Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR74S12 - Cooperation and action not based on ideals
Brockwood Park, UK - 19 October 1974
Seminar 12



0:00 This is J. Krishnamurti’s 12th seminar with scientists at Brockwood Park, 1974.
0:11 I wonder if Krishnamurti wants to continue with what he was doing in the morning?
0:15 K: I thought we were going to discuss politics and action, reform, weren’t we?
0:19 DB: Well, that was one proposal. I mean, it was... you were...
0:24 K: Have I anything more to say, sir? I have nothing more to...
0:29 FC: Well, I said that I was interested in going on with what we did in the morning, on the one hand, and then I am very interested in this question, it concerns me very much, the question of violence on the personal level – how to deal with it on the personal level – and in the wider social context.
0:46 But maybe we won’t have time to get into it, I don’t know.
0:49 DB: Well, so that’s one of the possibilities. Does anybody else want to suggest something?
0:54 K: This is the last meeting?
0:55 DB: This is the last meeting and, you know, we should try to finish by 5 o’clock.
0:59 EF: Just... It might be something that could be cleared up quite quickly. I’ve been thinking about what you’ve been saying and I wondered if humour had any place in this sort of scheme of things or whether, of necessity, humour is related to things which are not compatible with this?
1:21 K: Obviously. Laughter is part of seriousness and humour is part of that.
1:30 I mean, one must have humour.
1:33 EF: That’s a relief. (Laughter) I said, ‘That’s a relief.’ K: It was obvious, wasn’t it?
1:43 JM: No, it wasn’t obvious, actually. I mean, I didn’t find it obvious, because the state which you are describing – which for you is meditation... – seemed to be obliterating... well, you gave us specific things which you wanted to obliterate, and it seemed to me that it was…
2:07 K: Not obliterate, but doesn’t matter.
2:09 JM: Okay, whatever... Not have there. And it wasn’t obvious that humour wasn’t one of those things which also would disappear.
2:18 K: No sir.
2:21 DB: Would anybody else want to suggest anything?
2:30 Well, perhaps we could start discussing the question of politics and violence then? Do you want to start to say something?
2:37 FC: I don’t want to impose anything.
2:38 DB: No, I mean...
2:39 FC: I would also like to have this question with death finished up. (Laughs) DB: Oh. Is there anything more you could say on what we’re discussing this morning?
2:47 K: I think we’ve finished that. I have nothing...
2:50 DB: You’ve finished that.
2:52 FC: We’ve finished that? (Pause) Well, could I ask a short question? But I almost think that you wouldn’t want to go... I mean, say anything about it. I think you’re not interested in it. But anyway, for the people who believe in reincarnation – or if you believe in it, I don’t know – if there is reincarnation, what is reincarnated?
3:16 K: That’s the whole point, sir. That’s the... They believe – those who have a strong belief in reincarnation – believe the self, the me, with all its anxieties, all the rest of it, continues in a different life, till through...
3:40 several reincarnations that self disappears.
3:47 And that self disappears through right action each life. You understand?
3:53 FC: Yes. Yes.
3:55 K: That is, I behave in the right manner, so that behaviour, conduct, morality, aesthetics and all that, is refined as I go along, life after life.
4:15 It is based on the idea of karma – you know something...? – and eventually that refined mind – I’m using a quick word – reaches the highest intelligence or the highest immeasurable...
4:38 and so on. So what matters is this life is you must conduct your life in the right way – right, quotes – not hurt people, because if you hurt people, you’re going to pay for it next life.
5:01 Therefore don’t hurt people. This is what they believe.
5:06 FC: Yes.
5:07 K: Lead a good life now.
5:08 FC: Yes. And what is your position? Would you say that if you die today, psychologically...?
5:15 K: But I’ve explained all that, sir, this morning.
5:20 FC: Yes. (Pause) Bryan Goodwin: Would it be quite irrelevant to ask what happens at physical death if one lives in this way?
5:30 K: One dies. Physically, one goes to pieces; one is burnt, cremated or buried or got rid of.
5:39 FC: Whether you have died psychologically before or not doesn’t matter, in the end it’s all the same — you die and that’s it.
5:45 K: No sir, you haven’t understood this. (Laughs) I thought I explained it fairly clearly.
5:54 GS: But perhaps it would be nice if you would say it once again.
6:08 (Laughter) K: Sir, the self, the me, is all the attributes, the qualities, the conditioning, the attachments, the burdens of anxiety, guilt, hurt – all that is the me – that me continues through incarnations, refining itself till the me is totally transformed, so the me doesn’t exist, something else exists.
6:46 That is generally the belief of those who are convinced there is a life hereafter.
6:58 And I was saying that the self is a series of words, a structure of ideas, prejudices, conclusions, attachments, ambition, greed, arrogance, hurts, that me can be ended by being free of all that now; not wait till many lives or never end – I explained all that – when you die, when there is death.
7:49 So is it possible to end while you are living with full consciousness, with full awareness, functioning in this world as a human being, end the me?
8:09 Being aware, choicelessly, of all the turmoil and so on — all that.
8:23 And we said if that self ends now, what is there? We talked about that. (Pause) MW: But what is there?
8:40 This is what I’m not clear. I thought you said there was an intelligence.
8:44 K: No sir... (Pause) I don’t know, sir... I don’t know... If you have a burden of arrogance, can one become aware of it, with its whole significance and its structure and nature, and end it?
9:19 See what happens when you end it – end it or free of it – you have got... you are free of a certain burden.
9:32 And so the question arises: are these burdens to be put away one by one or all together, with one blow?
9:52 (Pause) I think it can [be] put away altogether with one... at one... with one total attention, with a mind that sees the whole thing as a whole.
10:12 And what remains when there is this, there is that freedom, and we went into the question of emptiness and so on.
10:23 I think that is a form of intelligence, of love, and all that.
10:39 BG: The problem of social and political action seems to arise, very naturally, from this ground of being, from the condition that you’ve described of nothingness but of total potential, because then forms and structures as they manifest themselves in perception are seen as transient, impermanent; the world is then not a burden, it’s both real and illusory at the same time.
11:13 You act effortlessly in the world but with love and with an intelligent creativity.
11:20 And this is what I understand to be social and political action.
11:22 K: No. I would like to put it this way — may I? I would like to talk over with or ask you, what is action? From there we can go into this whole problem. What is action? Is it a movement approximating itself to an idea, to an ideal, to a concept, to a formula?
12:04 And, if it is not, then what is the action which is not based on an idea, formula, etc?
12:13 This I would like... Is there such action? And what do we mean by the word action, to act?
12:28 Acting is always in the present; not I have acted or I will act.
12:38 So is there an action which is not based on this idea, on this concept of ideal and action, formula and action?
13:01 The Communists have a formula, based on Marx, Lenin and so on, so on, and to them that is the ideal and make man conform to that ideal and act according to... economically, socially and all the rest of it.
13:28 Right sirs? And that leads to various forms of suppression, lack of freedom, no dissent and if there is any kind of dissent you are sent to the mental hospital or exile and so on, so on, like Solzhenitsyn.
13:50 He says that Lenin talked, said – according to him, and he must know what he’s talking about – Lenin said, ‘All human beings are insects,’ therefore it doesn’t matter if you get rid of them by the million.
