{For all dialogues, see The Forum home page}
March 16, 2008
| What is communication?
Gerard Hughes: To communicate with one another obviously we must use words, whether we are communicating a thought, an idea or an insight, words are essential. If I want to communicate something to you, I want to convey the full meaning of what I am talking about and if you are able to understand that meaning then it’s possible that we could be joined, or have communion in the understanding of what ever it is that we are trying to share.
But in actual fact, in our daily life, this kind of communion very rarely happens, if at all. The problem it seems to me is that our words are conditioned. After all, words are in fact symbols of our thoughts, and the problem is that the word that I use will be conditioned in a different way, if only slightly, to your word.
This may not seem obvious. For we take it for granted that the word that I use, and the meaning that I associate to that word, will be the same for you but in actual fact, this is not so. Now the problem gets even more complex if we are trying to talk about or communicate something very deep or very subtle. Obviously the more subtle the meaning of what we are trying to convey the more distortion there will be in that communication, if we are not precise with our words and meanings.
You see I’m not sure, and I may be wrong, but do we really see the enormity of what we are trying to do when we inquire together? Do we see that it is vitally important that if we want to communicate together then we must take the time and the care and the patience to go through a very arduous task of understanding the depth and meaning of each word that we are using. Because if we remain on the superficial level, then we will never be able to go into things deeply.
So I wonder, is there any validity in the dialogues or forums on the internet? Is it really possible for us to use written words when trying to convey a meaning? I mean surely, when one is trying to convey a meaning to another it is not just the word that is used, it is the look, the gesture, the tone, the presence and the intensity that can only be experienced in person.
So the question then arises… are we serious in wanting to share meanings together? Are we able to, or do we have the energy, the intensity, or more importantly the time, to come together with care, with patience and respect to honestly look at ourselves and the world? Because if we can it may be possible to go beyond the everyday communication that we are used to, and it may be possible together to touch something which has real significance, real meaning in our lives. I wonder if we are aware of this in the whole scheme of trying to understand ourselves. It may be one thing to read Krishnamurti’s words and feel we have some kind of understanding at whatever depth that might be, but surely if we can never communicate our understandings with another then we will be isolated behind the conditioned wall of words that divide us.
Could it be that part of the problem with communication is that we are casual with our understanding of words and much of that understanding is actually passed on, or taught to us through word of mouth. Probably in day to day life it doesn’t inhibit us all that much because our communication is rather broad and course and we rarely touch upon the more subtle or deeper aspects of life. Also, this could be a reason why we don’t touch on the more subtle or deeper aspects of life because the limitations of our language actually inhibits us from communicating this, and it may also be an impediment personally for the individual who is trying to ask questions.
After all, the words of our language are a close representation of what we are (our thoughts). And if our words are limited to the coarse, then obviously that says something about us and it reveals a picture of our conditioning. So if two individuals are trying to communicate something subtle but they are actually limited by the misunderstandings of the words being used, then there will be great limitations in the communication.
I hesitate to use this expression, but it really does require taking a journey together, learning step by step. Going into the words, laying the foundations for the inquiry. The building blocks or foundations of that inquiry are the words, so the words are all important, especially in the beginning. After the foundations have been set then we might be able to share the deeper meanings beyond the words. After all one has to crawl before one can walk. I wonder if we are aware of this barrier or whether we avoid this because it requires a huge amount of time, intensity and energy.
DM: There are many valid points raised here. Yes, there is always the trap of the meaning of words and the intensity behind them in written communication. This is not just on internet forums but also in all books. Which prompts the question: why have all the talks been put in book form? Not forgetting that he also wrote books himself. If this is not a valuable avenue for pointing things out, then why was it done?
It is certainly true that a common understanding of the meaning behind the words is necessary in order for true communion to take place. However, meaning itself can usually be gleaned through a careful reading of the overall context of written words. I say unquestionably there is much value in the written words, if one is prepared to listen. If one is not prepared then it matters not whether you are reading books or speaking directly to others in a group. Many groups simply fail because of this. It should also be pointed out that there were decades where there was direct personal contact with the man but this doesn't seem to have made one iota of difference in understanding.
There is also the issue that many people do not have ready access to group discussions. Hence they resort to online groups and discussion forums. One thing that was very apparent at the Brockwood Park group discussions was that it is imperative there be a responsive and aware moderator in place. If not, the group will simply go off on tangents and digressions. The discussion has to be brought back to the point. If as a whole the attendees, again, are prepared to listen, such discussions can undoubtedly be of value in listening to others' viewpoints.
So can a forum such as this. It generally avoids the ill-thought-out, unmoderated knee-jerk reactions that you can find in most online forums. It allows space to observe one's reactions to what has been stated; it also allows time for one to clarify one's thinking on an issue.
Having said all that, there is no question that people have to work at the foundations of understanding through the words as a first step. If people spend time and energy at it then group discussions can be highly valuable in clarification, and even possibly an occasional insight; but of course they are only a grounding, for by themselves, they (as well as books) will never transform anyone.
~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 5, 2008
| Listening without words
David Kolody: I wonder if you would consider listening to be the absence of verbalization? That is, words in abeyance in the brain. I don't see it as a difficult thing. But maybe it's just this brain. It does not require effort or technique. One just holds back on words and listens. It is just that simple. How is it with you?
~ DM: Non-verbalization is precisely what effective listening is all about. You cannot fully attend to what someone else is saying if you are being constantly distracted by the thought process. This process is nothing but words. It is not only distracting, it is reducing everything being said to abstractions, which blocks understanding. And you cannot force yourself to suppress the words.
You are saying you are able to simply 'hold back' words? Without any technique or prior practice? This needs clarification.
