Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
That is, the week is a measurement of time which is necessary to make the body a little more supple. Is it a fact that it takes? Is it a fact that takes place in time.
The fact that one's muscles are rather unyielding, it takes time to make them more supple, there needs to be time. The fact is the muscles are rather hard, not supple, and to make them so you need a week. The week is the measure, the week is time.
Right? Or to learn a language there needs to be time - two months, three months or six months. So to cover from a certain point to another point needs time, which is measure.
Now we apply the same measurement inwardly. I need time to get over a habit, I need time to stop smoking, I need time to conquer my anger, I need time in order to achieve a certain psychological result, I need time to find enlightenment, (laughs) I need time to get over my sorrow. So outwardly we apply the measure of time, and inwardly we do the same, psychologically.
Gradualness is accepted as a fact. Right? To put a machinery together it must be done gradually, I can't all of a sudden put it together.
Time is necessary, as a gradual process, in order to learn a language. Now I ask myself, and I suppose you must have, whether time as measurement exists at all and is there psychological evolution at all, evolution being time? The brain has evolved through centuries upon centuries, to come to this unfortunate point.
And it has evolved under great pressure, great uncertainty, calamities, pain, suffering. And it has achieved a certain result - it has evolved. And to have evolved up to this point you need time.
Right? To learn a technology one needs time. Now we are asking if time is necessary at all for psychological understanding, for being free of a habit, habit being the conditioning.
You are following all this? The mind, the brain is conditioned in the culture it has grown - religiously, psychologically, socially, economically, family and so on. That conditioning, does it need time to break it down, to go beyond it?
But understanding itself, or the insight, does not need time, although a lot of work is necessary to come to that point. Is insight time - does perception need time? Or time is not necessary for perception.
That's what the questioner says. No, that wasn't the question - I was saying that insight itself is instant but there's a lot of work necessary. Insight is instant but to carry it out needs time.
No, not to carry it out. To work it out. Look, sir, I'll make it very simple.
I have an insight that I shouldn't smoke, but it takes some time for the body to adjust itself because it has been drugged narcotically for many years, and it takes time to get over it. Is that what you were saying? The insight is instant but to come to the insight, that's what I think he wanted to say.
Ah, insight is instantaneous but to come to that insight needs time. Let's put it that way, he says. I am lazy, one is lazy.
And laziness prevents insight, obviously. Right? But being lazy, to dissipate that laziness needs time.
Right? To approach insight, the approach needs time. That's what I've understood from his question.
Sir, let us go slowly into this, because we can ask all kinds of questions a little later, but let's get this simple fact. I need time to learn a language, and I'm asking myself, and we're asking ourselves, whether time is necessary to bring about a radical revolution psychologically. Right?
What do you think? Let's the brain has been conditioned in the culture in which it has grown. Does that conditioning, the freedom of that conditioning, does it require time - time being, being conditioned it'll take some time, days, years, months, to be free of that conditioning.
Right? Now I'm asking, does it take time? Whatever takes place in time must cause more conditioning.
Whatever takes place in time must be more conditioning. Look sir, let's begin much one smokes, there is the habit of smoking - the abandonment of smoking, the giving it up, does it take time? I don't know, I don't smoke but tell me.
No. You say no. Why do you say no?
Because I did it. Because you did it. What is implied in that - the body has been accustomed, has acquired a habit of nicotine and the body demands it.
Though intellectually you may have decided to give up smoking, the body being accustomed or used to nicotine, demands it. So there is the bodily demand and the decision to give up smoking. Right?
So there is a conflict, isn't there? Right? And to overcome this conflict you say, I need time.
Are we meeting each other - please, let's get going, not let's stop at nicotine. (laughter) And is there a way of giving up totally smoking without this conflict? Conflict implies time, doesn't it?
The body, being used to nicotine, demands it. But the mind has said, 'How stupid, how dangerous it is to smoke, it will affect my heart - I won't do it.' So the decision and the fact, the fact being the body is used to nicotine, so there is conflict.
And to overcome that conflict you need time. So you say, 'I will gradually get over it.' Right?
Now I'm asking is there a way of dropping the habit totally without conflict, in which the body has accepted the fact? I wonder if you are meeting this. It seems to me that just as the body requires a week for its muscles...
Wait. First... I know this, sir, we know this - I'm trying... Enquire into it, don't assert anything.
My body is used to take nicotine, and the mind has said, 'No, I won't do it.' The body says, 'I must have more of it.' Now can the body be so intelligent that it sees the danger of it and drops it, doesn't demand it?
I wonder if you are meeting all this. (Long question in Italian) 'Nine years ago I used to smoke. I had this battle between the body and the decision.
And improvisamenti - I mean suddenly I dropped it'. Is it casually? Is it casual or there was an instant co-operation of the body with the perception.
We're going to... Sir, give a little time, please! - time in the sense, you are impatient, you want to get ahead. I want to go into it step by step.
It seems to me that in giving up smoking the conflict is not so much between the mind and the body as with the pain on the one hand and my decision to give up smoking, and the fact that I need to smoke as an escape. Yes, sir, yes, sir, all that is implied, sir. I want to find out if the body can also see as intelligently as the mind does, and give it up without the least friction.
