Knowledge, Inner and Outer: An Interview with Cassandra Vieten

Printed in the Winter 2016 issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: SmoleyRichard. "Knowledge, Inner and Outer:  An Interview with Cassandra Vieten" Quest 104.1 (Winter 2016): pg. 10-14, 40.

By Richard Smoley

One of today’s leading institutions in consciousness studies is the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), based in Petaluma, California. Founded in 1973 by astronaut Edgar Mitchell, it sponsors research not only into ordinary states of consciousness but paranormal ones, including telepathy, precognition, and clairvoyance. IONS aims to explore these areas with the same rigor that is used in other scientific disciplines. TS members may recollect a Skype interview with parapsychologist Dean Radin, senior scientist at IONS, at the 2014 Summer National Convention.

At the 2015 SNC, participants heard an address by IONS president Cassandra Vieten. Vieten, a licensed clinical psychologist, has been with the organization since 2001. She has a doctorate in clinical psychology from the California Institute of Integral Studies. She is the coauthor of Living Deeply: The Art and Science of Transformation in Everyday Life(2008) and author of Mindful Motherhood: Practical Tools for Staying Sane During Pregnancy and Your Child’s First Year(2009).

I interviewed Vieten during her visit to Olcott in July 2015. Nancy Grace kindly transcribed the interview for the magazine.

Richard Smoley: One of the main missions of IONS is transformation. Could you begin by saying a little bit about what you think transformation is?

Theosophical Society - Cassandra Vieten is a licensed clinical psychologist, has been with the organization since 2001. She has a doctorate in clinical psychology from the California Institute of Integral Studies. She is the coauthor of Living Deeply: The Art and Science of Transformation in Everyday Life(2008) and author of Mindful Motherhood: Practical Tools for Staying Sane During Pregnancy and Your Child’s First YearCassandra Vieten: The Institute of Noetic Sciences is dedicated to fostering, on the largest level, a global transformation in consciousness. Transformation for us can happen on an individual level; it can happen on a level of a small group like an organization or an institution; and it can happen at a larger level of society. Take one example: there is a collective sense that when someone commits a crime, we should lock them into a cage. In general that’s agreed upon. And so I think, I wonder, if part of the work of the Institute of Noetic Sciences isn’t to challenge some of these prevailing worldviews.

Smoley: Noetic is an unusual word. What does it mean?

Vieten: Noetic is a Greek word that signifies a particular kind of knowledge: inner knowing or intuitive knowledge — when you know something is true but you don’t necessarily have external proof for it, or you don’t need external validation. William James talked about a noetic experience having a curious sense of authority. It may be inarticulate, but it still carries with it a truth. It’s the way you know that you love your children, or you know that you prefer something, and no one else could tell you that’s not true.

Then there’s the external form of knowing, which we call science, and when you put those together it’s noetic sciences, a combination of the internal way of knowing and the external way of knowing, with observation, validation, measurement, replication.

Smoley: Today as always, people have all kinds of noetic experiences. Curiously, a great deal of social energy is placed into telling people they didn’t have these experiences, or that it was just their imagination. Do you see a way of countering that?

Vieten: These experiences that we’ve been studying — precognition, clairvoyance, telepathy, remote viewing, ESP, near-death experiences, encounters with multidimensional beings—these are all experiences that people report. There’s a segment of society that takes all of this for granted. They have no problem with it, but they also may not have a lot of discernment about these experiences or a lot of knowledge about how biased our perceptions can be.

Then you’ve got another segment of society that says that, by definition, this is all false and imaginary. It’s also dangerous and holds the potential to contaminate our civilization of reason and logic. Not only did this experience not happen to you, but we also don’t want you to ever talk about it, because it’s going to take us to a superstitious place. It’s like a societal PTSD after the Dark Ages.

And then there’s this middle ground, which is where noetic science walks. It’s saying, these experiences are common. They transform people’s lives. They sometimes hold knowledge that leads to innovation and invention and creativity. In fact you could argue that most of the major advances of humanity came through some sort of intuitive inspiration. So this realm of experience is worth investigating scientifically.

Smoley: Religion has traditionally talked about these areas. But religion actually plays a remarkably small role in the debate that you’re talking about. We don’t see clergymen coming out and saying they’re really interested in discoveries like yours. We don’t see even quite liberal and enlightened clergymen or clergywomen embracing this approach. In the context of your work and the institute’s work, how has your relation been with conventional religion?

Vieten: We’ve had a subsection of people who are religious, who are very interested in science and in the nexus between science and spirituality. But the vast majority, I would say, of conventional religious people have an attitude that says, we don’t need external validation, we don’t need external confirmation. The fact that you’re even using words like validation or confirmation means that you have a lack of faith that threatens our tradition.

So there’s an inherent lack of faith in scientifically investigating a topic that is supposed to be just in a spiritual domain. We did a study once on distant prayer and whether it helped surgical patients after surgery. It pissed off almost everyone. You have the skeptics and the atheists and the secular folks saying, it’s ridiculous to spend research dollars on this. Why would anyone waste money to study something so silly? And then you have the religious people saying, you can’t study God. You can’t investigate prayer. It doesn’t work like that.

And then you’ve got this group of people who say, we really should look at this in a systematic way. If you look at the range of what people have practiced for their own healing or for the healing of their loved ones, prayer is almost at the top of the list. Let’s take a look at it and see what’s going on there.

Smoley: You describe two very powerful and entrenched establishments that are hostile toward the things you’re investigating — the scientific establishment and the religious establishment. With all this opposition, what hope do you have for seeing this kind of vision better integrated into society?

Vieten: I think things are changing over time. I wouldn’t say there’s a dominant hostility anymore in these groups. I would say that there are extreme and vocal factions of the religious side and the very skeptical — the professional skeptic community. They have very loud voices, and they talk a lot.

