Krishnamurti - Violence and the ‘me’

Krishnamurti Subtitles

BR70S1 - Violence and the ‘me’
Brockwood Park, UK - 6 June 1970
Seminar 1

0:59	Krishnamurti: What shall we discuss? Before we go into any of these problems or issues, we ought to go into them completely and thoroughly, taking one thing at a time and not skip and vaguely talk about many things. So if we could take one issue, one real human problem, and talk it over together completely and seriously, I think it would be worthwhile. So, what shall we talk about?
2:00	Questioner: Education.
2:06	K: Do you want to talk about that?
2:19	Q: Our lack of awareness.
2:27	Q: Love.
2:29	K: Our lack of awareness. Love.
2:37	Q: I thought if we could discuss that sometimes, due to nervous fatigue, the mind seems to lose its sensitivity. I was wondering what we could do to cope with such a situation.
3:02	K: Could we take a problem like violence, which seems to be spreading all over the world, and see what the implications are in it, and whether the human mind can really solve the social problems and also the inward problems without any kind of violence? Would you like to talk about that? As one observes in every part of the world there are revolts, revolutions in order to change the social structure. And the structure has to be changed, obviously. And whether is it possible to change it without violence, because violence begets violence. One party can, through revolt, assume the power of government, and having achieved that power it will maintain itself in power through violence. That's fairly obvious, that's happening right through the world. So, we are asking whether there is a way of bringing about a change in the world and in ourselves which doesn’t breed violence. I should have thought this would be a very serious problem for each one of us. Would you want to discuss this, or do you want to discuss how to stand on one’s head? What do you say?
5:44	Q: Yes.
5:45	K: But please, let us go into it really deeply, not just superficially, because in talking this thing over we should bear in mind that it must also alter our ways of life, and I do not know if you want to go so deeply into this question. Please, sirs. So my question is, the outside world, the social structure – the injustice, the divisions, the appalling brutality, wars, revolts, all the rest of it, and also the inward struggle that is going on perpetually – whether all that can be changed without violence, without conflict, without opposition. Without breeding one party opposed to another party, not only outwardly but also inwardly. Without the inward division, bearing in mind all division is the source of conflict, is the source of violence. So how is one to bring about this change, both outwardly and inwardly? I should have thought that would be the most terribly important issue that we have to face. What do you say, sirs? How do we discuss this?
8:43	Q: Starting with violence in a small child. Can we start with violence in a small child?
8:49	K: Shall we start with the children, with the student, or with the educator, which is ourselves? Please, let’s talk it over together, don’t let me talk. I can. I will go on if you wish, but shouldn’t we share together in this?
9:23	Q: With the educator. Q: With ourselves.
9:28	Q: The violence in ourselves.
9:31	K: Where would you begin to resolve this problem? All the revolts in France that are going on now, in America, here, and in Germany and all the various parts of the world. Even in Russia, some of the intellectuals and writers are revolting against the tyranny. They want freedom. They want to stop wars. Now, where would you attack this problem? Not attack. Where would you start with this problem? Stopping wars in Vietnam or the Middle East? Where does one begin to understand this problem? At the periphery or at the centre?
10:29	Q: In one’s house. In one’s home.
10:35	K: That’s what I mean, where would you begin? With one's self, with one’s own home or out there?
10:45	Q: With oneself.
10:48	K: Where would you begin?
10:51	Q: Why not in both places? If one can bring about some superficial change that may resolve a certain superficial problem, I see no reason why that shouldn’t take place, as well as individual enquiry at the same time.
11:05	K: Right, sir. So are we concerned with superficial changes, superficial reformation which may be necessary, and therefore put our energies and thought and affection, care, in the reformation, the outward, superficial reformation, or – not as an opposite of it – or begin at a wholly different level?
11:45	Q: Are the two exclusive?
11:49	K: I didn’t say they were exclusive. I said they were not opposite.
11:53	Q: I don’t see that it’s a case of either/or.
11:57	K: Beg your pardon?
11:58	Q: I don’t see it being a case of either one thing or the other. One can be very serious and at the same time, perhaps, achieve saving a hundred lives by some superficial action. I see no reason why it’s exclusive. K: I agree, but there are many people who are doing superficial activity, thousands of them. Do we exclude that and entirely concern with our own house or in the very concern of the house the other is included too? It is not an exclusion or an opposition or avoidance of one and laying emphasis on the other.
