Gaia: Pathless Land: A Krishnamurti Community - Bulletin Board

Re: Zeitgeist Film and Krishnamurti

http://sergioh.gaia.com — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:13:38 GMT

As a Krishnamurti reader, I feel very safe in saying I think he would be very proud of this movie. In fact, in one of his books he does say we must become active and offer a solution (or as Ghandi says "Be The Change").

I think the first part of the movie is about facts and "what is". It may seem extreme but only because it IS extreme. The end brings it back full circle (beautifully) about what can be done which is where he introduces the Venus Project.

I have been on my own path (in this life) for 18 years now. I was very much a rebel when I first started thinking it was all about "fuck the police". Then as I evolved and delved spiritually I very much went into the "unconditional love" space. Now as I have "balanced" myself I see it is both: we must come from love and be active! This is a physical world we live in and there are 7 (or is it 9 now?) billion people on the planet. We have to eat, resources must be accounted for, and a system of living has to be addressed. Just focusing on quantum ideas and spiritual concepts is not enough. That is just one half. The other half is the physical practicality. This is the most comprehensive "idea" put forth yet that addresses the physical component of our lives. It is so easy for people to criticize this but yet I hear no other option put forth. Why do so many people spend more time being a critic then a solution generator. On this page all I see are critics. Where are the solutions of how you think 7+ billion people will live?

Yes, this concept has bugs. Yes it is raw (they even admit this). But we have to start somewhere. Consider this play dough and pick up your carving tool and help shape this.

We live in a system now that is failing and will crumble. There must be an alternative option in place so that as things fall, people have a "choice" on what they want to help build. Please, if you have a better idea of how all of us on this planet can live (physically) please put it forth I am all ears. For now, this is the best idea so far.

If you want to be active, go here Support

There is also an updated presentation

Re: Krishnamurti's Favorite Jokes

http://singerseeker.gaia.com — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:20:00 GMT

Entertaining! Thanks :)

Nicole

Re: Krishnamurti's Favorite Jokes

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 15:13:41 GMT

“Two friends, one of them a bishop, die in a car crash. They go up to heaven and meet St. Peter. Neither of them has sinned too much, so he lets them in. And he says to them, ‘If you have any special request, tell me now, and I’ll see to it that it gets done.’ The bishop, a religious person, asks to see God. St Peter is startled by his request and tries to dissuade him, ‘Seeing God is a sensitive affair—it’s very shocking. Few people can stand it. If I may advice you, please don’t insist on this.’ But the man is adamant and insists on his wish.

Finally St Peter gives in and tells him, ‘Very well, if you insist. Just don’t blame me afterwards. Go that way and follow the signs: ’God’. And don’t forget to come back here.’ Off he goes to see God, while his friend wait with St Peter for his return. It takes ten to fifteen minutes before he returns. He is a mere shadow of himself, as pale as a ghost, and staggering about in deep shock. His friend is concerned to see him in this state and says, ‘By Jove, what’s happened to you? What was He like?’ But the man can only moan, ‘She’s black.’”

Re: Krishnamurti's Favorite Jokes

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:56:00 GMT

God has just completed the creation of world, with its ocean and continents and all the creatures, including the humans. As he surveys his work, an angel points out that there is one small spot in the center of Europe that’s been left blank and empty. The Lord says, ‘I must have overlooked the spot. What shall we do with it?’ And the angel answers, ‘If I may suggest it, Lord why don’t you create a land of milk and honey, called Switzerland—with snow-peaked mountains, streams, forests and green meadows, where cows graze that produce the best milk in the world?’

The Lord replies, ‘That sounds good. And what about the humans there?’ And the angel suggests, ‘Why not make them clean, orderly, and hard-working, with the greatest respect for money?’ And the Lord says, ‘So be it.’ And so it was done. After some time the Lord wants to see what he has created and goes down to Earth. He walks among the mountains, enjoying the beauty of the scenery. After a while he comes to a small village, very clean and orderly. As the day is getting hotter, he feels a bit thirsty. So he walks up to one of the cafés with outdoor tables and chairs.

