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

Holistic Education


Displaying posts 301 - 305 of 305 in total
Tue, 26 May 2020 #301
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

3RD ("reader-friendly" edited ) K CONVERSATION WITH PROF.BOHM, MR.NARAYAN AND TWO FINE BUDDHIST SCHOLARS (cca 1978)

R: (...) From the Buddhist point of view 'shunyata' literally means voidness, void, emptiness.

K: ( Inner?) no-thingness. I know the meaning.

R: It is the Buddha who spoke of this first in a very simple way. And Buddha's nearest companion & disciple, Ananda has asked him one day, "Sir, it is said the ( total consciousness of the?) world is 'sunyata', empty, what does it mean ?" He said, "Ananda, it is without 'self' and anything pertaining to self, therefore it is sunyata". In many other places he told a man, "See the world as 'shunyata' and you are liberated". And these are the original statements. And based on this, Nairanjana developed a whole philosophical system based on ( the concept of) 'shunyata' as void, empty. And that is exactly what Krishnaji says : if there is no 'self (-identified' consciousness?) , and you 'see' (the inward truth of?) it, every problem is solved.

N: How about the relationship between the outer and the inner ?

R: That is exactly what Krishnaji and Dr.Bohm discussed as ' Truth and Reality' which it was ( fragmentarily?) published in a new ( 1976) book, that are also accepted in the Buddhist philosophical propositions : 'sunyatasatva' and paramatasatva. Sunyatasatva is the conventional truth regarding what we do, talk and eat and all such things, within the field of reality. You can't say this table is false, but in another sense this is not so. But 'paramatsatva' is the ultimate, absolute truth. And Nairanjana clearly says that one who cannot see the conventional truth is incapable of arriving at the ultimate truth.
The third question raised was, about Nirvana and Samsara. Nairanjana says that Nirvana has no difference whatsoever from Samsara and samsara has no difference whatsoever from nirvana. The strict definition of the word 'Samsara' is the ( time-binding ) continuity of our existence. And I remember once asked Krishnaji what he thought about it. Krishnaji paused for a minute and asked me, "What did Buddha say about all this?" I said, 'nothing'. And K said, that is correct, that is right.

K: I am not sure that (everybody here ) understood all this...

R: 'Samsar'a is the continuity (of the time-thought process) but what is 'Nirvana' was never defined in positive terms by the Buddha. Always whenever he was asked about it he said, "No, that is not Nirvana".

K: So you had better ask your questions too.

R: One question is that in the western thinking the concept of 'free will' has played a very important part. But in Buddhism, such a thing is impossible because all our thinking, all our construction, all our work, all our knowledge is conditioned. Therefore if there is a free will it is 'free' only in a relative sense and it is not absolute freedom. That is one question I put you.

K: Let's talk it over, sir. What is the origin, the beginning of 'will'? Is it not desire?

R: It is a (self-identified ) desire.

K: A desire accentuated, heightened, strengthened, which we call 'will'.

Bohm: It seems to me that we make it 'determined'. We determine the object of desire and it gets 'fixed' there.

K: I desire that, and to achieve that I make an effort (of will-power?) . The motive of that effort is desire. So will is desire.

R: It is a ( thought-enforced?) form of desire.

K: Now, can desire ever be free?

R: That is what I wanted to hear from you....

K: Desire can never be free. It can change the objects of desire: I can desire one year to go to buy this, the next year that, but ( the movement of) desire is constant, only its objects vary. And in the strengthening of desire, the will (-power) is in operation. ( So, the origin of) will is desire. And can desire ever be free?

R: No.

K: We generally say that 'free will' exists because I can choose between this job and that job, or I can go freely from England to France. So the idea of free will is cultivated (commercially?) in the sense that human beings are free to choose, but apart from material things why is there choice? Why is there the necessity of ( a psychologically-motivated choice ?) at all? If I am a Catholic, and grasp the whole significance of Catholicism, with its rituals, dogmas & the whole circus involved it, and I abandon that, why should I (choose to) join something else? Because when I have investigated this I have investigated all the (organised) religions. So ( such a?) choice must exist only when the mind is confused. When it is ( inwardly) clear there is no choice. Is that right?

B: I think that the western philosophers might not agree with you, I am not sure. They say that the freedom of choice is not desire, that free will is not ( a strenghtened) desire, but an act of freedom. Some Catholic philosophers may say that when Adam sinned, he 'willed wrongly', he made a wrong ( existential) choice and he set us off on this way.

K: You see that is a very convenient way of explaining away everything. First invent Adam and Eve, the serpent and the apple, and God, and then explained everything as the (the result of that) 'primordial sin'.

R: Yes, there's a lot of mental creation in that...

B: One can see that ( the temporal) will is the result of desire. But ( some religiously minded ?) people have the impression that 'will' is something entirely different.

K: Yes, ( that God's ) Will is part of something sacred...

B: That's what many people would think.

K: Something derived from a 'divine ( Intelligent) Being'.

R: According to the western philosophy.

K: I don't know very much about the western philosophy but if one puts all that ( speculative thinking?) aside, then (experientially-wise?) is there any ( directly perceptive?) action which is not compounded with ( one's self-centred?) will?

N: Would you say that 'insight' has nothing to do with ( exercising such ) will?

K: Oh, nothing whatever to do with will, or desire, or memory.

R: Yes. Insight is (a clear & non-verbal ?) seeing in which there is no choice, there is no discrimination, there is no judgement, there are no moral or immoral values. You 'see'.

K: Excuse me, sir. You are making it into a 'theoretical' (concept) , you have defined it, it is not this, it is not that, and then...you may think you have 'insight'. We are talking over together about an action in which there is no choice, in which there is no effort as ( a result of exercising one's?) will (power) . Is there such action?

R: There is such an action.

K: You know it? Or is it an (experiential?) theory? So what is ( holistically?) correct action in which there is no 'will (power' involved) , no choice, no desire - because will is part of desire and so on? To find it out one must be very clear about the true nature of desire : desire being thought identifying itself with the sensations ( with the activity of the senses ?) , and through ( thought's subliminal ) identification the ( self-consciousness of the?) 'I' is built up, which then says, "I will do this ", or... "I will not".
So we are trying to find out if there is a (directly perceptive way of ?) action not based on the principle of ideals, on desire, on will - is there such action? Because most of our ( temporal) actions have a ( self-centred) motive. Right? And motive means (a thought-projected?) movement - I want to build a house, I want that woman, or that man - there is always some kind of ( personal) motive in the actions of our daily life. So then action is conditioned by the motive (of self-interest) . This motive is part of the identification process. So if there is a perception of the truth that identification builds the whole nature, the structure of the self, then is there an action which doesn't spring from thought?

B: Could we ask why - before we go into that - why there is identification, why is it that this is so prevalent?

K: Why does thought identify ? Why do you, Narayan, identify?

N: Why do I can identify with sensations – because I have nothing else to identify with ?

K: So why do you give importance to sensation? Do you say, I am a sentient being and nothing else?

B: Is there a duality in identification? Could we make it clear ?

K: In identification, as you point out sir, there is duality, the identifier and the identified. So, is there an action in which the self is not (involved?) ? Which means that the mind has to find out an action which has no cause, which means no ( personal?) motive, an action which is not the result of a series of causes and effects. Is there such an action?

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

K: That's right, as long as ( thought's subliminal?) identification exists I can't find the answer.

B: But why does thought identify?

K: Why does thought identify with sensations? Why have sensations become so important in our daily life - sexual sensations, the sensation of power, economic power, or power of a woman over man, or man over woman, or the influence of the environment, the pressures - why has thought yielded to this pressures?

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

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

B: The sensory experience that happens (in real time) , and also the memory of it.

K: No, the memory is ( interfering) only when there is an identification with it. But why does thought identify itself with ( activity of the?) senses?

B: Yes, that is not yet clear...

K: Let's make it a little more clear. There is the perceiving of a pleasurable lake, seeing a beautiful lake, what takes place in that seeing? There is not only optical seeing by the eye, but also the senses are awakened, the smell of the water, the trees on the lake...Then what takes place? Thought comes in - how beautiful that is, I wish I could remain here (forever?)

B: So thought identifies it (as a pleasurable sensation) .

K: And then thought coming into operation and saying, "I must have more, I must build a house here, it will be (all?) mine".

B: But why does thought do that?

K: Why does thought interfere with senses ? The moment the senses take in ( experiment the sensation of) pleasure, say, "How delightful" – if it all stops there, thought doesn't enter. ( Hint : ) If the sensation is painful thought avoids it, it doesn't identify itself with that.

B: Or, it identifies against it, it says, "I don't want it"...

K: But if it is pleasurable, when the ( response of the?) senses begin to enjoy, & say, "How nice", then thought begins to identify itself with it.

B: But why, I mean?

K: Why, because of ( the natural desire for more sensory ?) pleasure.

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

K: Oh, that's much later : when it (the sensory experience?) becomes (repetitive, boring or?) painful, when thought is becoming aware that its identification (with the activity of the senses) breeds both pleasure and fear, then it begins to question.

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

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

B: And thought tries to take over  in order to make it 'permanent' ?

K: Permanent, that's right, which means ( storing it in its psychological) 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 honest mistake and when later on it discovers that mistake, but it seems to be too late because it doesn't know how to stop.

K: It is now 'conditioned'.

B: But can we make it clear why it cannot give it up ?

K: Why doesn't thought give up something of which it is becoming aware to be destructive ?

B: Yes... ?

K: Sir, let's take a simple (experiential) example: one is getting hurt psychologically ; why can't one immediately give up (the psychological memory of?) that hurt which (in time) is going to create a great deal of damage - building a wall round myself not to be hurt more, with the fear, and isolation & the neurotic actions, that follows. Thought has ( already ) created a (favorable) image about myself, and it is this (self-) image that gets hurt. Why doesn't thought say, "Yes, by Jove, I have seen this !", and drop that ( flawed self-) image immediately? Because when it drops the image there is nothing left (for thought to identify with?) .

B: Then thought wants to hold on to the memory of the image ?

K: Hold on to the memories which have created the image.

B: And which may create it again, and thought feels they are very precious.

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

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

K: Why has the image become so important which thought has created? If thought gives up ( all its expectations for) pleasure, what is there left?

B: It seems to return to the (innocent) state in the beginning when there was nothing.

K: Ah, that is the pristine state.

B: But why does it seems unable to return to that state ?

K: It can't because thought (is constantly projecting its own temporal continuity?) all the rest of it.

B: When thought thinks of giving up a ( personal) pleasure which has become very precious, then the mere thought of that is felt as painful !

K: Yes, ( thinking of) giving it up is painful. So it clings to pleasure.

B: It does not wish to face the pain (of inner no-thingness?)

K: Until there is a better anticipation of pleasure.

B: So ( the self-identified process of) thought seems to have fallen into a trap which it has made itself, because it has innocently remembered ( an experience of sensory ) pleasure, and then gradually made it important and then it has become too painful to give it up. Because it feels that the changes resulting from the immediate removal of pleasure is very painful.

K: Because it has nothing else ( to identify with?) afterwards, it is (afraid to let it go?) .

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

K: Yes.

B: Now it is.

K: Yes, that 'beginning' being the beginning of man. Can we question even that?

B: You want to say it has been going on for a long time - thought building this ( time-) trap which has gradually got worse.

K: Sir, all out brains are very old – and merely tracing it back further and further back , you can never find out (the experiential answer) . But I can take my brain is as it is now, which ( seriously) conditioned (to think?) in terms of pleasure and pain.

B: They ( the brain scientists?) say the 'old brain' is the emotional product of the brain.

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

B: Well, we say that this brain has conditioned itself by ( creating & pursuing ) the memory of ( a self-rewarding) image ( based on) pleasure, along with (avoiding) the unpleasantness of giving it up and the fear ( of facing its own inner emptiness?) .

K: So it clings to the things which it knows.

B: Which it knows and which are very precious to it.

K: And it would much rather run away from ( its own existential?) fears hoping the pleasure will continue.

B: Eventually it starts to become irrational because it creates ( artificial psychological ?) pressures which make the brain irrational and unable to get this straight.
K: Yes. So...where are we now at the end of this? We started off by asking : is there an action in which there is no motive, no cause, the self doesn't enter into it at all? Of course there is. There is (the possibility of such action only) when the self - identifying process does not takes place. There is the perceiving of a beautiful lake with all the colour and the glory and the beauty of it, that's enough. Not cultivating that (particular) memory, which is developed through thought's identification process. Right?

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

K: I don't think there is a (methodological ?) 'how', as any (time binding) 'practice' makes the mind mechanical, dull and literally incapable of receiving anything new.

Schloegel: If these practices are done ( in a spirit of ) imitation this is precisely what happens.

R: That means that if that practice becomes an imitation then the mind is mechanical.

K: Do you remember that story of a famous guru who had a favourite cat, and he had many disciples. Every morning before they all started meditation, he caught hold of the cat, put it on his lap, and meditated. And when he died the disciples had to search around for a cat.

R: I heard it quite differently. The cat was tied up so he could not come and listen.

K: You see, as our minds have been already made mechanical, can't we investigate why we have become mechanical, rather than practice that which is (supposed to be?) 'non-mechanical', which may be mechanical.

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

K: I don't look to somebody who is (supposed to be) enlightened. They may deceive themselves. So one must start with oneself. From there I begin. It is so simple, whereas the other leads to so many complications.

S: I do not necessarily see it as a 'complication'. If I have a glimpse that there is something that is more than my illusion, my suffering, that there might be a possibility to reach it , 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?

S: I think it is almost impossible not to start with that motive because that starts from self.

K: So I begin to enquire, I begin to look in the 'mirror' (of relationship  ?) , which says, your ( self-centred) reactions are these, and as long as you are (subliminally identified with?) these reactions you are going to pay heavily, you are going to suffer. So, how am I, an ordinary human being, knowing all the reactions one has, to bring about a (quality of transpersonal) observation in which there is no personal motive to restrain these reactions? I wonder if I am making myself clear ?

S: Yes.

K: How am I to observe myself without a (distorting personal?) cause? The cause generally is punishment and reward. Which is obviously like a dog being trained. So can I look at myself without any ( self-projected?) motivation ? Go on sirs.

S: At the beginning stage, when try to do it, I may find that I cannot do it since I am too conditioned ; but in the same way that I can do a physical training, I can become able slowly to look at those very things that I normally 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: We have to be very careful here - 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: It is the same thing, I am weak but I must become strong.

S: It is not that I must 'get stronger'. But in starting to look at my ( existential) suffering there is a changing factor which in the end makes it possible.

K: Which is again ( the mentality of) a gradual evolution in time . If I may point out, that will lead nowhere, that is an illusion. Either you have ( a total) insight immediately, or you don't have it. The moment you allow ( the factor of) time, it is a ( subliminal?) cultivation of the self.

