Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
In that interval one is thinking. The thinking is looking into the recesses of memory. Isn't it?
I ask you, "What is the distance between here and Madras?" You say, "I know it, but let me look up". Then you say, the distance is so many miles.
So you have taken an interval of a minute; during that minute, the process of thinking was going on - which is, looking into the memory and the memory replying. Isn't that so, Sir? Then if I ask you a still more complex question, the time interval is greater.
And if I ask a question the answer to which you don't know, you say, "I don't know", because you have not been able to discover the reply in your memory. However, you are waiting to check, you ask a specialist, or go back home and look into a book and tell. This is the process of your thinking, isn't it?, waiting for an answer.
And if we proceed a little further, if we ask a question of which you don't know the answer at all, for which memory has no response, there is no waiting, there is no expectation. Then the mind says, "I really do not know, I cannot answer it." Now can the mind ever be in such a state when it says, "I really do not know" - which is not a negation, which isn't still saying, "I am waiting for an answer"?
I ask you what truth is, what God is, what "X" is, and you will reply according to your tradition. But if you push it further and if you deny the tradition because mere repetition is not discovery of God, or Reality or what you will, a mind that says, "I don't know" is entirely different from a mind which is merely searching for an answer. And isn't it necessary that a mind should be in such a state when it says "I really do not know"?
Must it not be in that state to discover something, for something new to enter into it? Sir, we have come to this we think in terms of words, symbols, and we have to dissociate thought from the words and symbols. Sir, have we experienced directly that all thinking, as we know, is verbal?
Or, it may not be verbal. I am just asking. And what has that to do with daily existence?
Going to the office, meeting the wife, quarrelling, jealousy, you know the whole business of daily existence, the appalling boredom and the fear and all that - what has that got to do with this question? Is thinking verbal? I feel we should not go too far away from the actual living - then it becomes speculative.
But if we could relate it to our daily living, then perhaps we shall begin to break down some factors in our life which are distracting. That is all. Sir, let us begin again.
Words are very important to us, aren't they? Words like India, God, Communist, Gita, Krishna, and also words like jealousy, love are very important to us. Aren't they?
Yes. The meaning of the word is very important. That is what I mean, the meaning of the word.
And can the mind be free of the word which so conditions our thinking? Do you understand, Sir? That cannot be.
Sir, it may be an impossible thing, it may not be possible at all; but we are slaves to words. You are a Theosophist, or you are a Communist, or you are a Catholic with all the implications in the significance of those words. And if we do not understand those words and their meaning and their inwardness, we are just slaves to words.
And should not the mind, before it begins to explore, to enquire, break down this slavery to words? Do you understand, Sir? The Communist uses the word "democracy" in one sense - People's Government, etc - and somebody else uses the same word in a totally different sense.
And so a man begins to enquire what the truth is in this matter, when he finds two so-called intelligent people using the same word with diametrically opposite meanings. So one becomes very very cautious of words. Can the mind break down the conditioning imposed by words?
That is the first thing obviously. If I want to find God, I have to break down everything - simple ideas, conclusions about it - before I can find it. And if I want to find out what love is, must I not break down all the traditional meaning, the separative, dividing meaning of love - such as, the carnal, the spiritual, the universal, the particular, the personal?
How does the mind free itself from words? Is it possible at all? Or do you say, "It is never possible"?
Sir, can we temporarily suspend opinions from conclusions? Sir, in regard to discussing anything, what do you mean by "temporarily suspend"? If I temporarily suspend that I am a Communist and discuss communism, then there is no meaning, no discovery.
Sir, is it not like that one can go into the dark without even a torch? Yes, Sir, probably; then its exploring may be like that. Real thinking is opposed to mechanical thinking.
I do not know what mechanical thinking is and what real thinking is. Is your mind mechanical? To you, is thinking mechanical?
Should not the mind be really interested in breaking down the words, the difficulties in problems, the danger of confusion created by words? Should not the mind be really interested, not intellectually, in the life and death problems of the world? Unless the interest is there, how will you start breaking down the accepted academical meaning?
If you are enquiring into the question of freedom, into the question of living, must you not enquire into the meaning of those words? Merely to be aware that a mind is slave to words is not an end in itself. But if the mind is interested in the question of freedom, in the question of living and all the rest of it, it must enquire.
If the mind is not interested, how is the mind to get it? How am I, who is not interested, to be interested? I must sleep, and how am I to keep awake?
One can take several drugs, or counsel someone to keep oneself awake. But is that keeping awake? When I see a thing, my seeing is automatic; then interpretation comes in and also condemnation.
