Commentary on "Who am i"? self-inquiry.

There are two kinds of learning:
1) Accumulation of knowledge, of experience, of technology, of a skill, of a language. It is time bound.
2) Psychological learning—learning through experience either through the immediate experiences of life which leave a certain residue of non-understanding, of tradition, of race, of the society.

There is no line of demarcation between the two types of learning, they overlap.
What we are concerned in self-inquiry is psychological learning that we have acquired through centuries or inherited as tradition, as knowledge, as experience. This we call learning, is it learning at all? Mind has learned and with what it has learned it meets the challenge of life in the active present. It is always translating the life or the new challenge according to what it has learned. This is what we are doing in the name of learning. Is that learning? Does not learning imply something new, something I don’t know and am I learning if I am merely adding to what I already know, then it is no longer learning. If you are to discover for yourself what is the new, it is no good carrying the burden of the old, especially the knowledge of scriptures or a great master.
A man protecting himself constantly through such knowledge is obviously not a truth seeker.
When you want to find something new, the mind must be quiet. If the mind is crowded, filled with the facts and borrowed knowledge they act as the impediment to the new.
The difficulty for most of us is that the mind i. e thought has become so important, so predominantly significant that it interferes constantly with anything that may be new, with anything that may exist simultaneously with the known. Thus borrowed knowledge and learning are impediments for those who would seek, for those who would try to understand that which is beyond thought and so timeless and eternal.self-inquiry demands psychological energy. But the energy is destroyed, is wasted when one is in conflict.So when there is the understanding of the whole process of conflict, there is the ending of conflict, there is abundance of energy. Then you can proceed, tearing down the house that you have built throughout the centuries and that has no meaning at all.You know, to destroy is to create.We must destroy the psychological, the unconscious and the conscious defenses, securities that one has built up rationally, individually, deeply, and superficially. We must tear through all that to be utterly defenseless, because you must be defenseless to love and have affection. Then you see and understand ambition, authority; and you begin to see when authority is necessary and at what level -the authority of the policeman and no more. Then there is no authority of learning, no authority of knowledge, no authority of capacity, no authority that function assumes and which becomes status. To understand all authority -of the gurus, of the Masters, and others- requires a very sharp mind, a clear brain, not a muddy brain, not a dull brain.Is there an action not of desire? If we ask such a question, and we rarely do, one can probe, without any motive, to find an action which is of intelligence. The action of desire is not intelligent; it leads to all kinds of problems and issues. Is there an action of intelligence? One must always be somewhat skeptical in these matters; doubt is an extraordinary factor of purification of the brain, of the heart. Doubt, carefully measured out, brings great clarity, freedom. In the Eastern religions, to doubt, to question, is one of the necessities for finding truth, but in the religious culture of Western civilization, doubt is an abomination of the devil. But in freedom, in an action that is not of desire, there must be the sparkle of doubt. When one actually sees, not theoretically nor verbally, that the action of desire is corrupt, distorted, the very perception is the beginning of that intelligence from which action is totally different.