Unitary Perception

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-02-07T18:41:00.000Z

Dialogue on Consciousness
RFG- in Arcadia- Los Angeles- February 2007

Interlocutor: You say that the brain can function at 100% but that the majority of human beings do not achieve this before they die.

Rubén Feldman González: I say it with ease. We are no longer in the year 1500, when they burned the people who became enlightened.

I: What is your consciousness like?

RFG: My consciousness is the consciousness of humanity. It is not possible to define the word consciousness because the intelligence that understands it, is the intelligence that at the same time is Unitary Perception, which is, “to become aware of all the perceptible that is occurring at the same time, without effort, without haste and without expectation.
The observation includes all of the observable in Unitary Perception. The observable includes the observer.

I: Is there another consciousness and another intelligence?

RFG: What I say throughout my Written Work is that Perception can be Fragmentary (the known) or Unitary (the unknown), which is the true and not the imaginary life.
Unitary Perception is the intelligence of Functional Brain Precinct “B”.
The intelligence of Functional Brain Precinct “C” is what the Weschler Revised Test measures and that which can “read” between B and C.-
Once I discovered Precinct B, I knew when to use memory, thought, imagination and the ‘I’ of Precinct C, and when to be in the profound and immediate energetic peace of Precinct B.

I: Is it possible to live without consciousness, or that is, without realising that one exists?

RFG: When the human being sleeps in the sleep stage NREM- S-4, he does not have known consciousness (memory, thought, imagination, ‘I’ or dreams).
The human being in a coma does not have any consciousness of the functional brain precincts B or C.
On awakening from a coma or from sleep, they enter C. They could wake up to B directly, as I do (or as happens to me), after many years of attempting to live in precinct B (Unitary Perception).
But to learn to live the non- imaginary life of Unitary Perception is a question of minutes if there is no egotistical interference of fears or personal desires.
Without doubt, after I teach this experience, I recommend emphatically the complete study of Unitary Perception and of Holokinetic Psychology.
The subtleties of Unitary Perception are many and very profound, for this reason I recommend the reading of the complete Work written by me on the theme. Luis Córdova and Jorge González have started to write on this theme, always with the principle of being scientific, clear, concise, concrete; attempting to simplify the difficult without distorting it.

I: Why is the word “consciousness” not defined?

RFG: That is because even measurable intelligence, let us say with an I.Q. of 120 or more on the Revised Weschler Test, KNOWS that precinct “C” IS NOT all that there is in the human mind.
The unconscious exists in precinct C only. Precinct B is purely conscious.

I: If you say that the mind is universal and therefore in all the Universe, like matter and energy, -how is it possible to go beyond the Universal Mind?

RFG: One goes beyond the known mind (precinct C) and discovers the Universal Mind.
The first step and the last step is Unitary Perception (something that the mutant Jiddu Krishanmurti called “meditation”- a word that he personally eliminated on the first of September 1985 in London.-)
It was JK-2 who asked me to use “Unitary Perception” to speak about what he called “meditation”.
Mental precinct C is by nature cyclical, B is by nature a-cyclical, but A is by nature unknown.
A good brain functions with ABC.
But 99% of human beings function only in mental precinct “C”.-

I: What is precinct “A”?

RFG: It cannot be explained with words, symbols or numbers.
I am starting to write about this, redefining words such as “enlightenment”, “sanctification”, and “transcendence”.
We have to dialogue fraternally about this without mystifying it, without appropriating it in organisations, without it being something esoteric, mysterious, gradual, philosophical or metaphysical.

I: Tell us about the Mind-Body relationship.

RFG: In my dialogues with JK-2 (Jiddu Krishanmurti) he came to say that the brain was created by God, by creation. But the Mind IS that creation.
The brain does not produce Mind. The Mind functions in the brain.
The brain does not produce sodium. Sodium acts in the brain, in each neuron. Let’s say that light is perceived by the eye and that consciousness is perceived by the brain.
I am attempting to be clear, concise, concrete and simple.

I: Socrates said that man knows less than he believes.

RFG: Without doubt.
And Saint Paul adds, a number of centuries later, that the Second Awakening (to Unitary Perception) is better than believing.
One wakes up at first from sleep to wakefulness and then one can have the Second Awakening, from wakefulness to Unitary Perception.

I: It appears that religion is connected with your description of consciousness.

RFG: But it is connected with the original religion, not with the 5 thousand known christianities.
We have separated daily life from the religion of Jesus Christ.
This has been done by the fragmentary perception of thought (precinct “C”).
From there you get 5 thousand christianities that say that they understand Jesus Christ. But the misery and the wars continue, even amongst christians.
There are 500 buddhisms but they do not help to understand consciousness. We should not confuse Jesus Christ (JK-1) with the 5 thousand christianities.
We should not confuse Holokinetic Psychology with the 23 Psychologies that are in fashion at the moment. The terrible thing is not what we don’t know about the mind. The terrible thing is what we do know and is mistaken.

I: Physics studies matter and energy but it does not understand consciousness.

RFG: Present physics is happy with only precise statistical predictions.
This is not studying matter or energy.
What we know of matter and energy is still in the intelligence of precinct C, which cannot understand consciousness directly, as precinct B does.
This understanding is very real but it is not of a verbal, symbolic or numeric nature.
There is no explicable relationship between the Mind and the Brain unless we understand the holokinesis of the physicist David Bohm, author of “Wholeness and the Implicate Order”.
We could start by saying that the Mind is the interface between Matter and Energy and then redefine the word Mind, as I do throughout the whole of my Written Work.
This does not signify that there is something better than science in precinct C.
Mind is Universal, as are Matter and Energy.
They have no need of the human brain.
This is understood by resorting to a metaphor: a ghost has no need of the human brain, except the brain of he who perceives it.
The human being realises that time is irrelevant (as well as being absolute and relative) on entering into Unitary Perception, which is functional precinct B, which has its own intelligence. This (B) is an intelligence that is not cyclical and not directed towards any object. This intelligence does not need effort, haste or expectation.
I am not speaking about emotional intelligence, which is also of precinct C.
Living in Unitary Perception, (not the imaginary life), we understand that the Universal Mind does not need human consciousness. If the human being continues his daily life separated from the Universal Mind, his disappearance as a species could occur very soon.
The striated muscle that allows us to hunt and to escape in order to survive, can also play football and dance salsa, simply to pass the time or entertain oneself.
Intelligence “C” that plans the hunt and the collective flight of the tribe, has also constructed mathematics.
2+2=4
But this intelligence has constructed 23 psychologies.
Resorting again to an explanatory metaphor, in the psychologies it has been said that 2+2=5 and that 2+2=3 and nobody has protested except me and the Professors of Holokinetic Psychology of the International Academy of Sciences (IAS): Luis Córdova, Jorge González, Rafael Angeles, Cecilia González in Mexico and other professors in Mexico and other countries in the International Academy of Sciences.
In the same way that the eye does not hear and the ear does not see, precinct C cannot do what precinct B does.-
Consciousness is understood completely when B includes C and the brain functions at the same time with B and C.
Let’s continue tomorrow please. I have to speak to someone now who has very delicate health.

Jiddu Krishnamurti speaking about Rubén Feldman Gonzaléz (For unknown reasons some of this text has been removed in the book Facing a World in Crisis)

2012-02-02T10:46:00.008Z

And also we should talk about together what is religion, what is the nature of the brain that lives religiously? Religion has become very important in our lives. You may be atheists, you may say, "Well it is all nonsense, some stupid priest preaching about some nonsense." You may shun all that but yet there is this inward demand, inward saying, "After all, what is all this about, this living and dying, this pain, this anxiety, what is it all about? Who created it? God? Nature? The first cell?" and so on. So religion is concerned not with all the rubbish, circus that is going on, whether in Rome, or in England, or in Benares in India, or in the Buddhist countries, it is all put together by thought, and therefore very, very, very limited. So we have to ask what is religion and creation? What is creation? Is there a difference between creation and invention? We were talking the other day with an excellent doctor, really first-class doctor, not a doctor who makes money but good doctor with a good brain. He was saying there is a certain part of the brain that can always be activated. I may be misrepresenting, careful, don't accept entirely what the speaker is saying about that. There is a certain part of the brain, he mentioned some technical word which I didn't know, that as one gets ill that gets a little bit dull, as one gets older that gets still more dull. And whether that inner part of the brain can be revived, made alive - right? Don't accept it. Don't go to sleep. We were talking about it - I won't go into it now because it is too complex. So what is invention and what is creation? Religion is concerned with this. And can the brain, which is conditioned, shaped, moulded by all kinds of things, community, what you read, what you hear, all the priests that been promulgating some ideas, some worship, some gods, all that has conditioned our brain. Can our brain, yours and... our brain, can that brain ever understand what is creation? Or it is based fundamentally on knowledge, which is experience, gathering, learning, memorizing and so on? Can that brain understand that which is not measurable? You understand? Are we somewhat together in this?
We measure - right? We measure, which means compare, judge, evaluate, we are always comparing ourself with something else. Comparing one painter against another painter, one poem against another poem, or Beethoven against Bach and so on, Mozart, let me include Mozart in it. So is invention - is not invention based on knowledge? Please we are talking about it together. If there is no knowledge there is no invention. We must have a background of knowledge to find something new, is that creation? Or is creation something totally out of time and thought? This has been one of the problems, probably the greatest problem of a religious brain, religious quality. We will never use the word meditation any more. I hope you don't mind. That word implies also measurement in Sanskrit as well as in etymological dictionaries. Measurement. Not only measurement of cloth and all the material things, but also measuring ourselves against something. Measurement was invented by the Greeks and probably before them, and that without measurement there is no technological world. And we carry on that same principle in ourselves, we are always measuring how we are today and hope tomorrow will be the same or wish it to be different. It is always comparing, judging, evaluating. And the word, that word which has become so mutilated by the gurus who have brought various forms of meditation - we won't discuss that word any more because it has become a stupid word. Sitting in a certain posture, breathing in a certain way, concentrating, and all that - making tremendous effort to achieve what? Some carrot before the donkey?
BROCKWOOD PARK 4TH PUBLIC TALK 1ST SEPTEMBER 1985

Full text here :

