And it’s never oneself, is it?
I would like to add the following:
The observer is the observed is a relationship with only one direction and cannot be reversed to the observed is the observer.
Just as an oak tree can say it is a tree but not a tree can say it is an oak tree, that is only truth if it is an oak tree.
So it is possible only in the observer i.e. in the self and never in the other.
Insights are not an experience,
As one has mentioned before elsewhere in this forum,
Does anyone realize what an experience is, or does one just take for granted that anyone can state that an insight is an experience, and then someone else repeat what some authority has stated, mindless of the fact that such a statement is a patently false conclusion? In other words, it is incorrect to refer to insight as an experience.
-
“If you come to think of it, the word ‘experience’ means, “to go through something” and finish with it and not store it up, but when we talk about experience we actually mean the opposite. Every time you speak of experience you speak of something stored from which action takes place, you speak of something which you have enjoyed and demand to have again, or have disliked and fear to have repeated.”
K: The Urgency of Change, ‘Learning’ -
“The word ‘experience’ means “to go through, to go right to the end and finish with it”. But unfortunately for most of us, every experience leaves a scar, a memory, pleasant or unpleasant, and we want to retain only the pleasant ones. When we are asking for any kind of spiritual, religious, or transcendental experience, we must try to find out first of all whether there is such an experience, and also what experience itself means. If you experience something and you cannot recognize it, then that experience ceases to be. One of the essential meanings of experience is recognition. And when there is recognition, it has already been known, has already been experienced, otherwise you could not recognize it.
“So, when they talk about religious, spiritual, or transcendental experience – that word is so misused – you must already have known it, to be able to recognize that you are experiencing something other than an ordinary experience. It seems logical and true that the mind must be able to recognize the experience, and recognition implies something you have already known, therefore it is not new…”
K: The Awakening of Intelligence, Part II, Ch. 3, 3rd Public Talk, in New York 25 Apr. 1971, ‘Religious Experience. Meditation’
So, in seeing what it is true or false, there is no sense of recognition, because the insight is an entirely new phenomenon - outside of one’s memory or faculty of recognition. Therefore, there is no way one can refer to an insight as an experience, unless one has been told by someone else that it is… and someone to whom one may defer to as an authority…
2 Likes
Yes - it is understood that the I is not present for there to be direct perception/insight. Thus no experience - as experience is the I’s interpretation as a subjective center (who is having the experience - whom the experience is happening to)
Once the moment of insight has passed however - the self will engender an interpretation and a memory of what happened (a controlled hallucination of the past - as opposed to a hallucination of the present, which we call : the current reality) which it will label as an “insight experience”, or a “divine experience”, or “enlightenment” etc - depending on our cultural conditioning.
Meditation,
When meditation began (summer 1994 - oddly enough: North Node sitting on one’s 11th house cusp in natal chart - the house of friendship, noticed only years later [laughs]), what happened was the emptying of the contents of consciousness - the main events of one’s conditioning…
So, the words have come much later as to what meditation is, this intimate communion with oneself, which is in effect the emptying of the contents of one’s consciousness (all of one’s conditioning). This is what it means to be in relationship with “what is”.
So, being in meditation is in itself that emptying. Unless that emptying is happening, thought continues, image-making continues. So, while being in meditation, the “I” was still there; and therefore, one had the opportunity to the seeing of quite a few insights.
One understands that K’s message about freedom covers in sum only two aspects:
- the emptying of the contents of consciousness, and
- insights.
The conditioning in others is easily seen because of their likes and dislikes, their image-making of others, their thoughts on others, their image-making and thoughts on everything, their projections, their attachments, their thoughts, their feelings, their beliefs, their choices (and ensuing confusions), their identifications, etc. etc. etc.
You see, it is the conditioning which determines whether or not one is an “intellectual”, whether or not one is visual by nature (an image-maker) - what K called the “idealist”, or what K referred to as the “materialist”. Until such conditioning is dismantled and emptied, the “I” (whether one calls it the “me”, myself, self, Self, etc.) will continue to distort one’s understanding. There is no insight which makes the self go away; that is just an abstract technique/idea. And any technique that pretends to do that is a lie, because the technique is just another path. The “I” must go away of its own accord, naturally, as one is emptying the contents of one’s consciousness, and after having seen what is true, false, etc.
So anyone who continues an intellectual take on K - on anything, is in no way emptying their contents, but doing the reverse - adding to themselves. Similarly, anyone continuing to use image-making in their life is not in meditation, and therefore not emptying the contents of their consciousness.
