A friend sent this K quote yesterday. At one time I seemed to be totally in love with his teaching or non-teaching, which I am sure he would prefer. I think I read almost all of his books and watched many hours of his recorded video talks. But I, like a lot of other so-called seekers, really didn’t understand exactly what he was saying or pointing to. And I still don’t! Now I know there are lots of so-called K experts that attempt to explain what he was saying, and I am in no way belittling anything they might say. However, I think the very fact that he couldn’t really be understood was what seemed so compelling about what he said… that, and the fact that there was finality to his words that somehow seemed irrefutably true. It’s funny, but Wikipedia and others classify his non-teaching as philosophy. And I think he might cringe at that label. For me his words were more like good poetry, or Leonard Cohen’s songs:; one didn’t really understand what’s being said but somehow loved to listen to or read it anyway. – J. Krishnamurti Commentaries on Living Series I Chapter 41 Awareness “Problems will always exist where the activities of the self are dominant. To be aware which are and which are not the activities of the self needs constant vigilance. This vigilance is not disciplined attention, but an extensive awareness which is choiceless. Disciplined attention gives strength to the self; it becomes a substitute and a dependence. Awareness, on the other hand, is not self-induced, nor is it the outcome of practice; it is understanding the whole content of the problem, the hidden as well as the superficial. The surface must be understood for the hidden to show itself; the hidden cannot be exposed if the surface mind is not quiet. This whole process is not verbal, nor is it a matter of mere experience. Verbalization indicates dullness of mind; and experience, being cumulative, makes for repetitiousness. Awareness is not a matter of determination, for purposive direction is resistance, which tends towards exclusiveness. Awareness is the silent and choiceless observation of what is; in this awareness the problem unrolls itself, and thus it is fully and completely understood. A problem is never solved on its own level; being complex, it must be understood in its total process. To try to solve a problem on only one level, physical or psychological, leads to further conflict and confusion. For the resolution of a problem, there must be this awareness, this passive alertness which reveals its total process.”  

A Gathering with Ravi   Murmurs hover over steaming mugs of tea in the main house as people gather for the next adventure in truth (a path less land according to Krishnamurti)   It’s tough going at times, listening to Krishnamurti’s recordings – a compact yet intensely vehement man from another era, so brisk in his delivery. The complimentary dimension that Ravi Ravindra brings offers a gentle intelligence and humble insight into how Krishnamurti’s words have impacted his own awareness and perceptions.   The implications I take away are simple but not obvious. Integrating Krishnamurti’s pointers with my own experience I take the following away from this exceptional retreat:   Give authority to nobody when it comes to spiritual intelligence – my inner senses will take me to a natural essential experience of truth   Freedom comes when I am able to detach from my mental/emotional history – the stories, feelings and symbols that enshroud my pure essence   Release from these entanglements is effortless, through quiet observation of my inner world and fearless acknowledgement of the thoughts and judgements I hold about the ‘me’ I think I am   In the light of awareness the false sense of self dissolves – leaving me here in the now with truth and divinity   Thank you to Ravi Ravindra, to Krishnamurti and to Swanwick for this oasis of reflection and insight!     Other musings emerging during the retreat…     Still Embrace   God finds his way through the stillness   Emerging drenched in life in the chatter of a songbird – or — in the new rings of an old oak tree   Stillness waits, expecting nothing, but revelling in its gentle dance with love-imbued forms   Like the earth under Buddha’s tender feet after finding enlightenment, the creations around us can only thrive and blossom when gazed upon from our still awareness   Even the nest of old bricks – men’s work – reverberate with life in the quiet embrace of Swanwick’s hidden places  