BROCKWOOD PARK 4TH PUBLIC TALK 1ST SEPTEMBER 1985

The speaker also would like to make an announcement and I hope you will take it seriously. This is not a resort. There is a swimming pool, tennis court and it is becoming too popular, too large. There are people trying to interpret what K is talking about and he has always been saying, please don't interpret, not interrupt. So please bear in mind we are going to make it much more orderly, strict and not make it into another resort for amusement place. Though it has been announced several times that music that goes on, what is called music, Bong(?) is it?, thumping on the drums and so on went on until half past ten last night. So please be courteous, careful of others and also, if one may point out wherever K goes he is a guest, whether he is India, in America or here, so one must behave like a guest. Respecting others, considering others, having some kind of order and not let it become much too big as it is becoming. We are going to do something about all this for next year.
May we go on with other things? We were talking about various problems of life, of our daily, monotonous, rather pleasurable lives that are full of fear, anxiety, antagonism and so on. We went into the question of time/thought. And yesterday - was it yesterday morning?, yes, by Jove, sorry - yesterday morning we talked about the ending of sorrow, what it implies, what is the nature of sorrow and all the pain, the anxiety, the loneliness, the depression, the uncertainty, all that is implied in sorrow. And in certain parts of the world they worship sorrow, pain. And we have never been able to end sorrow, not only the sorrow of one's own life in different ways but also the sorrow of the world as a whole. All the terrible wars that are going on, what is happening in Lebanon and South Africa, and the Communists world, total totalitarianism where you are forced to think along a certain line, preparing on both sides war, the atom bomb ultimately. And that is what is going on. And millions and millions have been slaughtered in the name of God, peace, country, some ideological concept, theories. This has been our lot and we have endured all this for millions of years. And we are, through long evolution we were barbarous once, savages, and when one looks at it, what is happening now, we are still barbarians, we are still inwardly violent, inwardly concerned with ourselves and nobody else, concerned with our own pleasures, problems, and so on. We never seem to realize that we are the world, and the world is us. This is not a theory, this is not something that you think about and come to a conclusion, ideologically, or as an Utopian idea, but it is an actuality in daily life. You are the world and the world is you. One wonders how many of us realize this fact, actually realize as we realize physical pain, as we feel when we are affectionate, tender, quiet. This is an obvious fact that you suffer and the rest of mankind suffers. You are violent, the rest of mankind suffers, violent. When you intend to do something for yourself and you want to fulfil that you are becoming violent like the rest of the world. We went into all this during all these talks, not only during the past seventy years - I am sorry to point this out - but also now. We actually don't feel, realize in our heart and brain that we are the rest of mankind. When one actually realizes this fact, not a theory, not an idea, but the actual daily fact then there is totally a different way of living. You don't belong to any country, no religious group, no spiritual authority, or those who want to interpret what K is talking about. And when you really feel that you are, you are actually the rest of mankind you will never kill another, you will never psychologically consciously, or unconsciously, or deliberately want to hurt another.
Please, this is all very, very serious, this is not just for a Sunday gathering, a sermon, or a lecture. We are together in the same boat. We are together understanding the world and ourselves, and our relationship to the world. Not our responsibility, our relationship to the rest of mankind. You all may be well fed, well clothed, houses, flats, and a nice garden, or live in a slum, but there are millions and millions of people who are starving, deliberately races are being killed, tribes are being killed. And as long as we don't feel all this, merely accept it as an idea, a conclusion, we are going to create a monstrous world, which we are creating it already. And we are that which is happening.
And this morning we ought to talk about other things too, concerned with our life. We talked about compassion, love and that compassion has its own intelligence, love has its own intelligence, not the intelligence of clever thought, calculation, remembrance but when there is compassion, which can only come, or be, when suffering ends. We talked about that a great deal. Unfortunately the speaker has published books about it all and it is not merely remembering what he has said, or what he wants to say, the actuality of that feeling of compassion, and that can only come when there is the end of sorrow and when one actually, in one's being, in one's heart, mind, feels that he is the rest of the world, doesn't belong to any sect, any group, any guru, any church, mosque or temple. One will listen to all this, or read about all this, which K has talked about for so long, and you say, "Yes, marvellous ideas. He has very good reasoning, logical but..." - and you can add many buts to that. We carry on and thereby lies more conflict. Hear one thing, you agree or disagree, or see the truth of it, and wanting to live up to it, and so begin again conflict.
So we went into conflict a great deal during these talks here. And we said as long as conflict exists love cannot be between man and woman, between people, nations, communities, enclave and so on. Our brain which has evolved through long years and time, that brain has extraordinary capacity, each one's brain has extraordinary capacity. We have used it in the world of technology, the world of computers and we have never looked at the psychological world which is far more important, the subjective, the whole psychological process that goes on inwardly. We have never looked at it, we have never gone into it, not according to others, even including K but we have never, or superficially scratched on the surface. And therefore we never put to ourself fundamental questions. And we are now talking over things together, not the speaker is saying something and you just listen and when you leave the tent forget all about it and pick it up ten years later. This is your life and our life and if one wants to treat one's life seriously, or flippantly, or casually, it is up to you.
And we talked a great deal about freedom too, freedom from anxiety, sorrow, pain, and all the travail of life. And also there is another kind of freedom. A freedom which is per se, for itself, not because you want to be free from something, that is only very partial freedom. There is a freedom which is completely whole, not partial.
And this morning we should also talk about death. Right? We have talked about so many other things. Death is not a morbid subject on a dark morning, or a dark night. People have written books about how to die happily, how to accept it naturally, how to let the body go - you know, they have been talking about it, writing about it endlessly. And we are now, you and the speaker together, please together, he is not talking to himself, he is not lecturing, he is not talking about something which you have to understand and therefore have interpreters who will tell you what K talks about. And that is going on in this place too which seems so absurd.
We ought to talk over together this very important, serious, very, very great thing called death. All right, shall we go on? Please bear in mind he is not talking to you. We are talking to each other. He has no authority - and I mean it. He has no sense of superiority, he will tell you all about it. But together we are going into it. If you will. If you don't want to it is all right. That is all right too. Nobody is imposing anything on you, directing you, telling you what to do, or what to think. Right?
What is death? And when we ask that question we ought also to consider what is continuity? And also what is ending, something that comes to finality? The ending, continuity, time and death, or thought - right? All these are involved when we ask that question: what is death? Time, thought, the urge, the demand of continuity and also when we are wanting continuity we also should enquire together into what is ending? And is there a beginning? All these are involved in this question of what is death, not just oxygen, lack of oxygen to the brain and pops of, or kicking the bucket, or whatever you like to call it. It is the whole concern of man, the way he lives and the way he dies.
So we are enquiring together what is death? Why death is associated with sorrow. You are following all this? The speaker is not leading you, he is not persuading you. I am bored with telling you that! So what is death? You must take the whole of it, not just dying. You must take the being born, living fifty, forty or sixty, seventy, ninety, or going a little further on, you have to take the whole of it, not just what is death? That is rather a silly question to say, what is death and then weep about it, or frightened about it, or worship it, as Christians do. The Indians, the former ancient Hindus exploded all over Asia, as Greece exploded over the western world, and they had their theories, including Pythagoras and others of reincarnation which we will talk about presently.
So we have to consider not only what is continuity, what is ending, what is time and thought involved in this process, which means we have to enquire what is living, first, not what is dying - right? We are together in this. I won't repeat that again. So what is living? What do we call living? From the moment we are born through the long period which we call life, living, what takes place there? - not just part of it but the length of it. From childhood we have problems, the children sent to school have a problem immediately, how to read, to write, how to learn mathematics and later on chemistry, biology, that all becomes a problem. They are educated in problems. These are all facts, not the speaker's imagination. So our life from the beginning is a continuous problem, struggle, pain, anxiety, uncertainty, confusion, faith, belief, gods and the perpetual repetition of rituals, what is called religion, the worship of a symbol, and faith, belief, success, failure, sorrow, pain. All that is our living. An actual fact in which is included pleasure, sex and all the rest of it. This is what we call living. Go to the office from nine to five, or factory nine to five, or enter a shop and sell books, clothes, food and so on. This is our daily monotonous so-called disciplined life. Would you and I disagree about that? Or do we see it as a fact? - not as descriptively accepting, but it is the actual fact of our life. Right Sirs? And we have not understood that. We have not gone into it and see if one can live totally differently.
But there is always death. There is a very good Italian proverb but I won't go into it, which says, "Everybody will die, I know. Perhaps I will too!" [Laughter]
So first what is it we have to grasp, understand, go into, resolve? Life, the daily living, or the dying? And besides why are we so terribly concerned about death? The speaker was walking once in the shaded road in India and he heard a chant behind him as he was walking towards the sea. And there was a dead body being carried by two men and his eldest son carrying the fire in front of him, in front of the body. That's all, not all the fuss and hearses and flowers and you know. It was a simple thing and it was really rather beautiful. The son crying and chanting in Sanskrit, walking towards the sea where he was going to be cremated. And the fuss the western world makes about death, Rolls Royces, enormous amount of flowers and so on. So what are we concerned with? Living or dying? Please we are talking to each other. Which is most important for us to grapple with, put our teeth and our whole energy into it?
Talking about energy, there are those people who want to release energy - right? Part of it is acupuncture, part of it is various attempts to increase the energy that we have, and so on. What is energy? It took energy to come here, a great deal of energy, put up a tent, come in a car on a rainy, windy day, get all the things together to come here. That took a lot of energy. You may brush it off and say, "I will go" - but to decided to go, to come, to drive a car, to put up a tent, to sit here and listen. That requires a great deal of energy. And we want more energy. We don't know how to use our own energy. You have got plenty of energy when you want to do something. They have been to the Moon, all the technological energy that is demanded of everyone; it takes energy to talk, to think, to have sex, everything, life is energy but we, through our self-interest, our specialization, through our demand for success, and fears and all that, we have restricted that energy. We have made it so small, so particular, so minuscule. Sorry! And our brains have been narrowed down by specialization, by, you know, all the rest of it. So there is energy. When we understand ourselves that energy explodes, then you have tremendous passion, not just passion for something, the flower of passion which never withers. And that can only come when there is compassion.
So what are we concerned most about, death or living? Living is, as we said, a series, a succession of conflicts, struggles, pains, sorrow, and all the rest of it. This is not a gloomy picture. You can paint it more beautifully in colours, descriptively make it more attractive, but this is a fact. So shouldn't we understand life first, the living, and then come to understand what is death? You understand? Not the other way round. What will you give, not financially, what will you give to find out how, in what manner one can live totally differently? - not pursue some other quacky nonsense, a new painting, new poems, new dances, and all the rest of that immature, childish stuff. And the speaker is not intolerant, he just sees all this going on. So can we realizing what our life is, the actual life of existence on this earth, bring about a mutation, not a change, complete reversal, whatever it is, the thing that one has lived is living, is completely ended and something new can take place?
Therefore we have to enquire together into what is continuity, what is it that continues in our life, living? Memory, is it? Continuity, a series of successions of events, experiences, the me, the persona, the ego, is a bundle of memories. One mightn't like that idea. One wants something more than mere memories, and wanting more, something beyond memories is another formation of memories - right? One is not satisfied with this memory but wants some other memory. So this continuation, which we call living, is a series and successions of events, memories, experience, all that bundle is you. And continuity is that which is known. How scared we are of something ending to all that. One has lived a long life of experience, knowledge, one has travelled all over the place, God knows why but one has, and you talk, judge, evaluate, you know all that. And we never enquire what is continuity and what is ending? Ending voluntarily something that you hold dear - you understand my question? Are we asking each other that question? Suppose one is greatly attached to a person, to a conclusion, that conclusion however historical, dialectical, Marxist, Leninist, bla, bla, all that, one is attached to all that like a limpet. [Tape turns over] Can one voluntarily, easily, let go? That is what death means. You don't argue with death. You don't say, "Please give me another couple of days so that I can do everything orderly", it is there at your door.
So can one understand continuity and give to that continuity an end? You understand my question? To us attachment means a great deal. It is the most satisfying common experience to be attached to the earth, to certain beliefs, certain dogmas, certain rituals, certain habits and so on. One is greatly attached to a house, to furniture, to a habit. Can one become aware of it and end it completely in that awareness? Not the day after tomorrow but now as we are sitting here, becoming aware of all that, the explanations, the reality, not the description but the fact of this constant demand for continuity. Sexual continuity, the continuity of possessions, continuity of family, continuity of one's deep experiences, all that coming to an instant end. That is death. So not wait for death when you are sixty, eighty, ninety, but end it each day, live with death. Don't be... the speaker is saying something tremendously involved in this, not just a lot of words put together. To live with something, a life that is constantly ending everyday, every minute so there is no continuity of the past, or the future. There is only this ending which is death. And to live that way. Go on Sirs. Don't think about it, see the truth of it. Thought is not - can create, put together a lot of things but thought cannot deceive death. So if one realizes the immense significance of living with that ending which is called death in our daily life then there is real transformation, real mutation even in the brain cells, because the brain cells carry all our memories, all the past and all the rest of it. So can we live that way? Not pretend, not "I must make an effort" - you don't make an effort to die! Unless you jump out of the eighteenth floor and you say, "So far, so good" [Laughter]
And also we should talk about together what is religion, what is the nature of the brain that lives religiously? Religion has become very important in our lives. You may be atheists, you may say, "Well it is all nonsense, some stupid priest preaching about some nonsense." You may shun all that but yet there is this inward demand, inward saying, "After all, what is all this about, this living and dying, this pain, this anxiety, what is it all about? Who created it? God? Nature? The first cell?" and so on. So religion is concerned not with all the rubbish, circus that is going on, whether in Rome, or in England, or in Benares in India, or in the Buddhist countries, it is all put together by thought, and therefore very, very, very limited. So we have to ask what is religion and creation? What is creation? Is there a difference between creation and invention? We were talking the other day with an excellent doctor, really first-class doctor, not a doctor who makes money but good doctor with a good brain. He was saying there is a certain part of the brain that can always be activated. I may be misrepresenting, careful, don't accept entirely what the speaker is saying about that. There is a certain part of the brain, he mentioned some technical word which I didn't know, that as one gets ill that gets a little bit dull, as one gets older that gets still more dull. And whether that inner part of the brain can be revived, made alive - right? Don't accept it. Don't go to sleep. We were talking about it - I won't go into it now because it is too complex. So what is invention and what is creation? Religion is concerned with this. And can the brain, which is conditioned, shaped, moulded by all kinds of things, community, what you read, what you hear, all the priests that been promulgating some ideas, some worship, some gods, all that has conditioned our brain. Can our brain, yours and... our brain, can that brain ever understand what is creation? Or it is based fundamentally on knowledge, which is experience, gathering, learning, memorizing and so on? Can that brain understand that which is not measurable? You understand? Are we somewhat together in this?
We measure - right? We measure, which means compare, judge, evaluate, we are always comparing ourself with something else. Comparing one painter against another painter, one poem against another poem, or Beethoven against Bach and so on, Mozart, let me include Mozart in it. So is invention - is not invention based on knowledge? Please we are talking about it together. If there is no knowledge there is no invention. We must have a background of knowledge to find something new, is that creation? Or is creation something totally out of time and thought? This has been one of the problems, probably the greatest problem of a religious brain, religious quality. We will never use the word meditation any more. I hope you don't mind. That word implies also measurement in Sanskrit as well as in etymological dictionaries. Measurement. Not only measurement of cloth and all the material things, but also measuring ourselves against something. Measurement was invented by the Greeks and probably before them, and that without measurement there is no technological world. And we carry on that same principle in ourselves, we are always measuring how we are today and hope tomorrow will be the same or wish it to be different. It is always comparing, judging, evaluating. And the word, that word which has become so mutilated by the gurus who have brought various forms of meditation - we won't discuss that word any more because it has become a stupid word. Sitting in a certain posture, breathing in a certain way, concentrating, and all that - making tremendous effort to achieve what? Some carrot before the donkey?
So we should be concerned with not how to make the brain still, that is fairly easy. But to be concerned with total attention, not attention to or about something, the quality of attention, which is different from concentration, entirely different. Concentration is effort, focussing on one thing, or several things, which becomes a habit like the pilots in the air. So is it possible to be attentive? And in that there is no hypocrisies, no pretensions. You are attentive. And in attention there is complete silence, when you attend. And in that attention there is no border, it is attending. There is not, "I am attending", there is only attention. Please consider, take counsels together about this.
So what is creation? Not the first cell, nor how we ? and all that. We have said God created all this. On the contrary we have made God our image, out of what we are we have made that poor chap up there! We have given him all the qualities which we lack, mercy, charity, love, omnipresence, intelligence, and all the rest of that business. What is creation? Can the brain, which is the centre of all our nerves, all our activity, all our existence, however small it is, can that brain understand the immensity of creation? Or there is something beyond the brain. Now careful please, don't accept anything the speaker is saying. That is the first thing one has to learn, never accept anything so-called spiritual. That's sheer nonsense. There is no spiritual authority. The authority of a doctor, scientist, that is a different matter, the policeman has authority, especially in Switzerland! Tremendous! We were caught in it once! Is the brain capable of really seeing that which is not measurable? We can talk about it, we can invent it, we can say there is the immeasurable, all that means a lot of words. But we are asking a different question altogether: can the brain, which is made up of time, memory, thought, experience, all the rest of it, can that brain ever understand that which is limitless? You understand my question? It is really... Or there is something else which is the mind, not the brain. Don't invent, then we are lost. We are asking each other: is there something which we will call the mind for the moment, we may change the word, is there a mind which is not the brain? Is there such a thing which alone can see that which is immense? And then that mind can communicate to the brain, but the brain cannot communicate to it? You have understood? We are asking each other. The brain as we know has been made very small, though it has got immense capacity. The computer is something extraordinary. It is going to probably take over our lives, that is probably the new industry. The computer will shape our lives. It is already doing it quietly, slowly, we are unaware of it. We have talked to a great many of these experts, computer experts who are building it. They are not concerned with what happens to the human brain. You understand my question? They are concerned with creating it - not creating, building it - that's a better word. When the computer takes over our lives what happens to our brains? They are better, far quicker, so rapid, in a second they will tell you a thousand memories. So when they take over what is going to happen to our brains? Gradually wither? Or be thoroughly employed in amusement? In entertainment? Please face all this for God's sake, this is happening. All the long sports record on the television, it is getting longer and longer. They spend ten minutes on cricket, and two minutes on what is happening in South Africa. So the entertainment industry is taking over. Please face all this. And religious entertainment, that has taken over too. So we are being entertained all the time. And we treat meeting here as part of that. I assure you it is not. It is terribly serious all this.
So can the brain ever understand the universe? It can say Venus is so much gas, so much etcetera, etcetera, but the description, the quality, the taste of it is not Venus, the beauty of it, the extraordinary quietness of it. And can our brain, to understand all that immensity be quiet? - not everlastingly chattering, chattering, chattering. Can that brain become extraordinarily simple and therefore extraordinarily subtle? And if that brain is capable of that subtleness, that immense sense of great simplicity, of time/thought and all the rest of it, then perhaps that mind which is not the brain can communicate to it. Then the brain cannot communicate to that obviously. And we are doing our very best to communicate with that, doing all kinds of tricks, all forms of controls, sacrifice, taking vows, taking - right? And that thing can never - one can never touch it. And the religious mind, religious brain always has the background of great silence and solitude.
We have finished. Will you kindly get up so that I can get up too?

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-02-01T20:34:00.000Z

I: It is obvious that you are gaining International respect, on being nominated for the Noble Prize of Peace for your 30 years attempt to integrate Holokinetic Psychology into human culture.
There are today, at least Four Prestigious Institutions which have proposed it:
The AIS-RSM Europe (International Academy of Sciences of the Republic of San Marino), its Mexian branch, The Intitute of Higher Studies of Oaxaca and The National Autonomous University of Nicaragua. Those proposals are supported by thousands of individuals all over the planet.

