Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
A mind that is caught in nationalism, in religious beliefs, rituals, sects and so on, must contribute to war. So have you a mind that doesn't belong to all this? Then if you have, you will do the right... you are doing the right thing.
You are acting. Isn't that enough for this morning? Saturday, shall we keep it for the young people?
Saturday, that is day after tomorrow at ten-thirty, we'll have a meeting for the young people, and also for the old people - including myself. What shall we this morning talk over together? (In French) I'd like to enquire into every facet of myself to see if 'I', the sense of 'I' could come to an end.
From what you said yesterday, and the previous talks - as far as I understand the question - is it an attitude towards life, or accept what you are? (Inaudible) You said the other day that observing what is happening in the world around us and also what is happening inwardly, and understanding it, having a deep insight into it, from what you said, should one go out and teach, or just live? You've understood the question?
I'm not quite sure I understand it yet. She's asking whether one can teach what one has understood through one's own being, or through words and... Yes, sir, the same thing.
I wonder if that's a problem. As we said yesterday, surely what we have been talking about from this platform, for the last ten meetings - surely it's much more important, isn't it, that you understand and live and act in a totally different way, to bring about a psychological revolution in yourself, through your own observation, and from that revolution, various kinds of social activity and all the rest of it will take place. It's your life you're concerned with, not with what I'm talking about.
I made that quite clear from the beginning that we're concerned, aren't we, with transforming our own life, the life that we lead, the petty, narrow, stupid life of business - you know, the whole thing, moneymaking, only be concerned with that, or be an artist, only be concerned with that, or so-called religious person, only be concerned with that, what he considers is a religious life and so on. Surely it's much more important to understand what is happening outwardly and inwardly, and from there, act. Because it's yours then, nobody else's.
But if you are trying to merely understand what the speaker is saying, then you are trying to understand what he is talking about, not your own life. But if you deeply seriously go into your own life, into your own activities, your own thought-processes, then you and I will meet, it will be the same. I think we made it clear.
Now what shall we discuss this morning? How does one to bridge the gap between the individual life which is so superficial and narrow, and the vast complex life? How is one to bridge the gap between the individual life which is so superficial and so narrow, to the vast complex life, that's going on around one.
Is that the question, sir? The human life. Is that what you want to discuss?
(Inaudible) I understand. When I observe myself, I see the observer is absent. And to remain in that state you require a lot of energy, a great deal of vitality.
But at other times, the image comes into being, and so destroys that which has been perceived. Now, is that what you want to discuss, all of you? (Inaudible) Is that the question, sir?
I'll put it fairly simply, if I can. When you observe the mountains, the trees, the river, or oneself, when you give sufficient attention, and therefore energy, the observer, with all its conditioning, with its past, is absent. And can one maintain that, can one sustain that sense of total attention continuously?
Is that the question? Shall we discuss that? What do you mean by attention?
Let's begin with that. And what do you mean by giving total attention? What do you mean, sirs?
When you attend, what is involved in that? Help me, please. Sir, let's begin very slowly - the question has been put, which is, when there is total attention there is no division as the observer, there is only observation.
When I look at that mountain, with the snow-cap, completely, with all my energy, interest, vitality, intensity, then the past as the observer, with all its content as the word, conditioning is not. Right? Now, what is that attention?
Is it brought about through practice - you understand? - the repetition, following a particular system, a method - will that bring about attention? What do you say?
No. Why? Why do you think a practice, a method, a discipline, a continuous, mechanical repetition - will that bring about attention?
It comes sometimes fortunately, and other times it doesn't come. Is it a matter of chance, or is it a matter of insight, perception? Is it a matter of chance, as the gentleman points out, or you give total attention in which there is complete insight into what you are observing.
Let's make... Look, sir, you're listening to what the speaker is saying. How are you listening? Are you giving total attention?
Or the part of you listening to the noise of the river, part of you saying, 'I must pay attention to what he's saying', part of you trying to translate what he's saying according to your own understanding - interpreting, explaining, judging - all that indicates lack of attention, surely. Right? Which is it you're doing?
