Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR70S4 - Can a mind in contradiction know what harmony is?
Brockwood Park, UK - 14 June 1970
Seminar 4



0:00 This is the fourth small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti at Brockwood, l970.
0:08 Krishnamurti: Shall we go on with what we were talking over together yesterday? You want to do that?
0:15 Audience: Yes.
0:18 K: We were talking about attention. Because we see, what everybody knows, that there is a great deal of violence in the world. It has always existed. And a seriously-minded man must intelligently find out how to put an end completely to violence, not only within oneself but within the structure of society. So there must be action, both inwardly and outwardly. This action – I am just repeating what we were discussing yesterday, I am not trying to say anything new – this action is made impossible when there is this process of analysis. Analysis, as we pointed out yesterday, is the negation of action. Because analysis, though in certain cases helps to clarify one’s neurosis, it does not produce a total comprehensive action. And we were saying that this attention, which is not the result of analysis, nor is it the total absorption in some idea or work or a motive or a purpose, but rather a state of mind in which there is no motive at all and therefore no contradiction. I hope you are following all this. This is what we were discussing yesterday. Because we need instant action, action to change, action which will bring about a harmonious movement in life, not a contradictory activity. And we said this attention does not come about through the analytical process. Shall I go on with it, what we discussed yesterday? Because analysis is a postponement of action, an avoidance or negation of action. I don’t know if you can swallow that pill, but doesn’t matter. Attention is not concentration – that we were saying yesterday. Because concentration implies resistance, focusing on one point and controlling thought so that it can concentrate on one thing. And we said concentration is not attention nor absorption in something, in a principle, in an idea, in an activity – nor analysis is part of this attention. That’s where we were yesterday, weren’t we. Right? Now is this at all possible? Can we live that way in life, in daily life, where the mind is completely attentive, without a principle, without a purpose, without a motive, and is therefore capable of observation and action as it observes? What do you…? Please, this is not a talk from me but this is a dialogue and talking over together, so please do share in what we are discussing. You are taking part in it. And we also said yesterday that the senses do not necessarily play an important part in attention. When one sees a danger, physical danger, there is instant response, completely and totally – conscious as well as unconscious movement, an instant action. Right? Is that all right? Can we go on? Please do…
7:32 Q: Sir? Sorry, excuse me. I don’t quite understand this, that the senses play no part in attention.
7:40 K: I thought we went into it yesterday. All right, we will have to go into it again. Look, sir, as somebody pointed out yesterday: when there is a physical tension and when there is an attention of that physical tension, that tension disappears. You probably must have noticed this. So there is an attention which is not necessarily of the senses. Right? (Laughs)
8:24 Q: I don’t believe that follows, because… K. May I expand a little bit more? I know it doesn’t quite follow, but I want to do it. When one has a pain, a physical tension, one can give one’s attention to it. And in that state of attention the pain lessens or the tension disappears. One has noticed this – right? So there is a part of attention in which the senses can be observed without the senses taking part in attention. Right, sir?
9:15 Q: Well, except that the sensation of pain is one of the senses.
9:25 K: Yes. But when one observes, attends to that pain, gives attention to that pain, the pain lessens.
9:38 Q: Relieved.
9:42 K: Relieved.
9:45 Q: Yes, agreed.
9:50 K: Right. So one asks: Is all action response of the senses?
10:10 Q: Must be.
10:18 K: Is it?
10:22 Q: That sounds right.
10:24 K: Right, sir? What, sir?
10:26 Q: If there is no response of the senses, there is nothing except attention.
10:30 K: That’s what we want to find out. If action is the response of senses then it is not a total action. I may be putting it badly.
11:00 Q: It’s the word action.
11:05 K: Look, sir. I understand. Is it possible to live in complete harmony even though one of the senses is injured or there is sensory pain?
11:29 Q: Certainly. It’s certainly possible, yes.
11:33 K: It is possible, isn’t it?
11:38 Q: Yes.
11:39 K: And is the movement of action dependent on sensory activity? If my action, my daily action, is based on sensory perception, sensory responses, then in that there is a contradiction – of pleasure, pain.
12:13 Q: Yes.
12:15 K: And then that action in daily life is contradictory and therefore disharmonious. So, to live a harmonious life attention must be non-contradictory. Attention must exist even though there is sensory contradictions.
12:59 Q: Certainly, yes.
13:00 K: You get the point, sir?
13:02 Q: Yes.
13:03 K: Has somebody got it, or am I talking nonsense?
13:06 Q: (Inaudible) …attention also has the meaning of attending to something. Which is unfortunate because I think you are suggesting that the action of attention does not necessarily have any objective content at all.
13:23 K: Yes, that’s right.
13:25 Q: So this needs to be watched.
13:33 K: Yes.
13:36 Q: Then isn’t attention always impersonal?
13:47 K: Is not all attention impersonal. What do you think?
13:57 Q: I would say so.
14:03 K: You see, the question personal implies contradiction. Right? And attention, we said, in attention there is no contradiction. I wonder how we can convey this more clearly.
14:31 Q: Where does that lead us?
14:35 K: Where does that lead us. Where does a life which is non-contradictory, a life which is completely harmonious, not broken up, not in fragments, such a life, where does it lead? Is that what you are asking?
