eliwill/krishnamurti_discussions · Datasets at Hugging Face

text stringlengths 12 1.33k
Sir, if you had no memory of the past what would happen? If I didn't know my name, where I lived, I lost my passport, what would happen? I would be in a state of amnesia, in a state of blank.
Memory is the result of experience, and knowledge. So memory is knowledge, experience, which is obviously the past. I met you yesterday, you were introduced to me, your name has been told to me.
So I meet you today and I recognise you. The recognition is born out of the memory which remained when you were introduced to me. That's simple enough, isn't it?
Are we sure that memory is the past? I have been hurt by you, the hurt is the past, which is the memory of your saying something to me which displeased me. So that's...
I think nobody... This is fairly clear. So the observer is the conditioned entity of memory, tradition, knowledge, experience.
So my conditioning as a Hindu, Buddhist, or Catholic, capitalist and so on and so on, my conditioning by the culture in which I have lived, that becomes the observer. And that observer is watching everything. So the past is choosing, discerning, translating, acting.
No? It's not what I say, please. It is reasonable.
Now what is the relationship of that observer to the observed? Right? Now what is the observed?
Is there such a thing as the observed different from the observer? Please go with me a little bit. I am asking what is the observed - is the observed independent of the observer?
You discuss, I'll listen for a while. (Inaudible) You say, it is the same - how do you know? (Inaudible) Sir, look, look.
I am asking you, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and is the observed different from the observer? Wait. Because this is very important to understand.
I'll go into a little bit; you will see. It is very important to understand whether the observer is different from the observed, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed, if there is a division between the observer and the observed, then there must be conflict, because any division produces conflict. So out of that conflict violence, all the rest of the things follow.
So I must be very clear in the understanding of this fact, whether the observer is different from the observed, and if the observer is not then what is the observed? Now, let's begin slowly. What is the observed?
Is it different from the observer? (Inaudible) That is, when you look at the mountain, the mountain is obviously different from you. I hope so!
Wait a minute madam. When I look at that microphone, obviously that is different from me - and the tree and so on and so on and so on. When I look at you, you are obviously different from me - you have brown hair, red hair, whatever it is, physically you are different.
Now let's go a little deeper. When I observe my jealousy, is jealousy different from the observer? (Inaudible) We have said that madam, we have been through that.
When I look at the mountain, the mountain is not the observer, when I look at the tree, the tree is not the observer, when I look at the flowing water, the water is not the observer. You are different from the observer, the 'me' who is looking at you, obviously. Now the next I am jealous.
Now is jealousy different from the observer? No. Be quite sure.
This is really important, please. Don't casually say, 'No'. The whole structure depends on this - the structure of living a totally different kind of life depends on it.
(In Italian) The moment I am aware that I am that jealousy, then jealousy ceases. But I am not asking that question. I am asking, is jealousy different from the observer.
Wait a minute, sir. The observer, I said, is the past. The observer, I said, is the experience, is the knowledge, which says, 'I am jealous'.
Right? So I am asking, is jealousy different from the observer? Jealousy is included in the observer.
Jealousy is included in the observer. So you are saying, jealousy is part of the observer. Is that right?
Don't be shy about it. Don't always be right, wanting to be right, I may be wrong too. So I am saying, I am asking, the observer says, 'I am jealous', is that jealousy different from the observer, or the observer is the observed in this case?
You understand? So the observer is jealousy. So there is not a difference between the observer and jealousy.
Now wait a minute, stop a minute there. (Inaudible) He says there is a division. There is a difference but there is no division.
There is a difference but no division. Look at the difficulty. There is a difference but no division.
(Inaudible) So, the whole is the part. The part is the whole. That is the difference between the part and the whole.
So this kind of difference... So, you are saying, the whole is different from the part. Right?
Is that so? The whole is different from the part. What is the whole?
(Inaudible) The whole image of me is brought about through memory, and memory tells me I have been jealous, and now I recognise it as jealousy and therefore through the process of recognition the present experience of jealousy is translated into the past. Please, look, he is saying, 'The whole is different from the part'. Not divided.
