Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR77DSG - What is preventing change?
Brockwood Park, UK - 29 August 1977
Discussion with Small Group



0:00 This is a small group discussion with J. Krishnamurti at Brockwood Park, 1977.
0:10 Krishnamurti: Who’s going to start? Professor P. Krishna: Well, after your talk yesterday we were discussing amongst ourselves last night this question of the need for tremendous clarity of perception, which is what would cause a dissolution of the ego without any effort on our part, because we understand that any kind of effort – voluntary effort on our part – only goes to strengthen the ego.
0:54 At the same time, it’s also true that it is the ego that interferes with the perception, and it is because of our attachments and our identification that we have a partial, fragmentary view of things and that prevents that depth of perception.
1:16 So it seemed to us that this made a kind of vicious circle in which one is caught: that you need to have a deep perception in order that the ego should dissolve, and the ego – the fact that the ego is present – prevents that perception.
1:42 Where does the circle break? Is that clear, sir, the question?
1:46 K: Yes, yes. Do we start with that? Asit Chandmal: Yes.
1:49 K: Go into that? David Bohm: Yes.
1:51 K: Sir, you are asking, aren’t you, if I understand it clearly, that the ego interferes with perception and you cannot have perception if there is the ego, so it’s a vicious circle.
2:24 How is one to break that vicious circle? Right?
2:27 PK: Or where does it break? I mean, which one comes first or...? There is no such thing as a voluntary effort to break it — that’s clear.
2:35 K: No. That’s simple.
2:37 PK: Yes, simple. So we go beyond that.
2:40 K: Yes. (Pause) To have an insight into this problem, that is: the ego interfering with perception and without perception there is no clarity.
3:02 It is a circle, vicious circle, in which the problem is.
3:12 (Pause) Do you have an insight into anything?
3:25 Say you are a professor. You are a professor.
3:36 If you are really a creative professor, not just a... you suddenly get a glimpse of something.
3:49 How do you get that glimpse?
3:56 You suddenly see, in your work, something very clear.
4:06 It’s not dictated by your knowledge, it’s not dictated by your previous experience.
4:19 You – as you are working, as you are thinking, as you are writing and talking about your...
4:25 PK: ...research.
4:26 K: ...your work – suddenly you have a glimpse of something. How does that happen?
4:34 PK: In scientific work there is, of course, a considerable amount of preparation first.
4:44 K: Yes.
4:45 PK: But when you... a creative scientist is one who looks at phenomena without having preconceived notions as to what he is going to find or what he…
4:58 K: Yes. So how does that take place?
5:01 PK: Through the love of objectivity, through the love of scientific investigation...
5:07 K: No, no.
5:08 PK: ...for the sake of finding out, rather than...
5:11 K: Which is what? Your previous knowledge doesn’t help.
5:18 PK: Not at that moment, no.
5:21 K: I am talking at that moment.
5:23 PK: Yes.
5:25 K: Your reasoning doesn’t come into it, logic, clear thinking; it takes place...
5:34 PK: Yes.
5:35 K: ...with sudden clarity. Right?
5:39 PK: Yes. All great discoveries, I think, have been made...
5:44 K: Made that way.
5:47 PK: Yes.
5:48 K: Isn’t that the moment of an insight?
5:55 And that insight can only take place when there is total emptiness – quote, ‘emptiness’.
6:04 That is, having an insight implies the absolute freedom from the ego, at that moment.
6:17 PK: In science this is easier, because you’re looking at something which is objective...
6:24 K: Yes.
6:25 PK: ...and, if you haven’t already taken sides with a particular theory, you are not modifying your observation. But when you are looking at yourself...
6:34 K: That’s why... Now, when you are looking at yourself, to have an insight into the whole of your consciousness — to have an insight.
6:45 So we have to understand, first, what we mean by insight, before perception, before actual clarity.
6:59 How does insight take place? Which is a glimpse, which is a sudden flash of... Either that insight – as with the scientists and with... if I may – is partial, it’s not total insight.
7:19 We are talking of total insight: an insight into the whole movement of consciousness, which is the ego and so on.
7:36 With the scientists and so on, it is partial, intermittent, it’s not... it happens and they don’t know how it happens.
7:49 PK: And they ask only certain questions.
7:50 K: The limited questions. Now, we are dealing with something much more deep, much more human, so I’m asking: when there is an insight, isn’t there, at that moment, a total cessation of all consciousness as we know it?
8:18 AC: Sir, this is the same question. How can there be insight in a confused person, with ego, with a tortured consciousness?
8:29 How can that insight arise at all? Not in the limited field of the scientist.
8:34 K: Ah, wait a minute. It won’t arise.
8:36 AC: That is the question.
8:37 K: It won’t arise. A man who is very concerned about his beastly little self, he doesn’t want insight.
8:48 AC: This is the question, sir. Unless the ego comes to an end, there is no insight.
8:54 K: I’m not quite sure whether it should completely end.
9:01 Whether the insight will end that, not the other way around.
9:06 PK: That was my question.
9:07 K: Yes, I know that was your... I’m gradually leading up it.
9:10 PK: Yes.
9:11 AC: In other words, can insight be there at all as long as this other thing is...?
9:19 K: No, no. Look, Asitji: to have an insight into consciousness you don’t have to have the ending of the ego.
9:32 You have an insight into the whole movement of consciousness.
9:35 AC: I’m not sure of this, sir.
9:38 PK: But will not the ego distort that perception?
9:41 K: No, wait. But if the insight is tremendous, the ego can’t interfere at all. It has no place.
9:50 PK: But the reason it is not tremendous is because of the ego, also.
9:53 K: I know. I know. (Laughs) AC: Yes sir. This is the problem.
9:58 K: This is the problem; I know.
9:59 PK: Because you’re holding on to some things and not questioning them.
10:00 K: I understand, I understand. Now, put it round the other way.
10:05 AC: Yes.
10:06 K: If you have an insight into the movement of consciousness, won’t that insight wipe away the self?
10:17 Because the insight is much stronger than the other.
10:20 AC: Sir, that statement to me is speculation. To you it might be a fact.
10:25 K: Yes, it is speculative to you, I understand that. So what shall we do? You are asking a question, which is: there is no insight as long as there is the self.
10:37 PK: That is clear, sir; at least to us, to me.
10:40 K: And the self being partial, the self being limited, it’s insight will be limited — whether it’s the scientist, whatever it is.
10:56 So what shall we do?
10:58 AC: That is our problem.
10:59 K: I understand, sir; I understand. This is our problem.
11:02 PK: It’s a living problem, I think.
11:03 K: Living problem; I understand.
11:04 PK: It’s not just speculative, this...
11:05 K: So what shall we do?
11:08 DB: Could we ask why the insight is limited? I mean, to go into it carefully.
11:16 K: Yes. Why is an insight of a professor or scientist or a businessman, or even an artist...?
11:25 AC: Any kind of conditioned mind.
11:27 K: ...conditioned mind. His insight is limited because of his conditioning, obviously.
11:33 DB: But how does he have any insight at all? You see, it’s not clear what you mean by having insight which is limited. It doesn’t seem logical.
11:42 K: I mean by insight: like a scientist has a sudden flash.
11:47 DB: Yes.
11:49 K: That flash takes place without knowledge, without the desire to have something new.
11:58 DB: Yes.
12:00 K: He is in that... he is caught up in that enormous inquiry, and suddenly he gets a flash.
12:09 PK: Yes.
12:10 K: But that flash is partial because he’s conditioned, he’s – etc., etc. – so it is invariably conditioned.
12:18 DB: But see everybody is... You see, the man who wants to dissolve the ego is also conditioned.
12:23 K: Of course, of course.
12:25 DB: He’s in the same problem.
12:26 K: So his insight, also, is partial.
12:28 DB: Right.
12:29 AC: Yes.
12:30 K: So what shall we do then? Let’s work at it.
12:35 PK: In another words, if I may put the problem slightly differently, as it seems to me: is it possible to see the total – all the facts about a particular problem – without the interference of the ego which tries to change it or which hides partially or which brings in desire, which prevents the total perception?
13:01 K: Are you saying...?
13:02 PK: I think we do have limited insight, so our problem is not that there is absence of insight, but it’s not total.
13:09 K: Yes. It is not total. It’s not whole.
13:12 PK: Yes, it’s not whole.
13:13 AC: So it is not insight, sir.
13:15 PK: Well that’s a question of words. But it’s partial.
13:21 K: No. One can have an insight in one’s consciousness, a partial insight.
13:28 AC: Sir, I question that. Is there such a thing as partial insight?
13:33 K: I question it, too. Either I see the whole movement or I don’t see it.
13:48 If I see the... if I have partial insight, it is not insight.
13:53 AC: Yes.
13:54 DB: What is it then?
13:57 K: What, the partial insight?
14:00 DB: Yes.
14:02 K: A scientist has got a partial insight in his field because he had been working at it.
14:09 DB: Well, you see, he asks questions which are related to his field.
14:13 K: Yes, related to his field. That’s right.
14:16 DB: And so it seems to me that one of the points is the nature of the question, you see.
14:23 Like, see, Newton asked a question as to why isn’t the moon attracted to the earth, you see, when everybody said it was only natural because the moon is different matter, it’s celestial.
14:35 K: Quite.
14:36 DB: And Newton questioned that – it was on a programme on the BBC – he questioned everything he said in science, but he only asked questions about science.
14:44 K: With regard to the particular field.
14:46 DB: So is it possible that the kind of question you ask...?
14:49 K: That’s what I’m getting at.
14:50 DB: Yes.
14:51 K: I want to find out...
14:52 AC: Sir, I feel this analogy with the scientist is side-tracking us.
14:56 K: Is distracting.
14:57 AC: Because a scientist basically is looking at facts which fall into a certain pattern and if he can find a beautiful equation to describe that, that is insight for him; that’s a new discovery.
15:07 K: Yes.
15:08 AC: But that’s very limited and it’s outside the field of emotions.
15:10 K: Yes, quite.
15:11 AC: Which is the problem with all human beings. Because otherwise you work like a computer, very coldly, one would be very logical if one was programmed correctly, but that is not insight at all.
15:26 So the scientist’s insight into phenomenon, I don’t think, sir, is related to the insight you are talking about.
15:32 K: To... No, no, no.
15:34 AC: So I think it’s side-tracking us.
15:35 PK: Because that is impersonal.
15:36 AC: Yes.
15:37 PK: Whereas here the ego interferes much more, because it’s personal.
15:39 DB: Well, I should think the ego interferes with the scientist too, you see.
15:43 K: Of course. Of course.
15:45 DB: People are attached to their ideas.
15:46 PK: Not as much. Not as much perhaps, because you’re probably not as attached to ideas, as to property, to your wife and family, to your own self...
15:54 DB: Well, yes.
15:55 PK: ...and pain and, you know, pleasure. This attachment is much more alive. That one you can be objective, you can say, ‘Well, I don’t know, Newton probably was right but I’m not sure.’ But here, you’re saying, ‘I am sure.’ Here we are too sure about too many things.
16:09 K: So what is the problem now? Let’s come back.
16:13 AC: Insight which you talk about cannot exist, sir, if there is self.
16:19 K: Yes.
16:20 AC: There is self.
16:21 K: Yes.
16:22 AC: And therefore that insight cannot come.
16:23 K: Cannot come in. And a partial insight is no insight.
16:26 AC: That’s right. Yes.
16:28 K: Right?
16:29 AC: Yes.
