Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
(Inaudible) I am asking purposely, sir. I am not so dumb as you think I look. (Laughter) Please, let us go into this.
Please, don't laugh, sir, please. Please, just let's look into this. I see examination, analysis of the cause which takes time does not solve this question of free the mind from habit; nor will.
Right? Because will implies resistance. Where there is resistance there must be conflict, and where there is a conflict it becomes a habit.
You have accepted conflict as a habit, haven't you? You say, that's part of life. I question it is a part of life.
So, then I want to find out is there another way of looking at it where habit can be freed without any effort at all. You understand? Because I see if there is an effort there must be will, there must be resistance, there must be conflict.
Right? Which means, when there is the analysis or the action of will there must be duality. Do you understand?
There must be the analyser, the introspector, and the thing analysed and looked at - those are two things. And when you resist there is also two - duality. Now is there a way of looking non-dualistically?
You are following all this? Is there a way - I am asking, I don't know yet, I want to find out. I can only find out if I have discarded these two.
Right? You are following this? I must put these aside completely and never go back to them again because they are false, they don't help man.
So, I am asking, is there a way of looking without duality at habit? Right? Now what has happened to my mind when I have put away these analysis and resistance, which is will - when I put those two away what is the quality of the mind now when it has discarded those two?
What is your quality of your mind when you say, 'No, I won't any more exercise will, I won't analyse any more', what is the state of your mind? It becomes simple. It becomes simple.
Right. And what else? Go on, sir, explore.
Empty. No, don't use that. Don't, please.
Go into it, sir, find out what is the quality of your mind when it has put aside that which has no validity. Free and unburdened. It is a pure mind.
You are guessing, sir, just guessing. You see what that gentleman said - just listen, listen, listen. He said, it is waiting for an answer.
You have understood what he has said? He has discarded those two, will and introspection or analysis, and now the mind says, 'I have finished with those, now I am waiting to see if there is another way'. Right?
Waiting. Wait, listen to it, just listen to it. Waiting.
Why should it wait? If it is waiting it is hoping. Then you are caught.
You understand? The moment you say there is a hope that I will get rid of it, then you are had because that hope becomes the motive. That motive then prevents you from observing, as when you came into the hall, into the tent, you wanted a seat and rushed there and sat down and never observed.
So in the same way when you have a motive there is no way out. So you have found one thing. Motive, will, introspection.
If you have got rid of those three then what is the quality of your mind, the quality? (Inaudible) Highly sensitive. (Inaudible) Too bad!
(Inaudible) That's it, throw in a lot of words. You are not observing yourself, sir. You haven't done these things, that's why you are saying things which are totally irrelevant.
The mind is free of those. That's it. Is your mind free of those, sir?
Yes, sir. Free of those three points at that moment. At what moment?
At the moment when get angry or have a habit, and when those two dualities are in abeyance, it becomes free. What? No, I can't make out.
(Inaudible) It is not so easy. You see, sir, it is not so easy, as he points out, to put aside these three things. And that's why you have no answer.
You are just guessing, you are just throwing out words. So we have to go back and find out why you exercise will to get rid of anything. Because will means resistance.
I resist communism, I resist capitalism, I resist Catholicism - resist, fight, fight, fight. Because I have an idea, I think there is a perfect utopia in the world, I belong to it, and everything else I am going to push in that direction, and so I fight. Until I resolve that problem, that question of will, all its implication, I shan't move to the next.
So I must really go into this question of will which man has accepted as a habit. I will do this, I won't do that, I will become that. Which means - please just listen - which means we are slaves to the verb 'to be'.
Please listen. We are slaves to the word 'to be', in which is involved becoming, or having become. You follow?
We are caught by that word. (Inaudible) Wait sir, wait sir. Just listen first.
The word. The word creates the idea, the verb, with its active present, with its past and I will be, I have been, I am - we won't go into all this. So we are slaves to habit and because it is the easiest, we think that is the easiest way to function most efficiently.
If I say 'I will not have habit, I will not be angry', we think we have solved the problem. We haven't. It has gone down, hidden, suppressed, and it is going to come out another time.
So I have to go into this question of habit and find out its true worth. And we don't do this. Whether it is in the communist world, socialist world, or in the capitalist world, this has become one of our habits.
I will be the great man, I will be the dictator, I will be this or that. (Inaudible) The opposite. Yes, much more obvious here.
So I have to... is it possible to function without will? Well, sir? Where are you?
(Inaudible) Ah, no, is it possible - it may not be possible. You don't have to accept the possibility or the impossibility. All that you have to do is to examine, explore.
I don't know whether you can live without will. And that means a tremendous intelligence because we have always functioned in habits. Which is, the habit of I want, I don't want.
So for the man who has really understood habit and will, the whole structure of analysis, which implies motive, such a mind - you see, I am asking what is the quality of such a mind, you will never find out unless you have done this. If you haven't found out you will create another society which will be equally rotten as this, whether you call it communist, Mao, or super whatever it is, because this is a central human problem. And you think by changing the environment you are going to change the human quality of the mind.