As K said, the idealist escapes from “what is”, the intellectuals live on words - that’s their entertainment, and the materialists deny the moment by holding onto their static state.
3 Likes
Meditation cont’d,
the emptying of the contents is that which dissolves the self,
insights result in correcting the “wrong turn” by healing the damaged genes…
Brain Cells,
Everything that one does, says, posts affects the brain cells…
Hanging out with people on the dark side affects the brain cells, one has only to observe ‘what is happening’ in the U.S., in the world, in your neighbourhood to see the increasing violence, insanity, brutality. Personally, around the age 20, one was warned about associating with such people. Even here in B.C., there is increasing violence - known as “stranger attacks”. Most unfortunately, the group mind tendency of those who feel a psychological “need” to find validation, identification, a sense of progress, that they are being “helped”, a sense of solidarity, etc. is what groupies do, and it is the epitome of the dark side, and so they find a “leader” to follow. To say that such behaviour is contagious is an understatement.
The terrible twos,
Most people are aware of what that means. And practically everyone has lived that. In one’s childhood, it was considered “normal” behaviour, and one was allowed to be that way - a cultural conclusion - part of the wrong turn. One has understood that had it not been for the dysfunctional behaviour of one’s parents, one would not have carried on with this endless and tiring questioning for as long as one did - this endless and rather ridiculous series of rather (for the most part) meaningless questioning - a series of wrong questions. One trusts that asking a wrong question is part of what happens when the terrible twos are thwarted by an impatient and uncaring guardian/parent. And what one has understood (and learned) on this site is that this conditioning/disorder is why there are those who continue to ask an endless series of questions, not because they are interested in learning, but because they were thwarted during the terrible twos. So, this is why there are those who are continually enquiring as to what K meant, right?
The jewel,
K said the self was like a jewel. Therefore, please understand that a jewel is a mineral that a jeweler has shaped and cut into many facets, and it is these facets which reflect light and determine its worth… So, the analogy is that the jewel of many facets is akin the self with its many fragments. Understand that? The fragments are what is observed in meditation (awareness/attention), and the seeing of these fragments is what dissolves ‘what is’ seen. In other words, as each fragment is seen and understood, there is one less fragment that exists in the self - in other words, the very seeing of a fragment is what dissolves the self, the dissolution of the self is but a side-effect of the seeing of “what is” within. This is the mystery and beauty of observation, understand that? So, observation is in essence a two-edged sword - because the energy which is used up in this seeing is that of the “I” [the “me”, “self” (bigger or smaller - laughs) - whatever one calls one’s psyche, one’s consciousness. So, this is why K referred to the self as a jewel, got that?
The realization that one is made up of various fragments is an understanding that there is this disorder (of what K also referred to as “conditioning”) within, all of which prevent clarity, peace of mind, freedom, etc.
1 Like
Sexism, etc.,
Ah, one lives in a world absolutely full of sexism, downright misogyny, systemic racism, and homophobia, etc…
One has no understanding as to how any man could, especially one who claims an interest in the teachings of K - in these times - discuss Buddhism (or for that matter, any organized religion), without feeling absolutely ashamed and embarrassed about how all of these organized religions have treated women !!! All organized religions have legitimized the treatment of women as “helpmates”, isolating men into closed conclaves where a certain deplorable way of talking has dominated their institutions and consciousness for thousands of years. One actually decided to be reincarnated as a woman this lifetime so as to be spared such conditioning - a conditioning of what a male goes through in order to “function” and be deemed a legitimate member of this rotten society, and be “accepted” into it - thus being in a position of so-called financial security, power, leadership, and trust, etc. Thank god for one’s decision !! 
This male form of talking (conversation/discussion) is definitely part and parcel of the male way of schmoozing, so much so that even women who feel that they “need” to be part of this world have to become effective schmoozers in order to be “respected” and “become” part of the “working world” - i.e. earn their own living. Schmoozing actually means to gain favour… Charley has a horror of schmoozers, btw.
Breaking away from all that such a corrupt society stands for, especially such hatred and violence perpetuated upon 1/2 of the entire population has been relatively easier when encased in this female form. However, there are women who (out of fear, greed, etc.) have aided, abetted, and enabled men to succeed in their lifestyle choices, with the vast majority of males demanding such enabling. What an absolute horror that such men have perpetuated on their children!
And, any woman who dares speak up with emphasis is more often than not accused of being “strong-willed” and is immediately brushed aside (if not completely ignored) and treated with contempt (witness e.g. Hillary Clinton’s downfall).
