Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Are you aware of this division? Or does this division exist because we have got so many divisions in our life? Which is it?
Is it a separate movement, conscious movement and the deeper layers with their own movement? Or is this whole thing a movement, undivided? Please sir, this is very important for us to find out because we have trained the conscious mind, we have drilled it, educated it, forced it, shaped it, according to the demands of society, or according to our own impulses, our own aggression and so on.
And are the deeper layers uneducated? You follow? We have educated the superficial layers and are we educating the deeper layers?
Are you following all this? Or the deeper layers are utterly untouched and only we have cultivated the superficial layer? What do you say?
Please this is not a talk by me. What do you say? Because in the deeper layers may be the source of finding out new things, because the superficial layers have become mechanical, are conditioned, repetitive, imitative and there you can't - it is so mechanical, there is nothing.
It is not free to find out, to move, to fly - you follow? Take to the wing. And the deeper not being educated, unsophisticated, therefore extraordinarily primitive - primitive, not savage, primitive.
There may be the source of all invention, of all new things. Please is this all too difficult? I do not know what you feel, what you have discovered.
Is the superficial mind so heavily conditioned that it has become mechanical? If I am a Hindu I function as a Hindu, or a Jew, or a Christian, whatever it is, the superficial is so heavily laden - I function on that line, And below that layer which education hasn't touched, or has touched, and therefore the whole content of consciousness is mechanical - you are following? Conditioned, heavily burdened by all the past, by all the etc., etc.
Now sir, I'll keep quiet and now you proceed. Sir, how can we know about our unconscious? How can we know about the unconscious?
All right sir, let's begin. When you use the word 'know', what do you mean by that? No please I am not being merely verbal or superficial - you follow?
We must move into this very, very, very carefully. What do you mean when you say 'I want to know'? Have an experience.
Keep to that one word, go into it, don't introduce another word. What do you mean by that word 'know'? When you use that word 'I know', what does that mean, 'I know'?
'I know something that has happened yesterday'. All knowledge is the past - isn't it? Don't agree please, just see.
I know you because I met you yesterday. I didn't meet the whole of you, I only met you when you said something, you know, therefore knowing implies a time, time - in the period of time. Right?
So knowledge implies always the past, when I say 'I know that's an aeroplane flying' - you follow? - though the flying is at the moment, the knowledge that it is an aeroplane is the past. So how can I not know - how can this mind, the superficial mind, learn about the deeper layer.
Right? Are we going, moving together? Now how can you know?
How can that superficial mind learn about the other? Keep the superficial mind still then it can learn about the deeper levels. When the superficial mind is still then only you learn, there is a learning of the deeper layers.
And what is there to learn in the deeper layers? You assume there is something to learn - wait, wait. Please go slowly.
Sir, are you actually aware of the operations of the conscious mind? Are you? How it is ticking over?
What are its responses? Please do listen to all this. Do you - is there an awareness of the conscious mind?
Find out how extraordinarily difficult this is, not difficult, you have to watch this thing so very closely, the mind has to watch this entire movement very, very closely. Why you say there is the unconscious and there are many things in it. Right?
That's what all the professionals say, the specialists - are there? The moment you divide the conscious and the deeper layers then the question how is this superficial mind to enquire into the other? Right?
Are you following this? And if there is no division at all it is a total movement, a total movement of which one is only aware, a fragmentary movement. And this fragmentary movement what are the contents of the consciousness?
You are following all this? If it is a total movement you won't ask this question. Are you following?
Is the speaker making it clear? Be quite sure. Not verbally but actually.
The moment you divide consciousness into fragments, one fragment says, what is the rest of the fragment, what are the rest of the fragments. But if it is a total movement then there is no fragmentation, therefore the question doesn't arise. This is really important to find out, then you go beyond all the specialists.
Now do you see consciousness as a whole, or do you see with one fragment examining the other fragments? This requires - you follow sir? What do you do?
Do you see it partially or wholly, as a total movement, like a river that's moving? You can carve out, dig a ditch on the bank and call that the river, it isn't, it's a whole movement, the river. Right.
Then what is this movement? How is one to observe this movement without a fragmentation? May I say something please?
You speak about an unconsciousness mind, but please we cannot speak about something which is not conscious, but how can you speak about something which is not conscious. We can speak about the conscious. Please define unconscious and conscious.
Look sir. The question do we know the unconscious? We asked this question are we aware of the frontiers of consciousness?
Or, are we aware of the many fragments that compose the consciousness? One fragment becoming aware of the many other fragments? Or are you aware of the total movement of consciousness without any division?
Both ways are conscious. Intellectually I answer, why divide them? What, sir?
What, sir? Intellectually. Please, we are not analysing.
We have gone into that very carefully. We are not analysing. When there is analysis there is the analyser and the thing analysed.
One fragment assuming the authority of analysis and examining the other parts. And in this division arises the conscious and the unconscious, then we put the can the conscious mind examine the unconscious? - which implies that the conscious mind is separate from the rest.
