Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
The problem is new and you cannot have a ready-made answer. I am gradually discovering the ways in which memory operates over a problem. This gentleman says that he is in a fix; this is because he is thinking in the old way to find the solution.
When you have a new approach, you do not think of solving the problem. Memory is a positive approach and it is positive. A solution along any negative line only can lead to Truth, as the positive approach which is through memory is always conditioned by memory.
Therefore, my mind in the state referred to by me is in a state of negation, which is not really the opposite of the positive; the mind is much more alert than when it is doing a positive action. When the mind is in this negative state, i.e., when the approach is negative, the mind should not create a process of thought; the mind is incapable of thought and it is not asleep, nor is it expecting an answer. Choice is inaction.
Positive action based on memory, on conditioning, is really inaction. Real action is when my mind is new and when, in the new state, it meets the problem anew. What is the state of mind when it has no positive action towards the problem?
You cannot pre-conceive that state; you must experience that state. If there is any choice, then the action is positive. Any voice, the inner or the voice of the Master, is still conditioning.
Conditioning means no action. An action of choice is really the avoidance of 'what is'; it is therefore no action but only inaction. Any response, positive or negative, coming out of the conditioning is not true action.
When I experience that state of mind, I may find the new approach. It is extremely difficult not to have a positive action towards a problem. A positive action is an action based on choice, on memory.
When the mind is not positively acting on a vital problem, what is its state? Have you any vital problem? Yes, the illness of a relative, which is giving me pain.
How do you approach it? I am trying to do my best in the matter. My approach to this is really a positive action of my memory.
I do not know what else I can do. We are experimenting now. It is no use waiting and seeing.
I have a living vital problem. I recognize that any positive action is valueless. What is the state of my mind?
I cannot verbalize at that particular state, but only afterwards. There is blankness in my mind. True.
Supposing it is not blankness, what is the next step? As it is a new state which we have not experienced before, you cannot call it blank; it cannot be merely blank. It has pushed out positive action.
I am now in a state when I surrender. Surrender to whom or to what? Are you experiencing?
You feel something and you do not proceed further. I am paying attention. This means that there must be the giver of attention.
You have now been forced to experience that state. When I am forcing you to that state, you are avoiding it. My experience is that such a mind is open to receive whatever it is.
In such a mind, there is no desire, no seeking an end; nor is there an actor. What is the state of that mind? For this experience to take place, the mind must have pushed away all attempts at positive action, without any effort or struggle.
Therefore, such a mind is in a state of negative activity. This means really that you have stopped the interpreting of the problem. What does negative activity mean?
The mind is alert and in a state of negative activity; that means, there is no desire and no seeking of a result. What is the next response? Nothing is happening in the mind.
What is the next movement out of this nothingness? Put away the question and the response, and watch again. You get blocked at this stage because probably you are not accustomed to this.
You try this again and see what is happening. We should proceed with this experience of yours when we meet next Thursday. The whole of this is awareness and there is the fun of discovery in understanding this.
April , We have been discussing for the past few days the problem of individual transformation and why it has not been possible for you to effect immediate transformation. We saw that transformation can take place only in the Now and not in the hereafter; any form of approach which involves thinking in terms of time, evolution, growth, leads to postponement. All of our philosophy which is based on this conception of growth is erroneous.
Thought-process cannot bring about transformation. Thought implies a constant response of the conditioned mind; this conditioning is due to memory which is the residue of incomplete experience. We are the product of the memory, of the mind; therefore, no process of the mind can solve any problem except a factual problem.
All human problems are changing and not static. Therefore, a mind that has a fixed opinion or a conclusion cannot understand a new problem. Emotions, feelings, cannot lead to transformation.
Emotions and sentimentality are within the field of the mind and they are sensations. Therefore, they cannot solve the problem. Devotion, immolation of oneself to an idea, to a guru, to an object, to God, cannot lead to transformation.
There is always, in this, the seeking of an end; there is always a process of sentimentality and emotion in this and it is merely clothed in the form of devotion. Therefore, devotion also is in the field of the mind and cannot lead to transformation. When we put aside all the above screens or barriers to understanding, what is left with us?
When all these forms of intellection are removed, there is an inward sense of creative being. There is no problem outside the mind; so, when the mind is cleansed, we are face to face with the problem. When the problem is thus confronted and when there is no response from the mind which is the past, we are not concerned with anything.
The mind has understood that all the responses of memory, because they are thought-processes, are no good for bringing about transformation. Therefore, all these responses are put aside and the mind confronts the problem. It is only when you directly experience this state that you will see what difference it makes.