15:06 Q: Yes.
15:08 K: Where do you think it will lead? (Laughs) I wonder why one asks that question. Please, sirs, do take part in it.
15:34 Q: The question implies motive and purpose… (inaudible)
15:38 K: Where does a harmonious life lead to? Why should it lead to anything? You are missing the whole point. Sir, look, let’s put it this way: In this world, living a daily life, there is great deal of confusion and contradiction and misery, which not only leads in personal life to a great deal of suffering but also outwardly it brings about, you know, all the mess there is – confusion, wars, nationalistic divisions, racial biases, and so on, so on, so on – and hence a life of conflict. This is obvious. Right, sir? And conflict can produce a certain kind of activity – artistic, great deal of scientific investigation and all the rest of it – but it is still a contradictory, conflicting life, and therefore a society which is always in conflict. Now, if a person is serious and wishes or wants to discover a way of life in which this contradiction completely ends, so that he is outside of all this confusion and misery and therefore, perhaps, help to bring about quite a different social structure, then he has to find out what is action, what kind of action is necessary. Right, sir? What kind of action? An action that is a product of analysis is negation of action. We said that yesterday. An activity, a movement of action, in which there is a principle, an ideal, a purpose, is incomplete action because in that there is contradiction. So can the mind be free of the ideal, the purpose, the motive, an end, and therefore act completely? Not as an individual opposed to the community and all the rest of the contradiction.
18:49 Q: Could there be a different sort of artistic creation if all conflict within the individual were dissolved?
19:04 K: What do you think?
19:07 Q: Well, our experience doesn’t suggest…
19:13 K: Sir, what is creation? Let’s find out. You know, a mind in conflict does produce, in that tension, a certain artistic result.
19:31 Q: You mean it only comes from a mind in conflict, sir?
19:38 K: Not necessarily. Look, sir, you know the life of Michael Angelo and all the rest of these big people, artists. They were in a state of, inwardly, complete mess. Right? And they produced marvellous things.
20:00 Q: I think there is an interplay between internal contradictions and a sort of serenity that transcends this sort of contradiction… (inaudible)
20:15 K: So you are saying that you can have contradiction in life and yet have a serene mind.
20:23 Q: I think both are possible.
20:27 K: Oh, both are…
20:29 Q: (Inaudible)
20:30 Q: Sir, isn’t that part of the artistic nature, to be in a state of contradiction?
20:40 K: Just wait, sir. Listen to that question first. Lead a most confused, ugly life and yet have a serenity in which creation can take place – is that it? The two can balance.
20:50 Q: The ugliness is not often of one’s own will… (inaudible)
20:57 K: That’s what we have been saying, sir. Is it possible to live such a contradictory life, inwardly confused and messy, and a life of great art, artist, of a great artist, though this has been the pattern of existence?
21:23 Q: Surely, in art it comes from conflict and the inner conflict is only an art of the personality. It has none of the quality of another artist… does come from a unified state of non-contradiction.
21:49 K: Would you put it this way, sir: What would a non-contradictory life, a life of complete and total harmony, what would such a life’s work be in art or in science or anything?
22:12 Q: If something is delivered through someone then… (inaudible) It’s a direct conception.
22:18 K: I know. So I am just… we have accepted the norm of contradiction and great art work, great works of art, as an artist.
22:32 Q: These are often associated… (inaudible)
22:35 K: No, we are suggesting, sir, a way of life in which there is no contradiction may be the real creation. Living may be the real creation and not the expression as a fragment of that.
22:50 Q: In early traditions, a perfect unity that the artistic achieves may be achieved holding one’s life… (inaudible)
23:11 K: Yes. I mean, we have divided life into, you know, the artist and the scientist, the bureaucrat, the businessman – you know? All that contradiction, if it ends, may be one’s life would surely be entirely different.
23:30 Q: Can I ask you one question here? If one were to make instead of works of art, one’s life a work of art, as you have suggested, would this not be a sort of (inaudible) personal, I mean individual redemption?
23:50 K: No, no, no, sir.
23:53 Q: While an artistic creation… (inaudible)
23:56 K: Yes, I understand that. Is attention personal? That’s what the question was. Is creation personal? Is a harmonious life individualistic?
24:11 Q: It is the result of one person’s efforts.
24:16 K: No effort. Sir, you haven’t…
24:20 Q: Others are influenced by one if one’s life is unified.
24:29 K: Surely we are giving a wrong meaning to the individual, aren’t we? The individual implies, the word implies indivisible, non-fragmentary existence. Such an existence is really an individual. I don’t know if I am putting it rightly. Right? If one lives a harmonious life, a total life, is it a life of a personal, limited? Good Lord! I shouldn’t… I mean…
25:19 Q: Sir, if you love art, not for any personal gains but just love doing it, surely this is something different again from trying to achieve something.
25:32 K: Sir, is love personal? What do say, sirs? Come on. You are stuck.
