Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
Why is it that we are not sufficiently interested, or sufficiently aware, or see the futility of division in ourselves outwardly, which causes conflict and misery? That is the question, isn't it? Shall we discuss that?
I wonder what you want to discuss. Please, let us talk over something which is really a problem to each one of us. What about the ending of thought?
Ending of thought. Is that a problem to you? No.
What is emotion? What is emotion. I thought we went into that the other day.
The desire to be certain about anything. Can we be certain about anything. Sir, sometimes I am watching my thought processes, or not watching them, I become aware of what I am doing and I see quite clearly but then I turn away from them.
There is a moment of clarity and then again there is confusion. I do not understand how clarity becomes confusion. Why it begins at all.
Well, sir, there are half a dozen things, which do you want to discuss, talk love, education, responsibility, ending of thought, all the machinery of thinking, why is it that we don't see the danger, the damage, the conflict, the wars that come about when there is division, both inwardly and outwardly. I wonder which is the best thing to take out of this and go at it. I think that question about the division between the observer and the observed.
Yes, I think so too. Shall we discuss, talk over this question of the observer and the observed - shall we? And perhaps then we can come to the question of ending of thought, love, education and all the rest of it.
Why is there this division between the perceiver and the perceived? I perceive the tree, the cloud, the person, all the politicians with their... whatever they are, and I see, I perceive both visually, psychologically, having an insight, that division as the perceiver and the perceived does bring conflict invariably, that is obvious. The perceiver is a Muslim, a Christian, a Communist and he separates himself from the non-communist, non-Catholic, non-something else and where there is division there must be conflict, both outwardly and inwardly, that is clear.
Right? And inwardly there is the division as the perceiver and the perceived. The perceiver sees he is angry, anger is something which he perceives, not at the moment of anger.
When the anger is over then the perceiver says, 'I have been angry'. So he creates the division between himself and the state of anger. And from that division arises control, suppression, justification and all the rest in order to justify or to deny anger - right?
And in this there is conflict - no? It is surely anger that created the division. At the moment of anger, sir, is there any division?
Not right at the moment, sir. That's all. A second later the thinker comes into operation.
He says, 'I have been angry', and when he says, 'I have been angry', he knows from past experience that he has been angry, and therefore he identifies from past memories the anger which is now, which is in the present. Haven't you noticed this? At the moment of jealousy, the intense feeling of jealousy, there is no separation, is there?
Or at the moment of great happiness you don't say, 'I have been happy' - in that state there is no division. It is only when a moment later, or a second later the division takes place - right? Shall we go on from there?
Now why does this division take place? I am jealous, at the moment of jealousy, at that second there is no division; at the moment of hate, at the moment of anger, at the moment of envy, there is no separation. A second later separation takes place - why?
Because of the memory. No, please, don't answer me. Find out for yourself why the separation takes place in each one of us.
Because we have been educated not to be angry. That's right, which is, not to be angry or to justify anger. Sometimes.
Yes, sometimes. Or justify jealousy. So the perceiver comes and says, 'My habit is not to be angry, I must not be angry'.
Right? No? So separation takes place when the past comes into action - no?
Not only the past but because of your imbalance. Put it any way you like - yes, all right. Imbalance takes place when the past with all its memories, with all its activities, with its experiences comes into operation and says, 'I must not be angry'.
No? Or justifies. That is the same thing.
Again you say, 'My anger is justified'. It may not only be the past that is concerned with the person who has been angry, he may be concerned with what the consequences of his anger are going to be in the future. Yes, which is still from the past.
But isn't it something from the past that created that moment of non-separation. Sir, look at it in yourself. At the moment of jealousy, or of anger, or of envy, or of hate, whatever it be, happiness, at that second there is no division, is there?
No, but if the thought, 'She doesn't love me', created that non-division, then it was something out of the past that created that non-separation. Yes, sir, that's what... I don't know if you are saying the same thing.
Yes but if someone is yelling and shrieking at you, really having a go at you, they get very angry with you, they are bawling at you. Right? They are throwing things all over the place.
What has that to do with what we are talking about, sir? Well the thing is when I leave here I won't be sitting in a nice, neat, tidy tent. We are trying to find out, sir, aren't we?
why there is this division in human beings, and how does this division come about; why there are so many fragments in us - anger, jealousy, competition, contradictions - those are all various fragments of which we are made up. And I am how do these fragments come into being? Not that somebody shouts at me, but I want to find out for myself why these fragments exist.
Is it education, the culture in which you have been brought up, the whole religious concept of god, the devil, the sinner, you know, all that? You were asking the other day how could one see without this fragmentation? That's right sir, that's right.
First of all to find out how to observe, how to have a mind that is not fragmented so that it can look without fragmentation at the fragmentation as it takes place. Right? That's what we are trying to find out.
Don't we know we are fragmented? Let's begin from there. Right?
