Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR70S2 - Is there a living in which there is no violence?
Brockwood Park, UK - 7 June 1970
Seminar 2



0:01 This is the second small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti at Brockwood, l970.
0:09 Krishnamurti: Shall we go on where we left off yesterday? We’d asked the question, whether it is at all possible to be completely free from all violence, both at the conscious as well as the unconscious levels. We said that the real root, or the movement, of this violence is the separation, division, brought about by the me, the self. The me that divides itself, when it is convenient and comfortable, not too dangerous for itself, in various forms of aggression, of despair, of hope, of good and the bad, and asserting itself in its demands to fulfil, and finding itself frustrated. The me that causes the fears, the aggressive drives, the sense of seeking some reality, which is projected by the me. And so there is always a division in itsself and therefore the me is the root or the movement of conflict, both outwardly and inwardly. That’s right, isn’t it? That’s what we discussed yesterday. And we said also, do we really perceive this fact? Do we really see this as a living thing, not just as a theory, or a supposition, but see it as we would see a map, a living thing, and see all the intricacies and the difficulties, the dangers, of this movement, called the me. Do we see it with the eyes of the me, and therefore fear is engendered from that? Or do we see it, without a purpose? Without a principle, without giving – without any sense of direction, just to observe, just to see! I think that’s where we left off. And please, also, if I may point out, this is not a week-end entertainment. Humph. This is really quite a very – quite a serious matter, to go into, and I do not know how far you want to go into it; if you are at all serious, one must go to the very end of it. So one must find out for oneself, whether one is looking, seeing, with a purpose, with a motive, with a direction – this whole structure and nature of the me, which is a living thing - or do we see it without a purpose, without a direction, completely. Because, if one has a purpose in one’s observation, then there is a division. And therefore, from that, there comes fear, conflict and all the rest of it. And can one look without a purpose, without a direction, without the sense of duality. If one cannot, why is it that one can’t? We have talked about that too, a little bit. If you understand the question, if you are – if you are here – if you weren’t here yesterday – is the question clear, all that we have said this morning? The me that identifies itself with a particular race, with a particular class, with a nationality, with certain qualities, with certain religious dogmas, beliefs, rituals, with certain forms of a social and environmental influence, and changes, and reformation – all that is the me! The me that is the mischief-maker; call it the ego, the personality, whatever you like to name it. It’s this living thing, that’s always seeking, searching, denying, in conflict, in identifying itself with something it considers greater; you know, the whole movement of the me and its activities. That, we said, is the root, is the movement, of all violence, whether it be sexual violence, whether it be the violence of racial hatreds and class differences, wars – you know. And also it is the violence that the me says: ‘I must discipline myself, I must conform myself to a certain pattern’; projected, self-projected, or imposed upon it by environment. Do we want to discuss – do we want to discuss that point? And what we want – it’s fairly clear isn’t it?
7:50 Q: We seem to have got stuck there.
7:52 K: We are stuck there. Why?
7:57 Q: Is it something to do with the habit of purpose?
8:05 K: Habit. Sir, include every moment of thought as the me. Include everything which thought calls the me. That movement – the me - may not operate in the, in science, in the laboratory, but the moment that you come out of that, the me operates. My country, my ambition, my wanting to be bigger – you know, all the rest of it. (Pause) I was told once that the cross of Christianity means: “the I : wipe it out!”. (laughter)
9:06 Q: The Oxford Group in the ‘twenties did that once.
9:15 K: What?
9:16 Q: (repeating) The Oxford Group in the ‘twenties…
9:18 K: (laughing) I don’t know which group said it. I believe it’s much older than that. It’s really – well, in India, too, there were various symbols to deny the me, various symbols which represent the denial of the me. Because if theme persists and continues- and with all its divisions - meditation and the enquiry of the perception of what is true, is quite impossible. So, one must really go into this if you are at all serious, see whether it is possible for the mind to be completely free of all violence. And, in the discovery of it, whether it is possible, also whether it is possible to live in this world, with all the brutality that is going on around one.
10:30 Q: Isn’t to deny the me a form of violence?
10:38 K: Of course, I would, I was only saying that is thissymbolic meaning of that cross, that’s all. You can’t deny it. And who is the entity that denies it? If the entity that denies it, is still the me, it is the perpetuation of violence. And also to deny something without really understanding it, is a form of violence.
11:09 Q: Isn’t it necessary for us to accept the me?
11:15 K: No, sir, why should I accept it, it is operating all the time. Why should I accept the sunrise? It is there – the sun! The me is there, all the time active, with all its problems, with its opinions, with its evaluations, judgments, what should be, what must be, what shouldn’t and all the rest. This is how we operate. With all the incredible experiences the me has had, in the form of sorrow, despair, fear – the me still continues.
12:01 Q: It is the only thing we know, and we don’t want to go beyond it to something we don’t know.
12:13 K: But the – if the me is the movement that brings about this chaos, this confusion, this sorrow – you know, all the rest of it – don’t, doesn’t one see the danger of it?
12:34 Q: Did you say we can’t dissolve it through meditation?
12:41 K: No, sir, no, no. I said you cannot dissolve it through medi …we’ll have.. I have introduced it rather too early - meditation, sorry!
12:53 Q: But, if we do see this, something that happens only for a moment….
13:01 K: I beg your pardon.
13:03 Q: (repeating) If we do see this,something that happens only for a moment and it starts…
13:07 K: Do we see this – don’t say ‘for a moment’ or ‘for a length of time’, do you actually see this fact, the danger of this me, in all its forms.
13:19 Q: But, sir, if we see it like this and judge it, and condemn it… are we not already…?
