Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Right, madame? Now who is feeling all this? Feeling the loneliness, the despair, the utter misery, confusion, aggression, violence, who is it that is feeling all these things?
(Inaudible) Who is feeling it? Answer that one who feels all this? I think we are, as it were, two selves - there is a deep psychic self...
Which is that? What is that? You see, you give it a 'deep big psychic self'...
Most of us have two centres of being, one... (inaudible) All right. You think there are two superficial us - different. The one is superficial; the more profound.
Now, what is... How does this division arise? You must answer all these questions. (Inaudible) What is this deep self?
And what is the superficial self? The unconscious and the conscious... Which is what?
Which is what? Please, madame, go into it. Conscious and unconscious - why do you divide it?
Because only a little bit is lit. The one is lit by awareness we call our conscious self, and what is unlit in the dark, which is the name for it. Therefore you say there is no division really.
No, not really. Wait, wait. Let's stick to the reality, not the superficiality of the division.
So there is only a state of mind in which there is division, as the thinker and the thought. Right? As the experiencer and the experienced, as the observer and the observed.
Right? The observed we say is the superficial, the observer is profound. Right?
No, no, don't say maybe. Examine it, find out, we want to learn. Well I think the problem is levels of awareness.
Wait, wait. You see - awareness - who is it that is aware? Don't throw up your hands.
We must learn about it, we must find out. So we realize there is a division in life, in me, in you. The you and me are many fragments.
In oneself there are... oneself is made up of many fragments. One of the fragments is the observer and the rest of the fragments are the observed. The observer becomes conscious of the fragments, but the observer is also one of the fragments; he is not different from the rest of the fragments.
Right? Therefore you have to find out what is the observer, the experiencer, the thinker. What is he made up of, how does it come about this division between the observer and the observed?
The observer, we say, is one of the fragments, and why has he separated himself, assumed as the analyzer, the one who is aware, the one who can control, change, suppress - all the rest of it. The observer is the censor. Right?
The censor is the result of the social conditionings - right? - social, environmental, religious, cultural conditioning. Which is, the division between culture has said you are different from the thing you are observed.
You are god and that is matter, you are the higher self and that is the lower self, you are the enlightened and that is unenlightened. Now what has given him this authority to call himself enlightened? Because he has become the censor?
Right? And the censor says, this is right, this is wrong; this is good, this is bad; this I must do, this I must not do, which is the result of his conditioning. The conditioning of the society, of the culture, of the religion, of the family, of all the race, and so on.
So the observer is the censor, conditioned according to his environment. And he has assumed the authority of the analyzer. Right?
And the rest of the fragments are also assuming their authority; each fragment has its own authority, and so there is battle. Right? And so there is conflict between the observer and the observed.
So, to be free of this conflict one has to find out if you can look without the eyes of the censor. That is to be aware. Aware - to be aware that the eyes of the censor are the result of his conditioning.
And can those eyes look with freedom, look innocently, freely? Otherwise this conflict will exist, and therefore neuroticism and all the rest of it follow from this conflict. So you have to solve this question, learn about this, whether the mind can look without any conditioning.
Which means without the censor, without the observer because the observer is the source of all conformity. And when you are conforming there must be contradiction, and therefore conflict, which are all the result of thinking. So the thinker is not separate from thought.
So the observer is not separate from the observed. And when this is an actual reality, fact, truth, 'what is', then conflict comes to an end. I won't go into all that.
Sir, the sunset you talked about, if you observe it and it was so delightful, then that moment when you are not doing anything, you still observe it... It comes back to you. Yes.
Which means what? Do listen to this, sir, this is quite extraordinary if you go into it. You saw that sunset yesterday.
It was a great delight. It has left a memory. You see it.
It has left a memory, obviously, otherwise you couldn't see that sunset. It has left a memory, left a mark, and the response through thought, is 'I wish I could have more of it'. No, you don't say that but you can see it.
The seeing of it is the same, sir. So thought breeds fear and pleasure, sustains it, gives it a continuity. This is clear, isn't it?
And if I can't have my pleasure I get upset, I get neurotic. And I want to avoid, the observer wants to avoid fear. Right?
Wants pleasure and avoid fear. And the observer is the result of all thinking. Obviously.
So look at the game he is playing on with one hand he holds, with the other hand he rejects. But it is still the same observer. And if I can't have my pleasure I get angry, I suffer, I go into tantrums, and if I cannot resolve my fear I escape through amusement, through religion, through dogmas, through nationalities, through all kinds of ugly escapes.
And that's what we human beings are. Can there be thought without... No, wait, first see what takes place, sir. Then the next inevitable question comes next.
See that is the fact, whether it is conscious or unconscious, this is the whole momentum of our conditioning. Right, madame? Now the next question can the mind be free of all this conditioning, and this conditioning is the observer, and not what he observes.
Right? I am conditioned, this mind is conditioning by a culture which has existed for five, three thousand years in India, and when it meets a different culture, the Catholic, it says, my god, you are... - you follow? The observer rejects, and therefore conflict.