RFG: This happened after after 20 years of analysing my Written Work in the European International Academy of Sciences Europe, and after they went through the inevitable shock that I went through in my dialogues to start Scientific Psychology, with Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm.
When the dialogue started to revolve around the necessity to refine and change language, and the very nature of what psychology is, I was in the same state of shock as those who begin to understand this theme find themselves and are not afraid nor turn tail and run.
They discovered in the AIS-RSM, which is now proposing me for the Noble Peace Prize, with the individual support of its president, that the Holokinetic Psychology of which we speak is not the inheritance of Plato, nor of Aristotle, Kant, William James, Sigmund Freud, and even less is it a superficial style like Gestalt, A.T., NLP, Family Constellations, or like those which come out every day and are mere products of thought, based on the rules of marketing. In the end it was realised in the International Academy of Sciences that that we have returned (but in a scientific and multi-disciplinary way), to that which was abandoned with Plato, nothing less than the complete study of the human condition, this apparently incomprehensible condition, which could become our physical, mental and spiritual prison. And it is for the majority of human beings, unfortunately. When the University masters in Holokinetic Psychology commence in 2008, all over the world, the conditions will finally come into being to found The Planetary Association of Holokinetic Psychology, a task that will have to be entusted, (amongst others) to studious young people who are serious about the subject, like Jorge González Ayala (Psychologist from Monterrey) and Luis Córdova (Lawyer and Professor in the UNAM, National Autonomous University of Mexico, Mexico City.) The Holokintologist will be a far more complete professional than a psychologist or psychiatrist of today.

I: We are dealing with a new science here.

RFG: We are dealing with all science seen in a new light and that the human condition is more than memory, psychology, science, mathematics, exegesis, epistemology, neurology, education, wars, lethal global epidemics and genocide.

I: It is a great revolution.

RFG: It is the bloodless revolution of intelligence, but not of the intelligence of the secret societies, but of the intelligence that permits me to know when to be in the profound peace of Unitary Perception.
In mathematics concepts are constructed.
In Unitary Perception there is the discovery of the immensity of the human condition, beyond memory, concept and the known.
The history of mathematics is changing the way of doing mathematics.
Plato classifed music and astronomy as part of mathematics.
But there is one single and simple way to do Unitary Perception. And this way is not methodical, technifiable, theoretical nor philosophical.
Studying this with David Bohm and Krishnamurti for more than a decade, (1975-1990), new similarities and differences appeared in the field of the known in science.
Unfortunately, the psychiatrists who held dialogues with JK, did not have much depth of knowledge an perception. (Ben Weininberg, Schaimberg and Hiley) and Rupert Sheldrake, in my view, always showed a deep disdain for JK and his whole teaching.
David Bohm told us: “this will not be understood until all of us who are in this room (in the dialogue with JK) are dead.”
It is very unfortunate that human beings are so hypnotised and so terrified to verify the immense value of Unitary Perception, which is the only conscious mental contact with Holokinesis.
I am proving through my own experience, in these days, since the 10th May 2006, in which I feel so exalted by the conscious of Precinct A in my mind, that there exists an anti-gravitational force which elevates one to the point of loosing contact with the floor.
We know nothing of the immense energy that is liberated in our minds with Unitary Perception lived constantly (although not permanently), in our daily lives.
This is the unknown: the mind functioning with ABC.
In general the mind functions only with C.-
But, for God's sake, the unknown part of the mind must not be ignored by Psychology and by Science...
Many readers of JK may be left feeling offended by our attempt to carry out what JK asked of us in 1975: “Introduce the teaching into psychology and psychiatry”.
JK asked me to do this when I told him that I was going to leave Medicine and Psychiatry during my severe emotional crises on the disappearance seven of my friends in the terrible Argentina of that time.
There will have to be a good clean down in the Foundations of Jiddu Krishnamurti (JK-2).
In the first place, if there are people with learning disabilities or schizophrenia in these places, these will not benefit with the teaching nor allow others to do so.
Jesus Christ (JK-1) said this of the pharisees in his time, also, “They neither enter Heaven nor allow others to enter.”
And if they invalidate one another, whilst they allow a “Lama” to teach in a school of JK, neither knowing nor remembering that “lama” means, “I am superior to you”, it all becomes a mockery of JK.
Both JK-1 and JK-2 (Jesus Christ and Jiddu Krishnamurti) have said clearly that no human being is superior to another.
There will have to be a good clean down in the Krishnamurti Foundations, above all in Europe.

I: What did Bohm say of religion? That it comes from God or only from the human being?

RFG: This very important question is answered fully and in depth in my throughout my Written Work, from various points of view, necessarily, the scientific, the theological, the exegetic, the etymological, the bad translations from New Testament Greek to other European languages, (I give innumerable examples in my Work, which clarifies greatly this enormous panorama), the neurological, the comparative history of religions, the economic factors and their influence on the degradation and the forgetting of the original and sound religion, the educative, the necessary intermittent death of the I, Psychology from Plato to Freud, the fragmentation and trivialisation of the current psychology and today, luckily, and with a lot of work, Unitary Perception (part of Hokokinetic Psychology).

It is for this reason that I say so often that it is necessary to read my Written Work fully and repeatedly
Kant already stated that even religion could be the object of scientific study. Since Kant it is said that there is a science that is empirical, experimental, or inductive; and another science that is rational, abstract and deductive.
So, this stopped being so easy after David Bohm presented it mathematically in 1986.

I: Could there be a social revolution based on religion?

RFG: This is what JK-1 (Jesus Christ) proposed 2000 years ago, but it wasn't yet understood that it must be with the psychological mutation of Unitary Perception, which JK-1 called “Metanoia ” (“Let's go beyond all that we know” which was translated as “repentance” and as conversion”, in a very vague and fragmentary manner.) True revolution is not bloody.
When the word “revolution” is used, we think of a bloody rebellion of armed insurrectionists, who by winning change, nothing because their brains never cease to function in Psychological Precinct C.
Due to the fact of not functioning in Psychological Precinct B, the Peasant Revolt of Germany in the 15th century failed.
For the same reason, the English anti-monarchical revolution of Cromwell failed in the 17th century (they beheaded the king). But there are still kings in England, after this bloody and useless revolution.
The French Revolution of 1789, where the king was also beheaded, whilst they shouted in the streets “liberty, equality, fraternity” could not be preserved, even with all the power of Napoleon Bonaparte, precisely because of the huge influence of the English, Russian and Austrian monarchies united.
The Russian Revolution of 1917 (which annihilated all of the family of the Tsar or king of Russia) lasted 73 years and was destroyed with dollars, by 'remote control' from a distant country. The Russian leaders of the Soviet Union were bought out for five or ten million dollars each.
The Spanish Revolution of 1930, was destroyed by a process of haemorrhaging by Franco, with the economic and military aid of Hitler (Germany) and Mussolini (Italy). Franco did not want to call it the “Spanish revolution” and re-baptised it the Spanish civil war. The Mexican Revolution of 1911 was quickly wiped from the map by the union of France and the United States with the support of the ‘so called’ “christian” churches.
The same happened to the Nicaraguan revolution 1979, the Cuban (1959), which survives precariously, making concessions to imperialism, and the same goes for China (1949).
The prolonged Vietnamese revolution, from 1950 to 1975, also was not named in this way and received the name “the Vietnam war against France and the USA.”
It is not mentioned that the invasion of Vietnam occurred without any declaration of war.
I believe that it is obvious looking at history that bloody revolution does not work.
Individual psychological mutation is necessary, which from C turns into ABC. This ABC brain, acting completely, makes for a complete change in human society, in a very natural and spontaneous way.
We will return to the original economic equality of humanity, but above all we must understand that it is necessary in order not to lose freedom, peace, basic dignity and its very essence.
The word fascist has been defined as that which does not know that the economic equality of human beings is of primordial importance.
But this global economic equality cannot occur without Unitary Perception, which is that which puts the “I” in the sensible place to which it corresponds, as an entity which gives continuity to incoherent memory.
Today the “I” and egotism dominate the psychology of the individual and global human society.

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-31T19:19:00.000Z

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-30T18:31:00.000Z

RGF: After my first enlightenment experience in 1978, my capacity to love grew. It is incredible how love grows for all living things and especially mammals. By chance, shortly afterwards they gave me a present of a cat and then a puppy. Today I have five puppies in my house. And we look after an abandoned dog and various stray cats. In the garden that my wife waters religiously, there are several trees where innumerable birds gather and wake us up deliciously every morning at dawn. Unitary Perception awakens love. Love is the great curative agent. This love attracts persons and animals. When love grows, healing does also. I believe that my person, when I am at the coast, attracts dolphins. But this is just a belief.
In Ensenada, Mexico, we met Dr. Velez de Tijuana, his wife and several friends, (to speak about Unitary Perception, of course) and many dolphins appeared playing in front of the coast.
The same happened to me in Mar del Plata and in Los Angeles.

I: Have you made contact with spirits?

RFG: Ghosts and angels have made contact with me, without my doing anything to attract them.
The first ones caused me some fear, in spite of myself. The second ones brought immense peace, between tears of joy.
I live in Unitary Perception, the rest comes as an add-on. I don’t try to see ghosts or angels.

I: Are angels the product of though, hallucinations, illusions, or are they real and objective forms with their own substance and existence?

RFG: The angels can be all of this, as are “mothers” and “enemies”. One hallucinates about what one thinks about, above all if what one thinks about is repetitive or obsessive. What I saw had itsown form and substance that is not something imagined or not just something that it is possible to think about.
But we want to point out that this is not important. The important thing is to constantly attempt without effort nor expectation, Unitary Perception. Live like that.
We recall that Leibnitz defined the monad as “undivided particles that contain all of the information of the universe”. Leibnitz was underrated as “a mere mystic” in the University of Leipzig of his time (1680).
But because of this concept, all of his work was republished in Europe three hundred years later, in 1980, because it gave place to the technology of the hologram (in 1960) and to the concept of Holokinesis of David Bohm (in 1986).

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-24T11:20:00.000Z

I: Do you say that where there is individual habit or social custom, there is no freedom?
RFG: We have said that there are psychological precincts that must be studied because they have distinct laws.
Precinct B, which is Unitary Perception, appears to have an a-cyclical nature that is to say non-cyclical.
For this reason it is important to study and dialogue about these psychological precincts.
Habit is like a vest or tunic that we put on over our bodies. The body is our first nature. Habit is like a second nature added on.
It is necessary that we dialogue about what is cyclical in our minds and what is not.
The addictions, the habits, the multiple dependencies that we have in the life that we know, the instinctual impulses, the hypnosis that we exercise over one another and that shapes our thoughts, the customs that on the one hand prevent gross social chaos but which on the other hand impede the necessary changes, without doubt reduce and restrict our psychological freedom. But the continuity of the experience makes us believe that the effort to live is less.
There are subtleties in the way we learn that sometimes elude us, but that favour a lack of freedom.
We have nervous reflexes and instinctive impulses as well as innate atavistic forms (maybe archetypal?) to respond to stimuli.
All this combined with desires and basic necessities determine unconsciously the behaviour and imaginary thought.
Daily and mutual hypnosis in human society is a forgotten conditioning in order to act in a determined manner.
But when we learn something new we have incorporated a new way of responding to stimuli.
If we learn Unitary Perception in our lives we incorporate in our lives the way (not a way) to liberate ourselves from the known past (precinct C) in a facultative way whilst the known is no longer necessary to us.
The learning in Unitary Perception is not cumulative.
The learning in precinct C is cumulative, and deduction and demonstration with inductive inference complement one another in this.

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-23T17:35:00.000Z

I: You say that not only does slavery continue, but that it continues in a more horrific way in the present.

RFG: That is so, Karina.
There are many differences between the slaves of the USA of 1831 and the present ones.
The slave of 1831 had an owner, a respectable feudal lord, well known in his community, a good friend of the sheriff, the judge and the christian ministers.
A slave was very dear, costing 1,500 dollars in 1860.
The annual gain from slave was low (5%).
There were few slaves. They were all black Africans and they brought them across the Atlantic in precarious bots, which many times sank with the captain, crew and merchandise.
The merchandise was the slaves.
Slaves could not contract debts.
The slaves were physically and psychologically healthy. They had a doctor supplied by the slave owner.
The relationship between slave and master was for all of life until the death of the slave. If the master died, the slave passed on to the wife or the sons of the master.
The master provided home, food, transport, clothing and medication.
The master of 2007 provides none of this.
Neither that master nor this one provided education because without education it is easier to enslave.
The slave of 2007 has no recognisable owner. It is a person, a Bank or an anonymous Corporation. The contracts are illegal or have incomprehensible clauses that in essence free the master from all responsibility to the slave and even from the national laws relating to work.
Today the slave is cheap.
Sexual slaves of 17 years of age, cost a thousand dollars in Thailand and arrive in the powerful countries in ships that bring them there by the hundreds.
The gain produced by a present day slave is very high (800%), and it was 5% in 1860.
In 1831, all the slaves were black Africans, now they are of every ethnicity and race, due to the increasing poverty of humanity, since the Era of Ronald Regan and Margaret Thatcher. There are Irish slaves in Austria and Colombian slaves in Tokyo.
In 2007 the relation between slave and owner, (unknown or anonymous) and the slave is temporary, until the slave is no longer capable of providing gain or pleasure. It is no longer a relationship until the death of the slave.
The slave of today must pay for his house, food, clothing, transport and education. The present education is no danger to the slave owner because it is too poor in quality, scanty, and short.
The slave owner does not even pay for healthcare and the slave has access to neither a doctor nor medication, because the price of both of these commodities is too high. If one gets sick, one is left to die.
Today, a slave can be in debt, which is a perfect instrument to dominate him and to make him work until old age. He is given a loan and the slave pays the interest eternally, not the capital lent.
The health of the present slave is very bad and his physical health suffers from malnutrition, excess of work, lack of vacations, absence of retirement from work at 45, and severe and constant stress.
I recommend you to read my article about “Metadepression.” (available only in Spanish at present)
It’s accessible on the website: www.percepcionunitaria.org

I: Let’s return to Rubén Feldman Gonzalez.
It surprises me that there are people who criticise you because you charge 300 dollars for a medical consultation (being a doctor specialised in surgery, paediatrics, neurology, and adult psychiatry), (and after having completed three years of Residency in Adult Psychiatry) you were permitted to become a children’s psychiatrist also with a Residency of two years in the University of Miami, where you were professor of medical graduates.
But they also criticised you because you did not charge for your workshop of three days about Unitary Perception and the Intensive Introduction to Holokinetic Psychology who’s Masters of three years commences soon.

