Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
You're following all this, sirs? Obviously it can't. If I am concerned with my particular fulfilment, ambition, competition and my desire to achieve, I can't see the whole of mankind.
So what am I to do? That's a habit, wanting to fulfil, wanting to be somebody, wanting to achieve something - that's a habit, a social habit as well as a habit that gives me great pleasure, to say, well, as I go down the street people look at me, say, there he goes. That gives me great pleasure.
Now as long as that mind is operating in that field of fragmentation obviously it can't see the whole. Now my question is, how is the mind, which functions in fragments - please listen to this - realising that it cannot possibly see the whole, what is it to do? Is it to break down every fragment, understand every fragment - again, that would take a long time.
Or what is it to do? Are you waiting for an answer from me, from the speaker? Silence.
Oh my Lord - he is quoting somebody. (Inaudible) I understand, madam. Actually, right now, I feel happy?
Habits, our actions are not in the future, habits, if we can see our habits now actually at this very moment. I am doing that, aren't we? I am actually caught in a habit.
Oh Lord, you don't go any further, you go back over and over again. I am caught in a habit, now, I fiddle with my fingers, I listen to what is being said with my mouth open, and I see that it is a habit, and my question is, can I understand this whole machinery habit now. You don't pay attention.
Look, sir - a mind that is in fragments cannot possibly see the whole, full stop. And I take one habit and through learning about that one habit, a serious habit, by observing that one habit I see the whole mechanism of all habits. Right?
I take one habit - what shall I take? Smoking. Please take the habit of smoking.
All right, sir. Now wait a minute, I am not analysing, you understand the difference between analysis and observation. Do you?
How am I to do if you...? All right, I'll explain. There is a difference between analysis and observation, seeing.
Analysis implies the one who analyses and the thing to be analysed. The thing to be analysed is smoking and to analyse that there must be an analyser. And the difference between that, which is analysis, and observation is observation is seeing directly without analysis.
Seeing without the observer, seeing the dress, red, pink, black as it is without saying, I don't like, like, it is so - you follow? Seeing things as they are, without analysing - listen, sir, just two minutes, I am going to explain. Seeing, in seeing there is no observer.
I see the colour red, visually, the vibrations and all the rest of it, are translated in the brain as red. And there is no like or dislike, there is an observation - right? Analysis implies I don't like red because my mother who quarrelled with my father - you know, go back to my stupid childhood and say, my mother did - my God, must I go through all that eyewash?
So analysis implies an analyser - please realise that - a division between the analyser and the thing analysed. In observation there is no division. I observe, there is observation without the censor, without saying, I like, I don't like, this is beautiful, this is not beautiful, this is mine, this is not mine - just observe without any division.
Right? You have to do this, not just theorise about it, you have to do it and then you'll find out. As I said, we are not analysing we are merely observing the habit of smoking.
Now, in observing, what does it reveal? What does it reveal, not your interpretation of what it shows - you see the difference? There is no interpretation, there is no translation, no justification, no condemnation.
What does the habit of smoking reveal? It reveals that you are putting into your lungs a lot of nasty smoke. It reveals that you are drawing into your lung - I won't use the word 'nasty' - a lot of smoke.
One fact. Second, what does it reveal, not you, what it tells, what it tells you, not what you are telling it - please listen carefully, please listen, sir. Do listen carefully.
It is going to tell you the history of smoking, if you don't interpret it, if you don't - you follow. The picture is going to tell you all it wants, if you can listen to that picture, if you can watch smoking, you have understood that. So don't say it is nasty, it is pleasant - it is going to tell you.
Now what does it tell you, that you are drawing a lot of smoke into your lung. What else? That I am dependent.
It shows you that you are dependent on a weed. That inside you're empty. That's your translation.
What does it tell you? I see that it is a very mechanical thing, I don't think about it - I just do it. It tells you that you are doing something mechanically, it tells you that when you first smoked it made you sick.
It was not pleasant, but other people did it round you, so you did it. Now it has become a habit. Does it tell you that it tranquillises you to a certain extent?
It tells you that it puts you to sleep, helps to drug you, you know, quieten your nerves, cuts your appetite, you don't get fat. It tells you, you are bored with life. It tells you, you are bored with life.
It tells you that you, because when you meet others and you feel nervous by taking a cigarette it makes you kind of, you know - it has told you a lot. (Inaudible) That is your translating, that you are inattentive - it is not telling you that you are inattentive. (Inaudible) Yes, it helps you, I understand - it is telling you all this.
