J.Krishnamurti : Key Thoughts

•   Life: It’s like a river, endlessly moving on, ever seeking, exploring, pushing and overflowing its banks.
  
  
•   Relationship: It’s a mirror in which you see yourself. In relationship, conflicts arise as two individuals are not relating but their images about themselves and each other, relate.
  
•   Observer is the observed: An insight that thought and the thinker are the same. That thinker appears separate due to inattention and that it’s an illusion.
  
•   Mutation of brain cells: When there is insight that observer is observed then the behaviour of brain is altered. The pattern of brain cells mutate to yield a new mind.
  
•   Choiceless awareness: It is a state of awareness in which there is no chooser who judges or condemns. There is non-judgemental observation.
  
•   Meditation: it is a state of no mind in which the meditator is absent. There is no recognition of a centre called "me". It’s a state of being and nothingness.
  
•   Total freedom: There is no partial freedom. When the centre called "me" dissolves there is total freedom. “Me” is the psychological being- The conditioned self. In the state of total freedom man is not a slave of past. Its freedom " Known."
  
•   Insight: It’s a flash in a state of mind in which thought is absent. There is immediate perception and action without any intervention of "me".
  

•   Conditioning: Layers of identity created from birth and accumulated by knowledge, experience and stored in memory. It gives birth to the psychological "me". It includes our likes, dislikes hurts insults, pride, Self image etc. Its the "known" in which man lives.
  
•   Security and fear: The conditioned self always seeks continuity of existence and fears its loss of identity. 
  
•   God: It is not a concept or imagination. It is creation.
  
•   “You are the world”: When you change, the world changes. Consciousness
  is contagious and society is not different from the individual constituents.
  Change begins within oneself.
  
•   Love and compassion: Love cannot be cultivated. Along with compassion it
  exists when the sense of  limited self is dissolved. 
  

Sartre , Existentialism and J. Krishnamurti

Jean Paul Sartre is the most influential 20 th century thinker and writer. Credited with having coined the word Existentialism he is the architect of his famous treatise , Being And Nothingness. Heidegger alongwith Husserl was the principal source of inspiration to him. Sartre read Heidegger as a prisoner of war during world war 2 and soon authored Being and Nothingness. In this paper I shall briefly talk about sartre's main concepts and then relate it withKrishnamurti`s philosophy.

Being and Nothingness:
Sartre's main ontological proposition was Existence precedes essence.

What is it to be human? Are we our qualities such as intelligence or hardworking or a writer? Is there an existence irrespective of our essence? Though sartre was cartesian he didnot strictly mean," I think therefore I am". While  thinking precedes action it is one of the proof of my existence as it emerges in a reflective state of consciousness. Human existence is charecterised by two types of reality. One is consciousness being aware of it being conscious and other is consciousness about something. The former ,sartre called pre reflective state or for- itself consciousness and the latter as reflective state or in-itself consciousness. In layman's language for-itself is the indescribable, nameless reality. Just awareness of Being ,sheer consciousness or existence as it is.The in-itself is borne out of our choices and action, our self identity and is independent of for- itself consciousness.Thus sartre created a duality in reality and concentrated on the study of in- itself reality. Since identity of self is something it brings in the possibility of destructing this something. That which is not something is no-thing and is negation of self. Consciousness for itself is that Being which is nothing because by definition consciousness cannot grasp itself. 
Implication of Sartre's Philosophy :

 Freedom:
Since existence precedes essence, man is free to choose. If he doesnot choose thats a choice he makes.Rather he is condemned to be free. He therefore constantly chooses and is responsible for his action. There is no God or determinism which drives man's action. He is spontaneously propelled to act. He finds his meaning in his action though the outside world defies any meaning or is simply existing.

Angst and Despair:
Since existence is no-thing vs essence which is something, there is a feeling of absurdity. A meaninglessness which is overcome by intentional motivation to act. Despair is inevitable outcome of choice when the fulfillment is incomplete. Something similar to what Krishnamurti says "ME" is disorder. The content of mind creates "ME" which is actually a disorder.

To live authenthic life that is a life without conscious of any self image or other people's image about oneself is a life of spontaneity that springs from Being and nothingness. Anyone living an inauthenthic life lives in bad faith and violates existence.

