eliwill/krishnamurti_discussions · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 1.33k
Or is there a part of me... a part of the mind that says, I am aware that I'm totally in conflict, or is there part of me watching conflict? Or is there part of me wishing to be free of conflict? Which means is there any fragment which says, 'I am not in conflict'?
Or is there any fragment which separates itself from the totality of conflict? If there is a separate fragment, that's is all foolery, then that fragment says, 'I must act', 'I must do', 'I must suppress', 'I must go beyond'. So is the mind - please, this is a legitimate question, this - is the mind totally aware that there is only conflict?
That is your question. Right? It would seem that the mind measures itself, as you say, and calls it conflict, but the true conflict is...
Yes, sir, that's what we are saying. Is your mind totally aware that there is nothing but conflict? Or is there a fragment which keeps away a little part and say, 'Yes I know I am aware I am conflict.
But I am not in conflict, but I know'? So, is conflict a fragment, or total? I will keep to the same word, only put a different word for the time-being - is there total darkness or a slight light somewhere?
If that light were not there can there be awareness? I don't know anything about it - I'm asking you. I am asking you.
Don't ask me that question. When there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is conflict. Yes.
Therefore, the mind, is it ever aware - just listen - ever aware that it is total conflict? And Pupul says yes. It can refuse... You see, you are getting into words... No, no.
I'm not trying to trip you. I refuse to move away. I have not moved away.
Therefore I don't know anything about total conflict. Therefore you only know partial conflict. Whether partial or... No, that is important.
(Inaudible) Why? The fact is the conflict which is. And I say, can there be a refusal to move away?
I'm not moving away; I haven't moved away. I haven't really moved away from silence, harmony, or conflict. (Inaudible) I think it is an important question, because...
The very awareness of the mind indicates that there is a fragment. That's all. Therefore then you say partially I am in conflict, therefore you are never with conflict.
No, sir. A total conflict cannot know itself, unless there is something else to know it. We're going to go into that, a little bit.
I am not making myself clear. I mean conflict is not... (inaudible) When you say 'total', it fills the mind. When the house is... when the room is full of furniture - I am just taking... forgive this wrong example, a better example you may think of - when the room is full of furniture there is no space to move.
I would consider that utter confusion - you follow? - state of... Wait, wait, I am just...
I am not finished. Is my mind so totally full of this confusion, so that it has no movement away from this? Yes.
If it is so completely full of confusion, conflict and full of this furniture is in the room, then what takes place? That's what I want to get at, not a partial this and partial that and... When the steam is full it must do something - explode.
And I do not think we look at this confusion so totally, this conflict so totally. You see, there is a misunderstanding created when you say, you don't look, you don't see. I was very careful in those words.
Could I use a sorrow? May I? There is no moving away from sorrow.
When you move away from sorrow then it is just, you know, escape from it, or suppressing - I won't even go into all that. Can one be full of sorrow - not 'can one' - is there such a thing as being full of sorrow? Is there such thing as being completely happy?
When you are so aware that you are completely happy, it is no longer happy. In the same way when you are so completely full of this thing called confusion, sorrow, conflict, it is no longer there. It's only there when there is division.
That's all. No, sir. Then it seems to be a hopeless problem because there is always this... That's why, remain with the truth of the thing, not with the conclusion of the thing.
The truth of the thing is, until the mind is complete with something it cannot but create conflict. If I love you and there is attachment in it, it is contradiction and therefore no love. So I say remain with the fact of that thing, don't introduce all the rest of it.
If I know my mind is... Is the mind totally... full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away till that is so. Krishnaji, there is one peculiarity about your approach.
When you draw a picture there is always a clear black outline of it, the colours don't match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other. No, this to me is very clear.
This to me is very clear. That very clarity is... This to me is very clear.
If there is... If the heart is full of love, and there is no part of envy in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is jealous then the whole problem arises.
When it is full of jealousy... Ah - therefore remain with it. Remain with that full of envy, be envious, you know, feel it. Then its total nature undergoes... ...a tremendous change.
