text
stringlengths 12
1.33k
|
|---|
What question would elicit an answer to all of them together? We want to find a central issue that will include all those questions. I may be mistaken, but I think the central issue in all that is the division between the thinker and the thought - the thinker who is trying to be aware, and the thought which wanders off, or is shaped by circumstances, by influence, by environment. |
I am just inquiring; I am not stating yet. If we could discuss the question of why this division exists between the thinker and the thought, then perhaps awareness, the effort to be aware, and trying to maintain that awareness will have a different meaning. Yes. |
Several issues have been raised, apart from the neurotic. One wants to live, as that gentleman pointed out, in a different dimension. One has perhaps felt a certain quality during these talks, or when walking by oneself in the woods, or when in relationship with some person, and one says, "If I could only maintain that, and not slip back". |
There is a contradiction between the experience, that feeling of a different dimension, and the actuality. If we can wipe away the contradiction, then we shall not have a moment during which there is a feeling of a different dimension, and an attempt to reach it all the time. If we approach these questions and try to find out whether it is possible to eliminate this contradiction altogether, both at the conscious and at the unconscious level, then perhaps we shall be living and not comparing. |
Shall we go into that one question this morning? How is one conscious of this contradiction, if one is at all aware and sensitive? What tells you that you are in a state of contradiction? |
Do you become aware because someone tells you, or because it brings pain? Do you want to pursue a pleasure, and in the very pursuit of that pleasure you become aware that there is a contradiction? Do you want to pursue one thing, yet your activity, your daily life pulls you away from it? |
One must find out how one becomes aware. We are going into this step by step. We are not going to come to any conclusion. |
We are going to learn as we are watching, as we are examining, and therefore there is no conclusion at the end. Because if someone tells me that I'm in a state of contradiction, that has a totally different effect. I have an idea of peace, an image of peace, and I am violent; I get angry, irritable, furious. |
I am in a state of contradiction. There is the established ideal, and I do something which contradicts that ideal. How do I become aware of my contradiction? |
Do I see that I am in a state of contradiction, or does someone point it out to me? This is of very little importance, but it too has significance. I have an ideal of non-violence, of peace, and I am violent, so there is a contradiction; or two desires pull in opposite directions, and there is a conflict. |
Life points out to me, or someone tells me, that I'm in a state of contradiction. I may become aware of this contradiction through an effort, through a pain, through making an adjustment between the fact and the ideal, through something. An incident or an experience tells me that I am in a state of contradiction. |
That's one state. Or there may be an awareness of this contradiction without any stimulus. Now which is it for most of us? |
Does an incident awaken the mind to its contradictoriness, or is the mind, without incident, aware of its own contradiction? Let's deal with the first now, and come to the second afterwards. We know contradiction through an incident, either pleasant or painful. |
I have an image, an ideal, a settled pattern of conduct; and some incident takes place which contradicts all that. Then I'm in pain. I say, "I am in a state of contradiction", and nervously try to get over that contradiction, either by making the fact, which is my violence, adjust itself to the ideal, or by wiping away the ideal, leaving only the fact. |
Through the established formula of conduct, or my own habits, there is an image of what I should do, what I must be; and then an incident outside that image takes place, which contradicts the image. Because the contradictoriness creates pain, I want to get rid of it. I either adjust the fact, the incident, to the image, or I remove the image altogether and leave no centre at all. |
Who is the entity that says, "I must adjust the fact to the ideal", or says, "I must wipe away the ideal"? I have three things the fact, the ideal, and the entity who says, "I must get rid of the contradiction, either by wiping away the ideal, or by merely accepting the fact. Now I must find out who that entity is. |
As long as the entity exists, there will be contradiction. Contradiction is not connected with anything. Contradiction exists in itself. |
We are coming to that presently. First, let's be clear, sir, on this point. There is the image, the "what I should be", the ideal, and there is the fact that I am violent. |
I will wipe away that ideal which I have created, and therefore deal only with the fact. Who is the entity that says, "I must wipe away, and deal only with the fact"? If I don't understand the entity, the centre which dictates, that centre will always be in a state of contradiction, or create contradiction. |
Now, who is that centre? What is that centre? Isn't that part of yourself,? |
