Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
If one has a problem, and one listens to the problem completely, totally, without trying to find an answer, without rationalizing, without trying to find an escape from it, but lives totally with it, then one will see that there is no problem at all. The problem arises only when there is no attention. It is quite likely, I feel, that this form of attention needs tremendous energy.
Yes. That is true. I cannot be in this form of attention except for a moment.
I lose it. I cannot renew this attention. Attention cannot be renewed.
During those moments of attention one sees there is something there all the time. The problem, as you say, is that we must have close attention in order to conserve our forces, yet there seems to be something which is about my mind continuously. The reason I don't have total attention is not that I can't, but I don't want to.
That is my problem. Then keep it your problem. (Laughter).
The way we live, life is full of problems, isn't it? And if you like it, live with it. Go on with it.
Suffer pain and despair, the whole fear that is our life. No, it is not exactly that. What I meant was, I have a fear of what that total attention would do.
There is this burst of energy. But sir, you can't have a fear of something which you don't know. All right, it is a fact that you can't, but it is possible to choose.
So you say, "I cannot be totally attentive because I am afraid". Exactly. So we have to examine fear, not how to get rid of fear, not all the intellectual concepts and escapes.
What is fear? Try this with listen to it completely, giving your full attention to it. You can't give full attention if your body is not completely relaxed, if your mind is not completely quiet.
Physically, emotionally and mentally it must be completely rested. psychologically there must also be a quietness in order to listen. Listen in that state.
What are you listening to, an explanation, a series of words, or the thing of which you are afraid? If you are listening in that way, is there fear? You can listen to the unconscious promptings of fear, can't you?
And then, is there fear? Let us take the fear of loneliness, this sense of isolation. Though one may be related to many people and have a great I many friends, there is a sense of complete loneliness.
One knows it, and that is probably the major cause of fear. To listen to that feeling of loneliness, to see it, feel it, and learn about it, one must have tremendous energy, energy which is not disciplined. There is no rationalization, no explanation.
In that state of listening the mind is completely quiet with regard to that loneliness. If one is so attentive and learning about it, there is no entity who is accumulating knowledge about it. There is nor the observer and the thing observed.
This is the most difficult thing. This contradiction, this division as the observer and the thing observed, creates the problem of conflict. Is it possible to look at something so completely that the observer is not?
What is communication? How do you communicate? Words or gestures are necessary in order to be understood.
If there is to be communication, both the speaker and the person communicated with must be at a certain intensity. In that state of intensity there is not someone listening, and the speaker. There is only the act of listening.
In that state the mind is in communion. Communion implies space. A mind that has problems becomes a dull mind; and a dull mind cannot possibly be attentive.
When any problem arises, only a mind that is attentive, intense, learning, listening, can meet it, dissolve it, and move on. How is a mind, which has so many problems, to meet new problems? There is the problem of death, there is the problem of time, the problem of space, the problem of relationship, the problem of living, of earning a livelihood, the problems of disease, health and old age.
How is the mind to meet all these problems at once, not one by one, but the whole of them at once, without effort? The way we meet them now, our problems are all fragmentary. There is the problem of fear, the problem of boredom, the problem of enjoyment - a multitude of problems, one after the other.
Is there a way of meeting all these problems, not separately, but totally? If I deal with each problem separately, each is going to take time; so I have to understand time. If you can deal with all problems at once, then that implies that they have a common root.
That is partially right. If you are living in the present, you only have one problem at a time. In fact, all the problems coalesce into one problem.
The existentialists say, "Live in the present". What does it mean to live in the present, the active present? It means the past doesn't take you away from it.
Do go into it a little more, sir. How can I live in the present when I am the result of the past, and am using the present as a means of getting to the future? It means that I have to bring all of time, the past, the present and the future, into the immediate present.
To live in the present, time must collapse. I should say, sir, that it is direct perception, without endeavouring to do anything about it. Yes, madam, but do look at the immense difficulty.
How is time to collapse? How is space to collapse? How is the distance between here and the moon to collapse?
Don't say, "Well, if I am attentive, it will", that's not the answer. When we say, "Live in the present", it must be something extraordinary. Because I am the result of two million years my mind, my brain and my habits all are of time.