So the inevitable next question can the mind, the brain cells themselves, be free of all conditioning as the observer, as an entity that is conforming, as an entity that is conditioned by the environment, culture, family, race - you follow? - conditioned. If the mind is not free from conditioning it can never be free of conflict and therefore neuroticism.
Therefore we are, unless you are completely free, we are unbalanced people. And out of our unbalance we do all kinds of mischief. So maturity is not a (inaudible) but a freedom from conditioning.
And that freedom is not obviously the result of the observer, which is the very source of all memory, of all thought. So can I look with eyes that have never been touched by the past? And that is sanity.
(Laughs) Sorry. Can you look at the cloud, the tree, your wife, your husband, your friend, without an image? To be aware that you have an image is the first thing, isn't it?
To be aware that you are looking at life through a formula, through an image, through concepts, which are all distorting factors. So to be aware of it. And to be aware of it without any choice.
And as long as the observer is aware of these then there is distortion. Therefore can you look, can the mind observe without the censor? Can you listen without any interpretation, without any comparison, judgement, evaluation, listen, to that breeze, to that wind, without any interference of the past?
Sorry, I have taken the show away! If I see the tree and am delighted, and thought slipping in and says, 'Is an oak tree', it is just words. Can we see without the observer?
Yes, sir, that's right. You do it. Look at the tree - I don't know, haven't you ever done all these things?
Look at the tree, a tree, without naming it, without the interference of the knowledge about trees, just to look. What takes place when you do so look? You become the tree.
You become the tree. Have you looked at a tree that way and then can you say you are the tree? Don't say this, you have never looked.
No, madame, you can never say you are the tree. That is an identification with the tree. You are not the tree, are you?
I hope not! The feeling, profound relationship... Wait, look, madame, profound relationship implies a relationship in which there is no image.
Obviously. If you have an image about me and I have an image about you, our relationship is between two images, which is built up by thought - right? - and this we call profound relationship.
Therefore there must be freedom from the machinery of the image. Therefore can I look at a tree without the image of the tree? Which means can I look without the observer, without the censor?
Then what takes place? You are not the tree. That's a trick of the mind to say, I identify myself with the tree, with you, with god, with this, with that.
When there is no movement of identification on the part of the observer then what takes place? Who creates the space between the tree and you? There is actual space - you understand?
- there is a distance, it may be a foot, it may be ten feet. The physical distance. We are not talking about the physical distance, but the psychological distance between you and the tree, who has brought this about?
The thinking, the observer, the censor. No? Now when that observer, that censor doesn't exist, but only look when you look, what takes place?
(Inaudible) There is too much noise here, would somebody else who has heard it repeat it please. The mind becomes very still. The mind becomes very still.
Does it? When you observe that tree without the observer, we are asking what happens. The distance isn't there any more really, you become closer to it.
Are you saying the tree disappears? No, I am saying the psychological distance between yourself and the tree... That is what? The psychological distance between you and the tree has disappeared.
Right? Are you guessing this, are you actually, you have done this? One of the factors of neurosis is obviously resistance, building a wall round oneself.
One has built a wall as the observer, and when you look at a tree that wall separates you from the tree, psychologically, not in actual space. Now when there is no psychological space what happens? You take the tree into your being.
Oh, no. Your being is the observer! Do listen, sir.
I said when you look at a tree, at a human being, without the observer, without that censor, without that thinker who says, that is the tree, that is what I like or don't like, I wish I had it in my garden - when you look at it without all that, what happens? There is communion. She said there's communion.
There is communion between you and the tree. It doesn't seem like a question that really has any answers... You see you are all guessing, you're all... Is it acceptance? Is it acceptance of the tree.
It is there, why should I have to accept it? Yes, but you might not like it, you build your resisting wall... No, madame, look, I am asking you - we have been through all that - I am asking what takes place when the observer is not. There is only the object.
(Inaudible) What happens when you do that? When I do it? Why do you want to know?
Are you interested? Theoretically? Then you have to do it yourself, haven't you.
Therefore what happens to me is totally irrelevant. No? Then that means that we are all different... You are asked a what happens to you when you look without the observer.
I said what value has it to you? Are you asking it as an example to copy, to verify your own particular experience, and so on. So what is important in this, not what happens to the speaker when he looks at the tree, but what actually takes place when you look.
With respect, there are several answers here, which I suspect came from their personal experience, but you didn't accept it. No. I am not sure they are not repeating.
Look, madame, what happens when you, when one looks at another, husband, wife, or children, or the politician, without the image, what takes place? The mind lights up. The mind gets turned on, lights up.
Sir... I give it up! When you say what takes place... What happens, sir?
what happens to you when you have no image, when you look at somebody without an image? You have a... You are... you are... If you say, I really don't know - right?
