Datasets:
eliwill
/
krishnamurti_discussions

Dataset card Data Studio Files Community
text
stringlengths
12
1.33k
You understand? - attachment to an ideal, to a person, to an experience however great that experience is - attached. Now just listen.
Is attachment in the present, or in the past? I am attached to you, is that an active present, or is it a past anchorage in you, and a remembrance? Is attachment a link between the past and the present?
Is attachment a link between the past and the present. Yes, sir. We will find out.
I am asking first a you are attached to your ideal, or to an image, or to a symbol, or to something, is that attachment an active movement in the present, or is it a remembrance of something of the past? Is it a remembrance or active present? You understand my question?
Like action is active present, it is in the present, action. And if your action has a motive it is not in the present. If your action has an ideal and you are conforming to that ideal, action doesn't take place, because action is always active present.
To act. The verb, to act, is in the present. Now I am asking you, I am asking, we are attachment, is it a remembrance, therefore out of the past, or is it a living thing that is going on, alive?
It is obviously in the past. Obviously, the gentleman says, it is in the past. What do you say?
If you examine this, please, you will find lots of things. If attachment is a remembrance, that means in the memory, stored up in the brain cells, then that attachment is from the past in the present. Right?
Therefore the present is a movement of the past, therefore it is not present. I wonder if you get this - doesn't matter. Look sir, I am attached.
I am attached to you, you are nice looking, you give me pleasure, sex or companionship, or whatever it is, and I am greatly attached to you. That attachment is the past, isn't it? Because I have walked with you in the woods, and it has given me great pleasure, a delight, to point out the beauty of the mountains, the shadows, the wide open fields, the birds singing, and I tell this to you and it gives me great pleasure.
And I am attached to you through that pleasure, and that attachment is a remembrance because when I walk the next time you are not there, and I say, 'Oh, I wish you were here', or he were here. So attachment is a remembrance. And I am asking myself, what is the relationship of the past, remembrance of an attachment, to the present?
Or is the present a continuation of the past? Is this all becoming too difficult? So if it is a continuation of the past, what is the relationship between the two people?
You understand? The brain is living in the past. Right?
Of course. Memory is in the past, knowledge is the past, knowledge in the present can be modified, or added to, but still knowledge is always in the past. Right?
Oh, come on sir, somebody. So my life is being lived in the past. Right?
I live in the past so I don't know what is the present. I don't know what is the fact because I am living in the past, and facts are always in the present. Right?
So I look at the fact always with the past. So I have coloured the fact. That means can the mind live wholly in the present?
This is not a speculative silly question, but it requires tremendous understanding of the past. You know the philosophy - 'Forget the past, live for the present', 'Enjoy yourself for the present'. You can't live in the present if you don't know what the past is, and whether the past can end in the present.
Therefore you have to find out in the enquiry of attachment, whether that attachment is a strengthening remembrance, or a fading remembrance which is always strengthened by the present, or there is no attachment when there is the living present? You see something? I am just discovering something.
That is, when the mind is wholly living in the present there is no attachment. Right? See it?
Come on sirs, move with me! It is only the remembrance of things past - the remembrance of my attachment, the remembrance of my son, and my attachment to him, the remembrance of that loneliness, the remembrance of being left alone, no companion, somebody to whom I can give all things, all my love... and so on. So the moment when the mind sees that, is there attachment in the living present, in the active verb of that word, living?
I have lived in the past, and I will live in the future, but I do not live now because all my mind, my brain is the product of the past. The brain holds memory in the cells and the tissues, and that memory dictates my life, the living. And the living, if it is dictated by the past, is not living.
Right? Am I going on by myself, or you are all following this? As we said, this is a dialogue, two serious friends who have known each other for some time, talking about their difficulties, their problems, and trying to go beyond them, not verbally, not intellectually, but actually to transcend, to go beyond this problem of attachment, with all its sorrows, with all its aching, anxious, fearful loneliness.
And in the understanding of that the mind sees that it is always living in the past. And tradition is the past and therefore a betrayal of the present. So can the mind live wholly in the present, in which there is no attachment?
You understand sir? This is psychologically a very important question because psychologically there is no future. You know when you realise psychologically there is no future, what a shock it gives you?
