Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Well you are then conscious of that. Which is the past. So you are only conscious of something that has happened, or actually conscious when there is some conflict, pain, when there is actually awareness that you are confused.
Right? So any disturbance in this movement is to be conscious. And all our life is a disturbance against which we are resisting.
Sir when there is a feeling of loneliness and when the mind does not interfere, isn't the mind whole in that state? No, no madam, no please do listen to what I am saying. Do please listen, don't take a particular example just now.
We are discussing, talking over together what it means to be conscious, to be aware, to be apprehensive in the sense, I apprehend, I see. If there is no discord at all in life would you say, 'I am, you are conscious'? When you are walking - you follow sir?
- moving, living without any friction, without any resistance, without any battle, there is no - you are not saying 'I am'. Right? It is only when you are saying, 'I will become' or 'I am being', then you are conscious.
Well the being never comes. No, no. Do take a little time sir, you are too quick.
Move into this very slowly, you will find out something extraordinary, you go into it. Isn't this state that you are talking about still a process of identification, say, of the tree, of the... No, no, no. You see you are - I explained sir, identification.
Of course when I see a tree, I see a tree I don't mistake it for a woman, or for the church, it's a tree, which doesn't mean identification. Look sir, we have discovered something, we have learned there is consciousness only when there is becoming, or trying to be. Becoming implies conflict, 'I will be', which means conflict exists as long as the mind is caught in the verb 'to be' - please see that.
And our whole culture is based on that word 'to be'. 'I will be a success', 'I am a failure', 'I must achieve', 'This book is mine, it is going to change the world'. You follow?
So as long as there is a movement of becoming, in that there is conflict and that conflict makes the mind aware that it is conscious. Or the mind that says, 'I must be', be good, not I will be good, be good. Then also it is a form of resistance, being good, being and becoming are the same.
My golly! Can one be conscious of conflict? Of course sir, otherwise you wouldn't be conscious.
Can't you be so caught up in conflict that you don't see that you are in conflict? Of course, that's a form of neurosis. Well I can't see how... Sir, look.
Have you ever been to a mental hospital, any of you? I wasn't there as a patient, I was there, taken by an analyst, and every patient from the top floor down to the lowest floor, the top floor where they are the most violent, caged in, down to the lowest where they are more or less peaceful, are all in conflict, all of them were in conflict, which was exaggerated conflict - you understand? One person was thinking that he was something or other, fighting everybody, only they were inside the building and we are outside it.
That's all. (Laughter) I don't see how we can... No, no. You don't listen, you hold on to your particular question and don't listen to the whole.
Let go yours sir, come. I'll answer you, we'll answer. What is your question sir?
I am trying to distinguish between consciousness and awareness. Both the same. Being aware implies aware of division, to be aware without division and choice is to be not caught in the movement of becoming or being - got it?
I don't know what I said, don't ask me to repeat it. Have you got it? Sir, Look!
The whole movement of consciousness is becoming and being. Right? Right?
No, don't say you don't understand. The whole movement of consciousness is either to become, or to be. Becoming famous, becoming a social worker, helping the world - you know - becoming, or to be.
That is, after looking at this whole fragmentation, after looking at this movement as a whole as consciousness, you find that this whole movement is based on that, to become, or to be. Right? You have learned it sir, not agreeing with me.
Then you ask a totally different question, which what is beyond this movement of becoming and to be? You are not asking the question, I am asking, unfortunately. You understand my question sir?
I have realised in looking at all this business of consciousness both from the analytical point of view, from the analyst and the psychologist and the philosopher, and from the point of view of the religious man with his god and non-god, the believer and the non-believer, the atheist and the believer, looking at all this fragmentation of life, the Hindu, the Buddhist, the black, the white, the pink and the whatever - follow? - division, division, division - that division has been created through becoming, or to be. Right?
I want to be a Hindu because it promises me not only physical success but spiritual achievements. If I reject that I say to myself, I must be, - I must be, I don't know what! but I am going to be, myself, identify myself with myself - again the same process.
Right? So I see, observe, this total movement of consciousness is this movement to be, or to become, or not to be, or not to become. Right?
Now how do I see this? Do I see it as something outside myself, or do I see it without the centre as the 'me' that is observing the becoming and the not becoming? You have understood my question?
No I don't think so. I realise, I am using the word 'I', realise that all consciousness is this movement. Right?
I realise it. When I say 'I realise it' am I realising it as something that I have seen outside of me, looking at a picture outside of me hanging on the wall, spread out before me, or do I see this movement as part of me? Is the very essence of me.
