Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Sir, that was my question the day before yesterday Should we wait for that mutation? You can't. It will go on.
Will it come automatically? No So we should try for that. What will you do, sir?
You see that a mutation is necessary. Right? Yes, everyone agrees with that.
Now, what will change that? - in the cells, not just ideas. The very cells of the brain contain all the memories of the past.
Can those cells, without pressure, without influence, without chemicals, That is the end of that; I will change? If there is no influence, no pressure, it means it is taking place by itself. No.
Listen to it. The brain cells hold all the memories, all the pressures, all the education, all the experience, everything - it is the centre of knowledge. Right?
Yes, it is loaded. Loaded with knowledge of two and a half million years. We have tried everything - chemicals, torture, every form of experience to bring about a change inside the skull; we have not succeeded.
There is genetic engineering, there is every form of experiment being done to change this inside, they haven't succeeded. They haven't so far; they may in a thousand years. So I say to myself, why does this brain depend on all this - chemicals, persuasion, pleasure?
Is it waiting to be released? I say, 'No, sorry, that is another form of escape.' Waiting for something else.
Yes. So, can the brain cells, with all the past memories, put an end to all that now? That is my question.
What do you say, sir? I have another question. I have to teach my students and I do it through a logical process - rationally so many things are explained.
At the same time I realize the limitation of that, especially having come into contact with you - that this is all artificial, theoretical, very limited. Then, when we come to you, we hear what is good, and we go from one fine point to another, but I find at the end of it all that we are still nowhere near the truth. So it just means that instead of going round in that circle of logic we go round in this, but it makes no difference.
Yes, sir, these are all just explanations and we move from that logic to this logic. So, do we see that logic has a limitation? Now, can I leave that logic without going to another logic, because I see at the very beginning that logic has limitation - whether it is superfine logic or plain common sense?
No, the two cannot be compared because the other is entirely logical, which we understand is limited, but here it is not just logic as we get bits of insight, bits of light; but we keep moving around with these little bits. There is no comprehension. All right.
If that is so - which I question - is it that you want complete insight? Your question implies that. We should be satisfied with what we are getting, but we need that happiness which shapes thought.
We get little bits of insight, not the whole. I am not talking of happiness; I am talking of insight. Will you listen to it?
I will present the whole, I will show you logically the whole. Will you listen - not say yes, this is right, this is wrong? Sir, practically every writer, painter, scientist, poet, guru - they all have a limited insight.
You and I come along and say, 'Look, this is limited, and I want the real, complete, full insight; not partial.' Right? We need to understand this.
What is full insight? Is it an experience? No, I doubt if it is an experience.
It is not an experience. Then it has to come from within. No, you see, you are already stipulating what should happen.
It cannot be anticipated. You cannot lay down laws about it. You cannot say it is experience; it is not.
You were going to tell us how all this will be a whole. Not all this; the parts do not make the whole. I am as damned logical as any of you.
I am just saying, you are approaching it wrongly. That is my point; don't say it is an experience; it is based on knowledge. What is based on knowledge is invention, not creation.
Sir, he is not saying it is experience based on knowledge, but it has to be real, proved. It is not that I experience something; it is real. I don't understand your difficulty.
Somebody comes along and tells me a story. I listen with rapt attention. It is a beautiful story, lovely language, style; I am enraptured by it, I listen to the story, and it goes on and on day after day, and I am consumed by the story.
So the story ends by saying, 'It stops here.' The story doesn't end for us; the problem continues. You are my friend.
I want to tell you that people have limited insight, which is obvious. Your friend here says, I will tell you in what manner you can have the whole insight. Will you listen to him?
Don't argue,just listen. You give rice to the beggar; he didn't expect anything from you, but you give it. In the same way, he is giving me a gift and he says, 'Take it, don't ask me why you are being given it, who is giving it; just take it.'
So I am telling you, insight is not dependent on the intellect, it is not dependent on knowledge, it is not dependent on any form of remembrance, and it is not dependent on time. Enlightenment is not dependent on time. Time, memory, remembrance, cause - they don't exist; then you have insight, complete insight.
Sir, like two ships passing each other at night, one says to the other, 'This is it,' and passes on. What will you do? Sir, does it come through gradual practice or is it instantaneous?
Practice means memory, time. So it can only be instantaneous. Oh no, no, sir, just listen.
He tells me this and he disappears. He has left with me a tremendous jewel and I am watching the beauty of it. I am not saying, why did he give it to me, who is he, and so on.
He has given it to me and he said, 'Take it, my friend, live with it, and if you don't want it, throw it away.' And I never see him again. I am enthralled by the jewel and that jewel begins to reveal things I have never seen before, and that jewel says, 'Hold me more closely, you will see much more.'
But I say, 'I have got my wife, my children, my college, my university, my job; I can't do this.' So you put it on the table come back in the evening and you look at it. But the jewel is fading, so you have to hold it, you have to cherish it, love it, watch it, care for it.