The direct implication sartre's existentialism is humanism. To live freely without any inauthencity of society, past ,state, politics, divine intervention, beliefs etc. Similarly let other people live freely thereby creating a humanistic society. One is fully responsible for one's action. In his words:

We are a plan aware of itself. "Man is nothing else than his plan: he exists only to the extent that he fulfills himself; he is therefore nothing else than the ensemble of his acts, nothing else than his life."

J.Krishnamurti`s core teachings :

:“The core of Krishnamurti’s teaching is contained in the statement he made in 1929 when he said, “Truth is a pathless land”. Man cannot come to it through any organization, through any creed, through any dogma, priest or ritual, not through any philosophical knowledge or psychological technique. He has to find it through the mirror of relationship, through the understanding of the contents of his own mind, through observation and not through intellectual analysis or introspective dissection.

Man has built in himself images as a fence of security—religious, political, personal. These manifest as symbols, ideas, beliefs. The burden of these images dominates man’s thinking, his relationships, and his daily life. These images are the causes of our problems for they divide man from man. His perception of life is shaped by the concepts already established in his mind. The content of his consciousness is his entire existence. The individuality is the name, the form and superficial culture he acquires from tradition and environment. The uniqueness of man does not lie in the superficial but in complete freedom from the content of his consciousness, which is common to all humanity. So he is not an individual. Freedom is not a reaction; freedom is not choice. It is man’s pretence that because he has choice he is free. Freedom is pure observation without direction, without fear of punishment and reward. Freedom is without motive; freedom is not at the end of the evolution of man but lies in the first step of his existence. In observation one begins to discover the lack of freedom. Freedom is found in the choiceless awareness of our daily existence and activity.

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

Similarities:
Thus both examine human beings and reveal the nothingness of primordial Being or consciousness.Both accept primacy of existence before essence. Both concur about to be human is to be free . However,there are subtle differences in the terminology used . 

You can say some similarity is  found in  sartre`s facticity which is more like conditioned existence of life. Living authenthic life is living without projecting images and in reality as it is. This finds echo in krishnamurti's choiceless awareness in which one doesnot ascribe any value to one's behaviour.

Both the school believe in freedom with responsibility and the choice one makes determines one's life.

Contrasts : 
Existentialists believe life is absurd and has no meaning whereas k says living itself is the meaning of life. They start at opposites poles  of life. Life according to existentialists is nasea and despair. K finds life as beautiful and joyful if lived with understanding. Existentialists donot believe in God whereas k says donot start with belief or disbelief. Find out and a mind which is not touched by thought is sacred. Then truth or god is revealed which cannot be described.

Both existentialist and k are committed to humanism and freedom. Existentialist are cartesian who believe that I think, therefore I am. K perhaps means that I am and therefore I think. But could be saying existence precedes essence.

Existentialists are concerned with material living as a choice. Whereas "K"is concerned with pursuit of truth and setting man unconditionally free. Unlike Sartre who feels man is chained in his choice.

Reconcilation:

Note some interpretations say that Satre's freedom is the inarticulable, nameless and is borne out of nothingness. Activity is the action in the physical world borne out of choice . They also say that sartre didnot mean descartes cogito but cogito of existence or awareness of consciousness as non thingness. Such being the case it echoes what "K" talks about truth. He says, truth is that which is cannot be touched by thought.Both existentialist and k are committed to humanism and freedom. Existentialist are cartesian who believe that I think, therefore I am. K perhaps means that I am and therefore I think. He could be saying existence precedes essence.

My Perpective:

Acording to me Sartre is more interesting at a surface level  because he has expressed himself not only through his abstract philosophies but also through absurd plays like Nausea and No exit. Sartrean study of human beings through his primordial action is more interesting and humanlike but not truly emancipating.It exposes human being in relationship with others like a mirror reflection .Sartrean view that man is condemned to be free and is solely responsible for his actions is pertaining to the thinking man.It does add to the meaning of life but at subject level. Authencity of life and ethical value follow sartrean interpretation in which hope for life fulfillment overcomes despondency of despair. 