No division. No, in itself it undergoes... Of course, that's what I'm saying. It's when you say, 'I'm envious and I must not be', somewhere in the dark corner, the educational restraint, then something goes wrong.
But to say, 'Yes, I am envious', and don't move from that. Moving is rationalising, suppress - all that. Just remain with that feeling.
The rationalistic say 'Without repentance, no salvation'. I don't repent. I don't want to be saved.
What is the difference between your being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict? Oh, oh, oh. Repentance means there is a repenter.
There is an entity who repents, who regrets. I must stop. Being with jealousy, feeling it fully.
No, don't feel it. If you are jealous, don't... You are just jealous. Then that is not perception.
That is perception. That can break down. Oh, no, sir.
That can break down only when you are trying to suppress it, go beyond it, rationalise it, and all the rest of it. But it's so simple. When you are in a mess are you not sorry for yourself?
Good god no. That is the after- 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess, see it, don't move away from it.
That is already after-thought. The very idea of not moving away is after-thought. I'm saying that.
You're repeating. Time is merciless. This is merciless.
All the rest is playing tricks. When there is sorrow, be completely with it. There is no time in the now.
There is no time in the now. In the now there is not a moment... I don't know what you are talking...
I'm talking about sorrow, not time. My son is dead, don't look at the beggar in there, I am full of sorrow. I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose.
I'm in it. I won't move an inch from it. An action takes place, in that place?
Sir, action has taken... When you are with something, action has taken place. I don't have to do something.
A total action has taken place, which is the ending of that sorrow. How can we have tranquillity when the beggar is there... Sir, sir, sir... Remove it.
Feel sorrow and... (inaudible) If you have not done anything about the beggar. Tranquillity is the ending of sorrow. Is it the acceptance of sorrow?
No. It's the same then as the worshipping of sorrow. No, no, no.
Of course it is. If you accept sorrow as a... Worshipping sorrow is also a form of accepting sorrow. Don't place it in it.
You have no business to use 'worship' in it. Acceptance is not worship. Why should I accept it?
I accept my crippled child without worshipping my crippled child. No, why should I accept it? It is like that.
I am here and sorrow is here. You have to live together. Acceptance implies an accepter.
Anything implies an operator. Anything implies an operator. Except sorrow.
(Inaudible) Be with violence. Will not there be a destruction with that violence? No, that means you are moving away from the fact.
Sir, when you are violent, be completely with it, which means, doing something violently is a moving away from violence. You've got it? Because you have moved away.
Suppressing violence is also moving away, or trying to overcome violence, it is still moving away. (Inaudible) No. The state of violence, you know it, you don't have to be.
A distinction can be made, not be violent, but be with violence. Yes. Live with it, be with it, not be violent.
Of course, we are violent, we don't have to be with it. (Laughs) This is not a talk by me but a dialogue between us. A dialogue is a conversation between two people who are interested in the same thing, and fairly serious, and who are not merely expressing their opinions, but rather penetrating much more deeply beyond the mere casual opinions.
I think that's what the meaning of that word 'dialogue' is. I think that word is better than discussion. You know, if we could during these seven days investigate and penetrate much more deeply, in detail, any of the issues that we have.
And that needs a seriousness, not a casual, superficial interest. So what shall we talk about together this morning? (Inaudible) Sometimes there is a conflict between emotion and the intellectual reasoning.
Reasoning. Could we talk about the meaning of life as action and relationship? I would like to talk about jealousy.
Jealousy is a distortion of love, and if it is can we find love without jealousy? Jealousy seems to be related somewhat to love and if there is no jealousy how do we come upon that thing called love? (Inaudible) How can we observe, and as we generally do with observer, how can we observe without the observer?
Yes sir, is that the question? Yes madam? (Inaudible) Some people say they find that reality, or that strange thing, through drugs.
Now what shall we talk about after all these questions? Which do you think is the most important? We have conflict between reason and emotion; what is the meaning of life and its relationship to action and relationship; what is it to observe without the observer, but we always seem to observe with the observer; is the experience that one has through drugs the same as the experience of reality?
Now which among those - did I leave out one, I think I did. The jealousy one. We know jealousy is related to love, and without jealousy what is love?
Now which of these do you think is most important so that we can discuss it, talk it over? (Inaudible) Learning how to look. Learning how to look.