Not divided. Yes, not divided. The whole is different from the part and yet not divided.
The whole is jealousy, envy, greed, anxiety, guilt, the feeling of ambition, loneliness, the lack of love and so on - the whole is made up of all this. Right? So you take one part, which is jealousy, and look at that jealousy with the rest of the parts.
So what are you doing? You look at one fragment with the many other fragments. Wait a minute, you are discovering something.
Fragments make up the whole. Wait, sir, wait. Discover it, find out for yourself.
The fragments of jealousy, envy, greed, deceit, lying, fear, pleasure, guilt, all that, are the various parts of the whole. The whole is made up of these many parts. Just a minute.
So the whole is the content of these. The whole is being made up of these many things, is that the whole? (Inaudible) That's all sir, quite right.
That's right. So we put names or labels, we give names or labels to many parts. Wait!
I say, look what you are doing. By naming it as jealousy, by naming it as envy, by naming it as guilt, the name has become important, not the fact. Are you following this?
Now why do you give names at all? Because... Wait, sir.
Do enquire into it, don't jump. Why do I - please just listen - I feel guilty, why do I give it a name, 'guilt'? So that when it happens again you will recognise it.
Why do I do that? Because you want to push it away when you see it again. Yes?
(Inaudible) Please just listen. I feel this thing called guilt because I have done something and so on and so on, and I feel guilt. Now why do I name it?
Why can't I look at it without naming it? Right? But why do I name it?
(Inaudible) Please, sir you are going too fast for me. Let's go slowly. Why do I name it?
(Inaudible) You say, I give a name to it to put it away from me. (Inaudible) By naming it I deny it. (Inaudible) By naming I separate it.
No, you are not answering. (Inaudible) It's a habit. All right, then that doesn't answer any of my questions.
It's conditioning. Some people have been conditioned that way and some have been conditioned another way. I am not talking about other people all the time, or some people, not all the time.
I am asking... We have been taught to do so. We having been taught, living in this culture to do so. I am asking why.
(Inaudible) Have you noticed, sir... Just a minute, let's go slowly. I feel guilt, I name it. Why do I name it?
I name it instantly, don't I. Immediately. Why?
(In French) The observer arrives at that moment. You are not going into this sufficiently deeply. Look sir, let me... give me two minutes.
I feel guilty because I have done something and so on. Why do I name it? What is the process of naming it?
Go slow. My memory... Wait, sir.
Two minutes. Give me a minute sir, I am talking, if you don't mind. Two minutes and then you have the floor or the platform, whatever you want.
I feel guilt, why do I name it? I name it instantly. The naming of it is the recognition of it, therefore I have had that feeling before.
Right? And having had it before I recognise it now. Through recognition I strengthen what has happened before.
Right? You are following this? No?
Are you following this? I have strengthened the memory of the previous guilt by saying, 'I feel guilty'. So see what is happening.
Every form of recognition strengthens the past. And recognition takes place through naming. So by and through recognition I strengthen the past.
Which why does the mind do this? Don't answer me please. Why does the mind do this, why does it always strengthen the past by saying, 'I have been guilty, I am guilty, it is terrible to be guilty, how am I to get rid of this guilt' - why does it do it?
Does it do it because the mind needs to be occupied with something? You understand? It needs to be occupied, whether with god, with smoke, with sex, with something, it has to be occupied, therefore it is afraid not to be occupied.
Right? And in occupation with the feeling of guilt, in that feeling there is certain security. At least I have got that thing, I have nothing else but at least I have got that feeling of being guilty.
So what is happening? Through recognition, which is the naming, the mind is strengthening a past feeling, which has been... which has happened before, and so the mind is constantly occupied with that feeling of guilt. And that gives it a certain occupation, a certain sense of security, a certain action from that which becomes neurotic.
I haven't finished yet, sir. So what takes place? Can I, when the feeling arises, to observe it without naming it?
So I find when I do not name, the thing no longer exists. And I am afraid - listen to this carefully - the mind is afraid of living in a state of nothingness. Right?
Therefore it has to have a word. The word has become tremendously important - my country, my god, my Jesus, my Krishna - the word. So the word - listen to this - the word is the past, the word is the memory, the word is the thought.
So thought divides. Now I am getting too complicated. That's enough.
