Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
That's what we want to know. (Laughs) That's what I mean. Much more.
My life is not at the cinema, my life is not consumed by a book, my life is not absorbed by looking at a mountain, my life is what I am. They may absorb me for the time being, but I am back to myself when that is not. I am talking about myself when that is not.
I don't say it's an escape, why do I go - I'm talking about myself when I am not at the cinema, when I am not reading a book, when I am not listening to some excited idiocy - I'm just watching myself, that's all. (In Italian) Bene. The gentleman says, it's your idea, about the observer and the observed, it's not our learning, it's not our factual... (In Italian) Yes, it's not our spontaneous idea.
That's fairly simple. So I am asking you now - forget your spontaneity, look at yourself, watch yourself - is there not an observer who is different from the thing he observes? That's all, sir - that's a fact, isn't it?
When you look at yourself you don't have to have a subconscious or be told, it's a fact when you observe. Look, you have a mirror - when you look at yourself in the mirror what takes place? The image is not you.
Right? And the image is different from you inwardly, though it is you look at it, at yourself in a mirror, inwardly there is the image-maker and the machinery that makes... No, there is the image and the maker of the image. That's all, sir.
Sir, I suggest that we are inundated by environmental pressure. Sir, of course, that's one of the factors. We are inundated by external pressures.
Right? Who has created these external pressures? Go into it - who has created it?
Society? The politician? The doctors?
The scientists? Yes? All of us.
Which is you. So you are - listen to this, watch it - you say there are external pressures all the time forcing us. And these external pressures are the politicians whom you have elected, the warmongers, the army - you follow?
- the businessman - of which you are part. Right? No?
Yes. Wait, wait - so you are compressed by the pressures which you have created. Yes.
Sir, I see many motives in myself, many standards, and each motive becomes the observer - you know? I quite agree, sir. Yes.
And when I see that and I say all observers are these motives. Also is the observer always false? You know the observer is always a fragment.
(Sound of train) Yes, sir. Wait a minute. Let the train have its voice.
Sir, I understand it, sir, now look, we have talked - what's the time? (Inaudible) Good lord! Now we have listened to each other for an hour - what have you learnt?
You learnt, not what I have told you - what have you learnt? (Inaudible) Learnt means a fact, that you know it as a fact, for yourself. Have you learnt for yourself as a fact that the observer is the past?
Wait - have you learnt that? Yes. Now, what do you mean by learnt?
(Inaudible) Have you learnt it? Have you seen the fact that when there is an observer there must be division, there must be conflict - right? Do you see it as factual as you see a thunderstorm, a danger, an animal?
You follow? It's real, not a conclusion, an idea. That's all.
(Inaudible) That's right, sir, you don't see it. What is it that prevents it? What is it that prevents that... (inaudible) Why do you ask it, sir?
You're asking what prevents you. What prevents you? Wait a minute - I've asked you what prevents you from seeing this fact as you would see a danger, a precipice, as you would not swallow a poison, because you see the danger of it.
Now what prevents you from not seeing this as clearly as that? Wait - take it to yourself, don't answer me yet. Is it laziness?
Is it that you have no energy? Or is it that you don't want to see it? Because if you see it, things may alter.
You follow? Your life may be changed. So you are frightened to see it.
You say, 'I don't see it; I don't see it; I don't see it'. (Inaudible) No, please, sir, I'm asking you, the gentleman asked, why is it I don't see this clearly. Is your mind lazy?
- you understand? - active, hasn't got energy to say, 'Well, I must find this out', because the mind has been fed on other people's ideas - you understand, sir? - lives on quotations, has become a second-hand instrument.
Therefore it says, 'I cannot see this'. Therefore forget if you can't see it, but find out if you mind is second-hand. You understand?
That's it. And to see that you must have energy, mustn't you? So, why is it that I don't see this thing which is so prevalent, which is so persuasive, which is so factual - all my life it is that way - I'm a Hindu, I'm a Buddhist, I'm a Christian, I'm a Communist, I'm young, I'm old - you follow?
- I'm good, I'm bad, Jesus is right and I'm wrong - you follow? - this division. And why don't I see that this division in any outwardly, politically or religiously or psychologically, is a deadly thing - why don't I see it?