Yes, madame, but what is yourself, what is that? Something which stands in the way, which must be overcome. Look, madame, we are asking ourselves what that centre is which says, "I must not be in a state of contradiction; "I will wipe away the ideal, in order not to be". |
Yet the centre is still there, and we are asking what is its structure, its nature. We are going to find out, learn about it afresh. That's the only way to learn. |
You may have thought about it, you may have come to conclusions about it; but if you have, you have stopped learning. We are now going to learn about the centre which creates contradiction, whether you wipe away the ideal or neglect the fact. The state of the mind that is going to learn about it must be that it really does not know what that centre is. |
We may have known it yesterday, but if we come with that knowledge of yesterday, we shan't be able to discover what it actually is today. It might have moved, it might have changed, it might have transformed itself, it might not exist at all. So, to find out, to learn about that centre today, we must be free of yesterday, free of the conclusions of yesterday. |
Therefore our minds must be silent, completely silent, still, with that question. Then we shall be able to learn about it; then we're learning about it. What is that centre which is always creating contradiction, the censor, who says, "This is right", "This is wrong", "This I must do", "This should be", "I am not loved", "I must love", "I am unhappy", "I must live in a different dimension", "I have listened, but I have not got"? |
What is that movement? It is the movement of knowing. It is a very difficult question we are asking. |
The ancients have said it is the soul, it is the Atman, it is God, it is goodness, it is the original sin. And do you mean to say that you are going to quickly brush all that aside, and say it is this? First you must know what others have said about it, and discover whether there is any truth in that. |
If you merely repeat what the theologians say, the people who believe in God, in truth, in the soul, in the Atman, in the permanent atom, then you'll get nowhere. You are not interested in the repetition of some authority. If it is merely tradition, you throw it out. |
You investigate and come to a certain point; you come to it completely not knowing, silent. You want to learn about it; and to learn you see that a complete quietness is necessary before you can look. Can you be silent, without being forced and driven to be silent, but spontaneously silent, to find out what that movement is? |
I think that knowledge becomes the centre. Why have discussions at all? It becomes useless. |
It is in accordance with the principle of harmony. I am afraid, sirs, you're not going into this question. You are merely stating what you feel, what you think. |
The mind is the centre of contradiction - the mind which has accumulated knowledge, the mind which has created images, the mind which has established a Saviour and the world, the mind which thinks that there is the permanent and the impermanent - the mind itself is in a state of contradiction. Now, wait a minute. You have stated that. |
What have you learned about it? You have analysed it, felt your way to it, and said it is the mind. You have verbalized and made a statement. |
What have you learned? Have you learned anything? You say that it is the mind that is in a state of contradiction - the mind which has acquired knowledge, the mind which believes, the mind which is the Catholic, which is the Protestant, which is the Communist, which is the non-believer, the believer, which creates the image - the mind, the mind. |
Is that an actual fact, or an idea? Is it the unconscious desire for freedom? No, madame. |
There is a statement made that it is the mind, mind including knowledge. What makes you say it is the mind? I have investigated. |
I am asking you. One mind is asking another mind. How do you know that it is the mind? |
What makes you say it is the mind? We have been told. You have been told? |
I have also been told that there is a marvellous world when I die; but I have to live in this world. When you say "the mind", either you have realized the fact, realized it, as you realize hunger, and therefore the realization has validity, or you are merely speculating and saying that it is the mind. In that case you're not learning. |
So, before any of us answer that it is the mind, the image, the conditioning, the pattern which has been established as a Catholic, as a Protestant, as a Communist, we must learn about it, learn, not merely make a statement. Before we understand this particular issue, we must first find out what the mind is that is going to learn about it. Look, my son, my sister, mother, my grandmother, whoever it is, is not well, is unhappy, is not acting properly, and I am disturbed; from that disturbance, I want to do something - help her, hold her hand. |
But if I am disturbed, I cannot deal with the fact as a fact, unemotionally, unsentimentally, unstupidly. So it matters very much, when this question is put to you, how you are listening. Either you listen with a conclusion, with an idea which you already have about what that centre is, or you say, "I really don't know; let's go into it". |