You understand? I know you, I will meet you tomorrow and I have pleasure of meeting you tomorrow - sexually or otherwise, all the images of sexual pleasures. There is no tomorrow.
You follow, what takes place? Either you go into a despair that there is no tomorrow psychologically, or you realise something which is immense, which is, every action ends today. There is no, 'I will do something tomorrow', or 'I must be that tomorrow'.
I wonder if you understand this. Just see, sir, see what is implied. Psychologically there is no future.
The saying, 'I am today and I will be tomorrow', or 'I will become great tomorrow', when the psyche realises 'the tomorrow' is the movement of the past, through the present, to the future - you understand? The past, through the present, modified, is the future. If the mind lives in that time period, it lives in the past, however much modified it is, it is always the past.
When the mind realises that, not verbally but deeply, inwardly, with all its fullness, then tomorrow has no meaning. It has the meaning I have to go tomorrow to London, but we are not talking of that, at that level. But the psychological effort to be something tomorrow you are or you are not.
And it is a very hard thing to realise. Goodness is not tomorrow, it is now. It is not, 'I will be good', then when you say, 'I will be good' you are never good.
So the mind has been educated, conditioned through education, through society, through culture, through religions that there is god in heaven and you will achieve - you follow? - and when you realise that tomorrow is what has been yesterday and modified, then you see that your whole existence is in the past. And when you are living in the past there is the conflict with the present, and that conflict never ends, but when you see the truth that there is no tomorrow.
Physiologically when you are doing something like learning to ride a bicycle, there is a tomorrow. Right? Of course.
If you are doing yoga postures you need tomorrow to make your muscles supple. Learning a language, how to drive a car, learning a function, there is a tomorrow, but psychologically when one lives in tomorrow you are really actually living in the past. And the present is in conflict with the past.
Of course. And to end conflict, really, deeply, at the very roots of your being, realise that there is no tomorrow. And then our whole action changes.
Therefore everyday there is an ending of everything that you have done, and begin anew tomorrow. You understand? Right.
What shall we talk over together this morning? The utter chaos that exists around us, in the world, sometimes a little less, sometimes more, we human beings have created this society - the misery, the poverty, the extraordinary sense of brutality and wars, and all that. And out of this chaos one hopes there will be some day some order.
And we don't feel, as human beings, responsible at all. We are all concerned with our own little problems, with our own critical, rather asinine attitude towards institutions, towards this and towards that. And what is the place of morality when there is no authority, when the so-called religions are fading away, when you can do almost what you like - steal, murder?
And we feel utterly helpless. And for all this - this corruption, this destruction, this great misery and suffering - we are responsible. We don't feel that responsibility.
And what can one do to make, or to help you to realise the utter inescapable... the flame of responsibility that you must have? Now if we could this morning give some thought and have a dialogue or conversation about this matter I think it would be worthwhile because our problems are the world's problems. That's an absolute fact.
Unless our minds radically undergo a change we will maintain this corruption, the brutality, the appalling confusion in the world. So how does one, in what way can one, feel this overwhelming responsibility? Would that be worthwhile to consider, or would you like to discuss, or argue, or offer opinions about if there is god, if there is no god?
I hope I haven't put any of you off your particular question. Perhaps if you put your question, what you want to discuss this morning, we can include all that in this major question. (Inaudible) Can we go into detail, keeping the general perception of the whole.
(Inaudible) One comes from a poor country and governments are incapable of dealing with the matter, what is one to do. (Inaudible) How do you propose, or how do you suggest the feeling of responsibility into action? Responsibility, or to understand responsibility seems to take a great deal of energy and I was wondering how... How to you have or obtain or come upon this great deal of energy when you feel responsible.
(Inaudible) Can I do anything to the world before I change myself? Basta, no? (Inaudible) You have said, the world is you and you are the world and I am afraid - the questioner says - that most people don't understand that statement.
It's a bit hot, isn't it? Look, sir, you have put many to observe the whole and yet be concerned with the detail as that gentleman pointed out; what is one to do when governments throughout the world are not concerned with poverty, with the solution of hunger, actually - they talk a great deal about it, there have been organisations but people are still starving and so on; and would you also please explain, or go into, the world is you, and you are the world, and so on. I think, if we could see the world as it is, and ourselves as we are, and not a division, a demarcation between the world and me and you, because we are all involved in this, we are all in the same boat.