The very brain cells themselves are caught in this. Therefore is it - listen, sir, I'll stop now - you know the brain cells are the result of time, they have evolved, they have been put together through experience, through knowledge, through various incidents, millennia, thousands of years, and these brain cells have retained the memory of all that. You can observe it in yourself, you don't have to read books.
Now, if the brain cells themselves are functioning in habit - listen to my question - if the brain themselves are caught in habit how is it possible to be free of habit? You follow? Because intellect is part of this habit of the brain cells, it says the intellect will solve my problems.
So, how is it possible for the old brain - you understand, that is the old brain, which has lived for millennia upon millennia, seventy-five thousand or a million years, or more - how is that old brain which has accumulated such extraordinary information, memories, remembrances, knowledge, which is necessary at one field, at one level, and how is that brain to be free of all the unnecessary habits, like nationality, like ambition, like envy and so on? I am asking the question because unless there is a mutation in the brain cells themselves you will not create a new society. So the important thing is to find out whether that thing can be changed.
I will show you it can be changed if you will just listen. What is the good of telling you listen because you will repeat it. And that's all.
You have read so much, that's why. Ton mieux. Now, you know when there is a challenge - and challenge is always new, isn't it, otherwise it is not a challenge - when you have a challenge like death, like earthquake, like insult - challenge - the old brain instinctively responds.
Right? Haven't you noticed it? Have you noticed this simple fact?
The old brain with all its habits responds instantly to a challenge. Now if the old brain could retard, hold back, and not immediately respond there is an interval between the old and something new taking place. You get it?
Are you following this? Look, sir, just you know there is... look at the progress, from the bullock cart to the jet. You know what the jet is, the jet aeroplane.
Now, the man who invented the jet was very, very familiar with the internal combustion machine, engine, he constructed it, he was part of that, he was the whole... he knew all about the internal combustion machinery. And that same man discovered the jet. You follow?
How did he discover it? There was an interval between knowledge of the old where he said, 'I must find out a new way of functioning, of producing engines', he waited, he didn't let the old brain come into operation, he waited, watched and suddenly came upon it. You follow?
I have been told this by a friend who is an engineer and so on. He says there was an interval between knowledge, which is old, and the new. The new can only take place in that interval when the old brain is completely quiet.
Right? You get the point? No.
Now can you with your response of the old brain all the time - you are a Hindu, you are a Christian, you are a communist, you are this, you are that - you follow? - can that old brain remain quiet for a while, not all the time. Don't ask, all the time, which is silly.
Can that old brain, when there is a challenge, be quiet? And that is meditation. You understand?
To understand the whole structure and the nature of the past, which is the brain, which has been put together in time. So can the old brain which is the repository of all habits - you understand? - of all memories, which is the past, can that old brain hold back, quiet down, so that when a challenge comes there is a totally different kind of response?
Not a Hindu response, Muslim response, communist response, but a totally different kind. Therefore you have to understand the whole nature and the structure of the past. You understand?
After all, the past is the repetition of memory. Past is the result of thousands of years of propaganda that you are a Hindu. Right?
Thousands of years. And you say at the end of ten thousand years, you say, 'I am a Hindu'. So repetition, repetition, propaganda, that is the function of the old brain.
So if you want to discover something new, a different way of living, therefore a different environment, therefore a different government, therefore a different relationship between human beings, you have to retard the old brain from jumping into the arena. If we could during these seven mornings take one problem and work that problem out each morning, go into it completely, thoroughly, deeply so that we really understand it. This is really a dialogue, conversation between you and the speaker, between us.
A friendly conversation in which we can together go into a problem in detail and in depth and see if we cannot resolve that problem, any problem that we take, every morning - whether it is personal or impersonal it is the same. Because if we can discuss a problem quite impersonally, objectively, then in the very talking over together the personal element will come in. And the dialogue is different from a discussion or from dialectical argument, opinion, seeking truth through opinion, which is dialectic, or discussion, which is through reason, through logic, through argument and that will lead us not very far.
But if we could talk over together, converse any particular problem you wish and during this morning one problem and go into it completely, not deviate from it, and go into it step by step, in detail, hesitatingly, not offering an opinion because then we go off - your opinion against somebody else, your argument against somebody else, but in conversing not indulge in ideologies, opinions, or quote others, but take a problem that is vital to each one of us and work it out together. That would be worthwhile, I feel, and shall we do that? Shall we do that?
Yes. Right. Then what would you like this morning, and the seven mornings - one problem after another right through.
And I believe you are going to have two discussions, or dialogues with young people - it comes to the same thing, more or less. So, we have seven mornings and seven problems we are going to take and discuss it and go into it completely. Please bear in mind, not deviate from it, if you start one problem stick to that, and not bring in death, something else.
If you want to discuss death we will go into it. Please, I know you all want to ask questions - wait, wait, wait - patience. And don't, if I may suggest, take a problem which you don't strongly feel about, which doesn't touch your heart.
Now what shall we take this morning for the first time? Sir... My lord! What is it madame?
Order. Order. The lady would like to discuss order.
I find that in spite of all that you said in your seven talks I am still left with my own inner emptiness... So, you'd like... (Inaudible) Though I have listened to the seven talks I still feel at the end of it an inner desolation, inner emptiness, inner insufficiency, and I seem to escape from it. Is that it?
