Why does man condition himself (mentally?) ? For security, to avoid danger? Obviously. I ( choose to?) believe in Christ which gives me a certain sense of ( moral) strength to face this appalling thing, the world, so it gives me great comfort. That's all. It gives me an inner sense of security in an insecure world, ' the Father (or the Son?) is looking after me'. So the instinctual response of a human being is to feel secure, like a child, sir, the baby must have a sense of physical security, it must have food at the right times, at the right hour, and all the rest of it. Nothing wrong with that. Then, (as we grow up?) from that (basic need for ) physical security we turn to the 'psychological' security, which ( the belief in?) Christ gives me, or I can find comfort in some other illusion. You have (found ) your security in something, I have found my security in something else and so on. But each one of us 'clings' (or identifies with?) our own particular form of security, whether it is reasonable, sane, rational, that doesn't matter.

B: It seems to me that it is similar to the 'pleasure' question, that is, you first register the ( rewarding) feeling of pleasure and then try to 'build it up' (optimise or diversify it ?)

K: I can't let go of Christ, I say, 'my God, I can't'.

B: It is the same with pleasure, you can't give up ( your particular?) pleasure.

K: Of course, of course, the same problem.

S: I think it is even harder with pleasure because people nowadays can change ( switch their ) religion without too much difficulty, but we are much against giving up our ( personal?) pleasures when it really comes to it.

K: Ah, well that's a different matter altogether. Physical pleasure...

S: Or the 'pleasures' of the mind.

K: Of course.

R: But where are we going with this discussion ?

K: Where are we going ? We haven't yet discussed the central issue, what is ( a responsible ?) action without (the subliminal burden of?) of (our personal) motives, reactions, regrets, pain, sorrow. Can a human being act without all this dreadful confusion? Is there an action without any shadow of effort and regret ? I must find it out ( ASAP) because I don't want to enter into the ( collectively created?) cage (of the known?) and/or in ( its countless ?) rat races. So what shall we do? What is the 'right ( way of) action' which doesn't depend on circumstances, if there is an (insight-based ?) action which is complete in itself. Don't you ask me, what is that?

R: I do: what is that (insightful ) action ?

K: First of all, can you 'see' with your ( mind's?) eyes the tree as a whole? Can you see your wife, or your husband, or girl friend, or boy friend as a 'whole entity'? Can you see anything totally, or are you always seeing partially?

R: When you use this word 'totally' what is the meaning?

K: Whole. Can I see you as a 'whole being'? Can I see (the whole?) humanity as myself, which is the whole ( holistic perception?) ? Can I see ( the whole consciousness of ?) humanity as ( being one with?) myself? Because ( in its depths, the collective consciousness of?) humanity is ( in the same self-isolating condition as?) mine , suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure, sorrow-ridden. Right? So in ( holistically ? ) seeing humanity, I can see myself (as in a totally objective mirror?) .

R: Or rather the other way: by seeing yourself you see humanity.

K: It doesn't matter, if 'I see myself as humanity', then humanity is me. I am not separate from humanity. So I see the world as myself, which is the whole ( holistic seeing?) . Would that be right sir?

B: I was wondering if we could not go back and consider the (holistic perception of a ) tree for a moment. It is not clear when you say 'you see the tree as a whole'...

K: The whole thing, to see something wholly, sir.

B: Just 'see it all' ?

S: I think we are in a 'language bind' here : "I see as a whole", really it means that the ( hidden duality of the observing?) 'self', or the 'fallacy of the self', has clearly been 'seen into', because otherwise however much I try to 'see the tree as a whole' it is still ( a self-centred action of?) my thought.

K: That is the 'ultimate' ( top of the line?) thing. But ( for starters?) can you (try to look at?) your husband, your wife, or your girl friend, ( without superposing any mental 'image'?) as a whole being? 'Totally' (non-personally?) , you know. You do it ( often with total strangers?), can't you? How does that happen when you can see somebody wholly?

S: Tremendous warmth ?

K: If you love that tree you will see it wholly.

S: But we have also to be careful what we mean here by 'love'...

K: Keep it very simple : if I do 'love' (or have a sincere admiration for ?) somebody, the totality (the 'presence'?) of that man or woman is there.
Now (inwardly speaking?) can I see myself (with the same affectionate openness ?) 'wholly' - myself being ( the whole consciousness of?) humanity? Can I see this ( all-oneness?) as a whole?
( In a nutshell) I can only 'see myself as a whole' when I (deeply feel that I ?) am actually (one with?) the (consciousness of the?) rest of mankind.

B: You mean that essentially (inwardly?) I am the same as the whole (consciousness of all mankind?) .

K: Essentially, basically.

S: The basic human being (the 'nowhere man'?).

K: As a 'human' being. When one sees oneself as a whole the ( fragmentary?) parts disappear, therefore the 'self' (- identified consciousness?) is not (present?) . Sir, I can only see that tree completely if I don't ( evaluate, compare or ?) condemn, if I don't say, "It's my tree, it's in my garden." Right? You understand what I am saying?

R: Yes, yes...

K: So when I 'love' that tree ( when I look at it with a quality of non-personal affection?) I 'see it as a whole'.

B: Would you say then, that it is similar to all trees? Like saying, if 'I see myself as a whole', I ( realise that I?) am the same as all mankind.

K: So... I love ( I can look with unconditional affection at ?) all trees.

B: It is not just this particular tree that you love.

K: I love ( all) the trees, whether they are in your garden, or my garden, or somewhere else.

B: Wherever it is. So the particulars don't matter,

K: That's it. I raised this ( holistic) question of 'seeing wholly' because we were asking 'What is the action which is not fragmented as a 'business man', as the 'artist', as a (Buddhist scholar &) lecturer, as a ( Physics) Professor - what is an action which is 'total'.
Don't say, 'if the self is not then you will have it'. Because I have a self, one is caught in the self- (identification?) ; or rather the 'self' is there ( in full control?) .

B: So, you are saying, 'see the self-( centredness of any human consciousness?) as a whole and then it will change.

K: Yes, sir.

B: Therefore would you also say that you have to (look with?) 'love' (at) the self?

K: That is a 'dangerous' (very slippery?) statement. I was going to make it and I stopped myself just in time because that is what the various 'advertising people' say, 'Love the world as yourself', or 'Love your hair, use this ( Pedigreed Cucumber?) Shampoo'.

B: Could you say instead '( If) you are (feeling one with?) mankind, you 'love' mankind'?

K: Ah, now, be careful. Analogies are limited.

S: So are the words in themselves.

K: Any more questions, sir?

R: There is no end to these questions, therefore let us finish today like that. But you have answered all my questions, and thank you very much for all your very enlightening explanations.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 26 Nov 2017 #11
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


Rahula: I must say that as I have followed your teachings, your books, for many years, and for a person who knows Buddha's teaching sufficiently well, your teaching is quite familiar : what the Buddha ( the 'Enlightened One' ) taught 2,500 years ago you teach today in a new style, and you put his teaching into a new garb.

K: May I ask you what is the ( experiential) necessity of comparing? If you were not a ( very knowledgeable?) scholar of Buddhism, how would it strike you the reading of the ( K books) , without the background of all that?

R: That I can't tell you because I was never without that background. One is conditioned (culturally) as we are all (superficially or more deeply?) conditioned...

K: If I may point out, doesn't ( the tradition of spiritual ) knowledge condition human beings - knowledge of scriptures, knowledge of what the ( holy people or?) saints have said and so on and so on, the whole gamut of the sacred books, does that help man at all (in his perrenial search for Truth?) ?

R: Scriptures and all our knowledge do condition man, there is no doubt about it. But the Buddha has pointed out (the way out ?) this (conundrum?) very clearly, '' If you want to cross the River and there is no bridge, you make a boat for yourself and you cross with the help of the boat. Getting to the other shore, if you think, oh, this boat has been very useful to me, very helpful, I can't leave it here, I will carry it and you put it on your shoulder, was that man acting rightly? No. Then what you should do is to say, of course this boat was very helpful to me but I have crossed the river, not it is not any more use to me, and I'll leave it here for somebody else to use''. That is the right attitude for knowledge and learning. Buddha says, ''even the teachings, not only that, even the moral virtues are also like the boat and they have a relative value, a conditioned value''.

K: But I would like to question whether ( thinking intensively in the field of knowledge) has the liberating quality of the mind. The ( reassuring ?) feeling that you 'know' doesn't it strengthen your self (-consciousness) ?

R: Certainly. But all the weight of our past knowledge disappears the moment you see the Truth.

K: Can a mind weighted down with ( lots of useful & useless?) knowledge, see the Truth? Or must it first be free from ( its addiction to?) knowledge?

R: To see the Truth the mind must indeed be free from all ( attachments to its past?) knowledge.

K: Yes, so why should one first accumulate ( lots of second hand psychological ) knowledge and then abandon it, and then seek truth? You follow what I am saying?

R: I think that even when we talk of our ordinary life, most of the things are useful at the beginning - for instance, in as children in primary school we can't write straight without ruled paper , but today we have to write on such paper. But at that stage...

K: I agree. But does not the beginning matter enormously, which might condition the future, as he grows up? Does this ( basic ) freedom ( from the known ? ) exist at the end or (it can be accessed from the very?) beginning? Would you say this ( integrity and responsibility of ) freedom is limited by ( our psychological addiction to?) knowledge?

R: Freedom is not ( necessarily) limited by knowledge, but the knowledge that is wrongly applied may obstruct freedom.

K: As you said, ( some basic self-) discipline is necessary at the beginning. But as you mature, acquire capacities and so on and so on, that ( habit of self-?) discipline, has it not conditioned the mind so that it can never abandon it ?

R: I can quite understand. But you agree that discipline at the beginning, at a certain level is necessary.

K: I question that, sir, (for educational purposes?) in order to enquire.

R: In Buddhism there are two (stages of spiritual development?) : those people who have found the way, but who have not yet arrived, and for them all these disciplines and precepts can be 'good' or 'bad', 'right' or 'wrong'. But the 'Arhat' – the one who has realized the truth has no ( further need for such?) 'disciplines' because he is beyond that.

K: Yes, I understand this.

R: But this is a fact in ( our inner ) life.

K: I question that, sir. We were talking about ( the inner utility of?) knowledge: knowledge being useful or necessary, as a boat to cross the river. Which means, sir, accepting evolution : gradually, step by step, advancing, and ultimately reaching. Right? First I discipline, control, effort, and as I get more capacity, more energy, more strength I abandon all that and move on.
I am enquiring whether there is (any spiritual validity in) such 'progress' at all.

R: What do you think?

K: What do I think? ( That there is?) None.

Dr. Schloegel: I am very much with you : there is no such progress.
K: Now, all the ( traditional) religious and non-religious attitudes are caught up in time, in 'evolution' - I will eventually blossom in goodness. I am saying in that there is 'untruth' in it. Sorry to put it that way.

S: As I see it, there is a (hidden ?) obstacle in all of us - because most of us want quite honestly, from our very heart, to be good, but we do not bring it off – so, it is this (evolutionary?) working through that seems to me at stake.

K: We have accepted ( this concept of?) evolution. Biologically, evolution is a fact . But we have transferred that biological fact into our 'psychological' existence, thinking 'psychologically' (psychically?) we will evolve.

R: I don't think that is the Buddhist attitude. The realization or the attainment of truth, or the seeing the truth, is without a plan, is without a (thought-out) scheme.

K: Is out of 'time'.

R: Out of time. Exactly.

K: (We assume that?) the human mind, which has evolved for millenia, which is conditioned by time, which is ( evolution, which is the acquiring of knowledge, more, more, more, will reveal the extraordinary (inner dimension of?) Truth.

R: It is not that ( our advancements in?) knowledge that will reveal Truth.

K: Therefore why should I accumulate (psychological?) knowledge?

R: Even psychologically, how can you not do that?

K: Ah, that's a different matter. Is it an (actual) fact, or we have assumed it is so, that 'psychologically' (or inwardly?) we must grow? Which is, that eventually Truth will take place if I prepare the ground...

R: That is a wrong point of view. The realization of truth implies a revolution (in our consciousness?) , not an evolution.

K: Therefore, can the mind be free of this ( false concept of spiritual ) 'progress'?

R: It can be.

K: No, not 'can be'. It 'must be'. So, 'psychologically' (inwardly?) can there be a revolution (now?) ?

R: Certainly. But... how do you proceed  with that (timeless ) realization of truth, how do you do that?

K: Ah, that's a different matter...

R: What I say is that we are conditioned. Nobody can tell us that, however much they try. And the revolution is to see that you are conditioned. The moment you see that it has no time, it is an entire revolution and that is the truth.

K: Suppose one is conditioned ( to think inwardly) in the (continuity) pattern of evolution - I was ( inwardly?) ugly yesterday, but today I am learning about that ugliness and freeing myself and tomorrow I will be completely free of it. Right? That is our whole attitude, psychological structure of our being. This is an everyday fact.

R: Do we see that?

K: We see that, right ?

R: Understanding it intellectually is one thing...

K: Now wait a minute. That is our conditioning - the Christian, the Buddhist, the whole world is conditioned by this idea, which may have come from the biological progress moved into the psychological field.
R: Yes, that's fine.
K: Now how is a man, or a woman, a human being, to break this pattern without time? You understand my question?
R: Yes. It is only by seeing.
K: No, I can't see if I am caught in this blasted ugliness of progress. And you say it is only by seeing, and I say I can't see.
R: Then you can't.
K: No, but I want to enquire into it, sir. That is, why have we given progress in quotes, such importance, psychologically?

S: I am not a scholar but I come from the practical side. May I come in for a moment please? I am a practitioner but I have done my ( spiritual) practice in a Buddhist field, and for me personally as a Westerner, as a one-time scientist, I have found the most satisfactory answer in the Buddhist teaching that ''I blind myself, I am my own obstacle, as long as I, with all my ( active) bundle of conditioning, am here, I cannot see ( clearly) and act.''

K: That doesn't help me. You are saying that I have learnt that.

S: I have learnt it but I have learnt it in the same ( hands on) way as one learns to play a piano, rather than in the way of studying a subject. That is the point that I would like to contribute.

K: Again you are going back to practice - good pianists don't (anymore need to?) practice.

N: There seems to be one ( hidden?) difficulty in this. Knowledge has a certain fascination, a certain power, one accumulates knowledge, whether it is Buddhist, or scientific, and it gives you a peculiar sense of ( intellectual) freedom. And, after years of study one finds it very difficult to get out of this (addiction to knowledge?) because you value it. But it hasn't got the quality of what you might call (the living dimension of?) truth. The ( psychological) difficulty with all practice seems to be that when you (believe in the benefits of this ) practice you ( feel that you ) achieve something; and this (sense of personal) achievement has also developped a certain capacity, maybe even a certain clarity.

R: And by that you get attached (or addicted?) to it ?

N: Yes. And to break away from it is much more difficult than for an absolute beginner, a beginner who may see something more directly than a man who has so much of acquired (the conventional?) wisdom . Am I right ?

R: That depends on the individual. You can't generalize.

K: Sir, if I may point out, one can generalize 'as a principle'.

R: As a 'principle', in which way?

K: ( The general principle that?) we are all caught in this idea (or linear mentality?) of progress.

R: We have just come to an agreement on that point, that ( the collective consciousness of?) humanity accepts the (concept?) that progress is a gradual evolution - they accept it biologically and prove it (scientifically ) , so they do instinctively apply the same theory to psychological things. We agree this is the general position ?

K: I may have accepted ( the concept of a linear ) biological progress, biological evolution, which I have gradually transferred to psychological existence. But (inwardly ) is that the actual truth ?

R: I don't think it is the truth.

K: Therefore I abandon the whole idea of ( following a spiritual?) discipline.

R: There is no question of 'you' abandoning it. If 'you' abandon it consciously ( 'you' may be expecting a higher reward?)

K: No, sir, just a minute. ( Suppose that ) I see what human beings have done, which is move from the biological to the psychological ; (if and ?) when a human being sees the falseness of it, actually not theoretically, then it is finished.

R: Absolutely, that is what I was saying.

K: Then why do I ( have to?) read the ( collected works of the?) Buddha?

R: Because we are all (starting?) conditioned.

Bohm: Could I ask a (very personal) question: do you accept that you are conditioned?

R: I accept it. To be in time ( living in the material world ?) is to be conditioned.

B: Well, Krishnaji has said, at least in some of our (private?) discussions, that he was not deeply conditioned in the beginning and that therefore he had ( a free access to?) a certain 'insight' that would not be common. Is that fair?

K: I may be a 'biological freak', so leave me out of it. What we are trying to discuss here is : can we ( see or at least?) admit the truth that ( psychologically or spiritually ?) here is no such 'movement forward' ?

R: I understand...

K: So do we as human beings see the falseness of what we have done?

R: You mean human beings generally?

K: The whole world.

R: No, they don't see it.

K: Therefore they are (driven by?) this accumulative instinct which will help them to jump, or propel themselves into Heaven.

B: When we say we are all conditioned, how do we know that we are all conditioned? That is really what I wanted to say.

R: As far as our society is concerned, all are conditioned. But what we are talking here is the ( insightful) realization which has no time, which is unconditioned.

B: If we say 'we are all conditioned' there could be two ways (to deal with it): (a) one way could be to accumulate ( more experiential ?) knowledge about our conditioning, to say we observe the common human experience, we can look at people and see they are generally conditioned. And the other way is : (b) to see (it holistically?) in a more direct way, that we are all conditioned.

R: Of course, I accept there are people who can 'see' that.

K: But does that help sir, in this matter? I mean, there may be, or there may not be.

B: You see the point I was trying to make is that if we say 'we are all conditioned' then I think there is nothing else to do but a disciplined or gradual approach. That is, you begin with ( accepting ) your conditioning (and then diligently start cleaning it up ?)

K: Not necessarily.

B: Well that's the way I take the implication of his statement that we all begin ( by being ) conditioned...

K: ...which we are.

B: ...then what can we do for the next step?

R: There is no 'next step'.

B: Then how can we be free of our ( psychological) conditioning as we do whatever we do?

R: The freedom from conditioning is 'to see' ( what is wrong with it?) .

B: Well, the same question, how do we 'see' this ?

R: Of course, many people have tried ( to see it in?) various ways.

K: No, no, there are not 'various ways'. The moment you say ( there is?) a way, ( the chances are that?) you have already conditioned him ( further) .

R: That is what I say. And you are also ( unwillingly?) conditioning ( people?) by your talks, your lectures are also conditioning. Trying to uncondition the mind ( could also end up in?) conditioning it (to a new pattern?) .

K: I question whether what K is talking about conditions the mind. I doubt it, I question it.

R: I think (so?) …

K: If I may suggest, we are going off from the central issue.

R: The question of 'how to see it ?' - is that it?

K: No, sir, not 'how', there is no 'how' (no established methodology?) . First let us see ( the truth of ?) this 'simple' fact : as a human being, I represent ( the consciousness of?) all humanity. Right?

S: In an 'individualised' way ?

K: No, as a human being, I represent the (shared human consciousness of the?) whole world, because ( for instance?) I suffer ( the psychological consequences of my self- isolation?) and so does every human being. So do I, as a human being, see the falseness of this ( wrong?) step human beings have taken, moving from the biological to the psychological, with the same mentality? As a human being, do I see the mischief that human beings have created, moving from there to this? You understand?

R: Yes.

K: Do I see it, as I see the table? Or I just accept the idea and then we are (off?) . Therefore the idea, the theory is becoming part of my ( past) knowledge.

S: If I see it as I see this table then it is not a theory any more.

K: It is a fact. But the moment you move away from the fact then it becomes idea, knowledge, and then the pursuit of it....

S: ... is creating further and further ( mental) 'pictures'.

K: Further away from the 'fact' that there is biological progress (a little tree to a gigantic tree, or from a baby to boyhood, adolescence) and we have (translated the same?) mentality (of growth ) into the psychological field and create there the ( hypothetical?) fact that 'we progress', which is a false ( or 'virtual'?) movement? I wonder if I am making myself clear.

B: Are you saying that is part of our cultural conditioning?

K: Leave the conditioning for the moment. Why have we done this ('psychological' spin?) ?

S: Because we want to become something ( better than what we are?) .

K: Which is you want ( to give a temporal continuity to the biological need for ) satisfaction, safety, certainty ( along with the rewarding ?) sense of (our personal & collective ) achievements.

S: So, it is all in this (dynamic of?) 'wanting'.

K: So why doesn't a human being see ( what's wrong with ?) what he has done (psychologically) ?

S: I do not like to see it. I ( may unconsciously ?) fear (to face the destabilising consequences of seeing ?) it.

K: Therefore you are living in ( the temporal safety of a collective ?) illusion ?

S: I would say ( there is a hidden conflict of interest ?) I want to be something which at the same time I fear to see. This is where the big divide is.

K: You have a 'false fear', Madame : when you 'see' ( the truth about?) what you ( as well as everybody else?) have done, there is no fear.

S: But the ( bottom line?) 'fact' is, that I usually do not see it.

K: Why don't you see it?

S: I suspect because of ( some subliminal) fear. I don't know why.

K: You are entering into quite a different field, fear.
But I would just like to know why human beings have played this ( mind?) game for millenia. You understand sir? Why this ( comfortable way of?) living in this 'false' structure (of self-becoming?) ?

S: All of us, as human beings have a very strong 'irrational' side in us.

K: I question ( the psychological validity of?) all this (way of life) . Because we are living not with 'facts' but with ideas and knowledge.

R: Certainly, certainly.

K: The 'fact' is biologically ( and technologically) there is ( a definite progress?) , but (inwardly or?) 'psychologically' there isn't (things are not working in the same way?) . And so we give importance to ( accumulating and perfecting?) knowledge, ideas, theories, philosophy, and all the rest of it...

R: You don't see at all that a certain development, an evolution, even psychologically?

K: No.

R: How about a man who has been very undesirable, criminal, telling lies, stealing and all these things - you explain to him certain very fundamental, very elementary things, and he changes into - in our conventional sense - a better man, now he does not steal, now he does not tell lies, he does not like to kill others ?

K: I am not sure, sir whether you can talk to him at all. You can pacify him, give him a reward and this and that, but an actual 'criminally minded' man the ( professional) terrorist will he listen to you, to your sanity? Of course not.

R: I don't know. I am not so 'positive' about it.

K: That is what happening, sir.

R: But until I have more proof I can't say that.

K: I have no proof either, but you can see what is happening.

R: What is happening is that there are terrorists, and we don't know whether any terrorists have transformed and converted into 'good' men. We have no proof.

K: You see that is my whole point : the 'bad' man evolving into the 'good' man.

R: In the conventional sense, certainly there is such a thing : the 'bad' man, or a criminal, changing ( or upgrading?) his way of life, and becoming a 'good' man – 'bad' & 'good' in quotes.

K: Yes, we know that, we have dozens of such examples.

R: Don't we accept that at all?

K: But, no, no, wait a minute, sir. A 'bad' man who tells lies, who does cruel things, and so on, probably one day he realizes it is an ugly business, and says, "I'll change and become good", but that is not Goodness. ( The authentic?) Goodness is not born out of 'badness'.

R: Certainly not.

K: Therefore the 'bad man', can never become the Good (Intelligent & Compassionate?) Man. Goodness is not the opposite of 'badness'.

N: We might put it this way. In the conventional level the 'bad man' becomes the 'good man'. I think we carry that phrase, that attitude to the progress psychologically. That's one thing we do, the human mind does.

R: That is, transfer this idea ( of conventional progress) to the psychological realm.

K: Sir, may I put it this way: is there an 'opposite' on the psychological level ? Is there an opposite of fear? Is love the opposite of hate?

R: If you ask me...I would say that we are talking in 'dualistic' terms.

K: All language is 'dualistic' (the 'word' is not the 'thing' described?) .

R: When we talk of 'good' and 'bad' we are talking in the dualistic level.

K: But is 'courage' the opposite of 'fear'? That is, if fear is non-existent is it 'courage'? Or it is something totally different?

S: It is something totally different.

K: Therefore Goodness is never the opposite of 'bad-ness'. So we say, "I will change from my present conditioning, which is ( pretty?) bad, to a 'freedom from conditioning', which is good ''. Therefore that ( imagined ) freedom is the ( idealised ) 'opposite' of my ( existing?) conditioning. Therefore that ( hypothetical?) 'freedom' is born out of my ( present) conditioning because I feel that I am caught in this prison (of the known?) and I want to be free. It is a reaction to the (psychological discomfort of that inner ?) 'prison', which is not ( an experiential?) freedom.

R: I don't quite follow you...

K: Sir, could we consider for a minute: is Love the opposite of 'hate' (of a violent resent ?) ?

R: The only thing you can (safely) say is, where there is love there is no hate.

K: Ah, no, no. Is 'hate' the opposite of ( the authentic?) affection, love? If it is then in that affection, in that love, there is ( a seed of?) hate, because it is born out of hate, out of the opposite. No?

R: I don't know. That is what you say.

K: But it is a ( inwardly perceivable ?) fact, sir. Look, I am afraid ( of something or other and?) I take a drink, or all the rest of it, to get rid of ( that embarassing sense of?) fear. And at the end of it I say I am very ( strong & ) 'courageous'.

R: That is not courage.

K: I am saying anything born out of its opposite contains its own opposite. If someone hates you and then says I must love, that 'love' is born out of hate, because he knows what hate is and he says, "I must not be that, but I must be that". Therefore that ( cultivated?) 'opposite' contains the (initial seed of resentment ) .

R: I don't know whether it is the opposite.
K: That is how we live, sir. This is what we do. I am sexual, I take a vow of celibacy which is the opposite. So they are always caught ( in time, evolving within?) in this corridor of opposites. And I question the ( validity of this ?) whole corridor. We have invented it, but actually it doesn't exist. I mean, please this is explanation, don't accept anything sir.

S: Personally I see this channel of opposites, we are caught in, as a humanizing factor.

K: That is like saying, 'I have been a tribalistic entity , now I have become a nationalistic one) , and then ultimately ( become) internationalistic' - it is still ( the original mentality of?) tribalism going on.

S: That I quite agree. I see it in the sense of a really barbaric stage (as a fearless viking?) , I could have laughed when you had broken your leg, nowadays I could not laugh any more.

B: I think both of you are saying that we do in some sense make progress, in the sense that we are not as barbaric as we were before. Right?

S: That is what I mean by the 'humanizing' factor.

K: I question whether it is ( actually) 'humanizing'.

B: You are saying that this is not a genuine (spiritual) progress. But all we can see that in the past people were generally far more barbaric than they are today, and therefore would you say that that (evolutionary improvement?) really doesn't mean very much?

K: We are (inwardly?) still barbarous.

B: Let's see if we can get it straight. You're saying that this ( ethical achievement ?) is not significant?

K: No. When I say I am better than I was - it has no meaning.

B: I think we should clarify that.

R: In the relative, common sense I can't see that. But in the absolute, ultimate sense there is nothing like that.

K: No, not 'ultimately' - I won't even accept that word 'ultimately'. I see how the 'opposites' are born in everyday life, not ultimately. I am ( openly or just inwardly ?) 'greedy', that's a fact. When I try to become 'non-greedy', which is non-fact (I go on a loop?) , but if I remain with the 'fact' then I can do something about it actually, now. So one can only deal ( inwardly) with facts, not with non-facts.

R: So what is your point?

K: My point is, there is no such duality (of opposites?) even in daily life. It is the invention of all these ( culturally 'standardised'?) philosophers, intellectuals, the utopians, the idealists, who say there is the opposite, work for that. The (actual inner) fact is I am (inwardly indulging in being greedy, competitive or ?) violent, that's all, let me deal with that. And to deal with it ( directly we ) don't (need to?) invent ( an ideal of ) 'non-violence'.

S: The (next experiential?) question now is: how am I going to deal with it, having seen the fact that I am (inwardly) violent...

K: Then we can proceed. So ( for starters?) you remain with the fact. Can you do it?

S: Well, one can 'do it' though one very often does not feel like doing it.

K: Of course, you can do it (in no time?) when you are seeing something as 'dangerous'. ( Now, from a holistic point of view ?) 'running away from the fact' is dangerous ( since it dissipates the intelligent energy necessary for insightful action?). Finished ; you don't 'run away'. I think the clever 'gurus' and 'philosophers' have invented this 'running away'.

R: If you 'see', there is no running in it.

K: I am saying : ( first) don't 'run away'. Then you 'see'.

But we usually say, "I can't see because I am caught in that".

R: I quite see what you're saying...

K: So ( in your inner life) there is no ( more) duality ?

R: What do you mean here by 'duality'?

K: ( Creating) the opposite of 'what is' . Violence and non-violence. The whole spiritual tradition of India has been (based on the ?) practice of 'non-violence', which is nonsense. There is only ( this vast human heritage of?) violence, let human beings deal with violence, not ( rather than substitute it?) with an 'ideal of non-violence'.

R: We agree, if we see this is as a fact, we must handle this.

K: Therefore there is no ( 'psychological') progress.

R: That is a ( very versatile?) word that you can use in any way.

K: No, sir, no sir. When we follow a (psychological) ideal, to achieve that ideal I need time.

R: What is the argument? We agree there are only facts.

K: Which means, sir, to look at ( our 'psychological', inner ?) facts, (introducing the?) time (factor?) is not necessary.

R: Absolutely not.

K: Therefore if time is not necessary I can see it now.

R: Yes, agreed.

K: You can see it now. Why don't you?

R: Why don't I ? That is another question.

B: If you (would) take it ( very) seriously that time is not necessary ( to see inwardly what is false and what is true?) then right now one could perhaps clear up the whole thing.

R: Yes, that does not means all human beings can do it (right here & now?) , there are people who can do it...(and people who don't?)

K: If I can see it, you can see it.

R: I don't think so. I don't agree with you.

K: It is not a question of ( our) agreement or disagreement. When we have 'ideals' away from facts time is necessary to get there, progress is necessary. I must have more knowledge to progress. All that comes in. Right? So can you abandon ( the attachment to your spiritual ) 'ideals'?

R: It is possible.

K: Ah, no, the moment you use the word 'possible' the 'time' (factor) is already there.

R: I mean the 'seeing' of the facts (is possible)

K: Do it now, do it sir, for when you say 'it is possible' you have already moved away.

R: I meant to say that ( as of now?) not everybody can 'do it'.

K: How do you know?

R: That is an (obvious empirical?) 'fact'.

K: No, I won't accept that.

S: I can perhaps come in with a concrete example. If I stand on a high springboard over a swimming pool and I cannot swim, and I am told 'Just jump in and relax completely, the water will carry you upwards'. This is perfectly true : there is nothing that prevents me except I am ( irrationally) frightened of doing it. That is I think the point your question (of 'do it now' ) Of course we can do it, there is no difficulty but there is this basic fear which does not stand to reason that makes us 'shy away' (intellectually) .

K: Please forgive me, I am not ( yet ?) talking of that ; if one realizes that one is ( inwardly violent or ?) greedy, why do we invent 'non-greed'?

S: I wouldn't know, because to me so obvious that if I am greedy then... I am greedy.

K: So I don't accept that. I say that is an escape from (seeing) this (inner fact ) So to deal ( directly ) with this problem, I can't have one foot there and one foot here. I must have both my feet here.

S: And if both my feet are here? Suppose I see I am (inwardly) greedy, or violent (aggresive & intolerant?)  ?

K: Now we have to go into something entirely different. How is one to be free of 'greed' (right) now? That's the question. I have only this fact, I am greedy. Now do we go into that? What is this 'greed'? The very word is condemnatory. Right, sir? Now can I look at that 'fact' without the word with all its traditional content ?
You cannot ( insightfully?) understand the depth and the feeling of 'greed' and be free of it if you are caught in words ( in verbally processing your direct perceptions ?)
So as my whole being is concerned with ( transcending the psychological heritage of violence & ?) greed it says, "All right I won't be caught in it, I won't use the word greed". Right? Now is ( the inward observation of?) that feeling devoid of the word 'greed'?

R: It has no word.

K: So can my mind look (inwardly) at something like greed, without the word?

R: That is really seeing the fact.

K: Then only I see the 'fact' (the inner movement of 'what is')

R: Yes, without the word.

K: This is where ( our experiential) difficulty lies, sir. I want to be free of 'greed' because my whole ( cultural background ?) says 'be free of that ugly thing'.
So now I say, all right, I have only ( to deal with the actual ?) fact : I am ( inwardly violent and/or?) greedy. Right?
Now, if I want to ( insightfully?) understand the nature and the structure of that feeling (of anger, envy, greed...?) am I looking at my present (reaction of, for instance :) 'greed', with my past ( culturally biased?) remembrances ? The past remembrances have said 'condemn it'. So, can I look at it without ( superposing my?) past remembrance
which condemns this ('gut response' ?) and therefore strengthens ( the 'reality' of ?) this.
If it is (approached as?) something 'new' (or not previously known?) , I won't condemn it. So can I look at it without (all the traditional connotations of?) the word, without the ( cultural) associations of words? That doesn't need (a regular) 'practice' , that doesn't need some guide, just to say, can I look at it without (using?) the ( incriminating?) word ('greed') .

( For more 'fun & profit' homework:) Can I look at that tree, woman, man, sky, heaven, without the word ( without verbal recognition ?) and find out (the doing-ness of it?) ? But (if I'm waiting for someone more knowledgeable who?) comes along and tells me, "I'll show you how to do it", then I am lost (in time?) .
The 'how to do it' is the 'Sacred' books, the (fake?) gurus, all the ( real?) bishops, popes, the whole of it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 30 Nov 2017 #12
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline



J.U.: In Benares you have been speaking many times over the years. Two groups of people have been listening to you. One is committed to a total revolution at all levels and the other to the status quo, that is going with the whole stream of tradition as it flows. Both go away, after listening to you, ( less or more?) satisfied. Both feel that they have received an answer to their queries.
You say that when all thought, the ( self-centred ) movement of the mind as the 'me' has ended totally, there is a state of benediction, of ( spiritual) Bliss, which is Beauty, Love, a state (of universal consciousness?) which has no frontiers.
Now the man listening to you with the mind rooted in the status quo, takes a stand on what you have said regarding the eternal, goes back to the tradition of India's great ( spiritual) Teachers who have also posited a state of eternal bliss, joy, beauty, love. He then posits that that alone is important. But you go on to say that when all thought, all self-centred activity, has ended, then there is a direct contact with this great River of Sorrow, which is not the ( personal) sorrow of the 'individual' man. From this will arise a 'karuna' ( the intelligent response of?) , Compassion, Beauty and Love, which will demand a transformation 'here and now'. Only this will end the emphasis on ( considering Nirvana as a state of ?) 'eternal bliss' - which ultimately is a (very common?) illusion.

K: So, what is your question?

P.J.: ( He's saying that) the man who stands for the status quo and the one who stands for (a total) revolution, takes your teachings and amalgamates it into his. So, his question is : What does your teaching actually stand for?

K: One thing is very clear (for me?) , that there is this enormous River of Sorrow. Can this ( River of?) Sorrow be ended (within oneself?) and, if it ends, what is the result on ( our deeply materialistic?) society? That is the real issue.

J.U.: There is indeed this vast Stream of Sorrow. But no one can posit when (and where?) this sorrow will totally end.

K: I am positing it.

A.P.: Sorrow is the very ( Karmic?) fabric of our existence, but are you saying that this 'ending of sorrow' can be ( individually?) attained ?

K: Yes, there is an ending to sorrow.
I think we all agree that ( the collective consciousness of?) humanity is ( entangled?) in this stream of sorrow and this (existential condition ?) is ( present in ) each one of us. Moreover, there is no (actual separation between?) 'me' and this 'stream of sorrow'. Let us be very clear on that point : my consciousness 'is' the ( shared ) consciousness of mankind; ( every) human being suffers, he is ( by turns : generous?) proud, cruel, anxious, unkind, this is the common ground of man. The ground ( of mankind's shared consciousness) is pleasure, fear, anxiety, vanity, cruelty, etc., all that is common to humanity.

J.U.: Krishnaji, you just said something which is of utmost importance : there is no such thing as 'individual' sorrow separated from the sorrow of mankind. Now, this statement should be investigated, understood, not as a theory but as an actuality. And to start with, one sees the stream of sorrow, the stream of mankind, one sees that it has a direction, it has a movement.

K: The moment it has a direction, that direction creates time.

J.U: (If one can use a poetical metaphor : ) Any stream which is flowing may appear as a stream, but it is made up of individual drops, and when the energy of the sun falls on that stream, it 'draws up' individual drops, not the whole stream.

P.J.: It is a very interesting (metaphysical?) question : 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 an actual river; all the rivers of the world have a source. Is ( our self interest?) the very source of this stream of sorrow? To me, there is no such thing as an 'individual' consciousness ( apart of the whole consciousness of mankind) . If you accept this as a fact, you cannot then say that the source is made up of individual drops.

B.K.: You said the source is sorrow. If we translate this into human terms, that really means human beings are born of sorrow, and are condemned also.

K: I am stating a fact. You cannot condemn a fact.

P.J.: You're saying that in the human consciousness there is ( only?) this stream of sorrow. I am questioning it.

K: I observe what is happening around me. I observe what is happening inside me...

P.J: I observe what?

K: I observe what is going on. I observe (outwardly) how war is being fought, why it is being fought, I read about it, investigate it, think about it. (Then I look inwardly:) am I ( identifying myself as?) an (orthodox?) 'Hindu' against the 'Muslim'? If I am, I produce war. So I am the result of (a stream of collective?) thought. I am the result of thousands of generations. In me is ( the original cause of) what is happening out there : my worries, my desire for security, my uncertainty, the confusion - this whole 'psychological world' which thought has built, is ( shared by all) mankind.

P.J.: Sir, if this were so simple, we would be floating in the air. The thing which is so difficult to see (inwardly) is the actual 'movement' of sorrow, the actual 'movement' of violence, as it arises in me. Is that movement part of (a shared consciousness of?) mankind or is it part of my own brain cells?

K: My brother dies and I shed tears. ( But then?) I can watch my neighbour whose husband is gone; there are tears, loneliness, despair, misery - what I was also going through. So I recognise a common thread between that and my woes.

P.J.: How is (this realisation?) important?

K. It is important because when I see that sorrow is a common human factor, there is an immense strength. While if you are only concerned (or obsessed?) with your particular sorrow, you are weak. You lose the tremendous ( Compassionate?) energy that comes from the perception of the whole of sorrow. The personal sorrow of the ( self-centred?) 'individual' is a fragmentary sorrow and, therefore that which is fragmentary has not the tremendous energy of the whole. Whatever this (fragmentary human consciousness?) does, it is still within a small radius and, therefore, trivial. If I suffer because my brother is dead and I grow more and more involved, shed more and more tears, I get more and more depleted, I lose contact with the ( central) fact that I am part of this enormous Stream.

P.J.: When my brother is dead and I observe my mind, I see the movement of my sorrow; but of that ( collective ) Stream of human sorrow, I know nothing.

K: Then start from there. My brother dies and I am in sorrow, 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 ( necessarily) at the very moment I go through it. So, I discover something (of a more universal nature:) , that it is not only me that suffers but mankind. What is the difficulty?

P.J.: I don't weep at the world's sorrow.

K: Because I am so ( obsessively?) concerned with myself, with 'my' life; I have reduced all this (sense of wholeness of all human) life to a little corner, which I call 'myself'. And... my neighbour does the same (existential mstake?) ; everybody is doing the same. That is a 'fact'. Then I discover ( a still deeper truth : ) that this sorrow is a Stream that has been going on for many generations.

J.U.: The particular consciousness and the stream of the collective, are they one?

K: There is no 'particular'.

J.U.: Well, the 'particular' (dimension of our consciousness?) is experienceable, is manifest, so, even when we say 'we see the stream', we see it as many 'particulars' put together. As long as the human consciousness is 'self' (-identified ) , the 'particular' (outlook) will be ( the dominant factor?) there .

K: I understand that. So, either I ( choose to ?) remain caught in my little sorrow or I can perceive this enormous sorrow of man.

P.J.: So, what is the missing factor, the ( new ) instrument, which enables one to see directly?

K: The visual eye sees this enormous ( extent of human?) suffering - in my neighbour here or thousand miles away. How does it 'see the fact' that my neighbour is ( inwardly exactly like?) me, going through hell? The neighbour all over the world is my neighbour. This is not a theory; I recognise it, see it. I walk down the streets; there is a man crying because he has lost his son. I see it as a fact, not a theory.

J.U.: Krishnaji can do it because he has negated the 'self' totally; he has negated 'time' totally. There is no movement which is fragmentary in him. But when my own brother dies, I can't see with the same eyes. K is standing on the other bank of the River of Sorrow and ( compassionately?) watching everything ; while I am still floating ( but...not sinking?) in the River.

K: Let's go through the actuality of it. My brother dies and I am shocked. It takes a week or two ( for some, a whole life?) to get over it. But when ( the psychological impact of ) that shock is over, I can look around and see this (very sad?) thing going on everywhere. It is a fact.

P.J.: You still have to tell me with 'what eyes' I must see this (compassionately & non-personally?) .

K: Am I so ( safely self-) enclosed that I don't see anything except 'me' and ( everything else as ) 'something outside of me'? That is the first thing to be established.
Back to this ( critical) point – the sorrow of my brother dying - there is only ( the sense of an overwhelming) sorrow. I don't see it as a Stream of ( everybody's ) Sorrow; there is this ( painful) thing burning in me. Then I look around and see this happening to all human beings. I can see this ( pretty well) intellectually . But 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 ( critical ?) point we have come to.

P.J.: I don't really feel the sorrow of another. That passion, that ( vital) intensity which is born in me when there is ( a personal) sorrow arising in me, does not arise when I see the sorrow of another.

K: All right. When my brother dies, everything is shut out (for three days?) and that is the whole point. Now, if the ( self-redeeming ?) brain says, 'Yes, I won't move away from that, I won't seek comfort,' there is no ( diverging) movement. Can I hold it, perceive it? That is my point : if you remain ( non-personally?) with this sorrow, you have denied everything.

J.U.: That is so only for Krishnaji...

K: Panditji, throw (the ) 'K' ( row model ?) away. This is a fact : we never remain ( inwardly abide?) with anything completely. What happens then to the brain that has been making (so much fuss about its personal ?) sorrow, chasing its own tail?

B.K.: There is always some kind of ( subliminal) interference (of the self-centred thought) .

K: There is no such interference when you observe something totally; to observe totally is not to allow thought to interfere with what is being perceived.

J.U.: Going back to my original question. You have said that when all duality has ended, when sorrow has ended, ( the creative?) happiness will be there.

K: When sorrow has completely ended, then there is ( the awakening of a non-personal ?) Compassion.

J.U.: So, the perception that the predicament of all human existence is sorrow, gives rise to Compassion ?

K: I will make my position very clear. There is only this Consciousness Stream of Mankind. And ( within it?) sorrow is an endless (existential condition ) that man has lived with, whether it is his neighbour or a child being beaten and so on. And can it end? You come along and tell me 'It can end'. And I say, 'Show me the way, show me how to end it, the manner in which it can end.' He says : 'I will show it to you', but... are you willing to listen to him 'completely'? So he tells me, 'Sorrow 'is' the ( karmic component of this?) Stream (of Self-interest?) , so ( the sensible thing to do is to meditatively ?) remain with this Stream without any ( thought ?) movement because ( being rooted in self-interest?) any ( egocentric thought) 'movement' is the cause of sorrow.' This ( non-movemental abiding with sorrow ?) is very difficult and, therefore, we 'play around' with ( subliminally avoiding ?) it.
And he ( K) also tells us that if you (manage inwardly to?) go beyond this ( inner 'no man's land '?) , there is some ( Inner ?) Beauty that is out of this world. If you found something astonishingly original, if you discovered something of an enormous nature, would you not talk about that ? You would do it, sir, because it is a part of the whole thing; it is part of the Tree . This Tree ( of human consciousness?) is also the hidden roots, and if you ( get to) look at the beauty of the roots, you talk about them. It is not that you are contradicting (yourself) , but you see that this Tree is the root, the trunk, the leaf, the flower, the beauty of the whole thing.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 01 Dec 2017 #13
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


P.J.: Rimpocheji has asked a very serious question: In listening to you over the years, one feels that the 'door' is about to open but it does not. Is there something inhibiting us?

K: What is it that blocks us all (in our spiritual quest?) ? I am an average man, fairly well educated, with the capacity to express myself, to think intellectually, rationally and so on; is it something totally missing in all this (diligent approach?), like (for instance the perception?) that our whole life is so terribly limited?

P.J.: I say we have done what we were ( supposed to?) do (in terms of awareness, etc …) . But I am neither here nor there; I am in-between, ( still drifting?) in the middle of the stream. You must take this into account, sir, even though you say there is no 'gradual' approach to Truth.

K: Are you like the bud that never opens to become a flower? Let us talk about it.

P.J.: There seems to be a point at which some leap (into the Unknown?) is necessary.

K: In Christian terminology, you are waiting for ( the Divine?) Grace to descend on you ?

P.J.: Perhaps...

K: Do you ever come ( in your meditations?) to the point where your brain is absolutely in a state of 'not-knowing'? Do you understand what I am saying? When the brain realizes (the truth that psychologically-wise?) 'I don't know a thing' except the technological - do you ever come to that (major critical?) point?
An inner state of 'not-knowing' ( freedom from what previously was assumed to be 'known'?) - I think that is one of the first things that is demanded (in the authentic meditation?) . We are always ( waste our inner ressources of intelligent energy in ?) arguing, searching; we never come to the point of an utter emptiness (inner state of 'no-thingness'?), of 'not-knowing'. Do we ever come to that, so that the ( spatio-temporal?) brain is really at a standstill? This brain is always active, searching, asking, arguing, occupied. I am asking, is there ( in the context of an authenic meditation ?) a state of ( non-movement of ?) the brain, when it is not occupied with itself ( with thinking about its own safe continuity in time?) ? Is that the 'blockage'? Is there a moment ( in your meditation?) when the brain is totally 'unoccupied' (with itself ) ?

J.U.: All ( our everyday?) action 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 inherent limitations of our existence in ?) time and space ( metaphorically speaking an 'illusion') , and so has to be negated?

K: Negated. Shall we begin by enquiring into what is our actual action (in the present?) , the 'doing'.

P.J.: Is this the fundamental question?

K: I was trying to answer the fundamental question which you raised at the beginning: What is keeping us not 'flowering' (inwardly) ? Is it basically ( our self-centred?) thinking ? Or because ecause have I not really, deeply, read the 'Book of myself'? I have read certain ( selected?) pages of the (first?) chapters but I have not totally finished ( reading) the Book.

P.J.: There is no saying I have read the book completely because every day, every minute, a ( line, a page or even a new ) chapter is being added.