Right. And why are you doing it? Just listen, sir - don't quickly answer me, please.
Why are you doing this - it has revealed to you, and why are your accepting all that? Television tells you what to do, what kind of soap to buy and all the rest of it - you've seen all that, commercial. It is telling you all the time - why do you accept it.
It tells you, the sacred books, what you should do, what you should not - why do you accept it? Do watch it. Sir, please.
It's easier. Do watch it. Please.
Why do you accept the propaganda of churches, religions, priests, the politicians, why, why? Because it is easier to follow a system. You say it is easy to follow a system.
I don't believe it but I follow it. No, I don't follow that, but I said it is easier. We explained this - why do you follow it, is it because, for the sake of security, to feel companionship with others, not to be out of the run, to be like the rest of the people?
Which means, you are frightened not to be like the rest of the people. You want to be like everybody else, because in that there is perfect safety. In a Catholic country, if you are non-Catholic you find it pretty difficult.
If you are in a Communist country, if you don't follow all the line, you'll find it difficult. And so on and on and on, and on. Now look what it has revealed to me.
What the picture of that weed has revealed and why I am caught in the habit. You follow? Are you following?
It is interrelationship between the cigarette and me. And this is the habit, this is the way my whole mind is working. I do something because it is safe.
I get into a habit, small, trivial or great habits, because I don't have to think about it any more. So my mind feels that it is safe to function in habits, cigarette or Church, believe in god or non-believe in god. Right?
So I see the whole mechanism of this habit formation. Right? Are we getting together?
No? Through one habit of smoking a cigarette, of smoking, I have discovered all the pattern, I've discovered all the way, I have discovered the machinery that is producing habits. No?
Yes. (Inaudible) Though we are living in habits, both physically and psychologically, accepting those habits, can we live fully, freely, happily, ecstatically. Yes.
Yes? (Inaudible) Yes, sir, we've been - I did not say that. I never said good habits and bad habits.
We are examining the machinery of habits. We are not condemning it. The lady asked, having all these habits, can one live happily.
One can live happily blind, if you call blind living happy, it's up to you. Now through one habit you can discover, if you listen to the whole habit - listen to the whole habit, you can find out the machinery that breeds habits. I didn't understand perfectly how you can see through one habit, the whole mechanism of habit.
I've shown it to you, sir. Habit implies functioning mechanically, through smoking - you follow, we took that - and we see how it has become mechanical. And from that observation of mechanical habit of smoking, I see how the mind functions in habits.
But are all habits mechanical? Wait. Must be - moment you use the word 'habit', it must be mechanical.
Aren't there more deep dependencies as just mechanical habits. The moment we use the word 'habit', it implies mechanical, repetition, establishing a good habit, which means doing the same thing over and over again. The doing over and over again is called good, because one is caught in the doing of the bad thing.
So there is no good habit and bad habit, only habit, we are concerned. If I have a habit of power or the habit of comfort, for instance, or the habit of property, it isn't something more deep, it is just mechanical. Wait - I am going into it, I did it just now.
The habit of power, the demand for power, position, domination, aggression, violence - all that is implied in the desire for power. To do what one wants to do, like a child or like a grown up man. That's become a habit.
Or security also. I said that, it gives you security, safety and so on. In examining that one habit I've traced all the other habits are based on that.
Look at it, look at it. Habits being mechanical, repetitive, and once there may have been the freedom, to say, I would like to be a great man, then I become caught in that habit because in that habit I find security and so on and so on. And I pursue that.
Deep down all habits - we are not discussing the good or the bad habit, only habit - deep down all habits are mechanical. Are they really? Look at it, sir - don't say, are they really, really - look at it.
Anything that I do repetitively, which is doing something from yesterday to today or to tomorrow, must be mechanical. There may be in that mechanical, repetitive action, little more polish, function a little more smoothly, but it is still habit, still repetitive - that's obvious. Would you say that certain creative efforts are habits?
Would you say that certain creative efforts are habits? Would you? Let's answer that question, sir.
Would you say creativeness is a habit? Creativity implies freshness. Creativity implies newness, freshness.
You don't make an effort to be creative. If I make effort I can't be creative. Are you saying all this because you are creative or you're just guessing at it?
Therefore one has to ask what do you mean by creativeness. Please, sir, this is a tremendous question - you brush it aside. You paint a picture, either you do it because you love painting, or it brings you money, or you want to find some original way of painting and so on.