And realising that, not intellectually, not verbally, not theoretically but actually to feel this actual reality that we are the world and the world is you. And I think when one feels that, then the responsibility begins to awaken. Now can we discuss that?
In that we will include - how to observe the whole and yet not forget the detail, what can the governments do to abolish poverty - United Nations, I hope there is nobody here from the United Nations! I have a great friend who is at the top of the United Nations, but he is not here. (Laughter).
And what can one do, realising the responsibility, and what is the response of that responsibility in action? First of all, why have we divided the world there, and the world here - the inner and the outer? You know this has been a great problem.
The yogi, the sannyasi, the monk, says, 'I am not the world, the world is an illusion, the world is a temptation, the world is destructive, and I withdraw from it in order to find reality'. This has existed from time immemorial - the division between the outer and the inner. And there are still people who say, 'I don't want to identify myself with the world, the world has nothing to give me'.
And there has been a great deal of controversy among the communists - the commissar and the yogi - the division. And having divided - you understand? - the outer and the inner, we are trying to bring it together, integrate these two divisions.
See what the mind has done - divide first and then integrate what is called, bring them together. That is part of yoga - yoga, the meaning of that word, means to join, the outer and the inner. And having divided the outer and the inner then we proceed to join it.
I don't know if you follow this. Now why has the mind done this? Let's think about it.
Don't say, 'Yes, I have an answer'. I don't know, we are investigating. Why has the mind, your mind, and the mind of civilised human beings, the culture that minds throughout the ages have created, why is there this division?
When you say, 'I must meditate', you are discarding the outer and running away into some inner nature. I don't know if you follow all this. So I think it would be worthwhile if you would give your attention to find out for yourself why this division has existed for ages.
What is your answer? (Inaudible) Was there a time when this did not exist. I don't know.
But it exists now, unfortunately. And I want to find out why, why the mind has divided this thing. The identification of the 'me'.
You understand the question, sir, the full implication of this question? It requires a little investigation. If you don't mind kindly pay attention.
The world we see, we touch, the world of senses, the world as it actually is - the technological world, the scientific world, the business world, the artistic world, the world of education, entertainment - all that, out there. (Inaudible) That is the identification of the 'me' and the development of the 'me' the gentleman says, is the cause of this division. Is the 'me' different from the world?
Is one necessarily an individual? Now is there individuality? Individual means indivisible, a human being who is not fragmented, who is whole.
That is what is the actual meaning of individuality - indivisible. In that there is neither the outer, nor the inner. We are not that kind of human beings, we are not individuals.
Individual also means unique. We are not unique. There may be a unique genius, a gifted or talented person that's a freak.
But as human beings we are not individuals at all in the real meaning of that word. So I am asking myself, I am asking you, why does this division take place? Why am I not satisfied with the outer completely?
You understand? Just listen. I am one of the questioners, sir, so please give your attention to the questioner.
If we are completely and utterly satisfied with the outer - cars, the amusement, everything that is going on, say, 'It's marvellous, I love that', and many millions say that, then there would be no inner, would there? Would there? Come on sirs.
I am not laying down the law, I am just asking. If I identify totally with my country and endow that country with all the virtues, with all the beauty, with all the loveliness of everything, I'm finished. But I don't do that.
I want something much more. The more intelligent, the more sensitive, the more alive you are, you say, 'That's very superficial, I want something much more'. I think there begins the real worm of division.
Don't you? (Inaudible) Sir, the moment we say that that toy is mine, there is the division. You follow?
I wonder if you understand. If I have a wound I feel it in my body, which is me. I am not concerned with others.
Of course, madam, that is quite true. If I have a wound, I feel it in my body which is me. I am not concerned with others.
Yes, I won't feel the intensity of that pain as I do about myself with regard to others. You see we are all offering opinions. We are not saying, 'Look, let me find out - apart from Aristotle, apart from philosophers, apart from freaks, apart from everything that has been said.