Do I see this movement from a centre - you are following all this? - or do I see it without the centre? If I see it as the centre, from a centre, that centre is the self, is the 'me', who is the very essence of fragmentation, and therefore when there is an observation from the centre I am only observing this movement as a fragment, as something outside of me, which I must understand, which I must try to grasp, which I must struggle with and all the rest.
But if there is no centre, which means there is no me but merely observing this whole movement, then that observation will lead to the next question. So which is it you are doing? Please, this is not a group therapy, this is not a weekend entertainment, this isn't a thing you go to, to learn from somebody how to become sensitive, how to learn creative living - put all that bilge aside.
This is hard work, this requires deep enquiry, learning. Now how are you observing? Because if you don't understand this, life becomes a torture, a battlefield.
In that battlefield you want to improve the cannons, you want to bring about brotherhood and keep your isolation to yourself - you follow? - we have played this game for so long, therefore you have to answer this question if you are really profoundly serious. Are you watching this whole movement of consciousness, as we have seen it, as an outsider watching, unrelated to that which he is watching, or, there is no centre at all from which you are watching?
And when you do watch that way what takes place? May we side-step a little? I don't know what time it is.
What time is it, sir? Twenty to twelve. Gosh, how time goes!
You see, all of you dream a great deal, don't you? Dream, don't you? Have you ever asked why?
Not what dreams tell you, how to interpret dreams, that is an irrelevant question which we'll answer presently. But have you ever asked a relevant question, which why you dream at all? Because we are in conflict?
No, sir. Don't be so quick. Look at it.
Why do you dream? The next question is there a sleep without any dream at all? Yes.
Don't say 'Yes' sir. First of all you all dream, what are those dreams, why do you dream? Dreams, as we said the other day, are the continuing movement of the daily activity, symbolised, put it into various categories, and it's the same movement.
Isn't that so? Don't agree or disagree. Find out.
Obviously, it is so obvious. Now, what happens then, if dreams are a continuous movement of the daily action, then what happens to the brain, if there is a constant movement, constant activity, constant chattering, what happens to the brain that is constantly... It never rests.
What happens to it? It is exhausted. Exhausted - which means what?
It wears out. It wears itself out, there is no rest, there is nothing new, there is nothing new seen. The brain doesn't make itself young because of its movement - you follow?
All these things are implied when there is a continuous movement of daily activity which goes on in the brain when it sleeps. Right? You may foretell what may happen in the future, in that daily activity because while you sleep there is a little more sensitivity, more perception and so on, but it's the same movement.
Oh my Lord! Now, can this movement during the day, end with the day and not carry it over when you sleep - you have understood my question? Can this movement, which goes on during the day, end with the day?
That is, when you go to bed the whole thing is ended? Wait, don't answer my questions yet. We are going to go into it for you.
Doesn't it happen to you when you go to bed, that you take stock of what you have done during the day - don't you take stock? Or you just flop into bed and go to sleep? Don't you review the day?
Say, look, this, this, this, this should have been done, this should not have been done - you know, you are taking stock? And which means what? - follow this very carefully - which means what?
You are bringing order. Right? Right?
And the brain demands order because otherwise it can't function. If you dream, if the movement of the daily activity goes on in your sleep there is no order. And the brain demands order, therefore the brain instinctively while you are asleep brings about order.
You wake up a little more fresh because you have a little more order. The brain demands order otherwise it cannot function efficiently. It cannot function efficiently if there is any form of conflict, any form of disorder.
Sir, aren't there other kinds of dreams in which communications on all these states take place at different... I am going to, sir, I am going to. Listen.
First listen to this. Get order. This movement of the daily life continues through sleep because in this daily movement through sleep there is contradiction, there is disorder, disharmony.
And the brain during sleep, through dreams, through various forms of non-dreams, tries to bring order in itself, in its own chaos. And if you put order during the day, the brain does not necessarily need, when it sleeps, to put things in order. See the importance of this.
Therefore the brain becomes rested, quiet, alive, fresh. I do not know if you have not noticed, if you have a problem and you go on thinking it out during the day, during the night it is still going on, worrying about it and you wake up the next morning weary of the problem and you still during the day worry about that problem, like a dog biting a bone, at it all day, and when you go to bed again till the brain is exhausted, then perhaps in that exhaustion you see something fresh. Now what we are saying is something entirely different.