The owner immediately recognizes him and comes running, greeting him with great respect, ‘O Lord, please sit down. It’s an extraordinary honor that You visit our small town and my humble café. Is there anything, anything, that we can do for You?’ The Lord is pleased and says, ‘By Jove, I noticed your splendid cows grazing out there. Give me a tall glass of cold, fresh milk.’ ‘Immediately, O Lord.’ And the man trots off and returns with a tall glass of fresh, cold milk with foam on the top, and places in front of the Lord. He drinks it down with much enjoyment. He’s just getting up from the table when the owner comes running and, with a respectful bow, places a small plate with the strip of paper in front of him. The Lord looks at it and asks the man, ‘What is that?’ The owner bows again and explains, ‘With all due respect, O Lord, that is the bill.’

Re: Krishnamurti's Favorite Jokes

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:51:49 GMT

“There are three monks, who had been sitting in deep meditation for many years amidst the Himalayan snow peaks, never speaking a word, in utter silence. One morning, one of the three suddenly speaks up and says, ‘What a lovely morning this is.’ And he falls silent again. Five years of silence pass, when all at once the second monk speaks up and says, ‘But we could do with some rain.’ There is silence among them for another five years, when suddenly the third monk says, ‘Why can’t you two stop chattering?”

Re: Krishnamurti's Favorite Jokes

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:49:11 GMT

"A man dies and goes to the Pearly Gates. St. Peter says to him, ‘You’ve lived a fairly good life, not cheated or sinned too much. But before entering heaven I must tell you that we’re all bored here. God never laughs, and the angels are quite moody, praying most of the time. So please hesitate before entering heaven. Perhaps, you’d like to go down and see what that’s like. Then come and tell me what you prefer. But it’s up to you. Just ring that bell over there. An elevator will come up and you just get into it and go down.’ So the chap rings the bell and goes down in the elevator.

The doors open and he is met by the most beautiful girl, who take care of him, et cetera, et cetera. '‘By Jove’, he thinks, ‘this is life.’ And he says to the girls, ‘May I just go and tell St. Peter?’ He rings the bell, get into the elevator and goes up. He says to St. Peter, ‘Sir, it’s very good of you to have offered me the choice, I prefer down below.’ St. Peter says, ‘I thought you would.’ The man rings the bell again and goes down. The doors open and two ugly fiends grab him and beat him up, pushing and kicking him. He moans, ‘Wait a minute. Just a little while ago you treated me like a king. And now this; why?’ ‘Ah, you were a tourist then.’”

Krishnamurti's Favorite Jokes

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Wed, 10 Jun 2009 14:45:16 GMT

Here are a few of the jokes Krishnamurti was fond of telling:

"One day, the Pope dies and goes up to the Pearly Gates where he meets St. Peter. He says to him, ‘You must be St. Peter.’ St. Peter answers, ‘And who are you?’ The pope is taken aback, ‘You don’t recognize me? I’m the Pope.’ St. Peter picks up his list and goes over the names, ‘Pope, Pope—I’m sorry, there is nobody here by that name. I’m sorry, but you can’t enter heaven.’

The Pope is shocked. ‘There must be some mistake. It’s impossible—I must be on that list. Please, look again: I’m the Pope!’ St. Peter gets impatient and tells him to buzz off. By now the Pope is in tears and begs him, ‘Please, St. Peter, I’m your successor and the representative of Jesus on earth. I’m the head of the Holy Roman Church. I have a right to enter heaven.’ St. Peter is getting annoyed and says, I’ve never heard of anything so foolish. If you don’t immediately buzz off, I’ll call the angels with the flaming swords.’ The Pope is in utter despair. ‘No, please don’t, I beg of you. Can’t you ask somebody, who knows me? Maybe Jesus or one of the saints will vouch for me.’

St. Peter gives in and says to the chap, ‘All right, I’ll go and ask inside. You stay here. And don’t touch anything.’ So he goes inside, and there are Jesus, his mother Mary, the apostles and several angels and saints. ‘Excuse me, Lord,’ says St. Peter, ‘there is a chap by the name of Pope wanting to enter heaven. He claims to have been your representative on earth.’ Jesus laughs, ‘My representative on earth? That’s absurd, isn’t it? And I’ve never heard of anyone named Pope?’ No one seems to know the Pope, until suddenly the Virgin Mary speaks up, ‘Wait a minute. Pope—isn’t he the one who spread all the rumors about me and the Holy Ghost?’”

Re: Zeitgeist Film and Krishnamurti

http://MarkDuBois.gaia.com — Sun, 31 May 2009 12:24:12 GMT

I've been participating in various spiritual circles for the past nine years. In all of them with no exception, the rule of the day is to get 'enlightened' in whatever du jour AND suppress our emotions.