16:30 K: Partial insight is no insight. Insight can only take place when there is no self, but the self is so dominant that there is no insight. So the problem is: how to move – what? – from this to that?
16:43 PK: Is there a movement from this to that, or from that to this, or is it simultaneous?
16:48 K: Yes. (Laughs) Perhaps you’re...
16:51 PK: It has to be one break, you see. When you have insight and the dissolution of the ego is a simultaneous thing, it has to be together, because I don’t see how one can precede the other.
17:04 K: No. So – go on – let’s investigate it together.
17:08 PK: So it seems to me that it would be one process, and the fact that the mind is dividing it into two processes, namely one: the dissolution of the self, and the other: the perception, is really one process, but it doesn’t see it as one process.
17:25 K: So we are saying it isn’t a divided activity – the self ending and the other coming, the other coming and making the self disappear – but it is a total movement.
17:48 AC: Both happen simultaneously, or they cannot happen. The self ending and insight to direct perception must be simultaneous.
18:00 K: Is that so?
18:04 PK: If that is so, then there is really nothing you can do so long as you have the self; there is nothing you can do to help have a deeper insight.
18:15 DB: That would just block everything, wouldn’t it?
18:19 PK: This is a problem.
18:21 DB: Yes.
18:22 K: But in talking over together you are beginning to move away from the self, aren’t you?
18:28 PK: I am not sure, sir, because I find that things become intellectually clear when one is talking...
18:35 K: Ah, no. No, no.
18:37 PK: ...but again it limits.
18:38 K: That’s phoney. That’s phoney.
18:40 PK: That’s right. That’s right. So the self has been acting in a more subtle way. It just fools you and you think it is not there momentarily but it is there, and it is distorting the picture. But for a moment you feel that... you know, it is cheating you. (Laughs) K: No, no, no. That’s cheating. (Laughs) PK: That’s cheating; that’s right. And we see this. Every day this happens, you see. Somehow there is always... and that’s also the quality of the self, that it makes you feel that you’ve got it.
19:04 K: ...that you have got it, yes.
19:05 AC: Oh, it’s very subtle, yes.
19:06 PK: But there is nothing to get, you see?
19:08 K: Of course. Of course.
19:10 DB: We were discussing last night, I think, a related point, that… You see, I think you felt last night that in some activities other than discussion you were so totally involved that perhaps, for a moment, the self would go, but you felt that in discussions this did not happen.
19:25 I mean, at least that’s...
19:26 PK: Yes, I felt that when we discuss there is not that intensity of perception which perhaps comes when there is a deeper experience, like a loss, a big loss of something you were very attached to: either a person or a property — something that shakes you up.
19:46 Then, of course, the intensity of the...
19:48 K: …of the challenge.
19:49 PK: ...of the challenge, you see, itself makes or demands a greater insight and it’s like an emergency, like you act in an emergency, then the self does not have time to interfere — you just perceive.
20:00 Whereas, whenever there is a little time...
20:03 K: So you’ve touched something. Wait, go slow. Go slow. Is it time that prevents insight?
20:13 PK: I would say yes, because...
20:17 K: Wait. Go, go...
20:19 PK: ...because desire, it takes a while.
20:21 K: No, no, no. Take time; just take time. When we say the dissolution of the ego is necessary before there is insight, you are asking for time.
20:47 PK: Not necessarily.
20:50 K: Yes, yes...
20:51 PK: I am not implying that you can dissolve the ego successively as a matter of time.
20:55 K: No, no, you are missing my point. When you say the dissolution must take... ego must be dissolved before insight, or insight must come somehow and then dissolve the ego — all that implies time.
21:13 PK: That is true, but...
21:16 K: Wait. Stop there. Wait a minute, stop there, stop there. Let’s go slowly. And the whole process of the ego is time.
21:25 PK: Yes.
21:26 K: Right?
21:28 PK: Yes.
21:29 K: So the ending of time is total perception.
21:38 AC: Is also the dissolution of the ego.
21:42 K: Wait, wait. No, don’t bring that in yet.
21:55 (Pause) You see what I mean? The ego is built through time.
22:04 AC: That’s clear.
22:06 K: And you are still thinking in terms of time.
22:12 PK: There is no other way of thinking.
22:15 K: No. Watch it, watch it, watch it! You will see it in a minute — I see something.
22:24 The ego is built through time – right? – and when we say the ego must end before there is insight, you are still in the process of time, thinking in terms of time.
22:39 PK: Yes.
22:40 K: Or when you say there must be insight first and the dissolution afterwards — includes time also.
22:49 Of course.
22:51 PK: No.
22:53 K: Of course. Of course.
22:57 PK: But no, we don’t say that it will be afterwards...
22:58 K: No.
22:59 PK: ...it will be at that same instant.
23:00 DB: Well, that brings in time too, doesn’t it?
23:01 K: That’s bring in time too.
23:02 PK: Yes, there is time. Yes. Sure.
23:05 K: So you are still thinking in terms of time, which is the ego.
23:07 PK: Yes.
23:08 K: Ah, no, no. No, don’t say yes.
23:10 AC: This is complex, sir. This is a little more difficult.
23:14 DB: It’s very difficult.
23:16 AC: This is very difficult.
23:19 K: Yes.
23:20 AC: This is more complex. Are you saying that time is ego?
23:26 K: Of course.
23:27 PK: It’s your conditioning: from what you have been told, what you have learned, what you have identified...
23:33 K: Your whole structure.
23:34 PK: ...where you are grown, your nationality — that is the ego.
23:37 K: Your whole time, thinking, everything is time. No, just remain with it, Old Boy, remain with it.
23:44 DB: You see, that’s all thought is time – right?
23:48 K: Yes. So when you’re still thinking in terms of time, there’s no insight.
23:53 DB: But wait, can you think not in terms of time?
23:57 K: No.
23:58 DB: Well, you said, ‘Thinking in terms of time.’ K: No, no, sorry.
24:01 AC: No, I follow. But this brings us to the question which you were going to ask.
24:07 DB: What?
24:08 AC: About – if I may?
24:10 DB: Oh.
24:11 AC: Sir, one of the questions is that the brain operates – and has to operate, has to function for the organism to survive – and it must have thought which is in its right place to survive.
24:22 Yet it has thought, thought arises – I’m not sure whether from the brain or not – which brings you into the psychological field of time.
24:31 K: Yes.
24:32 AC: Yes? Which creates the ego. Why does this happen? Why does this phenomenon of the brain creating thought, which is destructive to the brain and the organism…
24:45 K: Because it has found safety in that. It hasn’t realised the insanity of that.
24:50 AC: Why sir? Why does thought arise at all, sir?
24:53 K: Because we are so conditioned, we so lived in our tradition – you know, the whole thing is in time.
24:59 DB: Why hasn’t intelligence or insight broken through?
25:03 K: Ah! We haven’t got it. But I say – listen sir, carefully. This is very interesting now, we’ve come to a point – which is: we are thinking in terms of time.
25:15 DB: You mean... but all thinking is in terms of time.
25:18 K: In terms of time.
25:19 DB: I mean, is there...?
25:20 AC: Thought is time.
25:21 K: Thought is time.
25:22 AC: The ego is time.
25:23 K: Ego is time. And you are still caught up in that.
25:26 AC: One minute, sir. And the physical brain produces thought and time, sir.
25:31 K: Which is what? In that there is security.
25:35 AC: False security. Indirect security.
25:38 K: It thinks it is a security.
25:40 AC: So one is living in a body, in which there is a brain, which is constantly producing thought and time.
25:47 So how can it end, sir?
25:49 K: No, wait. I’ll show you in a minute. You’re too quick.
25:53 AC: Okay sir.
25:54 K: Go slow, go slow. We say time is ego.
25:58 AC: Yes.
25:59 DB: But shall we make...? Is all time ego? I mean, is it possible, say, to have...? Let us say a person is out of the ego but he may use thought.
26:08 K: Ah, that’s a different matter.
26:10 DB: But he’s still... It’s time but it’s not ego.
26:12 K: No.
26:13 DB: But I meant time – a certain kind of time that people are caught in – is ego.
26:16 PK: That’s just factual thought. It’s not the kind of thought that expands the ego.
26:19 DB: Yes, but there...
26:20 AC: Functional.
26:21 K: Yes, of course, of course.
26:22 DB: You say ego is time really – right? Ego is time, is what you say.
26:24 K: Yes, ego is time.
26:26 DB: Right. But it might be that there’s time which is not ego, I mean, that’s all.
26:32 K: I don’t know, we’ll come to that.
26:34 DB: Maybe.
26:35 K: Maybe.
26:36 PK: Which is why I think it does not happen, the insight does not come about through discussion, because then the discussion is mostly at the level of thought.
26:45 But it could come about in life when there is a deep experience where thought does not...
26:50 K: Look, Krishnan, we are having it now.
26:51 PK: Yes, the discussion.
26:52 DB: That’s the point.
26:53 K: We are having it now, Old Boy, you’re going off.
26:56 DB: That’s the point.
26:57 AC: This itself is a deep experience.
27:00 DB: This may be... There may be a...
27:02 PK: Most of the time not, I think, because...
27:03 DB: There may be an assumption that discussion could never be a deep experience.
27:07 PK: Yes. No, no, no. That depends on the sensitivity of the individual.
27:10 K: Now, just a minute...
27:11 PK: But that’s where the ego is interfering.
27:17 K: Listen to it, carefully.
27:22 PK: Yes.
27:23 K: Time is ego.
27:24 PK: Yes.
27:25 K: Are you still thinking in terms of time? Thinking is time.
27:28 AC: Yes.
27:29 K: Are you caught in that pattern?
27:30 AC: Of course.
27:31 K: Wait. Be aware of that. (Pause) What happens? Aware, in the sense, you know the full depth of [those] two words: time is ego.
27:48 Three words. Are you aware of all the significance, the depth of it, the meaning of it – you know?
27:57 – the quality of it?
28:02 PK: It seems obvious, but I don’t... there’s no way of...
28:08 K: Ah! It is not obvious.
28:10 DB: Why do you say it’s obvious?
28:11 AC: No, of course not, sir, because if you were aware of that then you already...
28:13 K: If you’re not aware of that, you have no right to ask the question: what is insight; does it come out of time?
28:22 I say it is nothing to do with time.
28:25 AC: So sir, how...?
28:28 K: No, wait. Listen! It has nothing to do with time. That means, if you are still occupied with time – in the sense, thought and so on – you can’t have the other.
28:42 AC: Sir, talking about the other is speculation.
28:46 K: Meaningless.
28:47 AC: Meaningless.
28:48 PK: But we are occupied with time.
28:49 AC: We are...
28:50 K: So if you are occupied with time, find out whether time can stop.
28:58 (Pause) PK: That was the question, sir.
29:05 K: Look. Careful now. Watch it, watch it.
29:08 PK: Yes, but...
29:09 K: Watch it, watch it! Don’t argue. Listen to it. The brain is reluctant to go into this, because it may lose complete security. Because it has lived in time, it has worked in time, it has brought about time, and in that there’s complete protection for itself.
29:33 PK: Which is the ego.
29:35 DB: It thinks that. You mean, not that there really is.
29:37 K: Ah yes, of course. It thinks there is.
29:39 DB: But why doesn’t thought realise that it’s...?
29:42 K: No, because we haven’t... nobody... it hasn’t... nobody has met it, faced this thing.
29:49 DB: Right.
