Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
But that is not my question, please don't let's go back. Our question is, can you and I look at this whole phenomenon of existence as one unitary movement, not broken up - please - as the conscious or the unconscious. But that would be order.
Sir, we are discussing that. I don't know where it is going to lead us. We are trying to find out through conversation whether our minds are capable of looking at life as a whole, as one unitary movement and therefore no contradiction.
But isn't it the definition of the unconscious that I am unable to look at it? This is the definition of it. I want to go into this.
Please, we must go slowly into this. All right. I cannot look at life as one unitary movement - suppose I cannot - for me personally it is something...
I look at it quite differently, not with division. Now suppose I cannot look at life as a whole. Am I aware that I look at life fragmentarily?
Let's begin with that. Are you aware, conscious, know, that you divide life as the scientist, the philosopher, the religious man, the god, the good, the devil, the man, woman, unconscious, conscious - you know, divide - the hippie, non-hippie. No.
The gentleman says, no. Isn't life as a whole an abstract concept? Is not life as a whole an abstract concept.
If we posit life as a unitary process, as an idea, then it is a concept, but if we realise that we live in fragments, and whether that fragmentary division can be changed, then we will find out the other. It appears to me I have to become what I am first, if I find prejudice that's what I am, before I can begin to change it... Before I begin to change I must know what I am. If I don't like hippies, that's it, I don't like hippies and that's where it's at.
I can possibly change it if I first become what I am. Therefore first I must become what I am. Look sir, we are not talking about change.
We are trying to consider this morning, this how do I consider life? If I am fragmented I can't see the whole. That's it.
If I am fragmented I can't see life as a whole. Are we fragmented? Let's begin with that.
Are we fragmented? Yes, but this fragmentation is not on the conscious level, like you said - a scientist, an artist, a communist or a priest. This fragmentation is in the unconscious...
I am coming to that, sir. I am coming... I find it impossible to guess the answer that you want.
It is not what I want, sir. I know you are coming to something. I don't know what I am coming to.
Forgive me. I said this morning, we are going to talk over together a particular problem. And altogether we said, let us talk over together this question of fragmentation and the unity of life.
And I said we don't know what the unity of life is, there may be, but let us consider whether each one of us looks at life in fragments, not only at the conscious level but also at the deep unconscious level. So you may not, as the gentleman pointed out, consider the superficial fragmentation - the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Muslim, the Christian and so on - the Communist, the hippie, the non-hippie, and all that - superficially you may discard all that because you may say, well I have listened to you for umpteen years and I am out of that. But deep down we may still live in a world of fragmentation.
That is what we come to now. You understand? That is, after observing intelligently, seeing what the facts are outwardly - wars, division of nationalities, division of religions and subdivision of religions all over the world - the guru, the follower, all that is involved - superficially observing all this, you say, how stupid all that is.
And you may by observing reject the superficiality of it, but inwardly, deeply, you may still live in fragments. Now let us stick to that. You understand?
Shall we go on from there? Yes. Thank the lord!
First of all be quite sure, absolutely sure, that you have discarded the superficial. That you are no longer caught in the various religious fragmentary approach to life - the Hindu, the Buddhist, the Christian and the divisions in Christians - the Baptists, Anabaptist, the Methodist - you know. And also nationalities.
You are quite sure you have discarded all that completely. It is one of the most difficult things to do, but it doesn't matter. Let's go deeper.
If these divisions do exist, then to discard them isn't that a kind of fragmentation itself. Which? Isn't that a fragmentation itself to superficially discard.
Discard at the conscious level, and that very discarding is it not also fragmentary. We'll come to that. By going into the unconscious and seeing how fragmentary it is there, we will naturally then come upon the other.
Then we will come together because we have divided life as conscious and the unconscious, the hidden and the open. That is the whole psychoanalytical, psychological point of view. To me that doesn't exist, personally - conscious and unconscious - finished.
But apparently for most of us there is this division, and now we are going together, talk over whether we are deep down conditioned, in fragmentations. Right? Is that clear?
Now, how are you going to examine the unconscious? It is what you have said, not what I have said. You have said there is this division between the conscious and the unconscious - slowly, sir - and one may be superficially free of the divisions that culture has brought about, culture - Christian, Hindu, whatever it is, the Atman and all the rest of it - how are you going to examine the unconscious with all its fragmentations?
Sir, hadn't we better find out whether there is conscious and unconscious, then we wouldn't examine what never exists. So the gentleman says, why do you examine one of the conscious/unconscious. It is not a division.
He says it is not. The definition of the unconscious is what we don't know about. The definition, apparently, of the unconscious is what we don't know about.