If you really don't know, you come to the question with a fresh mind, not with a jaded mind which has already speculated, which is already conditioned. So, what is much more interesting than the issue, which in this case is contradiction, is the state of the mind that looks at it. If I look at a tree, what is much more important than the tree itself is how I look at it. |
What is the state of the mind when confronted with this question of contradiction? That is where the difficulty is, because it seems very plain that the mind has to be silent. Be silent! |
Be silent! Be, be, don't talk! You see, you all talk, you don't do. |
Be silent! It's ignorance. When you say "Be silent", you are trying to impress upon us the importance of being silent. |
I am not impressing it on you. Look, I don't know Chinese. What do I do? |
My mind is empty; I don't know. I begin to learn as I go along. But you are not doing that. |
I think that if you watch your mind, in that same moment you get silent. Madame, be silent, not get silent. Look, the issue is contradiction, why human beings live in contradiction. |
We said there is a permanent image established, a formula, and the daily fact contradicts that formula. If the mind wants to learn how to live without contradiction - actually live without contradiction - then it must approach with hesitancy, with silence, with quietness. And when it does, as I am doing now, there is the problem and there is the mind that's completely quiet, not knowing about the problem. |
I ask what this strange quietness is, this strange stillness which is looking at the problem. Is it induced? Has the mind induced that silence in order to get rid of the problem and live in a state of harmony without contradiction, or is that silence natural? |
If it is natural, not induced, not made to be natural, then is there a centre? Is there a centre which is in a state of contradiction? The centre inherently is contradiction. |
And if there is only silence which looks at that contradiction, at that problem, is that silence a natural state or is it induced because the mind wants to live in a state of harmony? If it is not natural, the contradiction begins again. So, can the mind approach any problem - life, the tree, the wife, the husband - completely with silence? |
This is one of the most difficult things to do yet one sees that any other approach must breed contradiction. We have always approached the issue through it is knowledge, it is the image, it is the mind, it is this, it is that, and so on and so on. But this time we have gone a little further. |
We have said silence. Is silence the negation of noise, the negation of rumour, the rejection of this and that, in order to be silent? I must find out what this sense of negation is which is not positive, directive, but which must exist in life. |
A really good mind is both positive and negative; it is both the woman and the man - not just the man, or just the woman. The Greeks had a word, and so had the Hindus. They symbolized it in their images, and therefore have lost it. |
The moment you put it into words, into an image, it's gone. But if you begin to learn - and keep on learning, learning, learning, you may then put it into words but it will never die. So, we are going to understand a silence which is not the opposite of noise, not the opposite of this perpetual battle; and to understand that, one must understand the whole structure of negation. |
August , I think we shall continue, if we may, where we left off yesterday. We were saying yesterday that doing is learning. not that you learn first, and then do afterwards. |
If there is the idea first, and then action, in that there is contradiction and therefore conflict. But if acting is learning, then there is a constant process of understanding in which there is no conflict and no contradiction whatsoever. We also said that to learn is to have a silent mind, there must be a silence, a stillness which is not induced, which is not put together by thought in order to acquire silence. |
But invariably, if there is intensity and attention, in everything we do, there comes that quality of silence from which learning and acting take place. We said also that it is very essential to understand contradiction; and contradiction within ourselves will always exist as long as there is a centre, the censor, the observer who is judging, evaluating, creating images, and so on. We were inquiring into what that centre is; we were examining the whole structure of the positive, directive activity of a centre that is always guiding shaping, controlling, changing. |
Since this state of silence seems to be a precondition to everything, would you please describe it in terms of what you do not mean by the word? What kind of activity do you not mean by silence? Approach it that way. |
I wonder if we can't approach the whole issue differently. I think most of us are aware that we are in a state of contradiction. One doesn't have to go into the details of that contradiction. |
Because that contradiction causes pain, various forms of destructive activity, one says to oneself, "Is it possible to be free of all contradiction, not only conscious but also unconscious contradiction?". That is the principal question. I want to learn about it. |