You tell me to live in the present. I ask what you mean by it. How can I live in the present when I have an immense history behind me which is pushing me through the present into the future?
How am I to live in the present with the past? I can't. Therefore there must be a collapse of time.
Time must come to an end; time must stop. I feel that I live in the present when I have no memories, when I'm just there; at those moments when I have experience. Yes, but those moments come and go.
It's not good enough. We have all had those moments when time has no meaning at all. One sees the interrelatedness of all the problems, and then there is an action which arises from that.
What do you mean by action? Is it to do, to be, to function, to think, to act? Does action mean getting up, going to work and all the rest of it?
That action is based on the past, on idea, on memory. For us, action is related to time. We are now trying to make everything fit into time.
To find out, to live and act in the present - all of these demand the understanding and the ending of time. For time a collapse, it must mean the collapse of the entity. Yes, sir, collapse of the entity.
Would you explain why it is that the past and the future always seem to be so much more interesting than the Present? The lady wants to know why the past and the future are much more interesting than the present. That's fairly obvious.
(Laughter). Well, may I ask this "Why is the present so difficult to confront?" That's what we're trying to find out.
I mean, one may be in a safe environment, but it is still difficult to confront the present. If we really understand something, if we see some fact truly, then that very fact, that very observation brings its own action. I don't have to find out how to act.
What we are trying to find out, what we are trying to discover for ourselves is whether it is possible to live in the present at all. Isn't it impossible not to? That is the only place we can live.
That's an idea, sir. All my acts are based on ideas, on a formula, on an experience, on knowledge, all of which are of the past. I know no action which is not related to time.
Then someone comes along and tells me to live in the present. I "What do you mean by it? How can I live in the present?".
If it is a theory, it is valueless; it has no meaning at all. To find out what it means I have to discover, understand and be totally aware of time - time as space, time as distance, time as a gradual achievement; using time as a means of getting rid of something or of gaining something. In order to live in the present, that way of thinking, that way of looking, that way of living, must collapse.
But my whole being, conscious as well as unconscious, is of time. How is the mind to step out of it? All images of oneself must collapse.
That is an idea, sir. It is not a fact. The fact is that I don't know enough.
You have no time to know enough. But I see myself creating time, whenever I think. Every moment that I am not at full attention, which is practically all the time, the clock goes on.
Yes, sir. So all through my life I create time. How are you going to end it?
I could just arbitrarily stop thinking. Of course not. The question is, can time collapse?
To live in the present means there is no tomorrow. That means there is an ending of pleasure, there is an ending of pain, an ending of sorrow; not tomorrow, but now. One cannot live in the present with sorrow, with despair, with hope, with ambition.
One has to come to this ending of time, this stopping or collapse of time, not directly but in a different way. One has to come to it negatively. One does not know what the ending of time means; so one has to come to it by being aware of how the mind thinks, and how the mind uses time, negatively or positively, as a means of achievement.
There is the question of peace. How is one to be peaceful, not theoretically, not as some ideal to be achieved, but actually? How is one to be peaceful when there are wars, contentions, quarrels?
Everything in this world is based on violence. For peace to be, there cannot be a tomorrow. Scientists are inquiring into this question of the collapse of space, which is the collapse of time, because rockets will take so many months, or years, to go to Mars.
There may be a way of getting to Mars much quicker. There are tremendous things involved in this. Can a mind like ours, which has been used to time, having lived that way for two million years, suddenly collapse?
Can we eliminate endless arguments, realizations, fears and hopes? Next time I would like to discuss whether it is possible to stop time. Perhaps that is creation.
April , We were talking, the last time we met here, about time; but before we go into that, I would first like to talk about freedom and order. We seem to think that freedom is a matter of time, growth and evolution; that freedom is a reaction. As we have to live in a society, the problem then is, can there be freedom and yet order?
When we look to time to bring order, we find that time invariably breeds disorder. Our society is not orderly; within it there are all the elements of destruction and violence. The social structure is based on acquisitiveness, competition and ambition, with all the signs of disorder.
I think one more or less accepts that as inevitable, and lives in that pattern. Freedom within such a society cannot be; nor is freedom possible outside that society. If freedom is merely a reaction, then it breeds disorder, as time does.