S: Not necessarily ; only if I do it in order to gain something out of it, then it is certainly a cultivation of the self.

K: Madam, as we said just now, an insight ( into the truth or falseness of something?) is devoid of time and memory. ( Such holistic ) insight is timeless, it must 'happen'. You can't gradually come to it, it is not ( the result of) a thing cultivated by thought. So, is it possible to have an insight into oneself instantly, not by degrees ?

S: Yes. I would say with my own conviction and experience that it is possible.

K: Which means that if you have a (complete?) insight, that insight wipes away the 'self (-identification' ) , not momentarily. Wouldn't you say then that one's action is without motive? Do you know of such action - not occasionally, but living an everyday life? I don't want to be just occasionally happy . As this insight is timeless and divorced from memory & thought, therefore is there a (selfless?) action born of insight?

R: If you have ( access to the inward clarity of?) insight, there is no exception, all your actions are without motive.

K: Are we talking theoretically or actually?

R: Actually.

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

R: Yes. If you have that (total inner clarity of ) insight, there is no 'self', there is no personal motive.

K: Have you got that (total) insight into the whole nature of the self ? And therefore, if there is an (illuminating) 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, that is not possible. There is that insight. It is not as if I had it.

K: If I say, "I have an insight into that", I am a little bit mentally deranged. So what are we talking about? You asked a question, sir.

R: Of course, but we have gone very far away from our initial question...

K: I know.

R: Now, that question ( about free will) you have already answered . Then there is another question also dealing with (the symbolic language of) intelligence. Perhaps you are aware of this theory that we think in a language. Many people say that. In which language do you think ? But thought has no (particular) language, but the thought is immediately interpreted ( by the brain) into the nearest (available) language.

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

R: That depends on the level (of one's intelligence) . I don't know whether you had the experience, that without talking, without words, there is communication.

K: That is, sir, there can only be (such a ) communion, only when you and I are on the same level, and with the same intensity, at the same time. Then the words are not necessary. What is the (inwardd) quality of that state? Wouldn't you call that ( holistic) quality Love? When two people are sharing the extraordinary quality of this state, words are not necessary and there is an instant communication. ( Unfortunately?) for most of us the language drives us, pushes us, shapes us. Our minds are conditioned by language and by the ( cultural) content of that language. Right? But if we use the words without the language directing us, words then have an entirely different meaning.

N: The language doesn't drive you, but you drive the language ?

K: That's right.

B: I think that ordinarily we are 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 : 'I am a communist'....

B: That's an ( ideological) identification, but do you think that language is the major source of (thought's self-centred?) 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. That is, it is said that "the ordinary man is stuck in words just like an elephant in the mud", and so one must go beyond words to see ( the hidden truth behind ?) them. Because as long as you are, as you say, driven by language...

N: The more scholarly one becomes in (the use of) language, I suppose there is a great possibility of being caught in language. Whereas the rustic person might just use it for simple (factual) communication.

K: Sir, this was also involved in your question : does the word create the thought, or thought create the word?

B: You once asked the ( holistically experiential ?) question : is there a thought without the word?

K: Shall we go into it a little bit?

R: Whether there a thought without the word ? I think thought has no word. Thought is an image (-making process?) .

K: No, we are using this term 'word' (holistically?) in the sense of the symbol, the image, the picture...

B: You see, the word can easily be turned into an image, for example, a verbal description can be turned by an artist into an 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, otherwise your head will be chopped off, what is the origin of thought ? Please sir, answer that question.

R: Is there an origin?

K: Must be. In yourself sir, there must be a beginning of thought.

R: That is a wrong way of looking at it, by assuming that everything must have a beginning.

K: I am just asking in order to find it out (experientially?) How did thought begin? Everything that is living, they all 'think' or 'feel' in various ways – so, there must be a beginning of that. What is that beginning in human beings.

S: If we had no desire at all, we would have no thought.

K: No, it is not a question of that...

B: Are you discussing thought without identification?

K: No, sir. How did thought begin in myself? Was it handed down by my parents, by education, by my cultural environment, by the ( personal & collective memory of the?) past? Go on sir. What made you think?

R: I would say that thinking is (implicit) in the nature of oneself. There is no other cause.

K: Oh yes, there is. I'll show you. If I had no memory, would there be thinking?

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

K: That's fairly simple to answer : I remember seeing you in Paris - that is recorded in my memory, isn't it?

R: It is generally accepted that it is recorded in the brain.

K: No, it is an ordinary fact.

R: It is an old 18-th century theory that everything is recorded in the brain somewhere.

K: No, sir. Look, I meet you now, and in a year's time you come back, for another discussion. Then I say, yes, this is Mr.Rahula, we met last year. How does that take place? Very simple. The brain has recorded that memory of meeting you, learning your name. So that is memory, and when I meet you next time I recognize you. Right?

R: How does it happen?

K: It is very simple. The process of ( brain cells') recording goes on - it is the 19th, or 1st century, or the 20th century, recording must go on. The elaborate process of learning a technique, how to drive a car, or go to the moon, is based on a careful accumulation of memory, which then acts (responds as thought) . In the same way I meet you today, next year I will remember, which is, there is remembrance, which is the recording process. No? 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, that ( previously recorded) memory comes up and says, Oh, he is Mr. Rahula. And the recording is (stored as ) an image, pleasurable or not pleasurable. No?

R: Certainly it is so, but what I wanted to say is, ( that according to Buddhism) it is not in the brain. It is in we call generally the mental faculty. Just as hearing a noise is also a 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 the mental faculty is spread all over the body, not necessarily in the head?

R: There are the physical faculties – the eye, ear, nose, tongue and body which deal with the external world, material world. But the 'mind faculty' or the mental faculty has many, many aspects, many potentialities; one of them is the memory. And what I want to clarify from you is how does it happen, and of course you begin with the memory ) recording in the (physical) brain, with which I disagree.

K: All right, there is the (mental) process of recognition.That's one part of the (mind) faculty. The other part is to think logically, or not logically. So there are several aspects, faculties which are made up in the mind.

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

K: I only want to say that (one's 'consciousness' or ? ) 'mind' as long as it is functioning within the field of thought is limited.

B: You mean 'consciousness' ?

K: Yes, (the field of one's ) consciousness is limited.

B: We say it is limited by these faculties, wherever they are (located?)

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

B: As far as recognition goes, people are even making ( e-) machines that can imitate the process of ( visual & audio) recognition.

K: Of course...

B: You can already recognize simple things by means of a computer.
S: And yet, if I have met you just for a moment, and there was not a sufficient impact of you of that meeting image, I will next week pass you by and not recognize you.

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

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 this recording could give rise to a recognition from the next experience. The next time you see the person the recording is compared with the existing one...

K: So our brains are (functioning as ) computers.

R: I should say, no : the (physical) brain may be the basis - why do you only say brain, why not the whole body, whole heart, without heart can you think?

K: No...We said (previously that?) the 'mind' contains the brain, the feelings, the heart, the whole structure. We are using the term 'mind' as 'consciousness', which is I cannot have consciousness if the heart doesn't function.

R: That is why I used 'mental faculty' - the mind has the power, the capacity, the potentiality, to do all that. And those are different aspects of the whole thing.

B: The faculty is inborn ?

R: Inborn, innate, in itself has the power. And you can't ask why and from where.

K: The 'mind' is the active (life-) energy to do all this.
I know the very simple (experiential) thing that without recording there is no thought.

R: That means that thought is ( the response of?) memory.

K: Of course. Thought is memory, which is experience, which is knowledge, stored up - it doesn't matter where, and when it is challenged it operates.

B: Well we have also said thought is the ability to reason logically and along with the memory, you have what you have called faculties.

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

B: But without memory none of the other faculties could operate.

K: Of course. So what is the origin, the beginning of this (time-binding) conditioning? The instinctual response of a human being is to feel secure, like a child, obviously. Now, from that ( natural need for) physical security we turn to psychological security, to find ( mental) comfort in some illusion. So each one of us clings to our own particular form of security, whether it is reasonable, sane, rational, that doesn't matter.

B: It seems to me that (our need for psychological security) is similar to the pleasure question, that is you register the feeling of pleasure and then try to build it up.

R: But where are we going (in our dialogue?) ?

K: We haven't yet discussed the central issue : what is ( one's right) action without this enormous complex of motives, reactions, regrets, pain, sorrow. Can a human live in (the real world of) action without all this dreadful confusion? Is there is a (holistic way of) action without any shadow of effort and regret. It is vitally important to find it out because I don't want to enter into the cage, the rat race. So what is right action under all circumstances, which doesn't depend on circumstances ? I put away all those influences or pressures, a way of action which is complete in itself. Which means : can I observe myself wholly, not in fragments? So is there an action which is whole? I say, yes, there is, definitely. Don't you ask me, what is that?

R: What is that?

K: First of all, (as contemplative homework) 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 the word 'totally' what is the meaning?

K: As a whole. Can I see you as a whole being? Can I see (the whole consciousness of?) humanity as ( being ) myself, which is the whole? That's good enough. Can I see humanity as myself? Because (the collective consciousness of) humanity is like me, suffering, miserable, confused, agony, terrified, insecure, sorrow-ridden . So in seeing man, humanity, I see myself.

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

K: It doesn't matter whether you say, I see myself as humanity, or the humanity is me. So I see the world as myself, which is (an insightful perception of the ) whole. Would that be right sir?

B: It is not very 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, right !

S: I think that " seeing as a whole", really means that the fallacy of the self, has clearly been seen into and has been broken down (dissolved?) , because otherwise however much I want to see the tree as a whole it is still my ( dualistic) thought operating

K: That is the ultimate thing. But can you see your husband, wife, or girl friend, as a whole being? You can, can't you? How does that happen when you can see somebody wholly?

S: Tremendous warmth ?

K: If you (look at that tree with?) 'love', you will see it wholly. Similarly can I see as a whole?) that I 'am' the ( total consciousness of the?) world ? And I can only 'see myself as a whole' when I actually 'am' the rest of mankind.

B: You mean that essentially I am the same as the whole world ?

K: Essentially, as a human being. Then there is no ( question of my) 'individual' effort, or of a 'collective' effort. When one sees oneself (with loving & compassionate intelligence?) 'as a whole', the parts disappear, therefore the 'self' is not. Sir, even when I look at that tree, I can only see it completely if I don't condemn, if I don't say, "It's 'my' tree, it's 'my' garden." You understand what I am saying?

R: Yes, yes.

K: So when I (look with?) love at that tree, I see it as a whole. So all trees I love.

B: So, it is not just this tree that you love.

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

B: So the particular aspects don't matter...

K: That's it.

S: So, looking with love at that tree or 'seeing it as a whole because I love it', is the same (holistic) perceptive act.

K: I raised this question of 'seeing wholly' because we were asking what is (the holistically friendly) action which is not fragmented, not broken up as a that of the 'artist', 'lecturer', or 'professor' - an action which is total (complete in itself?) .

B: So, ( in a nutshell:) you are saying : see the 'self-(identified' consciousness?) 'as a whole' and it will not be there ?

K: Yes, sir....

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

K: That is a 'dangerous' ( slippery ?) statement, because that is what the advertising people say, ''love your hair, use this shampoo''...

B: Could you say instead you are mankind, you ( look with?) love (at all) mankind?

K: Ah, now, be careful !

B: Because the analogy seems too limited ?

K: Analogies are limited.

S: So are the words in themselves.

K: Any more questions, sir? We will stop unless you have any more questions.

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

K: We have to thank all the people who were present here...

S: So, we all thank each other.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Fri, 29 May 2020 #302
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

1ST BRAIN SEMINAR

( A 'reader -friendly' edited K Dialogue , cca 1984)

A: I would like to introduce Dr.Shainberg (Mr B) , a psychiatrist from the United States. Dr.Peat ( Mr C) a physicist & (science ) writer from Canada. Professor Bergstrom (Mr D) is a neuro-physiologist at the University of Helsinki, Finland, Professor Varela (Mr F) is a neuro-biologist at the Max Planck Institute for brain research in Frankfurt and I ( Mr A ) am a neuro-biologist & (a temporary a BPk) teacher.
One important instrument in the understanding of the brain has been ( the scientific ) thinking and I was wondering if we could discuss whether this can help us to understand the brain, and the complexity of human life.

K: To approach (experientially?) this very, very complex problem, one should approach it very 'simply' - without any (personal) motive, just to watch (observer-free?) the whole (mental) complexity of oneself - what is the operation of thought, how thought arises, what is the cause of it, the origin of thought, the ( self-sustained ?) momentum of thought and the limitation of thought.

B: You mean observing only ( the movement of) thought and its psychological reactions, or do you mean perception as well?

K: Yes, perception, surely.

B: And the use of language?

K: Surely. Linguistics, all that. The whole complexity of human endeavours, actions and feelings, all that, imagination, the whole content of that.

E: Well, there seems to be a fundamental distinction between observing without the 'me', and the creation of a model, a theory, a law, whatever. Would that endeavour be out in the approach you are proposing?

K: Is it necessary to have a theory and model to see what is actually going on?

E: I wouldn't say it is (absolutely?) necessary in order to see what is going on (within your own brain) . But it seems to be necessary if one is asking questions beyond the (act of direct ) seeing.

A: Well, you introduced the question of (a direct, non-verbal) observation as different from theorizing about something. So, perhaps it would be good to clarify what we mean by observing something (holistically?) .

K: Doesn't it imply to observe free (of one's ages long self-centred?) conditioning?

A: Well, this ( totlly 'holistic'?) point doesn't seem for me so clear because whenever I am looking at something there seems to be a (mental) separation between my observing and that something. There seems to be this ( observer-observed?) division in the brain.

K: Isn't this (self-protective ) division between the 'seer' and (what is being?) seen, between the 'thinker' and the thought (process) , the 'experiencer' and the ongoing experience, due to our ( survival-oriented ?) conditioning?

B: I would like to know what is the relationship between the theory and the (direct) observation?

K: I don't think there is any ( need for such a ?) theory.

B: Well, therefore the ( self-knowing ?) endeavour you are proposing would be a radical departure from the models of (scientific) knowledge in the western world ?

K: Yes sir. In ( one's inward) observing why should I have a theory about it?

E: There is (thought's) natural inquisitiveness that leads one into building a theory, and this is what interests me in ( the field of neuro) science - this inquisitiveness into how can we understand that, or how can we have a representation of the process where that comes up?
Also, it is not very clear whether are we talking about perception only as 'psychological' (inward) perception. For instance, Mr Krishnamurti implied that it is possible to explore the whole mechanism of 'seeing' this glass of water just by observing oneself doing it. All the other scientists would say that can't be possibly be true. There must be many levels of operation which are purely mechanical at the level of the eye and the optic nerve, of which we never can have any direct experience. We must be aware of every level of the process.