13:29 K: Ah – then the me is still in operation. Please sir, we said, can we look at this movement of – called the me - without a purpose, without a motive, without trying to get rid of it, or deny it, or suppress it, or transform it – mm? – or, can you look at it without any motive, without any purpose or direction, just to observe the movement going on, both inwardly and outwardly. All the political campaign that’;s going on in this country at the moment, all the wars, all the chicanery of all the priests, throughout the world. So I must – one must find out for oneself how you look at this movement. With what eyes you look. Do you look at this movement with a mind that has a purpose, has a motive, behind that look? And, if you do have a purpose, a motive, a direction, then that direction, that purpose, that motive, is still the activity of the me. Or, do you look without the purpose, the motive, the direction? This is very important to find out; please, do give a little bit of your – give your passion to this. You know, this has been, I think, as one observes, in all the various religions, this has been the direction, more or less: people have said, the self must be destroyed; the self must be put away. And so, in its place, they have put the structure – the things which thought has built. Right? Symbols, saviours, gods, a purpose, an ideal, a great, tremendous hope, and all the rest of it. But it’s still the movement of thought, which is still the me. Now is that – I think that is fairly clear, isn’t it?
16:57 Q: It is a vicious circle.
16:58 K: I beg your pardon, sir.
17:00 Q: A vicious circle.
17:01 K: Yes, so what is one to do? Is it a vicious circle? It is a vicious circle if the observer is caught in the movement of direction, purpose, motive, suppression and all the rest of it. Then he can’t get out of it. Then he is living in a perpetual prison. So, to look at this movement, non-purposively. Can you do itLong pAUSE If one can’t, why not? Why can’t one see this thing, non … with eyes that are not corrupt with purpose, by .. made corrupt by purpose, direction – you know, why can’t one look at it, without all the confusion, chattering of the mind. Please, sirs, do join .
18:32 Q: But, the motive’s still there, somewhere.
18:33 K: I beg your pardon.
18:34 Q: But the motive is still there somewhere (inaudible) and we haven’t really seen it.
18:44 K: You think there is always a motive?
18:48 Q: Well, not necessarily …
18:49 K: Hidden, we may not see it, but it’s always lurking somewhere in the background.
18:53 Q: Yes.
18:54 Q: No, I don’t think so.
18:55 Q: I think it’s a matter of brain-washing, from the childhood, the motives have always been put there, you don’t do something …
19:03 K: Then how do you brain-wash the me, now? (laughs) The child may have been stuffed with all this, but how do I brain.. how does my …how is my mind brain-washed? The communists do it in order to put their own theories into it, the religious people do it and put in – laughs - all the rest of it.
19:26 Q: Sir, would the danger, er, the very danger of it be seen and then transcended …
19:34 K: Do you see the danger of it? Not, we must then transcend, but do you actually see the danger of the me, as you see a danger of an animal or something; you know, real, physical danger. I am afraid you don’t.
19:53 Q: .. there’s more to it
19:55 K: No, wait, sir, you don’t, do you? Let’s be simple about this matter, uh? Do you see the movement of the me as a tremendous danger, to live in security, to live freely, to live with great joy; do we see it as a tremendous danger? As you would see if you had a snake in this room which was a poisonous one, you would be on – (laughs) you wouldn’t be sitting here, so casually.
20:34 Q: But, sir, if you call it a danger, or trouble-maker, or a mischief-maker ..(inaudible)
20:41 K: No – no, , those are words, sir, those are words to convey – otherwise you must use certain words, like physical danger; a precipice is a physical danger, and you act instantly. Now, we don’t see the danger of the me and we carry on. That’s all.
21:00 Q: But, the dangers we see, are dangers to the me…
21:09 K: No, danger. You know. Do see …all right, danger for survival, if you want to put it that way. Because wherever there is division, between you and the me, we and they, there must be war. The communist, the capitalist, the socialist – you follow? The catholic, the protestant; there must be war, and therefore no security for any human being. And that’s what I call danger.
21:49 Q: But don’t you think life is dangerous?
21:52 K: Not invented .. it is dangerous, when it is invented by the me. But there’s quite a kind – a different kind of adventurous thing when the me is not.
22:08 Q: But there’s still risk ..
22:13 K: Er?
22:15 Q: .. in the sense that there’s still vulnerability.
22:18 K: Sir, let us leave that, all that aside. Let us stick to this fact: does one see the this movement of the me, this chattering of the me - not what will happen when this movement comes to an end – that’s not a relevant question, if I may point out – but to see if this – to look at it; oh sir, what am I, what’s the point of my repeating it over and over again?
23:00 Q: The difficulty is we are all trying to see it.
23:05 K: Is that the difficulty, that you are all trying to see it? It is there! What have I to try?
23:12 Q: But we do.
23:13 Q: It is easy to look at a map, isn’t it?
23:14 K: I beg pardon.
23:15 Q: It isn’t difficult to look at a physical map.
23:18 K: Is it difficult?
23:19 Q: We can see the dangers outside and we can see that the me, the general me of humanity is causing it, but we can’t see the danger inside, I think, or we don’t have the energy to see the danger inside.
23:52 K: Sir, aren’t you concerned gravely and very seriously with what is happening in the world? The Middle East war, Vietnam, the conflict .. the so-called physical revolution that’s going on in America, the Russian tyranny, um? The lack of freedom. You know what is happening in the world?
24:20 Q: I do, yes.
24:21 K: Aren’t you concerned passionately about all that? And don’t you say: ‘My God, can this violence end, ever?’ I mean, do you want your children to be destroyed? Sir, you, apparently, you don’t seem to care.
24:45 Q: Aren’t we talking in terms of ourselves? We like ourselves too much to even want to see?
24:58 K: If you are really concerned with yourself, mm? – really concerned with yourself, you would see the danger of all this. (laughs)
25:06 Q: Yes, but I think that somewhere there is a stopping place that…
25:13 K: There is ..?
25:14 Q: Having seen something that it doesn’t like at all, it veers off …
25:20 K: You mean you haven’t the sustained – er – passion to look, energy.
25:28 Q: Not sustained – yes (inaudible)..
25:31 K: Sustained observation, is that it?
25:32 Q: Yes, that’s it.
25:33 K: Why … would you do that if there was a snake in the room?
25:35 Q: No, of course one wouldn’t, but one doesn’t think of oneself as a snake. One thinks very nicely of
25:41 K: You see, you are all …
25:43 Q: One doesn’t see the wars in the world as an extension of the wars in oneself.
25:49 K: Look sir, you want to survive, don’t you? You want food, you want clothes, you want somebody else to have food, clothes - mm? What is preventing all this? Sovereign governments, different reg… you know all the rest, division, division, division. And this division is brought about by this movement of the me, which is the very essence of violence.
