Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
And thought begins to say, what a marvellous thing that was and I'd like to continue with it. Then that becomes the centre. The remembrance of something which happened a few seconds ago becomes the centre through thought.
Right? Are we aware of this? And are we aware of the space that centre creates round itself, isolation, resistance, escape - space?
As long as there is a centre there is the space which the centre has created round itself. And this space we want to expand because we feel the expansion of space is necessary to live extensively. But in that expansive consciousness there is always the centre, therefore the space is always limited, however expanded.
Observe it in yourself, sir, don't listen to me, watch it in yourself, you will discover these things very simply. And the battle in relationship is this, between two centres, each centre wanting to expand, assert, dominate - the monkeys at work. And so I want to learn, the mind says, I see that very clearly, I've learnt that.
And I am learning, mind is learning how does that centre come into being - is it the result of this society, the culture, or is it a divine centre - I'm using the word, forgive me for using that word 'divine' - is it a divine centre which has always been covered up. Covered up by the society, by the culture - outwardly, it's been covered up. You follow?
The Hindus and others call it the Atman, the Great Thing inside which is always being smothered. And therefore you have to free the mind from the smothering, so that the real thing can come out, the real monkey can come out. Obviously the centre is created by the culture one lives in and one's own conditioned memories, experiences, the fragmentation of oneself.
So it is not only the society that creates the centre but also the centre itself is propelling itself. Right? So, can this centre go beyond the frontiers which it has created for itself - that's one question.
Can it? By silencing itself, by controlling itself, by meditating, by - you know, imitating, following - can that centre explode and go beyond. Obviously it can't, the more it conforms to the pattern, the stronger it gets, though it imagines that it is becoming free.
You understand, sir? Enlightenment, surely is that state of mind, that quality of mind in which the monkey is never operating. So how is that monkey to end its activities, not through imitation, not through conformity, not through saying, somebody has attained enlightenment, I'll go and learn from him - all those are monkey tricks.
Now does - please follow this - does the monkey see this, does the monkey see the tricks it is playing upon itself, and saying, I've got it, I'm ready to help society, alter society, I am completely concerned with the social values and righteous behaviour and social justice. I'm - you follow? Or is it a trick that is being played upon itself.
You answer this, sir. No? You don't think it's a trick that's being played upon itself?
It is so clear, there is no question about it. You are not sure? If you're not sure, sir, please discuss, let's talk it over.
You say sometimes to help society, to do social service, as if helping society or doing social service was doing something for somebody else. But I have the feeling that I'm not different from society, so working is a social thing, it is working in myself, it's all the same thing - I don't make this distinction. But if you don't make the distinction - I'm not being personal, sir - I'm asking, we're asking, does the centre remain.
It should not. Not 'should not'. Then we enter into quite a different field - should, should not, must, must not - then it becomes theoretical.
The actual fact is, though I recognise the 'me' and society are one, etc., etc., is there the centre still operating, the 'me' still operating, the 'me', the monkey that says, I'm - you follow? My question is, I see as long as there is any movement on the part of the monkey, that movement must lead to some kind of fragmentation, illusion and chaos. Put it round, much more, very simply - that centre is the self, is the selfishness that is always operating, whether I am godly, whether I am concerned completely with society and say, I am society - that centre, is it operating.
If it is, then it is meaningless. Then the next question is, how is that centre to fade away. Through determination, through will, through practice, through various forms of compulsive neurosis, compulsive - you know - dedication, identification?
And all such movement is still part of the monkey. Right? Therefore consciousness is within the reach of the monkey.
And the space within that consciousness is still within the arm's length of the monkey. And therefore no freedom. So the mind says it, sees this very clearly, seeing in the sense, either as a perception, like seeing the microphone, without any condemnation, it just sees it.
Then what takes place? To see, to listen, to anything, there must be complete attention, mustn't there? If I want to understand what you are saying, I must give all my attention to it.
In that attention, is the monkey operative, operating? No? Please find out.
I want to listen to you. You are saying something important or unimportant - I want to find out. And to find out what you are saying, I must give my attention, which means my mind, my heart, my body, nerves, everything must be in harmony to attend.
The mind not separate from the body, the heart not separate from the mind and so on - it must be a complete harmonious whole that is attentive, and that is attention. Do I attend so - does the mind attend so completely, with complete attention to the activity of the monkey, watching it, not condemning it, not saying it's right or wrong, this or that, just watching the monkey, tricks of the monkey. And in this watching there is no analysis.
