Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Sir, you are just playing with words. Do find out what happens to you when you have discovered for yourself the truth - the truth, not an idea - the truth that any form of response on the part of the observer, and all our responses are on the part of the observer, then what do you find? Sir, is not our realisation of that itself the result of the observer in the sense that the observer separates himself... That's what you are saying.
Therefore you are still separating the observer from the observed. Which means another reaction of the observer which is born of another conformity. So whatever his reactions are he is always conforming.
I have discovered that - wait - have you discovered it? He may separate himself into a hundred parts, and say 'I remain'. And this division indicates that any reaction on the part of the observer comes out of this enormous weight of conformity.
I have discovered the truth of that. The observer has discovered it. Hasn't separated himself as a further observer, has seen this.
Now what has happened? What takes place when the observer sees this? How can the observer discover this?
He becomes responsible. Does it break the conformity, does it break the pattern? You are going to find out, sir.
Doesn't it break conformity. And your question is, how can... How can the observer see that? If he is not separating himself from that then there is no observer, so the observer is...
Wait sir, I'll answer that question, you'll see it in a minute. Sir, it doesn't seem to stop - little things keep coming in all the time, it doesn't stop. Madame, madame, that gentleman is asking a question.
He says, how can the observer become aware of himself without the reaction of the observer. Right? Have you understood my question, sir?
Does the observer become aware of himself through the part or the division of himself? You understand my question, sir? You haven't understood?
How does the observer become aware of himself? Through the part, the fragment, which he has brought about - look, sir, the observer has brought about his conditioning through nationality. Right?
Right? Does the observer become aware of himself as the source of conformity through this division? Right?
So he does not become aware through any division. Let's be clear. Right?
Then how does he become aware? If you reject, see the falseness that the observer becomes aware of himself through a fragment of which he is, then how will he be aware of himself? Go on sir.
If there is no fragment through which he can become aware of himself, then he is not. No, you see, if I do not become aware... If the observer does not become aware through any fragment of which he is part, then how will he know that he is the source of all conformity?
The question is can the fragment be aware of the total. Now one fragment, sitting one side... Right, put it that way sir, put your question that way, let's put - can one fragment be aware of the total.
Obviously not. (Inaudible) Madame, speak in French. (In French) No, madame, listen, no, no.
I understand that, but we are not for the moment discussing that, madame. Let's begin, sir - totally different way, shall we? Are you aware of the division in yourself?
Right? Division when you call yourself a communist, a socialist, a Catholic. That very naming brings about a division, doesn't it?
Are you aware of that? Not in any complex way - just be aware of it. Are you aware when you look at a plant or a tree, or the sky, or a cloud, that you are looking with a division, with eyes that are always looking at everything through division?
It does not touch an awareness immediately, but one is out of that division. No, sir, no, sir. I want to begin right at the other end, so begin anew.
Now do you look at anything with eyes that are not touched by division? Do you look at your wife or husband without the image and therefore look without division? The only way to do that is by the senses.
To look by the senses. When I look at you, you are what you are and I hear you, and there is no division, there is only you and what looks at you. So here, it is fairly simple here, isn't it, because I don't interfere with your life, I don't tell you what to do, I don't nag you, I don't bully you, I don't patronise you, flatter you, insult you, so it is fairly easy for you to look at me.
Me sitting on the platform, you sitting there, you can observe what is being said. But if I what I say touches you, hurts you, flatters you, then you look at me with different eyes, don't you. Only if my intellect comes in.
Only by intellect is good enough. You look at it with a division. Right?
Now, can you look at me who insults you without this division, without the image that you have created through my words of insult? Only if I can see you, the insult and the image at once. Which means - no sir, you have not quite...
I have insulted you, or flattered you, and you have built an image about me. Next time we meet you look at me through that image. That's simple.
Now can you look at me though I have insulted you, flattered you, without the image? Only again by the senses. No, no, no, sir.
(Inaudible) No, madame, you make it all so complicated. Keep it very I have insulted you, or flattered you, you have an image of me, and the next time we meet, through that image you are looking at me. That's a simple fact.
(Inaudible) Wait madame, wait. That's a simple fact. If I am married - I am not, thank god - and if I am married and my wife bullies me and tells me this, dominates, I have built an image about her, haven't I, and therefore our relationship is based on images.
Right? It's simple. Now, I want to look at you though you insult me, flatter me, nag me, without building an image.
Right? Now is that possible? No?
No. Wait. Then it's finished.
If you say it is not possible then there is no further enquiry. To me, that which comes into the way is my own reaction to what I see, not so much what people say but what happens in me when this is said, and to see that... Obviously, sir. Obviously, obviously.
So how can you... I am going to show you in a minute, sir, listen to it, sir. You have insulted me, or said 'What a marvellous chap you are'.
And I have built an image on those two. Right? And I am asking myself, can I look at you without any image, though you have insulted me?
And when I look at you without the image our relationship is entirely different, isn't it. Then it's much more vital, much more close, much more real. So the image is the factor that divides.
Right? Now, is it possible to be free of the mechanism of building images? You can look at the whole.