25:40 Q: (Inaudible)
25:41 Q: What is that, when he says he loves doing it, what does he mean by that? He gets pleasure from it. I can’t see where…
26:16 K: So is love pleasure? You see, pleasure is personal, isn’t it, it’s private – there are various forms of pleasure according to each one. I may take pleasure in going out for a walk and you may take pleasure in doing something else. It is personal, limited, secretive, and contradictory. No? Oh Lord! And is love that? And that leads to much more complex question. What is the question? Please, you… I am doing all the talking. A family – my family, my wife, my husband, my children; I love my family – that’s all very personal, isn’t it? And in that is there no love?
27:53 Q: There’s no possession in love.
28:00 K: Yes, sir, possession – that’s what is implied in all that. If I possess my wife, in that possession is there love?
28:10 Q: Not if the perception is… (inaudible)
28:15 K: No, sir, we are not discussing it as a theory. Watch it in oneself, sir.
28:19 Q: Isn’t it how to love myself, because I think that I have a responsibility there?
28:40 K: Isn’t love harmonious? A life, which is harmonious, completely, is it a love of… is it a life of… whatever it is? I don’t want to keep on repeating this thing. What do you all say, sirs? Please.
29:10 Q: But, sir, are families not necessary?
29:13 K: A family is not necessary?
29:16 Q: That’s the question.
29:17 K: You are asking that?
29:19 Q: Yes.
29:20 K: Ask them, sir. Who is going to answer it? If you have no family, how will you bring up your children? Who will be responsible for the children? In spite of the pill. And if the State takes the children over, they have also found the children need a father and a mother. They feel they grow better, they are happier, they work better, and so on, so on. So, who… I won’t go into all that.
30:02 Q: If we are honest, which is very rare, we must answer we know very little about love, individually.
30:16 K: Can you know about love? Sir, what are we discussing? Let’s come back. Look, sir, the real, fundamental question is: We have created the society – corrupt and all the rest of it – and is it to be changed through physical revolution or psychological revolution? Which is not the opposite, one or the other.
31:06 Q: Can you explain what is psychological revolution? Is it concomitant with physical revolution? Is it something distinct from physical revolution?
31:24 K: Is it distinct from physical revolution. What do you think?
31:30 Q: This is what I am asking you because… (inaudible)
31:32 K: No, don’t ask me, sir. I am not an authority, an oracle.
31:37 Q: But you have suggested it.
31:38 K: What do you think? How would you set about to change society?
31:44 Q: I would not.
31:48 K: You wouldn’t?
31:50 Q: No. Not society as a whole, I would try to start with myself.
31:56 K: Therefore, what does that yourself mean? Yes – where would you start with yourself?
32:07 Q: I do not conceive of, in the sense that I do not know myself, I cannot… (inaudible)
32:10 K: So you have to observe yourself.
32:11 Q: Perhaps, occasionally.
32:13 K: Not perhaps. I mean, this isn’t a game we are playing.
32:16 Q: But what do you mean? What do you mean by observing oneself? Do you mean have I thought, felt, seen, imagined?
32:27 K: Look, sir, we said there needs to be change – right? And where am I… this change is to be brought about by understanding and changing oneself, who is part of the society. You are the result of the society. You are conditioned by society, the society which human beings have created. And unless there is a deep, radical change within oneself the social changes with its laws does not bring about harmonious life. This is all so obvious. Right? Oh, my! Are you interested in all this?
33:22 A: Yes.
33:23 Q: Excuse me. You said private pleasure was contradictory and you enjoy walking and I saw a nice picture of you walking along the beach. There was nothing contradictory about that.
33:45 K: Ah, no. Wait, sir. (Laughs) So, one has to find… What is pleasure? If when you go out for a walk and you enjoy that walking – the beauty of the sea and all the rest of it – and you want it repeated again, then begins the mischief, doesn’t it?
34:10 Q: I don’t know. I don’t see why there should be any mischief in enjoying yourself twice. (Laughter)
34:20 K: The repetition of enjoyment is the mischief, not enjoyment. Enjoyment is something which is not the product of pleasure. You enjoy and you forget about it. But if you say, ‘I must have that pleasure which I had yesterday in that enjoyment,’ then the repetition of it is mischief. In that there is contradiction. When I walked alone yesterday and had a marvellous time, and I want that repeated again, then there is contradiction in that, surely. No?
35:20 Q: No.
35:21 Q: Surely it is not the repetition which is contradictory but the desire or the intent to… (inaudible)
35:31 K: That’s right, sir – the desire which produces – all the rest of it. I put it very briefly and quickly. Look, all right, let’s go into it again. I enjoyed myself yesterday and I remember that enjoyment. The remembrance of that enjoyment has already become pleasure. No? Right? And then thought says, ‘I must repeat that pleasure; I must have that pleasure again.’ Right? Then what takes place?
36:15 Q: You go out for another walk.
36:19 K: Yes, but it is not… then it is not a freedom… an enjoyment that comes out of freedom. Then it is a determined purpose, a purpose which brings about pleasure. Surely there is a vast difference between the two, isn’t there? Is enjoyment the result of thought? What do you say, sirs? Is joy the product of thought? Has joy a motive? And when you are aware of joy – aware, say, ‘I am joyful’ – is it joyful then? It is gone. But whereas, pleasure can be sustained. I can think about it and give vitality to it. I derived pleasure out of something yesterday and I can repeat that pleasure again. And when I don’t derive pleasure from that, I am hurt, I am angry, I am jealous, and all the rest of the mischief begins. This is so…
38:06 Q: This is part of one’s violence. This imagination and remembrance and expectation of a repetition, this is where your violence is rooted.
