Konstantin Scheihing spoke to Mukesh Gupta about awareness for LOGON.
Mukesh Gupta is a globally invited speaker and educator from India who has dedicated himself to the theme of ‘Self-Inquiry’ for 25 years. He feels especially inspired by Jiddu Krishnamurti and the Buddha. He has given over two hundred lectures, retreats and seminars worldwide. Prior to his international lecturing activities, he worked for two decades at the Krishnamurti Foundation of India (KFI). Mukesh is the founder of the School for Self-Inquiry.
K: Thank you, for your time Mukesh. Let us start our conversation with a look at the current situation of humanity. It seems to be a time of profound crisis; we see terrible wars, ecological degradation, increasing inequality. What is your perspective on the current human condition?
M: Thank you, Konstantin, for the invitation to this conversation. When we see the condition of the earth, the condition of humanity and the conflicts, it makes us wonder whether we as humanity are really part of a process of learning, of self-education?
To me the global condition is a consequence of our inner condition. As long as we have deep rooted conflict in ourselves, we will not be able to end war and degradation outwardly. So why are we continuing to live in this way?
I feel that the human consciousness is going through a deep crisis. But most of us don’t acknowledge it. We try to tell ourselves “everything is fine”.
K: You seem to propose that the global condition of humanity is a consequence of the psychological reality in which humanity is living. So, the root cause of it, and it’s fundamental resolution, doesn’t lie on an outside level?
M: Indeed. And the unfortunate part of it is that we are becoming perhaps more and more insensitive. We are becoming used to all the hatred, the divisions; all this is being normalised for example by the daily repetition in the news.
K: Is this process of becoming insensitive maybe also because individuals are incapable of truly facing the challenges to which they are exposed? I feel that if the challenge is too big, too deep, then, as a reaction, one unconsciously starts to ignore the actuality of “what is”.
M: It is true that the brain might tend to go into a mode of denial, but that doesn’t solve anything. The mind has invented so many escape routes. Authority, whether religious, psychological or political is another form of escape. So we are trying to put our whole responsibility to some outside agency. What we are asking is whether it is possible to be awake to our complete responsibility to the whole, as an individual. I feel it is important to realise how we are connected to the condition of the world psychologically. What we are affects the whole of society. That’s why, self-inquiry or self-education is so important. Without understanding ourselves, whatever we do, we will create more and more confusion.
K: Nowadays you can see a lot of public figures who try to inspire hope in people. Hope in the sense that we have to keep trying harder with the instruments that we know, by political engagement, by cultivating kindness, by praying or by applying the best technological solution, implying that that would fundamentally solve this crisis. What is your perspective on that?
M: Hope and wishful thinking are still limited. Outside action is necessary. But by simply hoping we keep on postponing true action. Hope always contains a notion of self-projected future. But true action is untouched by hope, untouched by past and future. So, what does it mean to act from a deeper intelligence of life? We must live in peace now, not in the future.
K: It seems that this clinging to hopes is closely related to a deeper fact of despair in the psyche. Facing the world the mind creates an idea, an image, about itself in the world, which is a form of translating “what is” into the limited realm of thought. Then, if it feels helpless, exposed to this self-created idea, the mind tends to fall into a state of despair. And as a reaction it adds to this idea loaded with despair, a self-projected positive outlook that promises hope, which is a means of avoiding the self-inflicted sense of despair. But both are misleading. The origin of the duality of hope and despair lies in the avoidance of the direct seeing of the truth of “what is” by creating an idea about “what is”.
M: Right, we can say that hope is a reaction of the conditioned mind. So as a reaction to “what is”, not knowing what to really do about it, there is a projection based on assumption; this assumption being a movement away from the truth of “what is”. That involves self-projected ideals, utopias, and so on.
K: When the mind creates the idea about “what is” it actually loses contact with the living truth of the fact. It seems that the human mind is almost incapable of living with the simple fact of “what is” and to act directly. All its acting seems to arise from a self-created idea, an abstraction about the fact of “what is”, which is imaginary. I think that is something we can observe in ourselves: almost all our actions, inner and outer, are based on self-projected ideas, which are fragmented, fundamentally based on assumptions. And as the idea is fragmented, the associated action is as well. Is there an action untouched by self-created idea? An action that is whole?
M: The human mind has enormous potential. It can go to the moon, develop tremendous technologies. So why is it psychologically not able to see and stay with the fact of “what is” in daily life? When it comes to psychological or spiritual matters, why do we fail to see the simple truth of “what is”?
Is it because in our education this element is not explored, due to our culture, our religion, or our traditions? So, are we brought up only with ideas, ideologies and concepts? Why not with observing inwardly the fact of “what is”?
We are brought up with all these layers of conditioning and images. We never ask who we are in a deeper sense. Therefore, we never come into contact with the true essence of what we are. We are living with false essence, false layers. That is why there is separation in us, conflict and violence.
K: It seems to me that for being able to inwardly face “what is”, there must be a deep insight into the nature of thought and its image-making process, its idea-making process, at the bottom of which lies the unconscious assumption “I know”. We are so intrinsically identified with self-centred thought.