14:11 You form a concept and then conform the mind to that concept, force the mind to that concept, and act according to that.
14:25 I am an idealist, I have an ideal and I conform as much as I can or approximate my action to that ideal.
14:43 I think what is good is not to smoke – I’m saying – and that’s an idea, and I smoke and I try not to smoke, and I keep this...
14:55 So I’m asking myself, I’m asking you whether there is an action which is not based on ideal, a concept?
15:14 And you say, ‘That’s impossible. You must have an ideal, idea, formula, a form, according to which you act and that form is the goal – to feed all the people in India or the world – and according to that, let’s plan.’ And you have a formula how to feed the world and I have a formula how to feed the world and we are at each other’s throat.
15:45 And, in the meantime, the poor chap starves. So I’m asking, is there an action which is not your idea or my idea, my concept and your concept, and what is that action?
16:11 That’s all.
16:13 MW: It seems to me that one has to inquire into the nature of economics and society by observation and one has to form ideas as how to proceed and...
16:36 K: Yes...
16:37 MW: ...one must have an openness of mind...
16:38 K: Yes...
16:39 MW: ...about how to proceed which has been lacking, of course, in most political movements.
16:42 K: Sir, there is this problem: there is India – I’m taking that as an example; I’m not patriotic about it – in India, there is about fifteen million new births every year.
16:56 There have six hundred million people. There’s starvation, everything that’s happening there.
17:07 Now, what conclusions do you form and I form and he forms, ideas about it, how to solve it?
17:21 If I am a Communist, I know exactly what I want — it’s very clear.
17:32 And if you’re a Capitalist, you’re also very clear and a Socialist. Then there are three of us, what shall we do? I’m not open to you, because I’m very clear. My mind is made up, because Marx says – etc., etc. – Lenin says…They have experimented, this is the only way to solve the problem. I’ve closed the door. I would like you to come into my camp. (Pause) You ask me [to] keep my mind open, I say, ‘My mind is open, to invite you.’ (Laughs) MW: I mean, as I see it, there has been a fairly consistent development of thought about the nature of man and the social order going towards equality and fraternity.
18:38 I mean, it’s had its very considerable ups and downs but I think that there has been a general trend in that direction and, in spite of the gross errors of doctrinaire political thought, that we can still hope that one can, with sufficient openness of mind, derive from your own approach that one may gradually find a way to improve things.
19:13 K: Sir, as a Communist, I’ve kept my mind open, I’ve studied history, dialectic materialism and Lenin, Trotsky, all that and, having an open mind, I’ve studied it — this is my conclusion.
19:30 You cannot prove anything else. I have made up my mind. It is so.
19:39 MW: But you’re not implying that if you attempt to work out theories of society, you will necessarily end up with a closed mind, are you?
19:51 K: No – of course not, sir – but what will you do with a man like a Communist who won’t budge, who won’t yield an inch to you and he has the same idea of feeding the people, etc., etc., etc., and he wants his way and somebody else wants his way.
20:11 What shall we...? This is happening, sir. What shall we do?
20:17 MW: Well, I agree it’s very difficult, sometimes you have to wait until they die. (Laughter) FC: I think maybe this image of the Communist might be a little too...
20:30 K: ...exaggerated.
20:31 FC: ...simplistic. Mao, for instance, is a very imaginative Communist, not at all closed-minded.
20:36 K: I took, not Mao, I took the Russian; please, just limit it to that, don’t extend it.
20:41 FC: Yes. Yes. Yes. But, I mean, Mao cannot be ignored.
20:45 K: Of course, not. I’m not ignoring it. I’m taking...
20:48 FC: Right. There’s a man who has done social work...
20:50 K: Of course, I’m...
20:51 FC: ...has had a whole philosophy that was immensely fruitful for a vast country, which can be compared to India in size.
20:57 K: But he would call Russia Socialist Imperialists and he would call them revisionist and so on, so on, so on.
21:05 There we are. So I’m asking a different question, which is a man who has studied worked and come to a definite conclusion and he has a definite plan, how will you deal with such a man?
21:25 Here we are: you’ve got very definite ideas and I’ve got definite ideas.
21:32 Or I may have no ideas and somebody else may have other... How do we come together on this?
21:37 JM: I’d just like to add that this question isn’t unique to the political realm at all but really the question could have been asked about everything we were discussing this week.
21:48 K: Of course, sir, of course; I didn’t want to... (Laughs) JM: Now, the point is there is no... I mean, it’s an... what one could say about any kind of area where there are conceptual schemes which don’t seem in any way to be linked is that... well, because of this lack of a reference frame which includes both schemes, one has to...
22:13 K: How do we cooperate, sir, in solving a problem?
22:17 JM: Any problem, it doesn’t have to be a practical one.
22:19 K: I mean, that’s... we took up the political problem. How do we cooperate together to solve a human problem of the world, when you have a certain conclusion and...?
22:34 That’s what we are talking about.
22:36 JM: Well, when... (inaudible) K: And I want to solve that problem of starvation in the world.
22:43 DB: You see, the problem is not the technical one, it’s the human one that, you see, all countries cannot cooperate and each one has its own idea.
22:51 You see, China you may feel is working very well, but it can’t cooperate with Russia, and Russia can’t cooperate with America and none of these people are co-operating with India or the Arabs or the Jews.
23:04 And the question is how...? You may propose economic schemes and schemes for development and so on but it won’t have any meaning if people don’t cooperate.
23:16 JM: The problem is though... the important issue, I think, is not just as you just stated it, it’s much wider. It includes epistemological problems.
23:22 K: Of course, of course. Linguistic problem, religious problem... (Laughs) DB: Yes, exactly that; you can’t cooperate in epistemology anyway, so...
23:28 JM: Well, let’s start making tentative suggestions about what one does with the person – not to a person, with the person – when one meets that person and he has a conceptual scheme radically different from one’s own and there is no reference frame from which one could, as it were, appraise – never mind for correctness or incorrectness or truth or falsity but there’s no back... there’s no further reference frame from which one could appraise the two of them.
23:55 What does one do? Now, I... there are... we could suggest tentative answers. I mean, I have tentative answers. You have tentative answers. Go ahead.
24:03 DB: They don’t agree. I’m sure they don’t agree.
24:05 JM: We could agree not to agree. Well, that’s...
24:07 DB: I mean, I’m sure that after you propose your tentative answers you’ll still disagree, you see; you still won’t be able to cooperate.
24:13 BG: Suppose we agree – these hypothetical people who are in conflict, suppose they agree – to abolish all theories, to abolish history, to abolish all their structures, then there’s nothing that they can disagree about.
24:31 K: But they won’t abolish.
24:33 BG: Well, let us suppose. I’m suggesting. I’m not saying they must abolish.
24:38 JM: Well, that’s a good move. It’s a good... it’s a nice start...
24:45 K: I agree, sir. I agree. But... (Laughs) (Laughter) JM: No, but there’s... but, ah, but is there a problem with that? I mean, what’s left if we strip away everything? You see, now...
24:53 BG: What’s left? You have two human beings.
24:55 JM: Yes. No, no, but... okay, talk about the frameworks that they’re bringing to bear to whatever the disagreement is.
24:58 BG: Well, we’ve agree to abolish these frameworks.
