Exploration into Insight
by
J Krishnamurti
S: This is where the dilemma comes. Pursue the fragment you
say. But unless one sees the fragment holistically...
K: Do not bother about holistically.
S: Then, how does one observe the fragment? Then, what is the
process involved? Which comes first?
K: I am doing it. I do not know a thing about holistic. I do not
know. I know the meaning of the word, the description of the
word, what it conveys, but that is not the fact. The fact is that I am
a fragment, I work, live, act in fragments, in myself. I know
nothing about the other.
FW: This brings us to the initial question: What is the meaning
of your word apart from our communication now? In my daily life,
to remember what you say that you should never be hurt, has it a
meaning when I am hurt?
K: No, I am hurt. That is all I know. That is a fact. I am hurt
because I have an image about myself. Have I discovered that
image for myself or has K told me that the image is hurt? That is
very important to find out. Is it that the description has created the
image or is it that I know the image exists?
S: One knows that the image exists.
K: All right. If the image exists, I am concerned with the image,
not how to be rid of the image, not how to look at the image
holistically. I know nothing about it.
S: `Looking at the image,' it seems to imply the concept of
`holistic'. K: No, I know nothing of such concept. I only know I
have an image. I will not be with anything but the fragment, with
`what is' - the holistic is non-fact.
S: That is very clear. But how does one look at it, hold the hurt
totally? That is where the question arises.
P: That is his statement.
K: What?
S & P: `Totally.' That is your statement.
K: Of course. But throw it out.
S: Then there is no problem because one observes certain
symptoms of hurt. There is an observation of it and it ends. This
process goes on, I do not need K's telling me about it. This I know;
to observe something at that level, everything that is arising in
consciousness, the observing of it and the subsidence.
A: The discussion started on the very crucial question of
authority. The point of starting this discussion on authority lies in
this, that we make an authority of what you have said, then that is a
barrier.
K: Obviously.
D: Something is missing in this.
K: Look, sir, there is something very interesting which comes
out of this. Are you learning or are you having an insight into it?
Learning implies authority. Are you learning and acting from
learning? I learn about mathematics, technology and so on and
from that knowledge I become an engineer and act. Or I go out into
the field, act and learn. Both are the accumulation of knowledge
and acting from knowledge - knowledge becomes the authority.
Either you accumulate knowledge and act or you go out, act and
learn. Both are an acting according to knowledge. So knowledge
becomes the authority, whether it is the authority of the doctor, the
scientist, the architect, or the guru who says `I know' - which is his
authority. Now, somebody comes along and says:Look, acting
according to knowledge is a prison; you will never be free; you can
not ascend through knowledge.' And somebody like K says: `Look
at it differently, look at action with insight - not accumulate
knowledge and act but insight and action. In that there is no
authority.
P: You have used the word `insight'. What is the actual meaning
of that word?
K: To have insight into something; to grasp the thing instantly;
to listen carefully. You see, you do not listen, that is my point. You
act, after learning; that is, in learning there is an accumulation of
information, knowledge and you act according to that knowledge,
skilfully or non-skilfully. That is learning; accumulating
knowledge and acting from it. Then there is learning from acting,
which is the same as the other. Both are acting on the basis of
knowledge. So knowledge becomes the authority and where there
is authority, there must be suppression. You will never ascend
anywhere through that process; it is mechanical. Do you see both
as mechanical movement? If you see that, that is insight.
Therefore, you are acting not from knowledge; but by seeing the
implications of knowledge and authority. Your action is totally
different.
So where are we? Self-knowledge and the word of K. If there is
a movement together, then it is over. It is very simple. You move.
P: Is the word of K and the movement with that word essential?
Can the revelation be without the word?
K: All right. K says: `Be a light to yourself.' It does not mean
you become the authority. K says: `Nobody can take you there; you
can not invite that.' K says: `You can listen to K endlessly for the
next million years and you will not get it.' But he says: `Be a light
to yourself and you see holistically that thing. To know oneself is
one of the most difficult things because in the observation of
myself I come to a conclusion about what I am seeing; and the next
observation is through that conclusion. Can one observe the actual
anger without any conclusion, without saying right, wrong, good,
bad? Can one observe holistically? Self-knowledge is not knowing
oneself, but knowing every movement of thought. Because the self
is the thought, the image, the image of K and the image of the `me.'
So, watch every movement of thought, never letting one thought go
without realizing what it is. Try it. Do it and you will see what
takes place. This gives muscle to the brain.
S: Would you say that in a single thought is the essence of the
self?
K: Yes. I will say `yes'. You see, thought is fear, thought is
pleasure, thought is sorrow. And thought is not love. Thought is
not compassion.
The image that thought has created is `me'. The `me' is the
image. There is no difference between `me' and the image. The
image is me. Now, I am observing the image which is me, which
is, say, `I want to attain nirvana,' which means I am greedy. That is
all. Instead of wanting money, I want the other thing. It is greed.
