Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
If we could please give a little attention to this. Are you conforming? Obviously when I put on trousers I am conforming.
When I go to India I put on different clothes - I am conforming. When I have my hair cut short, I am conforming. When I have my hair long, or an enormous beard, I am conforming.
Is it much more this matter of the condition of looking at the world as being oneself and the outer world as two separate things? I said that. The division as the 'me' and not 'the me', the outer and the inner, this division is another form of conformity.
Sir, let's get at the principle of it, you follow what I mean, not at the peripheral conformities, but at the root. Why does the human mind conform? And does that human mind know it is conforming.
Why, and conformity. You follow? In asking that question we will find out.
But not enquiring about the peripheral conformity, the borders of conformity. That's a sheer waste of time. Once the central issue is understood then we can deal with the outer, with the peripheral conformities.
Sir, I am very unsure if I don't follow a certain pattern. He says, if I don't follow a certain pattern, established by a particular society and culture - communist, or Finnish, or German, this or that, Catholic, I shall be thrown out. Right?
Imagine what would happen in Russia, under the Soviet tyranny, though they may call it democracy of the people, all that bilge, I shall be wiped out, I shall be sent to the mental hospital and given drugs to become normal. This is all - so before we say what shall I do, in a particular culture where conformity is the pattern, before we even put that question we should find out for ourselves whether we are conforming and what it means. Why?
You see you are always discussing what to do under a given structure of a society. That's not the question. The question is, is one aware, does one know that one is conforming?
Is that conformity peripheral, that is very superficial, or is it very profound? Till you answer this question you won't be able to deal with the problem whether to fit into a particular society that demands conformity. I act in a certain way, how do I know if I am conforming, or not?
We will have to find that out, sir, let's go into it, let's take time and patience in finding out. And don't let us ask peripheral questions please. Is that clear?
Peripheral what to do. It seems possibly that like any other species we have a natural and instinctive desire to conform. Yes.
Why? We know this. This whole process of education, all our upbringing is to conform - why?
Do look at it. The animal conforms. To preserve the species.
To keep together. To preserve the group. To preserve the group, to have security, to be safe.
That's why we conform. Does that conformity lead to security? We say it does.
Does it? I mean, to call oneself an American, or an Indian, or a Japanese, or Indonesian - I am sorry to have to introduce all these words, but it doesn't matter - does seem to give a sense of security, doesn't it? To identify oneself with a particular community appears to give security.
But does it? When you call yourself a German and I call myself a Jew, or an Englishman, this very division is one of the major causes of war, which means no security. Where there is division which comes about through identification with a particular community, hoping that community will give security, it is the very beginning of destruction of security.
This is so clear. Then you feel that the idea of any community is one that would detract from uniqueness... No, sir, no sir. No.
We are saying - look, sir, please - we are saying the desire to conform, the urge, the instinct to conform, comes about through the hope of security, wanting to be secure, safe, certain, physically. Is that a fact? Historically - not that I am a historian - historically it has shown when you call yourself a Catholic and I myself a Protestant, we have murdered each other in the name of god and all the rest of it.
So the mind seeking security through conformity denies that very security. That's clear, isn't it. So please, when that's clear we have finished with identification with a community through which we hope to be secure.
That thinking about, looking at it that way is finished. You follow? Once you see the poisonous nature of this division between you and the community, and you identifying with the community in the hope of security, when you see that very clearly, the truth of it, you no longer want security through community.
You follow? Through nationality, through identification with a particular group. Is there not only another point, the point of feeling to belong to?
Yes, sir, which is I belong to a particular group, it gives me satisfaction, it makes me feel warm inside, it makes me feel safe. Which is the same thing. But not only to be safe, it's the feeling, a nice feeling.
Yes, sir, which is what? A nice feeling - I belong to this community of Brockwood. It gives me a nice feeling.
What does that mean? I belong. Which is, I want to belong to something.
Right? Why? Sir, let us tear all this apart and look at it.
Why do I want to feel comfortable with a blasted little community? Sorry! I feel insufficient in myself.
What does that mean? In myself I am insufficient, I am lonely, I am a poor, unhappy, haggard, miserable entity, and I say, my god, if I could identify myself with a large community I would lose myself in that. This is so simple.