This is really important, go into it, sirs, put your teeth into it. The moment it analyses one of the fragments of the monkey is in operation. So does the mind watch with such complete attention to all the movements of the monkey - we won't say all the movements - then you'll say, can it - to the movements of the monkey, and what takes place when there is such complete attention.
You get the point? Are you doing it? You know what it means to attend - when you are listening to that rain, completely, there is no resistance to the rain - you don't say, 'Oh, I wish it would go away, I want to find out, I want to learn' - there is no impatience, there is no resistance against it, there is no condemnation - you are completely listening.
Now when you are so listening, is there a centre which is the monkey operating? You find out sir, don't wait for me to tell you - find out. It's raining now - all right.
Are you listening to the speaker? Listening, which means complete attention. Are you?
Which means you are not interpreting what he is saying, you are not agreeing or disagreeing, you are not comparing or translating what he is saying to suit your own particular mind. When all such activity takes place there is no attention. To completely attend means a mind that's completely still to listen.
Are you doing that? Are you listening to the speaker now, just now, with that attention? If you are, is there a centre there?
You are passive. I don't care whether you are passive, active - I said, sir, look don't - look, are you listening, listening means attentive. And in that attention is the monkey working.
Don't say yes or no - find, learn about it, sir. Is there? And what is the quality of that attention in which there is no centre, in which the monkey isn't playing tricks, the quality of it?
(Inaudible) I don't know, sir, don't put into words, thoughtless, empty - find out, learn, which means, sustained attention, not a fleeting attention, a sustained attention to find out the quality of the mind that is so completely attentive. (Inaudible) No, sir - when you say it is not there to tell me, to communicate through words, then the mind, the memory is there. But I am asking, when you are so completely attentive, is there a centre?
Surely, this is simple. Sir, when you are watching something that really is quite amusing, makes you laugh, is there a centre - something that interests you, you know, watching, not taking sides - when you are watching football, if you do, and if you are not taking the side of this or that, just watching - in that watching is there a centre which is the monkey? I can't answer any more.
If there is no centre, then the question is, can this attention flow, move, not one moment, you follow, and then inattention. Can this attention flow, naturally, easily, without effort - effort implies the monkey comes into being. You are following all this?
The monkey has to come in if it has to do some functional work. But that operation on the part of the monkey, does it spring from attention, comes out of attention, or is that monkey separate from attention. I go - one goes to the office - going to the office and working in the office, is it a movement of attention or it's the movement of the monkey, which has taken over.
The monkey that says, I must be better than - you know, I must get more money, I must work harder, I must compete, I must become the manager, foreman, whatever it is. I'll become the archbishop or the commissar - which is it in our life. Go into it, sir, which is it in your life, a movement of attention, and therefore much more efficient, much more alive; or is it the monkey that is taking over?
Answer it, sir, for yourself. And if the monkey takes over and makes some kind of mischief, you know, and monkeys do make a mischief - and can that mischief be wiped away and not leave a mark. Go on, sirs, you don't see all the beauty of all this.
Somebody said something to me yesterday - listen to this, just follow it little bit - which was not true. Did the monkey come into operation and wanted so say, look you're a liar? Or the movement of that attention in which the monkey is not operating and listens to something which is not true, that statement which is not true doesn't leave a mark.
Get this, sir, for God's sake, get this. When the monkey responds then it leaves a mark. So I am asking, can this attention flow, not how can I have continuous attention, because then it's the monkey that's asking.
But is there a movement of attention all the time, I just follow it, the mind just moves with it. You're getting what I'm talking about? No, you must answer this really extraordinarily important question.
We only know the movement of the monkey. And we only have occasionally this attention in which the monkey doesn't appear at all. Then the monkey says, I want that attention.
Then it goes through - goes to Japan to meditate or to India to sit at some ugly feet and so on and so on. So, we are asking, does this movement - I've got it - does this movement of attention, is it totally unrelated to consciousness, as we know it? Obviously it is - can you hear me?
(noise of rain) All right, I'll wait. (long pause) We are asking whether this attention, as a movement, can flow, as all movements must flow. And when the monkey becomes active, can the monkey itself become aware that it's active and so not interfere with the flow of attention.
Somebody insulted, yesterday. And the monkey was awake, to reply, and because it has become aware of itself and all the implications of the monkey tricks, it subsides and lets the attention flow. Not how to maintain the flow - this is really important.
