Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
No, wait. The now contains all time. If that's a fact - a fact, not a theory, not some kind of speculative conclusion - that all time is contained in the now, this is the future, this is the present.
There is no movement towards or for. There is no movement. Movement implies time, right?
So there is no change. Change becomes idiotic. Then I am what I I am greedy, and I say yes.
There is a wide difference between you and us; we may be saying the same thing. Oh, no, no. I don't admit anything of the kind.
You are saying that all time is now. I also say the same All time is now. But my saying and your saying are two totally different things.
Why? Because he says it from logic and speculation. That's it.
That means time is operating. How can we remove this difficulty? Panditji, answer the How can we break this stream in which we flow?
The stream is broken through logic. There is a big gulf between you and us. I understand what you're saying speculatively.
The problem How do we remove this gulf? Because, we have reached a certain meeting, in the sense of understanding. I'll tell you.
No, I'll show you. Please, I'm not a guru. Is this a fact?
- time is now; all time is contained in now, at this second. Really, this is a most extraordinary to see that the future, the past, is now. Is that a fact - not an idea of the fact?
There are two perceiving and conceiving. Now I am conceiving, not perceiving. So what's the point of it?
No point, but I would like to go on from here - from conception to perception. Conception is not a fact. Conception is not a fact; perception is a fact, and we are all caught up in conception, in time.
The simultaneity of conception and time has to be broken. One has to get away from... Who gets away? I mean, for perception to operate.
The very word 'operation' means time. Just a minute. If I may come in at this point and say one If all time is in the now, then there is nothing else.
Which means what? That you stop looking. Now you're already preconceiving.
I'm not preconceiving. If all time is now... That may be the most extraordinary thing, if you go into it. That may be the essence of compassion.
That may be the essence of amazing, undefinable intelligence. You can't say all time is now if it isn't a reality. The other things don't matter.
I don't know if I am making myself clear. Sir, if all time is contained in the now, there's no movement. What I do now, I'll do tomorrow.
So tomorrow is now. What am I to do if the future - tomorrow - is now? I'm greedy, envious, and I'll be envious tomorrow.
Is there a possibility of ending that greed instantly? That is very difficult. It's not difficult at all.
I see that if I am greedy today, envious today, tomorrow I'll be greedy and envious unless something happens now. It is very important that something happen now. So can I change, mutate, now?
There is a movement which is not of time if there is a radical mutation. You understand, sir? Two and a half million years ago we were barbarous.
We are still barbarous; wanting power, position, killing each other, envious, comparing, all that. You've put me this All time is now. I have no escape points, I've no gates through which I can escape from this central fact.
I say to My god, if I don't change now, tomorrow will be the same, or a thousand tomorrows. So, is it possible for me to totally mutate now? I say yes.
Can you tell us how? Not how, sir. The moment you say how, you are already in the process of I tell you this, this, this, and you say I will do this, this to get to that.
You can't get it because you are what you are now. That means that in the listening to that statement of yours, 'All time is now', there is a quality of acquisitiveness. Of course.
So the listening has to be purified. So, sir, there is no knowledge, there is no meditation, there is no discipline. Everything stops.
May I put the question differently? Suppose for instance I know I'm going to die. There is a time interval between now and that is, I will die on the first of January.
(I'm not actually going to die on the first of January!) Doctors have told me say, that I have terminal cancer and I can't survive the first of January. So I've got a couple of months to die.
If all time is now, I am dying. So I don't have time; I don't want time. So death is now.
Can the human brain live with death all the time? You understand? I'm going to die - that's certain.
And I say, For god's sake wait a minute. But if I realize the fact that all time is now - that means death and living are together; they are never separate. So knowledge is dividing me - knowledge that I'm going to die at the end of January - and I get frightened; I say, Please, please, wait, wait, wait, I've got to leave a will, I've got to do this, I've to do that.
But if I live with death, I'm doing it all the time; that is, I draw up my will. I'm dying now, that means I'm living. I'm living and death is next door; there's no divorce or separation between living and dying.
Can you do this, sir, or is it impossible? That means death says, 'You can't take anything with you.' Your knowledge, your books, your wife and children, your money, your character, your vanity, all that you've built up for yourself - everything goes at the end with death.
You may say there's a possibility you'll reincarnate. But I'm asking Can you live now without the least attachment to anything? Why postpone this - which is attachment - until the sickbed?
Be free of attachment now. May we sit silently with you? (K assents) You had started the discussion with the What is this thing, and, is there this thing in this country?
Is this that thing? (nods, then after a long silence) See, it's not difficult. It's so simple.
I don't want personally any reputation; I don't want a sense of 'I know and you don't know.' By nature I'm a very humble man, very shy, respectful, gentle. So what do you want?
You understand, sir? If you can start at that level... Right.
That's enough. Let me tell you a joke. There were three holy men in the Himalayas - of course, it has to be the Himalayas!
Ten years pass, one of them 'Oh, what a lovely evening this is!' Another ten years pass and the other man says, 'I hope it will rain.' Another ten years pass and the third man 'I wish you two would be quiet.'
