Dialogue with Prasanna

You have stated in your Statement, "From time immemorial, mankind has been struggling to get itself liberated from an invisible force within the psyche." I wonder. I think we have nothing to get liberated from. We simply have to watch everything, both within and without, effortlessly and the watching becomes a celebration of living.

Do you mean to say, that mankind isn't in search of any thing?

When the search ends, the celebration begins.

Has the search ended and celebration begun in you?

In knowing that I and my circumstances are perfect, was always perfect and will ever be perfect, my search has ended and I am celebrating. Only, I tend to doze-off during celebrations and the nightmare of imperfection returns. I need to keep awake at all times.

What do you do to keep awake ?

To see you have to be awake. The physical body necessarily needs sleep and therefore the question of seeing with the physical eyes all the time does not arise. This is also not what is meant. There is a greater seeing if we use what is undoubtedly every individual's greatest heritage as well as the greatest heritage of mankind itself. For some reason this heritage is somewhat taken for granted. Maybe it is inevitable because it is so much with us. The heritage I mean is language. Language has within it logic and it is this logic which enables us to see. Seeing, more than things, the connection between things. And when you see thus, you are actually having a 'darshan' of the isness of existence. When you thus have a darshan, you become the seer - Rishi. The whole exercise is simple and after a time becomes effortless - simply talk to your self, allowing one word to lead to another. I have coined my own word or a word in my own way to call this exercise of seeing and seeing non stop, that is, talking non stop – ‘continuum’. Continuum would be considered as ridiculous by many of the best minds, and probably by K himself, for all of them have talked about silencing the chattering in the mind. However, I believe that continuum would eventually lead to silence and only continuum can lead to silence. Otherwise, the mind would forever be trapped in the mode of fantasizing. My continuum is not yet perfect - I tend to doze off while at it, that is, I fantasize. Fantasizing will never lead to silence, only disillusionment.
More on this subject if you do not consider my mutterings

The sacred and profane.

I think the sacred/profane dichotomy is an artificial create of a conditioned mind. In a perfect world, there is only the sacred.

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Thanks for this comment. I need to elaborate. "Pay for it" also has the meaning "suffer". Like, you'll pay for your follies. Therefore, if you want something you will have to suffer - nay, all wanting is suffering. Why do we want something (apart from the wants of pure physical subsistence)? Because we have a sense of lack. Why do we have a sense of lack? Because we have not discovered ourselves. When we do, all sense of lack disappears and we would be in a perfect world. There would then be no suffering on account of wants. I hope this clarifies my “proverb”.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yep. That's it!
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In our pristine state where we live by the light that comes from within, the mind would have no sense of lack. Then why would it want anything? It is only when we seek the external for our psychological sustenance that we would ever suffer from a sense of lack. However much we attach ourselves to anything external, the nature of the external being ephemeral, it would prove elusive and our sense of lack would continue.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

You mean wanting for the sake of others? Only a person who has no wants (psychological wants) would have that compassion that makes him ever ready to be a tool for the sake of others. Otherwise we would have people who claim to work for others but are actually fattening themselves - the politicians, to wit.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I entirely agree with you.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Here's another post I agree with in its entirety. Action is always with motive, though spontaneous action or rather response is of a different order. To spontaneously seek to help someone in distress is what we would do because our very nature preordains it. But when we become an artificial person because we are taught that we are essentially sinners, then our natural self is clouded and we would tend to help someone in distress while all the time calculating what our gain would be from the altruistic-seeming act. In short, our true nature is divine and we turn artificial if we imagine we are sinners.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

K's teaching - new or old?

Is (or are) Krishnamurti's teachings in line with Advaitic (non-dual) teachings? Or are the teachings unique and cannot be categorized?

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Probably we are seeking the (assumed) stability of tradition in categorizing a new teaching among teachings that we feel have stood the test of time. Probably this is the very danger JK advises against. But I suppose in a forum of discussion on JK's teachings, the tendency to compare and categorize would surface - never mind JK often said comparison is odious.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

Sometimes I wonder if K belaboured in excess in giving key words in his expression of truth, like say love, meditation, freedom etc. meanings that defy attempts to define its meaning. He talked in abundance about meditation but we would be unable to define what meditation is in his parlance. Maybe this is the mystical element of K’s speeches and writings - so elusive to grasp yet the thrill of pursuing his logic would itself seem worth the adventure.

xxxxxxxxxxxx

JK's teaching is similar to Advaita teaching in the sense that both do not define what is but defines what is not. Advaita only says the ultimate is not dual. Probably it is because the jump from duality to non-duality causes the subject's wipe-out and nothing more can be said.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