But there’s an increasing swath of people who are very interested in all of these phenomena. They’ve had their own personal experiences, so they would like to know, was that real, was that imaginary? A lot of them are not so much against studying these things, they just didn’t know you could, and they’ve been taught throughout their training that you can’t study them. So when they find out in fact there are rigorous methods for investigating this realm of existence, a lot of them are fascinated. I would say, younger people are even more interested than older people, because they haven’t been conditioned quite as much to fear this kind of thing. So when we are talking about a research project and putting out a call for internships, we often have an enormous amount of interest from young scientists, college students, religious scholars.

Even some of the most rigid skeptics still have a lot of curiosity about this topic. In fact, with some skeptics I’ve met, the depth of their passion comes because they feel so disappointed that no one has found evidence yet. And you can still say, wouldn’t it be amazing to do this right? Let’s do it really well. They start to say, what would that look like?

My hypothesis would be that a lot of this stuff has some measurable reality. If we can’t measure it now, we will be able to in the future.

Smoley: The mainstream intellectual media and journals of thought seem so horribly biased against these ideas. I remember reading articles in The New York Review of Books about topics like this, where the writer is nakedly and grossly uninformed. Similarly I see things in The New York Times that show not only an ignorance but a willful ignorance. Do you see any of that façade cracking?

Vieten: I certainly have a number of stories that confirm what you’re talking about. We’ve submitted papers for publication on studies of precognition or mediumship. One of the reviews was quite interesting, saying, this is an excellent study with good methodology, and it solves many of the problems of previous studies in this regard, and if it was on a different topic, it would be publishable. It went on to say that publishing this article would call into question hundreds of years of scientific discovery. So we also see, as you’ve said, a knee-jerk rejection in certain fields of inquiry. When you really inquire and say, how many of these papers have you read? They say, “I haven’t read any of them, because the idea is ridiculous.” It’s not that the data or the methods don’t hold up to scrutiny.

I start to ask people, do you believe in academic freedom? Do you believe that scientists should be able to study topics that are of interest to them and seem to have bearing on people’s health and healing and well-being? And do you think those should be held to the same standards of publication as other studies? Most people say yes.

So I say, OK, how about if those studies are on ESP? Then they say, “Oh, well, we really should move the goalpost at that point, and they should have more stringent criteria, because extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.”

That’s true in a way: if you’re trying to overturn a collectively held belief with one or two papers, that would be foolish. But those papers should be published all the same. And they should be held to exactly the same criteria as biology, physics, chemistry.

Smoley: Could you tell us a little about what led you into this material?

Vieten: I grew up in a house with a father who was a biological scientist. He was a very staunch materialist and an agnostic at least—atheist probably. He used to take me to the lab after school. We would look in microscopes and use telescopes to look at the stars, and go get pond water, and all kind of things that stimulated a love of the natural world and a love of science. Even though he had that materialist perspective, he had a strong sense of mystery and wonder and awe in observing the natural world.

My mom was a therapist and was influenced by Jung and feminist symbolism and was very much a sort of inner dreamwork kind of person. So I also had an appreciation for that world. But neither was religious. We didn’t go to church or have any kind of spiritual practice at home. And as I moved into my teenage years, I thought, there must be something that we’re not seeing here. I tried going to church with a couple of friends, but I couldn’t really find anything there. I was interested in all the symbols, but that’s what they looked like to me —a lot of symbols. I wanted to know, what are these symbolizing?

I grew up in southern California. When I was an older teenager, we used to go out in the orange groves, and we had bonfires and looked at the stars. And I had a couple of experiences where I did feel this massive expansion of something, some dissolution of my boundaries.

Maybe the other clues for me were in science fiction. I loved Star Wars and the Force, and I used to go on this ride at Disneyland that was called “Adventures in Inner Space.” You shrink, shrink, shrink down into a snowflake, and you’re traveling through the atoms. I recently looked up the script for this ride and it said, “There was an entire universe in the atom.”

I took a class in Buddhism in college, and I thought, now this is a religion, this is something I can understand. So I started practicing meditation, and by the time I finished college I ended up going to the California Institute of Integral Studies — a graduate school that combined the integral philosophy of Sri Aurobindo and Eastern philosophy with Western psychology. That was real immersion into a number of spiritual practices and traditions at the same time as I was learning psychology. I probably would have become a spiritual psychologist, but I had this little science bug that woke up almost by the time I was done. I said, wait a minute, how do we know any of this is true? And not only how do we know, but how are we going to generalize it to ease the suffering of thousands or millions of people?

Smoley: You’ve worked at IONS for a number of years. Which of your own personal beliefs have changed as a result of what you’ve done and learned there?

Vieten: When I first came to IONS, I was primarily interested in meditation, mindfulness, spiritual practices, and personal transformation. I also had a fascination with ESP and telepathy. Since I’ve been there I’ve learned more about what we were just talking about — the extreme bias against these topics. I’ve also learned that fighting, or getting sullen, or getting a chip on my shoulder, or complaining actually doesn’t help at all. It doesn’t help the people who are against it, and it doesn’t even really help the people who are supporting you. What’s better is to — like water on a rock — just continuously do great research, do work with integrity that you can stand behind, and continually work toward sparking people’s curiosity and imagination about these topics.

I still have my own internal skepticism sometimes, so I went to talk with Dean Radin, and he was going to do a little remote viewing exercise with the audience. So he said, “I’m about to show a slide from a random selection from 5000 slides, and now move into this remote viewing mode, where you’re open and you’re not going to name anything too quickly,” and he gave some of the training. So I went down on this piece of paper and wrote big, giant swoops, with lines across and little circles. The next slide came up, and it was the Golden Gate Bridge. And I was like, “Dean, Dean, Dean, it worked, it worked!” And he was like, “I know. We work here.” So I had that hit. And even though I’m advocating the rigorous investigation of these topics as something potentially real, when it happens at an experiential level I’m still kind of thrilled and excited and surprised.