29:51 K: We are in a crisis now: we three, we four, are in a crisis to find out. And thought says, ‘No, I must investigate, I must question, I must argue.’ PK: That is the problem, sir: the ego interferes.
30:10 K: No. No. Time interferes.
30:13 AC: Time interferes.
30:14 PK: Which is the same as ego.
30:15 K: Wait. Therefore, look at it: can you observe without time, the ego – I don’t want to go into all that again – can you observe yourself without saying: ‘I am conditioned, I must be free of it, I will...’ all the rest of it?
30:36 Look at yourself, who is made up – you know, all the rest – and the brain finding security in that thing which it has created as the me, having security there, and reluctant to let it go because you don’t know if there is another form of security.
31:02 When there is insight, there’s complete security.
31:09 Because time is not secure, doesn’t give security.
31:18 Now, you’ve listened to it. Has this been a challenge, a shock?
31:32 Drive you into a corner. That’s just it. Why?
31:45 PK: Because I think we have a partial, fragmentary...
31:47 K: No, no. That’s a... No. Much more than that. When you are challenged, say my son, your – doesn’t matter – somebody dies, that’s a challenge to you, a tremendous challenge.
32:03 When you can’t leave this country – you follow? – you’re a prisoner, it’s a tremendous challenge. You have to do something. Here you say, ‘Well, I may...’ PK: Yes, because it’s not as clear here.
32:18 K: Why? No, it’ll never be clear.
32:21 PK: But this is the problem of...
32:23 K: Because if it is clear, it’s clear up here.
32:24 PK: This seems to be the problem of whole of mankind, sir. That it is just... it is not so clear. These things don’t... And that is the lack of insight. It is not clear, which in turn is due to the ego.
32:35 DB: Well, we’re going back to the vicious circle.
32:38 PK: And that’s back to the vicious circle.
32:39 DB: No, but why does this...?
32:40 PK: I see that we are all caught in this vicious circle and that another person is not able to help you break this circle.
32:45 K: Ah, no. No. The other person doesn’t say, ‘Break the circle,’ the other person says: ‘Listen, look.’ If you look, if you listen, either it is just a verbal wave and goes off, or it’s a tremendous challenge.
33:14 As great as somebody dying next to you.
33:24 (Pause) PK: For us it’s obviously not.
33:31 K: Why?
33:33 PK: I think because we are still in the field of time...
33:37 K: No, no – why?
33:38 PK: ...and we are still...
33:39 K: No, you’re not... No, that’s not an answer.
33:41 PK: We are still holding on to security.
33:42 K: No. Why isn’t it a challenge? You’re not answering my question.
33:45 DB: Yes, I was going to ask: why does the mind, the brain resist the challenge?
33:51 K: Yes, challenge; that’s right. That’s all the same thing. Why are you resisting it?
33:58 PK: We don’t perceive the danger of it.
33:59 K: No.
34:00 DB: No.
34:01 K: No, you are off. You’re off. You are preventing yourself by talking.
34:04 DB: It seems to me that, for a flash, there is a perception of the danger but it resists. Right? That’s the way it goes.
34:12 PK: But do you feel the danger as acutely? Would you say you feel the danger as acutely as you would feel if your house were on fire? And my answer is, ‘No.’ K: Why? Why?
34:23 PK: No. It still seems to me…
34:25 K: No. No. You say yes. Before you go into it further — why?
34:30 PK: Well, because a fire destroying everything that I hold on to, and this one isn’t changing things too much.
34:36 K: Why isn’t this the same thing?
34:39 PK: Because I don’t see the danger clearly.
34:43 K: No. (Laughs) You haven’t investigated. You are answering too quickly. Why is not this a greater danger than the house on fire? Far greater, far more dangerous. You see, you won’t allow yourself to see the danger, because God knows what’ll happen to you.
35:15 Wait! You might give up your professorship (laughs), you might give up your family, you might give up everything and say, ‘By Jove, this is too risky.’ PK: Yes.
35:26 So it is the self that is preventing the perception.
35:29 K: No, no, no.
35:31 PK: That’s the self.
35:33 K: No. Time is making you see how dangerous it is, and therefore you say it is the self.
35:48 (Pause) Of course, time is the self. We were all agreed to that. We are asking: why are you, who are intelligent, who have studied, who have – etc., etc., professor and scientist and electronic experts like you – why don’t you see this tremendous danger?
36:06 Is it habit? Is it that you’re not interested in it?
36:15 PK: Not as a vital interest.
36:19 K: Ah, no, no. I’m not... that... (laughs). You see? If you saw a child, your son or your daughter, approaching a precipice or facing a cobra, you’d do everything to save...
36:35 PK: Yes, because then my self acts. Then my self is being affected.
36:40 K: Ah no. That’s what I’m saying.
36:42 PK: But here the self is not being affected.
36:44 K: Oh yes.
36:46 PK: At least, it is, but you’re not seeing it.
36:47 K: Yes. It is being tremendously affected and it says, ‘Sorry, I refuse... I’ll talk about it, cover myself behind words.’ AC: I’m not making excuses, sir, but may I ask: is it that the physical structure of the brain is such – I’m not making an excuse, I just want... – which prevents this perception?
37:12 The brain creates thought in time.
37:15 K: Sir, would you say the brain is in constant movement?
37:21 AC: It is, sir. It is.
37:28 K: Right?
37:29 AC: It is. All the time.
37:31 K: Thinking, forcing, arguing, restraining...
37:32 AC: …planning. All the time, yes.
37:34 K: Like a jelly. (Laughs) AC: Yes.
37:37 K: And it never has appreciated a quiet, still, non-movement, non-registration.
37:47 PK: Would you say never?
37:52 K: I don’t know, I’m asking you.
38:03 AC: It has, sir, I think. It has.
38:06 K: Occasionally.
38:07 PK: Yes, occasionally.
38:08 AC: Occasionally.
38:09 K: Therefore it’s partial.
38:10 AC: It is.
38:11 K: Therefore it’s back again.
38:12 AC: Yes.
38:13 PK: Yes.
38:14 AC: So having registered this, even for that moment, having been in that state even for a moment, why does it go back?
38:22 Is it in its nature to go...?
38:26 K: No sir, it is a partial movement. When it’s partial, it must go back. Because it has lived partially all its life.
38:36 AC: Is it therefore, sir, a question of energy? Because it requires tremendous energy to stay in that moment. It is so easy not to be in that. It’s so lazy...
38:48 K: Yes, agree. So when you have a crisis all your energy is there.
38:52 AC: The energy is there, yes.
38:55 PK: Whereas here we dissipate the energy.
38:59 K: Surely.
39:00 PK: And bring about only partial energy to bear on the problem.
39:07 AC: What is this energy, sir?
39:12 K: Ah. Do you want to discuss? Sir, energy can be created through friction. Motor energy. With us it’s like that, isn’t it? We have a great deal of energy through friction, tremendous energy.
39:40 When there is no friction, we flop.
39:46 PK: The whole structure of civilisation and culture is based on this premise.
39:50 AC: Of course.
39:51 K: Yes. Of course.
39:53 AC: Anger, war, creates a lot of energy.
39:54 PK: That’s why competition...
39:56 K: Of course, the whole circus.
39:57 PK: ...success, it will activate you, otherwise you will go under, you will sleep.
40:00 K: So that’s all we know.
40:07 And we’re asking: is there an energy which is not brought about through friction?
40:15 Right? Suppose I say yes – it’s a theory.
40:18 AC: It’s a theory.
40:20 K: But if you are interested, if you say, ‘By Jove, I give my life to find out,’ you have it then.
40:40 (Laughs) PK: But has it happened in anyone? This going from a state where there is the self and so on, through insight, to a state?
40:49 K: No, no, no.
40:52 PK: So the question: is it possible?
40:54 K: Ah, again you’re thinking in terms of time: from this to that.
40:59 PK: But I see that there are so many people...
41:03 K: No. You don’t ask the question. Listen, Old Boy, you see, you don’t ask the question. I know the energy that’s created through friction. Right? Our whole world, whole civilisation, all our life is based on that, on friction. I want to find out if there is an energy which is has no friction.
41:30 You gave thirty years to become a professor. You don’t give even five minutes to find this out.
41:41 PK: Well, that’s not true, actually. (Laughs) I give time, but I guess we don’t give totally of ourselves. We don’t give ourselves.
41:49 K: Ah, you never give it. Don’t talk about ‘totally’.
41:51 AC: I’m beginning to see what you mean...
41:55 PK: Would you say then that if, right from childhood, a child was brought up completely differently, in a different surrounding, where the self was not emphasised and the conditioning was not emphasised…
42:08 K: That’s a theory.
42:09 PK: ...it would be easier for such a child to have insight?
42:11 K: That is a hypothetical question that has no answer.
42:15 PK: Yes, but I mean the idea of our running these schools.
42:19 K: Ah, because that’s what we should do. If you are boiling your children should be that way, you’ll... (laughs).
42:31 I mean, to me... I mean, if I was... Sorry, I’ll put it this way: without insight, life is a burden.
42:47 Burden in the biggest sense of the word. And there must be insight – you follow? – otherwise, what’s the point of my living? What’s the point of all this? Going through, you know, all this horror that one goes through.
43:13 So I say...
43:14 PK: But it’s not only the horror, sir. In your lectures one does find that when you look at our life you seem to think it’s so ugly and it is all the sorrow...
43:26 K: No, occasional...
43:27 PK: You say ‘occasional’ but we find quite a bit of charm in it.
43:30 K: Oh yes, charm.
43:31 PK: We have fun and we have pleasure.
43:33 K: Sir, on a lovely day like this...
43:34 PK: And there is a lot of love and care.
43:36 K: Yes, yes. All that is all partial.
43:39 PK: I agree it’s partial, but would you say then that if people... between one man who is still living with his self and another who is still living with his self, there is no difference?
43:52 K: Of course, there is.
43:53 PK: There is... Yes. So it’s not only the transition from self to non-self which is important...
44:00 K: There is no transition from this to that.
44:02 AC: That is time again, yes.
44:04 K: That’s time. (Laughs) You haven’t got that.
44:07 PK: Then what is the total revolution that you talk about?
44:10 K: That is the ending of this.
44:12 PK: Which I call the transition.
44:14 K: Ah! Not from this to that.
44:16 PK: Well, when this is not, then that is.
44:18 K: Therefore your concern is this.
44:21 PK: Yes, that is for sure. No, I did not mean that in the sense of practice of that, I just meant with the ending of this.
44:29 K: That’s all you’re...
44:30 PK: Yes.
44:31 K: What happens is a theory.
44:34 PK: Yes.
44:35 K: So the ending is practical.
44:36 PK: This is clear.
44:38 AC: Now, may I ask, sir, very humbly – all of us know you for a long time – so what is the relevance of the extraordinary phenomenon that is K to our lives?
45:02 May I go on for a minute?
45:04 K: Yes.
45:05 AC: As Professor Krishna explained, it is a deep shock: for a moment you are acting completely.
45:14 When one comes to you, when one listens to you, one has a certain feeling, which goes away very rapidly when one is away from you.
45:28 You yourself say that you can’t help anyone, that we have to – to use the words of the Buddha – seek your own salvation, be a lamp unto yourself.
45:38 What is the relevance of...? Why do we keep coming back? Why is that we are unable to see what you are putting forward as a tremendous crisis in our lives, but we are unable to see it, as we have just discussed.
45:54 Is it because we have come to you with some motive?