RFG: You are saying that they criticise me if I charge and if I don’t charge. Now you see why we say that precinct C of the mind is incoherent, unconscious and based on paradoxical duality.
In 1978, I started to teach Unitary Perception and Holokinetic Psychology all over the world. England, Germany, Argentina, Chile, Peru, Costa Rica, Venezuela and the United States were the first countries.
In those times I was ‘the lone ranger’, and I did not even have a ‘Tonto’ as company.
But today we are already talking about founding the Association of Holokinetic Psychology and of the Doctorate for Holokintologists. Just recently this possibility became discernible, and it could materialise in 5 years if we have more teachers.
I have just completed a workshop in the remote city of Maracaibo, in Venezuela, at the end of May 2006, and as always, since 1978, I didn’t charge a single cent for it.
I came back from Venezuela with this faith that was given to me by the 44 participants of the workshop and the psychologist who organised everything without knowing me personally.
They treated me fraternally and put me in a luxury hotel.
I risked leaving my work and losing it to go and facilitate the workshop.
The coordinator risked that nobody would inscribe and the loss of money in that case. The psychologist who organised the workshop in Maracaibo unfortunately did not participate in it. It would have been a miracle for him or her to take Holokinetic Psychology seriously, and to have had the courage to leave what he or she was doing in spite of not knowing what Unitary Perception is.
Sometimes it takes more than a workshop to start to understand the value of Holokinetic Psychology.
Certainly, I was one of those who did not see its value…at the start. Having a high intelligence coefficient (a minimum full scale of 130 on the Weschler-R) is not enough, but is necessary also to jump to precinct B in an experiential way, not intellectually, as one more piece of knowledge to be stored in the memory.
This is what the Workshop gives, but for this to happen, you cannot do anything else except being in the Workshop. In Maracaibo, we confirmed that the Workshop was not brought about just by money. Also, there was passion, communion, a great deal of joy, a great deal of humour, fraternal trust, solidarity; and all despite the fact that the husband of the organiser robbed her of 2 thousand dollars that had been collected for the costs of the Workshop.
But this is rare. The usual thing is that there is a gain for the coordinator.
In Oaxaca, there were 900 people participating. Imagine the profit that the organiser of that type of event could have if each person paid 200 dollars to participate. In Oaxaca, the organiser was the University with some medical friends.
In Nicaragua, a very poor country, (or, I should say impoverished), Inés Blandón organised Workshops in four cities and was able to retrieve a profit for herself. There was a minimum of 75 people in the Workshops of each city in my most recent trip to that lovely country.
Inés was a domestic employee, and when Unitary Perception arrived in her life, she became a Teacher of Mathematics and of Business Administration. Her son Freddy could not study medicine. Now he is. She is also a successful business-woman in the textile business with many employees.
Inés says: “My life started and the heavens opened when I came to know Unitary Perception.”

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-20T11:51:00.000Z

I: Returning to the theme of freedom, what you said is that the freedom of Unitary Perception is something new in humanity, something that goes beyond all that we know about freedom?
RFG: That is so.
Numerous doctrines of freedom have been written.
Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel has said that reality cannot be understood if we do not see that it is undivided.
He said that nature, history and human life are not separate.
Readers of his work like David Strauss, author of “The life of Christ, critically examined” and Ludwig Fueurbach, author of ”The essence of Christianity”, both caused a revolution in theology.
Hegel said that “the history of humanity is no more than the progress of the consciousness of freedom.”
In the twentieth century, we have rediscovered this lost brain function, Unitary Perception, which is freedom without origin or direction.
This goes beyond the freedom conceived as the end of certain undesirable restrictions and on action based on the desire to exercise certain privileges.
The freedom of Unitary Perception includes but also goes beyond all independence, the end of all dependence, and the start of self-sufficiency, which permits the realisation of personal purposes and predilections.
But Unitary Perception includes the acceptance of the inter-dependence of mammals and of human beings.
Without solidarity and communion, human life and dignity are in danger.
Complete independence between human beings and between nations is impossible.
Immanuel Kant said that a good sovereign is a savage with neither law nor government.
The original primitive human being was like the good sovereign of Kant, enjoying (or suffering) his absolute independence of laws and governments.
He had to adapt to the natural law of gravity, which prevented him from flying, but not to any human law.
In Unitary Perception the observer is free beyond the human law which he agrees to respect as a citizen of the law and of the law of gravity which prevents him from flying.
The freedom of Unitary Perception allows the development of human potential in a way never before imagined, accepting the necessity of the economic equality of all human beings.

The attempt of Living in Unitary Perception - Rubén Feldman González

2012-01-17T20:36:00.002Z

The attempt of Living in Unitary Perception
RFG
January 14 2012

The survey of 7 questions that I have just carried out, to which 70% of my contacts responded, shows us something important about the attempt of living in UP.
Only those people who had LIVED in UP once, know that UP is the most important and beautiful thing in life.
So, without reminders, they do not allow themselves to be swallowed by the sinister daily life, which can take our peace, energy and even joy of living.
I (RFG) was two years attempting UP, in California, before living in it for the first time, in June 1978 (Frankfurt).
That marvelous awakening made me no longer have time for the past and the glimpses of eternity began.
I decided to dedicate my life to teaching UP, which caused me to be left without my first wife, who abandoned our home.
My person became so cheerful, that the house was always cleaned by some lover. And they did not leave, because I was a candle of laughter.
God sent me Cecilia González, my present wife, with whom we have already had our Silver Wedding Anniversary.
I lost my voice in the Seminar in The University of the Northeast, in Resistancia, Chaco, Argentina, in 1990 (when I visited my birthplace for the first time), just a little while after returning from India.
The following day I had already recovered my voice, to continue with the Seminar. I teach UP in Conferences, Seminars and Retreats, for which I charge nothing, since the time that I began to teach in June 1978.
My mother (92 years old) says that I am crazy for not leaving anything to my sons (because I do not have anything), but I leave them more than 40 books), which cure the people who read them and help them to attempt UP more seriously and more precisely.
The energy and lucidity of UP causes me to earn a lot of money in my profession as a doctor, and all of it was to be able to travel all over the planet and teach UP.
Now I embrace poverty, to have more time, so that they invite me to teach UP all over the planet.
In June 2012 it will be 34 years that I have been teaching UP without charging a cent.
Only those who have lived UP understand what I did with my life.
But attempting UP is not enough to live it.
Remember that we can attempt while we are doing what we are doing (whatever it might be).
In the darkness and silence (very easy), speaking (less easy), swimming, walking, working, eating, resting, on a flight, on a bus, driving a car, etc.
I am attempting to write my “Glimpses of Eternity” and maybe I cannot, because I cannot find the words.
True life (not imaginary) starts with the attempt and the factual living of UP.
Be constant, dear friends, attempting UP. If you do not see that UP is the most important and beautiful thing in life, it is simply because you have not already lived it.

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-16T11:12:00.000Z

I: You say that Unitary Perception is freedom, peace, well being and love. Could you expand on this theme?
RFG: Jiddu Krishnamurti said to me that it is necessary to discover deep psychological freedom, which is a fact without name that embellishes daily life enormously. We were in agreement in calling this freedom and this profound love, about which both of us had written so much, “Unitary Perception.”
Krishnamurti called it “meditation” until in London in 1985 he said that the word “meditation” was a stupid word.
But there exists a very strong influence from authors like Plato, St. Augustine, Hume, Spinoza, Hegal and Sigmund Freud, who state that causality or determinism are powerful forces and that they exceed luck or free will.
St. Augustine said that the will of God (Providence) is the cause of all, including the cause of the movement of the heavenly bodies.
This does not leave room for free will. But thought creates the paradox that if God is the cause of everything, He is also the cause of sin and human error.
A conflictual paradox appears here, which un-hinges theology and philosophy. Sigmund Freud held that determinism is an essential postulate of science and even a fact that can be demonstrated scientifically. Freud tells us, “the deeply rooted belief in psychological freedom, is not scientific and ignores the determinism that governs all and even mental life.”
Freud continues speaking of the interconnections or neuronal cycles, “they will be determined by important mental attitudes that we are unaware of at the moment when they operate, like the tendencies that cause errors and random and unexpected actions.”
We would like to clarify that the unconscious continues to be part of Precinct C.
The known is both conscious and unconscious.
The word determinism has progressed as far as to imply that “intelligent predestination” of future natural, psychological, behavioral, or historical events does not exist. This means that there exist efficient predetermined causes whilst at the same time not predestined which of course lacks an intelligent purpose.
Medieval astrology, nevertheless, stated that individual and collective human life was already mapped-out by the cyclical movements of the planets long before humanity appeared.
Again the word cycle appears to determine the functional neuronal cycles.
The planetary orbits or cycles influence the neuronal cycles or circuits to determine thought or conduct, both correct and mistaken.
Providence determines the planetary cycles, which in their turn determine the neuronal cycles that govern the cyclical cycles like sleep, thirst and hunger. These cycles are inevitable or ne-cessary (non ceasing or not ceasing).
Destiny has been defined as cycles of inevitable necessity.
Luck is a contingency of destiny, which alters the cycles temporarily.
Here we could use the words free will, anti-cyclical contingencies, or those plans or human predilections that work out well.
None of this is the freedom that Krishnamurti spoke to us about.
He spoke to us about Unitary Perception, which is to learn without accumulating learning, without the expectation to learn and without effort.
Unitary Perception is about being “here” COMPLETELY, incarnated in one's own body. To not be here completely is the equivalent of not being here psychologically. To be here completely makes us conscious that we living beings are all “condemned to die”.
This consciousness is the start of freedom from the human condition. Unitary Perception is freedom but not the freedom to do something or not do something.
It is freedom but not the freedom to free yourself of your wife or of work. Unitary Perception is freedom without origin or destiny, without beginning or direction.
It is something that can be read in the Christian New Testament, in chapter 3 of the Gospel of St. John, as “being born from air”.
I: Do you say that where there is individual habit or social custom, there is no freedom?
RFG: We have said that there are psychological precincts that must be studied because they have distinct laws.
Precinct B, which is Unitary Perception, appears to have an a-cyclical nature that is to say non-cyclical.
For this reason it is important to study and dialogue about these psychological precincts.
Habit is like a vest or tunic that we put on over our bodies. The body is our first nature. Habit is like a second nature added on.
It is necessary that we dialogue about what is cyclical in our minds and what is not.
The addictions, the habits, the multiple dependencies that we have in the life that we know, the instinctual impulses, the hypnosis that we exercise over one another and that shapes our thoughts, the customs that on the one hand prevent gross social chaos but which on the other hand impede the necessary changes, without doubt reduce and restrict our psychological freedom. But the continuity of the experience makes us believe that the effort to live is less.
There are subtleties in the way we learn that sometimes elude us, but that favour a lack of freedom.
We have nervous reflexes and instinctive impulses as well as innate atavistic forms (maybe archetypal?) to respond to stimuli.
All this combined with desires and basic necessities determine unconsciously the behaviour and imaginary thought.
Daily and mutual hypnosis in human society is a forgotten conditioning in order to act in a determined manner.
But when we learn something new we have incorporated a new way of responding to stimuli.
If we learn Unitary Perception in our lives we incorporate in our lives the way (not a way) to liberate ourselves from the known past (precinct C) in a facultative way whilst the known is no longer necessary to us.
The learning in Unitary Perception is not cumulative.
The learning in precinct C is cumulative, and deduction and demonstration with inductive inference complement one another in this.
I: Learning necessitates neuronal cycles. What is the nature of these neuronal circuits or cycles?
RFG: I say it in my Written Work: these cycles are psychosocial, molecular, energetic and quantum at the same time.
The matter-mind-energy of the Universe is in a cyclical movement, although David Bohm has shown that there also exists the movement from here to here in holokinesis. Contact with holokinesis is possible only in Unitary Perception.
Again we see, from another angle, that Unitary Perception allows us to get out of the cycles, even if it is only partially or transitorily.
We already saw that sleep, hunger and thirst are cyclical.
Obsessive thought is cyclical, as is autism, the passion for gambling, bulimia, flashbacks caused by severe post-traumatic stress disorder, sexual perversions, including homosexual thought, general fetishism, pornographic voyeurism, recurring panic, addiction to alcohol, to tobacco, to sugar and to other substances, stuttering, tics, including Tourettes Syndrome, hypochondriasis, pre-menstrual syndrome, narcolepsy, sleep apnea, nightmares, sleepwalking, paranoia, domestic nagging arguments, child abuse, grief, etc.
All of these are cyclical psychological phenomenon.
We could analyse the apparently obvious cycles of history and the obvious recurrence of war, slavery, genocide and misery.
Astrology relates the planetary cycles to human behaviour and to the cycles of history.
So we see that everything in precinct C of the mind is cyclical.
It's very simple. Is it not?

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-12T12:06:00.000Z

I: I am going to read a dialogue that you held on the internet, in the Zoé.-
Someone said to you: “I have been trying to find an irrefutable argument to affirm that “metanoia” implies Unitary Perception.

The word “metanoia” breaks down into two Greek words whose roots are “meta” (beyond) and “noeo {no-eh’-o}” (known, perceived, considered, thought,…according to Thayer Lexicon {Help}). The last meanings in brackets were taken from
http://www.blueletterbible.org/tmp_dir/words/3/1142128190-5168.html
I think that someone could say that “metanoia” does not imply Unitary Perception saying that there were many things that were beyond the known in the epoch of Jesus Christ, which were not necessarily Unitary Perception, for example, electricity and its applications, space-ships, etc. In the same way, could Jesus Christ have proposed something that could have gone beyond the known things in that epoch, but that could have been below Unitary Perception?

RFG: The greatness of Jesus Christ is that he taught nothing less than Unitary Perception. He who understands this soon finds that all the rest comes as an add-on, including the understanding of God and the human condition.

I: You answered that, “it appears that you have not read all my Written Work, where I clearly explain your question. Nobody will understand the theme, as Jiddu Krishnamurti and David Bohm have already said, without understanding absolute, relative and irrelevant time. “

RFG: Nobody who says, like the masons, that our brain Already knows everything, would be able to understand that “Metanoia” is Unitary Perception, because we are dealing with the unknown in the present itself. This “unknown” is not the unknown of present science, or the unknown of “the science” in the time of Jesus.

The great physicist David Bohm put it well: “The present is the unknown.”
The I is the past. In the present lived in Unitary Perception , we transcend the I.

It is necessary to understand the context of the teachings of Jesus (at the same time of course, not gradually nor successively.) For this reason, I refer to the Cross, where the horizontal of time and the vertical of eternity cross each other in the present. For this reason I refer to the time “of John”, in the first chapters of his Gospel (something that he inherited in the same city of Ephesus, from the great Heraclitus). Jesus said, “The end of time has arrived” (the past and the future cease in the present of metanoia.)
And the final key of this phrase: “Having ears they don’t hear (in the present) and eyes they don’t see” (in the present).

The contextual comprehension only occurs in Unitary Perception.

Exit from the Trap - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2012-01-11T12:03:00.001Z

Karina Jimenez Montes: What is Unitary Perception?

Rubén Feldman-González: I speak about this in all of my Written Work. I define this brain function by saying, ‘Unitary Perception is to perceive everything perceptible at the same time without effort or expectation.
It is neither a technique nor a philosophy, it is a brain function that was lost by humanity and recently recovered.

I: Is it a type of meditation?

RFG: Jiddu Krishanmurti called it “meditation”.
We started to dialogue with him in March 1975, and he soon started to say that he was not going to use the word meditation again.
He finally said that it was a stupid word. (London, 1985)
To speak about this brain function that JK rescued, it is betted to say, “Unitary Perception”.
JK himself asked me to use the term “Unitary Perception”, in March 1975. There have been hundreds of public dialogues about this transcendental theme. These dialogues, in type and writing, constitute my Written Work.

I: Do you believe that society is ready to receive Unitary Perception?

RFG: Humanity is in a terminal situation. If Unitary Perception is not introduced relatively quickly, into individual, family, university and working life, humanity will simply disappear.
It could appear that Unitary Perception complicates existence.
In reality, it simplifies it and life becomes true, as it must have been originally, for humanity to have been able to survive for more than a million years.