David: It's like holding ones breath. It's a body function and and it can be put into suspension. It doesn't hurt! It's not done to modify the verbal process. It seems strange to have to put it into words. It's like asking someone how they move their fingers. It's not something that can be taught. What has been seen is there are flows of words that should not be suspended, but listened to.
~ So, you can control it at will? Do you decide to suspend the words or not, depending on what you are listening to? What is the intensity of it? Are you listening to just one thing or to everything that is occurring at that time? Go into the mechanics of it more: what is the state of listening to the talks, for example.
David: If you mean by will, the functioning of the body, yes. It is not something I had to figure out, but I was not born this way. It just happened in middle age. It is not a decision and it is. It is not something that has to be decided before listening starts. But it is an action of the body. The thinking that is not verbal.
It is not like concentration, not one thing dominating. In answering these questions it is coming out that it's not that listening that starts but that something stops. But it's not that the listening is continuous. Putting this into words may be a wrong thing to do. There is a danger of making it too solid, of organizing it. I hope you understand and I will stop now.
~ I understand that making it too concrete may impair its integrity. I would like though to clarify this statement: "The thinking that is not verbal." What do you mean here: is not all thinking made up of words? Or is there another quality to thinking (or do you mean direct perception)? The other issue that really needs clarification is whether you "see" or understand things in the talks/books that you did not see or understand before this physical change took place?
David: The thinking that is not verbal refers to the process that is the body.
The first contact I had with Krishnamurti was the book "Freedom from the Known". And I would say the change happened while reading the book. Your excellent questions brought that out. I hadn't thought about it. Which brings up an interesting point. There seem to be questions that one cannot ask oneself, that can only come out in dialog. I was rather numb before that first book, so it was with great excitement that I continued to read Krishnamurti. He really does point to the depths within. Everything is new.
~ Would you say that this body process is the natural intelligence of the body? Something that comes to the fore when the primary dominating sense - the thinking process - subsides into silence? If so, this capacity of non-verbalized listening lies latent in all of us; this physical function can happen to anyone. Do you feel a sense of having a facility others do not have?
Then there is the issue of a triggering factor, such as in your case. It's indeed true that dialogue can draw things out of oneself. It is so underrated, principally because it becomes a mere sounding board or pulpit for one's steadfast opinions. But when one actually listens to the other, when it becomes a mutual exploration, it can have unforeseen effects. It is this "learning together" that is the very underpinning of the talks, where the old traditional roles of the teacher and the taught are absent.
David: ("Natural intelligence of the body?") No. The mechanical functioning of the body.
("Something that comes to the fore when the primary dominating sense - the thinking process - subsides into silence?") It's not that something stops dominating. It's a new mechanical function, a mutation. It is not something latent. Maybe the correct way to say it is the process of listening IS mutation. But how does it start? Is there a trigger? Because the mutation is not only physical. An ongoing process. The start may be affectionate questioning.
("A facility others do not have?") Not when alone but only in relationship and in watching how others act toward others.
~ What is the actual nature of this questioning? Do you read the talks and then question yourself? And why do you state that the mutation is not only physical? Is not mutation per se a physical process?
David: Questioning is with words. Is there questioning without words? There is wonder, a feeling. And this feeling moves into questioning via words. Without words we could not question. So verbalization is absolutely necessary in order to question. And the questioning never ends.
("And why do you state that the mutation is not only physical? Is not mutation per se a physical process?") By the word mutation I mean a change appears without a cause. It just happens. Did the mutation happen because of what was read in the book? Yes and no. The dictionary meaning of the word refers to a physical process. But is a process only physical?
~ So what you are saying is that at the outset there is feeling. This is interesting as the talks are pointing to a wordless feeling at the base of the silent mind. When there is just the feeling, without thought recognizing and naming it, then the mind is in contact with something beyond itself.
A causeless change is a process of physical/psychological mutation? - there is sense in that. But why do you say: yes and no? You said earlier that the change happened while reading the book.
Behind all this questioning is the central issue of whether you understand what is being said in the books because of this change that has occurred. The word understanding here meaning self-knowledge.
David: (When there is just the feeling, without thought recognizing and naming it, then the mind is in contact with something beyond itself.) It's not that the mind is in contact with something other. That feeling has no distance.
(Behind all this questioning is the central issue of whether you understand what is being said in the books because of this change that has occurred. The word understanding here meaning self-knowledge.) Yes. Self-knowledge is a self-sustaining energy. When questioned, does the answer come from memory or from the question? The question is seen and the answer comes from the question. That is the mutation. There is not something retained, but it's right there, what the words point to. K paints, combines words into images that point to a fact, and a fact seen releases energy that has been bound into a pattern. And this energy does not do anything. It is energy in a pattern that is doing, that is, conditioning.
~ Are you able to be more specific regarding what you understand from the talks? It is understood what is meant by the question containing the answer, and the energy withheld by the conditioned patterns of the mind. But what is the practical effect of this in the way you live?
David: What understanding? K points to something and it is seen. There is nothing left after seeing.
(The way you live?) No problems. No conflicts. How is it with you? Have you seen where K was correct and where he was mistaken?
~ Are you seriously suggesting that you have absolutely no problems in your life at all?
Can you be specific regarding what you believe to be as incorrect in the talks?
David: I am not suggesting it, I am saying it is so.
No. That is for you to see. But the mistakes are minor so don't make a big deal about it. This dialog has ended.
~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 11, 2008
| The nature of silence and "serious intent"
Lyn McCormack: The talks often refer to the cunning ways of the mind. The capacity we all have to build pathways based upon what we understand as a logical step in the journey - in this case, creating the conditions or mental exercises by which we can arrive at not naming or non-verbalization to achieve silence.
Silence must come of its own accord. When one is least expecting it. When a person of serious intent has exhausted contrived pathways the possibility of true silence arises.
