What are facts and what are the consequenses of it?

There are facts. They change things. How much are we aware of them? There are facts we do not like. What do we do with them and why?

What is it to be together and when does the brain function wholly?

K brings it up regularly ‘to examine together’; as if this togetherness contains something which we have not discovered yet. At first we overlook the significance of it. Is there any? Working in a group what does this mean? What is happening most of the time and why? Is there an intelligent way of looking at it? Democracy is based on it. Can democracy function differently?

Consciousness, what is it, how does it relate?

What is consciousness? There is my consciousness and your consciousness. There is the consciousness of a group, a hole population or a country. - There is being conscious and the content of consciousness. The word comes of being aware, knowing, awake, to be concerned with. K talks quite a bit about consciousness. Can we go into this? Does consciousness separate?

Living the teachings?

Gpara: K actually said near the end of his life that nobody is living the teachings. And he said that something might happen if someone did. I agree that most people do not seem to actually do it -- there is an element of insincerity, in the sense that actions (and all of life) are not in accord with understanding. There is a sort of split personality.('fragmentation'?) He has mentioned that fragmentation can be seen as: saying and thinking one thing, and doing another. It seems that there is an opportunity both for wholeness (or non-fragmented living), and also an opportunity to explore the teachings in life, or in a more living way. This seems like a very meaningful subject. He also mentioned that the real meaning of the teachings comes alive in the living, not in the words, thoughts, etc, or in the unlived understanding. There is a related subject: K's statements about being willing to die (I haven't listened to them yet, but there are some talks on youtube about this, talks he gave in Rishi Valley). He said something similar in the book on livelihood -- the true vocation of man is to find truth; is it possible to stay with this, and not allow pressures or influences from society (and elsewhere)(our consciousness?)(desires?)(fears, security?)(ambitions, plans?) to sideline the finding of truth (or the living of the teachings)? ****Another side of this is: what is it not to live the teachings? (what actually happens in the way we live?) Are the teachings, and the study of the teachings, separated from or segregated from the rest of daily living?(Seeing these things clearly seems valuable, in understanding this subject.) ****--which brings in another point: "seeing" or "just seeing" -- sometimes it seems as if K is saying this. Clearly, though, he also indicates that living it -- not only 'understanding' (or 'seeing'?) -- is important as well. ****((--which brings up: is seeing divorced (or segregated) from living?--and is our seeing divorced from the teachings?)) ****(these subjects seem to me worth staying with for a while)(and exploring through actions and living as well as through dialogue)

Are we superficial? What does it mean to free the mind?

Can we rediscover the meaning of words we use? What does it mean to free the mind? It implies we are not free. We are conditioned. The conditioning is our self-made prison. Do we actually question anything? Questioning is disturbing? Is there a pattern? Does questioning provoke a crisis?

Reading K

Did you read any striking lines in K's books? You can propose to put it up here (include the reference please).

WSB: Looking through the books of K in my shelf late in the evening and reading some pages I do see so many striking lines; here is one:

'What will change man? .. Certainly not by an outside agency. Man has to face it, not avoid it, and examine it without asking for any aid; he is master of himself. He has made this society, he is responsible for it, and this very responsibility demands that he brings about a change in himself. But very few pay attention to all this. For the vast mass of people, their thinking is so utterly indifferent, irresponsible, seeking to filfill their own selfish life, sublimating their desires but still remaining selfish. .. One has to look at this. And you are the only one who can change yourself and society in which you live. That is a fact, and you can't escape from it..'
(K in 'K to himself' p 113-114)

So change is there when we face it and examine it without aid. I am the only one who can change myself and the society in which I live. Why? Because it is my resposnsibility.

WSB: Looking in one of K's books here are some lines I marke years ago. 'When the content of consciousness with its experiences, demands, its cravings for some new, including its craving for freedom from the known, has completely come do an end, then only does the other quality come into being. The former has a motive; the latter has no motive.. Motive is the known. .. when there is no movement of recognition, of experiencing, of motive, freedom from the known takes place .. when the brain , your mind is completely still, you don't see the still mind.. if you know it it is not still.' (K in 'Exploration into insight' p 32-33)

What does it mean to explore?

In exploring we discover. In discovering we see. With seeing we are aware. With awareness there is this potential to act without causing disorder.

Do you want to propose a new subject related to K?

Please go ahead in proposing a new subject.

There is K, a man (the electronic book)

This blog is in electronic book form. Each chapter is exploring one particular question. Each contributor is asked to write in the context what was explored before and to develop the subject further.





Chapter 1 What does it mean to explore?



WSB: In exploring we discover. In discovering we see. With seeing we are aware. With awareness there is this potential to act without causing disorder. To explore, to be open and to watch. Are we in this state of openness? If not what is stopping us of being in this state to be open?

A natural creature: the state of openness, is this what K called meditation? which can take place all day long. Mostly i am aware that i am not aware. so i am aware of my unawareness.. and seeing this shows a lot about all the things in my mind. i can be open to see i am not open, and learn from that?