And we say from that false question you can answer this through dreams, through various forms of intimations, hints - all arising from a false assumption that the superficial mind is separate from the other, which means that we have never seen or felt or learnt about the whole movement of consciousness as a whole. If you do, this question doesn't arise at all. I don't know if you see this?
Obviously some people are suffering from neurosis without knowing the origins of their neurosis - isn't that the unconscious? Some people suffer from neurosis, isn't that the outcome of the unconscious? Do you suffer from any neurosis?
Do you? Does it mean that you are all free from all neurosis? Please this is not a silly question.
Are you aware that you are neurotic in some form or another? Who is deciding if one is neurotic? Who is to decide one is neurotic?
Don't you know when you are neurotic? Has somebody to tell you that you are neurotic? Do please listen to this.
When there is any exaggeration of any fragment, of any fragment, then neurosis takes place. Right? When you are highly intellectual, then it's a form of neurosis, though the highly intellectual is highly regarded.
The person who holds on to certain beliefs - Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, Communist, this or that, any attachment to any belief is a form of neurosis. Wait sir, look at it, look at it. Go slowly.
Wait, hold on to your question. Any fear is a form of neurosis, any conformity is a form of neurosis - you follow? And any form of comparing yourself with something else is neurosis.
Aren't you doing all this? Yes. Yes sir.
Therefore you are neurotic. (Laughter) No, no, please sir, this is very serious. So, any fragment - please we have learned something from this - any exaggeration of any fragment of which the whole consciousness as we see it, which contains many fragments, any emphasis on any fragment is a form of neurosis.
Wait sir, get it into your heart, feel it. Move, take time, apply it sir, get involved in it, apply it to yourself and you will see for yourself the next question. As we are, as we have accepted, we have divided consciousness.
In this division there are many, many fragmentations, the intellectual, psycho-neurotics - you follow? - many, many divisions and any division, an emphasis on that division is neurotic, which means that a mind emphasising a fragment cannot see clearly. Therefore the emphasis of a fragment brings about confusion.
Get all this sir. Please sir, one moment, please just a minute sir. I am going to ask you, please go with this.
See yourself whether in you there is not a fragmentation, and that fragmentation laying emphasis on one, on its issue, on its problem, and disregarding the rest of the other fragments, leads not only to conflict, but to great confusion because each demands an expression, each demands an emphasis and when you emphasize the one the others are clamouring. And this clamour is confusion and out of that confusion every form of desire to fulfil, to become, to achieve, all are neurotic impulses. Yes, sir?
But also, for instance, neurosis can also be to suffer from something and you don't know really what you are suffering from. For instance, somebody doesn't dare to go through a Square and it is obviously not the Square he is frightened of but something in the unconscious. Sir, I understand.
I don't know what this lady is troubled about - what are you troubled about madam? It was forbidden to take photographs. I don't know.
For God's sake! Listen! Look this is terribly serious stuff.
One is aware that one is neurotic. You are afraid to cross the Square, you are afraid to let go your past, you are afraid to be non-Hindu, non-Jew, non-Christian, this or that, and how are you to know that you are neurotic? Is that the question sir?
Not really. Then what is the question, sir? Sometimes you suffer from something, but obviously the thing you suffer from is not the real reason.
For instance, you don't dare to go through a Square or you don't dare to be alone, it is not the fact itself but it is something, they say, in the unconscious which gives you the fear. Yes. Now wait a minute.
The neurosis is only a symptom, the cause is in the unconscious. Could be. Could be.
Obviously could be and probably is. Then what is the question? It's neurosis.
Sir you are not following the whole. Then when we have understood this whole structure then we can go to the particular, but to start with the particular you'll end nowhere. Please see that sir.
Do you see that any emphasis on the fragment is a form of neurosis? - intellectual, emotional, devotional, physical, psychosomatic, you follow? And as most of us have laid stress on one aspect of the many fragments, naturally out of that exaggeration, out of that disharmony, other factors of disharmony arise, which 'I can't cross a street, or a Square in the dark, I am frightened', and the explanation of that is my childhood, my past, my mother didn't treat me properly.
Now our question is, not why I can't cross the Square - which I will answer without going to the analyst. If I understand the fragmentation of consciousness, the moment I have understood that then the problem of crossing the Square doesn't exist at all. Right?
Are we meeting each other? When we see the totality, the immensity, the greater, the lesser disappears. But if we keep on emphasising the little, then the little brings about its own little problems.
Right? But when you talk about seeing the totality of consciousness, what does the 'see' mean because I am thinking sometimes I know something and I know how I resent this, when you know something you don't know how you know it. No sir, just look.
Do you listen to that movement of that river totally? Just do it sir. Don't speculate.
Listen to that river, stream, and find out if you are listening completely, without any movement in any direction, only there. Then what do you say, when you, having listened, what takes place? I... You see you are all too ready with answers.