12:53	Q: Well sir, I won’t persist and monopolise this, but it does seem that very often the people listening to you, and I myself included, have thought that individual enquiry was extremely important to resolve the immediate problem of the individual, to the exclusion of, say, political action which at its own level may resolve some particular issues. It's not fundamental, but I see no reason why they shouldn’t go on in parallel.
13:26	K: I quite agree, sir. Do we deal with the fundamental issues?
13:31	Q: Right. It is obviously the important thing.
13:33	K: So, where shall we begin? Which is the fundamental issue? Where?
13:39	Q: In ourselves.
13:42	Q: It’s the individual, the massive extent of the individual.
13:47	K: It is fairly clear, isn’t it, we want change both outwardly and inwardly. Superficially and deeply.
13:55	K: One doesn’t exclude the other. Q: That’s what I’m trying to say.
14:02	K: I must have food in order to think.
14:04	Q: But you did say either/or at the beginning...
14:07	K: No, perhaps that’s the wrong way of stating it. Without dividing, what is the fundamental issue? Where shall we tackle it, where shall we put our teeth into it?
14:39	Q: What is the cause of violence?
14:48	K: What is the cause of violence. Shall we discuss that? Yes?
15:03	Q: Why do we want to change?
15:06	K: Why do we want to change. Why should we change? That’s a good question, too. Why should we change at all?
15:18	Q: Because we don’t seem to be getting anywhere in our present state.
15:24	K: And even if you got somewhere in your present state, wouldn’t you want to change? Now, please, let’s come back.
15:40	Q: We seem to have very little movement in our present state, very little possibility of movement. We are caught in our own individual ways over and over again by some event... This lack of movement is because we are always caught in life in some way or another, and therefore violence arises.
16:10	K: Sir, you asked what is the cause of violence. Shall we discuss the cause? Shall we find out what are the causes of violence? And each one will have a different opinion of the cause. Even among the experts, they are disagreeing for the causes of violence, and volumes have been written about it. And shall we go on in explaining what are the causes of it, or see the violence as it is, as a fundamental issue in human relationship, and whether it should perpetuate itself, or change or modify. What is the fundamental issue involved in violence?
17:17	Q: We are apparently issued with a sort of animal brain, and that is the main cause of it, I think. Half the time politicians are behaving just like the chickens in the farmyard.
17:33	K: I know.
17:41	Q: Is it possible to look at the individual state of mind to find out whether we are primarily violent in ourselves? The very mode of mental activity, dualistic movement is itself violent.
17:57	K: Sir, what is violence, let us say, what would you consider violence?
18:05	Q: I think it is self-grasping. Grasping hold of oneself. Trying to grasp hold of oneself or the things that one’s attached to. It’s basically selfishness.
18:22	Q: Separation. Q: Reaction to fear.
18:33	K: Go on, sirs.
18:35	Q: We live in this thing that we were issued with therefore we are naturally violent unless we jump out of it.
18:46	K: We have been educated to be violent. Our animal nature and the human brain, – we all know this – is violent, aggressive, standing, opposing, resisting, fighting, asserting, dividing. The self-centred activity. All that goes to make for violence. Then what?
19:34	Q: There is also part of oneself that is repelled by violence.
19:37	K: Yes. There is part of oneself which rebels against violence, resists violence, appalled by violence.
19:52	Q: And another part which equally likes it, thrives on it.
19:55	K: Yes, sir. Now, then what? Proceed. Then where are we?
20:06	Q: The desire to go into the problem of violence is only a partial seeing. One doesn’t totally want to resolve the problem of violence.
20:15	K: Doesn’t one? Q: No...
20:18	K: Let’s find out. Is it possible to resolve totally the question of violence?
20:26	Q: Isn’t rebelling against violence a kind of violence itself? I should think it can be very destructive.
20:41	Q: If the mind is violent to start with, with its conditioning, then the outcome...
20:48	K: So what shall we do then, sir?
20:50	Q: Well, wouldn't it be wise to watch it, just watch the violence without splitting or separating it...