I: I know that you have travelled to universities all over the world in the last thirty years to spread Unitary Perception. But would it be more effective to establish yourself in just one university to teach this?

RFG: It was difficult for me to choose to travel all over the world to spread Unitary Perception. It was a mission that I imposed upon myself when I understood the immense value of Unitary Perception.
I think that it is necessary to spread the seeds of this discovery widely because the unexpected successes of this 21st century have brought psychosocial changes and transitions that cause many of these seeds to die. The job of pioneer has always been hard and especially so in this field of psychological subtleties, which is of enormous significance for the future of humanity.
It is much easier to spread the racist ideology, with great reserves of money, than to spread Unitary Perception, without reserves of money.
Since 1975 I have refused many tempting offers of academic investigation. Amongst those who invited me to work with them were Bhurrus Skinner, during a visit I made to the University of Miami in Miami, when I was teaching child psychiatry to medical graduates, Karl Pribram in Stanford, Margaret Mahler in Philadelphia, Professor Karl Schultz in The Max Planck Institute of Cerebral Investigation in Koln (Cologne) Germany, and many other prominent professors less well known in the United States.
The price I have paid in thirty years of international trips to teach this, is a weak heart and an absence of properties and savings, because for 28 years I paid for it all from my own work. Now I travel by invitation but there is no time left to work for money.
Paradoxically, in order to be able to continue this task, I had to choose poverty.
In 2006 alone I have spoken in the Universities of Los Mochis and Guadalajara, and I am invited by the UNAM of the city of Mexico in April, then the Autonomous University of Baja California in Mexicali, Maracaibo, Valencia and Caracas, Venezuela in May, United States in June, In July Co-Planet in New York, Nicaragua and Honduras in September, Madrid Barcelona and Seville in October, Cancún and Oaxaca in November, Bogotá and Medellin, Colombia, in December 2006.
For 2007, I am already invited to Miami, Torreón-Mexico-, The Dominican Republic, The Congo, Togo and Zimbabwe in Africa, New Mexico in April, El Cono Sur (Southern Cone) (Argentina, Peru and Chile in May and June), in September, once again Nicaragua, in October 2007 Spain again, on November 30 2007 once again the University of Guadalajara, and I am already considering invitations for 2008. This looks quite good if you consider that we are in March 2006. But we are already planning a Masters in the University of the Valley of Oaxaca, of two years duration. From there, Masters will be established in all of Latin America and the world. This will also be the work of selfless pioneers who fortunately exist and are very young.
They are Jorge, Luis, Cecilia, Rafael, Celia Lucia, Inés, Danilo, Julio César, Horacio Gabriel, Alba, Olga, Jorge Borges, and many others all over America. Up to now my university audiences have been casual, heterogeneous and ephemeral, but from there have emerged the serious pioneers of the International Academy of Sciences-RSM- Mexico with whom I collaborate today. I have been up to now a travelling teacher, which will have to change as I approach old age. I will have to establish myself in one place. I have chosen the citizenship of Mexico because the Academy was founded there with true passion beyond enthusiasm.
The professionals of the AIS-RSM –Mexico are all very young and on them depends the survival and the permanence of the academy.
This is not something easy. We are the first generation of pioneers and none of us are millionaires, as were Plato and Aristotle.
The second generation must survive the sudden psychosocial transitions of the 21st century, which, unfortunately, are many and varied.
Fortunately, we have Unitary Perception, an inexhaustible font of psychophysical energy for those who take it seriously and live like that.
This delicate and subtle form of silence, passive yet very alert, will be the most powerful means of integration and education.
With Unitary Perception I have discovered the most rare and supreme art, the art of true communion with your wife, students and friends.
From this selfless communion arose the decision, with my wife Cecilia, not to have children, in order to concentrate our time, money and energy in the spreading of Unitary Perception.
We have renounced the multiplication of ourselves in order to multiply Unitary Perception in all of humanity.
This sacred and rare communion has given permanency to Buddhism and Christianity for over two thousand years. With this precedent and without fragmenting life into “religious” and “lay”, I hope that the transcendental teaching of Unitary Perception will also survive.
I maintain that Unitary Perception is the fundamental base of yoga and all religion. Unitary Perception rescued this sacred communion, that is just imaginary and superficial in the cults and movements organised by the religious and political hierarchies.
This is more powerful than the most convincing scientific and logical arguments, which, fortunately, we also have.

I: Have schools been founded for children?

RFG: There are readers of Jiddu Krishnamurti who have founded schools before completely understanding Unitary Perception and living in it.
We must not be surprised that these schools have failed to educate children who are passionate to understand what Unitary Perception is; children free of conditioning, egocentrism, racism, hate, avarice, and fear.
It is better to do nothing, rather than to do something without the intelligence and subtle compassion of Unitary Perception.
If the child does not learn to be in psychological precinct B, education has failed.

Exit from the trap-Ruben Feldman Gonzalez (extract)

2012-01-10T10:30:00.000Z

The observer disappears in the unconscious and then a void remains that will be filled by the sacred, contingently (and not as a definite result).
In this real uncertainty, “nothing is happening to me”, (because the observer is not, there remains only the intense observation without the observer). Meister Eckhart called this movement previous to individual divination, “abandon yourself”. (Gelasenheit)
44
On the other hand, if I think that I must make contact with the mind of Christ in me, ah, then, the understanding ceases. “Now something is happening to me through my decision”… and then there is a egotistical satisfaction “that makes me feel very good”, but that never takes me out of the prison of the known (precinct C).- Do you understand, idear Karina?
It is very important to transcend the perceptual duality (or fragmentation) of precinct C, which is memory and thought. The good mystic does not accept the duality of the person praying to God, so that God gives him something. This implies that from God “emanates” the created and then, the creator and the created are seen as separate.

Complete Incarnation - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2011-12-22T19:44:00.001Z

RFG: Unitary Perception is contingent with peace.
But peace doesn’t happen unless you make Unitary Perception conscious. Yeah. It has to be made conscious. One has to stop thinking about listening, and one has to start listening, right now, in the complete incarnation of the now and here.

Interlocutor 1: Listening.

RFG: Yes listening, there has to be the listening, the feeling the weight, otherwise it doesn’t act from the background unconsciously.
There is not Unitary Perception unconsciously.

Interlocutor 1: So it is not a contingency then? It will happen.

RFG: Oh, of course.

Interlocutor 1: It would happen with the senses let’s say…

RFG: I wouldn’t say, “It would happen”, I would say, “It happens”…

Interlocutor 1: Ok.

RFG: Immediately when you start to listen, to all sound at the same time, Unitary Perception happens then.

Interlocutor 1: Ok. So it’s not a contingency, (it may or may not happen), it happens.

RFG: It happens.
It is your right as a human. It is a “forgotten” function of the brain.

Interlocutor 4: The contingency is A.

RFG: Ah. The contingency is A but B is not a contingency. It happens and its effectiveness is seen. We’re going to do it perhaps tomorrow, if you want. And we can do it as many times as you want, either with me or between you people. You’ll notice, you’ll see how immediate it is. – The flavour of peace, the effectiveness of it. It’s not gradual. You can see it immediately, immediately, that’s the beauty of it. That’s why I say: it’s the psychotherapy of the 21st century, because it’s going to be a cheap psychotherapy, very cheap.

Interlocutor 1: Is this what you meant by, “What sees is all there is”? (Or “God, that sees, is all there is,” in my translation).

RFG: Well… it’s not a bad way to put it in my view because… possibly because of my catholic conditioning but… yeah that may be it but… I am not very much against putting it that way because if there is Unitary Perception, and it is effective, is it the action of creation? Why not? And are we creatures, in such a way, part of creation and not separate from it, from creation? See, Krishnamurti in his last lecture said, “If your life is not orderly you’re not going to be in creation.”

Domhnall found this!!!! Ist Public Question and Answer meeting Madras 1985 paragraph 27--- JK-2: First can I put my house in order. Not “What is my relationship to the cosmos?” I can never find out if my house is in disorder. But once there is complete order then… I won’t go into it. It will be just a theory to you. That’s in his last public talk in Madras. He said, “If your life is not orderly, you’re not going to be in creation.”
To be in creation is complete incarnation. Not re-incarnation, but IN-carnation now.
So is Unitary Perception order and creation? Of course! By definition, according to what he said in the last public talk – Unitary Perception is order in creation.

Jiddu Krishnamurti - Brockwood Park 1st public talk august 24th 1985

2011-12-22T19:39:00.000Z

If my brain is not aware of itself, which is an extraordinary problem, where you are aware of your own thoughts. That is, is thought aware of itself thinking? You understand? This is not intellectual. Do you understand my question? I wonder! Can your thought be aware of itself? Right? If it is not then what will you do, or not do, to become completely aware of every movement of thought? Pray? Ask? You can't do any of those things. So can one remain quiet and watch? We mean by watch, to observe without a single movement of the word, the picture, the symbol, which is in essence thought. Can you observe first? Observe without a single activity of the past? Go on Sirs, come with me. Can you observe? Can I observe my pain, physical pain? You understand my question? Can you observe your physical pain, be aware of it? Not say, well I must rush to the doctor, take a pill, take this, just be aware of it. Psychologically be aware of it without any movement. Can you? And in the same way observe the activity of the brain, not with lots of words and denials or assertions, just to observe. Have you ever observed your wife or your husband, or your girl friend, really observed, not with the images you have built about her, or him, then that's - those images are not observation, they are merely projection of the activities which you have gradually built up which becomes the image between you and her and him and so on. So one is not actually observing.

Summary of Rubén Feldman González’s recent book: “Relationship, Religion and Isolation”.

2011-12-15T11:32:00.001Z

Summary of RFG’s recent book: “Relationship, Religion and Isolation”.

The most urgent action is to free oneself from the many hypnosis that
the individual human receives from the time of their birth.
This has been called “total deconditioning” which has always been
considered undesirable, difficult or impossible.
The 20th century, the century of wars- if one can say that there was
any without wars-, saw the ending of Christian values to give way to
fraud, plunder and the terror that commenced in the 21st Century.
The destruction of Christian values cannot be considered to be the end
of conditioning or the end of hypnosis.
The end of hypnosis takes place in the individual who takes living in
Unitary Perception seriously.
This signifies much more than living like a monk without a monastery,
in chastity, poverty and obedience.
“Chastity” signifies knowing how to live in the adversity of existence.
“Poverty” signifies living without profit, prestige or power.
“Obedience” signifies openness to the unknown, in metanoia, which is
no more and no less than Unitary Perception.
Openness to the unknown is the end of the pandemic egocentricity.
This action of complete deconditioning is urgently necessary.
The one who observes in the peace, the love and the freedom of Unitary
Perception is understanding the constant revelation of the unknown in
his own brain, intimately.
The past has to cease, because the past cannot meet with the blessing
of the unknown.
Question: If life is about becoming a saint and “sanctity” implies
isolation from a world that is every day more corrupt, then I wonder
if a saint is or is not related to anyone.
RFG: Live in Unitary Perception if you want to answer that question
wholly and honestly.

Human divisions:
I: Dr. Feldman González do you continue to support intercultural
contact with indigenous peoples, having worked with them all over the
continent of America, from Patagonia to Alaska?
Mapuches, Coahuilas, Inuit, Eskimos and Athabascan.

RFG: I was their doctor, their psychiatrist, their pediatrician. I
was even father to some of those children who were abandoned by their
fathers.
Let me remind you that the sun illuminates the innumerable prisons
that divide human beings, and that under that sun we should abandon
all of the prison that divide us human beings.
Before being Native-Indigenous or Hispanic, before being Jews or
Arabs, before being Christian or Muslim, before being fascist or
socialist, before being rich or poor, we are human beings.
I: Are you proposing that we forget what we were and what we will be?
RFG: We were, we are and we will be human beings, unless we choose to
continue in the diverse separate prisons and then we will be victims
of new blood-letting, new slavery and new, more vulgar, miseries.
One has to put under the spotlight of judgment the apparent
advisability of protecting our divisive prisons of every type. And we
always invent reasons to be divided, isn’t it?

The flight of the eagle -1 - Jiddu Krishnamurti

2011-12-01T12:31:00.002Z

FLIGHT OF THE EAGLE CHAPTER 1 LONDON 2ND PUBLIC TALK 16TH MARCH 1969 'FREEDOM'

For most of us, freedom is an idea and not an actuality. When we talk about freedom, we want to be free outwardly, to do what we like, to travel, to be free to express ourselves in different ways, free to think what we like. The outward expression of freedom seems to be extraordinarily important, especially in countries where there is tyranny, dictatorship; and in those countries where outward freedom is possible one seeks more and more pleasure, more and more possessions.
If we are to inquire deeply into what freedom implies, to be inwardly, completely and totally free - which then expresses itself outwardly in society, in relationship - then we must ask, it seems to me, whether the human mind, heavily conditioned as it is, can ever be free at all. Must it always live and function within the frontiers of its own conditioning, so that there is no possibility of freedom at all? One sees that the mind, verbally understanding that there is no freedom here on this earth, inwardly or outwardly, then begins to invent freedom in another world, a future liberation, heaven and so on.
Put aside all theoretical, ideological, concepts of freedom so that we can inquire whether our minds, yours and mine, can ever be actually free, free from dependence, free from fear, anxiety, and free from the innumerable problems, both the conscious as well as those at the deeper layers of the unconscious. Can there be complete psychological freedom, so that the human mind can come upon something which is not of time, which is not put together by thought, yet which is not an escape from the actual realities of daily existence? Unless the human mind is inwardly, psychologically, totally free it is not possible to see what is true, to see if there is a reality not invented by fear, not shaped by the society or the culture in which we live, and which is not an escape from the daily monotony, with its boredom, loneliness, despair and anxiety. To find out if there is actually such freedom one must be aware of one's own conditioning, of the problems, of the monotonous shallowness, emptiness, insufficiency of one's daily life, and above all one must be aware of fear. One must be aware of oneself neither introspectively nor analytically, but actually be aware of oneself as one is and see if it is at all possible to be entirely free of all those issues that seem to clog the mind.
To explore, as we are going to do, there must be freedom, not at the end, but right at the beginning. Unless one is free one cannot explore, investigate or examine. To look deeply there needs to be, not only freedom, but the discipline that is necessary to observe; freedom and discipline go together ( not that one must be disciplined in order to be free). We are using the word `discipline' not in the accepted, traditional sense, which is to conform, imitate, suppress, follow a set pattern; but rather as the root meaning of that word, which is `to learn.' Learning and freedom go together, freedom bringing its own discipline; not a discipline imposed by the mind in order to achieve a certain result. These two things are essential: freedom and the act of learning. One cannot learn about oneself unless one is free, free so that one can observe, not according to any pattern, formula or concept, but actually observe oneself as one is. That observation, that perception, that seeing, brings about its own discipline and learning; in that there is no conforming, imitation, suppression or control whatsoever - and in that there is great beauty.
Our minds are conditioned - that is an obvious fact - conditioned by a particular culture or society, influenced by various impressions, by the strains and stresses of relation- ships, by economic, climatic, educational factors, by religious conformity and so on. Our minds are trained to accept fear and to escape, if we can, from that fear, never being able to resolve, totally and completely, the whole nature and structure of fear. So our first question is: can the mind, so heavily burdened, resolve completely, not only its conditioning, but also its fears? Because it is fear that makes us accept conditioning.
Do not merely hear a lot of words and ideas - which are really of no value at all - but through the act of listening, observing your own states of mind, both verbally and nonverbally, simply inquire whether the mind can ever be free - not accepting fear, not escaping, not saying, `I must develop courage, resistance,' but actually being fully aware of the fear in which one is trapped. Unless one is free from this quality of fear one cannot see very clearly, deeply; and obviously, when there is fear there is no love.
So, can the mind actually ever be free of fear? That seems to me to be - for any person who is at all serious - one of the most primary and essential questions which must be asked and which must be resolved. There are physical fears and psychological fears. The physical fears of pain and the psychological fears as memory of having had pain in the past, and the idea of the repetition of that pain in the future; also, the fears of old age, death, the fears of physical insecurity, the fears of the uncertainty of tomorrow, the fears of not being able to be a great success, not being able to achieve - of not being somebody in this rather ugly world; the fears of destruction, the fears of loneliness, not being able to love or be loved, and so on; the conscious fears as well as the unconscious fears. Can the mind be free, totally, of all this? If the mind says it cannot, then it has made itself incapable, it has distorted itself and is incapable of perception, of understanding; incapable of being completely silent, quiet; it is like a mind in the dark, seeking light and never finding it, and therefore inventing a `light' of words, concepts, theories. How is a mind which is so heavily burdened with fear, with all its conditioning, ever to be free of it? Or must we accept fear as an inevitable thing of life? - and most of us do accept it, put up with it. What shall we do? How shall I, the human being, you as the human being, be rid of this fear? - not be rid of a particular fear, but of the total fear, the whole nature and structure of fear?