26:23 Q: Sir, the desire for psychological security, when people were not clear on this, the – how the mind, maybe on the deeper levels of the mind, yearn for psychological security in themselves, and so they …
26:45 K: Sir, you may not want psychological security, but you must have, not only psychological security, but physical security to survive, and you cannot survive, if there is violence.
27:03 Q: But, ir, it is the same thing which is also creating life, which is ordering it. One – one can’t see – one doesn’t really see the difference between the me or the personality, when it is working usefully in the world, or when it’s – it’s harmful.
27:28 K: Sir, look sir, what is useful, what is beneficial, is soon turned into mischief – mm? It soon becomes destructive. You see this happening. They introduce a new law, which brings about destruction for something else.
27:52 Q: This may be so in general, but in one’s own life one is using one’s personality to do one’s work, and this is where the confusion comes in.
28:03 K: Yes, so what – what is the – then what is the question, ir?
28:09 Q: The question is that one isn’t familiar enough with this process.
28:16 K: You mean, sir, that one isn’t really completely dissatisfied with the thing – with the movement, called the me. One observes certain benefits, certain pleasures, certain - uh – usefulness in this movement, so one keeps to that movement…
28:36 Q: I think that’s different. This is what one relies on…
28:43 K: Yes, I understand, sir…
28:45 Q: .. one hasn’t got enough of it…one becomes uh - ?? one thinks in life, and one also sees it’s dangerous.
28:51 K: Then what is oneto do, sir?
28:52 Q: One hasn’t seen the other state sufficiently with its (inaudible)..
28:55 K: Ah! Is that it? One has not seen the other – the freedom from the movement, and therefore another state, and one has not seen that state; therefore one cannot put this aside. Is that it?
29:15 Q: I don’t know.
29:17 Q: We don’t want to pull the house down, without knowing how to rebuild another one.
29:24 K: (laughs) I am afraid these similes are rather dangerous - (laughter from group)
29:34 Q: Sir, I think sometimes we do see it, and we are really sick of the way this me is operating, but it seems so tremendous that we just don’t know what to do about it; it’s – it seems overwhelming, and that’s, I’ve found, that’s when the mind veers off onto something else – moves away fro,m this.
29:42 Q: I think one can see the other state at times, but that still doesn’t help one get rid of) the me ..
30:13 K: So, what shall I do, sir? Uh? What shall we do, when we know more or less that it is quite a dangerous thing, the me, what shall we do? Though it has certain benefits, it builds roads, it … (laughs) .. you follow, all the rest of it, mm? - but taking it as a whole movement, it’s quite destructive. Now what shall we do?
30:50 Q: Can we observe it as a …
30:51 K: No, what shall we do, sir? I, you are faced with this problem, mm? Of violence in the world, in me, in you, this tremendous movement that’s going on inside one – um? What shall we do about it?
31:10 Q: Get away from it.
31:13 K: Get away from it? How? Tell – show me!
31:16 Q: If one’s terribly concerned, you’re totally aware of it, you’re watching all the time.
31:21 K: Ah, my lady, don’t … you see … if you are … you are aware of this, aren’t you?
31:30 Q: Anything you do is a movement away.1
31:40 K: We said, any movement away, any resistance, any denial of it, any form of saying that some parts were good, some parts are … and so on and so on; it is still altogether a movement which is most destructive. It may produce marvellous things and all the rest of it, but as a whole, it is very … it is corrupt. Now, what shall I do? What shall my mind, realising its nature, what … what will it do?
32:23 Q: If it sees the corruption, then it must see that it cannot do anything.
32:29 K: Therefore … so what has taken place? Go on, sir, what has taken place? It has observed, very clearly and objectively, non-emotionally, the movement of violence, mm?, everywhere – racially, linguistic …you follow, religiously; and also one has observed, unemotionally, this movement, inward, also – uh? – inside the skin. Now, one realises – one sees this; then what? What takes place?
33:12 Q: Full stop.
33:15 K: What takes place, sir? Look at it. What takes place?
33:20 Q: I think one has to die.
33:23 K: Uh?
33:24 Q: One has to – to die, the me has to die.
33:28 K: No sir, when you say, one has to die, (laughs) who is .. again . I understand what you mean, but ….
33:33 Q: It’s so significant(?), that you just want to die.
33:34 Q: I find that the mind becomes quiet when I look.
33:43 Q: You give up?
33:45 K: You don’t give up. You don’t say, when the house is burning, give it up. You try to do something about it.
33:53 Q: Part of you becomes objective and withdraws from that phenomena.
33:57 K: No, sir. Do please .. you understand, sir, any form, any movement of thought is the me. No? Any movement of thought is the me. So do I .. does the mind observe, without thought, which is the me; or does it observe with the thought of the me. Can’t you find out for oneself, how you are looking at all this? How am I, how is my - .. the mind looking at this question?
35:03 Q: If one discovers something that’s corrupt, one rejects it.
35:17 K: Sir, don’t … how do you look at it, sir, how are you looking at it? Or, are you, or you’re .. you’re not looking at it at all?
35:33 Q: Some of the time.
35:35 K: No, now, sir. Huh.
35:37 Q: One likes to think one is looking ..
35:40 K: Are you? Not, think. Are you looking at this thing?
35:45 Q: There’s a sense of helplessness.
35:49 K: Why? Then you have a purpose in your looking. And not finding a purpose, not finding a way out, you become hopeless. Therefore, you are still looking with the eyes of the me.
36:02 Q: Obviously.
36:03 K: So find – go into it, sir, go into it that way and you will see what happens to your mind. Please pursue it, sir,
36:10 Q: You see it as something separate, from you.
36:15 K: No sir.
36:18 Q: You listen, surely.
36:19 K: Look, sir, what are we doing now? We are – the mind, in observation, seeing all the intricacies of it, the subtleties of it – mm? – the non-verbal – ah – interpretation, looking at the - all the movement - mm? – what has happened to the mind? Looking at the nationalities, the divisions of nationality, and the destruction of that; looking at the religious divisions, looking at the racial divisions, the prejudices, the resistances, in oneself – you follow? - the characteristics, the idiosyncrasies, the peculiarities of opinions and prejudices and all that – is still the movement. I’ve watched it moving, from step to step. Mm? What has happened to the mind that has looked at it that way?