24:59 JM: All right, we abolish every.... Okay, so there’s two human beings standing facing each other.
25:06 BG: Or with their arms around each other? How would they be?
25:09 JM: All right. Yes. Yes. But then, without any... If we do as you say, perhaps per impossible and strip away everything, we can’t even talk. Well, we can’t even touch actually; we can’t do anything.
25:22 K: Sir, take a very simple problem. The Fascist and the Communist are the two sides of the same coin – wait, wait! – more or less – don’t fight over words – and there they are, fighting each other in the street.
25:38 How will you stop it? (Pause) JM: Well, if they’re convinced: Communist on one hand and Fascist and the other hand, then...
25:52 K: That is the position of the world.
25:53 JM: Yes, all right, then you have to – given what’s been said, most of the time this week – we have to let them kick each other’s heads in.
26:00 DB: But they can’t afford that, because you see it’s multiplied over the whole world, this chaos. I mean, the Indians starve...
26:06 K: The Arab and the Jew, they won’t... You know what’s happening.
26:11 JM: Of course, but I... Well…
26:14 DB: The Americans will be involved in it, the Russians, you know, with their hydrogen bombs to...
26:19 JM: I think... I feel – maybe I’m a minority – I feel we’re getting bogged down if we get into specific things, speaking of Indians or Israelis or...
26:24 K: I know, that’s why I didn’t say... I said, ‘What is action? What is co-operation?’ JM: Well, I could give you a fast and ready definition of my... a useful thing to start with.
26:36 You might disagree. You could say an action is a bodily movement plus an intention — there’s an action. Stripped way of all the...
26:42 K: Blah. (Laughs) JM: Yes. Okay, it’s a bodily movement plus an intention. I mean, for what it’s... How’s that going to help our problem?
26:49 BG: Now take away the intention.
26:51 JM: All we have is our... just bodily movements. In other words, the difference is between, you know, my hitting your arm and my arm is hitting you because it could have been due to – I don’t know – a spasm or a mosquito hitting, etc., so... okay, so all we have is a bodily movement.
27:09 Harsha Tankha: Now take away the body. (Laughter) K: That’s what they are doing! (Laughs) (Laughter) JM: Yes, but...
27:19 MW: Could I, possibly, bring this conversation down from academic generalities to the particular?
27:30 I mean, we’re talking about the world community which one wants to work towards, on a very much smaller scale and to a large extent not comparable, but to some extent I think it is comparable, you have action here in Brockwood.
27:50 You have a community here in Brockwood. You work out your problems, any community has inevitably its own problems.
28:05 You work towards the solving of these.
28:09 K: That is, sir, we are willing to sit down together, discuss the problem, willing to listen to each other, expose if we can [that] we are children, we are nervous, frightened and anxious to please and not to be criticised – you know, all the childish things that go on – so we meet together, discuss this thing; at least they are willing to listen.
28:38 Will the Arab and the Jew do it? Will the Hindu and the Muslim do it?
28:44 MW: But you would also agree that there is always the possibility that beginning with the...
28:52 K: I agree. So can we begin by exposing our particular idiosyncrasies and say, ‘I’ll forget it, let’s work together.’ (Pause) Let us meet as men of good will, not with plans, with ideas – you follow? – just let’s meet together and discuss this problem, how to solve this thing.
29:23 And if we have capacity, energy in various forms, then we go and work at it.
29:29 MW: But that is action then.
29:31 K: That is action. (Pause) MW: Then presumably this type of action can be extended in rather different realms, where there are quite different magnitudes of economic forces and social pressures...
29:58 K: Of course, sir. Of course, of course.
30:00 MW: ...in the political arena, in the world outside.
30:02 K: But you and I are men of goodwill. We have no concepts, beliefs, all the rest of it, we are men of goodwill.
30:14 And from there we start.
30:15 MW: Well, you may be a man of goodwill, I don’t know that I trust mine if I have sufficient economic pressures on me.
30:23 K: I don’t know anything about economics; I leave it to you or to an expert. I say, ‘Please, be a man of goodwill, join us and let’s work it... you work it out.’ Not as a specialist, not as a Communist, Socialist, Liberal, this or that, as a human...
30:40 MW: But I think we will have to inquire, by observation, and find out about the bigger world outside, in order to help to build up something by goodwill.
30:56 K: Of course. Of course, of course. (Pause) MW: So ultimately, we must be involved in political action to help to set up the right kind of world and with an open-mindedness we will avoid falling into the traps of the doctrinaire political thinkers who have existed so far.
31:23 Do you feel that’s a fair way of putting it?
31:26 K: I understand you, sir. I understand, but the problem is there, I don’t know...
31:34 Mr Sudarshan, please, you’re exponent of...
31:39 GS: I was going to say, since you ask... get me into it, I was going to say that this whole business of concern with the world seems to be totally at discordance with the earlier view in which we said, ‘We are going to abandon the ego.
31:54 We are going to abandon this...’ K: I know; agree...
31:57 GS: And therefore, the actions have to be spontaneous; it comes from inside, and one doesn’t go about doing good for other people.
32:04 You don’t even invite people for a long, big conference, you simply do the right things, instinctively, when you are in that state.
32:11 K: But you are in that state, I am not — then what will you do with me?
32:17 GS: I will deal with you with affection but with firmness.
32:20 K: Yes, but I still go on being an Arab or a Jew or a Muslim.
32:24 GS: Yes, but I will deal with you with firmness.
32:27 K: Yes, do deal with me. (Laughs) JM: I think it might be connected with the... I mean, the two meetings that we had with the school – one, the big meeting, one, the small meeting – what struck me most was really a thorough going pragmatism about how to get along living with each other, an immense amount of goodwill, but most of all a thorough going pragmatism.
32:51 Now, there was nothing of the superstructure or if you want infrastructure – I don’t know... – that we’ve been talking about all week.
32:59 There was no... I mean, you know, when they were telling about how the school was running, etc., etc., there was nothing about observer and observed.
33:05 K: No, of course not. (Laughs) JM: Of... Now, all right, I think maybe underlying Maurice’s questions is this: that there seems to be a view, quite a... well, a view which you’ve articulated to your satisfaction in a very, very detailed way, and what we’re asking is how – if at all – do you or does one link it with just living in the world?
33:36 And my point was simply that when one observes an institution closely associated with you, closely, and talks to the people involved, one gets nothing of the sorts of views that you were very careful to articulate.
33:50 All one gets, as I said, is a very thorough going pragmatism plus a lot of goodwill. So, we’re puzzled I think, some of us, as to how the superstructure relates to the living; how the...
34:06 Yes.
34:08 K: Are you asking me or...?
34:10 JM: Well, I was asking you, I was addressing you but, I mean, anybody...
34:12 K: Let somebody else answer it, first.
34:15 MW: Could I just make a comment? I feel that you, possibly... you don’t surely mean that you get an impression of nothing but pragmatism? I mean, surely you also get an impression of more than that?
34:32 GG: Where did the goodwill come from?
34:36 JM: From within each person.
34:39 DB: Well, no, it’s...
34:40 GG: Well, but it was from within each person within the context of this institution. I mean, the goodwill wasn’t independent of the community.