You've understood my question? How is this to be done? Take any habit, doesn't matter what habit, and there is the momentum of the body, the momentum of the mind that says, I must give it up, or I am afraid to give it up because I'm escaping from a particular thing.
So can the body and the mind together see the fact and drop it? Go on, sir, discuss it. There is a separation between the mind and the body, therefore there is conflict.
'There is the separation between mind and body, that's why there is this conflict'. But the fact remains that nicotine has become a habit for the body, though the mind says, 'I will drop smoking.' There is this conflict.
This 'I' makes the conflict. Isn't it the 'I' that makes the conflict? Oh Lord, no, don't reduce everything to that - haven't you got habits?
And haven't you noticed, to break a habit it takes time? The decision, you are aware of the habit, and you know, all the rest of it, it takes time, doesn't it? And I'm asking, why is there not a complete perception by the body as well as by the mind, so that it's finished?
There's no doubt too that the nicotine causes some physical effect. But I wonder how much effect it really causes and is it perhaps possible that the mind or the whole body can cause conflict too. Of course, sir, of course, of course.
Sir, you're conditioned, aren't you? - as a Catholic, as a Christian, aren't you all? No?
All right, some are not, some are. Or you're conditioned in another way. Now take your conditioning, if you're aware of it, and see whether that conditioning can be dropped instantly.
Sir, it takes time, it takes time to make it, so it can't be dropped instantly. Sir, please, don't speculate. Sir, doesn't the word 'instant' imply time?
Oh, heavens! Look, everything, conveying through words implies time. Instantly may be two seconds or a millionth of a second, but let's go beyond that word, sir, if you don't mind.
Then why do you stay with nicotine when you know that to give up nicotine the body itself has its own metabolic process and will not give it up instantly. So why not go beyond nicotine? It is possible to stop smoking with no bad effects, but with a hard drug... Hard drugs, that is heroin and all the rest of it, the hard drugs have affected the body, the cells.
I wish we hadn't entered into the nicotine and the hard drugs, because that needs a lot of time. Right? I want to get at something much more deeply than that, sir.
Does the freedom from conditioning take time? May I say something? I was standing on a rock one day, there was lichen and rock and moss.
This may have taken a million years or a billion to grow, but it seemed to me that in that moment the lichen and I existed together. Is there anything in this? I don't know, sir.
I'm only concerned with one thing - I am conditioned, brought up in the culture in which I was born. That culture has conditioned me, with its illusions, superstitions, with its myths, with its gods, with its economic and social status. And I want to find out if my mind can drop that conditioning without conflict, without time.
I won't even use 'instantly', because then you'll say, instant is one millionth of a second. That's my concern. Right?
Because I see that is the most important thing in relationship, that's the most important thing in the world where human beings have to live, not to be conditioned. Please, is this simple? Can I go on?
Now, will it take time? That is, will it take time to see that I'm conditioned? And, the next step is, the decision to uncondition myself, and the effort involved in the unconditioning, and so on - all that is a progression in time.
Right? I want to find out if it can be done without time. Go on, sir.
Don't say it is possible, it is not possible - don't theorise about it, find out for yourself you're conditioned - to find that out, does it take time? It will take time if I tell you you're conditioned - please listen to this - if I tell you that you are conditioned, then you accept the fact that you are conditioned, or disagree, or argue, and decide later that you are conditioned - you follow? - all that implies time.
But if you yourself see directly that you're conditioned, that doesn't take time. To see for yourself that you're hungry, it's a fact, you're hungry. But to be told that you are hungry, you say, 'Am I really hungry?'
You evade the question - 'How do you know I'm hungry?' Does my face show it, my behaviour? and so on - you take time.
To be told that you're hungry and then say, 'I'm hungry' takes time, but to see for yourself, to be aware for yourself that you're hungry needs no time. Right? That's one fact - is that clear?
Proceed, sir. It doesn't take time to see one single factor of conditioning, but each moment is linked by thought, we don't see the totality of it. Sir, you've gone ahead of me - come back where I am, which is, I said, to be told that you are conditioned and then be aware that you are conditioned takes time.
Right? But to be aware of conditioning it needs no time. Now what is it with you?
The speaker has said you are conditioned, and therefore you realise you are conditioned. And that realisation comes through time - verbal message, arguing, disagreeing, but all that takes time. But to say, 'Yes, I'm conditioned,' that needs no time.
Now which is it with you? Go on, sir. Move from there!
(In Italian) Bene, bene, bene. 'I've already formed an opinion because you have said for many years that one must be free of the conditioning. And that doesn't need time.
So I have accepted that as an opinion - I don't know. So that opinion now I have formed and to break it down needs time'. Bene?
But if you are aware that you are conditioned, that needs no time. Look, sir, I say to you now, please listen very carefully, give your attention for two seconds, I say to you now, you are conditioned. How do you receive those words?
Do you see instantly that you're conditioned, or do you say, 'What do you mean by that? What's wrong with being conditioned, conditioning has helped to hold people together?' A myth, Jesus myth or any other myth has held people together for centuries.