The moment you say, I must maintain it, it's the activity of the monkey. So the monkey knows when it is active and the sensitivity of its awareness immediately makes it quiet. (Inaudible) I haven't understood it, sir, I can't hear.
(Inaudible) Sir, attention means energy, the height of energy, isn't it? In attention all energy is there, non-fragmented. The moment it is fragmented and action takes place, then the monkey is at work.
And when the monkey - and the monkey is also learning - has become sensitive, has become aware, and it realises the waste of energy and therefore, comes naturally. It is not the monkey and attention. It is not division between the monkey and attention.
If there is a division the attention then becomes the higher self, the, you know, all the tricks the monkeys have invented. But it is a total movement - attention. And unfortunately the monkey also has its own life, wakes up, it's a total action not opposed to attention.
I wonder if you get all this. Well, it's up to you, sir. Now when there is no centre, when there is the complete apogee of attention, apogee, you know, the height of attention.
In that height of attention there is - will you tell me what there is, what has happened to the mind that is so highly attentive, all the energy there, not a breath of it wasted. What takes place, what has happened? Oh, come on sirs, I am talking all the time.
There is silence. Oh no, we've gone beyond all that, sir. There is no self-identification.
No, we've monkey tricks. What has happened, not only to the intellect, to the brain, but to the body? I have to talk - you don't learn.
If the speaker doesn't come any more, dies, anything happens, what is going to happen, how are you going to learn? Learn from another yogi? No, sir, therefore, learn now - learn.
What has happened to a mind that has become so highly attentive, in which all energy - what has happened to the quality of the intellect? (Inaudible) No, you don't know - please don't guess. It becomes quieter.
I said look sir - the brain, the brain which has been operating, working, which has invented the monkey - the brain. No, you don't know, please don't guess. Doesn't the brain become extraordinarily sensitive?
And does your body - sir, when you have got such tremendous energy, unspoilt, unwasted, what has happened to the whole organism, what has happened to the brain, to the whole structure of the human being - that's what I am asking. It wakes up and it becomes alive. It learns.
No. Sir, it has become alive to learn, otherwise you can't learn. If you're asleep and say, well, I believe in this, my prejudice, I like my prejudice, it is marvellous, my conditioning - then you're asleep, you are not awake.
But the moment you question, begin to learn you are alive, you are beginning to be alive. That's not my question. What has happened to the body, to the brain.
Complete interaction, no division. I think I'll go home. (laughter) Sir, have you noticed a very simple fact, that if you are not wasting energy, fiddling, if you are not wasting energy, what has happened?
What has happened to the machinery of the brain, which is a purely mechanical thing, the brain - what has happened to that machinery? It's alive. Tomorrow, sir, we must go.
Please, do watch yourself, pay attention to something so completely, with your heart, with your body, with your mind, everything in you, every particle, every cell - attend to something, see what takes place. But if it is, if that's happening, you don't exist. Yes, sir, but what has happened to the brain, not you, I agree, the centre doesn't exist but the body is there, the brain is there - what has happened to the brain?
You rest, the highest level of attention. You've never gone into this. Look, what is the function of the brain?
Order. No. Don't repeat after me, for God's sake.
What is the brain - it has evolved in time, it is the storehouse of memory, it is matter, it is highly active, recognising, protecting, resisting, thinking, not thinking, frightened, seeking security and yet being uncertain - it is that brain with all its memories, not just yesterday's memory, centuries of memories, the racial memories, family memory, the tradition - all that, that's the content is there. Now what has happened to that brain when there is this extraordinary attention? It is new.
I don't want to be rude, but is your brain new? Or it's just a word you are saying. (Inaudible) Please, what has happened to this brain that has become so mechanical - don't say it's become not mechanical - that's no answer, that is mechanical, the brain is purely mechanical, responding to conditioning, responding according to its conditioning, background, fears, etc., pleasure and so on, this mechanical brain, what has happened to it when there is no wastage of energy at all?
It is getting creative. We'll leave it till tomorrow. This is the last discussion and if we may, shall we go on with where we left off yesterday.
During the last four weeks that we have met here - four, five weeks, I forget - we have been discussing, talking over together the many problems that touch our lives, the many problems that we create for ourselves, and the society that creates for us. And we also saw that the society and us are not two different entities - they are an interrelated movement. And any person seriously concerned with the change of society, its pattern, its values, its morality, if he is not aware of his own conditioning, then if he is anxious, desirous, actively involved in social change, then this conditioning makes for fragmentation in action and therefore more conflict, more misery, more confusion.
