Site best viewed through Internet Explorer;
there are some page display issues with Chrome & Firefox
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Copyright © 2007-2010 Daniel Marks | beyondthemind.net. All Rights Reserved.
This website went online on November 22, 2007 and is being continually developed.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
* We consciously or unconsciously selectively read the talks, picking out those bits we are comfortable with, can
live with, can offer opinions on, and carefully stream out or ignore the rest of the words and their implications…
“K considers the so-called teachings to be common-sense, orderly, and they demand a great deal of attention,
subtlety and a sense of continuing to the very end of the book. And apparently, in different parts of the world,
this is being slightly neglected. I use the world 'slightly' politely. I'd like to use much stronger language.
This is happening. We meet every year. We have done it in Saanen for nearly twenty-five years, and we don't seem
to be able to come together, understand the common, ordinary things of life and all the implications of K's teaching.
We never seem to go to the end of the book."
(The Link: #19: Saanen, Switzerland, July 13, 1984)
Many seem to regard the actual reading of the books nowadays as passé, something you don't actually do as that makes you merely a repeater of words, an imitator. Besides, the argument goes, the talks are old and outmoded; they may not be relevant anymore to today's world. They didn't work, no-one changed; much better to wait now for a contemporaneous teacher who can be more effective at pointing things out. Nor is there any benefit in quoting passages of the talks, or really studying them, for all these same reasons.
People actually think along these lines. The central idea is that because the talks didn't work, because the man who delivered them has "failed', they should be discarded. This completely sidesteps the point that a fact is a fact is a fact, irrespective of whether it is one day old or or two thousand years old. People simply don't see that this idea of redundancy and failure is one of the greatest escapes of all; the escape from looking at themselves. This allows them to coveniently ignore or cleverly sidestep truth, which is what civilization has been doing all along.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"There is no understanding of the teaching, only understanding of yourself."
(Jayakar Biography: Chapter 41, page 435)
What is encouraged nowadays is for one to pontificate upon their limited understanding of the talks, to put out opinions according to their particular idea of what it is about. Much of this is a knee-jerk reaction to what others have stated about their ideas (one can observe this phenomenon in many of the online dialogue forums/groups today that ostensibly 'study' the talks). These forums indulge in interminable and circular wordplays - confusion piled upon confusion. There is no real investigation of the talks in their totality. Participants ignore or sidestep the implications of the direct quotes that are occasionally presented, opting instead for their particular take on the subjects raised in the threads. If a response gets too deep, they simply ignore it and go on to another subject. The object is distraction, which amounts to nothing more than entertainment, which is the internet itself writ large.
Another clever escape is to resort to pure intellectualization (you often see examples of this in these same groups and in The Link) - covering up one's lack of understanding by employing complex and abstract terms. This is intellectual game-playing, a major avenue of escape by thought. It indicates a complete unawareness of the fact that intellectual analysis cannot solve any of our basic human problems, a statement that can be verified by simply looking at history. The intellect is of course thought, and all thought is superficial.
The fact is that we don’t actually read the talks, line by line. (It is held throughout this site that there are very few people who have actually carefully read the books in their entirety.) We always read the words through a screen of conclusions and ideas. We are always seeking gain, in one form or another, and yet we know there is nothing to be gained in transformation, gain in the accepted sense of money, success, social prestige and self-fulfilment. So we play with the idea of transformation, rather than getting serious about it all. To pursue something without an end in view is not only completely unacceptable, it is incomprehensible - for what then is the point of it if there is no gain in the end?
* We hold a conscious or latent hostility towards the man and/or aspects of his life and cannot listen objectively to
what we read or hear …
This subtle and often unrecognized hostility comes out (in one form) in the search for a supposed contradiction in his life, against what he said. This contradiction justifies our inability to grasp what has been pointed out - 'If he couldn’t live it, how on earth can we?' There is also the blame factor, whereby we feel we have been shown a glimpse of enlightenment but haven’t achieved it. We therefore blame the person who has presented all this to us for not actually showing us the way, or being deliberately and frustratingly complex and vague - not giving us a clear and certain method or technique by which to achieve it, despite the injunction that everything is up to oneself. This latent hostility against the man, which blocks all understanding, is more common than one would think. It is because the mind cannot stop itself from personalizing everything, rather than looking purely at what is said.
