Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Have you got that? Please, otherwise we can't go on - if you haven't got it, it becomes merely verbal. You understand?
You're angry, your tradition, your culture says, 'Suppress it, control it, escape from it, and rationalise it'. I say, that is wasting your energy which prevents you from observing the only factor, which is anger. So anger has no opposite, there is only that, and you have the energy.
Now, next step. Why do you call it anger? Because previously you have been angry, by naming it as anger you have emphasised the previous experience.
Right? So you are observing the present factor with the previous experience, therefore conditioning the present factor. Are you meeting this?
Come on, sir. So, the naming is a wastage of energy. So you do not name, no control, no suppression, no escape - right?
- and you have the energy. Then, is there anger? Don't say you don't know.
Because you are then facing the only factor, and when you are facing completely that factor, the factor doesn't exist, because it exists only when you are escaping, fighting, controlling, suppressing. Right, you've got it? So, there is in me, in one, a human being, this duality.
Right? And I ask myself, 'Is there a duality at all?' There is man, woman, sunshine - that's obvious, but psychologically, are there opposites?
Or only thought invented the opposite because it could not solve the one factor. Have you got it? Please.
And this requires attention, doesn't it? Right? Because to see this clearly you need to observe.
And you're prevented from observing when thought says, 'I must do something about it'. It is thought that has said, 'I must control, otherwise I'll kill somebody'. It is thought that has said, 'I must suppress it, I don't know what to do about it, I must run away from it, I must watch it'.
These are all the activities of thought - when you say, 'I must watch it'. So thinking about the factor is a wastage of energy. You understand all this?
There is no wastage of energy when there is only observation. It's raining isn't it! I hope all the cars are getting washed.
(Inaudible) Do you mean by observation, you are that. You understood the question? Do you mean by observation you see you are that?
Aren't you that? No, do see clearly - aren't you that anger? It's part of you.
So thought says, 'I must do something about that part'. So thought begins to function - I must not, I must, it's right, it's wrong, it should be - you follow? So to observe without thought.
You've understood, sir? Now, can you listen to that rain - please listen quietly - can you listen to that rain without thinking about the rain? You can only listen to the rain completely when you are not resisting it - when you say, 'I can't hear it, I must hear'.
So you listen, observe when there is no resistance of any kind. Now are you free of the opposite? You understand?
Are you free at the end of this talk, are you free of it? Never enter into the field of the opposite. Come on, sir.
Yes, sir? (Inaudible) The gentleman says, when I see confusion, observe it totally, not wanting to get beyond it, not trying to find a way out of it, or ask somebody to help you to clear up that confusion, when you see it clearly, then there is clarity. (Inaudible) There is clarity, of course - obviously no confusion.
May I ask a question? (Inaudible) Of course not. Wait, sir.
I see brutality, war, very clearly - all the reasons, the whole structure, the army, the navy, the investment - you follow? - the whole of it - nationality, pride of leaders, white and black and all the rest of it - I see it very clearly. In that perception there is clarity, but war still goes on.
So. Then what is your relationship to the war? You see it clearly - you understand?
First of all, do you see it clearly? Or is it just an idea that you see it clearly? To see it clearly you cannot belong to any group as nationality - right?
- to any group - politically, religiously, economically - to any group. Then if you see clearly, because you do not belong to any group, to any religion, to any leader, or to any community, then what is your relationship to the fact of brutality, which is war? Right, sir?
(Inaudible) No, no, of course not. When I see that brutality clearly, that brutality is finished. Yes, I said that.
I've no brutality - please listen - I've no brutality because I see the whole business of it and I've finished with it and for me I've finished with it - you understand? - not just verbally. Then what is my relationship to the brutality, to the war, to the killing?
You have none. None. Have I any relationship with that?
Obviously not. Wait a minute. Go step by step.
I have no relationship, but it's still going on. But I have to do something about it, I can't say, 'I've no relationship', and walk off. Right?
So what shall I do? Knowing, I'm very clear - I don't belong to any group - you understand? - to any race, to any culture, to any religion, to any leader, because all that is part of brutality, and that brutality has produced the war.
I see it very clearly - see in the sense, feel it, wipe it out of... the whole thing. Then the brutality exists - what's my relationship? I have no relationship in the sense I don't participate in it, I am not related to it, I have no connection with it, though I buy a stamp which goes to create the war, psychologically I have no relationship with it.
But I have to do something, I can't say it has nothing to do with me. So what shall I do? Are you in that position?