We went into that pretty thoroughly. And we were discussing also what is fear and whether the mind can ever be free of this burden, completely and utterly, both superficially and deeply; and the nature of pleasure, which is entirely and wholly different from joy, from great delight. And also we went into the question of these many fragmentations which make up our structure, our being.
And we saw in our discussions or learnt about it, not from me, not from the speaker, learnt in observing ourselves - that these fragmentations divide and keep separate all human relationship, and that one fragment assumes the authority and becomes the analyser, the censor over other fragments. And yesterday we were talking over together the nature of consciousness. And in talking about it, we went into the question of attention, what is attention.
And we said, this quality of attention is a state of mind in which all energy is there, highly concentrated, and in that attention there is no observer, there is no centre as the 'me' who is aware, attentive. We went into that. Now we are going to, this morning, find out, learn together, what happens to a mind and to the brain - the brain, the mind, the whole being, that is the psychosomatic, both the body, the brain, the heart, the mind, the whole thing - what takes place when a mind is tremendously attentive.
Now to understand that very clearly or find out, learn about it for oneself, one must first see that the description is not the described. One can describe the tent, this tent, with all the holes and everything involved, the tent. But the description is not the tent, the word is not the thing, and of that we must be absolutely clear from the beginning, that the explanation is not the explained, and to be caught in description, in explanation, is the most childish form of living, which I'm afraid most of us do - we are satisfied with the description, with explanation, with saying, that is the cause and just float along.
But whereas what we are going to do this morning is to find out for ourselves the quality of a mind, or what has happened to the mind - mind being the brain as well as the whole psychosomatic structure - what happens to the mind when there is this extraordinary attention, when there is no centre as this observer or as the censor. To understand that, to really learn about it, not merely satisfied with the speaker's explanation of it, one has to find out, one has to begin with the understanding of 'what is' - 'what is', not 'what should be' or 'what has been', but 'what is'. Please go with me - let's travel together - it is great fun if we move together, in learning.
Because obviously there must be tremendous changes in the world and in ourselves. Obviously the ways of our thought and action have become so utterly immature, so contradictory, so diabolical, if one can say so. You invent a machine to kill and then there is an anti-machine to kill that machine - anti, anti, anti - that's what they are doing in the world, not only socially but also mechanically.
And a mind that is really concerned, involved in the seriousness of psychological as well as outward change, must go into this problem of the human being with his consciousness, with his despairs, with his appalling fears, with his ambitions, with his anxieties, with his desire to fulfil in some form or another. So to understand all this, and we cannot go back to begin all over again, because we have been through it, we must begin with seeing 'what is'. 'What is', is not only what is in front of you but what is beyond.
To see what is in front of you, you must have a very clear perception, uncontaminated, not prejudiced, not involved in the desire to go beyond it, but just to observe it, not only to observe 'what is' but 'what has been', which is also 'what is'. The 'what is', is the past, is the present and is the future. Do see that thing.
So the 'what is' is not static, it's a movement. And to keep with that movement, with the movement of 'what is', you need to have a very clear mind, you need to have unprejudiced, not distorted mind. That means, there is distortion the moment there is an effort.
I can't see 'what is' and go beyond it, the mind can't see it, if the mind is in any way concerned with the change of 'what is', or trying to go beyond it, or trying to suppress it. And to observe 'what is' you need energy. To observe attentively to anything you need energy.
To listen to what you are saying, I need energy - that is, I need energy when I really, desperately want to understand what you are saying. But if I am not interested but casually listen, you know - that's a very slight energy that soon dissipates. So to understand 'what is' you need energy.
Now, these fragmentations of which we are, is the division of these energies. I and the not I, anger and the not anger, violence and the not violence, they are all fragmentations of energy. And when one fragment assumes the authority over the other fragments, it is an energy that functions in fragments.
Are we meeting each other - are we communicating? That means, communication means, learning together, working together, creating together, seeing together, understanding together, not just, I speak and you listen, and say, well, intellectually I grasp it, that's not understanding. The whole thing is a movement in learning, and therefore in action.
So the mind sees that all fragmentations, as nation, not nation, my god, your god, my belief and your belief - you know, this constant - is fragmentation of energy - there is only energy and fragmentation. This energy is fragmented by thought. And thought is the way of conditioning, which we have gone into, which we won't go into now, because we must move further.