- then we can proceed; but if you say it is this, it is that, it is this, I am not sure if it is real. When you say, really, I have never done it - that means tremendous discipline, not suppression, not all the rest of the nonsense with regard to discipline. This needs tremendous attention - not on the part of the observer.
If the observer becomes attentive he is still separate. So what takes place if you really have gone through this with real, you know - not according to me - I am not the oracle - you will see it for yourself when the psychological space disappears there is a direct relationship. Isn't there?
When you are married and you have a wife or a... between two people there are images - right? - each is building an image, and each is looking through image at each other. Now if you have no image, what happens?
Isn't that what is love? Which has nothing whatever to do with pleasure. (Inaudible) ...sometimes when people are truly married they may carry each other's images but...
They generally do, sir, they marry each other's images. Yes, but maybe through their marriage they'll look through these images... Sir, you are guessing, this is all guess work, please. I don't think I'm guessing.
Don't, look, sir, either we talk very seriously to find out, to learn, not from me, to learn the nature of observing, the nature of looking, the nature of listening, so that when you do look you look with eyes completely differently. Otherwise we play around with insanity. And we started by asking what is sanity.
There it is. A mind that is conditioned is not sane. Sir, when there is no psychological space between the tree and the observer, the experience must be the same for everybody.
Will the experience, without the observer, will that experience be all the same or vary according to the individual. I have a feeling it will be the same. Not, a feeling - you see.
You have asked a question, sir, look at it, first look at the question. When you look without the observer, you are asking whether that observation, what takes place, will it vary according to the individual. If there is no observer at all, is there individuality?
I see. Individuality as we know it is fragmentation. Individual means indivisible.
But we are divided human beings, broken up, fragmented, therefore we are not individuals. What time is it, sir? This is the end of the discussion.
There'll be talks. What shall we talk over together this morning? Sir, can we dispense with memory altogether in our human relationships?
Can we - I'll repeat the question - can we dispense altogether memory in our human relationship. Shall we talk that over together? Is that what you want to... What is creation?
What is creation. Why should we cling to the scientific memories? Why should we hold on to scientific memories.
Sir, when we were together the other day you said that we must die to the past, unless we die every moment of our life we are incomplete. How to do it? - not intellectually, verbally, alone, but actually in action.
You said the other day that we must die every day to live anew, to have a clear perceptive mind, and how is this to be done. Anything else you would like to discuss? Wisdom.
What is wisdom. Concentration. Concentration.
Just throw in any old word, you know, (laughter) see what comes out of it. Yes, sir? Can you speak about your experiences after coming up to this peace or harmony because maybe you can... (inaudible) I don't quite follow the question, sir.
I mean we are trying to bring the people by their own understanding of what... (inaudible) Now, I feel that it is possible for - I don't know how many percentage - but I am sure that... (inaudible) ...the people here are capable of doing it right at the moment and I think that if we talk about your own experience in this field it might start a burning fire within them for a new life - whenever they get a problem... (inaudible) Is that possible? The questioner says, if I understood rightly, and please correct me if I am repeating it only a few of us can understand what you are talking about, what about the rest, and if you personally went into your own experience perhaps that might help. Is that it?
Yes, sir. Now which of these shall we discuss, talk over, or shall we put them all together? I think we can put them all together.
What is the place of memory, and what is the place of knowledge in our daily life, and is it possible to live without the burden of the past and so live anew every day, and such a way of life can only be understood by the few, what about the rest. I think that more or less covers all our questions, doesn't it? What is the place of knowledge in life?
We'll begin very slowly and step by step go into this. Both the scientific knowledge and the accumulated racial knowledge as tradition, and one's own particular experiences, memories, knowledge, what place has all that in our daily life? Are we aware of all this?
Is one aware, are you aware of the immense racial, cultural memories, which are traditions, how your mind... one's mind functions in that particular pattern, is one aware, are you aware of it? Sir, this is a talking over together, this is not a talk by me, so we are supposed to talk things over together. Are you aware of this?
Yes. You know, this is rather a complex problem because there is not only the conscious technological memories acquired recently but also the deep inherited memories - racial, religious, cultural, sociological, environmental - they are deeply rooted. One may be conscious or aware of the superficial memories.
Now what place - the question is what place has these superficial memories... have in life, in relationship, and what is the relationship of the deep hidden memories that affect our daily relationship? Right? one has collected recently a great deal of technological knowledge, a great deal of memories with regard to science, law, you know, all that one reads, the education that one has had, the linguistic, the superficial accretions of the culture in which we live - the technological, the tradition and so on.
Is one aware of it? Aware in the sense, does one know how one uses memory? I happen to speak French and Italian and Spanish because I have accumulated knowledge about those languages.
Those are recent acquisitions. And I use them when I travel and all the rest of it. And also one has a great many other memories, memories of hurt, memories of insults, memories of various kinds of experiences - you follow?
- one is not aware of them, one is using them. And there are all the hidden memories, hidden knowledge, deep in the dark corners of one's own mind. All memory, isn't it, is in the past.