Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Please, sir, come on, let's go. If thought is responsible for this fragmentation and conclusion, and all conclusions are fragmentations - please see that - all I must be secure, I am frightened of uncertainty. But there may be a way of living which will give you physical security, which is what you want, but freedom psychologically.
You follow? And that freedom will bring about complete physical security. But you don't see this, so we are going to learn.
If thought is responsible for this fragmentation and yet thought must function to survive, then what is one to do? Then what is thought to do? You understand my question?
If you don't understand it, please let's go into this question itself. I must go from here to where I live - I must use thought. To earn, to go tomorrow to my job and function there properly, I must use thought.
And yet thought sees itself that it is the cause of fragmentation and therefore conflict. You follow? Thought sees it must function, and thought sees itself bringing about fragmentation.
I don't know if you see. (Inaudible) No, we said, sir, it is not a linkage, you cannot put fragments together and make it whole. Many spokes of the wheel doesn't make the wheel - it's how you put the spokes that makes the wheel.
So, please, I must... As we have to use thought, we don't want to come to fragmentation, can we just be conscious of the tendency of thought to produce this fragmentation - if you are conscious of that it doesn't... Now, who is it, if you are conscious, if you are conscious that thought fragments, brings about fragmentation, and yet thought must function - that very consciousness of this whole process brings about a different quality altogether. Is that what you are saying? Now is that what is happening to you?
Be careful, sir, go very slowly into this. Thought must be exercised, thought must exercise, and thought also realises that it breeds fragmentation and therefore conflict and therefore fear and all the misery in the world. And yet thought itself, you are suggesting, must be conscious of this whole process.
Now see what happens. We said, thought is the basis of fragmentation, therefore when thought becomes conscious of itself and how it breeds fragmentation, how it must, therefore, thought itself divides itself into this, into that, into that. Right?
No, but just to be conscious of something which is happening. Therefore what do you mean by being conscious. Go into this slowly - what do you mean by that word, conscious.
To see. To see. Now go slowly, what do you mean by seeing?
Do you see this process mechanically - please listen carefully - mechanically because you've heard the words, you have intellectually understood, and you see with the intention to apply these words and the intellectual conclusion to seeing? Please listen, be careful, don't say, no. Are you seeing with a conclusion or you're merely seeing.
At the point where you were asking this question, were you yourself actually asking this question, because it seems to me that if there is a question at this point, it is again fragmentary. No, because I am not asking. The lady suggests, if you are asking the question, then you are beginning again fragmentation.
And if so, then what has this whole investigation been, what validity has it had? What has this whole investigation been, what is the point of all this investigation, if thought is asking that question? (Inaudible) I'll explain to you, you come to this point and ask the question.
And the lady says, who is asking this question, is it thought that is asking the question? If it is, then it is again - I am asking it because you are not learning. But then...
Wait. I am not asking this question. That's just it, at this point I don't mind, it is presumptuous to say so, but may be you would not, but I do ask this question, at whatever point along the line...
Therefore, I am going to point out. Go a little bit slowly with me. I have this picture, the mind sees this match.
How thought has fragmented, thought must function and sees this. If you really see this, completely, there is no more question. Now wait, wait, wait.
You can only see this if there is no conclusion here, no desire to solve it, to go beyond it; only when you see this whole mechanism of thought, how it operates, how it functions, what is behind it all, etc., when you see this completely the problem is solved. Then you are functioning all the time non-fragmentarily, even though you go to the office, it is non-fragmentary action - if you see the whole of it. If you don't, then you divide the office, the family, the you, the me.
Now, do you see the whole of it? Sir, are you suggesting it is possible to carry on a non-dualistic life and still function in society? I am showing it to you, sir.
If you see this whole mechanism of thought, not just one part of it, the whole of it, the whole nature and the structure and the movement of this. How can you learn it quicker? How can you learn it quicker - by listening now.
(Laughter) You see, again the desire to achieve. That means you are not listening at all, your eyes, your ears, are fixed on getting somewhere. So, sir, my question then is, as a friend, asking, do you see this whole thing.
And the friend says, look, for God's sake, you must see it, otherwise you're going to live a terrible, miserable existence, you'll have wars, you'll have such misery and sorrow, for God's sake, see this. And why don't you? What is preventing you - your ambition, your laziness, your innumerable conclusions that you have?
Now, who is going to answer it? Why answer it? Why answer it?
He says, why answer this? Just do it. Just do it.
(In Spanish) I know I have conclusions, I hold on, I know it, I have them, but I can't get rid of them, they go on. (In Spanish) It is the same old question - tell me how to be secure, that is the everlasting question of man. May be it is very good to become a little more aware that we are living now and not yesterday or last year.
It may be better to be aware that we are living now than live in the past or in the future. Because a lot of our attention, I don't know how much percentage is taken away, when we live in the past or dreaming of the future. Can you live in the present?
Which means living a life that has no time. (Inaudible) I am asking you, sir, can one live in the present - to live in the present there must be no time, no past, no future, no success, no ambition. Can you do it?