Smoley: Could you say a little bit about the figures, books, and texts you’ve found most inspiring along the way?

Vieten: I was a drug and alcohol counselor throughout my college years. I found the transformations I witnessed in the Twelve-Step programs — turning your life over to a higher power that comes in and removes something from you —I could see them happening, and I couldn’t tell what the difference was between the people who got it and stayed clean and sober and people who didn’t. But over the years I started to notice that it was kind of a shift in worldview. It was a deep shift in perspective. And I was really interested in knowing what that was.

Again, I was very inspired by Buddhism and Hinduism and Eastern philosophy. Buddhist vipassana seemed to me a common-sense way of approaching self-transcendence and easing suffering. And since then, integral philosophy — at first Aurobindo, and then Ken Wilber, and all kinds of philosophers and scholars that were bringing together the body, the mind, and the spirit as a whole system, instead of separate systems.

Smoley: Science deals with the quantifiable and the measurable. Do you ever think about the levels beyond which not only science is not measuring now, but even theoretically could never measure? The idea that there are things that are simply never going to be sifted through this net of empiricism?

Vieten: When you’re looking at complex phenomena, biologically, chemically, neurologically, or in this domain of the spiritual, this is the metaphor I like to use: it’s almost like you can put a circle of inward-facing mirrors around the phenomenon and you can look in those mirrors. Every one of those might be a study or a personal account, or an anecdote, or it could be all kinds of things. It could even be art or music. But you may not be able to ever get to the actual phenomenon itself.

Let’s say that the phenomenon is love. It doesn’t say we’re ever going to be able to capture love in a bottle. So sometimes I use the metaphor of catching a firefly in a bottle. If you catch the firefly, you’ve got to take a look at it and then you’ve got to let it go, or else it dies. Or it’s like pinning a butterfly to a card. You find a beautiful, rare butterfly in the jungle. You can keep it if you kill it, but then you’ve killed it.

Smoley: When people have paranormal experiences, experiences of God, and so on, a common scientistic response is that this is just the result of some brain state.

Vieten: One of the biggest questions facing us now is, is consciousness produced by the brain and the body, or do the brain and the body reflect consciousness? Or is there some sort of a filter? You know the filter hypothesis — that the brain and our physical being are actually filtering consciousness. I tend to land somewhere in the middle, where it’s probably a two-way street. It’s not just that the brain produces consciousness. Right now, if I asked you to think of an animal or a symbol, you would think of something, and that would make something happen in your brain in response.

Smoley: There’s a lot of fascination these days with the near-death experience. How do you see this phenomenon?

Vieten: What I know most about near-death experiences is their transformative potential, the way they change people’s lives. Many people have them, and they don’t feel a big change. Many people have them, and they feel more scared and insecure and worried. And then there’s a section of people who have near-death experiences, and it changes their lives and profoundly for the positive. It gives them a new perspective on prioritizing their values and their activities. So that much we know, but that doesn’t say whether or not they’re real. You can have that kind of a transformation even through an imaginary experience.

I think the jury is still out on the rigorous, scientific validation of survival of consciousness after bodily death. We have some enticing clues about the potential for measurable, reliable, physical ways of seeing this through mediumship research and through commonalities among people’s experiences. There are also things that people reported anecdotally that they couldn’t have known unless they had consciousness — even though at that point they should not have had any.

There are enough clues, but it’s going to take a lot of effort — on the level of an Apollo space program — to truly investigate this subject. I have a colleague who did an analysis. He said that if you put all of the research on psychic phenomena and clairvoyance and near-death experiences and all of these things together, it still doesn’t add up to the cost of one F-16.

What would be a bigger question for humanity than, does consciousness survive? It’s certainly in the top ten questions that we might like to know about. Why wouldn’t we spend an F-16’s worth of dollars to check it out?

Smoley: Earlier you mentioned Aurobindo and his integral philosophy. One of its main features is the concept of evolution of consciousness. It would seem that both Aurobindo and people who have been influenced by him view this kind of evolution of consciousness as something that we can foster ourselves. That is, you can help yourself evolve. Now the typical Darwinian view is that evolution is a completely blind process, governed completely by natural selection. How do you relate those two things? Do you see a way of integrating them? Do you see them as fundamentally in conflict?

Vieten: It’s possible that they’re both oversimplified, standing alone. So how do we look at the handshake between evolution of consciousness ideas and this random evolution idea?

Recently, you know, when we sequenced the human genome, we thought, OK, we’re going to have all the information we need to make lots of drugs that address specific genetic ailments, because we’re going to be able to see the tens of thousands of alleles that we have in our genetic code. We’re so complex that we must have 80,000–100,000 alleles. It turns out we have about 20,000. In terms of allelic variations, we have less complexity than a grain of rice. So the promise of the human genome project didn’t really pan out.

How do we achieve our level of complexity? It’s because of epigenetics and how we interact with our environment to change how our genes are expressed. Now we know that much of it is highly conditional. So if it is highly conditional, based on our outer environment and our inner environment, our minds, our stress levels, then we can participate in our own evolution. If I know that thinking about fear every single day, or being in pain or a sense of threat every day for a while, changes my gene expression, it stands to reason that being in love or contemplation or meditation or compassion every day would also change my gene expression — imagining that the first would be in a negative way and the second would be in a positive way. How will that affect our intergenerational evolution? That remains to be seen.


Krishnamurti's Inner Life

Printed in the Fall 2015 issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: MoodyEdmund. "Krishnamurti’s Inner Life" Quest 103.4 (Fall 2015): pg. 143-147.

A glimpse into the great teacher’s awakening.