Recognition plays no part in it. That's right sir. Recognition plays no part in it, you don't say, 'That's the stream to which I am listening' or you as an entity listening to the stream, there is only the listening to the sound.
You don't say, 'I know it is a river'. So let's go back. I want to go into this so much, please let's move together.
Is the emphasis on fragmentation the essence of neurosis, or is it the symptom of neurosis? No it is the very essence and the symptoms. Being intellectual is he essence as well as the symptom?
Isn't it? Look sir. I emphasize my intellectual capacity.
Right? I think it is marvellous, I can beat everybody at argument, I have read so much, I can correlate all that I have read, and write marvellously clever, intellectual books - isn't that the very cause and the symptom of my neurosis? It seems to be a symptom of our deeper disturbance.
Wait. Is it? Or is it, you are saying that is a symptom not the cause, I say, let's look.
Is the mind, the whole stuff, undivided and therefore the cause and the effect are the same? (Inaudible) No, no sir. Don't translate yet sir.
See it. Look sir. Cause and what was the cause becomes the effect, and the effect becomes the cause of the next movement, there is no definite demarcation or line between cause and effect, what was cause yesterday has become the effect, the effect of today becomes the cause of tomorrow.
It's a movement, it's a chain. But isn't it essential to see this whole process rather than just... That's what we are doing and that is not possible if you emphasize the intellectual, the emotional, the physical, the psychosomatic, the spiritual, god, and no-god and so on and so on. Right?
So my question is, which was the first why is it that we have divided? Is it artificial, necessary, or just the invention of the specialist, to which we have become a slave, which we have accepted, as we accept most things so easily, we say, 'All right, great people say this and I swallow it and I repeat it'. But when we see the fragmentation and the emphasis on the fragmentation and we see out of that arises the whole cause/effect chain, and that's a form of neurosis, when we see all that then the mind sees the totality of the movement without division.
Well sir, do you see it? Yes sir? (Inaudible) Yes, if you identify yourself - the questioner says no identification - if you identify yourself with any one of the fragments obviously it's the same process, which is the process of being identified with the one and disregarding the rest, is a form of neurosis, contradiction.
Can you - no, put the next question sir. Can you identify yourself with the rest of the fragments? You, another fragment, identify with the many other fragments.
You see the trick we are playing, this question of identification? You understand what I am talking about? No.
Oh, my Lord! You can only say that identification with one fragment because you feel that you are incomplete so that... That's right. You feel you are incomplete therefore you try to identify yourself with many other fragments.
Now who is the entity that is trying to identify itself with the many? It is one of the fragments, therefore it is a trick - you follow? And we are doing this all the time.
I must identify myself. Isn't it better to identify yourself with more fragments than with one. Not better.
No, not better. Look sir. Look, first let me explain again once.
There are many fragments - right? - of which I am. One of the fragments says, it brings about confusion when I identify myself with one fragment therefore I'll identify myself with the many other fragments.
Right? And it makes a tremendous effort in identifying itself with the many fragments, with the Christians, with the Hindu, with the Buddhist, with the Communist, you follow? Who is this entity that tries to identify itself with the other fragments?
It is also a fragment, isn't it? Therefore it is a game that is playing by itself. It is simple.
Now let's proceed, sir, there is so much in this, you are just remaining on the very surface of all this. Now we see there is no actual division at all. Right?
Non-verbally, see it, feel it, that the observer is a fragment which separates itself from the rest of the fragments and is observing. In that observation as the observer and the observed there is a division, there is conflict, there is confusion. Now if when the mind realises this fragmentation and the futility of its separating, then it sees the movement as a whole.
Now do you do this? If you cannot do this you cannot possibly put the next question, which what is beyond the conscious? What is below, above, side, it doesn't matter.
So we have to find out, if you are serious, what is consciousness and when are you aware that you are conscious. When are you aware that you are conscious? You understand my question?
We are asking - I am doing all the work, too bad! Sir look, you have to learn about all this and when you learn you become the - you help others to learn - you follow? So learn now for god's sake - you follow?
That's your vocation. So we are looking into the unconscious, we are asking what is this thing called consciousness? And when am I, when is the mind aware that it is conscious - you follow?
When? When do you say, 'I am conscious'? When there is thought.
Come nearer. When there is duality. What do you mean, let's come closer?
Begin nearer. You begin too far away from me. In meditation, fragmentations.
Sir, just listen. When are you at all aware that you are conscious? Wait sir.
What? Is this so difficult as all that? When there is pain.
The lady suggests you are conscious when there is pain, when there is conflict, when you have a problem. Right? When you are resisting, otherwise if you are flowing smoothly, evenly, harmoniously living without any contradiction, are you conscious at all?
Are you conscious sir when you are supremely happy? Yes. Yes?
What does that word mean, being conscious? Wait, you'll find out. You don't have to ask me, you'll find out.
The moment you are conscious that you are happy, is happiness there? The moment you say, 'My god how joyous I am' - can you ever say that? If you say it has already moved away from you.