D: From the point of view of the brain specialist , there are two kinds of brains. The 'whole brain', which sees red or blue and so on; and the 'physiological brain' which consists of its (biologically active sub-)parts, the cells, molecules and so on. The physiologist looks, and here comes the theory, experimenting, dissecting, and so on, looks at the brain which consists of the parts. But then, we also have to consider the brain which perceives, which (acts as) an unitary 'self', or whatever the individual calls itself, and that is another way. I always think that we have to distinguish between those two : the theoretical brain, with fragments, parts and so on, and the other view will be considering the human brain as a whole.

K: Sir, why do we need to divide the (functioning of the ) brain at all? Why not treat it as a whole movement?

C: I don't have anything against that, but we need a 'holistic theory' of observation , which deals with the brain as a totality.

K: Not a 'holistic theory', but ( the direct perception of 'what is' ?) .

A: I think the necessity for creating a theoretical model consists in organizing the observable facts that you have. You have to give a certain logical (connexion) to the facts that you are accumulating. And I think Professor Varela said something very interesting, when you take for example a child : from the very beginning his natural (cognitive) tendency is to discover new things and to attribute meaning to these things.

E: What I mean by a holistic theory is a theory that has built in itself the awareness of brain's inward fragmentation.
K: Can we put it this way: one is aware that ( inwardly) we are fragmented human beings - right? ( But even when) we are trying to bring all those fragments of together, that doesn't make the whole.

A: We started by saying that can the brain ( can try to) understand itself, but what does that mean really? Is it possible that thought can understand the brain?

K: Would you say, sir, the brain is the ( processing?) centre of thought, feelings, physical responses, biological responses. And also the brain is the centre of one's (self-centred ) 'consciousness', fears, pleasures, anxiety, all that, sorrow, the whole of that consciousness is ( located?) in the brain. It is not out there.

B: I am afraid I would have to disagree. I don't think that thought or consciousness is in the brain. That this is precisely one the greatest mistakes...It is neither outside nor inside, there is a quality of relationship which thought...

K: Then we have ( to go back to square one and ?) to enquire what is thought. Can we begin with that (experiential detour?) ?

E: Yes, let's do that.

K: So, what is (the process of) thinking? Thought is emerging from where?
I want to know the (root ) cause of this whole movement.

E: The only answer I can give is that the source of thought is in an unlimited (inward ?) space which is beyond thought.

K: Sir, you just now said thought is born, comes into being - right? It must have some causation.

E: Yes, but in order to see the causation I have to put myself out from thought.

K: We ought to enquire whether it is possible to observe the causation without the 'observer', who is the ( result of the operation of thought in the ) outside (reality) - right? Can the root causation be observed without the 'observer', the witnesser, which means the observer, the person who perceives ?

C: Say that again.

K: I'll put it another way. There is a perception of you sitting there and I sitting here. When I see you, as you have been introduced to me before, all the ( collateral) memory of it, it is ( acting as) the 'observer'. Can I look at you without ( my previous) knowledge of you? Of course I can.

E: Yes, you can.

K: Of course. Therefore the observer 'is' (in direct contact with what is) the observed - there is no ( mental screen of) separation. There is separation only when there is the 'observer' (feels ) different from the observed.

E: So that is an ( 'observer'-free inner ?) observation.

K: That is the real observation, without the observer. The 'observer' is the ( result of one's ) past memory, knowledge, experience. Can't one look at something without (with eyes that are free from the accumulated knowledge of ) the past? Of course it is possible. And when there is no (such knowledgeable) 'observer' what is ( the directly perceptive?) action?

A: I would like to come back to the question that our brain is normally doing (unawarely) this separation between ( its perceptive action and) what is observed.

K: That may be (due to our survival-oriented ?) tradition, that may be part of our ( ego-centric ) education, that may be we have been told from childhood that is different from you, you are different from me.

C: So, when you were introduced to him your (knowledge-free) perception of him at that instant, was an observation without the observer. Then now when you look at him the next time...

K: ...the brain begins to ( instinctively) accumulate knowledge about him. He says he won't work here anymore, so I say, "By Jove, is he..." you know all the rest of it. But my point is, to put it much simpler: not to record (all this psychologically motivated stuff?) .

C: But in this example you did record it...

K: I did but that ( psycho-recording) is very simple (to discard?) . So, if in my relationship with you all, I have recorded ( & stored it in the permanent files of my psychological memory ?) then that recording becomes the 'observer'; while if there is no ( 'storing-for-further-use' of that?) recording there is only seeing, observing.

C: What if the brain is recording it (unconsciously?) .

K: (If?) I know ( become aware of the operation of this subliminal ) mechanism of recording, is it possible not to record?

C: Yes, we have agreed that it is possible to observe without recording.

K: Is that a theory or an ( experiential) actuality?

C: Yes, it is possible.

K: No, the moment you say 'it is possible' you have made it into a theory.

B: I think we have to agree it is a theory for most of us.

C: I don't think we are being (100%) honest. We are just saying yes, but we don't really believe in really doing that...

A: You see for a person doing science one could say that this division between the observer and the observed is necessary when you are dealing with some experimental outside world. But it doesn't necessarily follow that psychologically we are doing exactly the same.

K: I understand sir. After all, as a human being with the result of fifty thousand years of tremendous accumulation of knowledge, experience, all that, I 'am' ( mentally identified with that dualistic attitude ?) . And that (outwardly directed mentality) is separating itself constantly when looking at something else,.

E: Yes, let's but let's go slowly : this separation has to be sustained by an ongoing process (of thought) which has constant breakdowns. And the point of those breakdowns my perception of you right now is having gaps or flashes of this 'observer'.

K: I say : why is this ( observer-observed) contradiction (going on) all the time ?

E: This is precisely my point : why do we have to see an (ongoing) contradiction there?

K: One can explain it. If I will meet you again tomorrow morning I can't be introduced to you again : so, at that ( superficial) level (the objective recording) is necessary ? But at a deeper (psychological) level, why should I carry all the memory of meeting you, why should there be a ( long term?) recording of it at all ? I meet you, finished.

E: Therefore both of them are necessary.

K: Yes, at one level.

C: I have never heard you use those words 'level'. What do you mean by 'levels' and what is the relationship between 'levels' in your terms?

K: I think it is fairly 'simple'...

C: Well, (supposing ?) I am 'stupid' and I don't understand ?

E: That makes two of us!

K: Sir, ( on the ) physical (materially objective lever?) to do anything I must have a great deal of information, knowledge and accumulated memory and so on. Right? But (in the) 'psychological' ( deeper levels of one's consciousness ) , why should there be accumulation?

A: Yes, but if I have properly understood what you were saying, even when you say that the brain does not (need to) record (all the psychologically motivated stuff?) there is still a process of recognition, which necessarily must involve certain levels of memory.

K: We said that...

A: So what do you mean by, when the brain does not record?

K: Is that possible first of all psychologically not to (keep those ) records? You understand my question? You say something brutal to me, why should I record it? This recording is the self.

B: We could say there could be no (knowledgeable) perception without the accumulation of facts and this accumulation includes the actual structure of the brain that has evolved over millions of years, and that is in a sense a form of memory. So without it there is no (conscious) perception and this is something that always continues. And is this different from what you're calling 'psychological' recording?

K: Sir, we made it clear just now that we need knowledge - if I am a carpenter I need a great deal of knowledge. The quality of the wood, the grain and the instruments, and so on and so on. That is necessary, otherwise we can't live. But at the inward level...

C: What is the 'inward' level ?

K: The feeling, the psyche...

B: Is there a connection between the two? Are you pulling the two apart and saying that is the psychological, that's the practical?
K: No, no. I see where knowledge is necessary, but I am questioning whether inwardly, psychologically – there should by any (storing of those) recordings at all, since this recording inwardly is ( at the origin of ) the self- divisive process , the me and the not me, which is creating havoc in the world - right? That's all. Can this 'psychologically motivated mechanism of recording (& storing) which has (instinctively) going on for centuries as the 'me' and the 'not me', stop so that there is no (thought formation of the ?) 'me' inwardly? The 'me' being the (temporal) self and all the rest of it, that's all. This has been not only a question for the (holisticaly minded?) scientists, but for the serious (spiritually mature?) religious people. The real religious people have said, can there be no self(ishness?) at all, and live in this world, not go off into monasteries or run away to some kind of (spiritual) entertainment. Actually live without (thought's identification with?) the 'self'. Which requires the further statement : is it possible not to record inwardly, psychically, and all that? I say it is possible.

D: There is I think a stage in the very early development of the child, where possibly an (innocent?) child can have this.

K: But you see, (this self-centred tendency is?) already in the (collective consciousness of the?) child. Give him a toy and when you try to take it back he says, "It is mine".

D: But I think before that stage, a child at one or two years, but then comes the time when it is mine, but I think they live together, they are one with the mother and so on, so there might be...

K: Sir, I have read somewhere, or been told by scientists who are looking at the babies that the babies already know when a visitor is friendly to the mother or not.

D: Yes...

K: Already, you understand sir? By the (psychical) atmosphere, by the feeling, or just by (intuitively ) seeing the (behaviour of the ) mother.

E: But one of the reasons why your challenging question has so many sides to it, for a brain researcher, as a scientist, it seems reasonable to say that the brain is organized so as to construct a 'stable (image of the) world', therefore to solidify, to be caught in it , to use your own words . That is what brain's recording process is there for...

K: I understand sir...

E: I mean this is what the whole history (of earthly life) has been. Now it is only when it comes to human beings where this question is posed. Then we can ask ourselves the question, is this 'no (storing of psychological) recording' possible, looks like swimming against the current of natural history, as it were.

C: Of evolution ?

E: Of evolution. Because all the natural history goes the other way. And even if the possibility (of no recording?) arises it seems impossible to unlearn evolutionary wise so as to come to the state of living in the world without recording, without self, and yet be a functional human being, able to brush your teeth.

K: Of course. I said that.

E: I know, but my feeling is that this is a question that can only be answered by exploring it from the actual experience of human beings. And the (spiritual) history (of mankind) seems to say, yes, it is possible. We have examples and we know people who seem to have done that. Now from a point of view of what that ( paradigm shift ) implies for the average brain is a fascinating point.

K: Therefore could we put the question differently? The brain has evolved through time, centuries, a million years of evolution and it is probably at its highest level, (accumulating ) as much as (much knowledge & experience) as it can. And that involves (a steady evolution in) time, duration.(But inwardly speaking?) what is time? Unless we understand what is (the inward process of the thought projected ) time, mankind's ( self-centred evolution) can go on indefinitely - right? So, what is this (thought-generated?) time, apart from (measuring it by) the clock? Time is the (memory of the?) past and (its updating in the ) present and ( thought projecting it into a virtual?) future. So (the whole mechanism of the thought generated?) time is contained in the 'now', all time. So the future is now.

E: Yes... ?

K: No, sir, it is not a theory. The (though-projected) 'future' is now and the (active memory of the) past is now - right? Then what is (brain's trully creative) action? If action is (defined in terms of) , "I will do", the future, or "I have done", it is not action. Action is now. The very word 'act' means now - right? So can the brain which has evolved (along thought's self-centred timeline?)...

E: The ( rather scholastic?) description of saying the brain has evolved, is already the trap.

K: We said it is a fact. I am not denying that. But if psychologically there is no radical revolution (now) tomorrow we will be be exactly, (or slightly) modified, as today.

C: I would like to come back to where we were at the very beginning of this because I see a connection here between the so-called inward level and action. At the beginning we talked about the fact that imminent in that inward action is (the self-centred interference of ) thought which separates. Now that's where time gets in...

K: Yes sir, that is what we are saying. We are saying (the time-bound process of?) thought is limited.

C: Yes, but what I am trying to get at is the fact that out of the inward level comes thought. Now the question is what is the relationship of that movement, that action to thought?

K: I don't quite follow you.

C: In other words, in the state of observation without the observer, the action is imminent within a thought.

K: No sir. The observer 'is' the observed. That is a tremendous (experiential) fact which changes the whole way of living. There is no division as the observer and the observed, therefore no conflict. And to live that way, which means total eradication of (the mentality of self-centred ) conflict, upon which the human brain has evolved. You follow?

E: Yes...

K: So when the observer 'is' (not dividing itself from) the facts that are being observed and therefore no ( dualistic) conflict, there is a radical (qualitative ) change in the (physical) brain. A whole (psychological) mutation takes place, if I can use that word.

E: Yes, but this mutation also implies ( a certain evolution of the brain in ) time.

K: No, in a mutation - biologically as well as inwardly- there is a radical revolution, because the brain has lived for forty (or ++++ ?) thousand years with (a dualistic mentality of) conflict.

E: Now can I ask you what is the connection between that possibility...

K: You see, I wouldn't use the word 'possibility'.

E: OK, between that actuality, and the question you posed at the beginning: can I observe my brain without tearing it apart ?

K: Yes and without (theoretical text ?) books.

E: How do these two things relate in the seeing of 'what is'.

K: By seeing exactly 'what is' (actually going on?)

E: And you have also said, there is the actuality of an everpresent 'nowness' where the observer is the observed.

K: Sir, do you realize what that means?

E: I do...but it comes and goes.

K: So, to you it is a theory. Forgive me, I am not being personal. It is a theory.

E: Well sometimes it is not. It (is a subliminal perception that) comes and goes.

K: No, it can't.

E: Why not?

K: Sir, to make it simple, when you see (inwardly ) something (that is really ?) dangerous, it is finished. You don't say, "I'll go and play with something dangerous", it is over.

E: No, but you can see an (incoming speeding ) car coming and get out of the way.

K: But (inwardly speaking ) you can't each time ( expecting) see a (thought created danger ?) coming & keep out of the way all the time.

E: Sir, you are telling me that it is not possible to learn (about a psychological danger?) by having a glimpse of something. When you have the glimpse your attention is ( all present) there, and then something else happens that takes you off. But there is a possibility of building on the continuity of the glimpse. Why does it have to be a 'black or white' situation  ?

K: Don't put it as 'black and white'. There is total division.

A: I think you are saying that the moment when you have an ( global) insight into that (psychological danger) it is obviously not ( a mechanical action of) memory somehow.

E: It is actuality. But then it becomes memory, then it becomes actuality again.

K: Back and forth ? No...

E: How is it then?

K: Sir, look, I will put it ( metaphorically ?) very simply, ( inwardly-wise ) I have been going 'north' for the last forty thousand years. And you ( the world teacher?) come along and say, look that way goes nowhere, so go south, or east, or west. At the very movement of moving away from going north to south, in that second the (whole mentality of the perceptive) cells of the brain has changed, because it has been accustomed to going there...

E: So is this ( possibility of a sudden inner change?) available to human beings?

K: Oh yes, if they pay (to it an undivided loving?) attention.

E: Yes, but this is precisely my point that in my own experience...

K: They don't. ..

C: Yes, why don't they?