Do you want to talk about that? Yes? Right.
Sorry madam, we will perhaps answer your question later. How to observe without the observer, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and what is the structure and the nature of the observer? Right, that's what we are going to talk over together.
How does one observe? How do you listen? Let's begin with that very simply.
Here you are sitting there, and the speaker here, and when you hear a question of this kind, what is your reaction to it? How do you hear that question? Please, let's go into it a little bit.
How do you listen to this question? The question the observer, the observed, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and what is the observer? That is the question.
Now you listen to that question and what is your reaction to it? How do you listen to it? Do you listen to find an answer; do you listen to see if you are observing anything as an outsider who is looking in; and do you interpret that question according to your knowledge?
So how do you listen to that question? Please just give a little attention to this. I heard that and I had no reaction to it.
I just heard it. Then I am going to investigate it. I don't hear and then form a conclusion and according to that conclusion investigate.
Do you see the difference? Please, I am not talking. During these seven days I am not talking.
We are, as friends, talking, going into this matter amicably, intelligently exploring. Most of us when we hear a question of that kind are apt to translate that question and draw an abstraction from that question - an abstraction being to abstract, to draw a statement, a factual statement into an idea. The idea is an abstraction.
Most of us are inclined when we listen to a question of this kind to draw a conclusion which is an abstraction. Or you merely listen without any conclusion, then the mind is capable of investigating further. But if you draw a conclusion, an abstraction, an idea, you block yourself from further investigation.
Right, is that clear? So what are we doing? Are we saying, 'I don't understand, this is an impossible question, what does it mean?'
So one has to hear that statement very clearly. The statement what is the observer, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed, and is it possible to observe without the observer? Those are the things involved in that question.
If I say to myself, 'No I can never observe without the observer', I have blocked myself. So I must listen to that question without any reaction. Right?
Just listen. Then let's proceed. What is the relationship between the observer and the observed?
What is the observer? So let's begin investigating what is the observer. Right?
Go on sirs, what is the observer? I think your question, madam, will be answered about, what is the meaning of life and its relationship to action, and the relationship between people. It comes to the same thing.
Which is, who is the observer that is always watching, always listening, always translating, asserting, dominating, choosing, discarding, asserting, aggressive? Who is this observer? The 'me'.
The 'me'. What sir? The memory.
The memory. Let's go slowly into it. Otherwise we shan't penetrate very deeply.
You say it is the 'me', memory. What do you mean by memory? The brain.
Madam, just... You have a memory, haven't you, of being hurt, or the memory of guilt, the memory of failure, the memory of frustration, the memory of jealousy. Now what is that memory? Look, sir, you call me an idiot.
I won't call you, you call me! Now what has taken place? I hear those words, I translate those words, and the memory, or the image I have about myself, that image is hurt, isn't it?
Right? That image has been created by me, by a series of incidents which has given me the image which says, 'I am a great man', or 'I am this'. And you call me an idiot and I don't like it, I am hurt.
The image is hurt. Right? And that hurt is part of the image which is created by thought, that thought is the response of memory.
Right? So the memory says, 'I have been hurt'. The image, the memory, the greater image of myself as being somebody, and that image has been hurt.
That has left a mark on my mind. So when I meet you next time you are my enemy, I don't like you. Right?
So when you say, memory, there are a thousand memories we have - conscious as well as unconscious memories. So memory is the past. There is no memory now, or in the future.
The memory that operates now is the memory of the past. That memory of the past acting now in relationship distorts observation. Right?
Please, is this clear? I am not talking, we are discussing. I must keep this always in mind, otherwise I will become a...
I will talk, which I don't want to do. So the past, the memory, the image, the hurt is the observer. Right?
Do, please. I am a Hindu, or a Catholic, or a communist, or whatever it is, and that has been drilled into me from childhood, that has become a memory. And that memory, that conditioning is the past.
The past - wait sir, wait sir, one moment. We will come to it sir - that past dictates or reacts to any incident in the present. That's all.
Now, sir, what do you object to? (Inaudible) Are we sure that memory is the past? Are you sure?