You see this? (Inaudible) Is it more and more difficult when the word strengthens the past? Right?
(Inaudible) Yes, after so many years - I have felt guilty for years. And I realise now what I have done. Now does that take a lot of time to get rid of?
Is that the question sir? Does a well-established habit take time? This is a well-established habit of feeling guilty all the time.
(Inaudible) Even animals have memory. Why should we get rid of memory? I never said we must get rid of memory, madam.
Look, I must have memory in order to go to my house. I must have memory to talk English. I must have memory to come here and sit on this platform.
I must have memory for the language that I use. I have memory of riding a bicycle, or driving a car. So memory is absolutely essential, otherwise I couldn't function.
Memory is knowledge, we must have knowledge. And that knowledge - listen to this, what takes place - knowledge is word. Right?
Now I have had the knowledge of previous guilt. When I call the present feeling guilt, I have strengthened the previous knowledge. And that knowledge is the observer.
So the observer looks at that feeling which I have now and calls it guilt. And therefore in calling it guilt the knowledge of the past is strengthened. It is fairly simple and clear.
(Inaudible) That's just it. Who is the observer? Is the observer different from the many fragments?
(Inaudible) He is one of the fragments, isn't he? What next? What does he do next?
Wait, sir. We haven't come to action yet. We have just come to the point, what is the observer.
That is all we have talked about so far. We have said, the observer is the conditioning, the conditioning is the culture in which they have been brought up, with all the memories, knowledge, experience. And that culture has educated me in guilt.
And the observer, we say, is different from the feeling of guilt. And we are saying, is the observer different from the thing which he calls guilt, or are they both the same? Of course they are both the same when you give it a name.
Now let's proceed. What is the observed without the observer? Right?
I've gone ahead. Now what is the relationship between the observer and the observed? Does this all interest you?
You are quite sure I am not boring you? Because you see if you go into this very deeply you will find that you eliminate conflict altogether, completely. And that's part of our culture, to be in conflict perpetually until we die.
Now we are pointing out something which will totally eliminate conflict altogether. So we are asking, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed? What is the relationship of the observer when he looks at the mountains?
Generally the relationship is coloured by prejudice. Generally the relationship is coloured by prejudice. The observer looks at that mountain.
He recognises it as a mountain. So he calls it a mountain. The relationship between the observer and the thing called mountain exists...
Relationship is based on the image which it has through education to call it a mountain. He has an image what mountains are, and when he sees that mountain he calls it a mountain. So the image, which he has built through knowledge, recognises that thing and says, 'That's a mountain'.
He says it is beautiful. He says it is beautiful, it has got snow on it, I want to be at the sea, and so on. So the relationship between the observer and the thing which is so high, he recognises it because he has been instructed to call it 'mountain', educated to call it mountain.
Now I see I always look at things through the images which my education and culture have given me - man, woman, we and they, and so on and so on. So can the mind observe without the word, without the image, without the conditioning? Have a minute, madam.
I have just asked a question. I have just asked a question. Please wait a minute.
I see very clearly that when I observe, I observe through an image - the image or the symbol or the word put together by thought. The thought has created the culture, and that culture has shaped my mind, and the mind says, when it sees that thing very high, it calls it a mountain. Now can the mind observe without the image?
(Inaudible) Madam, we are not talking about dreams, please. Just hold on. Don't complicate the thing, it is complicated enough.
Just go step by step. I am asking - must I go through it again? - can you observe that thing very high without the word, without the image?
(Inaudible) Wait a minute. I am asking - we will make it a little more complex a little later. Can I observe that mountain without the observer who is the past?
The mountain is the present, can I observe that without that without the image which is the past? Come on! Yes.
You can. When you observe that way, is it an identification with the mountain? Obviously not.
You are not the mountain - thank god! Or you may be, I don't know. Can the word be a new one, we are always using something old.
No, call it any name. I said sir, can you observe it without the word, without the image - it may be a past image or the present image, just to observe without the image and the word. That's fairly easy.