I am not trying to convince anybody of anything. We see that our knowledge is very limited, and knowledge may be the very danger, it may be the poison in all of us. Sir, I met the other day, just before I came to India, three computer experts - the very, very latest.
They are going deeper into artificial intelligence. And artificial intelligence can do most of the things that human beings can do - argue, have tremendous knowledge, much more than any of us. It will include British knowledge, European knowledge, French knowledge, Russian knowledge, all the Upanishads, all the Gitas, all the Bibles, the Korans, everything, and it will act - it will tell you what to eat, what not to eat, when to go to bed for your health, when you cannot have sex, everything you can do; it has already begun.
And what is going to happen to the human brain if that machine can do everything I can do, except have sex or look at the stars? What is the point of the human being? And the entertainment industry - football, tennis, all these things - here too, unfortunately, it is very strong.
So if man is caught in all the entertainment, which includes all the religious entertainment, then where is man? Sir, this is a very serious question; it is not just casual talk. This question would not arise if there is mutation in the brain which is then far ahead of the present brain, because the present brain is memory and the machine has a far better memory.
A little chip like that holds million words. All the libraries of the world will be in the machine. They have got it, haven't they?
Therefore, why should I go to the library, why should I listen to all this stuff? Therefore, entertainment. Or mutate.
That's it. This is the question I have been asking. So we are back to the question.
Does meditation have a place in all this? Yes. Sir, is there a meditation which is not contrived, which is not deliberate, which does not say practise, practise, practise, which had nothing to do with all this?
Because, that way I practise to become a rich man, I have a deliberate purpose. So it can't be meditation as we do it now. So, perhaps there is a meditation which has nothing to do with all this - and I say there is.
Shall we stop here? Yes, we stop - like the story. Krishnamurti (K) Is there something sacred, something long-lasting, and not conditioned by commerce?
Is there something in India, in this part of the world? First Participant ( There is certainly something in this country which is not influenced by external factors. That was not my question.
Is there something here which does not exist anywhere else - not influenced, not corrupted, not made ugly by all the circus that goes on in the name of religion? Is there something already here, for which - if it exists - one has to give one's whole mind and heart - to preserve? You understand, sir?
I cannot say, because in some sense I have not experienced this in a tangible way; nor can I say whether other people have. But my study of ancient texts gives me a certain certitude that there is something which can be experienced in a clear way. I'm asking, Panditji, if there is something enduring, which is not bound by time, evolution and all that.
It must be very, very sacred. And if it exists, then one must give one's life to it, protect it, give vitality to it - not by doctrines and knowledge, but by the feeling of it, the depth of it, the beauty of it, the enormous strength of it. That's what I'm asking.
We desire to find such a thing, but have not been able to do so. And our experience is such that we find ourselves tangled in many theories, in many traditions, many systems. Occasionally we hear a clear voice that speaks about this in a compelling way.
That voice comes from you, but we are in some way unable to reach it. The whole phenomenon is like some huge fair with a lot different chaotic voices offering solutions. You're not answering my is there or is there not?
Not tradition, not a kind of historical process of ancient culture diminishing, being destroyed by commercialism, but the great impetus which was set going by some power, some intelligence? That power, that intelligence - does it exist now? I'm repeating the same thing in different words.
If I have to answer your question, then I would say that what you're talking about - that thing - is life. I'm asking a very simple question; don't complicate it. India exploded over the whole of Asia, like Greece exploded over the whole of Western culture.
I'm not talking about India geographically, but as part of the world. It spread like wildfire. And it had the tremendous energy of something original something enormous; it had the power to move things.
Does that exist here, or is it all in abeyance? Does it exist at all now? I don't know, sir.
I think it exists. Why? Why do you think that?
Sometimes it appears, but not usually. It's like a breath of fresh air. If that air is constantly flowing, it's always fresh.
It is always flowing, it is always fresh, but the contact with persons is not always there. I understand that, but it's not good enough. Why do you want to connect it geographically with this part of the world?
Geographically - I'll tell you. All ancients, as far as I understand, worshipped mountains. The gods came from there for the Greeks; and for the ancient Sumerians, again the mountains, the sense of something holy there.
Then you come to the Himalayas - it's all in the Dakshinamurti Stotra. The monks lived there, meditated there. Is it there still, or is it being commercialized?
It is there, it cannot be commercialized. The commercialization is something else. Is it there?
Yes. Why do you say yes? Because it is there.
It is... Sir, you are there, physically. I can theorize how the body is constructed, but you are still there - to touch, to feel, to see, to actually see you are sitting there. Is there such a thing?
Yes, it is there, actually there. It is there. It is no good telling me, 'It is there, it is there.'
If it is there, why has this part of the world been so corrupt, so appalling? You don't realize what I'm saying. From the beginning I am saying that it is there, but the relationship, the contact, with the masses...