Or is there a part of me... a part of the mind that says, I am aware that I'm totally in conflict, or is there part of me watching conflict? Or is there part of me wishing to be free of conflict? Which means is there any fragment which says, 'I am not in conflict'?

Or is there any fragment which separates itself from the totality of conflict? If there is a separate fragment, that's is all foolery, then that fragment says, 'I must act', 'I must do', 'I must suppress', 'I must go beyond'. So is the mind - please, this is a legitimate question, this - is the mind totally aware that there is only conflict?

That is your question. Right? It would seem that the mind measures itself, as you say, and calls it conflict, but the true conflict is...

Yes, sir, that's what we are saying. Is your mind totally aware that there is nothing but conflict? Or is there a fragment which keeps away a little part and say, 'Yes I know I am aware I am conflict.

But I am not in conflict, but I know'? So, is conflict a fragment, or total? I will keep to the same word, only put a different word for the time-being - is there total darkness or a slight light somewhere?

If that light were not there can there be awareness? I don't know anything about it - I'm asking you. I am asking you.

Don't ask me that question. When there is a fragmentation of the mind, that very fragmentation is conflict. Yes.

Therefore, the mind, is it ever aware - just listen - ever aware that it is total conflict? And Pupul says yes. It can refuse... You see, you are getting into words... No, no.

I'm not trying to trip you. I refuse to move away. I have not moved away.

Therefore I don't know anything about total conflict. Therefore you only know partial conflict. Whether partial or... No, that is important.

(Inaudible) Why? The fact is the conflict which is. And I say, can there be a refusal to move away?

I'm not moving away; I haven't moved away. I haven't really moved away from silence, harmony, or conflict. (Inaudible) I think it is an important question, because...

The very awareness of the mind indicates that there is a fragment. That's all. Therefore then you say partially I am in conflict, therefore you are never with conflict.

No, sir. A total conflict cannot know itself, unless there is something else to know it. We're going to go into that, a little bit.

I am not making myself clear. I mean conflict is not... (inaudible) When you say 'total', it fills the mind. When the house is... when the room is full of furniture - I am just taking... forgive this wrong example, a better example you may think of - when the room is full of furniture there is no space to move.

I would consider that utter confusion - you follow? - state of... Wait, wait, I am just...

I am not finished. Is my mind so totally full of this confusion, so that it has no movement away from this? Yes.

If it is so completely full of confusion, conflict and full of this furniture is in the room, then what takes place? That's what I want to get at, not a partial this and partial that and... When the steam is full it must do something - explode.

And I do not think we look at this confusion so totally, this conflict so totally. You see, there is a misunderstanding created when you say, you don't look, you don't see. I was very careful in those words.

Could I use a sorrow? May I? There is no moving away from sorrow.

When you move away from sorrow then it is just, you know, escape from it, or suppressing - I won't even go into all that. Can one be full of sorrow - not 'can one' - is there such a thing as being full of sorrow? Is there such thing as being completely happy?

When you are so aware that you are completely happy, it is no longer happy. In the same way when you are so completely full of this thing called confusion, sorrow, conflict, it is no longer there. It's only there when there is division.

That's all. No, sir. Then it seems to be a hopeless problem because there is always this... That's why, remain with the truth of the thing, not with the conclusion of the thing.

The truth of the thing is, until the mind is complete with something it cannot but create conflict. If I love you and there is attachment in it, it is contradiction and therefore no love. So I say remain with the fact of that thing, don't introduce all the rest of it.

If I know my mind is... Is the mind totally... full of this sorrow, this confusion, this conflict? I won't move away till that is so. Krishnaji, there is one peculiarity about your approach.

When you draw a picture there is always a clear black outline of it, the colours don't match. In reality there are no outlines, there are only colours merging into each other. No, this to me is very clear.

This to me is very clear. That very clarity is... This to me is very clear.

If there is... If the heart is full of love, and there is no part of envy in it, the problem is finished. It is only when there is a part that is jealous then the whole problem arises.

When it is full of jealousy... Ah - therefore remain with it. Remain with that full of envy, be envious, you know, feel it. Then its total nature undergoes... ...a tremendous change.

No division. No, in itself it undergoes... Of course, that's what I'm saying. It's when you say, 'I'm envious and I must not be', somewhere in the dark corner, the educational restraint, then something goes wrong.