Whereas "K" goes to the roots of Being and unless we understand the roots we can never understand ourselves as man. We would then risk treating subjects as objects and pose wrong metaphysical question. The sartrean fallacy lies in studying the thinking man which is an effect. Our true motto is to study the primordial state.To study huamans before he became a subject of Being. (the bringing forth of possibilities from nothingness). Existence in world , essence of man and thinking man follow much later.  Truth is something that is not touched by thought. Do we realise that thinker and the thought is the same and in the process realise the primordial state of Being. 


Like Sartre's existentialism kirishnamurti philosophy is also about Being and nothingness. K’s nothingness, however, is no-thingness. Life is spontaneous existence like the blossoming of the flower. It is living in the present moment in the here and now of awareness. Krishnamurti's being is the unconditioned self. Whereas Sartre and other existentialists say nothing matters but life and yet there is no awareness of conditioning and rising above conditioning. Therefore it is more in the materialistic context and perhaps has got little to do with pursuit of truth itself. 

Nuggets of J.Krishnamurti`s Teachings

  J.Krishnamurti is a well respected philosopher, seer and mystic. Though labeled as mystic by his friends in Europe and America his philosophy is far from it. Famous for his plain speaking and ruthless approach to man`s problems in living .He espouses a way of life for each individual  which can usher the entire mankind into a new consciousness.Krishnamurti didnot propagate any belief system .

Nuggets of his  philosophy:

1) Existence itself is beautiful. Reality is is. Accept the isness  of is. Anything that isnot is is fiction.

2) existence and living is the same which is the same as spontaneity.Life is a flowering process.It simply unfolds.

3) Living itself is the meaning of life. There is no purpose seperate from living.

4) Man has rational faculty but he has somehow failed to act rationally.

5) The chief  reason why man is irrational is because he is a conditioned being. A victim of his repetetive mind patterns.

6) Human beings are conditioned by habit, by beliefs, by fears, anxieties,pride, prestige, sorrow and so on. Thats his psychological being.

7) The human brain and the consequent functioning of human mind leads not only to  external division between human beings of different creed,caste, religion and race but also creates an internal conflict within himself.  . In reality there is  no division as existence is unitary and homogenous.

8) Man ,internally is in conflict because he seperates himself from his being. For instance thought creates a thinker. Thats the irrationality. Thinker and the thought is the same. There is only thinking.There is only thought This nondualism vs rene descartes who said I think therefore I am. descartes is right in a way but that led to dualism whereby thinker was seperated from thought. Better way to put it waould have been, I am and therefore I think..

9) Creation of seperate identity called thinker creates a new identity . This dichotomy is everywhere. Experience is seperated from experiencer. Descriptipn is seperate from described or describer. Actually , there is only living and  only experiencing . A seperate thinker invariably compares himself with another . Comparison leads to competetion and inferiority complex. It leadsto human misery and ultimately war.

10) Fear, anxiety, despair, sorrow all occur because the thinker assumes itself to be a real self, a real identity. Anything that threatens the identity of the thinker creates fear response. Similarly pleasure and desires are sought for its continuity. Anything that disrupts the continuity of pleasure is resisted by the thinker. In a way artificial identity of thinker assumes the proportion of real person hijacking human beings on the path of violence and suffering. Does this sound familiar? Heard of Matrix?

11) Freedom from  conditioning can be found here and now. It is immediate if one sees thru the falsity of the the whole phenomenon. Its is like  a rope in a dark corner. It appears to be a snake. When the light is switched on it becomes clear that its a rope and not a snake. Real freedom is freedom from comparison.

Now a mind that doesn't compare at all - you understand? - is a totally different kind of mind. It has got much more vitality.

12) Total freedom from predictable human behaviour can be obtained by choiceless awareness. It is a way of observing inwards in which there is  no judge or censor. There is only observation. Suppose a man observes that he is violent or greedy or envious he simply records it and let it pass. He doesnot resist or attempt to be judgemental about it. This is called choiceless awareness. The observer realises that he is the observation. He is greed. He is envy. He is violence. In  this way he neither encourages it nor resists any behaviour. In a natural way the negative traits evaporates and good traits which are inherent ,intrinsic and innate surface.

When there is no judge, no chooser there is no past or future . It's everlasting Present. Timelessness. Real freedom is in timelessness and not in past or future. Real freedom therefore lies is in choicelessness and not in choice.