The Olympic Games are in full swing and this morning someone said … “Hey good news, we won!” My reply was, “What did we win?” “The hockey game!” Came the response. She then asked if I followed the Olympics. I said, no not really, I tend not to have any interest in team competition. From here especially agressive team competition is divisive and tends to divide people leading to all kinds of other conflict, violence and  even war. I like to fly over different apparent countries and see if I can see any dotted lines in the landscape to separate one country from another. This brought up the subject of “pride”. I tried to explain that if one identifies with a country, a race, a cause and especially one’s personality, then pride will rear its ugly head and cause conflict. And I am emphatically not against any sport or competing per se, it is all part of what is at the moment, and it’s all good. Later I goggled J. Krishnamurti links on this website and found this quote. K went far deeper into this subject and most of his talks and writings centred on the apparent conflict caused by identifying with the apparent “I” or self of the personality – with most of the conflict being seemingly internal, rather than external or “out there.” “Man has accepted conflict as an innate part of daily existence because he has accepted competition, jealousy, greed, acquisitiveness and aggression as a natural way of life. When we accept such a way of life we accept the structure of society as it is and live within the pattern of respectability. And that is what most of us are caught in because most of us want to be terribly respectable. When we examine our own minds and hearts, the way we think, the way we feel and how we act in our daily lives, we observe that as long as we conform to the pattern of society, life must be a battlefield.” Jiddu Krishnamurti – Freedom from the Known  

Another notion in philosophy and science concerns the nature of the “observer.”     Who “observes” or knows Existence exists?     The only one to know or define Existence must be Itself. Anything that is not Existence Itself doesn’t exist to know anything! The starting point can be only Existence, Being Itself. And It doesn’t really start with Itself, for there never has been a stop. As Existence Itself is all that exists as Pure Consciousness, It really never is being observed by a separate mind or consciousness, for there isn’t one.     Not even Existence, Consciousness, observes Itself as is sometimes believed, for all observation would occur only in the realm of the “sense-mind” and time, which is non-being. To give consideration to non-being or what it claims to observe, would be foolhardy labor in the labyrinth of the intellect – which itself never stops moving in time – and would be only more of the same non-existence. Being never is known by non-being.     The term “self-referral” is sometimes used, but not even that is accurate. Re-ferral means to know again, also implying time, non-being. Thanks to Existence being Conscious, Alive Intelligence, It “knows” It is by cognizantly or knowingly being. Its Absoluteness leaves no room for question or doubt, no impulse for investigation.     There can be no approach to Existence, no differing theories. There is no wrong approach, nor a correct one, for there is no approach to All, and none to approach It.     So-called finite human thinking , whose very basis would be time, cause and effect, can’t accept that Being just is, alone, without a reason or cause, without an observer. Yet the would be finite observer functioning in time is the one that never is, hence is entirely false.     There is no point at which Divine Love, the Existence I Am, comes to an end – and nowhere does non-existence begin to be. That’s worth repeating – for it means literally is no end to the Love I Am. My Infinitely Present Being, thus all of Existence, consists only of the endless reach of unconditionally present, unrestrainable, un-shut-off-able Love. Love Is What Existence Is These two words aren’t seen in the same sentence too often. What exactly is this sentence saying? Love is what Existence is. It isn’t saying Love is in Existence. It isn’t saying Love fills all of Existence. It’s saying Love Itself is what Existence is. It’s not talking about what seems to be seen, by way of the eye, what seems to be felt by way of the touch or by way of an emotion; or anything seemingly experienced by the five senses or thought. It’s saying Love. And Love is another way of saying this Purity…this Unconditional-ness with which Self’s Pure Presence is freely, unstoppably, unwitholdably, present as Harmony, Oneness, Peace, Bliss, Warmth, All that is. What Love is to Itself. Not to another, but what Love is as Its own Presence only. This is what Existence is. Now, on what basis is this being said? How can this be? First of all, does Existence really exist? Let’s get real basic with this. Do you honestly truly exist? And if you do, as what do you truly exist? How do you exist? And How do you know for certain? In fact is there actually another to accept or reject that Existence is now existent? Is it something that is up to a personal thinking mind or a personality? The simple fact that you know the question is being asked means you exist. Existence or Consciousness has to be or there would be no consciousness of anything, not even the question. It certainly is clear now that there is such a thing as being. One must admit that one is now aware…that Awareness is aware. And that one, by the way is not a person or personality. It is Awareness Itself being this presently existing awareness. Put it this way. One could not be presently aware as that which does not exist. So, there it is. And a thought might come, with some of these sayings… “Am I a man dreaming or am I a dream dreaming I am a man?” Actually, neither one of those two. Neither man nor a dream is this presently aware Aliveness, here now. Pure Being Itself. A man or a dream would be just two finite things one appears to sense or seemingly is aware of. Experienced by way of the mind and time. And it’s entirely thanks to the fact that Consciousness is or exists that even one could even mention man or dream One must also admit the fact that only Consciousness is. Nothing else can genuinely be, because nothing else is present. Nothing or no thing in time, nothing in any dream appearance, or nothing seeming relative or finite, or that which is-not. What the deeper meaning is, is that Existence is, Love Is, Consciousness is, All is. Existence is NOT inclusive of time or dream characters…they have no existence!  Existence or Love is preclusive of any relative, time-bound is-not-ness.                    Excerpt from Chapter 19 ‘Love is what Existence Is’ in Consciousness Is All by Peter Francis Dziuban        