So consciousness is the totality of these fragmentations of energy. And we said, this fragmentation of energy, one of that fragmentation is the observer, is the 'me', is the monkey, that's incessantly active. Bearing in mind, the description is not the described, that you are watching yourself, watching yourself through the words of the speaker.
But the words are not the thing. Therefore the speaker becomes of very little importance. What becomes important is your observation of yourself, how this energy has been fragmented - jealousy, non jealousy, hate - you know.
Now to see that, which is 'what is', can you see that without the, without a fragment, as the observer? Can the mind see these many fragmentations which make up the whole of consciousness, and these fragmentations are the fragmentations of energy - energy - can the mind see this without an observer who is part of the many fragments. Because this is important to understand when we are talking of attention, if the mind cannot see the many fragments without, or through the eyes of another fragment, then you will never understand what is attention.
Are we meeting each other? Do say please, are we meeting each other? I see, the mind sees what fragmentation does, outwardly and outwardly, sovereign governments, with arms and all the rest of it; outwardly the division of nationalities, beliefs, religious dogmas, my god, your god, my belief - outwardly.
In social action, division, political action, division, the Labour Party, the Conservative, the Communist, non Communist, Socialist, the Capitalist - all created with the desire of thought which says, I must be secure. Thought thinks it will be secure through fragmentation, and so creates more fragmentations. Do you see this, not verbally, actually, as a fact - the young and the old, the rich - this constant division, death and living - do you see this movement of fragmentation by thought which is caught in the conditioning of these fragmentations - does the mind see this whole movement of fragmentation, without a centre which says, I see them?
Because the moment you have a centre, that centre becomes the factor of division. Me and not me, which is you - please. And thought has put together this me.
Through the desire or through the impulse to find security, safety. And in its desire to find safety it has divided energy as the 'me' and not the 'me'. And therefore bringing to itself insecurity.
Now can the mind see this as a whole? And it cannot see it as a whole if there is a fragmentation which observes. We are asking, what is the quality of the mind that is highly attentive, in which there is no fragmentation.
That is what we left off yesterday, where we left off. What is the quality of the mind. I don't know if you have gone through it, enquired, or learned from yesterday, and the speaker is not a professor teaching you or giving you information.
But to find that out, there must be no fragmentation, obviously, which means no effort - effort means distortion, and a mind, as most of our minds are distorted, you cannot possibly understand what it is to be completely attentive and find out what has happened to a mind that is so utterly aware, utterly attentive. There is a difference between security and stability. It is the monkey, which we said yesterday, which is this everlasting me with its thoughts, with its problems, with its anxieties, fears and so on, this restless thought, monkey, is always seeking security, because it is afraid to be uncertain, uncertain in its activity, in its thoughts, in its relationship - it wants everything mechanical, which is, security.
So it translates security in terms of mechanical certainty. I don't know if you follow all this. Now, is stability different, not opposite, entirely different, different dimension from security?
We have to understand this. A mind that is restless, and seeking in that restlessness security, can never find stability, to be stable. Firm - it is not that, firm is not the word - to be, you know, unshakeable, immovable, and yet it has the quality of great mobility.
And the mind that is seeking security cannot be, cannot be stable in the sense, mobile, swift and yet immensely immovable. You see the difference? Now which is it you are doing, you, not the speaker - which is it you are doing in your life, in your everyday life - is thought the monkey, seeking in its restlessness, security and not finding it in one direction, it goes off in another direction, which is the movement of restlessness.
And in this restlessness, it wants to find security. You see the point of this? Therefore it can never find it.
It can say, well, there is god which is still the invention of thought, the image of thought, the image brought about through centuries of conditioning, of propaganda as thought, conditioned, in the Communist world says, there is no such thing, don't be absurd. Which is equally conditioned. So what is it that you are doing?
Seeking security in your restlessness? You know, security is one of the most curious things, the desire to be secure. And that security must be recognised by the world.
You understand - I don't know if you see this. I write a book and I find in the book my security. But that book must be recognised by the world, otherwise there is no security.
So look what I've done. My security lies in the opinion of the 'Oh, my books sell by the thousand.' And I have created the value of the world.
I am really, in seeking security through a book, through whatever it is, depending on the world, the world which I have created, so which means I am deceiving myself constantly. Right? Oh, if you saw this!
Yes, we see it. So the desire for thought to be secure is the way of uncertainty, is the way of insecurity. Now, when the mind is completely attentive, in which there is no centre, what has happened to the mind that is so intensely aware - is there in it security?