Gpara: Openness -- interesting topic. Complete openness, without direction? (this seems interesting; not quite sure what it is, but it may be worth exploring) Openness in a certain area? Openness to what? What realm(s)? Also, K seemed to warn (at times) about trying to understand 'the teachings' rather than life and living, and transformation of life and living, and transformation or mutation of consciousness. Do we want to understand K, or do we want to do it? Is it 'living' that we are interested in, or some kind of transformation, beyond what we know as 'living'? -- is that the central interest? (We seem to have a lot of interests....)
Gpara On the question, What is keeping us from being open or aware?: This morning one was noticing how the mind turns its attention to thoughts. When its attention is on the thoughts, it does not see the trees, the colors, the sky. It was very simple. Still, I wonder: are we here to be visually aware? Aware of shapes or colors? Sounds? Touch? Why focus on any one of these? --That's why the question 'What realms?' comes up.
There is a deeply interesting dialogue with K (the dialogue is called 'What is Beauty'; K may not have given it this title; the central and deepest enquiry is into something beyond beauty, and beyond sensitivity)(That dialogue interests me so much that it would probably be a good basis for an exploration in itself -- I love that dialogue, or what it is pointing to. A friend of K's asks him about beauty, and K goes into the subject of beauty, alertness, sensitivity. Then the friend says he wants something much more -- something infinitely greater. K asks him if he is sure this is really what he wants. K then says that the sensitivization (or heightening of awareness) is a prelude or basis for the other. He goes on to say that it means something further: the "shattering" of everything -- his knowledge, respectability, morality, concepts...--the list was even longer -- the ending of everything that was 'him' -- and then he said something like 'reduced to absolute nothingness'; then that other, that infinite sacredness might....)

WSB: What is openness? To question demands openness. In order to be open we need to be prepared. Prepared meaning not to be distracted, confined or absorbed. Is it possible not to be distracted or absorbed? Not chasing any thought or excitement? To stay what is. Being open what is. A state of meditation as pointed out above. We see and know it; it is difficult to stay with what is or to be in a state of meditation. But we are in the moment in situations where there is urgency when we are passionate about something, or simply when there is attention. Attention demands, challenges our mind and body. Do we observe this? Are we aware of this? Is it part of what we know? Is it possible to be aware that I am not aware? Or is it rather I am aware that I was not aware at some occasion? – Now when we understand something, does this not catalyze the doing? There is understanding, there is seeing and so we can act without conflict. Understanding does imply that it is not intellectual. When we do something we often are absorbed by it. Absorbed meaning there is no perception apart of that. In the meditative state there is still this awareness of what is there on the side. Openness excludes any realm, any limit. It is in fact scary thinking of it, to be completely open. It is demanding. Scary because it implies we let go things we are attached to. So we simply observe this, not turning our heads. –There are quite a few things which are difficult to talk about. Like ‘beauty’. We can only talk about it when there is this sense of open questioning, exploration.

A natural creature: so now we do perceive this actual moment, the 'what is'. and i am aware of what is going on in my mind. i see the movements of thought. wanting to write something in this wonderful electronic book there are several motivations coming from several sources. there is vanity (let's say something beautiful), there is some kind of a mission-feeling (this is the time to do a good thing), there is a teacher-voice (i want to write something which will open the eyes of the reader), also a student-voice (now i am learning!). there is a feeling of friendship (we are sharing), a feeling of love (how nice to be in relation), a feeling of fear (i want this to continue.. please don't let it end), and a feeling of curiosity (where will all this lead to?)... curiosity seems also having to do with the desire of knowing. the tendency to catch the unknown future into an idea, ideal, imagination, fantasy, daydreaming :)seeing all this.. what do i write?it is an expression of me, my being at this moment. maybe the question can be.. do i make a decision what i will write, or can i let it flow spontaneously?

Gpara: spontaneous expression -- interestingSometimes it seems like an aspect of spontaneity is letting go of 'effects' or goals -- leave the effects and the goals to the unknown.(the management of effects -- )There may be a highly intelligent loving and mysterious unknown in the universe that understands this business of what is best -- what the true effects are to be, and how to manage them.It may have extreme vision, wide and deep.The human brain may be unable to grasp all the manifold effects and interconnections, no matter how much it thinks, or has been conditioned to think, it can grasp the totality, and manage it. There may be a wholeness that, like the human body spontaneously healing from some wound, has wholistic vision that goes far beyond brain vision.Being in tune with that flow (being a natural expression of it?) may be part of the meaning of spontaneity?Perhaps the meaning of openness may also include this.... Openness to that flow.... - Exploring this here, freedom also comes in - there may be freedom -- being free of those other ways of thinking.Not blocked or caught by brain's limited understandings?Free of being the 'manager'? Released from a false role? Openness to the river's intelligence? Maybe it can even heal while flowing in peace and joy, and without strain....(don't know for sure, but it seems like something to consider, and perhaps be aware of, if it is so) Openness to the river's friendship and love?