21:00	K: First of all, Mr Cadogan raised the question: do we really want to be free of all violence? Wait sir, just answer that question. Do we? Which means, doesn’t it, no conflict within oneself, no dualistic activity within oneself, no resistance, no opposition, no aggression, no ambition to be somebody, to assert one’s opinion and oppose other opinions. All that implies a form of violence. Not only the violence of self-discipline, the violence that makes me conform to a pattern, twist my particular desire in order to conform, to make it moral, or whatever it is. All such forms are violence. Will is violence. Do we want to be free of all this? And can a human being live, being free from all this?
23:07	Q: It seems that in the process we call our life, tension is necessary. We have to distinguish, it seems, between tension and violence. When does tension, which is normal to process, become violence? I am reminded of the story of the languishing herrings in a tank who don’t really come to life until they put some dogfish in the tank. When does tension cease, normal tension as a process of life, and violence begin? Do we make a distinction here?
23:49	K: So you think tension is necessary?
23:59	Q: In everything there is polarity.
24:05	K: Please sir, let’s find out. Does a human being, do we here, want to be free of all violence?
24:17	Q: This seems to me a very difficult question because we are such a lot of duplicity. One says at this moment, one does not want violence. The scene changes: in an hour's time one is violent, one is caught. One is broken up into so many facets.
24:40	Q: Well, we do in that case. We do need violence.
24:45	Q: Sir, a person may seriously attempt to free himself from the violence within, but how does such a person act when he is confronted with violence outwardly?
24:58	K: Wait sir, that is a later question. Do we here, see the importance of being totally free of all violence? Or we like to keep certain parts of violence? And is it possible to be free completely of all violence? That means of all irritation, all anger, any form of anxiety, any form of resistance to anything. Go on, sirs.
25:47	Q: I think there is a difference between you positing that question and an individual saying, ‘I want to be free of all violence.' Because one is a sort of dispassionate look at the question, the other one is a movement, again a violent movement.
26:11	K: Yes, that’s just it.
26:16	Q: It seems to me a real thing or a reasonable thing to look at the question rather than try to resolve violence. To me they are two different things.
26:28	K: Then what is the question, sir?
26:31	Q: Is it possible to be completely free of violence?
26:33	K: That’s all.
26:35	Q: It is quite different from seeking to be free of violence.
26:38	K: No, quite. Then is it possible?
26:44	Q: If one sees the pattern of one’s daily life, one sees that it seems as if without some form of violence, or maybe what this gentleman called tension, that one could never carry through, perhaps, one complete job, in the face of the pressures of resistances that often surround one in society. We talk about freedom from violence. When we are angry or afraid, we wish we weren’t trapped, but I feel that there is always some violence, perhaps, in our lives. It is difficult to conceive living, carrying through jobs and tasks without some amount of drive, which I feel is violence.
27:33	Q: Isn’t there a difference between this tension and violence? It seems that violence, being resistance and being aggression and all these things, is deadening; it’s something that tries to stop something, it resists. While this tension is something that’s alive, that’s moving with what you are doing. It seems that we have to understand the difference there between the violence and the tension.
28:08	K: Sir, can we pursue that question? Is it possible for a human being to be completely free of violence? We have understood what we mean more or less by violence.
28:25	Q: I don’t think we have. I agree with him…
28:28	K: What?
28:30	Q: I think that if there is a difference... If there is no difference between violence and energy then I would not want to be free of violence, and I would like to make the distinction.
28:50	Q: If we could see our violence the whole time, there would be no violence.
28:55	K: No, sir. Before we come to that point, do I, as a human being, do I say to myself: is it possible to live without violence?
29:09	Q: One obviously does not know.
29:12	K: So let us enquire. Let’s go into it, sir. Let’s find out.
29:23	Q: Wouldn’t the only way to find out be to do it?
29:28	K: Not only do it, but enquire, go into it, watch it, be aware of this whole movement of resistance. Look sirs, I put to myself this question: is it possible for me to be free of all violence? Knowing the danger of violence, seeing the outward effects of violence, the divisions, the horrors, and so on. Now, I ask myself, is it possible for me to be free of all violence? I don’t know, right? I really don’t know so I am going to enquire, I’m going to find out, not verbally but passionately. I want to find out. Because human beings have lived with violence for millions of years, I want to find out if it’s possible to live without violence. Now, where shall I begin?