"Serious intent" is the major key at this point of enquiry. Serious intent aligns the heart and mind toward the required direction. It is the bud of silence folded, formed by much enquiry and intelligent discrimination.
Non-verbalization, as a mental exercise, is useful in so far as it reveals the degree of our tendency and capacity to verbalize. This adds to our understanding. It will provide a limited insight as to what a life without distance between the observer and the observed could contain. Verbalization is the self visualizing. Non-verbalization is verbalization pared down; a rather feeble imitation of true silence born.
~ DM: Yes, one cannot have a state of actual silence by any exercise of the thought process, that is very clear. Does not silence only come when there is insight, or when the process of the self has been understood?
Can serious intent arise through enquiry and the exercise of the intellect? What do you see is the nature of serious intent, and what brings it about?
Lyn: (Yes, one cannot have a state of actual silence by any exercise of the thought process, that is very clear. Does not silence only come when there is insight, or when the process of the self has been understood?) Silence, or to use another word - stillness. Stillness grows from surface to unfathomable depths. As novices we may come upon stillness as a quality, beyond intellect. Sometimes it may come as a flash. By accident rather than design. I think we have all probably heard of cases of people experiencing a sudden and different dimension where thought momentarily ceases to operate and something deeper reveals itself. Stillness is suddenly there. Direct, arresting, no pathway pursued. Just a flash of otherness. Most report a sense of shock at the experience and miss the opportunity to explore further.
What comes first: the insight or the stillness? I feel they are intrinsically of the same quality. Each is contained within the other. Certainly they have nought to do with thought or intellect. However it a matter of depth or degree. When reading or listening to material that is grounded in what we may call truth or wisdom, there is an arresting quality, a recognition or - insight. This may be accompanied by a relative quietening of the mind. If one is lucky this may extend to deeper levels, where insight and stillness grow as like a stone forms expanding rings when thrown into a pool. However more often than not our mind density is too heavy for this to occur. This doesn’t mean that the moment is lost. Rather we “grow in wisdom,” depending on our intent and capacity.
(Can serious intent arise through enquiry and the exercise of the intellect? What do you see is the nature of serious intent, and what brings it about?) Initially, the intellect is our main tool. It forms the letters and language that help us navigate life. Although we also use it to add color and meaning, ascend heights and explore depths, it remains linear and thus limited. However, when coupled with a sincere heart directed toward self-understanding, it becomes empowered to peel off layers of illusion and customary thinking. Thus helping us reveal our secret selves. At this level the enquirer may have an understanding of the correct use and limitation of the intellect. So, intellect having recognized its limitation, having some understanding of the nature of itself via deep self enquiry, questioning and correct discrimination; thought, movement, may be - suspended. A state of inertia, nothing left to do or verbalize?
At this point the mind invariably steps aside, avoids confrontation…. If it were not so we would make the breakthrough, to the next vista. Upon standing on that vista we would realize that in truth, the next vista is very close to where we now stand. That the I or the self was built, not of straw or even the finest gossamer. Less than a vapour or even an apparition.... In fact an illusion. From this point insight arises naturally and if nurtured, becomes a wise friend and ally. Testing and correcting the validity of each thought or viewpoint. Like antibodies in the bloodstream. Neutralizing disease and turning our heads toward wellness.
So, all that can be done is to maintain the direction that we intuitively know as correct. Not to take another pathway, around or below or above. This is the quality of "serious intent". The blossom enfolded. Lightly holding firm but free. Being guided in direction by heart suspended in faith. A knowingness and wonderment of the yet unknown and unseen.
~ Is there a state of inertia when the intellect has recognized its limitation? Inertia means inactive, inert. If it has fully seen its limitation (and it is questioned whether this actually happens or is only talked about), it would be in a state of 'active' silence, would it not?
What do we "intuitively know as correct"? Is serious intent a matter of intuition, or simply a matter of persistent intent? What is the nature of intuition anyway?
Also, what is meant by the phrase "heart suspended in faith"? Faith in what exactly?
Lyn: Inertia, as I am using the word suggests energy contained, without an outlet. Without verbalization arising, direction or an objective of any sort. If this state lasts beyond momentarily, there may be the possibility of a degree of real silence, stillness and intuition coming into being. A state of “active silence” is a good way to describe it. Indeed this is exactly what it is. As we have understood, this “active silence” cannot be coaxed or conjured.
As an example: this is the way I came to it many years ago:
For six to nine months I had been reading K. It was a wonderful discovery and his words resonated deeply. Over time I found that I was effortlessly discarding a great deal of mental baggage that previously had weighed upon me. Many things that seemed important before were seen in a different light. I am sure most people who read or hear K would experience this liberating quality.
K’s message seemed to point to a different way of life. A deeper level of living that was very real but on the other hand seemed unreachable. The way to approach this was through self awareness. I didn’t really understand what self awareness really was. This is the conundrum that we all face. Like most people, I took the path of trying to be aware of myself more acutely, in everything I did and said. I felt this to be progress. To a limited extent it was. More precisely though, it was still very much me; trying to shape and mould me to fit some idea of what I should or could be. The self acting upon the self.
In due course I applied by mail to become a student at Brockwood Park in the UK. I was 18 years old. After waiting about six weeks and having received no reply, I wrote again. I thought that they may have been rather unimpressed by my first letter. I concluded that I should provide more detail. I wrote that I had been studying Ks teachings for many months and that I understood clearly what he was trying to convey. Also, that I was very serious and consequently had become aware of myself and so on and on. I posted the letter. For days afterward my mind would bring me back to the letter. I felt a strong sense of guilt for some reason. By day I would mentally rewrite the letter in my head virtually word for word. At night I dreamt about it.
About a week later, I was working away quietly. The content of my letter continued to bother me. Then, in an instant, the truth of myself, my motives, my limitations just arose - became apparent. I realized that I was basically as confused as the next person, that my understanding of K's teaching was limited. That my objective was to obtain a place at Brockwood Park and my fear was that I would not. This realization was immediate and involuntary. This realization was the key that unlocked the door.