WSB: When we say we do and I am, is this an affirmation or an observation? Can we be free of affirmations? Wanting implies motivations. Can we be free of any motivation which is not connected to what we are looking into? Do we see the difficulty to be simple? Do we need to empty the mind first? Is this the meditative state we are talking about? We are spontaneous when the mind is empty. What is meant with manage? The best implies comparison, to measure? To measure with respect to what? What is a vision? Is it a projection? Do we need them? Can they prevent us from looking into what is? Is it not that very little is known about the human brain even so there has been significant progress in visualizing brain activity recently? How important is simplicity? If we are not simple and clear it will not be accessible to others. The watching, the process of observation is not managed, it does not need management. Freedom implies no management but observation? – Interesting relating openness with intelligent. Talking with bright people we see they are very open to a wide spectrum of reflections. It is as if there is a consciousness of all the brain movements. Friendship is there when there is trust in the other person? We are very vulnerable towards this trust any deception is disturbing. – Are we clear what it means to explore?

A natural creature: to explore is observation and sharing our views... learning from it, can it bring about understanding? or is it another affirmation to expect understanding from it? the openness means no expectations, no conclusions, no motivations, no direction.. just looking, watching, watching the movements inside. seeing how the outside is percieved and how it is translated in the inside. the perceiving is also connected with the inside, the view is dictated from my actual state of mind. i cannot force emptyness, openness, spontaneity.. do i see that? is it intelligence to see that i am not open? and to see that therefore i cannot act intelligently?

WSB: To explore implies observation. Sharing extends the observation. The observation provides all the information to see, to understand and to learn. At some point the seeing is the doing. Yes and as you say affirmation, expectation, conclusion is incompatible with exploration. It implies direction and excludes openness. Observation and watching with openness implies the watching of the inside. What is happening to it and how it relates to the outside. Yes understanding, seeing, perception is connected to the inside. Openness cannot be forced. It is related to a state of being ready, a state of meditation. It is difficult to see that we cannot force meditation, openness even so we control so much in the physical world. Not expecting we can observe what is, without fear. Once we are aware what we observe, we see. Intelligence is seeing how limiting it is to expect and to conclude. Intelligence comes out of simplicity and openness? - Can we conclude what we are pointing out here about what it means to explore? Can this be a basis for the following discussions?

A natural creature: can we conclude we shall not conlude...or when we do, we see it for what is is and from that we will explore further. can we point at eachothers conlusions without getting upset, becoming defensive, getting lost in arguments.. i think we can, so let's go on :)

WSB: You are right. How can we conclude after we see the importance of being open? It is more about recalling and being clear. Nothing is closed.



Chapter 2 Are we superficial? What does it mean to free the mind?

WSB: Can we rediscover the meaning of words we use? What does it mean to free the mind? It implies we are not free. We are conditioned. The conditioning is our self-made prison. Do we actually question anything? Questioning is disturbing? Is there a pattern? Does questioning provoke a crisis?

a natural creature: what does it mean to free the mind?mostly when i see that sentence i start to think about the empty mind, as if the mind only will be free when it is empty. reality is my mind is not empty.. so immediately i am in a conflict thinking 'it should be empty but it is full..'now, when you force me here to look at the words with attention i discover something. 'free' has another meaning, free in the sense of 'not being bound, bordered, restricted'to free the mind, crossing borders, moving unlimited, exploring the mind in an unrestricted manner.while doing that i can see all the conditionings, i see my patterns and structures and i see where they come from.. is it disturbing ? yes, because we have to leave the known, we have to cross the borders of the known, we will see lots of things in mind which will surprise us or even frighten us. fear is the most complex thing. fear can create a crisis. we have to understand fear and the many ways it manifests, otherwise fear will paralyse us and we will be bound in our prison again.
WSB: To free the mind, to empty the mind. But the mind is not empty. I want to empty the mind but it is not. There is helplessness. We look for a way to empty the mind. The brain is projecting. But a projecting brain does not empty the mind. To stay what is .. what is in this mind? .. listening into this mind, like listening to the sound of a wind not knowing what is going to come, listening into what is not known .. frees. -Is anybody forcing? Or is it let’s come together and bring our attention to one thing? – So free means no borders. Free the mind, let the mind not be restricted. Why is our mind restricted? Is our mind restricted to the known? The known is of the past. So the mind is restricted to the past. Not being the past we can watch the past. The now is not the past. Leaving the past is disturbing. We need to let go the known. We are afraid of seeing something we are not prepared. It could create a crisis. We are afraid of crisis and we are back in a bound state. – I was surprised to see some lines K talking about crisis: K: ‘ I want to create a crisis. Then there is crisis.. Either you avoid the crisis or you act .. that is the only thing which matters. .. that is listening with the hart .. It may mean that an action which you have not pre-meditated may take place.’ (K in ‘Exploration into insight’ p 189-190)Thinking of crisis it is about ending. Ending of the past, death of the known. Action implies death. A open mind, a mind not afraid of what is not known. A mind which understands the importance of what is not known. Superficial meaning then a mind which is afraid to face what is not known.

a natural creature: yes, being superficial is 'to stay on the surface'. the surface of our being, the safety of the known, a limited place, not capable to relate with the world in a deeper way.. and therefore a superficial life is full of conflicts and struggle, and fear.i didnot mind being forced.. like K said a crisis can bring out real action.. because we are forced to step out of the known, we have to face the situation and our superficial limited knowledge is not sufficient to deal with it. we have to look further, we have to let the mind run freely, intelligently...does this means we have to let run the mind freely on its own? no interference, not giving any direction, no motivations.