But if we understand freedom, not as something that you cultivate, not as a process, nor a thing to be achieved, then freedom has a quite different meaning. To understand this thing of freedom, one must also understand the nature of time, both physical and psychological time. One has to accept physical time.
One can't do otherwise. But when one looks to psychological time as a means of achieving freedom, or peace, one finds that such time only breeds disorder, because it is not based on a structure of reality. What we are discussing is not a theory, a concept, something with which one can play intellectually.
We are dealing with facts. In a society such as ours, freedom means disorder, because it is conceived of as a reaction. But if one understands the nature and the structure of time, perhaps one can see that there is a kind of freedom which is not a reaction.
It is not freedom from something. There are two obvious physical or chronological time; and the time which is constructed by thought, by the psyche, which is psychological time. We are not dealing with physical time but we are trying to determine whether through psychological time one can have freedom and therefore order.
It is very important to have freedom from fear. One must understand fear and be totally free of it; otherwise there can be no order structurally, either outwardly or inwardly. One must understand not only the nature of fear, but also whether it is possible to be free of it immediately and not through the process of time.
If we can free the mind, it will free itself of fear. We have used time as a means by which the mind can free itself. We hope to be free from fear through a process, whether it be analysis, discipline or understanding.
We use time as a means of trying to rid ourselves of fear, of a habit or of the poison of nationalism. Is it possible? Can one be free of fear through time, by saying to oneself, "I will be free tomorrow"?
Is it possible to be free of fear tomorrow, whether you restrict that tomorrow to a day, to a second or to many years? Is there a different approach to the problem altogether? Fear in any form distorts, breeds illusion, brings about confusion.
It is very destructive for a mind to be afraid and live in a state of fear. It breeds every form of illusion and conflict. Is it possible to be free of fear totally, completely - not tomorrow, but in the now which is not of time?
Can one understand the whole structure, the nature and the significance of fear immediately, and bc free of it instantly? If not, then one must depend on time to free the mind from fear. This dependence on time, this usage of time, only breeds disorder.
Whether one is afraid of one's neighbour, or of ideas, or of any form of social or psychological disturbance, it does breed fear, and that does bring about disorder. Is it possible to be free of fear, not only consciously, but also at the deeper levels of consciousness? Without freedom from fear, there is no peace, either among nations, races or continents.
Peace is not possible when the world is divided, not only politically and economically, but also religiously. If one would understand what peace is, actually, not theoretically - not as an idea, as something to be pursued, lived up to as an objective or a directive - one must be within oneself totally at peace psychologically, not having any form of conflict. All religions have maintained that time is necessary, the psychological time we are talking about.
Heaven is very far away, and one can only come to it through the gradual process of evolution, through suppression, through growth or through identification with an object, with something superior. Our question is whether it is possible to be free of fear immediately. Otherwise fear breeds disorder; psychological time invariably does breed extraordinary disorder within one.
I am questioning the whole idea of evolution, not of the physical being, but of thought which has identified itself with a particular form of existence in time. The brain has obviously evolved to come to this present stage, and it may evolve still further, expand still more. But as a human being I have lived for forty or fifty years in a world made up of all kinds of theories, conflicts and concepts; in a society in which greed, envy and competition have bred wars.
I am a part of all that. To a man who is in sorrow there is no significance in looking to time for a solution, in evolving slowly for the next two million years as a human being. Constituted as we are, is it possible to be free from fear and from psychological time?
Physical time must exist, you can't get away from that. The question is whether psychological time can bring not only order within the individual, but also social order. We are part of society; we are not separate.
Where there is order in a human being, there will inevitably be social order outwardly. Isn't the basis of fear the unconscious demand to be free of conflict? Sir one can find out fairly easily the cause of conscious or hidden fears through analysis, through observation, through introspection, through examination, or by going into oneself very deeply.
Will that help to be free of fear? Will discovering the cause, either by being told or by discovering it oneself, free the mind from fear? If one discovers it for oneself, it is much better than being told.
To find out the cause through analysis implies time, doesn't it? And if one uses time as a means of discovering the cause of fear, what has one actually done? When one finds the cause, what has happened?
Nothing. Just nothing? Certain kinds of discovery about oneself can come as a revelation.