Which to end the problem as it arises, not carry it over during the day or the next minute, end it. Somebody has insulted you, hurt you, end it. Somebody has deceived you, somebody has said unkind things about you, look at it, don't carry it over, don't bear it as a burden, end it.
End it as it is being said, not after. So the mind demanding order, disorder is a neurotic state of the brain and ends up in a mental case. So order implies the ending the problem as it arises, and therefore the movement of the daytime through the night ends and therefore no dreams, the body may move and all the rest of it, no dreams, because you have solved everything as you are moving.
I don't know if you see the importance of this. Then you can ask the question, which what is beyond all this? We will deal with it tomorrow.
We'll go on, I think, don't you, where we left off yesterday. We were considering the nature and the structure of what consciousness is. Because one can see that if there is to be a radical change in the human mind, and therefore in society, we have to consider this question, we have to delve deeply into it to find out whether there is a possibility of this consciousness undergoing a metamorphosis, a complete change in itself.
Because one can see, all our actions, superficial or profound, serious or flippant, are the outcome, or born out of this consciousness. And we were saying yesterday, within this consciousness are many fragments, each fragment assuming dominance at one time or another. And without understanding these many fragments - it's all right, sir, somebody's fainted, it's all right, madam, sit down, somebody's fainted.
It's all right, madam, you can't all get up and look, he has just fainted. (pause) Would you consider it rather rude on my part if I suggest that those who want to leave, leave now, not in the middle, because it disturbs many people. Either you sit quietly and go to the very end, the bitter end of this, or, just leave quietly when you must.
Because several people have complained that when everybody's moving about, it is rather difficult to pay complete attention. Right? So would you please, if you want to leave, leave quietly.
Because we are discussing, talking over together rather a difficult problem, and you need all your attention. As we were saying, that without understanding the content of consciousness, and perhaps going beyond it, any action, however significant it may be, without understanding the fragmentary nature of our consciousness, whatever our action, however significant it may be, must produce confusion. I think this must be very clear.
It's like giving a great deal of attention to one fragment, like the intellect, or the body, and so on, or belief. And these fragmentations, which compose our consciousness, from which all action takes place, must inevitably bring about contradiction, confusion and misery. Is this, verbally at least, clear?
And to say to oneself, all these fragments must be put together or integrated has no meaning, because then the problem arises, who is to integrate it. And the effort of integration. So there must be a way of looking at this whole fragmentation with a mind that is not fragmented.
And that is what we are going to discuss a little bit this morning. I realise that my mind, my consciousness, including the brain, all the physiological nervous responses, the whole of that, consciousness, is fragmentary, is broken up, conditioned by the culture in which one lives. That culture has been created by the past generation and the coming generation.
And any action, any action, or the emphasis of one fragment over the others, will inevitably bring about immense confusion. Right? Do we see this?
Giving emphasis to social activity, giving emphasis to a religious belief or intellectual concept or Utopia, must inevitably contradict and therefore bring about confusion. Do we see this together? So one asks the question, which is, is there an action which is not fragmentary and which does not contradict another action which is going to take place next minute.
And we see in this consciousness, thought plays an extraordinary part, thought being, not only the response of the past, but all our feelings, all our neurological responses, the future hopes, fears, pleasures, despairs, sorrow - all are in this. So does the content of consciousness make for the structure of consciousness, or is consciousness free from its content? Are you following all this?
If the content of consciousness, which is, my despair, my anxiety, fears, pleasures, the innumerable hopes, guilts, and the vast experience of the past, if that makes up our consciousness, that is consciousness, then any action springing from that consciousness can never free the consciousness from its limitation. Got it? No, please don't agree with this, this isn't just schoolboy stuff.
I have been brought up in a particular culture - we are communicating, do share it with me - which means work, observe in yourself and then we can proceed further - I'm just talking as an introduction. My consciousness is the result of the culture in which I have lived. That culture has encouraged and discouraged various forms of activities, various forms of pursuits of pleasure, fears, hopes and beliefs.
That consciousness is the 'me'. Now, any action springing from that consciousness, which is conditioned, must inevitably be fragmentary and therefore contradictory, confusing. Right?
Are we communicating with each other, are we sharing together this? If you are born in a Communist or a Socialist or a Catholic world, or Protestant and so on, the culture in which that particular mind, brain, is born, is conditioned by that culture, by the society, by the standards, the values, the aspirations of that society. And any action born from this consciousness must inevitably be fragmentary.
Right? Is that clear? No?