Just a bit. (laughter) The very process to build something, let's say a house, supposes a programme. Of course, sir - look at it.
To build a house you must have an architect. And the architect makes a design, a plan and according to that plan the contractor builds. In the same way, we want a plan.
You are the architect, give me the plan and I will function according to that plan. I wasn't saying this, we want to build a house which is a concrete thing, to do we must plan certain things. So you use thought.
So we cannot live only in the present. I never said that, sir. When you look at this question really, carefully, you will never ask the question, how am I to live in the present, to build a plan, if you see this very clearly, you will find that, if this is very clear, the nature and the structure of thought, then you will find that you can function from a state of mind that is always free from all thought and yet use thought.
That is real meditation, sir, not all the phoney stuff. That is, the mind that's so crowded now with the known, which is the product of thought, the mind which is filled with the past, knowledge, experience, memory, which is part of the brain, the whole of that is filled with the known. I may translate the known in terms of the future or in terms of the present but it is always from the known.
It is this known that knowing the past, I don't know, I shall know. This past, with all its reservoir of memory says, do this, don't do that, this will give you certainty, that will give you uncertainty. So when this whole mind, including the brain, is empty of the known, then you will use the known when it is necessary, but functioning always from the unknown, from the mind that is free of the known.
Sir, this happens, sir, its not so difficult as it sounds. You have a problem, you think about it for a day or two, you go over it, you mull, you chew over it and you get tired of it, you don't know what to do, you go to sleep. The next morning if you are sensitive you have found the answer.
See, that is, you have tried to answer this problem in terms of the known, in terms of what is beneficial, what is successful, what will bring you certainty, what will keep you going - in terms of the known, which is thought. And when after using all the - exercising thought, thought says, for God's sake, I'm tired. And next morning you've found the answer.
That is you have exercised the mind, thought to its fullest extent, and dropped it. Then you see something totally new. But if you keep on exercising thought all the time, conclusion after conclusion, which is the known, then obviously you never see anything new.
And this demands a tremendous inward awareness, inward sense of order, not disorder, order. If you haven't got that you can whistle all day long. Is it not a method or procedure?
Is it not a matter or procedure, is it not a method or procedure? Look sir, - I get up, walk few steps, take a few steps and go down the steps, is that a method of procedure? I just get up and do it naturally, I don't invent first a method and follow it, I see it.
Oh Lord, you can't reduce everything into method. Can you ever empty the storehouse of impressions which you have had? Can you ever empty the mind of all the known, which is the past.
You've put a wrong question, because it is a wrong question, because you say, can you ever - who is the 'you' and what do you mean by 'ever'? Which means, is it possible. Sirs, look, we never put the impossible question - we are always putting the question, what is possible.
If you put an impossible question your mind then has to find the answer in terms of the impossible, not what is possible. All the great discoveries, scientific discoveries, are based on this, the impossible. It was impossible to go to the moon.
Or if you say, it is possible, then you drop it. Because it was impossible, therefore they put their mind to it and , people worked at it, co-operating, working night and day, competing with each other, with Russia - they put their mind to it, and went to the moon. But we never put the impossible question - the impossible question is this, can the mind empty itself of the known - itself, not you empty the mind.
That is an impossible question. If you put it with tremendous earnestness, seriousness, with passion, you'll find out. But if you say, oh, it is possible then you are stuck.
Do you think a special meeting, or gathering like this, is necessary for the young people? Yes. I said, fortunately, or unfortunately, that we would have a couple of discussions in which the young people would take greater share.
Aren't they now taking greater share in the discussions than the older generation like us? So do you think you need a special one? A special one - you know what that means?
Younger people sitting in front and the older people behind, that's all. Let's see how things go along and then we will decide. We have got Thursday, Friday, Saturday, Sunday, four more discussions and we'll see.
Shall we go on with what we were talking about yesterday? Or shall we approach this whole problem again from a totally different angle? (Inaudible) Could we talk over together, I know you may not like the word 'discipline', but order, let's substitute the word order instead of discipline, could we discuss that?
Do you think it would be worthwhile? I know the young people don't like discipline, neither do I. But I think we should be able to discuss that and see where it will lead us.
Shall we? Yes. Is discipline constraint?
Yes, we are going to go into all that. First, do we want to discuss that, talk over together? Didn't you say somewhere, you once mentioned in one of the lectures, that we are doing two hours of exercises or something like that - is just for the body or for the awareness?
Wait. We are going into all that sir. First let us see, do you want to go into this question of order?
Aren't there more important things? Aren't there more important things? Such as what?
Social activity? For instance. For instance what?
Social activity? Death. Death.
All right, you have your way. Come on. Death, social activity and what else?
Boredom. Boredom. What about responsibility?
Responsibility. Education. Education.
What do you think we have been doing during the last ten talks, but education? Now which do you want to take up - boredom, social service? Discipline.
Discipline, order. What sir? Prayer.
Prayer. Consciousness. Consciousness.
Death. Death Loneliness. Loneliness.
Now what shall we take among all those things that you have suggested would you think will be sufficiently important and will cover all the rest? Right? Social activity - shall we take that?