We want communion. With whom? With other people.
How do you have communion with other people when you are seeking security through other people? It is not a matter of security. Sir, look, sir.
I feel comfortable, happy, with a small group of people, with a particular community - right? Why? Do answer.
You have to answer this question. Why do I feel comfortable with a particular group of people? Because I am frightened of the others.
I am not only frightened of the others - right? No. No, then what?
I don't like the others. I don't like their looks, their smell, their clothes, their beards, their hair. I like this group.
And that group gives me a great sense of warmth. We want extension. Wait, expansion of what?
Extension. Yes, sir, expansion. Expanding what?
What am I expanding? My loneliness, my fear, my misery, my sense of lack of certainty? When I am clear, certain, you know, vital, I don't want to identify myself with anything.
I don't know why we waste time on this thing. We ought to go much deeper than this, sirs, come on. Which is, any form of identification with a group, however comfortable it is, however satisfying it is, this identification implies not only psychological wellbeing, the psychological wellbeing in division, and therefore destruction, but also it brings about a conformity of the group as against another group.
Right? So our question why do we conform, and do I know I am conforming? Please, do stick to those two things.
Do you know you are conforming? When you call yourself an Englishman, or a Frenchman, aren't you conforming? When you call yourself a Catholic, Protestant, communist, the Panthers, and all the rest, aren't you conforming?
And when you are aware that you are conforming, peripherally or superficially, the next question is why. If you say it is to be safe, secure, then you see the dangers of that security. There is no security when you identify yourself with a group, however satisfying it is.
So isn't that clear? We can push it aside, finish with it. That any form of identification with a group, however satisfactory, however comforting, does not bring security.
So I will never look for security in a group. Can't we finish with that? Yes.
Wait. Yes, but do it! It doesn't always seem as though we are identifying when we are doing it, it seems we are working together and then it slips over somehow.
Yes. The question is, we may think we are working together, not necessarily identifying together. Is co-operation imitation, conformity?
Please go into it a little bit. Am I co-operating with you about something? Right?
About a principle, about utopia, about a series of ideations, or co-operating with you because you bring enlightenment, or bring a utopian world, or have I the spirit of co-operation in which there is no conformity? I don't know if you... If I am co-operating about something because I hope through that co-operation I will gain a personal profit, then it's not co-operation.
But if I have the spirit of co-operation, the feeling... I go beyond the me. Madame, that's just it.
Do I have the spirit of co-operation, the feeling? So let's come back, I must come back to this thing, which is, do I know, does one know that one is conforming, why one is conforming, and what is the necessity to conform? To present an image of sameness.
Yes, sir. No, look at it, sir. Are you conforming?
I am sorry to push it. Are you conforming? When you take drugs - not you, I am talking generally, it's not my concern whether you take it or not, sir - isn't that conformity?
When you take drinks, smoke, is that conformity? It seems that you can't talk about an action, in saying it is a conforming action, you have to talk about the mind... Sir, we did just now. Why does the mind conform?
But you can say the mind conforms, but can you say that if such and such an action is performed, it is done by a conforming mind? Do you know - please listen, sir - do you know that you are conforming through the action of conformity? You understand my question?
I am doing something, and the doing of it reveals that I am conforming. Or, without action I know one is conforming. You see the difference?
Do you see the difference, sirs? Do I know that I am hungry because you tell me? Or I know for myself I am hungry.
Do I know I am conforming because I see the action of conformity going on? You follow? I wonder if I am making myself clear?
Right? Do please go with me. Do I know - please, sir, just listen to my question first - do I know through action that I am conforming, or do I know I am conforming not through action?
The two different kinds of knowledge, the discovery that I am conforming through action leads to the correction of action. Right? You are following this, sir?
I discover I am conforming through a particular act, and then I say to myself, to change, to bring about a change in conformity I must act differently. So I lay emphasis on action, not on the movement that brings about action. This is clear.
Please, sirs, come. Have you travelled too far this morning, or tired out? So I want to be clear before I talk about action, the nature of conformity.