45:56 K: No, I doubt it. You may but... Do you...? Sir, why do you come?
46:02 AC: Yes, that is the question, sir.
46:06 K: Why does Asit come?
46:08 AC: Leaving aside, sir, the personal side, the affection, the respect...
46:13 K: No, I’m talking ‘X’.
46:15 AC: Yes. Sir, I think one comes with a certain motive. One knows that there is a tremendous experience – and maybe it’s not very different from going to very beautiful place or reading a very good, stimulating book, I don’t know – I’m wondering, that all of us keep coming back to you, we listen to you, you put us in a situation which, according to you, is a tremendous crisis, but we are unable to see it.
46:47 Is it because...? We come to you because we want something from you — obviously. I feel that very strongly.
46:53 K: I am not sure.
46:54 AC: Very self-consciously.
46:55 K: I’m not sure.
46:56 PK: No, no, I wouldn’t say that. I would say that we live with problems, and that’s what we know, and here is a man who comes and says there is an entirely a different way of living, a living in which you can dissolve all problems and there would be love and compassion.
47:11 And so one is concerned that... let’s listen to him and find out: what is he trying to say?
47:18 And then either you reject it or you feel: well, this man is sincere, he’s saying something, and I would like to find out what he’s saying, so you come back to him, because you haven’t yet found out.
47:29 The day you find out, perhaps you will not come back.
47:31 AC: This is the point. We have heard him for so many years, all of us. Why do we keep coming back? Once should have been enough, sir.
47:37 PK: That’s what I feel is the vicious circle. We are caught in that vicious circle.
47:39 AC: Once should have been enough, why do...? Listening to you once should have been enough. Why do we come back? We keep coming back, and yet not see what you are saying. Is it...? What is hindering?
47:53 K: Either you come back, sir, because you want something...
47:55 AC: Yes, I think so, sir.
47:57 K: Just a minute. Or you have various problems which you want to dissolve.
48:01 AC: Yes — want something, sir.
48:02 K: Or – which may be much deeper – which is, you are coming because every morning the countryside is different.
48:15 Every morning, it’s more beautiful or it is tremendously... something is going on in those woods when you look in the morning, in the afternoon, and at night.
48:32 So perhaps, you see the beauty of this man talking, you see the beauty in that.
48:41 So the beauty, the good is attracting.
48:42 AC: Yes.
48:43 K: Not you want something, you want change, you want...
48:47 AC: Sir, this extraordinary phenomenon, the beauty is attracting, like a sunset or a beautiful place.
48:54 K: No, no, no.
48:55 AC: What sir? What else is it, sir? Not from your point of view, from my point of view?
49:03 K: What are you...?
49:06 AC: Why do I come back? And having come back, why can’t I see what you are saying? Why can’t I see this crisis or the challenge?
49:12 K: Ah, no sir.
49:13 AC: You see what I am getting at, sir?
49:15 K: Look: either it’s a tremendous crisis... I’ll tell you. There was... (inaudible). You know him, you knew him. He came every day. And one morning he said, ‘Tell me about myself.
49:36 Really, I’m interested.’ I began telling him. From that day he never came. Because it’s too much. He couldn’t... he saw it...
49:46 AC: ...and he couldn’t take it.
49:48 K: He couldn’t take it. He couldn’t... He said, ‘It means giving up my...’ etc., etc. He couldn’t take it. Here we take it, we assimilate it a little bit, (laughs) and carry on.
50:00 AC: And it creates tremendous conflict because it’s partial assimilation, going back to live in a world where this doesn’t operate, coming back again.
50:07 K: Again, of course, of course.
50:09 AC: So sir, again – if I may ask – what is stopping this perception of what you are talking about?
50:17 You speak with a great deal of passion, sir, you speak with a great deal of clarity, and yet all of us are unable to see this.
50:25 Why?
50:26 K: See what?
50:27 AC: See what you are talking about. I don’t think we even understand it verbally or intellectually.
50:32 K: Oh, you understand that.
50:34 AC: I’m not so sure, sir.
50:38 K: You understood very well when we said time is the ego. You understood it verbally and you see the truth of it.
50:49 AC: No sir. No.
50:51 PK: Or, if we saw the truth of it in the sense in which you mean it...
50:55 K: I mean the truth of it, the fact of it.
50:58 PK: Yes, then this moment it would be.
50:59 K: No, no — the fact of it.
51:01 AC: No sir.
51:02 K: You mean to say you don’t see the fact of it?
51:05 AC: No sir. I feel we are seeing it...
51:07 PK: We see it through analysis. We don’t see it directly the way you are taking. Direct perception – which is, again – is being prevented. I see it through analysis, the way I see it in physics. You interpret it and so on, and then you see it. Okay, it is true that I am conditioned. I was born, I see that the communist reacts differently, so I am conditioned. Through this analysis I know that I am conditioned. It’s not the same thing as seeing the conditioning.
51:32 AC: Yes.
51:33 PK: You see?
51:34 AC: I’m not seeing it through analysis.
51:35 PK: We all go through this process of interpretation.
51:36 AC: Sir, I’m not seeing it through analysis, but I’m not seeing it with the intensity with which you’re seeing it, which would dissolve it.
51:42 PK: It’s the same. I think these two statements are the same.
51:44 DB: There is time, yes.
51:45 PK: Yes, there is time in it.
51:47 AC: There is a lack of energy in it.
51:49 PK: That means you first see the fact being stated, then your mind takes over and compares and analyses, and then – that’s all the ego also operating in that, or whatever structure your mind has – and then it comes to a conclusion which is: yes, I agree that this is so, that I am conditioned, I am nationalist for India, I am a Hindu.
52:13 I see this. But that’s not the same thing as seeing it face to face. I think there is a difference, which would be if we had insight.
52:21 K: That would be insight.
52:23 PK: So in your talks and discussions with you, also it remains a verbal communication, which is that the conscious mind doesn’t go down.
52:32 K: So wait a minute, sir, wait a minute, you have made your point very clear. What shall we do?
52:35 AC: Can you communicate non-verbally?
52:36 K: Yes. We are all communicating verbally. Now, what shall we do? I want to tell you something very, very serious.
52:50 To me, at least, very, very serious. Will you listen?
52:55 AC: Yes.
52:57 K: Ah! Listen, in the sense: non-analytically, non-verbally, non-interjecting — just to listen.
53:03 AC: No sir. It is not happening, sir.
53:05 PK: We seem to be incapable.
53:06 AC: Incapable.
53:07 PK: That is: we see theoretically that what is preventing it is our attachment and our identification and our self and time.
53:15 K: Do you really...? Do you see that, what is preventing you?
53:19 AC: No. We only know something is preventing it.
53:21 K: Yes. And then...
53:23 AC: We don’t know what is preventing. I am asking, sir, what is preventing? And maybe this verbal communication is preventing it.
53:33 K: Now, if you sat quietly and listened, without any words, would you listen?
53:42 Would you? Would you listen...?
53:47 PK: We do when there is love, yes.
53:53 K: No. No. I want to tell you something dreadfully serious which will affect your life and the life of your friends and so on.
54:06 I want to tell you that. And we have told each other verbally, [enormously] about. So apparently the story I want to tell you, which is very serious, you haven’t listened.
54:22 Now, I want to tell you the story nonverbally.
54:31 Which means what? To listen with the same intensity as the person who says, ‘I want to tell you a very serious story,’ with the same intensity, at the same level, at the same time.
54:50 Otherwise there is no communication. Right? Will you do it?
54:54 AC: Yes.
54:55 K: Now?
54:57 AC: Yes.
54:59 K: Which means what? Be clear that both of us understand what we’re talking about. That you are listening to me who wants to tell you a tremendously serious story.
55:19 Which means you are as intensely eager to listen to it, you are with the same level – there is no high and low – at the same depth.
55:38 Right? Right?
55:42 PK: Which means the you and me is no longer...
55:46 K: No, don’t translate anything. I said listen. (Laughs) PK: But this...
55:52 K: Ah! I said, ‘Look, I am your friend. I’ve got something very, very serious to tell you about yourself.’ And you say, ‘By Jove, I want to listen to this chap.’ You can’t argue with him.
56:11 You see, stop arguing, I am talking, not you. Will you listen that way?
56:17 PK: Yes.
56:20 K: Non-verbally, no arguments, with the same drive, with the same intensity, at the same level, at the same time.
56:31 PK: I’d certainly like to.
56:36 K: No! You are not doing it. ‘You’d like to,’ you‘re off.
56:45 DB: Well, I think, you know, that part of the conditioning is a resistance to listening in that sense.
56:51 K: Yes, that’s just it, sir.
56:52 AC: But I want to listen. Would you go on?
56:54 K: Yes, I will go on. Then which means what? We are in communication with each other completely. Right? If you have got the same intensity, same level, same time.
57:19 Not a second later, a second after.
57:28 That means you are completely listening. Right? There is no thought interfering, no time coming in to it.
57:49 Right? Which is what? A non-verbal state of love. (Pause) Right? Therefore there is no need to communicate.
58:18 Right? I know what you’re going to say. When I tell you something serious and say, ‘My dear chap, I really love you with all my heart,’ would you argue?
58:37 Say, ‘No, what...? Just a minute, just a minute, do you mean you love me, sex, you give me money, you give me this, why do you say you love me?’ — do you go through all that performance?
58:52 When a man comes to you, most profoundly, with all his... loves you, he comes and tells you.
59:02 That’s what he’s saying there. Right?
59:09 PK: It seems to me that we are unable to meet at the same level.
59:14 K: Therefore, you’re not listening.
59:18 PK: Yes, but it’s not voluntary...
59:23 K: Ah, no sir, you’re not listening because you don’t want to listen, because you feel: ‘My God, I don’t know.’ (Laughs) When your wife comes and tells you she loves you with all her heart, do you say, ‘Just a minute, just a minute, just a minute, what do you mean by that?
59:49 Do you mean you will bear my children, you mean you will support me?’? You don’t discuss then.
59:56 PK: Yes, but...
59:58 K: Ah! You see, you people... Nobody has told you that.
1:00:06 PK: Sir, the intellectual is definitely much more superficial than the emotional.
1:00:14 K: No, I don’t differentiate between the two; they’re both the same. When a man is emotional, he is nonsensical. When he’s intellectual, just words, he is nonsensical, nonsense.
1:00:31 PK: But supposing you are able to only approach a man either intellectually or emotionally.
1:00:38 K: You can’t. Then I say, ‘Please, you...’ PK: No, no. Wait sir. I am still within the field of time.
1:00:43 K: Ah no, I say, ‘Sorry, then go and...’ PK: We notice that there is a difference.
1:00:45 K: I say, ‘Go and jump in the lake.’ PK: This part I also wanted to ask you. This I don’t understand: the fact that you are not willing to consider anything that is within the field of time, and yet you agree that there is a difference between one man who is conditioned and another who is conditioned.
1:01:03 K: Obviously. And a man who is not conditioned.
1:01:05 PK: Oh no. I don’t know of a person who is not conditioned.
1:01:07 K: What are you talking about?
1:01:08 PK: I am talking that there is a difference between Hitler and Gandhi: both are egoic, both are egoists.
1:01:13 K: Oh, I don’t consider a tremendous difference; they’re in the same bracket. Sorry! (Laughs) PK: Yes, yes, but to mankind, to society...
1:01:24 K: Sir, they are in the same room, only extreme rooms: one end there is brutal, the other end is brutal in his own way, but they are in the same field.