Sir, what do you mean by "seeing"? There is a visual seeing; I see you and you see me; I see the things that are very near, very close, and I also see visually things very far. And I also use that word "seeing" to mean understanding; I say, "Yes, I see that very clearly now."
And the interpretative process is going on in the very seeing. And we are asking, if all seeing is interpretation, what is the principle which says that seeing is not interpretation? Can I look at something without interpreting?
Is that possible? Can I look at something without interpreting that which I see? I see a flower, a rose.
Can I look at it without giving it a name? Can I look at it, observe it? Or in the very process of observing, is the naming taking place, the two being simultaneous and therefore not separable?
If we say they are immediate, not separable, then there is nothing that can bring about the cessation of interpretation. Let us find out if it is possible to look at that flower without naming it. Have you tried it, Sir?
Have you looked at yourself without naming, not only in a casual way but inwardly? Have you looked at yourself without interpreting what you are? I see I am bad, I am good, I love, I hate, I ought to be this, I ought not to be that.
Now have I looked at myself without condemning or justifying? The difficulty is, Sir, that we cannot just see ourselves without judging our action. Also when we judge, immediately we stop action.
Then it is not a difficult thing. You see the fact. The difficulty arises only when you don't see the fact.
I see very clearly that when I see myself as I am, I condemn; and I realize that this condemnatory process stops further action. And if I do not want further action it is all right. Isn't it?
But if there is to be further action, this condemnatory process has to cease. Then where is the difficulty? I see myself lying, not telling the truth.
Now if I do not want to judge it, then there is no problem; I just lie. But if I want to challenge it, then there is contradiction. Isn't there?
I want to lie and I do not want to lie, then the difficulty arises. Isn't that so? If I see that I am lying and I like it, I go on with it.
But if I don't like it, if it does not lead anywhere, then I don't say it is difficult. Because it doesn't lead anywhere, because to me this is a serious matter, I stop lying. Then there is no contradiction, there is no difficulty.
Words have condemnatory or appreciative meanings. As long as my mind is caught in words, either I condemn or accept. And is it possible for the mind not to accept or deny but observe without the word and the symbol interfering with it?
But is action separate from that word? Is observing a thought process? Can I observe without the word, which we said is either condemnatory or appreciative?
How is observing different from thinking, Sir? I am using the word, "observing". Stick to that word "observing."
I observe you and you observe me. I look at you and you look at me. Can you look at me without the word "me", the prejudice, your like and dislike?
You are putting me on a pedestal and I am putting you on a bigger pedestal. Can you look at me and can I look at you without this interpreting process? It is not possible to observe without the thought process, which is memory coming into being.
Then what? If that is so, then we are perpetual slaves to the past and therefore there is no redemption. There is no redemption for a man who is always held a slave to the past.
If that is the only process I know, then there is no such thing as freedom; then there is only the expansion of conditioning, or the narrowing down of conditioning. Therefore, man can never be free. If you say that, then the problem ceases.
My response to you now is one thing and my response when I go outside is another. For maintaining my family and myself certain basically essential things are necessary. In getting them, I also feel the need to ensure the continuity of these material things - food, clothing and shelter - in future also.
My needs also tend to grow. Thus, greed steps in, and it develops. How is my mind to stop greed at any level?
How is greed to go when I am living in this world of constant growth in needs? Is not that it, Sirs? I think there are certain things I need and those needs must continue.
Why have I apprehension about them? I wonder if we cannot tackle this whole problem - fear, total living, what is thinking?, and the things that we discussed - , if we could discuss that awareness which awakens intelligence. I am putting it very briefly.
If we could discuss how to be aware intelligently all through the day - not sporadically, not for ten minutes - , then I think this problem would be answered for ourselves by ourselves. Is it possible for me to be aware - in the sense of being intelligently alert, wherever I may be, whether high or low, whether I have little or much - so that my mind ceases to be in a state of apprehension? Now is it possible to be aware intelligently?
What is it to be intelligent? Unless I understand that word and the meaning of that word, the significance, the inward sense of that word, we can ask thousands of questions and there will be thousands of answers, but we shall remain as before. Now I am asking myself, "Can I understand this feeling, the being intelligent, so that if I have that feeling of being intelligent, then there is no problem, as I will tackle everything as it comes along."