No, no, no, don't answer me please, don't answer me, I am going to tell you in a minute. Because I want to find out. I am terribly interested to find out, learn, if I could live a life, a way of life in which there is no formation of images at all.
Don't say no - then you are blocked. If you say 'That is impossible, it can't be done', then you have shut the door on it. But I refuse to shut the door on it, I want to find out.
I am going to find out. That is, I want to - no - can the mind as it is being insulted and flattered, can that mind at that moment be intensely aware and not create an image? If it is attentive at that moment there is no image forming.
Right? You have got it? Which means, at the moment I insult you, or flatter you, watch it.
Watch your responses, be aware of your responses. Then you have stopped image building. Right?
That's all. It's as simple as that. Now the question I want to find... the mind wants to find out whether it can look at anything - the tree, the woman, the child, the politician, the priest, the whole world of human beings, without any image, without any formula.
Not, 'Oh, have love', that means nothing. You follow? That's another escape, another series of words that have no meaning.
But I want to look at the world without any image, is that possible? If I can't then I will be in battle with the world. Right?
Me and my group, and you with your group - we and they. So I begin to enquire, test this out, by looking at a tree. Right?
Non-subjective thing. That's looking at a tree, can I look at a tree without the word, without the image which I have about trees? Have you ever tried it?
Is it not at the beginning a unitary process, but afterwards it is. No, sir. This unitary process may come much later, but first I must test it out, find out.
I can't imagine it is a unitary process - I want to find out, I want to learn, I want to test it. I don't want to deceive myself. If I look at you now I do not have any image, I do not have your name, I do not know you, but I just hear your voice.
If I wish I can think about you. Right, sir. But can you do the same with your intimate friends?
Why not? Not, 'why not'. Do you do it?
I would answer yes. Then what happens? You are free.
No, sir. This implies exclusion doesn't it? No.
If you've just had a fight with someone, can you still look at them? Yes. Sir, you can if the fight doesn't injure you financially - no sir, look we are human...
When your wife - not your wife - my wife runs away, looks at somebody else, when the wife doesn't get what she wants - oh, no, don't go into all this. Look, sir, we will come back to this question of conformity, but we are trying to find out whether the mind can look without division. And it's one of the most extraordinary things to find out, to learn, because then conflict comes to an end.
And conflict can only come to an end when there is no machinery that forms the image - and the machinery is the observer. Right? The observer who calls himself black, white, purple, Catholic, communist, all that, or doesn't call anything himself but he is.
He becomes all-important. So this mind has discovered, has learnt that every form of division - inwardly as well as outwardly - must spring from the observer who must divide life. Right?
Life with all its conflicts and jealousies and anxieties and all the rest of it. So in asking myself the question, at what level am I conforming, and why am I conforming, this mind has found it conforms where there is the demand for security, it conforms where one seeks certainty, either in a family, in a group, or in an idea, or in the ideation of a god, or non-god, all springing from this source as the 'me' and the 'not me'. So can this mind live in this world without any of this division?
Don't say, 'It must be peaceful, it must be silent, it must be in a state of tremendous joy, ecstasy, love' - that's all nonsense. If you haven't found that you can't talk about it at all. Because that way lies deception.
So from that one discovers the observer becomes aware of himself not through the fragment of any action but the observer within himself lights the fire that dissolves the observer. Right? Is this a gradual process, like you can spend a lifetime it seems.
No, no. Don't spend time, a lifetime over it; you can see it instantly and it is finished. It is like seeing instantly the precipice, you don't take a lifetime to look at the precipice.
Isn't there a lot of chaos that would necessitate it? There is a lot of chaos, not only outside but inside, a lot of confusion, disorder, vomit of other people. It seems that in the midst of this you should be - not, should be - but to be doing something, going to be propagating this among others.
It seems... Sir, what are we doing now? What are we doing now? You are listening.
I am doing all the work - the speaker is doing all the work and you are listening. If you go away with having learnt the lesson, then you will propagate, do propaganda. When you do propaganda it becomes a lie because it is not yours.
If it is yours, you are building, you are creating, you are living, you are vital. But doing this you want to be in contact. You are in contact, sir.
You see you are in the greatest contact with the world - not through words, not through magazines, books and lectures and philosophies and beliefs - you are directly in contact with this terrible world. What time is it, sir? Half past twelve.
I think that's enough, isn't it, for this morning. What shall we talk over together? And I am sorry it is such a rough morning.
Sir, could you talk about the relationship between pleasure and pain? We regard them, I think, as opposites, you say they are the same. I didn't say they are the same.
Do you want to discuss the relationship between pleasure and fear? Excuse me, may I suggest something else? I have been told that you are going to speak next to a group of writers and thinkers...
I beg your pardon? I am told that you are going to speak next in Perugia to a group of writers and thinkers who are very much concerned about... (inaudible) ...which means the killing of this earth. I wonder if we can broach that subject.
I am going to speak in Perugia in Italy to a lot of professors and scientists and philosophers - all the long haired ones. And? And I wondered if these people, as many others, are concerned about the gradual killing of the earth... Oh, I see, the gradual pollution and the destruction of the earth and so on.