Are we aware that we are fragmented? - the family, the nation, the ideals and 'what is', the suppressions, the controls, the business man, the artist, the military - you follow? - the church and so on, division - outwardly the nationalities, linguistically, and inwardly all these broken up entities that we are - are we aware of it, first?
Come on, sir. Yes, I see this. You see it.
Now just a minute. How do you see it? Let's go into it - please, if you are serious, let's go into it step by step.
When you say, 'I see it' - what do you mean by that word 'seeing'? Is it an intellectual concept? No.
Go slowly sir. I am not saying - we are enquiring. Is it an intellectual concept, an idea which you accept and you say, 'I see the idea, I see the concept', 'I understand verbally what you mean', which is intellectually, but that is not seeing, that is only accepting the words.
When you say, 'I see', it must be actual, it must be as actual as I see you sitting there and me sitting here, otherwise it is just an idea and therefore of no value. So when you say, 'I see I am fragmented', we must be very careful in the usage of that word. When I am hungry, I don't see I am hungry, I am hungry.
So in the same way, am I aware that I am fragmented? Only in the moment of a challenge. All right, only in the moment of a challenge.
We are challenging now. If the challenge is strong enough, if the challenge is important enough and if the challenge is urgent, a shock to you, then do you see it? Not as an idea, not as a concept, not as something somebody has told you, but actually you see it.
The moment that you are seeing it, it does not exist. Wait sir, wait, we'll come to it, go step by step. (Inaudible) You're is it an idea?
Please, this is really quite important - if you would give a little attention without answering me immediately. Which is, I have heard you say I am fragmented. What you say sounds reasonable, sounds true and I apply that to myself because I see the truth of what you are saying, so I say, 'Yes, I am fragmented', but I don't see it myself.
Right? So is it a discovery for myself that I am fragmented? A discovery - you understand?
Something which I have found, or I have found it because you have told me, then it becomes an idea. I don't quite understand the word 'fragmented'. Could you express it another way?
Broken up, contradictory, I say one thing and mean something else. I think I have an ideal and act the opposite, I say, 'I must be peaceful' and I am boiling with violence. I say, 'I must be charitable' and I am tight-fisted - whatever you like.
So am I aware that I am contradictory in myself? No, but you are aware of a kind of an alienation, a pain inside oneself, that is all. Yes, that is the same thing.
Sir, take an ideal which most people have, which is not 'what is', is it? 'What is', is entirely different from the ideal. Right?
Isn't that so? Do we call them ideals when we cannot see? No madam.
Look, I have an ideal that eventually we will all be brotherly, and in the meantime I am hating you. The ideal is over there, the fact is, I dislike, I hate. Right?
So what is important, the ideal or 'what is'? Come on sir. Obviously 'what is'.
So why do we have ideals? I have given them up. Good!
Sir, don't... Please sir, it is one of the most difficult things to face actually 'what is' without any distortion of the either the ideal which I have experienced in the past, which has established itself in my brain as memory, which says, 'I must not', and therefore I am not facing the fact. No, this is really a very complex problem if you want to go into it very seriously.
Which is, the division between the ideal and 'what is'. The ideal may be in the future, or the ideal has been in the past, which I have forgotten, which has established itself in my unconscious and acts, or prevents the perception of 'what is'. So when you understand this, this contradiction, and you say, 'How is the mind to be free of contradiction totally?'
- that is the real issue, not the observer and the observed, which we will come to later, or the perceiver and the perceived, but this quality of a mind in which there is contradiction. So I ask why does contradiction exist? One of the factors is ideals, obviously.
The other factor is measurement. If I am experiencing pain and I say, 'I don't like this'... Quite, the same thing sir. We said, ideals, which is 'I don't like it', 'I must not', 'I must be', or comparison.
Right? Which is measurement. As long as I am measuring myself, comparing myself with you who are more intelligent, bright and all the rest of it, there must be contradiction, from 'what is' and 'what I should be' - no?
Oh, come on sirs! So can the mind be free of all comparison? Isn't that an ideal?
No sir, no. No. I have explained.
We why does this division exist in the human mind? We say one of the factors for its existence is an ideal, either in the future, or deeply embedded in the unconscious. And one of the factors of this contradiction is comparison, measurement.
When I compare myself with you, you are important, not what is a fact. Right? When you compare in a school one boy against another boy, you are sacrificing, you are destroying B who is not so clever as A.
Right? These are all simple factors! So that is one of the reasons why this division exists.
This division exists also because we are educated in this. You are always comparing, in the business world, in the artistic world, in the world of psychology and in the world of religious organisations, there is the priest, the archbishop, bishop, you know - the racket of it all! Right?
So does this contradiction exist in me? Because as long as there is contradiction I am in conflict. Contradiction means division, division between the perceiver and the perceived.
Now having heard this, is it a fact to you? Which means can you put aside completely every form of ideal - both conscious ideals of which you are aware, and the unconscious, so that you are only facing every minute 'what is'? This is an extremely serious thing to do this, because then you have no illusion, then you are tremendously honest.