Emotions oftentimes are misconstrued to be elements of 'shadows' or other some-such negative language. And since anger is in this realm and not socially acceptable, it often doesn't get expressed.

Anger can be a very effective emotion as it is very closely tied with our will. It can be used as useful energy, particularly when channeled appropriately.

I wasn't particularly angry above either. I was a member at IL for about 6 months and did both my construction and deconstruction part.

...as Dan mentioned above, "The real revolution is the revolution of consciousness.”

Both at a personal level and at a world level. This is your life and your world.

Re: Zeitgeist Film and Krishnamurti

http://MarkDuBois.gaia.com — Fri, 29 May 2009 17:35:32 GMT

Hey Guys! Just found this group in my email from Gaia this morning and joined this group too. I am a huge fan of Krishnamurti.

I've seen several movies in this series and had similar conclusions. After several months, I've determined for myself that the conspiracy isn't a conscious one, but an unconscious one.

Taken on a smaller scale such as at IL, the same mechanics/dynamics are occurring too.

In other words, some reasonably well intentioned persons in positions of power are unconsciously doing a lot of damage.

Then when you become a radical revolutionary of consciousness, such as myself, you do whatever means are necessary to fight it. You don't talk about it, you do something about it.

First, you determine root cause and fight it at the root. IL claims to represent the World Forum.

THE FUCK THEY DO!

Re: Zeitgeist Film and Krishnamurti

http://drs1958.gaia.com — Thu, 21 May 2009 23:47:29 GMT

I agree Balder.

Pretty radical...and scary because what they are saying has come to pass to an extent.

It was produced before the economic meltdown was in full swing.

The suggestions for "Social Transformation" are really radical however.

The rebellion or boycotting suggested is polarizing and I don't think will change it (the problems we face as a nation and globally) or make it better.

Considering the principles of Spiral Dynamics (which the film does not discuss)

http://www.loosetooth.com/Viscom/gf/spiral_dynamics.pdf

is one beautiful example of what can be done to understand the problem and help effectively transform it sustainably.

I do agree with them when they suggest we have been lied to. Lied to by what extent is still not 100% clear, it may never be clear. It may not matter pointing fingers.
Useless really. Find solutions!

Demading accountability on a certain level can be counterproductive and a distract from higher creative solutions when valuable time is of the essence.

The point is, where do we go from here? What do we do to change it? How much time is left?

Beginnning at 1:56:40 however is where the commentator hits the nail right on the head and is where I support and agree 100% with what is being said.
Probably the one point that the Krishnamurti Foundation did like:

"But in the end the real relevant change must occur first inside of you. The real revolution is the revolution of consciousness..."

The ending is dramatic. Martix style. That is the best part of the film in addition to Krishnamurti himself

Dan

Re: Zeitgeist Film and Krishnamurti

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:54:03 GMT

Hi, Dan, thanks for highlighting this. It seems strange to me, too, that the Krishnamurti Foundation would want Krishnamurti to be associated with this sort of extremist, conspiracy-type movement. Maybe they are just looking for a way to have his work re-enter popular awareness again, since it does seem that there is less general awareness of him and his message than there was a couple decades ago. But, to me, this is not the right platform.

Zeitgeist Film and Krishnamurti

http://drs1958.gaia.com — Thu, 21 May 2009 01:01:39 GMT

I'm sure many here are aware of the footage included in Zeitgest Addendum

@ 1:57:14

I am struck that the Krishnamurti Foundation would allow rights to his footage considering how radical some of the ideas are in this film. I think the films intentions are good, but some of the suggestions right before Krishnamurti and throughout the film are extreme and unprovable IMHO.

Are they not in a sense advocating these concepts by allowing Krishnamurti footage to be used?

I think the value of the film is in the middle ground between its extremism and more moderate views. There's no way to confirm this stuff to begin with, which is dicey from the get go.

Why do they associate themselves with this film?

Dan

Re: Useful Krishnamurti Links

http://onthetrail.gaia.com — Sun, 03 May 2009 15:20:14 GMT

Thanks Bruce!

Frans

Re: Useful Krishnamurti Links

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Sat, 18 Apr 2009 22:26:01 GMT

For any interested members, here is a new resource for Krishnamurti e-books. Most of his books are available there for free downloading. The books are in PDF format, which I much prefer to the scanned copies that were available at previous sites.