* We are afraid of change…
"Do you want a revolution that shatters all your concepts, your values, your morality, your respectability, your knowledge
- shatters you so that you are reduced to absolute nothingness, so that you no longer have any character, so that you no
longer are the seeker, the man who judges, who is aggressive or perhaps non-aggressive, so that you are completely empty
of everything that is you? ... That is what breakthrough means and is that what you are after?" {Meeting Life}
Change means uncertainty, insecurity, the unknown, and loss of all the mental comforts we have assiduously built up over our entire lives. Change means we are no longer the same as other people; and being like everybody else, like the mass of society, is one of the most ‘secure’ things we can and do have. We fear change because it will take away the psychological security of belonging in a personal relationship, and to a group, whether that be as banal as a football club, or, more especially, our national identity. To see this identity at the core of our self is the beginning of awareness.
Is this the greatest fear among all the immumerable fears that we have: to stand alone, without any support from others, and to lose the 'permanency' of the self, of our self-identity? Are we simply afraid of that state called "a silent mind"? Do we have an illusory idea of what a silent mind is?
What we really want is to be safe, certain and secure. To change is to openly invite what we perceive to be as insecurity, uncertainty. We will resist this at all costs and stick to what we know. This is a conclusion we have drawn and with which we have settled - and can live with. People read passages such as the above and below and convince themselves that change is not for them - change is only for the select few:
“Understanding is now or never; it is a destructive flash, not a tame affair; it is this shattering that one is afraid of
and so one avoids it, knowingly or unknowingly. Understanding may alter the course of one’s life… it may be
pleasant or not but understanding is a danger to all relationship.”
(Krishnamurti’s Notebook, page 125)
“Change, revolution, is something from the known to the unknown in which there is no authority, in which there may be total failure. But if you are assured that you will achieve, you will succeed, you will be happy, you will have everlasting life, then there is no problem. Then you pursue the well-known course of action, which is, yourself being always at the center of things.”
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Real change' - October 28, 2007)
“If you really used your intelligence in business, that is, if your emotions and your thought were acting harmoniously, your business might fail. It probably would. And you will probably let it fail when you really feel the absurdity, the cruelty and the exploitation that is involved in this way of living. Until you really approach all of life with your intelligence, instead of merely with your intellect, no system in the world will save man from the ceaseless toil for bread.” (Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Intellect vs. intelligence' - May 4, 2007)
* We are not serious…
We are really only playing around with this, as we have actually stopped listening to the talks and carefully reading the books; we only read and listen to that which affirms our own prejudices and ideas. We know this, deep down, but we don’t want to commit ourselves to seriousness, to self-knowledge; we want to keep all our options open, in case something else, something better (a technique, for example) comes along. Or a personal guru who can protect us while we go through this change. If we were really serious we may then have the energy for “pure observation” (passive awareness). We have come to certain conclusions about it all. These conclusions form a barrier between what we then read and listen to. It is this barrier that prevents further understanding. Along with fear, conclusions or fixed ideas are the greatest barrier to understanding the talks.
Our seriousness is a mask that conceals secret desires. We are actually pursuing pleasure rather than self-knowledge. We all have our own particular pleasures that we will not give up. Voluntarily and freely relinquishing our pleasures is a sign of actual seriousness, but to give up something without reward at the end of it is a way of living beyond comprehension, as our lives are founded on the principle of gain, of incentive.
~~~~~~~
There is a prevailing misconception among many that the talks contain nothing new, nothing that has not been previously stated by the so-called “gurus” of the past. Or that they are just a modern reworking of ancient truths. This is said by people who have read little of the talks and understood even less.