When you look at a tree, do you look with total attention or only give a very, very partial, passing interest. When you look at that blue sky, do you see the vast space or only a colour which is a rather beautiful morning, isn't it, and pass on. Which is it you do?
The moment we answer that question we are not attentive. He says, the moment we answer that question we are not attentive. I'm not asking you to answer that question.
I'm asking whether you are attentive, which you can answer for yourself. How do we go about this - it's really quite interesting if we can go into this. Look sir, let us take something which is much nearer.
Most of us have fears. Right? Of various kinds.
Now unless you comprehend the whole structure and the nature of fear, it will go on. Now can you investigate into the whole structure of fear attentively? Investigate in the sense, observe the nature of fear.
Shall we go into that? Would that be of interest? Because I think most people have fears of some kind or another, haven't you?
No? Yes. I'm so glad.
Now what is fear - we are non-analytically observing. Non-analytically. Analysis means to break up, the meaning of that word means to break up.
We are not trying to break up fear into various causes and how to get rid of them but merely watching the whole nature of fear. Have I explained what I mean? Look, I am frightened, consciously and unconsciously, deeply.
I'm frightened of superficial things, I know, I'm aware of it - nobody has to tell me that I'm frightened. May we proceed - we are sharing this together, we are investigating this together, we are being aware of the whole nature of fear together, we are sharing it. So don't sit there and let me go on talking - we are moving together.
Right? Now I say to myself, what is the cause of fear? Why am I frightened?
Which is an investigation into the cause, therefore an analytical process. Aren't you frightened of something? Yes, but I don't know what it is.
Oh, you don't know what you are frightened of? Losing a job, not having money - investigate it, sir, look at it - don't say, 'no', right off - fear of death? Not coming up to the ideal which you have set up for yourself?
You have measured yourself against another and you feel that you cannot completely fulfil, completely reach that point. Or you are frightened of what others say, you're frightened of your wife or your husband or somebody. Don't you know all these things?
This is a common thing, isn't it? We're talking this over together, it's a dialogue, conversation - you don't have to sit quiet and let me go on talking. I did that last week, last two weeks.
Now we are trying to meet each other and try to find out the nature of fear and to see if the mind can go beyond it. Sometimes there is something we want to ask but we're all afraid to talk. Yes, we have some kind of fear.
I think that the reason why we are afraid is we're afraid of the unknown, afraid what the other person's going to think or what's going to happen in the future. We're frightened of the unknown whether it's in the distant future or in the immediate - I don't know what you are going to say, I don't know, you might hurt me, and so on. There is fear.
I'm shaking just from saying that. How is one aware of this fear? Why do you call it fear?
You see, you're not following this, you're sitting there like - I've no contact with you. There is a physical reaction. Now what is your reaction.
I said there is a physical reaction. There's physical reaction, I know all that, sir - you sweat, you get nervous, you kind of tighten up. That's how you know - you asked how you know...
Proceed further, don't stick at the obvious - go on. It has happened before. You recognise it - press it further, go into it, sir, go on, move.
I know that I'm afraid often because I have a compulsion to escape in various ways, in various kinds of pleasures and pursuits. And the compulsion seems to prove that I'm running away. That means you want to conquer it or run away from it, because you don't know what to do with it - is that it?
One doesn't know what to do with fear. Therefore one runs away, one explains it away, or one tries to control it, suppress it, develop its opposite, which is courage - we go through all those processes, don't we. But yet fear remains.
It seems to remain because I'm not aware that I am fear myself. I think it's very important to understand this, because fear is a destructive thing, it blinds you, both physically and psychologically. So one has to go into it very, very deeply, understand the conscious as well as the unconsciousness fears.
Right, sir. Is it possible that many times when one tries to face fear, when one actually does, its useless trying to look at it because then thought comes in. So thought is there more than the total awareness.
