Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Is there a motive in responsibility? If I feel I am responsible to you because I feel you should change, change according to my pattern, my philosophy, my understanding. Which is, I feel responsible then I have a motive.
When I see I am conditioned you say I am responsible. No. Responsible to be free of your conditioning.
Not for somebody else's freedom. So I have to find out if I have a motive. Go on sirs, work with me and don't let me work by myself.
Have I a motive in wanting to change society, in wanting to change myself? Obviously I have a motive, because I want to be free, I want to achieve enlightenment, I want to be - I want to impress others. God knows, a thousand reasons.
Sir, because I can't be separated it is a very important problem because it is the only problem which is absolutely not fragmentary. That's what I am showing to you. When you say you want to be free that implies a motive.
No I only use that - when I want to be free - that's a way of talking - 'I want to be free' means again time. I am not talking - oh Lord, don't pick up a few words and throw it at me, please. We are talking about the whole business of freedom and conditioning.
It's not - I give it up! Sirs, can we go on from there? That is, have you got a motive which is the factor of your conditioning?
I have a motive and that motive says, change. And that motive is going to dictate what kind of change it must be, obviously. Look sir, I am ambitious and I have tried this, that, the other, hoping through that to achieve my ambition.
And I have got on to one line and I say I am going to fulfil that, that's my motive. And according to that motive and that line I change, and I think I am being free from my conditioning. I am not.
Oh Lord, isn't that clear? Is there not a motive also in unconditioning? No sir.
Is there not a motive in unconditioning? Is there? Look sir.
Just let me answer that. You observe the sorrow, the misery of the world, what's going on - right? - not observe intellectually, verbally but actually see.
There is starvation, there is war, the division between spirit and matter, you see all these divisions. Right? See it, feel it, you are involved in it.
Right? And you realise that there must be a change, naturally. When I have got a tooth ache I can't keep on going, I must go to the doctor, remove it, do something about it.
There is a motive in that, obvious sense, but I am talking of a deeper motive. Are you and I without motive in being here? Are we talking about motive and just being here?
Are we here without any motive. I don't know, I can't tell you. Right, madam?
Can you start out thinking about a motive and as you think the motive becomes obvious or disappears? Can you start out thinking about a motive. No, thinking about this question of motive.
Thinking about this question of motive, as you observe the motive becomes obvious or disappears. Sir, look, we are talking about not a, some other motive, but have you got a motive that says, change society. Right?
Have you got a motive? Obviously. Wait.
Find out sir what that motive is. (Inaudible) You have a motive. All right.
What is the motive? Is there any way of living according to certain rules - if you see the rules why don't you change? It's obvious...
It is obvious. Are you acting according to the dictates of a motive? Sir, do answer, go into this question a little bit.
Are you acting according to the dictates of your motive? Or are you free from motive? I see the rules are wrong and I want to change them.
You see the rules are wrong. You want to change them. You, who are conditioned and therefore your changing those rules will bring about another set of rules according to your conditioning.
I don't think it is so obvious. For instance, let's say there is traffic in the town and it isn't satisfactory, you can see the rules are wrong, so we could change them. They are changing them sir.
That's a practical problem. Yes, that is a totally different problem. Aren't we going round and round and round in circles?
Yes sir? (Inaudible) I understand that. (Inaudible) Of course not sir.
(Inaudible) Sir, please sir, could we stick to one thing and work it out together. Please, just stick to one thing, which is you see the world as it is, you are part of the world, this chaos in the world has been brought about by human beings. Right sirs?
And you are part of that human society. You realise this misery and confusion has been brought about by you as well as by another. Right?
By your conditioning. Now how am I to change that conditioning? I am concerned, with that only we are discussing, nothing else.
Now is it possible to change it instantly? Or will it take time? Now, just a minute, just a minute.
Look at it this way. If you see the danger of any danger you act instantly, don't you - no? Don't you act instantly when you see some danger?
Now do you see the danger, please listen, the danger of being conditioned? Do you really see the danger of being conditioned? If you see the danger as dangerous as meeting a wild animal, you will change instantly.
But you refuse to see the danger. Sir, excuse me for going back one step. But are there not some kind of social environments that make unconditioning more possible that others?
May be. But you can't, a future society may come into being which you are trying to help now, which will help your grandchildren to be less conditioned, but we are taking things as they are now, not a society in the future. Look sir, if you see your conditioning is a danger, real danger, not philosophical danger, a theoretical danger, intellectual danger, but a positive, direct danger to human well being, you are bound to change instantly.
Now, you don't see that. Why don't you? Right?
Why don't you see the danger as you see the danger of an animal, wild animal, or house on fire, and equally see the danger of being conditioned? (Inaudible) No, why don't you see? Don't explain.
I'll tell you why you don't see it, why you don't see the danger, I'll give you ten explanations. If you saw it you wouldn't be conditioned. Why don't you see it?
I am afraid of something new. No. Sir, are you afraid of something new when you meet a tiger?