Sir, if you had no memory of the past what would happen? If I didn't know my name, where I lived, I lost my passport, what would happen? I would be in a state of amnesia, in a state of blank.

Memory is the result of experience, and knowledge. So memory is knowledge, experience, which is obviously the past. I met you yesterday, you were introduced to me, your name has been told to me.

So I meet you today and I recognise you. The recognition is born out of the memory which remained when you were introduced to me. That's simple enough, isn't it?

Are we sure that memory is the past? I have been hurt by you, the hurt is the past, which is the memory of your saying something to me which displeased me. So that's...

I think nobody... This is fairly clear. So the observer is the conditioned entity of memory, tradition, knowledge, experience.

So my conditioning as a Hindu, Buddhist, or Catholic, capitalist and so on and so on, my conditioning by the culture in which I have lived, that becomes the observer. And that observer is watching everything. So the past is choosing, discerning, translating, acting.

No? It's not what I say, please. It is reasonable.

Now what is the relationship of that observer to the observed? Right? Now what is the observed?

Is there such a thing as the observed different from the observer? Please go with me a little bit. I am asking what is the observed - is the observed independent of the observer?

You discuss, I'll listen for a while. (Inaudible) You say, it is the same - how do you know? (Inaudible) Sir, look, look.

I am asking you, what is the relationship between the observer and the observed, and is the observed different from the observer? Wait. Because this is very important to understand.

I'll go into a little bit; you will see. It is very important to understand whether the observer is different from the observed, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed, if there is a division between the observer and the observed, then there must be conflict, because any division produces conflict. So out of that conflict violence, all the rest of the things follow.

So I must be very clear in the understanding of this fact, whether the observer is different from the observed, and if the observer is not then what is the observed? Now, let's begin slowly. What is the observed?

Is it different from the observer? (Inaudible) That is, when you look at the mountain, the mountain is obviously different from you. I hope so!

Wait a minute madam. When I look at that microphone, obviously that is different from me - and the tree and so on and so on and so on. When I look at you, you are obviously different from me - you have brown hair, red hair, whatever it is, physically you are different.

Now let's go a little deeper. When I observe my jealousy, is jealousy different from the observer? (Inaudible) We have said that madam, we have been through that.

When I look at the mountain, the mountain is not the observer, when I look at the tree, the tree is not the observer, when I look at the flowing water, the water is not the observer. You are different from the observer, the 'me' who is looking at you, obviously. Now the next I am jealous.

Now is jealousy different from the observer? No. Be quite sure.

This is really important, please. Don't casually say, 'No'. The whole structure depends on this - the structure of living a totally different kind of life depends on it.

(In Italian) The moment I am aware that I am that jealousy, then jealousy ceases. But I am not asking that question. I am asking, is jealousy different from the observer.

Wait a minute, sir. The observer, I said, is the past. The observer, I said, is the experience, is the knowledge, which says, 'I am jealous'.

Right? So I am asking, is jealousy different from the observer? Jealousy is included in the observer.

Jealousy is included in the observer. So you are saying, jealousy is part of the observer. Is that right?

Don't be shy about it. Don't always be right, wanting to be right, I may be wrong too. So I am saying, I am asking, the observer says, 'I am jealous', is that jealousy different from the observer, or the observer is the observed in this case?

You understand? So the observer is jealousy. So there is not a difference between the observer and jealousy.

Now wait a minute, stop a minute there. (Inaudible) He says there is a division. There is a difference but there is no division.

There is a difference but no division. Look at the difficulty. There is a difference but no division.

(Inaudible) So, the whole is the part. The part is the whole. That is the difference between the part and the whole.

So this kind of difference... So, you are saying, the whole is different from the part. Right?

Is that so? The whole is different from the part. What is the whole?

(Inaudible) The whole image of me is brought about through memory, and memory tells me I have been jealous, and now I recognise it as jealousy and therefore through the process of recognition the present experience of jealousy is translated into the past. Please, look, he is saying, 'The whole is different from the part'. Not divided.

Not divided. Yes, not divided. The whole is different from the part and yet not divided.