Yes, sir - look. There are two points, one is aware that fear is passed on to us, we've accepted it, but I think basically its because of the duality of being and non-being. This is basically at the root of every fear.
Yes, sir. But you still at the end of it have fear, haven't you? After giving me that explanation there is fear still.
Yes but that's not what was meant. You suggested the possibility... Look sir, I'm afraid of various things - public opinion, what you might say to me, I'm afraid of death, the unknown, I'm afraid of losing my job, I'm afraid that next year you won't all turn up, I'm afraid that I might get ill - I've got dozens of fears. I'm as good as you at explaining why fear comes into being.
I want to find out how to be free of it, how to go beyond it. That's all my concern, I have no other concern. I don't want explanations, I don't want a verbal description of my fears, and I see how dreadful, how calamitous, how destructive fear is.
Now I'm asking myself, how is it possible to go beyond it - that's my whole concern, you understand - that's all I'm interested in. I'm giving my total attention to it, because it's a crisis in my life, because I see how it perverts every activity, how neurotic I become, how in comparison with somebody I further this fear. So my concern, my interest, is, I'm asking, can I, can the mind, this mind, be totally free of fear and whenever fear arises in the future to meet it totally?
You understand? That's all I'm concerned about and nothing else. Are you?
But when you give your total attention to fear you are not afraid. I understand, madam, but I don't know how to give my - that's a game, if you give your total attention to fear, then you're not afraid. But I don't give total attention.
Didn't we go into this two days ago instead of fear we used anger. Yes, sir, I'm doing the same thing in different ways. Why?
Why? Because the gentleman raised a question, how am I to maintain a continuous, total attention. To him that was a problem.
Was his problem fear or attention? Both are involved in attention. Fear is involved in attention?
Obviously - if I am deeply unconsciously frightened I can't give attention. If you're angry you can't give attention. Obviously.
And if you're in love you can't give attention. Wait a minute, wait a minute, you are moving...If you are in love, what does that phrase mean? I am only taking one thing at a time, which is, we discussed the other day anger, jealousy, and I'm saying today that wherever there is any form of fear, conscious or unconscious, attention is not possible.
Don't expand that more by saying, 'If you're in love, or if you are lame' and so on. Yesterday we went into anger, today we are going into fear, are we performing analysis or by going into one are we in reality going into all of them? Sir, aren't you frightened?
Isn't there fear in you? God, what's the matter with all of you? No?
Sir, the other day we paid attention to anger and we came to a point where anger or confusion or whatever it was, was gone. Now the attention has turned upon itself and said, 'How can I maintain myself?' Yes.
A new condition has come in, attention which was - I don't know how to put it - has now split itself and looked at itself. Sir, he is saying - listen to his question, he says, 'I can give total attention but I can't maintain it'. Wait.
How am I to do it? I have a feeling that it's a marvellous thing if I could give total attention to everything I'm doing. And now the attention has turned upon itself - attention is now part of thought, it is not pure attention... That's all we are pointing out sir, quite right.
So attention gave him pleasure, or rather, in that state of attention there was nothing, there was attending. Then thought comes in and says, 'That was a marvellous state - I'd like to have more of it, a continuous momentum of it'. Which is, thought has made that attention into a pleasurable thing which must be continued.
That's all. It doesn't seem quite that way - the other day I had a certain insight into fear, I saw that I was afraid and I saw that I was the fear, and now it's gone. But it was only for a flash.
Now I'd like to learn more about my fear - it wasn't enough, the attention wasn't long enough so that I could learn about it. Now, all right, I won't discuss fear. All right.
How do you... is it possible to maintain continuously attention? That's the question he asked. Now why do you want to maintain it?
To learn... Wait - in order to learn you want to maintain attention. Is that it?
Because I am aware of a lot of thoughts which destroy the attention and prevent me from looking. Yes. When I am not attentive, the whole momentum of thought comes into being, and there is a division between the thinker and attention.
Now - please just listen - we've all understood this question now. How is one to maintain attention? Can you maintain it?