To say, “Do a freedom inquiry” sounds like an oxymoron.

 Real freedom is just that—free—and doesn’t require or involve inquiry in order to be free. In one sense, inquiry itself even could be said to be a kind of bondage to thought, and a form of separation.

 To inquire is to question. And to question is to quest—to seek an answer. Yet the very premise of nonduality is that there is no separate self to seek, to quest, or be a questioner.

 So how is “freedom inquiry” meant here?

It is meant as a variation from most traditional forms of inquiry, and that variation is the subject of this post.
 First, consider traditional inquiry. Despite what is said above, traditional inquiry is an extremely valuable tool in nonduality—perhaps the most valuable. It could be argued that the very act of thinking and inquiring seems to create a secondary or separate self. Yet the purpose of inquiry is to see through that very notion—that there could be separation of any kind, including a separate inquirer.

 Thus inquiry, in its highest form, is designed to make itself obsolete.

 Perhaps the “most freeing” inquiry is one that sees through the illusion of time and a past—resulting in the clarity that the very inquiry itself actually never happened! 

In nonduality, the traditional use of inquiry is to closely examine the nature of experience.

 There are many varieties, and they have been well documented. A few the most well-known are “self-inquiry” as attributed to Ramana Maharshi, which investigates the personal “I-thought.” There also is Krishna Menon’s Atma Darshan which is an inquiry into direct experience. Nisargadatta’s work was in many ways a form of inquiry. There are the Buddhist emptiness teachings, in particular the inquiries of Nagarjuna. And there are more.
 This post is not an attempt to elaborate on those—because that has been done already, and by experts.

 Notice again however, that in most cases the examination, the inquiry, is directed toward experience.

 Usually the inquiry is directed toward what appears to be a form—whether that form be a so-called material object, or a mental object, such as a thought.

 The purpose of traditional inquiry is to see through the illusion that there are separate material objects, and it deconstructs “objects” to show they are nothing other than mere thought and sensation, or mentation. Inquiry then goes further to see that not even what seem to be thoughts or sensations exist as separate entities.

 What is called “self inquiry” on the other hand is devoted more to examining, and ultimately seeing through, the false notion of there being a separate self, ego, or personal “I.” It results in seeing that there really is no such entity—other than temporary arising thoughts.
 n the book, Consciousness Is All, there is an example of inquiry into a so-called material object (an “apple”) in Chap. 13 which shows there is no “apple” as a stand-alone object separate from thought—and then it goes on to discuss what that means. Chap. 14 walks through an inquiry into why “body” and “brain” are not solid, separate objects either. There also is an inquiry into the nature of “I” in Chap. 4, showing that if such a term as “I” is used, it really is pointing back to Infinity—and that the personal-body-sense of “I” is an apparent finitizing of Infinity. Chapters 13 and 4 are free here on Writings page of http://www.consciousnessisall.com/. If you’ve not had much experience with traditional inquiry, it is suggested that you look into the examples mentioned above, so that inquiry leads to “conscious experience” and unshakeable clarity, rather than staying only on the level of this intellectual description. Must any of these types of inquiry be practiced by Life Itself? Does Life need to inquire or see through anything before It will be freely alive? Of course not. However, as long as one still seems to have a body/mind that deals with what appears to be a world—any inquiry that dissolves the seeming sense of separation is useful and valuable. It may take practice—digging and working through questions—but that very practice is what keeps a false sense of separation from taking over (and it’s only a sense). Often there is merely an “intellectual agreement” that there are no objects, nothing separate, because it sounds spiritually correct. But when push comes to shove in daily experience, the sense of separation can rear up and run the show, because it hasn’t been adequately seen through. The point, and ideally, the result of this traditional form of inquiry is what might be called freedom. It is a freedom from illusion, misconceptions and false beliefs, and basically what would amount to any kind of so-called physical, mental or emotional bondage. Another term for this freedom might be called openness—which gets to the point of this post.   If inquiry is something with which you have some familiarity, have you ever “turned it around”? Instead of inquiring into the apparent, or what is called “experience”—have you ever started with freedom and inquired, “What’s true here?”
 What is it to start from, or start as, freedom, and inquire, “What is this?”
It is similar to saying, “What is a pure Presence inquiry, as compared to an experience inquiry? What is a formlessness inquiry, instead of an inquiry into apparent form? Is there anything that even can be said, or inquired into? Why not find out?