K: Sir, that is simple enough (to explain verbally ?) . They have so many (self-centred ) interests, so many. First of all that they have to earn a (decent ) livelihood, not (to mention?) a dozen (or more of collectively created ?) problems.

E: So here is our ( going nowhere?) man, walking for forty thousand years to the north, and then you come along and say it is possible to walk south. And for the first time he turns around and looks around . But in my observation of both the natural world and in myself, I may say, (at least for now?) I have to go north and maybe (further down the road ?) I can ( afford to turn around & ) go south. There is this kind of process until one finds a permanent or reorientation.

K: Now, why do we do this? I'll show you in a minute. I have been going north and you come and tell me, look don't go that way, it is ( a way of life which is inwardly dull & ?) stupid, go east. But I am not quite sure whether you are right because I have been used to going north.

E: That's right...

K: Wait. There is this ( inertial ?) attraction to 'going north', which I have been going on for forty thousand years and although what you're saying seems sane, the (collective inertia of this ?) 'attraction' goes on, which means what? I have not really 'listened' to what you have said. But if I have listened to you very, very carefully I'll say, ''By Jove, I'll I go east, I forget north''. It all depends whether you (Mr K) are speaking the truth or a theory.

E: I understand. But again I go back to why that kind of complete communication doesn't happen ?

K: Because it is really very simple sir : By going north you have found ( the inner comfort of psychological ?) security.

C: But that's not ( even) true.

K: Yes sir, but don't just reject it. Look at it a bit more closely. Sir, to change a physical habit is ( may be?) fairly simple, but (to change a subliminally engrammed ?) psychological habit demands a much greater ( holistically intelligent amount of ) energy.

C: Then, what is it that would break the ( inertial) habit of memory?

K: Sir ( our factual) memory is necessary - to write a letter, to read a book, to drive a car, linguistic communication, all that is necessary. But inwardly why should there be all this ( psychologically motivated?) memory carried on: what you said to me, why you hurt me - you follow? All that stuff, throw it out.

C: That's very simplistic, ''just throw it out'', but in fact, we don't.

K: It may sound 'simplistic' but it is not. If you are really serious, the whole ( perceptive quality of your ) being is different. It is no longer ( seen as) a theory, it is a fact. I think we are 'cursed' with theories – sorry!

E: If I look back at the greatest and most alive spiritual traditions, they all have been concerned with is coming up with skilful means to constantly open up, reopen up that (inward) communication (with Truth?) because human beings seem to be incapable of actually sustaining that communication except in the most extraordinary cases.

K: Why?

E: The only thing I can say as a biologist is that there is just too much (residual memory of the ) 'past'.

K: Yes sir...

E: And it takes a long time for (this radical paradigm?) change to occur. There is no way we can change that fast.

K: I know that argument. Wait for another twenty thousand years! You don't say that to a person who is suffering, or who is frightened due to lack of ( material) security...

C: Wait a second. You just said that I don't change because I am finding security in the north, but I am not really finding ( any authentic) security in the (going) north.

K: I 'think' I am.

C: I just think that I am. Now what is (involved in) the understanding of the false security? In other words how am I going to understand that it is a false security? You tell me I am going north and you say 'go east' and I say, this is fine by me, but why should I listen to you that ( going east ) is any better?

B: I will tell you what I think, why one listens for glimpses, and then frightens back, it is because the security (of going north) is constantly based on this sense of struggle, which is painful. Therefore, what allows the communication of the alternative to happen is that it seems better. It is as simple as that.

K: But would you grant that human beings want security?

B: Yes.

K: The brain can't function as its highest ( level of intelligent) energy if it is not feeling (basically) secure. So where is found this basic security? Either it is an thought-sustained illusion, or in a bank account, or in my relation to somebody, or I may seek security in ( my belief in?) God, in some faith, in some belief – although all that (security is ) illusory . But my brain is wanting ( a profound sense of ) security.

A: The brain finds ( this illusory) security in memory and thought but why is that?

K: Of course, the (physical) brain is (instinctively) searching for security somewhere – right?

C: My perspective is slightly different in the sense that the brain is not only searching for security, but the brain is offering itself security in the (thought process) process ( which is creating) its actual insecurity.

K: Yes sir. Agreed.

C: But that means that we are stepping on our own toes all the time.

K: That is what I am saying. You invent ( a certain image of) 'God' and then worship 'God'.

E: But it is like a body which has been falling for twenty thousand metres and five metres before the ground he cannot say, 'Stop!' He can say, it is stupid that I am falling, but there is this 'mass of inertia' and so on. And the experience of man's past has been that that kind of complete communication of completely grasping the craziness of keeping on going north, has to go through that flicker and if the learning is stabilizing that flicker until one internalizes that. It might take a whole life time, or whatever.

K: That's the whole point. Going north has taken a very long time. And also you need time to ( turn around & ) go east. So we think that time is necessary ( for such a radical) change.

C: No, I don't think that. I think we need to come to a (global) awareness (of our 'going north') . The thing I object to in what you are saying is that you are implying that we can (just) 'see' it, and I am saying that we are so caught in 'stepping on our own toes' that we will never get out of it ; so we have to somehow come to terms with what we are.

K: Yes sir. Let's begin again ( from experiential 'square one' :) ! First of all I would like to ask: do we see (the inward truth that the self-centred process of ) thought is limited? Which means that our ( whole survivalistic ) experience & knowledge is limited - so whatever it does is limited. Technologically or inwardly, it is limited - right? And ( its self-centred) limitation must inevitably cause conflict & division - right? And therefore is it possible for thought to operate only where it is necessary and not operate in other directions?

D: Is there something ( in the totality of our consciousness) which is not limited?

K: Maybe, but you can only find that out if thought has found its proper place and is not (interfering in any ) other place.

D: May I say that in the Finnish language ( there is an alternative ) word for knowledge : to 'embrace' . In the Finnish language to 'know' would be to go along a road and not to know anything else, but then ( there is a holistically friendly word for ) understanding in Finnish, is 'embrace', or go around ; therefore the brain has two ways of thinking : the knowledge is really to go a particular way, to search and search and search, but then it has a ( capacity of global) understanding that is : to 'embrace' ( to see the totality of an issue) .

K: Wouldn't you use a different word – insight ? I have an insight (that my ) 'going north' is futile, and a (sudden enlightening) insight says 'go East' and I move (ASAP?) . There is no time interval between the (insight & the actual ) movement.

B: Yes, but you just asked a question a moment ago: can we have thought to take its proper place ? Now when you say ''I have the insight to go east and I do it'', to be respectful to thought is also to realize that it is in the nature of thought to obscure that insight, to fill it with ( a mental imitation created by) thought.

K: Of course, then it is not 'insight'...

E: And the brain continues to 'go north'.

K: It is not ( an authentic) 'insight'.

B: Well, maybe it was for a moment and then it was occluded ?

K: You are repeating the same thing...

E: Well we are all going around the central question: what is the basis from which you are saying that in that insight all thought would be put into its right place without the (inwardly interfering) 'flickering' ?

K: First of all we ought to discuss what is the meaning of the word 'insight'. To have 'sight in something'. An insight implies no ( mental detour by ) memory, no time, a instant perception (of the inward truth or falseness of something ) . Say for instance that I see the futility of any ('thought-) organised' religion . That's over, there is no going back to the temple, or to the church, or to another (more charismatic ?) guru, it is finished. I realise that those are all forms of ( spiritual?) entertainment really, so...(if?) I don't want to be 'entertained' that it is finished. Wiped out. And this is a 'fact' to me because I have done it. It 'is' so. Right? Or take any other ( psychologically motivated?) factor which human beings cling to, like this terrible ( trend of) 'nationalism'. To be (psychologically identified as) a 'Hindu', or a 'Muslim' - right? So I have finished with it. So can one move that way (of 'non-attachment') , all through life?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 30 May 2020 #303
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

2ND ('reader-friendly' edited) BRAIN SEMINAR ( 1984)

A: Yesterday we opened up the Seminar by asking whether thought can help us to understand the ( inward functioning of the human ) brain and we went into the question of whether it is possible for the brain to not have psychological recording. And finally we opened up very briefly the question of 'insight'. But this question doesn't seem so clear : whether the (meditating?) brain can be in a state of 'not recording'. Perhaps that might need a little bit of clarification. What do you think?

K: Sir, I would like to ask whether we are discussing it theoretically, or actually - in the sense of functioning with facts. 'Facts' being that which has happened, that which is happening , not with what may happen.

E: So is the brain such a 'fact' ?

K: Of course. Because it is functioning (right now) - in the sense that it wants to communicate something verbally, and also perhaps non-verbally.

E: All right, so our (shared) communication is a 'fact' ?

K: Is a fact.

E: But when you describe (verbally) that the brain is doing something or other, that is a theoretical inference.

K: That is a fact.

E: Not necessarily because when the brain is associated to communication thee is an inference through a long series of observations which are not happening right now.

K: Of course, but we said that the 'fact' is what has been (going on ) and what is happening now.

D: May I ask if you mean that 'insight' has really something to do with brain? Or would it be apart from brain?

K: Are we discussing insight, or are we establishing first whether we are theoretically discussing, or discussing - I have pain, suppose I have pain.

C: That's the (ongoing) 'fact'.

E: OK, and how are we going to address such a 'fact'?

K: ( By seeing) how am I going to be free of my (existential) pain? That's all I am concerned with.

C: You have made a 'jump' though. First you have your pain, that is your 'fact'.

K: The fact is that I am in pain And also there is the fact that there must be freedom from the pain.

C: What do you mean 'there must be'?

K: It is ( part of) human nature.

A: What K might (probably meant to) say, is you see when you are in pain you somehow want to get rid of it.

C: The thing I am trying to say is that the ( actual) fact is this (sense of existential) pain, the next fact is...

K: ...is also wanting to get rid of it.

C: Ah, that's two facts.

K: Those are both facts.

C: Right. Those are the (simultaneously ongoing) facts.

K: But wait a minute. Are we discussing (theoretically) about pain, or not having pain ?

E: I would like to discuss pain as a fact. But when you used the word brain as related to pain -isn't that an inference ?

K: If the brain didn't function (disorderly?) I wouldn't know what pain was.

E: Maybe I am not understanding you correctly, but when you say, "I experience pain", it is clear to all of us that this is a fact hapening now. Now I come around and say, "Pain has to do with ( the inward functioning of the?) brain". Now to juxtapose these two words, 'brain' and 'pain' has a long series of intermediate steps, which required work from the past of people who actually pointed out the existence of such a thing as brain, which is not something we are doing now. So if you see what I am saying, the moment I invoke the word 'brain', I am bringing with it a huge edifice of inferences and relationships which are not (actually observed right ) now.

K: Yes, sir, which is all the ( factual memory of the ) past.

E: So how is the fact that you use the word brain now consistent with your desire to deal only with present facts? Could you clarify that?

K: I don't quite follow...

E: May I phrase it some other way? You are trying correctly, as far as I am concerned, to establish the 'ground' of what are we dealing with. And you say, can we deal with facts now and not theories about things. Fine. So the next moment you say 'brain', which I am claiming cannot be said unless we invoke theories.

K: I agree.

E: OK ; so how are these two things consistent?

K: The brain is the result of long evolution – right?

E: That is also a theory.

K: No, it is a 'fact'.

E: Can we say that from what we are experiencing now?

K: That (evolution of the brain ) is a fact.

B: If I have a pain in my hand, there is a pain. But ( for knowledgeable people ) to talk about the brain is to talk about something they have read in a textbook. There are a lot of nerve cells and...

K: Yes sir, if I had no brain I wouldn't feel it - the nerves and all the rest of it.

E: That you don't know from the observations you are having now. I don't experience the nerves, the neuronal connections...

K: I said the ( scientific experience of the ) past with all the memories, etc. etc. are also facts.

C: That's a jump. What we are saying is that really all you have is the fact of your pain, and then you have the fact that you want to be free of the pain.

K: That's all.

C: But when you make the statement, "the brain is responsible for the experience of pain", you have entered a whole new world of ( holistic) language. When you're using the word 'brain' it connects you to (all the past ) assumptions that people have made about what a brain is, what a brain does.

K: I know nothing about all that.

C: Well then you can't use the word. All you have got as fact is pain and that is all you have got.

K: All right, all I have is (a deep existential) pain and also the fact I must be free of pain. All right, let's proceed from there.

E: So, if we have to evoke the 'brain', we'll have to jump out of the immediate experience of now.

K: Yes, sir, agree.

A: Could we say that whatever goes on inside the brain is the 'fact' - whether it is an illusion, whether it is a pain, or so on, but perhaps the difference is whether it is actually taking place in this moment or not.

K: Is that it?

B: When you have the pain which is the fact, and the fact of you wanting to be rid of the pain, does knowledge and science have anything to do with the very next step?

E: What is the relationship between the actual fact and our knowledge ?

K: Keep it to that. At last! What is the relationship between what is happening now - pain, and knowledge. What do we mean by knowledge? Knowledge is the accumulation of various experiences, incidents. And all those experiences that can be enormous or very small. have become knowledge which stored in the brain as memory. And from that ( arises) thought.

E: Yes, absolutely. But I would add that all scientific knowledge is accumulated by language agreement between people : This is the scientifically observed fact, do we agree ? Yes we agree and so we put it aside and move to the next 'fact' . But also here comes in a whole network of assumptions and presuppositions.

K: Knowledge is all that. Now what is the relationship of all this (accumulated) knowledge to (man's psychological?) pain? If there was no knowledge I would have no pain.

E: Can you go more slowly please?

K: So there is all this accumulated knowledge, and what is the relationship of that knowledge to one's (inward) action? Is this action born of knowledge?

A: It seems to be that way.

K: Apparently it seems so - right?

E: Your ( holistic?) question is not so clear...I can see that my past knowledge has something to do with it, but not (necessarily) with the direct action, with the manifestation of a present situation.

K: So we have to ( take a brief detour and?) enquire what is 'action' before we (can proceed) . What is (the common acception of) 'action'? Either it is an action according to a memory, to my knowledge from the past, or (a thought-projected?) action in the future, or as an ideal. Either according to the past, or according to the future. Right?

E: But what about the actions that your description doesn't cover? In my experience there are some (spontaneous) actions that seem to be born out of nowhere.

K: We will come to that in a minute. (To recap: mankind's time-bound) action is born from the past memory, or (from thought's projection into ) the future. And that is a limited action.

E: It is limited by the knowledge you have.

K: By the knowledge which you have accumulated, or which the human race has accumulated. And when action is based on the past or on the future that action must invariably be limited.

D: Isn't there another kind of action? I am more interested in that.

K: So is there an action which is not limited (by one's past experience & knowledge) ? Because if action is limited it must create conflict.

E: By definition because you are acting on a limited resource of knowledge.

B: I pick up this glass and drink the water, now is that limited, and does that lead to conflict?