So I examine greed. What is greed? `The more'? That means I want
to change what is into the more, the greater. Therefore that is
greed. So I say: `Now why am I doing this?' `Why do I want
more?' is it tradition, habit, is it the mechanical response of the
brain? I want to find out. Either I can find out with one glance or
step by step. I can observe it with one glance only when I have no
motive, for motive is the distorting factor. It is most interesting to
know yourself because yourself may be the universe, - not the
theoretical universe but the global universe. I want to know myself
because I see very clearly that if I do not know myself, whatever I
say is meaningless, is corrupt - not just verbally, I see that it is
corruption. My action is corrupt action and I do not want to live a
corrupt life. I see I must know myself. To know myself I watch; I
watch my relationship to you, to my wife, to my husband. In that
watching I see myself reflected in that relationship. I want my wife
because I want sex; I want her comfort; she looks after my
children; she cooks; I depend on her. So, in my relationship to her,
I discover the pleasure principle, the attachment principle and the
comfort principle and so on. Am I observing it without the past,
without any conclusion? Is my observation precise? The moment
one says `Be a light to yourself, all authority is gone including the
authority of the Gita, the gurus, the ashramas. The question would
be really interesting on its own. If I am a light to myself, what is
my relationship politically, economically, socially? But you do not
ask these questions. I am a light to myself - go on, work it out - I
am a light to myself. I see that very clearly. I have no authority, no
guide. Then how do I act with regard to tyranny, the tyranny of the
guru, of the ashramas? To be a light to oneself means being
holistic. Anything that is not holistic is corruption. A holistic man
will not deal with corruption.
EXPLORATION INTO INSIGHT 'THE ENDING
OF RECOGNITION'
P: Shall we discuss the question of consciousness and the
relationship of consciousness to the brain cells? Are they of the
same nature or is there something which gives them separate
identities?
K: That's a good question. You begin.
P: The traditional concept of the word `consciousness' would
include that which lies beyond the horizon.
A: Quite correct. The brain is only a conglomeration of cells, a
forest of cells and yet each cell is dependent on the other although
in fact every brain cell can act by itself. So we may ask: How does
one know the sum total of all consciousness, of all the cells? Is
there a co-ordinating factor? Is the brain merely a result? A further
question is: What is primary and what secondary? Does
consciousness come first and then the brain, or does the brain come
first and then consciousness?
K: If I may ask: What do you mean by the word
`consciousness'? Let us start from the beginning: What is
consciousness? What does it mean `to be conscious of? I want to
be clear that we both have the same understanding of the meaning
of that word. One is conscious, for instance, of the microphone. I
am conscious of it and then I use the word `microphone'. So, when
you are conscious of something naming begins; then like and
dislike. So `consciousness, means to be aware of, to be conscious
of, to be cognizant of sensation, cognition, contact.
A: I feel that consciousness is prior to sensation. It is the field
and at any one time I am aware of some part of it through
sensation; I feel consciousness is much more vast. I see that I am
aware of only a part of a very wide thing. That whole field is not in
my awareness. So, I do not want to restrict consciousness to
something that exists at any given moment. My awareness may not
be extensive, but consciousness can be seen to be much more vast.
K: What is the relationship between that consciousness and the
brain cells? Pupul used the word `consciousness' and asked what is
the relationship between the brain and consciousness. I am asking:
What is that relationship?
P: When K says the content of consciousness is consciousness,
it would imply that the content of the brain cells is consciousness.
If there is a field which is outside the brain cells and which is also
consciousness, then you have to say all that is consciousness. But
then you cannot say that the content of consciousness is
consciousness.
K: Is that clear? I have said the content of consciousness is
consciousness.
A: `The content of consciousness is consciousness' is a
statement irrespective of, and unconnected with, the perceiver. It is
a statement about consciousness, not your consciousness, or my
consciousness.
K: That is right. Therefore what is outside the field of
consciousness is not its content.
P: The moment you posit something outside of consciousness,
you are positing a state which may or may not exist.
A: Is the known a part of our consciousness, consciousness
being the content?
P: The major difference between K's position and the Vedantic
position is that K uses the word `consciousness' in a very special
sense. The Vedantic position is: consciousness is that which exists
before anything exists.
A: Basically, the source of existence is a vast incomprehensible
energy which they call `Chaitanya'. `Chaitanya' is the energy, the
source. They say that there is this source of energy, which they
speak of as `Chit'. The Buddhist position does not say anything
about this at all. It refuses to say a word about it. Therefore, the
Buddhist position is one from which we cannot answer the enquiry.
The Buddhist will say: `Don't talk about it; any talk about it will be
speculative and speculative processes are not meant for actual
practice.'
K: `Ignorance has no beginning, but has an end. Don't enquire
into the beginning of ignorance but find out how to end it'.