At the same instant as this realization came about, a stillness or silence was born. A stillness that was totally foreign. Although the realization of the truth of my letter was a shock and totally unexpected, the stillness that followed did not shock or alarm me. It was as natural as it was deep and pervasive. When I say it was born, that is exactly as it was. It arose from within. Without effort, I was able to maintain it. The I as an entity was still there. However it had a totally different quality, a holistic quality, as if wisdom was now part of its structure. This was insight at a deeper level. Although the thought process was still operating, the wisdom or insight continued. The strangest thing was, that as each thought arose, insight acted within, upon the thought, involuntarily, naturally, effortlessly. It exposed the thought. It illuminated the thought. Not with light as we know light. More of a deep understanding. This was all part of the same movement, without separation. The act of understanding was healing the thought. Both the immediate thought and reaching further, with connectedness to include deeper levels of one's being.
If we consider most everyday thought as somewhat superfluous or meaningless, in one instance insight affected the thread of that thought. The light of insight shone on that thought and permeated deeper. It was as though all thought was related or connected. Similar to how you may pull upon a loose thread in a piece of cloth. Pulling on that one thread will affect the whole cloth. If we can say that the cloth represents the thinker, it felt as though insight was healing the thinker, via the thought and via a connectedness with deeper levels. The healing effect was of thought dropping away, its significance revealed and dealt with in the one movement. This is the holistic aspect that I mentioned. A sense of freedom, gladness and joy was part of this movement. Simplicity and clarity were real.
One or two theosophical books describe this awareness as “laying ones thought alongside that of the master”. In a way this gives the impression of separateness or another thinking entity but it is not. Another important aspect of awareness is that the heart, or feeling is a significant part of it. It is not all brain or mind centred. It is as if the mind and heart act in concert. The mind becomes linked with the heart. When observing nature, distance or space is reduced, becoming absent. That is, there is no filter of the mind between viewer and subject. In effect a direct relationship is born. An intimacy that did not exist previously. Relationship with other people was unfiltered and without distance. Insight was not limited to the self. It shone an inward light on their actions, their speech, their characteristics, humour and sadness. There was no judgement. It was not invasive like some form of mind reading, rather inclusive within the whole movement. Words like wholeness and love best convey the content or nature of this movement.
This awareness came and went over a period of several months. Then it never came again. That was nearly forty years ago. There were deeper levels than I have described here (rather poorly) however; silence, awareness, intuition is where it must start.
("Intuitively know as correct"?) What we intuitively know as correct will mean something to some and nothing to another. It depends on how deeply one has examined the teachings and oneself. Also, we need to consider that as important as the words, and the meanings they convey, feeling is an integral part. Feeling is of the heart, not the mind. I would maintain that intuition is as much heart-centred as mind or brain. To a significant extent we must feel our way. Indeed, we will never think our way.
Faith is a word that was not used by K. It is a word loaded with sad religious connotations, invested with belief, hope and desperation. It is also a delaying word. It postpones action in the present moment, where life takes place. The context that I used it was meant to convey a state of poise, a positive aspect, towards what might feel like a direction that seems correct. Not so much a state of waiting or expectation. A path where there is no path? If a person has gone so far in their enquiry that they have felt the liberating quality of wisdom, truth or whatever word may be applied, yet they have not made a break through. Then serious intent, faith or a positive inclination has a value. As mentioned above, we must feel our way rather than think our way.
~ You have importantly exposed in this recounting the fatal trap we all fall into. Reading it, one is struck by the fact that it is all in the past. You had an experience, and you have retained the memory of it. There are many many people who have had experiences similar in nature. This is certainly not to suggest that they are invalid, only that the mind has carried them over. I, too, had a major realization many years ago (which was highly 'valid', but, equally, did not recur), and carried this around for many years. It becomes a burden, a patterning of the mind that translates and compares what is happening now with this past experience (this can happen involuntarily, unconsciously). It also prevents this event from occurring again. So the past constantly interferes with the present. Which is all that matters. Understanding is now, not in the remembrance of things past. When I realized this, I dropped the experience from memory.
This is one of the most difficult things in all of this freedom that we talk about: the dying to the known. It doesn't matter if the known is the most profound experience possible, or the 'most real', or life energizing, you still must die to it. Die to it just the same as you would die to the false. Otherwise this very liberating event itself becomes an impediment.
There are two other very important points brought out in this account: first, that feeling is central to understanding, that thinking is not the way forward. Whether you wish to call this feeling 'intuition' or 'faith' is only a matter of words.
The second is this crucial "realization", or insight, of the mind. In your case this realization (of motive and limitation) came about through excessive thinking over time, did it not?
Lyn: Yes, memory of today, yesterday or fifty years ago is meaningless in regard to living in the present. This is our problem, a walking, talking kaleidoscope of collected memories trying to engage reality; “the present.” That is - the movement of the death of the current second and the birth of the next second.
In 1985, I met with K at Pine Cottage at Ojai. I had written some notes very similar to the outline I have given here previously. He concluded our discussion with this statement. “You must live your life, if you chase awareness it will never come again.” His summary was not unexpected at all. Since then I have lived my life and been thankful for each day. I look forward to the day, maybe in my lifetime that I hear of other “ Flatlanders” who have come upon the new vista and completed the work required. They will help quicken the emergence of a totally different society where words such as Civilization, Cooperation and Love will have an altogether different meaning.
(This will be my last note for the time being.)
~~~~~~~~~~
March 16, 2008
| What is communication?