1:01:40 Because they are both partial.
1:01:45 PK: But there are many events which are partial, which have had tremendous significance for...
1:01:55 K: People.
1:01:56 PK: ...for people.
1:01:57 K: Because they are partial.
1:01:58 PK: Like the independence of a country...
1:01:59 K: Wait sir, you haven’t understood.
1:02:00 PK: …a purely political event.
1:02:01 K: I am telling you because humanity looks, tastes, smells, everything partial. Therefore, when a man talks partially and gives tremendous significance, people accept it.
1:02:15 Hitler, when he talked about Germany: ‘The greatest Germany, the new Germany, a thousand years of Germany, Reich,’ that was tremendous.
1:02:24 It was partial, patriotic, nonsensical, and that’s why they listened, because they’re thinking in terms of partially.
1:02:36 A man comes along, like somebody, and says, ‘Look, what rubbish. Think totally, wholly,’ they say, ‘What are you talking about?’ PK: Yes, but like when we go to decide a government, we have two politicians who are both obviously working within the field of time and ego, and yet one of them is superior to the other because one is dictatorial and so on, the other is a democrat.
1:02:56 K: Of course, of course, of course.
1:02:57 PK: And you can’t say this has no significance.
1:02:58 K: No. But they are still within the same political field.
1:03:02 PK: Yes. Yes.
1:03:04 K: I am objecting to that political field. It’s partial. And through part you can never bring about good for the whole.
1:03:16 This is obvious. (Pause) PK: You mean to say anyone who has not yet...
1:03:28 K: Quite right.
1:03:29 PK: ...solved his ego, is automatically evil?
1:03:32 K: No.
1:03:33 PK: Even though he is trying his best?
1:03:35 K: There is evil in him.
1:03:37 PK: Yes, there is. Yes, there is evil in us but it may not express itself.
1:03:44 K: Ah! (Inaudible) Sir, (laughs) you...
1:03:46 PK: Sir, there is mother Teresa, working for all these poor people, fallen people and so on, she is devoting her life. I see a difference between...
1:03:52 K: Who?
1:03:53 PK: Mother Teresa.
1:03:54 K: Ah. Oh yes.
1:03:56 PK: Okay? And I see a difference between her and a man like Hitler who is killing people and trying to eliminate one race. I cannot put them in the same bracket. Do you? Do you?
1:04:04 K: Sir, I don’t...
1:04:05 PK: They are in the same room, but to us this room is life.
1:04:07 K: I don’t put it in the same bracket. I say they are working in the same field. There may be distant... it’s an enormous field, but one is in one corner, the other is... but in the same field.
1:04:21 PK: (Laughs) That field is our life, sir.
1:04:24 K: That’s what I’m saying: get out of it.
1:04:26 PK: Well, what I find – this brings me to the next question – that even if an individual does step out of this field...
1:04:36 K: Ah, that’s a hypothetical question. I won’t answer that.
1:04:40 PK: No sir. It’s quite clear that such an individual is unable to help the people in the field. So what is the great significance of stepping out? You’ve still done something for yourself.
1:04:49 K: No.
1:04:50 PK: Because you have solved your personal sorrow.
1:04:51 K: Ah no! Then we enter into quite a different thing. You didn’t hear that man say, ‘You are the total, the whole of humanity.’ You, Krishnan, is the rest of humanity.
1:05:09 Do you accept that? Psychologically, not theoretically — factually.
1:05:17 PK: In the sense that we are basically the same, yes.
1:05:24 K: Yes.
1:05:25 PK: Similar.
1:05:26 K: Similar. So if you transform yourself, not from this to that, end this. He said that. Transformation is not from this to that, but the ending...
1:05:38 PK: Ending of this. The ending of this.
1:05:40 K: This. When there is an ending of this, your consciousness is transformed.
1:05:48 Krishnan being the rest of the world, therefore it affects the rest of the world.
1:05:53 PK: But the rest of the world, you see, they’re going down the stream the same way. Buddha came and went, Christ came and went.
1:06:00 K: That’s not your concern.
1:06:01 DB: I think, you know, we discussed this a bit last night. You see, one point we raised was, you know, what is the relationship of the man who is that way – transformed – to the other?
1:06:13 In other words, what is he doing?
1:06:15 K: Ah, that’s right. Yes.
1:06:17 DB: Perhaps that’s the meaning of the question.
1:06:18 PK: Yes, I feel that such an individual is unable to help the others. So it’s still that he has solved his own problem.
1:06:24 K: What do you mean? Why didn’t you...? You are missing my point. What do you mean help? Move from one corner of the field into the other corner of the field?
1:06:33 PK: Or move out.
1:06:35 K: No. Which is, I’m asking you. You are not being...
1:06:40 PK: No. Sir, moving from one point in the field to the other point in the field, we can be helped and people are helping each other to do that.
1:06:46 K: And that’s no value.
1:06:48 PK: I wouldn’t say it has no value but it has no value from the point of view of a person who has stepped out.
1:06:53 K: That’s all.
1:06:54 PK: From the point of view of stepping out of the field, it has no value.
1:06:57 K: That field has no value, he says.
1:07:00 PK: This I don’t agree, because I think...
1:07:02 K: Wait, I’ll show you. Wait!
1:07:04 PK: I think the fact that there is now no slavery, the fact that there is no domination of one nation over another, or it has become less, is very significant for humanity.
1:07:12 I’m not willing to say that it has no meaning.
1:07:15 K: Yes, very nice, but it’s still in the same field.
1:07:18 PK: I agree, but you said it has no significance. It has significance.
1:07:22 K: If you are living in the field, and all your exercise is in the field, all your thinking is in the field, all your affairs are in the field, it’s better one corner than the other.
1:07:35 PK: Yes.
1:07:36 K: Right? But it’s still within the field.
1:07:40 AC: Sir, the man who has stepped out of the field, he has affected the consciousness within the field.
1:07:49 K: Yes.
1:07:50 AC: He has. The whole consciousness of everybody but...
1:07:52 K: Yes, I am certain of it.
1:07:54 AC: Certain. Now, the….
1:07:56 DB: Well, why are you certain? I mean, what makes you feel so certain?
1:08:00 K: It is so. If I...
1:08:02 DB: I mean, because you communicate it.
1:08:03 K: Like a man like Hitler has affected the whole...
1:08:04 DB: No, but he is in the field.
1:08:05 K: Within the field.
1:08:06 DB: Yes, but I mean the man who is out of the field, how can you make it clear that he affects the field, as a whole?
1:08:18 How can you make it clear...
1:08:19 K: I understand, sir.
1:08:20 DB: ...to the one who is in the field, that the field is being affected by the man who is out?
1:08:25 K: Because after all, he brings a new light, a new perception, a new something.
1:08:35 PK: Yes, but they translate it to the old.
1:08:37 K: Wait, wait, wait, I haven’t finished. I haven’t finished yet. You are jumping on me. (Laughs) PK: Sorry.
1:08:44 K: He brings something totally new, which the men in the field, perhaps some of them can capture it.
1:08:53 DB: Right. But now I think we went to another point that you may have been trying to say: that some people in the field are more perceptive than others.
1:09:00 K: Yes.
1:09:01 DB: Not everybody is equal in the field.
1:09:02 K: No, no, of course not.
1:09:04 DB: And therefore, some are more likely to see it than others.
1:09:07 K: Yes.
1:09:09 PK: Yes.
1:09:10 DB: Right? So that... And therefore this man who is out of the field may make possible...
1:09:20 K: For a few, or many in the field.
1:09:22 DB: ...for few in the field to see something. Right?
1:09:25 AC: So, two things, sir: the man who has stepped out, does he affect the whole field of human consciousness?
1:09:30 K: I say he does.
1:09:31 AC: Yes. Plus the people who come in contact with him, who have a certain receptivity, he affects them more?
1:09:38 K: Surely.
1:09:39 AC: Is that true?
1:09:40 K: Surely. Though they may be living in the field...
1:09:43 AC: Yes.
1:09:44 K: ...then their whole movement of life will be to move out.
1:09:50 AC: Is that why they come to you?
1:09:52 K: Perhaps.
1:09:54 PK: I am not sure, sir. I am not sure if Buddha was just not born, whether the world would have been very different today.
1:10:02 I’m not sure.
1:10:03 K: No, I doubt it too.
1:10:05 PK: And therefore...
1:10:07 K: Ah, wait, wait! No.
1:10:09 AC: Wait. Why do you say that?
1:10:11 K: No, wait, wait, wait. You are talking from the field.
1:10:13 AC: Why did you say that, sir?
1:10:15 PK: There is no other way I can talk. I am in the field.
1:10:19 K: Therefore your statement has no value.
1:10:21 AC: But why did you say...?
1:10:23 K: Sorry. As long as you are living in the field and talking from the field and saying, ‘The Buddha had no value,’ you are looking at it partially.
1:10:34 PK: No, I see it this way, sir. I don’t say that Buddha had no value, but...
1:10:38 K: Ah! I’m not defending Buddha.
1:10:40 PK: ...after Buddha was dead and gone, so that on the physical plane you couldn’t see him...
1:10:45 K: All the rest of the rot began.
1:10:46 PK: Well, then the church began.
1:10:47 K: Of course.
1:10:48 PK: Okay? And then it distorted. And this is going to happen with every man who makes that...
1:10:51 K: That’s... Yes.
1:10:53 PK: Okay. It’s likely to happen, okay, because the people are going to translate this in terms of their own field.
1:10:58 K: No. Sir, are we discussing from the field, living in the field, and trying to bring the other into the field – you follow? – or are we saying: look, we live in the field, perhaps one corner is better than the other, but those of us who are serious want to move out of the field?
1:11:29 AC: Sir, may I come back to this question? The man who has moved out of the field affects the whole of human consciousness. He affects more those people who come in contact with him. He affects even more those people who are more receptive to him.
1:11:45 K: Of course, naturally; all right.
1:11:46 AC: Which implies, sir, a certain level of receptivity or openness to the phenomenon.
1:11:52 K: Obviously, sir. Obviously.
1:11:54 AC: Now sir, what is it that makes a certain person respond to you more, receptive or...?
1:11:58 K: I know what you... It may be karma — go back to the whole stuff.
1:12:01 AC: I want to know, sir. I’m not saying it’s karma.
1:12:03 K: It may be purely chance.
1:12:04 AC: Now, is it...?
1:12:06 K: Wait. Wait. It may purely be chance. It may be they have had a hell of a life.
1:12:12 AC: Yes.
1:12:13 K: They feel something must – you follow?
1:12:14 AC: Yes, sorrow, deep sorrow.
1:12:16 K: They are [in] sorrow, they are somebody – you follow?
1:12:19 AC: Yes.
1:12:20 K: Or it may be they see something beautiful...
1:12:22 AC: Yes.
1:12:24 K: ...which they have never seen before. Not the trees, but inwardly they see extraordinary sense of beauty and they say, ‘By Jove...’ So there are all these factors: chance, this and that...
1:12:37 PK: But sir...
1:12:38 AC: Now sir, you meet people who have come to you, with different levels of receptivity and who have come for different reasons – the ones you describe – what is your response to the situation in terms of...?
1:12:53 You want people... not ‘want’ in the ordinary sense...
1:12:58 K: I... follow.
1:12:59 AC: ...people should step out of the field.
1:13:01 K: Yes.
1:13:02 AC: How are you responding to it? The way I see your response is to talk to these people and describe to them what is happening to them: A and B lead a personal life which exemplifies what you are talking about, as I see it.