Yes. Yes, sir - are you? Sir, this is the most... You follow?
Don't say so easily you are. It means that you - you follow? - you stand completely alone.
Don't you? If you have no authority - you follow? - if you are not following anybody, you are not dependent or attached to anything - because attachment to a group, to an idea, to a person, breeds antagonism, breeds brutality.
So what is your relationship if you see clearly and you say, 'I have no relationship', but yet I have to do something, I have to act in this world, I can't just sit back and say, 'Well, I have nothing to do with it', with this beastly world. So what shall I do? Is it your problem?
You're not a pacifist - you follow? So what will you do? Come on, sirs.
Tell me what am I to do. Go for a walk? (Laughs) What shall I do?
(Inaudible) Yes, what is that action? (Inaudible) Wait. Will it be individual, or will it be non-individual but human?
You see the difference between individual and the human? I want to make a distinction there, if you don't mind. What is the difference between an individual and a human being?
Look, sir, you live in Europe, another lives in India, Asia - each of them have the same problems as you have, though modified, but the same problem - hunger, starvation, pleasure, sex, war, worrying about tomorrow, uncertainty - you follow? - the agony of existence. It exists there, it exists here.
They are human problems, aren't they? But I can, the individual can translate it as a particular issue. The individual is his temperament, his character, his idiosyncrasy, depending on his conditioning.
So the human is much bigger, wider - whether you're brown, black, purple, Indian - you belong to the whole collective human race, human beings. But the moment you separate yourself as an individual, you are creating a division, and hence conflict and all the rest of it. So what are you to do as a human being when there is... war is going on.
Go on, sir. (Inaudible) I can't - how can I identify myself with it? That has been created by nationalism, by the military, by the engineers, by the scientists, by the - you know, all the rest of it - they have invested a tremendous lot of money in the material of war.
Each nation does this, it's their peculiar dirty game. And I see the whole thing, I say, 'Out.' Now what shall I do, as a human being - you understand?
(Inaudible) What am I to do, sir? This is not a question of duality - what am I to do? Would it not be better to try to decide what one should not do?
What I should not do? All right, let's begin - what should I not do. Should I not buy stamps?
Should I not travel by car? Not pay taxes, go round doing propaganda for anti-war, demonstrations, all the rest of it? You follow?
You are not answering my question - what am I to do? I don't see the point of trying to decide the way I am now what to do about that. When I got there, if I got there, I would do it, whatever it was, corresponding to that understanding.
I understand your question, sir. He says, why do you put that question? I am not there.
What do you mean, you are not there? You mean you do not see this thing clearly? That's correct.
Therefore why don't you see this thing clearly. People are shedding tears - you understand, sir? Children are being burnt, whole forests are being destroyed, and we sit here and say, 'I don't see this'.
What's wrong with me, when I say, 'I don't see', what is wrong with me when my house is burning, and I don't see it. Is it an avoidance? (Inaudible) Sir, look - please, don't you read the newspapers?
Don't you look at what is happening around you? Why do you say, 'I'll wait till I get there'. It is there, it is now, not tomorrow.
(Inaudible) Sir, you're not - don't tell me wait till it happens to you, then I can wait till I die. It's happening now. (Inaudible) I'm asking you, sir, what am I to do?
I have no relationship to the war, I can't just sit still and let the war go by, I'm part of this - you follow? - I've cut myself completely off, and yet I must act. What shall I do?
(Inaudible) Yes, but the war goes on. I can probably talk to you or to a friend and say, 'Look, let's' - you follow? - 'let's understand all this business', but is that all I can do?
Put yourself... (Inaudible) You have to die, you don't know how? (Inaudible) Sir, isn't this a problem for you? Yes, of course.
Then what do you do about this problem? Just let it remain and go on with the problem till you die? (Inaudible) I am leading a different kind of life when I don't belong to any country, when I don't belong to any group, when I don't have any kind of relationship with any kind of brutality - I'm leading a different life.
And yet round me the misery is going on. Right? What am I to do?
You don't... (Inaudible) All right, as far as we have understood, we'll do, but have you understood this thing totally? Why don't you see totally, that as long as you have any feeling for nationality, you are breeding war. Why don't you see clearly, that as long as you belong to any sect, any group, any religion, you're breeding war.
What prevents you from seeing this? Lazy? Survival.
The Bible. Survival. That's a good idea.
(Laughter) That's a marvellous idea. I like that. (Laughter) And in India they would say the Bhagavad-Gita, which is the same thing - that's a lovely idea, sir.