The whole is jealousy, envy, greed, anxiety, guilt, the feeling of ambition, loneliness, the lack of love and so on - the whole is made up of all this. Right? So you take one part, which is jealousy, and look at that jealousy with the rest of the parts.

So what are you doing? You look at one fragment with the many other fragments. Wait a minute, you are discovering something.

Fragments make up the whole. Wait, sir, wait. Discover it, find out for yourself.

The fragments of jealousy, envy, greed, deceit, lying, fear, pleasure, guilt, all that, are the various parts of the whole. The whole is made up of these many parts. Just a minute.

So the whole is the content of these. The whole is being made up of these many things, is that the whole? (Inaudible) That's all sir, quite right.

That's right. So we put names or labels, we give names or labels to many parts. Wait!

I say, look what you are doing. By naming it as jealousy, by naming it as envy, by naming it as guilt, the name has become important, not the fact. Are you following this?

Now why do you give names at all? Because... Wait, sir.

Do enquire into it, don't jump. Why do I - please just listen - I feel guilty, why do I give it a name, 'guilt'? So that when it happens again you will recognise it.

Why do I do that? Because you want to push it away when you see it again. Yes?

(Inaudible) Please just listen. I feel this thing called guilt because I have done something and so on and so on, and I feel guilt. Now why do I name it?

Why can't I look at it without naming it? Right? But why do I name it?

(Inaudible) Please, sir you are going too fast for me. Let's go slowly. Why do I name it?

(Inaudible) You say, I give a name to it to put it away from me. (Inaudible) By naming it I deny it. (Inaudible) By naming I separate it.

No, you are not answering. (Inaudible) It's a habit. All right, then that doesn't answer any of my questions.

It's conditioning. Some people have been conditioned that way and some have been conditioned another way. I am not talking about other people all the time, or some people, not all the time.

I am asking... We have been taught to do so. We having been taught, living in this culture to do so. I am asking why.

(Inaudible) Have you noticed, sir... Just a minute, let's go slowly. I feel guilt, I name it. Why do I name it?

I name it instantly, don't I. Immediately. Why?

(In French) The observer arrives at that moment. You are not going into this sufficiently deeply. Look sir, let me... give me two minutes.

I feel guilty because I have done something and so on. Why do I name it? What is the process of naming it?

Go slow. My memory... Wait, sir.

Two minutes. Give me a minute sir, I am talking, if you don't mind. Two minutes and then you have the floor or the platform, whatever you want.

I feel guilt, why do I name it? I name it instantly. The naming of it is the recognition of it, therefore I have had that feeling before.

Right? And having had it before I recognise it now. Through recognition I strengthen what has happened before.

Right? You are following this? No?

Are you following this? I have strengthened the memory of the previous guilt by saying, 'I feel guilty'. So see what is happening.

Every form of recognition strengthens the past. And recognition takes place through naming. So by and through recognition I strengthen the past.

Which why does the mind do this? Don't answer me please. Why does the mind do this, why does it always strengthen the past by saying, 'I have been guilty, I am guilty, it is terrible to be guilty, how am I to get rid of this guilt' - why does it do it?

Does it do it because the mind needs to be occupied with something? You understand? It needs to be occupied, whether with god, with smoke, with sex, with something, it has to be occupied, therefore it is afraid not to be occupied.

Right? And in occupation with the feeling of guilt, in that feeling there is certain security. At least I have got that thing, I have nothing else but at least I have got that feeling of being guilty.

So what is happening? Through recognition, which is the naming, the mind is strengthening a past feeling, which has been... which has happened before, and so the mind is constantly occupied with that feeling of guilt. And that gives it a certain occupation, a certain sense of security, a certain action from that which becomes neurotic.

I haven't finished yet, sir. So what takes place? Can I, when the feeling arises, to observe it without naming it?

So I find when I do not name, the thing no longer exists. And I am afraid - listen to this carefully - the mind is afraid of living in a state of nothingness. Right?

Therefore it has to have a word. The word has become tremendously important - my country, my god, my Jesus, my Krishna - the word. So the word - listen to this - the word is the past, the word is the memory, the word is the thought.