37:35 Q: The mind is no longer so active.
37:36 K: No, oh, no, please, watch it, your own mind! If you have done this, as we are doing it now, this morning and yesterday afternoon, observing it, step by step, patiently, all this movement of violence, the discipline that says: I must conform, I must obey, I must follow. This tradition that gives such a sense of psychological security, which is still the me. Watching all that! In that watching what has happened to the mind?
38:21 Q: It rejects it.
38:23 K: Uh?
38:25 Q: Rejects.
38:26 K: Uh?
38:27 Q: It rejects it.
38:29 K: No! We said any rejection ..
38:33 Q: (agreeing) Mm.
38:34 K: Huh, now you see, that means, look, sir. Now what has happened? Now you don’t reject now, any more.
38:40 Q: Watchful.
38:41 K: What .. (laughs)
38:42 Q: The mind is all that.
38:45 K: Your mind has done all this, sir: watched, found it was rejecting, or resisting, reacting to what you have found, which is another form of resistance, and so on. Now what – when the mind has observed all this, what has happened to the mind?
39:10 Q: The mind becomes quiet .. (inaudible)
39:12 K: Go slowly. What’s happened to your mind?
39:17 Q: It’s cut [?] away from the me, hasn’t it? (inaudible)
39:23 K: No, madam.
39:24 Q: It sees the stupidity of the whole process.
39:27 K: Uh?
39:28 Q: It sees the stupidity of the whole process.
39:29 K: All right. What – you see the stupidity of the whole process. What is the state of the mind that sees the stupidity?
39:41 Q: It stops.
39:45 Q: (inaudible)
39:46 K: Hasn’t it become much more intelligent? Uh? Much more alive, much more passionate?
40:01 Q: You then want to do something about it -
40:04 K: You’ve got tremendous energy, haven’t you? Oh, but you don’t do it
40:12 Q: A transformation of the …
40:13 K: Sir, you don’t do it! Please, do it and you will see what happens to you. We are all defeatists. We are so.. we’ve given up – you know, you say well let’s – can’t do anything about it, it’s impossible, and therefore we have no energy. But when you have gone into this step by step, go very carefully, examining, looking, observing, all this phenomena of the me, this movement. Never reject …. when you reject, that means you are resisting it, you want something else. Or, when there is despair, you – you are in despair, because you are looking at it with a desire to find some hope out of it. Get some hope. And when there is no hope you get … and so on and on and on.
41:24 Q: It seems to me that there is no end to the observation, and therefore should there not be a stage where there is no observer?
41:44 K: That’s what we are doing, sir. There is no observer, when there is – when there is complete intelligence, which is attention. Please – you see, you don’t do it!
41:57 Q: Sir, one feels one has great moments of attention, but afterwards, the – er – conformity sets in again.
42:09 K: All right sir. All right. I know, you say there are moments of attention, but the rest of the time I am inattentive. Mm? All right. Be aware of that inattention. But you see you don’t boil with all this - it isn’t really a problem to you, a burning problem; how to live a life in which there is no violence. You know,sir, violence means conformity.
42:46 Q: But it isa problem.
42:51 K: No, sir, it is not; because - you don’t understand the whole thing of it, when it is – violence means conformity. Am I conforming? I want to find out.
43:01 Q: I might not understand the problem, but I want to understand it.
43:06 K: Do it now, sir. I’m telling you – conformity is a form of violence. Now, are you conforming? Imitating?
43:17 Q: Yes, up to a point.
43:19 K: Not up to a (laughs). I am conforming when I put on trousers. UMm?
43:30 2Q: But that’s natural.
43:31 K: Wait. And when I go to India I put on something else. I am conforming.
43:36 Q: But, perhaps you are talking about a different kind of conformity.
43:40 K: Beep, beep! (?) Do see… I’m conforming when a lady comes into the room I get up. [
43:55 Q: ,,,natural
43:56 K: Bee- ah [laughter]So I – I realise I’m conforming, in a certain direction. Am I conforming in the other direction? I’m enquiring. Sir, find out!
44:09 Q: But if you surrender to the fact that you are conforming..
44:14 K: Uh?
44:15 Q: If you surrender …
44:16 K: No! I want to find out where I am conforming. I know I am conforming when I put this on. Am I conforming in the other direction: when I accept social morality, am I conforming? And when I reject social morality I’m conforming to a morality which I have invented, or which somebody else has invented which I think is good, therefore I am conforming. And when I am comparing: myself with somebody else; that’s a conformity, comparing.
45:04 Q: Sir ..
45:05 K: That means violence. Sir, see – find out if you are comparing, if you can live a life without comparison.
45:12 Q: But there can be intelligent comparison, like the intelligent putting on of trousers.
45:17 K: Ah wait a minute, sir, what do you mean, intelligent comparison. Wait, wait, wait. Wait. I put on trousers, because I don’t want to attract attention if I put on Indian dress. It’s a bore. Humph! Sir, look, please find out. Am, are you living a life of comparison, of conformity? Find out, sir. Conformity to a social pattern, to a religious pattern, to the tradition of an Englishman, German, French – and all the rest of the blasted stuff, to – conformity to a principle, conformity to an experience, which has become knowledge, which is memory; you follow the complications of all this? So can I – can the mind live, without conformity? Conformity implies distortion.
46:25 Q: Does it not imply identification with something..
46:39 K: Of course sir, of course, of course. I identify myself with India, or with England, or with Germany, because that gives me security. I compare myself with somebody who’s very clever, very bright, very intelligent, enlightened and all the rest of it, because, you know –
47:01 Q: Is it the me that wants to conform?
47:03 K: Uh?
47:04 Q: (repeating) Is it the me that wants to conform?
47:06 K: Find out, sir! Whether you can live a life without measuring yourself against somebody. Go into –
47:17 Q: Only if I can – if I can learn not to think.