1:13:15 K: Carry on, carry on.
1:13:20 AC: Now, it is not ‘succeeding’, in inverted commas, if I may put it...
1:13:24 K: Yes, I understand, I understand.
1:13:26 AC: ...these two things: you are talking to people, you’re leading the life you are, both of which should, but is not...
1:13:38 K: It doesn’t matter. Carry on.
1:13:40 AC: So isn’t there something else beyond this which is possible?
1:13:41 K: Which is... Wait, wait. Look at it the other way, which is: meeting people, talking, is perhaps both at the conscious level and also at the deeper levels.
1:13:53 Right?
1:13:55 AC: Yes, there must be receptivity.
1:13:59 K: Of course. Of course.
1:14:01 AC: Of course, yes.
1:14:03 K: The intellectual says, ‘By Jove, quite logical, sane, I see what he means, it is so,’ but he remains up there.
1:14:11 AC: Yes.
1:14:12 K: The romantic, the emotional, the sentimentalist, he is also...
1:14:21 So what’s your question?
1:14:23 AC: My question is, sir, you are out of the field...
1:14:29 K: In what way are you...? Sorry.
1:14:32 AC: ...in what way are you...
1:14:34 K: ...affecting...
1:14:36 AC: ...affecting people who are within the field, who have different levels of receptivity to you or to this phenomenon, and what is – the barrier is obviously not on your side – what is the barrier within the field, which is preventing the whole...?
1:14:57 K: Sir. Look sir, that’s simple enough. The people who are in the field – sorry to use this. It sounds superior and contemptuous; I’m not – the people in the field only want reward.
1:15:12 They think in terms of reward. They have been trained in punishment and reward, all their life.
1:15:23 Now, here comes a man who says, ‘There is no reward or punishment.’ They are not used to this.
1:15:36 AC: Sir no, the man also says, ‘There is an ending of sorrow,’ and that becomes a reward for them.
1:15:42 K: Of course. So they are all thinking in terms of reward.
1:15:47 AC: Reward, yes. So this is it. Is that the barrier: that one comes to you wanting something?
1:15:52 K: Perhaps that’s a barrier.
1:15:54 AC: Now sir, if I may ask, seeing this, can’t there be another communication, another form of communication – I don’t know what it is – which can cut through this barrier which the other person has?
1:16:11 K: Which is, the other person, if he is willing to listen...
1:16:13 AC: Yes, he is.
1:16:14 K: Listen, you understand?
1:16:15 AC: He is, yes. He’s not able to...
1:16:18 K: He’s willing to listen, and therefore the very act of listening is the awakening of that intelligence.
1:16:30 Then that intelligence can communicate with each other. You follow what I’m saying? If you are actually free from all sense of reward – you understand? – the ending of sorrow is a... but it’s not really a reward.
1:16:54 It is so.
1:16:56 AC: For you, when you say ‘ending of sorrow’... for us, when you say ‘ending of sorrow’ you’re holding out a promise, a reward, you see.
1:17:05 K: I said, it’s not...
1:17:06 PK: No, but we probably think in terms of a personal sorrow, and then it’s a reward, you see. Because we think of personal sorrow, not sorrow as he...
1:17:14 K: Ah no, sorrow. There is not only personal sorrow, there’s global sorrow.
1:17:16 PK: Yes. Yes.
1:17:18 K: The appalling...
1:17:19 PK: But when we think of it, we think in terms of ending the personal sorrow, I think; many of us, I mean.
1:17:24 AC: Or in achieving enlightenment. It’s all... there’s a motive, that is the barrier, I feel. Now, you see this barrier in this person, you see the person keeps coming back to you, so there’s obviously something.
1:17:39 K: Which is what? He may... No sir, we move very, very slowly. Say for instance, you can’t give up a habit instantly, you will take days.
1:17:53 AC: But you say it is done instantly.
1:17:57 K: Yes. But you say, ‘No, sorry, I’m used to the other. What the hell are you talking about? Tell me how quickly I can do it.’ He’s still thinking in terms of reward.
1:18:15 PK: Sir, if I may ask you, were you once in the field? Were you once part of the field?
1:18:23 K: I question it. I questioned it, too. (Laughs) PK: You see, because I am not sure if it is possible to get out of the field.
1:18:32 You say that it is possible, but if you haven’t stepped out of the field, you were just never in the field, then I don’t know if it is possible to step out of the field.
1:18:42 K: Of course, of course. Sir...
1:18:44 PK: In other words – at the very beginning we said there was a vicious circle – whether it’s possible to break that vicious circle once you are caught in it.
1:18:48 K: That’s... A man who is not born in the field may have more clarity than a man in the field.
1:18:53 AC: Yes.
1:18:54 PK: Yes.
1:18:55 K: So he says, ‘Get out. This is the way out.’ PK: Yes, but he didn’t get out. He just was out.
1:19:02 K: Therefore...
1:19:03 PK: And therefore it may be an impossible thing which he’s asking.
1:19:05 K: No. You’re missing my point. If you have never been in it, you see the whole thing at a glance, and therefore you say, ‘Look, this is the way to do it.’ But you are in...
1:19:21 PK: Yes, but it’s like telling the ant that there is no roof, you can get out of this place...
1:19:25 K: Ah, no, no, no. Not a bit, not a bit.
1:19:27 PK: ...but it sees only two dimensions and it feels completely enclosed.
1:19:28 K: No.
1:19:29 PK: For the ant it is impossible.
1:19:30 K: So what is it, sir, we are talking about?
1:19:39 You began by asking: as long as the ego exists there is no insight; insight comes only when there is the other.
1:19:53 So I said insight takes place when there is no time – time being the ego – and we’re still talking within the field of time.
1:20:07 All that you have said is still within the field of time. And you say, ‘For God’s sake, stop for a minute and listen.’ And you say, ‘I can’t listen because I’m caught.’ You’re caught.
1:20:19 It’s up to you.
1:20:23 PK: Yes, but you are saying that a man who is caught can step out.
1:20:30 K: I say so — obviously.
1:20:31 PK: But do you know of a single person who has done it?
1:20:36 K: That’s not my business.
1:20:37 AC: No sir. And you’re very concerned that people step out, otherwise you wouldn’t be speaking.
1:20:41 K: Of course, sir, of course.
1:20:43 PK: How are you sure that he can step out?
1:20:44 AC: No. Sorry, may I? You’re very concerned with it, sir – I’m repeating myself – and there are two ways, as I see it, that your concern is showing: one is to talk to people, to create centres where there is...
1:21:01 K: Create sensitivity more.
1:21:03 AC: Sensitivity more, etc. The other is – which I don’t know – affecting consciousness...
1:21:08 K: Leave that.
1:21:09 AC: Leave that. The third is the life you are leading, etc., which is a tremendous thing.
1:21:14 K: It doesn’t matter. Yes.
1:21:17 AC: But is it having any effect, sir? Do you see it having any effect?
1:21:21 K: Sir, I’m not concerned with it.
1:21:25 AC: But you are concerned with it.
1:21:29 K: Because it’s like a river flowing. If you want to drink it, drink it.
1:21:38 AC: But sir, you observe people.
1:21:40 K: I do.
1:21:41 AC: You watch them very carefully. You know them.
1:21:43 K: Yes, I do.
1:21:44 AC: Is it having any effect, sir?
1:21:45 K: I won’t answer you that question.
1:21:46 AC: Is it at all a valid question?
1:21:49 K: No.
1:21:50 AC: It isn’t.
1:21:53 K: Valid question if you say: is it affecting you, Asit? Then I would deal with it.
1:22:00 AC: Yes, that was...
1:22:02 K: But if you say generally is it...
1:22:03 AC: No, no, of course my question is...
1:22:04 K: Ah, therefore, make it that, directly.
1:22:06 AC: Yes, it is a direct question, sir.
1:22:07 PK: No, we are obviously affected. I mean, we have all benefited but we have still benefitted...
1:22:11 K: Ah!
1:22:12 AC: No.
1:22:13 PK: Wait a minute, sir, let me say, let me say. Listen. That I feel that mankind has benefited but still within the field. We have not benefited in the sense of coming out of the field, or what you talk...
1:22:24 K: That’s what I am concerned...
1:22:25 PK: ...but, at the same time, we have benefited within the field, and there is such a thing for us as benefiting within the field.
1:22:30 K: I say that is not – wait – I say that’s not benefit at all. It’s like moving from this corner to that corner...
1:22:37 PK: Yes, but we say...
1:22:38 K: ...and saying, ‘This is marvellous.’ PK: No but there is significance in that, also.
1:22:42 K: Ah, there is mighty little significance.
1:22:44 PK: Yes, mighty little from your point of view, but...
1:22:47 K: Ah, from any... Sir, logically. Logically it has very little importance.
1:22:52 AC: Sir, can I come back to my direct question?
1:22:54 K: Yes sir.
1:22:55 AC: I have from childhood heard you, lived with you, etc.
1:22:57 K: Quite right.
1:22:58 AC: And I’m doing all the things which I know I should not be doing. I know it not only intellectually, but in every way.
1:23:04 K: Then don’t do it.
1:23:05 AC: But it’s strengthening itself in me.
1:23:08 K: Then don’t do it!
1:23:10 AC: But it’s happening.
1:23:11 K: Don’t do it!
1:23:12 PK: No, it is not true that you say... when we say that we should not be doing it, it’s not true.
1:23:20 We don’t mean it, we’re just verbally saying it.
1:23:21 AC: No, I mean it.
1:23:22 PK: Or if you really meant it, you wouldn’t do it.
1:23:24 K: No. Sir, he says he means it.
1:23:26 AC: I mean it.
1:23:27 K: He says, ‘I smoke’ – I’m taking that as...
1:23:31 AC: Yes, I know.
1:23:32 K: – ‘and I can’t give it up.’ I say, ‘Why the hell, you can’t give it up?’ ‘Because I don’t see clearly.’ (Laughs) AC: So the question is: that having listening to you for the most innocent, formative forty years or whatever it is...
1:23:52 K: Yes sir, from the age of 6.
1:23:53 AC: From the age of 6. Does the brain, or probably much earlier, the brain starts deteriorating, which is only... What happens, sir?
1:24:02 K: Look, Asit: you’ve got a good brain – right? – because you... etc. Both you have inherited a very good brain and you have worked at it and...
1:24:17 Right. Why don’t you use that brain for this?
1:24:27 (Pause) What is preventing it?
1:24:31 AC: I don’t know. That is my question, sir. I wonder about it a great deal.
1:24:36 K: Don’t wonder. No, you will never find it. If you have got the brain, why is the brain deteriorating?
1:24:49 I don’t say yours is.
1:24:50 AC: No, no, it is. I see a brain or a person who has been given all this, and he’s going off in this direction though he sees it’s the wrong direction.
1:25:01 Why?
1:25:02 K: And yet can’t prevent it.
1:25:03 AC: And yet can’t...
1:25:05 PK: It is not a voluntary thing, sir. It’s not voluntary thing.
1:25:08 AC: What is in this...?
1:25:10 K: What do you mean?
1:25:11 AC: What is in this brain or mind or body which is making it go in this direction, though it sees this is the right direction?
1:25:21 K: Why does it go south instead of north?
1:25:22 AC: When from childhood the brain knows that this is the right direction.
1:25:25 K: I know.
1:25:26 AC: Why?
1:25:27 PK: No, there is no such right direction. I question that: whether there is such a thing as a right direction.
