Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
(Laughter) I don't know, I can't be otherwise, I wish I could be otherwise with people who won't even look at things, what is put in front of them. Now what am I to do with 'what is'? Why does one ask the question of what to do if one is aware?
I am not aware, sir. Look, sir. I become aware - just listen - I become aware that I am violent, sexually, inwardly, my thoughts are violent and I am really an extraordinary bundle of angers, fury, jealousy, hurts - you follow?
I see all that. Through awareness I see that. Now what am I to do with that?
You can't do anything. That's what the gentleman says here, 'You can't do anything'. Therefore I accept it?
I just go on being violent, and all the rest of it? Which is what you are all doing. Wait a minute sir.
This is what you are doing, more, or less, but that's the pattern. Now when you say, 'Do nothing', what do you mean by that? You may have a seed in that saying, 'Do nothing' - may have some truth in it when you say, 'Do nothing', so let's examine it.
What do you mean, do nothing? Awareness. Make no effort.
Make no effort. You are telling me, don't make effort. Are you?
If you see the point of awareness then you are aware, and you avoid violence. Ah, that's it. I can't avoid it, it is there.
And it is making me - please, sir - it is making me behave - not me - behave, because it is there I behave violently. Please, sir, you haven't understood. May I explain?
Through awareness I realise I am violent. Right? Now that is what is left with me through awareness.
You understand? Now what am I to do, how am I to go beyond that violence? How do you answer it, sir, don't look to him, how do you answer it?
You are that violence itself. So what will you do? You see it is not separate.
So what will you do after you have seen violence is not separate from you, you are violent? Violence goes. Then what sir, you can't just leave it there.
(Inaudible) Are you doing this, or just verbally stating it? Yes sir? I wanted to ask first what is the entity that wants to be aware and if it is, does violence remain?
No sir, we have been into that but perhaps you were not here before. Oh, god! (Inaudible) So, sir, what does it mean to be aware?
Who is it that is aware? Is awareness something different from the observer? We went into that the other day very carefully.
The observer is the past. When the past is aware it is still of the past. So in awareness, if you have gone into it, if you have enquired, if you have made the research, seen the beauty of it, in that awareness there is no observer at all because in that awareness there is no choice.
That is something which you haven't found out, you will accept it and try to imitate it, but if you come to it, discover it for yourself, then how will the mind - please listen to this for a few minutes - how will the mind which has become so extraordinarily conditioned to violence - I am taking that as an example - how will that mind, or that 'what is', how will that deal with it? You understand? Violence is only when you are not aware, if you are aware it is not there.
Are you aware, really, of your violence without the observer? And you never say, 'I am violent' - you understand? There is only violence, not, 'I am violent'.
Are you in that position? Or there is violence and the entity who observes that there is violence? And I am afraid that is the fact.
So there is a division between the observer and the observed, and you never realise the observer is the observed. And that can only take place when there is an awareness in which there is no choice, just observe. What can you do with that?
I am coming to that, sir. You understand, sir, every scientist has come to this point, 'what is', both human and otherwise. He says, 'How am I to go beyond it?'
You follow? This has been the everlasting problem from time I know I am violent, what am I to do, how am I to go beyond it? Not being able to go beyond it - please listen to this - they have invented an outside agency.
You understand, sir? They say, god, society, compulsion, law, you know, all that. And if you see the absurdity of all that then you have the there is violence and the entity who is violent.
Right? So there is a division between the entity who is violent and what he calls violence. You follow?
There is a division, the observer and the observed. And that has been a battle between those two, conflict. Now is the observer different from the observed?
Find out, sir. Is the observer different from the observed which he calls violence, or are they both the same? What do you say sir?
There is one part of myself which is violent and aware of it. So one part of you is aware and the other part is not, and the one part that is not, is aware of the other part which is violent, so there is a division, which is the observer and the observed. You put it ten different ways, it comes to the same thing.
I see you can't go beyond it, so you are stuck with it. What can we do? I will show you what you can do.
For god's sake! I must be patient, I am usually patient but this is getting on my... Look sir, I'll go into it if you don't mind. One has depended on outside stimuli to become aware - suffering, accidents, pain, books and so on.
And I see - this mind sees what that stimuli has done - it made it dependent. Where there is dependence there must be possession and therefore more fear. If you depend on alcohol, LSD and so on you must have more of it, you know the whole dependency.
So I see where there is a dependence on a stimuli the mind becomes dull, utterly unaware, I see that. And therefore seeing it, seeing the truth of it, it goes away. As I see poison in a bottle I never touch it because I see the reality of it, as when I see a precipice I don't jump, I run away from it, or move away from it.
So it is finished. Then through awareness it has been put away. Now I have become aware of myself, of my whole movement of myself, the activities of myself.
One of the activities is violence. I realise I am violent. Now, is violence different from me?
Or I am violence? Is this an actual fact, or a theory, or a verbalisation of what I would like it to be? You are following all this?
