No…only choice. I do choose to inquire though…but to meditate? I don’t think I do that.
[quote=“macdougdoug, post:80, topic:257”]
I’d say even choosing what to be aware of -
[/quote
And in some cases that would be right but when K asks can you be aware of your thoughts or better , can thought be aware of itself as it arises, he’s pointing at something definite as here in the case of the interval…from what I’m seeing, the excercise puts thought in a different relation to itself…if I could put it that way.
We don’t realize that we are deranged and delusional because derangement and delusion are normal, the status quo, so there’s no sense of urgency to change. One has to see one’s derangement and delusion to come to order, and there is no seeing what is obvious until the mind is observing and questioning its own activity.
1 Like
You describe a process here where you interpret a question to mean something not at all alluded to in the question - even if you could demonstrate your reasoning, how is this related to freedom from the known ?
The confused human should not trust his beliefs, nor the conclusions formed via those beliefs
What do you mean by inquire? Do you mean you think about it?
K. “The experiencing of this interval is what we are now considering. There is a vitality in this interval. In this interval all effort has stopped; there is no choice, no condemnation, no justification and no identification.”
The Silent Action of the New
Madras 1948
3 Likes
Thank you - the danger being that we know what he is describing and attempt to get there.
He’s pointing at the ‘opening ‘ but no one can push us through it.
Thanks for the quote, Dan.
Nor can I push myself. So it’s just there…the opening? That’s it?
You’re welcome…tough crowd😊
You’re doing admirably! 
There is no “thats it” unless you have come to the end of it - without experimenting with it, we are not even at the beginning of it. (the silence with neither effort nor identification)
Thank you for quoting that. I’m sure there must be other more recent mentions of that topic. I remembered having read or heard K. talking about that but could not tell where or when. Something in my opinion quite underrated in the K.’s circles.
K. was reluctant to “prescribe” something related to meditation or considered as such in India (Aurobindo, just to name one, recommended this “technique”), and while sometimes he definitely opposed to a mechanical practice, in other occasions he pointed out the usefulness of sitting and observing ones thoughts, according to the people he was addressing.
I think this lack of coherence can be explained considering that there is no linear proceeding in K.’s teachings, no relationship of cause and effect, and all the things he recommended were only necessary but not sufficient. All the problems are related: fears, desire, conflicts, self-centered activities, etc. Yet a single insight into one of those problems does not produce the decisive and definitive insight (or the first and last step). There is no beginning because there is no path and yet that does not mean one must do nothing and wait for the insight to fall from the sky. It’s true that meditation happens spontaneously but that spontaneity will never happen if we don’t comply some requirements.
And there is a ‘danger’ in this type of inquiry that K. acknowledged albeit also calling it “fun”. John R. mentioned to me that K. told one of his closest friends (Asit Chandmal) ‘Once you have touched ‘That’, you have to take roots in it, otherwise you would break into pieces’.
I wonder…is that even an accurate quote? Seems very odd anyway. And I do tend to question it. Never heard him mention anything like that before and I’ve been following the ‘teaching’ for almost 50 years.
I don’t know Tom. It’s what John passed to me. But it makes sense to me from what I’ve experienced. The ‘fragments’ that make up the self or our ‘known personality ‘ are being put into question aren’t they? Different people wit react differently. You’ve been going in one direction and the road you thought you were on dissolves. But I feel personally that if the destabilization is slow enough it gives the brain at least a chance to see that the pluses; less anxiety, fear, conflict, etc outweigh the danger of becoming psychotic. I think K was saying when the truth is seen you can’t get your old self back and that could be a problem for some. In another teaching it’s called “getting stuck between two chairs “.
But that would be a plus, no? Not being about to get the self back. The self is what’s behind our suffering. Sorry, I dont think this is right. But who am I to question K? Hmmmm…
It is. (@Patricia has once clarified this back sometime)
“What are you going to do with your life sir? If you have touched the other, and are not anchored in it, you will go to pieces.”
(K to Asit Chandmal. January 1986, just before he finally left India for California, and a few weeks before his death)
I would say it’s a very accurate observation, we’ll be otherwise caught in a blind zone in such cases and it could cost our lives as in from an impending danger (mostly physical).
1 Like
Yes…could be. We won’t take care of the physical needs…protect ourselves physically and practically. I knew a guy like that…lived like a total pig, yet had very profound ‘spiritual’ experiences.