There is some truth in this in only the very broadest sense: if you look at the overarching theme of the ending of suffering (that is, the ending of the self), which is the central basis behind the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism, for example. But the detail in these talks is found nowhere else. Try as you might, you will not find in another writer (philosopher, psychologist, spiritual teacher, ‘guru’) the intricate and elaborate exposition and unfolding of the myriad deceptive ways of thought and the self, as well as fear, desire, conditioning and all the other aspects comprising the total consciousness of man. Others have covered some particular areas - some branches of the tree - but you can search forever, to no avail: you will not find anywhere else the entire mirror laid out of the content of the human mind.
In the end, of course, such a diversion into the realm of, “He doesn’t say anything new, or anything that has not already been said before”, allows a clever escape from facing what has actually been said. One more escape among all the rest in which we constantly indulge.
There has also been ongoing discussion to the effect that, because no-one has ‘got it’, then the talks themselves (or the speaker) must somehow be at fault. There is, for instance, the charge that they are too vague to be fully understood. When it comes down to it, the talks appear to be unspecific in the area of awareness, as mentioned elsewhere in these discussions, but this may well be deliberate. The words after all are not the thing - you have to see the thing for yourself, you have to do all the work yourself. One must also always bear in mind that the talks approach everything negatively, that is, the approach is about what things are not. What things are and the so-called positive approach of how to achieve them has never been the intention.
Similarly, the talks are not final answers and were never meant to be answers, for that would be self-defeating to their purpose. The answers are in ourselves. Neither are the talks ‘help’ in the accepted sense of that word, as nothing can help or assist you in the understanding of yourself. The talks are a mirror only to ourselves; they point out things concerning the structure and process of thought, the self and the mind. No more, no less. The rest is entirely up to us.
~~~~~~~
* We don’t feel we have the capacity for passive awareness, for not naming what we see, for not reacting to what we
observe in ourselves, for observing without the observer…
“Is it possible not to name a feeling? Because, by calling a particular feeling `anger', `fear', `jealousy', we have given it strength, have we not? We have fixed it. The very naming is a process of confirming that feeling, giving it strength, and therefore enclosing it in memory. Observe it and you will see. It is possible to be free fundamentally only when the process of naming is understood - naming being terming, symbolizing, which is the action of memory; because memory is the `you'. Without your memory, without your experiences, the `you' is not; and the mind clings to those experiences as essential in order to be secure.
So, we cultivate memory, which is experience, knowledge, and through that process we hope to control the reactions and feelings which we call distortions. If we would be free of any particular quality, we must understand the whole process of the thinker and the thought, we must see the truth that the thinker is not separate from thought, but that they are a single, unitary process. If you actually realize that, you will see what an extraordinary revolution takes place in your life. By revolution I do not mean economic revolution, which is no revolution at all, but merely a modified continuity of what is. But when the thinker realizes that he is not different from thought, then you will see that radically, deeply, there is an extraordinary transformation; because, then there is only the fact of thought, and not the translation of that fact to suit the thinker.”
(Collected Works: Volume 6, New York, 1st Public Talk, 4th June, 1950)
“I feel guilt, why do I name it? I name it instantly. The naming of it is the recognition of it, therefore I have had that feeling before. Right? And having had it before I recognize it now. Through recognition I strengthen what has happened before. Right? You are following this? No?
I have strengthened the memory of the previous guilt by saying, "I feel guilty". So see what has happened. Every form of recognition strengthens the past. And recognition takes place through naming. So by and through recognition I strengthen the past. Why does the mind do this? Don't answer me please. Why does the mind do this, why does it always strengthen the past by saying, "I have been guilty, I am guilty, it is terrible to be guilty, how am I to get rid of this guilt" - why does it do it?