34:46 JM: No... No, well, another... I mean, it could be, but it could also be that they brought goodwill to the institution.
34:50 GG: It could be.
34:51 DB: It could, yes.
34:52 JM: It couldn’t be?
34:53 DB: But it wasn’t. I mean, because...
34:55 JM: Well, how do you know? I mean, we have to...
34:57 GG: No, we said ‘Yes. Yes. It certainly could be.’ JM: Yes. No, David said...
35:02 DB: No, I mean, I don’t think that that was... You see, every institution brings good... similar children came to one institution as another, so if there’s any difference it cannot be explained by what they brought to the institution.
35:08 JM: All right. Are you saying then that the goodwill is necessarily linked with – I’ll use the worst possible... – the theoretical superstructure?
35:17 DB: Well, that’s rather harsh, I mean, you know, rather a barbaric...
35:23 JM: I know. But, you know... okay, with the more... the less practically orientated views?
35:26 DB: Well, but if you follow with what’s being pointed out, you see, the truth that’s being pointed out. In other words, you see, another part of the school – which you may have seen less of – is that, you know, that Krishnamurti talks to the students regularly, and the staff and students talk among each other about these questions and think about them, you know, and observe.
35:51 And all of this I think was... played a very key part in bringing about this goodwill.
35:56 K: We talked the other day about cooperation – the students, staff and... – to cooperate work together.
36:09 I said, we said, ‘You cannot work together if you’re prejudiced.
36:16 Are you prejudiced? You cannot work together if you have a formula: ‘Your formula... mine is better than yours.’ You cannot cooperate if there is authority, who tells you.
36:31 You cannot cooperate together if your self-interest is greater than somebody else’s self-interest.
36:39 You cannot cooperate together if you want to dominate’ – and so on, so on, I explained all that – and we discussed it at great... for an hour and a half or whatever it was.
36:50 I think that some of them got it, the meaning of it: to work together without any barriers, without any fence round each other.
37:01 Now, that does create a sense of friendship, desire to cooperate. They may... because they are students, young, they drop it for a day or two and pick it up again.
37:19 When they drop it, they get frightened and say, ‘I’m frightened,’ and suppress it or tell only somebody that, ‘I’m frightened.’ So this goes on all the time.
37:30 JM: Let me ask you a question. Do you think that somebody could agree with you almost completely about cooper... (Break in audio) your view, say, about the observer and observed.
37:43 K: Oh, cut it out. (Laughs) JM: Cut it out? Okay, great. Now, that was very... Okay, then... Right. I understand a lot more now. All right. Well, then – yes – in a sense...
37:54 K: (Laughs) Look sir, look...
37:56 JM: ...pragmatism isn’t all that harsh a word, then.
37:58 DB: Well, it goes, I mean, that’s... but it’s still the origin of... Go ahead.
38:02 K: How can those students understand observer and the observed? I say, ‘Don’t bother about it. Let’s talk about cooperation, what is involved, and see if you can cooperate, what is... with affection, with care, with attention, not...’ etc., etc.
38:22 And when it gets to deeper problems: ‘I want to get rid of fear’ – a student says, ‘I want to get rid of fear’ – then we go into it carefully.
38:34 There, I go into the observer and the observed. I think they understand that. They may not do it. Intellectually, at least, they grasp it.
38:46 JM: Yes.
38:47 FC: Does this... Can this argument apply also to many other people in the world who do – in fact most of them – who will not grasp what you say intellectually...
38:56 K: Of course, sir.
38:57 FC: ...so you just say, ‘Cut it out,’ and you just talk about how can we cooperate?
39:00 K: Which means don’t have ideals, don’t have formulas, therefore you’re free to investigate.
39:08 FC: That means you...
39:09 K: ...and then free to investigate the observer and the observed.
39:13 FC: But you don’t have to go there first.
39:16 JM: But what if we’re not...?
39:18 K: Don’t even say that.
39:19 JM: Okay.
39:20 FC: But you don’t have to go through it first; this is not a necessary requirement to save the world.
39:26 K: If you want to go through it first, I say, ‘Let’s go through it first.’ (Pause) JM: Could somebody understand fear, without understanding the observer and the observed?
39:40 K: Of course. But... no, I can understand it...
39:43 JM: And cope with it, and erase it.
39:46 K: Ah – wait a minute – cope with it, not suppress it, not run away from it, then you have inevitably come to the point observer and the observed.
39:57 Inevitably. That’s... (Laughs) (Pause) Q: But when you tell somebody, like children, how to cooperate, are you not also feeding in a formula?
40:13 K: No, no. That’s just a clever statement. I say, ‘Look, I have no ideals. I have no beliefs. Let’s be friends.’ Is that a formula? Let’s be friends. Friendship has no formula.
40:33 JM: I think what the gentleman at the end was meaning was that, a lot of the time, I mean, every day we meet people who say, ‘Look, I’m starting with an open mind.’ K: That...
40:43 JM: Yes. And then they sneak in, you know...
40:45 K: (Laughs) I know the tricks.
40:46 JM: Yes.
40:47 K: That’s not... (Pause) Q: Well, yes. I mean, you wouldn’t say, ‘Well, let’s be friends.’ Yes, there is a conceptual framework involved there and there is... there are beliefs, i.e.
41:04 for... that is to say...
41:06 K: Sir, ‘Let’s be friends’ — what does it mean?
41:08 Q: It means...
41:09 K: To be friends with somebody, what does it mean? I confide in you my troubles, and you confide in me. We don’t necessarily go to the pub, pubs. I don’t go to any pub. I don’t know what a pub is inside like in all my life; I’ve lived in England great deal. But as a friend, I want to tell you something because I’ve seen you often, I’ve walked with you, you have been my companion and in conversation I begin to tell you my troubles – if I’ve any – and you listen to me because you’re a friend of mine.
41:48 You pay attention to what I say. You have a certain companionship, a certain rapport entre nous.
41:59 Q: But this that you describe now – namely, confiding in somebody or saying something – is more spontaneous. I mean, it’s not having been taught.
42:07 K: Oh, not formulation. You don’t say, ‘I’m going to be friends with him,’ and work it out. It just happens.
42:15 Q: Right, right. But when one takes a particular problem, say a problem that exists with the children – I mean, among the children or something – and when you... when somebody tells them, ‘Well, cooperate because it is good to cooperate.’ K: No sir, look...
42:30 Q: Isn’t there a formula there?
42:31 K: Look, in a small community, as we are here, we have to cooperate with each other.
42:39 Q: Well, isn’t that a formula?
42:40 K: No sir, it’s not a formula. I have to go and polish the floor.
42:44 JM: In a sense, though, that is a formula. I mean, you could instead say, ‘You disagree with someone, fight with him, and the winner will rule.’ I mean, that’s... it’s appalling, but isn’t that just as much a directive as cooperating?
43:01 K: Look sir, I am married to you. (Laughs) This is humour. (Laughter) I am married to you, and I do certain things in the house and you do certain things in the house, we don’t plan, we don’t formulise, we don’t say, ‘You do this and I do this and you’re...’ we just... we live together, we cooperate together.
43:25 JM: Oh yes, we could but we could also...
43:27 K: Ah yes, but...
43:28 JM: ...psychologically fight with each other, until one of the ones...