K: No, no. Here we are - at last. I am asking a ( timeless ?) question: Have you ever read this Book (of yourself ) ?
If you have read the Book at all, you will find that there is nothing to read.

P.J.: ( But before getting at that point of enlightenment ?) I have come to a certain ( check ?) point where I do not know what to do, where to go, how to turn.

K: Yes, I admit it. You have come to a certain (borderline?) point and you are stuck there. So, why don't you be simple (sensible?) ? I have reached a point ( the 'known' blocks?) that we have said, and from there I will start anew .

A.P.: Just to take it out of the personal context - when you speak to us there is something within us which responds and says '' Yes, this is the right note'', but we are not able to catch it (in our everyday living)

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 recommended groundwork . What next?'

K: If I would come to you and ask you what you have said just now, what would be your (non-personal) answer?

P.J.: The answer is 'tapas' - burn the impurities which are still clouding your sight.

K: You understand the question? 'Thought is impure', in the sense that it is not whole, is fragmented ( into the 'thinker' & its many specialised areas of thinking ?) , therefore, it is 'corrupt' or 'impure' or whatever word you would like to use. That ( spiritual essence of our being?) which is whole is beyond the impure and pure, shame and fear.
So, ( it all comes down to:) why is the brain incapable of an 'perception of the whole' and from this ( awakened sense of one's inner) 'wholeness', of acting? Is this the root of your (subliminal) block, of the not flowering – that ( our self-identified process of?) thought is incapable of 'perceiving the whole'? Thought is going round and round ( its own fixed 'centre'?) in circles. And supposing I find myself in that ( awful?) position, I realise ( the truth that ) thought can never be complete. And, therefore, whatever thought does is 'impure', corrupt, not beautiful. So, why is the ( available intelligent energy of our?) brain incapable of perceiving the whole? If you can ( experientially?) answer that question, perhaps you will be able to answer the other ( ''closed door'') question.

RMP.: You have correctly 'interpreted' (thrown light on?) our question.

K: So, ( meditation-wise?) could we 'move on' from there, or is it not possible to move from there? That is, we have exercised our ( ego-centric ?) thinking all our life. Thought has become the most important thing in our life, and I feel that is the very reason there is corruption. Is that the 'blocking factor' that prevents this marvellous (inner) flowering of the human being? If that is the factor, then is there the possibility of a ( thought-free?) perception which has nothing to do with time, with thought? Since thought is fragmented, broken up, limited, is there a ( quality of non-personal?) perception which is whole? Is that the block?

J.U.: There is no 'can there be?' Either it is so, or it is not.

K: The moment we agree that ( our ego-centric?) thought is incomplete, whatever this thinking does (in the 'psychological' area of human existence?) must create sorrow, mischief, agony, conflict.

J.U.: We do have certain other instruments, certain mental processes, but you seem to dispense with them. You seem to 'dissolve' whatever we have acquired.
Now, Ssupposing we have a (psychical?) disease, you cannot heal it, no outside agency can do that. We ourselves have to get free of the disease. So, we have to discover ( or awaken?) an (inwardly perceptive) instrument which can open the 'door' from disease to good health. This 'door' is ( our own self-centred?) thought which, in one instant may break the grip of the false, but in the very breaking, another 'illusion' comes into being. Thought again breaks that, and in this fashion, is negating the false again and again. Therefore there is already an available process of 'dissolution of thought' and thought itself accepts ( the psychological validity of?) this and goes on negating. Thus the ( redeeming?) nature of thought itself is to perceive that ( in the context of a 'meditator-free' meditation?) it can dissolve itself.
The whole process of ( intelligent) thinking is based on discrimination. It leaves a thing the moment it discovers that it is the false. But ( your point is?) that which has perceived it as false is also... thought.

K: Of course.

J.U.: Therefore, this (temporal) process of perception is still riding the instrumentality of thought.

K: You are saying perception is still thought. We are saying something different - that there is a (quality of holistic) perception which is not of time, not of thought.

RMP.: We would like know your position more clearly. Please elaborate.

K: First of all, we know the ordinary perception of 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' (intellectually ) . We are asking : is there a perception which is not ( originating in?) thought?

P.J.: I often wonder what is the ( practical) value of an (open-ended?) question like that. You pose the question, and then you say no answer is possible.

K: No.

P.J.: Is an answer possible?

K: Yes. ( Brief recap regarding?) the nature of thought. Thought discerns, distinguishes, chooses; thought creates the structure. There is a movement of thought in perception to distinguish 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' ( since it does consolidate the 'thinker' entity) . Now, do we remain there, which means, do we remain in ( an inner space of?) perpetual conflict (btw the righteous 'thinker' & its vagrant 'thoughts' ) ? So, you ask, is there a (holistic quality of inner ?) enquiry which will lead us to a ( conflict-free ?) state (of mind)?
Which is what? Is there a ( quality of compassionate non-personal?) perceiving which is not born of ( the existing ego-centric?) knowledge? (In other words) is there a (direct & non-verbal perceptive ?) action which is not based on our 'remembrance'? Is there a (quality of pure?) perception which is totally denuded of the past? Would you enquire with me that way? I know very well this (thought-coordinated perception?) , and I ( come to?) realize that this implies an everlasting ( active or dormant inner) conflict.

A.P.: Because we have learnt by (personal ) experience that our thinking cannot free us from the wheel of sorrow ?

J.U.: Whatever ( inwardly perceptive ) instrument we (thought we ) had (available), you have broken that (at one stroke) . But for the ( psychically?) sick man who wants to free himself from (his invisible?) disease, so it is necessary to point out to him some process by which he can achieve this. I agree it is ( educationally very) difficult to do this. The ( 'do or die'?) question is: Can the patient be allowed to die before the ailment is cured? The disease will have to be cured without killing the patient.

P.J.: The metaphor Upadhyayaji uses is, that the suffering man who wants to be cured, cannot kill himself before he is cured. What you are asking is for him to kill himself.

K: You are making it a case which is untenable.

P.J.: He may put it in a different way, but ultimately society and all can go down the drain. Ultimately it is the 'I' (who counts) . All ( our spatio- temporal) experience, all search (for truth) , centres round that which is thought, caught in time as conflict.

K: So the 'I' is ( the creator of all this ) conflict.

P.J.: I see it is so, but in an abstract way.

K: No, not in an abstract way. It 'is' so.

P.J.: So ( thought's subliminal self-identification?) may be the ultimate thing which is stopping us...

K: Let us be very simple. I recognise that conflict is ( going on throughout my) my life. This conflict is ( both created and suffered by?) 'me'.

A.P.: What remains is a (self-) identification with a certain habit reflex. Does this ( self-) identification break or not? If it does not break, then our dialogue is only at the theoretical level.

K: When the 'me' ( my self-centredness?) ends conflict ends ; there is the block.

P.J.: I know conflict...

K: 'You' don't know it. 'You' can't know it.

P.J.: How is that?

K: Do you actually realize that you 'are' this conflict? Do I realize in my heart, in the depth of me, 'I am conflict', or is it just an idea which I am trying to fit into (my well organised field of knowledge?) ?

J.U.: What I was seeking to explain by the ( 'Doctor, don't let the patient die'?) simile is that a ( healing) process must remain ( available to us ) even within the Wheel of Sorrow. Even if the disease is not, and the wheel of sorrow is not, still some life (-healing ?) principle must be available to all .

K: My ( everyday) life is a series of conflicts (from the moment I am born) till I die. This is our life, and you come along and say to me, must you go on ( forever?) doing this? Find out if there is a different way of looking, acting, which does not contain this (element of conflict) . That is the ( self's?) continuity, that is all I am saying. Next, I am a reasonable man, thinking man, and 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 he says : I will show it to you.

J.U.: I accept that this circle of ( my ego's temporal) continuity in which I am moving is not taking us anywhere. I come with you up to there and I clarify my position with the help of a (metaphoric) example. But you cut the ground under that example by saying that I must discard the (my ego's) continuity. If this continuity is cut, the question itself disappears. So how can I accept the proposition that I renounce continuity altogether?

A.P.: Therefore you must let go of your (metaphorical) examples or similes. Let go of all ( your mental) anchorages of the past.

J.U.: If I give up the simile, it does not bring a termination; unless there is an ending, how can there be a new beginning?

K: Who is saying that?

A.P.: You have said that this is 'time'; you say 'negate time'.

K: ( Back to square one:) I am a man who is suffering, in conflict, in despair, and I say I have been with this for sixty years. Please show me a different way of living. Would you accept that very simple fact? If you accept it, then the next question is, is there a way of looking or observing life without bringing in all the past, acting without the operation of thought which is 'remembrance'?
What is ( the nature of this New) perception? I have perceived life as conflict; that is all I know. He comes along and tells me, let us find out what is 'true perception'. I don't know it, but I am listening to what he says. This is important. I have not brought into listening my logical mind; I am 'listening' to him. Is that happening now? The speaker is saying that there is a perception without ( the background of personal ) remembrance. Are you 'listening' to it or are you saying 'there is a contradiction', which is, you are not listening at all. I hope you have got it. I say there is a way of living without conflict. Will yoy 'listen' to me and not translate it immediately into an (personal ) reaction - are you doing that?

A.P.: When such a question is asked, when you are faced with a ( total) challenge, there obviously must be listening without any reaction. Only in such a state can there be no relationship whatsoever with that which is the past.

K: Therefore if there is no reaction (of the 'I' and his thinking ?) it means that you are already 'seeing' (non-personally ) . You get it?

J.U.: The moment of ( non-personal) attention is the moment of true observation. Is that it ? That means one observes 'what is' as is.

P.J.: Only then, in such listening, is there perception.

J.U.: Is this 'new' seeing and the perception which was caught in the past, the same seeing?

K: Sir, you are a great Buddhist scholar. Now, if the Buddha came to you and said, 'Listen,' would you listen to him? Please don't laugh; this is much too serious. And he says to you, 'If you listen, that is your transformation.' Just listen. This ( new quality of ) 'listening' is the listening to the truth. That is all. That has transformed everything.

A.P.: This 'listening' to truth wipes out every other impression.

K: Nobody listened to him; that is why there is Buddhism.

J.U.: There is no speaking of the Buddha. There is only listening and in the right listening to the quintessence of that wisdom which transforms . This attention itself is the Buddha. The Buddha is not a person and there is no such thing as the word of Buddha. Attention is the only reality. In this attention, there is pure perception. This is prajna, intelligence; this is knowledge. That moment which was surrounded by the past, that moment itself, under the beam of attention, becomes the moment of perception.

K: Now, a man like me comes along. He says, there is a way of living ( free of the known?) without ( introducing one's ego-centric ) knowledge. Just listen - listen without knowledge, which means without the operation of thought.

A.P.: That ( timeless) moment of attention is totally unrelated to the thought process, from causality.

K: ( Recap:) I know my life is conflict. And I am saying, is there a way of looking, listening, seeing, which has no relationship to knowledge. I say there is. And the next question is, as my brain is full of ( its self-centred?) knowledge, how can such a brain understand this statement? I say that ( knowledge biased) brain cannot answer this question. This brain is used to (live in inner & outer?) conflict, habituated to it, and you are putting a 'new' question to it. So this brain is in revolt; it cannot answer it ( in his old way)

J.U.: I want to know this. The question that you have put is my question. You have posed it with clarity.

K: The speaker says : just try to listen without the (conflicting?) movement of thought, which means, can you 'see' something directly, without 'naming'. This 'naming' is ( triggering ) the (whole) movement of thought. Then find out what is the ( qualitative) state of the brain which is not using 'words' in seeing, the word which is the movement of thought. Do it (here or for homework ?) .

R.M.P.: That is very important...

K: My whole (inner perspective on) life has changed. Therefore there is now a totally different 'learning process' going on, which is Creation.

P.J.: Agreed, this is the true creativity.

K.: ( Re-recap) I realize in my (own inner) life ( something?) is ( going) wrong. Nobody has to point that out; it is so. That is a fact and you come along and tell me that you can do something instantly. I don't believe you. I feel it can never happen. You come and tell me this whole inner struggle can be ended immediately ( or...ASAP?) . And K tells you, listen, take time, in the sense, have ( timeless?) patience. Patience is not time. Impatience is time. Patience has no time.

S.P.: What is the origin of this 'patience' which is not ( related to thought & ?) time?

K: I come along and tell you there is an ending to this (inner state of?) conflict, but the ( thinking) brain 'resists' (has its doubts?) . I say let it resist, but keep on listening and move (on?) . To watch (objectively ) your resistance and keep moving - this is ( the authentic spiritual ) patience. So he says, don't react but listen to the fact that your brain is a ( constantly active) network of words and you cannot see anything anew if you are all the time using words, words, words. So, can you look at something, your wife, the tree, the sky, the cloud, without a single word? Don't say 'it is a beautiful cloud'. Just look. When you so look, what has happened to the ( total quality of your?) brain?

A.P.: Unfortunately most of our comprehension is verbal. When I see this ( true fact?) , then I put aside the word. That which I see now is 'non-verbal'. What then happens to the accumulated knowledge?

K: What actually happens when you are looking without the 'word'? ( The 'word' is an abreviation for all ?) the ( mental) symbols, the knowledge and all that.

A.P.: When I am observing something, keeping aside my verbal knowledge and watching that which is non-verbal, what reaction does the ( sub-conscious?) mind have? It feels ( the stability of ?) its whole existence is threatened.

K: It is in a state of ( uncertainty?) , it is staggering. So watching it 'staggering', that is patience. And, as you are watching it, the ( central part of the?) brain quietens down. Then with that 'quiet brain' look anew at everything and observe. That is ( the authentic?) learning.

A.P.: So, you are saying that when you observe the instability of the mind, then that state disappears ?

K: Has it happened? The ( whole machinery of ego-centric thinking'?) is broken. That is the ( Reality ?) test. So, sir, let us proceed. There is a ( possibility of non-verbal ?) listening, seeing and learning, without ( using one's past?) knowledge. Then what happens? Is there anything ( left?) to 'learn' at all? Which means : you have wiped away the whole ( 'personal' knowledge of the?) self. I wonder if you see this, because the 'self-consciousness' is made up of personal experience (stored in) memory; ( in a nutshell?) ''memory – thought - action'' - that is the cycle. Now has this happened? If it has not happened, let us begin again. That is patience. That patience has no time. Impatience has time.

J.U.: What will come out of this ( objective ) observing, listening? Does this state go on, or will something come out of it which will transform the ( Consciousness of the?) world?

K: Now what happens when this actually takes place? First of all, there is ( awakened ) a totally different kind of (intelligent?) energy, which then acts. That energy is compassion, love. Then that love and compassion are intelligence and that intelligence 'acts'.
So, what actually happens is that one has ( awakened ?) this ( New?) energy which is compassion and love and intelligence. That ( Compassionate?) Intelligence acts in life. When the 'self' (consciousness?) is not (present?) , the 'Other' is. The 'Other' is compassion, love and this enormous, boundless energy. That intelligence acts. And that ( holistic quality of Compassion & ) Intelligence is naturally not 'yours' or 'mine'.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 01 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 07 Dec 2017 #14
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline



BK: Sir, when we conceived of this idea for a conference of this kind last year, one of the reasons was to not just churn the ideas that you have been teaching about the last 50 years, but we felt that every year that we do not postpone deciding what we have to do to change society, that we reduce the 'risk time' by a hundred years or so. So, we were wondering if we can begin to see into the future and make certain kinds of changes in our lives, in the system and in society. We don't know how to begin, but maybe you can help us.

K: I hope so. You are all Professors...

W M: I'll start. In your life, you probably have had to deal with concepts such as 'good' and 'evil', and I wonder if, in your opinion, they have objective definition or are merely relative to other things.

K: Sir, is Good the opposite of evil?

W M: That's the way that we normally treat it. In fact, (the conventional) 'good' has no definition unless you have the 'evil', and ( the conventional) 'evil' has no definition unless you have the 'good'.

K: So, they're interrelated?

W M: Very much so.

K: Then, is good part of evil?

WM: It would have to be because you couldn't have good without evil.

K: That means both of them are interrelated?

W M: Right. Interdependent.

K: Therefore there is no Good...

W M: Without evil. But in the comment that Professor Khare just made, where we were going to try to bring about a [new] society, it would seem to imply that we could bring about a society that would avoid the 'evils' that we now have.

K: Violence, corruption, competition, success, all that is 'evil'.

IB : Why is 'success' an evil?

K; Isn't each one is struggling to become successful ?

IB : Then what about collective success; what about social change, is that an 'evil'?

K: I'm just inquiring, sir, not saying that. So what do we consider 'evil'?

WM: But if 'evil' and 'good' are enmeshed, and are in a dance, then how can we ever bring about a society that is any better or worse than the one we have right now?

K: Sir, the ( conentional) 'good' is born out of 'evil', so there is no goodness in itself, and there is no evil in itself.

BK: We only have change. But should we have any hope for making anything any better than [it is] or any worse than [it is], or is it simply a kaleidoscope that has different...

K: I know, please start.

IB : Do you believe in social change, or do you believe primarily in personal or 'psychological' change?

K: Is society different from us?

IB : Yes and no. I share in common all the aspects of society within my own nature, because I contribute to it and it has made me and we have a kind of reciprocal relationship. But, then, I feel that I also stand apart from society. I have a 'separateness', almost a separate taste to myself, and in that sense, I don't. I'm part of a society of that separateness. There are people who are separate, but I may not be connected with them.

K: Is 'society' an abstraction?

IB: No, it shouldn't be an abstraction.

K: Isn't society created by man ? IB : Yes.

K: So, I'm part of society. And, if we are to change society, we have to change ourselves.

IB : I don't think there is any quarrel. I'm just trying to bridge the 'personal' change to the 'social' change. My feeling was that we were talking mostly about per- sonal change, without getting to the point of translating personal change into social change as well.

K: That's why I'm asking, sir. Are they two separate things—society and the individual?

IB : They are both separate and together, like wheels that move sometimes parallel and sometimes engage and sometimes disengage.

K: Sir, you are repeating the interrelationship between the person and society. Now, how do we change society? Is it by system, by politicians, by various activities or all the 'psychological' changes of the human being? Through changes in consciousness or changes in society?

BK: The problem is how long can we wait for individuals to change and would that change in itself not be institutionalized?

K: Of course. So what do you propose, sir?

BK: First we have to understand where we are at the present time, and whether we can afford to continue to live in the rut that we have been living in for thousands of years.

K: Apparently, in the last thousand years, ( the quality of )human consciousness has changed very little (in its depths?) .

BK: So what do we do? We cannot expect ( the culturally standardised?) 'individuals' to change. So we have to depend on the collectivity.

K: "s there such a person, as an 'individual'?

RN: There is and there is not. We are 'all one', in the sense as you said yesterday that my pain is your pain, your sense of despair is my sense of despair, and in that sense we are all one. But on the other hand, my self- awareness separates 'me' from someone else.

WM: We also have changing traits. There might be a 'me' as of this second, but there is a new 'me'... but usually my consciousness clings to what has been and tries to maintain it .

RN : That's right. Like my sense self-esteem that we talked about.

IB : I think it's honest and fair to say that there are limits to our 'individuality', but I don't think that should be construed to mean that there are no indi- viduals or that we don't have individuality.

SB : Krishnaji, this ties in with my efforts to integrate the experiencing of the now, of the 'me' who is observing—which is what I identify as 'me' at the moment— with the 'seeing of the whole picture', and I struggle with how we integrate those two. That partly ties in for me the 'collective' versus the 'individual'. It ties in also with experiencing the 'observation of the now' and the wisdom of 'seeing the whole picture'.

WM: Let's say we change as individuals and stay here on this ranch and we change like a Zen monk in Japan changes as an individual [when he] realizes the wholeness of life. Or, as a Vedantist in India experien- ces the 'wholeness of life'. How does that really affect society or world history? In this century, you could say Eastern thought has been more popular in the United States than ever, and yet, the United States has participated in more wars and more violence. Is there any evidence that society can change because of what we are talking about right here?

K: If there is a change, it is very little. Why? Are we approaching it wrongly?

WM : Maybe it is that our tolerance for seeing things in a holistic manner disappears when we are faced with violence ? Very few people, in my estimation, can maintain a 'holistic' view when they are placed in a defensive situation. Let's say someone came in this room right now and started disrupting this whole affair, how would we react? I think that very few of us would react in a dispassionate, 'holistic' manner. We are drawn out of society as people who want to talk about these things, whereas there are other peo- ple, even in Ojai, who would ridicule what we are doing. So if we, the 'select few', we would react that way, how can we hold out any hope for so- ciety?

K: So, what do you propose then?

WM: Well, I don't see much hope in the kind of change we're talking about here. I don't see any evidence for it as a historian. I see more of the same.

K: So, what should we do?

WM: I think each of us should try to be as good as we can individually. Each of us should contribute to social justice as much as we can; but to hold out a hope of a 'completely new world' and a 'completely new con- sciousness' is something I can't relate to. I don't see any evidence for that.

JG: If we create a goal for something out there, then we deny ourselves allowing things to happen. We can talk about what could be, and avoid what has hap- pened with us. For me as an educator, I detest some- times sitting around talking about theories and how we might do something...l stay in education because there are those magic moments when everything in the head disappears and for a moment in time, we come together. I guess my problem in pushing through this is understanding that which happens but knowing it is there and knowing that as a result of that happening, people change.

BK: Sir, I have the feeling as a member of a large aca- demic community, that we are (psychologically wise?) 'corrupt'. Just look at our behavior on a daily basis. The realization of this makes me sick in the stomach, yet does the problem disappear? What I'm really saying is that maybe it is too late for us who have (successfully?) gone through the system to think about change, either of society or as individuals. What we can do, Krishnaji, I'm submitting this as a proposal, is to do something with children in terms of how the educational system or educational style can be reformulated, i.e., not to put them on the same path that we were put on.

K: That means you will have a different type of ( holistic?) teacher.

BK: Exactly. I am not good. I know it.

JG : And the moment is coming soon when the computer will be able to do that which we do the worst, and that is to have the patience to help a learner understand some of the basic thoughts and concepts of the world. Why not turn that over to the computer, and allow us as human beings [to] do that which we could possibly do best, and that is to help children find out what relationships are.

RN: But again, Joe, you need ( a holistically friendly ?) consciousness. The people who are to work with the children, they have to know what they are doing, and we're back to the same old problem ( of the educator who has to be educated first ?)

WM: As long as the child reacts when hit, like we react when we are hit, I don't see any hope for children, adults or [anybody] else.

RN: I want to get back to your question of good and evil, Krishnaji. You have talked of harmony or order; living in order, living in harmony, as with nature. Doesn't nature also have a natural harmony?

K: Then, we have to inquire what is order?

RN: I don't know how to think about order.

K: Is ( a holistic sense of ?) order associated with (the existing) disorder? You come back to the same problem.

WM: You can't have order without disorder. If everything were orderly then we wouldn't ( have to talk about disorder) because it would have no meaning.

K: ( Inwardly speaking?) we only know 'disorder', actually.

WM: Yes, we have an actual knowledge of disorder and what we want is 'order' as the opposite.

K: Right. We live with disorder. We have an (idealised?) concept of order born out of disorder. This concept of order is not real; it is not actual.

WM : Right! It is an ( intellectual) abstraction.

K: It is an abstraction which is not ( related to the daily?) reality. So, what has an actual reality is ( our inner?) disorder.

WM : Agreed.

K: Now, let's start from there. Let's inquire, what is (our psychological?) disorder and see if it is possible to put it aside. What is ( creating) disorder in our lives? Is it ( the 'self' generated conflicts & ?) contradictions?

WM: Yes, and anything that maximizes ( optimises?) our selfishness is ( generating) disorder.

K: Yes, all self-centered activity is (generating?) disorder.

WM : Yes, but the way in which we are, as separate beings sitting around here...[To] break out of that ( isolationist?) mold might be possible for an individual here and there; but to hold out hope for all society...l don't think the overwhelming mass of mankind could even con- ceive of breaking out of their present self-centred orientation.

K: So, is my consciousness different from yours?

WM: No, I think you feel the same things that I do.

K: Yes. We suffer, we go through agonies, etc., etc. So, our consciousness is similar.

WM: Right.

K: Can the ( egotistic?) 'content' of this ( shared human) consciousness be dissipated so that it is no longer a self-centered activity?

W M: I think it can be minimized. I don't think it can be dissipated.

K: Why not?

WM: Because of the way we are built. For example, yesterday I had a flu or some kind of allergic reaction and I felt like defending myself and was very self-centered because of my physical situation. As long as every- thing is mellow, healthy and even, I think it's easier to think in these ( generous holistic?) terms than when we're placed in a situation where we're fighting for our individual survival. And, we all do that, because when we get sick, we go to bed, as 'individuals', to try to get better. That's an example of an individual fighting for his survival

K: If one goes a little deeper, what is this 'survival', the survival physically?

WM : That's one aspect.

K: Or the survival psychologically?

WM: That's another aspect of it.

K: Is the survival 'psychologically' as an individual a fact?

WM: No. As I said earlier, individually and psy- chologically we're changing all the time, so that there is no basis in fact that we survive psychologi- cally as individuals over a period of time. Even physically, we change every seven years completely.

K: Yes.

WM: But there is this ( basic) desire to maintain a certain semblance of well-being that each of us has, and that's a reality that doesn't seem to go away—even when one considers the wisdom of what we're talking about here, that if our well-being is under attack, we go back to our self-centered way of life.

K: Let's leave out the 'physical' aspects for the moment.

WM: O.K.

K: Let's look at it 'psychologically'. Psychologically, is there any ( temporal) security at all?

WM: No. We can talk about certain existing traits, but we change traits.

K: Psychologically, there is no (permanent ) security (in terms of time) . Then, what happens to egocentric activity except as it is physical?

WM: Yes, there is nothing there to protect because we have no guarantee of maintaining it anyway. What I was trying to get at earlier was that we can realize this on an intellectual level, and ( leisurely) talk about it, but when the actuality of it hits, the problem of actually trying to live it, I think that's where the break occurs.

K: What's the difficulty there? We're talking 'psycho- logically' ( 'psyche'- wise ?) , not physically for the moment.

WM: Maybe it's an ingrained habit, an instinct for self-preservation. We might intellectualize about these ideas, but when the time comes, we throw them all out the window and behave (the good-old way) . That's the point of difficulty for me. I can read a Vedantist or Zen Buddhist or ...a Krishnamurti and be inspired, but when faced with a real situation...

K: Let's wipe out all of them and look at the (inner) 'psychological' structure of ourselves, in which there is no ( temporal) security. There is no ( guaranteed?) continuity. Therefore, there is no time.

WM: Yes, I think...that is right.

IB : I think we have only a limited amount of time. If you strip all that...

K: Psychologically, is there a 'tomorrow'?

IB: Of course.

WM: Maybe time is of no importance if these other things have no reality - because we use time for wanting to improve them as we talked about earlier.

IB: Yes, but one could have a new use of time, if you follow that kind of progression, and start shaking things that were absolutely secure, and time has been parcelled out, a piece for each of these things that you normally do. And, all of a sudden, you are ques- tioning the fact that maybe they weren't worth doing in the first place, but the (objective, chronological ) time is still there and you use it for something else. The time is still there. You haven't died. You haven't ceased.

BK: That has been the problem through history. We have always thought that there was a lot of time and we could do it tomorrow.

IB: Well, there is both 'no more time', and 'a lot of time'...

WM: Words fail us here , but as I understand what 'time' means (inwardly) , it is the feeling that 'I must do' something. I 'have to'. It's a 'have-to' feeling.

IB: Time is life.

WM: So, what Krishnamurti was saying was that if none of these psychological considerations has any per- manency, then what happens to the 'must'— to the 'I have to' do something?"

IB: I was saying that (inwardly) 'time' is something worth experiencing— maybe for the first time. Time is no longer being harnessed, like a servant. It has been given orders to serve all these other things.

WM: We're having trouble with words. Eskimos have about sixteen different words for ( all the qualities of ) 'snow'. Maybe we ought to have as many words for 'time', and then we could get down to what we're talking about; but I thought that what was meant by ( psychological) time was the feeling that I have to hold on to something, to achieve something.

K: To achieve 'something', or to become 'someone'.

IB: Yes, but that's when you're using 'time' and time is not using you. So you have another opportunity to say what are you Time? Are you just ( the measurable interval) between 'now' and the time of my death, or are you a secret ally or a new kind of friend? That's the value of disentangling time from that; otherwise, why disentangle it? You can be a very 'happy' ( 'trump-like'?) individual, satisfying yourself, being self-centered, achieving, competitive, etc.

WM: If we didn't have a fear of death, maybe we wouldn't even think in terms of time...

IB: That may be the ultimate thing that ( the 'present ' dimension of?) time is supposed to give us, some kind of relief from that fear (of what will or could happen in the future?) .

CH: Could stay focussed on the inter-relation between the 'psychological' change and the 'societal' change?

WM: I think if we pursue the line of thought that we were pursuing, that the word 'change' doesn't work either. Change implies a motive, a purpose, a direction, an agenda, and I don't hear you ( K) saying that.

K: No.

IB: Could we get 'personal' just for a moment? After all, you came to certain notions and positions and senses of reality in the process of being born and growing up and being educated ( in the TS environment ) and then 'uneducating yourself' . You could have stayed in a place where no one ever heard of you, never written books, never come here. You must have made a decision or a series of decisions to do something special with your life, in terms of ( trying to holistically educate) other people. I would like to know, if it's not too 'personal', why you came to that decision, how you came to it and what kinds of things you have found over the years?

K: It's rather... ( 'personal' and/or?) difficult , isn't it ?

BK (moderating ) : Chuck, you mentioned about 'pursuing the time element'. Is that what your question was?

CH: I don't want to take the opportunity away from Krishnaji to address that ( very personal) question unless you don't feel like it...

SB: Krishnaji, you speak of needing both freedom and order, and I experience the freedom in the observa- tion of experiencing the 'now', but when we talk of change, then we also need to speak of order, and I don't understand how we tie in 'order' to experiencing the freedom of the moment.

K: Which question should I answer?

CH: I would like to hear your response to Mr. Buchen's question.

BK: all the questions.

K: Sir, first of all, I am not a ( knowledgeable?) Scholar. I don't read about Buddhism, Hinduism, and all the ('sacred' ?) books. Perhaps one has a 'insight' into what one should do. It is not a calculated activity. An ( illuminating?) insight is ( occurring ?) without remembrance, without memory, without time and that 'insight' is in itself ( illuminating?) the action. If I can put it briefly, that is the whole way of my life. I don't think it contains anything at all.

BK: Sir, I think that is the issue we are looking at. This is what my colleagues are observing and this has been one of my concerns. I would like to 'grow wings' and fly, and I would like to teach my students to 'grow wings' and fly (like an Eagle?) , not leaving marks behind. I would like to be just like you, if I had this ( capacity of direct) insight that you have into the reality—without any concepts, without any memories of the past. But, then I would fall into the ( temporal) trap, and would try to remember how to become (insightful again) .

K: I don't think there is any ( psychological ?) 'becoming'.

BK: I realize that, but without ( the 'doingness' of ?) that, I'm nowhere.

K: Be nowhere.

BK: But everybody expects me to be somewhere.

WM: I think we're touching on an important point. I think that many people who are familiar with your books misinterpret them and think you have a ( Heavenly?) 'program' of social change and I don't hear you saying that at all.

K: Sir, could we discuss what is Insight and see if we (can or?) cannot achieve it? Or whether we [do potentially ] have the 'gift', or the ( holistic) 'quality' of insight.

WM: Do you think that it can be taught ?

K: It can't be taught. But I think that it can come about through ( a non-dualistic meditative?) inquiry. It isn't, 'I'll teach you, or you teach me,' but if we could inquire into it, it might 'happen'.

WM: So, where should we begin?

K: Should we begin with ( what is the process of our everyday ) thought?

W M: It's like a chaotic mass of ( 'thought-) bubbles'.

K: No, but what 'is' thought? Is it a material process?

WM: I suppose so. I really have no evidence one way or the other. By 'material process' , do you mean the brain cells acting a certain ( pre-programmed?) way?

K: We acquire experience & knowledge which are stored up in the (specialised memory cells of the ?) brain, and the ( displayed) response of that memory (to any challenge?) is 'thought'. That's obvious. And our whole society, as well as our whole religious outlook, is 'put together' ( created ?) by thought (safely operating in the field of what was previously experienced & known ? ) If we can 'acknowledge' ( the obvious truth of ?) that as an actuality, we can start from there.

WM : But a large part of our 'religious' heritage is against (this materialistic view of?) thought.

K: I know, but all the ( infrastructures & cultural ) contents of religious organizations are based on thought.

WM: So they can't escape it eventually. If they are going to have a program, they end up with thought.

K: All the rituals, dogmas, symbols, beliefs and faiths are based on thought. Now, could we be ( inwardly ) free from all ( man -made ?) beliefs, dogmas, rituals & ideals?

WM: Maybe a ( holistically?) better question would be the one you just asked before that: Could we be free from all belief?

K: Begin with that: belief, in the ( context of the?) Christian faith is very important. And the ( orthodox) Hindu or Buddhist has his own particular form (of belief) . Could we be free of ( the cultivated attachment to ?) those beliefs? Because those beliefs are 'brought about' through ( ancestral) fears, a desire to be secure and as a sense of hope.

WM: But not just 'religious' beliefs: Can we be totally free of belief, any belief?

K: Yes, put it in that ( more holistically correct?) way; can we be free of 'belief'?

WM: Because we act on ( root assumptions or?) 'beliefs' . And we behave according these 'beliefs'.

K: So, can that ( pre-programmed?) 'belief' which burdens the mind be free so the mind can be free of belief?

WM: I think that's very difficult.

CH: It sounds like a ( wishful thinking?) 'theory' to me.

K: No, not as a theory, but in actuality. I believe in what?

WM: I may believe that I'm going to have (a good) lunch today.

K: Or I believe that I'm going to live in the next life.

WM: I think you could be free from this kind of beliefs – they are of an 'extreme' variety, but we live our everyday lives by ( far more realistic hopes and ?) beliefs.

K: ( Anyway) we were inquiring into insight, right? And we are saying [in order] to find that out, there must be freedom from 'belief'.

WM: Freedom from ideals ? Freedom from ( personal?) programs and agendas ?

K: Freedom from ( the attachment to nice sounding ?) 'ideals'. Let's stick to one word, or we will get lost.

CH: But can we take that one 'ideal' and generalize it to other socialized ideas about who I am? It's very difficult to get past that. You have all those beliefs, all those things that I live by, the things that determine who I am, and the way that I am in the world.

K : Why do we have ( such personal assumptions and/or ) beliefs?

JG : Security ?

K : Essentially ( for psychological) security.

WM: But weren't the Krishnamurti schools created with an an 'ideal' in mind?

K: Let's leave the ( purpose of the?) K schools for the moment, I want to get at this ( fine experiential?) point. Can the mind be free of ( its personal attachment to any ?) belief?

WM: Yes, I think so.

K: Even if that belief gives us ( a long term?) 'psychological' security?

IB : Do you mean 'be free' by rejecting it, or by not allowing it to dominate?

K: I mean ( be free of it 'holistically' by ?) understanding the nature of it, how it comes into being, and why man believes.

CH: Does this ( holistic approach?) give you freedom from it then?

K: Yes! Inquiring, going into it, and looking at it, pro- vides freedom from it.

CH: How does this give you freedom from it?

K: By understanding (by seeing the truth or the falseness of?) you get freedom from it.

CH: But in my experience that I look at that belief, and I see that I could really get rid of it, but then... it takes over and goes on by itself.

K: Why?

WM: ( Because our attachment to it) is very subtle. We act as though we can get our hands on a belief, but it has a way of coming back and sort of taking over.

K: But isn't that belief part of 'me'?

IB: It gives the ( illusory) impression of being part of 'you'.

K: But isn't my ( own self-centred?) thought that has created belief ?

BK: Sir, it takes courage to go that far.

RN: Or desperation ? It's like breaking a smoking habit. It's a habit and sometimes even though I say, 'I don't want that cigarette,' before I know it, I have reached for it and I am lighting it up and smoking it. It is a habit and it is in the physiology.

CH: You could have seen that yesterday.

IB : Are you claiming that, if it comes back that way, the process of understanding the belief or the 'detachment' from the belief is not strong enough?

K: Say, sir, I believe in my nationalism; take that ( trivial belief ) as a (scholastic?) example.

IB: Oh, that's a terrible example.

K: I am not a nationalist, but let's take that as an exam- ple. Then ( to have an insight into its validity?) I won't start analyzing it. I will ( try to ) observe it (non-personally) and, in the observation of it, I see the consequences of it (out there) : wars, division, etc. The very seeing of the fact that it is 'divisive', denies ( the attachment to?) 'nationalism' in me, and I am no longer a nationalist.

IB: But don't you also observe how it offers you security, and by which you may you yourself consider ( free in the Land of the?) free .

K: So, I observe all that.

IB : But first you recognize it as an authority. It takes on the shape of an ( 'Uncle Sam'?) authority and then you begin to observe it.

K: No. I observe ( the outer & inner effects of?) that nationalism. It is a ( psychological) poison to me. It is very divisive...

WM : But are all ideals 'poison'?

K: I'm taking nationalism for an (easy scholastic?) example. And, in seeing that ( 'psychological' poison?) it's over. I'm not a Hindu or all the rest of it.

IB : But it's not that 'clear-cut' to me. I don't find nationalsm so totally pernicious. Because it is divisive, it doesn't mean that it doesn't serve other functions for a country. I mean, why should it only be limited to war?

K: No. It is ( culturally?) 'divisive'. I'm a Hindu, you are a Moslem, you're a Christian and so on.

IB : But if it weren't divisive when Hitler came along, we wouldn't even be sitting here enjoying this free con- versation.

K: But we ( our collective unconscious ?) created the 'Hitlers'.

IB: I didn't create 'Hitler'.

K: No, but our (collective tribalistic ?) history did.

WM : But the fact is, what do we do when these 'Hitlers' appear on the scene? What do we do?

IB: One of the things we do ( in order to defend ourselves ) is be very nationalistic.

K: Let's keep in mind that we are inquiring into insight,. And, we are saying that there must be ( as a pre-requisite?) freedom from ( any personal attachment?) to 'belief' in which is involved fear, security and so on. Can the mind be free of such (psycho- attachments?) ? Otherwise, you cannot have insight.

IB: What else can't you have? Because it seems as if we have to 'empty ourselves' of a great deal, piece by piece by piece, and prepare ourselves for insight.

K: Not 'piece by piece', but to see instantly the whole thing.

IB : Isn't that one of the qualities of insight, that you see the whole of that thing?

K: No, much more is involved...

CH: So you see the wholeness of what you know, and cast off your beliefs and see that, and then, as was said earlier, you have a moment in a class where 'things happen' and change can take place. Except that in my own experience that [change doesn't last]. It happens and then it goes away. The smoking example was a good one. But ( your scholastic example of?) 'nationalism' doesn't work for me because I'm not nationalistic. So, maybe you could take something more 'personal', something more psychologically (sticky ?) like anger or dependency or...

K: Take 'dependency'. There must be freedom from dependency, because (eventually that?) dependency leads to corruption.

CH: I see that, I mean it goes on...

K: Just listen to it. To 'depend' ( rely inwardly on someone or something?) —what is involved in it? Fear, loneliness, attachment & jealousy? And the consequences of that dependency cause corrup- tion. Now, to see ( the truth of?) that instantly, immediately, is to have insight into it, and that very insight dissolves your 'dependency'.

CH : Does that also bring about change?

K: There is no 'change' (into something else ?) but freedom

CH : Will there be fear then?

K : No. Of course not.

RN : Krishnaji, are you saying, then, that in order to
have ( the holistic quality of?) insight, I have to first get rid of the dependency?

K: Say I'm ( psycho-?) dependent and I am inquiring into it and I see the ( very bad?) consequences of my dependency, and the ( flash of?) insight into the ( whole issue and the psycho- dependency?) is finished.

RN: Oh, boy...l don't experience it like that. It's not insight then.

K: You can't experience it.

RN: I can experience my personal dependency. And, I guess I see it as wrong somehow. I see it as wrong, but my whole body and my whole physiology ( on that particular 'drug' ) is still dependent. So I don't have...

K: We're talking about ( the deeper roots of our ) 'psychological' dependency, born out of my loneliness, out of the whole ( self-centred?) cycle of it.

IB: Is the insight yours? It doesn't have any identity, does it? You can't claim it as 'yours'.

K: No, of course not.

IB: So that's my point. If it doesn't belong to you and it doesn't belong to me, then it's everybody's insight. So that becomes potentially a bond for sharing between everyone. Is insight the most intimate sharing we have of the commonality of human beings?

K: The ( shared karmic package of ?) of all human beings, sir, is suffering anxiety, despair, loneliness and a great sense of utter emptiness. That is the psychological commonality of all human beings, whether we live in India or here (in SoCal) or in Japan or Russia.

IB : But you also seem to suggest that Insight has a com- monality to it also. That all people who have reached the point of insight reach it together.

K: Not 'together'. I don't even think that it belongs to me or to you. It is 'insight'.

IB: And it's always liberating?

K: It must be. Otherwise, there is no point in discussing it.

IB: So that the direction of all social change has to be toward liberation.

K: Yes sir.

IB : Whether it be personal or social or both?

K: But if you set up this 'total liberation' as an ideal ( to be pursued in terms of linear time) then we are lost (again in time?) .

WM: But getting back to the Krishnamurti schools, is that what is ( the ultimate purpse of?) a Krishnamurti school?

K: Don't just talk of Krishnamurti schools.

WM : But as soon as we set an ideal like total liberation and we start working toward it...

K: No, I'm not setting up an ideal. This gentleman
asked me for my personal life and I said: If I may repeat it here without any conceit, or being personal, I have not read all the scholarly books, religious books, but I've observed a great deal, outwardly and inwardly. In that observation, there was insight and that insight brought action.

WM: What was the action that was brought about by [that] insight?

K: Sir, I was the head of a big ( TS) organization. There was an insight into ( the true validity of?) it, and I said, organizations of a spiritual and religious kind, [were] a great hindrance to man. I dissolved the organization with- out any regret or fear of what would happen to me without any money, etc., etc.

WM: But isn't the Krishnamurti Foundation a (similar?) organization?

K: That's not the same thing. It is just (meant?) to publish books and organize meetings and (manage a few retreats & schools ?) that kind of ($, £ & € ?) thing. There is nothing 'spiritual' about it.

BK: Sir, can 'insight' be planned?

K: Of course not.

BK: Can we talk a little more about ( what is meant by 'total insight' ) ?

K: Sir, we live in contradictions, in conflict, don't we? I want to find out if conflict can end, psychologically. I'm not talking outwardly. Psychologically, can ( this inner state of?) conflict 'end' in myself and in my relationship to you, or with whatever? Can that conflict end? Apparently, throughout all these millenia that man has lived, conflict has been his very nature. Inwardly, ( the moral struggle btw ? ) 'good' and 'evil', the pain of all that, can it all ( come to an?) end? Now, how to have an insight into it? Not by analyzing the causes; because then there is ( an additional conflict?) 'analyzer' vs the ( stuff ) analyzed. ( Clue:) the analyzer 'is' the analyzed. So, can we have an insight into this whole movement of conflict?

WM: If you don't want to have an 'analyzer' and something
'analyzed', then what becomes of learning? Isn't learn- ing the very dualistic process that we were talking about?

K: What is learning, then? Learning, as we know now, is ( the acquiring & ) accumulation of knowledge. Now, is there a different kind of ( directly perceptive?) learning which is not cumulative?

WM: It would be the excitement of discovery.

K: That's it. To discover whether it is possible to end conflict. But if you assume that it can never end stops inquiry. Therefore, there must be a skeptical inquiry.

IB : Most of us in the academic world seldom ask that question. We very seldom, if ever, ask if conflicts can be ended. What we really ask is how can it be managed, reduced, handled and directed. We may in fact be created and sustained by conflict, and as long as conflict remains of significant dynamics, that's how we get paid and that's how we go on.

RN: "I think the fear is that all my existence will end when I no longer have conflict or jealousy or all these things. When you said that earlier, I wanted to say, 'What's there instead?' It's almost as that is the end of the self.

K: Aha! And, there is a great fear connected with that.

WM: Is there any action for a person who has that holistic mentality that you are talking about? What's there for a person who has discarded the 'self'? Is there any need to act on anything if one realizes the wholeness of life ?

K: But you have to act. Life is action. Life is relation- ship. In ( our present) relationships there is conflict. Now, in this relationship between two human beings, can that conflict end; completely end, not 'partially'? Not that one day it ends and the next day it begins again. Let's go into it, let's inquire into it.

WM: And we were talking about conflict not ending by
any program or by a structure, rather than by looking within.

K: Yes, by looking at it, observing it.

WM: And we were also talking about looking at it intel- lectually - it is like realizing something verbally and yet our lives are not changed by it.

K: First, can conflict in human beings end? As we pointed out, we never put that question. It is too dangerous a question, too inconvenient, too disturb- ing. So to put that question, can we go into it care- fully?

WM: I think implicit in that question is this: Can conflict between human beings end?

K: If I can end it between myself and somebody else, I have ended ( all my ?) conflicts with the whole of mankind. If I can't end it, I maintain violence, hatred, division, self-centered activity. I think this is a very funda- mental question.

IB: Conflict is a particularly difficult experience to handle because it is not unilateral. Suppose that I'm in conflict with you and I disengage from the conflict, but you don't... in other words, it's a mutual action

K: We'll come to mutuality after a while. My life is relationships. I can't exist without relationships. So my relationship apparently brings con- flict, and can that conflict end?

IB: Implicitly, you obviously believe it can.

K: No, not 'believe'. It can end for me. So, it can end for anyone who is willing to go into it.

IB: What is it like when it ends?

K: We'll ( have to) find it out. It's like sitting on a chair and saying What is life like beyond the hill? So, why am I attached to conflict? Is it a habit? Is it a part of my religious conditioning ?

IB : Yes. You accept it as a norm. And the only place that it doesn't exist is in heaven.

K:Yes, that's it. Jesus or Krishna or Buddha are without
conflict. I'm not interested in all that. I see that con- flict exists. I don't translate it as good and bad, evil and not-evil. It is so and as it is so, can it ( come to an?) end?

BK: Yes, the minute we stop thinking( personally ) about conflict it disappears.

K: Ah, no, no, no, no...

WM : Aren't we setting up a dichotomy of 'conflict'-'no conflict?

K: No, we're only concerned with conflict. I'm not saying what will happen if I end it?