By David Edmund Moody

Theosophical Society - David Edmund Moody is the author of The Unconditioned Mind: J. Krishnamurti and the Oak Grove School (Quest, 2011). This article is adapted from Moody’s book An Uncommon Collaboration: David Bohm and J. KrishnamurtiJ. Krishnamurti’s stated philosophy from the public platform is assiduously secular. He scrupulously avoids any suggestion that he has personal access to or special knowledge of another dimension, spiritual, supernatural or otherwise. On the contrary, his public philosophy, expressed on countless occasions, on several continents, over the course of decades, is limited almost entirely to the delineation of the dynamic nature and structure of ordinary consciousness as it is experienced by virtually everyone. His stated concern is to serve as a mirror to the mind of the individual listener in order that each one might become “a light to oneself,” and in so doing bring about psychological freedom, the ending of conflict, and an end to sorrow. His references to God and religion are almost uniformly disparaging. God is merely a concept, he maintains, a comfortable invention, and organized religion a trap in which most of mankind is imprisoned. To be sure, he does suggest that an orderly mind, a mind that is attentive, might come upon something that is sacred, something that is not merely the product of thought. References to the sacred, however, are few and far between and are always accompanied by the admonition that no form of seeking or desire can possibly bring one into contact with it.

Against this philosophy, there exists another current in Krishnamurti’s life and work. As he often pointed out, he himself was not what mattered to his audience; he was not their guru, he said over and over again; he was not speaking as the voice of authority — psychological, spiritual, or otherwise. In keeping with that attitude, he kept his inner life private and not a matter for public display. To do so was wholly consistent with his insistence on his own insignificance.

Nevertheless, Krishnamurti did enjoy an extraordinary inner life, one that he allowed to become a matter of record only as he approached his eightieth year. By that time, his stated philosophy had fully matured and taken on a life of its own, with little possibility of any distortion or distraction from the revelation of his personal experiences. This inner life was described in an authorized biography, as well as in three volumes of a kind of diary he kept for occasional periods beginning in 1961. Although these experiences did not represent the content of his message to the world, they are not entirely separable from it. In any case, no description of his outlook on life is complete without including them.

Krishnamurti and his brother Nitya came to Ojai, California, in 1922, when he was twenty-seven and Nitya was twenty-four. They had been invited there by A.P. Warrington, then head of the American Section of the Theosophical Society, who traveled with them to a property owned by a local Theosophist, Mary Gray, where the brothers could stay for an indefinite period of time. Shortly after arriving there, Nitya described the Ojai Valley in the following terms:

In a long and narrow valley of apricot orchards and orange groves is our house, and the hot sun shines down day after day to remind us of Adyar, but of an evening the cool air comes down from the range of hills on either side. Far beyond the lower end of the valley runs the long, perfect road from Seattle in Washington down to San Diego in Southern California, some two thousand miles, with a ceaseless flow of turbulent traffic, yet our valley lies happily, unknown and forgotten, for a road wanders in but knows no way out. The American Indians called our valley the Ojai or the nest, and for centuries they must have sought it as a refuge.

After they had settled in Ojai for a few weeks, Krishna began to meditate for half an hour each morning and again in the evening, with the general intention of resolving the sense of discontent he felt with the entire course of his life and the path that others had charted for him. As he wrote in a letter to a friend:

Since August third, I meditated regularly for about thirty minutes every morning. I could, to my astonishment, concentrate with considerable ease, and within a few days I began to see clearly where I had failed and where I was failing. Immediately I set about, consciously, to annihilate the wrong accumulations of the past years.

Two weeks after he commenced to meditate in this manner, Krishna began to complain of a pain in the nape of his neck, and Nitya observed a knot or swelling there about the size of a marble. This initial symptom developed in the next day or two into something systemic, involving intense pain in the head, neck, and spine, accompanied by episodes of shivering, alternating with a burning sensation. Krishna complained bitterly of the dirt of his surroundings, even though his bed had fresh linens and his room was immaculate. At times he was not his normal self, and he reverted to a distinctly childlike persona. He was able to sleep the night through, but the symptoms resumed the next morning and continued for three days.

Present to observe these events were Nitya, Warrington, and Rosalind Williams, a nineteen-year-old American woman whose mother was friends with Mary Gray. Rosalind had struck up a friendship with the two brothers and made herself useful in the care of the ailing Nitya. She was the only person whose presence Krishna could tolerate when his symptoms became intense. When the pain was acute, he would sometimes cling to her and cry out for his mother, who had died when he was ten.

On the evening of the third day, a marked change came over Krishna as his symptoms subsided and he recovered a more normal demeanor. He had been moaning and writhing in pain in his cottage as twilight fell, while Nitya, Warrington, and Rosalind sat on the porch outside. Nitya recorded the events that followed in a long and detailed narrative. He wrote, “Our lives are profoundly affected by what happened . . . our compass has found its lodestar.”

Toward the end of the third day, after the others had finished their evening meal, “suddenly the whole house seemed full of a terrific force,” Nitya wrote, “and Krishna was as if possessed.”

He would have none of us near him and began to complain bitterly of the dirt, the dirt of the bed, the intolerable dirt of the house, the dirt of everyone around, and in a voice full of pain said that he longed to go to the woods . . . Suddenly he announced his intention of going for a walk alone, but from this we managed to dissuade him, for we did not think that he was in any fit condition for nocturnal ambulations.

Warrington noted that he knew Krishna’s bed was perfectly clean, because he had personally changed the linen that morning. Nitya continued:

Then as he expressed a desire for solitude, we left him and gathered outside on the verandah, where in a few minutes he joined us, carrying a cushion in his hand and sitting as far away as possible from us. Enough strength and consciousness were vouchsafed him to come outside but once there again he vanished from us, and his body, murmuring incoherencies, was left sitting there on the porch . . .

The sun had set an hour ago and we sat facing the far-off hills, purple against the pale sky in the darkening twilight. 