38:29 K: This is part of violence, isn’t it? (Long pause) Have we reached the end of this? Come on, sirs.
39:21 Q: I think a lot of the difficulty comes because we wish to imagine what satisfactory action is, sir. This is the desire to imagine it, to picture it, and this is holding us up.
39:42 DS: But you couldn’t picture it because that would mean you would know it in advance.
39:45 Q: That’s right.
39:46 DS: And that’s what you can’t do because it isn’t known in advance.
39:47 Q: Exactly. This is the difficulty.
39:53 K: What’s the difficulty, sir?
39:56 Q: Harmonious action is one that cannot be known in advance because then it’s in the sphere of thought. And here is the rub, where we are up against this not knowing in advance.
40:06 K: Ah – you want to know in advance what is a harmonious life and its action.
40:14 Q: Our instinct is to do that.
40:20 K: Can you know? Can a mind that is in contradiction, lives a life of disharmony, can it know what harmony is? So it can only know harmony when there is no disharmony. So it is not a thing to be imagined. So my concern then is to find out if it is at all possible to end disharmony. Not say, ‘I want to know what it will be like if I live a harmonious life.’ So, I want to find out. I just want to find out, without a purpose. You follow, sir? I want to find out how to end disharmony. Not in order to achieve harmony. Then that creates a contradiction. Right? So I want to find out. Now, how does one set about finding this out? Please, do it. How does one find out? Will you follow any pattern, any system, any method – Jungian, Freudian, Adlerian, or the latest analyst or philosopher or teacher, who will lay down a system, a formula, a theory, a concept, a principle – or put all that aside, put all authority aside and investigate, find out why this contradiction exists? Not according to somebody – why does it exist in oneself? Please, go on, sirs.
42:31 Q: Well, there comes a point, it seems to me, that in this seeing, in the actual looking, there is a tendency to sort of go to seed with a conclusion. And then this is the difficult point, this is the hurdle, to stop the looking…
42:53 K: Or is it a lack of energy? I want to find this out. I won’t let anything interfere. I won’t say, ‘Thought comes in.’ I want to find out, sir. For that I need a great deal of energy. And it is a dissipation of energy when thought interferes. Right? When I say… when a motive, when a purpose… I wonder how I can convey this to you.
43:45 Q: But surely there is purpose in wanting to find out why there is disharmony. One realises one is in disharmony and it is because one doesn’t like it that one wants to find out what it is and whether one can do without it.
44:02 K: And the motive or the principle may be the cause of disharmony. Go on, sirs, please.
44:17 Q: But the energy seems to come from that intense desire not to be in disharmony.
44:23 K: How does this energy come about? Through desire to end disharmony?
44:28 Q: You mean by what you said just now, that the motive to get away from disharmony may be the very motive which produced the disharmony.
44:42 K: That’s right. Sir, this is… You see, this needs a very subtle mind, a subtle inquiry, not just this or that. Look, sir, let’s… I want to find out whether it is at all possible to live a life of harmony, completely – consciously as well as unconsciously – right through one’s being. And to find that out, I must have a free mind, an unbiased mind. Right? Shall we go on to it?
45:41 Q: Yes.
45:42 K: I must have an unbiased mind that isn’t crippled by any concept, any purpose. Then I must look at myself, all the turmoil of myself. Which is a living thing, which is a constant, living, moving thing. So, to follow it, the mind must also be very observant, not be tied to any tether. Are we going to do this together or are you just listening as though you are…? Shall we do it together, this? Let’s go. So, I am observing myself. Myself is this living turmoil. And who is the entity that is observing this turmoil? Is not the entity who is watching the turmoil a fragment of that turmoil? Let us be very clear on that thing, please. This is very important. The me that is observing the confusion, the contradiction, the misery, the fear, the pleasure, the pain, and the whole… you know, all that – the me that is watching is part of all that, isn’t it? So the me is not separate from that. Right? So the me cannot become the censor. The me who is observing is not the dictator, what should be done. So there is… the contradiction has gone. Right? The contradiction between the observer and the observed is gone. So, in observing, there is no analyser. I don’t know if you are following all this. So, there is only observation without the analyser. That observation doesn’t accumulate as knowledge in its observation. Are you following this? No.
48:54 Q: Isn’t the analyser a part of it?
48:58 K: Wait. Is this clear or not? That there is no accumulation as knowledge by observing. Because the thing is living. And if I look with my experience, with knowledge, I am already… I am looking at it with a bias. Therefore, the mind is not observing at all. So is that possible, to observe without a bias, without a purpose, without discriminating – just to observe?
49:49 Q: But does this observing not need to knowledge? You see things, so observing, which leads to knowledge. You’ve found out something, you know something.
50:16 K: You find out something. And what you have found has become the knowledge. With that knowledge you look.
50:23 Q: No. Because if I look with that knowledge again then I don’t know anymore.
50:28 K: Therefore, that’s the difficulty.
50:32 Q: Yes.