WM: But I think that is what blocks some of us; I know that I have that feeling, that a goal of 'ending conflict' gets us.

K: Sir, I'm just saying that life is conflict. I don't say I must end it. Then I will become involved in the effort and all the rest of it.

WM: Isn't there in back of our inquiry, this unspoken hope that we will end it ?

K: If you have a motive to inquire, it is not inquiry. Your motive then directs the inquiry.

IB : Now, why does conflict exist between man and man?

WM: Because we believe that we can hold onto some- thing.

K: "Yes, you believe in one thing and I believe in another.

BK: We have different motives.

K: Different motives, different attachments, different
pursuits, different forms of pleasure, different forms of achievement and so on and so on.

IB: And we're not persuaded that there's enough to be equally shared.

K: All of that is implied; it is actually a ( self-interest based?) contradiction in one's self. You have looked at the whole nature of it, but am still inwardly living in conflict.

WM: Intellectually, we know that some prized art object that might be here in the room will be dust 2,000 years from now, and it does not have any permanent real- ity. And that we'll all be dust too, and we can't possess it, it's not ours. Yet, once we intellectually realize that, we go on and behave as if we can possess it and we crave it and we desire it.

K: Intellectual comprehension has no ( experiential) value?

WM: No, it is not good enough.

K: So I brush that aside.

WM: Well done. Now where do we go after we 'brush it aside'?

RN: Back to our own ( conflicting) feelings...

K: I've only this thing left called conflict, right? I want
to see what is the cause of if. I'm observing it (non-personally?) and ( eventually?) the cause and the whole process of it is 'revealed'. Maybe not in a spiritual sense. It just 'shows'.

IB : It's like a drama, like watching a play?

K: Yes.

BK: Sir, I'm not sure all of us have that capacity to look, to observe ( anything directly ) .

K: What do you mean by 'observe' ?

BK : Being aware of...

K: To look, to observe, to observe a tree or wife or
husband or me, without naming.

BK : It's not there.

K: Can you observe and learn about ( the quality of your own?) observation?

BK : That's where we should begin, I suppose ?

K: We are beginning to observe.

BK: Then my question: That observation in itself is an
ability. Most people who are caught in the rut that we, as human beings must be...

K: However much one is in a rut, one can surely ( take the time to learn to ?) observe (non-verbally?) , and see what happens when you so observe.

WM: I think our mind tends to put an abstraction on what we observe.

K: Yes sir. When I look at something, I ( recognise & ) name it immediately. Can there be ( a direct mode of ) observation without naming? ( Clue:) The word is not the thing.

CH: There can be observation without naming and there has been.

K: Of course. Then let's proceed (by using this non-verbal observation inwardly?) : Is there ( a non-personal) observation of myself, without the word, with- out a motive, without being attached or condemning it? After all, that's what the scientists- (are supposed to?) do : Just to observe; and their ( objective ) observation reveals everything.

When you look into the microscope or [at] the heav- ens, you are not ( starting by recognising & ) naming it, you are just looking. So, can we look at our conflicts in such a manner? ( Clue:) Why does conflict exist between me and another person?

CH: Because of competition ?

K: No, just look at it sir, look, it shows.

WM : We don't want the same things, obviously. That person wants something, he has a ( personal) motive, and I have a different motive.

K: Sir, I've lived with my wife for five years or thirty years : have I ever 'looked' at her?

WM: There are moments when...

K: No, 'moments' are not important.

WM: That's right, they are not sustained. But you seem to be talking about a (quality of direct?) observation that will be self-sustained and remain constant ?

K: We'll come to that, sir.

RN: How can I look at her without becoming afraid?

K: Then pursue, understand, what is this fear? I'm not married, but suppose I'm attached to my wife and I see the consequences of that attachment. I have built an image of her and she has built an image about me. So, our actual relationship is between these (self-protective?) 'images' . That may be the cause of ( a dormant or open?) conflict.

BK: That 'may be'...

K: I think I'm 'good' and she's 'evil'. But there may be a 'goodness' that is totally unrelated to ( the conventional concepts of ) 'good' or 'evil'.

WM: That's quite a statement. How could there be good without evil?

K : So, my relationship is intellectual, verbal, conceptual, imaginative, ( in the sense of based on an 'image') . And she has one of me. So that may be the cause of our (inner & outer?) conflicts : living on 'images'.

WM : Which is baggage from the past.

K: Can that ( unconscious ?) 'image-making' stop?

RN : It's almost like asking , 'Can breathing out and breathing in stop?' Can fear stop?

K: Yes. But we must ( experientially?) inquire into it. You see, you are asking hypothetical questions.

BK: We're looking for concepts, that's the problem.

RN: Solutions.

K: No, sir. (For starters?) I don't want to end anything ; I just want to look first, and I see that fact in (my eveyday) relationships. That there is this ( deep sense of self-) separation caused by ( covering up the inneer 'facts' with ) words, memories, knowledge, image, picture, all of that. Now, I ask: Can this machinery of 'image - making' come to an end?"

IB : As you ask that question, do you also have a sense that behind the image -making there is also some- thing else you have never seen before, or never valued as much as you value it now?

K: There may be something much more ( to be discovered?) beyond all this ( self-protective imagery?)

IB: You don't have a sense that, for example, about your wife or your friend as you observe the images. Isn't there some faint sense of 'something else' beyond the images?

K: I'm going to find out.

IB: Yes, you don't know it yet, you never know it, but you may...

K: I may know it. I may never know it. So I'm inquiring.

IB: It's not conditional. That's even riskier.

WM: To begin with, I think we should have to devote every waking moment to this ( direct observation?)

K: But you see, you're stipulating already.

WM: Well, you have asked the question, 'Is it possible?'

K: I asked, can this ( mental ?) machinery which makes 'images', which produces ( our self-centred) thinking, stop? The ( ego-centric) thought that says ''she has hurt me''; the 'image' I have about myself. Why do I have this image about myself? ( Clue :) Because I want to be 'somebody', so I look into it and see how absurd (or illusory?) it is. That is ( a total ) insight. Then it ( the image-making machinery of thought?) ends.

WM: But you have to maintain that

K: When there is insight into this 'image-making' and the ( sad?) consequences of that in one's relationships [are] revealed, that ( total) insight ends conflict. Do it (now or for homework?) , sir. You will ( eventually ) see, (that) it is very 'simple'.

CH: Can insight come from the observing of the im- ages?

K: The 'images' are (creating) the 'observer'. There is no difference between the 'observer' and (its) 'images'. The observer has created the ( composite self-) image.

BK: But when does the insight occur? When is the merging (of seeing & acting ) takes place, or do they happen instantly?

K: Instantly, immediately.

BK: What proof do we have?

K: Right action.

BK: I know that it ends. But ( I was asking about ) the emergence of the insight and the merging of the observed and the observer...

K: Aren't we mixing up the two? Sir, I observe conflict, and I see if there is an ending to conflict. Then I'm afraid ( that without these self-images) I may be ( inwardly?) 'nothing', so I now begin to inquire into (this primordial) fear (of 'not being'?) . What is fear? And so I observe it non-verbally) . And so, I see this fear can also end completely, psychologically (speaking)

IB: I think that these insights are not temporary or limited because they're not bound only to the expe- rience being looked at. They are entangled. Our initial question, 'What is conflict?' becomes 'What is fear'.

K: You have discovered it. Go on, sir.

IB : Well, it becomes a kind of lovely web that entangles a number of other issues.

K: So one issue is related to all other issues.

IB : That is part of the entire pattern.

K: And the ( holistic) resolution of one problem is ( leading to ) the resolution of all problems. Sorry to sound Delphic!

IB: But that resolution doesn't solve everything for all time at that given moment. You may come across the same center again but through another path. Therefore, the approaches are infinite.

K: All right. How do we approach a psychological problem ?

WM : We think about the worst possible thing that can come from that problem for us. I think we tend to think of it in a self-centered way.

K : Say, I have a problem. I'm hurt. How do I approach the problem of hurt?

IB : The problem is over there and we stand over here.

K: Right. So how do you approach the problem?

IB: We usually try to keep a saf distance. I think we try to hold it off. But as we come closer, there is the recognition that we have to allow the problem to contribute to its statements. That is, the problem is 'entangling'.

K: Isn't the answer considered more important than the problem?

IB: Surely, that's why we never get around to ( completely) solving the problem.

K: Which places your emphasis on the answer. But the answer may be (found) in the (holistic approach of the ) problem.

IB: You have to become ( one with ) the problem.

K: But you are ( the creator of ) the problem.

IB: So, you have to work at it from the inside out.

K: I'm doing that. I 'am' the problem. The problem is not 'out there', it's 'in here'. So, how do I look at it?

IB : You live with it.

K: All right, I live with it.

IB: You live it and taste it and smell it.

K: So, how do I meet it? Do we meet it as an outsider? When I have separated myself from the problem, the conflict may never end. But when the problem 'is' me, there is a totally different perception of ending it. When the observer 'is' the observed, it may end the conflict.

WM: The human inclination is to make the problem
'somebody else's', and you are saying that the ( key of the ) problem is in ourselves.

BK: Can we enlarge the issue from there on into society,

or does the problem-solving have to be at the individual level?

K : What is society, sir?

BK: What I mean is that there are people who control

society, those like politicians.

K: Who—Reagan, Brezhnev, Mrs. Thatcher?

BK: How do we teach them?

K: l don't want to teach them. What is society, I am

asking? We have created the bad stuff.

BK: But we don't control it.

K: I don't want to control it. We have created it.

RN: They are a reflection of our consciousness, of our
( own level of) awareness.

K: ( Our society ) is a ( compounded?) result of our greed, our envy, our dishonesty, our corruption- that has created society.

BK: That was my original concern when we started
discussing social change. We have realized the
malaise for so long that we should now find solutions.

K: But we have only realized it verbally (on the conceptual level)

BK: That may be true, ( mostly) verbally.

WM: Don't you think that individuals throughout all of
human history have realized what you are talking

K: What?

WM : About this wholeness, this whole vision...maybe
Gautama Siddartha realized it, Jesus of Nazareth
realized it.

K: I don't know about Jesus of Nazareth...

WM : Well, we can't blame him for •how other people
have interpreted him. But I think what Professor
Khare is saying is, how can we translate an individu-
al's realization into a broader scope?

K: I don't think it is an individual's realization. A holistic realization is not an 'individual' ( not a 'personal'?) realization.

WM: That's ( probably?) right. An the individual loses his sense of ( isolated) 'individuality', it has no meaning for the person who realizes it.

RN : And I think what you were saying originally, Brij, was that the question of how do we change the world
or how do we change the system, might be more...

K: Madam, that means the world is different from me.
But, I am the world.

RN : But we need more people who would shout out this theory.

K: Then do it.

RN: I'm working on it. I want to ask you a question, Krish-
naji: What about meditation? Is this meditation that
you are talking about?"

K: I'll go into it if you are interested. What is meditation to you?

RN : I tried many techniques of meditation eight years ago. I finally learned a little technique from Maharishi Mahesh Yogi. I am independent of the Maharishi in the sense that I don't follow his teachings or anything of that
nature, but I would like to talk about the actual technique of meditation ( the 'doingness') .

K: Let's inquire first into what 'is' meditation, not the tech-
niques of meditation.

RN: What is meditation? May I speak of how I expe-
rience meditation?

K: You can 'experience' anything you want, but my (persnal) experiences are very doubtful and are of no importance. Therefore, I put them aside.

RN: All right, I'll have to try that. So, what 'is' meditation?

K: Why do you raise the question ?

RN: I have a structure. The distance in you, you speak of,
the watching of the thought passing by...

K: There are many ( well structured) 'systems' of meditation: Zen, Buddhist, the various meditations of the Hindus, which include Mahesh Yogi's. They make money out of it, and it becomes a ( juicy?) business.

P: What do this (TM) meditation people promise (or advertise?) , a quiet mind, a (transcendental) experience of 'something beyond', of the eternal ?

RN: I was sold the program because of what it does to
the physiology, and based upon the research that
they have completed on this subject.

K: That would do perfectly if you rested after meals,
like taking a siesta.

RN: This is different than that.
K: No, you quiet down and you go to sleep. There, you
repeat the words and you, quietly by repetition (of a secret mantra?) , make the mind dull and 'slow down' the whole process.

RN: But my mind is alert.

K: It is ( made ) alert through dullness, through repetition.

IB: "She's our resident expert on meditation.

RN: I disagree. The only thing I've noticed is an actual 'watching' (inner observation?) of the thoughts and being detached from the thought process.

K: Who is detaching from thought? Who is making the

BK: The thought is.

K: Of course.

RN : But it is not an effort. It's just that when you speak of standing back from things (and observing) ; the only time I seem to be able to do that is when I quiet my ( psychosomatic) body.

K: Then you have taken the Mantra as a drug to quiet the mind. Do you know what this ( composite ) word 'mantra' actually means? 'man' means  'to meditate on not becoming' and 'tra' means to dissolve all self-centered activity. And for (a 'personalised' version of?) that you pay $50 !

RN: Oh, no, much more than that!

CH : Maybe the question could be phrased just a little differently : 'Mantra' is an ( experiential) attempt to inquire (into oneself ) , and any such inquiry has its own methodology.

K: Sir, ( the deeper meaning of any ?) 'religion' is a skeptical inquiring into truth.

IB: Is our idea of introducing a course in the 'Art of
Inquiry' a contradiction in terms?

K: I don't quite follow you.

BK: He means teaching about 'inquiry'.

IB: You know, academicians are like morticians, they
almost kill everything that is alive when they get hold
of it. I'm wondering if you could structure a course
called the 'Art of Inquiry' and bring that into an
academic setting, or is this ( scholarly) attempt already doomed to failure?

K: You're already destroying ( the living spirit of?) it.

IB: That's what I thought you'd answer...

W M: But then, did Buddha destroy the 'art of ( self) inquiry' through his 'eight-fold path'? His eight-fold path is a very structured method: You start with step one and so on...

K: I wonder if Buddha did that, or it came about (later) ?

WM: Do you think that after Krishnamurti...

K: No! The lady asked, 'What is meditation?'
( For starters?) In meditation, there is no (following of anybody's spiritual) authority.

W M: And therefore, no structure ?

K: I don't accept any authority: Neither Maharishi nor
Zen nor Buddha nor Christ—no authority.

WM : No way to do it, no path ?

K: What happens (in your attempt to meditate?) , when you have no path (to follow), no system, no goal, absolutely no authority of the past or the present, what
happens to the mind ?

W M: It stops, it freezes. It looks like it is looking out in all
directions with no direction.

K: What you're saying is a 'theory'. But if you say, 'no
authority', you stand alone.

WM: But then you have to create your own path.

RN: You 'are' your own path.

K: "Sir, we all want to be somebody or achieve some-
thing: Nirvana, Moksha, Heaven. That ( self-projected?) movement has to stop commpletely.

RN: But how do I teach this , Krishnaji; observing the students is one of mv jobs. I go into the schools
where my student teachers are practicing teaching, and
one of the schools I go to has had their second stabbing in two weeks. It is absolutely horrendous. And I
find these teaching students in utter confusion. I want to do something for them, and...l feel very, very frustrated.

K: So we're back to the whole question of what is ( the true role of?) a teacher?

RN : Yes.

K: You see, a teacher's responsibility is to produce
a new generation (of intelligent people?) . Therefore, a teacher is the most honored person in the world, right, sir?

WM: I'm stuck on something you just said : to pro-
duce a new generation, different from the old genera-
tion ?

K: Yes.

WM: Would it be better than the old generation?

K: Different.

WM: I can accept 'different'. But what exactly are we pro-
ducing ?

K: Let us say a 'holistic (an integrated?) human being'.

WM: I'm afraid there are very few of those...

K: Then let's see if we can't create a new generation
through ( a holistic) education.

WM: But education is the 'path', isn't it? Don't the existing Krishnamurti schools have a 'structure'? Every time I say
that, you wince.

K: It may not be. All that I am trying to say, sir, is that
the function and the responsibility of a teacher is to
help the coming generation to be 'holistic'. To have
the academics, as well as understanding the whole
psychological world, which is his or her own con-
science. But ( usually) we neglect that in favor of the academics, and perhaps that is the reason why the world is becoming what it is.

BK: Could you give us a summary of what you have been saying on education?

K: All that we have discussed for three days? Let's (better) continue with the question of meditation. Would you say ( that an important point in any?) meditation is the understanding of the 'meditator'?

RN: No

K: Why do you say 'no'? That's what we have done just
now. The ending of our inner conflicts, understanding one's attachment, relationships, the nature of thought, consciousness, is ( tantamount to?) the understanding of the 'meditator', so that the 'meditator' (mental entity?) becomes quiet, naturally, not through systems or forced or all that kind of stuff.

BK: Maybe that's what we should be teaching about,
how to meditate and not about the subject.

K: Not 'how to meditate', but what ( any authentic) meditation is (supposed to be doing?) .

BK: I agree, not 'how to', but what it (actually) is.

RN ; I'm not sold on Transcendental Meditation as a

method, but [I want] something that I can [pass on]
to someone, that I can give to them. Nothing will
make me be myself more.

BK: Can't we be just what we are ourselves?

K: Where there is nectar, the bees come...

RN: Yes.

SM: May I ask a question about insight? You spoke of
insight where you need no knowledge. Do you mean
that this is not a process?

K: I said there can be no (total) insight when there is remembrance, or when there is a calculated, 'thought-out'
action. Insight means immediate perception of what
is true in that problem. The perception of that dis-
solves the problem.

SM: So when you have insight, does it mean you'll have
total freedom of the mind?

K: Yes.

SM : Then, it seems to me, from the people that I have known in India who I perceive to have freedom, at least the state of it...

K: Oh, I don't know.

SM: Is it possible that there is insight, and then there is (a total) insight'? Can you arrive at that 'insight' through a
system of belief?

K: Oh, no! Good God, no! If I am an (orthodox) Hindu with my particular set of beliefs, dogma, superstition and all that, how can I have insight into anything? If I am a traditionalist, I cannot have an insight. There must be freedom from all this.

SM: Then you are saying that anyone who has used a traditional 'religious path' has not reached an insight ?

K: Actually, we have to inquire into what you mean by
religion. Organized religion is not an (authentic) religion. It is just a belief, a 'state religion' ( and/or) a (lucrative ) business.

IB: That notion of Insight, then, is almost like a vision of
the future generation of new students.

K: Maybe. Sir, don't give terrific importance to Insight.

IB: Why, it's terrifying. I've never heard it described
with such 'absoluteness' before. You say, for instance,
that if you took a so-called religious approach that
you would not even reach it, because you're imprisoned
within that particular religion.

K: I mean, if I am an (orthodox) Hindu with all my superstitions, with what the Vedas included, what the Upanishads taught, I am caught up in ( the complexity of ) all that. I'm never free (to inquire independently ?) .

IB: Also, your insight could never be global.

K: That is true. It's the same thing.

IB: That's why I said it was 'frightening'. It's because it's
so pervasive and so comprehensive. You're at the
center of the world and at the center of the future.

K: This may be (true?) .

BK : At the outset, I asked about good and evil. Are
heaven and hell synonymous? Are Nirvana and Sam-
sara the same?

K: I don't think they are called Heaven and Hell; these are
an invention of ( western?) thought.
Is Goodness associated or does it have its roots in 'evil'? I'm talking about the feeling of goodness and the (inner) state of Goodness. Does it derive from 'evil'? If it does, it's no longer Good; it's a mixture.

WM: Well, when we 'hit our heads against the stone wall', it feels good to stop. But I think the feeling we define as
Good has its meaning because of our knowledge of
evil. We talked a while back about Good being inde-
pendent of evil.

K: That's what I said.

WM: I realize that if we don't have 'ears to hear', we can't
hear, but could you elaborate on it a little?

K: Let's go into it, sir, we have five minutes more.

WM: How Good(ness) could be independent of 'evil'?

K: Is love associated with hate? Is love ( mixed up with) jealousy?

WM: The word 'love' can mean so many different things...

K: I'm just using the ( generic) word Love. I know it's been spat upon, trodden upon, it's made ugly and associated
with sex.

WM : It means 'the feeling of oneness' ?

K: The root meaning of the (inner) feeling of a Goodness which is 'holistic', is the same as holy; that word contains all that. Now, can evil be associated with that? Or, is it something totally different from evil, like Love? If it is part of hate, it's no longer the other. If it is part of jealousy, part of ambition...

WM : But if we felt 'whole'—I've never felt whole, but if I did feel whole—would I even be talking in these
terms? Would 'evil' or 'hate' have any meaning for me ?

K: Killing somebody is evil, obviously...the organized killing.

WM: Right, I wouldn't be the one doing the killing, but if
I were whole, if I had a 'holistic' mentality, you're
saying I am whole...

K: When you say, 'if'—there is a conditional approach to the problem.

WM: For one who 'is' whole.

K: Then you have to 'be whole' before you can opt for

WM: So we get back to 'having ears to hear'.

K: I think we are finished.

BK: Thank you, sir.

This post was last updated by John Raica Fri, 08 Dec 2017.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 09 Dec 2017 #15
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline



LG : Sir, for seventeen years, I have been teaching French at Redlands High School. I have gone to work every morning joyfully, looking forward to my day, and not thinking of my job in terms of remuner- ation. In reading one of your essays on the difference between the acquisition of knowledge and learning, I have discovered that I have done nothing but impart knowledge to my students, and that probably no real ( holistic) learning has ever taken place in my classroom. Is it sufficient that I do that, or am I doing a disservice to myself and to my students, to limit the classroom work to the kind of teaching that I do?

K: Could we ask: What is a ( holistic?) teacher?

RD : We thought you might do that.

K: What is a ( holistic?) teacher? Is a teacher one who instructs, gives information, acts as an example, points out the way, or [is a teacher one who] establishes a relationship with the student on an equal basis, not as a 'teacher' and the 'taught? In such a ( shared learning?) relationship, 'psychologically' (speaking) , both are equal. So, What is actually the function of a teacher?

LG : To be human with the students.

K: For the moment, could we forget the students? What is a 'teacher', per se?

RD: Then, an (ordinary) teacher is a human being who is functioning within the same set of constraints that you have discussed in the previous two sessions. In other words, he has experiences, commits those to memory, to history, and lives through the same process and goes through the same struggle as every other human being.

K: Sir, suppose I am a teacher in a school. What is my relationship to the students, to society, to mankind, to the future, as a teacher? A teacher is ( supposed to be?) the most respected member of ( any decent?) society, because he or she is bringing about a new generation of people.

RD: Yes, we hope it is so.

K: He brings about a new generation of people. So ( theoretically?) you're the most important person in society. But at present you're [actually] not (anywhere close) .

RD: Can anybody assume that kind of a position?

K: Not 'assume', you are.

RD: O. K. Then, how can anybody be the 'most important person' ( MIP?) in society if we all have the same cultural background and (also inwardly we ) are the same?

K: If one is concerned with the transformation of the mind of the student, not just [with gathering ] knowledge, but the whole of life. I mean, ( holistically speaking) you 'are' the most important person (in the development of a new ?) society. It is the greatest profession in the world.

RD: So, you're saying that the role of the teacher and the function teacher is to create a new person ?

K: Of course.

RD: Then, is it safe to assume that the job of a teacher should be to help the students learn how to 'observe' (how to look at life?) ?

K: "That's what I'm asking. What is the function of a (holistic?) teacher? What is his responsibility?

RD: My answer to that is that the function of a teacher and his responsibility is to create an environment in which learning takes place.

K: Learning what?

RD: That is the question, In Lois's case, What she is saying for example is that she has spent seventeen 'delightful' years teaching French, and when the students in her room are acquiring the vocabulary, the syntax, etc., of French, is that 'learning'?

K: That's part of learning.

RD: That's the acquisition of knowledge.

K: That's part of learning, but is that all? Let's probe a
little more deeply. First of all, why is one ( becoming) a teacher?

RD: I can go on and say something...

K: But, I'm not asking that.

JF: A teacher has to learn. He has to learn from his students and be able to teach [himself] as well as others. In the process of teaching, aren't you also teaching yourself?

K: We'll go step-by-step, if we may. Say, you are a teacher of mathematics. That is your profession and is that all your 'function'? Are you just there to teach mathematics and walk out of the class after forty- five minutes?

J F : One must maintain his life and his existence enough to teach.

K: So are we as teachers, using this profession as a means of acquiring a livelihood?

JF : I think partially we are. But I think also that we are there to teach the students how to learn, no matter what it is that they are learning.

K: Learning becomes important, right?

JF : It's all that is important.

K: The question is, learning what?

LG: ( For starters?) learning the subject matter.

K: Learning the various ( scholastic) subjects. Look what is happening. I am your student and I know nothing about mathematics, biology and physics. In a sense you are awakening my sense of curiosity.

LG : If I've done that, I've provided an important function.

K: Very important. And, also, you are helping me, with that curiosity, to ( learn to pay ?) attention. So, do I attend to your questioning? Do I ( spontaneously) attend to what you are saying, or am I distracted, casual, inattentive, and you are putting pressure on me to attend? Through 'marks and grading' you are exercising pressure and creating competition.

LG : l'm afraid that I am doing that.

K: So, ( psychologically speaking ) what am I learning from this kind of teacher? I am learning about competition. I am accepting ( to work under?) pressure trying to force myself to pay attention to you in order to achieve something. All these ( subliminal?) processes are involved and I accept the law of the present structure of society and conform to that. Therefore, if I may ask, in what way are you helping me to learn ?

LG: In the way you just described, I don't believe I am really helping you.

K: I'm not asking you personally; but, I'm just asking : as
a ( holistic?) teacher, what is my ( true) responsibility?

LG : If I can talk about why I came into education, it had nothing to do with curriculum. It had to do with the fact that I wanted to work with young people, to help them better understand the world, and to func- tion in that world. But then... you get caught into the (material constraints of the?) system. Now I'm hired by a school which insists that I give grades, insists that I evaluate, which leads us into this trap of competition, which I do consider absolutely a 'trap' and yet I am told: 'You will assign grades.' So my options are: Do that, or don't teach here; which would lead me to conclude that if we go to the final step, to say that I don't want to teach kids to compete, I have to stop...teaching.

K: Did you?

RI: Pretty difficult not to, unless I suppose that I could say to everyone who comes into the class that they already have an 'A' in the course and let's go about learning.

K: No. You're against competition.

RD : Right.

K: Do you think competition is 'dangerous'?

RD : Yes.

K: You just tell that to them.

RD : Yes, I do.

K: You think that marks are only...

RD : A game. That's the word that I use and I try to teach that they can choose to play the game or not. But if they're going to get a good grade in my class, they have to play the game. So, I'm still teaching compe- tition.

K: I understand, sir, but I'm just trying to find out what is the ( human) responsibility of the teacher?

JF: It is to be with his students. If you leave your job, you are leaving your students, and therefore, they will still be brought up in the same system that you are confused by.

K: Well, what is a teacher's responsibility?

LG: I consider my responsibility to be able to communicate the joy that I had in learning a (new) language and watching the ( cultural) patterns unfold; the pieces of the puzzle fitting together, and to have that feeling come across to some of the students. My subject is not important enough to be required and, of the groups that I teach, very few of them go on with it. Either they forget it or don't pursue it any further. However, for the few who do, it's a great treasure for them and for me.

K: If I learn French from you, then what?

LC: Then you forget most of it. It's frivolous, it's trivial. My work has been trivialized this week-end, in my mind.

K: But we're not answering the question. What is the responsibility of the Teacher? Is it merely to teach a language, inform [on] a particular subject, and instruct in some particular discipline?

RD: No.

K: A teacher's responsibility is to take care of the whole (Consciousness?) of man. It is the cultivation of the whole of man. Would you agree?"

RD : Yes.

K: It is the cultivation of a ( compassionate & intelligent?) mind. It is learning how to behave, how to talk, how to approach a relationship, and what life is. It is the whole of it...( aka:) 'holistic'. That is the ( ultimate?) responsibility of the teacher.

LG : It seems to me that when we're infants, there is (such ) a global view and then little by little there is a constant differentiation, [a] constant fragmentation and a constant categorization. It seems to me that that's the way the human mind works and perhaps at some point you ( hopefully?) achieve a level of maturity when you can actually synthesize.

K: So you're helping the student eventually to become 'whole' (an 'integrated human being'?) ?

LG: Yes, but I don't know at what point or how to help anyone because I haven't done it myself.

K: So, you're teaching the student to be whole. And in that ( 'wholistic') teaching, you're learning about yourself and helping the student to learn about himself. Is that part of our education?

RD: That should be part of our education, but is it?

K: Is it? [Or is it] not?

RD: Then (if we are to be honest ) , no, it is not.

JF: If you find frustration in teaching your students, then you have learned about [the] frustrations of learning about yourself.

LG : I think a teacher learns along with the students as the students learn along with the teacher.

RI: "There is no question about that, but we're still compartmentalizing it. I don't believe that most ( of our) education is ( concerned with?) teaching the whole person. It's teaching ( dry?) facts.

K: That's right. Sir, you're not concerned with the whole ( Mind?) of man.

RD: "I don't believe that (an authentic) education (should be?) the process through which the students [get] a holistic perspective.

K: So, what is your responsibility then?

RD: To try to make the education of my students go in that direction, if possible, so that it is a holistic educa- tion.

BD: Perhaps to try to make it as comfortable as possible, too.

K: Comfortable?

BD: Yes. Well, students have the famous ( SAT ) tests to pass, and one finds oneself caught up in the test material and through the testing, the students are going to be judged, and we're right back into competition again. I think we can make the learning such that the test is not the ultimate (goal) , but the learning is.

K: Learning?

BD: Yes.

K: So, one of the functions of a teacher is to help the person to learn a particular subject. Now, just what do we mean by that?

BI : By 'learning' ?

K: Not learning mathematics and biology, but the mind that is ( in the mood of ?) learning.

BD: lt's very hard to put learning into words, or ( to itemise?) what ( the holistic?) learning means.

K: We'll come to it. Let's find it out.

RD: Part of it, I think, is somehow getting the students to realize...

K: Let's leave the students for a moment.

RD: I can't do that. I can't talk about learning and leave the student out of it...

K: ( the act of) learning, per se, what does that mean?

RD : All right, for one thing, the acquisition of knowledge is part of learning; then there is learning to know oneself. That's an element of learning also.

K: Sir, how does learning take place through ( a directly perceptive ) experience? How does learning come about by acting?

RD : All right...

K: Learning by watching others, or by investigation and so on; there are different forms of learning. But what is the quality of the mind that is eager to learn?

RD : Need?

K: The ( ultimate) need is to acquire a job. But what I am asking, is : what is the nature of mind that is in a state of learning?

RD: This comes very much from what I have observed in this ( seminar) weekend ; that is, when you are observing.

K: Before we jump to that; the state of ( holistic?) learning implies a mind that is capable of 'listening'.

RD: O.K....

K: I must listen to you to understand what you are

RD: So, 'attentive-ness' is a prerequisite.

K: I must observe, not only optically, but I must learn to ( mentally) observe the meaning of the word you are using and what is ( the intention?) behind your words.

RD: It is an understanding of the symbols.

K: Yes, symbols and so on. so, what quality of the mind that is in a 'state of learning'?

LG: "I think it would be a quiet mind, my mind is natter- ing and chattering all the time, so I can't (really) 'hear' you.

RD: I actually don't know what this quality ( of holistic learning) is.

K: Let's find it out together.

RD: O.K....

K: After all, I am responsible for the student. I am responsible so that he turns out to be a different human being, not just mediocre or the routine busi- nessman. Do you follow?

RD: Yes, we want to make him a 'whole' person.

K: Right. It is ( supposed to be?) a 'new' generation and I am responsible or it. I want this ( New Age?) generation to have a mind that is ( capable of constantly ?) learning; the quality of a mind that is constantly moving (free of its anchors in the known?) and doesn't merely become a (programmable human?) computer.

RD: I call that 'curiosity', but I don't think that's the essence,

K: So, can we say that the (first step towards a holistic) mind is to learn to 'listen'?

RD: Yes.

K: Now, what do we mean by this 'listening'? Are you listening only with the ( audio?) hearing of the ear? Or, are you listening c'ompletely' (with all your being?) ? You want the ( earnest ?) student to listen completely, don't you?

RD: Yes...

K: So, can you train him to listen completely, which
means listening to you attentively? When does that take place? When do you, sir, listen to somebody completely? Suppose you are interested in archeology, for instance. Your ( personal) interest forces you to listen. But we are not talking here of ( any personal?) interest; we are talking of the act of listening to (find the truth or falseness of?) something.

RD: I don't understand what such listening actually means.

K: If I am ( seriously) interested, for instance, in archeology, then, I pay an awful lot of attention to it and I listen to what a person who has studied it for a long
time says. So my ( personal) interest is drawing me to listen to you as an expert. That is really a 'partial' listening (motivated by self-interest?) . I won't listen to my wife. I won't listen to the birds. I'm only listening to something in which 'I' am interested ( prioritarily) which is 'partial' (selective ) listening.

RD: Why can't this listening be total? Couldn't you give all your attention to that ( subject of personal ) interest totally?

K: Of course not.

RD: Because?

K: Because, I'm interested in a 'particular' direction ( generated by self-interest?) .

RD: So you're not 'hearing'...

K: You're not 'listening'.

RD: O.K. ...

K: So, how am I to help the student to 'listen' (non-personally?) ? As a teacher who really cares (about the future generation) , I am actually concerned about a 'holistic' way of living, so I want him to learn 'listening' (in a holistic way) . ( Here & Now?) the (highly industrialised) society is spreading this ( very addictive?) disease of 'amusement' all over the world. Everyone is interested in (watching Sports & ) Entertainment. ( Unfortunately) the school itself has become a place of entertainment. You can see it all around. From it, violence arises. So how will you help him to 'listen' to you? You, who as a teacher are responsible for ( helping) him, feel affection for him, and all the rest of it. How do you make him listen?

LC: That's difficult to answer (even in the case of a single student) How much more difficult it is when there are more than thirty in a class for whom you have the responsibility.

K: Forget the students.

RD: My 'whole mind' starts to form an answer, which I have done here several times and you've ( gently but...authoritatively?) stopped me. So in that very process, I've stopped listening, and I don't know how to proceed...

K: (One of these days???) we're going to find out.

RD: Good...

JF: If the ( modern) schooling is considered to be a form of entertainment for the student, does that mean we would have to become (semi-pro) 'entertainers'?

K: The whole society is based on that, isn't-it? Religion has become a (global) entertainment. The Pope is going all around the world and following the whole circus. Television is a constant entertainment. Children are given toys to be entertained, to be 'amused', to be kept occupied. In that state of constant urge to (keep them) occupied, you come along and say, 'Please listen to me.' They won't. So...what do you do?

RD: Teach them to be still, somehow ?

K: How? Just watch this, sir. You go into a cathedral. There, the (spiritually charged ?) environment, the (pious?) audience, the whole structure of the cathedral, begs you to be quiet. You don't dance, you don't shout, you become quiet because of the structure, the building, the architecture, the lofty roof, the 'silence' (of the place?) . All this ( stuff compounded) contributes to make you quiet. But if you suggest that to a student, he would revolt (ASAP?) . Or, you may ask him to be truthful and all that kind of ( mind?) game, and [he] would artificially become quiet. But he is waiting for a moment when he can burst out (and enjoy the best things of life). So what will you do?

LG : I don't know.

JF: Is it the same system that teaches us to be quiet in church, that allows the students to think that school is a place to burst out?

K: Probably ; so what will you do?

RD : I don't know. I've seen children go into cathedrals and be quiet because they really were awed; not because someone made them, but because they went in and they were listening. I don't know why they did it that time, but ... in the next cathedral they were just wanting to get out as soon as possible.

K: So what will make a student really 'listen' to you? Do 'you' really listen ( non-verbally, completely?) to anybody? I'm not being personal. Do we listen to anybody? And even when we do listen, what is the quality of the mind with which you listen? You see, sirs, there is no respect for anybody (who is not a « somebody »?) . Would you agree to that?

RD: As a generalization our society is that way, yes, but there are individuals...

K: But, I'm not talking about ( the exceptional?) individuals.

RD: Then, yes, I agree.

K: Now, they have no ( true human) respect for anybody. Why? Each person says, « 'I' will do what 'I' want »

RD: I was going to say that self-centeredness is the cause for disrespect.

K: Self-centered activity, egotistic, all that?

RD: Yes...

K: So there is no ( authentic human?) respect for anybody. The rest is all sheer nonsense, when actually they have no respect. Now, if the student has respect, will he listen to you?

RD: I think so. At least...he would try.

K: He would do it, naturally, because you (really) 'mean' what you say.

RD: Yes...

K: So, you are this ( holistic?) instructor who is concerned with his whole being...

RD: In order for him to respect you, you have to actually live that and do that.

K: Otherwise, it is just ( a devious form of intellectual?) hypocrisy, is it not?

RD: Right...

JF: What does it seem to be that the teacher does that destroys that respect from a student?

K: Sir, we tell the student not to smoke, then we go outside and smoke. We say, 'Don't drink or take drugs,' and (at home?) we take ( drinks and/or?) drugs. You know, all that jazz. ( At home ) we do quite the opposite of what we are telling them not to do (in school) . How can they have any respect? Don't you see... The teacher's (moral) responsibility is immense, because [he is supposed to ] produce a New Generation. But this is just a (holistically sounding ?) idea. There is no feeling, there is no passion behind it.

RD : So, the ( holistic) teacher's responsibility is to live what he wants to teach. Because, that's the only way in which he will teach it.

K: Otherways, you are playing a 'dirty' (mind-) game.

RD: Yes. So now we come back to the system in which we have to work.

K: No! No! Don't go back to the system.

RD: O.K....

K: The system is 'unimportant' ( it won't pay for a holistic education anyway?)

JF: You mentioned the necessity for passion in teaching.

K: Sir, if you don't have passion, in the sense that it is my responsibility to bring [about] a mutation in the (consciousness of the?) child: a way of thinking, of behaving, acting, eating, walking, dressing; I feel a passion in that. It's my ( freely assumed) responsibility, because he's going to be the ( real hope for a?) new world, the new generation. If I haven't that, he won't respect, he won't even 'listen' to me. But we, as teachers, have that responsibility. Sir, that is one of the most difficult tasks.

RD: It's overwhelming...

K: So the (psychologically irresponsable?) parent says, 'Why should I give up my smoking for my child?' And, the ( standardised ?) teachers say ( less or more?) the same thing. So, the thing goes on. Either we are (feeling totally) responsible, as teachers, for the psychological revolution, or we are merely pursuing a (+/- juicy?) form of (academical) career.

RD : Under what (denomination?) ?

K: Psychologically (speaking) , we are the (true) 'revolutionaries'.

RD : And...what was the alternative?

K: The alternative is to just follow the old route.
Then the 'system' becomes important. If there is this psychological revolution in oneself , the feeling or pas- sion for that renders the system more pliable.

RD : Even if you stay within the system , that doesn't even matter.

K: Because you have seen ( the truth of) this. So that's why I asked : What is the (true?) function of a teacher? What is a teacher?

LG: I have another conception about the func- tion of a teacher : I feel like a very unique person. I have certain talents that seem to me to be unique that I like to share with other people and that I want other people to recognize. I have, perhaps mistakenly, encouraged this sense of 'uniqueness' in my students. Is that a mistake? Should I be encouraging this feeling of 'commonality' in all of us?

K: Wait a minute. How can I share commonality if I don't have that (compassionate?) quality?"

LG: Is that an illusory feeling that I have, that I have certain talents?

K: I don't know...

LG: I feel that you have it, that he has it, that everyone has ( his/her) unique qualities that need to be developed.

K: Which means, do we 'psychologically' (inwardly?) see the truth that basically, « we are all the same »? If we see that, there is no 'me' sharing. If we both see the light, there is no question of 'let me "share" it with you.'

RD: What about her musical talent? How does that fit into this?

K: And I have a talent for science..

RD : And he paints ...

K: And you dance.

RD: My wife wishes that. So, how does that fit in with (our psychological ? ) 'commonality'?

K: Psychologically, we are the same. Is it not right?

RD: I believe that's the [way it is].

K: Not 'believe'.

RD: That is the truth, yes. It is ('psychologically') true.

K : It is 'so'.

RD: Right...

K: Then.. I dance. I may like that particular
form of ( self-) expression. You may like to do something else. But why give that importance (to this unicity?) ? We give it importance, because I am 'publicized' and you are not. Do you follow me?

RD: Yes.

K: That 'publicity' (public acclaim?) becomes a (very rewarding?) superficial expression and it becomes all important, because that's how we live.

LG: But my question remains, 'Is it part of the function of a

teacher to encourage expressing the uniqueness of each child?'

K: Again, what do you mean by 'self-expression'?

LG : The 'self-expression' is a lot of things, but it isn't a psychological commonality. It is also what one has that others don't have.

K: Everyone is talking about (his/her personal) expression. 'I must express myself. I must fulfill myself. I must do whatever I want to do.

LG : I could also call it 'contributing'.

K: Contributing to what, to the (global) mess?

LG : To other people's lives by doing something that they might enjoy; that if I withheld, they would have no chance to enjoy.

K: When you say 'self-expression', what are you
expressing? Are you 'expressing' your desires, loneliness and despair?

LG : I think it's possible to express emotions on the other end of the spectrum …

K: "No, no, we talk a great deal about 'expressing oneself', 'fulfilling oneself'. What are you 'fulfilling', your anger, your violence, your desire or your passing pleasures? What are you basically 'expressing'?

LG: I think it's possible to express our 'positive' emotions. The positive emotions do exist.

K: What are your 'positive' emotions?

LG : I think that some of them are actually based on violence, fear, envy. But, I think the pleasure, joy and delight also exist - like the pleasure of bearing a child, of seeing the child grow; there is so much pleasure to be gained from them. But I don't ever hear ( you speaking of ) these positive emotions. I hear only the ( negative ones ) violence, the fear, the anger...

K: I'm expressing everything: pleasure, joy affection. So, is love pleasure?"

LG : It is... pleasurable.

K: Is love ( related to ) desire?

LG :Partially...

K: Look into it now. What is desire? Please, I'm not being 'negative'. I know that is one ( convenient?) way of condemning a person: 'You're negative' and so get out.' But what do you mean when you say « I must express my emotions »? What are my emotions, my sentiments or my romantic feelings? Are they ( emotion loaded?) 'likes' and 'dislikes'? I like this ( nice looking?) Guru, and I will follow him. It gives me a great joy. This is what's happening. Now, when I (take the time to ) explore into this much more deeply, [I ask], 'Is love desire?' 'Is love pleasure?' I know that ( sensuous) 'love' is commonly associated with desire and with pleasure, but is it really Love? When pleasure is denied, I begin to react...with either fear or antagonism. So, is love pleasure, antag- onism, hate, envy or jealousy?

RD: I can see that love can bring all of those...

K: That's just it. Is Love (related to ) all of those? Can I ( really say ) 'I love you' while I hate (the next door guy?)

RD : Or if you hate anything else?

K: I hate that ( very mean?) person but I do love you - do you follow? I am ambitious and feel that I must fulfill myself and yet... I love you. Can these go together? I find joy in you, sexually, as a companion, and all the rest of it, but I am completely involved in myself all the time. Can these ( contradictory feelings?) go together ?

RD : That's what causes many of the problems that

LG : Couldn't one bear a pure love that had none of those other elements in it? Can't a human being bear a love that would be so pure that it had none of those other things it?

K: Why not? Have we ever tried it?

LG : It's frightening.

K: Yes, I 'love' somebody because I'm feeling lonely and so I need his/her companionship to escape from my loneliness. I take a drink [or] drug, or I attach to a person. It's all the same. I'm sorry, this is wandering right off our ( holistic education ) subject.

RD : It's a brand new subject, but it's part of what a
teacher is.

JF : If it's essential, should we be making the effort to impart that?

K: Isn't it my ( educational) responsibility to show you that if you take drugs or drink, or follow the whole amusement circus that goes on, can there be a balanced mind?

LG: To speak the student's language, we almost feel as if we have to know what's going on in the world of entertainment, where they live, the names of groups they listen to, and the films they see.

K: Of course, you say, look, this is ( the bulk of ) your ( everyday) life. You're perpetually seeking entertainment. You perpetually get occupied with something: football, baseball or sex. So, what happens when the mind is perpetually occupied with something or other? It's like a piece of ( self-programmed mental ) machinery that is (eventually becoming obsolete or ?) wearing itself out. You point out all of this to them and...( as a 'rule of thumb'?) they won't listen to you. Why? Because you're also being entertained. You play the same game.

RD: Just different entertainments, same game...

JF: I wonder why you went to the topic of Love? Is it because Love may counterbalance many of these nega- tive aspects? Is there some key in the understanding of ( an Intelligent & Compassionate?) Love?

K: Sir, (the Intelligence of ) Love is the only 'positive' thing. But we have to approach 'negatively' ( by negating what it is not ?) to find the 'positive'. I don't know if you see that.

RD: Approach 'negatively', by which we mean to observe and eliminate them (the 'fake love'?) .

K: Look, love is not ( creating?) jealousy. It is not ( related to personal?) ambition or competitiveness. (In a nutshell:) Love is not the opposite of 'hate'. If you have (any residues of?) all of those, eliminate them (ASAP?) and then you'll find what the 'other' is .

But we don't ( usually) do that. We want all of this ( juicy romantic stuff?) and the 'other' too (as a spiritual bonus?) . A ( hedonistic?) relationship with a woman or a man has become entertainment. To fulfill oneself is ( an opportunity for more personal ?) amusement. Does this sound like 'anathema' to you?

RD : It's not 'anathema'. It's just that I haven't arrived at the point where I can say, 'Yes, Love is not all of those things'; but even then... I don't know what the next step is. Then, what is Love?

K: You ( for homework?) will find it out when the other ('fakes' ?) are not.

RD : When the others don't exist.

K: Of course. How can I be ambitious...

RD: Then ( the 100% pure?) love cannot be a ( realistic occurrence in the everyday ) relationship between two people?

K: It can be ( even ) between two people when there are no ( personal) 'images' of the two.

RD: When there are no 'images' of the two... ?

K: When I'm ( egotistically?) ambitious, competitive, how can I have it ? How can I love when I believe in something you don't?

RD: So ( eventually ) you'll have to eliminate all of that ( ego-centric residue?) ?

K: Yes, sir. Go into it ! ( ASAP ?) .

RD: Which, it seems to me, would also mean to 'share life', not just 'enjoy life' with a particular individual.

K: Sir, what is implied in 'sharing'?

RD: That I have something which I will give to you ?