Re: Cultivation / Moderation of this Pod

http://Davidu.gaia.com — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 19:54:03 GMT

It's a shame to see this go. I know you had high hopes for this pod when you initiated it. I do regret I was not present very often, but it seems as much as I admired K and was grateful for all he gave me on my spiritual journey, I've moved on. The fascination with his teachings, although they were root awakenings for me decades ago, seem to be replaced with a vision that feels rich with revelations through inquiry -- TSK.

Best wishes, and I hope someone will pick up the task as Cultovator of this pod.

Re: Cultivation / Moderation of this Pod

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 12 Dec 2008 18:39:17 GMT

Hi, Tharlam,

If you are interested in taking over the cultivation of this pod, I would be happy to hand it to you. If you are interested in K and have the energy for this space, I would love to see it thrive. I am sorry I haven't been able to make it do so myself.

If you are interested, I'll be happy to pass the reins to you, friend. I would like to remain a member of the pod and would still enjoy joining in conversations as I am able.

Best wishes,

Balder

Re: Cultivation / Moderation of this Pod

Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:12:09 GMT

I myself have energy, dear friend -but perhaps not the preferred degree of expertise on the subject to facilitate the pod. One is but a novice where the words of Krishnamurti are concerned.

In saying that, I obviously have much to learn and would find the deletion of the pod a great shame. I shall take the reigns if you do not find a more suitable candidate.

Hope you are well.

Cultivation / Moderation of this Pod

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:15:19 GMT

After starting this pod, and enjoying the energy and discussion when it first opened, I have found myself without sufficient time to give this space the attention it needs to really flower as a place of inquiry.

Would any of the members here be interested in taking over the reins here and serving as the cultivator of this pod?

I think this pod has potential, and there are a lot of great discussions here, so I would prefer not to have to delete it. If someone here has more energy and time for this than I do, please let me know and we can discuss the transition.

Best wishes,

Balder

The Core of the Teachings

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 15:43:10 GMT

The Core of Teachings

Written by Krishnamurti in 1980 for the biography by Mary Lutyens Krishnamurti: The Years of Fulfilment. In 1983, he revised the statement to its current form. © KFT.

"The core of Krishnamurti's teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said: ˜Truth is a pathless land". Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophic knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection. Man has built in himself images as a fence of security"religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man's thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. This content is common to all humanity. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all mankind. So he is not an individual.

Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not a choice. It is man's pretense that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

Thought is time. Thought is born of experience and knowledge, which are inseparable from time and the past. Time is the psychological enemy of man. Our action is based on knowledge and therefore time, so man is always a slave to the past. Thought is ever-limited and so we live in constant conflict and struggle. There is no psychological evolution.
When man becomes aware of the movement of his own thoughts, he will see the division between the thinker and thought, the observer and the observed, the experiencer and the experience. He will discover that this division is an illusion. Then only is there pure observation which is insight without any shadow of the past or of time. This timeless insight brings about a deep, radical mutation in the mind.

Total negation is the essence of the positive. When there is negation of all those things that thought has brought about psychologically, only then is there love, which is compassion and intelligence."

(Moderator's Note: This post was originally posted by Chaitanya on a thread on meditation. I have moved it here to highlight it as a resource for members of this board.)

The Transformative Psychology of Krishnamurti, Part 2

http://brucealderman.gaia.com — Fri, 14 Dec 2007 17:29:37 GMT

This is the continuation of the talk by Stephen James Smith originally published in The Link.

Part 1 is here.

~*~

"To engender a new way of seeing is, it seems to me, the most urgent human task. Seeing and being are closely aligned. For, it is when we see clearly that we truly are. We are then not what we think we are - which is, to put it briefly, a thought-world of conditioning - but we discover that what we thought we were - and what we are in terms of thought - is just a fiction of circumstances, one more image making its appearance in the hall of mirrors we call reality. Trouble is, it has no substance; to attribute, as we do, such importance to it is to lose ourselves in an endless, painful game. When we wake up, the game is over. We are now looking down a different track or, to put it more accurately, down the same track seen differently. Here, words can take us only so far because the act of seeing transforms the reality. We are seeing, literally, with eyes made new: the seer is the seen, instantaneously.

What we have come to within our own ontology, our own sense of who we are, is a new and different place of poise. We no longer see our self and its history - which includes its salvation, soteriological or otherwise - as the sole focus of our attention. Something has taken place in us which makes it clear that what requires attention is not the me and its history, but the total panoply of consciousness itself, of which the me and its history is a part. We are no longer enclosed within the valley but have caught a whiff of the air of the mountaintop.