Or are you going to sleep? I'll shut my eyes and go on. So what takes place?
I am now questioning whether the observer is different from the thing he observes, which he has called violence, are the two, the observer and the observed, or put it differently, the thinker and the thought, are they two different states, different entities? Obviously they are not. The thinker is the thought.
Without thought there is no thinker. Without the word, which is necessary for expression is there a thinking? Avanti signor?
(In Italian) No, no. He says - must I translate that? Look, sir, is the observer different from the observed?
Let's stick to that, not introduce the word 'mind'. That is what he is objecting to. I have introduced the word 'mind', so I will take away that word.
Is the observer different from the observed? I am questioning this, you understand? I have been aware of external stimuli, I have rejected it, now I am asking, I am aware and I have the problem of violence, and I am is violence different from me, from the observer, or are they both the same?
If they are different there will be conflict, one trying to overcome the other, trying to pacify the other, trying to become peaceful, and all that. So where there is division there is conflict. So I see that - between nations and so on.
I see that. Therefore from that perception, insight, from that realisation, the two are one, both logically, objectively and the realisation of it is, the observer is the observed, the thinker is the thought. Now that is what I have realised, so what takes place?
The observer is the observed, the experiencer is the experienced - I am changing it. Now what shall I do, me, or the mind, the fact that I am violent, in that there is no division. What takes place?
Violence ceases when you realise you are violence. So when you realise that you are violent violence ceases? Is that a theory, is that a theory, is that an idea, or is it a fact that you, who have listened to this thing, and have realised the experiencer is the experienced, the observer is the observed, therefore the observer, being violent himself, what takes place?
Does violence cease? Violence ends. I understand sir.
Then violence dies, then violence ends. If you are violence and are aware of it, it ends. Right.
Is this an idea, or a fact? To follow your words is an idea... I am asking you sir.
I am putting it in front of you. Just a minute, sir. Therefore it is not a question of time at all.
Therefore I am asking you, are you translating what is being said into an idea, and then making that idea a reality and therefore the mind conforms to that idea, or do you see the fact, the truth of it, that the observer is the observed, the violence is the observer? Wait a minute. What takes place then?
Watch it sir, watch it. What takes place when there is a perception, clear, pure perception, unadulterated by thought, when there is a perception that the observer is the observed, violence which the observer put it over there realises the observer in himself is violence. Then what takes place, non-ideationally but actually?
I am only concerned with violence. What has happened to that violence? Now may I go into it a little bit?
Suddenly I get angry for some reason or other. And that anger has been remembered previously. I have known that anger previously.
Because I have known it, it names it as anger, the present anger. Please follow this a little bit. It names the present anger from the past memory.
It does it because it is a habit, also in doing that it strengthens the past, it does it because it doesn't like something new, therefore it feels secure in the past, therefore by naming it as anger it gives to the mind, to the observer more security. So the present anger is absorbed by naming it into the past. The past is the observer, and the observer next time he is angry says, 'Yes, that's anger again'.
So the observer is always keeping himself divided from the present, and that division brings conflict - I must not be angry, why shouldn't I be angry, it is reasonable to be angry under these circumstances, righteous anger and all the rest of it. And this division gives a certain occupation to the mind. So he sustains the observer.
The observer sustains himself by recognition of the present by naming it. So the observer becomes stronger and stronger, healthier, more secure. And the battle goes on, in which we are educated, which we have accepted, to which we say, 'That's right, we must always overcome anger', suppress it, control it, shape it, use that energy in doing something else, in running up and down the street - you follow?
- do anything but... and so on. Now, one sees all that by observing, by being aware, watching, one is aware of all this. Then out of that awareness you see there is no division between the observer and the observed.
It is a trick of thought which demands security. Please don't madam, please. And by being aware it sees the observer is the observed, that violence is the observer, violence is not different from the observer.
Now how is the observer to end himself and not be violent? Have you understood my question so far? I think so.
Right? The observer is the observed, there is no division and therefore no conflict. And is the observer then, knowing all the intricacies of naming, linguistically caught in the image of violence, what happens to that violence?
If the observer is violent, can the observer end, otherwise violence will go on? Can the observer end himself, because he is violent? Or what reality has the observer?
Right sir? Is he merely put together by words, by experience, by knowledge? So is he put together by the past?
So is he the past? Right? Which means the mind is living in the past.
Right? obviously. You are living in the past.
Right? No? As long as there is an observer there must be living in the past, obviously.
And all our life is based on the past, memories, knowledge, images, according to which you react, which is your conditioning, is the past. And living has become the living of the past in the present, modified in the future. That's all, as long as the observer is living.
Now does the mind see this as a truth, as a reality, that all my life is living in the past? I may paint most abstract pictures, write the most modern poems, invent the most extraordinary machinery, but I am still living in the past! So can the mind understand the danger, the destructive nature of living which has become the past?