50:35 K: So can you look without accumulation, accumulating knowledge? Which becomes the censor, which becomes the entity who is the reservoir for all the past, and therefore he condemns what he sees or says: This is right, this is wrong. So can the mind observe without the past as knowledge? Because you have to observe that way a living thing – the me, the whole turmoil, is a living thing, a living movement. And if there is an observer who is the past and he looks at that living movement, there is inevitably a contradiction. And then the observer says: This must be and this must not be, and therefore creates conflict. Now, does the mind see the truth of this, the fact of this? That to observe with the past eyes prevents the understanding of what is. (Pause) And so radically you remove the cause of conflict. You follow this? If you discover this, you have got the clue to everything. Not repeat after what I am saying but discover it for yourself. Then you can observe. Therefore, that observation is attention in which there is no contradiction. Contradiction exists only when in that observation there is choice. And there is choice only when there is confusion. Right? So, do you observe… is there an observation in you – you – is there in you an observation in which there is no censor at all?
54:22 Q: Sir, doesn’t this mean a resignation of the personal will, in which one has put all one’s conflicts up to this point?
54:42 K: Yes. Resignation, denial of all personal will.
54:47 Q: Or personal sense of choice or will.
54:52 K: Yes – personal sense of choice, will, discrimination…
54:54 Q: Not to resign, not to be given up.
54:58 K: Given up, surely. Not given up – rather, it must be understood.
55:07 Q: Is it not important to go on exercising personal will? You see the significance of what one is doing rather just set up a goal of…
55:19 K: That’s right, sir. That’s perfectly right.
55:21 Q: So one has see the terrible danger of personal will which has got round to a certain point but then becomes a danger.
55:47 K: Quite, quite. Surely it’s a tight rope on which one walks all the time. So that means really, doesn’t it, emptying the mind… the mind emptying itself of all the past. No? Now that’s a difficult statement because it can’t empty itself of the past. If it does, you won’t know where your home is. And who is to empty it? So, look, so there must be – you know this, don’t you? – there must be an activity of knowledge without the identification with that function as the me. When there is an identification of a function as the me, then the me is pursuing status, achieving a status from that function. No? Can one live that way? Sir, these are all just theories.
57:30 Technician: I need to change the tape, sir.
57:34 K: Right, sir. Thank the Lord! (Laughter) (Pause in recording)
58:18 K: What next?
58:20 Q: If one does not discriminate in action, does one discriminate at all?
58:28 K: What is the need of discrimination? When you see something very clearly, what’s the need of discrimination?
58:41 Q: None.
58:43 K: And how do we see things very clearly? Is it possible to see without any choice? Please do…
59:01 Q: Could you talk about, or could we think about appropriate action? I have been thinking of your example of a snake, thinking that four people, acting from their conditioning, instantly, on being completely attentive to it, might behave differently – one would run away, one would chant, one would wound it, and one kill it. Would they all be acting equally appropriately to themselves, to their attention?
59:41 K: If each one of us were conditioned – you as a Catholic, I as a communist, and somebody else as something else, we would act according to our conditioning, obviously. And would that conditioning be harmonious action? Would that conditioning bring about harmonious action? Can any conditioning? If I, as a communist, conditioned according to their theory, as the Catholic is according to his theory, this conditioning, is it conducive to a harmonious life?
1:00:35 Q: No, but could we stick to the snake?
1:00:38 K: Wait, sir, wait. I am coming back to the snake. (Laughs) I am coming back to the poor snake. So we must understand conditioning, mustn’t we? I must be aware of my conditioning and be free of it, if it is possible, and you as a Catholic must be free of your conditioning. Then would not our action, yours and mine, be harmonious, not separative, not personal? Right? It would naturally be. And when there is that freedom from conditioning, when you and I look at that snake, we obviously will act harmoniously. Our action will be harmonious with regard to that snake. We’ll both do exactly… That’s all, sir. So could we find out how we are conditioned? A prejudice is a conditioning, isn’t it? Prejudice brings about a conditioning. I like – what? – something – I like the Russians, I like the communists – that’s my conditioning. Or I am brought up as a Hindu, believing in something. All this conditioning, is one aware of it?
1:02:44 Q: Pleasure is conditioning.
1:02:47 K: We are going to find out, sir. We are going to find out. Go slowly at it. Are you aware of your conditioning? This is not a confessional, please, or a group therapy. So, are you aware of it? Not that you must say it, but are you aware of it? Go on, sirs, please.
1:03:13 Q: Is yoga conditioning?
1:03:17 K: Is yoga conditioning. What does that word yoga mean?
1:03:29 Q: To join.
1:03:31 K: To join. The Sanskrit word to join. A yoke – to join. Join what?
1:03:45 Q: The mind and body.
1:03:48 K: Wait. Watch, sir. Watch it, watch it, watch it. Slowly. (Laughter)
1:03:54 K: Join the mind with the body, the spirit with the body.
1:03:59 Q: No, the activities harmoniously, between…
1:04:03 K: You don’t… The moment you use the word join there is a contradiction. And it may not mean that at all. The word, though in Sanskrit means to join, to put two things together, it may not mean that at all, it may mean something entirely different. But we won’t go into the meaning of that word and all the implications of it. Now, can exercise, doing certain practices of yoga – you know what it all means – will that be a conditioning? Will exercise condition the mind? Oh no, come on, sirs.