But to say, 'Yes, I am envious', and don't move from that. Moving is rationalising, suppress - all that. Just remain with that feeling.

The rationalistic say 'Without repentance, no salvation'. I don't repent. I don't want to be saved.

What is the difference between your being fully aware of the conflict and repenting the conflict? Oh, oh, oh. Repentance means there is a repenter.

There is an entity who repents, who regrets. I must stop. Being with jealousy, feeling it fully.

No, don't feel it. If you are jealous, don't... You are just jealous. Then that is not perception.

That is perception. That can break down. Oh, no, sir.

That can break down only when you are trying to suppress it, go beyond it, rationalise it, and all the rest of it. But it's so simple. When you are in a mess are you not sorry for yourself?

Good god no. That is the after- 'I wish I wasn't in a mess'. When you are in a mess, be in a mess, see it, don't move away from it.

That is already after-thought. The very idea of not moving away is after-thought. I'm saying that.

You're repeating. Time is merciless. This is merciless.

All the rest is playing tricks. When there is sorrow, be completely with it. There is no time in the now.

There is no time in the now. In the now there is not a moment... I don't know what you are talking...

I'm talking about sorrow, not time. My son is dead, don't look at the beggar in there, I am full of sorrow. I don't have to invent sorrow, there it is, right in front of my nose.

I'm in it. I won't move an inch from it. An action takes place, in that place?

Sir, action has taken... When you are with something, action has taken place. I don't have to do something.

A total action has taken place, which is the ending of that sorrow. How can we have tranquillity when the beggar is there... Sir, sir, sir... Remove it.

Feel sorrow and... (inaudible) If you have not done anything about the beggar. Tranquillity is the ending of sorrow. Is it the acceptance of sorrow?

No. It's the same then as the worshipping of sorrow. No, no, no.

Of course it is. If you accept sorrow as a... Worshipping sorrow is also a form of accepting sorrow. Don't place it in it.

You have no business to use 'worship' in it. Acceptance is not worship. Why should I accept it?

I accept my crippled child without worshipping my crippled child. No, why should I accept it? It is like that.

I am here and sorrow is here. You have to live together. Acceptance implies an accepter.

Anything implies an operator. Anything implies an operator. Except sorrow.

(Inaudible) Be with violence. Will not there be a destruction with that violence? No, that means you are moving away from the fact.

Sir, when you are violent, be completely with it, which means, doing something violently is a moving away from violence. You've got it? Because you have moved away.

Suppressing violence is also moving away, or trying to overcome violence, it is still moving away. (Inaudible) No. The state of violence, you know it, you don't have to be.

A distinction can be made, not be violent, but be with violence. Yes. Live with it, be with it, not be violent.

Of course, we are violent, we don't have to be with it. (Laughs) This is not a talk by me but a dialogue between us. A dialogue is a conversation between two people who are interested in the same thing, and fairly serious, and who are not merely expressing their opinions, but rather penetrating much more deeply beyond the mere casual opinions.

I think that's what the meaning of that word 'dialogue' is. I think that word is better than discussion. You know, if we could during these seven days investigate and penetrate much more deeply, in detail, any of the issues that we have.

And that needs a seriousness, not a casual, superficial interest. So what shall we talk about together this morning? (Inaudible) Sometimes there is a conflict between emotion and the intellectual reasoning.

Reasoning. Could we talk about the meaning of life as action and relationship? I would like to talk about jealousy.

Jealousy is a distortion of love, and if it is can we find love without jealousy? Jealousy seems to be related somewhat to love and if there is no jealousy how do we come upon that thing called love? (Inaudible) How can we observe, and as we generally do with observer, how can we observe without the observer?

Yes sir, is that the question? Yes madam? (Inaudible) Some people say they find that reality, or that strange thing, through drugs.

Now what shall we talk about after all these questions? Which do you think is the most important? We have conflict between reason and emotion; what is the meaning of life and its relationship to action and relationship; what is it to observe without the observer, but we always seem to observe with the observer; is the experience that one has through drugs the same as the experience of reality?

Now which among those - did I leave out one, I think I did. The jealousy one. We know jealousy is related to love, and without jealousy what is love?