I'm not talking about the masses. It's you, you... With the persons... With you... It is diminished.
Why has it decreased, why has it diminished, why has it become something small? People are not interested. So what does that mean?
They're more interested in commerce. Yes. So it's gone.
That doesn't matter. Let's leave that question. Or is it this tremendous self-interest - self-interest in the form of knowledge, in the form of Buddhism, Hinduism?
It is all basically self-interest. And that self-interest is increasing tremendously in the world, and that is the door which shuts the other out. You understand?
Sir, some time ago three very clever people - they were scientists - came to Brockwood, and we were talking. They are trying to find artificial intelligence. If they can find that, then we are all gone.
Your knowledge, your Vedas, your Upanishads and your Geeta - everything is gone, because the machine can repeat it much better than you and I can ever do. The question which you just posed presents a wonderful opportunity to ask a counter question. And the counter question What you say appeals to us, but how are we, in today's society, going to find it, experience it, and share it?
You can't experience it. To experience it there must be an experiencer. He has had a thousand experiences; he adds another to it - that's my whole point.
It's not an experience; it's not something that I and you experience. It's there like electricity. I can admire it, worship it, but it's there.
Human beings have only one gift, that is the ability to experience, and you are snatching that away. After that what are we to hold on to? I'm not snatching anything away, but I see that experience is a very small affair.
I experience; then what? Experience gives you knowledge of how to climb a mountain. We depend on experience, but that thing can't be experienced.
You can't experience water; it is there. I can experience sex; I can experience something hitting me; I can experience somebody praising me. Water is there, but I only know it through experience of it.
You only know because you perceive it. You know the quality of it; you float on it; but all that is part of your knowledge of it. But if I had no knowledge, I wouldn't have any experience.
What you call experience is based on sensory perception. And our sensory perceptions are partial, never complete. Now, to observe with all your senses alert - that's not an experience.
Sir, I look at that piece of cloth and say it's red, because I've been conditioned to call it red. If you'd been conditioned to call it purple, you'd call it purple. The brain is always conditioned by our experience, by our sensory responses - how to argue, how to deny and all the rest of it.
If I happen to be a Catholic my whole attitude towards religion is Jesus, Virgin Mary and all the rest of it. You are a Hindu or Buddhist - sorry, I'm not comparing - and everything is from that conditioning. Therefore, when you say experience, or you must learn this or do that, it's all from a brain which has become small, conditioned.
We again come to that point we discussed. We understand about conditioning, self-interest, and so on. There is the possibility of moving away, and then we just stop there.
Why, sir? Or should I say that the moving away is not absolutely possible? Or remain where you are - you understand?
- and not move away. Remain where you are and see what happens. That is, sir, you never stay whole, abide with what is.
Yes, that is obvious. Wait, sir, wait, wait. We never stay there.
We're always moving, moving. Right? I am this, I will be that - it's a movement away from what is.
Either we stay where it is, or stay out of the movement. What is the movement? Change, force... Then we have to understand what is time, the movement in time.
Yes. We have to enquire what is time - that which we live time as past, time as present, time as future. So what is time?
You understand, sir? It requires a lot of time to learn Sanskrit, to enquire into the earliest doctrines, various literatures - what the ancients said, what the Buddha said, what Nagarjuna said, and so on. To learn a skill requires time, to cover a distance from here to there requires time.
Everything we do requires time. Then we must What is time? Time is the means of achieving.
Yes, success, failure, acquiring a skill, learning a language, writing a letter, covering a distance from here to there and so on. To us that is time. What is time?
It's a movement in the mind, a subtle, incessant movement of the mind. Then what is the brain? What is the mind?
Don't invent. Look at it. What is the brain?
It's very difficult to make out the difference between the brain and the mind. The involuntary, almost incessant way of thoughts pouring into unknown stimuli, is what accounts for time. No, sir, you are not listening.
There's time by the to cover a distance, to learn a language, it requires time. And also we have lived on this earth for two and a half million years. There's been a tremendous evolution, which is time.
What do you mean by time? All that you've just mentioned is physical time. But the real problem of time seems to hinge on how it works within the psyche.
There is something unresolved that we want to resolve. Sir, before we talk of the mind, if I may humbly suggest, what is the brain? The brain is possibly the physical base or biological structure of the mind.
The brain is the centre of all our action, centre of all our sensory responses; it is the centre of all thinking, inside the skull. What is the quality of the brain that is asking the what is time? How do you receive the question?
We have understood after discussing with you that it is only total attention that will bring about a total transformation. That's where the problem begins. Would you mind if I say something?
Time is the past, time is now; and the now is controlled by the past, shaped by the past. And the future is a modification of the present. I'm putting it dreadfully simply.
So the future is now. Therefore the question If all time is contained in the now, all time - past, present and future - then what do we mean by change? The word 'change' does not have any meaning.