Gerard Hughes: To communicate with one another obviously we must use words, whether we are communicating a thought, an idea or an insight, words are essential. If I want to communicate something to you, I want to convey the full meaning of what I am talking about and if you are able to understand that meaning then it’s possible that we could be joined, or have communion in the understanding of what ever it is that we are trying to share.
But in actual fact, in our daily life, this kind of communion very rarely happens, if at all. The problem it seems to me is that our words are conditioned. After all, words are in fact symbols of our thoughts, and the problem is that the word that I use will be conditioned in a different way, if only slightly, to your word.
This may not seem obvious. For we take it for granted that the word that I use, and the meaning that I associate to that word, will be the same for you but in actual fact, this is not so. Now the problem gets even more complex if we are trying to talk about or communicate something very deep or very subtle. Obviously the more subtle the meaning of what we are trying to convey the more distortion there will be in that communication, if we are not precise with our words and meanings.
You see I’m not sure, and I may be wrong, but do we really see the enormity of what we are trying to do when we inquire together? Do we see that it is vitally important that if we want to communicate together then we must take the time and the care and the patience to go through a very arduous task of understanding the depth and meaning of each word that we are using. Because if we remain on the superficial level, then we will never be able to go into things deeply.
So I wonder, is there any validity in the dialogues or forums on the internet? Is it really possible for us to use written words when trying to convey a meaning? I mean surely, when one is trying to convey a meaning to another it is not just the word that is used, it is the look, the gesture, the tone, the presence and the intensity that can only be experienced in person.
So the question then arises… are we serious in wanting to share meanings together? Are we able to, or do we have the energy, the intensity, or more importantly the time, to come together with care, with patience and respect to honestly look at ourselves and the world? Because if we can it may be possible to go beyond the everyday communication that we are used to, and it may be possible together to touch something which has real significance, real meaning in our lives. I wonder if we are aware of this in the whole scheme of trying to understand ourselves. It may be one thing to read Krishnamurti’s words and feel we have some kind of understanding at whatever depth that might be, but surely if we can never communicate our understandings with another then we will be isolated behind the conditioned wall of words that divide us.
Could it be that part of the problem with communication is that we are casual with our understanding of words and much of that understanding is actually passed on, or taught to us through word of mouth. Probably in day to day life it doesn’t inhibit us all that much because our communication is rather broad and course and we rarely touch upon the more subtle or deeper aspects of life. Also, this could be a reason why we don’t touch on the more subtle or deeper aspects of life because the limitations of our language actually inhibits us from communicating this, and it may also be an impediment personally for the individual who is trying to ask questions.
After all, the words of our language are a close representation of what we are (our thoughts). And if our words are limited to the coarse, then obviously that says something about us and it reveals a picture of our conditioning. So if two individuals are trying to communicate something subtle but they are actually limited by the misunderstandings of the words being used, then there will be great limitations in the communication.
I hesitate to use this expression, but it really does require taking a journey together, learning step by step. Going into the words, laying the foundations for the inquiry. The building blocks or foundations of that inquiry are the words, so the words are all important, especially in the beginning. After the foundations have been set then we might be able to share the deeper meanings beyond the words. After all one has to crawl before one can walk. I wonder if we are aware of this barrier or whether we avoid this because it requires a huge amount of time, intensity and energy.
DM: There are many valid points raised here. Yes, there is always the trap of the meaning of words and the intensity behind them in written communication. This is not just on internet forums but also in all books. Which prompts the question: why have all the talks been put in book form? Not forgetting that he also wrote books himself. If this is not a valuable avenue for pointing things out, then why was it done?
It is certainly true that a common understanding of the meaning behind the words is necessary in order for true communion to take place. However, meaning itself can usually be gleaned through a careful reading of the overall context of written words. I say unquestionably there is much value in the written words, if one is prepared to listen. If one is not prepared then it matters not whether you are reading books or speaking directly to others in a group. Many groups simply fail because of this. It should also be pointed out that there were decades where there was direct personal contact with the man but this doesn't seem to have made one iota of difference in understanding.
There is also the issue that many people do not have ready access to group discussions. Hence they resort to online groups and discussion forums. One thing that was very apparent at the Brockwood Park group discussions was that it is imperative there be a responsive and aware moderator in place. If not, the group will simply go off on tangents and digressions. The discussion has to be brought back to the point. If as a whole the attendees, again, are prepared to listen, such discussions can undoubtedly be of value in listening to others' viewpoints.
So can a forum such as this. It generally avoids the ill-thought-out, unmoderated knee-jerk reactions that you can find in most online forums. It allows space to observe one's reactions to what has been stated; it also allows time for one to clarify one's thinking on an issue.
Having said all that, there is no question that people have to work at the foundations of understanding through the words as a first step. If people spend time and energy at it then group discussions can be highly valuable in clarification, and even possibly an occasional insight; but of course they are only a grounding, for by themselves, they (as well as books) will never transform anyone.
~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 5, 2008
| Listening without words
David Kolody: I wonder if you would consider listening to be the absence of verbalization? That is, words in abeyance in the brain. I don't see it as a difficult thing. But maybe it's just this brain. It does not require effort or technique. One just holds back on words and listens. It is just that simple. How is it with you?
~ DM: Non-verbalization is precisely what effective listening is all about. You cannot fully attend to what someone else is saying if you are being constantly distracted by the thought process. This process is nothing but words. It is not only distracting, it is reducing everything being said to abstractions, which blocks understanding. And you cannot force yourself to suppress the words.
You are saying you are able to simply 'hold back' words? Without any technique or prior practice? This needs clarification.
David: It's like holding ones breath. It's a body function and and it can be put into suspension. It doesn't hurt! It's not done to modify the verbal process. It seems strange to have to put it into words. It's like asking someone how they move their fingers. It's not something that can be taught. What has been seen is there are flows of words that should not be suspended, but listened to.