K: Sharing, what does that mean? Partaking? We all use others and... get away with it.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 10 Dec 2017 #16
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


PP : I would like to open this discussion by asking you (Mr K) , since you have reflected a great deal, how do individual dynamics of thinking apply to the social realm? It seems to me that we spend a lifetime think- ing great thoughts, [yet] we live mediocre lives, we multiply them by a billion on the planet and... we have mediocre societies. Would you care to reflect on that?

K: What is mediocrity?

PP: Not living to our full potential.

K: Again, what is our full potential?

P P: I'm not sure of that answer.

EM: I would think that it is ( related to ) achieving perfectibility.

K: Is perfection achievable? Or, is it simply an ideal with which you are struggling?

PP: Are you saying that our ( existential) condition is, in essence, continuous struggle for it?

K: Yes, partly, and that our ( cultural?) conditioning accepts ideals and striving toward those ideals constantly. So we live in ( an inner state of ) struggle, conflict; never achieving that which is projected by ( the machinery of?) thought.

PP: Then ( to put a 'positive' spin on it?) the human condition, in essence, is this struggle and the struggle is the beauty of the existence ?

K: Either you accept your existing conditioning as some of the philosophers do; accept it and modify and change it, but [essentially] remain in that condition, Or (for a change, one can?) 'break through' that conditioning. I think ( that the 'existential) mediocrity' is to live in ( the cozy comfort of?) that conditioning, while breaking through the ( cultural) conditioning is not to be mediocre.

R W: Then, shouldn't the 'breaking through' this conditioning be our (true existential ) goal?

K: Again, if I may ask why do we need to establish a 'goal'? Why do we project these (spiritually daring) things and then try to achieve them?

E T: It is ( probably?) part of our ( cultural) conditioning. We are conditioned by ( the subliminal pressure of?) society to strive to achieve something, striving ( to optimise?) our existing potential. It's like we're in a continual (inner) struggle to attain a goal of any type.

K: Who has projected the 'goal'?

ET: We do it for ourselves, ( plus the ) society & our parents.

K: Our religion, our philosophies, all that has helped us to project an ideal, a concept, a goal toward which we are all striving.

EM: And you're saying that, because we are so goal oriented, our pursuit should be balanced more with...

K: "No, we are always ( thinking in terms of?) 'becoming' ( better ) financially, morally, ethically, aesthetically or trying to achieve ( a 'free pass' to?) 'heaven', if I may use a religious word, it is always becoming something . Is there any (psychological validity in this?) becoming at all? I am a student in a (prestigious ) School, I can become a B.A., M.A., a Ph.D. and so on. But inwardly is there a becoming at all?

ET: The question I have to ask deals very much with 'becoming' in the context of the college atmosphere. In college, you are always confronted with 'You have to succeed in order to go one step further'. You are continually 'judged' (compared, evaluated?) , you are continually bombarded with ( lots of useless?) information and knowledge and it actually stifles your becoming your fullest (human potential) .

K: There is a 'becoming' (better ) in ( acquiring & using?) knowledge, isn't there? But at what level (of our total Consciousness?) are we discussing this? At the ( temporal) level of accumulating more and more knowl- edge at one level, while at the 'psychological' (personal experience ?) level as well, are we achieving the same thing?

EM: That is one of my concerns, that in the ( diligent) pursuit of [an] 'orthodox' education, I find myself with the outgrowth of nothing but data gathering. I do not find the entire whole of what I am pursuing (as a human being) , because (my present education) doesn't give me the deep inner satisfaction I'm looking (longing?) for.

K: So, can (our) knowledge ever be complete about anything?

HW: No.

K: So... knowledge always goes ( hand in hand?) with ignorance.

PP : What you're saying, then, is that what we become is in essence...

K: No, I'm asking if there is any (validity in ) becoming (anything) 'psychologically'? Is there such a becoming at all?

PP : I think that psychologically, one is always in a position to aspire to become (better than one is presently) Except that before you reach that point (of personal achievement?) , it cuts off.

K: The whole implication of 'becoming' implies (the conventional thinking in terms of?) time. If I am to learn a language, I need time. It may be a month, it may be six months, but I need time. Learning to drive a car takes time. But our 'psychological' becoming also implies time, and is there ( any validity of ) such a 'time', psychologically?

DS: It seems that in any form of becoming, you have already determined what you would want to become.

K: That implies ( a linear thinking in terms of?) 'time'.

DS: Right, and you are trying to follow a preordained path which may not be a real one.

K: Sir, look at it practically. Suppose that there is some basic self-knowledge about myself, and in further studying myself I require ( a lot of?) time. Either I study some ( dead?) philosopher, psychologist and so on, or I study myself in the ( magic mirror of?) my everyday relationship. We think that all this ( cummulative self-knowing?) requires time. I question ( the validity of) this ( linear thinking?) that's all.

EM : Along that line, and in my own personal pursuit of the 'centrality of the presence', I find that I am...totally conflicted or impacted by ( 'fake'?) conditioning processes that are acquired through the institutional educational system.

K: That's right.

EM : So, my question is: 'How do I achieve this 'centralization' (inner integration?) of the self? I've tried it for several years, repeatedly, and find that I am being invariably impacted by the conditioning process.

K: Sir, what is ( the nature of our socio- cultural?) conditioning? I am brought up as a Hindu or Buddhist or a Christian with their dogmas, rituals, and that has conditioned me. Poverty has also conditioned me also. Climate, food, clothes, all that has brought about certain ( additional) restrictions. I am a 'scientist'... So all those ( 'environmental') factors contribute to this conditioning and I am ( becoming ?) aware of it. I am (becoming) aware that I am ( culturally?) conditioned as a Hindu or a Buddhist - to be free of this ( particular) conditioning is very simple. I am no longer (identifying myself as?) a Hindu. It is stupid to belong to any category of that kind.

RW: But isn't my wanting to 'not belong' to a category of that kind another (psychological?) goal in itself ?

K: No, (if?) here is a (insightful perception of the ?) fact : If I am a nationalist, I contribute to war. One of the reasons for war is 'nationalism'. That's a 'fact', and not a goal.

RW: But wanting to 'not be there' is a goal.

K: No, I see the consequence of nationalism, and it is finished.

DS: So you are saying, then, that ( in any insightful perception?) there is no time involved.

K: That is exactly what I'm trying to get at.

DS: It just happens when you see the (inner-outer implications of the ) problem.

K: If you see clearly the consequences of your 'nationalism' it is finished. It is a ( potential) danger. ( Similarly?) if I am religiously inclined toward Buddhism or Christianity and seeing how ( getting identified with it?) divides people, it is over.

PP: Isn't that because of our language and our very biological limitations? Do they not dictate how we react to our environment, and how we understand it? Therefore, doesn't each one of us understand our own cultural environment differently? We do not have a com- mon perception at all times.

K: Can't we?

P P: I'm wondering, in terms of my sitting here in this very civilized place and imagining about an African bushman. The 'realities' of his life are totally different. [He is] conditioned differently.

K: But it is still 'conditioning'.

PP: Is all conditioning bad? The conditioning of the bushman insures that he survives.

K: But also the ( cultural) conditioning ( of the people living) here is one of survival. Both demand security, safety, a sense of protective life, whether a person is highly civilized and sophisticated or the bushman. Their demands are the same. You may have much more sophistication and so on, and I may just want something to eat, but both [of us] demand security. One's security may be a ( cozy & ) comfortable life, and the other may say: 'No, I don't (really) want all that, it is too difficult.' So the demand for security is common to all of us.

EM: But now we have progressed ( consciousness-wise) to the point where we begin to observe the ( downside of this spirit of ) competition that all of us have. There is now a dual competition of playing the game, of wanting to pursue the centrality of (one's inner) presence, but living in an environment that is highly competitive. Obviously, in this day-to-day competition , we run into the personal conflicts with our individual thinking.

K: Is 'competitiveness' a ( potential?) danger to man, to society, and... is society different from man? Do you follow?

EL : Competitiveness is a sword with two edges. One brings war and the other brings progress. It's a paradox. Competitiveness advances civilization.

K: What do you mean by 'progress' ? Having more (sophisticated?) bathrooms?

EL : It is to have better things. Our very society here is based on a better ( quality of outer ?) living.

K: When you talk about 'progress', what do you mean by that? Is it to progress ( technologically & ) physically? But is there such a thing as ( an authentic) 'psychological' (aka : spiritual?) progress? We hayen't changed very much psychologically. Inward- ly, we are as brutal as bushmen.

R W: We just have fancier means of expressing our (old) brutality.

ET: I would like to go back to what you said a little bit ago about 'dropping out'. I don't see the practicality of interfacing in a goal-oriented society as a person without ( any) goals. Even if I were to achieve this inner harmony, naturally, I would like to have everyone achieve it. So, that, in itself, is bringing everyone to the point where I am.

K: Are you different from me, (inwardly or) 'psychologically'?

ET: I think I am.

K: Is that so? Are ( the ordinary ?) human beings living in the Far East or here or in Europe 'psychologically' differ- ent? They suffer, they go through agonies, uncertain- ties, insecurity, a great deal of fear, just like the rest of us here. Aren't we psychologically and essentially similar?

PP : Basically we are, but when we're put within a cultu- ral context, we are ( feeling very) different.

K: Who has created this cultural environment?

PP: Individuals banding together, obviously.

K: So, we as 'human beings' have created it. Therefore we can tear it down or transform it...( or keep it going 'as is'?) . There is only a 'psychological' ('soft?) revolution' that will transform ( the total consciousness of?) man, and apparently we seem to forget ( ignore?) this point entirely ( by pretending to be 'economically busy'?) .

PP: Would you reflect on our 'ethno-centrism' then? Obviously, each culture thinks that it is the best. How do you reconcile competing systems?

K: Why do you want to compete and compare one system against another?

PP: I'm just reflecting on the 'reality of the world'.

K: Sir, what's the 'reality of the world'?

PP: We think that we have a better system because we have a so-called 'people's democracy.' The Commu- nists think that they have a better system because they supposedly take care of the needs of everyone in their society.

K: Not necessarily...

PP : And we do not necessarily have a 'popular democracy' either. Yet, in our 'ethnocentricity', we think that we do, we act as if we do, we build bombs in the name of it to protect ourselves.

K: Yes, sir, there will always be wars.

PP: This is where the competition lies. The competition
is a collective effort.

K: Collective effort to do what?

PP: To maintain our system.

K: No, to maintain our ( personal ) security. Essentially it is our ( personal) security, not maintaining our system.

PP: I agree with you : our cultural system is a security system. But I find it a paradox that we simply cannot agree on a functional system that would do away with ethnocentricity.

K: Why are you so concerned with this system?

PP: Because the system won't leave us alone.

K: Won't it?

PP: No, not really. I am reminded that by the 15th of next month I'll have to pay taxes. In a very real way, the system, literally, will not leave us alone.

K: I know that everybody is filing their (tax) 'papers'. I'm the only person who is not doing it ( for himself ?)

EM: Addressing what you mentioned earlier, we do not really have a 'psychological' commonality. We just do not have it from a realistic standpoint. We do not try to achieve common goals in that area.

K: So each one thinks he is a separate entity?

RW: Yes.

K: And each one says ( assumes that?) , 'My security is far more important than that of the common whole.' So, is there any individuality at all?

DS: It's only in ( our self-centred ) thought. We 'think' that we are separate.

K: We think we are individuals, right? Is that so?

DS: Not really...

EM: Are we saying that from the basic state of man we are really, in actuality, common and the only reason that we see this diversity is because through our continual conditioning, we find ourselves in an artificial (individualistic?) state?

K: Obviously. Inwardly we are similar. You may have white skin, I may have brown and culturally, we may be different. But basically, we go through agonies (of loneliness?) uncertainties, despair, a great sense of sorrow; we all go through that. So that is our 'psychological commonality'.

EM: So, if we do recognize that as our commonality, what is, then, the basic nature of man? What is the real nature of man?

K: The 'real (inner) nature of man' ( the 'psychological given' ?) is what we described above. Now let's explore much deeper; how to be free of all this.

PP: Then, in essence, the individuals who achieve ( or transcend this psychological condition ) are free in an unfree world.

K: They are no longer ( self-isolated?) 'individuals', thinking in terms of 'me' as separate from 'you' and everybody else. Inwardly I 'am' you.

PP: Does the 'ego' have no purpose then? The ego is important because it provides survival for this body here.

K: Now what do you mean by the ego?

PP: The sense of 'self-importance'.

K: Let's ( cross?) examine this 'self'. What is the self? What is that we call the 'me,' the ego, and the whole (psycho-somatic) structure on which it moves?

PP: It's 'me.' That's the only way I know how to define it. There are fine academic words, but in essence it's 'me.'

K: What is that 'me' composed of?

PP: A great number of (personal) feelings, a great number of thoughts; I feel, I react emotionally' to...

K: All this (pro-active 'psychological) content' makes up my consciousness. So what are the common contents, of my consciousness?

PP: Basically, we all share the same contents.

K: Exactly.

PP : So does that lead, then, to the assumption that we all have a ( substratum of?) 'collective consciousness'?

K: Obviously. It is not ( just ) a 'collective' consciousness (made of 'personal' parts put together) but a 'common' (shared inner space of?) consciousness. I'm feeling terribly depressed, neurotic and my friends in India or Japan ( eventually) go through the same thing . So (the deeper layer of our ( personalised?) consciousness is common to all of us.

EM: But when we are looking inwardly, trying to address this (total) consciousness, we conclude that our personal solutions are diversified? That your (holistic) answer to what we are inwardly, is not what we ( actually ) observe?

K: That is because our ( 'personal' layer of ) consciousness is put together by (an ego-centric process of?) thought. Do you agree?

EM: Yes....

K: So, we have to ( take a small detour and?) inquire into the whole problem of (what are the intrinsical limitations of) thought. Why have we given such extraordinary importance to thinking ?

EM : We think that thought insures our survival. If we don't have ( enough intelligent thinking) as a species we will ( eventually) die .

K: We are 'inquiring', aren't we? What is this thinking which has made all this war or the blight of the cities? What is thinking?

EM : To me, thinking is the mental process through which I operate as me, being impacted by external stimuli and intuition or intuitive thinking from within. Those are the mental processes that I consider to be in the realm of thinking.

K: But what is the source of thought? Why have we given such extraordinary importance to thought? Thought has created nationalities. Thought has created ( the image of?) 'God' and all the rituals, the dogmas, that divided man: 'I believe in this, I don't believe in that...

PP: At a very basic level it is a reaction to our environment.

EM: It's a language.

PP: And our language shapes how we think about our en- vironment.

K: Yes, but go behind that. Go a little further and see 'what makes you think' ?

EM: Thought is the ( mental?) impulse coming from our history, from events of the past that you have experienced.

K:...that mankind has experienced. Which means what? All our knowledge, as you said, is coming from the ( processed memory of the ?) past - stored in the brain as memory. The verbal response of this memory is thinking. So this thinking is a 'material' process.

PP: It is an electrochemical (in the brain) process.

K: It's a 'materialistic' process and [it] has created all this misery in the world. The whole modern system is based on that. Even the ancient civilisations were based on it.

EM: But pursuing this idea further, this 'historical' knowledge that you have inside you, it's not something that you can...

K: You 'are' the story of mankind.

PP: Are you saying that we represent the prototype, the product of the...

K: I'm saying that thought is the response of memory. From the most primitive to the most highly sophisticated, highly educated mind , thought is still ( the process of retrieving from) memory , (the necessary ) knowledge (in order to respond to any challenge ) . So, thought is always incomplete (of a mechanical nature?) .

PP: So, the 'commonality' of ( our psychological) reactions represents a 'collective thinking' (emerging from our ) collective that what you are saying?

K: Yes, ( for instance?) my language ( of direct perception?) is just an 'ordinary' language, while yours is a more educated and specialized language. But if we forget your 'specificity' and my (holisticity?) , we can meet each other on a 'common ground' (of our shared consciousness) as human beings, not as 'specialists'. And this 'common ground' is that we both 'think'.

PP : The one difference may be that you are using an (experiential) language (based on?) your ( insightful) reflections on life, and I am using the (standardised?) conditioning of the ( academical) 'system'.

K: Perhaps.

ET: How can one go about divorcing oneself from thought ?

K: (For starters...?) Thought 'is' you.

ET: Are you saying we should take our inquiry a little further past (this collective) memory and realize the Self?

K: Thought has put together the 'me (-who-thinks') . It has put together 'my consciousness'. My ( whole self-centred ) consciousness with its ( personal & collective) content 'is' ( a self-sustained?) movement of thought. It's obvious that our fear of death, fear of loneliness, all that ( 'psycho' stuff?) is the product of the movement of thought. So one has to understand first: What is ( the origin of ?) this 'thinking', which is common to all mankind?

EM: So are you are advocating is the reorientation of thought?

K: No, but the seeing of its limitations .

EM: In order to develop self-awareness ?

K: Partly, to see the limitation of thought and, if it is (seen as) limited, whether there is something limitless or whole.

PP: I suspect that you are saying that the vanity of man- kind regarding thought is too great, that we think we can solve everything with thought, and that's not true.

K: "That's right. You haven't solved a thing (inwardly) .

E T: How do we get past that, then?

K: We'll go into that. But first, let us see how extraordinar- ily limited thought is ( in terms of an inner perception?) and how ( this survivalistic thinking ?) has 'bound' us, shaped us, our life, our relationships with each other. All our education is the cultivation of ( our ego-centric) thought, and we are trying to resolve the problems that thought has created by more thought, and ( psychologically-wised) it's hopeless.

PP: You mean that if I experience my 'being the way I am', as honestly as I can, and you experience 'the way you are' as honestly as you can, then we should have more 'commonality' than difference?

K: Not only 'commonality', but we can see the ( divisive) action of thought. Thought has created me as a Hindu, you as a Christian—or I am a communist, you are a democrat. So thought has divided man(kind).

PP: Of course, but the paradox is that we are able to use thought to reflect on the paradox itself.

K: No, we are using words to communicate ( deeper insights ) about the ( nature of?) thought.

RW: We are thinking (intelligently) about ( the limitations of ) thought.

K: Yes, we're using its words to communicate (insights) . So, we can actually 'see' (have an insight ?) that ( our ego-centric) thought is ( intrinsically) limited, thought is the most ( potentially?) dangerous instrument that man has (put together)

PP: I agree with it.

K: Then what shall we do?

PP: Then, we must look inside ourselves beyond (the perimeter of ?) thought.

K: What do you do?

PP: Stop it?

K: How shall we 'go beyond' thought? Not 'stop it', for thought is necessary to communicate.

PP: I was thinking of 'stopping' in the sense that you said, 'Quiet your mind and listen to yourself.'

K: No, let's go slowly. What shall I do if I see thought as basically the most dangerous instrument I have ?

PP : I'm not sure. I'm here to learn, so I'll listen to you"

K: No, don't listen to me.

EM: I would think that you would immediately begin to feel the need to either control or reorient thought.

K: Who is the 'controller'?

EM : Your consciousness ?

K: Your consciousness is put together by ( the same self-centred) thought. We're saying that thought creates the (all controlling?) 'thinker'; then this 'thinker' ( entity) separates himself from thought, then the thinker tries to control thought. But thought 'is' (inseparable from) the thinker.

PP : 'I think, therefore, I am'?

K: That's good.

EM : The eternal paradox, sir.

K : I wouldn't call it a paradox. There is no 'thinker' without the thought.

EL : If you can stop thought...

K: Who is to stop it?

R W: The thinker.

K: Who is the thinker?

RW : It just goes around and around...

PP: There is a real difficulty. I don't think we understand the source of thought.

K: Yes, you must be very clear on that point. ( Suppose that) I want to become a carpenter and I apprentice myself to a master carpenter for several years; I acquire a great deal of practical skills and knowledge about wood, instruments, texture of the wood and ( eventually) become a good carpenter. Now, psychologically, in my ( everyday) relationship with my friend, with my wife, I do exactly the same thing. I build a (knowledgeable ) 'image' of my wife. So then I act ( based on that) knowledge, and that knowledge is a material process, obviously.

PP: Then, one of the problems is how valid is ( this personal) knowledge or the experience?

K: We need a great deal of experience and knowledge to go to the Moon, but in my ( daily) relationship with my wife or husband or whatever it is, why should there be knowledge?

EM: Then I recognize that in looking for the validity of knowledge in our diversification of perceptions, we view that validity in different ways.

K: Do we? It may simply be our prejudice.

PP : But is not our experience that validates it?

K: Sir, what is 'experience'?

PP : All right, let me be illustrative. If I go home and my wife puts a cold dinner on the table and I don't like cold dishes, my experience tells me that I have a cold dish, and I anticipate then that this may happen again. I am becoming 'prejudiced' in that sense. It happened several times and my experience tells me that this is the norm. Therefore, I have formed a prejudiced view of my wife- that she is a bad cook.

K: I hope not.

PP : She is hopeless. Is not that experience valid?

K: We're not talking about the validity of experience. We are asking what is 'experience'.

PP : Experience is precisely ( the cummulative memory of ) what we are living; it's the past, it's history.

K: Let's leave all that. We are trying to understand the ( validity of thought) as a whole. As we said, thought is really a 'dangerous' movement (in terms of 'image making') in our relationships. Life is a relationship. And there, thought is creating havoc. So what should we do with thought? You said, let us 'control' thought ; ( but if ) the 'controller'( entity) is put together by thought, the 'controller' 'is' ( indissociable from?) the controlled. So, when we reach that point (of total impasse?) , what happens?

PP : There seems to be a paradox.

K: Don't use the excuse of a 'paradox' all the time.

PP: But there is a paradox. At least in terms of the thought that we are trained [in], the approach, the very logical systems...

K: What is your approach to this problem- that thought has become the most psychologically dan- gerous instrument created by man, (like for instance in identifying itself with a particular ideology or ?) belief. 'Your' belief vs 'my' belief . It has divided mankind and is ( continuing to) destroy us. And, if that goes on (along the same lines) we are going to destroy ourselves completely. A few may survive. So, we have to act and do something about it, not theoretically, but actually in ( our own) life; we have to do something about it. What? That is our ( pending existential) problem.

EM: I would say that in recognizing the way we are at the moment, that we must basically consider that as the thinker, we need to eliminate memory.

K: We're not trying to go beyond it, suppress it, and all the rest of it. Just looking at it.

PP: That idea sounds very akin to Gestalt Therapy . ( Dealing with ) the whole is more important than ( tackling) the parts. Is that correct?

K: See, we are not actually doing it, we are theorizing about it. That is the ( major experiential) difficulty.

PP: Yes, we think in very discrete units.

K: We don't say, 'This is a 'fact'; I'm going to look at it.'

PP: There are implications for education in that...

RW: For everything.

K: ( Our self-centred ) thought has created the (present utilitarian?) relationship [of] man [with] man. In that relationship, what happens?

PP: Do I understand you correctly, that we can expe- rience ( the relationship with) our fellow man in the same ( direct) way as we experience the pain?

K: That involves ( a quality of selfless?) love, and I won't go into that at the moment. We have come to a point where I see thought is necessary in certain directions and I see ( that my self-centred) thought is the most dangerous thing ( when it is interfering?) in my relationship. I am stuck there. If I go to some priest, he will begin to talk about Jesus or Krishna or some- body else. Thus, the structure of thought confines us. So I discard all that.

PP : It's like looking for a solution outside of yourself

K : Yes. I discard ali that. I discard, essentially, the authority, of the priest and all that. So what takes place then?

ET: You look to yourself.

K: No, you haven't done it yet. You do it , and see what happens actually.

PP : But then your ( thought based ) existence validates your being...

K: So what happens, sir? Are you frightened [about]
your ( psychological?) security (of living within the boundaries of the known?) ?

PP: Most of us are, yes.

K: So unconsciously, the fear (of the unknown) says, 'Don't enter into this, keep out of it!'

EM: So, what you're addressing is, then, that we need to be concerned with a complete analysis of our inward selves, so that we don't find ourselves in a position of going through this eternal cycle.

K: Yes, sir. But not through 'analysis'.

RW: Analysis is thought.

EM: That's thought. Yes, I see. We've passed that point .

K: Just observe... What you observe is [not] to be reduced to an abstraction called 'intellectual idea'.

EM: I see. We're really at a point where thought is not being used as a process.

K: Right, sir.

EM: I see...

K : It is only ( direct) observation. Like a good scientist who just observes the thing he is observing and it is telling its whole story.

EM : The difficulty I have is that one day we may be
sitting around discussing this to the level that we have gotten. The next day, I find myself in the artificial society of competition where I have this eternal thought process.

K: Don't enter into that.

EM: Don't enter into it? Well, the obvious question then is, how can we survive?

K: I think that if we don't make ( our 'psychological') survival the most important thing, we can survive (humanely & intelligently) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 12 Dec 2017 #17
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline



K: What would you like to talk about ?

BP : We had a group queston to start off with. We wonder, given that some change is desirable in our educational system, what can we as students do from within that system to effect that change?

K: Why do you use the word 'desirable'?

BP: It was intentionally ambiguous, and perhaps needs to be defined.

K: Let's be precise.

BP: That some of the conventionality and the imposition of values from an authoritarian system to us as students—that [it] would be desirable to reduce that effect and if possible to eliminate it.

K: So what is the question, sir?

BP: The question is : given that such change is desirable, what can we as students do from within the system, to change the system that we operate in?

K: What is the 'system'? Is the ( present educational?) system merely the acquisition of knowledge and acquiring a skill of some kind or other and then eventually ending up with a job?

BP: It's partially that. It's also a 'life style' in that it forms the way you live.

K: I don't quite follow what you mean.

BP: It means that the student is not just a student during school hours.

K: All right, sir. Then, let's discover together, what is a student and what is a teacher. Could we talk about that? What is the function of a teacher? And what is a student (supposed?) to do? What is the relationship between a student and a teacher and does it have to do only with acquiring knowledge, information and so on?

Would it be all right to have an (open?) dialogue about it?

The ( traditional) function of the teacher is to inform you, the student; and the student, by constant studying acquires that knowledge in his brain and he uses it later on in life. That is what we call ( scholastic ?) 'learning'. So what is the question? What is a ( responsible?) student supposed to do ? Is he to merely learn certain ( curricular ) subjects or is he also learning about the whole movement of his everyday life; which is essentially the relationship between man and man, right? Would you agree to that?

AB: I think that our relationship should be broadened to man and nature, man and everything else, not just 'man and man'.

K: Man with all his relationships to nature, the universe and so on. We seem to neglect that side and inform ourselves with all the various disciplines which are the various subjects. Would that be right?

LC : I think that we ( often) get so wrapped up in learning whatever is in a textbook, so that we can do well on a test and get an A, that we don't see what is happening around us or in the universe. We are told it is important that we get good grades in school, that we get a good job when we get 'out there' and those are the goals...

K: So we have great emphasis on ( our personal ?) security, physical pleasure, physical well-being, and somewhat, perhaps to a greater extent, neglect the other, right? Would you agree to that? Then, what is the next question?

LC: Then how do you change the relationship between student and teacher so that instead of a teacher standing up in front of a class and saying 'O.K., this is what we need to learn from the book. This is going to be on a test. This is what you need for an A'. How do we change that ( mechanistic relationship?) to something that benefits us more? [So] that we learn not only what is in the book, but how it is applied and how other things are applied?

K: I don't quite follow.

LC: Then let me rephrase the question. How do you go about changing the relationship between the student and a teacher so that the students can have a more individualized learning process and just use the teacher for some guidance along the way?

K: Should we discuss what is the function of a teacher? And what is his relationship to the student?

LC: I think that would be a good idea. Maybe we should discuss what it is now and how we would change it.

CC: I think that a teacher in public education puts the knowledge in the students and that is his function, to see that the student learns whatever knowledge is deemed necessary for him.

K: So you lay emphasis on knowledge, right?

CC: Yes. Definitely.

K: Knowledge is necessary, isn't it? If you want to be an architect you must have ( lots of CD's with specialised?) knowledge. Then what is it that we are battling about?

BP: Well, I think we all agree that material pleasures and comforts are not all that there is...and how can this ( scholastic) knowledge be acquired in such a way that things other than knowledge are not shut out.

K: Are you asking what place has knowledge in life? What place has knowledge in [the] relationship [of] man [with] man, man [with] nature, man [with] the universe and so on? Are you asking can man be transformed through knowledge? Is that what you're asking?

BP: I don't think so...

K: Then what are you asking?

BP : We're asking how to discover a way for us as seekers of knowledge to become also seekers of that which isn't knowledge.

K: Ah, now you're entering into something totally different.

BP : That was involved in my first question.

K: Obviously.

BW: O.K. Then aren't we comparing when we assign grades in the classroom?

K: Comparing A to B and B to C and so on?

BW: Yes.

K: It does breed ( a certain amount of colateral ?) conflict, doesn't it? Jealousy, antagonism and so on.

BW: Right. So, should the grades be eliminated because they create conflict?

K: Should we be informed in a particular discipline without comparison. Is that what you are asking? Without marks, without examinations, without going through all the rest. Should we get rid of all that?

BW: Yes.

K: Can it be done? Certainly, it can be done (experimentally in an alternative school ?) . But, the whole (present cultural & economic ?) system is based on (competition) , isn't it? ( Without realising?) that this comparison breeds, essentially, violence. And, society now, is threatened with violence.

BW: But does comparison always breed conflict? Could it not be a 'positive' or a useful force?

K: What happens to me ( psychologically ) when I compare myself to you, how much more clever, more bright, more beautiful and so on.

LC: You assume that you're better and don't need to work as hard. Instead of comparing yourself with what you could be, you're comparing yourself with someone else.

K: You are trying to become better, is that right?

CC: In comparison you have an ideal and you have to decide which is closer to the ideal, A or B.

K: Yes. So you have an ideal and you are comparing yourself all the time with the ideal and never achiev- ing the ideal. It's obvious, isn't it? That brings (frustration & ) conflict, doesn't it? Constant, [or] an ever constant struggle to be that, to become that. And, the whole world is doing this.

BW : But is it always bad? Say, if I wanted to be as
knowledgeable as...

K: As Dr. Bohm?

BW : Say I wanted to become as knowledgeable as
him, as my ideal, and I worked toward that, do I not gain from having a goal?

K: All right. As long as you want to become like somebody else who is much more erudite, scholarly, with a better job or position, prestige, money, power, you're trying to become like him. Then what takes place with regard to yourself? You're just imitating him, right?

BP : You end up feeling not adequate yourself.

K: You're trying to become like him. Why?

BP: Because you feel that being like him is more worth- while than being like yourself.

K: Go on, why? For position, power?

BP: Whatever the reasons, you are trying to be like him.

K: That's all involved in that...position, prestige, fame, notoriety, money, a bigger house, a bigger car, more comfort, rank and all the rest of it. Is that what you want? Then go after it. Why do you bother arguing about it?

BP: I think we lost the track somewhere. Assuming that what was at stake was knowledge; in other words, that we wanted to be as knowledgeable as some person because we had decided within ourselves as a temporary goal—would that not be worthwhile as something to look ahead to, as a 'measuring stick'?

K: Why do you want to have a measure?

BP: That's another question.

K: I'm always measuring( comparing?) myself with you, right? You are the ideal, as very bright, intelligent and so on. In that process, what happens?

BP: You decide on a goal and notice that you're not there. And then to get there, to motivate yourself to be there, you decide that where you are now is not good enough.

K: "Yes, but what is the intention behind that which involves the decision?

BP: It gives you the push that you need to get to wherever your goal is.

K: And why [do] you want to get there?

BP : That's a step in the process. And when you get there you're going to find another goal that you want to achieve. If there is someone that's better, then you'll want to be better.

K: So if I compare myself with you, and I try to be like you in knowledge and everything else, and later on I find someone else who is still better, I'll go on with that. I can go on comparing, comparing and strug- gling to be like somebody else. Why?

LC: Because you're not happy with yourself.

K: If you were happy, would you ( need to) compare (yourself with others?) ?

LC: No.

K: So why aren't you happy?

LC : Because you're ( constantly evaluating & ) comparing (yourself) ?

K: Is comparing oneself with another destroying happiness?

LC: Yes, because if you didn't compare, and if you didn't say, 'I would like to be better,' or consider that better and think you would like to be there, because 'where I am isn't good enough.'

K: So, this constant trying to become better in comparison (with others?) is making my life a miserable affair.

AB : Unless you're comparing yourself with someone you don't think is as good as you...

K: We never ever do that. So you are, in fact, escaping
from yourself, right? Would you agree to that?

BW : In our public education the grade system sets up a comparison level and what students try to get is an A, and is this bad because it forces them to try to be something they're not? Because they're not all A stu- dents and this forces them to get an A.

K: Would you ask, 'why do we compare?' What is the motive behind that comparison?

AB : It had a circular effect. A thought came to mind aswe were discussing this: what would happen if everyone stopped comparing?

K: What would happen? Stop a minute and think about what would happen if you didn't compare.

BP : You'd be happier where you are ?

K: You'd start from where you are.

BP : Exactly.

K: Then why don't you do that?

BP : The thought continued that if you did that, you
would never get anywhere.

K: Where do you want to get?

BP : And the thought behind that thought was that bycomparison, everybody should be some place that they're not, which means that there is a 'circularity'. You have to compare because you've already compared yourself and you're not where you want to be so you have to make another comparison to get there.

K: But why do you want to 'get there'? Because you're dissatisfied with what you are?

BP: In that case, because you've accepted ( to think in terms of?) comparison already.

K: But you didn't answer my question. You're dissatisfied with what you are?

BP: In that case, because you've accepted a comparison already.

K: After all, your school is a place of learning, not learning better than somebody else, right? Would you agree to that? It is a place of learning.

LC: But not in the system we have now, though.

K: Forget the system for a moment. It (a holistical school?) is a place of learning. Learning not only academic subjects, but also the whole of life. Now we lay emphasis on the academic side and neglect the other side. Then what would you do?

LC: You have to change the emphasis on the academics.

K: Not only the academic (priorities?) but also all of life. You know, the relationship with the universe, with each other, with nature, with everything.

AB : A lot of the academics do help you learn about your relationship to the universe and to yourself and to others.

K: Do they do that? And isn't that relationship theoretical?

LC: I would say so.

BP : I think it's a rare classroom that gives you any insight into the deeper secrets of life.

K: So, is theoretical knowledge an actual relationship? In theory, I must love all mankind. But I don't. So, which is more important, the theory or the actuality?

BP: Obviously, the actuality.

K: So, then, what are we to do as students when con- fronted with the system and the ( standardised?) teacher, when we want to learn about the whole of life? Not theoretically, not from a philosopher, a psychologist, with their theories, their ideals, but we want to find out how to live (differently?) ?

AB: I don't think you can learn that from a teacher in school.

K: You can't. Can you learn from a teacher?

AB ; You can learn from experience.

BP: Or, you can learn even from a person who happens to be a teacher in the system.

K: But wait. She said just now that you learn from experience, right?

AB: From your own experience. You can say you may not want to go exactly on that route and choose to do something different.

K: Let's go question by question. You are saying that we can learn through experience; either from the experience that you have directly acquired, or from the experience that others have had. Do you learn anything ( of fundamental value?) from experience?

AB : Yes ( we can !). As for how to apply that experience to another situation that (opportunity) comes up in the future.

K: So 'you' experience certain actions and relationships and that becomes an (experiential?) memory. And from that memory you act.

AB: Yes.

K: Is that ( applicable in the everyday ?) relationship?

LC: No. It's just an automatic reaction from your expe- rience in the past.

K: You're in a school; school is a place where you (are supposed to) learn. There you 'learn' a great deal, (in the sense that you) acquire a great deal of knowledge about the universe, about yourself, about mathematics and physics and so on and so on. Now, when you are saying : I am going to learn through my personal experience, what do you mean by that? Go step by step into it : I will learn ( about war?) by killing people. That's a (learning through personal experience, right?

AB: Yes, or you can take the ( recorded) experience of other people and use their experiences, not only merely your own.

K: So where will you draw the line?

AB: What do you mean by that?

BP: When is an experience so distilled that it becomes theoretical knowledge rather than a direct experience?

K: Is knowledge the basis of human relationships? I 'know you' through ( the previous) experience ( of meeting you?) and that has been stored up in my brain as 'knowledge' and I act ( mechanically?) according to that. Which means what? I don't 'know' you (as you are now) .

LC: It just means that you use ( your experiential ) knowledge as the basis of your relationship.

K : So I'm asking you, what happens when you have a
relationship based on knowledge?

LC: You act on things that have happened in the past.

K: Yes, you're acting according to something that happened yesterday. So you are living ( safely protected by ?) the (images & memories of the?) past. And, that's 'knowledge'. So what are you trying to say to each other? What happens in such an infertile relationship?

BP : Very little relating.

K: Are you ever related?

BP: You were at one time.

K: I was at one time related to you, which has become a memory and that memory is now operating. So what happens?

LC: You don't get any (authentic) inter-relationships if you are always acting ( based ) on the knowledge of your past relationships. The relationship doesn't 'grow'.

K: So there is no relationship, right?

AB: There remains only an (updated ) knowledge of the past.

K: So what happens in that relationship?

LC : Nothing.

K: No. A great deal happens, not nothing.

LC : O.K. Then it just stays the same ?

AB: No, it doesn't. You gain more knowledge (about that person) as you go along.

K: Look. My relationship with you is established on certain memories, certain (emotionally loaded?) 'images'. And, in my present relationship with you I act from ( the psychological safety created by?) those 'images', pictures, knowledge. And, you have the ( friendly/unfriendly/ attitude) with regard to me—images, knowledge, memories as I have about you. What happens then?

BP: Aren't both, essentially, each relating to themselves?

K: Which means what? Inquire ! (brainstorm?)

BP: You cut off the other from relating with you.

K: Which means you are never ( truly) related to the other person . So I discover that in my relationship with other human beings, my relationship (there & then) is based on ( a memory bank of personal?) knowledge which I have previously acquired ; so, ( the interference of) that ( personally biased ?) knowledge in the relationship prevents ( the freshness of the?) actual relationship. Then what shall I do?

BP: In all the categories you named where knowledge is necessary, I noted that relationship doesn't figure into any of those.

K: But my whole ( instinctive) reaction is to acquire ( some personal ?) knowledge (that I can use later on?) in our relationship.

BP: So, ( the acquiring of) knowledge is only desirable and necessary when there is no ( human ) relationship ?

K: Go on and inquire into it a little bit more. Can I become aware that in my relationship with you, I have acquired ( psychological?) knowledge about you, knowledge which is ( forming) my concept of you, and from there I act and you do exactly the same thing. So, what happens if I don't build such an 'image' (about the other person?)

LC: What would happen if, for example, I meet Tonia and I start talking to her as if I didn't have a picture or image or memory about her?

K: Have I ever been introduced to you?

LC: No, but I know who you are and where I've met you, but I don't react to the (any personal) memory, other than that. You use the knowledge as far as recognizing someone, and then lay it aside from there and gain new knowledge.

BW: Well, what happens if you don't create a picture in the first place? What if you don't create an image?

K: If you didn't create a ( memorable) picture, you'll have to introduce yourself each time.

BW: What if you just have a knowledge of the physical appearance but don't label him as one person or another?

K: Why are you asking me? Let's both find out together.

LC: We always have our ( bank of personal ) memories and we do need [them] as far as recognizing someone, but I think that when we first meet someone, we don't make any judgments as to how they react to certain things or what sort of person they are, and we just have the image.

K: Suppose you hurt me, by ( a mean ?) word, or by (a disrespectful) gesture. I ( ASAP?) make an 'image' about you, a very strong ( emotionally loaded) image. And I would make a (much more 'positive') image of you if you were nice to me. And because of those (pre-recorded?) images, I react to you (now or the next time) right?

BP: And to a certain extent that's good. Because that (self-protective relational ) 'image' keeps you from getting slapped twice.

K: But what happens if I keep that memory (indefinitely) ?

LC: Well, if he has hurt you, you will always avoid him.

K: I avoid him. But I'm going to be hurt also by somebody else. So I have to avoid ( any open relationship with?) everyone if I don't want to be hurt.

LC: Or you simply have to avoid that kind of situations.

K: So I turn to ( loving?) Jesus.

AB: Maybe you should just avoid not a specific person, but avoid the situations where you would be hurt.

K: Aren't we doing that, actually? ( Unconsciously?) I don't want to be hurt (by others) because I have learned about ( the hard feelings accumulated by being constantly kicked around ? ) and, as a rule (of thumb ) , I don't want to be hurt anymore. Which means : I keep that (pro-active?) knowledge, which is ( hopefully?) going to prevent me from having any relationship with anybody who might hurt me.

BP: Which is...practically anybody.

K: Which is everybody.

LC: And if you do that, then you miss out on the 'nice people', the people that you enjoy being around.

K: But is there anybody in the world who isn't going to hurt me (psychologically ) including my mother, my wife, my husband? ( And the correct answer is : 'No'...?) . So what should I do?

AB :You don't avoid everybody just because you've been hurt before. You can approach each situation (pragmatically?) Other ( psychological) knowledge might help you open up, if someone is nice to you.

K: So my only friends should be those people who have given me a pleasant time, and I will avoid everybody else ?

LC: Not if you learn how to react to them too.

K: You're missing my point. Knowledge has made me withdraw.

LC: So you get away from that kind of knowledge.

K: No, see what I've done. I've ( indiscriminately ) acquired all kinds of knowledge - about mathematics, how to ride a bike, and so, and I've also acquired knowledge in my ( personal) relationships.

LC: Yes...

K: So I ( consciously or not ) base all my actions on knowledge - in relationship as well as in doing something technically .

BP : In one case, it's appropriate and, in the other it's not.

K: Now, is that a theory? Or is it so, in actuality?

AB : It's a theory.

K: It's a theory, so what happens?

LC : Nothing. So how do you change from having a 'theory' to putting your actuality into practice.

K: Why do you need a theory when you see the (truth of the ) fact that in one direction, the knowledge is necessary, and in the other it is inappropriate, even dangerous? Why do you make of it a 'theory'?

AB : In order to apply it.

BP: A ( working hypothesis or?) theory can only be ( validly) applied to ( the field of practical) knowledge. And what's called for is something that can be applied to actuality. In other words, a theory only applies to other theories.

K: Why do you have ideals? Why do you have theories? Why do you have concepts?

CC: So that we can compare ourself to others ?

BP: They're mental tools for operating with concepts and theories and...

K: Yes. But why do you have them?

CC : So that we can differ (or evolve?) from who we are right now.

K: Go into it, sir, go into it. Don't theorize about it. Christians have the ( highly recommended?) theory to 'Love one another.' That is a very ancient theory; before Christ was ever known, it existed in India and among the Chinese. Now, that is a ( very respectable?) theory. It has no actuality and ( in terms of knowing oneself?) it has no meaning at all.

LC: I'm supposed to 'love everybody' and I don't, but maybe I can work towards that. I have to reach out to this person and change this relationship.

AB: If you didn't have this theory then you would just go ahead and avoid that person.

BP: But that could be a theory too.

LC: Why?

BP: You would ( subliminally ) form a theory that you should avoid that person.

LC: But you would practice it. It would be an actuality, when you avoid that person.

K: Why don't you deal with actuality rather than theories?

AB: In order to change the situation.

K: The actuality is that there is violence, right? You
don't ( need to) have any theory about it.

BP : The theory can assist you ( or give a safe mental background) in dealing with that ( sad?) actuality.

K: But does it?

BP: Not if you forget that there is an actuality behind the theory.

K: The ( general psychological?) fact is that man has become more and more violent (in more & more ways?) . That's a fact. Deal with the fact, not with the theory. Theory says, 'You shouldn't be violent.' When ( and if we see the truth that we ) are violent, the theory has no place at all. What has a place is ( dealing non-dualistically with?) one's violence. So ( for homework : ) discard all theories and tackle 'that which exists'.

LC: But can't you use the theory to attack it? Can't you say that this is the goal : not being violent, and you are violent, so you do things to change what you are and, in fact, reach that goal.

K: But how will you deal with ( the inner aspects of ) violence without ( the backing of a ) theory? See how you are ( culturally) conditioned to always having ( a safe background of?) theories. A theory is of no ( practical) value when you are dealing with something 'actual' (which is happening here & now?) . So, how will you, having no theory, deal with the fact of violence?

BP : With another fact.

K: What's the other fact?

BP : Non-violence.

K: Is that a fact ( in the actual moment?) when you are violent (when you have a violent reaction?) ?

LC: You are not always violent.

K: When you 'are' violent, I said.

LC: O.K.

BP: So the only way you can deal with an actuality is with the actuality itself.

K: How will you observe the 'actuality' without ( any supporting?) theory?

(...Long pause...)

So you are ( intellectually?) stuck. Now see what you have done. You are ( culturally) conditioned, you are programmed (to act safely?) in a world of theories. And, ( inwardly) you have lived with theories, with non-facts. You are living in a kind of dream-world. And now it is very difficult for you to 'break away' from ( illusory mental safety?) that and 'look' at the actual facts (of life) . Now, we're 'learning' (by direct perception) , not ( by) acquiring knowledge (to be used later on?) . In what way do we ( directly) observe the fact, without (any self-supportive?) theory? It means that we put away theories altogether.

LC: If you observe violence...

K: How do you observe ( the ongoing inner ?) violence? That's the point. Can you observe it if you have an ideal which says 'Don't be violent?'

LC: No.

K: You can't observe it that way, can you? So will free your mind from the theory that you should not be violent when you are violent, and (for a change?) look at that (ongoing ) 'fact'. Now, how do you observe that violence?

LC: Don't you observe it as being O.K.?

K: What?

LC: If you don't have a theory that you should not be violent, and you are violent, and you are observing that (fact) , then wouldn't it be O.K.? Because you don't have any theory that says you shouldn't be violent.

K: Look at it (Suppose that?) I hit you ( verbally?) . You hit me back. That is ( a very common fact of intellectual?) violence. How do you observe that reaction that you call 'violence'? See, we are now learning how to deal ( holistically?) with a fact in ( our everyday) relationship, without theory, without an ideal, without imagining (or assuming ? ) that it should not be.

Can you 'do it'? Because if you observe it with your ( fool proof?) theories, with your conclusions, then you are imposing a 'non-fact' on ( that reaction of?) violence . (In other words?) Can you observe violence without suppressing it? Without saying, 'I must change it?' Just 'observe' it. ( Clue : You are 'learning' ! ) Can you observe it with a mind that is free to look with regard to everything in life? Can you be free ( of the 'known' ?) and look? Can you break the ( dualistic?) pattern?

BP: But how?

K: (For starters) the traditional (safe & knowledgeable ?) pattern in which we have learned, doesn't operate when we ( realise the truth that we?) are dealing with a ( living inner ?) fact. Would you go as far as that? Suppose I am your educator, and I find violence to be so prevalent (in the class) . What shall I do?