Survival. He said 'survival' not 'the bible'. Revival.
(Laughter) Survival. Survival. (Inaudible) I haven't understood, sir.
You state that we should hold merely a passport. What nationality would we be allowed to put on the passport? I've got a passport which says I'm an Indian - I'm trying to change it (laughs), the passport.
(Laughter) It's an awful nuisance when you have to get a visa for every country in the world. Go on, so... Now let's come back, sir - what am I to do? (Inaudible) Sir, listen to this - what is action?
Action means the doing, isn't it? Which is always in the present. Right?
Right? The acting is always in the present. Now what is my action based on?
On the past, isn't it? No? Please, discuss, isn't my action based on the past, on my memory, on my experience, on my idea of what I should do, on my conditioning?
So when action means the present, and what I do is related to the past, then it is not action. Right? If my action is shaped according to my remembrance, then I am acting according to the pattern which my memory has set.
Therefore there is no action taking place. Wait. So when I am acting according to a principle, according to an ideal, which is the future, it is no action either.
Right? Do you see that? See the reality of it.
When you do, then I'm asking myself, what is my action in relation to war, though I'm not related to it. What is my responsibility? Isn't it to be what you are, having shed these things, then you are free to be what you are?
I don't know what I am. I am not all these things, but I don't know what I am, I am not interested, for the moment, what I am. That's not the question.
My question is, when I say what am I to do, am I thinking in terms of what to do with regard to the past, or with regard to the future, or only what to do now? You see the difference? (Inaudible) Yes, quite, that's quite right.
I want to - the lady says, if you are living, then there is no question then of what you are going to do. But do we live, or do we live in the past, or in the future and therefore we do not live. And therefore the question is - I won't put it yet.
Have you understood the question, sir? Look, there is this war - any war, not my favourite war, or my not favourite war - war. I see all wars are caused by many things.
And I don't participate in any of them, psychologically. Then I'm asking myself, 'What is action?' One always acts according to the pattern of the past, a repetitive or non-repetitive action, based on memory, the past.
Or action based on a future ideal, or a principle, which I have established as a concept and according to that, act. Now is that action? You follow?
Or action is only when there is neither the future nor the past. Right? Therefore, please, there must be an insight into the past, and also an insight into the future, therefore then only there is action.
Then when there is that action, I will then relate it to the present. I don't know if you follow. You understand, sir?
Has somebody understood? (Inaudible) Si, signora, I understand that, but it's... Please apply this to yourself, look at it.
Do you act or are you acting according to a memory? Do you act or you are acting according to a concept, belief, a conclusion, a principle, an ideal - you follow? - find out.
And when you find out you will see that's not action, it's either a continuity of a dead thing, or a future thing which is not now. Right? Now, if you see that very clearly, then what is action?
Action then is what you are doing now. Right? What you are doing now, is it related to war?
Or is it something totally of a different dimension? You've understood, sir? Bene?
(Inaudible) Sir, I don't know nothing... I only know what we call action is either the projection of the past in the present, modified by the present, or I am acting according to a principle or an ideal, which is the future. So my action is always there or there, behind me or in front of me, but never in my lap - you understand?
- never acting. Till I find that out, I can't answer what shall I do with regard to the war. You understand my question?
I'm not avoiding my action with regard to war. I want to find out what is action. Isn't the acting according to a principle or an idea, the past or the future, the major factor of war.
Obviously, sir, that's just it. You've understood what the gentleman said? Acting according to a principle, to an ideal, or acting according to your conditioning, is perhaps the major factor of war.
So till I have really grasped the whole nature of action, any answer will be contributing to war. I don't know if you see that. Because if I act according to the past, the past says I'm a national, the past says you must be loyal to your country, the past says this is a good war, this is a bad war, the past says, your memories, the inheritance of your race says you must fight to survive.
So if I act according to the past I am contributing to war. Or if I'm acting according to a future ideal, I'm contributing to war, because my culture in which I've been brought up emphasises these two. So I have to find out for myself what action is.
I see these two are not action, which are contributing to war. You follow? So, my action then is totally... doesn't belong to this dimension.
(Inaudible) Action in the present is love. Is that an idea? How do you know?
If you are acting in the past or in the future - why do you call it love? It may be, but why do you... Unless you actually live it, don't call it anything.
I don't even call it war. Don't call it war. War means destroying, war means conflict - give it another name but it's there.
Now, sir, have you seen this? Have you seen the beauty of this? So a mind that is acting in the past or in the future must contribute to war.