WSB: Staying with the known creates conflict. There is no seeing what the known does. So what is this unknown we miss to be aware of? Looking at the known we can see that we remember certain things very well and other things we forget. We do not know how we forget. It happens at night. Is this the reason why we hold onto the known? Or we do not understand the role of the known? Then there are important moments of once life, some we remember, some we do not remember. Looking watching what happens to the mind it is rather difficult at times following what all is happening. This watching stops the image making, the projections and is the change, is the action. Ok this is one thing. But then we discover that we are drawn into something. But we do not face it because of thousand reasons. It creates conflict, frustration and contributes to the noise. Unless we face this it will continue.

gpara: it is a good opportunity here to go deeper. it is good, i feel, to have a trusting atmosphere, or a friendly one, for these sorts of in-depth discussions. krishnamurti commented on this in various places. near the end of his life, he spoke of visiting (after death) a house where there was/is gentleness and love. somehow the spirit, in its depths, is naturally drawn to such a place. it seems similar to a cat who has been treated well and gently...there is trust, there is friendship...there is a place...freeing the mind... listening to k at times does this -- sometimes it seems as if he is 'breaking spells' emptying, at times, has left one with a renewed sense of life.... not much time right now -- just wanted to communicate a bit here. listening to K without accumulation -- interesting approach, one is finding -- free even of K. wondering lately: what are the depths of the statement 'Being a light unto oneself'? has it really been explored very well or deeply? "Light seeking light doth light of light beguile", and the words following these (in Love's Labour's Lost), have some penetrating observations behind them, one feels. there is an inclination (the human mind seems conditioned to this sort of thing) to simply accept these statements, more or less superficially. one feels that there is much greater depth in them to be explored. both the Buddha and K made these statements. one has also been pondering lately what it really means 'to live the teachings'. especially, what it means *fully living* the teachings. K made some very powerful statements about living the teachings. he also said, near the end, that nobody is doing it. and if someone did, then something might happen.may be gone for a while, in warmth and friendship.

WSB: A trusting atmosphere is what? A place where we do not defend? – Listening to K, once I found out he does not harm, meaning he is not here to convert or to make you believe or to convince of anything, it was possible to let go and to go into it which was demanding and resulted that one followed all what he said but did not see the larger context. It was like being in a river where the swimming takes all the attention. I still remember how I watched the river in Saanen next to the tent in a very penetrating way after listening to K. - To be a light to one self? Meaning to give attention to one self? Find out why I am upset today? Why is there now this excitement? What triggered it off? in the sense of observing it and not in the sense of wanting to concluding anything. There is too often this tendency to conclude and to nail it down. Is it because we do not want to deal with it anymore? Being attentive is too much demanding? - Living the teachings? I only recently discovered there is a text K wrote, it appears which summarizes the teachings. I thought there is not such a thing that we can put into a simple text. When reading it, I found it is such a clear and straightforward text. I still do not know what is meant with living the teachings. Is it the fact that we enquire on our own and start to question and bring things together refusing to fall in any traps?

WSB: Now having read the statement of K about his teaching let me go over it:Truth is a pathless land meaning there is no specified path to truth. Man finds truth through relationship, understanding the content of his own mind and observation. Man builds images, a fence of security in the form of ideas, beliefs. This dominates man’s thinking and relationships in daily life and cause the division between man. The perception of life is established by what is in the mind. The content of consciousness is his existence. Man can be free from the content of his consciousness. This is not individual. Freedom is observation without direction, choice less awareness of our daily existence. Thought is based on experience, knowledge which is of the past. Thought is based therefore time. Action is based on knowledge therefore of time. Man aware of the movement of his own thought can see the division and discover that this division is an illusion. Insight brings about mutation in the mind. Negation is the positive. Only when there is negation of psychological thought there is love, compassion and intelligence. The text is hardly one page long. It is surprisingly short. All the confusion we live in can be described by couple of sentences. Going through it, it appears more a list of basic facts which we are not aware of. While most will agree to what the content of the teaching is, it appears not many are actually look at them sincerely.

a natural creature: this fragment is indeed saying it all, but am i really listening? is my mind free to be filled with the full meaning of what is being said here? i guess not, it comes in superficially, intellectually, i see the logic of the words which is already something because i know lots will not even understand it a bit.... i do understand it, but does it come in deeply enough to have an effect on my actions in daily life. i doubt about that, and then ask myself 'what is the doubt about'... and it is my resistance to the truth, i resist to surrender myself completely to the unknown... i don't allow myself to be totally free.