47:23 K: If you can – “only if I can learn not to think”. How can you learn (chuckles) not to think? You have to think if you go back to your house, haven’t you? Tonight, when you leave this place, you have to think where you are going .Mm?
47:44 K: Yes, but I’m trying to say that this is where the problem exists.
47:48 K: So, can thought be stopped? Mm? Who’s going to stop it? Another fragment of thought, which is still thought? So, my question is, after examining all this, examining comparison, if I live a life of comparison, if I live a life of conformity,I find out.Ifthere is any form of aggression, resistance, accepting a principle and objective in life, and living according to that, is a conformity. And ideal is a conformity. And conformity, comparison is a movement of the me, obviously. Me, that wants to be bigger, nobler. And when it can’t be nobler gets frustrated, angry, miserable, bitter, and – you know, cynical, and all the rest of it. Which is still the me. I say to myself, I have seen this very clearly, I don’t want to go on giving more and more details. I see this very clearly. Any movement of the me is violence, whether it is a movement towards the noblest ideal, or the most repulsive pleasure. So I see – the mind sees this very clearly. Now I say to myself, what is the quality of the mind that has seen this? The quality. What is the quality of your mind that has observed how it is living non-objectively, non-purposively; see it. What is the quality of the mind that has seen all this?
50:27 Q: Attentive.
50:28 K: Uh?
50:29 Q: Attentive.
50:31 Q: Intelligence.
50:32 Q: Intense.
50:33 K: Intense? Please – have you, do you know – is your mind intense?
50:36 Q: Attentive, I said.
50:38 K: Is your mind attentive? Do you see, I –ha!- don’t use words unless it is real to you. Has the mind become extraordinarily sensitive, because it has observed?
50:53 Q: Love.
50:55 K: Um?
50:57 Q: Love. Could…
50:59 K: Now sir, please, sir. When you use the word ‘love’, what do you mean by that?
51:09 Q: Something that sees the – just sees the distress that the harm, the damage that can be caused through ..
51:24 K: No sir, I am asking – we are asking what is the quality of the mind that has seen all this.
51:31 Q: Intelligence.
51:32 K: Uh?
51:33 Q: Intelligence.
51:34 K: Is your mind intelligent now? Sorry, I’ve got to pin – pin it down; I’m not being personal, sir, or insulting. Is one’s mind, is your mind after list.. examining all this, aware, intelligent and say, look – mm? Or is it just floating around?
51:52 Q: Aren’t you one stop ahead of us, Krishnaji. You are asking what is the state of the mind that sees this, and we’re not seeing this, because ..
51:59 K: Aren’t you? Why not, ah..
52:01 Q: I think somebody raised a question earlier which is an extremely valid one, that we can sit here in a quiet room, and we can look at our minds and our mes, but as soon as we are thrown into the turmoil of ordinary, daily activity, possibly every movement we make is one of violence. But if we don’t make those movements ..
52:21 K: We can’t live.
52:23 Q: .. life would seem to stop, work would seem to stop, relationship would stop …
52:24 K: So what will you do? So what will you do?
52:26 Q: Well, isn’t that the area we can explore rather than ask what is ..
52:29 K: All right, then let’s talk about that area. How to live a daily life without violence? Right?
52:37 Q: Yes, yes.
52:40 K: How to lead a daily life in which there is no violence.
52:45 Q: We don’t even know if it is violent, all the time.
52:49 K: I’m asking, I’m saying: all right, I don’t know anything about it. We’ll start from the beginning. We say now, there is violence in the world, mm? Of every kind. And world is: being my daily life, with my relationship, with my wife, with my friends, with my .. in my job, and so on. In daily life – it’s part of violence. I am – we are trying to find out if, in daily life, it is possible to live without violence. Mm?
53:17 Q: First we have to know what part of daily life is violence.
53:20 K: We are going to examine it, let’s find out. Is my relationship with my wife, husband, boss or with my neighbour, violent? Violence being, we say, violence is the movement of a purposive, directive, self-interested movement. Obviously, that is violence.
53:57 Q: But, it is so difficult to know when one is making the movement whether that movement is from self-interest: one doesn’t …
54:02 K: We’re going to find out, we’re going to find out, madame. We are going to look into it. My relationship with my sister, with my husband, with my father – whatever – all that – you’re bored with this, aren’t you? Is it based on violence? I want to find out. I’m not saying it is.
54:28 Q: Is it based on habit, sir?
54:31 K: Uh?
54:32 Q: Is it based on habit and routine?
54:34 K: Partly. We are going to find out, sir. Go step by step into it. I am asking, is my relationship with you, with my wife, with my husband, with my friend, with my boss, with my foreman, with (laughs) is based on violence. And we said what is violence? And we said violence is any form of division. Right? The me and the not me; the me as the wife, and the me as the husband, separate. Right?
55:16 Q: Yes.
55:18 K: Now, do I live that way? In my daily life, with my own problems, with my own ambitions, with my own desires? – you know, prejudices, hopes; and he lives with his, and so on. Obviously that’s the way we live.
55:38 Q: But you see Krishnaji if you take it back sort of nearer in a way; even nearer than relationship…
55:47 K: What is that?
55:48 Q: .umm, well there’s the physical techniques we have to have to live by, which you – we all accept. We carry this technique- making over into our other life, but every day presents us with so many challenges and so much pressure, that it seems, if we do not use a certain thing, which may be violence…
56:06 K: We’ll find out, madame. I – I don’t want to start saying it may be, I want to find out if my life in relationship with the most detailed relationship, in the most petty little relationship, is based on violence. I want to find out.
56:23 Q: It is very difficult to find it out under pressure.
56:24 K: I am going to – now we’re not under pressure…
56:27 Q: No.
56:28 K: Now. Once I see it now, I will live that all the time.
56:32 Q: Well, right, sir, is there a difference between looking at the past, my daily life, and seeing that as it was, as violence, as ambition, as jealousy, and looking at the now, as it happens.
56:51 K: Sir, as it – we’re talking of a life, daily life, aren’t we? Mm? In which is included the past, mm? Past memories, which including the living of the present, now, the immediately, and the tomorrow. All that is what we call living. Right? Now I say, I am asking myself, is my life violent; the living life, the daily life, the….