 So, again, just what is pure freedom? Not—“What is freedom to ‘me’ or to my thoughts about freedom.”

Rather, what is freedom to freedom?

 What is the nature of freedom itself?

Perhaps in response a thought arises, “Freedom has no nature.”

There you go. You are off and running on your inquiry.

 Sometimes this is met with one of those snappy intellectual retorts such as, “Freedom or openness can’t be reduced to inquiry or confined to something knowable. That’s why it’s called freedom or openness. So why try to inquire? If freedom were knowable, that would be getting conceptual—which is not freedom.” That is precisely the point here.

 A freedom inquiry isn’t supposed to lead to more concepts. It is exactly the opposite.

 In doing a freedom inquiry, the key is to not answer with thought.

 The “taste” itself is the only “answer.”
 A freedom inquiry is not even intended to lead to a “deeper realization” or “deeper seeing”—although these are inevitable by-products.

 A freedom inquiry keeps one consciously busy or alive as freedom. Freedom is NOT a mere mental abstraction. Freedom is consciously alive stuff! 

As much as we like to say we’re living a nondual life with minimal sense of separation, a lot of that sense often still clings in ways we don’t even realize. A freedom inquiry seems to dissolve a sense of separation in a way different from experience inquiry—because one cannot be consciously functioning as freedom and simultaneously be experiencing separation.

 For example, if the net result of traditional inquiry is freedom from a false sense of separation—specifically what is this?

 Exactly what is “no separation”?

 Not—what is “no separation” when thought about.

Rather, what is “no separation” lived.

Where there is no false sense of separation, what “remains”? Anything?

 Seeing through an illusion of separation doesn’t result in non-existence.

 Certainly, Life is still alive.

 So, what is this, as itself, right here?

 Has the visual sense ever seen Life Itself? Has anyone ever touched or smelled or even thought Life? No. Yet here Life is.
 What is this?

“ Life is alive. It is aliveness,” the response may come. But do not settle for merely that thought. “Taste” it as consciously alive stuff.

 As aliveness is being “tasted” or “alive’d” notice how aliveness and its alive-ing cannot be separated.

 Stop and notice, taste, feel, be alive as, how this “no separation” of aliveness has also no evidence of borders, no boundaries.

 To have borders or boundaries would be separation, or division.

 So “no separation” is the same as un-divide-able.

 Un-divide-able in this sense does not mean having something that is so big or powerful that it cannot be divided.

 Un-divide-able means having no thing there to be divided in the first place!

 It equally means there is no one to try to do any dividing.

 There is just endless “un-divide-able-ness” as consciously alive stuff.
 Once this is clear, rather than repeatedly starting from the apparent and working or seeing that there’s really no separation, no dividing—what is it to start directly as “alive un-divide-able-ness” and taste or be this?

 This un-divide-able-ness again, is a kind of alive openness, an alive seamlessness, or freedom.

 Can a point be found where the taste of alive un-divide-able-ness ends, and a separate taster begins?

 If so, where is the border? What is it made of? Can a border even be found?

 Right now, is it possible to divide or separate this alive openness in half, so there are two alive opennesses, two presences?