 Real freedom  is freedom from the known. The known is my psychological identity, my belongings, my possession, my pride ,my trauma, my fears, my achievements. Real freedom is freedom from this knowledge. This knowledge gets continuity by memory function. Memory to remeber the past is required for learning skillsets. To remeber that fire burns is an useful part of memory. To remeber that somebody insulted me is useless piece of information not to be stored. Not to be a slave of memory is  the function of choiceless awareness. It enables man to live in the present moment . He neither wallows in past nor lives in the fantasy of future. To realise that brain or mind slips into past or future is the function of choiceless awareness. You are the world. You change the world changes.Choiceless awarenes is meditation.

13) In meditation there is no meditator. Meditation is not concentration. It is complete attention. In that state there is no attender.

14) Love , joy, beauty, and compassion exists by itself. It is humanity. It cannot be cultivated. When observer vanishes there is love and compassion.

15) Love and compassion provides the path to life. Every human being is endowed with insight on the path of choiceless awareness.

16) The entire preaching is based on factual observation and is not an  imagination or belief. Renowned scientist such as Dr David Bohm have had enormous dialogue with Krishnamurti to provide scientific bulwark to his preaching. For instance, krishnamurti said that brain cell mutates under choiceless awareness and new bran emerges out of regeneration of braincells. It was heretic to say so in the early 20 th century. Dr. David Bohm , a physicist confirmed that its possible. Today Brain Plasticity is the key concept in neuroscience..

17) Albert Einstein and J. Krishnamurti: A human being is a part of a whole, called by us _universe_, a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest... a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty."Albert Einstein

18)MIND
Neither Co-operate with it.
Nor confront against it
Observe mind
Watch it by being simply aware
Slowly it is subjugated
Lead your life thru unmotivated energy i.e. Action

19) Is there an area in the human brain, or in the very nature and structure of a human being, not merely in the outer world of his activities but inwardly, deep in the vast quiet recesses of his own brain, something that is not the outcome of memory, not the movement of a continuity?"… "There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn’t cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present has no meaning."… "You can’t ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols; it is beyond all remembrances."

Total Inner Freedom

Total inner freedom an essential condition to see what is. Awareness cannot come without total inner freedom.

Freedom is negation of any conditioning of human mind by religious or political or economic or sociological divisions. It is broadly cultural divide.

What is conditioning? Is it belief system? It is categories , thoughts, constructs , concepts , myths , images that collectively reside inside a human being. It develops into tendencies and predictable hardened behaviour. It is something unreal, some kind of fantasy which passes as real inside the human mind or brain.

Religion is supposed to be unifying force amongst all human beings. It is supposed to have a common objective of deliverance or redemption or enlightenment or nirvana whatever one chooses to call. Unfortunately it has become a dividing force. A mere belief with an emphasis that one belief is superior over the other.A mind full of belief is not a free mind.

Man has to be human first before he can absorb religion as a category. The problem with man is he identifies himself as a specie and then sees himself not as a being or existence but as separate category from overall existence such as flowers or fish or clouds. In the process he sees himself as.separate from other humans too. It's a failure to see itself as being or existence.

Me is the dividing factor separating him from others. Me is my country, my likes, my religion, my ideology, my sensuality, and so on. It is the complete psychological ideation about me. My ambition, my experiences, my superiorities, my interlocutors,my achievements,my greed, my envies, my regrets all go onto become me.me creates a conflict with external world as in me vs you as well as internal within oneself. Internal conflict create a pressure to become a better and better me.me is content of consciousness. That me wants to add and subtract the content of consciousness creating internal conflict.

There can be no observation or no observing when there is me doing the act of observing. It is me which is acts as a curtain from actually seeing the reality. The real is truth or goodness or non duality or unity or living. Till there is me there is no living.

So how does me end? Me is content of consciousness and it can end only by emptying it. Any attempt to empty it is still within the field of thought and continues to reel in the sphere of me. Any effort is merely strengthening me. Any methodology throws you back into the well of me. any process is like buying time and me continues it's whirlwind inside the human brain.