KRISHNAMURTI (K) Sir, I would like to ask several questions. Is there a line, a demarcation, where self-interest ends and where a state which is not self-interest begins? We all have self-interest; it is in knowledge, in language, in science, in every part of our life.
In every way of our life there is self-interest, and that has created havoc. And how far does it extend? And where do we draw the line and here it is necessary, there it is not necessary at all?
- in daily life; not in science, in mathematics, in knowledge. I am talking factually, not theoretically. First Participant ( This question is very difficult to answer if you lay down certain conditions, like the difficulties we meet with in society; but if you do not lay down conditions, then I shall try to answer.
All right, I remove the conditions. Not remove; life is this. I am not laying down the condition, I am not laying down the law, the way you should think, but life shows me that in every work in every part of the world self-interest is dominant.
We play with religion, we play with K as a plaything, we play with all kinds of things, but the thread of self-interest is very, very strong, and I ask myself, where does it begin, and, is there an end to it. Where does it start, where does it end, or is there no end at all? God is my self-interest, so are ceremonies, scholarship, science.
The man in the corner who sells tobacco there, is full of self-interest. There is some book learning that underlies my answer, but I will try to answer from my experiences as an individual human being. Yes, as a human being - even from your books, from your studies, you must have, they must all have, asked this question in different ways.
When I try to understand myself, look at myself as I am, factually, then I put myself into certain categories. When I try to discover myself in action, in my relationship to other people, then I find an element of self-interest, and I can, with some effort, try to be free of this self-interest, and I do unburden myself to a certain extent. But that is also self-interest.
When I try to establish my existence, my being, then my actions become more self-centred, and to the extent to which I unburden myself, the self-interest decreases. No, you are missing my point. I want to make it very, very simple.
The more simply we think, the better the action, the better the way of looking at things. From childhood the problems begin - I have to go to school, I have to read and learn, I have to learn mathematics. The whole of life becomes a problem because, basically, I meet life as a problem.
In the English language a problem means something thrown at you. Problema comes from Greek; it means something hurled at you and you have to reply to it. So, from childhood, my brain is conditioned to live with problems and solve problems - and those problems can never be solved.
I keep this going, problem after problem; all my life becomes a problem, living becomes a problem. And I say, I don't want to live that way, it is wrong to live that way. So I am asking myself, does self-interest create the problem, or can the mind, brain, be free of problems and therefore tackle problems?
You see the difference? I don't know if I am making myself clear. It is a fact that I have to go to school, learn, read, and so on.
My brain gradually gets conditioned to living with problems, the brain becomes the problem - everything becomes a problem. So I come to you to solve the problem the brain has, which may be linked with self-interest. Creating or receiving problems and trying to solve them has become a rule of life for us, and this way of doing things nurtures my being.
Therefore your being is a problem. But you are missing my point. Your being is the identity with the country, with the literature, with the language, with the gods; you are identified, therefore you have taken root in a place, therefore that becomes the being.
There is no separate being apart from that - no spiritual being, god-being - I don't believe in all that; I am entirely sceptical. So I say to myself, why have I, or you, made life, which is meant to be lived like a tree growing beautifully, into this? I can't live that way, I won't live that way.
Whether god exists, etc. - I am totally indifferent to all that, I totally discard all that, and I say to myself, I won't live the way you are living; I won't. I will go away to the mountains rather than live that way.
You have destroyed living, you have destroyed living by knowledge, by science, by computers - you have destroyed my living. I can retire into the mountains, but that makes no meaning. Why are you so keen to safeguard what you call living?
Suppose I betray it, I break it, what difference does it make? I am not saying I want to live; that is not my point. I say, why do I live this way?
I am not safeguarding it by asking this. Why have I to go through all this appalling process? Sex becomes a problem, eating becomes a problem, everything is a problem.
And I don't want to have problems, which does not mean that I deny life. I don't want problems, therefore I meet problems. Because my brain won't work in problems, I can meet all problems.
As I understand it, you are saying that problems should not enter, problems should not constrain your being. You don't want to deny life, but you want not to be affected by problems. No, no.
You have thoroughly misunderstood me. I am saying, from birth to death life is treated like a school, college, university, then job, marriage, sex, children - one of them is naughty or a genius and I utilize or exploit that boy and keep going all my life. Death then becomes a problem.
Then I say, is there a living further, reincarnation and all that? You see what humanity has done? This is life.
Why can't my brain be simple enough, free enough to say this is a problem and solve it? That is, the brain is free to solve it, not add another problem to it. If I may say so, sir, the problem does not come from outside; the problem arises in this brain, which feeds on this problem, which creates this problem.
Why doesn't it immediately destroy it at that very instant? Because it has not solved any problem. Does the brain have that capacity of ending?
Yes, but I must distinguish, make clear one point. The brain is the centre of all our nerves, all our sensations, all our reactions, our knowledge, our relationships, quarrels and all that. It is the centre of our consciousness, and that consciousness we treat as mine - my consciousness.