No. Oh! Boredom.
Because I tell you, if you take up one thing, like social service, social action, and somebody said responsibility, and if we go into it sufficiently thoroughly I think we will cover everything, every problem is interrelated with other problems. You cannot separate one problem and say, 'Let's discuss that'. They are all interrelated, aren't they?
One is not more important than the other. It may appear to some social service, a revolution, a social activity, activists and so on, death, this or that, may seem important to one or two, but they look at it, I am afraid, as though it was an isolated problem by itself, not interrelated with every other problem. So please listen, so there is no important problem every problem is important.
I have the impression that we are always talking about the inward revolution, and we think a lot of that, and it seems to me awfully difficult to do any inward revolution, if you still remain in the same society. Let's talk over that. If you remain in the same society, inward revolution seems terribly difficult, or practically impossible.
Shall we discuss that? Really? Yes.
Right. I think most of us want to change society, the structure, I think most intelligent people are aware of this fact. Right?
We all agree to that, young and old and deaf and dumb and all the rest? All of us see the importance of a social revolution - a social - we may not use that word revolution, it may be too drastic, therefore we will use the word 'social change'. Now how is this to be brought about?
By physical revolution? Upsetting society as it is and creating a new society? Let us talk it over.
Sir, see what is involved in it. I have the impression it is private property and it is already violence. So changing society, even if it implies some violence will never be so violent as private property.
Private property, to the questioner, seems the very essence of violence. Without changing that, any form of change must be another revolution. He is saying physical property is the cause, is the real change, the changing of physical possessive property, real estate, earth, if you can change that then everything will be solved.
All right sir, how do you propose to do it? Give it all into the hands of the government? Let governments own it?
Who will own it? A few people? Or many people?
Or socialise it? Everybody owns it? All these experiments throughout history have been tried.
Even in India there was a period, I was told, when everybody owned the land. How do you propose when you have property, a house, a piece of land, and I have mine, how do you propose to change it? I like to own my land.
You should have the right to use it but not to possess it and sell it. You should have the right to use it, not possess it and sell it. How are you going to prevent this?
Detachment. Sir, do consider it. I feel, having a house, a piece of land, mine own, I feel safe, I identify myself with that - to me that is very important.
To me that's life and death, it is something to own - wait sir, go slowly. I am not for or against. We are trying to find out what to do, given certain things, what to do.
How will you take it away from me? By law? By revolution?
And if you do, we all of us land owners will get together and fight you. This has been going on for a million years - you follow, sir? Yes sir.
For instance in Russia they have a tremendous bureaucracy and it doesn't mean that no system could be invented, no natural system exists, it just means that this is a bad experience. Yes sir. I'd like to quote someone, it's my father.
And I think this is really apropos. He has always said that as long as there are group of people in the world there is always going to be the crafty people and the slow people, and to him and it appears that way to me, that the crafty people are always going to want to take from the slow people. How will you change this, sir?
Well, obviously there has to be a change in the people themselves. How will an inner revolution change this? How will inner revolution change the outer structure of society?
How will the inner revolution change the structure of outward society? What do you think? To me owning property, or not owning property, is of very little importance.
Many riches are not in the house or in the land but somewhere else. I don't care. I am a beggar.
I don't mind. What will you do if you are not a beggar, if you are attached to property, what will you do? You see we are discussing theoretically all this.
No? What, madam? I may be speaking for myself, but I can't help it, I resent this young man and the way he keeps leading us back to the social revolution thing.
I feel you have something to tell us, you'll show us another way if only we would allow you to do it. It is not a question of somebody interfering in what you want to hear from the speaker, but we are talking about this. Look - I see the world as it is, property, possessiveness, domination, power, bureaucracy reaching a state where they want to control everything, as is being done in Russia, and so on and so on.
I see wars, I see everything around me, the division of people through religion, politics, through nationalism and so on and so on and so on. What shall I do? I see the necessity of a change.
Right? There must be. I see this.
I see it is tremendously important that human beings should change. Now where shall I begin, there or here? Or is it a combination of both?
Not there first, or here first, but a movement that answers both questions, both the outer and the inner, so there is no division as the inner revolution and the outer revolution. It is a movement of constant change. Right?
Of constantly freeing the mind from its own conditioning, from its own possessive demands, from its own self-centred activities, from its own pursuit of pleasure and pain and division and so on. Right? Now where shall I begin, inner or outer?
Inner. Now wait. Don't you see?
When you say 'inner', you feel that the inner is disassociated from the outer. The inner is the result of the outer and the outer is the result of the inner. We have created this society.
We have created through our ambition, through our greed, through our competitiveness, through our comparing, and so on and so on, demanding for power, position, prestige - we have created this society. We had established in another talk that we were conditioned by the society, marked in our childhood. Isn't it necessary to make it so that other ones are not conditioned because otherwise...
Right. That means you have to begin helping the child, to educate the child in such a way that he is not conditioned from the very beginning, which means special schools. If he was still in the society, which means violence, he will be conditioned.
How will you change society? Yes, sir? Is it not possible to set up a commune?