K: No, no...

B: Can't there be an action which is just a simple, mechanical self-contained action which begins and ends and that is the end of it?

E: OK, why is thought's limited action leading to conflict?

K: I am going to explain why. If I am thinking about myself all day long, which most people do, it is a very small action, a limited action. Right? When I am associated or identified with a nation, it is a very small action. One of the reasons of war is nationalism, based on economic division, and so on and so on. ( In a nutshell:) All these ( self-interest based ) actions are all very limited.

B: Well these are psychological(ly motivated) actions.

K: Even physical actions.

A: It seems that you might have an action even within thought's limitation that can be also be rational, it might not necessarily create conflict.

K: Of course...

A: But I think you are addressing another aspect - when your action is based on the (psychological) limitation there is conflict.

K: Just a minute. When I am thinking about myself, I am digging a hole for myself. Right? When I am thinking about my future, my problems, you follow, it is all self-enclosed, small.

A: So it is (thought self-centred?) limitation that creates conflict.

K: Yes, naturally.

E: So, when the knowledge has the 'me' as reference point it will always create conflict ?

K: That's all.

E: But does it have to have the 'me' as reference by necessity? Or is there a possibility of an action or understanding, which does not have the 'me' has a reference point?

K: There may be, but we are talking about a much wider issue. If I am a scientist and I am only concerned with my career, with my investigation, with my research, you follow, and it is a very small affair. And I don't care of what happens outside in the world.

E: But is that only a limitation of (my self-centred) thought or... ?

K: It is a limitation of thought, limitation of capacity, limitation of environment. I ( holistically) include everything.

E: I understand what you are saying, but again you seem to me to be shifting from the general nature of knowledge to the nature of a particular kind of knowledge.

K: We started by asking 'what is knowledge', and I said, what relationship has our action to knowledge...

E: And you said that every action born of knowledge is limited and it creates conflict.

K: Yes, because knowledge is limited.

E: Yes, we agree it is limited, but jumping from here to the conclusion that such actions necessarily lead to conflict, you're implying a particular quality of knowledge which is, the self-centred knowledge. I can see the conflict arising only when this knowledge is having an absolute reference point to such as 'me'.

K: I said this, sir.

E: The division between action and knowledge in itself is not conflictive. It the division plus a solid reference point that makes the division divisive.

C: Suppose you work in the laboratory and your knowledge is limited and you are working on this chemical, or whatever, you forget about everything outside. Now you may say there is no 'self' involved in that but this may imply a lot of conflict for the world : if your starting point is so limited, you don't take into account the whole environment, you don't take into account the implications of what you are doing.

E: OK, so do we agree then that this step from knowledge that is limited and creating divisions or distinctions does not necessarily lead to conflict.

K: Sir, see what is happening in India, or in Beirut.... What has brought about this division?

E: It has been brought about by the ( racial) division plus this sense of 'me being right'.

K: Yes. That's all.

E: I am not denying your point, I entirely see it. But it seems to me that we have to separate the extra factor of one's self-centredness, from knowledge as such. Knowledge as such can exist in a limited way.

K: I understand, the knowledge as such – like in those books.

A: Let's return to the question that ( most of) all our actions seem to be born out of knowledge. There seems...

K: Yes, sir. And as this (self-centred) knowledge is limited, our action is limited and it is one of the main causes of human division, in their relationship : the ( emphasis on ) me, my ideas, my ambition, my competitiveness, my aggression, and so on. This constant division is naturally breeding conflict in the world. That's all.
Now, the next ( holistically friendly ?) question would be : is there an action which is not divisive, which is not limited - how how are we going to find that out?

E: It seems to me that you are asking two questions at the same time. If the hope to find a way in which this strife can be stopped.

K: That's one question.

E: We are fully agreed it is something absolutely essential, necessary. But it seems to me there are two possibilities of answering. One, is the ( 100% holistic) one which you propose, which is: can we have an action which is not born out of limitation? But the other possibility is to say, is there not a possibility of a learning action born out of knowledge, therefore limited, but which is not centred in defending the point of view of 'me' ?

K: Of course, of course...

E: Both are equally valid to me.

K: Of course, both are valid, and both are contained (or implied ?) in this one question.

E: Both are contained in the same question?

K: Of course.

C: But there is another ( collateral) question : one of the things that has come out of the investigation of the brain in a 'scientific' way has been the fact that we never perceive (directly ?) anything except with reference to what we already know.

K: I question that.

C: I know that you question it. But there is some sort of edge of our discussion here, that the only way we can discover an unlimited action is through that kind of situation.

K: Yes sir, but what are you trying to say ?

C: Well I am saying that there is some question among scientists as to whether it is possible to have an action that is not born out of knowledge.

E: There are two separate questions therefore. One is, can we actually discover actions which are unlimited, and two, is that action something that can be possibly related to what science is.

K: To human existence, which is ( a neglected ) part of (modern?) science.

C: You see, we really only know limited action.

K: That's all. And somebody (like Mr K) comes along and says, perhaps there is an action which is not limited. Unless I am totally blind, and deaf and dumb and stupid, I listen to it.

D: I just wanted to go back, to what I was talking yesterday about small children. There is a stage in young children where action is not that limited. It begins of course the limitation then, but in the beginning they have some quality of action which is not that limited. They are open to the whole of their environment, to the family, to other children. They don't distinguish between nationalities...

K: Babies & young children don't. But later on they are 'educated' ( in a 'politically correct' way) ...

D: May I still say one thing: when we grow older we have still this brain of the little child in our mature brain. We have it, we know it, and as I see it we have in our brain this part which can act – not quite unlimited, but not that limited. So as an (open minded) scientist being adult we have to find this childlike view. You understand me?

K: Yes, I understand you. You are also saying the same thing in a different way that there is in all of us a divine spark.

D: Yes, exactly.

K: Please I am not laughing at it. Millions of people feel that there is in them something far superior than this ordinary brain, far superior to ( the limitations of our cultural) environment, economics, etc.

A: K raised a question as to whether there is an action not born out of limitation. Let's continue with the investigation of how can we come to know, this unlimited action, unlimited perception ?

K: So we'll have to explore it. We have come to a point where we have said that an action born of limited knowledge is divisive, and therefore conflict arises where there is division. Then the next question arose: is there an action which is not limited? Now, how are you going to find out?

E: Well, as I said before, from the point of view of the scientific framework there is no way to approach that question. But at the same time, as a human being, by examining my own being...

K: You are a human being, not a scientist. Thank God! We can talk as human beings.

E: I see, I am a human being. But also I happen to have this craft as a scientist.

K: Yes, yes, sir. That is of secondary importance.

E: Secondary important, all right. So, as a human being when I observe my mind I do notice that there are certain actions I do which do not seem to come out of knowledge, but seem to be born out of themselves.

K: We will find out if there is an action which is not - consciously or unconsciously connected with knowledge . The 'self' (centred consciousness) is limited, right? The self is (thriving only in the field of?) knowledge. I'll explain. The 'self' is a bundle of (psychologically active?) memories and as long as that 'self' (-identified entity?) is acting there is limitation. So is there an 'ending' to ( its thought-projected continuity ) ? That is the first question. To end the whole ( psychologically active content of one's?) consciousness, with all its memories, with all its fears, sorrows, pain, anxieties, depression, faith, belief – this whole content of consciousness is the movement of thought. So only when the (time-bound) 'self' ends there is ( the possibility of an) action which is not limited. It is a ( holistically speaking a ) logical step.

B: Yes, absolutely.

K: Can the ( temporal?) 'self' - which is so deceptive, and can hide behind the most holiest things – end ? Sir, the original root meaning of the word 'mantra' means ''to meditate on not becoming'' and also to put away all self-centred activity. ( So, for optional homework, try to?) 'meditate on not becoming', which means that there is no psychological evolution for the 'me'. There is no (more time for the?) 'me' to evolve.

B: Absolutely...

K: So can the (temporal) 'self', which is a whole series of ( psychologically active?) memories, come completely to an end ? Find out! I say it can totally end and live in this world.

E: Well, if indeed it can end, and you are still living in this world, can, for example, this person who has no 'self' drive a car ?

K: Of course there he has to use ( his temporal) self (consciousness?) .

E: But then that means that that knowledge is there.

K: Of course.

E: So that action out of knowledge is limited.

K: Of course...If I have to write a letter a certain amount of ( language) knowledge is is necessary even in writing a stupid letter.

E: Then it's a self-centred action ?

K: It is not.

E: But how could it not be a self-centred action according to your definition of self, it is a bunch of memories ? I have repeated at least a couple of times that to me there was a difference between knowledge, and self-centred knowledge, and that not all knowledge was self-centred knowledge.

K: Wait. I said sir, the ( temporal ?) self is ( thriving in the field of ?) knowledge.

E: Yes, so if there is no 'self' there is no knowledge ?

K: But one can (intelligently?) use it. So we have to ( take a detour & ) enquire into what is ( the nature of compassionate?) 'intelligence'?

E: I am willing to enquire into that, but why do we have to do that?

K: I tell you why : where there is ( this quality of compassionate?) intelligence, that 'intelligence' can use knowledge. But...this intelligence is not born of knowledge.

D: From where is it coming ?

K: What is ( the holistically friendly ?) intelligence? Is it born out of knowledge, born of thought? Sir, it required a tremendous amount of scientific knowledge to go to the Moon. But... that is the intelligence of thought.
E: Yes, and then you are asking the question where does ( the holistically friendly) intelligence come from ? It is an intelligence which seems again to have a quality of coming 'out of nowhere'.

K: So there is the 'ordinary' intelligence born of thought, and that intelligence can become cruel, or kindly, in a whole series of human activities , which are limited. Then is there a (quality of holistically friendly) intelligence which is not born of thought? I say there is, and if you want to go into it I will go into it.

E: In what you said before - that in order to find out what is the unlimited action, one have to finish with the self, which was a collection of (psychologically active) memories – the paradow is that if I am finished with the 'self' as a 'collection of memories' it seems that there would be no knowledge, therefore that this ( holistically intelligent?) person could not even write a letter.

K: I didn't say that. On the contrary he can write ( two volumes of ?) Letters (to the Schools?) .

E: But if he writes ( or dictates ) a letter which requires thought...

K: That is why I said sir, let's ( take a detour & ) enquire into ( what is the nature of a transpersonal ) intelligence which will then say, "I will use ( my practical) knowledge, but nowhere else".

E: I see. So what is ( the source of this ) intelligence?

K: Now how do you enquire into this? By exercising thought ?

E: The same way you would investigate the action which is unlimited, namely by observing, by completely observing ( non-verbally) without ( the interference of) thought.

K: Is that possible, first?

E: Well, it seems that it is possible.

K: Let's be clear. That ( selfless quality of holistic ) perception is not based on thought...

E: Yes, right.

K: So...keep that perception going.

E: I mean, it is quite possible that as you are walking out of your house and all of a sudden, it is a very sharp beautiful day, and you open the door and you 'see' the tree, and there is no thought coming in. There is a gap in your thoughts and there is the absolute purity of perception. There is a complete sense of 'present-centredness'. But then thought comes up again. Isn't that an experience for you?

K: Is there a perception without the ( usage of the ) words?

C: A perception without a word, yes.

K: Without the whole network of words ?

C: But there is a sense in which even this ( no-naming) perception is already based in some sort of ( intuitive) knowledge.

K: No sir. Can you look at me without all the 'images' & all the nonsense, just look at me?

C: I don't think we can, no. I think in some way we are always operating out of some ( background) knowledge.

E: Can we take this slowly ? Can't I look at you, or at a tree, or whatever, and not have thought ?

K: Yes, sir, that is all I am saying. Begin to move.

C: But there is an important question here : what is the relationship of ( this holistically friendly?) intelligence to the actuality of what I am saying you can't have a perception without knowledge?

K: We are coming to the same thing in a different way. What is this intelligence which is not cultivated by thought – right? Is it temporary? Is it something casual, perchance? Or is there a (quality of compassionate?) intelligence which is not intermittent, theoretical and so on? I say there is.

E: How do we find that out (experientially?) ?

K: Now I am coming to that. What place has ( looking at something with?) 'love' in all this? Is love desire & all the rest of it ?

E: So you are now asking us to examine the nature of love because it seems to be necessary to answer the question ?

K: How does that (holistic) intelligence exist? I say it cannot exist without love.

D: What is this 'love'?

K: Is love desire? Is love ambition? Is there love when there is the pursuit pleasure and so on and so on. Or is 'love' something (coming from) outside of the brain? And which means 'compassion'. Where there is ( a perception with ?) love and compassion there is also that (holistically friendly ) intelligence, which is not the product of thought. And that is not intermittent. That doesn't come and go. Now, this ( quality of?) love is not the opposite of (resentment & ) hate . Love has no opposite. ( Clue:) But ( the universal intelligence of?) Compassion & Love cannot exist if there is any form of attachment. If I am attached to my 'god', attached to my ( self-centred) anchor and say I have compassion, then it is not ( a holistic) compassion.

D: Yes, it is limited, yes.

K: To me, ( Mr K?) that is the only thing that matters. If that ( holistic inner quality) does not exist, the rest is all limited (to $ & €'s ?) . And therefore you will have perpetual conflict between each other, between you & the world and so on. So, this (requires?) unconditioning the whole human (psyche?) , or the structure and the nature of thought. Right?

C: Now given that the ( man's survival oriented?) desire is so central to the human brain, what is the relationship of what you have just said to this basic fact that desire is so...

K: Then you have to ask what is 'desire'.

E: I have another question which is related : all that I have heard from you, I have grasped it or felt it - but how do I know it is true?

K: You don't 'know'.

E: I don't 'know'.... ? Which means I have to investigate it ?

K: With what?

E: Well this is exactly the point, with what? The only way I know is to observe very carefully what happens in my experience, which means that what I see is not the continuity of that intelligence but the intermittency of that intelligence. So, how can you actually make it possible for people to see that it is not just words?

K: Therefore you have to go into the whole question of what is the place of desire and why has desire become so important in our life ? We can follow the whole movement of desire.

E: Yes... ?

K: I will come to that : if there is no becoming psychologically, there is no self. Theoretically it sounds all right, but to actually see the reality of it...

A: How do you 'see' that?

K: Is it that this ( wide spread mentality of self-) becoming has spilled over from the physical becoming, into the (inner) field and therefore you are still thinking in terms of becoming psychologically, inwardly. To not allow it 'spill' (inwardly ) is the ending of measurement. You understand? Complete ending of measurement, which is comparison. Sir, is there an ending to ( living iwardly self- confined in the field of?) knowledge?

E: I don't see that.

K: If we are functioning all the time within the field of knowledge it is very limited. Is there an ending to ( living self-confined in) it?

E: Is an (inner dimension of consciousness?) where knowledge is no longer present  ? Yes there is.