What is the actual state of the mind when the mind is alert and when there is no action of memory on the problem or when there is no desire for a result? We said that the mind was still; stillness was a direct experience. If it is not a direct experience to you, do not use words.
When the mind is not acting on the problem, we experience first a stillness. There is no verbal expression for that state yet. The mind is not asleep.
The whole content of consciousness, not merely the superficial layer, is quiet. If the superficial layers only are still, the deeper layers will project themselves into the superficial and there will be the pulsations of the past, the promptings of the deeper layers. Therefore, this state of quietness where there is no such prompting, is the one corresponding to the quietness at all levels of consciousness.
In that state, we are not naming and recording. When we are not recording an experience, it is really the state of experiencing, in which there is neither the experiencer nor the experience. When the experience fades away, there arises the experiencer and the experience, the thinker and the thought.
This stillness is not the result of a desire. Desire or seeking a result creates action; from action the actor is born. Therefore, if there is seeking for a result, there cannot be stillness.
Did I not push out all the thoughts that arose in my mind, in order to bring about stillness? No. You did not push out, but your understanding of the thought-process led to the thoughts dropping away by themselves.
As long as there is an effort to exclude a thought, that effort is a barrier to understanding and therefore a barrier to stillness. The desire to seek an end creates action which in turn breeds the actor. As long as you do not understand that memory cannot solve a human problem, your effort to push away, which is based only on memory, cannot produce stillness of the mind.
When there is a vital insistent problem of daily life, you view it with memory and therefore it is conditioned. When you realize that no action of memory can lead to understanding, then memory ceases to function and the mind is no longer acting on the problem, and therefore the mind is still. In this state, the past has been wiped away, even if it be only for a split second.
Memory is always waiting to creep in and therefore a thought may arise during this interval of stillness. The understanding of this makes the mind very watchful and very alert; it is also still. The mind that has been cultivated, made to expand, by self-expansion, has now realized that all this is to be put away; therefore, all this drops away and the mind is silent.
In that silence, there is neither the experiencer nor the experience, but only the state of experiencing, of stillness which is not static but with an extraordinary activity. Only the stillness which is the product of memory, is static. Mind is still and seems to be non-existent.
We are discussing not the stillness of the mind but the state of the mind when memory is not acting on the problem. There is stillness and in that state something happens. If I tell you anything strongly, you accept it even if you have no experiencing; this is hypnotism.
When I understand that memory conditions, I do not find memory acting and there is stillness. I tried to experiment then with the suffering of another whom I knew. I then felt as though I was myself suffering and not the other person of whom I was thinking.
Then the thinking crept in. We are trying to find out what it means to have this constant revolution inside us, regeneration. Mere modification of memory is not transformation.
As long as there is a movement of memory, there cannot be any regeneration. Regeneration is a new state which I do not know; and I must approach it through negation, and understand it negatively. Any response of memory, however fleeting, cannot produce regeneration.
When I see it, the response of memory drops away. It may come back again; but, if I see it again, again it drops away. From every movement of this thought, there is creative existence.
When memory is in abeyance, the mind is very quiet. By constant watchfulness, this interval arises when thought does not act at all. What comes out of this interval?
When the mind is in such a state, there is a natural expansive awareness which is not exclusive; i.e., there is a state of concentration without a concentrator. The process is as follows - I want to know every form of memory and I am watchful. When any thought arises it is examined and its truth seen.
Then that thought drops away. There is no discipline, effort, struggle, involved in this. What happens when, in that state, there is a desire?
All desire is thought. The understanding mind is denuding itself of all thoughts and there is also the lengthening of the interval between thought and thought. What happens in that interval?
The interval has been experienced. When thought arises in that interval, that thought is examined with greater quickness, anew. The lengthening of the interval between two thoughts gives greater capacity to deal with any thought that may arise in that interval.
The experiencing of this interval is what we are now considering. There is a vitality in this interval. In this interval all effort has stopped; there is no choice, no condemnation, no justification, and no identification; there is also no interpretation of any kind.
What is meant by examining the thought, in the state of silence? It is not I suppose merely to recognize it as a form of memory and to push it out, which is a process of choice and effort, but to recognize the significance of it. We are trying to see if the new can be met anew and understood without the burden of the past.
Meeting of the new as the new is regeneration. I have understood a thought and that thought disappears. There is an interval of calm and clarity.
Then a thought arises. How do I deal with that thought? If I try to deal with it with my memory, I cannot deal with it.