I do not want you to tell me what silence is, or what it is not, but I want to understand, I want to learn in the very process of observation. I observe that I am in a state of contradiction; and also I know very well that as long as there is a centre, a form, an image, whatever it may be, it will always breed contradiction. Then what is the mind to do? |
How is it to learn about contradiction without creating another centre which would in turn become a further source of contradiction? I see that I must have a certain passive, quiet, still awareness in order to learn, in order to understand anything. That passive awareness is not a thing which I can cultivate. |
To understand this vast stream of life which is myself, with my various centers - business, spiritual, family - is the act of silence itself. What is this You are not going to cultivate it by listening to me; getting a pattern of silence, or of what silence is not, and then working up in it and capturing the silence - you never can do that, obviously. What is this silence? |
Can it be described? If it is described, either positively or negatively, there is still an observer, there is still a centre which looks at it as silence; that centre creates contradiction by saying "How am I to cultivate that silence?". First of all, are we clear that the mind must be somewhat quiet if it would listen to that stream, if it would look at a tree, if it would look at another's face? |
To look, to listen, to learn, there must be a certain quiet, there must be a certain passive attention not a blankness, not a determined quietness, nor a cultivated quietness. If we inquire what that silence is, what that quietness is, we'll invent images, symbols, words, which become the centre. What is this quietness? |
What is the nature and the structure of the silence itself, not the structure of the words which describe the silence? Please, again let's be very clear. You are not listening to me, trying to understand me, the speaker. |
The speaker is not at all important. What is important is to understand the nature and the structure of the mind which is quiet, and out of that quietness to learn and act. The learning is the acting. |
We have used three silence or stillness, passive attention and negation. What do we mean by a passive mind? To understand the nature of the passive mind, we must understand what we consider to be positive. |
The positive is not in contrast to the passive. If the negative, passive state is the opposite of the positive, there is a contradiction, and therefore it is not passive or negative. What constitutes, or what is the structure of, or what is the nature of a mind that is always functioning in the positive? |
Shall we describe the things that constitute the positive, or shall we come to the essence of it? Shall we describe in detail the positive mind that follows, that accepts, that obeys, that creates authority and therefore fear, that is always looking for someone to tell what it should do, that lives and has its being in experience as knowledge? No. |
Wait, please. You are so impatient. Shall we go through all the detailed description, - and it may be necessary, because we haven't really understood - or shall we come to the essence of what a positive mind is? |
If you say, "Yes, get to the essence as quickly as possible", you will not have understood the nature and the structure of a positive mind. But if you have understood, examined, approached, learned about the positive mind, then you would put to yourselves the question of what the essence of it is. Our minds, our brains, our whole organisms are the result of time. |
During the course of time the mind has established certain patterns of behaviour, conduct, thought, activity; and the pattern, the formula, is the positive. Am I working and finding it out, and you are listening and accepting, or are we working together, with you finding it out also? If we are working together, there is a learning together about what wee call a positive mind, a mind which is aggressive, which is assertive, which is dominating, and which, Because it dominates, accepts being dominated. |
It functions within the pattern of knowledge because it wants to be sure. So the essence of a positive mind is a demand for security at any price, for complete security, not only outwardly, but also very deeply inwardly; for something which will give it permanency. I've just learned, the mind has just learned that as long as it is seeking and therefore finding permanency, security, certainty in relationship, in activity, in anything, the seeking and the finding make up the essence of a positive mind. |
Is there a way to suppress contradiction in the positive mind? Sir, you're not even listening! Look, please, I understand what you are saying. |
I am not trying to deviate from it. We are trying to find out, and learn; in the very finding is the learning; not that I find, and then act. We are trying to learn about the nature and the structure of the positive mind; and after examining the details, I see. |
I may be wrong. Don't accept what we are talking about as the final word of the oracle that speaks, or the authority - this mind finds that as long as there is a seeking, which means finding, that state of seeking and finding is the essence of the positive mind, which does not mean that the negative mind does not seek, does not find, does not do. Excuse me, sir, while we are in the present state, the present level of consciousness, isn't any question we ask a positive question? |