So what do you mean by creativeness, what does it mean to be creative? A man who writes a poem because he can't get on with his wife or with society, is he creative? Please listen.
The man who is attached to his violin and makes a lot of money out of it, is he creative? And the man who is in great tension, in himself, and out of that tension he produces a play, which the world say, how marvellous. Would you call that creative?
The man who drinks, soaked, blotted, and out of that writes a marvellous rhythmic, full of rhythm - is he creative? How can you judge? I am not judging.
But that is the question you pose. If I say someone is or isn't creative, I am judging. I am not judging, sir, I am asking, I am learning, I look at all this in front of me, the people who write books, the people who write poems, who write plays, who fiddle - you follow?
- the Church - I see this in front of me, I don't say this is right, this is wrong, this is good, this is bad - I say, what is creativeness. The moment I say this is right, I am finished, then I can't learn. And I want to learn, I want to find out what it means to be creative.
Perhaps it is to have an innocent universality. Again, I don't know, perhaps - I want to find out, I want to learn. I go to a museum and see all those pictures, admire them, compare them - one, or this modern, non-objective and, you know, all the rest of it - watch them.
And I say, what marvellously creative people they are. So I want to find out, learn what it is to be creative. Must I write a poem, paint a picture, write a play, to be creative?
Which means, does creativeness demand expression? No, please listen carefully. The woman who bakes a bread in a hot kitchen, is she creative?
(Inaudible) All these activities, we generally call them creative, I know. I'm questioning it. I don't say they are not, I don't know, I am questioning it, I want to learn.
(Inaudible) You are saying, the man who is creative doesn't know he is creative. Yes. He can feel he is creative.
He can feel he is creative - you see, sir, look. Are you creative? (Inaudible) I am asking you, sir, what is creativeness.
(Inaudible) No, no, don't, don't. What is it from observing what man has called creativeness, all these things, I ask myself, what is creativeness, what is it to be creative. Must it have an expression, which is baking a bread, painting a picture, play, making money - being creative, does it demand expression.
Please, sir, this is one of the most colossally important things, don't say... (Inaudible) The lady says, at this moment you are creative, you are creating - that's not my point. My point is, whether you are creative, or merely listening to somebody who points out all this. I think you create when you observe uncritically.
Not 'I think' - you see, sir. I want, I'm passionate, I want to find out, I want to learn. The moment you see you see, and you act is the very moment of creation.
The very moment you see that you see and act, that is the moment of creation. Therefore you are saying, seeing is acting and at that moment is creation. That is a definition.
Wait, wait. Is not creativity one's harmony with nature? Is not creativity one's harmony with nature - are you?
I want to learn - you miss the point - I want to find out, I am hungry, I have observed all the great painters, I have seen all the great, listened to all the great plays and so on - I say, what is creation, what is it to be creative? No definition, I want to, you understand. Doing something new.
To discover something new? Doing something new? Wait a minute, listen quietly.
To discover something new, doing something new - what does that mean - new, fresh, not a decision, something totally new, that means, the past must end. Right? Has it ended with you?
Or we're just talking about creation as you talk about a book, gossip about a book. Are we doing that? If you are, I don't want to play a part in it.
I want to learn, I am passionate, I want to shed tears over it, because one can, one may live creatively, without doing any of these things, neither baking a brick, bread, painting a picture, writing a poem - that means, you can only do that when the mind is non-fragmentary, when there is no fear, when the mind is free of all the implications of the past, when the mind is free of the known. For me, creativity isn't a thing. Not for you, sir, or for me - you are all making it personal - it is not an opinion.
You go to a writer, he says, this is my creativity, it is mine - I am not interested in yours or his or Michelangelo or somebody else, I am interested to find out, I am hungry and you feed me with a lot of words. Which means, you are not hungry. You know, sir, yesterday, after talking about attachment, I was watching it, the mind was watching it all day, whether it was attached to anything, to sitting on a platform, talking, wanting to tell people, writing something or other, person, ideas, chair - one has to find out.
And in finding out one discovers enormous things, the beauty of freedom and the love that comes out of that freedom. And when we are talking of creation, it is that, a mind that has no aggression. So to find out, sirs, the machinery of habit, the network of habit, one has to be aware, go into it, let it flow through you, you follow, like the river, moving, moving, moving.
Let this enquiry, the learning, carry you all day, and you will discover enormous things. That's enough for today, isn't it. Shall we go on with what we were talking about yesterday morning?