Can you examine the thought without your memory? I do not push that thought away. The thought disappears of itself.
How do you deal with the thought without memory? Don't say who is dealing with it and so on. Do you condemn or analyze the thought or what do you do with it?
Has not that interval a relationship with that thought? Does not that interval which is a state of being, which is new, meet the old which is the thought arising? This means the new is meeting the old; but, the new cannot absorb the old.
The old can absorb the new and modify it; but the new cannot absorb the old. Therefore the new always extends and the old disappears by itself. There is no exclusion, no suppression, nor condemnation, nor avoidance.
It is in this manner that the thought arising in the interval disappears. What happens in the interval? In experiencing that interval and communicating it, you must also be experiencing in order to see my communication.
In that interval, another thought comes in. I recognize it. The mind in the form of that thought is now facing the interval which is new.
The new is operating on the old and the old cannot be absorbed by the new, and therefore the thought disappears. This interval is extraordinary in that it is without thought, without effort, without choice. Will there be pure perception then?
In that interval, there will be complete cessation of desires. That interval is alert, passive, choiceless awareness. There is cessation of desire, cessation of thought.
In that state which is experiencing, communication is impossible; i.e., words cannot be a means of experience. In that state, there is no sensation; and sensation is thought-process and thought-process is verbal. If you and I are experiencing the same state, then, because it is non-sensuous, we can understand each other.
Regeneration is not a factor depending upon me; because, it cannot be brought about by any effort or any struggle on my part. In itself, that interval is living, it has action. I don't have to hold on to it and say 'it must live'.
Without causation which is from memory, this interval lives by itself and it also gets lengthened. There is the experiencing of such a state in which there is no cause and effect. There is a state of being without causation, with no time in it (no yesterday producing today and no today producing tomorrow), a state without time and yet living vitally.
In other words, this is a state of being in which there is living full of vitality, which has no causation and therefore timeless, and yet without death. There is also a newness which is not repetitive. That state is creation.
In that state there is no effort; but, a new birth takes place always, a transformation not in terms of time taking place all the time. To sum up, this state of being is not exclusive, is not manufactured by will, is not the result of the past, is not the end of a desire, but is a state of real action without a cause, timeless, living and undergoing a transformation in itself. Experiencing and deepening of that state is also taking place.
It is not one isolated experience but it is a state of constant experiencing. Therefore, regeneration is a constant revolution inside us. This regeneration is new and it will meet every problem anew.
If that is functioning, that new meets the old without being contaminated by the old. Therefore, such a man can live even in the midst of a greedy world without being affected by that greed, but himself altering the greed in the world. This new is always moving and it transforms everything it meets.
Now, your difficulty is not understanding a problem at all, but to have that interval between two thoughts. Therefore, you do not want to strive to be good, to be non-violent etc. You are only concerned with that interval with which you can live from moment to moment.
You have no problem and nothing to maintain; for, as that interval functions, the problems as they arise will be promptly dealt with, by the new meeting the old without being in any way contaminated by the old. April , I think, before we begin, it should be made clear what we mean by discussion. To me it is a process of discovery through exposing oneself to the fact.
That is, in discussing I discover myself, the habit of my thought, the way I proceed to think, my reactions, the way I reason, not only intellectually but inwardly. It is really exposing oneself not merely verbally but actually so that the discussion becomes a thing worth while - to discover for ourselves how we think. Because, I feel if we could be serious enough for an hour or a little more and really fathom and delve into ourselves as much as we can, we shall be able to release, not through any action of will, a certain sense of energy which is all the time awake, which is beyond thought.
Surely, this discussion is related to our daily living - they are not two separate things. And as most of us have become so extraordinarily mechanical in our attitudes and conclusions, unless we break up the pattern of our thinking, we live so partially, we hardly live at all - live in the total sense of that word. And is it possible to live with all our senses completely awakened, with a mind that is not cluttered, with a perception that is total, a seeing that is not only visual but is beyond the conditioned thinking?
If we could, it would be worth while to go into all that. So, if that interests you, we could discuss this sense of awareness, of total awareness of life, and thereby perhaps release an energy that will be awake all the time in spite of our shallow existence. Do observe, watch your own mind when you are listening to what is being said.
Then you learn. Sir, what do you mean by `learn'? I think if we could understand learning, then perhaps it would be a benefit.
Is learning merely an additive process? Perhaps I add to something which I already have, or to the knowledge which I already possess. Is that learning?
Is learning related to knowledge? If learning is merely an additive process through that which I already know, is that learning? Then what is learning - like what is listening?