LC : If you didn't have theory...

K: Have you got a theory about it ?

LC: Yes

K: Why ?

LC: Simply because there was ( a wave of) pain when there was violence and you don't want it to come again. Then ( the 'violence free' way ?) action becomes the ideal of what to do, so that the ( wave of) pain doesn't occur again.

K: Which means that I have accepted a ( non-violent) theory so that I should not have pain, right? Look sir, let's move away from that thought for the moment. The world believes in 'God'. Why do you have to believe in that? Is that a form of ( elevated?) self-protectiveness?

AB: Yes. If you (do really) believe in God, then you have something to guide you.

K: It is a lovely idea, that a ( 'Heavenly ) Father' is looking out for us all. It's comforting, but that's not the reality. I may be going through hell. So, what am I doing ?

BP: You are avoiding reality ?

K: I'm avoiding my inability to look at myself, at things as they are.

LC: You're looking for comfort, though.

K: So ( for starters?) I've learned one thing. I've learned that theories prevent me from looking at things as they are. She [A B] is still doubtful, skeptic[al] ?

AB: Something that will prevent me from seeing things as they are (at every moment ) , so then I'll have to keep seeing them over and over again. ?

K: It won't be that way at all. If I know how to look at a thing completely, perhaps I have solved the whole thing.

BP : Doesn't that become (a new 'full proof'?) theory?

K: Perhaps...

(Recap:) I have acquired a great deal of informa- tion about mathematics, biology and so [on], and also ( psychological) theories about what I should be, what I must be, what I must become. Which is what? I have acquired knowledge according to somebody (else's experience). I don't know ( anything first hand?) about myself, but I have acquired what you (K ???) have said about me, or what the ( dead or alive?) philosophers, scientists, psychologists, etc., have said. So what happens?

LC: You ( will subliminally ) try to become what someone else thinks you should be.

K: Yes. Which means what?

AB: You are no longer being 'yourself'.

K: Which means you're becoming a second-hand (culturally standardised?) human being, a ( fact) you don't like to see .

LC: So you use everyone's theories to say that you are really 'wonderful'.

K: So ( Back to Square One?) You start to learn about yourself, not according to somebody else, right? Now, how will you 'learn' about yourself, which is ( a dead?) knowledge. Can you learn about yourself by listening to a Professor, Psychiatrist, Guru and all that nonsense. You are trying to learn about yourself from somebody else.

BW : Which you can't do.

K: See first what you were doing. In mathematics, biology, science and so on you have to learn from ( the objective?) somebody. Or, you can go and re-discover everything others have already discovered. So you say the same thing about knowing yourself, 'I can't.' Therefore, I must listen to somebody (who is smarter than me ? ) . So you (assume) it is the same process, here, as in learning about science.

BW: So, you're saying that you have to learn about yourself and no one else can teach you.

K: How will you learn about yourself?

BW: Right, 'how'?

K: Go on, sir, inquire. How?

BP: By ( a direct?) observation of yourself ?

K: How do you observe yourself? See, it is ( becoming ) very complex, go slowly.

LC: By observing 'other things' and your reactions to these 'other things'.

K: Which means that in your ( interacting) relationship to other things, you begin to learn about yourself. Be clear on that. I can't sit in a ( quiet?) corner and say, 'I'm going to learn about myself.' That's silly!

LC: You have to go out and experience by yourself.

K: I watch. I can see my reactions, how I behave, how I talk, how I walk. I watch, I'm ( becoming) aware of all this. Now, what do I mean by ( a diligent ?) observing? I don't come to a new class (with a mind ) full of (scholastic) knowledge - you actually 'don't know'. You are curious, you are listening carefully. So, do the same with regard to yourself. Don't accept anything, don't suppress it, don't deny it, don't run away from it. Just observe (everything non-personally?) .

( However, a few blocks may also show up ? :) We're frightened. We want to become (ASAP?) something different from what we are. So ( a subliminal process of ?) comparison begins. Imitation begins. Conformity begins.
AB: So, is it really possible to do that, to observe without applying any of your past reactions?

K: See if you can observe without any ( mental?) interference.

AB: I don't think that's possible because you always have some ( kind of mental) interference.

K: Therefore, you can't observe( holistically ?) If I observe you ( K?) because you are a very famous person, My ( great) 'image' of you prevents it from hap- pening. So I must put all that aside (ignore it?) .

AB: How can you 'put it aside'?

K: You have to 'know' ( or become aware ?) when ( your past ) knowledge is becoming a ( psychological) 'danger'.

CC : If you observe this famous ( K) person, then aren't you (unconsciously) forming a new image?

K: All right. You see, you break one image and form
another image.

LC: So your mind keeps going on breaking and forming more images.

K: That's what you are doing.

CC: Even when you learn mathematics that's what you do. You form new (mental models) …

K: No, (in any fundamental research?) in mathematics, you just 'don't know'. Now, here you are (becoming subliminally ) dependent on me, because I am 'stimulating' you, pushing you (to inquire deeper?) . What happens when you are dependent on me?

LC: Then I haven't learned to stimulate myself ?

K: "No, see what happens. It's what the TV 'commer- cials' do: 'Buy, buy, buy.' Then you ( subliminally?) accept. When you accept, what happens?

BW : You form another image ?

LC : You question ?

K: When you accept ( to 'buy' this ?) so easily, ( a subtle process of inner?) 'corruption' begins. So ( this newly created ) dependence ( eventually) leads to corruption ( to inner dis-integration?) So...are you free from ( the subliminal?) dependence in your 'learning' ?

LC : Yes.

K: So you see what we have done to ourselves. Not only ourselves, but society, which we are building. Gradually, we become ( mental?) 'slaves', which we are. We talk a lot about freedom, but (inwardly) we're not free.

BW: So, to come back : what is the next step beyond observation?

K: First, it's a tremendous thing to observe (anything directly ?) . Can you observe that flower? Look at that flower. Don't name it. If you are naming it, you are not
observing it (completely) . So, can you stop naming something as you observe it? Suppose that ( as a teenager ) I'm observing my mother. I say, 'my mother,' immediately. The ( previous) knowledge (about her?) has prevented me from looking. Can you stop that?

BW: Is it harder for someone older to stop it than it is for someone young?

K: If you ( really ) want to look at something, look. Why name it? Then, if you want to communicate what you have [seen], a rose, or whatever it is, then you have to name it. Do you follow?

AB : The naming is almost automatic. It's not something you can control very well.

K: True, but what will you do with something that has become 'automatic', as you call it?

AB: You form a habit ?

K: So go on, inquire into it.

LC : We need to break that habit ?

K: So go on. If you want to break it, what do you do?
Go to some psychologist? To somebody who says to you, 'Try this (patch) and in five days you will stop smoking.

LC: First you have to realize that you have the habit.

K: You are not (really) inquiring into the whole nature of habit. Why do you form habits?

AB: You don't question it.

K: Do you have habits?

BP: Yes.

K: Smoking, drinking, all that kind of stuff. Why do you form habits about that? Is it because others are doing it? It's pleasant? It's socially acceptable?

BP: Sure. Any of those reasons.

K: So you depend on something. Inquire, sir, go on. You're getting tired, right? Right, sir? A little bit? I think we had better stop this ( disturbing?) inquiry, sir.

BW: I'd still like to ask my question. If you can make the mind totally free and then you observe something, what is the next step beyond ( the non-verbal) observation?

K: To observe something (holistically ?) in this observation, [is] the 'observer' different from the 'observed'? ( Suppose that ) I'm ( getting) angry and I observe ( the building up of) anger. Is that anger different from me?

LC: Not if you're (getting really?) angry. K: It's not different. So the observer 'is' the observed. Careful, don't answer too quickly. I am greedy, and when I say I must not be greedy, the observer separ- ates himself from the ( greed) observed. But if ( I realise that ) greed 'is' me and I 'am' greed, then what takes place? See, you haven't ( really) gone into that. But if I am ( not separating myself from ) what I observe], what shall I do about it?

BP: There is nothing 'you' can do.

AB: Why should you do anything if you are observing that you are greedy?

K: Correct. If it is painful, and ( I realise that) this pain (of greed) is me, then what shall I do about that pain? I can't go to the doctor or take an aspirin.

LC: Then you want to be something else, so that you are not experiencing that pain.

K: You are not meeting me, sorry. You are getting tired (and/or bored?) right?

LC: Yes...

CC: As soon as you see that you are envious or greedy...

K: You stop there, don't move away from it ! Hold it there. It is not different from me.

CC: Right...

K: Right. So, what shall I do? Carefully. Go slowly, slowly. Look at it carefully.

LC: If you're just observing and you don't bring in your theories about...

K: You have learned something. Just observe.

LC: You just observe then... and that's all.

K: And what happens?

LC: Then you learn something from that ( observation?) .

AB : Or... nothing happens and you just go on (being greedy?)

LC: What happens to envy then, and to the greed?

K: If I brush the 'theory' ( of non-greed) aside and I see that (my reaction of) greed, is no different from me. I am that. Now, can I stay there, 'hold it', and not try to suppress it or analyze it ? Just 'hold it' and 'look' at it. Can you do it? Will you do that? So, if I 'am' (becoming fully responsible for this reaction of ?) violence, what takes place there?

LC: If you don't act upon it?

K: Of course. How can you act upon it if you 'are' it?

AB: What's the use of knowing something if you don't...

K: I am saying 'don't move'. Hold it there. I am violent. I cannot act upon it because it is part of me. So, if you 'are' [it], what happens? Don't 'theorize' unless you do it.

LC: Then don't you ( have a holistic ?) experience of 'yourself' ?

K: Which means what?

LC: That you are 'learning' about yourself.

K: Now wait a minute. Everybody talks about having ( transcendental?) experience. Is the ( much desired ?) 'experience' so different from the 'experiencer'? Let me put it in another ( roundabout?) way: Is the 'thinker' different from '(his) thoughts' ?

BP: Without the 'thinker' there is no 'thought'.

K: So, is the experience different from the experiencer? No. Let us stop here. ( Homework clue:) You are not learning from me, you are learning through ( your own non-verbal?) observation, investigation and inquiry.

CC: Is inquiry part of observation?

K: That's what you have done this morning. So you are not dependent on anybody. You are learning the 'art of ( inner ) inquiry' for yourself. Hence, move in that direction.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 14 Dec 2017 #18
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

What Is Your Secret? ( A K interview for the BBC in 1984 )

Bernard Levin: Krishnaji, what is the 'secret' you know that the rest of us don't know? Look at you — serene, realized, content, with no conflict — how have you managed it? What is it?

K: I have never had ( a personal ?) conflict in my life.

BL: No conflict? You must be almost unique among human beings if that's so.

K: Its not ( just?) because of the circumstances, because of any outside influence that kept me safe. I think it was ( due to ) the realization that ( living in?) conflict destroys not only the ( natural intelligence of the?) mind but the whole sensitivity of awareness. So I've never had conflict; which seemed quite natural to me, it wasn't ( the result of?) an effort not to be in conflict.

BL: Well, for most of us it is an effort, so how can we conquer it?

K: I think it comes really when you have a direct (insightful) perception that ( accepting to live in ) conflict destroys human dignity, a sense of ( one's consciousness?) depth. If you have a deep insight into that, it stops immediately — 'for me'.

BL: Ah, but what about 'for us'?

K: Oh yes, for everybody.

BL: For everybody? Then how do we obtain that? It's almost like finding Nirvana, finding the ultimate goal, isn't it?

K: No, the ultimate goal is to find 'That' (inner dimension of one's Consciousness?) which is completely sacred, totally uncontaminated by ( one's ego-centric) thought.

BL: Is thought the 'contaminant' then?

K: Yes.

BL: You see, that is a very strange concept for most (thoughtful or even thoughtless ?) people.

K: Its not a 'concept', its an actuality. Why do you reduce it to a 'concept'?

BL.. Well, because that is our way of thinking, we learn to think that thought itself is the most important, the strongest and most powerful means we have.

K: Of course.

BL. : And is that not so?

K: But thought is ( also ) very limited (as a perceptive instrument) .

BL: Why?

K: Because it's born out of ( our past) knowledge and experience, and this knowledge is never complete about anything.

BL. : But What is more complete than that? You say born out of experience, memory, knowledge; of course it is, but how else can we go beyond its limitations ?

K. : I think that comes really when you give thought its right place. You need thought to come here, you need thought to have all these lights and TV cameras and so on. But thought is (inwardly?) limited, (since) it is conditioned by our ( dualistic?) knowledge, which is never 'complete' under any circumstances. So when one realizes that (it is inwardly blind?) then thought has its right place (in the outer life) , but(inwardly or?) 'psychologically' you don't need to build a (self-protective?) image about yourself or about anything. You see the 'facts' as they are.

BL: We'd like to think we do that all the time...

K: Yes, but take for example all the ( organised?) religions, they are based on thought : all the rituals, all the things that go on in the name of God are not sacred.

BL: You're talking about the rituals, and about the structure, the hierarchies of these churches, but what about the original Teachings? You wouldn't say that about the teaching, for example, of Christ or Buddha, would you?

K: I would say that. Because they have been put on paper and translated by man to accommodate himself, they're called 'revelations' in Christianity, and in Buddhism there is also something handed down from the Buddha through his disciples, but that is still not a direct and vital insight into that which is Eternal.

BL: But how else can such teaching be transmitted — after all you also write books and appear on (public) television?

K: Yes, unfortunately...

BL: I mean, that is the way these ( spiritual) things are transmitted — how else can they be transmitted?

K: If you could see (the elementary truth?) that 'the word is not the thing', then the books, or whatever ( CD's or e- prints), are only a (convenient ) means of communication by people who have 'seen' something and then want to communicate it to others.

BL: Surely.

K: And during that communication ( its truth content?) gets twisted and the ( Enlightened ) personality becomes all important, not ( the truth of) what he said.

BL: Well, all the (organised) churches do institutionalize the great teacher, the great leader, the great Seer and distort it, as you say, but that doesn't affect the teaching. After all, let us take something we're all familiar With — the Sermon on the Mountain— Christ spoke those ( inspiring) words, they have been written down and now we can read them for ourselves. They are still Christ's words, are they not?

K: Could we put the whole thing differently? ( Sooner or later?) one has to be(come) a 'light to oneself'.

BL: Hm... go on.

K: And you cannot have this 'light' from another, it cannot be handed down to another, one has to be totally, completely, a light to oneself, to understand oneself so completely that in that understanding there is no distortion of what one is.

BL: Do you mean then that none of us needs any of this teachings handed down to us, that we can all discover these things for ourselves?

K: Every man 'is' the ( 'living) history' of all mankind And if one knows ( the secret of?) how to read this 'story of oneself' (which needs a great deal of non-dualistic attention?) one has then a mind that doesn't distort ( the direct perception of the inner & outer?) facts, of what is actually seen. With such an attentive, sensitive ( integrated) awareness, one can read ( the whole Book of ? ) oneself without any illusion.

BL: But theres a fine line between that (qality of integrated) attention and what we do most of the time, which is to concentrate on ourselves.

K : That is merely an egocentric activity.

BL: Of course it is, but then... we 'are' egocentric.

K: And this (common thread of ego-centricity is?) creating havoc in the world. Why don't we realize the mischief that we are bringing about?

BL: Well, that's the question I should ask you — Why don't we realize it?

K: Either we are totally ( blind or?) indifferent to the world and what is actually going on, or we are so 'consumed' by our own desires and pleasures that it doesn't matter what happens as long as we fulfil.

BL: But must we not even seek happiness?

K: 'Happiness' is a side-effect (of an eliberated life?) , not an end in itself.

BL. : I mean let's take happiness that does not depend upon anyone else's suffering, where no one else is harmed, is it wrong then to seek this condition of happiness for ourselves and/ or for our loved ones?

K: What do you mean by that ( generic) word 'happiness'?

BL: Well, what the world generally means by it is (enjoying the ) innocent pleasures (of life) , if you like.

K: That's it : as long as one has ( free access to this innocent???) pleasure you call that happiness. Is pleasure ( synonimous to?) Love, is Love ( generated by our) desire?

BL: Well, it is part of it clearly, I mean that is how we use the word, as we live it at the moment.

K: Yes, we accept that, that's our human condition, and we never seem to break through it. So what will make human beings throughout the world break through it, finish with all this?

BL: But after all, isn't love one of the most beneficial aspects of mankind?

K: It is, but it is not to be identified (or confused?) with desire, with pleasure, sexual fulfilment, the ( hedonistic) sense of having fun in life... I think that is not love.

BL: So, what is Love ?

K: I think one can come to realize what Love and Compassion- which are also Intelligence- really are, when we discover what love is not — it is certainly not ambition.

BL: I can see that, but what about the ( noble) ambition to do good, to help people?

K: When you 'do good', you're not ( personally) ambitious to do good, for then it becomes a self-centred activity, you 'do good', finished.

BL: But we live in a world which depends on these things, don't we ?

K: We live in a world that thought has created, we live in a world where we have given tremendous importance to ( the ego-centric?) thought, and this thought has created all these problems and divisions.

BL: But has it not also created good things in the world?

K: I was going to say that too— surgery, medicine.

BL: And art.

K: Art, of course. But the most destructive aspect of thought is that (sad condition) under which we are living, with eternal wars... And nobody wants to stop it, because of commercialism and all the rest of it.

BL: Well then how can we stop it? And we'd better start I suppose, with ourselves ?

K: Yes, that's all.

BL: How do we do that?

K: After all, our consciousness is the consciousness of mankind. Its not my consciousness or your consciousness, its the consciousness of humanity, and the ( active) content of this consciousness is put there by (ego-centric) thought, greed, envy, ambition, all the conflicts, misery, suffering, an extraordinary sense of isolation, Ioneliness, despair, anxiety, all that is ( awake or dormant down?) there in our consciousness. ( For example:) Belief brings about (the subliminal) atrophy of the brain.

BL: But do you reject belief itself ?

K. : Yes. Completely.

BL: You don't leave much standing ( for our fine viewers?) do you, Krishnaji!

K: Of course not, but I have also said one has to be free of all the 'illusions' that thought has created to see something really Sacred which comes about through the 'right meditation'.

BL: So, what is this 'right meditation'? You are suggesting that there is also a 'wrong meditation' ?

K: Oh, all the ( fake?) meditations put forward now by the 'gurus' are nonsense.

BL: Why?

K: Because first you must put the (inner) house in order.

BL. : But isn't meditation meant to put it in order ?

K. : Ah, you see, that's ( a misconception?). They think that by meditating you put the house in order.

BL: And that is not so?

K: No, on the contrary you must put the house in order first, otherwise if you don't (meditation) becomes an escape.

BL: But we need surely to 'escape' from the ego, from the self, from these desires, these demands in ourselves, and surely the silence of meditation is a valid path to that, isn't it?

K: You see, this question is (indeed?) much more complex. Putting (one's inner) house in order means no (psychological?) fears, the understanding of pleasure, the ending of sorrow. From that arise compassion, intelligence, and the whole process of it is (indeed) part of meditation as is also finding out whether ( the self-centred process of ) thought can ever stop, which means 'time' has to have a stop. And then out of that ( total inner order?) comes a great Silence, and it is in that Silence that one can find that which is Sacred.

BL: Well, as far as I'm concerned, and I'm sure this is true of most (thoughtful?) people, to stop thought, to 'switch off' the (thinking) mind is the most difficult thing in life.

K: You see it is again rather complex. 'Who' is it that switches off the (thinking) mind?

BL: I suppose... the mind itself ? Which I suppose is impossible.

K: No, when one realizes that the observer 'is' (not separated) from the ( inner stuff which is being ) observed, when one realizes (the truth of) profoundly, then that very (insightful ) perception stops it. It's (pretty much) like seeing an (imminent physical) danger. Once you see the danger you move away from it. Take for example (the common 'psychological danger' of living perpetually in a state of inner/outer conflict ) such a human being may try to 'meditate', he may do all kinds of things but the (inner) conflict still goes on; but when he sees the 'poisonous' (toxic?) nature of this (self-sustained inner) conflict, then he'll stop (creating ?) it.

BL: But from what you say, it seems to me that there is no (prescribed) path to (doing) this.

K: Oh, no.

BL: Well, then how do we get there? Getting somewhere where there is no path seems to be a very difficult idea indeed.

K: Look, these ( strongly recommended spiritual ?) 'paths' have been laid down by ( the traditionalistic) thought, there's the whole Hindu idea of progression, the Buddhist, the Christian way, but ( the living spirit of?) Truth is not (to be found at?) a fixed point. So you can't have a path to it.

BL: But I hope there's a path, to the ending of conflict.

K: There is no ( prescribed) path (to be followed) , but when there is an (all-senses) awareness of 'what one is' without any ( personal preferences or?) choice, out of that (responsible realisation?) there the ending of all this mess.

BL: Well, when you say that there is only this awareness of 'what one is', a full awareness without choice, without illusions, it sounds as though we all have to sit around waiting for that 'instant revelation'.

K: Oh, then you can sit around for a million years!

BL: Exactly.

K: You see, then we have to find out what (the insight-based?) action is. Is there a (directly perceptive?) action that doesn't create conflict, in which there is no regret, which under all circumstances is always correct? To find that out one has to (take a brief detour and?) go into the question of what our action is now. It is either an 'idealistic' action concerned with the future or it is an action based on our past memories, which is knowledge ( of what worked best before). Now, is there a (directly perceptive?) action independent of (what we did in the ) past or of ( what we hope to do?) the future, independent of (our linear thinking in terms of?) 'time'?

BL: We can't stop time in its tracks, it just rolls on.

K: The physical time ( measured?) by the watch, by the day, goes on, but inwardly, 'psychologically', is there any time? There isn't, we have created that set-up.

BL: So it seems then that whatever that thing is, it is complete and instantaneous, it is not something you build up layer by layer.

K: Absolutely not. There is not a gradual process; then it is not Enlightenment, because you allow time into it ( hoping?) to gradually become something ('lighter'?)

BL: You know, in this context I would like to ask you something (more personal) . You have a school here (in Brockwood Park) , what do you teach the children? If you cannot build this up for them, or for any of us, old or young I presume — what do you actually teach?

K: The 'academic' subjects and also point out all this. How to live correctly, what it means.

BL: ( Professional ) philosophers throughout the ages have discussed that very point, how to live correctly — the 'right living', as Socrates called it. Can you teach that?

K: You can point it out , you can say : don't be a slave to (this highly ) competitive society, don't be this or that, but then... it's up to them.

BL: But can we live so 'rightly' in the real world that we do live in where we have to catch trains and go to offices and buy bread in the shop...?

K: Yes, I've done all those (...occasionally?) .

BL: How can we combine all the pressures of the mundane around us?

K: I wouldn't do anything under pressure.

BL: You wouldn't — I wish I didn't!

K: No, I ( personally?) refuse to be under pressure, either intellectually or psychologically. I won't mind starving, I won't mind having no job, but I refuse to be put in that position.

BL: You see this is what I really meant when I asked what is your 'secret', because you say you will never be put under pressure, and indeed one has only to look at you or read or listen to you to know that, but what about the rest of us? How do we get out from under the burden (of material necessity ) ?

K: If we all say we won't be under pressure...

BL: But...we all are under pressure all the time.

K: No, (inwardly?) we won't be.

BL: How can we live in the real world, the job is waiting for us, we're going to be late, we've got an appointment.

K: Just a minute, that brings up the (socio-philosophical?) issue whether human society can be changed. What is our 'society'? It's an 'abstraction' (derived) from our personal relationship. If ( the quality of?) our personal relationship changes radically, our (proxy?) society will change. But we're not willing to change, we accept (or indulge in?) all this terrible state of existence...

BL: Yes, we do. How do we stop it?

K: Revolt 'psychologically' against it.

BL: But that presumably must be done by each responsible individual. This is definitely not something that can be done collectively.

K: Again, what do you mean by 'individual'?

BL: Well, we all have independent personalities.

K: I doubt it. We're not ( free ?) individuals, (inwardly) we are the (composite?) result of a million years of collective experiences, memories, all that. We like to think we are free individuals, but (inwardly speaking?) we are not. To us 'freedom' means freedom of choice. Choice means confusion, you don't (have anything to ) choose if (inwardly) you are clear.

BL: You said once, one of your most striking phrases as I remember, that ''Your purpose was to set Man free'.

K: Yes, it sounds... (laughs)

BL: Its the most important thing in the world after all, but how do you go about that? How do we set ourselves free, because presumably you meant we have to set ourselves free . do we set ourselves free?

K: By be(coming) aware of our (psychological?) conditioning. What is our conditioning?

BL: Well, that surely varies from individual to individual.

K: I doubt it. We are (outwardly ) conditioned by fear and by pleasure, which is ( a trend) common to all mankind. We are conditioned (inwardly) by our (existential) anxieties, loneliness, uncertainty, all these are the ( active?) factors that condition the human mind.

BL: And... can we simply put them aside?

K: No, you put the 'wrong' question there; if one sees the (dire ) consequences this conditioning entails, it stops 'naturally'. That is (the action of compassionate ?) intelligence, there is no entity which says I must stop it.

BL: And then we are 'free'?

K: What do you mean by 'free'?

BL: Well, what I mean by it is to be rid of these fears, anxieties, these impossible desires, vain yearnings.

K: Yes, that is freedom.

BL: It certainly seems so to me...

K: Unless there is that freedom you cannot 'be a light to yourself', unless there is that ( inner sense of?) freedom, your 'meditation' is (certainly relaxing but...) meaningless.

BL. : You see, everybody thinks it is the other way round. You have reversed this, haven't you?

K: That is a 'fact'.

BL: Usually we think of the systems, the beliefs, the faith, the work ; as a means to getting to this state of freedom, but you start with a state of freedom.

K: If you keep on repeating, repeating, as they do, your brain atrophies.

BL : Then can we just 'do it' by one Great Leap into Freedom?

K: Yes, that is ( done) by ( having a global) insight into all this.

BL: Instantaneously? And any of us can do it?

K: Yes, anybody who is attentive, inquiring, exploring, who is trying to understand this terrible confusion of life.

BL: At any age?

K: No, of course not, a young child, can't do it!

BL: But we don't have to spend a lifetime in practising it?

K: Of course not. ( Clue:) Death is waiting for you.

BL: It is waiting for all of us...

K: For all of us.

BL: Thank you very much, Mr. Krishnamurti.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 18 Dec 2017 #19
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


(2nd Dialogue with Teachers, Rishi Valley 1985 -'experientially friendly' edited )

Krishnamurti : May I raise a very difficult question? How would you, if you had a son here or a daughter, want to educate them in order to bring about a holistic life?
You've got so many ( earnest ) students here - capable, intelligent. Through what means would you educate them in a holistic way of living? I mean by 'holistic', ( a way of living which is ) whole ( harmoniously integrated?) not fragmented, as most of our lives are. So my question is : how do you bring about a holistic way of living, an outlook that's not fragmented in its specialization?

First Teacher (T1): Sir, first we must be holistic ourselves.

K: That's understood, sir. 'Whole' means (a life which is wholesome or?) 'good' – a word that has much greater significance when you relate it to wholeness. Good, then, has the quality of being extraordinarily generous (of heart?), not wanting to hurt another consciously and also ( leading a way of life that is ( right or?) correct - in the sense that it does not depend on circumstances; if it is correct now, it will be correct a hundred years later or ten days later. Such 'correctness' (of ) goodness is not related to environmental ( or social?) circumstances, pressures and so on. From that comes 'right' action. So, goodness and a holistic way of living go together and must (generate) a cohesive action. And in the word 'holistic' is also implied a religious quality of life which we will go into presently. How am I, living here as an educator, to bring this about?

T2: The first thing we have to do is to make the child feel secure in his relationship. It seems to me that unless the child feels secure in his relationship, with me and the place, nothing can happen.

T3: First I have find out whether what you say is really what I really want to do. If I feel that is really what I want to do, then I must find out what is the actual content of my (thoughts & ) feelings.

T4: Would it be necessary to first find out if there is something that is valid for all of us? Not because we come together around a (holistic) ideal, but in the investigation we say together, "This is it."

K: Sir, do we understand what it means to live a 'holistic' life? Or is it a theory?

T3: Perhaps we merely understand it by contrast. We see fragmentation in ourselves...

K: Just a minute. I know I am ( inwardly) fragmented; my whole thinking (& feeling) process is fragmented. But I mustn't make a ( new) problem of it because then that's ( leading to) another ( kind of inner) fragmentation.

T3: But, sir, when I see that I am ( inwardly) fragmented, isn't it a problem?

K: That's what I want to get at ( the holistic way) : I see I am (inwardly self-centred &?) 'fragmented' : I say one thing and I do another, think one thing and ( then conveniently ?) contradicting what I thought (or said before?) . Do I see very clearly that ( a holistic approach requires that ?) I mustn't make ( a 'personal ) problem' out of it ?

T3: Perhaps we don't see this point very clearly ?

K: That's what I want to discuss. If I make a ( personal) problem of it, I am already further fragmenting (separating myself from the unpleasant 'facts'?) .

T3: But isn't there is an in-between stage ?

K: I don't want (to enter into) that. ( The truth of the matter is that?) I am fragmented, broken up in different ways. If I make a new (personal) problem of it, saying to myself, ''I must not be fragmented'', that very statement is born out of ( the existing ego-centric?) fragmentation. Something born of fragmentation is another form of fragmentation. But my brain is trained to make ( and solve?) problems. So I must be aware of the whole cycle of it. So what am I to do?

T1: You say that, 'I should not make a problem of it.' But do we really have a choice, or is it automatic? When we see the fragmentation within us, is it enough to say : 'I would not like to make a problem of it.'

K: See the truth (or falseness of the existing fragmentation?) , not 'I will not make a problem.' I see the fact that if I make a problem of it, it's another fragmentation. That's all. So what am I to do?

T1: Is there anything to be done in this case?

K: I am going to show you presently. What am I to do?

T1: Observe ?

K: These are (just 'politically correct'?) words. Seeing (the fact?) that I am ( inwardly) fragmented, and being aware that whatever 'I' ( try to?) do ( to resolve this issue?) is ( leading to?) another kind of fragmentation, let us find out if there is a way of (thinking &) living holistically in which is involved the quality of a deep (inner) goodness, without any mischief, without any duality? Am I making it look too complicated?

T5: No, sir.

K: So, what is left for me? To see all this (inner fragmentation ?) at a glance (ASAP?) , or through ( a diligent but time consuming?) analysis.

T1: You are asking the ( rhetorical?) question: 'what am I to do?'. But when there is ( an 'observer'-less?) observation, no such question arises.

K: Are you doing it?

T1: Yes. But as soon as you think about reaching a 'holistic state of goodness', you are already in contradiction.

K: No, you are not (necessarily?) in contradiction. What's your action when you want to educate your student in this goodness?
This ( Rishi Valley) School has a certain reputation, a certain 'éclat' - a (special ?) feeling about it. And there is a certain ( sacred?) atmosphere in this Valley. And I ( the paying parent?) sent you my son, hoping that you will help him to grow up in this holistic way of life.

T5: It is in the ( absolute?) way you posited the question that the contradiction arises.

K: (For starters?) I may not be ( inwardly integrated or?) holistic. Don't say: first I must be 'holistic', and then I can teach. That will take you an eternity (eons?) . If you say: I must first be holistic, then you have stymied yourself. Sir, I am not assuming anything (one way or another)
I really don't know what to do with these children whose ( wealthy?) parents want them to join the IIT [Indian Institute of Technology] or something or other. And I've got the tremendous pressure of society - the father, the mother, the grandfather, wanting the boy to have a well paid job and all that. How am I to bring this about? You don't answer me.

T4: Krishnaji, I am not yet adressing the question ''how am I to bring this about ?''; I'm looking at ( my own inner) fragmentation.

K: Follow it out - I am ( aware of being inwardly) fragmented, and the boy is also fragmented (but not necessarily aware of it?) . Then what's the relationship between me and the boy?

T4: We are 'learning together'.
K: Don't use ( copy-pasted?) phrases quickly. What's my ( actual) relationship with the student who is as fragmented like myself?

T7: You mean that I am not different from him ? 

K: Of course you are different from him - you teach maths; he doesn't know any.

T4: There is no relationship at all if I am ( not aware that I am also ?) fragmented.

K: So, is there any ( learning ) relationship at all? Or, can we (start ) on the same level (of not-knowing?) ?

T5: (If we're starting from our personal knowledge?) it can only be a fragmented relationship.

K: That's all. How can ( self-isolated?) fragments have a relationship?
( Here's an example:) You ask me a question, and I am too eager to reply to it. So it ( is becoming a mind game?) between you and me: I answer it and then you counter it; then I counter it, and so on.
( Now, in a holistic approach?) the student asks me a ( psychological?) question and expects me to answer it, and I say: I won't answer it (for you?) because in the question itself is (to be found?) the answer. So, can we look ( wisely contemplate?) at the question and wait for it to 'flower'? The question itself contains the ( experiential) answer if you let it flower, if you do not cover it immediately with a response. Your response is already conditioned, already 'personal'. So leave the ( young or adult student with an open?) question. If the question has depth, significance, vitality, then the question unfolds.
(In Class Example:) take this 'top of the line' holistic question :) Is there Truth? Does Truth exist? If you're honest (with yourself?) you don't know (the experiential answer?) so we leave the question (open ended?) . Let's look at ( or wisely contemplate?) the question, and ( if we're lucky?) the question begins to unfold itself : Is there ( in the human consciousness a fundamental dimension of a living ?) Truth, or only ( the time-binding Stream of an ?) active, vital, Illusion?
( As a holistic educator?) I won't go into ( answering ) that. If the question has depth, if the question has a sense of great vitality – (and assuming that?) you are asking the question in a great ( passion of ) inward searching - let the question answer itself. It will (eventually?), if you leave it alone.
Now (what was?) our original question ?
T8: I have a child come to me. I am fragmented, he is fragmented. And I find that any ( knowledgeable?) response that I give to the student would itself be a ( specialised or?) fragmentary response.

K: Stop there : Whatever relationship I have is still fragmented. Is that an actual reality or an intellectual statement?

T8: It seems a reality to me.

K: Either it is real in the sense that the microphone is real; I don't know if you get the quality of it. So what am I to do, sir? You tell me.

T8: Am I fooling myself that I can give a holistic education?

K: We are going to find out whether it is possible to do it or not.
The first statement is: we are ( both self-centred and?) fragmented. What does it take you to say : I really don't know what to do? When I say, I don't know, do I really mean that I don't know. Or, am I waiting for somebody else to tell me, so I will know? Which is it?

T8: At the moment the latter.

K: I am not waiting for him to answer, or expecting someone else to tell me. All these are states when I am (subliminally) waiting for an answer. But ( the truth of the matter is that?) no one (in the faculty?) can answer this because they are all (inwardly) fragmented. Therefore I am just watching, looking, observing, listening to this (new holistic?) question : 'What's the ( inwardly open ? ) state of my brain which says: "I don't know"?'

T3: The brain doesn't say it doesn't know.

K: That's the first ( holistic point?) to realise? The brain never remains ( non-verbally?) in the state of 'I don't know'. You ask me: 'What is Ishvara?' and I promptly answer. 'Ishvara' comes as a symbol to you. But if you ask, 'What is the (Original) Element which created this?' What is the beginning of life? What is the Life in the seed that you plant? The Life of man - what is the Origin of that life, of the tiniest (living ) cell? I am not going into (answering all ?) this ( for you) now

Now, (back to Holistic Education 101?) I don't know how to deal with that boy or with myself. Any action I do, any 'movement' ( thoughtful activity of my self-centred?) thinking , is still out of fragmentation, right? So I leave it alone. May I proceed ( from the 'unknown' shore?) ?

T6: Please, sir.

K: What is ( self-less?) Love? Is it related to (personal attachment & ) hate? If it is related, love then is still fragmentation. So, what is Love? You don't know. Is this state of 'not-knowing' ( of the same nature as the Unknown ?) Love?

(To recap:) I don't know what to do ( educationally?) with that boy or girl; we are both ( self-centred & ) fragmented. I can teach him mathematics, geography, history, biology, chemistry, psychiatry, anything - but ( holistically-wise?) that's nothing ( extraordinary?) . This demands much deeper enquiry (from the future 'holistic educator'?) very much deeper. So I say, what is ( the educational approach?) that is completely holistic? Certainly not ( the mechanistic) thought - thought is ( the response of our fragmentary) experience. It's certainly not sympathy, not generosity, not empathy, not saying: 'You're a nice chap.' Love has – what?

T5: ( Its own Intelligence & ) Compassion ?

K: Love, (along with its Intelligence &) Compassion - that is the only (active factor ?) that is holistic. I'm just (re?) discovering (this little ) 'something' for myself : this ( Unknown dimension of?) Love is completely 'unbreakable'. It's whole and it has its own ( quality of Compassionate?) Intelligence.

T6: You say that love has its own intelligence; you say that love is holistic, it's not fragmented. Isn't that just your assumption?

K: Love is not an assumption - my God!

T6: Maybe it is, because I personally don't know it....

K: Remain there : you 'don't know'. Wait, (abide with it?) find out; don't answer verbally) . That means I wish to 'learn' (by direct immersion?) , but.... I'm not sure you want to 'learn'.

T2: But Krishnaji, this very 'wanting to learn'...

K: Don't translate into ( the opportunistic language of?) fragmentation. I don't know how those video cameras work, and I watch (by looking over camraman's shoulder?) how he does it; I learn about it. But the human beings are not like ( these top of the line video ?) cameras; they are (alive and so ?) much more complicated. They are like a messy (still functional but exceedingly wasteful e-?) machine; and I want to know how their brain works. Either I ( spend long years in ) becoming a (pompous knowledgeable?) biologist & a brain specialist, or I ( am starting from scratch & ) studying myself, which is much more exciting (and less time consuming?) . So I learn how my brain works - ( bearing in mind that ) there is nobody (around available?) to teach me.

T2: There may be here - I listen to you.

K: I don't trust them (scholars & gurus ?) . All their knowledge is either from books or from their little selves (or both?) . So I say, I am going to investigate this whole way of human living, not just parts of it.

So let's come back (to square one:) : what am I to do or not do? The question is much deeper than merely (dealing with) the boy and the girl whom I'm ( supposed to be?) educating. It might be that I have not really understood ( for myself) what it means to lead a holistic life; not understood intellectually even.

T2: If you mean 'intellectually', I would say yes.

K: Are you sure?

T2: I'm sure – intellectually.

K: So you have separated the intellect from the whole (of yourself) . Sir, when you say you have understood 'intellectually', that's another fragment(ation) .

T2: Yes, sir...

K: So, don't ( bother to) use the words: 'I understand intellectually.' What am I to do or not do? I'm responsible to the parents for that girl or boy. They have sent them here because you have a good reputation, you look after them and all that. He (K) comes along and tells me: It's all right, but what matters is a holistic way of life, the ( integration of?) whole (human) psyche which is now fragmented; if that can be 'made whole', then you have ( created?) the most extraordinary ( holistic) education.
He (K) tells me that (no questions asked?) and he 'goes away', and I don't know what to do, - deeply, profoundly, seriously, I don't know what to do. Am I waiting for somebody or some book to tell me, or hoping something will come along and give me ( the inner clarity of?) 'insight'?

So, what shall I do? I know one thing absolutely for certain: I don't know. All my ( ego-centric way of ) thinking has collapsed - so the brain is now open for reception. The brain has been ( safely kept ) 'closed' by (personal) conclusions, opinions, by judgements, by my ( reality?) problems; it is a (self-en)closed thing. Now, when I ( realise that?) , I really don't know, I've 'broken' something; I've broken the bottle (and... released the Genius?)
I begin to find out (the truth or falsehood of everything only?) when the bottle (of the 'known'?) is broken. Then I find out what (the Unknown dimension of?) Love is, what Compassion is, and that Intelligence that's born of Compassion. ( Clue : it has nothing to do with the capacity of the intellect) .

Sirs ( in our profound moments of thoughtfulness or... meditation?) we never come to ( go beyond ) that (critical inner) point when we say: I don't know. Right? You ask me about God, I've an immediate answer. You ask me about Chemistry, out comes the answer - the tap ( of the known?) is always open.
You see, sirs, I'm one of those 'idiots', who haven't read a thing (or forgot whatever was read ?) except...

T2: And who doesn't 'think' also ?

K: The ( not-knowing?) brain is ( functioning from its inner emptiness?) like a drum; ( providing that?) it's all ('finely) tuned up'. When you strike it, it gives the 'right' note (the fundamental vibration of Truth?)

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 #20
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

Goodness -the fundamental ressource in holistic education

( 3rd and last K Dialogue with Teachers @ Rishi Valley (Dec. 1985) -reader friendly edited)

First Teacher (T1): Is a 'new' mind the same thing as a 'good' mind ? If so, what is 'Goodness'? And, in particular, what is the relationship of this 'new' mind to the awareness of the wholeness of life? What is this Wholeness of Life ? Can we explore these ( holistic terms?) in some depth?

KRISHNAMURTI (K): I wonder what do you consider is the Origin of Life, the beginning of all ( intelligent?) existence? Not only of human beings, but also the whole world, nature, the heavens and the stars? What is Creation? And what is our (personal ?) life in relation to the whole world which is a total movement, including ourselves, including humanity?
I would like to discuss whether there is a difference between our physical brain - the biological thing which is inside the skull - and the 'mind' ( our intelligent consciousness?) ? Does the brain contain the 'mind', or is the 'mind' totally different from the brain? And what would you call the flowering in goodness? Not a static goodness, but a 'movement in goodness'?

What is life? Not life in a particularised form like the ape, the tiger, the squirrel, the tree, but what is the beginning (Origin) of life? The second question is: Does the brain contain the mind, or is the Mind totally divorced from the brain? If the brain contains the mind, then this mind is part of matter, part of brain's nervous responses. It is a physical phenomenon. But the Mind surely is something totally different. If the brain includes the 'mind' , then it is part of our nervous, biological reactions of fear, sorrow, pain, pleasure, the totality of human consciousness. Then it is part of human creation. If the mind is part of the evolutionary process, then it is part of time.
Is time involved in Goodness? Can Goodness be cultivated or brought about through time? What do you all think is 'Goodness'?

T5: Sir, when we say of someone that he is a 'good' man, we generally mean that he doesn't harm others. He doesn't act always out of self-interest, or personal gain... It is a quality accumulated in time.

K: Is it? Is 'Goodness' the opposite of 'badness' - if such a word exists? Is good the opposite of bad?

T5: Sir, do you mean by this ( euristic ?) question - is goodness a reaction to the bad and accumulated over time?

K: Yes, all that is implied in the question. And I am saying, if that if the 'goodness' is born out ( as a reaction to?) the (ongoing) 'badness', then it is not Goodness. Are we saying that the ( traditional) ideas regarding the evolutionary process of the 'goodness' from the 'badness' are totally mistaken?

T3 : That's the implication.

K: Throughout the history of man, ( the forces of the?) 'good' are always fighting ( the forces of?) 'evil'. Our whole (moral) thinking is based on this principle. And you come along and say, Look, there is something wrong with this. Good is totally different from bad; there is no relationship between them; therefore they cannot fight. Good cannot 'overcome' evil. Are we saying something totally revolutionary? And is it true? Something revolutionary may not be true. If it is true, it (the authentic Goodness?) has nothing to do with the ( evolutionary thinking of the ) brain.

T1: The implication seems to be that Goodness exists prior to man. It seems to mean that Goodness is inherent in the universe.

K: Maybe...So, what is the ( nature of the universal ?) Mind? Can the ( Goodness of this?) Mind penetrate the brain?

T1: Again this will imply that the Mind is prior to the brain.
K: Of course. Let us call that 'Intelligence' for the moment. Can that ( Universal?) intelligence communicate through the brain? Or the ( traditional?) brain does not have any ( direct ?) relationship with that Intelligence?

T7: Is the brain born of that Intelligence (of Creation?) ?

K: Don't ask me, sir ; you and I are 'enquiring'.

T1: I don't want a (verbal) answer.

K: Are you finding out for yourself? Or what the 'speaker' says is clearing a way for you to see?

T1: This question seems to direct our attention to the ( Mind of the?) Universe. Or to (the Intelligence of?) Nature.

K: That's what we want to get at : Is the ( Mind of the?) Universe different from us? Or it's all one movement - the stars, the heavens, the moon, the sun; one tremendous energy. Our ( brain's?) energy is very limited. Can that limitation be broken down and we be(come) part of that enormous Movement of Life? Not 'I' join that Movement because I am such a small speck. Can all that ( limitation?) be broken down and ( our mind ?) be part of this enormous Movement (of Creation?) ? I'd call this 'Goodness'. The ( brain's perceptive?) 'window' which is so narrow now must be broken down, and then... no window at all.
What then is ( the Origin of all) Life? Is it that immense Intelligence which is energy, supreme, unconditioned, 'uneducated' - something that has no beginning and no end?

T5: Are you implying that ( accessing this Intelligence of?) Creation does not involve time?

K: ( Our technological) inventions involve time. Creation cannot involve time. I don't know if you see ( the implications?)

T8: When you are talking about time, you mean the 'psychological' time ?

K: Of course, the 'psychological' time. So ( the holistic quality of?) Goodness is not involved in time, therefore it is part of that ( Living?) Intelligence which is an Universal movement.
( Now, back to the practical aspects of a holistic education) Here I am then with a thousand students. As a 'good' educator, I want to see that they understand all this. Not intellectually, not theoretically, not as some fantastic idea, but so that there is real transformation - no, not transformation - but a real (qualitative?) mutation takes place in their lives.

T1: When you say 'immense intelligence', the word 'intelligence' implies some quality of ( self-) awareness ?

K: It may not.

T1: But then, what is the ( inner) quality that is 'intelligent'?

K: Probably it has no quality. It is intelligence. You see, it may be something incredible or it may be nothing at all, but I can't approach this with a mind that says, show me your( scholastic?) 'qualifications', show me your ( Ph?) 'degree'.
So what am I to do after (this last?) educational conference? What am I to do, as an educator, to bring about a 'mutation'? (Not a 'transformation'; there is a (major qualitative) difference. Transformation means changing from 'this' to 'that' (within the same field?)

T9: Sir, can we come back to something we skipped over some time ago? We talked about the ending of the limitation we are trapped in; and in that ending 'something else' is happening. Can we go back to that? For there seems to be something that you went over too quickly

K: My brain has been educated, has lived in tradition, whether ancient or modern tradition, my brain has been mauled about, informed, ('programmed?) by all the cultural conditioning that has gone on for centuries. Can that ( condition?) be broken down? Is that your question?

T9: Yes. And what are the things that make it possible for this brain to have any relationship with ( that universal?) Goodness.