You act. The condition of conditioning is that it is unconscious. Therefore find out.
Are you conditioned, consciously, superficially conditioned or conditioned right through? You don't even enquire. Or you merely want to change society, the rules, this and that, you go back.
Sir, please, go together. I am blind to the danger of conditioning. You are blind to the danger of conditioning.
Are you blind? Are you blind when your house is on fire? She means blindness to the conditioning is part of the conditioning.
Blindness is part of this conditioning. Blindness is part of this conditioning. Then what are you going to do?
You can't have everything. You want to change society and you say I am blind to my conditioning, I don't know what to do and so you keep on repeating. It's just a theory.
It is what is happening. That's exactly my point. You talk about change of society, which you really don't mean at all.
If you really mean change in society you have to go very deeply into this question of conditioning. Whether it is superficial conditioning or deep, conscious or hidden conditioning, you have to enquire, you have to learn, sir, you don't apply, you don't pursue, what am I to do? Isn't the desire to change society an escape from ourselves?
Is not this desire to change society an escape from ourselves? How can it be an escape when you are part of society? When you separate yourself from this society then you can say, 'I am escaping'.
But if you realise you are part of it then there is no escape. Sir, one is conditioned. I want to find out if it is a superficial conditioning or a deep conditioning because as long as the mind is conditioned any enquiry into change has no meaning whatsoever.
If we agree on that, see the truth of that, then we can proceed. Which is, I want to find out whether it's superficial conditioning or deep conditioning. Now, what is the instrument - please listen quietly - what is the instrument which you are going to use to enquire?
You understand? If it is the old instrument of analysis it has no value. Right?
We have been through that. So are you enquiring through the old instrument of analysis? Are you?
Or, are you looking without analysis? Which is it you are doing? Are you looking with analytical eyes, or are you looking, merely observing?
You must find this out because part of our conditioning is the analytical process, and if you proceed with the analytical process your enquiry will be conditioned enquiry. If it is not then you are merely observing without the analyser therefore it is totally different perception. Sir, as soon as I ask myself a question that implies analysis, doesn't it?
No, no, sir. Move from there. Analysis - we explained what analysis means.
There is an analyser and the thing to be analysed. As soon as I ask a question there is a division between... No, no I ask a question. Sir, I ask a question not from an intellectual point of view, not from a verbal point of view, the mind says, wanting to find out the truth of something, it is not an intellectual enquiry, it is not an analytical thing.
I hope you are as hot as I am! But there is a division, isn't there? No.
Sir, I ask. That's why I said to you, what is the motive in your asking. If there is a motive in your asking then that motive is going to dictate your observation, analytically or non-analytically.
(Inaudible) Sir, I am not - one is not responsible for anything except one's conditioning. As long as you are not aware of your conditioning and try to be responsible for another then it becomes a monstrous fight, a conflict, a possessive demand, a dominance and all the rest of it. (Inaudible) So you are saying, you don't see the danger of conditioning because it is not immediate.
Is that it sir? You are saying you don't see the danger of conditioning because it is not immediate, it is not active, it is not something that really disturbs you. It is not right here.
Yes, that's what we are saying. Why isn't it? Sir, isn't also that people don't want to change their conditioning because they have notions of security - very deeply attached.
Yes sir, therefore I have to find out what security means. Is there security for a man who is conditioned? Find out sir.
Look, I am conditioned as a Jew, is there security for me? You mean whether he is privileged or not? No, no.
Born as a Hindu, live in that cage, think traditionally, I say 'I must have security' therefore I fight the Muslim. So as long as I am conditioned in nationalism, or any other division, fragmentation, security is not possible. Look you have had two wars.
Yes, sir, that's true. But it's not the problem because people feel secure in nationality, feel secure in their private property, feel secure in their... Do you, who have been listening here, sitting here, hour after hour for ten days, feel secure in nationality? I don't say we do.
Do you? Don't say - I am asking you. Secure in your belief, in your conclusion, in your hope, in your aggression?
Do you? Don't talk about others. You started out this morning wanting to help society, change society, and you see you really don't mean it.
(Inaudible) No, sir. It repeats itself because we are conditioned by a new conditioning. Before it was Capitalism, then later on Marx, Lenin and so on, we are conditioned by this or that, and we are talking about all conditioning.
It is not possible. Look, if you say it is not possible for a human mind to be free from conditioning, then we can deal with that in a different manner; but the moment you admit the possibility of it, which means a tremendous thing, then you are altogether thinking differently. If you say it is not possible then let us decorate the cages we live in - right?
- hang up pictures of this or that, make lovely things of our cages, our traps. If that is all you want I am afraid I won't play that game with you. I am puzzled by your approach to motive.
Is motive and attachment the same thing? Yes sir. Sir, you asked the why don't you see the danger as real as a physical danger.
What would make one really ask such a question? I am asking you. I am asking.
Apparently you don't face it. Apparently it is not a danger to you. It is not a danger to the young or to the old.