43:31 K: That’s a different matter. Don’t introduce more... I am just pointing out cooperation in a small community is not necessarily based on a formula.
43:49 We are trying to say, ‘Have that spirit of cooperation’ – the spirit, the feeling – not, ‘Oh, you do this, I do that,’ but have the feeling of it first.
44:03 Then we can say, ‘You do that and I do that,’ and then there is not superior, inferior. I’ve washed floors, many times, I, personally – not here, other places – washed floors, cleaned the toilets, milked cows, and I was cooperating.
44:20 JM: You see, I think the point is – and it’s an important point to grasp for all of us, yes, for all of us – is that the assumption that what we have to do is foster the atmosphere where cooperation will be the natural thing to do, is just as much a formula, is just as much behaving in accordance with the formula, as acting in accordance with the stronger one prevailing.
44:48 DB: No, wait, that’s...
44:49 JM: I mean, not that... Look, not that we want to disagree with the outcome — of course, we all want to cooperate. I mean, I think given another assumption of rationality that one would always opt for that, but I think the point that you wanted to make is that it is an assumption – or if you want, a formula – which we decide, decide, to act on the basis of.
45:08 It doesn’t just flow out of the thing naturally. We have to make a decision to be... and we decide to do that, to act in accordance with that sort of formula because we feel it will result in the best kind of life, but it is a decision.
45:23 K: Of course, it’s a decision.
45:24 JM: But we could take other decisions.
45:26 K: Of course. We take... say, in the small community like this...
45:28 JM: And therefore, I think that’s what he was meaning by formula. We have to actually, at one point or other, make a choice to act that way, and we... and...
45:36 K: I am not sure. I am not sure if we all see the same thing together there is choice.
45:48 (Pause) It is because you see it in a different way and I see a different way, then choice comes in: determinism, and say, ‘I will do...’ you’ll fight, wrangle.
45:59 But if we all saw the same thing... If we all call that a microphone, there is no problem; if I call it an elephant or a giraffe then there is a problem. (Laughs) David Shainberg: Isn’t that what Dr Sudarshan was saying, that it’s really not a question of action, it’s a question of it happens?
46:15 K: Yes sir, I’ve been saying... I said to bring about the feeling of cooperation, which is far more important than the formula, how to do it.
46:33 Have this, and then the formula... then I’ll accept it, I won’t make a fuss about it, whether I wash floors and you talk and do something else.
46:45 I don’t feel inferior.
46:46 DS: But there’s something about the whole generation of this feeling of cooperation.
46:53 K: At present there is. Young people have it.
46:58 JM: Here. Young people here have it.
47:02 K: And I’ve seen other parts of it, sir, in America, young people...
47:05 JM: Oh yes, but I mean... well, I mean, I think the other point is that one, of course, one works to generate a feeling...
47:11 K: Of course.
47:12 JM: Yes, but what can be... what sometimes is generated is not cooperation, it’s some...
47:17 K: Ah, that... No, of course, of course.
47:19 JM: And the problem... Well, that’s what we got... that’s what we started with: what does one do when one comes up against a group of people or a person who has had generate...
47:28 K: That is the whole point. There they are, League of Nations. I know one of the big, top people, and they won’t even listen to each other.
47:40 And they are representing millions of people. How will you... how will you make them listen, even... you follow? It took me... it took us a whole week, between us, for us to listen to each other, because you were willing to listen.
47:58 I’m willing to listen. There were certain rapports, there were certain friendships, certain affection, certain care to understand something, but these fellows say...
48:07 They have got vested interests. They are this, they are... So how will you bring about this thing, among people? Between us – look at it, sir – for a... a whole week it has taken us (laughs) to go beyond our conclusions and barriers, arguments.
48:32 (Pause) I’ve talked to Communists, blood red Communists, card carrying Communists, and Fascists, go up to a certain point, beyond that not an inch.
48:55 Like a practising Catholic, go to a certain point: ‘No!’ And I say, ‘For God’s sake man, sit down.
49:03 Let’s talk,’ but, ‘I don’t want to’ – you know? – I’ve been through all this.
49:09 JM: But, you see, the problem or the interesting question is, what would count for both of them – your pink red or your deep red Communist and... – what would count for them as the right sort of thing to talk about?
49:26 Because I agree with you, I mean, there reaches a point where they’ll stop talking. But, I mean, the standard answer, standard answer, is that what one does is get the conversation around to the point where both parties, however much their views disagree, see that it is in their best interests to cooperate, but that is quite against the general flow of this conference.
49:50 In other words, what I’m suggesting is that the best way to get people – diametrically opposed political people – to talk, is to show that they’re on the same sort of decision matrix somewhere.
50:00 In other words, however much they differ, if they do the same action X it’ll be in both their interests, and then you’ll get them to cooperate.
50:09 But that seems incompatible with the whole... with what everyone here wants to say (laughs) but it seems to work.
50:17 I mean, that’s how, at least that’s how social progress, at least recent history, historically speaking, has...
50:23 DB: Well...
50:24 K: Sir, some of the prominent gurus, both in India and the West, have come to see me.
50:32 They say, ‘You’re perfectly right. You’re speaking the truth, but we can’t reach that state so we go on our way.’ That’s the end of the conversation.
50:49 JM: Has it ever it been the case that someone has come to you, listened to you and said, ‘You’re perfectly wrong so I’m going to go away?’ K: Ah...!
51:02 Some have said it. Oh, of course.
51:05 JM: And what do you say when that...? ‘Goodbye. Have a good life?’ Yes?
51:11 K: I don’t beat him over the head. (Laughs) JM: No, no. (Laughs) (Laughter) (Pause) K: Sir, I think it’s very important to find out what is action.
51:33 I think this, if we could go into a little bit, perhaps we’d understand the whole fields of action where concepts are necessary and where action without concept is possible and so on.
51:55 Because I think ideals are separating people, beliefs are separating people: I’m a Catholic, you’re a Protestant, and we are...
52:09 North Ireland, that’s what is happening, it’s very simple. For economic, other reasons. So if we could talk a little bit about it.
52:22 BG: Yes, one of the problems when we come up against – ourselves, we maybe have less ideals and things – and then we come up against other people who do have them, then one has the problem of what... how to deal with this.
52:42 K: He asked me the other day, ‘Have you a form?’ ‘If...’ I said, ‘If I have a form about him I cannot understand him.
52:55 I percolate through my filters and I must get rid of those filters to understand the poor chap.’ It’s so simple.
53:06 But I’m willing to do that. I want to do it, because I feel it’s very important to understand.
53:18 But that means I’m willing to expose myself to you, so that I discover my filters.
53:29 And I’m willing to get rid of those filters. After seeing them, I want to get rid of them, so as to see how to deal with him, with this particular situation, or total and so on.
53:43 But that means I am aware of what I’m doing, I’m aware that... my tremendous interest is to understand, coop... and all, so on.
53:54 But that means I must know myself, I must... I’m willing to put away things from me. After all, that is science, that is... that is the importance.
54:09 DS: Would you distinguish between spontaneous action and action of effort and that kind of action?
54:18 K: The word spontaneous is a rather difficult word (laughs) because who is spontaneous?
54:25 DS: There’s no who in the sense of spontaneous.
