From OrganicDesign Wiki
Questioner:
Some forty years ago J. Krishnamurti said that there is life only and all talk
of personalities and individualities has no foundation in reality. He did not
attempt to describe life -- he merely said that while life need not and cannot
be described, it can be fully experienced, if the obstacles to its being
experienced are removed. The main hindrance lies in our idea of, and addiction
to, time, in our habit of anticipating a future in the light of the past. The
sum total of the past becomes the 'I was', the hoped for future becomes the 'I
shall be' and life is a constant effort of crossing over from what 'I was' to
what ‘I shall be'. The present moment, the. 'now' is lost sight of. Maharaj
speaks of 'I am'. Is it an illusion, like 'I was' and 'I shall be', or is there
something real about it? And if the ‘I am' too is an illusion, how does one
free oneself from it? The very notion of I am free of 'I am' is an absurdity.
Is there something real, something lasting about the 'I am' in distinction from
the 'I was', or ‘I shall be', which change with time, as added memories create
new expectations?
Maharaj:
The present 'I am' is as false as the 'I was' and 'I shall be'. It is merely an
idea in the mind, an impression left by memory, and the separate identity it
creates is false. this habit of referring to a false centre must be done away
with, the notion 'I see', 'I feel', 'I think', 'I do', must disappear from the
field of consciousness; what remains when the false is no more, is real.
Q: What is this big talk about elimination of
the self? How can the self eliminate itself? What kind of metaphysical
acrobatics can lead to the disappearance of the acrobat? In the end he will
reappear, mightily proud of his disappearing.
M: You need not chase the 'I am' to kill it. You
cannot. All you need is a sincere longing for reality. We call it atma-bhakti,
the love of the Supreme: or moksha-sankalpa, the determination to be
free from the false. Without love, and will inspired by love, nothing can be
done. Merely talking about Reality without doing anything about it is
self-defeating. There must be love in the relation between the person who says
'I am' and the observer of that 'I am'. As long as the observer, the inner
self, the 'higher' self, considers himself apart from the observed, the 'lower'
self, despises it and condemns it, the situation is hopeless. It is only when
the observer (vyakta) accepts the person (vyakti) as a projection
or manifestation of himself, and, so to say, takes the self into the Self, the
duality of 'I' and 'this' goes and in the identity of the outer and the inner
the Supreme Reality manifests itself.
This union of the seer and the seen
happens when the seer becomes conscious of himself as the seer, he is not
merely interested in the seen, which he is anyhow, but also interested in being
interested, giving attention to attention, aware of being aware. Affectionate
awareness is the crucial factor that brings Reality into focus.
Q: According to the Theosophists and allied
occultists, man consists of three aspects: personality, individuality and
spirituality. Beyond spirituality lies divinity. The personality is strictly
temporary and valid for one birth only. It begins with the birth of the body
and ends with the birth of the next body. Once over, it is over for good;
nothing remains of it except a few sweet or bitter lessons.
The individuality begins with the
animal-man and ends with the fully human. The split between the personality and
individuality is characteristic of our present-day humanity. On one side the
individuality with its longing for the true, the good and the beautiful; on the
other side an ugly struggle between habit and ambition, fear and greed,
passivity and violence.
The spirituality aspect is still in
abeyance. It cannot manifest itself in an atmosphere of duality. Only when the
personality is reunited with the individuality and becomes a limited, perhaps,
but true expression of it, that the light and love and beauty of the spiritual
come into their own.
You teach of the vyakti, vyakta,
avyakta (observer, observed and ground of observation). Does it tally
with the other view?
M: Yes, when the vyakti realizes its
non-existence in separation from the vyakta, and the vyakta sees
the vyakti as his own expression, then the peace and silence of the avyakta
state come into being. In reality, the three are one: the vyakta and the
avyakta are inseparable, while the vyakti is the
sensing-feeling-thinking process, based on the body made of and fed by the five
elements.
Q: What is the relation between the vyakta
and the avyakta?
M: How can there be relation when they are one?
All talk of separation and relation is due to the distorting and corrupting
influence of 'I-am-the-body' idea. The outer self (vyakti) is merely a
projection on the body-mind of the inner self (vyakta), which again is
only an expression of the Supreme Self (avyakta) which is all and none.
Q: There are teachers who will not talk of the
higher self and lower self. They address the man as if only the lower self existed.
Neither Buddha nor Christ ever mentioned a higher self. J. Krishnamurti too
fights shy of any mention of the higher self. Why is it so?
M: How can there be two selves in one body? The
'I am' is one. There is no ‘higher I-am' and ‘lower I-am'. All kinds of states
of mind are presented to awareness and there is self-identification with them.