This doesn't mean that we are totally transformed, but it does mean that we have taken the first step: we are looking in the right place. For, to remain in the self, with its history and salvation, is not only to lead a very narrow life, it is to perpetuate a collective, collusive fallacy. After all, the sense of separate identity, nurtured and strengthened by centuries of tradition, is what gives momentum to the false. And, as Krishnamurti so aptly points out, to see the false as false is the gateway to truth. There is no need to devise an antidotal strategy; as soon as we see the false as false, the self and its history as a fiction, i.e. false - the whole process of it, not just some items - then, essentially, we are loosening the knot which, if left unquestioned, undissolved, gets tighter and tighter the longer we live. And, since this loosening is not of time, we can begin on it at any age, which is why education is so important.

Seeing this, we have now entered what one could call the generative matrix of consciousness. It is constantly active, constantly moving; it seems to have no resting place. Because of our investigation, we can no longer see it as deriving from the ego which, even intellectually, is partial and fragmented. But, neither are we beyond the ego which continues to dictate our way of life. We are in a kind of no man's land. This is the condition of many, perhaps most, of us. What next?

Of course, the what next? is itself the problem. For, what next? is a return to the egoic identity, the self that wants to grasp and control. And, that is the very core of the problem: this age-old, obdurate, selfreplicating phenomenon that shows up in so many guises and disguises. There is nothing for it but to wait.

This implies not sitting back and waiting, but being in that state of alert passivity which we referred to above as negative thinking. It means that, even in and by waiting, we are preparing the place of transformation. This, again, is rather tricky because we cannot, by virtue of the nature of the task, be waiting for anything to happen. It is not the waiting of expectancy, even the void, fruitless expectancy of Samuel Beckett's Waiting for Godot. No, it has a different quality, a wholly different kind of vibration. It's rather like the wellstrung bow, or the well-tuned violin waiting to be played; it is ready, it is attuned - but no note has been played. The work of transformation implies all this; it implies that we be fit and ready, waiting but not waiting for. Abandoning the story, we simply wait.

To remain in the self with its history is to perpetuate a collective, collusive fallacy

In a nutshell, this is our dilemma. As Beckett puts it, "We are between a death and a difficult birth." Paradoxically, however, this difficult birth involves death, the death of who I think I am. This is not traditional self-immolation, paring oneself down to nothing at all; it is not renunciation in the accepted sense. Rather, in the act of waiting, in the patience and strength of "holding consciousness," we gather energy for the task in hand - the immediate, necessary perception of what is. But, it isn't something we bring about. As the Zen poem puts it:

Sitting quietly,
Doing nothing, the spring comes,
Grass grows by itself.

It is there in natural, spontaneous abundance, once we are able, by a widening of consciousness, simply to allow what is to be. It is not a recipe for quietism, for "doing nothing" the lazy way; on the contrary, it may well be a call to action. And, heaven knows, there is plenty to do if the age-old trend towards conflict and violence is to be arrested and reversed. The heavy dough of consciousness is in need of leaven as never before.

The very perception of this urgency, which is certainly a perception of what is, is in itself a call to awakening - perhaps it is part of awakening. For, in the world of thought, things are sequential; in the world of perception they are not: they are direct. By this I mean that there is no intervening mechanism, nothing that translates the seen into the known. In fact, in this moment, in this act of insight, the seer is the seen and there is instantaneous perception. Action then flows from the insight itself - it is not translated, not mediated - and can thus be said to be free of time, which is the heart of freedom, freedom-initself. Such action contains no trace of conflict, since its place of origin is beyond mentation, the corridor of the opposites, the hall of mirrors. Being thus free, it engenders freedom also. That is why those who live in that freedom create the space for others to be free - which does not mean they can do their work for them.