So I have to find out whether I am conforming. No, wait. The mind that wants to conform, the principle of conformity.
You understand? Sir, I don't understand how you can observe the nature of conformity without the action to reveal it. That's just it.
I cannot find out the nature of conformity without being aware of the action that is the result of conformity. Right? Conformity is connected with an objective.
Sir, how do you know that you are conforming? Please, how do you know that you are conforming? Through observation.
Through observation. Do be clear. Wait a minute, sir, wait a minute, sir.
Through observation, you say. The observer, watching action says, 'I am conforming'. Right?
And is not the very observer the result of centuries of conformity? Yes. Therefore he is watching not action, but watching himself conforming.
Yes. No, no. He is the source of all conformity, not what he is doing.
What he is doing is the result of the flow of conformity - as the observer, as the censor, as the Englishman, as the traditionalist, and so on and so on. So when I am asking, when we are asking the question, who is conforming, what is conformity, and why does one conform, I think the answer lies to all that in the observer. The observer is the censor.
Right? Now the censor becomes aware of himself condemning or justifying. And that condemnation or justification is the result of his conformity to the pattern of a particular culture in which he has been brought up.
There is the whole thing. I don't know if you get it. Does this awareness not come about only through somehow being out of it for a moment, somehow that stopping, and in that stopping there is the seeing of it.
Sir, I don't know what you quite mean, stopping. I think I get what you mean. But does that happen?
Look, sir. Look, you are asking... The only time when one ever gets a glimpse of it.
Yes. You are asking me to be aware of the observer. Right?
The observer is the very essence of conformity. Please - you follow? - we have said a truth, which if once seen you will see the whole thing.
The observer is the essence of imitation, conformity. Now can the observer become aware of himself as the principle of conformity? Now wait, go slow, go slow.
How is this to happen? You are asking me to be aware - listen to this, sir - aware of the observer. Which is, can the observer become aware of himself as the source of conformity?
You have challenged me. Right? Now how does that... what is the response of the observer to the challenge?
I don't know if you follow what I am saying. Right? (Inaudible) No, please don't answer it yet, do look at it, take a little time.
You have challenged me, right sir? Which is, you said, look, can the observer who is the essence of conformity, can that observer become aware of itself? That's your challenge.
And what is the response of the observer - listen carefully - what is the response of the observer? It goes back into memory to try and find out. Which means what?
His response will invariably be conforming. No, no, you are missing it, see the implication of it. You have challenged me, and the observer responds according to his conditioning which is conformity, therefore his answer is a conforming answer.
Right? There is nothing he can do about it... Wait, sir, wait, sir, look, first look.
Any response from the observer is the response of conformity - full stop! But sir, has the observer actually got an instrument that isn't contaminated? We are going to find out, we are going to find out.
We are so near it, let's push. You'll find out. Isn't what you are saying that the process of conformity can only be discovered in action.
Ah, no. No. Caramba, no!
I am saying this, sir - look sir, we have come to the point when we say the observer is the very essence of conformity. How does the observer know he is the very essence of conformity? How is he aware of himself as the instrument of conformity, as the result of conformity?
He can't. Wait, no, no. Whatever his answer is conforming.
Yes. Therefore what have I found? What have I found?
That you can't move out of it. What have I found? There is observation beyond conformity.
No, what have I found - listen sir - what has the observer found that when he responds to a challenge, as you put the challenge, and finds whatever his response, whatever - at whatever depth, at whatever peripheral response - is the response born of conformity. Right? He has discovered that.
Right? What does that mean? He is the total.
He is the conformity in everything. He has discovered himself. That he is not different, that he is the total.
No, no, no, no, please let us stick to - don't let us use the word 'total'. I think that the observer can only be a non-conformist when he has no answer. You see, no sir (laughs), the observer is the very essence of conformity.
Right? Do you see that, not because I say so. But I see that if he has an answer he must be a conformist.
No. Yes, sir. So what has happened to the observer?
Separated. No, madame. It seems... Do pay a little attention, don't find an answer.
Look, I have found something. I have found through that challenge that whatever response the observer gives is the response from the source of all conformity. And he realises this.
What happens then? He keeps quiet. No (laughs).