So thought divides. Now I am getting too complicated. That's enough.

You see this? (Inaudible) Is it more and more difficult when the word strengthens the past? Right?

(Inaudible) Yes, after so many years - I have felt guilty for years. And I realise now what I have done. Now does that take a lot of time to get rid of?

Is that the question sir? Does a well-established habit take time? This is a well-established habit of feeling guilty all the time.

(Inaudible) Even animals have memory. Why should we get rid of memory? I never said we must get rid of memory, madam.

Look, I must have memory in order to go to my house. I must have memory to talk English. I must have memory to come here and sit on this platform.

I must have memory for the language that I use. I have memory of riding a bicycle, or driving a car. So memory is absolutely essential, otherwise I couldn't function.

Memory is knowledge, we must have knowledge. And that knowledge - listen to this, what takes place - knowledge is word. Right?

Now I have had the knowledge of previous guilt. When I call the present feeling guilt, I have strengthened the previous knowledge. And that knowledge is the observer.

So the observer looks at that feeling which I have now and calls it guilt. And therefore in calling it guilt the knowledge of the past is strengthened. It is fairly simple and clear.

(Inaudible) That's just it. Who is the observer? Is the observer different from the many fragments?

(Inaudible) He is one of the fragments, isn't he? What next? What does he do next?

Wait, sir. We haven't come to action yet. We have just come to the point, what is the observer.

That is all we have talked about so far. We have said, the observer is the conditioning, the conditioning is the culture in which they have been brought up, with all the memories, knowledge, experience. And that culture has educated me in guilt.

And the observer, we say, is different from the feeling of guilt. And we are saying, is the observer different from the thing which he calls guilt, or are they both the same? Of course they are both the same when you give it a name.

Now let's proceed. What is the observed without the observer? Right?

I've gone ahead. Now what is the relationship between the observer and the observed? Does this all interest you?

You are quite sure I am not boring you? Because you see if you go into this very deeply you will find that you eliminate conflict altogether, completely. And that's part of our culture, to be in conflict perpetually until we die.

Now we are pointing out something which will totally eliminate conflict altogether. So we are asking, what is the relationship of the observer to the observed? What is the relationship of the observer when he looks at the mountains?

Generally the relationship is coloured by prejudice. Generally the relationship is coloured by prejudice. The observer looks at that mountain.

He recognises it as a mountain. So he calls it a mountain. The relationship between the observer and the thing called mountain exists...

Relationship is based on the image which it has through education to call it a mountain. He has an image what mountains are, and when he sees that mountain he calls it a mountain. So the image, which he has built through knowledge, recognises that thing and says, 'That's a mountain'.

He says it is beautiful. He says it is beautiful, it has got snow on it, I want to be at the sea, and so on. So the relationship between the observer and the thing which is so high, he recognises it because he has been instructed to call it 'mountain', educated to call it mountain.

Now I see I always look at things through the images which my education and culture have given me - man, woman, we and they, and so on and so on. So can the mind observe without the word, without the image, without the conditioning? Have a minute, madam.

I have just asked a question. I have just asked a question. Please wait a minute.

I see very clearly that when I observe, I observe through an image - the image or the symbol or the word put together by thought. The thought has created the culture, and that culture has shaped my mind, and the mind says, when it sees that thing very high, it calls it a mountain. Now can the mind observe without the image?

(Inaudible) Madam, we are not talking about dreams, please. Just hold on. Don't complicate the thing, it is complicated enough.

Just go step by step. I am asking - must I go through it again? - can you observe that thing very high without the word, without the image?

(Inaudible) Wait a minute. I am asking - we will make it a little more complex a little later. Can I observe that mountain without the observer who is the past?

The mountain is the present, can I observe that without that without the image which is the past? Come on! Yes.

You can. When you observe that way, is it an identification with the mountain? Obviously not.

You are not the mountain - thank god! Or you may be, I don't know. Can the word be a new one, we are always using something old.

No, call it any name. I said sir, can you observe it without the word, without the image - it may be a past image or the present image, just to observe without the image and the word. That's fairly easy.