Everyone starts from the same ground, which is consciousness, and it is only by entering into that consciousness in as full and honest a way as possible that we can hope to find our "own way home." For, paradoxically, entering the generative matrix does not make the task less personal: it becomes personal and impersonal, both. No longer focused solely on the ego and its story, I am now aware of a much vaster field - not only that, but the field is me: there is no separation of seer and seen. It is not that things are happening to me - they are happening, pure and simple, and that is me, or, more accurately, the me. The very structure and nature of the me is out there in everything I see and hear, filtered, mediated, translated by thought and hence reduced to its own norms. In other words, there are not two worlds, that of the outer and the inner, but only one, self-sustaining and self-replicating. It's the same thing going on everywhere, in India, in Iraq, in America, in me - all of which are forms of separate identity. The fact is, this self-sustaining, self-replicating system must break down when the reality is seen. And the reality is, these structures are illusory: they have no basis whatsoever outside the mind that has conceived them. One mind or many minds, it doesn't matter: it is all part of the same collusion. Independent, as it were, of the mind that sees, this is consciousness awakening to itself, to its own multifarious, devious ways.

In the world of thought, things are sequential; in the world of perception they are not: they are direct

When this is seen - the whole wide field - then it is clear that nothing we call human lies outside its nascent scope: our highest hopes and dreams, our wildest imaginings. All belong to the matrix of consciousness or, as Krishnamurti might put it, "consciousness as we know it." There is, he maintains, something infinitely vaster, but the way to it lies through this, the common consciousness we have. It does not lie in any form of escape - not only because such escape is false, but because escape inevitably shoots us back to the very point we were escaping from. Implicit in this is what we might call the ontological psychology of Krishnamurti. It is a very precise psychology of being which is, at the same time, a rigorous teaching. One cannot get away from it. Most of us, of course, do want to escape, and there is a whole structure called the entertainment industry ready to provide us with just that - at a price. But, crossing the threshold is what it's all about and, until we do that, we are still in the miasma.

This question then becomes crucial: Is there observation without the observer? We have implied all along that there is, or that there might be. Now is the time to go deeper into it.

Students of Krishnamurti will be aware that he draws a distinction between the psychological and the inward; indeed, in terms of this inquiry, the inward begins where the psychological ends. The psychological treats of, and sometimes treats, common consciousness "as we know it." It delves, probes, discerns common trends; it describes symptoms and proposes cures. Including the vast reaches of the unconscious, which is not to be confused with the unknown, it is like a mediaeval castle - some of it above ground, much of it below - with labyrinthine passageways and underground tunnels. But, it all exists in terms of the story: it is something "put together by thought." This means that there is nothing original in it.

Those who live in freedom create the space for others to be free

When this is clear there is a new beginning, which is not the discovery of hidden chambers, dank dungeons or distant towers, illuminating as this may be, but something outside the castle altogether. And, it is only from here that one can see the castle properly - with its moat, portcullis and numerous defences - only now is the whole thing clear. For, the observer is necessarily part of the castle; tower-top or dungeon, it still holds him. Indeed, to put it bluntly, he is the castle. Wholeness lies not in itemising the rooms, or even in making a synthesis of them, but rather in stepping outside altogether so that the entire structure comes into view. One is then aware not of each separate item, but of how each item coheres with the whole, is part-and-parcel of it, indistinguishable from it. This is the transition from analysis to seeing, from inference to perception, from what appears to what is. The shift has occurred inwardly, within ourselves.

This is where the journey begins: observation without the observer. Characteristically, it is expressed via the negative. For, we have acquired nothing - quite the reverse - we have abandoned our baggage, nothing more. This may give a feeling of angst, of void; we have and are nothing, and the signposts are gone. It is important to "hold" to this no-place of being, not to revert to the former state of conditioned certainties and false gods. It may be quite uncomfortable, we must wait. There may be no dramatic revelation, no conversion "on the road to Damascus." One rather feels that, in this age, it will not be like that at all - or it may be.

Observation without the observer signals the beginning of the journey in inwardness. It is not psychological, in the terms we have described it, which has everything to do with living "as we know it." What enters the equation at this point is death. For, it is part of the shift in consciousness that death is no longer marginalised. Intimations of death - fear, angst, the sense of void - are part-and-parcel of our resistance to it, our felt sense that it must inevitably happen. The shift in consciousness frees one from it - not because one thinks differently, but because, at bottom, one is different; one's being is no longer identified with what one thinks and feels, or even angst and void. This detachment - what Krishnamurti calls freedom from the known - opens out onto a free field where everything phenomenal comes and goes, ebbs and flows, including birth and death.

Can one speak of a psychology here? I doubt it. For, the psychology we know is by its very nature part of the bio-chemical organism; it arises, grows and changes with it. What we come upon in "crossing the threshold," opening our eyes to a wider field, is something not independent of the organism but not related to it in terms of birth, growth and decay. In other words, identification has ceased.

