The dialogue session began with questions around being watched by others which includes an impression of self-consciousness. This led us to consider the difference between self-consciousness and self-awareness. When we say we are watching ourselves or others, is there a sense of a “watcher” present? Are we judging ourselves or are we attempting to figure out how to be better than what we are? Pushing our questioning further: is there a fear of somehow getting it wrong or “contaminating” our observation with our conditioned mind?

Do we have an invisible or unconscious drive towards wholeness, perhaps without an acknowledgment of our innate fragmentation? If this is innate, then how can there be freedom from this deeply conditioned state? Is our immediate attention whole? Is there an interest in noticing our inattention? Can there be complete attention to whatever psychological movement occurs?

The usual state of the mind is inattentive, and yet this mind appears to be in a state of knowing. Is attention then, a state of not knowing?

• Jackie McInley

One of the participants, recalling what had been said at the last dialogue meeting at the Swanwick Centre, brought up the question as to what it might mean to embody the emptiness or nothingness that K considers of such central importance in human transformation and wholeness. This topic was instantly embraced by the group, and we went extensively into it.

The context in which this topic appears in the teachings is in the emptying of consciousness of its content, which is how K defines meditation, something he said his teachings are from beginning to end.

First, not all content is meant to be emptied, since knowledge is still necessary, as without memory and knowledge we could not function. So what K means to empty is what he calls psychological memory, which refers to the experiences formed around the psychological entity or self. K wants to empty them because they are factors of fragmentation both outwardly in relationship as well as inwardly. Essentially what he proposes to dissolve is the self, which he considers to be an illusion.

An illusion is something false. As the essence of the psychological self is identification, one way to empty consciousness or dissolve the self would be to see that its identifications are illusory. The perception of the false dissolves the self. Which means that the ‘I am’ has no object. Does that statement of being still support the psychological self? Because the self can also be built on setting itself up against something else, which struggle strengthens its identity.

Linguistically we may need the notion of an ‘I’ to distinguish one agent from another, as action comes from someone and goes to someone or something. But this distinction is purely descriptive and has no further implications. It becomes dangerous when the identifications are taken to be of the essence of being, therefore absolute, which they are not. This assumption of absoluteness or permanence is a major factor of division, conflict and sorrow in the world.

The perception of the limitation of knowledge, and therefore the inherent limitation of all psychological identification, opens a gap between the self-referential movement of identity and the constant flux and renewal of life. It is this gap in the perception of the danger of identity as identification, fragmentation and anachronism – because whatever we identify with is necessarily in the past – that we encounter the needful emptiness, namely the emptiness of self.

This emptiness of self is absolutely necessary if we are to relate without division, if we are to be in contact with what is. So our wholeness does depend, both inwardly and outwardly, on the emptiness or nothingness of the psychological content of consciousness. As St. John of the Cross had said, in order to come to the unknown, we must way by way of not-knowing. That applies not just to the ultimate truth, which is unknown, but to the immediacy of life, which implies that the wholeness of life speaks to the wholeness of being.

K had been clear that emptying consciousness meant both the conscious and the deeper or unconscious layers, which raised serious concerns as to the potential danger of opening that pandora’s box. It seemed clear that this very unconscious had been created by our attempt to banish the undesirable aspects of our personalities from conscious awareness. As long as we do this, the dungeons of consciousness will be full, keeping consciousness perennially busy with itself because it must be on its guard against the repressed content that it fears.

This division, however, has been created by judgement, by calling the shadow side ‘evil’ and then condemning it. This is an essential aspect of our psychological duality which has been encouraged and sustained by religious culture and social morality, which imposes on the self the task of controlling the condemned aspects of itself. So in the name of virtue, goodness and truth, the self becomes its own jailer. And, as the saying goes, a house divided cannot stand.