That is the observer. When the observer is not, then what is there? Is there 'what is'?
Yes. The gentleman says, yes. Please sir, you haven't...
The observer is the observed. Right? We have made that perfectly clear.
When the observer is the observed, the observer being the past, and when the observer is not, what is? The present. What do you mean by that word 'present'?
Something new. What do you mean by the present? Is that just another invention, another verbalisation of non-reality?
Do you live in the present? I don't know. Then why use the word 'present'?
If one doesn't live it, there is no meaning. What does it mean to live in the present? The total understanding of the truth of the past, and that insight into the past which is so complex and yet which is so terribly simple.
Then time as the past, time as the present, which is time as the past going through the present, modified in the future, that time element comes to an end, then the present is not present. You understand? It is something totally different.
Now, is there violence when the observer is not? Right, sir? So I have to understand myself as the observer.
Right? Myself which is the result of time, age, thousands and thousands of years of experience, knowledge, the past, which has conditioned the mind, evolved to become what it is dependent on stimuli, running away from sorrow, battling within himself and outside, killing. I saw a picture on the television the other day of the result of a bombing.
There were children writhing in pain and the mother crying. Somebody's leg had been torn away, bleeding to death. You have seen it, I am quite sure.
And that's our civilisation, our marvellous culture - you may paint pictures, build lovely cathedrals, and all the rest of it. And that's our life, that's our daily living moment. And as long as the observer exists which is the past we will have all this going on.
Right? So a mind that seeks truth must be free of the observer. Right?
You listen to it, don't make a picture of it, don't make the speaker into an authority, or a stimulant, but see the fact for yourself. See it actually as it is. Then out of it comes a marvellous flower - a flower that blossoms in goodness, in an extraordinary movement of love, which is not emotionalism.
You know tomorrow if you are so inclined let us talk about a much more complex thing, of which you are all so frightfully frightened - the future and death. Right? Because to understand it, see what is involved in it, does bring freedom from death.
We will go into it tomorrow morning. We said we would talk about this morning - and a lovely morning it is - about the question of love and death. Right?
I think that is what we said we were going to talk about. I would like to talk about it, discuss it with you, as two persons involved in a very serious matter. Both of us are really deeply interested in this question, and find out the reality of it - not the verbal statement, not as an intellectual idea, something that you spin out intellectually, but actually find out if these things can be lived in daily life.
Otherwise it has no value at all. So I would like to talk about it, discuss with you in that way. I have never considered that love and death are two separate things.
And for most of us death is the ending of life, or the ending for a new beginning. And to find out for ourselves whether the mind can ever be free from this thing called death and incarnate each day anew. And that is what we are going to discuss, if we may, this morning.
Perhaps you think it is rather a gloomy subject to discuss on a morning when there are plenty of shadows and sunshine and shining leaves and sparkling waters, clear blue sky. But I don't think that it matters because it is part of existence, it is part of our daily life. So how shall we talk about it?
What does death mean to you? Have you ever considered the question at all? Or merely postpone that dreadful event and carry on, knowing all around you there is death.
When you see all those victims of the recent wars, in the Far East - whether the Americans have perpetuated them or not, that is not the point, because what the Americans have done, it is our responsibility, it is not America, it is our responsibility because we are contributing to war all the time, to destruction. In buying whatever one buys you are contributing to war, the tax. Each nation is supporting war and therefore we are all responsible for it.
And when you see all that appalling suffering, misery, destruction, destroying marvellous trees by a bomb, and a poor child not knowing what it is all about, crying on the roadside, when you look at all that, what is death? You must have considered it, you must have thought about it. For most of us does death mean the ending of life - is that what we are frightened about?
And what is our life, of which you are so frightened, what is our daily life to which we cling to so enormously? Oh la la! Please do let's talk it over, don't let me make a long speech.
Death is the cessation of desire. Cessation of desire. Does that mean death to you, sir?
Sir, look, may I ask you, have you thought about it at all, have you enquired into it, have you made research into this enormous problem which has confronted man from the beginning of time? And you are confronted with it. When you see a death in a coffin and carriage going down the road, there is death; when you see a brutal film and a man is shot, and that is death; and all the deaths that have happened in the wars.
You must have looked at it all, history is full of deaths. What does it mean to you? (In Italian) As you have pointed out - it is said in Italian - we cling to this life, this life of some pleasures and great suffering, fears, anxieties and all the rest of it, and that is all we know.
And we want to find something more. Ben'e? Look, please, do consider it this what does death mean to you - to you?
(Inaudible)... Death is the ending of the body. Oh, yes, not only the ending of the body, what does death mean to you? Don't you know what death means?
Death is the ending of what we are. (Inaudible) I am so sorry you don't know what death means. Sir, you see somebody die, put in a coffin, lot of flowers, put in a hearse and taken to the cemetery.
You look at it. Have you ever looked at it? Have you ever observed it?