Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Good morning. Have you got it? (Clapping) No, don't clap, please.
Don't, this isn't... this isn't fun. Have you got some of it? Yes.
A question, please. Is it possible to have a question? I don't agree completely with you... (inaudible) ...but you need also secondary intelligence, that is the ability to integrate what is new in the old world.
Sir, that is what takes place when there is that intelligence. The new - I won't use the word 'integrate' - the new operates when there is that intelligence which is not only primary but which is fundamental. (Inaudible) Yes sir, I understand that.
(Inaudible) I understand, sir - chance, random, yes. And I want to see what do you think about this relation between what you call completely new and what is random in my experiences. I understand, sir.
He is a professor. The professor says, random, the happening, the chance, what is that, what is its relationship to something totally new. That is what he is asking, if I have understood it rightly.
The mathematical chance, the possibilities, the random, the unexpected happening, like tossing a coin, head or tail, not knowing, he says, what is that and what is its relationship to something which is totally new? That's right, sir? Yes.
I don't know. That is, there are events in one's life, happenings, that appear to be a chance, happens by chance. Events that occur in random, you know, not knowing, it happens.
Is that happening new, totally unexpected, or is that happening the result of unexamined, hidden, unconscious events? Just a minute, just a minute. I happen to meet you, by chance.
Is that chance at all, or it has happened because certain unconscious, unknown events that has brought us together? Which we may consider chance but it is not chance at all. I meet you.
I didn't know you existed, and in the meeting something has taken place between us. And that may be the result of a great many other events of which we are not conscious and we may then say, this is a random event, this is a chance, unexpected, it is totally new. I don't think - it may not be that at all.
And is there chance in life at all, a happening which hasn't a cause? Or all events in life have their basic deep causes, of which we may not know, and therefore we may say our meeting is by chance, it is a random event. And the cause undergoes a change when there is an effect.
The effect becomes the cause. Right? You understand?
There is the cause, there is the effect, and the effect becomes the cause for the next effect. So cause-effect is a constant chain, it is not one cause, one effect. It is undergoing constant change.
Each cause, each effect changes its next cause, next effect. Right? So as this is going on in life, is there anything which is unexpected, chance, an event random?
What do you say, sirs? The earlier statement, it may be random. (Inaudible) The gentleman says the whole thing is based on causality.
I don't think life works that way. The cause, sir, becomes the effect, and the effect becomes cause - you can see this is life. So we can never say, cause, effect and there it is.
And the doctor, professor said there, he said what is the relationship of the unknown, not the sense of new dimension, to this chance events, to a causality... The unknown is outside the relativity... I don't know.
He and you discuss, sir, but I know nothing about all this. I am talking about my human relationship, human beings, not mathematical problems and chances and events, and the mathematical order - and mathematics is order - all that doesn't seem to affect our daily living. We are concerned about our daily living and to bring about a change in that daily living, the way we behave.
And if our behaviour is based on the past it is still... it brings conflict, misery - that is all we are talking about. I am sorry I have to stop, I can't go on. What shall we talk over together?
(Inaudible) Difference between analysis and immediate examination of one's reactions. Why in spite of such examinations the responses continue. Why in spite of such examinations the responses continue.
(Inaudible) ...can I change really, and what is the essential state of mind? (Inaudible) ...always afraid of not achieving, of not succeeding, of nothing, and what is the essential state of mind, if I can change? Can I, the question is, can I change my fears, my continuous anxiety, uncertainty and is it possible to change for me radically.
Sir, to give full attention to 'what is', it is very clear to me that I need abundant energy. How am I to have this energy if I am expected to do a boring, repetitive, dull, routine job? How am I to have the energy that requires for a deep change if I have to do a repetitive job every day of the week.
(Inaudible) (Sound of aeroplane) Would you mind repeating, sorry... There seems to be in the world an increasing rise in mental illness, anxiety, and what treatment would you advocate? There is a increasing sense of mental illness, imbalance, what should one do about it.
Now which of these shall we discuss? Fear. The first.
The first. Any of them. Any of them.
One will answer all of them. Could we take one that would cover all the others? The first one.
The last one. The last one and the first. (Laughter) The first one was - what was it?
Analysis. Oh yes. What is the difference between analysis and examination of one's reactions, one's immediate reactions, and yet in spite of that examination these reactions continue.
And the other I am full of fears, deep-rooted uncertainties, how am I to be completely free of them? Right, shall we discuss these two? Yes.
Really? All right? It's a lovely morning, I don't know why we are doing this, but it doesn't matter.
(Laughter) You know there are a great many theories - and I was listening to one of them on the television last night for a few minutes - about human behaviour, and how to change it. There are hundreds of explanations for the cause of this human behaviour, the misery and all the rest of it, and various theories what to do about them. Analysis implies, doesn't it, a division between the observer and the thing to be analysed.
Right? Let's be clear on that point. When I analyse myself and my reactions, or observe my behaviour, there is the act and the actor.
Isn't there? There is a division between the two generally. And this division not only creates conflict between 'what is' and 'what should be', which is introduced by the observer.
Please, this is not a talk by me, we are discussing. I am angry, or jealous, or frightened and I want to get rid of that fear, that jealousy, I want to overcome it, so when I observe this whole phenomenon I see there is fear and the entity who is separate from that fear who says, 'I must get rid of that fear'. Right?
Then he begins to analyse that fear, tries to find out the cause of that fear, try to control it, discipline - you know the whole conflict that goes on. Is there this separation at all? Please, we must discuss this before we answer your question, sir, we are answering your question.
Is there this division between the observer and the thing he calls anxiety, fear, guilt and so on? I would say there is at that point of awareness. No, just observe it in oneself, sir.
Is there such division? There is, isn't there? If there is a division there must also be a unity.
No. Let us see actually what takes place. I am angry, or jealous, or frightened, and I want to get rid of it.
No? Let's be simple about this. When I am afraid the fear seems to be me...
Wait. At the moment of actual fear there is no division. Just hold on to it, watch it.
At the moment of actual reaction there is no division, a few minutes later, or a second later, the division takes place, doesn't it? We are talking of that division, not at the moment of actual reaction of fear, or jealousy, whatever it is. Right?
Is there such a division? No, this is very important, because you can't just say there isn't. If there is no division between the 'what is' and 'what should be', the observer and the observed, then what will you do?
Come on sirs. (Inaudible) No, madame, let's examine it for the moment, please. I experience at this moment - what?
- fear. At the moment, at this actual moment there is no observer or division between fear and myself, there is only fear. As soon as you become aware of it... Then begins a moving away from that actual moment of fear, then the division takes place.
Now, why does this division take place? (Inaudible) Don't say, 'if'. Well, once you are aware... No, not - please stick to what actually goes on.
(Inaudible) Who is it - we don't like it? The observer, the I. Therefore you must go into this a little more slowly please.
At the moment of actual experiencing of any human reaction, at that moment there is no division. That is a fact. A second, or a minute later, the division takes place.
First of all why? But first there is the emotion and then the mind takes over... Then the mind - why does this do it? Identification.
Fear. Just observe it in oneself, sir, observe it in yourself before you answer it. I am angry, at the moment of anger there is no division.
A second or so later there is division. Why does this division take place? It is part of the ego, which is me.
I don't know... The observer establishes 'what should be'. The observer, he says, establishes 'what should be'.
Why does this go on? You understand? At the moment I see a sunset, very beautiful, there is no sense of remembering.
A moment later I want to remember it, store it up, and tomorrow I want to repeat it, I want to have the same experience. Why does this take place? (Inaudible) Because the experience leaves a mark on the brain as experience and therefore there is memory of it, and this memory, you are saying, divides.
(Inaudible) Sir, how do you find out the truth of the matter, not your opinion, my opinion, or the expert's opinion, how do you find the truth of this thing? I want to find the truth of it, not my opinion, or your opinion, or somebody else's conclusion, I want to know the actual truth of it. How do I do that?
(Inaudible) The experience of one is the same as the experience of another. We are not discussing that, sir, please. What I mean is... (inaudible) No, no, obviously not.
(Inaudible) Yes. (Inaudible) Is it the memory of fear that divides? But there is a difference between the memory of fear and fear itself.
Therefore fear itself is different from the memory of that fear. Does the division take place because of memory? You see now wait, watch it.
Somebody says something and - you follow? - there are ten different conclusions, opinions, expressions. Now what is one to do?
Which is the right thing in this? Your opinion or my opinion, your experience or my experience, how do we find out the truth of any matter? (Inaudible) She says, we desire to experience again the old experience.
You're not meeting my point. (Inaudible) Now look, sir, at the moment of fear there is no division. That's clear.
Just a minute, madame, just a minute. At the moment of actually experiencing anything there is no division. A second later division takes place.
I want to find out why. (Inaudible) Wait, wait. I want to find out why.
Now how do I find out? (Inaudible) Which means what? I want to find out the truth which is irrevocable - you understand?
- which will be truth, how do I find that out, about why this division takes place - how do I find out? You can't... I don't see how you can do anything to find out.
I'll show it to you in a minute, sir. You see you are all so full of opinions, conclusions, judgements, you haven't time even to say let's look. I think you'd have to be a realised man.
You'd have to be a realised man before you'd know for sure. I don't know anything about realised man, but I want to be quite clear why this division exists. The question was, at the analysis is one thing, and immediate perception of one's reaction is another.
Analysis does not necessarily dissolve the pain, the anxiety, and immediate perception appears to, for the moment at least, to dissolve it. But it again recurs. Right?
That was the question we are discussing. We are saying, what do we mean by analysis? Let's go back to it.
What do we mean by analysis? Analysis implies examination, doesn't it? - investigation.
In that investigation there is the examiner and the examined. Right? No?
And I say why does this division take place? Or is it because our usual habit of dividing everything? (Inaudible) Is it my conditioning that brings about this division, because all my life I have been trained that I must conquer, control, suppress, discipline, I am different from the body, the body is different from the spirit, from the spirit is different - you know, divide, divide, divide, fragmented, is that one of the reasons why there is this division?
No, because the conditioning must have come from somewhere in the first place. My grandmothers did it, my great-great-great - the past generations have done this, and I have been brought up in that culture. And they have said, control.
When did it start? Why is the conditioning there in the first place? Because that is the only way they could think of, there is no other way.
(Inaudible) Sir, we are examining this thing, please. Is it my conditioning that brings about this division? I divide the whole of my life - the artist, the scientist, the bureaucrat, the professional, the politician, the bank - you follow?
- my whole life is fragmented. No? No?
(Inaudible) No? I don't call that conditioning. Sir, let's leave the word 'conditioning'.
My whole life is fragmented. Right? The whole world is fragmented.
Wait - the world is me, I am the world. So there is this fragmentation. Right?
And that's one of the reasons why I have divided myself from my reaction. No? It might happen the other way round.
What? It might have been originally... (inaudible) Couldn't it have happened the other way round? Which is the other way round?
How do you know which came first? The egg or the chicken? Yes.
Oh, well, then we are lost. We are. Well is it not that there is fragmentation of one's life which is...
Wait, just go slowly, just see what takes place. Madame, sorry, we must go slowly. Your life, and one's life is fragmented.
That's a fact. And at the moment of experience all fragmentation ceases. Right?
At the moment you call me a fool there is no fragmentation, a second later it begins. Right? So my question is, how am I... how is the mind to observe the whole phenomenon of existence without fragmentation?
(Inaudible) Yes, sir, I said that. I said that. Therefore, sir, what will you do?
(Inaudible) How am I to live at that... and continue every experience without fragmentation? Why is it so bad? I don't say it is bad or good.
The fact is one is fragmented. Right? And how is one to be non-fragmented?
That is the real question, isn't it? (Inaudible) (Sound of aeroplane) I can't hear The lady says... (inaudible) think from the whole... Sir, how am I to think from the whole? What does 'whole' mean?
You see you are just... (Inaudible) You are experiencing all the time... Sir, we are not talking experiencing all the time. We are asking... We are doing now with you exactly what we do with ourselves when we try to analyse the problem, we are utterly fragmented. I try to see the irony of it - a thousand and one images and points of view about experience.
Sir, look, I see in the world - and the world is myself, and myself is the world, that's a fact - I see fragmentation everywhere - nationalities, the Muslim, the Hindu, the Christian, the Buddhist - you follow? - fragmented - the artist, the writer, the thinker, the philosopher, the scientist, you know, division after division, fragmentation. And my life is fragmented and I look at everything from that point of view.
Right? I look at fear, not at the moment I experience it, but later, that I must get rid of it, that I must conquer it, I must develop courage, which is another fragmentation. Right?
No? (Inaudible) Yes, yes. Yes, yes.
We said that. (Inaudible) But we have other forms of fear. Oh lord.
Are we not fragmented in time? Yes, sir, the whole problem is that. I don't think, you say we... (inaudible) in unity when we have some critical experience, but I... (inaudible) my brain is a unity and any fragmentation, as you used that word, is between my state of mind now and the next second and the next second...
Yes, sir, that I know. I know this. All that is implied in fragmentation.
At any one time... Yes, sir, I understand that. So I am asking how is it possible to look at life non-fragmentarily?
(Inaudible) Oh lord, you're all... Is not the practical problem we all have to face how to join our many mental states from the moment of birth to the moment of death into a harmonious... That's all I am saying - exactly the same thing, sir. How am I to live harmoniously - and harmony means non-division between the mind, the heart and the body, if you can for the moment put it that way - a complete sense of harmony in which there is no division, no breaking up, no fragmentation, no conflict. How is that possible?
I think it needs a lot of luck, sir. (Laughter) (Inaudible) You are not answering my question at all. But sir, it seems that people don't care because everybody is quite happy to be fragmented, and they continue... All right, be that.