As an aside, it is due to all the “work” which Charley has done - all because of K, btw - which has brought about this incredible sense of confidence, which is regarded with the same hatred and contempt by males who are so out of touch with their jealousy, etc., and who (out of projection and fear) feel threatened by any prospect of losing their status and position in the world - their authority…
So, one has had to witness politicians (even those such as Biden) play the male schmoozing card, in order to remain in power - foregoing dropping the filibuster rule, his ludicrous “respect” of the judicial system, - what rubbish btw (judges only render judgements - never justice, eh?), etc. etc. - all out of fear of losing his control over a corrupt system…
Meanwhile, the religious far-right in the USA is moving quickly and decisively to legitimize and legalize legislation which will effectively and eventually render an American society where misogyny, sexism and homophobia is becoming the “norm”, right? And, to make matters worse, other countries are hopping on the same bandwagon…Get that? Truly a time of increasing global Dark Ages…
1 Like
Mediocrity,
The society that has developed in the past century or so seems to have moved to the encouragement and development of the intellect above all. And considering that K had warned that the intellect is the major cause of degeneration, it is not surprising to see a vast number of people who are become extraordinarily articulate and well-educated (just to be able to earn a living) - who even though being aware (intellectually) about ‘what is going on’ in the world - becoming more and more complacent about such goings on… They see the widespread corruption, the abuse, etc., and shrug, and say, “well, it’s not my problem”…, right? Complacency breeds apathy, … that is, until their basic needs are threatened - threatened by climate change, threatened by wars which, while far away, begin to affect their little worlds close to where they live via inflation, shortages, fires, floods, extreme temperatures, etc. (indirectly), right? Get that?
But the worst of this complacency is that it seems to breed mediocrity. One sees how mediocrity is on the rise - art that is passionless fetching incredible prices in the marketplace - NFTs, abstract art (where artists play with their perception and interpretation of their environment), films that rely heavily on technique becoming the standard…, music that is written to cater to those who value words over anything else (the rise of rap, etc.). The vast majority of this so-called “culture” is that one becomes used to hardly seeing any evidence of passion and love in the “products” of this “culture” any more. In a way, it is the passionless and loveless art [whether in music (auditory), film and art, and even buildings (land development by promoters - there just are no Frank Lloyd Wrights any more, eh?)], etc. etc. etc.
So, it is this mediocre culture which is now valued; therefore, one is not surprised to see a society of mediocre human beings exhibiting a mechanical intellectual take on the worth of what such a society produces, eh?
In sum, complacency breeds mediocrity, right?
1 Like
Tradition,
“The thinker is the observer with his past knowledge, with his traditions, with his experiences, with his accumulated knowledge; and not being able to solve these problems we say, “Let’s go back to the past, let’s accept tradition.” You know that word ‘tradition’ means not only “to hand over, to give over”, but also it has got another meaning, it has the meaning of “betray”. You look in a good dictionary and you will find it is so. Tradition not only means what is generally accepted but also it means to betray. And that is what they are doing when they bring their old traditions from India to this country or to America, they are betraying – betraying the awakening of intelligence. So, that is the first thing to understand, to have an insight, to have the truth of it, the fact of it as palpable as you are sitting there, so that there is no conflict between the observer and the observed.”
K: Talks in Saanen [1974], Saanen, 1st Public Talk , 14 July 1974"
It is so unfortunate and tragic to see anyone who may have realized and placed thought in its place, so as to use “technical thought” properly. So, what they are doing is that they “go back to the past” as the above quote mentions with the unfortunate consequence of having their brain incapable of recognizing and distinguishing technical thought from psychological thought any more. It would almost be like someone having seen the truth, and then backtracking. One understands that this case may happen when there was a motive (attached to their realization, and which was influenced by their conditioning), that moved the one to initially have that realization. So, backtracking, falling back to one’s past is inevitable.
You see, unless thought is placed in its right place as a reality that is seen with all of one’s understanding, not just intellectual - in other words, seen how thought is limited, how knowledge is limited, there is always the danger of a falling back on this realization. And such a falling back is a betrayal of oneself.
And this betrayal is quite evident, especially when anyone starts to go on and on about what they know about traditions which exist in other organized religions.
There is always this danger when one fragment, whatever fragment that is - intellectual, visual, material - ends up dominating everything within them. That is the very definition of what it means to be unbalanced (K)…
1 Like
Speculation,
There are those who like like to speculate, that is their chief interest. Either they will think their way to find some conclusion, or they will feel their way to some other conclusion. Apparently, some of these speculators (who are using thought-feeling - saying that they think this is right, or that they feel that this is right - (which, of course, is coloured by their conditioning) - can’t even come to an agreement as to what their conclusions are. Charley found both of these conclusions to be false.