Seeing that me is not real as a fact, not as a concept. The sheer act seeing the fallacy of me is emptying it's content. It is instant and immediate . It's like a computer file which is emptied by delete command. Unlike computer you cannot command me but you can perceive it's falsehood. In seeing is the ending.

It can never end if seeing is through images. Images about myself is me, my idea of other peoples image about me is also a part of me. Till that image is seeing there is no seeing. Seeing the mirage of me end me . Then there is harmony, there is peace and there is living. It is actuality.

How does one see is an irrelevant question. The only way to see inwardly is to be aware. Which means to be attentive,to watch ones motives or actions without any judgmental or analytical exercise. In that watching there is no choice. Choice implies duality, conformity, images and lack of freedom. In real freedom there is no choice. It's important to understand that choice is exercised by me which is content of consciousness. Choice when excercised externally like choosing blue colour or square design is okay. But when choice is exercised inwardly it's in the loop of me. When there is choiceless awareness one discovers there is unity.it is not a concept or theory. It is reality.

Me is a disorder. Belief brings in security. The entire story of mankind is in it's content of consciousness. It is not an indivisual's consciousness.it is common. It is all about fulfillement,loneliness,hatred and comparison,. Pride and vanity. Frustrations and fears. Whether rich or poor, young or old, black, brown or white, educated or uneducated the content of consciousness is the same. It all gets condensed into an image. An image of a successful man or image of low self esteem.an image of moral superiority or self flagelling misery.
Invariably an image which is comparing and becoming into something. That's not freedom. There is no freedom from self or the image of self at all. When there is a complete attention one realizes there is no centre. In that realization is total freedom. In that freedom there is total security,total harmony and total stability. Where there is self with all it's images there is clinging to falsehood. In the moment of complete attention there is no self, no centre. It's just existence. From such a state whatever action emerges is the right action.it is state of total awareness void of any objectified self.

In A New World

For a moment lets conjure up a scenario where the whole world has come to an end and a new world has energed wherein human beings exists as they did before on the planet earth but there is a total amnesia about the past. Therefore there is no memory left of the past. Not even the residual vestiges. Here you are on a ground where there are no Christians with no memeory of Jesus Christ. Nor there are any Hindus with the image of krishna and concept of soul . Similarly for the rest of the belief system s.This is a world where there is no division based on religion amongst its inhabitants. There are neither believers nor non believers because the question of belief itself is non existent. Remeber what we said in the begining ,its a new world with no residual memory of the past. Then how would have one described existence? Here is a quote from J. Krishnamurti which would most aptly fit the bill. Remeber this description would have evolved without any J. Krishnamurti around there in that new world;
"…is there an area in the human brain, or in the very nature and structure of a human being, not merely in the outer world of his activities but inwardly, deep in the vast quiet recesses of his own brain, something that is not the outcome of memory, not the movement of a continuity?"… "There is most certainly, definitely, an area where the past doesn’t cast a shadow, where time, the past or the future or the present has no meaning."… "You can’t ascend through knowledge; there must be an end to knowledge for the new to be. New is a word for something which has never been before. And that area cannot be understood or grasped by words or symbols; it is beyond all remembrances."

Lets what he has to further say .....

There can be no thought if there is total amnesia. Right? But fortunately, or unfortunately we are not in a state of amnesia. And one wants to find out what thought is, what place it has in life. You understand? So one begins to examine thinking. So what is thinking? Thinking takes place as a reaction to memory. Obviously. Memory responds to a challenge, to a question, to an action, or responds in relationship to something, or to an idea, to a person. Right? You see all this in life.
So what is thinking, what is thought, how does thought exist in the human mind? So one asks then, what is memory? You understand? What is memory? Memory is you have trodden on some insect that has bitten you. That memory, that pain is registered and stored in the brain, that pain, which becomes a memory, it is not actual pain. That pain is over but the memory remains. So next time you are careful. So there is experience as pain, which has become knowledge, and that knowledge, experience is memory, that memory responds as thought. Right? That memory is thought. And knowledge, however wide, however deep, however extensive, must always be limited. Right? There is no complete knowledge. I don't know if you are following all this.So thought is always partial, limited, divisive because in itself it isn't complete, in itself it can never be complete; it can think about completeness. You understand? It can think about totality, whole, but it's not, thought itself is not whole. So whatever it creates philosophically, religiously, it is still partial, limited, fragmentary, because knowledge is part of ignorance. You understand, sir? I don't know if you understand this. As knowledge can never be complete it must always go hand in hand with ignorance. Right? That's logical, rational.