31:04	Q: Would you first try to understand violence, what violence is?
31:08	K: I know it very well what it is: anger, jealousy, brutality, revolt, resistance, ambition, etc. We don’t have to define endlessly what violence is.
31:23	Q: But I don’t really see ambition as violence.
31:26	K: No?
31:34	Q: Is it possible to see how it arises in oneself when it comes up, when it reaches a stage?
31:43	K: So, must I wait till anger comes up and then be aware of that anger and say, ‘By Jove, I am violent’? Is that what you propose, sir?
31:59	Q: The movement leading up to it is very rarely caught by us.
32:08	Q: Sir, should we understand thoughts first? The pattern of thought…
32:15	K: Sir, it is such a vast problem, don’t let us take little bits of it. Let’s attack – not attack – let us observe it at the very core of it. What makes the mind violent in me, in this human body, in this person? What is the source of this violence?
32:40	Q: Fear?
32:42	K: Watch it in yourself, sir. What is the source of this violence in this person?
32:49	Q: Discontent.
32:52	Q: Isn’t it my desire to achieve something, my desire to get somewhere, to gain something, to be something? So the first thing I’d want to look at is to see how much of the violence that I knew I had I could give up and still survive within acceptable limits.
33:11	K: Within the acceptable limits. And that may also be violent.
33:19	Q: Yes, I would expect that I would still have a degree of violence.
33:22	K: And I am asking myself whether it is possible to live without violence, and I say: what is the root of this? If I could understand that, perhaps I will know how to live without violence. What is the root of this violence?
33:41	Q: The feeling of separation of the individual.
33:47	K: You say the root of this violence is separation, division, the 'me'. Now wait a minute. Can the mind live without the 'me'? Please go on. Let’s enquire.
34:08	Q: Isn’t it true that so long as there is an objective or a desire of any kind, that there is the seed of violence?
34:15	K: Of course. That is the whole point. We must go step by step into this. Please sirs, go on.
34:21	Q: Does this not in turn raise the question, is it possible to live without any objective?
34:27	K: Yes. Is it possible to live without any objective, without any principle, without any aim, without any purpose? Which, the opposite of that is to drift.
34:52	Q: No.
34:53	K: Therefore, we must be careful that we don’t think in terms of the opposite. If I have no objective then I just drift. So I must be very careful when I say: is an objective a form of violence? The non-objective may be a drift.
35:22	Q: But this is irrelevant, because whether one drifts or not isn’t the question. The question is: is it possible to live without violence?
35:30	K: I’m only warning. Q: I’m sorry.
35:32	K: I’m only warning not to go to the opposite. Now, is it possible to live without direction? Direction means resistance, means no distraction, no distortion, a continuous drive towards that. Why do I want a purpose, a goal, an end? And the end, the goal, the purpose, the principle, the ideal – is it true? Is it a thing which the mind has invented, because it is conditioned, because it is afraid, because it is seeking security both outwardly and inwardly, therefore it invents something and pursues that, hoping to have security?
36:57	Q: Well, at times one’s perhaps had intimations of this other thing, and the intimations seem to...
37:07	K: Yes. One may have an intimation of it, but that isn’t good enough for me. I want to find out whether it is possible to live without violence. And that is a passionate thing. It is not just an ideological fancy. I really want to find out.
37:29	Q: The trouble is I don’t really feel this question.
37:32	K: You don’t feel it?
37:33	Q: Not enough to reach...
37:37	K: Why don’t you? Why not? The whole issue of existence is this.
37:44	Q: I think this is a problem for most of us...
37:46	K: Good God. They are burning, they are destroying, And we say, ‘I am sorry, it doesn’t really interest me.’
38:00	Q: If this interests you, you are already resisting against burning... If the question of violence interests you, you are already resisting against burning and destroying. If you didn’t have violence in yourself, you simply wouldn’t be interested.
38:20	Q: Sir, within the meaning of the word violence, would you include things such as enthusiasm for something, drive, pep, all these things? Would you call these things violence?
38:34	K: Not what I call – what do you call it?
38:36	Q: I don’t know.
38:38	K: Let’s find out. I am not an oracle. Let’s find out. Let’s stick to this question, sir: is it possible for me to live without violence, completely?