The objects of observation are not what they appear to be and the attitudes
they are met with are not what they need be. If you think that Buddha, Christ
or Krishnamurti speak to the person, you are mistaken. They know well that the vyakti,
the outer self, is but a shadow of the vyakta, the inner self, and they
address and admonish the vyakta only. They tell him to give attention to
the outer self, to guide and help it, to feel responsible for it; in short, to
be fully aware of it. Awareness comes from the Supreme and pervades the inner
self; the so-called outer self is only that part of one's being of which one is
not aware. One may be conscious, for every being is conscious, but one is not
aware. What is included in awareness becomes the inner and partakes of the
inner. You may put it differently: the body defines the outer self,
consciousness the inner, and in pure awareness the Supreme is contacted.
Q: You said the body defines the outer self.
Since you have a body, do you have also an outer self?
M: I would, were I attached to the body and take
it to be myself.
Q: But you are aware of it and attend to its
needs.
M: The contrary is nearer to truth -- the body
knows me and is aware of my needs. But neither is really so. This body appears
in your mind; in my mind nothing is.
Q: Do you mean to say you are quite unconscious
of having a body?
M: On the contrary, I am conscious of not having
a body.
Q: I see you smoking!
M: Exactly so. You see me smoking. Find out for
yourself how did you come to see me Smoking, and you will easily realize that
it is your 'I-am-the-body' state of mind that is responsible for this
'I-see-you-smoking' idea.
Q: There is the body and there is myself. I
know the body. Apart from it, what am l?
M: There is no 'I' apart from the body, nor the
world. The three appear and disappear together. At the root is the sense 'I
am'. Go beyond it. The idea: 'I-am-not-the-body' is merely an antidote to the
idea 'I-am-the-body' which is false. What is that 'I am’? Unless you know
yourself, what else can you know?
Q: From what you say I conclude that without
the body there can be no liberation. If the idea: 'I-am-not-the-body' leads to
liberation, the presence of the body is essential.
M: Quite right. Without the body, how can the
idea: ‘I-am-not-the-body' come into being? The idea ‘I-am-free' is as false as
the idea 'I-am-in-bondage'. Find out the ‘I am' common to both and go beyond.
Q: All is a dream only.
M: All are mere words, of what use are they to
you? You are entangled in the web of verbal definitions and formulations. Go
beyond your concepts and ideas; in the silence of desire and thought the truth
is found.
Q: One has to remember not to remember. What a
task!
M: It cannot be done, of course. It must happen.
But it does happen when you truly see the need of it. Again, earnestness is the
golden key.
Q: At the back of my mind there is a hum going
on all the time. Numerous weak thoughts swarm and buzz and this shapeless cloud
is always with me. Is it the same with you? What is at the back of your mind?
M: Where there is no mind, there is no back to
it. I am all front, no back! The void speaks, the void remains.
Q: Is there no memory left?
M: No memory of past pleasure or pain is left.
Each moment is newly born.
Q: Without memory you cannot be conscious.
M: Of course I am conscious, and fully aware of
it. I am not a block of wood! Compare consciousness and its content to a cloud.
You are inside the cloud, while I look at. You are lost in it, hardly able to
see the tips of your fingers, while I see the cloud and many other clouds and
the blue sky too and the sun, the moon, the stars. Reality is one for both of
us, but for you it is a prison and for me it is a home.
Q: You spoke of the person (vyakti), the
witness (vyakta) and the Supreme (avyakta). Which comes first?
M: In the Supreme the witness appears. The
witness creates the person and thinks itself as separate from it. The witness
sees that the person appears in consciousness which again appears in the
witness. This realization of the basic unity is the working of the Supreme. It
is the power behind the witness, the source from which all flows. It cannot be
contacted, unless there is unity and love and mutual help between the person
and the witness, unless the doing is in harmony with the being and the knowing.
The Supreme is both the source and the fruit of such harmony. As I talk to you,
I am in the state of detached but affectionate awareness (turiya). When
this awareness turns upon itself, you may call it the Supreme State, (turiyatita).
But the fundamental reality is beyond awareness, beyond the three states of
becoming, being and not-being.
Q: How is it that here my mind is engaged in
high topics and finds dwelling on them easy and pleasant. When I return home I
find myself forgetting all l have learnt here, worrying and fretting, unable to
remember my real nature even for a moment. What may be the cause?
M: It is your childishness you are returning to.
You are not fully grown up; there are levels left undeveloped because
unattended. Just give full attention to what in you is crude and primitive,
unreasonable and unkind, altogether childish, and you will ripen. It is the
maturity of heart and mind that is essential. It comes effortlessly when the
main obstacle is removed -- inattention, unawareness. In awareness you grow.