January , We said last time when we met that we would discuss the question of intelligence; and I think if we could go through it as deeply as possible and as fully, perhaps it might be very beneficial to see whether the mind has the capacity of fully comprehending problems and thereby discovering what it is to be really intelligent. To go into it very deeply, it seems to me, first we must understand what is a problem; then how the mind comprehends or is aware of the problem, how it understands the problem - which leads, does it not?, to the understanding of self-knowledge. Knowledge is always in the past.
Self-knowing is an active process of the present, it is an active present. And in understanding a problem one discovers, doesn't one?, the active process of knowing the instrument - that is, thinking, not theoretically, not academically, but actually - , one experiences the process of knowing. We will go into that and perhaps we will be able to discover what it is to be intelligent.
I don't see how we can discuss in a serious manner what is intelligence, if we do not understand how we think. A mere definition of intelligence has no significance. The dictionary has a meaning, and you and I can give definitions, conclusions.
But it seems to me that the very definition and giving a conclusion indicates a lack of intelligence rather than intelligence. So, if you think it is worth while also, we could go into this problem of intelligence rather widely and extensively, rather with fun, with a sense of gaiety - with a desirable seriousness which has also its own humour. So if you would let me talk a little bit, then you can pick up the threads and afterwards we can discuss together.
I feel a mind that has a problem is incapable of really being free. A mind that is ridden with problems can never be really intelligent. I will go into all that.
We will discuss all that presently. A mind that is increasing problems, that is the soil of problems, that starts to think from a problem, is no longer capable of intelligently approaching the problem. And a problem surely implies a thing that the mind does not understand, it finds hard to understand, cannot grapple with, cannot penetrate through to a solution.
That is what we call a problem. It may be a problem with my wife, with children, with society, individually or collectively; the problem implies a sense of not being able to find a solution, an answer; and therefore that which we cannot find an answer or a solution for, we call that a problem. A mechanic who understands a piston engine, knows all the things connected with a piston engine to him it is not a problem; because he knows, there is no problem to him.
And also knowledge creates problems. I don't know if we could discuss that a little bit. Knowledge invariably creates problems.
If I don't know anything about not killing, then brutal violence and the rest of it would be no problem. It is only the knowledge that creates the problem, which is a contradiction in myself - I want to kill and I don't want to kill. It is the knowledge that is preventing me from killing, or it is the knowledge that creates a problem.
And having created a problem, surely that very knowledge has forecast the solution also. I think this we must understand before we can go further into the question of comprehending what is intelligence Let us be clear that we are discussing, not academically nor theoretically as theoreticians but actually, to experience what we are talking about. We are trying to find out, as we said, what it is to be intelligent.
Can the mind be intelligent when it is burdened with problems? And in order not to be so burdened, we try to escape from problems. The very desire to find a solution is an escape from the problem.
It is also an escape to turn to religions, to conclusions, to various forms of speculations. And as we have problems at every level of our existence - economic, social, personal, collective, national, international, all the rest of it we have problems, we are burdened with problems. And is life a problem?
And why is it that we have reduced all existence into a problem? Whatever we touch becomes a problem; love, beauty, violence, everything that we know of is in terms of problems. If the mind is capable of being free from problems, then to me that is the state of intelligence - which we shall discuss as we go along.
So, first we have problems. Problems exist because of our knowledge. Otherwise, we would have no problems.
When the mind has a problem the solution is already known. It is only the technique of finding the solution that we are seeking, not the answer, because we already know the answer. Shall we discuss that a little bit first?
Problems arise out of knowledge. And that very knowledge has already given the solution. The solution is already in the knowledge, consciously or unconsciously.
What we are seeking is not the solution, but the technique of achieving the solution which is already known. If I am an engineer or a scientist, I have a problem because I already know. The knowledge invites the problem.
Because I know the problem which is the result of my knowledge, that knowledge also has supplied the solution. Now I say, "How am I to bridge the problem with the solution which is already known?" So, it is not that we are seeking solutions, answers, but how to bring about the solution, how to realize the solution.
I think we have to realize that it is not the answer that we want, because we know the answer; a problem indicates the answer, and the interval between the problem and the answer, the time interval is the technological interval of bringing that solution into effect. You see it requires a great deal of self-knowledge to understand this - which means really the knowledge not only of the self that is active every day going to the office, selling, buying, quarrelling, being jealous, envious, ambitious and all the rest of it, the outward symptoms of this egocentric activity - but also of the unconscious, the deep recesses of the mind, the untrodden regions of the mind. So, all this knowledge which is stored up creates the problem.