Yes, sir, don't... Sir, wait, sir, wait one moment. It's an historical fact. So I say to you, 'Are you aware now, as you listen, that you're conditioned?'
Wait, please take a minute - are you aware? That has not taken time, has it? You see it.
Right? Then, go the next is that conditioning to be broken down bit by bit - you understand, sir? - layer after layer, fragmentarily, or is it to be broken down instantly - I mean not instantly, without time?
If one sees the reason for conditioning. Look, don't, please don't use the word 'if', 'when', those conditional clauses, then you'll never do it. Please listen to what I'm saying.
I say to you that you are conditioned. You see that fact - right? - without argument, without going all round it, say yes, that is so, it's so obvious.
Now my next question is, do you break down that conditioning fragmentarily or do you break it down totally? Just listen quietly. Our mind is used to breaking down bit by bit.
Right? (Translating the question) 'You put us in front of this problem. Our response to that problem is not adequate'.
I'm making your mind adequate to look at it - I'm helping you. Sir, stick to one thing. Sir, to say you are conditioned is wrong, you are wrong as you're saying it, because as you're saying it and see the conditioning and it's gone.
Sir, sir, sir, don't complicate it, sir. I say to you, are you aware of your conditioning? But you are conditioning.
No, sir, I've been through all that. I've been through all that. I'm asking you now, are you aware of your conditioning now?
That's all, sir - skip the words. Just what do you mean by, 'am I aware of my conditioning' - could you tell me that? When I came into this tent and I looked at you and I had a sort of hardness in my eyes, and I said, I'm being conditioned by Krishnamurti.
Now when I saw that, was that being aware of my conditioning? Yes, sir obviously. Now you are aware of your conditioning as being competitive.
Will it take time to be free of that conditioning, of that particular conditioning. Sir, when you say free, do you mean never do it again? I mean, free means never again.
Please, listen to when you see a poisonous snake, you're always careful, aren't you?, after that. You're free to face danger, and to know what to do. Right?
I am asking if you are aware of your conditioning as being competitive. When you are aware of it, does it take time to be completely free of it? Go on, sir, help me.
(In Italian) Need I translate it? Yes? Somebody understands Italian and English - why don't they translate it?
I could try. I'll do it, sir, I'll do it. I want to go ahead - we are sticking at such small things.
But all right, sir - what did you say? (laughs) (In Italian) It's terribly hot here, isn't it? What M. Ortalani is saying is - I'll put it very briefly, sir, correct me if I'm wrong - that if I am aware of one conditioning, a particular conditioning, does it mean that I comprehend the total conditioning?
Through a particular conditioning, will that make me aware of the total? Right? So, I am aware that I am competitive, and does that awareness free the mind from all competition hereafter, there is no competition in my nature at all?
I'm taking that one thing, for the moment. And the next question through a particular perception, will it reveal the whole structure of conditioning? I'll come back to that.
That is, I am aware that I am conditioned to be competitive, will that awareness free the mind from all competitiveness, or will it take time - you follow? - to be free of that particular conditioning? Right?
Stick to that one question, sir, please. I am aware that I am competitive and I say to myself, I know I am competitive, I see the effects of it in the world, logically, it's most destructive, it leads ultimately to war, both economically, socially and so on, I see, intellectually, verbally, I see very clearly the structure and the nature of competition. And does that wipe away altogether competition from my nature?
Wait, wait. I'm asking you. Or do I need time to wipe it away?
Right, sir? Stick to that. Were you aware that you are competitive because you were told?
No. Because you are competitive you are aware. Then what is the next step?
We're all competitive, it isn't only that gentleman - everybody is competitive in some way or another, wanting bigger, better, nobler - you follow? - this whole momentum of competition, which is really measurement. What is the next step when you are aware of it?
Does that awareness wipe away competition from you? Apparently not. Why not?
That means, you are not aware, as you are aware of a poisonous snake. When you see a poisonous snake your body, your mind, your emotions, altogether move away. Right?
So you only perhaps saw - I'm not criticising you, sir - perhaps you, many of us only saw intellectually that you're competitive. But the snake is outside, that is not competitiveness inside. Yes, sir, yes, sir - both outside and inside.
I am competitive, one is competitive - do you see it completely, or do you see it partially? Like the nicotine, if you can't see it poisoning you, you can't stop. Like nicotine, it can't stop, it's poisoning you and you go on smoking.
No, you must feel the poisoning, you must not only think it. That's right, sir, not you must, do you - don't preach to me. Yes, I must, I do.
Do you, when you see competitiveness and realise that it is poisonous, drop it altogether? If you don't, why don't you, is it that you see intellectually, verbally, that competitiveness is ugly, and you haven't related it to your heart, heart in the sense, feeling, you don't feel it? You verbally state it but without any content behind those words.
If there is a content behind those words, which is, that you feel very strongly that competitiveness is destructive - you follow? - if you see it, it is finished. Sir, who are the selves that are competitive?
It's measuring. Yes, I understand that, sir. If... Not 'if', madam.
Either you do see it, understand it totally, or you don't. Wait - the lady says, either you see it, feel it, understand it totally or you don't. Right?