We were talking, if I remember rightly, about attachment, detachment which inevitably leads - attachment leads to fear. And the various forms of fear, both the conscious and the unconscious fears that one has. And whether one can see the whole network of fears and escapes without analysis but observe, in which there is no analytical process at all.
That's what we were discussing, more or less, weren't we? And I think we ought to go into this matter very deeply because a mind that is really not free from fear and the escape from that fear, in different forms, will inevitably cripple the mind, make the mind unintelligent. It may do all kinds of meditations and all the rest of it, follow various systems of meditation and all that, which is so utterly childish and immature, as long as there is not complete freedom from fear, obviously.
So could we go into it much more deeply and find out and learn whether the mind, not only the superficial layers but also the deep, hidden layers of the mind in which there are fears. Could we go into this. And we said, as most people are attached to something or another, that attachment indicates an escape from one's own loneliness, one's own frustrations, emptiness, shallowness and so on.
Now when one is aware of this whole movement of fear, which is a movement away from the fact of emptiness, can one see this total process as a whole and not partially? That is what we were talking about. To see something whole, the fragmentary process must come to an end.
The fragmentary process of a mind that seeks success - I do not know if you follow. I want to be free from fear in order to achieve something else. I will follow certain systems of meditation in order to arrive at enlightenment.
I will discipline, control, shape myself in order to see something most extraordinary. Such ways of thinking, living and acting is fragmentary. I don't know if we see all that clearly.
Can we look at the network of fear and the various escapes and the various escape from which our whole being runs away, can we see this complicated, very subtle form of escape which is the very nature of fear. Can we see that? Can we see that to act from any form of conclusion is fragmentary, because it stops further learning - you may have started to learn but the moment there is a conclusion from that learning, it becomes fragmentary.
Now what makes for fragmentation. You follow? We have discussed fear, when we find ourselves being attached to something, and the cultivation of detachment from that attachment, in order to overcome fear, that is a fragmentary thinking.
Now what is it that makes for fragmentation in our life? We are going to discuss this very carefully. Now, please sirs, would you kindly listen - don't draw any conclusions from what you hear - would you kindly listen.
I really want to communicate with you to tell you that one can be completely, totally and utterly free of fear, not only the biological fears, physical fears, but deep, psychological fears. And fear is a form of fragmentation, attachment is a form of fragmentation. And seeing attachment, the attempt to be detached is a movement in fragmentation.
I am first attached to my family, then I discover that family causes pain or pleasure, if it is painful I want to detach myself from it, and fight attachment. So it is a fragmentation, a movement in fragmentation, and therefore there is no resolution in that fragmentation. Right?
Is that clear? Now what is the basis, the mechanism of this fragmentation in life, not only inwardly but outwardly - the German, the Dutch, the French, the English - you follow - this breaking up - your religion, my religion, Catholic, Protestant, Zen Buddhism, the Zen Meditation, the practice of Indian meditation, the practice of certain mantras - you follow? - all fragmentation.
Through one of these fragmentations one hopes to arrive at a synthesis, at a completeness, enlightenment, what you like. Is that possible, you understand? That is through a fragmentation you hope to achieve a non-fragmentary mind.
And is that possible? Though all the yogis, rishis, you know, promise all these things. So one has to find out why fragmentation comes into being, what is the mechanism, not conclude in words or intellectually, the mechanical process of it, but actually see non-analytically the whole mechanism of it.
I don't know if I am conveying this to you. If I am not, please stop and let's discuss that. Sir, but aren't these rishis enlightened men.
These wise men, these rishis as you call them, aren't they enlightened men? The maharishis and the rishis and the yogis and people, are they enlightened? What do you think?
You are asking my opinion? Are you, sir? Only the fools give opinions.
Now, anybody, how do you know, you, know who is enlightened? You never ask that. I may sit up on the platform and say, I am the most wisest, most enlightened, the most divine human being - how do you know?
No, sir, don't laugh. This is what is happening in the world - a man comes and asserts these things - do these things, you will have enlightenment, I've got it, I'll give it to you. How do you know he is enlightened, why do you bother about it, why do you bother who is enlightened or who is not enlightened?
You can experience yourself, if you observe. You have a method too in a way, I think. No, sir, there is no method, if you have observed, listened, we are not showing you a method at all, we are learning - learning is not a method, you can learn through a method, but learning through a method is only conditioning the mind to that particular system.