The Jew, the Gentile, the Arab - you follow, sir? Why don't you see it? Sir, is it because we are subscribing to it and won't accept responsibility for the subscription.
That's right, sir, I'm saying that. And yet this thing creates war - you follow, sir? - this thing is going to destroy you.
Yes, sir? Because we have not learnt to think and we think we are able to. We are not able to think?
Why are you not able to think? We have never practised it. We are doing it here.
You see - do it, sir, find out, take time. You're here, sitting down, talking over - why do you not see this? You're lazy?
Are you lazy? Yes, that's a factor. Wait, sir, take it - you're lazy.
Why are you lazy? Go to the end of it, don't just say, 'I'm lazy', and sit back. (Laughter) Why are you lazy?
You've overeaten, over- indulged or you've not enough right kind of food - find out. (Inaudible) So, you say, 'Well, this conflict is destroying our energy'. Wait.
Then why don't you stop it? Find out how to stop it. I'm asking, therefore, enquire, go into it.
That is, as long as there is an observer - right? - there must be conflict. As long as there is nationality there must be conflict, as long as you are a Christian and somebody else is a Muslim, there's going to be conflict.
So why is it that it is so hard to enquire? Why is it so hard to enquire. Because you have never done it before, because you've always been spoon-fed, because you've always accepted what others have said, what the psychologists, what the religious, what the priest says, what the professor - you don't say, 'I know nothing; I'm going to find out.
And I'm not going to repeat a word which I don't know'. Right? Sir, it makes it difficult for me to understand this at the moment, but as you say, it is dangerous, there is a second observer saying that the first observer is dangerous.
No, sir. No, sir. No, sir, no.
Look, sir, you've heard about the recent war in India, between Pakistan and India? Right? Haven't you?
War between Israel and the Arab world - that's a fact isn't it? And the fact shows, as long as there is an Arab way of looking at life and the Israelite way of looking, there must be conflict - that's all. It seems like there's a continuous new observer saying that observation was wrong.
No, no, no - that's a conclusion. Do look at it, you - not you - one is married, you have a relationship with a man or a woman. There are two entities, aren't there?
As long as there is a division, not biological, but psychological division between the two, there must be conflict. You have an image and she has an image, and there must be conflict. Images are your conclusions - that she's good, that she's bad, that she thinks you're an absurd idiotic man, or whatever it is.
Where does awareness go after the body dies? Where does the awareness go after the body dies - we haven't come to that point. Please stick to this thing.
If you once understand this deeply, when you see this fact, you will see for yourself that you have not to depend on anybody. Oh come on, sirs. Can one have a memory without having had an observer?
Yes, sir. I'm going to show you - that's a good question. Can you have knowledge without that knowledge being used by one of the fragments.
Right? Right? You understood my question, sir?
Have I translated your question? Will you please repeat it, I couldn't follow you. Would I repeat it.
I have knowledge. There is accumulated knowledge which is part of the brain - right? - the memories, which is knowledge, experience, the past.
Now, one of the fragments uses that memory - right? - knowledge, for its own benefit, it exploits that knowledge. I see you are not getting it - let me begin again.
The questioner asked, can knowledge, memory, all the scientific, technological personal memories that have been gathered through centuries, can that remain without an observer using that so that he creates a division. You've understood the question, sir? (Inaudible) ...this knowledge, memory, can it exist without the observer using it?
That's right. Have you understood the question? There is all the scientific knowledge, all the knowledge which human beings have gathered through millennia - right?
- which is the past. All knowledge is the past. I can add to it, more and more, but it is always in the past.
Now, when that knowledge is used in our relationship with each other, there is conflict. No? (Inaudible) Wait.
I have lived with you, as a friend, as a wife, or a husband, boy or girl - I have lived with you. I have images of you, I have built a series of memories, incidents in our relationship. Those incidents, those experiences, those images are the knowledge.
Right? That knowledge divides you and me. Right?
Why should it? Why should it? Because I'm living in the past.
But everybody isn't living in the past. Everybody is not living in the past, why should we be living in the past - you take it for granted that we are living in the past. I don't say that - I am pointing out, madame - I'm not saying you are living in the past - don't get angry with me.
I'm just pointing out that as long as you have these memories, these images about me or I have about you, there must be division. I don't say you are living in the past - I'm just pointing out. Now, knowledge is necessary - you follow?