Charley knows very little about the organized religion of Buddhism apart from what one was exposed to in the K texts (notably from a Dr. Radula - not that Charley understood much thereof). Apparently, from what one has read online, there was some info saying that Buddhists are atheists. But, they did turn the Buddha into a god, right? In the same way (and apart from what some Swami V mentioned - and which Charley didn’t understand), Charley knows very little (thank god, eh? - laughs) about the organized religion that comes out of India, Hinduism, apart from them having a lot of gods (some 33 million), and one belief in something called Brahman (of which the 33 million gods are said to be different expressions of this Brahman) - which google defined as the eternal origin.
Charley has exchanged a few posts with someone elsewhere online who did an “I am that” with something outside of himself (something in nature). His conclusions were, “I am god”, “Life is meaningless”, and because it is meaningless, he also said that “Life is a joke”.!!! Charley understood indirectly from some of his other comments that he had not emptied the contents of his consciousness. Charley saw that one other had also did a similar identification, and because his “I” was also there, it would tend to reappear, so this guy had to do an “I am that” again and again (laughs).
Charley does understand and has posted elsewhere on this site, that speculation leads to conclusions and then to beliefs, and that ideas about facts lead to some unfortunate consequences, notably in that such activity leads to blocking oneself, which implies that it will become more and more difficult to discover truth.
So while some keep on indulging in speculation, others (but not all) are trying to reinvent the wheel. Hint: wheels are round, right? (laughs)
So why do people speculate, eh? K was asked this question, to which he answered as follows:
“When man tries to go beyond himself, beyond his struggles, beyond his sorrows, beyond all the things that perish round him, beyond all the things that live and die, he begins to search, to invent, to speculate. Actually, he does not really search, he does not really want to find out; but he hopes there is something, which he calls ‘god’, and clings to the belief in that which his mind has created, thus trying to escape from all these troubles. So, he begins to speculate, he begins to have theories of what god is, and he writes books. The more clever, the more cunning, the more subtle you are, the more ideas you have about god and you will build great many philosophies round it, systems of thought; and from that grows the thought, “You must have beliefs in order to attain that real, you must do certain practices, you must give up the world, you must do this and you must not do that in order to get there, in order to forget the troubles, the sorrows and the death that awaits all of us.” So, we have a religion, which demands that we shall believe. Society also demands likewise because that is what each one of us wants – to believe in something much greater than ourselves, because we ourselves are very small.”
K: Benares, India, 22 Jan. 1954, 15th Talk to Students at Rajghat School, Collected Works Vol. 08 – What Are You Seeking? 1954-55
One has also read recently someone quoting the phrase, “I am humanity”. Insofar as being humanity, one saw a picture of some journalist in Israel having being killed. Charley peered deeply at this photo and there was the seeing of “humanity” !!! Ya know, this was the first time that one has seen such a sense of humanity in the face of a journalist. This was something to behold !!. Then several days later, there were these horrific scenes of the funeral of this woman, precipitated by the Israeli police. What was not surprising was that this was the first time in so many decades that there were many thousands of mourners who came to express their grief (sorrow and anger) at her death. Her humanity had touched so many, eh?
On has seen quite a few photos of members of K sites and one has never seen humanity in any of these photos.
Eh?..
The Red Wheelbarrow (1923),
so much depends
upon
a red wheel
barrow
glazed with rain
water
beside the white
chickens
This poem reflects a key K pov - observation. Everything depends on seeing “what is”. Understand that?
The great artists, poets, sculptors, writers (etc.) have been well-known for having what K called partial insight, seeing “what is”.
A long time ago, one held a Rembrandt in one’s hands. There was the seeing of love in the line of the face and was stunned by the beauty of what was seen. At that time, one had realized after - with some relief - that the decision not to pursue a career as an artist was intelligent, wise - mainly because one understood way back when that one had lacked that “it”, and hence would not have been able to put “it” (love) into one’s work. Thank god for that decision, as one would have been a most mediocre kind of artist. There are many like that, and the most mediocre of people buy such “art” at ridiculous prices. One sees their work, and such “art” is mainly dull work, as just some form of ego expression, self-expression. How dull and meaningless to spend one’s entire life doing self-expression! How stupid! What a waste of energy and time!