54:28 K: Ah no, but I must... spontaneity means no motive, no calculation, no direction.
54:43 It’s like, I see a child being hit or drowning, there’s an instant action.
54:53 So are we capable of spontaneous action? Not, ‘There is a spontaneous action,’ that’s merely theory.
55:06 Can I act spontaneously? That means aesthetically – you know? – that’s the real, aesthetic sense of doing things out of your heart, wholly; out of your heart, out of your mind, out of your total being, without contradiction, without regret, without saying, ‘My God, I wish I hadn’t done it.’ DS: Do you feel that this... this kind of action is related to what we were talking about when we say that the appreciation that the observer is the observed is the transformation.
55:47 Is that...?
55:48 K: Yes. And also, sir, this happens when you love somebody! What are we all talking about? We’re all so damn intellectual. When I love somebody, I do this. There is no me at the moment I love.
56:07 This is such a natural thing, I don’t know what we make so much fuss about it. You’re looking superior, sir...
56:13 Q: Well, I think we make a fuss about it because most of us can’t love.
56:19 K: What sir?
56:20 Q: That’s why. I think we make a fuss about it because we’re not capable of it.
56:24 K: You’re quite right. That’s just it.
56:26 JM: Some of us make a fuss about it because we’d like to know a little more clearly what’s going on when we do love. (Laughter) Yes, that’s important. (Laughs) We’d like to know what’s going on. And, you know, and to say, ‘It just happens,’ is unsatisfying.
56:41 K: Sir, do I say to my wife, ‘I love you. I want to know all about it’?
56:45 JM: No, of course not. Of course... No, no, no, no, no. Of course, not. But if one has lived a life that has been full of loving and, etc., you might one day sit down in a quiet, cool moment by yourself in a room, light up your pipe – or I would light up my pipe...
57:04 (Laughter) and contemplate love. Not the people I’m loving or the fusion of the person and the loving and me, etc., just, ‘What is love?’ I mean, that’s a meaningful question.
57:16 K: Yes. That is... That ends up in smoke. (Laughter) JM: (Laughs) Not necessarily.
57:23 K: There’s humour. (Pause) BG: Did I understand you to say that there are situations where it’s necessary to act with concepts, with a framework?
57:42 K: No sir. No sir. I’m just... Please. We must go back to this question of action. We’re refusing to go into it, or we’re pushing it aside. What is action, sir? What is doing? I meet a snake... I was walking in the sequoia forest in California, by myself, at eleven thousand feet, and I’d been walking and I turned round, round a corner, there is a bear with four cubs.
58:21 She pushes the four cubs around the trees, turns round and faces me.
58:29 Then what is action there? (Pause) I turned around, I said, ‘Goodbye lady.’ If I’m frightened – you follow? – she would smell it, she’d get furious... and so...
58:50 We were as close as this: ten feet or five feet apart. I turned round and walked away and she left me alone.
58:57 JM: You were lucky.
58:59 K: Ah no. No, no. I’m asking, what is action? (Pause) Just a minute. I’ll show you. I was staying in Ranikhet, it’s in north of India, and a man comes to me and says, ‘Do you want to see a tiger?
59:24 It has killed a cow.’ I said, ‘I don’t want to see the...’ because various reasons, so after he left, I said, ‘I’d like to go and meet it naturally, in the woods.’ So in the evening, I walked, went into the forest.
59:45 And, as I walked, everything suddenly became silent: the birds stopped singing, the monkeys stopped in their trees, motionless, and I knew there was some dangerous thing happening.
1:00:05 I wanted to go on, (laughs) see what it was, but the body refused.
1:00:13 So the body went up against a tree and leant against it and wouldn’t move. And I... mind said, ‘I want to find out whether I can face a tiger.’ Body refused.
1:00:26 That’s action. So... Sorry, I’m making a personal history of this. I’m not making a personal history. Monkey comes – one of those big monkeys – I was doing yoga, comes to the window and I opened my eyes, there it is.
1:00:43 We look at each other, wild monkey, stretches out its hand to me and I go up and take hold of it.
1:00:52 It’s a very soft hand, beautiful hand, pliable, exquisite hand!
1:01:00 And we hold it for two or three minutes. And it wants to come in, because I’ve said... (Laughter) I said, ‘If you want to,’ and it went away. So that’s action. And action: I dissolved that organisation because I saw immediately and I dissolved it.
1:01:29 That’s action. I want to finish, sir. And I have had no ideals at all in my life. No goal, no purpose. And I acted, I have acted.
1:01:49 So when you put all this together, what is action?
1:01:59 This battle between ideas and ideals: you believe this and I believe that, I’m a Communist, you are a Socialist, I’m an Arab, and so on?
1:02:09 (Pause) So I think this is really a very important question.
1:02:21 The Hindus say, ‘Action is karma.’ The root meaning of that word – correct me, please – means to act.
1:02:36 And they say, ‘Action... I act because there has been a cause in my past life which conditions me to act in a certain way.’ Right?
1:02:47 ‘And therefore, I cannot alter it except modify it.’ And they say, that’s action.
1:03:02 Because past life, the roots are there, the cause is there, I can’t alter the cause, and the effect of that cause is my action now, which is not complete, which is disgusting or whatever it is, and that’s action.
1:03:21 And the Communist says... — you know, the whole thing. So what is action when you are confronted with all this: the neurotic, the believer, the Catholic, the Protestant, what is action?
1:03:43 (Pause) And each interpreting action in his own way. So is there an action [that] doesn’t belong to all this?
1:03:59 You follow? That is whole action, not belonging to something, or an ideal action.
1:04:12 Sorry, I talk...
1:04:17 JM: There’s another way of approaching this whole notion of action which would perhaps – I don’t know – be more closely connected with your concern, I don’t know.
1:04:32 K: You mean to say this is not helpful?
1:04:33 JM: A little... Yes, it is. It is.
1:04:36 K: (Laughs) No, no, no, no. I want to know if this isn’t helpful.
1:04:39 JM: It is helpful, but I think there’s another view of action which is...
1:04:45 K: Wait! Is this not helpful?
1:04:47 JM: Oh yes, it describes quite clearly – to me, anyway – how you’ve... what action is for you.
1:04:55 K: No! You see? You see? It is not my action. I say, ‘Look, there’s the action of an idealist...’ JM: No, what the concept of action then means for you.
1:05:06 Sorry, that’s...
1:05:07 K: No, no, no. I look at an idealist. He’s got ideals and according to that ideal he acts. There is the Hindu, I explained what...
1:05:23 JM: Yes.
1:05:24 K: He acts. Then there is the Communist: he’s got concept, absolute dialectical material, etc., etc., and he acts.
1:05:34 And somebody acts because he’s hurt, deeply hurt from childhood and his action is neurotic, and he calls it insanity.
1:05:50 And there is the action of a man who is aggressive, violent, and he acts and so on, so on.
1:05:58 And looking at all this – I’m not... include yours – and I say, what is action?
1:06:08 Not another action or adding... you can add more lines or more to it, it all is enclosed in this, and from that I say, what is action?
1:06:23 Not is there another action or...? What is action, when you have observed all this?
1:06:32 MW: But you also said, if I understood you correctly, that with open-minded observation and inquiry and thought...
1:06:47 K: Yes sir, that’s perfectly right...