And if one understands the nature of thought, and understands what concentration is, then thought cannot attend because attention is giving all energy - you understand? - without any restraint. I wonder if you understand this. If you are listening now, I hope you are, if you are listening and attending, what takes place? There is no 'you' attending. Right? There is no centre that says, 'I must attend'. You are attending because it is your life, your interest. If you are not interested, lying down in the sun, saying, well I'll listen partly, that's a different matter. But if you are serious and giving attention you will soon find out all your problems, all that is gone - at least for the moment.So to resolve problems is to attend. I wonder if you have got it. You understand this? It's not a trick! (Laughs)Source - Jiddu Krishnamurti Fourth Public Question & Answer Meeting in OjaiFrom

Pondering on Koan

ZEN MASTER

Kōans originate in the sayings and doings of sages and legendary figures, usually those authorized to teach in a lineage that regards Bodhidharma (c. 5th-6th century) as its ancestor. Kōans are said to reflect the enlightened or awakened state of such persons, and sometimes said to confound the habit of discursive thought or shock the mind into awareness. Zen teachers often recite and comment on kōans, and some Zen practitioners concentrate on kōans during meditation. Teachers may probe such students about their kōan practice using "checking questions" to validate an experience of insight (kensho) or awakening. Responses by students have included actions or gestures, "capping phrases" (jakugo), and verses inspired by the kōan.
Appropriate responses to a kōan may vary according to circumstances; different teachers may demand different responses to a given kōan, and a fixed answer cannot be correct in every circumstance. One of the most common recorded comments by a teacher on a disciple's answer is: "Even though that is true, if you do not know it yourself it does you no good." The master is looking not for an answer in a specific form, but for evidence that the disciple has actually grasped the state of mind expressed by the kōan itself.
Thus, though there may be so-called "traditional answers" (kenjo) to many kōans, these are only preserved as exemplary answers given in the past by various masters during their own training. In reality, any answer could be correct, provided that it conveys proof of personal realization. Kōan training can only be done with a qualified teacher who has the "eye" to see a disciple's depth of attainment. In the Rinzai Zen school, which uses kōans extensively, the teacher certification process includes an appraisal of proficiency in using that school's extensive kōan curriculum.
A kōan may be used as a test of a Zen student's ability. For monks in formal training, and for some laypersons, a teacher invokes a kōan and demands some definite response from a student during private interviews.(wikipedia)

If you see the buddha ,kill it.Its a famous kaon.
Some interesting Kaons:

A Cup of Tea
Nan-in, a Japanese master during the Meiji era (1868-1912), received a university professor who came to inquire about Zen.
Nan-in served tea. He poured his visitor's cup full, and then kept on pouring.
The professor watched the overflow until he no longer could restrain himself. "It is overfull. No more will go in!"
"Like this cup," Nan-in said, "you are full of your own opinions and speculations. How can I show you Zen unless you first empty your cup?"


Non-Attachment
Kitano Gempo, abbot of Eihei temple, was ninety-two years old when he passed away in the year 1933. He endeavored his whole like not to be attached to anything. As a wandering mendicant when he was twenty he happened to meet a traveler who smoked tobacco. As they walked together down a mountain road, they stopped under a tree to rest. The traveler offered Kitano a smoke, which he accepted, as he was very hungry at the time.
"How pleasant this smoking is," he commented. The other gave him an extra pipe and tobacco and they parted.
Kitano felt: "Such pleasant things may disturb meditation. Before this goes too far, I will stop now." So he threw the smoking outfit away.
When he was twenty-three years old he studied I-King, the profoundest doctrine of the universe. It was winter at the time and he needed some heavy clothes. He wrote his teacher, who lived a hundred miles away, telling him of his need, and gave the letter to a traveler to deliver. Almost the whole winter passed and neither answer nor clothes arrived. So Kitano resorted to the prescience of I-King, which also teaches the art of divination, to determine whether or not his letter had miscarried. He found that this had been the case. A letter afterwards from his teacher made no mention of clothes.
"If I perform such accurate determinative work with I-King, I may neglect my meditation," felt Kitano. So he gave up this marvelous teaching and never resorted to its powers again.
When he was twenty-eight he studied Chinese calligraphy and poetry. He grew so skillful in these arts that his teacher praised him. Kitano mused: "If I don't stop now, I'll be a poet, not a Zen teacher." So he never wrote another poem.