Yes! Your expression of delight with yourself for eschewing the “dull and meaningless” life of self-expression is inspiring!
Comparison,
There has been an unmitigated tendency on this site for quite a few of the members to indulge in comparison: comparison about what some authority has said with a view to compare that with what someone else has said, and trying to find a correlation in agreement about what both have said. This has been going on for quite a long time, and has only resulted in a lot of confusion and false conclusions.
So, one puts down below some of the excerpts from my files on the subject of comparison…
-
“The understanding of what is does not come about through comparing what is with what should be.”
K: Bombay, 3rd Public Talk, 11 Mar. 1956, Collected Works Vol. 09 – The Answer Is in the Problem 1955-56 -
“Comparison, psychologically, I have to compare between two colours, between many things, but inwardly, psychologically, what is the need of comparison between what is and what should be? Why should there be comparison? Is not comparison one of the distractions from what is and therefore preventing understanding of what is?”
K: San Diego State College, California, 1st Public Talk, 5 Apr. 1970, ‘The Human Condition’ -
“And in comparison you come to a conclusion, and that conclusion brings about neurotic habits. I conclude about something – right? – through comparison and I hold onto that comparison, that conclusion, irrespective of facts, of what is real. Because I have compared, I have watched, I have learned, I hold on. Haven’t you noticed it? And that is a state of neuroticism – isn’t it? Now why do I compare? Partly habit, partly inheritance, partly it is profitable, and through comparison I feel I am alive because I am struggling – right? I am fighting to be like you, and that gives me vitality. I get depressed and all the rest of it. So, I am asking myself: “Is it possible to live a life in which there is no comparison at all, and yet not be satisfied?”
“The moment I do not compare is there satisfaction in what is – you follow? Or when I cease to compare then I am face to face with what is, and when I compare it is an escape from what is – right? And therefore it is a waste of energy and I need energy, there must be energy to face what is – you are following all this? So, am I dissipating energy through comparison? And if I am, and I have an insight into all this, which is your insight, not mine, then you have energy which is not wasted through comparison, measurement, feeling inferior, superior, depressed and all the rest of it. Therefore you have energy to face what actually is, which is yourself.”
K: Saanen, 4th Public Talk, 23 July 1972
-
“So, can my mind cease comparing? Comparison may be disorder. Comparison itself may be the cause of disorder. Measurement may be disorder, and as long as I am comparing, there must be disorder. I am comparing my disorder at present with a whiff of order which I have smelt and I call it disorder. So, I see it is comparison which is really important, not disorder. As long as my mind is comparing, measuring, there must be disorder.”
K: Exploration into Insight, ‘Silence and Disorder’ -
“Questioner: Don’t we confuse comparative facts with comparative judgements?
Krishnamurti: Comparative fact – that is, this colour is red, I prefer blue, I don’t like this. The fact – that is fairly clear. But I want to get my teeth into much deeper things than that, which is: “Can I live completely without comparison?” Not the comparison of judgement, that is, “You are fairer than I am” – obviously I am brown and you are fair – so what? But I am asking myself; I am full of curiosity to find out whether the mind can live without comparing. And is not the mind itself the result of comparison? The tall and the small, more – less. I can only live non-comparatively when I am absolutely looking at the fact and not what the fact should be or must not be.
Questioner: But, sir, take two facts side by side.
Krishnamurti: No, no, there is no such thing as two facts side by side. Look, there is one fact at a time, not two facts at one time.
…
Krishnamurti: No, no, madam – that doesn’t mean anything. Sorry, forgive me if I contradict you. Do I learn anything by comparing or do I only learn by looking at the fact and enquiring about that fact; not by comparing that fact with another fact? I have a Chinese vase, and a Persian vase. By looking at the Chinese vase I learn all about it. But if I begin to compare the two, I am learning about something else, not about the fact of the Chinese vase.”
K: The Brockwood Park Talks & Discussions 1969, 2nd Public Dialogue, 11 Sept. 1969 -
“I am dissatisfied with what I am, because I have the capacity to compare with something greater, with something less, with something superior or inferior. Right? If by some miracle you could remove from the mind the comparative quality, then I will accept what I am. Then I won’t have a problem. So, can the mind stop thinking comparatively, and why does it think comparatively? Because, the fact is my mind is small. That is a fact. Why do I compare it with something else and create a problem out of it? My mind is small; my mind is empty. It is a fact. Why don’t I accept it? Is it possible to see the fact that I am this, not in terms of comparison? One of the major factors of the cause of problems is comparison. And we say that through comparison we understand, we say that through comparison we grow; and that is all we know. Is it possible for the mind to put away all comparison? If it is not possible, then we live in a state of perpetual problems. And a mind ridden with problems is a stupid mind, obviously.”