Now which of these do you think is most important so that we can discuss it, talk it over? (Inaudible) Learning how to look. Learning how to look.

Do you want to talk about that? Yes? Right.

Sorry madam, we will perhaps answer your question later. How to observe without the observer, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and what is the structure and the nature of the observer? Right, that's what we are going to talk over together.

How does one observe? How do you listen? Let's begin with that very simply.

Here you are sitting there, and the speaker here, and when you hear a question of this kind, what is your reaction to it? How do you hear that question? Please, let's go into it a little bit.

How do you listen to this question? The question the observer, the observed, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and what is the observer? That is the question.

Now you listen to that question and what is your reaction to it? How do you listen to it? Do you listen to find an answer; do you listen to see if you are observing anything as an outsider who is looking in; and do you interpret that question according to your knowledge?

So how do you listen to that question? Please just give a little attention to this. I heard that and I had no reaction to it.

I just heard it. Then I am going to investigate it. I don't hear and then form a conclusion and according to that conclusion investigate.

Do you see the difference? Please, I am not talking. During these seven days I am not talking.

We are, as friends, talking, going into this matter amicably, intelligently exploring. Most of us when we hear a question of that kind are apt to translate that question and draw an abstraction from that question - an abstraction being to abstract, to draw a statement, a factual statement into an idea. The idea is an abstraction.

Most of us are inclined when we listen to a question of this kind to draw a conclusion which is an abstraction. Or you merely listen without any conclusion, then the mind is capable of investigating further. But if you draw a conclusion, an abstraction, an idea, you block yourself from further investigation.

Right, is that clear? So what are we doing? Are we saying, 'I don't understand, this is an impossible question, what does it mean?'

So one has to hear that statement very clearly. The statement what is the observer, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed, and is it possible to observe without the observer? Those are the things involved in that question.

If I say to myself, 'No I can never observe without the observer', I have blocked myself. So I must listen to that question without any reaction. Right?

Just listen. Then let's proceed. What is the relationship between the observer and the observed?

What is the observer? So let's begin investigating what is the observer. Right?

Go on sirs, what is the observer? I think your question, madam, will be answered about, what is the meaning of life and its relationship to action, and the relationship between people. It comes to the same thing.

Which is, who is the observer that is always watching, always listening, always translating, asserting, dominating, choosing, discarding, asserting, aggressive? Who is this observer? The 'me'.

The 'me'. What sir? The memory.

The memory. Let's go slowly into it. Otherwise we shan't penetrate very deeply.

You say it is the 'me', memory. What do you mean by memory? The brain.

Madam, just... You have a memory, haven't you, of being hurt, or the memory of guilt, the memory of failure, the memory of frustration, the memory of jealousy. Now what is that memory? Look, sir, you call me an idiot.

I won't call you, you call me! Now what has taken place? I hear those words, I translate those words, and the memory, or the image I have about myself, that image is hurt, isn't it?

Right? That image has been created by me, by a series of incidents which has given me the image which says, 'I am a great man', or 'I am this'. And you call me an idiot and I don't like it, I am hurt.

The image is hurt. Right? And that hurt is part of the image which is created by thought, that thought is the response of memory.

Right? So the memory says, 'I have been hurt'. The image, the memory, the greater image of myself as being somebody, and that image has been hurt.

That has left a mark on my mind. So when I meet you next time you are my enemy, I don't like you. Right?

So when you say, memory, there are a thousand memories we have - conscious as well as unconscious memories. So memory is the past. There is no memory now, or in the future.

The memory that operates now is the memory of the past. That memory of the past acting now in relationship distorts observation. Right?

Please, is this clear? I am not talking, we are discussing. I must keep this always in mind, otherwise I will become a...

I will talk, which I don't want to do. So the past, the memory, the image, the hurt is the observer. Right?

Do, please. I am a Hindu, or a Catholic, or a communist, or whatever it is, and that has been drilled into me from childhood, that has become a memory. And that memory, that conditioning is the past.

The past - wait sir, wait sir, one moment. We will come to it sir - that past dictates or reacts to any incident in the present. That's all.

Now, sir, what do you object to? (Inaudible) Are we sure that memory is the past? Are you sure?