39:02	Q: We are caught in such a terrible trap.
39:10	K: We are caught in it. Then you remain in it?
39:15	Q: No, but we live in a body which we… we have a body to preserve and a self to preserve and it is very difficult to...
39:29	K: What shall I do? Please, answer my question. Is it possible? Don’t say it is difficult. I’m asking. To me it’s of tremendous importance. The world is burning with it. Don’t say, ‘My body is weak and this is difficult, this is not possible, I must be a vegetarian, I must not kill.’ I am just asking: is it possible? And to find that out, I must find out what is the source of this violence, what is the root of it?
40:14	Q: Surviving.
40:16	Q: I think it’s being afraid and having fear. If I am afraid then I must be violent...
40:29	K: Therefore – I don’t know if I have understood it rightly – we accept violence then?
40:35	Q: It’s not a question of accepting violence, but something has happened and I’m afraid of that and therefore we want to destroy the thing we are afraid of.
40:46	K: Sir, would you put it this way: if you could find the source, the root of this violence, and if that root could wither away, you might live a totally different kind of life. So, wouldn’t it be worthwhile to find out what is the root of it and whether it can wither away?
41:18	Q: Probably there is such a thing as experiencing fear.
41:22	K: I am not interested in fear. My question is, I want to end violence because I see violence begets violence. It’s an endless thing, this violence: the blacks against the white, you know what is happening in the world. One party gets on top and rules through violence, etc. Now, I ask myself: is it possible? And before I can answer that question I must find out what is the root of it, the root of all these innumerable branches.
42:09	Q: But we can’t do it by thinking about it.
42:12	K: We are going to find out, madame. We are going to think about it and see the futility of thought, and then go afterwards. But we must exercise our intelligence, our thought.
42:25	Q: So long as I want to do anything, there is violence in a greater or lesser degree.
42:31	K: I understand this. I just said, is it possible to live without violence? And to find that out there must be an enquiry into the root of it.
42:45	Q: What I am trying to say is, the whole structure of life, normally, as we know it, consists of wanting to do this, wanting to do that – everything. So everything involves violence. That’s what I’m trying to say.
43:00	K: Yes, sir. That’s agreed.
43:02	Q: Paradoxically, might one consider self-preservation as one source?
43:08	K: You are all bringing up not the main, fundamental issue.
43:18	Q: Sir, you keep talking about the root, but it strikes me, the way life is at the moment – I’m living in a town at the moment – it’s just like the air. In a human society, violence hasn’t got a root, it’s a kind of fog in which everything is involved. And the questing after a root of it, it’s a question that doesn’t spring to my mind very naturally at all. One sees it in an animal-like way, so-and-so is frightened of so-and-so, he’s behaving this way or… but it’s a kind of series of reactions you’re aware of.
43:55	K: I understand all that, sir. I am asking you: what is the root of this? The root.
44:03	Q: The root is the self.
44:05	K: The self. All right. If it is the self, the 'me', if that is the root of all this, then what shall I do?
44:23	Q: That’s the question.
44:24	K: I’m asking, what shall I do, having discovered the root which is the 'me', the me wanting this, me not wanting that, the me wanting a purpose and running after it, the me that resists, the me that has a battle with itself, etc. If that is the root of it, which for me is the root, then what shall I do with it?
44:51	Q: Sir, we cannot do anything.
44:58	K: Accept it? Live with it? Live in this battle, live with this violence?
45:06	Q: I feel, if you say, ‘I am violent’ you haven’t got to the root. I think if you say, 'I am violent', that you haven't got to the root of the problem. One can go around parroting off ‘I am violent’ for infinity.
45:20	K: That has no meaning. I agree. I see the 'me' with all its branches is the cause of violence. The 'me' that separates you and me and we and they. The black and the white and the communist, the Arabs, the Israeli and so on.
45:49	Q: Rationally, you could say: eliminate the 'me'.
45:52	K: No, wait sir. How? How is the mind to eliminate its whole structure which is based on the 'me'? Sir, do look at the issue. The 'me' is the root of all this. The 'me' identified with a particular nation, with a particular community, with a particular ideology or with a particular religious fancy. The 'me' that identifies itself with a certain prejudice. The 'me' that says, ‘I must fulfil.’ And when it feels frustrated there is anger, bitterness, etc. The 'me' that says, ‘I must reach my goal. I must be successful.’ The 'me' that wants and doesn’t want. The 'me' that says, ‘I must live peacefully’, and the 'me' that gets violent. Now, how is this root to be – what?