 If so, how far is one from the other? Where is each one located—in order to know one is separate from the other? In fact, is there any physical distance here?

 How would one half be distinguished from the other half? What would be its qualities? Can there even be said to be any qualities?

 Notice again and see if it is possible to find a point where alive openness ends, and where a separate noticer or taster of alive openness begins? If there is a separation, how far are they from each other?

 A lot is said in nonduality about the arising of forms of experience—the arising of transient thoughts, the arising of transient sensations, arising emotions, etc.

 Notice closely. Can aliveness, openness, also be said to be an arising?
 It may seem as if aliveness “arises” at the instant it is “noticed.” But does this mean that aliveness has suddenly come into existence from non-existence? Can anything come from non-existence? Can there even be such a thing or state as non-existence? If there were, it wouldn’t be non-existent! 

Or is it that alive openness was apparently being temporarily “ignored” due to entertaining some sense of separation? 
 Notice in your experience how this focusing on something that is assumed to be separate instantly is experienced as a constriction, not openness.

 Now notice even further. The notion that there was a previous tasting of openness, which then became a constriction—where is all of the evidence for such a thing? Look very closely. 

Is there any evidence that such a thing really did happen “back there in time” a few moments ago? Or would the only evidence for all of that be merely a current thought that seems to arise right now for the first time ever? No such thing really occurred “back there” in time. At most it would be just a current thought.

 Now what about openness itself? Has openness itself been present before, present the entire “past time” this tasting and constriction supposedly occurred? No! 

Not even openness has so much as a split second of prior history—for that notion, too, would be just that—a mere notion, only a current thought, also arising just now for the first time ever!

 Openness is completely, totally history-free.

 Now that’s free!

Now how about finding a point or place where alive openness itself can be said to begin?

 How could it, when openness simply cannot be said to have any prior history of existing? 

What else? When “starting as” presently alive openness, can openness be said to have an edge? A center? How far would the edge be from the center?
 Or is there just alive, un-divide-able, un-locate-able-ness?

 Is alive un-locate-able-ness trying to get anywhere, or get free? 

Is it trying to get more of its alive openness? How could it, when it is not a quantity in the first place? In fact, it is not even an “it”!

 Does alive un-locate-able-ness have a material border, or even a mental border, where it extends only so far and then ends—thus feeling a need to expand itself? 

Just how open is openness?

 Again, this is not a thought of openness, but openness.

 It’s never a matter of, how open is openness to “my thinking” about openness.

 What is it to taste/be openness that is so open it almost “aches”?

 In the same way, does alive openness have a bottom? Right now, try to find one.

 Does alive openness have anything separate that is underneath openness—such as a floor? What about a planet? Or even an entire so-called universe?

 How deep is openness? How wide? Does the notion of depth or width even apply?

 Go as deep as you care to. No matter how “deep” one tries to go—one is still always “right here” as location-less openness, un-pin-down-able freedom.

 Can alive openness be said to have a separate source or cause?
 Will you ever find one? If so, where would it be in relation to alive openness—which itself is un-locateable? 

The instant all this inquiring stops—is there any evidence of an inquirer that exists independently and is separate from alive openness? Or even during the inquiry—do the questions/thoughts have their own stand-alone existence “out there” separate from openness?

 To alive openness, is there a limited supply of freedom?

 Does it have a point where it diminishes, begins to sort of close down or shut off?

 Or is this gently present, alive openness un-shut-off-able?

 Can it be said that alive openness an extreme state—something that should be avoided for fear of getting out of balance? To whom would it seem that way?

 Can alive openness ever have such a thought, or act extremely?
 Does openness even act?

 Can openness even be pinned down, as if it were a place, a realm—even a “higher state of consciousness”?

 Is openness ever saying that there is no self—or that there is a Self?

 For that matter, is openness ever saying anything—even that there is openness?!

 Be clear that the entire so-called “time” during this type of inquiry, it does nothing to make Life, openness, freedom, more open and free, more alive and un-divide-able.
 Posted on March 5, 2012 by Peter Dziuban To see the entire 4 pages go to http://peterdziuban.com/do-a-freedom-inquiry/