~ So, you can control it at will? Do you decide to suspend the words or not, depending on what you are listening to? What is the intensity of it? Are you listening to just one thing or to everything that is occurring at that time? Go into the mechanics of it more: what is the state of listening to the talks, for example.
David: If you mean by will, the functioning of the body, yes. It is not something I had to figure out, but I was not born this way. It just happened in middle age. It is not a decision and it is. It is not something that has to be decided before listening starts. But it is an action of the body. The thinking that is not verbal.
It is not like concentration, not one thing dominating. In answering these questions it is coming out that it's not that listening that starts but that something stops. But it's not that the listening is continuous. Putting this into words may be a wrong thing to do. There is a danger of making it too solid, of organizing it. I hope you understand and I will stop now.
~ I understand that making it too concrete may impair its integrity. I would like though to clarify this statement: "The thinking that is not verbal." What do you mean here: is not all thinking made up of words? Or is there another quality to thinking (or do you mean direct perception)? The other issue that really needs clarification is whether you "see" or understand things in the talks/books that you did not see or understand before this physical change took place?
David: The thinking that is not verbal refers to the process that is the body.
The first contact I had with Krishnamurti was the book "Freedom from the Known". And I would say the change happened while reading the book. Your excellent questions brought that out. I hadn't thought about it. Which brings up an interesting point. There seem to be questions that one cannot ask oneself, that can only come out in dialog. I was rather numb before that first book, so it was with great excitement that I continued to read Krishnamurti. He really does point to the depths within. Everything is new.
~ Would you say that this body process is the natural intelligence of the body? Something that comes to the fore when the primary dominating sense - the thinking process - subsides into silence? If so, this capacity of non-verbalized listening lies latent in all of us; this physical function can happen to anyone. Do you feel a sense of having a facility others do not have?
Then there is the issue of a triggering factor, such as in your case. It's indeed true that dialogue can draw things out of oneself. It is so underrated, principally because it becomes a mere sounding board or pulpit for one's steadfast opinions. But when one actually listens to the other, when it becomes a mutual exploration, it can have unforeseen effects. It is this "learning together" that is the very underpinning of the talks, where the old traditional roles of the teacher and the taught are absent.
David: ("Natural intelligence of the body?") No. The mechanical functioning of the body.
("Something that comes to the fore when the primary dominating sense - the thinking process - subsides into silence?") It's not that something stops dominating. It's a new mechanical function, a mutation. It is not something latent. Maybe the correct way to say it is the process of listening IS mutation. But how does it start? Is there a trigger? Because the mutation is not only physical. An ongoing process. The start may be affectionate questioning.
("A facility others do not have?") Not when alone but only in relationship and in watching how others act toward others.
~ What is the actual nature of this questioning? Do you read the talks and then question yourself? And why do you state that the mutation is not only physical? Is not mutation per se a physical process?
David: Questioning is with words. Is there questioning without words? There is wonder, a feeling. And this feeling moves into questioning via words. Without words we could not question. So verbalization is absolutely necessary in order to question. And the questioning never ends.
("And why do you state that the mutation is not only physical? Is not mutation per se a physical process?") By the word mutation I mean a change appears without a cause. It just happens. Did the mutation happen because of what was read in the book? Yes and no. The dictionary meaning of the word refers to a physical process. But is a process only physical?
~ So what you are saying is that at the outset there is feeling. This is interesting as the talks are pointing to a wordless feeling at the base of the silent mind. When there is just the feeling, without thought recognizing and naming it, then the mind is in contact with something beyond itself.
A causeless change is a process of physical/psychological mutation? - there is sense in that. But why do you say: yes and no? You said earlier that the change happened while reading the book.
Behind all this questioning is the central issue of whether you understand what is being said in the books because of this change that has occurred. The word understanding here meaning self-knowledge.
David: (When there is just the feeling, without thought recognizing and naming it, then the mind is in contact with something beyond itself.) It's not that the mind is in contact with something other. That feeling has no distance.
(Behind all this questioning is the central issue of whether you understand what is being said in the books because of this change that has occurred. The word understanding here meaning self-knowledge.) Yes. Self-knowledge is a self-sustaining energy. When questioned, does the answer come from memory or from the question? The question is seen and the answer comes from the question. That is the mutation. There is not something retained, but it's right there, what the words point to. K paints, combines words into images that point to a fact, and a fact seen releases energy that has been bound into a pattern. And this energy does not do anything. It is energy in a pattern that is doing, that is, conditioning.
~ Are you able to be more specific regarding what you understand from the talks? It is understood what is meant by the question containing the answer, and the energy withheld by the conditioned patterns of the mind. But what is the practical effect of this in the way you live?
David: What understanding? K points to something and it is seen. There is nothing left after seeing.
(The way you live?) No problems. No conflicts. How is it with you? Have you seen where K was correct and where he was mistaken?
~ Are you seriously suggesting that you have absolutely no problems in your life at all?
Can you be specific regarding what you believe to be as incorrect in the talks?
David: I am not suggesting it, I am saying it is so.
No. That is for you to see. But the mistakes are minor so don't make a big deal about it. This dialog has ended.
~~~~~~~~
Dialogue began February 11, 2008
| The nature of silence and "serious intent"
Lyn McCormack: The talks often refer to the cunning ways of the mind. The capacity we all have to build pathways based upon what we understand as a logical step in the journey - in this case, creating the conditions or mental exercises by which we can arrive at not naming or non-verbalization to achieve silence.
Silence must come of its own accord. When one is least expecting it. When a person of serious intent has exhausted contrived pathways the possibility of true silence arises.
"Serious intent" is the major key at this point of enquiry. Serious intent aligns the heart and mind toward the required direction. It is the bud of silence folded, formed by much enquiry and intelligent discrimination.