K: Let's break it down to one word: ( conditioned?) consciousness, or (self-) 'limitation' , Can all that be broken down? Not through time - that is important. If I use time, I am back in the old circle (of the know) . Do you see that?

T9: Yes, sir.

K: So it must be broken down instantly. Not in relation to time.

T10: You mean 'psychological' time ?

K: Yes, of course. 'Psychological' time is different from the ordinary 'physical) time by the clock, by the sun, or the time (necessary?) to cover a physical distance. It takes ( physical) time for a seed to grow, for a child to become a man. We apply that same ( mentality based on?) time to ( the needs and hopes of?) our psyche. I am this, but I will be that; I am not brave, but give me time and I will be. We are talking of ( a psych(e)ological) time, in the field of the psyche.

T1: Can the limitation of ( brain's self-centred?) consciousness be broken?

K: That is the question. Can the limited brain 'break down' (dismantle?) the whole field of the psyche? Can the brain break it down - the limited brain? However much it has evolved, this brain will always be limited.

T1: Limited by it's (self-centred?) knowledge ?

K: It is limited by its physical (infra)structures, by its very physical environment, by its tradition, education, knowledge, pain, fear, anxiety. Can the limited brain break down its own limitation? Can the smallness of the brain break down its own pettiness? After putting that (inescapable?) question, what is the state of your brain? ( Remaining silently with?) this question is important, has weight, has great significance. Tell me, what is the state of your brain after putting that question?

T11: After listening to your question - 'Can the petty brain break down its own pettiness?' - what first arose in my brain was: I doubt it, I doubt whether the petty brain can break down its pettiness. But then I realised that I actually don't know whether it can or not.

K: So, your brain is still ( pro-) active, saying, 'I don't know, but I'm waiting to find out.' Your brain is still active.
See what is happening?One of you puts this (brain challenging?) question to me. How do I receive this question? If I interpret the question (in terms of my available past experience?) , I'm not 'listening' to it any more . Or, ( still worse?) as the question is put, do I immediately respond (or react?) to it , in which case I am not listening at all? It's all (being reduced to an intellectual ?) 'verbal' communication and I pass it by.
( A holistic listening) implies a certain quality of ( inner) quietness - a 'thoughtless' (thought-free?) looking. What is the state of your brain when such a serious question is put? If your brain is at all active, then the question has no ( deeper experiential) meaning.
( Now, suppose that) someone puts that question to me. What is important is how I receive it, not ( searching for?) the ( right) answer. I listen very carefully. The question is, 'Can the narrow, conditioned brain break down (or 'break free' from?) its (cutural ) conditioning?' I'm still listening to the ( inner implications of this?) question. If I'm actually listening, then there is no ( mental) 'movement' in the brain at all. This ( quality of 'thought-free' listening) is the actual 'breaking down' (of the old conditioning) . I don't know if you know what I'm talking about.

T. Because the (old) brain is not acting ?

K: I don't know if I am making myself perfectly clear - that this state of ( thought-free?) listening is the ending (or dismantling?) of a certain thing. Now, if that is happening to you, then how am I, as a (holistically friendly?) educator, to make my students listen? How am I to help them to listen to what I have to say?

T6: There is a difficulty here. When you explain something in person, it seems clear. But tomorrow morning...

K: Then you haven't 'heard' (the living truth of it?) . You've heard the hiss of a cobra, haven't you? I used to hear them very often when I walked alone here. I used to see them. And I know a cobra now. Even tomorrow, I will know a cobra. That is an actual fact. So, here too, some (inner quality of ) sensitivity, watchfulness, alertness is ( absolutely?) needed.
How am I, as a (holistic?) educator, having 'heard' (the truth of ) all this, having absorbed it in my blood, how am I to see that the students listen to me? Suppose I come to a class and I say, 'Please sit down and listen.' They're looking out of the window (or maybe surfing the net on their cell phones ?) or they are pulling each other's hair. In that ( distracted) state of mind, can they listen? Or, do I say, 'Keep quiet for ten minutes'? But even in these ten minutes ( of keeping quiet ) they are (inwardly) battling ' Who the hell is he, asking me to listen?' And all the rest of it. So, how do I cajole, bring round these students to listen?
How does a doctor or a psychiatrist make a patient listen to him? The patient is seriously concerned about getting cured. He has a particular disease, or mania, etc., and he wants to be free of it. Tell him what to do and he will do it. Here it is not like that, there is no ( Good?) Doctor, nobody to tell you. We are in a state of listening, of enquiry. So, how do we 'persuade' one person to listen to another? Answer the question.

T5: Either I entertain him, or I force him ?

K: Yes. I don't want to do either. I want them to listen, so that it is all part of their blood. So, how do we proceed, sir?

T8: Must I not 'listen' first to what they have to say?

K: They have very little to say, sir. They're quarrelling, muttering, saying, 'Give me this, that,' etc. See how long it has taken us here to listen to each other. You are willing to listen, to find out. You think K has something to say, we have invited him here. Therefore, there is communication already taking place. But with those students it is different. They are forced to come here, because their parents praise Rishi Valley. They come after swallowing the bitter pill, coated with sugar, of course. And so this goes on. Here, with you, it is different.
( Clue:) You don't want to do a thing to persuade them. It is marvellous. Put that question to yourself and see what you can do.

T1: Perhaps here we come back to the beginning - that it requires a (non-personal intelligent ) action which is Creative.

K: Now you've said it. Leave it there. Work it out. That Creativity is not born of knowledge or of your previous experience. Keep that in mind.
I think ( our problem ?) may be that we are all so terribly informed - about everything, so ( scolastically) 'educated' that there is no (inner) space (in us?) for anything 'new' to take place; ( our mind & hearts are?) full of memories, remembrances. All that may be a serious ( holistic) hindrance.

Suppose you tell me I'm a liar. And I give you all the reasons why I've lied – which... is another ( true?) lie. Or, I think I am a truthful man and an incident takes place which makes me (look) untruthful. That instant of ( self-) discovery - seeing I'm a liar - changes everything. That is my point. It changes me so that I'm no longer dishonest. I've experimented (and finished ) with this. So it is possible. Can I listen to you when you tell me I'm a liar and not bring up all the reasons? In that act of listening, there is a breakdown. You understand? I know the reasons why I've lied: a little bit of cowardice. I lied because I don't want them (followers?) to discover this or that. And when you call me a liar, then I see the actual fact that it is so. I don't go ( analytically) into all the reasons why I've lied. I listen to you without saying you are right or wrong, not putting up a barrier. In that very instant when I am listening without barriers, the thing goes. Something happens. That is the only action, which is inaction.

T3: But the statement itself may be false.

K: May be ( generally speaking ) false. But good enough for me to see that there is some truth in it.
So, what have you absorbed? And is that 'absorption' common to us all, or are we trying to 'unify' all the K schools - trying to ( artificially) put them together?( Which means that they will always be apart...) . Or is there a feeling that we are all one, so that our ( holistically friendly?) education is not based on American, Indian or English ( cultural & economic) conditions?

So, are we merely a body ( of opportunistic/activistic educators?) to supply the (local educational ) demands? Or are we to bring about a different quality of the human brain? Are we together in this? Are we together so that nothing can break us apart? ( If the answer is 'yes' ?) from that, an (educational ) action which is totally different can take place.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 02 Mar 2018 #21
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

Holistic Perception

Questioner: You use different words for describing (the quality of a holistic) perception, but I suppose you use all these words to mean the same thing: to see clearly, completely, wholly. Can one see anything totally? I feel this is an important question because if I could understand myself totally then perhaps I would have all my problems solved and be a happy human being. So what do you mean by perceiving or seeing holistically ? How can one see oneself 'completely'?

Krishnamurti:Generally speaking we always look at things 'partially'. Firstly because we are ( traditionally inwardly) inattentive and secondly because we look at things from (our mental background of) prejudices, from verbal and psychological images about what we see. So we never (get to ) see anything completely. Even to look objectively at nature is quite arduous. To look at a flower without any (mental) image (forming) , - just to observe it - becomes quite difficult because our mind looks at the flower with (a verbalised) appreciation or description which seem to give the observer the feeling that he has really looked at it. We look at it through the ( screen of our mental) images. Perhaps it is fairly easy to look objectively at something that doesn't deeply touch us, as when we go to the cinema and see something which stirs us for the moment but which we soon forget. But to observe ourselves without the ( mental process of) image (forming) - which is the (interference of our) accumulated experience and knowledge - happens very rarely. We also have a 'self-image', we think we are noble and seeing what we actually are either depresses us or frightens us. So we cannot look at ourselves (holistically) . Only when we can look at ourselves totally that there is a possibility of being free from what we observe. Our perception is not only with the eyes, with the senses, but also with an (intellectual) mind which is heavily conditioned. This intellectual perception is only partial perception, yet perceiving with the intellect seems to satisfy most of us, and we think we understand. The politician, the priest, the businessman, the technician; even the artist - all of them see only partially. And as they play a great part in the world their partial perception becomes the accepted norm, and (the ordinary) man is caught in this.

Questioner: I see this clearly. I'm using the word 'see' intellectually, of course.

Krishnamurti: If you see (the truth of) this 'totally', not just intellectually or verbally or emotionally, then you will live quite a different kind of life. When you see (in front of you) a dangerous precipice or are faced by a dangerous animal there is no partial understanding or partial action; there is an ( integrated understanding & ) action.

Questioner: But we are not faced with 'dangerous crises' every moment of our lives.

Krishnamurti: In fact we are faced with ('psychologically) dangerous' (challenges ) all the time. ( But since they are so many & so common) we have become indifferent to them, or you leave it to others to solve the problems; and these others are equally blind and lopsided.

Questioner: But why do you say there is a crisis all the time?

Krishnamurti: The totality of life is in each moment. Each moment is a challenge. To meet this challenge (mechanically or) inadequately is ( creating ) a crisis in (our and everybody's) living. We don't want to see that they are actual crises, and we shut our eyes to escape from them. So we become blinder, and the crises augment.

Questioner: But how am I to 'perceive totally' when my mind is like a cage full of restless monkeys ?

Krishnamurti: If you see only one (of these 'monkey' ) movements totally, in that totality (of non-dualistic perception) every other movement is included. If you can understand one inner problem completely, then you understand ( the origin of?) all human problems, for they are all interrelated.
So the question is: can one understand, or perceive, or see, one problem so completely that in the very understanding of it one has understood the rest? This problem must be seen ( experientially) while it is happening, not after or before, as ( processed by our previous) memory or as an example. For instance, there is no point to go (retroactively) into our angers or fears; the right thing to do is to observe them when they actually arise. ( The really insightful) perception is instantaneous: you understand something instantly or not at all.
(In a nutshell, the 'holistic') seeing, hearing, & understanding are instantaneous, while the partial listening and looking have duration.

Questioner: All my personal problems seem to exist in a span of time. But you are saying that ( their holistic) 'seeing' is instantaneous and therefore out of time. What gives duration to my jealousy or to any other problem ?

Krishnamurti: Don't they go on (on their own) because you have never ( took the time to) look at them with sensitivity, choiceless awareness, intelligence? You have looked partially ( subliminally guided by self-interest) and therefore allowed them to continue. And in addition, wanting to get rid of them is creating another 'duration' problem. The incapacity to deal with something ( of psychological nature) directly makes of it a ( self-sustained) problem and gives it life.

Questioner: Then how am I to understand so that it never comes back?

Krishnamurti: Are you laying emphasis on 'never' or on ( the insighful ) 'understanding'? If you lay emphasis on 'never' it means you want to escape from it permanently, and this means the creation of a secondary (temporal) problem. So ( by discarding the 'never') we have only one (experiential) question left : how to 'see' (the whole truth regarding) the problem so completely that one is free of it. ( This totally insightful ) perception can only be out of ( of a state of inner peace &) silence, not out of a (self-centred) chattering mind. The chattering mind may be the wanting to get rid of it, but it is only the quiet mind that sees.

Questioner: How am I to have such a 'quiet' mind?

Krishnamurti: ( For startrs, by realising the ) truth that only a quiet mind 'sees'. The seeing of this truth frees the mind from ( its time-binding ) chattering. ( A compassionate ) perception, which is ( the action of a non-personal ) intelligence, is then operating. There is no relationship between the partial (or personal outlook) and the total; therefore ( the holistic) seeing is of the greatest importance. Seeing is ( the timeless action of) attention - it is only inattention ( aka : ignorance?) that gives rise to a problem.

Questioner: How can I be (so totally) attentive all the time? It's impossible!

Krishnamurti: That's quite right, it is impossible. Therefore being ( subliminally) aware of your inattention is of the greatest importance, not how to be attentive all the time. It is greed that asks the question, "How can I be attentive all the time?"
( Clue : One may get easily trapped in the practice of being attentive). The practice of being attentive is ( a time-binding action born of ) inattention. You cannot 'practice' in to become inwardly beautiful, or to have love. When your hate ( and/or self-centredness?) ceases, the Other ( Selfless Love ?) is. ( The momentum of self-interest & ) hate can cease only when you give your whole attention to it, when you learn and do not accumulate knowledge about it. Begin very simply (from where you are?) .

Questioner: What is the point of your (highly inspirational ) talking if there is nothing we can practise (for homework) after having heard you?

Krishnamurti: The hearing now (with the inner ear?) is of the greatest importance, not what you (may or not) practise afterwards. This (quality of holistic) hearing is the instantaneous action. The attempt to 'practice' (in order to develop your attention) only gives duration to ( the 'center' which is creating all the ? ) problems.

( In a nutshell:) Practicing ( in order to develop your awareness & attention) is ( sustaining at the deeper levels a ) total inattention. Never practise: you can only (follow & ) practise (other people's) mistakes. ( The holistic quality of) learning is always new.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 07 Mar 2018 #22
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

A K Discussion with Professor Maurice Wilkins (cca 1982)

On Love, Thought & Ending our 'psychological' attachments

Maurice Wilkins: It seems to me that ( a thoughtful?) thought is part of a creative relationship, but it is only a component in the whole thing.

Krishnamurti: Yes, but is thought love?

M.Wilkins: No, but I wonder whether thought doesn’t come into love somewhat? I mean, it is bound to, to some extent.

Krishnamurti: No. I wonder if ( selfless) love is ( related to?) thought.

M. Wilkins: No, certainly not.

Krishnamurti: To ( selflessly?) love somebody means no ( self-centred interference of ?) thought; and this brings about a totally different ( quality of our) relationship, a different ( way of) action.

M. Wilkins: I think there can be a great deal of (responsible ) thought in a loving relationship, but
thought is not primary.

Krishnamurti: When there is love, thought can be used, but not the other way round.

M. Wilkins: Not the other way round, yes. The basic trouble is that it tends to be the other way round. But I was trying to transpose what you were saying about ''thought coming to an end'' in our daily relationship, and wondering what kind of relationship there is without thought ?

Krishnamurti: If I have a relationship with my brother or
my wife, and that relationship is not based on thought but basically, deeply, on love- in that strange feeling, why should I think at all? Love is (all) comprehensive; but when ( our self-centred) thought comes into it, it destroys the quality, the beauty of it.

M. Wilkins: But is love (all) comprehensive? Surely love can’t express itself adequately without thought.

Krishnamurti: Comprehensive in the sense of (being) whole. I mean, love in itself it has no feeling of duality.

M. Wilkins: I suppose love is much more a quality of the relationship, and a quality of being which pervades it.

Krishnamurti: Yes. But when (my self-centred) thought comes into it, then I remember all the things she did, or I did; all the troubles, the anxieties creep in. One of our great difficulties is that we really haven’t (actually) felt this (quality of selfless) love that is not (related to) possessiveness, attachment, jealousy, hatred, and all that.

M. Wilkins: Isn’t Love largely awareness of the unity (of All That Is )?

Krishnamurti: Would you say Love has no ( self-) awareness; it is like a perfume. You can’t dissect the perfume, or analyse the perfume. It is a marvellous perfume; but the moment you analyse it, you dissipate it.

M. Wilkins: Yes, but can there be love without
an awareness of this unity?

Krishnamurti: It is much more than that.

M. Wilkins: All right, but can it exist if that sense of unity is not there?

Krishnamurti: Just a minute. Can there be
compassion, love, when there is a deep-rooted personal belief, idea, prejudice? There must be total freedom ( from the known?) to love.

M. Wilkins: Even the (devout) Catholic might have quite a lot of love but it has limits to it in certain situations. But I agree with you that having a sense of unity won’t turn love on.

Krishnamurti: You see, most people who are religiously minded have always attached love and devotion to a particular object, or a particular idea, a symbol; it isn’t (an unconditional?) love without any hindrance to it. That’s the point, sir. Can love co-exist with the 'self'? Of course not.

M. Wilkins: If you say that the 'self' is only a fixed image, then obviously love can’t co-exist with anything fixed because it has no limits...

Krishnamurti: That’s right, sir.

M. Wilkins: But it seems to me that in the relationship of an authentic dialogue between two minds with no sense of (self-) limitation, something new can come up.

Krishnamurti: Ah, but can two ( human) minds ever meet (at the same level & with the same intensity ) ? Isn't our daily relationship with each other as human beings, wife and husband, and so on, always parallel, each pursuing his own line (of self-interest) , and never actually meeting in the sense of having real love for another, or even 'Love' without an object?

M. Wilkins: Well, in practice there always is some 'degree of separation'. But if the relationship can be on a different level, then there are no longer lines separated in space.

Krishnamurti: Of course, but to come to that level seems almost impossible if I am (selfishly?) attached to my wife and she is ( selfishly) attached to me. I say to her, or she
says to me, 'I love you’, and that seems to satisfy us. I question whether that is Love at all.

M. Wilkins: It does makes people feel more comfortable for a time.

Krishnamurti: But is ( this psychological) comfort Love?

M. Wilkins: It is obviously limited, since when one partner dies, the other is feeling pretty miserable.

Krishnamurti: Yes, with loneliness, tears, suffering. I used to
know a man to whom money was God. He had plenty of money, and when he was dying, he wanted to ( have a last) look at all the things he possessed. He was totally identified with his posessions – outwardly he was 'dying to his
possessions' but the possessions were (part of) himself. And he was frightened, not of his physical state of coming to an end, but of losing ( all the memories of) that, rather than losing ( the psychological memories of) himself and finding something new.

M. Wilkins: Could I just ask a question about death? What about a man who is dying and wants to see all the people he has known, all his friends, before he dies; is that ( pointing to) an attachment to these relationships?

Krishnamurti : Yes, that is attachment. He is going to die and death is a rather lonely (experience) so I want to meet my wife, children, grandchildren, because I know I am going to lose them all. It’s a terrifying thing. The other day I saw a man who was dying. Sir, I have never seen such absolute fear of ending. He said, 'I am frightened of separation from my family, from the money I have had, from all the good things I have done. This is my family. I love them, and I’m scared stiff of losing them'.

M. Wilkins: But suppose the man might just want to see all his friends and his family to say…

Krishnamurti: 'Goodbye, old boy, we will (eventually) meet on the other side'! That’s another matter. I knew a man, sir, who told his family, 'Next year, in January, I am going to die on such and such a date'. And on that date he invited all his friends and his family. He said, 'I am dying today', made the will and said 'Now please leave me (alone?) '. They all trooped out of the room, and he died!

M. Wilkins: Well, that was not an attachment.

Krishnamurti: No, of course not. The consequences of attachment are painful, anxious; there is a certain sense of agony, of losing. And we I call that 'love'. I may say that I love my wife, but deeply inside I know all the travails of this attachment, but I can’t let go.

M. Wilkins: But you still would feel distressed that your wife would be sad when you die.

Krishnamurti: Oh yes, that is part of the game, part of the whole business ( of a shared attachment) .

Wilkins: Yes, but one could be worried about other people’s sorrow... Presumably the acceptance of one’s own death would reduce their sorrow.

Krishnamurti: I am afraid of death; I am afraid of ending my
career, all the things I have accumulated both physically and inwardly come to an end. Can I really be free (now) from this ( time projected ) fear of death? Which means: Can I 'live with death' (in the sense of now ) ending my attachments. I am questioning this whole content of the ( self-identified ) consciousness put there by thought. Thought dominates our lives, and I ask myself if thought can have its own right
place and not interfere (inwardly) . Why should I allow (the psychological interference of) thought in my relationship with my friend, or with my wife, or my girlfriend ? Why should I 'think' about it?

Wilkins: Well, one often does need to think of other people for practical reasons, of course.

Krishnamurti: That’s a different matter. But I am saying, where love is, why should thought exist? Thought interfering in the human relationship is destructive. It is creating attachment, possessivity, clinging to each other
for our personal comfort, for safety, for security; and all that is not Love.

Wilkins: No, but as you said, love can make use of thought, and there is what you call a 'thoughtfulness' in relationship.

Krishnamurti: That’s a different matter, yes. Can I ( selflessly?) love my wife without attachment? How marvellous it is to love somebody wanting nothing from them in exchange.

Wilkins: That’s a great freedom.

Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. So (selfless ) love is ( flowering only in) freedom.

Wilkins: And you imply that if there is ( this kind of) love between husband and wife and one dies, the other would not have sorrow. I think maybe that’s right.

Krishnamurti: I think so. That’s right, sir.

Wilkins: You would transcend (by-pass) sorrow ?

Krishnamurti: Sorrow is ( created by the self-centred) thought, as a result of a (personal) shock, the ( sad ) feeling of losing somebody and suddenly finding yourself utterly desolated and lonely.

Wilkins: You mean this state of 'loneliness' is contrary to nature, so to speak ?

Krishnamurti: If I could understand the ( inward experiential ) nature of 'ending' – ending my personal ambition, ending sorrow, ending fear, ending the complexity of desire. To end it; which is ( the spiritual challenge of) death. It is necessary to 'die' every day to everything that you have gathered psychologically.

Wilkins: And everyone agrees that death is ( bringing its own) 'freedom'...

Krishnamurti: That is real freedom.

Wilkins: There is no difficulty in appreciating that. And you want to transpose that ultimate freedom into all one’s life ?

Krishnamurti: Yes, sir. Otherwise we are ( psychological) 'slaves' of ( our own self-interest & ) choice, slaves to everything.

Wilkins: Not 'Masters' of Time', but ' Slaves of Time' ?

Krishnamurti: Slaves of Time, yes.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 #23
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


Questioner P: The problem of duality and its ending (transcending) cannot be understood unless we explore the nature of the division between the 'thinker' and your 'thought'. As the Buddha said ''You are the result of your thoughts''. So, can we discover that which will trigger the 'non-dual' ( holistically integrated) state?

Krishnamurti: ( For starters, the human brain has ) 'technological' ( 'practical skills' brain-) cells, 'recording' cells and the 'perceptive' cells...

P: And they seem to form the "ego".

Krishnamurti: The 'technological' and the 'recording' fragments - these two make up the ego. Not the 'perceptive' cells.

P: But anyways the core of (self-identification) of the human psyche never seems to get affected. The basic duality between the 'thinker' and (his hectic ) "thoughts" continues.

Krishnamurti: Do you think that basically this duality exists , or only "what is", the 'fact'?

P: When you ask a (holistic) question like that, the mind stands still and one says "yes, it is so". But then ( a backlash) query starts - am I not feeling separate from Sunanda or from Balasundaram But at the very moment you asked that question, my mind became still.

Krishnamurti: Why not stay there?

P: This (backlash ?) query arises inevitably .

Krishnamurti: Why? Is it due to the very nature of the
operation of the 'self', of ( our self-centred) conditioning? All that may be due to the cultural imposition to survive, to function and so on. Why bring that in when we are looking at this basic 'fact' - whether there is duality ?

P: It may be a reflex action of the brain cells?

Krishnamurti: We are (inwardly) the result of our environment, of our society, We are the result of all our interactions. That is a 'fact' also.
But I am asking myself : is there a basic duality at the very core (of our being) , or does this duality arise when we move away from "what is"? When I do not
move away from the basic non-dualistic quality of the mind, does the 'thinker' create a duality when he is completely with "what is"?

I never 'think' when I look at a tree. When I look at you, there is no division as the "me" and "you". The "me" and "you" are somehow not rooted in me. So, where does the 'thinker' arise as separate from his
thoughts if your mind remains in "what is" ? (Suppose ) there is this sense of suffering. ( At that moment in time?) that is the "what is". There is no (interfering) feeling of wanting to be out of it. So, where does the duality ( split between the ) 'thinker' and his 'thoughts' arise? Duality arises when the ( thinking) mind says, "I must be rid of this pain. I have known states of non-pain and I want to be in a
state of non-pain". So (inwardly ) is there basically a dualistic state or ( the splitting occurs) only when the mind moves away from "what is"?

Take a (real life) sorrow : My son is dead. If I do not move away from the 'fact' where is the duality? It starts only when I say 'I have lost my closest companion, or my son', that ( the sense of a self- isolating) duality comes into being.

( To recap : ) I have an actual pain - physical or psychological grief. The movement away from it is ( automatically creating a ) duality. The 'thinker' ( self-conscious entity ?) is (the subliminal result of) this movement away.

( For homework:) First see the fact that the movement away from "what is", is ( subliminally creating ?) the movement of the 'thinker' who ( then ) brings in duality. ( Experiential clue :) in observing the 'fact' of any ongoing pain, why should there be a 'thinker' in that observation?) The 'thinker' ( mental entity) arises only when there is a movement away (a self- distancing in time ?) , either backwards or forwards - the thought that I had no pain yesterday - in that the duality ( between 'what is' and 'what should be') arises. Can't the mind remain with the (ongoing) pain, without any movement away from it, which brings in the thinker?
You have asked how this dualistic attitude towards life arises? I have had (my share of pain &) pleasure yesterday. It is finished. (Pause). Is it not as
simple as that?

P: Not really...

Krishnamurti: I think it is. But you see, this implies a non-comparative (non-personal ?) observation. Comparison is dualistic. There is (an ongoing) pain today, ( and in the background) there is (a subliminal) comparison with the 'non-pain' of (yesterday or of ) tomorrow. But ( in the holistic mode ?) there is only one fact: the (state of inner) pain which the mind is going through now. Nothing else exists.
Are we missing something? Is it that the (time-geared) mind does not know what to do ( with that destabilising sense of pain) and therefore moves away from the fact and brings duality into being? And if it knew "what to do", wouldn't it bring about duality? Isn't the 'knowing' itself a dualistic process?
So we are asking, can't that (sense of existential) pain, the "what is", be transformed without a dualistic mental activity? Can't there be a state of 'non-thinking', in which the 'thinker' (the mental entity) - who says "I had no pain yesterday and I will not have it tomorrow"- does not come into being at all ?

P: What you say is (holistically) right. But there is a lack of something within us; it may be strength, energy. When there is a (major personal) crisis, the impact of that crisis is sufficient to plunge us into a state where there is no movement away from the crisis; but in everyday life, we have (to deal mostly with) "little" challenges.

Krishnamurti: If you really understood this, you would meet these little challenges.

P: But commonly we have the everyday chattering, the erratic movement of the thinker operating with its (personal expectations & ) demands. What does one do with that?

Krishnamurti: I do not think you can do anything with it. That is the 'denial'. It is irrelevant.

P: But that is very very important. That is what our minds are most of the time - the erratic part. One does not have the capacity to negate that.

Krishnamurti: Listen to the (ongoing) noise outside. I cannot do anything about it.

P: When there is a crisis, there is ( a personal) contact. In normal living I can look at a tree and
there is no duality. I can see colour without duality. But there is the other, erratic nonsense part ( of the mind) that is continuously chattering and the thinker starts operating on it when it sees it functioning. Now, according to you, the great negation is to let it alone.

Krishnamurti: ( For extra homework) settle first this primary factor - to observe pain without moving away from it - that is the only ( experiential clue to the ) non-dualistic state.

P: Let us speak of the chattering mind instead of ( that existential) pain, because that is the fact at this moment. The noise of that (car) horn, the chattering mind, that is "what is".

Krishnamurti: You prefer this and do not prefer that and thereby begins the whole circle.

P: So, your central point is the observation of "what is" without moving away. The moving away creates the 'thinker'.

Krishnamurti: When the (mental) chattering which was the (momentary) "what is", has gone, has faded away but that pain (of your loneliness) remains. To go beyond this pain non-dualistically; that is the ( # 1 experiential ) question. How is it to be done? Any movement away from "what is", is dualistic because in that there is a (knowledgeable) 'thinker' operating on "what is", which is the dualistic (inner condition)
Now ( for a change) can one (quietly) observe "what is" without the dualistic movement taking place ?
Will that ( holistic attitude?) transform "what is"?

P: Is it not really leading to a dissolution of "what is"?

One can see that when there is no movement away
from pain, there is a (momentary?) dissolution of pain.

Krishnamurti: How does this ( timeless miracle?) happen? Why has man not come to this? Why
has he never understood or delved into pain without the dualistic movement? What happens when there is no movement away from pain? It is simple. Pain is ( sustained by) the movement away. There is no ( continuity of that inner ) pain where there is only listening. There is ( the sense of personal) pain only when I move from the fact and say this is
pleasurable, this is not pleasurable.

( Another in class example:) My son dies. That is an
absolute, irrevocable fact. Why is there pain?

P: Because I loved him ?

Krishnamurti: But look what has already happened unconsciously. The pain is the remembrance of my love for him. And the absolute fact is he is gone.
Remain with that fact. There is the pain (of my own loneliness ) and ( to avoid it?) the 'thinker' comes into being and says, "my son is no longer there, he was my companion," and all the rest of it...

S: So, it is not merely the memory of my lost son which is creating my pain. There is loneliness now.

Krishnamurti: ( To recap:) My son is dead. That is a fact. Then there is the thought of my loneliness. Then there is my identification with ( the memories of) him. All that is a complex process of thought and the thinker. But actually I have only one 'fact' (to deal with) : ''my son is gone'', while loneliness, the lack of companionship, despair, are all the result of ( the self-centred) thought, which creates a
movement away from "what is". It is this ( avoidance to face 'what is' ) that breeds bitterness,
callousness, lack of love, indifference, which are all the product of ( our self-centred) thinking.
( In a nutshell:) The 'fact' is that my son is gone. The non-perception of ( the actual truth of) "what is" breeds the 'thinker', which is the dualistic ( way of) action. And even when the mind falls into this
trap of dualistic action, that is (the new) "what is; (and the only holistic action is to) remain with that - for any movement away from that is ( triggering) another dualistic action.

When this (newly awakened) mind is always dealing with "what is" , the "what is", the ( ongoing inner) fact, needs no transformation because it is already "the beyond". The non-movement from "what is", is no
longer ( the old greed or) anger. Therefore, once the mind has had non-dualistic perception - when ( a new reaction of greed or) anger arises again, does
not act from ( its past) memory. The next time anger arises, that is ( a new opportunity to deal holistically with) "what is". A (holistic) mind is always dealing with "what is".

P: This is a tremendous action. The dualistic action is non-action.

Krishnamurti: You have to be simple. It is the mind that is not clever, that is not cunning that can understand. Our minds are not simple
enough. Though we all talk of simplicity, that simplicity is of the loincloth.
This 'non-dualistic' attitude means really the art of listening. The man who remains with "what
is" and never moves away from it, has no (psychological hurts or) marks.

P: And even when such (temporal) marks take place, to see that they take place. One act of perception removes the mark.

Krishnamurti: Quite right. That is the way to live (holistically) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 08 Apr 2018 #24
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

( A reader friendly edited K dialogue from Exploration into Insight)

DS: I wonder if we could discuss the ( subliminal psycho-) activity involved in the creation of the 'thinker' and which produces the identification with the thinker? The fact is that we are faced with this (self-sustained ) movement. Could we examine that?

P: This (identitary) momentum which pushes us, creates ( a whole kit of images about ourselves & others) and just as any mechanical engine has a source of energy, which in time dissipates itself . Could we also go into the nature of the energy which
dissipates and explore the energy which does not dissipate?

DS: Do you mean the (intrinsical) life force that exists within the person, or is 'energy' something that is manifested in relationship, and if so, then it raises a whole category of questions.

K: Is there ( within the human psyche ?) an energy which is endless, without a beginning and without an end? And is there an energy which is mechanical which always has a motive? I would like to find out.

P: Dr Shainberg asked what is it that creates ( the identitary) momentum of the 'thinker,' and of the 'thinker'
giving itself ( temporal ) continuity?

K: What is the drive, the force behind all our actions? Is it (purely)
mechanical? Or is there (below that) a (deeper source of life) energy, a momentum which has no friction?

DS: Let us stay out of the fantasy (metaphysical ?) realm for a while
and keep to the observable momentum of 'thought and desire' and its mechanical nature. What is the 'momentum' of this energy, of
thought, desire and the creation of the thinker?

K: You are asking what is the momentum behind (thought &) desire. Suppose that I desire (to drive the latest Mercedes sports  ?) car. What is behind the ( thought sustained ) desire that says, 'I must have that car'?

DS: Is it actually that 'you' desire a car or does the (image of that) car come up as a desire and then creates the 'I'? In other words, isn't the 'I' created by desire?

K: What is the momentum behind any (thought- sustained) desire? Let us begin with that. What is the energy behind my
being here? The ( subliminal) desire is to discover something other than my usual rush of thought. Now, what is behind the desire that made me come here? Is it my (existential boredom or my) suffering? Is it my ( subliminal expectation for the ultimate spiritual experience ?) ? Is it that just I want to learn more (about myself) ? Put all these together, what is it that is behind all that?

DS: To me it is a relief from what I am.

P: Which is identical with a sense of (negative) becoming.

K: Becoming? What is behind becoming?

DS: The desire to be something different from what I am now ?

K: What is ( the basic causation ) behind that energy that is making you do that? Is it punishment and reward? All the structure of our (psychological) movement is based on punishment and reward, to avoid one, to gain the other. Isn't that the basic drive that is making us do so many things?

DS: That is only a part of it. That is at the level of thought.

K: Not at the level of thought only. I am hungry, my reward is food. If I do something wrong, my reward is punishment. I think that this principle of 'reward and punishment' is ( the driving force behind) our ordinary, common drive.

P: Reward and punishment to 'whom'?

K: Is there not a (physiological self-consciousness ) saying: 'I am hungry' or 'I must be satisfied' ? And ( further down the line?) don't these 'physiological' needs) spill over into the 'psychological' ( mind-) field and does the whole ( egotistic) cycle begin there? I need food; food is necessary. But that same urge spills ( subliminally) into the 'psychologyical' field and there begins a completely different ( egotistic) cycle. But it is the same movement.

Singh: Sir, where is all this process going on? What I experience,
when I participate in this process of investigation, where is it
taking place? Is it in the brain? Where do I find that 'pleasure - pain'

K: Both at the biological level and at the psychological.

Singh: If it is ( taking place in) the brain, then there is definitely a 'twilight' (zone) , between pleasure and pain. There are definitely moments when there is no need to satisfy (any) 'hunger' and still the desire to be satisfied is there. Or, I may be satisfied and may still feel 'hungry' .

K: You mean there is a gap between reward and punishment?

Singh: ( A 'twilight zone') where one merges into another.

P: If I may ask, how does this answer the question about the nature of this force which brings it into being and then keeps it going? Basically, that was the original question.

DS: That is the question. Where is this momentum? Where is (operating) this momentum of reward and punishment?

K: Are you asking, what is the volume of ( psychic) energy, that is
making us do this or avoid that? Is that the question? Could it be
( the active principle of ) satisfaction, gratification, which is pleasure?

DS: But then, what is your state of being when you are aware that
there is freedom from hunger?

K: (The intellectual explanation ) is very simple, isn't it? There is hunger, food is given, and you are ( physiologically) satisfied. But the same thing is carried on ( by thought in the psychological field) and there it is (generating the self-centred psychological movement which is) never ending. I seek one satisfaction after another (with mixed results?) and it is endless.
( In a nutshell:) This (basic principle or) drive to be satisfied, is becoming both biological as well as psychological? Therefore I am feeling (physically) hungry and ( as that need is eventually satisfied) psychologically I am ( beginning to) feel lonely.
Physiologically, the insufficiency is satisfied very easily.
Psychologically, it is never satisfied.

Par: At what point does one go from the physiological
fulfilment to the thought process?

K: Sir, it may be that the physiological movement has ( subliminally) entered into the psychological movement and carries on. Is this so?

P: What I am actually trying to enquire into is this: This is not a matter of ( free will & ) choice. It is so from the moment I am born. Both types of wants begin. Therefore, I am asking, what is the ( eintelligent approach to the original ) source of both beginnings, the physiological and psychological?

Q: The one word 'insufficiency' should be enough (for a psychanalytical approach)

P: It isn't. Both are structured (join together) in a (psychical ?) force which then propels. That is the centre, the 'I'.

K: I don't think there is an (objective) 'I'. I think it is a (self-sustained momentum of an endless dissatisfaction, the endless insufficiency.

DS: What is the source of that?

K: I don't need to posit the 'I'. There is continuous insufficiency – and the more sensible one is inwardly , the more dissatisfaction
there is. Then, what takes place?

S: You are implying by that, that there is an (energy) matrix ( of desire) without the reality of the 'I' which in its very momentum can ( gather itself together & ) act ?

K: I don't know the matrix. I don't know the 'I'. All that I am
pointing out this one fact : that the physiological
insufficiency has entered into the field of psyche ( producing the existential ?) insufficiency and that ( 'physio-psycho' momentum) goes on endlessly (creating its own 'time line')

Par: I question that. Is it a mixture of physiological and
psychological spilling over? What do we exactly mean by 'spilling
over'? One is a fact, the other is not.

K: Therefore, there is only physiological insufficiency.

P: How can you say that? There is both a physiological as well as psychological insufficiency.

K: Look, Pupulji, for the moment I will not use the ( overloaded ) word 'I'. I am not investigating the 'I'. One feels hungry. It is being satisfied. One feels sexual (or horny?) , that is also being satisfied. But I say: 'That is not good enough, I must have something more.'

P: The 'more', what is that?

K: The ' more' is (the frustrated momentum of 'thought - desire' asking for a ) more (rewarding) satisfaction.

P: What is the momentum then?

K: The brain is seeking 'satisfaction'.

P: Why should the brain seek satisfaction?

K: Because it needs ( a sense of temporal) stability; it needs (a full proof) security. Therefore, it says: 'I thought I had found satisfaction in this but there isn't any. I shall find ( a higher level of ) satisfaction and security in that, and again there isn't any'. And it keeps going on and on. That is so (even ) in our everyday life. I go to one guru after another, to one theory after another, from one personal conclusion after another.

Q: Therefore, if this 'physiological spill-over' is ever to continue
in the psychological field, then this cycle of insufficiency and
sufficiency must continue.

K: Must continue?

A: Sir, I want to draw your attention that there is always a gap,
as far as the physiological insufficiency is concerned; whereas
where psychological insufficiency is concerned, do not know any gap.

K: Forget the gap sir. Watch yourself. Isn't the whole of the movement the (psychical) energy ( polarised by this active principle of ?) self-gratification & reward? Dr Shainberg what do you
say to this?

DS: I think what is coming out of this model of the
physiological 'reward-punishment' scheme is definitely so. I mean
that is the whole way the (temporal) 'me' functions, whether it is (sustained ) logically or not.

K: The whole momentum of seeking satisfaction is captured by
the ( self-identification of the ) 'I'.

DS: Then it is there that the 'I' becomes manifest.

K: That's it. That is what I mean. I am seeking satisfaction. It
never says, 'satisfaction is being sought'. 'I' am seeking satisfaction.
Actually it should be the other way: satisfaction is being sought.

DS: So, the ( psycho-physical momentum of ) 'satisfaction being sought' creates the 'I'.

K: So ( the origin of this self-centred ) momentum is the urge to be satisfied.

P: Isn't the 'I' - sense inherent in the brain cells which have
inherited knowledge? All the acquired knowledge of
mankind which is present in the ( memory field of the ) brain cells, isn't that ( the identitary) part of the brain?

K: At its very beginning, does the brain contain the 'I'? I would say tentatively, investigating, there is no 'I' at all but only the search for pure satisfaction.

P: Is the whole racial memory of mankind fictitious?

K: No. But the moment you say 'I' am the past that 'I' (the self-identification) is fictitious.

S: So, is our (collective memory of the ) past itself saying that 'I am the past', or it is just a part of the past saying that it is the past?

K: You see you are raising a very important question : there is this whole ( psychic current of the ?) past of mankind , millennia upon millenia of (time-binding) endeavours , of human suffering, human misery, confusion, millions of years. ( At the depths of the human psyche ?) there is only that vast 'river' (of Time) - not 'I' and the vast river.

S: Sir, when this vast stream of ( collective time &) sorrow manifests itself as an individual (consciousness) , is the 'I' present or not?

K: Wait, wait. That vast Stream ( aka : 'morpho-genetic field'?) manifests itself in this particular human being; the ( parents) give me a (physical name &) form and then I say 'I', which is the (result of a subliminal identification with the physical ) form, the name, the idiosyncratic environment, but that Stream 'is' me . ( In every particular consciousness?) is ( constantly active) this vast ( psychic?) stream, which is obvious.

P: How can one ( actually) 'see' this (Stream of Time?) ? You see, the ( metaphorical ) way Krishnaji puts it, does not really lead to the ( actually seeing in the ) depth of oneself. This depth of oneself says : 'I want to, I will become, I will be'. That springs from our whole racial unconscious.

K: In what manner do you observe this ( psychic) Stream (of Time) ? Do you observe it as the 'I', observing? Or, is there only ( a holistic ) observation of the Stream ?

P: What one does in observing is a different issue. We were
talking of the energy which brings about the momentum ( of the 'self') and I am saying that this momentum is the very nature and structure of the 'I' which is caught in becoming.

K: I want to question whether the 'I' ( manifested from the collective Stream) exists at all . It may be totally verbal, non-factual. It is only a word that has become tremendously important, not the fact.

FW: If it isn't anactuality, then what is it?

K: The whole momentum, this vast stream is ( manifesting itself) in the brain. After all, that is the ( morpho-genetic field of the ) brain, and why should there be the 'I' at all in that?

P: Talking of the 'actual', it is there.

K: It is there (but) only verbally (virtually ) .

DS: It is actually there. In the sense of a (subliminal) identification with 'myself' .

K: Sir, when are you ( self-)conscious of the 'I'?

DS: Only when I really want something, when I identify myself with
something, or ….when I look at myself in the mirror.

K: But at the very moment of (fully) experiencing something, there is no 'I' (no self-consciousness)

P: All right, at a really critical moment there is no 'I'. We agree with you. But then the ( self-consciousness of the ) 'I' emerges again a few seconds later.

K: How? Look, go into it slowly. There is ( a totally challenging) experience. At the moment of crisis there is no 'I'. Then, later, comes the ( after-) thought which says: 'That was exciting, that was pleasurable,' and that ( 'steady state' dualistic ) thought creates the 'I' which says: 'I have enjoyed it.' Right?

P: What has happened there? Is the 'I' a concentration of the energy that dissipates?

K: It is the energy that dissipates, yes.

P: But still it is the 'I'.

K: No, it is a (psychic) energy that is being misused. It isn't
the 'I' that uses the energy wrongly.

P: I am saying that the 'I' itself is a concentration (a recentering?) of the (total 'mind) energy' that dissipates. And, as the body wears out, the 'I' ( one's self-consciousness) has the same nature, it gets old, it gets stale.

K: Pupul, just lifollow i ; At the very moment of that (existential) crisis there is no 'I' ( no self-consciousness) Now is there a (possibility of ) living at the height of that crisis, all the time? Crisis of any kind brings about the influx of all energy. At that precise second, there is no 'I' (no self-consciousness) . Now, I am asking:
'Is it possible to live at that height all the time?'

DS: Why are you asking that?

K: If you don't live that way, you have all kinds of other (dissipative)
activities which will destroy that.

DS: What is the question?

K: The point is this: the moment ( the dualistic process of the thinker & its ) thoughts comes in, it brings about a ( 'steady state' of ) fragmentation of energy. ( The dualistic process of ) thought in itself is fragmentary. So, when thought enters, then it is a dissipation of ( the intelligent mind ) energy.

P: We agree on this point . But that does not answer the question as to why the 'I' has become so powerful. You have still not answered this question even though at the moment of crisis, the 'I' is not, the whole ( memory of the ) past is not (active) .

K: That is the wole point : At the moment of ( a major existential ?) crisis, there is nothing (no self-consciousness ) .

P: And why are you saying 'no' to the ' possibility that the 'I' is the mirror of our whole racial past?

K: I am saying 'no' because it (the 'I') may be merely a way of

P: Is it as simple as that? Is the 'I' structure as simple as that?

K: I think (that from the experiential point of view ? ) it is extraordinarily 'simple'. But what is much more interesting, and demanding (one's full attention) , is that whenever thought comes into being, then ( the mental) dissipation of ( one's total intelligent ) energy begins. So, I say to myself: 'Is it possible to live at that height?' If you left out the 'I' ( your self-centredness) and I left out the 'I' (my self-centredness ?) , then we would ( probably???) have a right ( non-personal & compassionate) relationship.

DS: When I say 'dissipation of energy', I immediately see myself take up the position of the observer and say 'that is bad'. What I am suggesting is that you can be 'neutrally' (non-personally) aware. There is a crisis and a dissipation, a crisis and a dissipation. That is the flow of ( the everyday human) existence.

P: K's point is, there is that, but the ( radical psychological) transformation which we are talking about is to negate that.

DS: I think we remember the intensity of the ( total ) energy of the
crisis, and then we say I would like to keep it all the time.

K: I am asking that ( challenging ) question purposely because thought interferes all the time. Question it, sir. The moment you have a 'crisis situation' there is no past, nor present, only that ( intense) moment. There is no ( thinking in terms of ) time in those moments of crisis. The moment ( thought-) 'time' comes in, dissipation begins.

A: There is the crisis. Then, there is dissipation and then ( the steady state of self-) identification.

P: You (K) are talking of a holistic position at the moment of crisis. But to come to that, one has to investigate it very deeply in oneself in order to know what this thing (holistic attitude) is.

K: You see Pupul 'holistic' implies a very healthy mind and body, a clear capacity to think, and also ( a sense of the?) sacred. Now, I am asking: 'Is there (within a holistically integrated mind?) a (timeless source of intelligent) energy which is never dissipated, which you want to draw from?
(In a nutshell:) A holistic way of life is one in which there is no dissipation of energy. A 'non-holistic' way of living in dissipation of energy.

P: What is the relationship of the holistic and the non-holistic to
the brain cells?