One may think that this is where the work ends, but in reality it has only just begun. Deeper and deeper levels of consciousness require deeper, earnest, ongoing penetration - there is more and more, the more you dig - and what is important is not to end the task but, by application, to understand it better. The looking and listening are not means to an end; on the contrary, they have their own still meaning in the deepening, everwidening search. By making time and space for them, by simply attending, we begin to discover, to realise, that the timelessness of simple attention is the clue to its meaning and, intrinsically, what it means. There are not two, only one. The incessant struggle of the mind to explain, describe and ascribe meaning turns out to be futile beyond a certain level: it cannot deliver what it thinks it is looking for, for the simple reason that it is what it is looking for. The process of "house building," so necessary for functioning, is the theatre of our action with its ongoing display. We, however, are the authors. What we constantly tell ourselves has been put there by others is, in fact, the construct of our mind: we are directly responsible.

Things now appear in a new light - not fixed, rigid, permanent and immovable, but part of the "molecular dance of things" (Eckhart Tolle: The Power of Now). Being, reality, does not reside in the fixity of form, but fixity is the solid form of things at the surface level only or, to use the Bohmian expression, in the explicate order. Whatever is explicate is, of course, implicate at a subtler level, and this corresponds, more or less, to the external mind of sense perception and intellect, and the inward mind of attention and awareness. What has often been missed, throughout the ages, is the intimate connection between the two. Bohm uses the analogy of an ink drop "enfolded" in a cylinder of glycerine: if spun one way the ink drop disappears, if spun the other way it reemerges (David Bohm: Wholeness and the Implicate Order). Similarly with our thoughts and feelings: they are the articulated expression (the form) of something happening within awareness, including bodily awareness. Whatever the force of this expression, they are not as primary or as real as, ordinarily, we take them to be: they derive from a deeper reality.

It [the mind] cannot deliver what it thinks it is looking for, for the simple reason that it is what it is looking for

This has everything to do with the nature of illusion. Taking for real and primary what is secondary and derivative, as the majority of people are conditioned to do, can but lead to further folly. We are an insane species, as the evidence shows. There is, however, a remedy. Once the field of curative psychology has been cleared and we are, in Krishnamurti's words, "fairly sensitive, fairly intelligent" we can - and must, if we are to survive - set ourselves the task of inward inquiry. It is what we are here for, actually. We do not have to be enlightened: it is enough that we are serious and that we make a start.

Then, what began as part of our story turns out to be much more than that; in fact, bursting the bonds of our own personhood brings us into contact with deeper distortions lying waiting, as it were, in common consciousness. Chief among these is what Krishnamurti refers to as "the sorrow of mankind" which he describes as being (K, Bohm, Shainberg: The Transformation of Man) "much deeper than personal sorrow." Part of it is "the sorrow of ignorance," the incapacity of human beings to learn from experience and to end wars, for instance; the constant, pervasive and increasing violence; the conflict in every heart and home; the lack of self-knowledge which engenders these distortions. All this now becomes part of the search - or, indeed, one could say, part of my story, which itself extends from my own little well to include all the waters of the earth. For, I am no longer an isolated entity fighting my little battle alone; I have made the engagement at a deeper level.

This is, literally, the place to be. It is not that I have found, exactly, but that seeking has taken on a whole new meaning. The observer has been enfolded into consciousness and what is looking now is consciousness itself, free of the distortions of the me. This means that things are seen as they are and not as we would like them to be. The revelation can be devastating! The crux of the matter, however, is that what flows from this seeing is accurate and true and, among other things, establishes order. For, as long as we live and accord importance to our various images and identifications, we have no access to this order - and that is one of our major difficulties.

But the point is, our quest has transformed; it has taken on a different tone and purpose. It is an axial shift from the world of my story. We are now "travelling," to use Krishnamurti's word - not with the aim of "arriving" somewhere, for that very arriving is part of the story, but simply for the joy and the adventure of travelling.

The dark continent of consciousness awaits us, with its depths, dangers and unforeseen vistas. And, as we journey through it and it unfolds before our eyes, we realise we have never been here before, that most of what we did was foreplay, at best. This is the real thing, happening now. There is nothing final or determinate about it. It unfolds constantly out of itself, like a flower in its own furl. And, as well as being constant, it is also never-ending: at no point is there any arrest. And, this is the nature of the transforming mind.