Non-verbalization, as a mental exercise, is useful in so far as it reveals the degree of our tendency and capacity to verbalize. This adds to our understanding. It will provide a limited insight as to what a life without distance between the observer and the observed could contain. Verbalization is the self visualizing. Non-verbalization is verbalization pared down; a rather feeble imitation of true silence born.
~ DM: Yes, one cannot have a state of actual silence by any exercise of the thought process, that is very clear. Does not silence only come when there is insight, or when the process of the self has been understood?
Can serious intent arise through enquiry and the exercise of the intellect? What do you see is the nature of serious intent, and what brings it about?
Lyn: (Yes, one cannot have a state of actual silence by any exercise of the thought process, that is very clear. Does not silence only come when there is insight, or when the process of the self has been understood?) Silence, or to use another word - stillness. Stillness grows from surface to unfathomable depths. As novices we may come upon stillness as a quality, beyond intellect. Sometimes it may come as a flash. By accident rather than design. I think we have all probably heard of cases of people experiencing a sudden and different dimension where thought momentarily ceases to operate and something deeper reveals itself. Stillness is suddenly there. Direct, arresting, no pathway pursued. Just a flash of otherness. Most report a sense of shock at the experience and miss the opportunity to explore further.
What comes first: the insight or the stillness? I feel they are intrinsically of the same quality. Each is contained within the other. Certainly they have nought to do with thought or intellect. However it a matter of depth or degree. When reading or listening to material that is grounded in what we may call truth or wisdom, there is an arresting quality, a recognition or - insight. This may be accompanied by a relative quietening of the mind. If one is lucky this may extend to deeper levels, where insight and stillness grow as like a stone forms expanding rings when thrown into a pool. However more often than not our mind density is too heavy for this to occur. This doesn’t mean that the moment is lost. Rather we “grow in wisdom,” depending on our intent and capacity.
(Can serious intent arise through enquiry and the exercise of the intellect? What do you see is the nature of serious intent, and what brings it about?) Initially, the intellect is our main tool. It forms the letters and language that help us navigate life. Although we also use it to add color and meaning, ascend heights and explore depths, it remains linear and thus limited. However, when coupled with a sincere heart directed toward self-understanding, it becomes empowered to peel off layers of illusion and customary thinking. Thus helping us reveal our secret selves. At this level the enquirer may have an understanding of the correct use and limitation of the intellect. So, intellect having recognized its limitation, having some understanding of the nature of itself via deep self enquiry, questioning and correct discrimination; thought, movement, may be - suspended. A state of inertia, nothing left to do or verbalize?
At this point the mind invariably steps aside, avoids confrontation…. If it were not so we would make the breakthrough, to the next vista. Upon standing on that vista we would realize that in truth, the next vista is very close to where we now stand. That the I or the self was built, not of straw or even the finest gossamer. Less than a vapour or even an apparition.... In fact an illusion. From this point insight arises naturally and if nurtured, becomes a wise friend and ally. Testing and correcting the validity of each thought or viewpoint. Like antibodies in the bloodstream. Neutralizing disease and turning our heads toward wellness.
So, all that can be done is to maintain the direction that we intuitively know as correct. Not to take another pathway, around or below or above. This is the quality of "serious intent". The blossom enfolded. Lightly holding firm but free. Being guided in direction by heart suspended in faith. A knowingness and wonderment of the yet unknown and unseen.
~ Is there a state of inertia when the intellect has recognized its limitation? Inertia means inactive, inert. If it has fully seen its limitation (and it is questioned whether this actually happens or is only talked about), it would be in a state of 'active' silence, would it not?
What do we "intuitively know as correct"? Is serious intent a matter of intuition, or simply a matter of persistent intent? What is the nature of intuition anyway?
Also, what is meant by the phrase "heart suspended in faith"? Faith in what exactly?
Lyn: Inertia, as I am using the word suggests energy contained, without an outlet. Without verbalization arising, direction or an objective of any sort. If this state lasts beyond momentarily, there may be the possibility of a degree of real silence, stillness and intuition coming into being. A state of “active silence” is a good way to describe it. Indeed this is exactly what it is. As we have understood, this “active silence” cannot be coaxed or conjured.
As an example: this is the way I came to it many years ago:
For six to nine months I had been reading K. It was a wonderful discovery and his words resonated deeply. Over time I found that I was effortlessly discarding a great deal of mental baggage that previously had weighed upon me. Many things that seemed important before were seen in a different light. I am sure most people who read or hear K would experience this liberating quality.
K’s message seemed to point to a different way of life. A deeper level of living that was very real but on the other hand seemed unreachable. The way to approach this was through self awareness. I didn’t really understand what self awareness really was. This is the conundrum that we all face. Like most people, I took the path of trying to be aware of myself more acutely, in everything I did and said. I felt this to be progress. To a limited extent it was. More precisely though, it was still very much me; trying to shape and mould me to fit some idea of what I should or could be. The self acting upon the self.
In due course I applied by mail to become a student at Brockwood Park in the UK. I was 18 years old. After waiting about six weeks and having received no reply, I wrote again. I thought that they may have been rather unimpressed by my first letter. I concluded that I should provide more detail. I wrote that I had been studying Ks teachings for many months and that I understood clearly what he was trying to convey. Also, that I was very serious and consequently had become aware of myself and so on and on. I posted the letter. For days afterward my mind would bring me back to the letter. I felt a strong sense of guilt for some reason. By day I would mentally rewrite the letter in my head virtually word for word. At night I dreamt about it.
About a week later, I was working away quietly. The content of my letter continued to bother me. Then, in an instant, the truth of myself, my motives, my limitations just arose - became apparent. I realized that I was basically as confused as the next person, that my understanding of K's teaching was limited. That my objective was to obtain a place at Brockwood Park and my fear was that I would not. This realization was immediate and involuntary. This realization was the key that unlocked the door.