WSB: The text about the teachings is short. The fact that we are not clear about them points to the fact that they are challenging. It is, as if we are not getting it because we are completely tuned to somthing else. It shatters many of the assumptions we live with, every day. When we read it, does it stay on the surface as you say? Does it has an effect on my actions? Can I free myself from all those assumptions which have no real meaning? This is challenging. I have to watch and let go those assumptions which gave security. It goes back to, can we watch what is happening to our mind. Can we simply observe this, in its own right? Do we see the importance of relationship in our lifes? And then there is no way around, only when we do the steps on our own there is any meaning in this. Yes, I think there is a resistance to truth. We know it but we are afraid of loosing some of the assumptions. Can we live without assuming anything?

Gpara: Recognition seems related to superficiality.In one of the excerpts here, under Reading K ... there is 'when there is no movement of recognition'.Naming is part of it (the movement of recognition, or knowing).But one can also recognize a face without knowing the name of a person (although there may still be some 'names' involved (e.g. the word 'face', or 'person' -- some other verbal recognition)).Still, there may be image-recognition, or non-verbal memory too.One has been looking at this lately, and experimenting with it.Taking-for-granted often goes with recognition.And 'taking-for-granted' is related to superficiality -- there is superficiality of contact (or relationship) when this is present.Naming and recognition also seem to be related to expectation, which is also an aspect of superficiality.[none of the above is meant to be conclusive -- just sharing, or putting on the table, some aspects -- and sharing an ongoing looking into this]

Gpara: It shatters many of the assumptions we live with, every day.I agree [not that agreement matters, in a sense...] -- or I see this too, to some extent [maybe 'seeing it too' matters? or not?]....Looking at it, one sees this: yes, it has shattering potential.Is that potential actually realized?Or partly realized?Slightly realized?Do we keep it at a distance?Are there defense mechanisms to keep it at a distance?Pookie pointed something out: 'incomprehension' can be a defense, or a trick of the mind, to maintain the status quo.(Maybe 'maintaining the status quo' is something to look at?)(The tricky moves of the animal as it is being hunted -- self-preservation -- does it have psy equivalents?)(Why can't we look?)(Or maybe it is simpler than we think...)(Haven't we all met people who pretend not to understand?Some illegal hunters were caught redhanded, and pretended not to understand English when questioned.Does the mind do something similar?)*******K keeps pointing to the revolutionary potential of direct observation (this pointing is there in the core teachings as well).Maybe conceptualization and theorizing are themselves ways of escaping the revolutionary nature of simple directness?

a natural creature: as you say gpara, recognition is a superficial process, i agree, it is as if the mind tries to catch a new phenomenon into an image/concept/idea made out of the past. so it can say 'yes i know that', so it has given it a place and does no longer have to give attantion to it. we try to avoid the direct perception of this actual moment, why is that...why don't we want to face the unknown now, the unknown 'me' now,... holding on to the self-image and the image we made of the world, it gives a feeling of security yes, but it is a false security, it is an escape. i don't want to be anonymus, everything in me wants to manifest itself, wants to leave a trace, and wants to be recognized.i think this is a very natural drive, and to wish it away seems to be an useless attitude, feels in a way as a violent action.so i better take a good close look and see if it is possible to make my steps with care...

WSB: I see a tree. There is recognition that it is a tree. The thing is we often stop at this point. There is no perception beyond this. We do not open up to the moment, the air, the weather, the sun, the shades, the overall distribution of the branches, all which makes this tree so unique. There is no watching beyond identification. Looking at the sky, can draw us into, but no, we do not let go. There is only identification, well that is the sky and that is all. So the mind is bored and starts to associate memory unconnected with the rest. – Students with good marks are often into simple identification and execution with no questions. Students with less good marks need plenty of questions to be answered before they have trust to use a concept. – We say we want to be free but looking into it we see that we actually are not sure about this. Can we see this contradiction for what it is? Watching this contradiction, can we find that we are afraid of loosing, but actually it is all about winning? Winning in the sense to be free of the mind escaping? – There are relations and there is this urge to express. Does this not go hand in hand? To express is connected with to relate with others. – There is the problem of the ego and then we see we never are doing much on our own. This is a contradiction. It is like we are not getting it. There is no watching of this.

Gpara: to free the mind... of superficiality?it seems that seeing the nature of superficiality is part of it.naming the tree, recognizing the tree, and then (1) closing off (already knowing what it is, 'a tree', it is finished, nothing more to see...), or (2) opening to the much that is still unseen (to the many mysteries behind or beyond or aside from the name).*******this brings up something else: K spoke of the 'sound' of a tree -- not the leaves in the wind, but the sound of the roots and the trunk.one has wondered about this -- in some places he goes into it a bit further, and mentions the sensitivity and listening. is he literally hearing sounds in the trunk and the roots?is he talking about some unusual level of sensitivity in which there is literal hearing of these sounds, as one hears the sound of the breeze in the leaves?in other places he mentions the sound of a good book.maybe he is talking about something different -- what some people call 'a vibration' -- more like a feeling, rather than a literal auditory sensation?there is so much we are closed off to, or have not been educated to be in touch with.i have sat inside large redwood and sequoia trees (many of them have hollows inside). there was no 'sound' as usually understood, but there was a feeling, or a presence sometimes.more like the 'presence' of a large boulder, or of the moon.maybe it has a lot to do with the way we are educated and raised, and what we are taught to be in touch with, what to notice, to pay attention to....(or, on the other hand, there is all that is left out or ignored?)(perhaps it never even crosses our minds; perhaps there is much that we still, even now, have never even imagined, never paid attention to?)