57:19 Q: But tomorrow is unknown to us.
57:22 K: No, wait sir, wait, sir. It’s not unknown to us. You are going to go tomorrow and have your job. You always – it’s not unknown to us.
57:31 Q: I think our difficulty is we have a purpose in looking at it.
57:35 K: Sir, wait sir. We are now saying, can we live a daily life of non-violence, and we are finding out what is violence, um? In daily life.
57:45 Q: Sir, in this business of violence in daily life, one is inevitably caught up in violence, every time we drive a car, take a plane, we are contributing to violence … to pollution..
58:00 K: So, I won’t take a car, I won’t go in an aeroplane, I won’t buy a stamp, I won’t write a letter …
58:08 Q: I didn’t say that sir. I said ..
58:09 K: Wait, wait. We must go on to the extreme, too. So I won’t do anything.
58:15 Q: No, that was not my conclusion at all. I just said we are completely caught …
58:20 K: Of course, sir, we are, therefore let’s find out what to do, sir, let’s find out. What shall I do? Is my life – is my daily life a series of violent activities? You know – we have defined or put into words what we mean by violence. Mm? And I find it is. My life is a life of division, separateness, with my ambitions, with my greeds, with my jealousies, with my resistances, reactions and prejudices, hopes, fears, despairs, my peculiar loyalties to a king, a country, a principle, a – a – and so on and so on and so on.
59:16 Q: But, is it even violent to try to do a job, to carry a job through – you know it seems as if you almost need a seed of violence to do, in a sense – it’s not exactly violence, but is that drive, is that also part of this …?
59:33 K: No – wait, wait – wait, let’s begin, we’ll go into it. When I am doing something, my job, like writing a book, or correcting, whatever one’s job is - what is the motive behind it? What is the drive that makes me do it? Am I – is the drive for money, mm? Which is, I must have food. Is the drive beyond the money, beyond the food? Wanting to be somebody famous?
1:00:17 Q: I don’t think it’s even on that level.
1:00:20 K: No, I’m going – still lower – that’s one of the levels. Am I doing it for a purpose, except a physical survival?
1:00:30 Q: Yes.
1:00:31 K: Mm?
1:00:33 Q: Well one isn’t doing it with – there must be some sense of …
1:00:41 K: I’m going – I want – you see I’m not – I may do it without any violence.
1:00:48 Q: Yes, that’s what – we’re interested to find this out.
1:00:50 K: And – we’re going …
1:00:51 Q: …if there is any purpose at all, and there must be some ..
1:00:53 K: I think one can live a life without purpose. We are going to find out.
1:00:58 Q: But, there must be day to day purposes, in a job, or …
1:01:00 K: Oh, of course. I will have to go to the post office ..
1:01:04 Q: Well ..
1:01:05 K: .. post a letter ..
1:01:06 Q: A little more than that.
1:01:08 K: Look – little more than that, I may – I have – you know – what is the ‘more’?
1:01:16 Q: It’s a dangerous sort of border-line, somewhere there. Violence comes in.
1:01:26 K: Surely, violence comes in the moment there is a purpose, there is a direction, the moment there is a division, the moment you say this is my work, I’m this, this is my fulfillment, no, I’m not going to be thwarted, or I see somebody else doing a better job and I’m competing with that man
1:01:43 Q: As soon as you become involved in organisation, I don’t see how you can escape ..
1:01:50 K: Wait, wait. Am I? All right. So I – why can’t I be involved in an organisation without being involved in it? You came here by train, bus or by your own car - all that implies a tremendous organisation behind it, - mm? The train look at the – what is involved in that organisation. What shall I do? Not – not participate in taking a train? So, where shall I draw the line?
1:02:41 Q: Can I draw the line, except at the actual moment? I think that’s because…
1:02:46 K: No, wait, sir.
1:02:48 Q: I might think of something as violent, but in fact it isn’t.
1:02:53 K: No, therefore, what shall I – where shall I draw the line, from moment to moment, mm? Right?
1:02:59 Q: I think that’s….
1:03:00 K: There, I am doing it. Where shall I – say this is violent, this is not violence? From moment to moment, you follow, sir? Otherwise it becomes a principle – mm? – a directive, a purpose and which is .. So, it must be from moment to moment. Which means what?
1:03:21 Q: Alert.
1:03:23 K: Watch it, sir, watch it. What happens when you are doing it from moment to moment?
1:03:29 Q: Well, I think the answer is one discovers as one goes along. I don’t think one can have a
1:03:38 K: Which means what? Which means what, go on sir.
1:03:39 Q:…– well, one discovers how one is behaving and suddenly certain behaviour becomes unnecessary and one stops.
1:03:44 K: So, there is a quality – a quality of mind, mm, that’s always free to enquire – mm? – and discovering. Isn’t it? It doesn’t function according to any pattern.
1:03:56 Q: Yes, well…
1:03:59 K: I mean, well –
1:04:00 Q: We may be functioning according to a pattern, but we are not committed to that pattern.
1:04:03 K: No, look, wait, wait. Let’s go into it a little bit. From moment to moment, right? It’s watching. If I watch with the previous knowledge, which I have acquired the previous moment – mm? – and through that knowledge act, it’s not from moment to moment. Therefore there must be no accumulation at all.
1:04:30 Q: Well, we’re bound to act out of accumulation – I mean, supposing we know where that door is …
1:04:37 K: Wait, wait, wait. That’s quite a different matter.
1:04:39 Q: Well, I’m not sure.
1:04:40 K: The door and the psychological accumulation. If I am to live from moment to moment, understand violence from moment to moment, which means my mind must be astonishingly awake – mm? – whereas the door – or other forms of accumulation. Am I doing it? I may do it for two minutes in a day, the rest is – I’ve forgotten it. So, what is – what is going to make me? Fear? Punishment? Reward?
1:05:26 Q: Interest.
1:05:29 K: Oh, you say, “interest”. Have you got that interest?
1:05:37 Q: No, I don’t.
1:05:38 K: Then why … (laughs) Why say it, sir? Then if you haven’t got that interest, why, why haven’t you got that interest? When the house is burning – for God’s sake!