A: We have immediately come upon something.
K: Right, sir, that's a good point.
A: Buddhists say: `There is no such thing as consciousness in
general. Ignorance has no beginning. Ignorance can end. Don't let
us investigate into the beginnings of ignorance because that would
be speculative, would be a waste of time. But how is it possible to
end ignorance? This ignorance is consciousness.' Consciousness as
ignorance is a position into which we will have to investigate.
The Vedantins will say to you that the source which you refer to
as ignorance is of the nature of Sat, Chit and Anand. It is
constantly renewing itself, it is constantly coming into being; and
the entire process of birth, death, decay is a movement in it. I feel
that a man who does not accept the Buddhist position, will not
immediately accept what you say, that the beginning is ignorance
and that it is a self-sustaining process. You cannot trace the
beginning, but it can be brought to an end. I have stated the two
positions and they are conflicting positions.
K: We simply say that ignorance has no beginning; one can see
it in oneself, see it within consciousness, within that field.
P: If it is within this field, then has it existence apart from the
brain cells which contain the memory about it? The scientific
position is: whereas the brain cells and their operation are
measurable, consciousness is not measurable and therefore the two
are not synonymous.
K: Wait a minute. What you are saying is that the brain cells
and their movement are measurable, but consciousness is not
measurable.
A: May I suggest something? When we look through the
biggest telescope, we see the expanse of the cosmos as far as that
instrument will show it. If we get a bigger instrument, we get a
bigger view. Though we measure it, that measurement is relevant
only to the instrument which is a relative element. Consciousness
is immeasurable in the sense that there is no instrument to which it
can be related. Consciousness is something about which one cannot
say that it is measurable or immeasurable. Therefore,
consciousness is something about which one cannot make any
statement.
K: That is right. Consciousness is not measurable. What Pupul
is asking is: Is there outside consciousness as we know it, a state
which is not pertinent to this consciousness?
P: Is there a state which is not divisible, not knowable, not
available, within the brain cells?
K: Have you got it Achyutji? Not knowable, in the sense, not
recognizable; something totally new.
A: I am coming to that. I say that consciousness as we know it
is the source of all the recent memories and all the memories man
has had. The brain cells will recognize everything that comes out
of racial memories; everything that comes within the field of the
past, out of that which has been known.
P: The millions of years of the known.
A: Even the earliest memories of man, the brain may be able to
remember.
K: Wait, keep it very simple. We said the known is
consciousness - the content of consciousness is the known. Now, is
there something outside this, something which is not known,
totally new and which does not already exist in the brain cells? If it
is outside the known, is it recognizable? - for if it is recognizable it
is still in the field of the known. It is available only when the
recognizing and experiencing process comes to an end. I want to
stick to this. Pupul asked: Is it in the known or outside the known;
and if it is outside the known, is it already in the brain cells? If it is
in the brain cells, it is already the known because the brain cells
cannot contain something new. The moment it is in the brain cells,
it is tradition.
I love to dig deep. Outside the brain, is there anything else?
That is all. I say there is. But every process of recognition,
experience, is always within the field of the known and any
movement of the brain cells moving away from the known, trying
to investigate into the other is still the known.
M: How do you know that there is something?
K: You cannot know it. There is a state where the mind does not
recognize anything. There is a state in which recognition and
experience, which are the movement of the known, totally come to
an end.
A: In what way is it differentiated from a state of the process of
recognition, experiencing?
P: Is it of a different nature?
K: You see, the organism, the brain cells, come to an end. The
whole thing collapses; there is a different state altogether.
P: Let me put it to you in another way. When you say that all
the processes of recognition come to an end, and yet it is a living
state, is there a sense of existence, of being?
K: The words, `existence' and `being' do not apply.
A: How is it different from deep sleep?
K: I don't know what you mean by deep sleep.
A: In deep sleep the processes of recognition and recording are
for the time being put in total abeyance.
K: That is quite a different thing.
P: What has happened to the senses in the state you mentioned
earlier? K: The senses are in abeyance.
P: Are they not operating?
K: In that state, I might scratch myself - you follow - flies come
and sit on me. That is the action of the senses, but it does not affect
that.
M: The knowledge that there is scratching going on is present.
K: That is a natural thing. You must go very very slowly with it
Any movement of the known, any movement, potential or
nonpotential, is within the field of the known. I want to be quite
clear that you and I are understanding the same thing. That is:
when the content of consciousness with its experiences, demands,
its craving for something new, including its craving for freedom
from the known, has completely come to an end, then only does the
other quality come into being. The former has a motive; the latter
has no motive. The mind cannot come to that through motive.
Motive is the known. So, can the mind come to an end which says:
`It is no good investigating into it, I know how to make it come to
an end, ignorance is part of the content, ignorance is part of this
demand to experience more?' When that mind comes to an end - an
end not brought about by conscious effort in which there is motive,
with direction - then the other thing is there.