A young pepper tree stood at the entrance to the cottage, “with delicate leaves of a tender green, now heavy with scented blossoms.” Warrington suggested to Krishna that he might like to go and sit under the tree, and after a moment’s hesitation, he did so. Presently, those on the veranda heard a sigh of relief, and Krishna called out to ask why they had not sent him there much earlier. Then he began to chant an ancient song, one familiar to the brothers from their childhood. A few moments later, according to Nitya, something occurred outside the parameters of ordinary reality. He claimed there was an unusual light in the sky, and he had an overwhelming sense of the arrival of some transcendent personality or intelligence. “The place seemed to be filled with a Great Presence,” he wrote, and “in the distance we heard divine music softly played.“

After this evening, the strange process ended. Krishna recorded his own impressions of what had transpired over the course of the preceding days:

There was a man mending the road; that man was myself; the pickaxe he held was myself; the very stone which he was breaking up was a part of me; the tender blade of grass was my very being, and the tree beside the man was myself. I almost could feel and think like the roadmender, and I could feel the wind passing through the tree . . . I was in everything, or rather everything was in me, inanimate and animate, the mountain, the worm, and all breathing things.

Krishna invoked images of nature to convey what occurred under the pepper tree. His experience there is not easy to correlate with the days of pain and semiconsciousness that led up to it:

There was such profound calmness both in the air and within myself, the calmness of the bottom of a deep unfathomable lake. Like the lake, I felt my physical body, with its mind and emotions, could be ruffled on the surface but nothing, nay nothing, could disturb the calmness of my soul . . .

I have drunk at the clear and pure waters at the source of the fountain of life and my thirst was appeased. Never more could I be thirsty, never more could I be in utter darkness. I have seen the Light. I have touched compassion which heals all sorrow and suffering; it is not for myself, but for the world.

As dramatic as these events may have been, they turned out to be merely a prelude to a much longer series of related experiences. The pain in Krishnamurti’s head and neck resumed in subsequent months, although now the episodes were confined to one or two hours in the evening. In his letters to Annie Besant, Nitya described these events as Krishna’s “process,” and that name has been employed for this purpose ever since. The process continued to recur at regular intervals, sometimes daily, throughout the remainder of his life. He never sought treatment for it, although he once consulted a Theosophical doctor who observed the process for a week and agreed it was not a condition requiring medical intervention.

The meaning and significance of the process and of the experience under the pepper tree remain somewhat obscure to the present day. What is clear is that Krishnamurti avoided any mention of these personal experiences in his public talks. He sent accounts of these events to a few close associates, but he insisted that they not be shared with others. He evidently regarded it as a private matter, unrelated to the truth or validity of his teachings, but a potential source of distraction or confusion for his audience. Only toward the end of his life did he allow these experiences to become known.

An even more insightful avenue into Krishnamurti’s inner life is contained in a diary he composed over a period of seven months beginning in April 1961. Krishnamurti’s Notebook was published in 1975, almost simultaneously with Years of Awakening. Although it did not receive as much attention as the biography, it is in many respects a more extraordinary document. It consists of approximately two hundred entries, each one a page or two in length. These entries have several recurrent and interrelated themes. In order of the sheer number of words devoted to each theme, they are as follows: descriptions of scenes observed in nature; comments on the psychological characteristics of humanity; the quality of a mind in meditation; the intermittent presence of an unusual force or energy that envelops him with a sense of the sacred; and the ongoing, occasional pressure and pain in the head and neck, sometimes intense, that he still refers to as “the process.”

Taken together, these themes represent a kind of panorama of the landscape of Krishnamurti’s daily consciousness. If we consider them not in terms of the number of words devoted to each theme, but rather in terms of their apparent significance to him, their order might be construed as follows: the presence of the sense of something sacred; the beauty of nature; the mind of man, coupled with the transformative quality of meditation; and the process. After about the first thirty entries, he discontinues any further mention of the process, as if its description requires no further elaboration, although presumably it continued on almost a daily basis. In some respects, it appears as though the entire diary exists mainly for the purpose of bringing the sacred quality to light. The other themes are important in their own right, but similar material is described elsewhere in Krishnamurti’s work. Here the other themes seem to serve as a kind of context for the introduction of the sacred element.

Among the salient characteristics of the sacred quality is its essential unknowability. Krishnamurti uses a variety of terms to refer to it, none of them entirely equal to the task. He most commonly refers to it simply as “the other” or “that otherness.” Additional appellations he employs include “the benediction” and “the immensity.” He ascribes to this quality a sense of overwhelming power, something impenetrable, vast, innocent, and untouchable. The manner in which the sacred element is woven into the diary can perhaps be gleaned from two of the briefer excerpts.

On September 27, 1961, Krishnamurti was in Rome, and he wrote as follows:

Walking along the pavement overlooking the biggest basilica and down the famous steps to a fountain and many picked flowers of so many colors, crossing the crowded square, we went along a narrow one-way street, quiet, with not too many cars; there in that dimly lit street, with few unfashionable shops, suddenly and most unexpectedly, that otherness came with such intense tenderness and beauty that one’s body and brain became motionless.

For some days now, it had not made its immense presence felt; it was there vaguely, in the distance, a whisper, but there the immense was manifesting itself, sharply and with waiting patience. Thought and speech were gone and there was a peculiar joy and clarity. It followed down the long, narrow street till the roar of traffic and the overcrowded pavement swallowed us all. It was a benediction that was beyond all image and thoughts.

The following month, Krishnamurti was in Bombay. On October 24, he wrote:

The dark leaves were shining and the moon had climbed quite high; she was on the westerly course and flooding the room. Dawn was many hours away and there was not a sound; even the village dogs, with their shrill yapping, were quiet. Waking, it was there, with clarity and precision; the otherness was there and waking up was necessary, not sleep; it was deliberate, to be aware of what was happening, to be aware with full consciousness of what was taking place. Asleep, it might have been a dream, a hint of the unconscious, a trick of the brain, but fully awake, this strange and unknowable otherness was a palpable reality, a fact and not an illusion, a dream. It had a quality, if such a word can be applied to it, of weightlessness and impenetrable strength.