We think we know about the conscious, we think we know superficially what consciousness, superficial consciousness is, but we don't know what the unconscious is. But the gentleman says - just listen to what he says - he says we have divided this, but is that a fact. Or is it a means of investigating this unconscious?
If it was not a fact, after one series of talks at here in Saanen we would all be liberated. The reason it exists is (inaudible)... Right.
Now, let's begin. There is conscious and the unconscious. I don't say the division exists.
That's what we have taken. I look personally, I look at it entirely differently, which I'll come to later. Now do I know, do you know your conscious mind - what you think, how you think, why you think, consciously what you are doing and what you are not doing?
And you think you understand the conscious. You think, but you may not really actually understand it. Which is the fact?
Which is the fact? - now I am asking you. Do you consider the conscious... do you know the conscious very well?
No. We only state an opinion... (inaudible) We are not taking opinions. No, madame.
Listen. We are not indulging in opinions. We are not quoting some psychologist.
We are looking at ourselves without any prejudice, without any previous concept, we are just looking. Therefore I am asking, am I looking at my conscious mind and do I know the content of that, the conscious mind? Isn't our conscious mind going towards the condition that we understand?
Is conscious mind, the definition of conscious mind, is it not what we understand. You may understand one thing and you may not understand the other. You may understand one part of the content of the conscious and the other part you may not know anything about at all.
So do you know the content of your conscious mind - conscious mind? If we knew this content there wouldn't be all this chaos in the world. Of course sir, naturally.
But we don't know it. That's my point. We think we know it.
We think we know the operations of the conscious mind because there is a habit set about - go to the office, go, do this, do that - you follow? - and I think I understand the content of the superficial mind. But I question it.
And I also question very much whether the unconscious can ever be investigated by the conscious. You follow sir? If I don't know the conscious mind, its content, how can I examine the unconscious with its content?
Right? Right, sir? So there must be a different approach to the thing altogether.
You understand, sir? The unconscious - how do we know it exists? How do we know the unconscious exists.
By its manifestation. You say, by its manifestation. That is, consciously you may be doing something, unconsciously the motive is to frighten - you follow?
- the motive may be entirely different from the conscious urge. Everyday life shows it. Of course.
So - you follow what I am trying to - please let us try to understand each other. If the content of the conscious cannot be known completely, how can that consciousness which is superficial, which doesn't know itself completely, examine the unconscious with all its content, which is hidden? And you have only one means of examination, now.
Which is, to look at the unconscious, consciously. Go slowly, please. You follow?
Please see the importance of this. This is fun. But sir, excuse me.
Isn't it true that for any inward conscious manifestation there is also a parallel outward manifestation? Obviously, sir. Sir, can we put it this way - do I know the content of my consciousness?
Know, aware, understand, have I observed without prejudice, without any kind of formula, prejudice, have I observed the content of my consciousness, superficial, hidden? If I know... I think the problem is different.
What you know, what you are aware about, that's your conscious; everything you are not aware about, you don't know, that is your unconscious. That is what he said, sir. That's what he said.
It's different. I understand sir, that is what he said just now. You are saying, what I know, what I am aware of is conscious.
What I am not aware of is the unconscious. But what about the unconscious? But do I know - please give a few minute's thought to what somebody else says, what somebody else is saying now is me, so please give it two minutes thought.
Which is, if I don't know the content of my consciousness, superficial, can that consciousness which is not complete in its understanding of its superficiality, can that conscious mind examine the unconscious? That is what we are doing now, aren't you? We are trying to observe the unconscious, consciously.
No? Impossible. You can't do it.
We can't know. We don't know. There is no real frontier between consciousness and unconsciousness.
Therefore what will you do, sir? Don't indulge in theory. I have been brought for about nine years or eight years in a highly traditional Brahmanical background, of which tradition means - you know nothing about it - it is ruthless.
From morning till night you are told what to do, what not to do, what to think, don't hurt, you are a Brahmin, don't touch a non-Brahmin - you have no idea. From the moment you are born till - like myself - till nine or eight, you are conditioned in a tremendous tradition. Consciously it is being done, every day - by the temple, by the mother, by the father, by the environment, by the cultural Brahmanic - it is tremendously heavy.
You are brought up there. Now wait, go slowly. And you move to another conditioning, and again to another conditioning - college, student - you follow?
- condition after condition. All these are laid upon you by society, by culture, by the civilisation, by accident, by intention - all this is laid one after the other. Now how are you going to divide this and that?
They are all interrelated. Right? Now, how am I - that's my point - how am I - I may reject the Brahmanical tradition very quickly, or may not, or I may think I have done it but still caught in it - how am I to understand this whole content?
I am that content. Therefore what does that mean? Of course, consciousness is its content.
Right? Please see that. My consciousness is made up of the Brahmanical tradition, the philosophical, theosophical, the world teacher - all that - the content of all this consciousness is that.
Consciousness is its content. Right? Consciousness is its content.
Now, can I look at this whole content as one, or do I have to look at it fragmentarily? Wait, sir - see the difficulty first! Or is the content so deep, of which I don't know?
Or I can only know the superficial content forever? That is my problem. That is your problem.
Right? Now how am I to uncondition the mind which has such content? May I ask one little thing?
Yes, sir. You said for instance that you were... (inaudible) the Brahmanical tradition. This is still a fragmentary tradition... (inaudible) Yes, yes.
But you see... (Inaudible) Sir, let's stick to the point. The point was very clear. Can we stick to that?
I am sticking to it, sir. I won't budge from it. You asked, how do I uncondition the mind, I hear you asking how do I change.
Is that true? What, sir? You asked, how do I uncondition the mind.
Or how do I uncondition me. I would say that's how do I change. Yes, same thing, sir.
Same thing. I believe that first you must become what you are. What am I?
You keep on repeating that, sir. You say, first I must become what I am. What are you?
You are all that conditioning. Right. And if you say I must become... first know all that conditioning, that is what I am saying.
Are you aware of all your conditioning, which you want to be, and which you are? Before we change, or talk about change, first am I aware of my conditioning, not only superficially but the deep, deep layers. As the gentleman pointed out I may be caught in a Christian, communist, Brahmanical tradition but I have lived with a family, the mother may have been brutal, nervous - you follow?
- but fortunately in the family in which this person grew up, had thirteen children and nobody cared. (Laughter) Sir, I have the feeling that I am unconditioning myself listening at you. That's it, sir.
Just listen to it. That is what I want to get at! For god's sake move, let's move.
The consciousness is its content. (Inaudible) No, no, no, no, madame. No, that is speculation.
Just let us... Sir, please, let's follow this. I am all my content. The content is my consciousness.
The content is experience, knowledge, the tradition, the upbringing, the nervous father, the brutal mother or the nagging mother, and the quarrel - you follow? - all that has been the content which is me. Now, am I aware of this content?
Don't say, shrug your shoulders, say 'I don't know', otherwise you can't move forward. If you are not - I am afraid you are not, if I may point out - then how do we proceed? Sir the mind is aware that it is conditioned.
It sees the conditioning. I understand, sir. Look.
I can see part of my conditioning. You follow, sir? I can see I am conditioned as a communist or a Muslim, but there are other parts to it.
Now can I investigate consciously the various fragments which compose the 'me', the content of my consciousness? Can I consciously look at all this? But we are not separate from it.
I understand that. I understand that. How am I to look at the various content of my consciousness?
Or is that totally a wrong process? It must be. You are going to find out, don't say it must be.
I don't see how one can envisage all of these parts. It seems to me that if one can hold oneself to what one is seeing in the foreground... (inaudible), and without judgement and without a preconceived law as to how one should look at it, then one begins to see even the subconscious because... (inaudible) I understand, madame. That is fairly clear what you are saying.
The lady says, if I can hold what I see without judgement, without evaluation, then that very perception without any judgement reveals not only the unconscious, the whole movement. Now just a minute. My question you have not yet answered, my question is, I am asking you, can you look at the content of your consciousness?
- you being part of that content. If you cannot know the content of your consciousness how can you say that I am right or I am wrong? I loathe this or that.
This is good, or that is bad. The hippies are nice, the hippies are not nice. You are not in such a position to judge at all.
So, can you know the content of your own consciousness? I know right at this moment, that I am aware of you, I am excited with what you are doing. You are a good showman and I am right with you.
I don't fully understand this in the sense of your questions and what you are leading to. I find I am excited, by heart is beating, my back is (inaudible) a little, I want to get even more of what material you are talking about. Those are my wants.
What I am lacking is an understanding of you. I am aware of the seat I am sitting on, that I am shaking. Yes, sir.
I can see my consciousness at this moment, this hour. No... Sir, one is aware of the conditioning, that is the important thing, surely. That is the serious thing.
First of all, sir, let me hold a minute. May I go on a little bit? Does one realise our consciousness is its content?
Do you understand my statement? The content makes up consciousness. So consciousness is not separate from its content.
Is that absolutely clear? Content and consciousness are not separate. The content is consciousness.
Right? Now, what do you do then? Look at the contents.