WSB: To be superficial is to ignore, to overlook not to go into things. Freeing the mind is, to let go all those things we always hold on to. This implies we need to go into and understand so that we can see that holding on does not make sense. In freeing the mind we are not superficial. Now this also means to be alert, to be attentive, it is an activity. Is this what K means with listening? Sounds are very important. They provide plenty of information about the place we are, associations we have. – I recently replaced a floor made out of a material which imitates wood by wooden floor. I was surprised to feel completely different afterwards in the same room. How is it that we can feel this wood and it appears to have a deeper influence? May be it is the result that humans lived with wood during their whole evolution. I am not clear what is meant with listening apart of being in this state of openness and attention where all the senses and the mind, the brain is tuned to. It empties the mind, it removes all what is not of importance.



Chapter 3: Living the Teaching?


Gpara: K actually said near the end of his life that nobody is living the teachings. And he said that something might happen if someone did. I agree that most people do not seem to actually do it -- there is an element of insincerity, in the sense that actions (and all of life) are not in accord with understanding. There is a sort of split personality.('fragmentation'?) He has mentioned that fragmentation can be seen as: saying and thinking one thing, and doing another. It seems that there is an opportunity both for wholeness (or non-fragmented living), and also an opportunity to explore the teachings in life, or in a more living way. This seems like a very meaningful subject. He also mentioned that the real meaning of the teachings comes alive in the living, not in the words, thoughts, etc, or in the unlived understanding. There is a related subject: K's statements about being willing to die (I haven't listened to them yet, but there are some talks on youtube about this, talks he gave in Rishi Valley). He said something similar in the book on livelihood -- the true vocation of man is to find truth; is it possible to stay with this, and not allow pressures or influences from society (and elsewhere)(our consciousness?)(desires?)(fears, security?)(ambitions, plans?) to sideline the finding of truth (or the living of the teachings)? ****Another side of this is: what is it not to live the teachings? (what actually happens in the way we live?) Are the teachings, and the study of the teachings, separated from or segregated from the rest of daily living?(Seeing these things clearly seems valuable, in understanding this subject.) ****--which brings in another point: "seeing" or "just seeing" -- sometimes it seems as if K is saying this. Clearly, though, he also indicates that living it -- not only 'understanding' (or 'seeing'?) -- is important as well. ****((--which brings up: is seeing divorced (or segregated) from living?--and is our seeing divorced from the teachings?)) ****(these subjects seem to me worth staying with for a while)(and exploring through actions and living as well as through dialogue)
WSB: Living the teachings worries me. Are we up to following some new believe? No we are not. After having read what K referred to his teachings, we see that it is about basic facts which many admit but we fail to look at the consequences. Then living the teachings, is about looking at these consequences. In the biography of K by Mary Lutyens he asks Mary why she is not living the teachings and that he would stand by and participate if she would live the teachings. May be I recall this not very accurately. - So there are those contradictions we say something and we do something else. We know it. Nothing is done, it is taken as a fact, as a part of life. Nothing is done because there is no notion of how we can stop this. We think of terms of a technique, method. Why should I do something nobody does. Do we see what the consequence of a method is? A method denies what is, and fails to work. Can we look at a contradiction as a whole and stay with it? Not let it go. - Yesterday someone insulted me, today I see the same person. What do I do? Can I talk with him also all what happened yesterday, is still in my mind? Can we stay with the whole truth? Yes, there is desire, ambition, fear. It prevents truth? Just 'seeing' it is not enough. There is no full consideration of it.

a natural creature: to consider this 'living the teachings' is already a start isn't it. we bring it into our mind, we ask ourself 'am i?' or 'do i?'... and this gives us a view into our feelings about it, in relation to our actions. maybe there is not much more else to do.. because now we watch ourself how we think, how we act, and where the contradictions are.. we learn from that.. and is this 'learning', this 'exploring' not already the same as 'living the teachings'?yes, it is hard to face someone who has insulted us, but it is possible, it has to do with understanding the situation, to see how the other is caught in his/her own violence, we don't have to blame the other for it, we can forgive, and we can love...