1:25:33 AC: But there are wrong directions.
1:25:35 K: No, no. He says – look you haven’t listened to the bird. You are going on with your own thoughts – he says from childhood, from the age of 6, I know this is the direction: north, and yet what I am doing is taking me south.
1:25:56 He is not talking of direction, this is happening. Why don’t I move in the direction of the north?
1:26:09 That’s all he is saying. What’s preventing you? First of all, is it – oh, a dozen reasons I can give you. Reasons, but they are not facts.
1:26:17 AC: Yes.
1:26:18 K: What is the fact? This is applicable to everybody.
1:26:24 AC: Yes.
1:26:25 K: What is the fact? (Pause) Is it innately we are so profoundly lazy?
1:26:44 (Pause) We’ve got used to this state, lethargy, you know what I mean?
1:26:58 AC: Yes, it’s the easy way out. It’s so easy.
1:27:02 PK: When we are in the field; apparently we are.
1:27:03 K: Which means we are seeking comfort.
1:27:07 AC: Yes.
1:27:08 K: Physiological and psychological and so on — comfort.
1:27:15 Remain comfortably in that amorphous state of laziness.
1:27:22 AC: Why? Why sir? That means there has been no communication in all these years, subconscious or unconscious.
1:27:34 K: Because you... Why sir? You answer it yourself. Fairly simple.
1:27:39 AC: I’ve wondered about it, sir.
1:27:40 PK: I think partly it is also out of uncertainty we imitate.
1:27:43 AC: Because at that age, at the age of 6, 8, 10, every year up to the age of 19, 20, there wasn’t resistance, I know that.
1:27:53 K: I know. It may be European education. (Laughs) AC: But does that become much stronger than what happened in those days?
1:28:03 K: No, look at it. That’s much stronger. The Western civilisation is much stronger than the Eastern civilisation, with all their industry, with all their companies, all their money – you follow?
1:28:17 – that’s much more attractive than the other. I’m not saying you are, I’m just...
1:28:25 So, we like this, as we said: amorphous laziness of comfort.
1:28:33 AC: Is that all? Is that it?
1:28:35 K: Maybe, maybe. That may be the central factor.
1:28:38 PK: Yes.
1:28:39 K: You have got the candle, you have got the matches, but by God, to get up and go and light the match – whooph!
1:28:48 (Laughs) PK: But that in turn is ultimately only due to the lack of insight, because...
1:28:53 K: No, no, no. No.
1:28:56 AC: No. Why does this happen?
1:28:58 PK: Yes, because if you saw it as a precipice, the follower is capable of such energy, but the energy doesn’t come, when – as you say – he doesn’t go and light the candle.
1:29:03 K: Because sir...
1:29:04 PK: He’s not willing to do that, but another time he is willing to turn the earth around.
1:29:06 K: Because – no – there may be tremendous danger in getting up and lighting the candle.
1:29:11 PK: So it appears to him.
1:29:13 K: There is a tremendous danger, because he may see things which will shock him, which might frighten him, which might destroy him.
1:29:23 DB: What things? What kind of things?
1:29:27 K: Ah, I don’t know. With him, I’m not sure.
1:29:29 AC: No go on, sir.
1:29:31 K: With him it may be personal comfort, attachments, ambition.
1:29:39 DB: It would seem to me that if there is a really, total insight then even there is insight into laziness.
1:29:46 K: He hasn’t got it.
1:29:48 DB: Yes.
1:29:49 K: What he has got is an insight in the field, and knowing that it’s rotten.
1:29:54 DB: But then what’s needed is total insight beyond that.
1:29:58 K: That’s just it. He cannot have total insight... (Laughs) AC: Of course.
1:30:04 DB: Even into that sense of amorphous comfort that you discussed.
1:30:09 AC: So is it a question of: unless the mind is truly sensitive the communication doesn’t have the intensity which makes it drop all this?
1:30:23 K: And also, sir, you know, if you really want something beautiful you go after it; nothing is going to prevent you.
1:30:31 PK: Yes, but the only...
1:30:32 K: If you want to furnish your house in a most marvellous way, with all the beauty of the world, you mean to say it’s going to prevent you, if you have no money — you work for it.
1:30:50 PK: Yes, but that kind of activity we know.
1:30:53 K: Ah, you don’t know!
1:30:55 PK: That kind of activity we know, where we are compelled within the field.
1:30:58 K: Oh, you don’t know. No.
1:31:00 PK: Yes.
1:31:01 K: No. No. I am talking in the house which is not within the field. When you have that feeling of beauty, you work for it.
1:31:12 You have got it, but you all say, ‘My God.
1:31:19 Hell.’ (Laughs) AC: Why? It doesn’t make sense. It really doesn’t make sense.
1:31:28 K: Of course it doesn’t make sense, but you are in it. I mean, like those politicians one talks to, they say, ‘Quite right, quite right, I see this, you are perfectly right, but...’ AC: Go back.
1:31:49 K: So what shall we do? A man says to me, ‘Come this way, this is much more beautiful, you’ll live much more happily, much more... really happily,’ and you say, ‘For God’s sake, it takes such a lot of energy to leave all this.
1:32:18 It’ll mean walking in a totally different direction and I don’t know if I want to, and even if I do, what’s the point of it?’ AC: No sir...
1:32:34 PK: Well, the point is that the man in the field finds...
1:32:35 K: Ah! What’s the point of it in the sense, it won’t affect the majority, the vast masses of people, it won’t...
1:32:42 PK: Yes, but you see, for example, take chasing money, going after money, well, money may not bring happiness...
1:32:50 K: But damn, you need it.
1:32:52 PK: No, it enables you to look for it in comfort. (Laughs) K: Sir, but if you know the value of money and put it in its right place, you have finished with it.
1:33:07 To put it in the right place needs a little energy, but you are unwilling to spend that energy.
1:33:18 I need money. Whether somebody gives me...
1:33:20 PK: Yes, but we are not masters of ourselves, sir, we are just led, we are being led by the old throne.
1:33:27 We’re slaves to this.
1:33:28 K: Therefore I said, don’t talk about getting to the other, leave this.
1:33:36 AC: That’s it, of course. So the whole thing is putting everything in its right place.
1:33:41 K: Yes.
1:33:42 AC: Thought in its right place, money, food...
1:33:44 K: ...sex...
1:33:45 AC: ...sex, exercise...
1:33:46 K: Everything in its right place.
1:33:47 AC: It all has a part but it’s in the right place. The moment it goes over, outside this place you are trapped.
1:33:52 K: You’ve lost energy.
1:33:53 AC: Yes. You’ve lost energy; that’s right.
1:33:55 PK: And you can’t define what is the right place.
1:33:57 K: Oh yes, you can.
1:33:58 PK: You can’t define it.
1:33:59 K: Oh yes, you can.
1:34:01 PK: Because it’s not rigid.
1:34:02 K: You can. Didn’t you...?
1:34:04 PK: Well, that’s what all the religions are trying to do and they’ve failed.
1:34:06 K: No. Didn’t you hear what that man said yesterday? He said, ‘What is the right place? Everything that is psychologically...’ AC: I think I’m beginning to see this.
1:34:16 K: Is the wrong place. (Laughs) PK: But the division is not so clear, sir, between what is necessary and what is desire; the division is not so clear.
1:34:28 K: Oh yes, it’s very simple when you want to look at it very clear. You have spent thirty or forty years in getting to be a professor. You looked at it – science, mathematics or whatever you do – and you don’t even give an hour to say, ‘Look, let’s look into this carefully.’ Not argumentative – you are full of the arguments – but let’s look into this carefully.
1:34:57 You haven’t done it. And yet you talk about doing good in the field and all the rest of the blah.
1:35:03 AC: Is that meditation, sir, putting things in their right place?
1:35:09 K: It is. Then you’re free, then freedom. The moment you have everything in order — out.
1:35:16 AC: And that is order.
1:35:18 K: Of course.
1:35:20 AC: But everything still has a place.
1:35:25 PK: Yes, not an order that is created but which comes about.
1:35:28 K: Of course, of course.
1:35:31 PK: By itself.
1:35:32 K: If I put...
1:35:34 PK: For which you need the insight. (Laughs) K: If I put my socks and ties in the right place, I won’t waste energy looking all over the room.
1:35:44 I know where they are and I go to it, if I want them. And if I have nothing psychologically in me...
1:35:53 AC: Attaching you to the thing.
1:35:56 K: It’s perfect order.
1:35:58 AC: And the putting of things in the right place is the perceiving of the things clearly.
1:36:04 K: Yes. To see things clearly.
1:36:06 AC: That puts it in its right place.
1:36:08 K: That’s very simple. That doesn’t need insight.
1:36:11 PK: Why? That is...
1:36:13 K: From that comes insight.
1:36:15 AC: Yes, I see. Yes.
1:36:19 PK: Perceiving things clearly does need insight.
1:36:21 K: Sir look, if you put your socks and your trousers and your shirts all jumbled up, it takes time to bring you a fresh pair of socks.
1:36:34 But suppose you put socks in the right place, coat in the right place, trousers and shirts and so on, you are free of the botheration.
1:36:41 You go to it directly, you don’t waste energy. So, if you put everything in order...
1:36:47 PK: Yes, but we don’t know what the right place is.
1:36:52 K: Oh no! Jesus, what’s the matter with this man?
1:36:55 AC: And sir, things have a tendency to go out of place and it’s only the constant, clear perception of it which keeps it in its right place.
1:37:02 K: Yes. You don’t have to constantly, once you have put it in the right place it’s finished.
1:37:09 AC: May I go into this, sir, because this is not clear to me.
1:37:11 K: Yes. Yes, yes, go on, go on.
1:37:14 AC: That once you have put it in the right place it will stay there. This is not clear to me.
1:37:20 K: Look sir, put it in the same... Logically, if you put your socks in the right place, you always go there don’t you?
1:37:28 AC: Yes, but you put them on and you put it back in the right place.
1:37:31 K: Of course.
1:37:33 AC: So the...
1:37:34 K: Ah, follow that up, slowly. Not only physically – your handkerchief, your ties, your boots, your shoes, etc., physically, food, you know, all that – but also, can you put everything in order psychologically, put in their place?
1:37:59 You can’t, because it’s such a vast jumble. So you say: as long as there is anything psychologically accumulated, there can be no order inside.
1:38:11 Right?
1:38:12 AC: Yes.
1:38:14 K: Be logical.
1:38:17 AC: Yes.
1:38:18 K: Electronically. (Laughs) AC: In other words, sir, the moment there is attachment, it is not in its right place.
1:38:28 K: Right.
1:38:29 AC: And the moment there is no attachment, it’s automatically, forever in its right place.
1:38:32 K: That’s right.
1:38:34 PK: Which brings you back to square one.
1:38:37 K: No. No.
1:38:39 PK: Yes, the attachment is the ego.
1:38:41 K: No. Or... No.
1:38:44 PK: And if there was no ego, there would be order.
1:38:45 K: No. It is disorder that is the ego, which is time. My dear chap, what are you...?
1:38:54 (Pause) Sir, when there is attachment there is fear, suspicion, anxiety.
1:39:07 PK: Pleasure.
1:39:08 K: Of course, of course; pleasure.
1:39:10 PK: You always stress the dark side. (Laughs) K: Comfort. I said, sir – no, I said comfort.
1:39:15 PK: Yes.
1:39:16 K: Pleasure.