Right? Because you admit only the fact. If I lie, I lie - you follow?
If I am jealous, that is the fact. Not rationalise it, condemn it, or justify it. So when we see the fact you have tremendous energy to go beyond it.
I wonder if you see this. Because I'm getting... The thing is how we can see the fact.
Yes sir. You can't see the fact. The way you put the question for example, immediately my mind uses thought to discover what you are saying.
Yes, I understand, sir. It is not what I am saying. As I said sir, it is not important what the speaker is saying.
What is important is to use the speaker to find out if what he is saying is false or real, if what he is saying is actual, which is yourself, what is actually going on within you. So we use you as a mirror. Right, in a way, right, as a mirror, reflection - look at it.
Is it only when we stop striving to become... No madam, that is a different question, please listen to what I have said. Are you aware that in you there is this contradiction brought about by ideals, by comparison, by wanting to be something, are you aware of this, as something actual, as you are aware of pain? If you are not, why?
No, I am not aware of this as a fact. No, do please listen. The gentleman says, 'No, I am not aware of this as a fact' - don't you hear?
Is it you are not paying attention? Is it because you don't see the danger of it? You are afraid of the effect.
You are afraid what would happen if you stop comparing yourself with somebody else? We don't see the danger. Look, why don't you see the danger?
Could it be that we are dull? Wait, wait. Now, you say, could it be we are dull?
Now just look at it, just listen to this. How do you know you are dull? No.
How do you know you are dull? You only know you are dull because you are comparing yourself with somebody else. No, because I can't understand you.
Wait. Therefore say, 'I am not dull', don't say, 'I am dull', only 'I don't understand', which is entirely different. When you say, 'I am dull', you say it because you compare yourself with somebody who is clever, who is bright, who is intelligent and you say, 'My goodness, how dull I am'.
We are not talking of dullness, we are talking about a mind that says, 'I don't see the danger, I don't understand why contradiction isn't all right, I have lived with it for the last fifty, twenty, ten years and what is wrong with it?' Part of the difficulty is that at one level it is all right, and it is very difficult to switch that off when one is looking at something at a deeper level. Yes.
Good point. At one level, you say, comparison, measurement is necessary, obviously. When I am buying a house I must compare, when I am choosing between two cars I have to compare, and so on.
And this process of comparison is carried over psychologically to a deeper level. So the question why don't we carry this through, why don't we see where it is necessary and there end it? Why carry it in further?
You understand my question? Doesn't it help if we see that our psychological reactions which constitute 'what is' are mechanical? Ah, no sir.
No. Now look, look, they are not mechanical. May I go on with this?
I compare myself with somebody and in this comparison, measurement, inevitably contradiction comes. Right? Because I don't know what I am, but I am comparing myself with you, which means I must be like you, or go beyond you.
So I have created a contradiction in me. That is a fact. So I say to myself, 'Why do I compare, let me see if I can put aside comparison' - comparison, measurement is necessary at one level.
Right? We are not discussing that level. Let me see if I can put aside comparison.
Why do I want to put it aside? What is the motive behind my desire not to compare? Is it to be myself?
Right? Am I prepared to face myself, whatever it is - you are following all this? Which means I take facts only, whatever is me I am going to take it - fact.
Therefore - listen to this - in comparing myself with you who are cleverer, brighter, nobler, I am wasting the energy. Right? Now I have energy because I don't waste it through comparison, I have energy to observe 'what is', whatever that is.
Now what am I? I am one of the habits which is comparison. I don't know if you see this.
Do you see this? I have removed one habit - right? - which is comparison, and I have also put aside ideals, conscious as well as unconscious.
So I have energy now to face whatever it is, which is me. Are you following all this? Are we meeting with each other?
Now, I have got energy. What, sir? I am not clear about the levels, material and psychological.
No, we have said that sir. I have to choose, measure, compare between two materials when I buy a pair of trousers, I have to compare, measure when I am buying a house; I have to compare, measure when I am buying a car. (laughs) Right?
Now the same habit I carry through psychologically. In the field of psychology, which is myself, I say I am measuring myself with you who are bright. And I say to myself, 'Why do I do this?
Is this a habit, is it a part of my education, part of the culture, the society I live in?' If it is, it is rubbish, I won't measure myself. I want to find out.
Oh, come on sir. Is that clear so far? So I have got energy now.
You understand sir? I wasted that energy in comparing. Well I don't know what I am unless I compare myself with somebody.
I am going to find out sir, what am I? If I don't compare myself with you, who are a saint, who are the chief executive, who are the archbishop or whatever it is, a saint, your guru, or whatever, if I don't compare myself with you, what am I? I don't know.
Right? Isn't that a fact? I only knew myself in comparison with you.
Right? In comparing myself with you I have said, 'How dreadfully dull I am'. Right?