The Dead Man's Answer
When Mamiya, who later became a well-known preacher, went to a teacher for personal guidance, he was asked to explain the sound of one hand.
Mamiya concentrated upon what the sound of one hand might be. "You are not working hard enough," his teacher told him. "You are too attached to food, wealth, things, and that sound. It would be better if you died. That would solve the problem."
The next time Mamiya appeared before his teacher he was again asked what he had to show regarding the sound of one hand. Mamiya at once fell over as if he were dead.
"You are dead all right," observed the teacher, "But how about that sound?"
"I haven't solved that yet," replied Mamiya, looking up.
"Dead men do not speak," said the teacher. "Get out!"

Sound of one Hand Clapping
Osho : If you have heard about Zen masters... they go on telling their disciples to go and meditate, meditate on the sound of one hand clapping. We can create a sound by clapping two hands. Zen masters say to their disciples, ”Go and find out that sound which comes out of only one hand: the clapping of one hand, not with anything else.”
We know this is absurd. A sound can come only with conflict, with two things clashing. Two hands can create sound, not one hand. Zen masters also know that, but still they have been giving this meditation for centuries. From Buddha up to now, Zen masters go on giving it. They know, their disciples know, that this is absurd. Then what is the significance? One has to watch, meditate, and move towards a sound which is already there, which is not created. That is the meaning of the sound of one hand.



The sound of one hand
Two hands clap and there is a sound. What is the sound of one hand?
— Hakuin Ekaku
"...in the beginning a monk first thinks a kōan is an inert object upon which to focus attention; after a long period of consecutive repetition, one realizes that the kōan is also a dynamic activity, the very activity of seeking an answer to the kōan. The kōan is both the object being sought and the relentless seeking itself. In a kōan, the self sees the self not directly but under the guise of the kōan...When one realizes ("makes real") this identity, then two hands have become one. The practitioner becomes the kōan that he or she is trying to understand. That is the sound of one hand." — G. Victor Sogen Hori, Translating


If you meet the Buddha, kill him.
— Linji
If you are thinking about Buddha, this is thinking and delusion, not awakening. One must destroy preconceptions of the Buddha. Zen master Shunryu Suzuki wrote in Zen Mind, Beginner's Mind during an introduction to Zazen, "Kill the Buddha if the Buddha exists somewhere else. Kill the Buddha, because you should resume your own Buddha nature."

Mind of a Sage
Osho : One Zen monk, Bokuju, was passing through a street in a village. Somebody came and struck him with a stick. He fell down, and with him, the stick also. He got up and picked up the stick. The man who had hit him was running away. Bokuju ran after him, calling, ”Wait, take your stick with you!”
He followed after him and gave him the stick. A crowd had gathered to see what was happening, and somebody asked Bokuju, ”That man struck you hard, and you have not said anything!”
Bokuju is reported to have said, ”A fact is a fact. He has hit, that’s all. It happened that he was the hitter and I was the hit. It is just as if I am passing under a tree, or sitting under a tree, and a branch falls down. What will I do? What can I do?”
But the crowd said, ”But a branch is a branch, this is a man. We cannot say anything to the branch, we cannot punish it. We cannot say to the tree that it is bad, because a tree is a tree, it has no mind.”
Bokuju said, ”This man to me is also just a branch. And if I cannot say anything to the tree, why should I bother to say anything to this man? It happened. I am not going to interpret what has happened. And it has already happened. Why get worried about it? It is finished, over.”
This is the mind of a sage – not choosing, not asking, not saying this should be and this should not be. Whatsoever happens, he accepts it in its totality. This acceptance gives him freedom, this acceptance gives him the capacity to see. These are eye diseases: shoulds, should nots, divisions, judgments, condemnations, appreciations.
Source: from book “Vedanta: Seven Steps to Samadhi” by Osho