47:21	Q: I think of the 'me' as though it’s an entity. Whereas, it seems to me that it is more of an action or an activity.
47:32	K: Quite. Q: Is it not misleading us?
47:35	K: Root doesn’t mean something solid like the root of a tree, it is a movement, it is a living thing. One day it is marvellous, the next day it is in great depression. One day it is passionate, lustful, the next day it is worn out and says, ‘Let me have some peace’ and so on. It is a constant living, moving, active thing. It is not as solid as the rock or the trunk of a tree. So, this is a living thing. How is the mind, which discovers this to be the root of all of this mischief, how is this movement to transform itself to another movement without becoming violent? Wait – let’s get the question right! We said this is a movement, it is a living thing. It is not static, it is not a dead thing. It is adding to itself all the time, and taking away from it all the time. This is the 'me'. And when the me says, ‘I must get rid of the me’, wanting to have another 'me', it is still violence. The me that says, ‘I am a pacifist. I live peacefully.’ The me that seeks truth, the me that says, ‘I must live most beautifully, non-violently.' is still the me which is the cause of violence. Now, it is a living thing – what shall I do? What will the mind do with it? And the mind itself is the 'me'. Right? I know it is rather a hot afternoon, so… You understand the question, sir? Any movement on the part of me to get rid of itself is the same movement of the 'me'. Do we realise that? No, please, do listen to that. Any movement of the 'me' to say, 'I must wither away, I must destroy myself, I must gradually get rid of myself', any movement of the 'me' is still the 'me', which is the root of violence. Then what? Do I really see that? Not theoretically but actually realise the truth of it. That any movement of the 'me' – any movement – up or down, horizontally or in any direction, backwards or forwards, downwards or upwards, any movement of the 'me' is the action of violence. Do I actually, sensuously, intelligently, see the truth of it, the feel of it? If the mind doesn’t, it can go on playing with words everlastingly.
52:11	Q: Does the mind consist solely of the 'me'? Are they identical?
52:18	K: Is the mind identical with the 'me'. It's identical with the 'me' when it is occupied with the 'me'. Right? When it isn’t occupied with the 'me' it is not the 'me'. And most of us are occupied with the 'me', consciously or unconsciously.
52:46	Q: We seem to be able to give up all kinds of thoughts, and as the 'me' is put together by thought, why can’t we discard it?
52:56	K: No sir. It is impossible to discard anything. Except smoking cigarettes, probably. But I’m saying – please, let’s stick to this one thing – do I actually see that any action of the 'me', negative or positive, is a form of violence? Is violence. If I don’t see it, why don’t I see it? What is wrong with my eyesight, with my feeling? Is it that I am afraid what will happen if I see it? Or I’m bored with the whole thing. Please, come on, sirs...
54:24	Q: Sometimes one is carried away...
54:26	K: No, sir. It is not a question of being carried away. I am really… I want to find this out!
54:39	Q: We can’t rake up the energy to keep the mind on the subject.
54:44	K: No, sir. If you say we haven’t the energy, there again, the collecting of that energy is a form of the 'me' which says, ‘I must have more energy in order to tackle this.’ Sir, please listen. Any movement of the 'me', which is thought, conscious or unconscious, any movement in any direction – to get rid of itself, to commit suicide and so on – is still the 'me'. Do I really see the truth of this?
55:34	Q: There is something behind the 'me'. There is an essence which is not of thought.
55:40	K: Is there something behind the 'me' which is not of the 'me'?
55:50	Q: We don’t know. Q: Yes, we do.
55:53	K: Do listen to that question, sir. Don’t say we don’t, we do. Is there anything behind the 'me' which is not of the 'me'?
56:05	Q: If there is and we think about it, it is yet again part of the 'me'.
56:08	K: Who is putting this question?
56:15	Q: The 'me'.
56:16	K: Who is putting this question: Is there something behind the 'me'? Surely it is the 'me' that is putting the blasted question.