M: The thing is there. In the situation in which we are now, do
you know that?
K: Of course, I see your shirt, I see the colour obviously. The
senses are in operation. Recognition is in operation normally. The
other is there. It is not a duality.
M: Is knowledge a part of it?
K: No. I must go very slowly. I know what you are getting at. I
want to come to this very simply. I see the colour; the senses are in
operation...
A: Even trying to translate what you are saying is preventing
one from getting at it because that would immediately be duality.
When you say something, any movement in the mind is again
preventing one from it.
K: Achyutji, what are you trying to get at?
A: I am pointing out the difficulty that arises in communication.
I think communication about the other is not possible. I am trying
to understand the conscious state of the mind of the man who talks
to me. On what basis does he tell me that there is something?
K: The basis for that is: when there is no movement of
recognition, of experiencing, of motive, freedom from the known
takes place.
M: That is pure cognition without recognition.
K: You are translating it differently. This movement has come
to an end for the time being; that is all.
M: The movement of recognition of that. Where does the time
element come in? Is there another time?
K: Let us begin again. The brain functions within the field of
the known; in that function there is recognition. But when the
brain, your mind, is completely still, you don't see your still mind.
There is no knowing that your mind is still. If you know it, it is not
still, for then there is an observer who says `I know'. The stillness
which we are talking about is non-recognizable, nonexperienceable.
Then comes along the entity that wants to tell you
this through verbal communication. The moment he, the entity,
moves into communication, the still mind is not. Just look at it.
Something comes out of it. It is there for man. I am not saying it is
always there. It is there for the man who understands the known. It
is there and it never leaves; and though he communicates it, he
feels that it is never gone, it is there.
M: Why do you use the word `communicate'?
K: That is communication.
M: Who communicates? You talked to me just now.
K: Just now? The brain cells have acquired the knowledge of
the language. It is the brain cells that are communicating. M: The
brain contains its own observer.
K: The brain itself is the observer and the operator.
M. Now what is the relationship between that and this?
K: Tentatively, I say there is no relationship. This is the fact: the
brain cells hold the known and when the brain is completely stable,
completely still, there is no verbal statement or communication -
the brain is completely still. Then, what is the relationship between
the brain and that?
M: By what magic, by what means, does the state of a still mind
make a bridge? How do you manage to make a permanent bridge
between the brain and that, and maintain that bridge?
K: If one says `I don't know', what will you answer?
M: You have inherited it through some karma or somebody has
given it to you.
K: Let us begin again. Is it by chance that that event can happen
to us, is it an exception? That is what we are discussing now.
If it is a miracle, can it happen to you? It is not a miracle; it is
not something given from above so that one can ask: How did this
happen with this person and not with another - right?
M: What can we do?
K: I say you can do nothing - which does not mean doing
nothing!
M: What are these two meanings of nothing?
K: I will tell you the two meanings of nothing: the one refers to
desire to experience `That', to recognize `That' and yet to do
nothing about `That'. The other is to do nothing, in the other sense,
it is to see or to be aware, not theoretically but actually, of the
known.
M: You say, `Do nothing,just observe.'
K: Put it that way if you want.
M: It brings down the enlightenment to action. K: You must
touch this thing, very very lightly. You must touch it very lightly -
food, talk - and as the body and the senses become very light the
days and nights move easily. You see there is a dying every
minute. Have I answered, or very nearly answered, the question?
P: You have not answered specifically.
K: To put the whole thing differently: We will call `That', for
the moment, infinite energy and the other, energy created by strife
and conflict - it is entirely different from `That'. When there is no
conflict at all the infinite energy is always renewing itself. The
energy that peters out is what we know. What is the relationship of
the energy that peters out to `that'? There is none.
EXPLORATION INTO INSIGHT 'ENERGY AND
THE CULTIVATION OF THE FIELD'
P: Could we discuss one of the chief blockages to understanding,
that is, the factor of self-centred activity?
K: When you talk about self-centredness, a centre implies a
periphery. Can we say, where there is a centre there is a boundary,
a limitation and all action must be within the circle of centre and
periphery? That is self-centred activity.
P: What are the boundaries of the self?
K: It can be limitless or within the limits, but there is always a
boundary.
D: Limitless?
K: You can push it as far as you like. As long as there is a
centre, there is a periphery, a boundary, but that boundary can be
stretched.
P: Does that mean, sir, there is no limit to this stretching?
K: Let us go slowly. When we talk about self-centred activity,
that is what is implied - a centre and a periphery, a limitation and
within that circle all action takes place: to think about oneself, to
progress towards something is still from the centre to a periphery.
Where there is a centre, there is a boundary, and that centre may
expand itself, but it is still within that boundary, and therefore
within that circle all action takes place. From the centre you can
stretch as far as you like, through social service, democratic or
electorate dictatorship and tyranny, everything is within that area.