K's denial of the atma or soul is easy to understand. It is not as if atma is a substance that exists inside a person. Atma or soul simply means the essence of everything that is. It is a concept. Because it is a concept understood by the mind, the mind is capable of living the concept as a truth. Many thinkers posit that the atma is a substance separate in itself. Maybe such a position was never meant but due to the limitations of language appeared to be so. K brought in a great clarity of language, though, ironically, his logic appears to be elusive at times.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Yes. Have you read Tony Parsons writings or heard his speeches? Speaking of the higher states in the language of the ordinary state is rather elusive. Though comparisons are odious, do you think Tony Parson is kind of taking off where K left off, if I may say so?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Walking the whole length with JK involves unconditioning ourselves totally. This is tricky work. Bhakthi is at the emotional level. It is easier to emote than still the mind. But it should never be a question of mind or heart - while calming the mind the heart should be allowed to play itself out.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Mike, "Taking off from where K left" was said in a manner of speaking. I would have nothing to show for it except where K often referred to himself as the speaker, Tony Parsons says something like - there's no speaker, there is no audience, there's just the is-ness!

xxxxxxxxxxxxx

Vedas are ancient scriptures of the Hindus. One portion of the Vedas is called Vedanta, which contains philosophical discussions between Masters and disciples. The highest flight of these philosophical discussions is called Advaita, where the conclusion is that the essence of reality or truth is non-dual (Advaita = not two).These Advaitic teachings say that man has the capacity to experience the non-dual state and it is this experience or understanding that will bring him the true fruits of freedom. All religions appear to have its esoteric teachings and these teachings, it is said, point to the way of the non-dual. Sufism in Islam, for example. Today there is much writing and inquiry in the West on non-duality and a google search of ‘non-duality’ would throw up an amazing number of writers on the subject. Those of us, incorrigible, who like to compare teachings and slot teachings, often say K teachings are Advaitic in nature. But of course, you will have your own take on this.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

We are fortunate fresh texts are always available. Texts in valid contexts, shall I say, speaking the same eternal truths. Finally, the truth of the pudding is in eating it. Have we been transformed, are we living the truth? Only we can be the true judges of our progress.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

This is a great point. Recently at a group discussion, one of the speakers pointedly asked the participants, "Are we here to understand ourselves our understand K?" No doubt we gather at such meetings to understand K's teaching which in turn would help us understand ourselves better. But often we relegate ourselves to being just academicians seeking to understand K for its own sake. Then probably we miss K's whole point.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

K's whole point, if I may be presumptuous enough to say so, is to be able to see without prejudice.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

From awareness of prejudice to awareness without prejudice - that's the leap.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

That's it. The other possibility is that I the observer always exists but without the limitation of the ego - where I know, ergo Brahman exists.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Can't there be an I who is not encumbered by the past but is ever fresh in the present without being in a state of amnesia?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In short, our memory is intact but it neither is a burden nor colours (prejudices) our seeing. Therefore could I say that K's teaching is not about getting rid of our memory, but being free of its intrusive nature?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Drawing on memory as a diversion from our state of fragmentation or misery is an awful situation. But to roam the foothills and ascend the peaks of memory need not be a freedom we deny ourselves. For the world of memory has its own charms and allurement, nostalgia and emotion - a world, though manufactured by our mind, as true as any that our senses would inform us of.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I understand what you are saying and would tend to agree with you. But I think the most disastrous dichotomy we have is the like-dislike dichotomy. Being emotional to the extent of sinking into it is of course undesirable. But emotions as they come up in us as a consequence of our involvement in living ought to be allowed to run its gamut without our being swept away by its current. Would it not then be an enrichment of our living? K said, "To live is to be vulnerable."

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

I remember reading it in Luis S.R.Vas's famous "The Mind of J. Krishnamurthi”. In the section "Aphorisms", he had collected this saying. Hence, I shall not be able to tell you the context as it is a stand-alone quotation. I take what K. meant by vulnerable was sensitive and not weakness.
K would have typically said to throw away all books but only in the context of going beyond books - not in the fashion of an iconoclast who burnt down the library at Alexandria because he thought that the Quran having come, no other books were necessary!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Dear Prasannaji, That an amazing team is involved in spreading K's teaching is obvious if you see the quality of The Link Magazine. I think as the years go on, the phenomenon called Jiddu Krishnamurthi will subtly and unobtrusively influence the world to a greater sensitivity in living.
I have answered some questions in the interview and would plod through more questions in due course. How do I ask some questions of my own?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx