Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Until I'm very clear about that I can't move any further. Right? Be clear on this point, sir.
So, who is this observer? The 'me'. Wait, go slowly - don't jump to conclusions, go slowly.
Who is the observer in you? The 'me'. If you say, who is the observer, maybe it depends how you say it, but usually if I say that it is another observer saying it.
No, no, no. Oh lord. No, just look at it slowly, take it slowly.
I have got... my make-up is divided - right? - the body, the heart, the mind. I have the image I have been hurt and I love - you follow?
- I am broken up into great many fragments. Right, sir? Now, go slowly, please.
Now, who is the observer among those fragments? My parents. (Laughter) Yourself.
No, my parents. Your parents. Oh, for god's... My thinking.
Your parents are the observers, are they? Yes. Are you being serious, sir?
Or pulling my leg. (Laughter) Yes, sir? That is the division of observer and observed.
That's what we are saying, sir. This arises unless I get a kind of slap on myself, then I... Just wait - I don't want to be slapped, I don't want to suffer and then find out, I want to intelligently observe. I don't want to be shocked into this thing, that's silly.
Sir, it seems to me that the division between the observer and the observed arises from thinking, when I think about myself. Look at yourself, sir, don't put it into words yet. Look at it.
In you... you are fragmented, aren't you? Now, which of the fragments is the observer? Sir, I am leaning who is a motive, there it is a fragment.
I understand that, sir. (Laughs) My golly. Why do you come to the conclusion that we are fragmented?
Aren't you? I do not feel fragmented. Then you're a happy person.
(Laughter) Finish. When you say I want to learn about myself, it is a statement of fragmentation. No?
So one fragment has assumed the power or the authority as the observer. Right? That's all.
Right? Be clear on this. I am fragmented because I hate, I love, I am ambitious, I am greedy, I am - you follow?
- fragmented I am. It's not a question of why do I say it, it is a fact. We are not a harmonious whole - that's a fact.
Now, being fragmented, one of the fragments assumes the power as the observer, and therefore he maintains the division. Now, keep to that, sir, see the fact of that - as long as one of the fragments assumes authority as the observer, that observer maintains a division. Right?
Now, my next question is, how is the observer to free himself from... How is the observer not to divide himself apart, as the fragments? Right? By seeing himself as the cause of the division.
By seeing himself as the cause of division. Do you see yourself as the cause of division? Sir, I'm not asking an impudent question but is it a mere verbal statement, an intellectual concept, or as an actual fact, that you see that the observer is the cause of division.
Do you see it? Do you feel it? I feel it, sir.
Then there is no observer. If I see the cause of division is nationalism - you understand? - and therefore war, all the rest of it, if I actually see the danger of it, its finished, isn't it - I'm no longer a nationalist.
Now, in the same way if I see very clearly the observer maintains, sustains, nourishes this division - the danger, you follow? - then the observer is not. There is only the observed.
Yes, but only momentarily - tomorrow it comes back again. It may be momentarily we discover the danger of it. Now is that so?
Do you momentarily see the danger of a precipice? Do you momentarily see the danger of a wild animal? Or you see it as danger at all times.
Sir, I don't feel this as my opinion, I feel that life is demonstrating this everlastingly. Yes, sir. Sir, look, though we say this, nationalism is a poison, we contribute to war - right?
- by being a national. So we never realise the danger of the observer who maintains the division. That's all I'm saying.
Do you see the danger? No. No.
Let's be honest. You don't see the danger. Why?
Go into it, sir, take time. Why don't you see the danger of division? (Inaudible) Wait, don't please find excuses.
See the fact first. There is Germany and Russia, divided, England - you follow? - Italy, India and Pakistan, divided, divided, divided.
That causes conflict, war, hatred. Right? And one feels that division is the most deadly thing.
Right? Now, why don't you feel this? Why don't you see it?
(Inaudible) Madame, don't you see the danger of nationalism? Yes, I do. Then are you national?
No, I'm not. That's very simple, because you see the danger. Sir... That's all - keep to that.
What, sir? The problem is that as soon as we see that we watch from the conclusion about it... (inaudible) I understand, sir. See it without a conclusion.
The moment you conclude, that conclusion becomes the observer. You follow this? The conclusion observes.
Be simple, sir - step by step. I am asking who is the observer who says, 'I must learn about myself'. The observer is one of the fragments of which I am.
So when there is an observer he maintains this division. Right? That's a fact, not a conclusion.
Right, sir? That's a fact, that as long as there is a division between India, Pakistan, Russia, China, there must be conflict. Right?
Sir? Wait, sir. Wait, sir.
Wait, sir. Wait. There must be conflict.
As long as there is a division in myself there must be conflict. Right? (Laughs) Sir, does not the State depend on nationalism?
Why do you make it so complicated, sir? I'm just going from one fact to another. One fact is that there is an observer and the observed.
When I am angry I say to myself, 'I must not be angry' - a division. You follow? That's all.
When I feel very unhappy I say I must work, I must see what it is I am unhappy about... Wait, wait, that's good enough. Now, when I am unhappy I say to myself, 'Why am I unhappy, what is the cause of it?'
Right? So that is a division, isn't there - there is an observer who says, 'I must examine why I'm unhappy'. Right, sir?
Now, is the observer different from the thing he observes? Wait a minute, madame, take two seconds to look at the question. (Inaudible) My god.
You don't even... Look, I am angry, there is anger. At the moment of anger there is no observer. Look at it.
At the moment of your happiness, there is no observer. Only a second later, says, 'How happy I have been'. At the moment of anger there is no observer, only a second later there is the observer who says, 'My anger was justified', or, 'I mustn't be angry'.
Right? (Inaudible) No, leave the child alone - you see how we cannot stick to one thing - you. (Inaudible) Sir, wait a minute.
Of course we are showing, trying to find out if life can be lived without conflict. Don't just say yes, and pass it off as a theory - we are trying to find out. (Inaudible) Madame, look at it, you don't have to ask me - look at it.
I am happy. At the moment of happiness there is no observer, is there? Right?
Don't say hesitantly - either it is or it is not. When you are happy, when you are angry, when there is tremendous sense of sorrow. (Inaudible) It's only a moment after that you say, 'I have been happy'.
'I have been angry'. Right? So, division arises.
Now watch it - please, go slowly. At the moment of enjoyment, at the moment of great delight, there is no observer. That delight has moved, gone.
Then you remember that delight. Right? The remembrance is the observer.
Right? Listen to it, please just listen to it. You can be aware... Oh please just listen to what I am saying.
I have been happy, and it's gone. The memory of that happiness remains - the memory. That memory is the observer who says, 'I would like to be more happy'.
Right? So, memory as thought is the dividing factor. One can be aware of enjoyment, I can be aware of it.
I did not say - when you are not aware of it, then begins the problem of separation. Why can't we be simple about this? Look, sir, you've hurt me, you have hit me.
At the moment of that - you follow? - then the memory of that remains. Right?
Then I say I must hurt you back. So the memory is the observer. Please, apply it to yourself, sir, look at it for yourself.
When you have great joy you don't think, do you? It is there in full delight. It has gone, then the memory of it remains, and you want more of it.
No? No, it's not necessary always. It's not necessary, always, of course not.
You've had sex, and at the moment of it there is no observer. Later on, the image, the picture, the remembrance, the imagination is the observer, who says... (Inaudible) Is memory part of the present? It's there, but memory is the result of an incident which has taken place, which has gone.
But you don't always long for it. Madame, don't you long for something? Sometimes, yes.
I'm asking sometimes, yes. Now why do you long for it? Because you have a remembrance of something that was pleasant.
That remembrance is the observer who says, 'I wish I could have that again'. That's all we are stating. (Inaudible) Of course.
Why make a problem of it? Who is making a problem? Well, you - that's what we're talking about.
Are you taking a superior attitude? (Laughter) (Inaudible) I am asking something very simple. I want to find out who is the observer.
And can I look at the fact, is there observation of a fact without the observer. That's all I'm asking. You've got it, sir, up to now?
Yes, for a moment, for example yesterday, there was observation of myself without any trying... That's right, sir. (Inaudible) That's good enough - wait a minute. Wait.
Look, sir, for an instant there was an observation without the observer. Right? It happens to all of us, it's not something mysterious.
Now, what takes place, after that? Once, for a second, five seconds, or a minute you observe without the observer, which is the past - you observed. Right?
Now, what then takes place, next? Thought. Wait.
It seems that if one can only observe like that... I'm going to show you something, sir. You have a memory of that, haven't you?
And then you say, 'I wish life could be lived that way'. Which is what? Listen to it carefully.
That experience has left a memory - right? - and that memory says, 'Life should be lived that way' - which is a conclusion. Therefore that conclusion prevents you from experiencing that thing next time.
That's all. So don't conclude. You had that moment of extraordinary clarity - finished.
Don't say, 'I must have more of it'. The 'more of it' is the observer who says, 'How delightful that was, I must have more'. He makes the problem.
Yes, sir? I watched a movie on television - there's no observer at that time. Quite right.
Is that all we are talking about? Oh no - not the movie, old man - no, no. Then there is something else that we are looking for, not only watching that movie.
Sir, when you watch the movie, a film, what is taking place? There is no observer. Wait, wait, sir, look at it, there it is.
It's not there, but... (laughs) There it is, you're watching it - what takes place? It's an exciting scene. You're completely absorbed.
You're absorbed, aren't you. Wait, go slowly. Go slowly, sir.
You are absorbed by that incident, by the things that are happening on the screen. Right? A child is absorbed by the toy.
(Inaudible) You are absorbed. That is, the film drives out all your thinking, all the observer, because it's so exciting, if it is exciting - as the boy is absorbed by the toy. Now life isn't that film.
At that moment it is. Wait, sir - because that's an escape. You're being absorbed by something outside of you.
There is no 'you' escaping. Sir, you are absorbed, aren't you? There's no observer.
There's no you that's absorbed. Wait, sir, go slowly. You are absorbed, aren't you, by that scene.
The statement is loaded because you say, 'you' are absorbed. No, no. The scene is so exciting that you for the moment cease to exist.
Right? Put it ten different ways. What has taken place there?
That scene has pushed away all thinking, for the time being. Right? When you have finished with that film and gone home, it is what you are at home what we are talking about, not about the film.
I don't want to talk about the film... (inaudible) Wait, wait, wait. So you are absorbed by the film. Another is absorbed by going to church, another is absorbed by a book, another is absorbed by Billy Graham.
Wait, wait, go step by step, sir. I think you are going to talk about why I went to the movie in the first place. No, I'm not going to talk about why you went to the movie, I'm not interested.
(Inaudible) I am saying that, sir. Well, can we discuss it together, because I'm saying that at that time there is no observer. Quite right.
And we reached that point in conversation. Quite right, I agree with you, sir. Now, my next question is, are we talking about something more than... Much more, much more.