56:28	Q: Why not? Thought is a tool, why not use it?
56:32	K: Ah, no. We don’t say, ‘Why not?’ It is still the movement of the 'me'.
56:44	Q: I think we can only fail to see this... You've asked: do we really see that any movement of the 'me' is violence. I think the only reason that we can’t see it is that we reject violence.
57:00	K: Oh, no, no. Either you see it or you don’t see it. It isn’t a question of something prevents you from seeing. I don’t see it. I don’t see my affection for my dog or for my wife or husband, or for the beauty of... – is part of 'me'. Because I think that is a most marvellous state.
57:33	Q: Sir, by definition you have virtually said that life is violence, movement, change.
57:40	K: As we live now, life is violent. Living is a form of violence.
57:46	Q: Is life possible without change, is life possible without movement?
57:55	K: That’s what we are asking. The life we lead is life of violence, which is caused by the 'me'. And we are saying: do we see that any movement of the 'me' in any direction, conscious or unconscious, is a form of violence? And if I don’t see it, why don’t I see it? What is wrong?
58:31	Q: Isn’t it the 'me' that sees it? It is the same thing.
58:35	K: Wait. Is it the 'me' that sees it?
58:44	Q: Is it intelligence?
58:48	K: What do you say, sir? I don’t know. What is it? What is it that sees that 'me' is the root of all mischief?
59:03	K: Sir, please do watch it. Who sees it?
59:08	Q: Generally, the 'me'.
59:10	K: Is it the 'me' that sees?
59:16	Q: Generally, yes.
59:18	Q: I don’t see it. I’m afraid to give up everything I’ve ever known.
59:26	K: So you don’t want to see the 'me' is responsible for this hideous mess. Because I say, ‘I cannot give up my particular little something, I don’t care if the world goes bust, but I want to have my little corner.’ Therefore, I don’t see the 'me' is the root of all – whatever it is.
59:54	Q: Would you say there is any other 'me', other than the thinking process with an object in view? When I think towards something, towards an object, to me this is the 'me', and there is no other 'me' except that process.
1:00:10	K: Obviously.
1:00:12	Q: But the process isn’t the thing that sees the significance of the question.
1:00:17	K: No. We said: this 'me' is a living thing, is a movement, is all the time adding to itself, taking away from itself. And this 'me' is the root of all mischief, violence. This movement – not this 'me' called static something, which invents the soul, which invents God, which invents heaven, punishment, the whole of that. And we are asking: does the mind realise that the 'me' is the cause of this mischief? Mind – if you like to use the word intelligence – mind which has seen the whole map of violence, all the intricacies of this violence. The mind sees it by observing, and the mind says, that is the root of all evil, all violence. So the mind now says, is it possible to live without the 'me'? Right?
1:01:48	Q: The process of seeing is different from the process of moving in a certain direction towards something.
1:01:54	K: Quite. The process of seeing is entirely different. It is not a process. I won’t use that word.
1:02:03	Q: A realisation.
1:02:04	K: The seeing is seeing, now. It is not a process of seeing.
1:02:10	Q: Sorry...
1:02:13	K: We are just discussing, sir, it’s not a question of you are sorry, I am sorry. Seeing is acting. Now, does the mind see it, see this whole map of violence and the root of it? And what is it that sees? Is it the 'me'? If the 'me' sees it, then it is afraid to live differently. Right? Then the 'me' says, ‘I must protect myself. I must resist this. I am afraid.’ Therefore the 'me' refuses to see the map. But the seeing is not the 'me'.
1:03:15	Q: Seeing has no purpose, has it?
1:03:17	K: Seeing, sir, the map. There is no purpose, it just sees.
1:03:23	Q: But immediately, I say...
1:03:25	K: Ah, wait, wait. No. Do we realise the mind, observing this fact, this map, the entire map, that mind is entirely different from the 'me' which sees it and is afraid to break from it? Right? There are two different observations: the 'me' seeing, and seeing. The 'me' seeing must inevitably be afraid, and therefore resist, therefore say, ‘How shall I live? What shall I do? Must I give this up? Must I hold on?’ and so on. ‘Shall I cross that road? Go to that village on that map?’ We said: any movement of the 'me' is violence. And there is a mere seeing the map, which is entirely different. Now, which is it that you are doing? Please sir, come – which is it that you are doing?