A: The point is, sir, is action possible which does not nourish a
centre? K: Or, can there be no centre?
A: Sir, that cannot be said from our position because we start
with a centre. We can honestly, factually say that we know there is
a centre, and we know that every activity, including breathing,
nourishes that centre.
K: The point is this: the energy that is expanded within the
circumference and the centre is a limited energy, a mechanical
energy. Do you know, not verbally but actually inside you, that
where there is a centre, there must be a circumference and that any
action that takes place within that area is limited, fragmented and
therefore a wastage of energy?
VA: We have been discussing the circumference and the centre.
To realize the self in ourselves would be the first problem.
K: That is the problem, sir. We are selfish entities. We are selfcentred
human beings, we think about ourselves, our worries, our
family - we are the centre. We can move the centre to social work,
to political work, but it is still the centre operating.
P: That is a little more subtle to see, because you can concern
yourself with something in which you feel the centre is not
involved.
K: You may think so. It is `I' who work for the poor, but I am
still working within this limitation.
P: Sir, I want some clarification. It is not the work for the poor
which you are questioning?
K: No. It is the identification of myself with the poor, my
identification of myself with the nation, identification of myself
with God, identification of myself with some ideal and so on, that
is the problem.
Apa: I think the question that Pupulji asked was whether this
movement of the mind with its habits can be stilled? Can this
movement of the mind which is exhausted by identification, by a
constant movement, from the centre to the periphery, from the
periphery to the centre, can it be silenced? Is there an energy which
can gush out, which will silence it or make it irrelevant, make it
seem a shadow?
K: I don't quite follow this.
P: It is really like this: we have done everything to understand
the nature of this self-centred activity. We have observed, we have
meditated, but the centre does not cease, sir.
K: No, because I think we are making a mistake. We don't
actually see, perceive in our heart, in our mind, that any action
within this periphery, from the centre to the periphery and the
circumference, and then from the circumference to the centre, this
movement back and forth is a wastage of energy and must be
limited and must bring sorrow. Everything within that area is
sorrow. We don't see that.
P: Sir, if it is part of our brain cells and if it is the action of our
brain cells to constantly throw out these ripples which get caught,
which is in a sense self-centred existence, then...
K: No, Pupul, the brain needs two things: security and a sense
of permanency.
P: Both are provided by the self.
K: That is why it has become very important.
Apa: Sir, the brain is a mechanical, a physical entity in its habit
of seeking security or continuance. Now, how do you break out of
its habits, its mechanical operations? That is what Pupulji has been
hinting at.
K: I don't want to go into that, sir. Any movement to break out,
is still within the periphery. Is there an action, a move which is not
self-centred?
P: We know states, for instance, when it appears as if the self is
not, but then if the seed of self-centred activity is held within the
brain cells, it will repeat itself again. Then I say to myself there
must be another energy, there must be another quality which will
wipe it out. Apa: Our brains are computers and our behaviour
patterns and actions are conditioned and programmed to that. The
feed-backs are becoming more and more complicated. Now, sir,
what is the energy; is it attention, is it silence, is it exterior, is it
interior?
K: Our brain is programmed to function from the centre to the
periphery, from the circumference to the centre, this back-and-forth
movement. It is programmed for that, it is trained for that, it is
conditioned for that. Is it possible to break that momentum of the
brain cells?
P: Is there an energy which will, without my volition, wipe out
that momentum?
K: Can this momentum, can this programme of the brain, which
has been conditioned for millennia, can that stop?
Apa: And de-condition itself.
K: The moment it stops, you have broken it. Now, is there an
energy which is not self-centred movement, an energy without a
motive, without a cause, an energy which without these would be
endless?
P: Yes. And is it possible, I am putting it very tentatively, is it
possible to investigate that energy?
K: We are going to.
A: The only instrument we have is attention. So, any energy that
you posit must manifest itself as attention. I say attention is the
only instrument we have.
P: If I may say so, I don't want to postulate anything. I am
asking Krishnaji something which we have not asked before. How
do I put it into words?
K: You are asking, is there an energy which is not from the
centre, an energy which is without a cause, an energy which is
inexhaustible and therefore non-mechanical. We have discovered
something. That is, the brain has been conditioned through
millennia to move from the centre to the circumference and from
the circumference to move to the centre, back and forth, extending
it, limiting it and so on. And is there a way of ending that
movement? We just now said it ends when there is a stopping,
when the plug is pulled out. That is, the brain stops moving in that
direction, but if there is any causation for the stopping, you are
back again in the circle. Does that answer you? That is, can the
brain which has been so conditioned for millennia to act from the
centre to the periphery and from the periphery to the centre, can
that movement stop? Now, the next question will be: Is it possible?
You follow? I think that is a wrong question. When you see the
necessity of stopping, when the brain itself sees the necessity of the
movement ceasing, it stops. I wonder if I am making myself clear.