Der Flug des Adler - 1 - Jiddu Krishnamurti

2011-12-01T12:31:00.001Z

Teil 1

1. Freiheit

Denken, Lust und Schmerz.
Für die meisten von uns ist Freiheit eine Idee und keine Wirklichkeit. Wenn wir von Freiheit sprechen, dann meinen wir, nach außen hin frei zu sein: tun zu können, was wir möchten, zu reisen, uns überall frei äußern zu können, frei zu sein, zu denken, was wir möchten. Diese äußerlichen Ausdrucksformen der Freiheit sind offensichtlich von außerordentlicher Bedeutung, besondern in den Ländern, wo Tyrannei und Diktatur herrschen; und in den Ländern, wo äußere Freiheit möglich ist, sucht jeder immer mehr Genuß zu erlangen, immer mehr Besitz.
Wenn wir nun aber tiefer in die Frage eindringen wollen, was Freiheit wirklich bedeutet, was es bedeutet, innerlich, vollkommen und gänzlich frei zu sein - was dann nach außen hin in der Gesellschaft, in den Beziehungen Ausdruck findet -, dann müssen wir uns meiner Meinung nach fragen, ob der menschliche Geist, belastet wie er ist von so vielen Abhängigkeiten, überhaupt jemals frei sein kann. Muß er etwa für immer in den Grenzen seiner je eigenen Abhängigkeiten existieren und funktionieren, so daß überhaupt keine Freiheit möglich ist? Wir sehen, daß der Geist, wenn er denn zu der Erkenntnis gelangt, daß es hier auf Erden keine Freiheit für ihn gibt, keine innere und keine äußere, dann anfängt, sich eine Freiheit in einer anderen Welt auszudenken, eine künftige Befreiung, einen Himmel und was nicht alles!
Lassen wir hier einmal alle theoretischen und ideologischen Freiheitsbegriffe beiseite, um uns offen der Frage zu stellen, ob unser Geist, der Ihre und der meine, jemals wirklich frei sein kann, frei von Abhängigkeiten, frei von Ängsten, Sorgen, frei von all den unzähligen Problemen, den bewußten sowohl als auch denen auf den tieferen Ebenen des Unbewußten. Kann es eine vollkommene psy- chische Freiheit geben, derart, daß der menschliche Geist zu etwas vordringen kann, das nicht zeitbedingt, das nicht vom Denken hergestellt ist, das aber auch nicht eine Flucht vor den anstehenden Realitäten des täglichen Lebens ist?
Ehe der Geist des Menschen nicht innerlich, psychisch, gänzlich frei ist, bleibt es unmöglich, zu erkennen, was wahr ist, zu erkennen, ob es eine Realität gibt, die nicht von unseren Ängsten erfunden, nicht durch die Gesellschaft oder die Kultur bestimmt ist, in der wir leben, und die keine Ausflucht aus der alltäglichen Monotonie darstellt, aus all der Öde, der Einsamkeit, der Verzweiflung und den Sorgen. Um herauszufinden, ob es eine derartige Freiheit wirklich gibt, muß man sich seiner je eigenen Abhängigkeiten bewußt werden, seiner Probleme, der monotonen Schalheit, Leere, Unzulänglichkeit des alltäglichen Daseins; vor allem muß man sich seiner Ängste
bewußt werden. Dabei geht es nicht um eine besondere Innenschau oder Analyse, sondern darum, daß man sich tatsächlich seiner selbst bewußt wird, so wie man ist, und schaut, ob es denn überhaupt möglich ist, völlig frei von all diesen Dingen zu werden, die dem Geist wie Bremsklötze anhängen. Um das herauszufinden, so wie wir es hier tun wollen, muß Freiheit vorhanden sein, nicht erst am Ende, nein, gleich zu Beginn. Wer nicht frei ist, kann hier nichts herausfinden, nichts erforschen noch prüfen. Um tief genug zu blicken, muß nicht nur Freiheit vorhanden sein, sondern auch die für eine solche Untersuchung unerläßliche Disziplin; Freiheit und Disziplin gehören zusammen (was nicht meint, daß jemand diszipliniert sein muß, um frei zu sein). Wir verwenden den Begriff
»Disziplin« hier nicht in dem üblichen, traditionellen Sinne, daß man sich fügt, sich anpaßt, Eigenes verdrängt, nach vorgegebenem Muster lebt; vielmehr nach der lateinischen Wurzel des Wortes im Sinne von »Lernen«: Lernen und Freiheit gehören zusammen, die Freiheit bringt ihre eigene Disziplin mit sich; nicht eine vom Verstand zur Erreichung eines bestimmten Zieles auferlegte Disziplin. Diese beiden Dinge sind wesentlich: Freiheit und praktiziertes Lernen. Niemand kann etwas über sich selber lernen, wenn er nicht frei ist, frei zur Wahrnehmung, nicht nach einem vorgegebenen Muster, irgendeiner Formel oder einem festen Konzept, nein, frei zur Wahrnehmung seiner selbst, so wie man wirklich ist. Diese Selbstbeobachtung, diese Wahrnehmung, dieses Schauen bringt ihre eigene Disziplin und Lernweise mit sich; dabei gibt es keine Anpassung, keine Fremdbestimmung, keine Verdrängung, keine wie auch immer geartete Kontrolle - vielmehr liegt darin eine große Schönheit.
Unser Geist ist vorgeprägt - das ist offenkundig -, vorgeprägt durch die jeweilige Kultur oder Gesellschaft, beeinflußt durch vielfältige Eindrücke, durch Spannungen und Streß in unseren Beziehungen, durch wirtschaftliche, klimatische, erzieherische Faktoren, durch religiöse Gewohnheiten und so fort. Unser Geist ist darauf trainiert, mit Ängsten zu leben, ihnen allenfalls soweit wie möglich auszuweichen, aber ohne jede Möglichkeit, die Ängste in ihrem Wesen und ihrer Struktur gänzlich und vollständig aufzulösen. So daß unsere erste Frage lauten muß: Vermag unser Geist unter all diesen schweren Belastungen die vollständige Auflösung nicht nur seiner Kondi- tionierungen, sondern auch seiner Ängste zu erreichen? Denn aus Angst machen wir uns ja die Konditionierungen zu eigen.
Hören Sie jetzt nicht einfach einem Schwall von Worten und Ideen zu - die ohnehin als solche ganz wertlos sind -, beobachten Sie vielmehr durch bewußtes Hören, verbales und auch nicht-verbales, Ihren Bewußtseinsstand, versuchen Sie einfach herauszufinden, ob Ihr Geist je frei werden kann - nicht durch ein Hinnehmen der Ängste, nicht durch ein Ausweichen vor ihnen, nicht durch die Behauptung: »Ich muß mehr Mut, mehr Widerstand entwickeln«, sondern im klaren Bewußtsein Ihres tatsächlichen Gefangenseins in Ihren Ängsten. Nur wer von dieser Eigenschaft Angst frei ist, kann wahrhaft klar und tief sehen; und sicher ist doch: Wo Ängste sind, kann keine Liebe sein.
Kann also der Geist je wirklich frei von Ängsten sein? Das scheint mir für jeden, der es ernst meint, eine der vorrangigsten und wesentlichsten Fragen zu sein, die gestellt und die beantwortet werden müssen. Es geht ja um die physischen und um die psychischen Ängste: die physischen Ängste vor Schmerzen und die psychischen Ängste der Erinnerung an einmal erlittene Schmerzen und des Gedankens an ein künftiges erneutes Auftreten solcher Schmerzen; dazu die Angst vor dem Altwerden, vor dem Sterben, die Ängste vor materiellen Unsicherheiten, vor der Ungewißheit der Zukunft, die Ängste, nicht den großen Erfolg zu haben, es nicht zu schaffen - es zu nichts Rechtem zu bringen, in dieser ja wohl eher häßlichen Welt; die Ängste vor Zerstörungen, vor der Einsamkeit, vor der Unmöglichkeit, zu lieben oder geliebt zu werden, und so weiter; es geht um die bewußten Ängste ebenso wie um die unbewußten. Kann der Geist ganz und gar frei von alledem werden?
Wenn der Geist sagt, er könne das nicht, dann hat er sich selbst zur Unfähigkeit verurteilt, hat sich selbst entstellt und ist nun nicht mehr imstande, wahrzunehmen, zu verstehen, außerstande, je voll- kommen still zu sein. Er ist dann ein Geist im Dunkel, auf der Suche nach Licht, das er aber nie findet und sich deshalb aus Worten, Vorstellungen, Theorien sein »Licht« erfindet.
Wie soll denn auch ein so schwer mit Ängsten, mit all seinen Abhängigkeiten beladener Geist jemals davon frei werden? Müssen wir etwa die Angst als unvermeidlich zum Leben gehörig hinnehmen?
-Und die meisten unter uns nehmen sie hin und haben sich damit abgefunden! Was also sollen wir machen? Wie soll ich, als Mensch, wie sollen Sie, als Mensch, diese Ängste loswerden? Nicht irgendeine einzelne Angst, nein, die Angst überhaupt, in ihrem Wesen und ihrer Struktur?
Was ist Angst? (Nehmen Sie bitte nicht einfach das hin, was der Vortragende sagt! Der Vortragende hat überhaupt keine Autorität, er ist kein Lehrer, er ist kein Guru; denn wäre er ein Lehrer, dann würden Sie seine Jünger sein, und wer Jünger ist, der zerstört sich selbst ebenso wie den Lehrer.) Wir bemühen uns herauszufinden, wo in dieser Frage der Angst die Wahrheit liegt, und dies so umfas- send, daß der Geist sich nie mehr zu ängstigen braucht, vielmehr frei ist von aller Abhängigkeit, innerlich, im psychologischen Sinne frei. Die Schönheit der Freiheit besteht darin, daß Sie keine Spur hinterläßt. Der Adler im Flug hinterläßt keine Spur; anders als der Wissenschaftler. Um die Frage der Freiheit zu untersuchen, ist nicht nur wissenschaftliche Beobachtung vonnöten, sondern auch der Flug des Adlers, der überhaupt keine Spur hinterläßt. Beides ist erforderlich: die verbale Erklärung und die non-verbale Wahrnehmung -ist doch die Beschreibung nie die Wirklichkeit, die beschrieben wird; die Erklärung ist offenkundig nie die erklärte Sache; das Wort ist nie die Sache. Wenn all das wirklich deutlich ist, können wir fortfahren. Wir können jetzt selbst herausfinden - nicht durch den Vortragenden, nicht durch seine Worte, nicht durch seine Ideen oder Gedanken-, ob der Geist vollkommen frei von Ängsten werden kann.
Dieser erste Teil ist übrigens keine bloße Einleitung! Wenn Sie ihn nicht deutlich gehört und verstanden haben, dann sollten Sie nicht zum nächsten Teil übergehen!
Für eine Untersuchung unserer Frage ist es unerläßlich, einen freien Blick zu haben, frei zu sein von Vorurteilen, von Überzeugungen, festen Vorstellungen und Idealen, so daß man wirklich bei sich selbst beobachten kann, was Angst ist. Wenn Sie sehr genau, ganz aus der Nähe, beobachten, gibt es da überhaupt Angst? Das will sagen: Sie können nur dann ganz, ganz genau, ganz bis ins Innerste hinein erkennen, was Angst ist, wenn der »Betrachter« das » Betrachtete« ist. Lassen Sie uns dem weiter nachgehen. Was also ist Angst? Wie kommt sie zustande? Die vordergründigen körperlichen Ängste lassen sich leicht verstehen, wie die körperlichen Gefährdungen, auf die sich unmittelbar eine Reaktion einstellt; sie sind so gut zu begreifen, daß wir uns nicht zu lange bei ihnen aufzuhalten brauchen. Worüber wir ja aber hier sprechen, das sind die psychischen Ängste: Wie entstehen solche psychischen Ängste? Was ist ihr Ursprung? - Darum geht es! Das kann die Angst sein vor etwas, das gestern geschehen ist; oder auch die Angst vor etwas, das noch im Laufe dieses Tages oder morgen geschehen könnte. Die Angst vor etwas, das wir kennen, und die Angst vor dem Unbekannten, dem Morgen. Jeder kann bei sich selbst deutlich genug feststellen, daß die Ängste aus unseren Denkbewegungen hervorgehen - wenn wir über das gestern Geschehene nachdenken, was uns Sorgen macht, oder wenn wir über die Zukunft nachdenken - stimmt's? Denken erzeugt Angst - nicht wahr? Lassen Sie uns hier bitte ganz sicher sein! Nehmen Sie nicht einfach hin, was der Vortragende sagt; kommen Sie selbst zur Überzeugung, ob Denken der Ursprung der Ängste ist! An den Schmerz zu denken, den seelischen Schmerz, den man einmal erlitten hat und den man nicht noch einmal erleiden möchte, an den man nicht mehr erinnert werden möchte, an all das zu denken erzeugt Angst. Können wir da weiterkommen? Sicherlich nicht, bevor wir dies nicht ganz klar erkannt haben: Das Denken, das Nachdenken über einen Vorfall, ein Erlebnis, einen Zustand der Verwirrung, der Gefährdung, der Trauer oder des Schmerzes läßt Ängste entstehen. Und das Denken, wenn es einmal, im psychologischen Sinne, eine gewisse Sicherheit erreicht hat, möchte diese Sicherheit nicht gestört sehen; jede Störung ist eine Gefährdung, und daraus erwächst die Angst.
Das Denken ist verantwortlich für die Ängste, ebenso wie das Denken für die Lust verantwortlich ist. Man hat ein wunderbares Erlebnis gehabt-und sogleich beginnt das Denken, sich damit zu beschäf- tigen und zu wünschen, es möge ewig währen; und wenn sich das als unmöglich erweist, erhebt sich Widerstand, Zorn, Verzweiflung und Angst. So ist das Denken verantwortlich für die Ängste ebenso wie für die Lust - nicht wahr? Das ist keine verbale Schlußfolgerung; das ist kein Rezept zur Vermeidung von Ängsten. Es ist einfach so: Wo Vergnügen ist, da sind Angst und Schmerz, die das Denken aufrechterhält. Vergnügen geht mit Schmerz einher, beide sind unzertrennlich, und das Denken ist für beide verantwortlich. Gäbe es kein Morgen, keinen bevorstehenden Augenblick, auf den das Denken sich richtet, sei es in Angst oder mit Lust, dann wären beide nicht vorhanden. Sollen wir hier einen Schritt weiter gehen? Ist es denn tatsächlich so - nicht als bloße Idee, nein, als etwas, was Sie selbst entdeckt haben und was daher Wirklichkeit hat -, daß Sie für sich selbst feststellen können: »Ich habe herausgefunden, daß das Denken sowohl Vergnügen als auch Angst erzeugt.« Sie haben Ihr sexuelles Vergnügen genossen; später dann denken Sie daran in Ihren Vorstellungen, in der Bilderwelt Ihres Denkens, und dieses Nachdenken verleiht dem lustvollen Erlebnis in Ihrer Vorstellungswelt Kraft, doch wenn dies Bemühen unversehens vereitelt wird, kehrt sich alles um in
Schmerzen, Beklemmungen, Angst, Eifersucht, Verdruß, Zorn, Brutalität. Womit ich keineswegs sagen will, daß Sie keine Lust erleben sollen.
Freude ist nicht gleich Lust; Begeisterung wird nicht durch Denken hervorgebracht; das ist etwas gänzlich anderes. Wahre Freude oder Begeisterung können Sie nur empfinden, wenn Sie das Wesen des Denkens begriffen haben - das sowohl Vergnügen als auch Angst erzeugt.
So erhebt sich jetzt die Frage: Kann man das Denken anhalten? Wenn das Denken Angst und Vergnügen erzeugt - denn wo Vergnügen ist, da wird es, wie nun hinreichend deutlich ist, auch Schmerz geben -, dann muß man sich doch fragen: Kann das Denken zum Stillstand kommen? Was nicht bedeuten soll, die Wahrnehmung der Schönheit, die Freude an Schönheit zu beenden. Es kommt dem Schauen der Schönheit einer Wolke oder eines Baumes gleich und der völligen, umfassenden, erfüllenden Freude daran; wenn aber dann das Denken versucht, diese gleiche Erfahrung morgen wieder zu haben - das gleiche Entzücken wie gestern im Schauen dieser Wolke, dieses Baumes, dieser Blume, dieses wundervollen Antlitzes -, dann öffnet es Tür und Tor für Enttäuschungen, Schmerzen, Ängste und Lüste.
Kann also das Denken zum Stillstand gebracht werden? Oder ist das eine vollkommen falsche Fragestellung? Es ist eine falsche Fragestellung, weil wir doch eine Begeisterung, eine Freude erleben möchten, die nicht Lust ist. Durch die Beendigung des Denkens möchten wir wohl etwas ganz Gewaltiges erlangen, etwas, das nicht durch Lust und Angst hervorgebracht ist. Welcher Platz kommt dem Denken in unserem Leben zu? Nicht: Wie kann das Denken beendet werden? Wie ist die Beziehung des Denkens zum Tätigsein und zum Untätigsein? Wie ist die Beziehung des Denkens zum Tätigsein, da wo Tätigsein nötig ist? Warum tritt das Denken überhaupt gerade dann in Erscheinung, wenn wir von der Freude am Schönen durchdrungen sind? - Täte es das nämlich nicht, dann würde es keine Übertragung auf morgen geben. Daher möchte ich herausfinden, warum das Denken gerade dann, wenn ich vollständig von der Freude an der Schönheit eines Berges, eines wundervollen Antlitzes, eines Wasserspiegels durchdrungen bin, daherkommt, die ganze Sache verdreht und behauptet: »Ich muß dieses gleiche Entzücken morgen wieder haben.« Ich habe herauszufinden, welche Beziehungen das Denken während des Handelns eingeht und wieso sich das Denken auch da einmischen muß, wo nun wirklich keine Notwendigkeit dazu besteht. Ich sehe einen wunderschönen Baum, ohne ein einziges Blatt, gegen den Himmel, außergewöhnlich schön ist er, und das ist's - fertig. Wieso kommt jetzt das Denken daher und behauptet: »Ich muß dieses Vergnügen auch morgen haben!«? Dabei sehe ich wohl, daß beim Handeln gedacht werden muß. Geschick im Tun ist auch Geschick im Denken. Welche Beziehung besteht zwischen Denken und Tun? Wie die Dinge liegen, gründet unser Tun auf Vorstellungen, auf Ideen. Ich habe eine Idee oder eine Vorstellung davon, was getan werden sollte, und was dann getan wird, ist eine Annäherung an diese Vorstellung, diese Idee, dieses Ideal. So gibt es also eine Spaltung zwischen dem Tun und der Vorstellung, dem Ideal, dem » So sollte es sein«; in dieser Spaltung liegt ein Konflikt. Jede Spaltung, jede psychische Spaltung, erzeugt notwendigerweise Konflikte. Ich frage mich: »Wie ist das Beziehungsgefüge während des Denkens?« Wenn eine Spaltung zwischen dem Handeln und der Idee besteht, dann ist das Handeln unvollständig. Gibt es ein Tun, bei dem das Denken unvermittelt etwas erkennt und unmittelbar handelt, so daß nicht noch getrennt davon eine Idee, eine Ideologie vorhanden wäre, der zufolge gehandelt werden müßte? Gibt es ein Tun, bei dem das Erkennen selbst das Handeln ist - bei dem das Denken selbst das Handeln ist? Ich erkenne, daß das Denken Ängste und Lust erzeugt; ich erkenne, daß da, wo Lust ist, auch Schmerz ist und daher Widerstand gegen den Schmerz. Ich erkenne das sehr deutlich; dies zu erkennen, ist unmittelbares Tun; in dieses Erkennen sind Denken, Logik und Überlegen ganz eindeutig einbezogen; doch erfolgt dieses Erkennen unvermittelt, und das Tun ist unvermittelt- deswegen besteht hier nun wirklich Freiheit. Verstehen wir uns noch? Lassen Sie sich Zeit, die Sache ist tatsächlich schwierig. Bitte sagen Sie nicht zu schnell » ja«. Wenn Sie » ja« sagen, dann sollten Sie beim Verlassen dieses Saales wirklich von Ängsten frei sein. Sonst wäre Ihr » ja«-Sagen nichts weiter als die Bestätigung, daß Sie mich verbal, intellektuell verstanden haben - was überhaupt keinen Wert hätte. Sie und ich untersuchen
hier heute morgen das Problem der Angst, und wenn Sie diesen Saal verlassen, dann muß die völlige
Befreiung von ihr vollzogen sein.
Dann wären Sie ein freier Mensch, ein anderer Mensch, vollständig umgewandelt - nicht morgen, nein, jetzt. Dann würden Sie ganz deutlich erkennen, daß das Denken Ängste und Lust erzeugt; er
kennen würden Sie, wie all unsere Werte - die moralischen, ethischen, gesellschaftlichen, religiösen, geistigen - auf Angst und Vergnügen, auf Furcht und dem Streben nach Lust gründen. Wenn Sie
die Wahrheit dessen begreifen - und um dies als wahr zu erkennen, müssen Sie ganz
außergewöhnlich aufmerksam sein, müssen logisch, ausgeglichen und vernünftig jede Bewegung des Denkens beobachten -, dann ist dieses Begreifen selbst totales Handeln. Wenn Sie heute hier weggehen, dann haben Sie es entweder wirklich geschafft - oder Sie werden sich immer weiter fragen: »Wie kann ich morgen frei sein von Angst?«
Das Denken muß im Tun wirksam werden. Wenn Sie nach Hause gehen, müssen Sie das bedacht haben; oder wenn Sie einen Bus, einen Zug erreichen, ins Büro gehen wollen, dann wirkt das Denken zielgerichtet, objektiv, nicht personenbezogen, nicht emotional; ein solches Denken ist lebensnotwendig. Wenn aber das Denken diese Erfahrung weiterträgt, sie als Erinnerung in die Zukunft überträgt, dann ist solch ein Tun unvollkommen, woraus ein gewisser Widerstand und all die weiteren Folgen sich ergeben.
Nun können wir zur nächsten Frage übergehen. Lassen Sie es uns einmal so formulieren: Wo liegt der Ursprung des Denkens, und wer ist der Denkende? Deutlich ist, daß Denken geprägt ist vom Wissen, von der Erfahrung, im Sinne der gespeicherten Erinnerung. Von dort aus beantwortet das Denken jede Herausforderung. Fragt man Sie etwa, wo Sie wohnen, dann kommt unverzüglich die Antwort. Erinnerung, Erfahrung, Wissen bilden den Hintergrund, das, woher das Denken kommt. So ist also das Denken niemals neu; Denken ist immer alt; Denken kann nie frei sein, weil es an das Vergangene gebunden ist; deshalb kann es niemals etwas Neues sehen. Wenn ich das einmal verstanden habe, ganz klar verstehe, wird mein Geist ruhig. Leben ist Bewegung, ständige Bewegung in Beziehungen; und das Denken, das diese Bewegung von seiner Bindung an die Vergangenheit her als Erinnerung zu erfassen versucht, scheut das Leben.
Wenn wir all das begreifen, wenn wir begreifen, daß zur Erkenntnis Freiheit nötig ist - und für eine klare Erkenntnis brauchen wir die Disziplin des Lernens, keine Disziplin der Verdrängung oder der Anpassung -, wenn wir begreifen, wie der Geist durch die Gesellschaft, durch die Vergangenheit geprägt ist, wenn wir begreifen, daß alles Denken, das dem Gehirn entspringt, immer schon alt ist und deshalb unfähig, irgend etwas Neues zu verstehen, dann wird unser Geist vollkommen ruhig - nicht durch Fremdbestimmung oder äußere Formung zur Ruhe gebracht. Hier gibt es kein System, keine Methode, den Geist zur Ruhe zu führen - es kommt nicht darauf an, ob es nun Zen aus Japan ist, oder ein System aus Indien. Das wäre das Dümmste, was der Geist tun könnte: sich selbst zur Ruhe zu disziplinieren. Wenn wir nun das alles begreifen - es wirklich begreifen, nicht als etwas Theoretisches -, dann wird aus dieser Wahrnehmung ein Tun erwachsen; ja, diese Wahrnehmung selber ist die von Angst befreite Handlung. Und wenn noch einmal eine Angst sich erhebt, wird sie unmittelbar wahrgenommen und endet.
Was ist Liebe? Für die meisten von uns ist sie Lust und folglich Angst; das ist's, was wir Liebe nennen. Aber wenn nun Angst und Lust verstanden werden, was ist dann Liebe? Und wer wird uns diese Frage beantworten? Der Vortragende, die Priester, die Bücher? Gibt es irgendeine Stelle, die uns mitteilt, daß wir alles ganz fabelhaft machen, nur weiter so? Ist es nicht vielmehr so, daß wir aufgrund unserer Untersuchungen, unserer Beobachtungen, unseres nicht-analytischen Begreifens der gesamten Struktur und des eigentlichen Wesens der Lust, der Ängste, der Schmerzen, zu der Erkenntnis gelangen, daß der Beobachtende, der Denkende Teil des Denkens ist? Gibt es kein Denken, dann gibt es auch keinen Denkenden, die beiden sind untrennbar; der Denkende ist das Denken. In diesem Schauen liegen Schönheit und Subtilität. Und wo ist nun der Geist, der sich aufgemacht hatte, in diese Frage nach den Ängsten einzudringen? - Verstehen Sie? Welchen Zustand hat der Geist nun, da er dies alles durchdrungen hat? Ist er noch der gleiche wie zuvor? Er hat diese Dinge jetzt sehr eingehend betrachtet, er hat das Wesen dessen betrachtet, was wir Denken, Angst und Lust nennen, er hat all das betrachtet und verstanden. In welchem Zustand befindet er sich jetzt? Selbstverständlich kann darauf niemand anders antworten als Sie selbst; wenn Sie wirklich in all dies eingedrungen sind, dann werden Sie begreifen, daß Ihr Geist vollständig verwandelt worden ist.
(Es wird eine Frage gestellt; sie ist akustisch nicht zu verstehen.)