1:04:48	Q: The 'me' is seeing.
1:04:50	K: Now, you say the 'me' is seeing, therefore it is afraid.
1:04:54	Q: Various parts afraid...
1:04:55	K: All right, that’s afraid. Then what will you do, knowing any movement of the 'me' is still furthering of that fear?
1:05:07	Q: I don’t know.
1:05:08	K: What do you mean you don’t know?
1:05:14	Q: The 'me' is all I know...
1:05:16	K: No sir, we made it very clear. Do listen to this, sir: there are two actions of seeing: seeing the map non-directionally, non-purposively, just seeing. And the 'me' seeing, the 'me' with its purpose, with its drive, with its directive, with its resistance, it sees and is afraid to do this or that.
1:05:59	Q: Are you using the word ‘see' now in the way in which you normally speak of being aware?
1:06:04	K: No, I am just using the word 'seeing' for a change, that’s all.
1:06:10	Q: Sir, you tell me there is such a state in which you can see without the 'me', but I never experienced that.
1:06:16	K: Do it now, sir! I am showing it to you. We are showing it to you. There is the 'me' that looks at this whole map of violence and therefore is afraid and therefore resists. There is the 'me' that sees that and therefore resists. There is another seeing which is not the 'me', which just observes non-purposively, and says, ‘I just see it.’ But this is simple, isn’t it? I see you have got a green shirt. I don’t say I like it or dislike it, I just see it. But the moment I say I like it, I am already the 'me' saying, ‘I like it’, and therefore... all the rest of it. Please, this is sufficiently clear – verbally, at least.
1:07:21	Q: Could we go into the question of why this – I’ve got to use the word why – this looking without the 'me' is so very difficult...
1:07:30	K: No, I don’t think it is difficult! Don’t say it is difficult. Then you are stuck. Then you have blocked yourself.
1:07:40	Q: Could one summarise this by saying that in one case there is a seeing without purpose and in the other case purpose is involved?
1:07:48	K: Yes, that’s all. Can I look without direction? And when I look with a direction, it's the 'me'. What is the difficulty in this, may I ask?
1:08:20	Q: Isn’t it illusion to think that looking with a direction is looking?
1:08:25	K: Looking with a direction is not looking, obviously.
1:08:30	Q: But aren’t we in the illusion that it is looking?
1:08:35	K: That’s what we are trying to point out.
1:08:40	Q: There is a difference between looking and seeing. If one is looking, one is involved.
1:08:48	K: Don’t let’s complicate it. Now, 'seeing' we said. Does the mind see the whole map without any direction?
1:09:03	Q: The map is a direction. It involves direction.
1:09:05	K: No, no, no. Just looks. Sir, the map – oh my Lord, I will have to change the word ‘map’ – this whole structure of the 'me' is violence. The structure being the way I live, the way I think, the way I feel, the whole reaction to the establishment or to communism or to Catholicism, or to the black or to the white – it is a form of violence, which is the 'me'. That is all in the category of time. Right? I’ve changed the word. And the 'seeing' is non-time. Because I see it. The moment I see with time, there is fear.
1:10:11	Q: Do you think there is a tendency for the mind to mistake the seeing for the thing seen? Because once you see something, if you have a perception...
1:10:22	K: Yes. Now, do find out, sir. How do you see? Do you see non-purposively or purposively? My Lord! Do you see in terms of time? That is, say, ‘It is too difficult, it is too complex, what am I to do?', etc., or do you see it without time? And if you say, ‘I don’t see it without time’, next question is: why? What's the difficulty? Is it physical blindness, or is it psychological disinclination to look at anything as it is? Because we have never looked at anything directly, always trying to avoid, escape? Therefore, if we are escaping, let’s look, see the escape, not how to resist escape. Because if you say... Can you look at your escape non-purposively? Right? Come on, sirs. Don’t you think we’d better stop? We will continue tomorrow morning, so shall we stop? What do you say? It’s up to you, please.
1:12:50	Q: No. K: No?
1:13:01	K: Don’t you want to walk in the woods?
1:13:07	Q: It gets a bit difficult to concentrate after an hour...
1:13:10	K: It’s difficult to concentrate after an hour and a half, so we better stop, right.