No, don't tell me not. Watch it, sir, don't ask me questions yet, just watch yourself. If I may suggest, first listen to what the speaker has to say, don't bring in your question, or your thought, but just listen first to what he has to say.
Then after having listened very quietly, then you can begin to put questions. Then you can say, you are wrong, you are right, this is so, why is this, and so on. If that is going on in your mind, the questioning, then you are not listening.
And therefore our communication comes to an end. We are not sharing together. And as this is a very complex, subtle problem, the thing into which we are enquiring, you have first to listen.
You see we are trying to find out what is consciousness. Is it made up of the many things that it contains, or is it something free of its content? You must find this out, you must learn about it.
If it is free of its content then the action of that freedom is not dictated by the content. If it is not free then the content dictates all action. Right?
That is simple. Now we are going to find out. You see I realise, watching in myself, that I am the result of all this, the past, the present, the future hope, the whole throbbing quality of consciousness is this, with all its fragmentations.
And any action born of this content must inevitably be not only fragmentary but through that there is no freedom whatsoever. Right? So can this consciousness empty itself and find out if there is a consciousness which is free from which a totally different kind of action can take place.
Are you getting what I'm talking about? Somebody tell me, yes or no. What I am talking about, what I am trying to explain, not what you think about it - am I conveying it to you, am I explaining it to you?
Or all the content of consciousness is like a muddy little pool, very shallow and a little frog is making an awful noise in it. And that little frog says, 'I'm going to find out'. You follow?
And that little frog is trying to go beyond itself. But it is still a frog, it is still in the muddy pool. So can this muddy pool, however shallow, deep, empty the content of all itself, of all itself.
My little muddy pool is the culture in which I have lived. And the little me, the frog, is battling against the culture, and saying it must get out. But even if it gets out, it's a little frog.
And whatever it gets out into is still the little muddy pool which it will create. Please see this. So what is one then to do?
Please don't answer it. The mind realises all the activity it indulges in or is forced to do, all its activity is the movement within the consciousness with its content. And realising this, what is the mind to do?
Can it ever go beyond this limited consciousness? Now that's one point. Second point is, this little pool with the little frog - and it is a good simile - may extend, expand and widen the pool.
The space it creates is still within the borders of a certain dimension. Right? Does this all interest you?
Look, sir, I'm asking this - that little frog can accumulate, or a little monkey, better monkey - that little monkey in the little pool can acquire great deal of knowledge, information and all the rest of it, experience. And this knowledge and experience may give it a certain space to expand. And that space has always in it the little monkey at its centre.
Right? Are you following this? So the space in consciousness is always limited by the centre.
If you have a centre, the circumference of consciousness, or the frontiers of consciousness is always limited, however it may expand. That little monkey may meditate, may follow many systems, rejecting one, taking on another. And that little monkey will always remain.
And therefore the space round it and the space it will create for itself is always limited and shallow. Right? So that is the second question.
The third is, what is space without centre. We're going to find this out. What was the first question?
The limitations of the consciousness and can the mind go beyond consciousness. Let the rain have a chance! (pause) Can this consciousness with its limitations, at whose centre is this everlasting mischievous monkey, can it go beyond itself?
(pause) Can the monkey - if you don't mind, I'll stick to that word - can that monkey, with all its intentions, with its aspirations, with its vitality, free itself from its conditioning and so go beyond the frontiers of consciousness which it has created? Right? To put it differently, can this monkey, which is the 'me' - can the 'me', which is the monkey, by doing all kinds of things - meditating, suppressing, conforming or not conforming, being everlastingly active, to be or not to be, can its movement take it beyond itself?
Which is, does the content of consciousness make the 'me', the monkey, and therefore the attempt on the part of the monkey, the 'me', to free itself, is still within the limitation of the pool. Right? So my question is, can the monkey be completely quiet, to see its own frontiers, to be aware of the extent of its frontiers, and whether it is at all possible to go beyond it.
Am I conveying it? (Inaudible) Oh Lord - sir, do you notice for yourself, that you are always acting from a centre? Do you notice this?
No? The centre may be a motive, the centre may be fear, the centre may be ambition - you are always acting from a centre, aren't you? I love you - I hate you - I want to be powerful - all action as far as we know now, is from a centre, whether that centre identifies with the community or with a philosophy, it is still the centre which has identified and therefore the identified thing with becomes the centre.
Get it? Are you aware of this action going on, always? No?
Or are there moments when the centre is not active? It happens, suddenly you are looking, living, feeling without a centre. And that's a totally different dimension.