Q: Yes. But it starts again. It stops the movement for a while,
but then it starts.
K: No, sir, the moment you say you want it again, you are back
in the centre.
Q: Probably I want to bring about a permanent stopping.
K: That is greed. If I see the truth of the fact, the moment there
is the cessation of this movement, the ending of that movement, the
thing is over. It is not a continuous stoppage. When you want it to
be continuous, it is a time movement.
Apa: The seeing then is without movement. The seeing has
come to an end. That seeing, is it a movement of the centre?
K: Seeing, observing the whole movement of the centre to the
circumference, from the circumference to the centre, that
movement is `what is'.
Apa: But that seeing is without any centre.
K: Of course.
Q: So, sir, that seeing is on a different plane, a different
dimension altogether.
K: I `see'. There is perception when you are aware without any
choice. Just be aware of this movement. The programme stops. Let
us leave that. We will come back to that. Pupul's question is: Is
there an energy which is non-mechanical, which has no causation,
and therefore an energy that is constantly renewing itself?
VA: That is the energy of death.
K: What do you mean, sir? Death in the sense of ending?
VA: A total ending.
K: You mean a total ending of the periphery.
VA: What I know as myself.
K: Just listen. You said something. The total ending of this
movement from the centre to the circumference, that is death, in
one sense. Then, is that the energy which is causeless?
VA: It is causeless, sir. It comes, like the blood in the body.
K: I understand. But, is that a supposition, a theory or an
actuality?
VA: An actuality.
K: Which means what? That there is no centre from which you
are acting?
VA: During that period when that energy is there.
K: No, no. Not periods.
VA: There is a sense of timelessness at that time.
K: Yes, sir. Then, what takes place?
VA: Then again thought comes back.
K: And so, you are back again from the centre to the periphery.
VA: One is afraid of that particular thing happening, not only
the wanting it again. One gets afraid of that particular thing
happening again because it is like total death.
K: It has happened without your invitation.
VA: Yes. K: Now, you are inviting it.
VA: I don't know whether I am inviting it or whether I am
afraid of it.
K: Afraid or inviting, whatever it is, it is still within the field of
this. That is all.
The other question is what Pupulji raised about an endless
journey. You want to discuss kundalini?
P: Yes, sir.
K: Sir, first of all, if you really want to discuss, have a dialogue
about kundalini, would you forget everything you have heard about
it? Would you? We are entering into a subject which is very
serious. Are you willing to forget everything you have heard about
it, what your gurus have told you about it, or your attempts to
awaken it? Can you start with a completely empty state?
Then you have to enquire, really not knowing anything about
kundalini. You know what is happening now in America, in
Europe. Kundalini centres have been opened by people who say
they have had the experience of the awakening of kundalini.
Scientists are interested in it today. They feel that by doing certain
forms of exercise, breathing, they will awaken the kundalini. It has
all become a moneymaking concern, and it is being given to people
who are terribly mischievous.
Q: We just want to know whether there is an energy that can
wipe out conditioning.
K: So long as self-centred activity exists, you cannot touch it.
That is why I object to any discussion on kundalini or whatever
that energy is, because we have not done the spade work. We don't
lead a life of correctness and we want to add something new to it
and so carry on our mischief.
VA: Even after awakening kundalini, self-centred activity
continues.
K: I question whether the kundalini is awakened. I don't know
what you mean by it. VA: Sir, we really want to understand this,
because it is an actuality sometimes.
P: Do you know of an energy when self-centred activity ends?
We assume that this is the source of this endless energy.It may not
be.
K: Are you saying the ending of this movement from the centre
to the circumference and from the circumference to the centre, the
end of that...
P: Momentary ending of it...
K: No, the ending of it, the complete ending of it - is the release
of that energy which is limitless?
P: I don't say that.
K: I am saying that.
P: Which is a very different thing to my saying it.
K: Can we put kundalini energy in its right place? A number of
people have the experience of what they call kundalini, which I
question. I question whether it is an actual reality or some kind of
physiological activity which is then attributed to kundalini. You
live an immoral life in the sense of a life of vanity, sex, etc. and
then you say that your kundalini is awakened. But your daily life,
which is a self-centred life, continues.
P: Sir, if we are going to examine it, let us see how it operates in
one. The awakening of kundalini is linked to certain psychic
centres located at certain physical parts of the body. That is what is
said. The first question I would like to ask is whether that is so?
Has the release of this energy, which has no end, anything to do
with the psychic centres in the physical parts of the body?
A: Before we go into that, sir, is it not essential to enquire
whether the person who acquires that energy is incapable of doing
harm.
K: No, sir. Do be careful. How can we say somebody is
incapable of doing harm? They say many Indian gurus have done
tremendous harm misleading people. A: That is what I say, sir. I
feel that unless the person's heart is cleansed of hate, and his thirst
to do harm is completely transmuted, unless that has happened,
then this energy can do nothing but more mischief.