Again these words have certain significance, definite and communicable, but these words lose all their meaning when the otherness has to be conveyed in words; words are symbols but no symbol can ever convey the reality. It was there with such incorruptible strength that nothing could destroy it for it was unapproachable. You can approach something with which you are familiar; you must have the same language to commune, some kind of thought process, verbal or non-verbal; above all there must be mutual recognition. There was none. On your side you may say it is this or that, this or that quality, but at the moment of the happening there was no verbalization for the brain was utterly still, without any movement of thought. 

Even for someone schooled in the intricacies of Krishnamurti’s philosophy, it is hard to know what to make of the “otherness.” He hardly seems to know what to make of it himself. However, he is adamant that what he is witness to is not a matter of imagination or invention; the “other” is far beyond any possible creation of thought or ideation. It is not something that can be brought about by any act of intention, desire, or will; it comes and goes of its own accord; indeed an attitude of indifference to whether or not it occurs is essential for it to take place. And yet it represents a kind of balm, a healing, transformative energy, without which life seems somewhat barren, empty, and meaningless.

Krishnamurti’s Notebook is confined to a period of seven months, and he offers no explanation for why he started it or stopped. In a brief foreword, his friend Mary Lutyens claims that he did not know himself what moved him to compose it. It is the only record we have, however, of his experience of the “otherness.” In subsequent years, he composed two additional diaries of a similar nature, but without any references to the sacred quality or energy. It seems reasonable to assume that the “otherness” continued to come and go, but there is no way to know for certain, or even whether it matters.

Krishnamurti’s Journal is a shorter work than the Notebook, commencing for some six weeks in 1973 and resuming for the month of April 1975. Like the Notebook, the Journal is occupied largely with vivid descriptions of scenes from nature, coupled with observations about ordinary consciousness and meditation. No reference is made to his process, or to the “otherness” or benediction. The psychological observations closely parallel his statements from the public platform, although in a somewhat condensed and, if possible, a more immediate form. In reading the Journal, one has the impression that he is being a little more direct than in his public talks, stating facts bluntly, without any compromise. The descriptions of nature and of a mind in meditation serve to soften and offer some relief from the realities of ordinary consciousness.

Krishnamurti to Himself was the last of the three diaries. It consists of just twenty-seven entries, composed in 1983 and 1984. These entries are a little longer, on average about four pages each, perhaps in part because they were dictated into a recorder rather than written out in longhand. In this final journal, Krishnamurti introduces an imaginary interlocutor, a visitor who comes to inquire about certain points raised in the teachings. He finds this format conducive to elucidating various issues, and it resembles the pattern of individuals who came to seek his counsel throughout his life.

The three diaries taken together represent a remarkably comprehensive exposition of the inner quality of Krishnamurti’s daily life and consciousness. The journals span a period of two and a half decades and reflect a consistency of style, theme, and content. The depictions of nature are stunning in their fine detail, suggestive nuance, and variety. The observations about consciousness and about meditation are at one with the teachings as they were articulated to the public. Only the references to the process and the “otherness,” confined to the Notebook, suggest a kind of experience and a depth of awareness not evident elsewhere in his work.


David Edmund Moody, Ph.D., is the author of The Unconditioned Mind: J. Krishnamurti and the Oak Grove School (Quest, 2011). This article is adapted from Moody’s book An Uncommon Collaboration: David Bohm and J. Krishnamurti, forthcoming from Fohat Productions in 2016.


President's Diary

Printed in the Fall 2015  issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: Boyd, Tim. "President’s Diary" Quest 103.4 (Fall 2015): pg. 154-155.

At the end of April I returned to the U.S. from Adyar. My first official duty, which was also a great personal pleasure, was to attend the installation of a friend of many years, Lola Wright, as the spiritual director of the Bodhi Spiritual Center in Chicago. The Bodhi Center is a highly active and inclusive spiritual community whose founders had roots in Theosophical traditions. Over the years it has evolved into an open, service-oriented, conscious community. Its motto is “wherever you are on your spiritual journey, you are welcome here,” and welcome is how one feels.

A couple of days later I was commuting into Chicago for a series of meetings we had planned for over a year. Back in 2014 members of four groups met for three days in Sedona, Arizona — the Theosophical Society in America, Greenheart, the Institute of Noetic Sciences (IONS), and Integral Transformation Practice International (ITPI). All of the groups are active in the consciousness movement. The sense was that there were significant ways in which we could cooperate in our shared works. At that time it became clear that this needed to be an ongoing and growing effort. So this year four more groups were invited to participate. We also decided on a name for the group: Conscious Cooperative (C2).One evening we had a public program for a couple of hundred people that was hosted at the Bodhi Center. It was called “Transformational Leadership” and was sponsored by Greenheart in support of the upcoming IONS annual conference in Chicago. Dean Radin, senior scientist of IONS, IONS president Cassandra Vieten, and I spoke that evening. Cassandra was also one of the featured presenters at our own Summer National Convention in July.

That weekend my wife, Lily, and I drove up to Detroit for our annual session with the Detroit TS. Although I have lost count of how many years I have been visiting the group, I know it has been more than twenty. As always it was a good opportunity to connect with longtime friends and coworkers.

The next weekend in May we hosted Eben Alexander, author of the New York Times number one best-selling book Proof of Heaven. Eben and Karen Newell were with us to do a day-long workshop on “Awakening Consciousness with Sound Meditation.” Since his transformative near-death experience, Eben has been on the leading edge of the consciousness movement, promoting approaches that extend human awareness. (See his Winter 2015 in Quest, Winter 2015.) One avenue he has found productive is the use of sound as a focusing tool for meditation. As expected, the workshop was well-attended. One hundred people came, filling every seat in the auditorium. While introducing Eben, I asked for a show of hands of those who were visiting the TS for the first time. My rough estimate was that around 70 percent of them were first-timers. We have scheduled Eben and Karen to return next year on June 11.