Do I listen if I am interpreting, if I am translating, if I am merely corroborating to myself that which I am listening to, contradicting or accepting, or denying? Does learning consist in transforming one's conclusions, altering one's conclusions, or adding more, or expanding one's conclusions? Surely, if one has to understand what is listening, what is learning, one has to explore somehow, isn't it?
Or is learning, or listening, or seeing unrelated to the past, and it is not a question of time at all? That is, can I listen so completely, so comprehensively that the very act of listening is perceiving what is true, and therefore the very perception has its own action without my interpreting what is seen into action? Aren't you using "learning" in a very special sense?
As we understand learning, it has a relation to knowledge - that is, getting more and more knowledge. There is no other meaning which can be put into that word "learning". Are you not using it in a very special sense?
Probably we are using that word in a special sense. To me it is exploring and asking. I want to find out how to discuss this.
Is a discussion merely an exchange of ideas, a debate, an exposition of one's own knowledge, cleverness, erudition, or is a discussion in spite of knowledge a further exploration into something which I do not know? Is it a scientific exploration where the scientist, if he is really worthy at all, enquires, there is not a conclusion from which he enquires? What are we trying to do?
We are just laying the foundation for a right kind of discussion. If it is merely a schoolboy debate, then it is not worth it. If it is merely opposing one conclusion to another then it does not lead very far.
If you are a Communist and I a Capitalist, we battle with words, political activities and so on; it does not get us anywhere. If you are entrenched as a Hindu or a Buddhist or whatever you are, and I am something else - a Catholic , we just battle with words, with conclusions, with dogmas; and that does not get us very far. And if I want to go very far, I must know, I must be aware that I am discussing from a position, from a conclusion, from a knowledge, from a certainty; or that I am really not entrenched.
If I am held to something and from there I proceed or try to find out, then I am so conditioned that I cannot think freely. All this is a self-revealing process, isn't it? Discussions of that kind would be worthwhile, if we could do that.
Now what shall we discuss? Total living. A gentleman wants to know how to live completely.
Sir, I am interested in understanding the mechanism of thinking. At times thought seems to come from the bottom of conclusions, and at times from the top surface like a drop from above. I am confused.
I do not know thought apart from the background. I am unable to evaluate what the word "thought" really means. Yes, Sir, shall we discuss that?
Thought is the mechanism of thinking. Is thinking merely a response to a question, to a challenge? If thinking is merely a reaction, is that thinking at all?
I think perhaps I am going too fast. Somebody should tell me if I am going too fast. I think we can understand you, Sir.
All right, Sir. You asked me a question and I replied. The reply is provoked by your challenge, and I reply according to the content of my memory.
And that is the only thinking I know. If you are an engineer and I ask you a question, you reply according to your knowledge. If I am a yogi, a Sanskrit scholar, or this or that, then I reply according to that, according to my condition.
Isn't that so, Sir? So, is thinking - thinking as we know it - a reaction to a challenge, to a question, to a provocation, according to my background? My background may be very complex; my background may be religious, economic, social or technical; my background may be limited to a certain pattern of thought - according to that background I reply.
The depth of my thinking may be very superficial; if I am educated in the modern system, then I reply to your question according to my knowledge. But if you probe a little deeper, I reply according to the depth of my discovery into my unconscious. And if you still ask me further, probe, enquire more deeply, I reply either saying "I don't know", or according to some racial, inherited, acquired, traditional answer.
Isn't that so, Sir? That we all know, more or less. Thoughts are all mechanical responses to a challenge, to a question.
The mechanism may take time to reply. That is, there may be an interval between the question and the answer, to a greater or lesser extent; but it will be mechanical. Now if I am aware of all that process - which few of us are; if I may, I am taking it for granted that we are aware - , I realize that my whole response to a question, which is the process of thinking, is very mechanical and shallow; though I may reply from a very great depth it is still mechanical.
And we think in words, don't we?, or in symbols. All thought is clothed in words, or in symbols, or in patterns. Is there a thinking without words, without symbols, without patterns?
And so the problem arises, doesn't it, Sir; whether all our thinking is merely verbal. And can the mind dissociate the word from thought? And if the word is dissociated, is there a thought?
Sirs, I do not know if you are experiencing or merely listening. What is thinking? I ask you a question, how do you reply to that?
From my background. Thinking is the most natural process. I ask you, "Where do you live?"
And your response is immediate. Isn't it? Because where you live is very familiar to you, without a thought you reply quickly.
Isn't that so, Sir? And I ask you a further complex question. There is a time-lag between the reply and the challenge.