K: Achyutji, what Pupulji is asking about is the standard
acceptance of the power of this energy going through various
centres and the releasing of energy and so on.
A: I say, sir, that before we ask that question, there is in the
Indian tradition a word which I think is very valuable. That word is
`adhikar'. Adhikar means that the person must cleanse himself
sufficiently before he can pose this question to himself. It is a
question of cleansing.
K: Are you saying that unless there is a stoppage of this
movement from the centre to the circumference and from the
circumference to the centre, that Pupulji's question is not valid?
A: I think so. I will use another word, the Buddhist word is
`sheela'. It is really the same. The word `adhikar' used by the
Hindus and the word `sheela' used by the Buddhist really mean the
same thing.
P: I take it that when one asks the question, there is a depth of
self-knowing with which one asks. It is not possible to investigate
the self which also releases energy, if one's life has not gone
through a degree of inner balance, otherwise what K says has no
meaning. When one listens to Krishnaji, one receives at the depth
to which one has exposed oneself, and therefore I think it is right to
ask the question. Why is this question more dangerous than any
other question? Why is it more dangerous than inquiring into what
is thought, what is meditation, what is this, what is that? To the
mind which will comprehend, it will comprehend this and that. To
the mind which will not comprehend, it will comprehend neither.
To the mind which wants to misuse, it will misuse anything.
K: Unless your life, your daily life is a completely nonselfcentred
way of living, the other cannot possibly come in. VA:
There is arising of energy - there is delight at first, then fear.
S: We would like to know why that energy creates fear.
VA: Fear comes later. One experiences death and everything
vanishes. You are alive again and you are surprised that you are
alive again. You find the world again, and your thoughts, and your
possessions and desires and the whole world slowly come back.
K: Would you call that, sir, the awakening of kundalini?
VA: I don't know, sir.
K: But why do you label it as the awakening of kundalini?
VA: For a few days after that, for a period of a month, the
whole life changes. Sex vanishes, desires vanish.
K: Yes, sir, I understand. But you do come back to it again.
VA: One comes back to it because one doesn't understand.
K: That is what I am saying, sir. When there is a coming back to
something, I question whether you have had that energy.
P: Why has this question awakened so many ripples? Most
people go through a great deal of psychic experiences in the
process of self-knowing. One also understands, at least one has
understood because one has listened to Krishnaji, that all psychic
experiences when they arise, have to be put aside.
K: Is that understood? Psychic experience must be totally put
aside.
A: We put them aside, not only give no importance to them.
VA: Some new passages do get opened in the body, and the
energy keeps rising in those passages whenever it is required.
K: Sir, why do you call it something extraordinary? Why do we
attribute something extraordinary to this? I am just suggesting, it
may be that you have become very sensitive. That is all. Very
acutely sensitive. VA: I have more energy.
K: Sensitivity has more energy. But why do you call it
extraordinary, kundalini this, that or the other?
P: The real problem is to what extent is your life totally
changed. I mean the only meaning of awakening is if there is a
totally new way of looking, a new way of living, a new way of
relationship.
Q: Sir, I want to ask a question. Taking for granted that one is
leading a holistic life, is there something like kundalini?
K: Sir, are you living a holistic life?
Q: No.
K: Therefore, don't that question.
P: I am asking from a totally different point. As it is understood,
kundalini is the wakening of certain psychic energies which exist at
certain physical points in the human body, and that it is possible to
awaken the psychic energies through various practices which then,
as they go through these various psychophysical states and centres,
transmute consciousness, and when they finally break through,
they pierce through self-centred activity. This must be the basic
meaning of the whole thing.
Apa: Mescaline can do it; you can do it.
P: I am just asking Krishnaji whether there is an energy which,
on awakening, not being awakened, but on awakening completely
wipes out the centre.
K: I would put it the other way. Unless the self-centred
movement stops, the other can't be.
A: I say that the whole Hatha yoga tradition has engendered a
belief that by manipulating these centres, you can do things to
yourself. The whole idea is based on a wrong belief.
P: Wipe out everything.
A: We should wipe it out. P: As it does not seem possible to
proceed with this discussion, may I put another question? What is
the nature of the field which needs to be prepared, to be able to
receive that which is limitless?
K: Are you cultivating the soil of the brain, of the mind, in order
to receive it?
P: I understand your question. But I can neither say yes nor no
to it.
K: Then, why call it energy and bring the word `soil'? Prepare,
work at it. We live a life of contradiction, conflict, misery. I want
to find out if it can end sorrow, the whole of human sorrow and
enquire into the nature of compassion.
S: Is there any other way of living in which compassion is also
part of cultivating the self? Why are you asking this question, why
do you want to cultivate the soil?
K: I say as long as you have motive to cultivate that soil in
order to receive that energy, you will never receive it.