Krishnamurti [K]: Das ist eine der einfachsten Sachen, die es gibt, eine Frage zu stellen. Vermutlich haben einige von uns schon die ganze Zeit, während der Vortragende noch redete, darüber nachge- dacht, was sie denn bloß fragen könnten. Wir sind mehr mit unseren Fragen beschäftigt als mit dem Zuhören. Worauf es aber ankommt, das ist, wirklich die eigenen Fragen zu stellen, nicht nur hier,

sondern überall. Die richtige Frage zu stellen, ist weit wichtiger, als die Antwort zu erhalten. Die Lösung eines Problems liegt im Verstehen des Problems; die Antwort ist nicht außerhalb des Problems, sie ist im Problem zu finden. Man kann das Problem nicht wirklich genau betrachten, wenn man sich um die Antwort, um die Lösung Gedanken macht. Die meisten von uns sind so versessen darauf, das Problem zu lösen, ohne überhaupt in es hineinzuschauen - und dazu sind Energie, Intensität, ja Leidenschaft vonnöten; nicht wie bei den meisten von uns lediglich Gleichgültigkeit und Trägheit -, wir hätten lieber, jemand anders würde es für uns lösen. Da ist aber niemand, der irgendeines unserer Probleme lösen würde, nicht die politischen, nicht die religiösen, nicht die psychischen. Und Sie brauchen eine ganze Menge an Vitalität und Leidenschaft, Intensität, um ein Problem zu betrachten und zu beobachten; aber dann, während Sie es beobachten, werden Sie klar und deutlich die Antwort finden.
Damit ist nicht gemeint, daß Sie keine Fragen stellen sollen. Im Gegenteil: Sie müssen Fragen stellen; Sie müssen alles in Frage stellen, was jemand sagt, wer auch immer es sei, den Vortragenden eingeschlossen.

Frage [FJ: Besteht die Gefahr, sich in der Innenschau zu verlieren, wenn man seine persönlichen

Probleme betrachtet?