1:39:17 PK: Okay.
1:39:18 K: Fear.
1:39:19 PK: Joy.
1:39:20 K: No, joy is different. What do you say? Comfort, pleasure, everything. But in that way, when there is attachment, there is no freedom.
1:39:37 If you like to be caught in the net of comfort, fear, occasional pleasure, occasional sense of openness and so on, remain there.
1:39:48 PK: Sir, we have a very famous poem in Hindi, which says that, ‘I know on this side, Beloved, you are there and there is wine, I don’t know what there is on the other.’ K: Quite.
1:40:00 PK: That’s the problem. (Laughs) K: Kabir.
1:40:03 PK: Okay, we know these petty pleasures and you say there is a much greater joy, much greater pleasure, but we don’t know that.
1:40:09 K: So give that to me before I leave this. (Laughs) AC: Before I leave, that’s the problem.
1:40:14 K: That is the problem.
1:40:16 AC: Not just leave this and...
1:40:17 PK: Or at least: let us be sure that we get that. (Laughs) K: Yes, yes, yes; that’s it. That’s why I’m saying we are all trained in reward and punishment.
1:40:29 AC: Now sir, in order to think clearly does one have to have certain basic disciplines and certain basic equipment, physical equipment?
1:40:42 K: But you have it. Don’t go through practices and all that, you have it. The moment you say, ‘Look, I’m going to keep the socks in the right place,’ it’s finished, there is...
1:40:53 AC: You mean to say people have these basic disciplines – if I may talk about it – you know much better than I do, all these yogic disciplines people go to, it’s all unnecessary.
1:41:02 K: Absolutely.
1:41:03 AC: Because most normal human beings have the equipment and the discipline.
1:41:06 K: Of course.
1:41:07 AC: Are you saying that, sir?
1:41:09 K: I am saying if they want it.
1:41:10 AC: Very seriously?
1:41:11 K: I am saying that seriously. Sir, if I want to get up in the morning, as I do now, I want to get up at quarter to six – to do asanas and all the rest of it – I get up.
1:41:22 I’m tired, so I say, ‘All right, this morning I won’t do so many exercises.’ AC: No sir, don’t take your example, sir.
1:41:31 You look at other people.
1:41:32 K: Other people say, ‘Oh for God’s sake, let me stay in bed.’ AC: Yes, of course.
1:41:39 So this is what I’m saying.
1:41:43 K: They are lazy.
1:41:45 AC: So sir, you have always talked about discipline as separation and division, but there is discipline, obviously. This brings its own discipline.
1:41:54 K: There is discipline, which is order.
1:41:59 PK: But you said that we are trained in reward and punishment. Do you think it is only a matter of training or do you think there is something innately so in human nature?
1:42:09 K: It is innately in human... I wouldn’t... there is nothing innately.
1:42:13 PK: Well, innate in the sense that you already have it by instinct.
1:42:16 K: Yes, that’s all — tradition.
1:42:17 PK: Oh, is it tradition or is it instinct? Because if it’s instinct, then you are born with it, it’s a genetic... then it’s the race .
1:42:24 K: No, it may be... You may be born with it because it has been the tradition for ten thousand years, therefore it has become part of you.
1:42:32 PK: Yes because the child shows it. The child shows it: he understands reward and punishment.
1:42:40 K: Of course, because the whole thing is that.
1:42:42 DB: Well, every animal understands that, but...
1:42:44 K: The animal understands.
1:42:45 PK: So it’s an instinct, that’s what I’m saying.
1:42:46 DB: Well no, I wouldn’t say that. You see, I think that the animal may naturally go to what is pleasant and the man takes advantage of that, by making a certain course pleasant and another one unpleasant, you see, and repeating it.
1:43:01 K: Giving a biscuit.
1:43:02 DB: Yes, giving a pigeon something. But the man conditions the animal by repeated reward and punishment to operate in a certain way, reinforcing the behaviour.
1:43:13 K: I mean, take... I have seen those pictures of wolves and tigers, and they hunt and kill when they want food, otherwise, there is no...
1:43:23 AC: Oh yes.
1:43:24 PK: Of course, sir. That’s clear, sir.
1:43:26 DB: There’s very little...
1:43:27 PK: But my point was this: that if it is a matter of training or of environment then you think it’s possible, if a child was brought up completely differently, that he would not have this reward and punishment?
1:43:39 K: Might, might.
1:43:40 PK: Might not be part of this. I doubt that. I doubt it.
1:43:43 DB: Well, if the parents didn’t have it... Well, if the parents did not think that way then the child would not think that way.
1:43:48 PK: No, no. I was making an imaginary thing.
1:43:50 K: Ah, well... (laughs).
1:43:51 PK: Yes, that’s true. But I think it’s probably not just a question of...
1:43:54 DB: But I think, you see, reward is often...
1:43:55 PK: ...training within in this lifetime, since you were born, that you have been trained in punishment and reward, therefore we are caught in this.
1:44:02 DB: Reward is often very subtle, you see, the slightest glance may be a reward or a punishment.
1:44:09 (Pause) PK: The fact that nobody’s able to make...
1:44:23 (Pause) K: Look, my urgency is to tell you something.
1:44:35 He does it every other day. He feels intensely, but will you listen? That’s all he’s saying: ‘Please, for God’s sake do listen.’ (Laughs) And you say, ‘Sorry, I have got my wife, my job, my...
1:44:51 I listen because it sounds very nice, theoretically’ – you follow? – all that.
1:45:00 PK: Yes, but is he intrinsically capable of listening...
1:45:05 K: Yes, of course, sir.
1:45:06 PK: ...in the state in which he presently is?
1:45:07 K: When you are in a crisis, you listen.
1:45:09 PK: Yes, but he is not able to see the crisis because of his own attachments and so on.
1:45:13 K: Oh yes, you do.
1:45:14 PK: No.
1:45:15 K: When somebody near you or intimate with you dies, you listen damn well.
1:45:22 You’re so shocked by it, you’re in a state of concentrated energy.
1:45:26 PK: Yes, because then it’s affecting within the field.
1:45:29 K: No. It is challenging you to question the field. It’s challenging you to say, ‘For God’s sake, what is this?
1:45:42 Why am I going through this? Why is everybody going through this?’ On the contrary, you say, ‘Yes, I’m too shocked and I know I need comfort, it must be somewhere,’ and so you’re off.
1:45:55 (Pause) No, no, we have got plenty of challenges, sir, all the time.
1:46:06 Here I am, I’m challenging you; you won’t even listen.
1:46:14 PK: If it was voluntary, I would listen. (Laughs) K: Ah no, nothing is...
1:46:20 PK: Well, just as he said, that he isn’t able to do what he feels he should do, because he feels he’s being led in his life.
1:46:27 The same way, I would like to listen but I am unable to listen.
1:46:30 K: Then don’t listen.
1:46:31 PK: Well, that’s what most of the time we are doing, from...
1:46:35 K: Don’t listen, don’t bother.
1:46:36 PK: You know, we listen verbally.
1:46:38 K: Carry on. But carry on knowing you are living in a field where nothing good is going to flower.
1:46:45 PK: Well, this is... No, that’s a drastic example.
1:46:48 K: Ah! (Laughs) DB: No, we’re not convinced of that.
1:46:51 PK: I wouldn’t say that, there’s a lot of good...
1:46:52 K: Ah no...
1:46:53 PK: We don’t see life as dark as you do, sir.
1:46:54 K: Ah, you see? I do not...
1:46:57 PK: The newspapers, probably, you read the newspapers, and they report only the dark events, but there is a lot of...
1:47:00 K: Sir, sir, sir...
1:47:01 AC: But that’s a very interesting statement: carry on knowing that nothing good will flower. When you see that, I think the carrying on will become very difficult.
1:47:09 K: That’s all. But he won’t listen to that. He’s already arguing there are some goods in the field, Gandhi has some good, and Mrs Gandhi has done some good, and Hitler has not done good, etc., etc.
1:47:21 He didn’t listen to that.
1:47:23 DB: Well, isn’t it possible, you see, that non-listening is partly that one starts to say something immediately about it or think something immediately about it, you know, to say that it’ll be this way or that way: ‘I can’t do this and I can’t do that,’ and so on?
1:47:45 K: I think, sir, probably a great deal is we have never been loved or loved.
1:47:52 If I come to you, Asit, and say, ‘My dear chap, I really love you,’ you won’t listen.
1:48:00 It doesn’t mean anything. Nobody has told you that. Neither your parents nor your wife nor your... a dozen people, have they said...? Then you would perhaps listen. (Pause) PK: No, but we do, we understand that you talk to us out of love.
1:48:30 It’s not...
1:48:31 K: Ah, no, I am not... I said... (laughs).
1:48:34 AC: Why do you say...?
1:48:35 PK: Yes. I mean, I feel this, but...
1:48:37 K: No! I said to you...
1:48:39 PK: Why should you talk to... you know? You care.
1:48:41 K: No, my dear chap, I said to you: nobody has told you from the depth of their heart they love you. Nobody.
1:48:48 PK: Not in so many words, but when you talk to us like this we feel the love.
1:48:52 K: No, cut it... Oh, for God... No, you’re not listening to what I’m saying. Do listen, Krishnan. For God’s sake, just forget your arguments. Nobody has told you that. Therefore, that may be the factor that is really destroying mankind.
1:49:12 Mankind being you. They won’t listen. They say, ‘Yes, that man loves me, I wonder why. What he’s going to get out of it?’ The other day here, a man comes to me and he said, ‘You’re making a good job of this, aren’t you?’ PK: Yes, that’s his...
1:49:38 K: Ah! Don’t brush him aside. He said, ‘All the tents, this house...’ he said, ‘Ah, pretty good.’ (Laughs) PK: No, but I think like, parents, don’t parents love their children?
1:49:52 They care for their children.
1:49:54 K: Ah, you are talking like... Don’t talk... They care for them, if they loved them they would do something else. They won’t allow them to become bourgeois little nonentities.
1:50:06 PK: Is it in their hands to allow or not to allow?
1:50:08 K: Ah no, you see, you are off again. You won’t even listen for five seconds. (Pause) That’s why I feel in our life, nobody has told us, ‘My God, I love you.’ When somebody says that you listen.
1:50:28 You don’t discuss, you don’t play around, you say, ‘My God, is that so?
1:50:36 How marvellous.’ (Pause) DB: Well, I think everybody has become very cynical and doesn’t believe it, I mean.
1:50:45 K: Of course, sir. That’s it. Absolutely cynical. Because they have been told, cheated that way.
1:50:51 DB: It has happened so many times. People have said it.
1:50:55 K: (Laughs) I know. The Indian peasant, sir, is dirt poor. He has been so exploited, (laughs) he says... anybody comes and says, ‘I love you, I’ll help you’...
1:51:07 DB: He won’t believe it. (Laughs) K: (Laughs) ...and so on. He knows the game.
1:51:11 AC: Sir, you have to go for a walk.
1:51:19 K: Yes sir. Is that enough? I think we got somewhere. What time is it, sir?
1:51:25 AC: Five to five, sir. Seven to five. Almost five o’clock.
1:51:29 PK: We got somewhere, but within the field. (Laughs) K: That’s up to you. Two hours we’ve been at this?
1:51:34 AC: Yes sir.
1:51:35 K: That’s enough.
1:51:36 AC: Thank you, sir. Sorry for the...
1:51:38 PK: Thank you very much, sir.
1:51:39 K: No sir, thank you, thank you.