Now, wait. Yes sir? I wonder if the method we use together really makes it possible for us to make a radical and drastic transformation because the method we use is on the conscious level and the forces which bind us strongly are in fact on the unconscious level, whether we really ignore them, or we want to ignore them.
So how can this method really liberate us from bondage? How can this dialogue or conversation liberate the unconscious motives and problems and things that bind us, rather than talk over the superficial things. How can one release the unconscious conditioning.
Do you think that real love is possible between man and wife. I mean real love in freedom without sexual or other greeds, without pleasure and so on. Do you know what love is... (inaudible) (Laughter) The gentleman asks, can there be real love between husband and wife or man and woman without the pleasure of sexuality and all the complications that arise in that relationship.
And could we go into the question of what love is in relationship between man and woman. Right sir? Now which of these shall we take?
Order first. Just a minute, madame. Which of these shall we take?
Order, unconscious release, releasing the unconscious because... Yes sir? (Inaudible) Slowly - I am trying to take... Order, the release of the unconscious, awareness.
Sir, may I ask a question? No sir, just a minute, just a minute. (Laughter) Awareness... (Inaudible) Love, man and wife, man and woman, to look at life as a whole, totally, completely.
That's enough. And inner insufficiency. You understand?
Order, release of the unconscious, inner insufficiency, to look at the total whole movement of life as one, non-fragmentarily, and the insufficiency, and what is love - can it exist between man and woman when there is sexual pleasure, complications and all the rest of it. Now, which of these shall we take this morning? Wait a minute.
Wait. Which of these shall we take this morning and go into it completely thoroughly so that when you and I leave this tent that we have got it, that we have really understood it. Awareness.
The last question. Order. They are all the same.
You decide. I decide? No, sorry, I am not the chairman.
It is proposed, many people what is relationship between man and woman, is it based on sexual pleasure and when there is that pleasure can there be love, order. And the release of the unconscious, insufficiency, seeing the totality of life as a whole, not man, woman, order, unconsciousness, insufficiency, but seeing the whole of this. Let us begin with this.
What do you say? Sir, I see that all of these subjects are so interrelated... (inaudible) So why not take one word, 'order', which could embody everything. As each problem is interrelated, why not take one problem, such as order, and perhaps that could cover many of the questions that have been raised this morning.
You have already talked about order. We have already talked about order, the lady says, so why the dickens begin all over again. What about awareness, sir?
It covers everything. Could we not start with perception? Could we consider, is it possible to see the whole movement of life totally and not fragmentarily - order, insufficiency, awareness, relationship with man and woman - all that.
Can we take this thing, that is, how to look at life as a whole movement, not as a fragmentary movement. Would that cover this? Yes.
I would put one question, it would cover all that, but would it cover the unconscious? I think it would. We will bring it in.
The questioner says, would the unconscious be covered when we discuss the whole total process of life. I said I think it would be. So can we take that up?
Right. (Inaudible) Do you consider, or do you look at the world as being good and evil. A particular evil and a particular good.
Evil is bad. Of course - good, bad, you know, all that. (Inaudible) According to the rules of god, good, and evil is against god.
Now let us... One god, not many thousand gods. Not many thousand gods but one god. We'll go into that.
How do you consider, how do you look at life? Do we look at it fragmentarily as good and bad, as the will of god and so on, or do you take life, which is immense - you follow? - in which is involved love, awareness, beauty, death, strife, misery, conflict, old age, disease - altogether?
Or look at it in fragments, as the physical, the emotional, you know, love and intellect? How do you consider life? Altogether.
Intelligence as one... No, wait a minute madame. How do you consider it? How do you look at life - actually, don't let us pretend, don't let us become theoretical or hypothetical and thereby slightly dishonest.
We must take it as we are. How do you look at life without any fragmentation, or do you look at life in fragments - business, the artist, the scientist, the philosopher, the religious man, the woman, the man, love - you follow? - all broken up.
And is it possible at all to look at this whole movement as a unitary process? And can I - please just listen - can I, who have been educated, brought up in a certain culture which conditions me to look at god and the devil, the physical and the escape from the physical - you follow? - do I, being conditioned, consciously or unconsciously, consider this whole movement of life broken up?
And when you do break it up - the business man, the religious man, the artist, the hippie, you know, divide it - then out of that is disorder. Right? Now how do you actually consider it, look at life?
By love. I don't want them to be hippies because... (inaudible) No, madame... I don't know.
Now please just listen. You have understood my question, sirs? How do you regard it, sir?
Sir, in most of the discussions I heard, if you start with an assumption - well not an assumption - but you start with a premise of disorder. Can you start one discussion with the premise of order - where do you go from there, if you accept... I don't posit order.
On the contrary I start with the disorder. We are in disorder. We are in disorder - there is war, there is the hippies, there is the division of nationalities, there is man and woman fighting each other, sexually, we are at war with each other in ourselves, that is disorder.
That is the fact. I mean it would be absurd to posit order. There is no order.
Isn't there order in natural life? Is there not order in natural life? Probably there is, in nature.