Why shouldn't we think and function positively? What is wrong with that? If we find that it is not worthwhile, if we find that it does not clear up our confusion, we will then look for something else; but if we accept the positive way of life, which is, "I will", "I will not", according to the image which has been created through pleasure - which means the avoidance of pain, though the cultivation of pleasure breeds pain - from that image we determine to be or not to be, to do or not to do. |
This positive, assertive, directive, determined pursuit of seeking and finding in itself creates contradiction. As long as we do not learn about it, we will not come upon any other way of functioning. When we look at life with a positive outlook, with a positive mind, we divide life into the "me" and the "not-me." |
The positive approach to life breeds competition, because the positive approach inherently is to seek and to find, and therefore there must be competition, aggressiveness. Can a positive mind know what affection is, what love is? A positive mind demands experience. |
Because it is tired of all the experiences it has had, it seeks out new experiences. When they are not sufficiently acute, strong, then through imagination it creates experiences, visions; and if that too does not satisfy, then it takes to drugs, not only marijuana, but stronger forms of opium, the derivatives of opium and LSD. Through these drugs it induces negative state of mind, which has certain experiences through stimulation, but such a mind is still a positive mind, seeking experience. |
What is wrong with having wider and deeper and stronger experiences? What is wrong with self-created experiences, projections from one's own conditioned mind, longing, seeking, searching, wanting? That's the way we live. |
There is a dependence on drugs, whether the particular drug be drink, sex, amusement, going to church or attending mass with all its rituals. A mind which is seeking to escape from a past, which has been cultivated through experience, into the future must inevitably be in conflict. A mind that is seeking, experiencing, wanting more experience, is always in a state of contradiction. |
We see the nature and the structure of a positive mind. It is aggressive, competitive, jealous, vain, superstitious, ambitious and in despair. It seeks and therefore finds. |
It is dissatisfied with what it has found and wants more, because it wants to reach a certain point of eminence, or excellence, where it can be undisturbed and certain. Our concern is to find out if the mind can be free from contradiction, not temporarily, not for a certain period, but completely free. It is only then that there can be clarity; and clarity is not something to be found. |
But I am discovering that a mind that is seeking may find a clarity which is merely self-created, and therefore within itself inherently contradictory. Such an activity can only produce more contradiction. It is only a mind that is completely negative that can be in a state of non-contradiction. |
I've learned it! No one has told me. I haven't read a book, I haven't been to a philosopher, I have no guru, teacher and all that silly nonsense. |
In doing I have learned, the mind has learned. So, a negative mind, the negative state, is not a contradiction of the other, is not the opposite of the positive. It is very important to understand this point. |
I may deny, sacrifice myself and reject property, money and fame, because I want to find God, truth or bliss. If I reject anything because I want something else, it is not really a rejection, it is part of the same movement. I look at something, a face, the movement of the river, a mountain, a tree. |
I look at something, and through that very observation there is an experiencing. Is that still a positive mind? I say it is. |
You are going to discover something if you pursue it, but as long as there is an experiencing, for whatever cause, it is still within the field of the positive. How will we get it? I have very carefully explained that you can't get it. |
(Laughter). Create it. You can't create it. |
Sir, look. When you understand that a particular snake is poisonous, you have understood the whole thing, haven't you? You move away from it. |
When you see poison, you don't drink it, because you see it is destructive. So, in understanding the positive, which is very complex, it isn't just a matter of saying, "Well, I've got it; it is a tremendous understanding. It means having a mind that has no authority, and therefore no experiencing as recognition. |
I see a beautiful face, and I experience pleasure. That pleasure has arisen through recognition of what I consider to be beautiful. The experience is through stimulation of a pleasure which I have established as beauty. |
By understanding the whole nature and structure of the positive mind, as I understand poison, my mind moves away from it totally. The mind doesn't have to do anything about it. If it does, there is a contradiction. |
But if the mind understands the poisonous nature of the positive, it automatically moves away into the so-called negative. Therefore, isn't that an experience of the negative? Oh, never. |
The mind has no experience of the negative. It has experience only within the field of the positive. This requires tremendous understanding. |
Subsets and Splits