I say, it is not mine; it is not personalized as K. And it is not yours because every human being on earth goes through this torture - pain, sorrow, pleasure, sex, fear, anxiety, uncertainty, hoping for something better and so on; that is our consciousness. So that consciousness is not yours; it is human. It is humanity.
I am humanity - not all of you plus me. I am humanity. It seems to me that we know of two kinds of one which is thought out by the brain, calculated, and which therefore invariably contains the seed of self-interest, is motivated by self-interest.
I don't think the brain is capable of doing anything that does not contain in it the seed of self-interest, because it is the instrument meant for that purpose. But there is also spontaneous action which we experience occasionally, which is born just out of love, not as a product of thinking. And because man does not know what to do with this kind of action, because there is nothing he can do about that kind of action, he has cultivated the other - he has cultivated what his brain can do well, what it can calculate, what it can achieve, and the whole world is therefore filled with such activity, such action.
And that has become our life. And the other, which is the vital, is occasional. I am not coming to that for the moment.
The mind is different from the brain - totally dissociated - has no relationship whatsoever. Love has no relationship with self-interest. Don't bring in love for the moment.
The fact is that love may exist. We may have sympathy, empathy, affection, pity - but that is not love, so I leave that aside. That's all for the moment.
Love and self-interest cannot exist together. Problems and love cannot exist together. Therefore problems have no meaning if the other exists.
If the other is, problems are not. I am not sure if they cannot co-exist. They are independent; but I think even a person who has self-interest and who has problems, occasionally acts without the interference of the brain - out of love.
So I would not say that the existence of the brain denies love completely. Sir, I say it is like having occasionally a bad egg. I want a good egg every day - not occasionally.
So I am asking you all, where does self-interest begin and where does it end? Is there an end to self-interest? Or is all action born out of self-interest?
Don't tell me, 'occasionally; I am not interested in that. Occasionally I look out of the window and that window is very narrow; I am in a prison. So please follow me for a minute.
There is a tremendous order in the universe. A black hole is a part of that order. Wherever man enters he creates disorder.
So I say, can I, as a human being who is the rest of humanity, create order in myself first? Order means no self-interest. Sir, the problem is, it is not easy to deny on the basis of a common consciousness the nucleus that comes to shape itself as the limited self, the acquisitive self, for which all the problems are real, not imaginary.
I mean I have disease, I have death - in what way could these be considered as no problems? Are you saying that the self is the problem? Why do we make it a problem?
Why do you say the self is the problem? perhaps we make it into a problem and then say, how am I to get out of it? We don't look at the problem.
We don't say, the self is the problem, let me understand it, let me look at this jewel without condemning it. The very condemnation is the problem. Do you follow what I mean?
Therefore, I won't condemn it, I won't suppress it, I won't deny it, I won't transcend it; but let me first look at it. Sir, consider a person who has a thorn in his body and is feeling pain. The pain of the thorn is similar to the constraints and problems impinging upon the self.
No, sir. If I have a thorn in my foot, I look at it first, I know the pain. I ask myself, why did I tread on it, why wasn't I aware of it?
What is wrong with my observation, my eyes? Why didn't I see where I was going? I know if I saw it, I wouldn't touch it.
Therefore I didn't see it. When the pain is there, then I act. I didn't see the thing that was in front of my foot.
So my observation is at fault. So I say, what happened to my brain which didn't see that? Probably it was thinking of something else.
Why was it thinking of something else when I am on the path? So you see, sir? But in the case of psychological problems, the observer and what is observed are hopelessly entangled.
No. We are going off to something else. Let us stick to one problem, one issue.
Where does self-interest begin and where does it end, and is there an ending to it at all? And if it ends, what is that state? May I hazard an answer?
Probably, self-interest begins with the self itself and the self comes with the body. I am not sure. They go together.
The idea of 'I'-ness and my coming into being, they go together. You say so, but I don't say so. To my mind the very notion of self begins with the coming into being of this body, and the self and self-interest go together.
Self-interest can only end when the self ends. And a part of the self remains so long as the body remains. So, in an ultimate sense, it can only end with death.
Short of that, we can only refine self-interest with the gradual perceiving of it, but we cannot wholly deny it so long as the body exists. That is how I see it. I understand.
They are discovering in science that when the baby is born and suckling, it feels secure and it begins to learn who are the friends of the mother, who treat her differently, who are against her; it begins to feel all this because the mother feels it. It comes through the mother - who is friendly, who is not friendly. The baby begins to rely on the mother.
So there it begins. It felt very safe in the womb, and suddenly, put out in the world it begins to realize that the mother is the only safety. There it begins to be secure.
And that's our life. And I question whether there is security at all. Sir, in the Mexican earthquake, babies were found alive eleven days after being buried completely under the earth and there was no damage to the newborn ones.
And the Mexican ambassador was telling me, the child, when it was taken out of that dark place, behaved exactly as it does when it comes out of the womb. It was like being still in the womb. Sir, the instinct of self-preservation is there in the animal too, but when it evolved into man, he started creating problems.