M: The thinking process is a universal phenomenon. We live with it. It is the predominant instrument. So, it is important to look at the nature of thought. What is usual thinking? From the residue of past memories, the stored personal interpretation of experiences, there is a projection about the future and a recalling of the impressions of the past. The thinking process is basically a very limited instrument. Thought has great capabilities, particularly in outer practical terms; here it is necessary. Thought is also necessary for communication. But this instrument of thought is likewise being used psychologically, to solve the inner human problems by analysis, projection, speculation, conclusion. There lies the contradiction because most of the human problems, whether globally or individually, are actually generated by the psychological activity of thought itself.
When we believe that thought is the only instrument, we are making perhaps a great mistake.
It seems that there is another faculty available, naturally, to all of us. And that is awareness. In awareness we can explore the nature of thought and we can learn about the limits of thought, it’s right place, and where it is not applicable. Awareness could be the key. Awareness, which does not depend on memory or thought. Where there is pure awareness of “what is”, there is a sense of peace, a sense of unconditional joy.
We have to be aware that thought is still a material process. Whatever thought does is within the field of matter. It is within the field of memories, it is within the field of time. As such there is nothing divine about it. It is what it is. But we worship thought and its ideas in so many ways.
K: We are constantly creating ideas about “what is” and taking it as truth. And this way of living means actually never coming into direct relation with “what is”. We are not actually in direct contact with the truth of “what is”.
One’s idea about an emotion, for example, is actually an abstraction of the emotion. The abstraction is not the living emotion itself. There is a separation between me living in the idea about the emotion and the fact of the emotion itself. In that state there is no relation with the truth of “what is” but only a relation with the shady self-projected idea of “what is”. So when you ask “can there be awareness of what is?”, then you actually ask whether this process of image-making of idea-making with regard to “what is” can end. Is that it?
We force ourselves in this process of image-making to live in the fragmented space of our own dead, self-projected ideas. Whereas the truth of “what is” is whole, is a living thing. So, the fundamental difference is that in awareness the mind is capable of entering into direct relation with the truth of “what is” and live in direct, wordless insight. Which wasn’t there before because there was only one’s own imagined idea of “what is”. So, in that very state of choiceless awareness it seems that the mind comes into direct contact with an aspect of truth. So truth can communicate itself to the mind. Truth can act in the mind. Truth is the liberating factor. I feel that in a mind that touches even only an aspect of truth, a deeper intelligence begins to unfold as part of the action of truth.
M: And truth is in this living moment. Truth is that living awareness. That living attention. That living quality of listening. Truth is in this living quality of pure observation. So, as you say, truth is not an abstraction, it’s not an idea.
Through this quality of awareness one can become aware of how the conditioned mind has become used to making abstractions, of making ideas about everything. So, it can be aware also of this fact of image-making and not make it into a problem; just seeing it. In this way one can watch the tendency of the mind to identify with self-limiting thought through the image-making process and through abstraction. There we have a direct insight into the truth of “what is” free of conclusion.
In observing the movement of the mind there is no choice, which means no chooser. Usually almost all of our psychological choices arise from our given conditioning. But here there is only an awareness of this whole habitual process of choosing. That awareness itself is free from any choice. This awareness is not something in the future. It’s not even a method. It is, here and now… Of course, in our daily life we have to make choices, selecting and so on. At the physical level, that’s fine. But we are talking psychologically, inwardly. Choiceless awareness could be a very natural quality of our existence, but we have not asked for it. We are used to ask questions only coming from thought, born from the past. These questions are as limited as their origin. So can we naturally ask a deeper question? A fundamental question? It must have happened to you!
Then, asking together, there could be a journey of cooperation, of working together, of love and compassion.
K: It seems that the fundamental notion of human beings is that cooperation must always be under the guidance of a common belief, of a common idea or common goal under which – at least for a certain time – people can gather and unite. It seems that so far this has been the accepted mechanism for human beings to join together and act together. Now, naturally, if that happens, the action of such a group must be conditioned by the projected idea or the belief that they share. Their minds are limited by this idea, even very subtly, and therefore the action of wholeness finds no vast space in them. So, what we are asking is can there be a cooperation without idea, without motive, without determined will? Can there be then the emergence of an unconditioned action between humans, that is whole?
M: Absolutely. A cooperation which is based on self-centeredness, which is based on fear, which is based on any authority is actually a false process. It will break down, it perpetuates confusion. Can we explore a deeper dimension of cooperation? A cooperation which is coming from a total concern, for the whole of humanity? There has to be cooperation if we wish to live happily, peacefully, together on this earth. If we don’t see the great power, the beauty of cooperation, we are going to destroy each other. So let us learn to cooperate. When we are attentive, cooperation is natural, when our eyes are open, when our hearts are open, when there is a deep listening, cooperation is happening.
It involves a deep friendship, really, which is free from hierarchy and authority. In love, there is no authority. In love, there is no fear. In love, there is no judgment. So let us blossom in this space of love, which is the space of pure awareness, or, I also call it, compassionate attention. I feel this is perhaps the only way to save the planet. To really live in cooperation with the whole natural world. Then it is connected with everything. And that is the art of living.
K: Thank you Mukesh!
M: Thank you, Konstantin.