It can be very dramatic, not something one learns. Yes, it can be very dramatic and all the rest of it, but the fear still remains. Look, sir, someone I like dies.
I feel terribly upset about it, and I call that sorrow. I know why I am in sorrow; it is because I have lost a friend. I have lost someone whom I liked very much, and I'm lonely.
I'm suddenly bereft of a companion with whom I used to discuss things. Knowing all that, does it free me, free my mind from sorrow? Do please observe a little more closely.
Surely what makes one feel sorrow is a feeling of guilt because one has been so inadequate in one's relationship. Yes, inadequate, repentant and all the rest of it. I keep thinking about it.
That's analysis, thinking about it, investigating it with regret and repentance, with a feeling of "I wish it hadn't been that way". But at the end of this long journey of discovery, is one free of fear or of sorrow? We have religious, psychological and factual.
Will they bring about freedom from fear? One can look at the fact and be aware of it. I feel that there is a different way of tackling this problem altogether.
There must be. The way we have lived, we have not solved any problem. We still have the problem of fear, the problem of sorrow and the problem of anxiety.
We still go on living in that mess. I feel there is a real way out, if we can approach this whole issue differently. I see for myself that mere discovery of the cause of sorrow doesn't end sorrow.
The explanations, the regrets, the thought of "I wish I had treated that friend better" - none of these resolve and finish my sorrow. Now, what have I done? In examining, in searching for the cause, I have wasted time, and energy.
I need energy to meet something which I don't understand. I see that time as a process of analysis and investigation of the cause only breeds disorder and wastes energy. So I will not dissipate my energy looking for the cause.
I know very well that the cause is self-pity. I push all of that completely aside - the explanation, the cause, the regret, the self-pity - I deny it and reject it totally, because I see the stupidity of it. It has no meaning.
By trying to understand any problem, or feeling, or sorrow, I see that state of mind. Look, sirs, I would like to convey something; I would like to tell you something. In order to understand what the speaker is saying, you must listen.
You must not only listen to the words, but you must also get the feeling, the structure, the nature and the significance of what lies behind the words. To listen, you have to be tremendously attentive. Of course you have your own ideas, your own opinions, your own experience; put those aside for the time being, don't let them intervene and prevent listening.
This does not mean that you must accept what is being said but quite the contrary. You are not being mesmerized, or being made to accept something which is totally different from your own ideas. You are just listening to find out.
We are saying that perhaps there is a totally different approach to the problem of sorrow, or of fear. To understand and to find out for yourself, you are not only listening to the speaker, but you are using the speaker, if I may employ the word "use", to see either the truth or the falseness of what he is saying. He is saying something very simple, that one has used time while searching for an explanation, in order to discover the cause of sorrow, thereby hoping to be free from it.
That is what one has done. I say that is not the way to be free from sorrow. You have to find out what the speaker means, what he wants to say.
Therefore you have to listen. He says that when you are analysing, being introspective, and examining into causes, it is a waste of time and a waste of energy. To meet the challenge of fear or of sorrow, you have to have all your energy, and therefore you cannot afford to waste it in trying to find out what the cause is.
I will not waste one second of time or one iota of energy, on analysis or on self pity. I want to be free from fear. I see what happens if one is afraid.
I see how fear distorts, how it prevents, how it corrupts and how it creates illusions. We have a network of escapes; and all that is a waste of energy, because it involves time, and time is disorder. I have said that.
Is it a fact to you, or do you have merely a verbal understanding? Is it a fact in the sense that the microphone in front of me is a fact? If I do not see the microphone and someone describes to me what it is, what its function is, and its structure, with me it is merely a verbal statement, but when I see it directly, it is factual.
When you are hungry, that is a fact. No one has to tell you that you're hungry, or describe what hunger is. The fact reveals the structure of disorder, of time.
Unless one comes to the point where this becomes a fact to oneself, one can't proceed further. When the mind realizes that time breeds disorder, and that this a fact, not a theory, a verbal statement or an intellectual concept, the very realization brings about a tremendous revolution; because one has denied psychological time. How can you hold this realization?
It is not a question of holding it. If you realize it, it is so. Does the environment help you to realize?
No, it has nothing to do with environment. It has nothing to do with what one is or what one is not. Simply, does one see the fact?