S: What is the motive, sir? It is the whole prison. To see the
whole prison and ask whether there is any other way out of this, is
it a motive? Then, one gets caught in a circle, in a trap.
K: No, you haven't listened. I live a life of torture, misery,
confusion. That is my basic feeling and can that end? There is no
motive.
S: Here there is no motive. But you are also asking a further
question.
K: No. I don't have further questions, only that first question.
Can that whole process end? Only then can I answer the other
questions, which have tremendous significance.
P: What is the nature of the soil of the human mind which has to
be cultivated to receive the other? You tell me that is also a wrong
question. You say I am in conflict, I am suffering and I see that a
life of conflict and suffering has no end. K: That is all. If it cannot
end, then the other enquiry and investigation, and the wanting to
awaken the other in order to wipe this out is a wrong process.
P: Obviously.
K: It is asking an outside agency to come and clear up your
house. I say in the process of clearing the house, this house, there
are a great many things that are going to happen. You will have
clairvoyance, the so-called `siddhis' and all the rest of it. They will
all happen. But if you are caught in them, you cannot proceed
further. If you are not caught in them, the heavens are open to you.
You are asking, Pupul, is there a soil that has to be prepared, not in
order to receive that, but the soil has to be prepared? Prepare, work
at that, clean the house so completely that there isn't the shadow of
escape. Then, we can ask, what is the state we are all talking about.
If you are doing that, preparing, working at the ending of sorrow,
not letting go, if you are working at that and you come along and
say is there something known as kundalini power, then I am
willing to listen.
A: Sir, the reason why I objected is that in the Hatha yoga
Pradipika text we make a statement that this investigation into
kundalini is in order to strengthen you in your search.
K: For God's sake, Achyutji, are you working at clearing up the
house?
A: Definitely.
K: Now, what is the question? Is there an energy which is nonmechanistic,
which is endless, renewing itself? I say there is. Most
definitely. But it is not what you call kundalini. The body must be
sensitive. If you are working, clearing up the house, the body
becomes very sensitive. The body then has its own intelligence, not
the intelligence which the mind dictates to the body. Therefore, the
body becomes extraordinarily sensitive, not sensitive to its desires,
or sensitive to wanting something, but it becomes sensitive per se.
Right? Then, what happens? If you really want me to go into it, I'll
do so. The people who speak of the awakening of kundalini, I
question. They have not worked at the other, but say they have
awakened kundalini. Therefore, I question their ability, their truth.
I am not antagonistic, but I am questioning it. A man who eats
meat, wants publicity, wants this and that and says his kundalini is
awakened, I say it is nonsense. There must be a cleansing of this
house all the time. Then Pupul says, `Can we talk about an energy
which I feel must exist?', not theoretically but of which she has had
a glimpse, the feeling of it, an energy that is endless; and K comes
along and says `yes', there is such a thing. There is an energy
which is renewing itself all the time, which is not mechanistic,
which has no cause, which has no beginning and therefore no
ending. It is an eternal movement. I say there is. What value has it
to the listener? I say `yes' and you listen to me. I say to myself
what value has that to you? Will you go off into that and not clear
up the house?
P: That means, sir, that to the person who enquires, it is the
cultivation of the soil which is the ending of suffering, which is
essential.
K: The only job. Nothing else. It is the most sacred thing,
therefore you can't invite it. And you are all inviting it.
Clearing the house demands tremendous discipline, not the
discipline of control, suppression and obedience, you follow? In
itself it demands tremendous attention. When you give your
complete attention, then you will see a totally different kind of
thing taking place, an energy in which there is no repetition, and
energy that isn't coming and going. It is not as though I have it one
day and a month later I don't have it. It implies, keeping the mind
completely empty. Can you do that?
VA: For a while.
K: No, no. I have asked: Can the mind keep itself empty? Then,
there is that energy. You don't even have to ask for it. When there
is space, it is empty and therefore full of energy. So, in cleansing,
in ending the things of the house, of sorrow, can the mind be
completely empty, without any motive, without any desire? When
you are working at this, keeping the house clean, other things come
naturally. It isn't you who are preparing the soil for that. That is
meditation.
P: And the nature of that is the transformation of the human
mind.
K: You see as Apa Saheb was saying, we are programmed to
centuries of conditioning. When there is the stopping of it, there is
an ending of it. If you pull the plug out of the computer, it can't
function any more. Now, the question is: Can that centre, which is
selfishness, end? And not keep on and on? Can that centre end?
When that ends, there is no movement of time. That is all. When
the movement of the mind from the centre to the periphery stops,
time stops. When there is no movement of selfishness, there is a
totally different kind of movement.
End
(My humble salutations to the lotus feet of Sri Jiddu Krishnamurti and
gratitude to the great philosophers and followers of him.)
0 responses to "Jiddu Krishnamurti - Exploration into Insight - 4"