The next weekend was a special and long-anticipated time for me and my family. We were off to Oberlin, Ohio, to be on hand for my daughter, Angelique’s, graduation from college. Family and friends joined us for the occasion. First Lady Michelle Obama was one of the speakers and gave a rousing and inspiring speech to the graduates. Although by now I should be used to it, it still amazes me how fast time runs.

The next journey took me to Italy. When I was there last year, one of the members from Milan invited me to participate in a one-day conference on vegetarianism. It was to be held in connection with Expo 2015, the Universal Expo (World’s Fair) that would be opening in Milan in May 2015. The Expo is a huge event, lasting six months, at which 145 countries have exhibits. Its theme is “Feeding the Planet, Energy for Life.” The organizers felt that this would be a high-profile opportunity to present a Theosophical view. Of course, for me it was a lot of travel for a one-day event. To make the planning work, Italian TS general secretary Antonio Girardi arranged the timing of the Italian Section’s annual meeting to coincide with my visit to Milan. I told Antonio that while I was in Italy I wanted him to schedule me to visit some of the groups. He took me up on it with a flourish. At one point in the tour I was speaking in four different cities in four days. If it’s Tuesday, this must be Milan.

The visit to Italy began in Vicenza, the location of the national headquarters in northern Italy. The Vicenza TS doubles as both a meeting space and the administrative office for the Italian Section. The conference we had at Vicenza took place over three days, with more than a hundred members participating. On the night before the closing, the tradition of having a musical evening continued. As he did last year, Sergio Ferro brought his band, this time for a musical tour of the world accompanied by slides of the cities featured in each song. The evening finished with a lively chorus of the members from Vicenza singing a song dedicated to me and my roots — “New York, New York.” It was a lot of fun.

On the last day I had a meeting with some of the younger members. At our last General Council meeting in December, I had said that when I visit a section, I would like to have a separate meeting with young, or at least younger, members. Ten or twelve bright and energetic young members turned up for a lively discussion of values, interests, and directions for the TS. I talked, but mainly I listened.

The next day we were driven from Vicenza to Trieste by our lovely driver cum translator, Renate Pedevilla. After navigating through some torrential downpours so strong that we had to pull off the road, we arrived in the beautiful seaside city. For the next evening president Diego Fayenz and the TS group had organized a talk at the famous Teatro Verdi in the city center. The hall was gloriously beautiful, with marble floors and columns and crystal chandeliers. The room had been set up with 200 chairs, which ended up almost completely full. More than a hundred of the people attending were nonmembers. There was also a large contingent of members and members-to-be from Slovenia. The border between Italy and Slovenia is just a fifteen-minute drive from Trieste. Over forty Slovenians came.

From Trieste it was on to Udine for an evening meeting with that group. It was a joyful evening, with food, kids mixing in and out, and a chance to connect about things that are meaningful. Then it was back to Vicenza to meet with the local TS group.

The next morning it was a train ride to Milan and the event, “Alimentazione vegetariana: per un futuro sostenibile” (“Vegetarian Nutrition: For a 

Theosophical Society - An artist's conception of the projected covering for the Adyar Theatre.
An artist's conception of the projected covering for the Adyar Theatre.

Sustainable Future”). Like the event in Trieste, this one was held in an ornate and elegant venue. In addition to me, a neurophysician, a journalist, and the head of Italy’s vegetarian society also spoke about the value of the vegetarian diet. I was pleased that more than half of the people attending were nonvegetarian.

From Milan we flew to Adyar. While in India, Lily and I took the Shatabhi express train to Bangalore for a meeting at the Bangalore City Lodge. Much like the Indian Section headquarters in Varanasi, the Bangalore TS is a formidable campus right in the center of town. After a tour and a talk to the 200 members who had gathered, we shared food and conversation outdoors on the grounds. The next day we drove two and a half hours to the town of Gauribidanur in Karnataka for two events — the fiftieth anniversary of the Gauribidanur lodge, and, on the next day, the Karnataka Federation meeting. The lodge celebration drew 400 members. The federation meeting was packed, with 650 attendees.

Back at Adyar the last thing I did before returning to the U.S. for our TSA board of directors meeting and Summer National Convention was to finalize the construction of a protective covering for the Adyar Theatre. Every year for many years at convention time we have put up a temporary structure to protect the 1200–1400 people sitting in the outdoor theater from sun and rain. One week before convention, it goes up. One week after, it comes down. It used to be a palm leaf thatch roof, and in recent years it has been corrugated metal. On the closing day of last year’s convention I promised that we would have a new structure the next year. Thanks to a generous and substantial donation from the Cleveland/Besant Lodge we will be putting up a structure that will last for many years, and is not just functional but beautiful (see photo).

Tim Boyd


Viewpoint: Applying the Principles

Printed in the Fall 2015  issue of Quest magazine.
Citation: Boyd, Tim. "Viewpoint: Applying the Principles" Quest 103.4 (Fall 2015): pg. 128-9.

By Tim Boyd

Theosophical Society - Tim Boyd was elected the president of the Theosophical Society Adyar in 2014. He succeeded Radha Burnier.Many years ago I had the good fortune to spend some time with an old and highly regarded Tibetan Buddhist monk. He had come to the Chicago area to give some teachings on the core Buddhist concept of love and compassion. He was a Rinpoche, which in Tibetan Buddhism means that he was recognized as a reincarnation of a previous high teacher, and he was one of the dwindling number of high lamas who had received their education and training in pre-Chinese Tibet. During his time in Chicago he and his attendant were staying at my home. Even though his English was little and my Tibetan was none, we would talk. He would share mantras, and show the various ways they were sung in the different monasteries. He was known for his kindness, directness, and unshakable conviction. When he gave his teachings, through a translator, he shared some of his personal story.