WSB: Watching is part of finding out, understanding. Can we watch the images and concepts which limit our actions? How far do we see that my image of one person limits my relation to that person? The images cause the fragmentation. I think most are not aware of this. How can we be aware of this? Watching the violence and how someone is caught in it. Blaming enforces fragmentation? Watching it, giving attention to it changes all. It needs great attention not to fall into this trap of fragmentation and separation. Attention is not possible when our mind is occupied.

a natural creature: shall we begin with giving attention to the mind and the things it is occupied with? we have to start somewhere, saying it is impossible can be an excuse for not looking at all. so first we are unaware of our own awareness. i can see that my images distort reality. this doesnot mean i will see reality, but i see how i am blocked, what it is i am holding on too, maybe i can see why i am holding on to images. and seeing this could change it, i will feel less urge to hide behind concepts, i am more willing to face the truth, even when it hurts, i'll let it hurt and see why it hurts and, my experience is, the hurt will cease... a bit :)

WSB: A day can pass in a lot of activity. Then when we stop the activity the mind tends to continue to occupy it self. Watching the mind, the brain is something we understand how important it is? I was thinking of intelligent systems. They always need a feed back loop. Is this what watching the mind is? Do we observe what is happening to our perception when we watch the mind? Is there an expansion of awareness? Can we just observe the mind whatever state it is in? We tent to move into a direction find a solution and analyze. But this very action of moving away is in fact preventing change? It is not about moving away but about awareness and perception of what is. For this we do not have confidence. When I am blocked, holding on to, can I watch this in its own right? Can I see what is behind this all? Watching what is behind all this not looking for any solution. Seeing and perception is the change. There is no escape from truth. Once I see this there is no escaping from it.

gpara: Living the teachings (or living by the deepest truth from moment to moment?)(or by one's seeing?, or the truth of the seeing?) -- it may mean putting one's life on the line. It may also mean really sinking one's teeth into it. It may mean giving up or losing, (or seeing through or dropping) much of what we call ourselves or 'life'. There is also the issue of which of the (various, many) teachings one is living. K says many things. One teaching, or a central part of the teachings, is -- he uses different words for it -- motiveless awareness; simple observation without interpretation; silent looking; 'attention'; and others. There are two problems that often seem to come up in relation to this. One is that it is somewhat subtle, and not something that most people do most of the time. It is not always easy to see what he means. There is not often correct understanding of what he is talking about. Another problem is that one does not stay with it. Even the matter of attention to inattention -- we may read it, may even try it a bit, may even do it a bit -- but does one really stay with it? Also, he makes it clear that this 'attention' that he talks about is not a matter of effort. Yet we live in a culture of effort, or a cult of effort. It seems to me that we do not stick with it and see it through. (Also, a multiplicity of teachings can result in not living any one teaching thoroughly -- one can become divided among the various different teachings or experiments or approaches. -- especially if one has heard K say many, many things.) If one simply stayed with it (one experiment or teaching), and actually experimented with it thoroughly, and saw it through -- if one actually did it, it would be a living experiment, or a living of the experiment. I suppose one could ask why (and it probably relates to having various other projects and interests and (pre)occupations in life) -- why one does not do it. There is another side to it: instead of asking why (or in addition to asking why), just going ahead and 'doing it'. (However, it still seems crucial to have right understanding; otherwise one is 'doing' something else....) It seems to me that motiveless, effortless attention is both very natural, and yet also very unnatural -- unnatural in the sense that society, education, and conditioning have pushed us into other habits and ways. Unlearning the unnatural (which has become natural in the sense of habitual) may be part of allowing the motiveless. Attention to inattentiveness may involve attention to preoccupations. K and Anderson touch on the point several times in their dialogues -- it is not a matter of effort and trying, but is another kind of attention. Efforts seem like further preoccupations....

a natural creature: effort seems to get us nowhere, the only little force i seem to make is saying 'hello' to myself.. 'what are you doing now'.. indeed, looking at the mind and how it is occupated with all sorts of things.. really all sorts of things from great to small and from futile to very important. but then again, why do i think something is that important? looking into these things tells me so much about myself and about how the brain works.. it is reading the book of self, as K adviced us to do, lots to learn from it and one could even ask what else there is to learn from... but i shall not forbid anything, no pressure, no bounderies, let the mind wander around, let it run free, as long as it is all inside there is nothing wrong with any of the thoughts.. only when i start to act, express, bring it into relationship.. there i have to be more carefully.

WSB: In understanding do we put our life on the line? No. Is loss or a gain depending on our understanding? Yes. So once we understand what we called a loss; it might be a gain. Living the teachings is not following a path, but seeing the facts K is pointing out and not escaping from the consequences but facing them. I think we can only go into what he is talking about by stopping to follow intellectually but explore it on our own and then come back and see what does he say? This gives a different approach. The real thing are not the words. The real thing is, what is happening to us and to our understanding. It is true there is running away from it. Only in a sort of crisis we do it. If we look at one thing why should we look on something else? Is this not already part of the projecting and running away? Just watch the mind. Can we stay with it simply? Society does not appear to give space for being on our own. – Watching the mind yes, we start to see so much about our functioning. This is well formulated: ‘.... it is reading the book of self, lots to learn from it and one could even ask what else there is to learn from...’ There is nothing wrong in watching in observing and being conscious what is happening. Expression and action is always a crude simplification of something much wider. This simplification can be understood differently and care is needed to prevent conflict.