K: Sir, could I put another question? Can the brain stop chattering (and remain inwardly ) completely, empty? Only act when it is asked, like a 'drum', highly tuned, but it is always empty, it is only when you strike on it that it gives a note. Right?

D: What is ( the door to ? ) this inner 'emptiness'?

K: That is what I am saying: is there an ending to ( thought's endless activity in the field of) knowledge? Of course there is, but.... that's another matter (of meditation?) .

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sun, 31 May 2020 #304
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

3RD (& last 'reader-friendly' edited) BRAIN SEMINAR (1984)

A: I was wondering what does it mean to enquire into something in a (holistically friendly?) 'intelligent' way. And perhaps with that spirit to go into the question of intelligence, what we were talking about yesterday.

K: How would you ( experientially) enquire into that (compassionate?) intelligence which is not born of thought?

A: Well it seems to me that if we are using thought then we have to be very hesitant in what we say.

K: Not only that, but how would you enquire into that intelligence which is not the product of thought? Would you enquire into it ( negatively) by saying that which it is not?

A: You mean, by seeing what is "false"?

K: Yes, what it is not. We said (generically that resentment or ?) 'hate' is not ( related to the intelligence of) love - right? And is this intelligence of) love (originating) within the brain or (from) outside it?

A: Well perhaps we could start by saying what is an action which is not intelligent? For example when I see a person that I don't like, the brain seems to give a 'meaning' to that situation and plays itself out. So, in that sense I would say that it is working as an e- machine which has a ( self-protective cultural ?) programme, or is preset...

E: Well, I wouldn't call it a 'machine' since the human brain is also capable of coming up with something completely new, creative. So in that sense it is nothing to do with a machine. And precisely the fact that it can up with creative acts means that the process cannot be so simply characterized as being mere repetition, as in a trivial machine. This is not what life is about.

K: Of course not.

A: Could we say that this ( holistically friendly?) intelligence has nothing to do with ( functioning within ) a certain pattern which is repetitive?

D: I think what you said is true. We know when we are studying the brain in the usual way, that for instance the human brain is constantly ordering the whole outer world in a new way. In that sense it produces quite new kind of attention or values. And that is not the same as knowledge, it is just...

K: Is it 'new', or is it a different aspect of the old?

B: What is the nature of the creative act?

K: Then we must ( take a brief detour & ) go into what is 'creation', and what is 'invention' ?

A: My question is how does one come (experientially ) about this intelligence?

K: The (selfless compassionate?) intelligence, can it be cultivated? All cultivation implies thinking ( in terms of) time and also it has a motive and a result. Now, this intelligence cultivable?

E: Well, I would say that its cultivation would come from actually observing in our life this quality of the new, the flash of the creative ; for example, the freshness of perception is something that is happening all the time, but we normally tend to obscure it because our (thinking) mind is too speedy. But it is possible to cultivate a more slow pace of thought and thereby one begins to see constant flashes of this quality of creative insight, or creative intelligence happening all the time. So it seems to me that we can cultivate our accessibility to it.

A: You mean by a process of observation rather?

E: Well, 'observation' is not the word I would use. It is more a quality of taming the poor quality of one's ( fast) thinking mind.

K: Would you use the word 'attention'?

E: I am not so happy with 'attention' because it implies something that is somehow forced...

K: So, can that ( quality of compassionate?) intelligence which is not born of thought, can that be cultivated? Obviously not, since any kind of 'cultivation' implies a motive, time and a beginning and an end. Is 'love' cultivable in that sense?

D: I think there is a possibility for changing the brain by changing (its guiding set of ?) values.

K: Doesn't this imply a quality of silence ?

D: Yes, a quality of ( inner ) silence.

K: The quality of quietness, a sense of everything in abeyance. And then in that tranquillity ( of mind?) something happens.

D: Yes, by letting the brain just be.

K: Can that happen to a brain that has been active from childhood: work, work, work, struggle, pain, learn (& earn?) the whole human struggle, human endeavour, can the brain, which has been so conditioned, can it ever be quiet?

D: There exists the possibility but it is difficult. But can you tell us brain researchers what these new values could possibly be, because with our scientific knowledge we cannot go into them. Can you please?

K: We both agree that there must be a certain ( back-) ground of quietness, of tranquillity so that something new can come. Would you agree to that?

E: And that ( holistically friendly attitude) can be cultivated.

K: No, silence is not a (mental) attitude.

E: No, but to make yourself available to silence is an attitude.

K: Then who is it that is making you available?

C: Desire.

K: Again desire. Again thought...

E: There has to be a desire to make oneself available to non-desire.

D: Physiologically no, because if we let the brain be, it is just there.

E: We might go into a very long discussion here when you say the brain stops. I have never seen a brain stop which is not dead.

D: I have seen my brain stop & be silent.

K: Would you say the brain has its own ( natural) rhythm ?

E: All right...

K: And there is the ( superposed ) rhythm of thought - right? Can this 'rhythm of thought' be quiet? That is all we are saying.

E: Yes, it can.

K: Wait a minute sir. Quiet, not off and on, but 'quiet' (at peace with itself?)

E: Once and for all?

K: When you say 'once and for all' it means (thinking in terms of) time. You see this is our difficulty : Silence is not (measurable in terms of?) 'once and for all' - when you say, once and for all, you (the 'thinker' ?) introduce the whole movement of ( psychological) time.

E: Are we in time right now?

K: Of course.

E: So we are in time and you are mentioning something which is out of time, how can we do it except by a 'pointer' in ( the field of thought & ) time?

K: We are asking sir, whether the human brain can ever be ( mentally) quiet apart from its own rhythm?

A: I think this is important to clarify that perhaps this (state of inner) 'quietness' doesn't mean that the brain rhythm has to stop.

K: I said that brain's (natural) rhythm goes on.

E: So, you are talking about stopping the rhythm of thought, not the rhythm of the brain, which if it stops it is (as good as) dead.

K: Of course. No more oxygen and there is the end of it.

D: It is possible that the (process of) thought stops but nevertheless there are some brain functions going on which are part of thought. In brain research we call it 'consciousness'. It is just an ( inward sense of) being that is not the (creation of) thought, not the sensation, the sensory, not the perception, not action. That we know quite well.

K: This has been a question not only put now but in the most ancient days they put this question: can (the mechanism of) thought come to an end?

C: And that is not an act of choice ?

K: No, of course not sir.

E: But it is an event in time ?

K: I question that. Silence, quietness, tranquility, which means the ending of thought - not for a few seconds, but 'ending'.

C: Would you see it as being some sort of event of the brain? Or of thought?

K: No, sir. ( Generally) I am thinking all day long about my problems, my wife, my children, my career, my research, I am at it all day long, and when I go to sleep it is there again going on, all day and all night, ceaselessly. And (eventually?) this (constantly thinking brain) is wearing itself out. Now I am just asking can all that ( ego-centric) movement stop? Not stop for some days, or for some hours, but 'stop' (come to an end ?) .

E: It is not ( part of) my (conscious) experience. Because when you say 'thought can stop', I can hear it as a possibility but it remains for me a possibility unless it becomes an actual reality.

K: Would you like to learn about it?

E: Of course, but can I say something before? It seems that there is a third possibility, which is not thought as a ceaseless movement , neither is thought gone, but there is an intermediate possibility which is close to my own experience, which is, thought as being 'permeable'. In other words, at the beginning it seems that thought is a solid thing, that it never stops; but upon a closer investigation one sees that thought has actually lots of 'gaps' ( silent intervals?). It is like not a solid veil but it has big holes in it. In between the holes there is...

K: A (silent?) interval between thoughts.

E: Not just ( silent) intervals, but it is like thought is ( becoming aware of?) a much large (inner) space.

K: But it is still the ( self-centred?) movement of thought ?

E: There is a movement of thought but within a vaster context (of having an inner space of freedom )

K: Yes, yes, but it is still ( along the timeline of self-centred ) thought...

E: Yes, but it is in a vaster context which is not the same as ceaseless thought. There is a dramatic change from one to the other. So I want to know whether this is not also part of your experience ?

K: I distrust all ( personal?) experience.

E: Including yours?

K: Including mine! I am very sceptical about my own 'experiences', because you can get deceived terribly.

E: So what is the source of the understanding then if it is not your own experience, or my own experience for myself?

K: Let's leave the word 'experience', that is a complicated word.

E: OK, what word would you use instead?

K: I don't know, we'll find out ( some other time?) . We are asking a very simple ( verbal) question, which is ( experientially?) very complex: can that rhythm of thought stop? Is there a ( natural) cessation of thought?
See what happens: we have posed an (profoundly insightful?) question : can the ( time-binding) rhythm of ( one's self-centred) thought which has been going on from the beginning of one's life until we die, can that rhythm of thought come to an end? You reply and this dialogue goes on. And then in that dialogue only the question remains , your brain is (getting naturally?) quiet, because 'you' are not acting, 'I' am not acting, only the ( living truth content of the) question. Right?

E: It seems that ( mankind's spiritual) history records many, many attempts to arrive at the ending of thought...

A: But why did the brain fall in the dark from the very start? Why does it have to be so full of itself?

K: Ah! From childhood all our (scholastic) education is work, work, work, learn, learn.

A: You mean it has been 'conditioned' that way?

K: Yes, of course. Right?

E: It doesn't seem complete to put only the two alternatives of either having thought going or stopping it. There is again the middle way possibility of not stopping thought but making so much room for it that it is not bothersome anymore. This is like having a wild monkey in a small room. That is very bothersome and very complicated to deal with, but if the same monkey gets in a large field, it is fine, it doesn't bother anybody.

K: Yes, but still give it any amount of space the ( self-centred) activity of thought it is still there...

E: Yes it is the same monkey running around...

K: ( Thoughtful?) people have asked this question thousands of years ago, saying can thought, however much it may have space, in that space can it be silent ?

C: But it's your relationship inside your own thought process that matters, not the fact that you have thought. You ( the thinker?) are so busy trying to get out of thought that you are cramped.

K: Even if you are in the country, and say, my God, how beautiful all this is ( the 'time'-creating) process of thought is still going on. That's is all my point.

E: But when you raised the question of stopping thought – this it has a (very personal) motivation which is the desire to be free from that slavery.

K: All right...

E: So we are raising the possibility that to be free from that slavery maybe it is not necessary to stop thought but simply to give it space and may be then that state of ( timeless) mystery can come.

K: Would you say thought is a material process?

E: Well if you put the question so bluntly I would say, no it is not ( just) a material process.

C: It's a relationship that is imminent in the fact that your existence as a human being on this earth.

K: All right. And a human being, what is he?

C: He is ( also) a relationship in the sense that he is a form that has taken place in all of this (field of reality)

K: All right, let's discuss relationship. What do we mean by that word? To be related. I am related to my brother, my father, my mother, my wife, my children. I am related to the (man-made) world.

C: To the trees...

K: So are we ( actually) related to (the world of) nature? When you see that tree in all those marvellous fields, and flowers, and the animals, are you related to it?

C: Actually yes. You are in actual connection to everything around you.

K: Are you?

C: I mean actually.

K: That means what? That you will not kill anything ?

E: That seems to be the way of nature's relationship.

K: Just a minute. This is the ( generally) accepted 'way of living'...

A: But are we not going a little bit away from the main point? We have asked can thought stop, can there be an end to it and we won't go into the question. We go round in different directions and nobody seems to want to stay with the ( inward truth of this) question.

E: I want to stay with the question but I also want that the entire question is dealt with, which is (a) the possibility of thought continuing, (b) the possibility of thought stopping, and © the possibility of thought having so much (free inner) space that it doesn't create the problems that we find it normally creating. I would like all these three possibilities to be considered and not discard one off-hand.

C: And therefore relationship becomes a (collateral) issue. What would you consider the intelligent way to approach this issue since we have said that we want to consider all aspects of thought and we have said thought is relationship, what is the intelligent way to proceed, given this fact?

K: First, what is the question? Is it desire? Is it thought being contained in a small space? Does ( having sufficient inner) space prevent thought from having (creating ) problems?

E: OK, that is a perfectly valid question. That is something I can explore and it is part of my experience. But 'stopping' thought is foreign to my experience.

K: Forget the 'stopping'. Throw it overboard for the moment.

E: If I may say so I would not like to throw it away because I am interested in learning something which is not ( yet experientially) available for me.

K: We said yesterday that thought is limited. It can have a vast ( free) space ( to move) , but it is still limited (by its own self-centredness?)

E: Yes... the monkey will still be a monkey.

K: Next question: if it is still the ( same good old?) monkey, then what is the next question? You say there are three possibilities.

E: The three possibilities to me have to do with the fact that when I see the monkey's action in a vaster space - the space around it has a completely new quality.

K: Yes, but it still remains the monkey...

E: The monkey does but not the ( free inner ) space around the monkey. That's new.

C: Francisco, are you saying that somehow you can control thought if you have enough inner space?

E: This is not what I have been saying. But 'stopping' (thought) to me is a synonym of control: instead if I take this wild animal which is uncontrolled thought, and make more room for it, then by itself the wild monkey in the big field simply 'goes to sleep'.

C: Then you think there is enough room in the universe for thought?

E: That is precisely my point that it seems to be the human experience is that it is possible ( for the inward space of mind?) to grow infinitely.

K: I question that. What is growing?

E: I am talking of that ( inward space of consciousness ) where thought lives, the space around thought.

K: Just a minute! You see where he is leading to ? It is speculation.

C: Well it's speculative to say that thought can stop too.

K: No, I am just asking an (insightful?) question.

C: I think Krishnaji would say that ( Mr E's) 'staying in silence' implies that I am going to think my way into silence. That's just another form of control too.

K: The observer 'is' the observed. We agree to that.

B: You are saying that all these actions begin with some sense of desire, or a goal, or some sense of control. And if you begin with control, how can you control thought? Either by giving it a lot of space, or by controlling it, by trying to stop it. I guess we are saying that it doesn't seem possible to begin that way.

K: Sir, you used the word 'space'. I can go to the Himalayas and there is immense space. I have been to one spot in the north where you can see three hundred and fifty miles of snow. Tremendous. But the monkey is still there! That's all I am saying.

E: I am not disagreeing with that.

K: And that space doesn't affect the ( self-centred thinking of the ?) monkey.

E: Oh, yes it does. It makes it tame and it usually just takes a nap, goes to sleep. It is like a monkey in a small cage is all neurotic but once it has all the whole jungle it is a 'happy monkey', it goes to sleep.

K: This isn't quite accurate sir because you can give man any amount of space, any amount, both physically and psychological space, inward space. (But most?) human beings haven't got that space.

E: They have it, it is a matter of paying attention to it, of making yourself available to it.

K: Available to space. Which means what?

E: Which means not ( think-) speeding so much so that I don't see that it is there.

K: Which means sir, wouldn't you say that to have ( all this free inner) space there must be no 'self' (-centredness?) ?