1:06:49 MW: ...this can then lead to action.
1:06:52 K: Yes, that’s right. But that freedom of action is not possible when I have ideals, when I believe in the whole structure of economic, etc., Capitalism or Communism or Maoism, or I’m completely conditioned by the Catholic dogma.
1:07:20 Then I’m not... I say I’m open-minded but I’m closed.
1:07:30 So I have observed this all through my life, and I say, what is action then?
1:07:39 Everybody says, ‘This is action.’ What is action?
1:07:47 So I say, is there an action which is not based on concepts?
1:07:59 (Pause) I say there is.
1:08:07 You can act without a concept. But the carrying out may need to have... needs to have a line, a direction and so on, but the feeling, the capacity, to act without a formula.
1:08:32 (Pause) GS: May I say something?
1:08:39 K: Of course. Please.
1:08:42 GS: About Henry V, when Prince Hal became Henry V, it was said he had no weaknesses, no, not even the noble weakness of mercy.
1:08:50 Bhagwan Buddha was concerned with the sufferings of the world – a very noble quest – he threw away his kingdom and devoted his entire life, did lots of experiments.
1:09:02 Finally, he had enlightenment in which he found the cause of suffering, but that is not yet it.
1:09:13 He did not find out the nature of himself, he only found out the nature of suffering, and therefore he preached compassion.
1:09:18 K: No, no, no. I won’t... – forgive me – no – forgive me, I’m not standing up for Buddha... (Laughs) GS: No, no, I... No, I was just going to say that if I were... if we were in agreement, if we communicated this morning or we spoke the same thing, even though with different mouths...
1:09:39 K: Yes, yes, yes.
1:09:41 GS: ...then compassion, the right action, etc., are secondary, which come as fragrance follows the flower.
1:09:48 K: That’s right, sir. Therefore, that fragrance cannot exist if you have an ideal and I have a formula.
1:09:54 GS: Agreed, but...
1:09:55 K: That’s all. That’s all I am saying. Not agree — it is so.
1:10:01 GS: It is so. (Pause) K: You see, but you and I are willing to look at it.
1:10:15 You and I understand the same language. You and I, sir, are inquiring into it, looking at it – and all the rest of it – so say, ‘Yes, that is possible.
1:10:29 It is so.’ But somebody says, ‘Who the...? What are you talking about? An action without ideas? You are loony!’ And that is the trouble, sir.
1:10:48 You follow? That is what’s happening in the world. Everybody has got a formula. (Pause) MW: But, I mean, you’re not objecting to the open-minded use of formulae, surely, as part of the process of thought?
1:11:15 But is your point that attachment to these things tends to generate a rigidity?
1:11:25 K: Sir, we agree, we see the same thing. Then to put it out into action, I must... thought must operate, logically, sanely, healthily, not personally and therefore effectively.
1:11:43 But we have seen the same thing together. It’s not I see it, and I’m trying to convince him or he convinces me. It’s we both see the snake as a poison, and therefore in avoiding it or in doing something, we will think it out.
1:12:03 (Pause) FC: This seems to imply your presence in the same point, at the same time and with the same frame of mind.
1:12:13 K: I said that, sir. I said that.
1:12:15 FC: This is easy for two people – or it’s already difficult for us who are here – but on the large scale...
1:12:19 K: Ah, no, no! Not for two people. Not for two people. If both of us, if all us feel the same thing, at the same time, at the same level, with the same intensity, we see the thing together.
1:12:32 But we’re not willing.
1:12:33 FC: Yes, but even if we did so, we are not the whole world.
1:12:37 K: Why not? We are the world.
1:12:39 FC: Well, there are other people.
1:12:41 K: We went into that. If you and... if we all transform, etc., our... we affect the consciousness of the world — obviously.
1:12:57 (Pause) The Catholic priests have affected the consciousness of the world.
1:13:09 So has Hitler.
1:13:10 JM: I’d just like to say something about this connection or non-connection between actions and concepts.
1:13:22 Say I go for a walk, I’m walking through the fields and I see somebody and he’s waving around frantically.
1:13:30 I don’t understand what he’s doing. I see him, he’s gyrating in a very peculiar sort of way. Now...
1:13:37 K: If I go further, I’ll get shot.
1:13:39 JM: No, no, no. I go further and I still see he’s waving and I don’t understand what he’s doing. I then go further and I reach the crest of the hill where he is at, so I can look over and I see on one side, let’s say, a car that’s overturned and burning, and on the other side – oh – a group of people who are, say, camping over there, and suddenly what he’s doing clicks.
1:14:01 I see that he’s trying to signal to those people to come and help him for that reason. Now, my point is this: that in order to even give... in order to understand what he was doing, I had to give his action a description and the description that I gave it was partly due to the aims or the goals or – if you want – to the ideals that he had at a particular time.
1:14:23 In other words, I couldn’t understand, I didn’t even know that he was doing any action, let alone a particular action, until I saw the context which then – as it were – from which, I got the description of his action.
1:14:36 So it seems to me that Bryan’s question... I mean, I think I would argue that concepts are almost... I’m not... I don’t want to say necessary or not necessary to do an action, but in order to understand a bit of behaviour as an action, one has to describe it.
1:14:52 K: It’s fairly simple.
1:14:53 JM: And in describing it, one has to have in mind the aims or goals of...
1:14:56 K: It is fairly simple, isn’t it? You’re on the top of the hill. You’re waving to come. I come up, then look. We then both see it. I haven’t uttered a word. I said, ‘Come,’ made a gesture – wait – and we both see the same thing.
1:15:20 Then we do something together because we both of us see the same thing.
1:15:24 JM: My example was that I came but you weren’t signalling to me, you were signalling to someone else...
1:15:29 K: No, I’m just...
1:15:30 JM: ...so I was an observer looking and trying to understand what you were doing, and I couldn’t understand what you were doing...
1:15:36 K: Till you got there.
1:15:37 JM: Yes, until I saw the context that you were moving around...
1:15:39 K: Yes, but you came up there. That’s the main point. You went up there. That’s all.
1:15:48 JM: Let me give you another example. Sorry. (Laughter) I mean, this one probably is probably a bit clearer. Someone’s driving his car and he starts putting his hands out of the window – you know? – this way... his blinkers are broken, say, so he’s going up like that and up like that and he’s all...
1:16:10 – depending on what country he’s in. Now, we say, ‘What is he doing? What’s he doing?’ Well, I could say, ‘He’s doing a lot of things: he’s signalling to make a turn, he’s trying to get home more quickly that he would if he wasn’t doing that,’ etc.
1:16:24 In other words, the same bodily movement will elicit very different types of action descriptions depending on what he’s doing.
1:16:31 Now, how do I get that description? How do I understand what he’s doing? How do I understand...?
1:16:34 K: Because we both have agreed, when I put out my hand up it means I’m going left or right; we both have agreed.
1:16:41 JM: But that isn’t what he... he was going home quickly. He wasn’t going up and down, you see?
1:16:46 K: Oh, this has become... (laughs) GS: Now, perhaps, I... Going back to your earlier example, it may be that, suppose the person was waving not to you but to the person behind.