But if we see there is no security in nationalism, people think there is security there... But sir, please, sir, nationality is such a superficial rubbish. You can put that aside very quickly but there are much deeper conditionings like conformity.
Go into it sir. Find out how you conform. Therefore find out whether you are conforming and you will find out only when conformity becomes a tremendous danger.
And that makes you conform to the society in which you live, or change that society in order to conform to another pattern of society. Therefore the enquiry into conditioning implies not only superficial conditioning as nationalism, but the most fundamental conditioning like acquisitiveness, like competitiveness, comparison, conformity, find out. Put your teeth into it and find out.
If you have that - conforming, acquisitive, wanting to dominate, changing this society, into something else, has no meaning. (Inaudible) You can say what you like sir. (Inaudible) Sir, we are are you aware of your conditioning?
- Not somebody else's. Don't give me explanations, theories. Are you aware that you are conditioned?
Are you aware that you are conditioned as a Dutchman? As a Jew? As a Hindu?
And if you do something as a Hindu your action will be conditioned, therefore destructive. If you do something as a Dutchman - equally destructive, or a Jew. You may write about all the goodness of the world but if you are at heart a Jew, conditioned, your action will be destructive and bringing misery.
But if you just have god and nothing else, no creed, and nothing else, just god, you take away god and what do you give for that? If you take away god what do you put in its place? Freedom from fear.
What do you give back in return? I am telling you, madam. Freedom from fear needs no belief.
We have our gods as yours and the Hindus, the Muslims and the communists, have their gods because they are all frightened. Don't you believe in spiritual powers? Don't you believe in spiritual powers.
Sir, this becomes... Sir, life - please do listen - the mysteries that we invent are rather silly, but there is a tremendous mystery if we can free the mind from its conditioning. You will find out the greatest mystery, and the beauty of that mystery. Can one be aware of subconscious conditionings as long as they are subconscious?
Right, right. How can one be aware of the unconscious conditioning? Do you really want to go into this?
Yes. Now sir, just a minute. Do you really want to go into this so deeply it means that you will completely expose all your unconscious beliefs, dogmas, traditions, dreams, hopes.
Right? Yes. It is better than asking why we can't face the danger, see the danger.
All right I am going to go into it. What is the time? We had better stop.
Shall we pick it up tomorrow? (Various comments from the audience) I will do it tomorrow, sir. We were going to talk over together this morning what lies below the conscious.
I do not know if you have thought about it at all, or enquired into it, or have merely accepted what the analysts and the psychologists have said, but if you have gone into it fairly deeply, and I hope we shall this morning, one or two major, fundamental questions have to be asked, not according to what others have said, but for oneself. One has to discover, explore, learn for oneself, the whole content of consciousness. Why one divides the unconscious and the conscious at all.
Why there is this division. Is it an artificial division brought about by the analysts, the psychologists, the philosophers, or is there a division at all? And if one is to enquire into the whole structure and the nature of consciousness, who is it that is going to enquire?
A fragment of the many fragments? Or is there an entity, an agency, that is beyond all this consciousness which looks into consciousness? And can the conscious mind, the daily operative mind, can that mind observe into the contents of the unconscious, or deeper layers?
And what are the frontiers of consciousness? What are the limits? I hope you'll remember these questions - I have forgotten them already!
Please do remember it and tell me afterwards as we go along. You know this is a very, very serious subject. In the understanding of which I think most human problems will be resolved.
It isn't a thing that you take up, take as a hobby, spend a few hours or a couple of weeks and just study superficially and drop it and go on with your daily whatever life that is. If one is to go into this very deeply, it's a way of life, it's not that you understand that and leave it there. You can only understand the whole content of consciousness and the limits of consciousness if it is a daily concern, if it isn't a thing you kind of play with.
It must be your whole life, your whole calling, your vocation, because we are enquiring into the very depths of the human mind, not according to your opinion, or the speaker's opinion, but learning the fullness of it and see what lies beyond it, not just scratch on the surface and think you have understood it. It isn't a thing that you learn from a book, or from another. Please do let us realise it isn't a thing that you acquire as knowledge from books and then apply it.
Then if you do, it will have no value, it will be second-hand. And if you merely treat it as a form of entertainment, intellectual, spiritual, emotional, then equally it will have no effect at all in your life. And we are concerned with the fundamental revolution of the mind, of the whole structure of one's self, the freeing - for the mind to free itself of all its conditioning, so that we are mature human beings, not educated, sophisticated human beings but real human, mature, deep human beings.
So, we are going to learn together this morning if we can, what is below the conscious, the layers, and seeing the many layers or one layer, or many layers, then to discover for oneself the content of consciousness, whether that content makes up the conscious or the conscious with its frontier contains 'what is'. You are understanding this? Does the content of the consciousness make up consciousness - the content, you follow?
Or, in the content all these things exist? See the difference? I am just investigating, you follow?
I am just moving slowly so please let us travel together. Don't ask me afterwards 'please repeat what you said' - I can't. So why is there this division between the conscious and the so-called unconscious or the deeper layers, why is there this division?