…
“Why does the mind create problems? One of the factors of this creation lies in comparison. Now, can the mind by investigation, by looking, observing, understand the futility of comparison, the waste of comparison, because comparison leads to problems? Do you follow? A mind ridden with problems is not a mind at all; it is incapable of thinking clearly. So, the truth is that comparison creates problems. I am ugly, I am violent; can I look at what I am without comparison?
K: New Delhi, 2nd Public Talk, 11 Jan. 1961, Collected Works Vol. 12 – There is No Thinker Only Thought
Comparison is an indication of an inability to attend to “what is”. Whether by “choice”, or by neurosis (attention deficit disorder), it is a meaningless distraction. Whatever, it is always comparing what someone else said with what is known, and so being inattentive. It is said and one has read online that people suffering from attention deficit disorder can make the best of teachers, once they realize that they have a problem, once there is the seeing that their inattention if the source of their inability to understand even the simplest of things.
-
“To listen vitally, my mind must be quiet – mustn’t it? If I am chattering, if I am looking somewhere else, if I am comparing what you are saying with what I know, my mind is not quiet. It is only when my mind is quiet and listens completely, that there is understanding of the truth of the thing. That we share together, otherwise we can’t share; we can’t share the words – we can only share the truth of something. You and I can only see the truth of something when the mind is totally committed to the observation.”
K: The Awakening of Intelligence, Part II, Ch. 2, 2nd Public Talk, New York 24 Apr. 1971, ‘Relationship’ -
“When you are chattering to yourself, comparing what is being said with what you already know, then you are not listening. When you are observing with your eyes and all kinds of prejudices and knowledge are interfering, you are not really observing. So, when you really observe and listen, you can only do so out of silence.”
K: Beyond Violence, Part I, Ch. 4, Santa Monica, 4th Public Talk, 8 Mar. 1970 -
“One cannot give attention if one is interpreting or translating or comparing what is being said with what one already knows. One has to listen – an art one has to learn, for normally one is always comparing, evaluating, judging, agreeing, denying, and one does not listen at all; actually one prevents oneself from listening. To listen so completely implies that one gives one’s whole attention – it does not mean one agrees or disagrees. There is no agreement or disagreement when we are exploring together; but the ‘microscope’ through which one looks may not be clear. If one looks through a precision instrument then what one sees is what another will also see; therefore, there is no question of agreement or disagreement.”
K: Beyond Violence, Part II, Ch. 1, San Diego State College, 2nd Public Talk, 6 Apr. 1970 ‘Fear’ -
“But if you want to listen you have to pay attention. That means care. That means you have to listen, listen without any prejudice, without conclusion, comparing what you hear with what you already know. All those inhibit, prevent listening. So, when you want to listen, you must be completely silent, naturally.”
K: Saanen, Truth and Actuality, 7th Public Talk, 27 July 1975, Chapter 15 -
“And so it matters enormously how you listen, whether you listen casually, or whether you listen with a mind that is comparing what is being said with what you already know, or have already read – such a mind is not listening. A mind that listens gives complete attention. It is only when there is inattention that the whole mischief begins.”
K: Talks in Europe 1968, Paris, 3rd Public Talk, 21 Apr. 1968 -
“If I am comparing what you are saying with what I have already read or known or experienced, how can there be communication? I must listen to you with attention, care, with affection. And out of that care, out of that affection, out of that silence there is understanding, not only verbal understanding but non-verbal. That is the common foundation.”
K: Krishnamurti in India 1970-71, Ch. 4, 4th Public Talk, New Delhi, 20 Dec. 1970 -
“Part of investigation together is to listen together; but you cannot possibly listen if you are comparing what is being said with what you already know; you cannot possibly listen if you are agreeing or disagreeing. If you are merely listening to the words and not relating the words to the fact of yourself and if you are listening with your conclusions, with your hopes, with your problems, with your sorrows, with your agonies, then you are not listening. Only by listening together shall we be able to solve all our problems completely, totally. So, the mind that is capable of listening, not only to what the speaker is saying but also listening to the reactions, to the responses, to your own mutterings, will then share it, together.”
K: Krishnamurti in India 1970-71, Ch. 10, 1st Public Talk, Bangalore, 30 Jan. 1971 -
“You cannot share in what is being said if your mind, if your thoughts are wandering all over the place or you are comparing what is being said to what you know; or translate what is being said to see if it conforms to what is said. That is not the art of listening.”