E: Yes, I agree.

K: Right? That means the (thinking?) self is limited, there should be no activity of the self, no self-deception. Then the monkey doesn't exist.

E: Well this is again what I don't see.

K: Wait sir, of course I exist, but this vast bundle of ( self-identified personal ) memories which is the 'me', if that bundle of memory ceases, then there is infinite (inward) space - that's all.

E: Right...

C: Where is the monkey now?

K: There is no monkey.

E: Well this is what I don't see. The monkey is still there, it is just in a bigger space.

K: Let's define it. You mean the 'monkey' as the (physical) body ?

E: The monkey as the 'self-centred consciousness of) the body, the memories, the senses.

K: We said that. Memory, thought, experience, knowledge is limited. Therefore give him any amount of space inwardly it is still limited.

E: One thing is that it is limited, the other thing is that in its limitation it is tame so that it is not the source or the cause of further trouble.

K: But it is still limited. That's all.

E: OK , but sometimes I don't know what you mean by the 'self' …

K: I say that (in this free inner) space, however wide, however extensive, however deep, the 'monkey', the 'self' is still there. You agree?

E: That's fine. We are in agreement!

K: The ( thinking ) monkey is still there. I know all the tricks of the monkey. I have watched the ( ego-centric ) 'monkey' operating at various levels, it is still the monkey. What is the next question? If the monkey is very satisfied, says, I have got a lot of space, I am happy...

E: Fine. So the next question I would ask myself is: starting from where I am, which is the 'thinking monkey' caught within a small space, one has to cultivate the larger space.

K: Now can this (inner) space be cultivated?

E: The space itself, no. My attitude to it, yes. I can say just as a metaphor : if I close the curtains of this room it doesn't mean that there is no open sky - right? But if I have to have an attitude to open up the curtains, and say, oh, there is sky. So it is not that I cultivate sky, I cultivate my attitude to make myself available to the perception of sky. And this (holistically friendly?) attitude might bring me to say, I won't kill anymore.

K: I am just asking: how does the monkey create space for itself?

E: That is a great question.

K: And what do you do with that (insightful ) question? Put it this way, that way, and the other way, but the question still remains.

B: How about trying different ways to answer it ?

K: You have tried it in ten different ways this morning. I can see what we have done! You have kicked the monkey from corner to corner, in the same field - right? So the next question is can the monkey create the space for itself, which means the ( thinking) 'monkey' has to ( come to a natural ) end? Not as a physical monkey, but the whole inward structure, inward state, inward – right?

C: The question that comes up is that the 'monkey' is caught in its own self-centred mentality , the monkey makes small space.

K: The monkey wherever it is will make a small space.

C: Yes. Now it seems to me that there is some (holistic) seeing that small space that 'dissolves' it.

K: That's it : when the (thinking) monkey realizes, sees, perceives, pays attention, whatever word you like to use, that whatever it does is still limited - agree? Whatever it does, prays to god, goes to science - right? Whatever it does it is still the monkey, so it cannot create ( a totally silent inner) space.

C: Right...up until the point at which thought actually lets go of his being the monkey.

K: That's the whole point.

E: He has to be monkey, before he can actually drop it. Going back to David's point : the monkey has to be very smart to create all of the illusions of its own self-enclosure. That intelligence is so intelligent that he can also see his own trappings.

K: We have said that.

E: Right. So, this intelligence is two sided. On the one hand it can create this confusion and on the other hand it can see itself. But when it sees itself it is, in in some sense, its own creation.

C: This is important Krishnaji because in our past discussions at this point we usually say that the insight of the monkey into the fact that he is enclosed in a space, it is that that in some way brings a stop to the (thinking) 'monkey'. But the question is, is there more to this stopping than the insight?

K: When does the monkey realize its own limitation?

E: At the moment it sees its own futility.

K: Now when does that happen?

B: When it is 'suffering' ?

K: I am coming to it. When does it see, my god whatever I do will always be limited?

E: When there is a breakdown in its world.

K: When does it 'break down'?

B: You lost your wife, or your house has burnt down.

K: So it means what? In a crisis.

B: Crisis, suffering.

K: See what you are saying ? That it needs a (major existential) crisis for it to wake up. I question that.

E: It needs it as a usual first step. But then one realizes that the 'breakdown' (of its world) is happening all the time, right now.

K: No, no, just a minute sir. I asked just now, when does the monkey realize the (inward) truth, that it is limited? When does it say, My God, I am limited ! - not theoretically.

A: In a crisis, as we said...

K: I question that. Every day we have a crisis. I quarrel with my wife, the governments are misruling us, I have had untold suffering, not only me but the world. That hasn't changed the 'monkey' because we have suffered for thousands of years.

E: So you need the combination of the two : of saying it is futile and there is an alternative. It is like your example the other day you run into somebody who says, you could go south. It is the same sort of thing.

K: Yes sir. So when does the monkey wake up and say, I am limited? Do you know what that means sir? Any action of the monkey is still the monkey. Vertical, horizontal, create space, it is still the terribly clever little entity called the 'monkey'. Man has invented god, the belief that an outside agency will help me, he has prayed, he is still the monkey.

D: Can you say what should be done?

K: I can. When you come to such an inward impasse that whatever the monkey does, it is still the monkey. That means 'you' (the thinking monkey?) have come to a stop. You have come against a wall and you are stuck there. Is it a theory? And you yes, let's discuss it? Or it is an actuality that you are up against a wall, you can't move? Yes sirs! There is no ( psychological) escape.

D: But there are people who know that. Also researchers, scientists, know that it is so. We agree.

K: Then what do we do sir?

D: We should do something, we just can't wait.

B: We are stuck with the question, we can't go out of the room.

K: Look what you are doing sirs ! You don't stop (the 'monkey thinking'?) , and say, Look I am at an impasse !

C: You say, we don't stop. What about that act of stop?

K: You are already against a wall, you don't even have to stop. The wall prevents you moving. We never come to that point.

E: I question that.

K: Otherwise, you have the answer.

E: Of course.

C: Well tell us.

E: One thing is that we don't know what to do, the other thing is that we don't apply ourselves to do it.

D: Then what should we do?

B: To speak about it is to move away from it. We are stuck there.

D: What should we do? Very much in my coming here at Brockwood I hoped that I would tell something to those people at home who are exactly of the same opinion.

K: Have I said I can't move anymore?

E: I don't feel that that is true. The sudden realization of thought's complete limitation brings with it the complete clarity of the space with it.

K: Is that an actuality to you?

E: Is it not sir? Why couldn't it be shared?

K: We can share it together if we are both hungry and the food is put before us
Do I realize that whatever I do I am still the monkey? It is a tremendous (psychological) shock to realize (the inward truth of) that. Right? And if you can remain with that ( intensity of the ) shock, and not dissipate it, there is then a totally different action. Yes sir...

E: I thought you said there was no hope.

K: No, it is not a hope. If I 'hope' I want to escape.

E: But you have just said there is a totally different action coming out of that.

K: Ah, for me, but maybe not for you,

C: What do you mean, "For me and not for you"?

K: Do you realize (the inward truth?) that whatever you do, whatever you think, whatever you act, whatever you hope, it is still the ( same thinking ?) monkey playing? That means you (the thinking brain?) have come to a complete stop. Have you? I am not asking you personally, that is up to you. Complete stop. You are here in front of me. Have you stopped?

C: There is no answer to that question.

K: Don't dodge it. We have argued for three days – right?

C: Well if I say, I have stopped, that's the 'I' and (therefore) I haven't stopped.

K: If you have come to realize whatever you do (psychologically-wise?) it is still the monkey, and therefore thought is always limited- when one actually faces the ( inward truth of this) fact that you cannot do anything, the brain comes to be naturally quiet. It says, right, no tricks any more. Sir this has been the (central ) problem of Meditation - they have tried every method , following various systems invented by thought, to come up against this and say, "Look, this is the end !".

E: Now won't you cultivate that?

K: No, not according to me sir. We all agreed cultivation implies motive, time, end and effort.

E: Yes absolutely. I don't see that as an intrinsic problem. The problem would be thought's motivation would not be cognizant of its own limitations. But if one's motivation says, "I know of my lack of vision but it is an attitude that makes it possible to constantly come back to that realization of limitation", then that is cultivating a meditative action.

K: Therefore...

E: Motivation is problematic when it is completely devoid of any context of its limitation, when it just 'believes in itself'. I don't see a problem with the monkey acting and being a monkey. The problem is when the monkey is ( caught ?) in a little room. That is precisely what needs to be worked on and dealt with. Therefore what really interests me is what are the actual practicalities of cultivating that (inward) spaciousness? Because the monkey is not the problem, the constraint is what makes the monkey become crazy.

K: You see the difference? I say it is not the constraint, it is the monkey constraining himself.

E: I thought we concluded that it's thought's own intelligence that can apply to see its limitations.

K: And when it becomes aware that whatever it does...

E: ...is limited, it creates ( a silent) space right there.

K: Yes. All right.

E: Well isn't that a fact?
K: If you say so...

E: I am posing you the question in the spirit of hearing what your experience is.

K: I would question myself whether one has really realized the ( inward truth regarding the true ) nature of the monkey, and the depth of that realization - which may be very superficial, or it may be profound. When it is profound it totally changes one's life. That's all I am saying.

E: I guess that it is possible but it may not be possible for every human being. This is my experience, and this is all I have - I cannot go by your experience nor by anybody else's, and those realizations come and go and come in different degrees of depth. Sometimes it is a realization of a stupid limitation that I have imposed on myself and I can drop it. Sometimes it can be profound, then it is forgotten again. It is not a 'one-shot' deal. It is not like that.

C: I think you are raising another issue. Namely that when the monkey is totally caught up in its monkeyness, in the monkey business, it has no relationship to that (Enlightened ) Intelligence whatsoever.

K: It is still monkey.

C: Now the question is: whether that ( compassionate?) intelligence comes in there is an aspect of the (thinking) monkey which is intelligent. And therefore the intelligence appreciates the limitations of the monkey and at this ( newly awakened) intelligence sees that thought is limited.

K: Sir, let's first define the intelligence of thought, and the intelligence of love.

C: That's where we ended the other day - what is the relationship between the intelligence of love and the intelligence of thought?

K: What is the relationship - I understand your question - what is the ( cooperating) relationship of the man who doesn't hate and the man who hates? There is no relationship.

C: None?

K: No.

E: That is not my experience.

K: I doubt everybody's ( 'personal') experience, including my own. But I am saying let's discuss what is the ( cooperating) relationship of the man who loves, in the sense we are talking about, and the man who hates? Just look at it sir. How can there be?

C: I think there is a relationship. I have seen you embrace people whom you now that they hate. So what is your relationship when you embrace a man you know who hates?

K: Ah! Hate has no relationship to love; but love has a relationship to hate.

C: OK...

K: That's all. Not the other way round.

C: So then the ( compassionate ) intelligence has a relationship to thought?

K: We said that, sir. Thought has its own (monkey-like) intelligence. Love, compassion, has its own intelligence. The intelligence of thought has no relationship with that intelligence, but that 'other' intelligence has a relationship.

C: Sir, what is the relationship of intelligence to the monkey?

K: That way, yes, but not the other.

C: OK. Now what is ' happening in ) the event of ( a loving & compassionate) intelligence seeing the limitations of the monkey?

K: It is very simple: you are no longer the ( thinking) monkey. But if I am ( still the thinking) monkey. What is my relationship to you? None.
I am not referring ( personally?) to you gentlemen. Each one is pursuing his own (spiritual?) way – right?

E: Is there a way to overcome that ('thinking monkey' hadicap) ?

K: If I want ( prioritarily to succeed in) my career, my business and all of us are doing this in the world - right? We keep creating havoc in the world.

E: So how could it be otherwise? You do what you do, I do what I do?

K: Can we all be ( cooperating?) together?

E: Cultivate our (intelligence of?) love ?

K: Oh, no. Don't say 'cultivate love'.

E: Why not? That means making yourself available to that possibility...

K: We have discussed this point, and you are going back to that again. That ( intelligence of Love) is not cultivatable.

E: But Krishnaji I wouldn't harm you because you think differently from myself. Not for one minute.

K: Look sir, can we all be together (all-one?) inwardly so that you are a light to yourself ?

C: For that to happen it seems to me you have to see him as a monkey in your space who has plenty of room to play.

K: Don't go back to that monkey business! No, sirs, this is our difficulty ( in creatively cooperating).

C: I think one of our difficulties is that we don't recognize ( that inwardly) we are not different.

K: If the ( Compassionate Intelligence of?) Love is there, there is no difference. We had better stop.

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Sat, 06 Jun 2020 #305
Thumb_photo_reduite John Raica Canada 526 posts in this forum Offline

HOW TO READ THE BOOK OF ONESELF ?

( A most excellent 'reader-friendly' edited K Dialogue in India (cca 1982)

Pupul Jayakar: Yesterday you were talking about reading the Book of Oneself, which (in fact) is the Book of all Mankind. And you asked a question: with what instrument will I look? Now this book is never complete, since you are constantly creating it. But there are one or two questions which first have to be clarified. That is, what is the nature of what is seen and what is the instrument which 'reads' it ?
For starters, you have talked about 'what is' from the first time we met you, but what is the nature of this 'what is'?

J Krishnamurti: The whole history of man from two million years (of evolution) , is ( a residual) part of our consciousness, and the only available instrument with which I can read this vast complex history is the same ( self-centred) thinking which has built all the past accumulation, past experience, superstitions, beliefs, the tyrannies, the wars, and the human mind is the storehouse of all that. The whole ( evolutionary) movement of man in time is in the background of every human being. If you see the fact of it, then we can start from there.

PJ: Obviously, Krishnaji, the human heritage is my heritage. The two are not separate...

K: No. But very few are willing to ( see the inward truth of) that...

PJ: At the intellectual level, most people will accept that.

K: I doubt it... first of all they have not thought ( much ) about this and even if they begin to think about it I am not sure they would see the ( inward) fact of it. But if a few of us see the inward truth of it, that we carry with us all the time this vast human heritage. If we three at least see the truth of it then from there we can proceed.

PJ: It is as much a truth as the fact that the human body has evolved – it is an universal phenomena.

K: Now from there proceed. In me abides the whole ( psychological) history of man: his sorrows, his anxieties, his loneliness, his miseries, his ( temporary ?) happiness, his experiences, and so on and so on. This vast story.

PJ: Yes.

K: Then the next question you raised is 'what is the instrument with which I read that book?'

PJ: I have placed two questions. Even before start (reading it ) what is the instrument, what is it that I 'read'? As I am 'reading' it, the 'future' is also coming into existence, or it is being projected.

K: The 'past', meeting the 'present' and modifying itself becomes the 'future'.

PJ: And every thought that arises now contains in it the germ of the future. So first of all we have to be clear what is the nature of this 'what is' which we have talked about.