1:05:53 Q: Because, there’s so much else burning all round you.
1:05:55 K: Therefore I must do som – I – I – must do something about it.
1:06:01 Q: The energy seems to be dissipated into the various – you know, the things that come at every moment, or – you know –
1:06:06 K: So, I am living from moment to moment, right? And from moment to moment I am going to discover in my daily life whether I am violent. Discover – and understand. And therefore the next second may not, may be non-violent. I must understand that. So, the whole point is, is the mind awake enough to live from moment to moment?
1:06:43 Q: Under pressure.
1:06:44 K: Uh?
1:06:45 Q: Under pressure. The pressure of ..
1:06:47 K: Pressure, strain, of somebody calling me idiotic, you’re a brute, you are nagging me, you are pulling me, you follow? Can I do this or ..?
1:06:56 Q: Isn’t it then a question of energy?
1:07:00 K: Right. A question of energy. Why – how do you get energy? You get energy when there is a possibility of something, isn’t there? When you say that’s impossible, then you haven’t finished.
1:07:14 Q: But haven’t there to be – you’ve argued that in effect every one of us in this room is violent one hundred per cent of his time. In other words, we are the snakes in this room. Um – and to accept every moment as a crisis moment, and accept it in its fullness does need enormous energy. Where is the energy to come from?
1:07:37 K: Sir – I understand. We are saying, sir, can you, can the mind live from moment to moment, in daily life, to discover what is violence, and in the understanding of it, the change being made in the mind which is watching, from moment to moment. That answers your question doesn’t it, really?
1:08:06 Q: Well, it gives one an area for discovery.
1:08:11 K: Yes. Otherwise what? Otherwise you fall into a habit, say “I must not be violent”. Then you are just conforming to an idea which you call….
1:08:26 Q: Or even saying that one is always violent. Even to say, “I am always violent”, I’m -it’s the same thing.
1:08:33 Q: Is violent – this is a very violent meeting, I’ve felt.
1:08:42 K: Ah! Do –
1:08:45 Q: Is this violence necessary to bounce us in some sense from your point of view into understanding ….
1:08:51 K: I feel – personally I feel very strongly about all this, you see. I feel passionately that one must live differently.
1:08:57 Q: And passion is violence.
1:08:58 K: Ah no, no. Ah, well. I will come to it. Oh Lord! Is passion violent?
1:09:09 Q: It is.
1:09:10 K: Uh?
1:09:11 Q: Yes, sometimes it is, like ..
1:09:14 K: I, ah, wait -(laughs) Now we’re off – now, is passion violent?
1:09:19 Q: It need not be .. (inaudible)
1:09:20 K: What do you mean, passion? Yes, let’s go – you all jump at it. What do you mean by passion?
1:09:26 Q: But, if you feel so strongly about it, we..
1:09:30 K: Wait, wait,wait. Let’s find out what you mean by passion, what I mean by passion, what everybody means by passion. What do we mean by that word? That word, it comes from, I believe, from the word sorrow. Mm? Now, what – passionate, to feel very strongly. Mm? To feel terr – very strongly that there must be a different kind of education - mm? – Is that violence? Feel very strongly that students, children must be bro- educated, so that they will never conform. Is that passion? Is that violence?
1:10:24 Q: Yes… yes, in the definition of what we have defined as violence, but not violent with intent.
1:10:26 Q: But is that violence? – it means it’s a general violence…
1:10:30 Q: [inaudible]because you’re against the ..
1:10:38 K: Ah, ah, I did not say that, please,sir, just carefully listen. I didn’t sayI am against the present system. I said to be – to educate children so that they never conform; they understand what conformity is, all the rest of it, and to feel very strongly that there must be a different generation, a new kind of people who don’t conform. Is that – to feel very strongly. Is that violence?
1:11:06 Q: Surely the implementation of the feeling is ..
1:11:08 K: Wait. No! Is that violence? Please ?
1:11:12 Q: No, its concern.
1:11:15 K: Uh?
1:11:16 Q: It’s concern.
1:11:18 K: Concern. All right. Is that violence?
1:11:21 Q: No.
1:11:22 Q: What if some parents and teachers wish to start a small school implementing their ideas and ..
1:11:30 K: Let them, I’ve nothing to do with it.
1:11:31 Q: No, I know, but where, where - but they are.
1:11:34 K: Sir, I’m not concerned. The government is not – is concerned with making people conform. What am I to do? All education throughout the world is to make the children conform.
1:11:46 Q: Sir, there are notices at the end of this school asking people not to sit on the tables …
1:12:03 K: Oh no! Now we’re off. You see that’s where .. you see, we don’t go together. We have said, look, to put on trousers, to sit at a table, to eat properly, not make a noise (laughs) and all the rest of it, is a form of conformity, if you must use that word. It is consideration, really – mm? – care. What sir?
1:12:17 Q: I think our trouble is that we get stuck on a word ..
1:12:20 K: Yes, that’s just it.
1:12:21 Q: … rather than letting a number of words carry us through what we want to…
1:12:26 K: I’m – we’re changing all the time the words.
1:12:27 Q: You see if I’m passionately involved in wanting to bring about these reforms, it must mean that I am not in tune with the existing forms of education, and therefore there is an element of violence in my mind, because I want to implement this. If the structure didn’t exist as it was, then I would be approaching it in a far less passionate and far more harmonious way …
1:12:59 K: Oh, no, sir, this conformity in education has existed for thousands of years – mm? – religious conformity, you foll -education. And you come along – or someone comes along and says : “Look, this – this way of living is most destructive. Mm?” And he says : “I am not concerned in altering the other people, I feel this very strongly. I’m going to talk about it, I’m not going to go and revolt and starve and fast, and make – bring the policeman into it. Mm? I am going to talk about it. And I feel very strongly about it, because I feel a different kind of human being must come into being. Otherwise we are going to destroy - and I feel this passionately, very strongly. And if anybody listens, all right. If he doesn’t, it’s all right. But I feel very strongly.” That’s not violence. In implementing it, I’m going to talk to the people- or – who want to bring it up, or Idiscuss with them. Don’t let’s – let us see how this can be worked out. There is no spark of violence in this.