Does it do it because the mind needs to be occupied with something? You understand? It needs to be occupied, whether with god, with smoke, with sex, with something, it has to be occupied, therefore it is afraid not to be occupied. Right? And in occupation with the feeling of guilt, in that feeling there is certain security. At least I have got that thing, I have nothing else but at least I have got that feeling of being guilty.
So what is happening? Through recognition, which is the naming, the mind is strengthening a past feeling, which has happened before, and so the mind is constantly occupied with that feeling of guilt. That gives it a certain occupation, a certain sense of security, a certain action from that which becomes neurotic. So what takes place? Can I, when the feeling arises, observe it without naming it? So I find when I do not name, the thing no longer exists.”
(Reflections on the Self)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Most people have simply stopped listening. To actually listen openly is disconcerting. The mind has settled
for a set of ideas and conclusions, operating in a groove in which it is stuck. To openly listen is to threaten
the comforting self-image in which it has invested so much faith. Likewise, there are very few who are actually
interested in self-knowledge. To look at oneself as a totality means facing everything one actually is, much
of which will be 'unpleasant' and at variance to one's carefully masked and duplicitous thought-process.
Many have read small portions of the books and formed certain conclusions and stopped listening.
It is like going on a journey and then stopping half-way.
This is the real issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Listening has importance only when one is not projecting one's own desires through which one listens.
Can one put aside all these screens through which we listen, and really listen?”
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Putting aside screens' - January 2, 2008)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
for a set of ideas and conclusions, operating in a groove in which it is stuck. To openly listen is to threaten
the comforting self-image in which it has invested so much faith. Likewise, there are very few who are actually
interested in self-knowledge. To look at oneself as a totality means facing everything one actually is, much
of which will be 'unpleasant' and at variance to one's carefully masked and duplicitous thought-process.
Many have read small portions of the books and formed certain conclusions and stopped listening.
It is like going on a journey and then stopping half-way.
This is the real issue.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“Listening has importance only when one is not projecting one's own desires through which one listens.
Can one put aside all these screens through which we listen, and really listen?”
(Book of Life Daily Meditations: 'Putting aside screens' - January 2, 2008)
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
The mind has an extraordinary capacity to blind-side itself, to refuse to see the fact of its own hypocrisy, to justify any and
all of its actions, ideas and process of thinking. Unawareness this is not. You can really only call this one thing - wilful ignorance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
all of its actions, ideas and process of thinking. Unawareness this is not. You can really only call this one thing - wilful ignorance.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
“The self is a problem that thought cannot resolve.”
(The First and Last Freedom: page 113)
(The First and Last Freedom: page 113)
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
(Webpage exploring the barriers to transformation, to a complete change in human consciousness;
Total site page loads: > 150,000)
Total site page loads: > 150,000)
Conclusions are the greatest barrier, are they not? A strongly held conclusion blocks all inquiry, closes the mind, prevents listening from taking place. Conclusions, which are just ideas, offer temporary comfort and security - and people will defend them to their death.
|
 |
|
|
 |
 |
 |
Life after Death: A Most Extraordinary Discussion -
on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
on the Stream, Pure Energy, Death & Reincarnation
Closing The Gap:
The Demise of the Observer
The observer is the issue, the real barrier to true awareness. The observer is the self, a fragment of thought-consciousness amongst many other fragments - the central enduring fragment that has identified itself as the "me," the ongoing self-image. But the observer is not separate from that which it is observing - although it always thinks it is.
This separation is where all the problems lie. The separation is an illusion, but a very strong one. It is the central illusion of the human mind. It is a gap between the observer and that which it sees. Because of it, the central fragment attempts to do something about what it sees (like fear, or envy), or condemns it, or rationalizes it, or runs away from it. It always reacts to what it sees, it never just observes it. It cannot just observe it, passively, without any reaction at all.
It is only when this separation ends, when this central observer becomes aware that it is only a part of that which it is observing, that true seeing, or insight, takes place. Of course, when the observer ends, the self ends. And the mind resists that realization, with all its might.