What would happen if we removed the jailer and the judge? What if we observed emptiness without labeling it as good or bad? What if we approached the whole content of our consciousness with choiceless awareness? Would such clear-sighted and non-dualistic perception liberate us from fear and allow the suppressed content to undergo a profound transformation so that its energy flows as one in the light of intelligence?

In relation to doing this, the question of the difference between intention and intent arose. Intention, it was proposed, is the exercise of will in the search for a preconceived or projected result, which biases observation and perpetuates judgement, as it necessitates measurement. This energy is destructive, for it divides.

Intent arises from the perception of a real question to which we don’t have an answer. Intent is the flame of discontent that opens the way to pure perception and creative discovery. Its energy is not derived from the pursuit of a goal but from the perception of what is out of order. That’s why K’s approach is negative.

We have tried to empty consciousness through suppression of its undesirable content and it’s clear that whatever we suppress does not disappear but is stored away in memory. It only disappears from the immediate purview of the conscious self, but it persists unconsciously. Nothing we suppress is forgotten. It is just kept out of conscious awareness.

The awareness of the inherent limitation, fragmentation and divisiveness of self-centered thought is the factor that suspends the censor responsible for the conscious/unconscious, me/not me duality. This suspension is itself the factor of emptying. The perception of the falseness of control allows the content of consciousness to be revealed and emptied. This is essential if there is to be the quality of inward freedom, with its intelligence and compassion.

This, K might say, is the way of learning, the way to live.

This was a fitting note on which to end the facilitator’s residency at Swanwick Centre. He thanked everyone for their kindness and said he might see them again next year.

Javier Gómez Rodríguez

The facilitator was asked to make an introduction about K and the teachings, as there were two new people, a young couple, in attendance. This brief introduction was much appreciated.

The facilitator then explained that normally such meetings would begin with a reading of one of the daily K quotes from The Book of Life, but that no such text had been selected this time, so it was up to the participants to come up with questions we could inquire into together.

One of the issues that came up was the question as to how we deal with pain, physical and psychological. It was said that physically pain is part of the body’s intelligence. It functions as an alarm signal that something is wrong. Psychologically pain functions differently. Psychological pain is produced by thought through the reproduction or projection of images of pain. K attributes psychological hurt to the self-image.

One of the participants happened to suffer from chronic pain caused by a dental condition. Ironically, this dental problem had been caused by a dentist, so she was now looking into what to do about it, as she hesitated to go back to the dentist. Such chronic pain is not easy to live with, and it can affect the brain. It was indicated that there are psychological techniques to handle such pain without having to resort to pharmaceutical solutions.

Psychological pain occurs mostly in relationship. We all want relationship and love, and we all experience heartbreak and loneliness. One participant shared that he felt that he had never had a real relationship. He did feel lonely and dreamed of having a relationship, but his past experiences made him wary of it. Besides, he was now old and very aware of his own weaknesses and shortcomings, so who could possibly be interested in a relationship with him?

It was pointed out that relationship is a mirror in which we can see ourselves. Relationship offers an external reflection of what we are. The question is whether we can be honest with each other and with ourselves regarding what the mirror reveals and whether we are willing to face it and go deeper into it. This is the way of self-knowledge.

It was then pointed out that relationship is not the only mirror, for consciousness is constantly revealing itself to itself. So self-knowledge implies the self-awareness of consciousness as it projects its own content inwardly. This is one aspect of what might be called ‘meditation’.

We all take love to be the essence of relationship. K approaches it negatively, namely by discarding its false aspects. For him the negation of the false is the birth of the true. He says that love is not attachment, desire, pleasure, dependence, possessiveness, jealousy or even thought, for thought is behind all these false aspects of love. The quintessence of this negative approach is the statement that love is when the self is not.

The self is the movement of becoming and in its ending there is being. This being is not yours or mine, so there is no separation, division and conflict, which deny love. Then the wheel of misfortune generated by our false assumptions of what love is stops spinning and we can relate differently with each other and bring about a new culture and a peaceful world.

Javier Gómez Rodríguez