[KI: Warum sollte da keine Gefahr bestehen? Schon wenn wir die Straße überqueren, begeben wir uns in Gefahr. Wollen Sie etwa sagen, wir sollten gar nicht erst hinschauen, weil das Schauen ge- fährlich werden könnte? Ich erinnere mich - wenn ich diese Begebenheit wiedergeben darf-, wie ein sehr reicher Mann einmal zu mir kam und erklärte: »Ich bin wirklich sehr, sehr betroffen von dem, was Sie sagen, und möchte dies und das Problem lösen« - Sie wissen schon, all das dumme Zeug, von dem die Leute so reden. Ich antwortete ihm: »Ist gut, mein Herr, lassen Sie uns näher darauf eingehen«, und wir fingen an, darüber zu sprechen. Er kam noch ein paarmal, aber dann, nach der zweiten Woche, kam er und sagte: »Ich habe schreckliche Träume, angstmachende Träume, mir ist so, als würde alles um mich herum verschwinden, alles und jedes von mir gehen« ; und dann erklärte er: »Das kommt wahrscheinlich von meinen Selbstbetrachtungen. Jetzt habe ich gemerkt, wie

gefährlich das ist!« Daraufhin ist er nie mehr wiedergekommen.
Wir alle möchten sicher sein; wir alle möchten in unserer kümmerlichen kleinen Welt ungefährdet dahinleben, dieser Welt der wohlgeregelten Ordnung, die doch nichts als Unordnung ist, dieser Welt der von uns geschaffenen Beziehungen, die wir nicht gestört sehen möchten - der Beziehung etwa zwischen Frau und Mann, in der sie sich aneinander klammern, in der Elend, Mißtrauen, Angst herrschen, die von Gefahren, Eifersucht, Ärger, Herrschsucht bestimmt ist.
Es gibt eine Möglichkeit, ohne Angst, ohne Gefahr in uns selbst hineinzuschauen; nämlich ohne jede
Mißbilligung, ohne jede Selbstrechtfertigung, einfach nur zu schauen, nicht zu interpretieren, nicht zu urteilen, nicht zu werten. Um das tun zu können, muß unser Geist bei seiner Beobachtung dessen, was wirklich da ist, lernbegierig sein. Wo liegt die Gefahr bei dem »Was ist«? Die Menschen sind gewalttätig; das ist's, »was wirklich ist«. Und die Gefahr, die sie in diese Welt gebracht haben, ist das Resultat dieser Gewalttätigkeit, ist das Ergebnis der Angst. Was soll daran gefährlich sein, dies zu beobachten und zu versuchen, diese Angst vollständig aus der Welt zu schaffen? Eine andere Gesellschaft, andere Werte zustande zu bringen? Es liegt eine große Schönheit in der Beobachtung, im Schauen der Dinge, so wie sie sind, psychisch, innerlich. Was nicht bedeutet, die Dinge einfach
so hinzunehmen, wie sie sind, auch nicht, das »was ist« zurückzuweisen oder etwas daran machen zu wollen. Die Wahrnehmung dessen, »was ist«, bringt schon dessen Verwandlung mit sich. Aber dazu muß einer die Kunst des Schauens beherrschen, und die Kunst des Schauens ist nicht eine besondere Kunst der Innenschau oder der Analyse, nein, es ist einfach ein Beobachten, ohne eine Wahl zu treffen.

[FJ: Gibt es nicht auch eine spontane Angst?

[KJ: Würden Sie so etwas Angst nennen? Wenn Sie wissen, daß Feuer weh tut, wenn Sie einen Abgrund vor sich sehen, ist es Angst, davon wegzuspringen? Wenn Sie ein wildes Tier erblicken, eine Schlange - sich zurückzuziehen, ist das Angst? Oder ist es Intelligenz? Solche Intelligenz kann das Ergebnis einer Verhaltensprägung sein, durch die Sie auf die Gefahren eines Abgrundes reagie- ren. Wäre es nicht so, dann könnten Sie fallen, und das wäre Ihr Ende. Ihre Intelligenz weist Sie an, vorsichtig zu sein. Ist diese Intelligenz Angst? Aber ist es Intelligenz, die am Werke ist, wenn wir uns in Nationalitäten, in religiöse Gruppen aufspalten? Wenn wir solche Trennungen zwischen Ihnen und mir, uns und denen da schaffen: Ist das Intelligenz? Was bei solchen Trennungen am Werke ist,
was Gefahren heraufbeschwört, was Menschen voneinander trennt, was zu Kriegen führt: Ist das Intelligenz oder ist das Angst? Es ist Angst, nicht Intelligenz! Mit anderen Worten: Wir haben uns zerteilt: Ein Teil handelt da, wo es nötig ist, intelligent, etwa wenn wir einen Abgrund umgehen oder einem Bus ausweichen; aber wir sind nicht intelligent genug, um die Gefahren des Nationalismus zu erkennen, die Gefahren der Trennung zwischen den Menschen. So ist also ein Teil von uns - ein sehr kleiner Teil - intelligent, der ganze Rest ist es nicht. Wo aber Zerteilung ist, da entstehen unweigerlich Konflikte, da entsteht Elend. Der eigentliche Grund der Konflikte ist die Trennung, der Widerspruch in uns selbst. Dieser Widerspruch ist nicht zu integrieren. Es ist eine unserer besonderen Eigenarten, daß wir uns selbst integrieren müssen. Ich weiß nicht, was das wirklich bedeutet. Wer soll denn das sein, der die beiden getrennten, entgegengesetzten Wesensarten integrieren könnte? Ist denn der Integrierende nicht selbst Teil dieser Trennung? Wenn man jedoch all das in seiner Ganzheit schaut, wenn man diese Wahrnehmung hat, ohne irgendeine Wahl zu treffen - dann gibt es keine Trennung mehr.

[F]: Besteht irgendein Unterschied zwischen richtigem Denken und richtigem Tun?

[K]: Wenn Sie dieses Wort »richtig« hier verwenden, für das Denken und das Tun, dann ist das, was
Sie da tun, kein »richtiges«, sondern »unrichtiges« Tun - nicht wahr? Wenn Sie dieses Wort
»richtig« verwenden, dann haben Sie bereits eine Vorstellung davon, was richtig ist. Und wenn Sie eine Vorstellung davon haben, was »richtig« ist, dann ist es sogleich »unrichtig«, denn dieses » rich- tig« basiert auf Ihren Vorurteilen, auf ihrer Konditionierung, auf Ihren Ängsten, auf Ihrer Kultur, auf Ihrer Gesellschaft, auf Ihren besonderen Eigenheiten, Sorgen, religiösen Sanktionen und so weiter. Sie besitzen die Norm, das Muster, aber dies Muster ist in sich selbst unrichtig, es ist unmoralisch. Die gesellschaftliche Moral ist unmoralisch. Stimmen Sie dem zu? Wenn ja, dann haben Sie damit die gesellschaftliche Moral verworfen, die aus Habsucht, Neid, Ehrgeiz besteht, aus Nationalismus, Klassenstolz und all dem übrigen. Aber haben Sie das tatsächlich getan, wenn Sie ja sagen? Die gesellschaftliche Moral ist unmoralisch - meinen Sie das wirklich? Oder sind das bloße Worte? Sehen Sie, mein Herr, wirklich moralisch, rechtschaffen zu sein, das ist eines der außer- gewöhnlichsten Dinge im Leben. Und zu begreifen, daß Moral überhaupt nichts zu tun hat mit sozialem, auf die Umgebung bezogenem Verhalten. Man muß frei sein, um wirklich rechtschaffen sein zu können, und Sie sind nicht frei, wenn Sie der gesellschaftlichen Moral der Habsucht, des Neides, des Konkurrenzkampfs, der Anbetung des Erfolges nacheifern - all der Dinge, die, wie Sie wissen, von Kirche und Gesellschaft als moralisch herausgestellt werden.

[Fj: Sollen wir darauf warten, daß dies geschieht, oder gibt es irgendeine Regel, eine Disziplin, die wir dazu anwenden können?

[Kj: Brauchen wir eine Disziplin, um einzusehen, daß Schauen Handeln ist? Brauchen wir das wirklich?

[Fj: Könnten Sie etwas über die Stille des Geistes sagen? Ist sie die Folge von Disziplin oder nicht? [KJ: Sehen Sie, mein Herr: Ein Soldat bei einer Parade, der ist doch sehr ruhig, kerzengerade, das

Gewehr ganz genau im Griff; so ist er gedrillt worden, Tag für Tag, Tag für Tag; jede Freiheit ist ihm zunichte gemacht worden. Er ist ganz ruhig; doch ist das Ruhe? Oder wenn ein Kind in ein Spiel versunken ist-ist das Ruhe? Nehmen Sie ihm das Spielzeug weg, und das Kind wird wieder, was es ist. Wird also Disziplin (begreifen Sie das, mein Herr, ein für allemal, es ist so einfach), wird Disziplin Ruhe zustande bringen? Sie bringt vielleicht Schwerfälligkeit, eine gewisse Stagnation, aber bringt sie eine Ruhe zustande, die intensiv tätig und dennoch Ruhe ist?

[Fj: Herr Krishnamurti, was möchten Sie, das wir Menschen hier in dieser Welt tun?

[Kj: Ganz einfach, mein Herr: Ich möchte gar nichts. Das ist das erste. Das zweite: Leben Sie, leben Sie in dieser Welt! Diese Welt ist so wunderbar schön. Es ist unsere Welt, unsere Erde, auf der wir leben können. Aber wir leben nicht, wir sind engstirnige, wir sind entfremdete, wir sind sorgenvolle, wir sind furchtsame Menschenwesen, und daher leben wir nicht, wir haben keine wirklichen Bezie- hungen, wir sind isolierte, verzweifelnde Menschenwesen. Wir wissen nicht, was es bedeutet, auf jene ekstatische, glückliche Weise zu leben. Ich sage, so kann man nur leben, wenn man weiß, wie man von all dem Stumpfsinn seines Daseins frei werden kann. Davon frei zu werden ist nur möglich, wenn man sich seiner Beziehungen bewußt wird, nicht nur zu anderen Menschen, sondern auch zu Ideen, zur Natur, zu allem und jedem. In diesem Beziehungsgefüge entdeckt man, was man ist, seine Ängste, Sorgen, seine Verzweiflung, seine Einsamkeit, seinen völligen Mangel an Liebe. Jeder ist

voll von Theorien, Worten, Wissen darüber, was andere gesagt haben; doch über uns selbst wissen wir nichts, und daher wissen wir nicht zu leben.

[Fj: Wie erklären Sie sich die verschiedenen Bewußtseinsebenen im Hinblick auf das menschliche Gehirn? Das Gehirn ist ja offensichtlich eine physische Angelegenheit, der Geist hingegen scheint doch keine physische Gegebenheit zu sein. Mehr noch: Der Geist hat anscheinend einen bewußten und einen unbewußten Teil. Wie können wir in all diese verschiedenen Vorstellungen eine gewisse Klarheit bringen?

[Kj: Was ist der Unterschied zwischen dem Geist und dem Gehirn? Geht es darum, mein Herr? Das physische Gehirn, wie es ist, Resultat der Vergangenheit, Ergebnis der Evolution, vieler tausend gestriger Tage, mit all seinen Erinnerungen, seinem Wissen und seinen Erfahrungen - ist dies Gehirn nicht Teil des gesamten Geistes? Des Geistes, in dem es eine bewußte Ebene und die unbewußte Ebene gibt? Das Physische ebenso wie das Nicht-Physische, das Psychische, ist nicht all das ein Ganzes? Und sind es nicht wir, die es in das Bewußte und das Unbewußte, das Gehirn und das Nicht-Gehirn aufgeteilt haben? Können wir nicht das Ganze als eine Gesamtheit sehen, die ungeteilt ist?

Ist das Unbewußte denn so sehr verschieden von dem Bewußten? Ist es nicht vielmehr Teil des Gesamten, das wir aufgeteilt haben? Woraus sich die Frage ergibt: Wie kann der bewußte Geist des Unbewußten bewußt werden? Kann das Positive, das Tätige - das, was den ganzen Tag über an der Arbeit ist -, das Unbewußte beobachten?
Ich weiß nicht, ob uns Zeit bleibt, hierauf noch weiter einzugehen. Sind Sie nicht schon müde? Reduzieren Sie dies hier bitte nicht zu einem Unterhaltungsabend: man sitzt in einem netten, warmen Raum und hört einer Stimme zu... Wir behandeln hier sehr ernsthafte Dinge, und wenn Sie mitgearbeitet haben - wie Sie sollten -, müßten Sie jetzt eigentlich müde sein. Das Gehirn kann nur eine bestimmte Menge aufnehmen, und auf diese Frage nach dem Unbewußten und dem Bewußten einzugehen, erfordert einen sehr wachen und klaren Geist. Ich bezweifle sehr, daß Sie nach diesen anderthalb Stunden dazu noch imstande sind. Dürfen wir also, wenn Sie einverstanden sind, diese
Frage ein andermal aufgreifen?

London, 16. März 1969

Complete Incarnation - Rubén Feldman González (extract)

2011-11-25T20:04:00.000Z

Ruben Feldman Gonzalez: Unitary Perception is by definition, “To perceive everything perceptible at the same time, without expectation, which is thought, without effort, and without haste, which is also thought, but to perceive everything perceptible, like energy, is not a product of thought.

Listening to sound is not a product of thought, listening is not thought.

Not listening to something, but just listening. It’s not a product of thought. And seeing the totality of the visual field, you know, colour, movement… is not a product of thought; and what matters is not what we see but rather the seeing itself, which is not a product of thought.

And we’re not listening to something, see? We are listening to the totality of sound at the same time, it’s not a product of thought. And the weight?… to feel the weight of the body?
Lets do this as we talk, please… To feel the weight of the body, on the chair, under the feet, (inaudible), at the level of the shoulders, see, AT THE SAME TIME, WEIGHT, WEIGHT.

This glass here has weight, it’s obvious it has weight. At the same time not only see the weight of things, but perceive the weight of the body, that’s not a product of thought. A product of thought is when you say, “that’s a glass” or “I’m going to listen to the traffic”, or “I weigh 180 pounds,” that’s a product of thought. But if you simply listen, with no content of word… and if you say car (noise of traffic can be heard outside), that’s a product of thought. To listen to the sound of traffic, within the brain, which is where it is heard, then that is not a product of thought.

And then, because of that, you enter a different precinct of brain functioning, which I call B, B functioning of the brain or Unitary Perception, with its own laws.

It is never repeated, it is never boring because of that, it is always fresh, it is peaceful, it gives you freedom, it gives you energy. It is not a product of thought, it is not cyclical, it is not repetitive, not dual, you know… “I like it, I don’t like it” no, because the observer is not intervening in observation. It’s sheer observation with no imagination.
And then, “the car went by… ” that’s thought, but… if you just listened to the noise of whatever happened there, the noise, the pristine noise, (of the bottle in this case), in the brain, that is not a product of thought. It has its own laws, independent of the laws of thought, which are, again you know… cyclical, thought is cyclical, same as memory, same as sleep, same as hunger, same as thirst, same as sex some people say.

Thought is cyclical, repetitive, conflictual, unconscious 99 %, incoherent, ruled by duality, contradiction and paradox, etc.

So this, Unitary Perception, is not cyclical. You say bird (a seagull can be heard), but that is not a cyclical thing, you listen to the bird right here, because you’re completely here listening, ah… that’s not a product of thought! And it can be done as the foundation of action of whatever you do: taking a shower, going to work, driving, work… whatever you do, going to sleep, staying in bed, feeling the weight of the body; listening, even with closed eyes… seeing the totality of the visual field, even with closed eyes.
And all this seems so silly. Nevertheless, it is the most important thing of life because it opens the narrow gate of the totality of brain functioning!
Am I answering, Paul?