K: Krishnamurti in India 1974-75, Ch. 3, Madras, 3rd Public Talk, 14 Dec. 1974 -
“There is no attention as long as you are comparing what has been said about this problem by various authorities, by Shankara, Buddha, Christ, or X, Y, Z. When your mind is full of other people’s knowledge, other people’s experience, when it is following guides, sanctions, there can be no attention.”
K: Bombay, 7th Public Talk, 25 Mar. 1956, Collected Works Vol. 09 – The Answer Is in the Problem 1955-56
1 Like
Understanding,
There are so many posts here where the members expend so much energy trying to understand what K meant by x, y and z. This is something which Charley never did. Charley only did what K suggested, and let the words sink in… fortunately, one was unaware whether or not there were web sites at the time Charley began the “work”. Of course, Charley did not do dialoguing with others either, fortunately as well.
Recently, one discovered quite a few published works which one now has on file, many of which were not included in the original CD-Rom which had been purchased from the UK site. So, much of what one is now reading confirms what Charley understood, as follows:
-
“K: Sir, the speaker has written a great many books, unfortunately. He has talked a great deal throughout the world for the last sixty years. So they have invented a word called his ‘teachings’. The ‘teachings’ are not something out there, in a book. What the teaching is or says is, “Look at yourself, go into yourself, enquire into what there is, understand it, go beyond it,” and so on. You are not to understand the teachings; you are to understand yourself. The teachings are only a means of pointing, of explaining, not the teachings but the necessity of understanding yourselves. Do not try to understand what the speaker says, but understand that what he says acts as a mirror in which you look at yourself. When you look at yourself very carefully, then the mirror will not be important; you will be able to throw it away. Right? So that is what we are doing.”
K: A Timeless Spring: Krishnamurti at Rajghat, Talks to the Public, Understanding Disorder, 25 November 1981 -
“K: If you so listen, what takes place? Let us say that the Buddha said to me, “The ending of sorrow is the bliss of compassion.” I don’t examine this statement. I don’t translate this statement into my way of thinking. I don’t question it; I don’t analyse it; I don’t say, “What do you mean by it?” I am only in a state of acute, total, attention of listening—nothing else—because that statement has enormous truth and there is tremendous content in that statement.
Then I would say to the Buddha, “Forgive me, sir, but I am not capable of such intense action or non-action—whatever it is—of listening, so please help me.” Right? So the Buddha says, “First listen to what I have said, namely, that no agency that the mind, that thought, has invented, will help you. Nothing will help you. There is not even an outside agency that will help you to have this tremendous ‘insight.” I listen and I am frightened. For that means that I must drop everything that I am attached to. And I ask, “How am I to be detached?” You see, my reasoning is false. My reasoning—the questioner’s reasoning—is false. The moment I ask, “How am I to be detached?”, I am lost.
He says, “Be detached,” but I am not listening. I have a great reverence for him, but I am not listening. I am not listening because attachment has been a tremendous thing in my life, and in one stroke he says, “Throw it out.” And in one instant I must throw it out…
Questioner: Is the dropping also the moment of perception?
K: Yes. The moment you see the fact that you must be free of all knowledge… But the man who has spent his life collecting knowledge from books and all the rest of it, says, “What are you talking about?”
K:… That’s why I am saying that the intensity of listening is the real crux of it.
Pupul Jayakar: What is it that gives that intensity?
K: That intensity? Nothing.
Our whole way of thinking is based on growth; it is based on becoming, on evolving. I see a child and he grows to manhood. I see technological growth—it takes years and years for some scientific discovery or technique to be perfected. So everything is a growth. Everything is a becoming, a growing, an expanding. Now somebody comes along and says, “That’s right in certain places but it has nothing whatsoever to do with enlightenment”—let’s use that word for the moment. The mind being heavily conditioned by the tradition of growth, man won’t even listen.
You see, Pupul, you may say something which is totally accurate, totally true, something that is immovable, irrevocable: and what you say may have tremendous insight behind it. But the difficulty, Pupul, is that I cannot listen to it because I have commitments. I am attached. And because of this I don’t listen to this extraordinary statement.
So, to answer your question whether there has been, between the thirties, the forties and now, a fundamental change in me, I say: No, there has been a considerable change in expression, in the way I use words and so on, but the basic Teaching is the same.
Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part I, The Unfolding of the Teaching, Brockwood Park, 11 June 1978
1 Like
Inquiry,
There has also been on this site a tremendous amount of inquiry, asking questions, giving answers, drawing conclusions (so many of which were so false), an endless amount of queries, all expressing the agitation of the brain. In the West, one observes the most incredible of habits, that of asking questions, all exercising thought - analyzing, speculating, comparing, drawing conclusions. One has always found this so strange, as all have begun with a certain assumption, a premise - and all ignoring the most basic of queries: “What is inquiry?”
-
"Pupul Jayakar: What is inquiry ?
K: Observation. Inquiry is to observe very clearly without any bias, without any direction, without any motive, how my life is fragmented. It is just to observe it, and not to say, “I must not be fragmented and, therefore, I must be whole.” The idea of becoming whole is another fragmentation.”
Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part I, Can the Brain Renew Itself?, Brockwood Park, 22 June 1982 -
“Pupul Jayakar: So, when you use the word ‘inquiry ’, you use it as perception .
K: Perceiving, observing, watching .”
Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part I, What Is Culture?, Brockwood Park, 24 June 1983 -
“K: I am saying, very clearly, that humanity has gone through this process. It has been the pattern of our existence—of course, some have gone through the process more diligently , sacrificing everything, inquiring, analysing, searching , and so on. You do this too, and at the end of it all you may be just a dead entity.”
…
“Let me talk a little. I recognize or I perceive—whatever be the word you use—that man has tried this process of introspective observation, diligence and so on, for a million years in different ways, and somehow the mind is not clear at the end of it. I see this very clearly. I see that somehow this movement is very, very shallow. Now, can you listen to that statement—that the whole process is shallow—and actually see the truth of it? If you do, it means that your disordered mind is now quiet; it is listening to find out. Your confused, traditional mind now not only says that you are accustomed to this diligent observation of all your activities but also that the entire process is really very superficial. Once you see the truth of this, you are out of it. It’s like putting away something utterly meaningless.”
…
“Now, when you listen, completely, without any movement, to a man who comes along and says, “Don’t go through all this diligent process, because it is false, because it is superficial,” what takes place? If you hear the truth of his statement, what takes place?”
…
“K: What is the quality of a mind which has been caught in the process of diligent inquiry when it sees that the process which it has been caught in has no deep, fundamental value? This diligent process will not lead or help to comprehend or come upon or uncover the origin. This process is time-consuming.”
…
“K: No, no. Look, Pupulji, just a minute. Can we both, you and I, agree—even temporarily—that this diligent process has really led nowhere? Can we see that this process has led to various activities—some of which may be beneficial—but that this process, this inquiry which says, “I must go to the very source of things,” is not the way ?”
…
“K: Man has done everything that’s possible. Man has fasted, sacrificed; man has done everything to find the origin of things. Man has done all that has been possible, and that has led nowhere. That’s what I am saying—possibility has led nowhere. It has led to certain benefits—social, and so on. It has also led to a great deal of misery for mankind. So, the man tells me that this diligent process is time-consuming and, therefore, time-binding. He tells me that as long as I am doing this, I am just scratching the surface. The surface may be the most extraordinary, pleasant and ennobling thing—but it’s just the surface. If you grant—no, not merely grant but actually see, actually feel—in your blood, as it were—that this is false, you will have already stepped out of something that is the ordinary into something that is extraordinary.
“And we are not willing to do that. We want to go through all this. We treat it like learning a language. To learn a language, discipline, diligence, attention and so on are necessary. We carry the same mentality into the other. That’s what I object to.”
…
“K: Which means—what? That the movement of diligence has stopped—right? Of course. If that is false, it has gone. So what has happened to the mind—the mind that has been caught in diligent inquiry and so on, all of which is time-bound, and has been seen by me to be utterly superficial? What is the state of my mind? Right? It is a fresh mind. It is a totally new mind. And such a mind is necessary to inquire into, to uncover the origin.
"If I talked like this to a very disciplined, ‘religious’ man, he wouldn’t even bother to listen. He would say, “All this is nonsense.” But you, in our dialogue, say, “Let’s go into it,” and, so, you put yourself into a position of listening. Find out.
"Now, such a mind has no bondage to time. You see, the diligent process is to become something; it is to clarify, to understand, to go beyond. This mind has no beyond—it is not becoming something.”
Pupul Jayakar, Fire in the Mind, Part I, Uncovering the Source, Brockwood Park, 21 June 1982
1 Like
True - the intellectual narrative does not lead to freedom from the known.
If there is no actual realisation, the words, even when said correctly, are not really understood, and have no magical power.
1 Like