The Demise of the Observer
The observer is the issue, the real barrier to true awareness. The observer is the self, a fragment of thought-consciousness amongst many other fragments - the central enduring fragment that has identified itself as the "me," the ongoing self-image. But the observer is not separate from that which it is observing - although it always thinks it is.
This separation is where all the problems lie. The separation is an illusion, but a very strong one. It is the central illusion of the human mind. It is a gap between the observer and that which it sees. Because of it, the central fragment attempts to do something about what it sees (like fear, or envy), or condemns it, or rationalizes it, or runs away from it. It always reacts to what it sees, it never just observes it. It cannot just observe it, passively, without any reaction at all.
It is only when this separation ends, when this central observer becomes aware that it is only a part of that which it is observing, that true seeing, or insight, takes place. Of course, when the observer ends, the self ends. And the mind resists that realization, with all its might.
Essay: 'Too Radical for the World's Good'
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
Basis of this Website:
The cornerstone of this entire site is the writer's discoveries from looking into the 'mirror' that is the talks. Time and again the pointers in the talks allude to the actual nature of the contents of consciousness (ie., thought, desire, time, and the self) - the actual workings of the mind on a daily basis. When pondered and reflected upon, these pointers have been shown to be true, and it is on this foundation alone that the site has been constructed, in order to share this understanding with others. The key is to observe one's mind - and the pointers, once read and understood, can then be put aside. Both the man and the pointers themselves are not the central issue.
On Studying the Talks: "Vasanta Vihar [a Study Centre in Chennai, India, though meant here generically] should draw people who have a good brain, a good intellect. They should study the "teaching" thoroughly, soak in it deeply as you would do if you were to study medicine or Buddhism or any other subject. Studying means to go deeply into the subtleties of the words used and their contents and seeing the truths in them in relation to daily life. They should be able to discuss the teaching with specialists in any branch of knowledge, as scholars do. While they are studying, these people should have a spirit of cooperation.
A spirit of cooperation does not mean working together for some purpose, but it means that one is able to share one's discoveries and findings with one another. For instance, I share with you as a friend what I have discovered. You may doubt it, question it, but I am sharing with you the discovery. It is not my discovery; it does not belong to me or anybody. Perception is never personal."
(Sunanda Patwardhan Memoir: A Vision of the Sacred: My Personal Journey with Krishnamurti, 1999, page 63)
The minute you hold your discoveries into the workings of the mind to yourself, your self is in operation and so you have actually understood nothing.
The cornerstone of this entire site is the writer's discoveries from looking into the 'mirror' that is the talks. Time and again the pointers in the talks allude to the actual nature of the contents of consciousness (ie., thought, desire, time, and the self) - the actual workings of the mind on a daily basis. When pondered and reflected upon, these pointers have been shown to be true, and it is on this foundation alone that the site has been constructed, in order to share this understanding with others. The key is to observe one's mind - and the pointers, once read and understood, can then be put aside. Both the man and the pointers themselves are not the central issue.
On Studying the Talks: "Vasanta Vihar [a Study Centre in Chennai, India, though meant here generically] should draw people who have a good brain, a good intellect. They should study the "teaching" thoroughly, soak in it deeply as you would do if you were to study medicine or Buddhism or any other subject. Studying means to go deeply into the subtleties of the words used and their contents and seeing the truths in them in relation to daily life. They should be able to discuss the teaching with specialists in any branch of knowledge, as scholars do. While they are studying, these people should have a spirit of cooperation.
A spirit of cooperation does not mean working together for some purpose, but it means that one is able to share one's discoveries and findings with one another. For instance, I share with you as a friend what I have discovered. You may doubt it, question it, but I am sharing with you the discovery. It is not my discovery; it does not belong to me or anybody. Perception is never personal."
(Sunanda Patwardhan Memoir: A Vision of the Sacred: My Personal Journey with Krishnamurti, 1999, page 63)
The minute you hold your discoveries into the workings of the mind to yourself, your self is in operation and so you have actually understood nothing.