The mere seeking of an answer to the problem is really, essentially, a technological search for the solution which is already known; and for this, one must go into the whole problem, into this whole thing called consciousness. I do not know if I am making myself clear, or I am making this a little more complex. After all, if I have intelligence, if there is intelligence, then there are no problems, I can tackle the problems as they arise.
And can a mind be without a problem? Let us go further. The state of the mind that is without a problem is what we call peace, what we call God, what we call the intelligent thing.
That is essentially what we want, that is what the mind is constantly pursuing. But the mind has reduced all life into a series of problems. Death, old age, pain, sorrow, joy, how to maintain joy - everything is a nightmarish tale not only at the psychological level but at the individual level, and at the collective level and also at the unconscious level of the whole human being.
So it seems to me, to be actively participating in intelligence one must go through all this; otherwise it becomes merely a theoretical issue. Now, after having said all this, can we discuss this question of problem arising from knowledge? Otherwise, there is no problem.
And when we talk of a problem we always imply that the answer is not known, the solution is not known. "If I only could find a solution to my problem" - that is our everlasting cry. But because of the very problem, we already know the solution.
Could we just discuss that first and then proceed? And will that not lead to the uncovering of the solution, will that not be an active process of self-knowing? A mathematician has an unresolved problem.
How is his mind to be free of it? Sir, are you a mathematician? Are you discussing this as a mathematician?
Or, are you discussing this question as a human being with a problem, not as a specialist with a problem? I know a little of mathematics. We are discussing human problems.
You say you have a problem of love. Is that the result of prior knowledge? Sir, I love my children, I love my brother.
I take their burden. I have a problem and therefore I want to be free of that. What for?
Why should you be free? Because it is a disturbance to my mind. So, you see, mere escape is not the answer.
You know the stupidity of escape and yet you keep on escaping. So that is becoming your problem. My wife and I cannot get on.
I drink. That is an escape. That drinking has become a problem.
I have a problem with my wife and now through escape I am taking a drink and that has also become a problem. So life goes that way. We have innumerable problems, one problem bringing another.
Isn't that so, Sir? So we are asking don't problems arise out of knowledge? Let us discuss.
I said that problems arise out of knowledge and because of that knowledge and because of the problem the answer is already known, the solution is already there. Sir, the use of the word "knowledge" is rather vague. You are covering so many things.
Now take the instance of a car that is technical knowledge. But that knowledge is quite different from a knowledge of the problem of life, or something where it is difficult to find a solution because of so many changing social conditions. And therefore knowledge does not always lead to a solution, it is not implied; sometimes in certain cases it may be implied, in certain cases it may not be.
I am not at all sure that it does not apply to everything. am just suggesting, Sir, I am not becoming dogmatic. Now wait a minute.
You said the outward and inward, the outward knowledge and the inward knowledge. Why do we divide this as outward knowledge and inward knowledge? Are they to be kept in watertight compartments, or the outward movement is only the natural movement which becomes the inner?
It is like the tide that goes out and then comes in. You don't say that it is the outward tide and the inward tide. The whole life is one movement going in and out, which we call the inner and the outer.
It is one movement, isn't it, Sir? - not an outward movement apart from the inward movement. Essentially, is there a difference between outward knowledge and inward knowledge?
It is not the outward knowledge that conditions the inward knowledge and it is not the inward knowledge that modifies the outward knowledge. Can we so demarcate knowledge as the outward and the inward and can we comprehend that knowledge is always in the past, it is something in which is implied the past? Sir, what about intuition?
Intuition may be a personal projection, a personal desire rectified, spiritualized and sublimated which becomes an intuition. So, let us go back, if we may, to the point we were discussing. We have problems.
As human beings we are cursed with various problems of life. The mind is always seeking an answer to these problems. But is there an answer which we do not already know and therefore is it any good seeking it?
You follow? I wish we could discuss this. I have a problem, say, a problem of love, which I want to love universally, whatever that may mean; I want to love everybody without difference, without up and down, without colour.
I talk of universal love, and yet I love my wife. So, there is the universal and the particular, which becomes contradictory, not only verbally but actually. We don't know what universal love means, first of all, but we glibly talk about it.
Don't we? This country has been speaking everlastingly about non-violence and preparing for war; there are class divisions and linguistic divisions. I am taking it as an example of our mind which talks about universal love and says God is love.
You follow, Sir? There is universal brotherhood and I love my wife. How can I reconcile these two?
That becomes a problem. How to transmute the personal, the particular, the within-the-wall to something which has no walls? You see, that becomes a problem.
Isn't it? Now let us discuss that. First there is the knowledge, knowledge that there is universal love.