- otherwise I can't build a bridge, I can't go home, I can't ride a bicycle, I can't talk English. But that knowledge which is the past, when it interferes in our relationship, brings division. That's all.
And that division is conflict. I don't say you have no conflict or you have conflict - it is up to you to find out. So knowledge can be used totally impersonally - right?
- but when that knowledge is used personally it creates a division. That's all. (In Italian) Who uses that knowledge.
Listen to the question - who uses that knowledge. Tell me, who uses that knowledge? The observer... Who uses that knowledge?
The self. You can't say who uses that knowledge. It can't be said, what is using that knowledge.
We're going to find out if it can be said or cannot be said. It's a trap to ask the question. Wait - he has asked it.
He has asked it. Either you say, 'Look, that question is not valid', or it is valid. It is an improper question.
We're going to find out. I see it. You see it, sir.
If he saw it he wouldn't ask it. Since he has asked it we must find out if that question is valid or not. His question was, who uses that knowledge.
There is the knowledge, consciously and unconsciously, which is the 'me'. Right? The culture in which I have been brought up, the tradition, the religious beliefs, the superstitions - all those things are the knowledge which I have.
There is that knowledge. Right, sir? Now who uses that knowledge?
Who uses - look at it - who uses that knowledge? It's there - right? - I can't deny it, I can't say well, it doesn't exist - it is there.
When does that knowledge come into operation? Go on, sir, investigate, don't wait for me to answer it. When does that knowledge come into action?
When the observer takes memory out of the knowledge. Make it much simpler, sir. My question you have all this accumulated knowledge, consciously or unconsciously, which is the content of your consciousness - right?
- I say to you, when does this knowledge precipitate in action? You answer it to yourself - you follow? - you're not relying on me or some book.
When I need it. Wait - when you need it. What do you mean by need it?
Wait - please, sir, do talk slowly - I don't understand you. Unless you actually do it, don't repeat something which is not yours. I am asking when does this knowledge come into operation?
When action needs it - when action needs that knowledge it comes into action through me - through my hands, through my... Yes, sir - when does it come into operation? Why do you take such - I mustn't be inpatient - go on.
When you want to remember. Sir, I ask you what is your name. Don't you tell me?
(In Italian) He says, from external stimulation. I ask you what's your name. The memory, which is accumulated, responds.
Watch it - go slowly. Because you know your name very well, you have repeated it a thousand times. Right?
There is the knowledge - it only responds when there is a challenge. Right? Now, go a step further.
I ask you, what is the distance, or what is something more complicated, and you take time between the question and the answer, don't you? Right? What takes place between that question and answer - the time lag - what takes place?
Thought. No. Memory.
What takes place, sir? I ask you what is the distance between here and Geneva - what do you say? What takes place inside you?
You are trying to remember, don't you? Said yes, somebody told me its kilometres, or is it , I'm not quite sure - you follow? The mind is investigating, isn't it, looking at it, trying to find out - right?
- and you say yes, it's kilometres or , whatever it is. Now, I ask you something much more complex and you say, 'I really don't know'. You follow?
That is, immediate answer because you are familiar with it, with the question what's your name; a more complicated question and you take time. Right? It may be one day, you look at books, you ask people - you take time.
Then there is a question, which you say, 'I really don't know how to answer it because I have no knowledge'. Right? So, knowledge responds according to a challenge.
If that response is not adequate - you follow? - adequate, complete, then the observer comes into being. I wonder if you see it.
I've got something new. You see what I'm talking about? No - I'm glad, I can explain it.
Look, sir, when I ask you a question, what's your name, it's an adequate, complete answer, isn't it - right? - isn't it. In that there is no conflict, is there?
Now, I ask you something much more complex which needs time, and if you can find the answer to that challenge, that is a complete answer, in that there is no conflict. Right? Now, if I ask you something to which your answer is not adequate, complete, what takes place?
There's conflict, isn't there? No? Oh come on.
After a while I give up. You give up. But if it is a question that has to be answered, life and death - you follow?
- it's a crisis, and in that crisis, if you don't answer completely, there is conflict, isn't there. Come on, sir. And that conflict is the inadequacy, which is the observer, who depends on memory.