At the same instant as this realization came about, a stillness or silence was born. A stillness that was totally foreign. Although the realization of the truth of my letter was a shock and totally unexpected, the stillness that followed did not shock or alarm me. It was as natural as it was deep and pervasive. When I say it was born, that is exactly as it was. It arose from within. Without effort, I was able to maintain it. The I as an entity was still there. However it had a totally different quality, a holistic quality, as if wisdom was now part of its structure. This was insight at a deeper level. Although the thought process was still operating, the wisdom or insight continued. The strangest thing was, that as each thought arose, insight acted within, upon the thought, involuntarily, naturally, effortlessly. It exposed the thought. It illuminated the thought. Not with light as we know light. More of a deep understanding. This was all part of the same movement, without separation. The act of understanding was healing the thought. Both the immediate thought and reaching further, with connectedness to include deeper levels of one's being.
If we consider most everyday thought as somewhat superfluous or meaningless, in one instance insight affected the thread of that thought. The light of insight shone on that thought and permeated deeper. It was as though all thought was related or connected. Similar to how you may pull upon a loose thread in a piece of cloth. Pulling on that one thread will affect the whole cloth. If we can say that the cloth represents the thinker, it felt as though insight was healing the thinker, via the thought and via a connectedness with deeper levels. The healing effect was of thought dropping away, its significance revealed and dealt with in the one movement. This is the holistic aspect that I mentioned. A sense of freedom, gladness and joy was part of this movement. Simplicity and clarity were real.
One or two theosophical books describe this awareness as “laying ones thought alongside that of the master”. In a way this gives the impression of separateness or another thinking entity but it is not. Another important aspect of awareness is that the heart, or feeling is a significant part of it. It is not all brain or mind centred. It is as if the mind and heart act in concert. The mind becomes linked with the heart. When observing nature, distance or space is reduced, becoming absent. That is, there is no filter of the mind between viewer and subject. In effect a direct relationship is born. An intimacy that did not exist previously. Relationship with other people was unfiltered and without distance. Insight was not limited to the self. It shone an inward light on their actions, their speech, their characteristics, humour and sadness. There was no judgement. It was not invasive like some form of mind reading, rather inclusive within the whole movement. Words like wholeness and love best convey the content or nature of this movement.
This awareness came and went over a period of several months. Then it never came again. That was nearly forty years ago. There were deeper levels than I have described here (rather poorly) however; silence, awareness, intuition is where it must start.
("Intuitively know as correct"?) What we intuitively know as correct will mean something to some and nothing to another. It depends on how deeply one has examined the teachings and oneself. Also, we need to consider that as important as the words, and the meanings they convey, feeling is an integral part. Feeling is of the heart, not the mind. I would maintain that intuition is as much heart-centred as mind or brain. To a significant extent we must feel our way. Indeed, we will never think our way.
Faith is a word that was not used by K. It is a word loaded with sad religious connotations, invested with belief, hope and desperation. It is also a delaying word. It postpones action in the present moment, where life takes place. The context that I used it was meant to convey a state of poise, a positive aspect, towards what might feel like a direction that seems correct. Not so much a state of waiting or expectation. A path where there is no path? If a person has gone so far in their enquiry that they have felt the liberating quality of wisdom, truth or whatever word may be applied, yet they have not made a break through. Then serious intent, faith or a positive inclination has a value. As mentioned above, we must feel our way rather than think our way.
~ You have importantly exposed in this recounting the fatal trap we all fall into. Reading it, one is struck by the fact that it is all in the past. You had an experience, and you have retained the memory of it. There are many many people who have had experiences similar in nature. This is certainly not to suggest that they are invalid, only that the mind has carried them over. I, too, had a major realization many years ago (which was highly 'valid', but, equally, did not recur), and carried this around for many years. It becomes a burden, a patterning of the mind that translates and compares what is happening now with this past experience (this can happen involuntarily, unconsciously). It also prevents this event from occurring again. So the past constantly interferes with the present. Which is all that matters. Understanding is now, not in the remembrance of things past. When I realized this, I dropped the experience from memory.
This is one of the most difficult things in all of this freedom that we talk about: the dying to the known. It doesn't matter if the known is the most profound experience possible, or the 'most real', or life energizing, you still must die to it. Die to it just the same as you would die to the false. Otherwise this very liberating event itself becomes an impediment.
There are two other very important points brought out in this account: first, that feeling is central to understanding, that thinking is not the way forward. Whether you wish to call this feeling 'intuition' or 'faith' is only a matter of words.
The second is this crucial "realization", or insight, of the mind. In your case this realization (of motive and limitation) came about through excessive thinking over time, did it not?
Lyn: Yes, memory of today, yesterday or fifty years ago is meaningless in regard to living in the present. This is our problem, a walking, talking kaleidoscope of collected memories trying to engage reality; “the present.” That is - the movement of the death of the current second and the birth of the next second.
In 1985, I met with K at Pine Cottage at Ojai. I had written some notes very similar to the outline I have given here previously. He concluded our discussion with this statement. “You must live your life, if you chase awareness it will never come again.” His summary was not unexpected at all. Since then I have lived my life and been thankful for each day. I look forward to the day, maybe in my lifetime that I hear of other “ Flatlanders” who have come upon the new vista and completed the work required. They will help quicken the emergence of a totally different society where words such as Civilization, Cooperation and Love will have an altogether different meaning.
(This will be my last note for the time being.)
~~~~~~~~~~
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
“Without problems, without achievements and failures, the self is not."
{Book of Life Daily Meditations, Commentaries on Living: Series I, 'Problems and Escapes'}
{Book of Life Daily Meditations, Commentaries on Living: Series I, 'Problems and Escapes'}
Note: Site best viewed through Internet Explorer; there are some page display issues with Firefox.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007/2008, beyondthemindsite. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is continually being updated.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