What is involved in that statement, which is to maintain, to sustain, continuously, attention? That involves time, doesn't it. Right?
Please. Right sir? I have been attentive now for a few minutes and it's gone, but I would like that attention to last, to go on.
Now when you are attentive, is there any question of time? No. Then why are you asking that you must have time to be attentive, or time must be given for its duration?
You understand? When you are attentive, there is no time. Then who is asking that it must last a long time?
(Inaudible) He says either there is attention or there is no attention. But he is asking, when there is attention there is no time. He says that.
But at the same time he says, 'I wish I could continue in that state of attention.' That's his problem. There is another problem... That's what I'm pointing out.
There are two problems. When you are attentive there is no time, there is no wanting for it to continue, thought doesn't come into being. When you are not attentive, the whole process begins - thought, time, wish, will - all the rest of it begins.
Now, why aren't you merely attentive at that one moment - that's enough, why do you want to have more of it? Because most people have moments of attention, flashes of attention, and then the rest of the time they are inattentive and in conflict. And those flashes for just a moment, for a second once a week, is not enough to transform your life.
You go on in the same old way. So therefore one asks, how can one be attentive more and more. I see the questioner says, at the moment of attention there is a sense of vast change, but that doesn't last, and one falls back into the old rut, into the old routine, the old habits, and therefore there is no change in life, in one's ways of living.
Now what are you concerned with, attention or with bringing about a revolution in your life, psychologically - which are you concerned with? Obviously psychological revolution. Are you?
I would like to have it. You would like to have - that's a lovely thing. Which is important, sir - attention or psychological revolution?
Are not the two not connected? I don't know. I think they are.
Sir, are you really concerned with psychological revolution, deeply, will you give your life to it? Or is it just a theory? So you want to give your life, your energy, your whole being into bringing about a psychological change.
Do you, sir? Yes, sir. Do you know what it means to give your life, your attention, your love, your energy, your whole life to find out if you can change yourself radically?
Do you want to do that? Or do you say, 'If I have had attention then this will happen'? You understand?
'I have attention at rare moments, and it's marvellous. If I had that attention, then it will bring about a deep psychological change.' So your concern is to have this attention.
Not - please listen - not the bringing about psychological revolution in yourself. That would be an ideal. Yes, that would be an ideal.
(Italian) They are all very clever, these birds. What he's saying is, if I have that attention, then I will change psychologically. (Italian) If I have attention, if there is that state of attention, then I can cancel with that attention, fear.
You see, what is important, attention or fear? Attention. Yes?
Attention to wipe out fear. That's lovely - look, I'm going to show you something. You say, attention is important and not fear, not the psychological revolution, because you think, through attention you will bring about this revolution inside.
You don't know anything about attention, it happens very rarely, occasionally it bursts, but it soon goes away. But the constant thing is your daily, miserable, suffering, petty life. That is important, not attention.
If you want attention, then as it has been pointed out, it becomes an ideal, and then you have to fight for it, seek a method to achieve it and all the rest of it. So I am not concerned with attention. To me, that's nothing.
Sorry. That has no value because my life is ugly, petty, narrow, stupid, jealous, fearful, frightened, competitive and all the rest of it - pretension. Now in understanding that, the very nature of understanding it is attention.
I don't have to seek attention. Sir, with this degree of fear and the possibility of reversing the trend, can I suggest it is the attention which prevents the psychological revolution, I don't know, I'm asking. I don't understand your question, sir.
Is it the attention that prevents the psychological revolution? Is it attention that prevents psychological revolution? If you are seeking and making attention into an ideal, then it is preventing psychological revolution.
By golly, you people! You won't let go attention, will you? You are so attached to that word because perhaps I've talked a great deal about it.
But that's not important. Please, sir, just listen. I am concerned with the world, what's happening in the world, the wars, the brutality, the appalling things that are going on, the ugly things of the politicians.
And from there I see what I am. I am the world, you understand, sir? You don't feel that, do you?
I am the world, because I have created this monster. No? It's so obvious.