1:05:06 Q: It will help a few things.
1:05:08 Q: Mustn’t we differentiate between physical yoga and other kinds of yoga?
1:05:14 K: That’s just it. So which kind of yoga are you talking about? Physical, Hatha Yoga, the yoga exercise, or the yoga of the mind?
1:05:34 Q: Must they be separate?
1:05:41 K: I don’t know. You see, you brought up that word. Please. So we are trying to find out what that word and the implications of that word and the various things involved in it. There are various forms of yoga – Raja Yoga, Karma, and so on – four or five kinds of yogas – each separate from the other. The man of action with his yoga. The man of knowledge with his yoga. The man of devotion with his yoga – right? – and the man, which is, finally, called Raja Yoga, which is the king of all yogas, which is to have a mind that is beyond all rituals, disciplines, all the rest of it. I won’t go into that because this is not the occasion for it. So, I don’t know, when you say, ‘Is yoga conditioning?’ – it can be and it need not be, I don’t know. Doing exercises is not conditioning, surely. Conditions the body. But we have introduced into that word kinds of messy stuff. (Pause)
1:07:25 Q: Krishnaji, when you were talking about seeing or looking without conditioning intervening and you went on to discuss conditioning in terms of being a communist or Hindu and so on, well, obviously, we have to become aware of this kind of conditioning, but it seems to me that the problem, perhaps, for the most of the people in this room is not those grossest forms of conditioning, like being a communist or a Hindu, but the kind of conditioning, which I think perhaps Mr Richardson brought up, that when you look at anything it has got a movement, I suppose one has to say of the mind, which seems to be a movement of distraction. I mean, one wakes in the morning and almost as soon as one’s body wakes there is a sense, however vague, almost of identification somehow. I think identification is probably the right word – you know, almost with one’s physical organism, with one’s physical movement, which gives a sort of heaviness to one’s looking, to one’s living. Is it possible for you to sort of go into this in a way, as we are sitting here, as we are looking? Because it seems as if, you know, one comes to this blockage point when there is this thought. You know, you talk about the censor, and then of course there is also this moment of identity with one thought, which seems to be, you know, the sense of me, which doesn’t seem to be related to, you know, I am an Englishman, I am a Christian or anything like this.
1:09:19 K: No, no. I understand what you are saying, yes. So, what’s the question?
1:09:24 Q: Well, the question I am really asking you is: Is it possible for you, because so many of us I think have points of blockage here, to throw any light on this, in the actual process of, as we are now doing, looking the movement of our minds.
1:09:44 K: To discover one’s blockages?
1:09:47 Q: Well it’s conditioning obviously, and you said this, you know, let us be aware of our conditioning. But at a certain subtle level it takes us over again.
1:09:58 K: I don’t quite understand.
1:10:04 Q: Sir, would it mean that the way is to, from moment to moment throughout our daily lives, to have this awareness? Otherwise it’s so easy to fall back to almost a habitual living. In starting the morning from moment to moment and going throughout the day, this surely is…
1:10:43 K: I think Mrs Cadogan’s question was, if I understood rightly: Can one be aware, as one wakes up in the morning, of this process of identification of the me and my body, my house – the whole movement of the me going on.
1:11:07 Q: It’s not even as tangible as that. You know, it’s not even me, my body, it’s more one’s looking at what is happening in one’s mind, as we are doing now, and one senses that at a certain moment there is a quality of heaviness in the looking. Which seems to suggest an identification, but you can’t really find a word to say what that is.
1:11:28 K: No, I understand. A quality of heaviness.
1:11:32 Q: But it seems to block discovery.
1:11:33 K: Yes. Yes, I understand that.
1:12:03 Q: One does not wake up fresh in the morning.
1:12:08 K: One doesn’t wake up fresh in the morning.
1:12:11 Q: (Inaudible)
1:12:14 K: One wakes up with all the dreariness of yesterday – is that it?
1:12:20 Q: I don’t think that is it, sir.
1:12:22 K: I am just asking.
1:12:23 Q: I don’t think that is it. I think it’s not a matter of individual elements or parts of the content of the mind or any particular blockage. I think Mary’s probably referring to something that is actually part of the structure of the process of the mind, rather than some particular memory or belief, or something like this.
1:12:45 K: I see, I see, I see. The structural part of the mind itself, the brain itself – is that it? – that has become heavy.
1:12:57 Q: It seems so.
1:13:02 K: The brain itself has become heavy. It’s not fresh – which the lady put it differently.
1:13:19 Q: Sir, do we not need to find or release an energy which diminishes that heaviness?
1:13:26 K: We are going to find that out, sir, just a minute. We are going to find that out. The mind, you are saying, structurally, the brain also, feels heavy, whether it’s the morning or – heavy.
1:13:42 Q: At certain points.
1:13:43 K: At certain points. Why? We will take the morning – right? Why? When you wake up the mind feels not fresh but heavy, dull, you know, rather…
1:13:57 Q: There is a movement which is a kind of free movement and then suddenly there isn’t.
1:14:06 K: Why, why? Go into it. Let’s go into it. Why?
1:14:16 Q: We get caught. We wake up sometimes quite free, for a moment, but you are caught by a thought or feeling or sensation.