Do you want to discuss that? Or shall we discuss, talk over together what is sanity? Shall we?
I am not saying what you ask is insane, or anything of that kind, but it might be rather worthwhile to talk over together what is sanity. Shall we? Yes.
I wonder what is sanity - to be sane, healthy, to think clearly. What do you mean by that word, what does that word mean to you? Please go on sirs, I can go into this, I don't know if you... Would not any exaggeration of any fragmentation of the mind be insanity?
The exaggeration, giving importance to, or putting all your thought and energy in one fragment, one fragment among many others fragments which make up the human mind, wouldn't you call that insanity, not balanced? And if you think that, are we sane in relation to that particular thing of which we just now talked about, which is giving emphasis, putting all our energy in one direction, like sex, like earning money, like enjoyment, pleasure, or the pursuit of a fragment which is called god. Would you call any of that imbalance?
What do you say, sirs? I think if it is... (inaudible) ...so much tension and energy is put in to the exclusion of other fragments, other parts of self... Therefore?
...then you become... The other parts would be unbalanced. So you will consider if you give emphasis to one and not consider the rest it is obviously not a harmonious living, and therefore not sane.
Now do we do this in our daily life? When one worships sex as the supreme thing in life, or taking drugs and thinking that is going to bring enlightenment, final illumination, or concentrate on earning a livelihood and the money, the prestige, the position - all those indicate a mind that is not harmonious, doesn't it? Or a mind that is concerned entirely with knowledge, or technique.
I don't know... What do you say? Are we in that sense balanced human beings? Obviously not.
Should we be behind the bars? And an unbalanced humanity, as it is, must produce all kinds of catastrophes - wars, pollution, destruction of the earth, bringing about constant misery. Now, if that is so, what then shall one do?
I realize I am giving all my energies, thought and therefore action to - what? What would you suggest? To thought.
To thought. Right. That I worship thought as the supreme instrument of all culture, of all enlightenment, of all intelligence, of all action.
Am I, or is one aware that one gives thought an extraordinarily important position, state, in life? And if one does realize that, what shall one do? Sir, please, this is supposed to be a discussion, not a talk by me, by the speaker.
So what shall I do when I realize that my whole life is based on thought? Do I realize thought is only a fragment, a part of a whole? A segment among many other parts.
Do I realize that? Or do I think thought is the whole thing? What do you say, sir, please?
Do you think one should differentiate between thought as a principle, and thought meaning my thought, the individual's thought. He says thought as a principle and individual thought. Is there a difference between thought as a principle and individual thought?
I am asking, I am not saying there is not, I am just asking if there is a difference between individual thinking and collective thinking, thinking which man has gathered through millennia, through centuries upon centuries as knowledge - scientific, technological, knowledge of nature and so on and on. Is there a difference between a particular thinking, or the peculiarity of a thinking of an individual and the collective accumulation of thought of mankind? What do you say, sirs?
I don't think so, in as much as the individual is influenced by the collective. Sir, you say thought is conditioned by the culture, the society, the environment in which he lives, therefore there is no division between the individual thinking and the collective thinking. The collective thinking seems to be... (inaudible) ...many of your own personal experiences.
That's what we are saying, sir. And it seems to be in touch with your individual thought, your own thought, seems to be necessary if you are going to have any self-awareness... Therefore you are separating individual thought from the collective thought.
You think that there is a particular... individual thinking. (Inaudible) I am just asking. You say that there is an individual thinking apart from the collective.
Is that so? I think that's why guilt... Wait, sir, we'll come to that.
Don't take a particular example. Is your thinking as an individual different from the collective thinking, or my thinking? Your thinking, is it different from my thinking as an individual or the collective thinking?
Or is all thinking more or less the same? The thought process, the source of all thought is the same, but the particular thought is different. The source of thought is all the same, the questioner says, though there may be modifications or slight changes in the thought in an individual.
Yes, sir? If the individual creates the society, the individual's thoughts must be exactly the... Obviously, sir. I don't quite see the difference, basic difference between the collective thought and the individual thought, because the individual is part of the collective.
But he is at the same time greater, it seems to me. May be we misunderstand each other's words, but it seems to me that the reason for all these wars and everything seems to be, and for all the bad feelings that people have about themselves, it seems to be that they are thinking for themselves, and that they find that what they think is radically different from the collectivity thinks. Look, sir, is your thinking different from mine, coming from India, or from Russia, is your thinking different?
The things that we think about? Not the think... not what you think about, your thinking process. Oh, no, that's the same.
So the thinking process of human beings are more or less the same. Conditioned according to their background - as Catholic, Protestant, Hindu and so on, so on. Right?
And there may be modifications of that thought. I might as a German think differently from you who are American because I have been conditioned by the German culture in which I live. But the process of thinking is the same, isn't it, thought I call myself a German, and you an American, the process, the mechanism - the mechanism is memory, knowledge, experience.
Otherwise if you had no knowledge, no experience, no knowledge, you couldn't speak. Right? So thought is the response of memory.