Because he was not among the thousands who fled with the Dalai Lama when the Chinese occupied Tibet, he was imprisoned and at one point sent for “reeducation” by the Chinese. A frequent feature of his reeducation process was that he would be walked around a circle of people where he would be publicly humiliated, beaten, ridiculed for his “feudal superstition,” and provoked to renounce his faith.

Although it was a harrowing story of continued abuse, Rinpoche was able to describe it quite dispassionately. He viewed it as an opportunity to apply the teachings he had been practicing over his lifetime. But which teachings could be effective in that situation? First he said that he tried the approach of experiencing it all through the mind of one of the enlightened beings. He had received many initiations and part of the ongoing practice was to take on the spiritual character, to “arise,” as the deity itself. So he tried it. On one occasion he arose as the wrathful deity, Yamantaka — a powerful being, literally a “terrifier,” filled with an energy that destroys all ignorance and limitation and conquers death. Yamantaka is said to be so fierce that even the other gods run when he appears. So as the people in the circle slapped, kicked, spit on him, and jeered, it was not Rinpoche but Yamantaka who faced them and passed through the experience.

After repeated attempts arising as different deities, Rinpoche decided that it was not effective. He tried meditational techniques to withdraw his consciousness during the hazing sessions, but that only had a limited effect. As a result of all of his experimentation he arrived at a profound conclusion: the teaching that was most effective was the least elaborate, most fundamental of all. He found that it was only when he embraced the mind of love and compassion that he was able to pass through the ordeal inwardly undamaged.

The basis for this mind of love and compassion is expressed in a twofold way, but really it is just one thing. The basic idea is that (1) everyone wants to be happy, and (2) everyone wants to avoid suffering. For committed practitioners, their role in life becomes to behave in such a way that their actions and thoughts lead others to happiness and freedom from suffering.

As an aid in developing this all-embracing attitude, from early childhood monks are encouraged to think about the “fact” that because the process of reincarnation is so all-encompassing, at some point every person has been in the position of being a great source of kindness to you. The teaching goes so far as to say that every person has been one’s mother in some past life. As a teaching tool one is encouraged to dwell on the idea that whatever the relationship may be in this life, at some point in the past the person in front of you has cared for you selflessly; has sacrificed greatly to support your growth; has tried to provide every circumstance that would lead to your happiness.

Using this view, how do you respond when in this life someone treats you badly, even deliberately causing you pain and suffering? That was Rinpoche’s dilemma in attempting to apply the teaching during his imprisonment and torture. The way he described it, as they walked him around the circle, he looked at his abusers with genuine pity. Their disconnection from their higher potentials, their ignorance of their true nature, and the karma that they were creating for themselves moved him profoundly. Much like the story of the crucifixion of Jesus, in the midst of what was thought to be suffering inflicted on him, what he saw was the suffering they were creating for themselves, and his prayer was “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” Rinpoche asked us to imagine how we would respond if suddenly your own mother became abusive and hateful toward you. Would you hate her for it, and try to fight and destroy her, or would you feel that something had gone wrong in her mind — that for some reason she was temporarily insane, and as a result was more in need of love and compassion than ever?

I found myself captivated by Rinpoche’s story. Whether one is a Buddhist, a humanist, a capitalist, or a Theosophist, we all need values that we can live by — truths that can be applied to the ever fluctuating, often demanding conditions of daily life. Hopefully the circumstances that we face in our daily lives are not so dramatic as Rinpoche’s, but regardless of the particulars, the conditions of our daily life provide the testing ground for the truths we have encountered.

One of the distinguishing features of anything that can be called “truth” is that it must necessarily be true in every situation. It is universal. Yet in our day-to-day interactions we find ourselves enmeshed in a world of dualities. There seem to be at least two sides to every issue, but only glimmers of truth on either side. How do we choose to act in this setting? In the rush of daily life there is a tendency to resort to a kind of “situational truth” — something that works for a given situation, but has clear limitations.

In the Bhagavad Gita this same problem faced Arjuna and formed the basis of his conversation with Lord Krishna. For Arjuna the setting was as clearly drawn as possible — two sides about to go to war. As a leader of one side, but with friends, teachers, and loved ones on the other side, how do I act? From the situational point of view, Arjuna’s actions would either lead to destruction of life, families, and community or to rejection of duty (dharma), continuation of wrong, oppression in the world, and a denial of values. Caught between a rock and a hard place, Arjuna sought Krishna’s advice.

Albert Einstein once made the poignant observation that “no problem can be solved on the level of consciousness where it was created.” Krishna’s counsel to Arjuna began with shifting the level of the conversation far above Arjuna’s point of view. At the human level a paraphrase of Krishna’s advice might be, “Arjuna, you are looking at this in the wrong way. This is not about taking lives or destroying bodies. This is about the soul, the ‘dweller in the body,’ which is not born and doesn’t die. Lift your mind up and look at this from a different point of view. Let’s start with that.”

Sir Edwin Arnold’s poetic rendering of the Gita, The Song Celestial, presents this portion of Krishna’s advice thus:

Never the spirit was born; the spirit shall cease to be never;
Never was time it was not; End and Beginning are dreams!
Birthless and deathless and changeless remaineth the spirit for ever;
Death hath not touched it at all, dead though the house of it seems!

This initial counsel formed the basis for the profound, and practical, advice that followed on action, duty, liberation, and yoga.

Those who have embraced the wisdom teachings in Theosophy find themselves in the same position as Rinpoche and Arjuna, seeking and finding those truths which are sufficient to address the problems of daily life. In my next Viewpoint article I will explore some of the practical and transformative Theosophical teachings that embrace every phase and experience in life.

Theosophy must not represent merely a collection of moral verities, a bundle of metaphysical Ethics epitomized in theoretical dissertations. Theosophy must be made practical . . . It has to find objective expression in an all-embracing code of life thoroughly impregnated with its spirit — the spirit of mutual tolerance, charity and love. (H.P. Blavatsky, Collected Writings, 7:169)

 


Subcategories