K: There is no relationship to the ( time-oriented ?) brain cells. But I
want to be quite clear that we understand the meaning of that word
'holistic'. It means completen, whole, harmony, no (psychological) fragmentation. That is the holistic life. That is an endless ( inexhaustible source of ?) energy. When there is a feeling of the wholeness ( of life?) , there is no 'I'. The other ('time-bound' life ) is the ( dualistic?) movement of thought, of the past, of time; that is our everyday (wordly) life, and that life is ( dominated by) reward and punishment and a continuous search for ( safety &) satisfaction.

P: Sir, the non-holistic ( attitude to life) is held in the brain cells. It
is the whole stream of the past meeting the challenge. Now, what
relationship has the 'holistic' (way of life?) to the brain cells and the senses?

K: The question is very simple. Our brain cells now contain
the past, memory, experience, knowledge of millennia, and these
brain cells are conditioned to a ( survival oriented ) 'non-holistic' way of living. What takes place in the brain cells when there is a holistic (attitude to life ) ? I am going to answer that question. Does the holistic ( new energy matrix of the ?) brain contain the past and therefore can the past be used holistically? Because it is whole, it contains the part, but the part cannot contain the whole. Therefore, when there is the operation of the part, there is dissipation of energy.

P: After going through all this, we have come to this point.

K: Yes. A marvellous point. Stick to it.

P: What is then its place in the brain which is the structure of the human mind?

K: We know only the non-holistic way of living, keep to that.
That is the 'fact', that we live non-holistically, fragmentarily. That is
our actual life and that is a wastage of energy. We see also that in it
there is contradiction, there is battle. . Now, we are asking: 'Is there an (alternative) way of living which is not a wastage of energy?'
And is there ( within the human psyche a non-entropic) energy which is not wasted? Let us first investigate if it is possible to end the ( dissipative) way of living.

DS: My response to that is: Here you are in a state of (inner)
fragmentation- that is all we know and nothing else.

K: Yes. Nothing else. So, the brain says: 'All right, I see that.'
Then it asks the question: 'Is it possible to change all this?'

DS: I wonder whether the ( time-bound) brain can ask it.

K: I am asking it. Therefore, if one brain asks it, the other brain
can ask it too.

DS: Could you say why (it would really want to ask it) ?

K: It can be asked once the brain has realized for itself the ( hapless) game it has been playing and it is seeing through that.
Now, it says: 'Is there a way of living which is non-fragmentary,
which is holistic?'

DS: That is what I am having trouble with what brain is producing this question?

K: The brain which says: 'I see very clearly the waste of

P: The very fact of that the brain is seeing through the whole problem of fragmentation...

K: Is the ending of it.

P: Is that seeing holistic?

K: The 'ending' of it, that is holistic.

P: The ending is the very seeing of fragmentation.

K: That is holistic. But you asked a much more complex
question in regard to the holistic brain which contains the
totality of the past, the (active) essence of the past, sucking
in everything of the past. ( To a holistically integrated brain) the ( psychological weight of the?) past is nothing, but such a brain can use the ( factual memory of the ) past.

( Recap : ) My ( holistically friendly?) concern is with one's actual, fragmentary (dissipative) life. Can that ( inner dissipative) structure ( come to an) end (by) itself? Not by an imposition of
something 'higher' which is a (mind) trick. I say that if you are capable of observing without the 'observer', the brain can transform itself. That is ( the very purpose of ) meditation.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 08 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Tue, 10 Apr 2018 #25
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

IS THERE A HOLISTIC APPROACH TO LEARNING ( IN REAL TIME ) ABOUT ONESELF ? (an 'experientially friendly' edited K dialogue from 'Exploration into Insight' )

P: Sir, I think first of all we should investigate what is ( the holistic approach to) self-knowing. We have not done it for a very long time (eons ?) .

K: Let us do that. 'Self-knowing' was being spoken about, more than 2 thousand years ago, by Socrates ( and by Buddha & probably ) by many others before him. Now, what is this 'self-knowing'? Do you know yourself from the observation of (your daily) experience; or from the ( non-personal) observation of a thought and from that thought the observation of another thought which is springing up, ( clue: if the 'observer' is reluctant to let go the first thought a conflict of interests may ocur between the first thought and the next thought?) ?
Or is ( there a more dynamic & holistic aproach to ?) 'self-knowing'  in the sense that 'you' ( the 'observer'?) relinquish (let go?) the first thought and pursue the second
thought and then the third thought that arises, dropping the second ( thought) then following the third; dropping it and following the fourth; so that there is a constant (dynamic state of inner) alertness and awareness of the whole movement of ( the thinker & its) thoughts?

Now, let's proceed with an ( easy, in-class example) : trying to observe oneself in (a momentary reaction of) being jealous. The instinctual response to ( the inner discomfort produced by that painful reaction of) jealousy is 'rationalization'. So one gets caught in ( a secondary process of) rationalization, in words, in the analytical capacity to examine and to suppress.
( The holistic option is to ) look at the whole movement of jealousy & to our rationalising response as part of an unitary movement . Here again, arises the ( instinctual) desire to run away from ( the disturbing effect of ) it. One is examining now that desire ( to ) 'escape' . It is an escape into what?

P: Sometimes into ( a totally relaxed state of ?) meditation ?

K: Of course, that is the easier ( 'new age' ?) trick - into 'meditation'. So, I say, what is actually this 'meditation'? Is it an escape from ( dealing responsibly with ) 'what is'? So then we examine that (reaction of) jealousy: why am I jealous? Because I am ( subliminally ) attached (to my self-image, or to   a particular person, or way of life?) and so on. This whole process is (not based on analysis but is an insightful) revelation. Then one comes to the (holistically critical) point: Is the 'examiner', the (knowledgeable?) 'observer', different from the ( deeper causation of the jealousy) observed? Obviously 'it' is not. So the 'true' ( authentic holistic) observation is when there is no 'observer'.

P: You said, 'obviously he is not'. Can we go deeper into that ?

K: The 'observer' is the ( self-focussed memory of the?) past; he is the (impersonation of all the personal & collective) remembrances,
experiences & knowledge stored up in memory. This (psychologically active memory of the ?) past is the 'observer' and it observes ( and trying to control?) the present reaction of jealousy. And it uses the ( well-established) word 'jealousy' in naming that feeling because it recognizes it as having already happened in the past. ( In a nutshell:) It is a ( safe verbal) remembrance of jealousy through the word which is part of the past.
Now, ( for a change can one try to?) observe the (same) reaction without the word 'jealousy' and also without the ( subliminally active?) 'observer' which is ( impersonating the 'psychological' knowledge of the ) past?
( For homework :) Does the 'word' ( the process of verbal recognition ?) bring ( or stabilise ?) that (particular self-centred) feeling, or is there a ( direct perception of that) 'feeling' without the word? All this is part of ( the holistic approach to) self-knowledge.

P: How does one 'observe without the word'?

K: Without the ( all-controlling ?) 'observer', without ( the 'personal') remembrance. That is very important.

P: How does one actually tackle this (tricky?) problem of the 'observer'?

A: May I add that in the very attempt of watching of the 'observer', there is also (a subliminal feedback of ) 'disapproval', or 'approval' of the observer regarding himself.

K: That is his ( past cultural) conditioning. The whole
movement of the past is contained in the 'observer'. Now, you hear K saying that the (essence of the?) 'observer' is the ( pro-active memory of the?) past. Is that so?
( To see whether that holistically encripted statement is true or fals?) one is now merely observing (non-verbally)  : 'what' or 'who' is the observer?
How does one I observe this microphone? One is observing it through ( a symbolic image associated to the) word that we are collectively using to indicate that it is a 'microphone'; it has been previously registered in the brain and I use that 'word' ( verbalised image?) to convey the actual fact of this microphone. That's simple enough.

P: Can one observe in the same factual way the 'observer'?

K: You can not observe directly the 'observer'. You can only observe 'what is' and the ( mental all-controlling?) interference of the observer. See the difference?
There is a spontaneous reaction of (envy or) jealousy. ( And, before you know it?) the 'observer' comes in and says: 'I have been
jealous in the past; 'I know what that feeling is (and how to deal with it?) ' . So you cannot observe the 'observer' by itself.
There is the observation of the ( self-identified responses of the?) 'observer' only in its relationship to 'whatever is' observed, when the observer 'arrests' ( or is taking charge of) the observation, then there is awareness of the (virtual ?) 'observer' (entity) . You cannot observe the observer by itself ( a 'steady state' controlling process of thought ?) . You can only observe the observer's responses in relation to something.

(To recap) : At the very moment of ( the 'jealous) feeling' there is neither the observer nor the observed, there is only that ( spontaneous, uncensored ?) 'state' (gut feeling?) . Then the 'observer' ( thought's 'self-controlling process' ?) comes in and says, (By Jove , that is jealousy ! ) and it proceeds to interfere (mentally) with 'that which is', by trying to suppress it, or rationalizes it, or escapes from it (by other psychosomatic schemes?) . Those movements indicate the ( all-controlling interference of the?) 'observer' in relation to 'that which is'. So, one can study the (cultural programming of the?) 'observer' only through observing those interference : it either tries to escape 'rationally' from (the disturbances produced by that jealous reaction) to justify it and so on, which are all traditional approaches to ( what is going on within the human psyche in) the present. The traditional approach is (through self-conscious thought-controlling interface called ?) the 'observer'.

P: In a sense, therefore, the 'observer' ( virtual interface) manifests itself only in terms of 'escaping' from the ( psychological disturbances brought by the disturbing challenges of the ? ) present.

K: Escaping or rationalizing.

D: Or interference.

K: Any form of interference with the present is the action of the
observer. Don't just accept (the verbal clarity of) this . (For homework : ) Tear it to pieces and find out ( their truth or falsehood for yourself) .

So (to recap:) when the (active personal memory of the) past interferes with the present (challenge); the ( controlling & stabilising action of the?) 'observer' comes into operation. If there is no ( such) interference there is only ...(pure) observation.
In a ( holistic) observation there is neither ( a self-conscious) 'observer' nor the ( self-imposed) idea of 'not having an observer'; ( In short?) there is only a pure observation without the word, without the recollection and association of the past. There is nothing, only observation.

FW: In that way is the observation of the 'observer' possible?

K: Only when the ( 'personal' memory of the ) past
interferes with the present, the 'observer' is in action. It is only then
that you become aware that there is an observer. Now, when you have an insight into that, then there is no 'observer', there is only observation.
( For instance ) can there be an observation of ( my psychological dependence on spiritual ?) authority – that is to demand from another (the inner keys for ) enlightenment, or the attachment to another, all that is a form of (desiring & following someone's ) authority. And is there ( a need for spiritual guidance, aka :) 'authority' in operation in my brain, in my mind, in my being? Is there an observation of the movement of thought as (following someone's psychological) 'authority'?

P: What is more important? Is it the observation of every movement
of my mind, of my consciousness, or is it the attempt to
discover in my consciousness the truth, the actuality of what you
are saying? It is a very subtle thing...

S: For instance, I observe ( myself being psychologically ) hurt.

K: Do you observe ( your psychological hurts?) because K said it?

S: No ; I can see that I am hurt. The observation of the hurt is something which I can do as part of ( my homework in) self-knowing. But where do I create 'authority'? When Krishnaji says:
'Once you see the ( truth about the process of getting psychologically ) 'hurt' it is over,' it is then (when I take K's words for granted) that I create 'authority'. Then I project a 'movement towards' that state, because I do not want to be caught in the trap of constantly observing ( how & why I am getting ?) hurt.

K: I am (becoming) aware of the whole process (& consequences) of ( getting psychologically?) hurt and then I hear K saying,
''Once you see that in its entirety, holistically, then it is over, you
will never be hurt again''....

S: It is lingering there in my consciousness....

K: What is in your consciousness? K's words?

S: Apart from the words, the (quality of that hurt-free) state which he communicated (subliminally?) when he uttered that, because he seems to indicate a ( hurt free) 'state' beyond the word.

K: Sunanda, I know I am hurt. And by listening to
you I see the consequences of all that - the withdrawal, the
isolation, the violence, all that. Do I see it because you have
pointed it out to me? Or do I see it (independently of what ?) you pointed out ?

S: Obviously the fact is there, you have come into my life and I
have listened to you.

K: Then the question arises; K says ''once you see it fully,
holistically, then the whole hurt is over''. Where is K's authority involved there?

S: ( A subliminal acceptance of ) authority is there because it affirms a ( the possibility of a free inner ) state which I would like to have.

K: Then why don't you examine that state (of greed &) ambition, which is ( an expression of the self-centred) desire.

P: I would like to examine something you have said, which is: Can you hold the 'hurt' (in your consciousness ) and remain with it - what is involved in this 'holding'?

K: I am aware both that my (self-) image has been hurt and also of the (psychological) consequences of that hurt - the escape, the violence, the narrowness, the fear, the isolation, the withdrawal, the anxiety, and all the rest of it. How am I ( getting) aware of it? Is it because you ( K) have pointed it out to me? Or I see ( the truth of) it and I am moving with you? In that ( 'moving along'?) there is no question of accepting anybody's) authority. I am not separating myself from (the truth of ) what you are saying. That's where the 'catch 22 ?' is.

S: So, as long as I am moving along with you, there is an (insight-sharing) relationship.

K: The moment I break that relationship, then begins my
question: How am I to do it? But if I am following (within my own mind the truth of ) what you are saying - that my (self-protecting) image is ( getting) hurt and then the violence - I am moving (along) with you and there is no ( personal) contradiction. Then you (K) say : 'Once you see this as a whole, the thing is over' – am still I with you?

S: It has not happened....

K: I will tell you why. Because you have not 'listened'.

S: You mean to say that I have not listened for twenty years?

K: You were listening to the words, and you are carrying along
the ( old) reaction. You are not moving with him.

R: Is there a difference between that listening and the holistic

K: No. Can you 'listen' in the sense of no interpretation,
no examination, no comparison? If one is 'listening' (this way) . It is like two rivers moving together as one river. But I do not listen that way. I have heard you say 'holistically' and I want to get that. Therefore I am no longer 'listening' because I want ( to get at) that.

R: Therefore, the question of 'how to remain with whatever is ?', is
a wrong question, since but the question itself is a movement away from remaining (abiding) with it.

K: Of course.

P: Sorrow arises and it fills you. That is the way it operates
when it is something very deep. What is the action on that? What is
the action that will enable it to 'flower' ( & tell its whoe story) without dissipation?

K: Are you filled with that energy which is called sorrow
completely, or is there a part of you, somewhere in you, where
there is a loophole?

R: I think there is always a ( mental) loophole because there is a fear of anything filling one's whole being. I think that fear is there.

K: So, sorrow has not filled your whole being.

R: No....

K: If this is the fact, you pursue not sorrow but 'fear'. The fear
of what might happen, etc. So forget about sorrow and
go into that (visceral fear of not-being ?)

D: What is the true meaning of the word 'holistic' ?

K: It means healthy, physically healthy. Then it means
sanity, mentally and physically and from that arises the 'holy'. All that is implied in the word 'holistic' or 'being whole'. .
When you have very good health and when the brain
emotionally, intellectually, is 'sane' (balaced?) without any
neurotic movement, it is holy.

S: This is where our dilemma comes. Unless one sees our fragmentary life holistically... How does one observe the inner fragmentation ?

K: The fact is that I am ( inwardly) fragmented- I work, live, act in fragments, and I know nothing about the 'other'.

A: Our discussion started on the very crucial question of (accepting someone's spiritual) 'authority'. If we make an 'authority' of what you have said, then that is a ( major) barrier in knowing ouselves .

K: Look, sir, there is something very interesting which comes
out of this. Are you 'learning' (cummulatively) or are you having an ( global) insight into it?
( The process of additive ) Learning implies ( accepting the ) authority (of the one who is supposed to know everything about that subject) I learn about mathematics, technology and so on and
from that knowledge I become an engineer and act. Or I go out into
the field, act and learn. Both are ( based on the ) the accumulation of knowledge and acting from knowledge – the 'knowledge' itself becomes the 'authority', whether it is that of the doctor, the
scientist, the architect, or the guru.

Now, somebody (like K ) comes along and says:Look, acting according to your (tons of) accumulated knowledge is ( psychologically speaking?) a 'prison'; you will never be free; you can not 'ascend' (spiritally) through knowledge.' And somebody like K says: '( Check-out) the action with insight - not accumulate
knowledge and then act but 'insight and action'. In that there is no psychological authority (involved) .

P: You are often using this (holistically sounding ) word 'insight'. What is the actual ( experiential ?) meaning of that word?

K: To have insight into something means to grasp the whole thing instantly; ( which in turn, requires) to 'listen' carefully. You see, you do not 'listen' (with a mind which is free from the known) , that is my point. So your past knowledge ( subliminally) becomes the 'authority' and you will never 'ascend' (spiritually) through that process; it is mechanical. Do you see that ? That is (having an) insight.

P: Are the words of K and 'moving along' with his words essential?
Can the revelation be without the word?

K: To know oneself (in real time?) is one of the most difficult things because in the ( dualistic) observation of ourselves we come to a conclusion about what I am seeing; and ( we like to think that our next observation is enhanced by ) that conclusion. Can't one observe the actual (surging of) anger without any ( judgemental) conclusion, without saying 'right' 'wrong', good,

( In a nutshell:) Self-knowledge is not ( a matter of ) knowing
oneself (once & for all?) , but of 'knowing' (or being fully aware of ?) every movement of ( the self-centred process of ) thought. Because the 'self' is the ( thought-made) 'image', the image ( thought is creating ) of K and the image of 'me.'

So, ( for extra 'fun & profit' homework?) watch ( non-dualistically) every movement of thought, never letting go even one thought without realizing what it is. Try it. Do it and you will see what takes place. This gives muscle to the ( slacky?) brain.

S: Would you say that in a single ( self-centred) thought is contained the essence of the 'self- (consciousness) '?

K: Yes. I will say 'yes'. You see, ( our self-centred) thinking is responsible for all (psychological) fears, pleasures, & sorrow.
But thought is not ( capable to generate selfless ?) love. Thought is
not ( open to universal) compassion.
The ( self-protective) 'image' that thought has created (& identified with ) is 'me'. The 'me' is the (self-protective personal ) image. There is no difference between 'me' and that (self-identified) image. The image 'is' me. Now, I am observing this (self-identied) 'image' which is me, which says (for instance) , 'I want to attain Nirvana,' which means I am greedy. So I examine greed. What is my greed for more'? I want to change 'what is' into something more, greater. So Now why am I doing this? Why do I want more (of anything) ? Is it an (inherited?) mechanical response of the brain?

I want to find out (the whole truth about it?) . (choice a:) Either I can find out at one glance or (choice b :) I will find it out step by step.
( If your pereptive choice is (a) ? ) I can observe ( the whole truth of) it 'at one glance' only when I have no (personal) motive, for this is a major distorting factor (creating the 'observer' ?) .

It is most interesting to know yourself because in yourself may be the global (mind of the ) universe. ( If I do not know myself, my self ego-centric action is a corrupt action and I do not want to live a
corrupt life. I see ( the objective necessity that ) to know myself.
To know myself I (have to learn to ) watch (non-dualistically) ; I ( then ) watch my relationships and see myself reflected in that relationship. So, lookin at myself in the mirror of relationship to
I discover the 'pleasure' principle, the 'attachment' principle, the
'comfort' principle and so on. ( clue;) Am I observing it without the past, without any conclusion? Is my observation precise? The moment 'one is a light to oneself', all authority is gone including the
authority of the Gita, the gurus, the ashramas. To be a light to oneself means being 'holistic'. Anything that is not holistic is corruption. A holistic man will not deal with corruption.

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 15 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 15 Apr 2018 #26
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


(A reader-friendly edited K dialogue from Exploration into Insight')

P: Sir, how deep can one travel inwardly ?

K: How is the ( meditating?) mind to penetrate into its great depths?
(For starters?) I'll say that it needs a build-up of ( intelligent 'mind?) energy', ( a passionate?) drive. Now, are you asking : how is this energy to build up?

P: Exactly : how is this energy to be built up ?

K: Although we may lead a rather superficial (survival oriented) life, we can see the (potential) 'beauty' of a mind that has gone into itself very very deeply. I'd want to live a different kind of life, at great depth.
I understand 'depth' to mean not in terms of measurement or time, but as something bottomless; that which you cannot fathom, and I
want to find it and live with it. Now, can thought which is (the result of an ages long evolution in?) time, which is the ( materialistic) response of the ) past, can it penetrate into this profundity?
Do we see that ( in the context of an authentic meditation) 'depth' means a timeless, measureless quality, an infinitude without ever reaching the bottom.
To me is not a verbal concept. I have only verbalized it
to you. So, ( the 1000 $ question is:) can thought penetrate this depth as it is presently the only available instrument I have?

Q: It seems pretty obvious that we cannot use this ( materialistic) instrument (as it is now?) . But then, how does one come upon those measureless inner depths without using it?

K: I see thought cannot reach it because thought is ( based on) measure, thought is (based on) time, thought is the response of the past; therefore thought cannot possibly touch it, Then, if thought cannot touch it and that is the only (readily available) instrument man has, then, what
is he to do? Thought in its (outward) movement, in its ( survivalistic?) function, has created this ( materialistic) world in which I live, of which I am.
Now, is it possible for ( a holistic ? ) 'mind', without the usage of thought, to touch something which is fathomless? Not just some moments in my sleep or when I am walking by myself, but to 'live' (solidly established) there. The (holistically friendly ) mind says the depth must be discovered, to let the mind be of the quality of that – to be aare of that strange fathomless depth of something which is 'unnamed'.

P: Obviously there have to be some elementary inner freedom from the 'measurement-making' machinery of thought...

K: Be simple about this. Thought is the response of memory, ( of our past) knowledge, experience, it is a process of time. That thought must
function always superficially. Thought cannot penetrate ( into the depths of the 'mind') . That is all.

P: Then, thought being the only ( readily available ) instrument we know, into what dimension does one penetrate without thought?

K: There is no question of 'penetration'.

P: Then what is it?

K: What is the 'other' (intelligent) 'movement' that must take place when thought is not functioning? Can the mind remain without measuring itself (all the time?) ?

P: Our question then is: Can ( a holistic ) state of mind come into being where there is no (inner) measurement?

K: That is all. All your life you have known ( comparing, evaluating & ?) 'measuring' . Now, I am asking you: Can the mind be without measure?

P: If I were to ask you 'how is this new condition to occur', you would say ' there is no how'. So, the only thing left then is to observe your mind (presently caught in the mental habit of ) measuring because there is no other way.

K: Have you done that? Has your mind observed its ( time-binding) movement and measurement?

P: Yes.

K: Comparing, measuring and ending (doing it) . Then what?

P: Then there is a state of total inner 'stillness'.

K: Can you honestly, really say that ( inwardly ) the thought movement of measurement has come to an end?

P: Just now it has come to an end ( it took a 'time out' ?) .

K: That is not good enough. Good enough means that right
through your life ( thinking inwardly in terms of ) measurement has to come to an end.

P: How can I know it?

K: (Inwardly the) 'measurement' equals comparison, imitation, conformity to an ideal, a resistance which safeguards it from ( an inner state of) non-measurement - can the ( totality of your ) mind say: `'Now I have understood this whole movement of ( mental) measurement and I see where is its legitimate place ( in the outer world) and where it has no place at all?

P: How is that understood by a mind in which there is no thought?

K: It perceives (directly) . I will show it to you : thought has investigated
and analysed it for the moment, and it says ''I have seen the whole movement of measurement'' and the very perception of that movement is the ending of that movement. The non-verbal perception of it, that is, the ( direct) 'seeing' is the acting and ending. Seeing that this movement is time, is measure, seeing the whole map of it, the nature of it, the structure of it, that ( holistic) perception acts in ending it. So, the seeing is the ending. There is no ( mental) effort involved in it all. You just 'see' it .
Have you?

This post was last updated by John Raica Sun, 15 Apr 2018.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 22 Apr 2018 #27
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


( a reader-friendly edited K talk to prospective (?) holistic teachers)

K: Are we human beings or (well rounded ?) 'professionals'? For 'professionals' their profession comes first, then ( the intrinsical quality of their own ?) living. They approach life from the point of view of their (well paid?) profession, and spend most of their lives in it (although towrds ) the end they may turn to meditation, to a more contemplative attitude of mind. Are we only ( a self-selected group of 'amateur' and/or 'pro' ?) educators or are we ( individually responsible?) human beings who see education as a significant and true way of helping ( the younger and/or older?) human beings to cultivate their total mind? ( Clue:) ( The inner quality of educator's daily ) living comes before teaching.

Can we also go into the question of (the holistic approach to ?) meditation, as a comprehensive total approach to life which implies the understanding of what what 'meditation' is? What part has meditation in the educational (context) and what do we mean by 'meditation'? (Apparently ) meditation, the real enquiry into whether there is God, the observing & experiencing of that Immeasurable state, is not part of our education at all. We will have to find out (for starters?) what 'is' ( the insight-based?) meditation, and not 'how' to meditate ( an obsolete & immature way of looking at meditation). If one can unravel ( the truth regarding ) what 'is' meditation, then the very process of unravelling is ( becoming part of our insightful) meditation.

( For starters:) If we enquire into what meditation is, we have to enquire into what is ( the everyday process of ) thinking. ( Most of this ) thinking is an (intellectual ) response of memory. Our thinking becomes the ( cultural) 'slave' of words, the slave of (great sounding) symbols like 'God', 'Communist', the Prime Minister, the Villager or the Cook. See the nuances of these words and the ( deferent) 'feelings' that accompany these words ? So, most of us live and think within a conditioned, verbal, symbolic framework, which is the ( result of a constantly refreshed & updated memory of the?) past, which is ( projecting its own continuity in ?) 'time'. Now is there a (direct perceptive quality of) 'thinking without words' and therefore out of time? The words are ( the result of) time. So, if the ( natural intelligence of the?) mind can separate itself from ( the mental images created by ?) words & symbols, then is there a (quality of inner) enquiry which does not seek a (particular) 'end' and is therefore timeless?

First, let us look at the whole picture: A mind that has no ( free inner) space in which to observe (& comprehend?) has no quality of ( insightful) perception. Starting from ( the confinement of one's self-centred) thinking, there is no ( holistic quality of direct ) observation. Most of us 'see through' ( the mental screen of) words, and is that 'seeing'? When I see a flower and say 'it is a rose', do I actually 'see' the actual rose or I see the feelings or the ideas (the cultural images ?) that the word 'rose' invokes? So, can the human mind which is ( both the result & the creator ) of time and space, ( be free to) explore into a non-spatial, timeless state because it is only in that state that there is Creation? A mind that has no ( free) inner space, no 'emptiness' from which to see, is obviously a mind that is incapable of living in a timeless state. And that is exactly what is demanded in Meditation. (Clue : a mind that is merely caught in time and space, in words, in its specialised forms of self interest, such a mind is a very distressed mind and when it gets confronted with something totally new, all its old answers, codes & traditions are inadequate)

And what is ( wrong with the self-centred way of) thinking? Most of our lives are spent in the ( mental) effort to do or to become something, a series of connected and disconnected constant 'mental efforts' ; but ( in terms of our inner life?) why should we make an effort? Would we stagnate if we failed to make an effort – are we not stagnating now (inwardly) inspite our immense efforts - now? If the mind understands ( the redundancy of its inner) efforts will this (global insight) not release a different kind of ( mind-) energy which does not think in terms of achievement, ambition, and so ( living in) contradiction? Is not that very energy ( manifesting itself in ) action ? ( Is it possible to ( re-?) educate both ourselves and our students to live as a complete human being, having a good body and a good mind, enjoying nature, seeing the totality, the misery, the love, the sorrow, the beauty of the world ?

When we consider what meditation is, I think one of the first ( necessary) things is the quietness of the (psychosomatic) body. A quietness that is not enforced, sought after. I do not know if you have noticed a tree blowing in the wind and the same tree in the evening when the sun has set? It is quiet. In the same way, can the ( psychosomatic) body be quiet, naturally, normally, healthily?
( Clue;) this implies a (well balanced) enquiring mind which is not seeking a conclusion or is starting from a motive.

How is a mind to enquire into the unknown, the immeasurable? How is one to enquire into God? That is also part of Meditation. Human intelligence, has not merely the capacity to reason but also the capacity to perceive (directly) , to understand what is true and what is false ( a quality which is currently) destroyed by the emphasis on ( someone's spiritual) authority, acceptance & imitation, in which is ( is involved our ages old demand for ) security.

All this ( meditational endeavor) implies an extraordinarily pliable mind, not a mind that accepts, rejects, acquiesces or conforms. So meditation 'is' the unfolding of the mind and through it, an (insightful) perception, a ( quality of direct) seeing without a background (of self-interest) and so, an endless ( inner space of ?) emptiness in which to see. Such seeing without the limitation of thought -which is time- requires a mind that is astonishingly quiet, still.
All this implies a (quality of integrated?) intelligence which is not the result of ( a standardising) education, book learning, acquisition of techniques. Even to observe a bird ( let alone a fleeting thought?) you must be very quiet; otherwise at the least movement on your part the bird flies away; ( so, in meditation?) the whole of your body must be quiet, relaxed, sensitive (in order to be able?) to 'see'.

Take that one (silent observation) thing which is part of meditation. How will you bring this about in a school like this? First of all, is it necessary to have a mind that is subtle, a mind that is still, a (psycho-somatic) body that is responsive, sensitive, eager. And it is imperative for ( the holistically earnest ?) student to have this extraordinary feeling for life, not his life or somebody's else's life, but for life, for the villager, for the tree. That is also part of meditation - to be passionate about it, to ( have a sense of selfless ?) love - which demands a great sense of (inner) humility. And how will you create the right climate for this, because children are not born 'perfect'? They are what they are, the result of our ( whole collective) past with all the ( inherited  ?) anxieties and fears ; we have created ( or...just accepted ?) the society in which they live and children have to adjust themselves and are conditioned by us. How will you create the climate (of selfless communion ?) in which they can see through all these influences, in which they can look at the beauty of this earth, look at the beauty of this valley? Just as you devote your time to ( studying & teaching) mathematics, science, music, dance, why do you not have to give some ( quality) time to this (learning what is Meditation ?)

Teacher: I was just thinking about the practical difficulties - this may not be always possible.

Krishnamurti: If you saw that it was also (absolutely necessary for a new quality of education) you would devote ( a significant amount of ) time to it. If you saw that it was (humanely speaking ) as essential as mathematics, you would do something.

( To recap) (Understanding the true role of ) meditation implies ( considering ) the whole of human life ; and in order to apprehend and communicate this 'totality' ( this wholeness of life?) , there must be a certain (quality of holistic?) 'seeing' of it, without ( thought's self-centred ?) 'space and time'. The meditating mind must have in itself a 'spaceless' and 'timeless' inner state. It must see the whole of the picture.
( A parting thought:) How will you help the ( average hapless?) student to see the 'whole of life', to see life in its totality?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Mon, 23 Apr 2018 #28
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline


( a series of 'reader friendly' edited K seminars (cca 1978)

Krishnamurti: I believe we are going to talk over together the question of what is the meaning of being a light to yourself - what is the meaning of being a light to yourself.

Questioner: Yes, what does it mean to 'be a light to oneself'?

K: May I start the ball rolling? I think most of us are (psychologically speaking ) 'slaves' (of the past ?) , either to religious concepts, beliefs and symbols, or slaves to ( traditionalistic?) institutions, and concepts. And if one is committed to a certain pattern of life, a certain way of living – as a businessman or a scientist, or a philosopher, one is caught in that (highly specialised mentality) one becomes completely absorbed in it and the rest of life flows by. But we are concerned in our discussion with the whole (totality ) of our life, not just with one part. So does one realize, including myself, that one is ( constantly getting ) caught in a ( mental) routine, which naturally prevents ( the total inner?) freedom and so one can never be clear in oneself and can never understand the depth of oneself.
( In a nutshell:) when one is ( psychologically?) dependent on (someone or on ?) something, one cannot be a light to oneself. So that is what we are proposing to discuss together whether the human mind can be ( inwardly) completely free from all the pressures & impositions of ( organised?) religions and ideologies - can one be inwardly free of them completely? That's one point. Then (the secong point :) can one be completely free from the ( cultural pressures & ) impositions of the everyday ( media vehiculated?) language? Language drives us, shapes our thinking, forces us to a certain course of action. So is one aware of that, and therefore free of being a ( virtual ?) slave to language? And the third point is : can one be free of 'ideologies' and so on, because all these make our minds narrow, limited, prisoners to our socio – economic environment and so on and so on.

Q: Can we ask first the question, what is the instrument of enquiry because there seems a contradiction between 'not knowing' and 'enquiring'. Enquiring always seems to be some sort of direction, a means to something. What is this contradiction?

K: Yes, what is the state of the mind that can freely enquire. Don't ask me. Find out for yourself what is the quality of a mind that is capable of (self-) enquiry? Can one's mind be free completely from ( the assumption that an ) external agency ( will bring ) happiness, or enlightenment, or ( redemption ?) or whatever words we may like to use ?

Q: Sir, nowadays many people will say that they don't believe in God, so they have no obvious 'external' agency.

K: Then if you reject the ( assumption of an?) outside agency, in what manner will you be free from your own entanglements, from all your sorrows, (hurts?) and so on, if you don't depend on anybody, including K, including this 'Speaker'?

Q: Wouldn't 'being a light to oneself' give you this freedom?

K: 'For starters?) is it possible to act 'rightly' (& truthfully) , without any guidance from outside? You follow my question? To think very clearly inwardly and outwardly, and act outwardly, without any imposition, without any pressure ?

Q: What usually happens if you don't want to be a slave to any guidance from outside, you think OK I will have my inner guidance.

K: To depend on your 'inner guidance', what does that mean?

Q: Well, you feel like you want to gather more 'experience' and formalise your own concepts about life.

K: Which ( eventually may ?) come to the same thing.

Q: Yes.

K: ( From the holistic perspective?) when you reject the 'outer' as your guide you must also reject the 'inner' as your guide.

Q: Many people today would not think in those terms of having an outer guide or an inner guide. They simply go on (enjoying their self-centred way of ?) living.

K: Therefore if you reject the 'outer' God and the 'inner' God, and then what?

Q: Obviously they live a very confused (materialistic?) life.

K: Yes, so, live confused, unhappy and all the rest of it. Isn't that what you are doing (here too?) ?

Q: Here ( in Brocwood ) we have your words (of wisdom?) .

K: Ah! Then you become prisoner of those words.

Q: Now, if I say, well I am going to throw away everything, all my dependencies, all my external relations, my crutches, everything I have used to get to where I am now and 'go by myself' into the world, then...what am I left with?

K: Intellectually you have nothing left. But... have you done it intelligently or merely verbally ?

Q: How can one do it 'intelligently'?

K: When you see something as 'dangerous', or ( just) 'stupid', can't you see the danger and the stupidity of it and discard it - which is the awakening of intelligence.

Q: If I see something that is hurting me...

K: Not only you, (but the whole consciousness of) humanity, which is part of you.

Q: ...then I obviously have to throw it away.

K: Not 'have to'.

Q: It is not an intellectual process. If it is an intellectual process, it's not discarding, it just stays in the mind. When you see the truth of something, it doesn't become an intellectual question.

K: Yes, sir, that's just it. Is this what you want to talk about? Please. Or do you want to talk over your personal problems, but make it 'impersonal' ?

Q: It is a personal problem, but it is also everybody's problem.

K: May I suggest something? Can we ask the 'right' question which will awaken our own intelligence, our own native (intuitive?) perception?
All right, let's begin with this : do we have the ( necessary inner freedom?) to question  the way we live, the way we think, our actions, question the whole of our existence, as we live. Can we begin by questioning our actions which have become mechanical, our feelings, our reactions, our fears, out pleasures, the whole of our existence, can we question the ( habit ridden?) way we live ?

Q: Sir, I think that people generally don't (ask themselves this kind of) 'questions' : their minds are mainly concerned with (optimising their ) physical survival.

K: Yes, so ( for a change?) can we here (take some quality time to?) learn the 'Art of Questioning' ? I want to learn this ' art of questioning' myself. There is some 'art' in it, isn't there ? There must be a way of questioning that ( unveils &) awakens the whole nature and structure of 'myself'. The way I look at it, the way I understand it, the way I see the whole operation in movement.

Q: You said 'there must be an way of questioning', why must there?

K: Because if I put a 'wrong question' to myself I won't find out - I'll have a wrong response. No? Isn't there an 'art' (involved ) in the way you walk and in the way you talk ? So mustn't one learn the 'art of questioning', or (rather) but the art of (a compassionate, non-personal?) observing - if you like to put it that way ? Does it appeal to you to find out together the right way of questioning so that out of that (right) 'questioning' Intelligence can arise? Intelligence. Can we do that? I don't know how to push this 'heavy weight'(...)
Have I a ( personal) motive in my questioning, in my observation? I see (as an example) what (the organised) religions have done, they have (psychologically?) enslaved man (the human consciousness ?) . Do I see it (more pregnantly?) because I am antagonistic against Jesus, or the Pope, or some other personal reason ? Or 'it is so', independent of me & my prejudices?

Q: To look at one particular superstition, or one personal motivation, is quite easy, but if we are trying to look at the ( subliminal) nature of superstition itself, that is quite different.

K: Which is the nature of superstition ? I am frightened (of the Unknown?) and I'd want some 'external agency' to help me.

Q: But what is that (insightful ?) process by which a person can go from looking at a single example of something like superstition to seeing ( the nature of) all superstitions ?

K: Let's understand what do we mean by that word 'superstition'?

Q: Having some irrational belief ?

K: Which means, a belief in something which you hope to be ( totally rewarding & ) true.

Q: Hope, or fear...

K: Which is, thought invented (and projected?) some kind of 'agency' outside yourself which will help you. And all the complications of it. And when you see how absurd, how nonsensical is ( to rely on) that superstition - this (kind of) 'nonsense' you see in every form of ( organised?) religion.

Q: How do you differentiate between 'fact' and superstition ?

K: Say for instance, I am frightened (of something or other) - is that an idea, or is it a fact? If it is (seen as) an 'idea' it is an (intellectualised form of) superstition.

Q: Sir, something is actually going on (inwardly), and ( for lack of its direct perception) we call it 'fear'. Perhaps the calling it 'fear' is ( what you are terming as ) the 'idea'.

K: That's what we are saying.

Q: But something is actually going on, which is the ongoing inner 'fact'. But somehow we give more credence to the name than to ( the direct) observation of the 'fact' that is actually going on. Even in science we take many things as facts which may be just working hypothesis.

K: Quite, quite, that's it. Can I differentiate the ( mental image suggested by the?) word from the (direct perception of the?) fact? If ( lacking a direct inner perception?) I cling to the 'word' and worship ( or play mind games with ) the words I am living in ( a modern form of illusion or ) 'superstition', I have moved away from ( dealing with ) the fact.

Q: But most of us have to live our daily lives surrounded by 'facts' unverifiable by us.

K: Yes.

Q: So there is a margin ( of 'superstition' even ?) in our everyday life.

K: That certainly. But I am talking about the ( ongoing inner) 'facts' about oneself, whether I am living inwardly in ( comfortable) a world of ( cultural) 'make-believes' , superstitions, in a world that has been either imposed on me, or which I have invented, and became a ( mental) slave to that. That is, I want to enquire into facts as they are.

Q: Well, I can see some (general) facts, I can see that I do live in a world like that, but I only see the particular.

K: When you ask me 'why don't I see it ? Aren't you ( getting) dependent on me ?

Q: Isn't it connected with ( accepting someone's) authority psychologically?

K: Yes, yes.

Q: The 'superstitions' and so-called 'scientific facts' are based on authority, some verifiable and some not.

K: Like those people who believe intensely in 'flying saucers' - they come to me and say, do you believe in it ? I say, I don't know. But to me this is moving away from the most relevant (inner) facts, which is the actions I do, the way I think, feel, all that I am concerned with, because I am ( sharing) the ( consciousness of the?) world. The ( consciousness of the ) world is not different from me, I 'am' the world. From (in) here we can go 'out there' and perhaps do something about it.

Q: Sir, are you saying that when we concern ourselves with these questions outwardly just in order to escape looking at ourselves?

K: Maybe, maybe.

Q: But I find it very hard to hold to what is actually going on.

K: I mean you pick up a newspaper every morning, and you go off to your job, again something else (to do) , and come back, and again the TV evening news, and keep living like that until you die, ( with the mind exclusively focussed) out there. Isn't that what we are doing?
Mrs Zimbalist's question was, how do I differentiate the fact, the 'actuality' and superstition, something 'non-factual' . If I live in make-believe, non-facts, it is inevitably superstition

Q: Krishnaji, in differentiating between the fact and superstition, isn't it related to the way you approach it?

K: Of course, of course. Let's find out how do you approach any human problem, I think it applies to the scientific too, how do you approach any problem, how do you come to it?

Q: Well I begin to ask questions about it, that's what I do. You are bringing whatever competence you have in that field to it, otherwise you can't even enter the field.

K: Maria, suppose one has a problem of relationship. One quarrels with one's wife, or with one's husband, a problem in relationship, how do you approach that problem?

Q: I am becoming aware of my (emotional) response that comes about after that contact has taken place. It comes into my mind, I see that there has been a problem.

K: That's right. And one can approach ( non-dualistically?) the problem by realizing the problem is not different from me.

Q: Or, with an open mind which is not burdened by any thoughts.

K: So are you free from (the known?) from (your subliminal) personal prejudices and opinions and conclusions so that you are approaching that human problem 'freely'?

Q: How can you approach any problem without any (personal background of) knowledge at all?

K: Do I approach my present ( reaction of ) fear with the ( knowledgeable) remembrances of other forms of fear which I have had in the past, which have become (part of my personal) memories, with that memory approach the present fear? Don't we do this (currently?) , which is natural.

Q: We do.

K: But, wait a minute, are we approaching it 'rightly'?

Q: It seems it is clearly 'not right', but how is it possible to approach without the ( interfering memory of the?) past?

K: You are asking a ( holistically 'correct'?) question: is it possible to approach this problem of fear 'as though for the first time', without the remembrance of other fears which you have had ? If we could stay with this ('approach' question) for a minute and examine whether that resolves the problem of fear.

Q: You can experience that feeling ( reaction of fear) on its own, without a thought, but then you are just stuck with ( 'who' or) 'what' is looking at that feeling.

K: Now I want to find out how one approach any question (non-dualistically) Let's take something else. That may help to kind of widen this thing. Do I realize that ( consciousness-wise?) I am the 'totality of humanity', that as a human being, I represent the whole of mankind ( because mankind suffers, mankind goes through all kinds of illusions, pressures, agonies, and so do I, so does every human being. So the world 'is' me. Is that an (esoteric) theory or is it felt as an actual fact in my life?

Q: Well I can understand ( the whole rationale of) that intellectually, but...

K: You mean you understand ( verbal meaning of ) and you say, intellectually I grasp it.

Q: It is the whole idea sounds totally true but... I don't feel it.

K: Do you see actually the reality of it, or the idea of it? How do you listen to this statement : Every human being, it doesn't matter where they are, psychologically, inwardly, they go through exactly - more or less - the same thing as you do. They ( are self-centred, have fun & enjoy partying but occasionally may ?) suffer (personal frustrations) ) , they are uncertain (about the future) , there is separation, there is pain - everybody ( does eventually?) go through this. This ('pleasure-pain' principle is ) the common factor of mankind. So, this ( K) person has stated that and whether it is true or false we will discuss (later) . But (for starters) how do you listen to it? That is, how do you approach it, how do you look at it?

Q: Can I realize that everyone is going through exactly the same thing as I am- not by thinking about it, but by feeling it ?

K: No, but seeing the (actual truth of the ) fact - in the sense that 'this is so'. Whether you live in France or somewhere else, you are ( inwardly) a human being, with all the things that are going on inside you. And we say that this ( pleasure-pain principle?) is the common factor of mankind. Therefore mankind 'is' ( psychologically speaking, like?) me.

Q: But the ( deep sense of my inner ) division and isolation continues.

K: That's why I have been asking 'how do you listen' to this statement? What does it mean to your mind, to your heart, to your feelings, what does it mean when you hear a statement of that kind? Do I intellectually rationalize it, or do I immediately test the depth of it?
Are we judging our differences by education, by clothes, by having a bigger house, lesser house, outwardly? Or are we saying, look, that man is not educated, I am far better educated, but he has the same inner poverty in himself? The same sense of self- isolation, frustration, all that ( plus the envy, greed & violence?) as me. Apparently you don't see (the truth of) this. If you would do then a totally different thing takes place (in the totality of your consciousness?) .

Q: I can see when I look at other people's behaviour and talk to them and so on, how we have the same problems, the same emotions. And yet it doesn't make me feel more responsible (for their fate?) .

K: So does it mean your ( self-protective mental shield of ) isolation, your sense of self-importance is so colossal, consciously or ( perhaps?) unconsciously, that you say, I am not (like him)

Q: I think perhaps it is easier to see ( this 'common factor') in somebody else, but most of the time I am not even aware of the ( shared aspects ) of the human problems - I cover them up so easily.

K: Sir, is it also that we would rather like to identify with something greater?
Identify ourselves with something more ennobling, powerful, prestigious, rather than with the 'little man' ?

Q: But (probably ) he is also doing that and so am I.

K: So that ( self-divisive mentality) goes on. So you are ( remaining inwardly exactly ) like this poor little ( nowhere ?) man, empty inside, insufficient and all the rest of it. Why don't you see this non-verbally, actually see ( the living truth of?) it?

Q: It is a (very sad) fact, Krishnaji, but it doesn't seem to do away with the actuality that our whole existence is based on separatism.

K: So what will help you to see the truth of it? More ( personal) pain, suffering? Man has been through all that, and yet we keep this thing going.

Q: It is all probably in the ( nature of the human ? ) self.

K: Not (necessarily?) : when I actually I realize that I 'am' (sharing the total consciousness of?) mankind, haven't I really lost that extraordinary sense of my own self-importance?

Q: Is it some (subliminal) sense of 'self importance' that keeps us from seeing ( the truth of?) this, Krishnaji?

K: Perhaps (it is?) My ( temporal happiness or?) misery may come about because I have lost ( or gained more ?) money, and another is ( similarly happy or?) miserable because his wife has run away, or because his son is not fulfilling what he wants, and so on and so on. It is still human misery. Isn't it? Not the ( particular) expressions of misery, it's misery. Now why don't I recognize that (consciousness-wise?) I 'am' like the rest of mankind ?