I don't know, I haven't read those things therefore I can come to it fresh myself'. But you can't, because you are full of opinions, full of other people's ideas. So if you could put that aside for the time being and say, look, why do I always think in these terms of the outer and the inner?
(Inaudible) Is there always evolution. You see - what do you mean by evolution? To evolve, to go forward in evolution.
Are we? You are so hopeless! No, please, don't make statements, don't assert anything.
We are trying to find out, if you will kindly pay attention, not to your answers but find out for yourself why the mind has divided the world as there and the world of 'me' as something separate. We understand so little about ourselves, we are ignorant. We understand so little about ourselves, we are ignorant.
Is it this ignorance that has separated me from the rest, from the world? (Inaudible) Why does this division exist. Please stick to that one thing for the time being.
We will come upon all the other questions - suffering, my personal suffering and the suffering in the world, and is there a suffering which is not personal at all? You follow? So we will come upon all these questions if we can find out the first question we are asking.
Probably you have not thought about this at all. Personally I never thought, I never feel that the world is out there and the world is 'me' - separate. And everybody around one approaches the problem from the outer to the inner, and from the inner to the outer, it is this endless ebb and flow.
Not one constant stream - you follow? Not flowing back and flowing out. Now this is what we have done, the division has taken place.
I am asking myself, who has created this division - god, the priest, the philosopher, the clever verbalizer, the erudite - have they created this and created the structure as the outer and the inner, and we are educated in that and are caught in it? You understand my... Somebody must have started this game. Is it not the nature of cells themselves to separate?
Is it not the life itself separates. I know all that, sir. The cells separate.
They have been saying, the atom is the whole, it is not broken, now they know it can be broken, the cells are broken, and all the rest of it. And you are saying it is the very nature of life to divide. And to build.
Build, destroy, corrupt. Don't just say, build, and leave it at that. It destroys.
So you are saying, it is the very nature of existence that creates this division, the very nature of life. The very nature of our daily life creates this. The 'me' and its activity creates this division.
Now let's take that. He says the 'me' and its activity creates this division. What is this 'me'?
(Inaudible) What is the action of memory that sustains and maintains the 'me'. (Inaudible) Why don't we see the action that is generating the 'me'. Because we are probably blind.
We are not aware. Look, sir, I think it begins - I am just exploring, don't jump on me - I think it begins in the act of observation. When you observe there is always the observer.
I am not laying down the law, please, just listen to it and tear it to pieces, but first listen. When I see a mountain, and observe a mountain, the word 'mountain' springs into my mind. The word.
The word has its associations, and those associations are stored up in the brain. So when I see that range, that line of snow and the peaks and the beauty of it, I say, 'It's a mountain'. Right?
Go slowly. And the word has already divided the fact from the observer. You understand?
You follow? Am I right in this? You understand what I am saying?
The word, or the screen of words has separated the observer and the observed. Obviously. The words with their associations bring about a certain feeling, sensation.
You follow? My wife - there are certain associations with that word, and the words and the memory have separated the woman and the man - my wife. Right?
We are investigating, we are moving. So there is this problem of verbalisation. And I know the word is not the thing, and yet all the time words are coming into action.
Right? So words, phrases, all that plays an immense importance. He is an Italian - immediately there is a division.
Now can the mind be free of the word, the 'mountain', and look at it? Then is there a division - division being space, distance, time? You follow this?
We'll come to... Slowly, slowly, sir, patience. So I see the image I have is projected in front, which says, 'That's a mountain'.
The image which I have about a tree divides, the image is my memory - is memory, knowledge, experience. And when I say, 'It's my wife', the word is a symbol, an image put together by various incidents, pleasures and so on and so on, soon, which are all in the memory as words. So I am questioning, I am asking, the division may come into being with the word.
After all there is the Christian, which is a word, with all the symbols, with all the tradition, with all the ideas. And there are the Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims - they are all words. And the mind, and the brain, is the instrument of words.
The word creates the thought, without the word is there a thought? I hope somebody will follow all this, contradict it, or say, 'No, you are talking nonsense'. (Inaudible) He says, in Italian, the thinker invents the word.
The word is the consequence of the thinker. I am saying the opposite. Do listen.