K: ( Inwardly) I am the storehouse of all human endeavour, but I am not aware of it : I don't know the nature of it, the content of it, and I want to learn about the nature my consciousness which is the (result of all mankind's ) past.

PJ: You see the moment you say that I am reading the ( psychologically active content of the) consciousness of man and not just of 'my' consciousness, the attitude to that reading has undergone a total change.

K: Agreed. But if you insist, or if one is under the (collective ) illusion that this consciousness is 'mine', separate from every other consciousness - which most people and perhaps many of the modern psychologists believe - then we are moving in two different directions.

PJ: But there seems to be a (potential) trap there : if you were objectively looking at the history of mankind, you would read it one way. If it was in twelve volumes of encyclopaedias you would read it one way. But if you see it as something which constantly sprouts within my consciousness, immediately my response to it is of a totally different nature.

K: That's is what I was coming to - if one sees one's consciousness as 'universal' - if we can use that (holistic) word - then our whole activity of perception changes. Right?

PJ: Yes, but I would say that consciousness of mankind is revealed on my private ground.

K: You are saying that by understanding my consciousness I recognize that (deeply down?) it is the consciousness of all human beings. All right then, I go along with that.

PJ: It is part of the total consciousness of mankind, but it is revealed within my ground.

K: I understand what you are saying : that in the observation & investigation of my consciousness, which I had thought to be separate from everybody else, there is the discovery that I have called my ( personal ) consciousness, is the consciousness of the rest of mankind ; to that I agree. Go on.

PJ: But the arising of ( my sense of existential) loneliness doesn't bring into it all the other (holistically friendly) factor that it is the loneliness of mankind. It is loneliness.

K: Take any ( psychologically active ) factor- like sorrow. In investigating my sorrow, my loneliness, which I have been scrupulously taking in my courtyard, my private ground, there is the discovery that it is shared by all the rest of mankind - all people are (consciously or not feeling ?) lonely, all people suffer. The discovery that it is (a psychological condition?) shared by the whole of mankind is an enormous (self-liberating) perception.

PJ: What brings in this other element?

K: Look, Pupulji: I you all must have seen wherever you go that this factor is there: (hint:) loneliness and sorrow are linked together. Go to America, it is there, in Europe it is there, in China, Russia, India, anywhere you go this factor is shared by all of us. To realize how this ( inward condition) is shared by all of us – a (holistically-friendly) change has already taken place.

PJ: Yes. Can we proceed. I'd go back to these two things - one is with what instrument we are 'reading' (the content of this consciousness and ) what is it that has to be observed?

K: So, (for starters?) I can observe ( this colletively shared?) sorrow & loneliness - those two are synonymous.
PJ: Which are emotional responses to a ( critical existential) situation.

K: To a crisis.

PJ: To a ( personal or collective - 'Covid' like?) crisis. I suddenly have a feeling of shrinking, a feeling...

K: Yes. Suppose one has lost a great friend, or a wife whom you really loved, or a person whom you loved, and there is the ending of that person: what has actually taken place there? The ending of all your relationship with that person. And suddenly realizing how utterly lonely you are left, because that has been the only relationship that has meant something. And suddenly that has gone. And there is the sense of ( a great personal) loss.
Now either I 'remain' (non-verbally?) with it, that is, I don't let thought or any other feeling interfere with that state, or I can invent a future (developpment in the ) future ? All those ( thought) projections are inventions, but can this mind remain with that ( inwardly disturbing inner) 'fact' – (by realising that ) there is no ( self-protective?) division between the 'observer' and the 'thing he is observing'. Right? He 'is' the suffering, he 'is' that ending. ( If yes?) it's like an (uncut?) jewel that you are holding. But... the moment you want to part with it you have entered into a different (dualistic ?) state of consciousness.

PJ: I understand...

K: So, the (psychological) story of mankind 'is' my ( life) story. And I want to 'read' that book (of my life?) because it is a most extraordinary book. It has not been written, there is no first or tenth chapter& there are no paragraphs - it is a tremendous 'movement'. Right?

PJ: Can the average human mind contain the enormity of it?

K: Now, we must begin here ( by differentiating between) what is the 'mind' and what is the 'brain'? Now may I go on with it a little?
The human brain has an infinite ( potential?) capacity. Look what it has done in the technological world, but psychologically ( inwardly speaking) it has been conditioned through (millenia of survivalistic) evolution - evolution being time. So, in the psychological realm, it hasn't moved at all, perhaps less than a ( 'psycho-) centimetre'. And because it has not moved, it has not flowered, it is ( self-) limited. Now, the 'mind' is not limited.

PJ: When you talk of the 'mind', you speak of what?

K: The whole, the ( Intelligent ?) Mind of the universe, the Mind of nature, everything that has been created and is creating is the movement ( the universally creative activity ? ) of the Mind.

PJ: Everything that has been created and is in the process of being created ?

K: All this. Therefore there is no limit (no beginning & no ending?) to Creation.

AP: Are you suggesting, sir, that when we say that I am the entire heritage of man, it is not the brain that can take in this 'fact'?

K: It is the brain that takes in the ( intellectual understanding of this?) fact because I have communicated through words, through thought, and you are looking at it through thought and through words, therefore the communication is ( at the verbal level of ) thought.

AP: I am trying to pin myself down to this ( obvious) 'fact' that at present whatever I understand, I understand it through the brain.

PJ: You see he (K) has moved to another dimension of thinking altogether, which if I understand it is this: the brain has done tremendous things in the field of technology, but (inwardly or) 'psychologically' it is static.

K: Yes, that's the whole point.
PJ: So, the human brain being limited and not having moved (too much inwardly) can only move within its own (self-enclosing) circle (of the known) . But the ( holistically integrated?) mind being ( naturally connected to?) the very source of Creation has no ( thought-imposed) limits.

K: That's right.

PJ: And therefore this ( is summing up the?) whole history of man...

K: Pupul, let's be clear on this point : thought has created in the physical world, the churches, the cathedrals, the temples, the mosques, and all the things that are in the mosques, temples; thought has created wars; thought has created the conflict between man and man. Right? Thought is responsible for all this. And because thought in itself is ( self-) limited it cannot ( directly) perceive ( the timeless presence of?) an ( Intelligent & Compassionate) Mind that is immeasurable. But thought tries to 'understand' it ( intellectually). Obviously, because that is its mechanical function of reducing everything to its limited fragmentary activity. Right? And we are saying that as long as that brain is ( indulging in being ) conditioned it can never understand the immensity of the nature of the Mind. Right?

PJ: Yes...

K: If you see this, the (human brain's spiritual) responsibility then is to uncondition ( itself from) the( self-protectve) limitation which thought has imposed upon it. I've got it!

PJ: Sir, is it a matter of unconditioning the brain which is conditioned and cannot move out of its ( self-centred ) grooves , or of ending the 'movement' of the brain?

K: It comes to the same thing.

PJ: No, sir. You have often said that the insightful perception is occuring in the Mind itself.

K: Careful, careful...

PJ: Is it that the brain finds itself unable to do its own deconditioning, or is it a matter of holding the brain in abeyance so that the ( holistic) perception which is ( coming from ?) the mind can operate?

K: You are putting in modern language what the old traditions say, 'there is in me ( a timeless spark of?) God. There is in me some element which is not contaminated, which then operates on ( brain's time binding conditioning?)

PJ: But yourself have drawn the difference between brain and mind. You have drawn the distinction between the conditioned and the non-conditioned.

K: Wait a minute. I said we must differentiate between the meaning of these two words 'mind' and 'brain'. And I say that the brain which is limited cannot understand what the mind is. It can only apprehend, be aware of it, when there is no conditioning.

PJ: But you went further. In speaking of...

K: Later. I shouldn't have spoken. Because as a matter of fact Dr Bohm and a few others, we were discussing the very same matter. You understand, Pupul, this is really very interesting. Leave the 'mind' alone for the moment. When you once you see what extraordinary capacity the brain has, in the technological, scientific, communication world, surgery, and the biological experiments, it is incredible what is going on, which is the activity of thought. Thought is limited because knowledge is limited. Now can thought ever be free from its limitation? It can't. Right? Thought can never be free from its limitation because it is born out of limitation.

PJ: May I ask a ( bonus collateral) question? What is the distinction between thought and the brain?

K: Thought is the activity of the brain.

PJ: Isn't there anything in the humn brain apart from thought?

K: I won't fall into that trap! You are now going back to the old...

PJ: No, I am not, sir. If you accept that the brain has this tremendous ( intelligent) potential...

K: And we are now only using a very, very small part.

PJ: Obviously. Even at the ordinary level, not talking of anything like that. If you could do with the psyche what you have done with technology...

K: That's all I am saying. I mean then the ( Intelligent order of the?) Universe is open to you.

PJ: It's just that.

K: Yes, that's all I am saying. If the brain can free itself from the limitations of the ( time-bound self-centred ?) 'psyche', it is incredible what it can do. Then I am saying the brain is the mind when it is totally free - then there is no sense of division, it is the sense of whole, completeness, wholeness. That's all.

PJ: I understand. Now, if the brain has had that thrust, that drive, that insight, the energy to pursue technology, what is the (missing) element which would give him the curiosity, curiosity to drive in the other direction?

K: I think our (culturally standardising) education is responsible for it. Because we have all emphasized, every culture, except perhaps a few dead cultures, that you must earn a livelihood, work, work, work. And to do that study, you know, memorize, repeat, repeat, repeat. That's all we do. This morning I met some of the (local K school ?) students - forgive me if some of you are here. They haven't thought about anything except this - mathematics, history, geography, and if you ask them to move a little away from that they are lost.

AP: I would say that in the present ( existential) crisis of the survival of humanity there is sufficient motivation for ( any thoughtful) man to say that this is the most intolerable predicament for man, and the brain must be explored.

K: No, sir. They are exploring the activity of the brain.

PJ: Not of the (of the human) 'psyche' (soul?)

K: What we are saying is very simple : the human brain has an extraordinary capacity and (outwardly it) has done extraordinary things. But 'psychically' or 'psychologically' it has not moved a (psy-) inch after all these forty thousand years. Now if there is a breakthrough of that cycle then I am saying there is no ( thought-created ) division between the Mind and the (naturally intelligent?) energy of the brain - I will use that term , 'energy of the brain'. You understand? The energy of the brain has done the technological world.

PJ: Yes, it has never been released for this (inward holistic purpose) …

K: ( As of now, inwardly wise or ) 'psychologically' our intelligent energy is practically nil. But when that ( thought-imposed) limitation has been broken through, then there is ( the awakening of ) a totally different ( holistically friendly) energy, which now is only channelled through the activity of thought, and therefore that energy is limited. Right?

AP: I am making a very simple statement: I say that man has within him an energy which can transcend the limit of thought, and that is the energy of (transpersonal) attention. We must feel that we have a faculty other than thought to pursue the ( Universal Intelligence of the?) Mind.

K: Keep to 'brain's energy' keep to that word. Man has used the energy of thought in field of technology. It is the energy of thought, therefore limited.
Now the breaking down of the ( thought-imposed limitations of the?) psyche is not the energy of thought.

PJ: Let me probe a little more (experientially) .

K: Yes. Come down.

PJ : Let us examine the available perceptive instruments that man actually has. One is thought. The others are the senses themselves.

K: The natural sensitivity of the senses ?

PJ: Yes...

K: Sensitivity of the senses and thought, but ( as of now?) our senses are shaped & controlled by thought. That is, take for instance my sense of taste, if I like it thought comes in. If I feel something or other thought comes in and says, 'Look, be careful, that is painful, don't go through there'.
But is there a movement of all the senses, the total senses, without the interference of thought? Just look at the question first before we throw it out or accept it. That is, have you ever looked at the 'movement of the sea', at the vast movement of the tides, the beauty of the waves, the enormous power of the waves, with all your senses (fully awakened ) and the eye looking? In that there is no interference of thought. (But) when thought interferes with the senses it must inevitably limit it or control it.

PJ: What you're saying is right. Generally when there is a physical challenge, my senses respond according to the conditioning of the mind...

K: Always partial because thought is always watching, controlling it, trying to say, 'I must', 'I must not', 'This is wrong', 'That is right'.

PJ: No, but forgive me, there can be a (holistically integrated?) state of sensitivity when there is nothing contained in those senses -when the senses do not operate from thought, the place of operation changes.

K: Of course, it is simple enough. When the senses are observing completely, heightened senses, and when you look at the movement - I am taking purposefully the seeing - or one of those extraordinary sights of the Himalayas, when there is not a cloud or a breath, the line, the sky line of the hills against the blue, it is an extraordinary sight. When you look at the sea completely that way there is no centre, there is no thought. Right? The moment thought comes in there is a 'centre' in the senses. Right?

PJ: We are part of thought, we are part of the senses. Is there a third movement?

K: Yes, that's the whole point. Is there an action, a movement, a state - state in the sense not a static state - which is not the movement of thought? That is what you are asking, right?

PJ: Not a movement of thought and not a movement of the senses.

K: Let's look at it carefully. When you observe the sea with all your senses there is no ( self-conscious) sensory movement. The senses are not aware that they are heightened. ( Experiential Hint:) Anything that is excellent is not aware of its own excellency. Goodness in the highest sense has no (self-conscious) feeling of being good.

PJ: You see, if you are taking the essence of all thought, the essence of all senses, and it is 'essence' itself then is the new ( holistically friendly ?) instrument.

K: When there is the heightened excellency of the senses, the senses are not aware they are aware. Now when thought is ( becoming totally) aware of its own tremendous limitation, then it has 'broken through'. See how far we have got ?

PJ: We were asking what is the instrument with which we read (the psychological Book of Oneself )

K: I will tell you. The ( ongoing) 'story of mankind' is an endless movement. It had no beginning and no ending , but my brain being limited is looking for its ending. Right? So I am approaching the book with 'where is the end of all this?'

PJ: The search is for the (happy?) ending.

K: Of course...but to realize there is no ending . You know what it means? Then you enter into something called Love. (The universal Intelligence of) Love has no ending . So how do I read the 'book of oneself '? There is no 'book' to read if you have come to that point. When you have come to this really deep ( Meditation check-) point that this book has no ending and no beginning, it means you 'are' that book. Not that you become 'eternal', but that life as this 'movement' has no end, it 'is' then the universe. Right? Then the ( intelligent order of the?) Cosmos is this whole thing.

PJ: Time for you to end.

K: Oh, yes. Ten past five. Have we been talking nonsense?

PJ: No, sir.

K: Pupulji, if somebody heard all this, somebody who is serious of course, it is very logical, very clear - and ( if it ) can ( eventually?) be stated in Sorbonne (in France ) , or in Harvard (US & A) , or in Delhi (India) , it will 'stand water'. Right?

Sign in to recommend
Back to Top
Displaying posts 301 - 305 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.)