K: If you really understood this, you would meet these little challenges.
P: In everyday life, we have the chattering, erratic movement of the thinker
operating with its demands. What does one do with that?
K: I do not think you can do anything with that. That is irrelevant. That is the
denial.
P: But that is very, very important. That is what our minds are. One does not
have the capacity to negate that.
K: Listen, there is noise outside. I cannot do anything about it.
P: When there is a crisis, there is contact. In normal living there is no contact. I
go out. I can look at a tree, and there is no duality. I can see colour without
duality. But there is the other—the erratic nonsense part that is continuously
chattering. When the thinker sees its functioning, it starts operating on it. The
great negation is to let it alone.
K: Settle the primary factor: Observe pain without moving away from it. That is
the only non-dualistic state.
P: Let us speak of the chattering mind instead of pain, because that is the fact at
this moment. The noise of that horn, the chattering mind—that is ‘what is’.
K: You prefer this and do not prefer that, and thereby begins the whole circle.
P: The central point is the observation of ‘what is’ without moving away. The
moving away creates the thinker.
K: The noise, the chattering, which was the ‘what is’, has gone, has faded away.
But the pain remains. Pain has not gone. To go beyond pain non-dualistically is
the issue. How is it to be done? Any movement away from ‘what is’ is dualistic,
because in that there is the thinker operating on ‘what is’. Without the dualistic
movement taking place, will that transform ‘what is’? Do you understand my
question? That is, would the cessation of the dualistic movement transform ‘what
is’?
P: Is it not really a dissolution of ‘what is’?
K: I know only ‘what is’, nothing else—not the cause.
P: That is so. One can see that when there is no movement away from pain, there
is the dissolution of pain.