1:14:28 K: Would it help if we inquired what is sleep? Not only in bed but during the day. Would it help?
1:14:43 A: Yes. (Pause)
1:14:49 K: What is sleep at night? What is the… what takes place in sleep at night, which makes the mind dull the next morning – that’s what we are trying to inquire – makes it heavy, not sharp and alive and clear and fresh. What makes it?
1:15:16 Q: Our dreams.
1:15:19 K: You say, our dreams.
1:15:25 Q: (Inaudible)
1:15:27 K: Please – dreams. What do you mean dreams?
1:15:32 Q: Situations belonging to the day continued on through the night. The churning of the mind.
1:15:40 K: Yes, so, what? So the activity of the day goes on during the night. So there is no moment when the activity is quiet. There is no moment the activity ends. So it’s a constant… and therefore the brain, the mind, gets tired and you feel sloth. Is that it? Go on, sir, please. There is only a freshness when something which has continued comes to an end. Right?
1:16:19 Q: Krishnaji, to me, one aspect of this seems to me that the mind is so busy with answers. Sometimes when the mind says to itself, ‘I do not know,’ which is a very rare thing, but there is this energy, to admit that one doesn’t know.
1:16:45 K: Sir, let’s stick to this for a minute.
1:16:46 Q: Yes.
1:16:47 K: During the day, consciously or unconsciously, there is great activity going on, unending activity. And when one goes to bed that activity continues, modified – it continues in different ways.
1:17:07 Q: But why?
1:17:08 K: Why? We are going to find out. First see what takes place. First see what happens and then you can ask the question why. And naturally, when there is this constant activity, one wakes up weary, dull. That’s it – right?
1:17:35 Q: (Inaudible) …the daytime …(inaudible)
1:17:40 K: We will go further into it, during the daytime. I said we will do it. Now, we are asking whether it is possible that this activity come to an end, not only during the day but also at night – right? – so that there is freshness all the time. Right? Now, how is this possible? Go on, sirs. And why does this… why must this activity continue all the time?
1:18:32 Q: Sir, it seems that we are always becoming in one sense, by living. We are always, in the ordinary sense, we are becoming.
1:18:47 K: Yes, sir, why? Why are we becoming? Why should we be in this movement, all the time going on and on and on?
1:18:56 Q: Why not, sir?
1:18:59 K: Why not? Look at it. There is no freshness. It’s only when something ends a new thing can begin. But if it is the same movement going on and on and on, during the night and during the day, naturally the brain gets exhausted. And in that exhaustion, in that dullness, you can’t see a thing.
1:19:28 Q: The problem is that it seems that you do see a lot, but then suddenly you come to this moment of blockage.
1:19:42 K: No. Is it a sudden cessation of the movement or the brain itself has become exhausted and stops, and at that moment you see something? Or the brain, which is the mind and all the rest of it, because it has been in constant movement, constant activity, itself has realised the possibility of its own ending and seeing something new? You follow what I am saying? Now which is it? All right, let’s go into this a little bit, if you are interested. Shall we go into this?
1:20:34 A: Yes.
1:20:36 K: Aren’t you tired?
1:20:40 Q: No.
1:20:42 K: No? Good.
1:20:45 Q: But it can be either, can it not? It can be either the tiredness of the mind, which comes to an end because its energies are lost, or that it gets sick of itself talking all the time to itself.
1:21:01 K: The same thing, yes.
1:21:06 Q: Just one thing. Isn’t this feeling that Mary Cadogan is talking about – I know what she means – it’s like you follow something – or I feel that she means – you follow something and you sit thinking about something and then something in you just blocks. It’s not tiredness but it seems like physical, something physically happens in the mind that makes everything foggy, blacks everything out so you can’t...
1:21:30 K: Yes, sir, yes, sir, that’s what I am saying. That’s what he said.
1:21:35 Q: But this doesn’t seem to come… Does this come from the constant movement of the mind?
1:21:38 K: We are going to find out, sir. Let’s go slowly. (Laughs)
1:21:41 Q: I think it’s because the brain is still going and when you are tired it seems to have stopped. And for that minute that it stopped, you’re sort of seeing something else, you see something different, and then it suddenly starts going again because there’s…
1:22:02 K: Let’s go into this step by step, please. During the day, one is active, consciously as well as unconsciously, responding to every challenge, observing, contradicting, fighting, fearful, bored, anxious, guilty, seeking pleasure – you know, this movement – all that is going on. When I go to bed and sleep, and the movement is still going on. Not only that movement but also the physical muscles themselves are moving. Right? So the body, the organ, as well as the brain, everything is in movement. Right? And dreams come… is part of this movement. No? Why does this happen? Why is there this incessant movement? And why should there not be this incessant movement? I see why there shouldn’t be, very clearly. Because anything that is constantly moving must wear itself out, must get… in metals, anything that’s moving, moving, must get tired. So the brain itself is constantly moving and gets tired. When it is tired, it becomes dull. So, now, during the day can this movement subside? Even during the day, not merely at night. Which means, can the mind during the day stop chattering? During the day not be occupied, a certain period. Please do it, sirs. During the day, every form of activity both organically as well… totally, completely still. And when there is sleep instead of this movement there may be a period when the mind and the organs, everything is still. Right? No dreaming, no activity of the dream, or the activity of a mind that is thinking about tomorrow, what it will do, and all the rest of it – completely come to an end. That can only happen if there is an ending during the day.