WSB: Watching the mind we can see that there are those things like ideas, beliefs, religious, political and personal. They all can come easily in the way when interacting with other humans, because someone else might have a different idea or belief. Holding on one of the ideas or beliefs creates this separation and potential conflict. There is no communication. Communication appears to require that we do no hold on any of those ideas or beliefs. With nothing in common there is no exchange possible and words have then a different meaning. They are used to defend and create the separation. Not holding on to ideas and beliefs is this possible? Is this self destroying or does it free the mind?

a natural creature: may be that is the main problem, it feels as if we destroy something, when we let go our own 'position', our believes, ideals, opinions... we have to destroy that 'holding on', the attachment.. and then there is freedom, not being attached is being free.isn't it the thought/idea/concept itself which is holding on? it is not me, but i have identified myself with it, it is the attachment, the idea that my experience of reality is the only reality... lost in the translation.. the power of these attachments are enormous, somehow i understand this human tendency to be a natural phenomenon, with the same structure as all other manifestations of life... so in the first place there is the strive for survival, to fulfil its potential, to hold on...so when i do not hold on to my ideas, believes and experiences, it feels like selfdestroying, but it is freedom..other question, when i do not hold on, will they disappear? this feeling of loosing precious memories and my individual experience of life, i cannot bear it... but i suspect it is again a trick of the mind, an attempt to hold on, because why should it disappear? we have recorded it all, it can be there without causing trouble, it even can be used when appropriate, same as using your finger to touch the keyboard, using your ear to hear someone is calling, using your eye to see who it is..but.. can i live without conflict ?

gpara: One problem seems to be that we give our own versions of reality (or truth) extra status. Our versions are the true versions. Or the superior versions. Or the best versions. (or most intelligent, most enlightened, deepest, most accurate, most promising, .... ) These conflict with other 'true versions'. (There seem to be many 'true versions' floating around)(in human brains?) Wars and conflicts -- between individuals, groups, cultures, nations, races, etc., etc. -- seem often to be based on this. (even within ourselves?) The mind does seem to tend to think (or assume) that its perceptions of reality are reality.... Its versions and interpretations are taken as, or assumed to be, absolute, or something akin to absolute. (And maybe it is not entirely wrong to stand up for what is true or right. The problem seems to be more in taking non-truth as truth, or being very sure....)multiple versions?

a natural creature: yes.. all seems to be varieties on the same theme..is it possible to play our tunes in harmony ? (even within ourselves.. true)

WSB: So we do not want to destroy, we keep on holding on ideas and images and we cannot let go. Seeing that my experience of reality is not reality, or seeing that the reality is that I am only holding on my experience with reality, that I am sort of lost in this process of translation does bring change. We think it is important for survival to hold onto these images. There is no freedom in holding onto those images. Not holding on and the fact that they might disappear frightens us? Do we control memory? Is not a good part disappearing each night? Is this a contradiction that we hold on our individual experience and this holding on actually prevents us to experience life? Letting go is like to let the past die and let the now to be born? But is it not a fact not recording images, ideas they are still here when needed? Do we see this fact? In fact we are starting to see and remember things we were not able to see when holding on? There is no freedom in holding on images and they do cause conflict. – Our memory, images of reality are different from others. This brings comparison and conflict. We are not aware of the fact that we have different images of reality. There is the confusion between reality and the images of reality. Can there be one true image of reality? Why do we have different images of it? Is it a question of communication? To tune in we need to really communicate and not confuse it with giving statements and defending those statements. – Conflict is there whenever there is this not giving in and holding onto something. Meaning also not opening up and explain why this is not a good thing.

WSB: Can we go into this which part of what K calls the teachings?'His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.'There is the question what is consciousness and its content, the concepts established in the mind, what we call our existance, the possibility of freedom from the content of consciousness. In this freedom there is no individual. Can we grasp anything of this?

a natural creature: for me it is the most difficult thing to grasp, i am thinking and feeling about it a lot.. the individual.. and i still have not figured out how i should read the words from K about this. probably there is a fundamental resistance to the freedom in the sense K talked about it, in the context of the individual. often i do question how much it must have influenced him that he was seen as the new world-teacher.. what a strong conditioning that must have been.. maybe this gave K the confidence to let go everything. surely he understood a lot, if not all, about life.. but imagine what it would do to you if so many people adore and worship you, that is a great recognition of the individual.. one could spend a lifetime on that 'flow'.. maybe.

WSB: Let us explore what K is writing. There is consciousness. We observe, we are aware, we see, we are conscious. This is true for all of us. Now how does this connect to our existence to our perception? As soon as I observe something I relate it to what I know. So perception is related with what I know which is part of the consciousness. All this is common to all of us. The content is different but perception is always connecting in the same way. The difference is that I was born here and you were born there and my parents were like this and your parents were like that. You had a brother or sister and I only had one brother and so on. This is what is different and this makes the individual. But the rest the functioning, the basic facts are the same and common to all humans. Now K points out, that humans can be free of the content of consciousness. I can meet somebody on the street and I completely forget who I am and what I know. In fact is it not that the instant we talk to somebody there is nothing else then the thing we talk about and the other person. So when we communicate during those instants we are not individual.