1:16:59 You misunderstood and you say, ‘Well, I don’t really understand what he is doing.’ You go up there. It turns out that you were not the person who was asked for. What happens? Well, then you realise that you are not the right person to go. A child is being thrown by its father into the river just to teach it not to be afraid but you don’t see that.
1:17:20 You think that the child has fallen down and you have gone and saved it, because you instinctively save it. The worst that happens is that you might look a little foolish. It doesn’t really matter unless you feel that you must optimise your action: find out all the information about the thing and do only the right things.
1:17:36 If you have no preconceptions about your rôle, you do the best that you know in the particular context. You may be in fact mistaken. When you say you have to understand what is going on, I mean, suppose somebody is waving frantically and they’re really signalling to somebody else who is helping them but you don’t understand and you go and sort of participate in the thing, it doesn’t really matter because if you made a mistake, somebody will tell you it is a mistake, and the you...
1:18:04 Otherwise you have to wait until you find out what the signal means and the signal may be a frantic signal, then you may not be able to respond to it.
1:18:10 JM: Or it might...
1:18:11 GS: In the cases where you respond to an emergency or do something spontaneously because of it’s...
1:18:19 a loved one is there and you go and hug her, it doesn’t really... You don’t say, ‘Well, now I must go and increase the – you know? – physical pressure,’ and so on. It sort of happens spontaneously. Now, if it were not your wife but somebody else’s wife, it could create complications after... (Laughter) K: Then you get into trouble.
1:18:37 GS: Then you get into trouble, but it is still better (laughs) to have gone into the embrace than not to have done it at all.
1:18:46 (Laughter) JM: Well, okay, let’s talk about more important things.
1:18:53 Truman pressed the button – yes? – and two bombs went, ‘Boom!’ Now, I mean, he could... one could describe what he did in the most horrific way or we could say, ‘Well, he shortened the war and saved lives.’ So, it’s not a question of just looking foolish, it’s...
1:19:05 I mean, sometimes incredible...
1:19:07 GS: Yes, exactly, you could create a lot of problems.
1:19:10 JM: And very important things hinge on the way one describes the action.
1:19:13 DB: But that’s missing the essential question still, you see. You’re asking a question that may arise in trying to find the right thought to guide your action – you see? – in other words, the right direction or the right approach.
1:19:26 But the deeper question is whether we have this feeling which creates a common action, you see, that feeling which doesn’t have any cause, you know, like the same feeling of moving away from the tiger.
1:19:41 And under certain conditions that will lead to the need for us to develop a system of thought on which we agree and which will help to guide us toward.. which will help to define the action.
1:19:53 JM: The Nazis worked together.
1:19:54 DB: No, they didn’t. Not in that same sense, you see...
1:19:56 JM: Oh, I don’t know. Why not? They certainly worked together. I mean, who are we to say that the spirit of enthusiasm of suddenly clicking in, etc., wasn’t there? I mean, or the Bolsheviks worked together.
1:20:07 DB: Well, that’s not merely cooperation but it goes deeper, you see, than...
1:20:12 DS: That’s what we said before, when we said that this state that we’ve been talking about, that gives birth to the action.
1:20:19 JM: Well, sorry...
1:20:20 DS: And that’s why we can’t describe it.
1:20:22 JM: What state?
1:20:23 DS: Well, I...
1:20:24 JM: No, but which state?
1:20:26 DB: The state, I mean, of being in the same intensity and interested in the same thing at the same time.
1:20:32 JM: Oh sure, yes, but I’m saying that that is a condition which is neither necessary nor sufficient for it to describe anything. I mean, the Nazis had it. Why...? I mean...
1:20:42 DB: Well, no, they didn’t have that, actually. I mean, I think they – you know – we could go into that but, I mean, they used – you know – quite a bit of authority and force.
1:20:49 JM: Well, I mean, you know, what you seem to... you’re sort of... you’re necessarily ruling it out, whenever the result is such that you want to disapprove and...
1:20:58 DB: No.
1:20:59 BG: But they had a theory. I think you wouldn’t deny that they had a theory of history.
1:21:03 JM: Oh... yes, they had a theory.
1:21:06 K: Would you listen to me, sir? I am asking you if there is an action without a formula. I say there is; you’re trying to find out. I know all the arguments against that, because I’ve faced it all my life, from different directions.
1:21:29 I say, ‘Do listen to me and find out – find out, not from me only – find out for yourself if there is an action without a concept, formula and all the rest of it.’ Listen to it!
1:21:48 I know the arguments which you’ll oppose it, add to it or take away: ‘There is no such action as that.’ I know all that.
1:21:56 You have said it, other people have said it, a dozen times to me. And I say, ‘All right. I know all that.’ Now, I’m telling you something. I say, ‘Please do listen to this. This may be the solution to our problems.’ May be, I don’t say it is; may be.
1:22:16 And you want to find out. So find out. Don’t oppose it. Don’t say, ‘Yes, this is this, that’s that, the other thing is that,’ because I know how to deal with you.
1:22:30 I’ve been fifty years at this game!
1:22:38 Wait, wait. So I say to you, ‘Please, listen.
1:22:52 Find out. It may alter your whole vision of life, vision of action.’ That’s all.
1:23:04 That’s all. ‘Basta!’ as the Italians say.
1:23:14 Now, can I listen to something which you are telling me, without opposing, without bringing in counter argument, counter opinion, or modifying what I’m saying, checking it – you know?
1:23:30 – playing around. Just listen to the song of a bird. It may tell you lots more than you tell it.
1:23:48 (Laughs) I’m just... That’s all. (Pause) DB: I think, it’s getting on for ten past five now and, if nobody has any burning questions, perhaps we should close the conference.
1:24:04 K: Unfortunately, sir, we haven’t solved this question at all.
1:24:08 DB: No, but we’ll need another conference.
1:24:09 K: Uh? Ah, no.
1:24:11 Q: (Inaudible) DB: But I think we’ve made some steps; I mean, I feel that some communication has taken place, and I think most people agree, and really to quite a remarkable degree in comparison with the sort of communication that takes place throughout the world generally.
1:24:32 So... and I think the conference has been worthwhile, very worthwhile, and I’ve talked enough with people to see that that is the general view.
1:24:51 Now, so perhaps we’ll just close it. I mean, I hope that everyone... I’m sure that everyone has enjoyed it and I think we should all agree to, you know, to thank the staff at Brockwood Park who have worked so hard to help make it a success; and also we include George Carnes who has worked very hard in recording it, especially.
1:25:21 And... Well, now, the only other point I can say is that remember tomorrow morning Krishnamurti will talk to the whole school. Those who are here are invited and finally, somebody wanted to take some photographs of the whole group on the outside, if the light will permit it at this time.
1:25:26 K: It’s too late.
1:25:27 DB: Think it’s too late now?
1:25:28 K: Thank God.
1:25:29 DB: (Laughs) So I’m afraid we’ll have to do without photographs, unless somebody has a flash camera we can use here.
1:25:31 EF: I have a flash.
1:25:32 DB: I mean, do you think that it would be nice to have a photo…?
1:25:33 K: That’s up to you, sir.
1:25:34 FC: But it would make us feel attached to it...
1:25:35 DB: Oh, well...
1:25:36 FC: ...and maybe it’s not the right thing.
1:25:37 DB: Perhaps it’s not the right thing.