1:25:57 Q: When one is physically tired there can be an end to mental activity.
1:26:04 K: Sir, physical tiredness, that is a different thing from being mentally tired, isn’t it? I can be physically tired but the mind goes on ticking over, about some worry or other.
1:26:24 Q: Isn’t the activity of the mind, the thinking, isn’t that a physical activity?
1:26:33 K: Of course, sir. Of course. You see, don’t become too particular. We can do all that, but I am just generalising, you see, so that you can fill in the details yourself afterwards. Now, can we do this during the day? Which means not to be caught in the verb to be. The verb to be implies becoming, having been. We are slave to that verb. So can all that during the day completely end? Doesn’t matter, even a short period. And when there is sleep there is that quietness again, the ending of this movement. And when you wake up, will the mind be sluggish, at any moment? It may be tired – you follow? – but will it be sluggish, feel heavy?
1:28:04 Q: But, sir, is there any reason why one should be neurotic about travelling? Why should one be neurotic about travelling from A to B?
1:28:06 K: Oh la la!
1:28:07 Q: You used the word harmony. We have got to have harmony. Why shouldn’t we wish to become, in that sense?
1:28:33 K: Sir, sir, just a minute, sir, we are talking about something, about dreams and sleep and all that. You bring… Just a minute.
1:28:45 Q: Could you mention again what you mentioned at the end of the last talk in London about mind being completely alert and awake during sleep?
1:28:55 K: Sir, that cannot be done unless you have gone through this. Sir, find out if during the day you are not a slave to the word to be. Which is the movement – you follow? – becoming, not becoming, I should do this, I am ambitious, I must achieve, there must be… my wife is this, my husband – you follow? – my work, my commitment to activity. Put all that aside for ten minutes a day. And if you do it for ten minutes, can it not be done all the time? And yet act – not keep your eyes shut and do nothing.
1:29:54 Q: But, sir, sometimes we must make decisions and so on, what we are going to do.
1:30:03 K: You will, sir. There will be decisions which are not made by the me. Oh, you don’t know all this!
1:30:10 Q: I mean sometimes we have to make decisions about what bus to take… (inaudible)
1:30:15 K: (Laughs) What bus to take? You take it. There is no colossal decision. No, you are missing the point, sir. You see, this brings in the question of creation, really. A mind that is incessantly active, can it ever create? Create in sense, something totally new. Or must it keep repeating the same thing in different patterns – non-objective, objective – you follow? – painting, all the rest of it, discover new techniques? But I am asking if the mind during the day can be quiet, and yet act. Not quiet, asleep and all the rest of it, but quiet and act. And during the night when there is sleep, what takes place? The same thing will happen, won’t it? So during those periods of quietness, there is no dreaming. Right? Now, what happens during those quiet periods, during the day and during the night? Unless you have done all this, this is just… you are listening to lot of tricks. Have you found out, sir, when during the day, when you are completely quiet, the body, the mind, the brain, and everything is absolutely quiet, what takes place?
1:32:35 Q: Energy.
1:32:40 K: What takes place? You have energy. The moment you are quiet there’s tremendous energy.
1:32:50 Q: Feeling joy.
1:32:53 K: No, sir, don’t guess. (Laughs) Don’t invent, don’t imagine. You will have to find out, won’t you? And also you have to find out what happens when you sleep and there is this extraordinary quietness in sleep in which there are no dreams at all. What takes place in that quietness? And you can only find that out if during the day you know what it is to be quiet. Because during that quiet something takes place which gives you the energy to do something afresh, with passion. I don’t know if you are following all this.
1:34:02 Q: Yes.
1:34:04 K: This is nothing mystical. Please, don’t shut your eyes and go off into a kind of… This is tremendously matter-of-fact. And this is practical, not just mystical, imaginative fancies. I want to find out, when the mind and the body and the whole structure of this thing is completely quiet, what then takes place? And in observing that, who is the observer? Is there an observer? And what is the thing that remembers what has happened? Please, this is too… I won’t go into all this, it’s too complex. And now, at night time what happens? When the mind is… when there is not this movement and there is no dreaming, what takes place? That can be only understood if one has understood what takes place during the day. Right? Otherwise, all the influence of television, newspapers, the election speeches, the excitement of who is going to be elected, the quarrels, the naggings, the fears, the misery, will go on and on and on – there is no end to it. And all the influence of the world is pouring into one. So, the necessity of being quiet. You know, the Muslims pray five times. You know, you have seen them. And the Hindus are supposed to do it three times – before sunrise, midday and before or after sunset – I forgot now, which. You follow? The idea being self-recollected silence, not chattering. Now they have all reduced it to chattering. They repeat, repeat, repeat, and they think the mind is silent, that way. They do produce through repetition a certain dullness. Here, what we are saying is there is no repetition at all. One sees the necessity intelligently of being silent during the day. Whether you do it at a set period or when you are sitting in a bus, that is irrelevant. And when you wake up in the morning the birds are singing.