1:14:07 Q: But there is purpose.
1:14:11 K: I beg pardon?
1:14:13 Q: There is purpose.
1:14:15 K: Ah! There is a purpose in the sense – you see again we are using ..
1:14:18 Q: I know. I’m only saying this because this is the sort of situation one finds oneself in, when one – many of the times one is wholly sure that this is a movement of violence ..
1:14:27 K: Look …
1:14:28 Q: But sometimes one is not quite sure when ..
1:14:29 K: Yes, I watered the garden, it is a purpose, because I have a reason – in this month, when there is no rain at all, I must water.
1:14:39 Q: Yes.
1:14:40 K: Otherwise … there is a purpose.
1:14:41 Q: Well, that’s very clear.
1:14:43 K: Wait. Now. Is there a purpose identified with the me – mm? – in wanting a different kind of education?
1:14:53 Q: No.
1:14:55 K: If I become the principle person around whom the education, etc - the me then has a purpose using that, the purpose, as an instrument of education, for me. And that is all very clear.
1:15:11 Q: Ego identified purpose, isn’t it.
1:15:13 K: What?
1:15:14 Q: Ego identified.
1:15:15 K: That’s right sir. Any form of identification with a purpose is a – the movement of the ego. If I say, well I think new edu – a different kind of education is necessary, and I’ve identified myself with it, it’s my baby – I mean not – nobody else’s – then I’m (laughs) ..
1:15:39 Q: But, in wanting to change what is, isn’t there violence?
1:15:45 K: Oh my lord! Sir, in wanting to change what is – how does that happen? I see the modern education as corrupt. Mm? That is what is. Now, I say to myself, if the establishment, if the capitalist or the communist society is responsible for this corruption, therefore I’m going against the government, against the policeman, against the law, mm? Uh? – revolt, and collect a lot of people and throw bricks round, etc. etc., it is a violence. But if I say : “Look I see this fact, that is what is.” Um? I’m not going to react to it. And I see this is what is, and the understanding of what – the understanding of what is, has brought about the mind that says there must be a different kind of education. Not revolt against what is. That’s clear isn’t it? Or you’re all (laughs) The understanding of what is, has brought about the intelligence that says – uh – don’t – an education based on non-conformity; which is not a revolt, which is not the opposite of what is, which is quite a different thing from what is. Which is the truth through the understanding of what is. Is that clear? O.K. So, in daily life, is there a living in which there is no violence? I am going to discover it from moment to moment. And otherwise, how can I discover it. I can only say to myself : I will live a life of non-violence, [and] which becomes another form of conformity, and therefore essentially violence! So I can only live a daily life, a life which I know is violent, by looking at it afresh every minute, afresh! Not with a mind that is trained to be violent. Now, can I do that in daily life, from moment to moment, look at my life afresh? Not with the past memory – afresh, anew. Obviously I can do it.
1:18:49 Q: But, isn’t that back to the … I feel again the question of energy. Of course one ..
1:18:57 K: I have the energy, sir. I – you have the energy, immediately; boiling with it. Because then you are going to understand it, move, live.
1:19:03 Q: But, I think perhaps the question is that – you know, there are a lot of people going to be spending one’s time looking at, and one would actually intensify the observer in doing so. Whereas there are certain things that come to one, I mean throughout one’s dailylife, which shock one with an awareness of what’s happening, and these are the things that one naturally looks at, and I think sometimes there can be a misunderstanding from what you say that people feel they’ve got to, kind of, [inaudible]… their lives ..
1:19:30 K: I know . We said, look sir, we said, any movement of the me which has a – any movement which has a purpose, a directive, a sense of identification, is the me. Mm? Which is the essence of violence, which is because it divides .. Now, do I observe afresh every movement? Uh? Daily life, eating, walking, watching. Is there any sense of purpose in it. If I do, then I’m back again in the old rut. So, can I watch my daily life, from moment to moment, freely? Not identifying with the past, or with – freely! And that gives me tremendous energy, because I don’t carry the burden of yesterday. I don’t carry all the prejudices, the mischief I have done yesterday, the lies I have told yesterday. I am going to discover if I am going to tell a new lie. Ha! I don’t say : I mustn’t tell a lie. You follow, sir?
1:20:50 Q: Yes, but I think that this to me suggests a better word, that we are actually living freely, rather than watching whether we can live freely…
1:20:58 K: Live. I change the word … I change the word.
1:21:00 Q: .. because I think that one wants .. oneself .. sees oneself in life.
1:21:02 K: I change the word. Live freely, from moment to moment. Which means you have to watch.
1:21:08 Q: It means you also have to live!
1:21:12 K: Uh. (laughter)
1:21:14 Q: (inaudible)
1:21:15 K: Therefore one has to learn. We’ll go back. One has to learn how to watch without duality, which means the duality exists, when there is a prejudice, when there is conformity, when there is comparison, when there is a judgment, when there is an opinion. So am I – is my mind looking, seeking in terms of opinion? I have to find from moment to moment, free to discover. Right, sir. It’s fairly clear, isn’t it?
1:21:44 Q: Very. But then I think one might find oneself back in that gentleman’s position of getting on an aeroplane and realizing one’s going to destroy the environment of other people through the noise of the ‘plane, you see and…
1:22:02 K: So what shall I do? Sir, I realise I have to conform in certain directions – mm? Humph!
1:22:06 Q: Yes, but then I – yes …
1:22:09 K: Wait, sir, if one is, if the mind is awake from moment to moment, it will answer all these questions. Right, sir? If the mind is free, you have the answer, right answer, for every moment.
1:22:23 Q: But the mind isn’t free if it’s spending all its time watching ..
1:22:34 K: Ah, no sir. Look – I said it –(laughs) we said it must be free. To be free you have to watch. Otherwise you are asleep. I say being asleep I consider myself, I am free, what? It means nothing. Is it time to stop, is it?
1:22:54 Q: Yes.
1:22:55 K: Uh?
1:22:56 Q: I think so.
1:22:57 K: (laughs) We meet on “Saturday”….