( For the following seminars?) I would like personally to discuss with you about meditation, with a person who says, 'I have gone that far, now let's go much further'. In the same way I would like to discuss with someone who says, what does it mean to have a mind that is completely 'empty'. Empty in the sense, it has no ( personal) problems, no impressions, not any kind of (psychological) imprints on it. And what is the quality of such a mind, with that extraordinary energy which is implied in 'emptiness'. I would like to discuss, what 'relationship' really means, to be related to somebody without a single image about the other. Will you do that? Will you say, look, let's take relationship and go through it to the very end so that there isn't a particle of contradiction between her, me and she and you? Can we discuss that? We are ( supposed to be ) here for that purpose, for God's sake !

Q: Krishnaji, I am very interested in solving the problem of ''me and the world''. It's the same problem as fear and all these things because my separation from the world seems to me to be the problem. Once you are the world, then you have solved that division.

K: Yes, I will take any question you want - go to the very end of it and see where we are at the end.

Q: So, why is this ( deep) sense of isolation when we know that everybody is in the same boat?

K: Is that what you want to discuss? Will you put your 'guts', your energy, your vitality into solving something? Or you just float around? I thought we were all gathered here for that purpose, that a few of us take one human problem and work it out completely.

Q: It seems that we can only discuss the problem that is 'really real' for all of us. Can we talk about relationship?

K: Now, can we go into that and work it out, in detail, break it up, and see it, and find out how to live rightly with another, can we do that? Would that interest you?

Q (chorus) : Yes.

K: We are going to discuss tomorrow morning, this one thing, relationship, with all the things implied in it, everything implied in it, and in discussing see if we ( can or?) cannot break down this psychological division that people have created ( in their mutual relationship?) between themselves. Shall we do this?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Wed, 25 Apr 2018 #29
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

2ND SEMINAR MEETING (reader-friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: Shall we go on to talk over together about relationship? I think the (root meaning of this) word means to 'refer to', to 'look back'. I think that most of our relationships are that. And we are going to talk over together of our relationship as it is now , and in the understanding of what it is actually go beyond all the implications of ( a sellf-centred) narrow limited relationship into something wider and deeper. That's what we are going to discuss, talk over together.

So what do we mean by 'relationship'? We are all involved in some kind of ( personal) relationship - with a wife, with a husband, with a girlfriend or boyfriend, with parents, with our relationship to society, to nature, to the whole world, (but also we are in) relationship to all the things that are happening in the world, the terrible things, the violence, and also the extraordinary technological advancements and science and engineering and so on. So there is not only the limited relationship between two people but also a relationship with the whole world (if you have any) Am I related to nature, to the world, to the ecological world? Am I related to what is happening between the Arab and the Jew, the starvation and so on and so on? So what is my relationship with the most intimate and the most far, outward? We have to begin with the near, the closest, and then work forward. So if you are married, if you have got a girl friend and so on, what actually is your relationship with another.

Q: We don't seem to have any. There is always a (mental) barrier whenever you meet anyone, or a separation between what is happening outside, nature, or in each one of us.

K: Look, relationship is one of the most important things in life. Relationship between me and another, me with many others, which creates society. And in my relationship with another there is always a 'tension', there is always a sense of division, and therefore conflict, and a sense of guilt, a sense of possession, a sense of responsibility, a sense of protection, not only with children but with each other. And apparently, from the ancient of times until now, it goes on that way, a constant conflict between 'you' and 'me'. What is wrong in our relationships with each another? I see as it is now , without (covering it up with false ) 'cultural' values, that it is a constant struggle, constant pain, constant tension, a division. If we accept that as being 'normal' then it is all right, but if one doesn't accept it as being normal, healthy, then we have to proceed to find out whether it is possible to end that kind of (self-interest dominated ) relationship, so that there is no shadow of conflict with each other. If this is possible, what are the ( practical) implications , and whether one can actually do it in our everyday life . That's the issue we are going to talk about this morning.

Q: I have ( an authentic ?) relationship with another only in those moments when I am aware of them and I am aware of myself. But as I approach it I feel fear, and I feel either pain or a threat.

K: That's right, sir. So all that is implied - pain, attachment, jealousy, anxiety, fear and the great ( expectations of?) sexual pleasure, and so on - the whole of that is implied in our daily relationship. Personally, if I would have a problem of that kind, I'd want to resolve it instantly. I don't want to carry any problem overnight, specially a psychological problem, which is ( occurring in my) relationship with another. As I am a 'serious' man I want to find out what is the manner of ending it, and what is a way of living in which there is no conflict at all.

Q: We have been talking so far as though one person were doing the relating only.

K: I am questioning why (all?) human beings, including us, live that way. Is it part of our heredity, part of our tradition, part of our habit, so we have got used to it and say, yes, that's the only way to live ? Now we are questioning, why we accept that way of life. Why we accept wars, why we accept violence and so on and so on.

Q: Sir, isn't part of the tension occurring in our eveyday relationship the fact that another can hurt you - so you are afraid of this to happen.

K: If that is a fact, then how do we approach the fact in order to bring about a transformation in the way we are living?

Q: Sir, I feel there is no true relationship if there is no love.

K: Then we come to the question, what is 'love'. Have we love for another? One may say, I love my wife, but is that love (or the idealised memory of it?) ?

Q: Before I can come to any consideration of 'love' I have to somehow face the fact that I am feeling threatened by a relationship.

K: That's what I am asking. Are we clear what our actual relationships are at present, now, not at some future 'if' and 'when' (we'll have that 'love') .

Q: We are all afraid of getting hurt.

K: So is our relationship based on the fear of getting hurt?

Q: It is unconsciously based on fear, (social) pressures and images.
I think we do have relationship with people but they are limited because we are always looking for something to share. For example, nationalism will bring a lot of people together and they will have a sort of ( tribalistic?) relationship, but the moment there is nothing that interests you in a relationship with someone, you won't care.

K: ( Self-interest) brings us together because of ( our desire to share ) a particular interest. Is that it?

Q: Can we go back to the question of how is it that we can approach this, so that it will bring about a transformation in relationship. I again come back to the level of getting hurt.

K: All right, sir. Do I really want to find a relationship with somebody in which being hurt is impossible? Is it possible never to be hurt?

Q: Never to be hurt?

K: Why should I be hurt? Why should another hurt me? Why should my wife hurt me? Or my children, or my boss, or anybody, it doesn't matter who it is, why should they 'hurt' me?

Q: They do.

K: I know they do. But why ?

Q: It seems we have a self (-image ) , and this self (-image) is what gets hurt, and that ( fool-proofed?) 'self' (image) is what prevents us from having any relationship.

K: Do you want to go into this question of being hurt? Which means, finding a way of living with another, intimately or not intimately, in which there is no possibility at any time of being hurt. Is that possible? Do you really want to go into this?

Q: Probably want to find out, because I don't like being hurt.

K: If you want to go into this question of being hurt, what is the thing that is getting hurt?

Q: One can seethat there are 'areas of rigidity' in oneself that are hurt.

K: Rigidity. All right. Is it my thought, is it my body, is it my image about myself, is it a sense of wanting not to be hurt and therefore being hurt. You call me a perfect fool, an idiot, and I get hurt. Now I am asking you what is hurt?

Q: It seems to me that I am hurt because I have a certain ( good?) idea of myself.

K: All right. An idea about myself. I think I am a great man, with tremendous reputation, and you come along and say, you are a perfect ass, and I get hurt. So, when I say, 'I am hurt', what is this 'I' that is hurt?

Q: There are certain things that compose our 'self' , we have certain desires, certain goals, certain ideas and if someone comes along and contradicts what I know is 'myself' - my knowledge, my ideas, my condition - and breaks a certain limit, then our ( mutual) relationship is broken at that point.

K: So you have a certain idea ( a good image of yourself ?) . That 'idea'( -lised self image) is ( confirmed or?) shattered (by fellow image-makers) . And ( the subliminal identification with ) that 'idea' being shattered, hurts you.

Q: Well, yes, of course.

K: So what is hurt is the 'idea' about yourself, or your strong beliefs, or (other personal) conclusion and you come along and break it up.

Q: It's not just an idea (self- image ?) I have about myself, it's the idea (the image) I have of the other. I don't get hurt by people I don't care about, don't respect, but if someone I care about or respect his opinion.

K: It is still (part of) my 'idea' (of the 'image making' mechanism?) .

Q: Isn't also because one is depending on ( the approval of ) other people in order to keep one's ( favorable self-) image?

K: Partly, sir. I am dependent on you, or on my wife, or on somebody, and I am afraid that dependency might break down. But I am asking you what is the 'me' ( the 'self-image'?) that gets hurt?

Q: It seems that these ( self-identifying ) 'ideas' are created by desire.

K: You are going off to a little more complex thing. Have you an 'idea' (a self-identified image) about yourself which can be hurt? You have, haven't you? Then the next question is: why do you have ( mental) 'images' about yourself? Why do you have a conclusion (a personal convinction?) about something or other?

Q: I think it is for ( reasons of psychological) security.

K: People here are ( subliminally ?) frightened about this matter, you know, that's why they are all very quiet, because it will open Pandora's Box. I will open it for myself, you don't even have to listen. I've opened it for myself umpteen times.
So, ( 'who' or?) 'what' is hurt? It is the idea (I have of myself ?) , my beliefs, my psychological dependency & all goes to make up an 'image' about myself. I am ( identifying myself as ) a 'scientist', a 'professor', or with any other self-image. And you come along and say, you are not as good as I am. I have I have done this, I have got that. And I get a (self-image?) 'shock'. So then my next question is, why do I have built these mental pictures, images, ideas, conclusions, which can be hurt? As long as I keep them, they are all going to be trodden on. Right?

Q: Isn't it because ( in the social context we have to?) build up an identity about ourselves?

K: So I have ( subliminally???) 'identified' myself with my ( self- ) image  ; so I 'am' ( impersonating?) that (image) . Right? And when any of you tread on any of these things I am ( feeling personally ) hurt.

Q: Because I need to know (who I am ) in order to feel secure

K: But it is so (secure?) isn't it ? Only if I have no (such) images at all about myself, you can't hurt me.

Q: Then I am afraid that I might not even exist if I don't have these 'images'.

K: So you're saying , if I don't have these images, pictures, conclusions and so on, 'I am a nobody'. So ( this abyssmal) fear of 'being nobody' ( of 'not being'?) creates these pictures. The fear of 'being a nobody' is conditioned (strongly sustained?) by society, by your parents and so on and so on, they all say ''you must be somebody''. You must be a professor, businessman, or a violinist and so on and on, and society has imposed this through education, or you have your own ( image making ?) capacity. And so you have a ( full time psychological job in updating & upgrading your ) picture about yourself.
So, when you are asked : ''Can I live without a ( self-protective) 'picture' about myself ?'', you say, ''I can't'' , because it is too frightening to (inwardly) 'be as nothing' . Which means what? That actually you have not given that up the 'picture', ( or the self-protecting image making mechanism?) but you are afraid of what might be. It might be something entirely different. It's like a person who is attached to another tremendously, and won't let go because he says, my God, if I let ( my attachment?) go what will happen to me ?
(The self-projected image of?) 'what might happen' is creating that psycholgical fear, not the actual 'letting go'. If you actually 'let go' then you will find out what might happen . Right?

Q: Part of the trouble seems to be we would like to know 'what will happen' ( to us) even before we let go ( the 'fool-proof) 'self-image' that we've got ) .

K: Yes, yes. I must have some reward at the end of it. This is the good old ('mind) game' we all play. So I am asking can I and you be free of the (self-identified?) 'idea', ( self-protactive) image, or 'picture'? If you can't, then accept it, and live with it. I say it is not possible (to do it) if you ( unconsciously) accept it. But if you say, let us find out a way of not being hurt, let's find something which will completely wipe away any image I have and not create future images... Do you really seriously want to find a way of living in which you cannot possibly be hurt? Do you want to find out?

Q: Yes. But if we think these 'image's about onerself are actually necessary ( to survive decently in the modern world ?) we won't drop them.

K: Let's find out if they are ( psychologically ?) necessary? Anything that can be trampled upon, broken up, is not worth keeping. You wouldn't buy a cheap dress which would last half a day. Right? You may say it is necessary to have a good dress (for life?), agreed ?

Q: But sir, along with the ( collateral) hurts, having a good image of oneself also brings a certain sense of ( lasting inner comfort & ) pleasure.

K: I just want to keep this one thing : do we want to find a way of living in which there is no possibility of being hurt?

Q: It seems that if I have an image of myself it is because I always refer (relate myself ) to the memory of the past.

K: The 'past' being the knowledge ( you had ) about yourself, of what you have accumulated, and so on. I am asking a different question, sir : do we (really?) want to discover a way of living in which the 'picture' ( the creation & protection of the self-image) is not ( involved) ?

Q: If we are (being subliminally ?) afraid of being totally alone, totally empty, can we really want to find out how to?

K: Ah! That's not the point, we are not talking about 'emptiness', which for you is a 'non-fact'. You don't know a thing about 'emptiness', why talk about it?

Q: Surely if you don't want to be hurt, you can learn about it by living and seeing all these things happening.

K: But it is happening everyday of my life.

Q: Yes, so how do you 'solve' that?

K: I am showing you.

Q: But if it is recorded in the memory and it is a return always of the memory, ( churning) the same words.

K: Mrs Simmons, we are asking each other, knowing that one is hurt, either...

Q: I don't think it is a question of 'hurt' necessarily, I think it is a question of looking at difficult facts. It is the meeting of the 'facts' that causes the difficulties.

K: I think she was trying to say that if you say, how can I not be hurt, there is a danger of just avoiding being hurt.

K: No, Mrs Simmons is saying something entirely different - as I am getting hurt I can learn about the hurt and act upon it immediately. Is that what you are saying?

Q: That is what ( a diligent inner ?) life is all about.

K: You may think life should be like that, but is it like that?

Q: I find it so.

K: So you have learnt through a series of events that you got hurt, and that you have this enormous 'ego' (shield?) that is getting hurt and then tackle the problem of why you have built this extraordinary importance about yourself.
I say, why do it that (roundabout way?) ? - can't you as you live your everyday life observe that you are getting hurt and wipe it away instantly?

Q: I want to learn more about the process of hurt itself.

K: I tell you, it ( our psyche ) is getting hurt because I have (subliminally identified with?) a ( protective) image, a (mental) picture about myself. So the next question is, is it possible to wipe it out?

Q: The ( psychological) hurt you mean?

K: No, the (self-image) which gets hurt.

Q: What if it is the 'truth' ( about yourself) that hurts ?

K: All right. If you are hurt by the truth, and you accept that hurt (as life's lesson) , 'who' is accepting the hurt?

Q: Well, it is obviously not the old ( self-) image.

K: It is another ( 'wiser' self-) image which is accepting (for its own good to be ?) hurt ( by Truth itself ?)

Q: But even after having discussed all this the ( process of being) hurt will go on tomorrow, I am sure.

K: Yes. So we are ( constantly getting ?) 'hurt' by the world events, by...

Q: ...the everyday urban violence that is going on ....

K:... by violence, and we are also hurt even by our immediate ' friends ' . So we are saying : can't you 'see' ( have an insight ?) that as long as I have ( a self-protective mental ?) ' image' ( of myself ) I am going to get hurt ?

Q: But it seems to me that if one is thinking only in terms of 'hurt', then one is rather trapped because one may cover only the hurts one knows.

K: We can enlarge the whole ( 'image making' mechanism), not just 'hurt'.
( But as a 'rule of thumb'?) As long as I have a (self-) image there is no possibility of love.

Q: It seems that this ( 'image making' mechanism) is all there is, so what can get rid of the ('self) image'?

K: There is only one 'painter' painting many 'pictures' - 'I' am a great man, 'I' must be rich, 'I' must be nice, 'I' am beautiful, 'I' am lovely, 'I' am feeling great. You follow? These are all ( self-centred) 'pictures'.

Q: That's what I think of as 'myself'.

K: Which is the 'image-maker'. Which ( the self-centred process of ) thought. Isn't it the 'central painter' of innumerable pictures, the one 'painter' who is doing all this?

Q: Wouldn't you say that this 'painter' is also made up by everything around me ? Because in ( our everyday) relationship everybody has 'images' and it's like a whole 'ball of bits', whereby you put some over there and the others there and yourself on a certain place on the ball, and it seems our relationship is...

K: Picasso painted a thousand pictures, in different periods, with different ideas and so on. But Picasso was the 'painter' all the time. Right? Who is that Picasso?

Q: His artistic talents ?

K: Don't reduce it to talent. The talent, the greed, the ( big ?) money, his sexual appetites, his jealousy. Now as long as there are these pictures I am painting, somebody ( any art critic?) is going to come and tear them . And that 'tearing' I call being hurt. Right? Now I want to find out a way of living where whatever I paint can never be trodden on.

Q: What do we mean here by 'picture'? The 'picture' is the ( identitary) image ( we have ) of ourselves, right? So, if you don't have those 'pictures', there is no 'painter' either .

K: You are not helping me , you are putting it into another set of terms. I am afraid of getting hurt. Now please help me how to be free of my fear of getting hurt.

Q: Could we go back a little bit ? There is something I don't really see very well, which is : we stated the 'painter' is the 'me', and that's quite easy to say, and I could have said it too, and yet I still don't see that 'entity', it's nothing.

K: That's just the point. You don't see the truth, the (non-) reality of it, but you have accepted the ideas about it.

Q: Which is like creating another set of ( mental) paintings.

K: That's what we have spent an hour and a quarter - on ( exchanging) ideas. We haven't faced the fact, which is (the subliminal) fear of getting hurt. And, as Mrs Simmons says, learn about it as you live. Right? Learn what this fear is, go into it, daily, as it happens, and learn all about it. And ( hopefully) at the end it is finished. But I am saying quite the contrary : don't spend a day on it, an hour on it. Look at it, understand it immediately, and wipe it away, finished. There is no 'choice' between the two (approaches) . You don't say, I like better her way, or I like your ( K) way. So, let's find out what the truth of the matter is.

Q: Krishnaji, doesn't it naturally refer to sorrow? That (cosciously or not?) we live in sorrow, hurt is part of sorrow.

K: Yes, quite.

Q: And afterwards there arises the (self-protective) image.

K: The ( self-) 'image' exists and then I get hurt.
But (regarding this group discussion ) I am asking you a simple question, first, is it that we are subliminally afraid or ?) frightened to discuss (our personal) relationship, in which is involved dependency, attachment, and jealousy, sexual pleasures, remembrances of all that, is it that we are avoiding to look at it? That's why we are all so 'silent'...

Q: Wouldn't you go into the question how can we get rid of the image and the image-maker, because that's the actual problem to me, how to get rid of it.

K: Sir, is the (self-) 'image' different ( something separate ) from you? Or you 'are' that picture? But I am asking, is anybody frightened to discuss about our relationship ?

Q: Yes, because..

K: Yes, one is frightened, so you are ( subliminally?) avoiding it are you?

Q: It seems we have to ( get back to square one?) and start at the beginning. Which is : conflict and relationship.

K: You are ( emotionally?) attached to me and I ( may) like it, so as long as both of us 'like it' there is no conflict. But suppose I begin to say, sorry, don't depend on me, it is rather irksome, then ( a psychological) conflict comes in you. So again, you see, I have asked this question, please answer it, loudly or to yourself: are you frightened to discuss this whole question of relationship?

Q: No.

K: My darling. Wait till you get married.

Q: Well, I am sitting here and I want to talk now about it.

K: Yes, are you frightened?

Q: No.

K: Why aren't you frightened?

Q: Because I want to find out.

K: Verbally? So you have no problem about it, and says, ''By Jove, I must understand ( the whole truth about all) this before plunging into all that. Now can she understand it? Must you 'plunge into it' and then understand it? Or can you look at the whole thing non-verbally and see what is involved in it and begin (a time-free learning ) ?
We are asking whether it is possible to understand ( the whole truth about?) something if you are not experiencing it. Must you get drunk (in order ) to understand ( the virtue of ) sobriety? Should I go through being drunk if I see that (getting addicted to drink  ) is stupid ? It is stupid. Why should I go through that?

Q: Because I can't really know you without actually meeting you.

K: You can know the (public) image of me, the reputation and so on. You can't actually know ( the real?) me because the thing is living. So a living thing can never be ( completely) 'known', it is only a 'dead' thing that can be known. So I can never say, 'I know my wife'...
Do you want tomorrow morning to discuss the question of fear?

Q: Is it only fear that is preventing us from going into the question of relationship ?

K: Yes, sir, may be.

Q: I question that, sir, I am not so sure. Here and now we don't have an actual problem with relationships because we are only talking, the problem is coming later. And we can understand the words, that's quite easy, but it is not necessarily the fear of going into the problem that makes it difficult. But there is another kind of communication.

K: I am saying, sir, that you cannot understand the depth, the beauty and the whole complex question of relationship if there is any kind of ( personal reluctancy or subliminal ?) fear in you about it. I may be afraid because God knows what is going to happen (once Pandora's Box gets openned ?)
So do we talk tomorrow morning about 'fear'?

Q: There's an enormous (apprehension ) of going into the question of what is fear.

K: Yes, sir. And how can I understand what 'Love' is if there is fear? I can tell my wife that 'I love her', but that means nothing if I am afraid.

Q: Sir, today we tried to talk about relationship and we find that when we are afraid we cannot discuss it. You see tomorrow we will talk about fear, we will find something else will stop us from talking about fear either...

K: That's right, sir. That's what is going to happen.

Q: So then, how are we going to approach all this (in a more coherent way?) ?

K: Therefore that means you are not ('dead?) serious' (about it) . If I want to live a life without fear, I will do anything to stop (the causation of my) fear - give up my property, give up ( almost?) everything, because I want to live (for the rest of my days) without ( any psychological) fear. You follow? That's the only way to find out (the whole truth about it?) . You can't just sit and talk about the mountain top, you have to climb it.
( In other words) I say, why are you unable to look at it ? Stop there and find out. Why are you unable to see something ( that is psychologically ?) dangerous? It may be fear, it may be habit, you have never even thought about it, or if you are heavily conditioned, you ( subliminally) refuse to see it.

Q: Or the brain just keeps on...

K: You brain may not be active enough to see it. So these are all the ( subliminally active) factors. So we then have to examine why your brain when faced with something very, very dangerous refuses to see it. Is it made dull by the traditional acceptance of everything , by drink & sexual over indulgence? You follow? So the human brain has become ( habit ridden & ) mechanical and when something 'new' is being put in front of it, it says, I don't understand. Is your brain like that? Is your brain mechanical?

Q: It is very mechanical...

K: Stop there! If it is very mechanical, what has made it mechanical? ( The habit of functioning predominantly in the field of?) knowledge?

Q: Partly. Habit.

K: Routine. Can the ( temporal patterns of ) habit be broken without the ( opportunistic entity ?) who says, I want to break it? Which is again, mechanical. So then you do all that (ASAP?) and be completely free of habit. You can only do it when you see the 'fact' of it, when you see the 'danger' of ( living a life based on?) habits. Going day after day to the office, the mess of it all... So if all these are the ( founding?) causes of a mechanistic mind then why don't you break it?

Q: Because our ( survival oriented ) 'self'(-consciousness) is involved in all this. It survives and maintains itself.

K: That is just an ( intellectual) avoidance of breaking the habit. Here is the thing : ( abrain based on) habits in any form, becomes 'mechanistic'. So the human brain might have got ( for ages?) into the habit of living in this (time bound) way , says (openly or deviously?) 'Please leave me alone, I am used to this, don't break it up because I don't know what will happen then'. You follow?

Q: I feel a kind of ( 'existential ?) laziness' to break my habits.

K: Yes. If it is ( just an existential ?) laziness, go into it (see its dangers & ?) 'break' your laziness. But if you say, I am afraid, so let's talk about the (absolutely fabulous sightseeing across the?) window - there is no point.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Thu, 26 Apr 2018 #30
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

 3RD SEMINAR MEETING (reader friendly edited)


Krishnamurti: Shall we go on discussing, talking over together, the question of fear? Is it really possible to be completely free of fear, both physiological as well as psychological? One may be afraid of death or face something dangerous physically, but to meet it 'healthily', not neurotically, with fear. So there is both physical fear and psychological fear. Perhaps they are interrelated, one giving emphasis to the other and so on. Can we go into all this?

Questioner: I had always thought that the way of dealing with fear, was the way Mrs Simmons spoke about it yesterday, ( but then, you said) that there might be another possibility of it.

K: I mean, if one is afraid (of something or other) , does one want to go really deeply inside the whole business of it, and be free of it ? Or we don't know how to deal with ( our psychological) fears and so we avoid (facing them) and explain them away. We never ( endeavor) to go into it and completely dissolve it. So, ddo we really want to go into it so that our minds are completely free from it? That is the first question I would like to suggest to ask (oneself)

Q: I think that we'd rather go from solutioning one fear to the solution of the the next fear, rather than to go into the ( whole issue of) fear.

K: That's it, we want a ( temporary) solution of it, rather than the finding out the whole movement of it, the whole contents of it, the nature of it. Is that what we're trying to do?

Q: But right here we are also looking for 'the' solution, too.

K: Are you looking for a ( once & for all ?) solution for fear? Or investigating, exploring, finding out the whole nature of it, and ( eventually?) when one really has a (total) insight into it, it's gone.

Q: Doesn't it have something to do with the immediacy of our response  to fear ?

K: Let's be clear. Do we want to control it, and remaining in the meantime in (the shadow?) fear. Or we want to go into the whole problem, into the nature and the structure of fear, into the movement of it and resolve it completely ?

Q: But you were saying that if we want to look at fear in order to get rid of it, then we won't discover anything. So, what would be a correct reason and therefore a correct approach to looking at fear? Dr Bohm just said that we have to be free of fear before we can even be 'serious'.

K: Oh, no... Then I'll wait till Doomsday. To put it the other way: do you want to investigate it, or do you want somebody to say, 'Do this, and you will be free of it'.

Q: No, we all want to investigate it and find out the whole structure, nature, mechanism of fear. I want to open up the whole subject, that's all I can say.

K: That's all. All of us want to do this?

Q: Yes.

K: Avanti ! Do we, each one of us, recognize our fear, know that we are frightened of something or other, and ask what we actually do with that fear? Or we (are subliminally trying to) control it, accept it as part of life and drag on with it for the rest of your life? Are we aware of this? That's what I'm asking.

Q: I think we're probably all aware of the fact that we 'drag on'....

K: Why? We are investigating, opening up the whole Pandora's Box.
Are you ( responsably?) aware of your ( psychological?) fears, and of your reactions to that?

Q: Krishnaji, I think part of it is because we maintain a facade of ourselves that we present to others, and we want to continue to maintain this. And if we begin to face the question of fear, we will have to deal with this facade.

K: Apart from the 'facade', why do we try to (keep it under ) control , run away from it, or wait for some ( providential?) incident to resolve it. Why do we go through this ( linear time based ?) process? You understand my question?

Q: Could it be because we don't know how to deal with it otherwise?

K: You don't know any other way? Is that it? Suppose I am afraid (of something that might happen to me now or in the future ) . I know I have controlled this ( 'virtual' fear) and I ask myself, 'Why am I doing this?'

Q: Somehow that fear seems to threaten something ( very real) inside you.

K: Threat to what? Threat to loosing my house? Threat to my relationship? Threat to my whole (safe & comfortable) way of living? And I said, why do I go through the cycle?

Q: Because the whole thing will be threatened. In other words if I stop doing this, I don't want to give that up, that structure will be threatened, the solution will be threatened.

K: Do I know that my whole ( psychological) structure, which I've built up, will be destroyed? Or am I projecting an idea that it might be destroyed? And I ask myself, what am I being threatened about? A threat to my whole existence? To my way of my life?

Q: Yes, that 'you' won't exist.

K: You see, I don't know.

Q: You don't know what ?

K: You've already projected what might happen. But I don't know. You see the difference? By projecting it, say what might happen, it might destroy my house, my relationship, I'll lose my job - all that adds more fear. But it may not be like that at all. You follow? Threat implies that you have a certain (well settled) standard of life and it may be broken up. Therefore, you say, 'My god, I won't go into this problem at all'. You have made a picture of what might happen, and so you carry on as usual. Right? You understand?
So I'm asking, if you do not project, the idea of what might happen, but say let's investigate ( how thought is creating that ) fear, not the ( particular projection of the ) future fear. Is that clear?

Q: Yes.

K: The surgeon tells me I must be operated. And I'm frightened, because I might not survive. And so the fear of not surviving adds to my already greater fear of the operation itself . But if I have no fear of what might happen, I can face that ( prostate?) operation. But now I've introduced a double kind of fear: the future, what might happen, and the actual fear of being operated. So I see the silliness of it, the foolishness of it, so I say, 'All right, I won't project (my psychological fears into the future) .' Is this clear? Can we go on from there?

Q: Yes.

K: So I ask now, why am I doing this?

Q: It seems I'm ( subliminally?) holding onto something.

K: You're holding on to what? Do look at it. What are you 'holding on'? Your relationship? Your money? Your way of life? Your profession, your career, your - whatever, a dozen things. Are you ?

Q: All that, yes.

K: What is 'all that'? To your life?

Q: All my ( 'psychical'?) structure.
K: The way you are living - let's put it that way, it's simpler. The (temporal continuity of ) of 'your' way of life, you're holding on. And, in that ( habit ridden) way of life, fear is involved. So you're holding onto ( the very causation of) fear. Right?

Q: Krishnaji, that I think that it's more than just holding on to this (self-identified psychological ) structure, but ( to the assumption) you don't have the capacity to deal with it.

K: That's the whole point. Is it that I've been discouraged that I cannot do it by myself - by the organised religions, ''Jesus will save you'', ( or by thinking that an ) outside agency will save you, go to an analyst, professor, this, that, they will resolve it. So society, education, has 'helped' me to ( become 'psychologically' dependent and ) have no capacity to deal with it. Would you agree to this?

Q: But I might think I can do it myself.

K: I can say I will solve it, which ( might be?) another ( form of egocentric) vanity. So, now I am free from that educated conditioning. Are you?

Q: Are you?

K: Am I?

Q: Yes.

K: Yes. I wouldn't talk otherwise, I wouldn't be a 'hypocrite'. Sir, we said at the beginning of this discussion, that (in order ) to be a light to oneself, are we free of this educated conditioning which makes us ( feel inadequate & ) incapable? The 'intellectuals' have made us ( feel) incapable - the intellectual structure of religions, the whole intellectual world of knowledge - all that says (tacitly?) , ''You can't do it, old boy, we will do it for you''.

Q: It seems this 'educated conditioning' has a life of its own.

K: Of course it has, but are you aware that you have (subliminally adopted?) this 'educated conditioning', which destroys (corrupts?) your ( inner creative ) capacity, and therefore you put it aside ? Which means, you're no longer (psychologically) dependent. That's all I'm trying to get at.

Q: But even if one were free of this intellectual conditioning, surely that in itself would not be enough.

K: No, just the beginning, that's part of it. Of course not, sir. So, Dr Shainberg raised the question that most of us, have not the capacity to deal with it.

Q: I did not say we didn't have it, I said, we 'feel' like it.

K: So we are investigating why we don't 'feel capable', and we don't because of this. So are we free from that, because we can't investigate further if you are not free of that.
You see, this is different from (psych-) analysis. I must make it quite clear. When one is observing (holistically) this whole movement, there is no 'analyzer' and the 'analyzed'. We are just observing ( non-personally the 'what is') . So, if you reject the 'intellectual' mentality, what have you come to?

Q: To the insight of this?

K: Which means what?

Q: You are free to learn, you are free of this conditioning.

K: Which means what? How did you get that freedom, how did you have that feeling of being free?

Q: By doubting.

K: By doubt, by questioning, which means what? That is you have (awakened a time-free ?) intelligence, haven't you now?

Q: Yes. Your own intelligence.

K: Not 'your' own. You have ( access to a quality of 'holistic') intelligence.

Q: Yes.

K: Which is 'capacity' ( of being a light for oneself?) . I wonder if you see this.

Q: There's a 'quality' there. You used the word 'happen'. I think that's exactly it, that you become 'a happening'.

K: Yes, there is ( the awakening of a holistic) movement, which is intelligence, not that intelligence which is yours or mine, it's 'intelligence'.

Q: Which is not a ( natural) function of the brain?

K: You have used the brain to see what ( legions of opportunistic?) intellectuals, priests, philosophers, Freudians & all the rest have done – that they have made you 'dull' (inwardly unperceptive) . And this very seeing is ( triggering the awakening) movement of intelligence, it's not 'your' seeing or 'my' seeing, ( but the non-personal seeing of) the fact that 'it is so'.

Q: I can see that they have stopped me from enquiring (inwardly) .

K: Sir, in Christianity you mustn't question (too much?) . You can question up to a certain point, after that, it is a mystery. So you are never encouraged to question, ask, demand, find out. Now are we in this together, so far? Have you ( awakened or liberated ?) that (quality of holistic) intelligence?

Q: Well, the actual experience of ( our existential) fear is so tremendous and to have that (ready to use, holistic?) intelligence at that moment is...

K: Not at that moment.

Q: No, but in examining. When you are fearful and you examine it, you come to that perception with extreme difficulty.

K: We haven't finished with ( facing & ending) fear yet. So I'm saying the next step is...

Q: Sir, I question whether one has totally rejected all that. I have the feeling that it will be just another verbal game.

K: It's not a verbal game with me. Are we serious enough, having the strong intent to go into this whole movement of fear ? If you have the intent and the seriousness of it, you cannot remain on the verbal level.

Q: Sir, it seems at this point that ( the psychological) fear itself hasn't been dealt with. All you've done is put aside incapacity and the intelligence has been awakened. Once that's awakened then it can start dealing with fear. The fear is still there.

K: Of course. Sir, I'm going to deal with - we're going to go into it.

Q: Can I raise another point? Having cleared the space, so to speak...

K: ...cleared the decks.

Q:... and got the intelligence, doesn't one need some kind of ( higher) motivation, some sort of passion - doesn't one then need 'that' to continue the process? Or are you including that in the ( generic term) 'intelligence'?

K: I think that the passion, the drive is inherent in this intelligence.

Q: It has its own momentum ?

K: It has, yes. So as Professor Wilkins points out, doesn't one need passion, interest, a drive to bring about this ( quality of compassionate?) Intelligence, or to 'awaken' this Intelligence. I say, by observing, by looking into this whole movement of fear, if I have (another fit of 'existential' ?) fear, I'll go into it , with all that intelligence, energy, and drive.

Q: Could I return to your point about the man having the ( prostate?) operation? He decides to have the operation and run the risks of what might happen afterwards...only if he's sufficiently dissatisfied with his past life before the operation. Is this it?

K: You're quite right, sir. Are we (really?) dissatisfied now with our ordinary, ( materially safe but sadly ?) mediocre, 'dull' life, part of which is the fear (of what might happen to us tomorrow ?) Am I aflame to resolve (ASAP?) this thing? Which immediately makes me (temporarily?) 'non-mediocre' - not that it gives me vanity. I'm out of that group.

Q: I think there's a real fear of getting out of the groove, because it puts you into a whole new space.

K: So now there is this ( non-personal) Intelligence operating, which is (generating its own insightful ?) 'capacity'. And I come to the ( 'reality check' ) point : I am (suddenly becoming ) aware of ( an existential) fear. Fear of what?

Q: Of the future ?

K: Or, afraid of ( facing my) loneliness, afraid of losing my job, having no status in society, afraid of death, afraid that I might physically get hurt? Go on, sir, please, what is it that you're afraid of?

Q: Practically of all those things. I'm afraid of just letting everything drop by and (just drifting ?) …

K: 'I'm afraid of all these things'. What does that mean? That I'm afraid of that, afraid of that, so you have separate fears. Right? Or is it a central movement of fear having different expressions ?

Q: It seems to enter into practically everything.

K: Do you want to get rid of those particular expressions of fear, or of the ( central movement of) fear that creates them ? You follow? Desire creates many 'objects' of desire. I want a house, I want to be famous, I want to be known, I want to have money. But it's still desire. So, though fear has many expressions, their common factor is fear. So here we are dealing with not the various objects of fear, but with fear itself. Do we see the (holistically friendly approach?) and can we move from there?

Q: Don't these fears indicate that one is actually afraid to be left alone?

K: Yes, sir, ( of our existential) loneliness. Loneliness, isolation, building a wall round oneself, being hurt from childhood, building a wall round yourself and (trying to stay clear of?) anybody who might hurt you .

Q: There's also a fear secondary to building the wall....

K: Of course, of course. You build a wall and then feel isolated and say, 'My God, why am I so isolated?'

Q: I take it there is a deeper fear.

K: Yes, yes, of course.

Q: Could we take a look at the ( thought) process by which a single fear arises, by which, you know, fear comes into being? And take a look at it from that point of view ?

K: Take it, sir, go into it, take one fact, if you're afraid of something, take that and go into that one fact. What would you like? Loneliness?

Q: Fine.

K: So I am afraid of this (sad ) feeling of ( my own existential) loneliness, which is : I'm frightened of being (rejected &) isolated. You want to take that?

Q: Could we start just before that though? I'm sitting down, walking around and I'm not afraid. And then suddenly this ( surge of existential) fear arises.

K: Arises.

Q: Can we look at that?

K: I'm doing that. We'll see how it comes and then we'll see how the before and the after. I am (feeling) lonely. Now ( after exhausting all the possible escapes ?) I want to find out why this ( depressing sense of ) loneliness has come into being, how is it that I'm ( feeling so?) lonely? Is it ( the result of my self-centred?) way of life? Acting for myself all the time, in my most intimate relationships, or business, whatever it is, I'm always acting from a 'centre' (of self-interest) . So what happens? I'm all the time emphasizing by my actions, by my thought, this inner void in me, this emptiness, this sense of loneliness. I go to the office. There I am battling with my superior, and I want his job, more money and so on. I'm acting there, emphasizing myself, me first, and all that. I come home and there's my wife and I go though exactly the same process there. Right? So through all my ( self-centred) actions I'm bringing about this sense of ( existential) loneliness. And suddenly, walking in the woods or sitting in my room suddenly one feels tremendously lonely, isolated, having no relationship with anything. Don't you know all this? I'm not inventing all this.

So I have done everything to avoid (facing) it. And now instead of running away from it, I say, all right, old boy, let's see what it is about. What is the state of the mind that is lonely, this sense of tremendous isolation.
( Experiential warning :) If you don't resolve it, and you know you can't escape from it, then ( the chances are that) you become 'neurotic'. Because that (pain of loneliness) is the only thing you have left. Before you escaped, before you did all kinds of tricks with it, now you realize that you can't do anything - so you're stuck with it. And if you don't resolve it you become a very neurotic human being. No? Don't be deceived by the (verbal clarity of the ) description, it's a 'fact'.
So what shall I do with this (existential) loneliness? The same 'I' who has created the loneliness, the isolation, now says, 'What shall 'I' do?' I wonder if you see this ?

Q: Yes. In the very act of trying to solve it, you're back in ( its initial cause ) .

K: Of course. Because I've put the wrong question when I say, 'What shall 'I' do?', (since ) I'm still isolating myself. So the ( holistically correct ?) question is : Is that loneliness separate from me? Or I 'am' (both the cause & the effect of) that (loneliness) ? Is that loneliness different from the ( self-conscious) 'actor' who says, 'I' must do something about it. Or the 'actor' himself 'is' that. I wonder if you see this.

Q: He has sustained it artificially.

K: Yes, so the observer 'is' the observed. This ( non-duality point?) is difficult for most of us to get. The actor is that, because he has created it.

Q: That seems particularly difficult.

K: Of course, because our ( ages old cultural) conditioning was to keep the two separate. Our conditioning is to 'act upon it'. But when you see ( the inner truth that ) the actor 'is' the action, your mind is quite different when you see that.

Q: May I ask, how different ?

K: Is the division (observer-observed) a fact? Is that not a ( highly sublimated mental ?) illusion? Though we accept it as a fact, is that not an illusion?

Q: Krishnaji, I can see (intellectually?) that it is an illusion, and that there is not a division.

K: Be careful - how did you come to that (realisation) ?

Q: In listening to what you said and in seeing the ( self-conscious) 'entity' that felt the loneliness, and the loneliness itself, came from the same source that felt it. So I could see in my way that I was (not separated from my) loneliness.

K: Yes, sir.

Q: But that doesn't give me any ( liberating) insight yet into...

K: That's the whole point. If you see that, then there is no ( further sense of) division. He says he has jumped to that (realisation) . And it may be still a (self-created) illusion, so ( here's the clue :) when the observer is the observed, there is no (further sense of inner) conflict. Is that a 'fact' to you, there is no more conflict ( with your ) loneliness?

Q: It's not a 'fact' for me.

K: And therefore that jump is not what we're talking about. You see, (it is the existence of various conflicting ) actions, in our daily life, which has brought about this loneliness.

Q: Yes, sir. The continual operation of the 'I'.

K: That's all. So I'm asking : do I realize the ( self-created mental) illusion I've been living in, where I have separated loneliness from me, and therefore 'me' can act upon 'it'. Do I see that my loneliness is the ( karmic result ?) of my (own self-centred) thinking which has brought about this division ?

Q: If I might just enlarge on that point, Krishnaji, the ( action related ) question which the 'I' is asking, is born so fast that you can't get hold of it.

K: Of course, of course, because it is part of our illusion. ( To recap) Have you seen that you are escaping from loneliness?

Q: Yes.

K: Which means 'you' are ( subliminally trying to act) upon your loneliness. Next, you say ''now I'll not escape''.

Q: What if the 'escaper' continues to escape (in many other ways?) from its loneliness ?

K: Then we have to investigate why our ( presumably serious?) mind will not face the 'fact'.

Q: Yes. That's it.

K: Will not face the fact that it is (acting) silly. Why can't we face the 'fact' - fact, not 'what I think about the fact' ?

Q: I don't accept being lost (in a totally unknown teritory?)

K: Wait, wait. To face a 'fact' I mustn't run away from it, obviously. But my whole education has been to run away from it. Why can't I face the fact? Is it because I don't know how to look  at it (non-verbally?) ?

Q: Supposing you looked at the fact that you are isolating yourself. You've already seen that (intellectually) . How come you can't see (the truth of ) that fact? What happens?

K: I'll tell you how I do it. Not through ( a sequential) observation of escapes, controls, and all that. I say, loneliness, isolation ( is the 'fact' of ) my daily life. So my daily life changes completely.

Q: Yes, but isn't that a jump. You asked first , what am I going to do about loneliness. Yes ? So, you yourself skipped that (step of 'personal' action) .

K: No, sir. I ( was expressing ?) the question of others. I am not lonely. I won't go through that. Cut me out as a ( 'lonely' ) person.

Q: Ok, forget your case .

K: You may go to the movies, but when you come back home, ( your existential loneliness ) still there. So can you face the 'fact' ? Which means, can you look at it without any ( personal) motive. Take a more obvious fact. Fact, that one is (psychologically ) violent. You know what violence is -like getting (really) angry and trying to be something when you are not, is violence.

Q: You see, we're used to working through comparison, what I see as inner violence with what I see as outside as violence. And so we work in the world of ideas. That's one of the chief difficulties.

K: Look, sir, can you just look ( non-verbally) at a fact and keep looking at it?

Q: Most people would find this very difficult.

K: That's right, sir. Most people find it most difficult to look ( non-verbally) at a fact; look at the fact that you're jealous, look at the fact that you're violent, or simply to look in the mirror and not compare yourself with somebody else who is more or less (handsome) . So what happens? Can you look at that (sense of existential) loneliness, without any ( personal) motive, just look? Now this is most difficult, because ( the common way of ) observation is ( backed by) the movement of thought, which is a 'deviation' (is putting a personal spin on the thing onserved) . I wonder if you see?

Q: Well, then it is all coming down to the observation of thought.

K: No, I don't want to enter into that for the moment - purposely, because it's (been) complicated enough. Can I observe my loneliness (non-verbally?) and hear all the inwardness of it - observing means also 'listening'. Can I do that? It might tell (all about ) its content if I know how to look, if I know how to listen to the thing that I call loneliness. It may be the most extraordinary factor involved in it. But if I run away, escape, it's not revealing its (true) story.

So you may find it awfully difficult to face ( the truth of ) a fact -for instance face the fact that I've told a (white?) lie. And not say I told a lie because this, protecting somebody else , you ( could blackmail &?) frightened me. You follow? But the fact that I told a lie. See how extraordinarily difficult it is, sir, isn't it? Why? Answer me, sir. Why? Why is it so difficult for most of us to face a fact?

Q: It's only difficult when it refers to oneself. If it doesn't refer to oneself it's easy enough.

K: That's right, sir. Can I face the ( truth of the ) fact that ( psychologically?) I am absolutely nothing. That's the key point. Can you face the fact that you're absolutely nothing? You know that is really ( a major Meditation theme left for homework ?)

Q: Then...all the ( personal) problems are solved.

K: No problem, but there is something much more when you come to that point. (Seeing the inner truth of ) the fact that you're nothing (not-a-thing) , with all your ( smart) clothes you've got, ideas you've got, beliefs you've got, experiences, all those are words, words, words.

Q: What makes it difficult is that you are always comparing ?

K: No, sir. I cannot face the ( truth of this inner ) fact that I'm absolutely nothing. All the ( self-centred mental) structure that you have built about yourself, tremendous knowledge, a violinist, pianist, all this is what - what are they?

Q: You mean not just nothing, but a 'miserable' human being?

K: Yes, sir. That's why we never face the fact that I'm that, as he points out, I'm a miserable human being. My quarrels are petty, my relationship with my wife is so tawdry, misery, confusion, I never face it.
So, why is it so intolerable to face ( the truth of such ) a fact? If you tell me that I'm really an ignorant fool, actually you tell me that, and I say, all right, let me look. I am not frightened, I want to find out if I am an ignorant fool, or it's your reaction which makes you say that to me. I want to find out. Which means I've got intensity as passion, because I'm not just satisfied with things as they are, in myself.
So ( to recap) can I face the fact that I'm frightened, and not do a thing about it, just face it ? If you do face the fact, then a whole series of ( meditative) enquiries begin, real enquiries, not intellectual, verbal enquiries. That is, I'm facing the fact that I told a lie last year and I'm frightened that you might discover that lie, because I've got a reputation to keep up, that I never lie. But I have told a lie and I don't want you to discover it. Can I face that fact without any sense of guilt, without any sense of saying, it was right, I should have lied because of this, that and the other? Just to look at it. See that gives you a tremendous (inner) vitality. Has it given you that vitality, that sense of drive, with passion? Say, I've faced the fact, it's finished. I may have lied but that's over, you can tell everybody about it. And I'm out of ( the karmic repercussions of) it. So we meet again on Saturday. Shall we go on with this fear question?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 1 - 30 of 305 in total
To quote a portion of this post in your reply, first select the text and then click this "Quote" link.

(N.B. Be sure to insert an empty line between the quoted text and your reply.)