Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR78DSS1.2 - Can thought bring about a life that is totally harmonious?
Brockwood Park, UK - 14 May 1978
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.2



0:20 Krishnamurti: One of students, the other morning, when we gathered here, asked a question, which was, what is the difference between relationship and sex?
0:41 In talking it over together, we came to a certain point, which was, why do human beings throughout the world give predominance or importance or a priority to certain activity?
1:14 Why sex has become such an important thing, overriding all others, why money, why the sense of committed direction, why human beings give all their attention, their life to an idea, to an ideal, to a God and so on – why?
1:53 We asked this question and we went over it. Is it because society demands it? A particular culture produces this attitude.
2:18 The society, the culture is what we have created. Each human being has created it. And why do human beings, you and I, or others, why we give importance to one particular action – business, artistic, political, economic, or being committed totally to a so-called religious life?
3:03 Is it because we are seeking security?
3:10 In giving ourselves over to a particular action, committing ourselves to a particular ideal, in that there is certain security.
3:31 There, you are very clear. You have committed yourself to an ideal, to a utopia, and you can work for it, completely disregarding all other activities.
3:49 That gives a certain sense of security, wellbeing, being committed to something.
3:58 In talking it over together, we saw – I hope we all understood this – that when we do this, it is like cultivating one arm, out of proportion to the other arm.
4:21 So there is disharmony.
4:32 A man or a woman committed to a particular career – a scientist is Dr Bohm here? Yes. Sorry. – if you are committed to be an artist all your life or a musician, or this or that, it does breed a certain disharmony.
5:05 And we said, what then, is harmony?
5:13 I hope you are all interested in this.
5:20 It is what you asked, for those who weren't here the other day, we are exploring this thing, together.
5:37 Then we asked, what is harmony? Can human beings live in harmony? Harmony implies a good mind – logical, reasonable, objective, impersonal, not thinking about oneself and one's own attitudes and one's own opinions and cultivating those opinions, attitudes, and so giving importance to the intellect, which breeds disharmony.
6:26 So, to have a very good mind, clear, objective, impersonal, and if one may use the word 'heart', which is, affection, kindliness, generosity, not romantic, sentimental, and to have a good body, so the three are continuously working harmoniously so there is no distortion in action.
7:08 That is where we came to the other day, when we were discussing this.
7:18 Can this harmony be brought about?
7:26 And who is the entity or the thought that is to bring this about? Right? We came up to that point. We said, can thought cultivate or struggle or exercise itself in bringing about this harmony?
7:58 And we said, also, that thought itself is born out of disharmony.
8:08 That is what we came to and we will discuss that. Right? May we?
8:24 Will thought bring about the necessity of living a life every day harmoniously, so that there is no distortion, so that one doesn't give importance to one particular thing, either to family, child, occupation, career, money, and so on – can thought in its activity bring this about?
9:23 And is not thought itself not harmonious?
9:37 Does it not breed disharmony? So, let's talk it over together from there.
10:02 What do you think? How do you regard thought, in relation to the question, can thought bring about a life that is totally harmonious?
10:30 If thought doesn't bring it about, then what will?
10:38 This is the question that arose from your particular question, what is the difference between relationship and sex?
10:59 Please, what do you say?
11:04 Q: Sir, are you saying that thought must always breed disharmony?
11:13 K: Are you saying that thought must be in disharmony.
11:21 Let's talk it over together and find out.
11:29 If thought is very limited, if you see that and if you – not agree – if you directly see it, that thought is limited under all circumstances, then that which is limited, narrow, shallow, can that bring about harmony?
12:04 We must be very clear on this point, whether the thought is, in itself, whatever it does, whether it says, I am God, I am the universe, I am the whole of this and that, it is still limited.
12:30 Do we understand that question? Do we together see that point?
12:43 Is not thought a small corner of a vast field?
13:04 That small corner thinks it can cover the whole of the field, it can understand the universe, the cosmos, the whole existence of man, from that little corner.
13:25 Thought has created society, architecture, technology, etc., and is not thought, in itself, a broken-up piece?
14:00 Q: Broken-up it may be, but I don't know about limited. I am not certain that thought is limited.
14:07 K: You are not sure?

Q: No.
14:09 K: Of what?

Q: That thought is limited.
14:12 K: Thought is limited – you are not sure that thought is limited.
14:20 How am I going to show it to you?
14:30 Would you say thought...
14:39 Is thought affection? Is thought love? Is thought compassion?
15:01 Would you say that thought can comprehend or become aware of something it does not know?
15:25 It can speculate about something it does not know and imagine it knows.
15:37 And is not thought limited because it is born out of time?
15:47 That may be a little more difficult. Is not thought time itself?
15:56 Q: But time is continuous.
15:59 K: No, time is continuous as a movement, isn't it? As a movement. So, thought is a movement, movement born out of memory that is the residue, that memory is the outcome of experience and knowledge.
16:32 So, knowledge is the past.
16:39 Right?

Q: Yes.
16:41 K: So, thought is a movement out of the past, obviously, so it must be limited.
17:02 It can project the future and say, that is what is going to be, but it is still the outcome of the past.
17:23 Thought has created, according to Karl Marx, certain political, economic ideals which have become tyrannical and all the rest of it.
17:41 So, the intellect, which is the movement of thought, reason, logic and so on, that has created an ideal. No?
18:00 Now, thought creates one ideal and you create another ideal.
18:09 No? Democratic ideal, totalitarian ideal, national ideal, the ideal of God and the ideal of non-God.
18:28 So thought, because it is born out of the past, because it is of time, because it is a movement based on certain memories, is inevitably limited.
18:55 No? Don't agree with me but see it clearly for yourself.
19:02 I may be wrong. You have to understand the truth of it, not your opinion or my opinion, that the truth is that thought, under all circumstances, is a small corner, which tries to dominate the rest of the field.
19:42 So, can that thought bring about this harmony of which we were talking about?
19:58 Right? Can it?
20:08 Can that which is limited understand the unlimited?
20:19 It can think, or it can speculate, assert, and write volumes intellectually about the unlimited, and think it will understand the unlimited, but it is still the movement of that little corner.
20:44 So, we are asking, can that thought bring about harmony?
21:02 Come on, Shaku. If it cannot, which apparently, if one has gone into it sufficiently it is fairly obvious that it cannot. Right? Then what will?
21:19 You understand my question? If thought cannot bring about this essential harmony, then what will?
21:45 So man has said, God will bring it about.
21:53 An outside agency, which is omnipotent and all the rest of it, which is cosmos, whatever name you give to it, that will, if you can give yourself over to it, will bring this harmony.
22:20 If you abandon yourself and let that external agency – truth, God, universe, cosmos, what you like – that will bring this extraordinary thing called harmony.
22:46 That thing is still invented by thought.
22:54 Right? Or you hand yourself over to some guru.
23:07 He says, I know. I will help you to achieve this thing.
23:14 So he gives you lots of systems, meditations, etc. But it is still the movement of that little corner.
23:26 Right?
23:33 So, if one realises this or sees the truth that thought, though technologically it can do the most marvellous things, is limited.
23:51 Thought has divided the world. Thought has created wars, saying, this is a Christian, this is a heathen, and wars, wars, wars.
24:11 And that very movement of thought says, I will bring this harmony into my being.
24:31 And if that is very clear, that thought cannot, under any pressure, under any reward or punishment, can never bring this about, then what will?
24:51 Is this question clear? What will?
25:01 Q: The thought realises its pettiness, so it thinks that by putting many, or greater thoughts together, it will probably build a bigger or better picture.
25:13 K: Yes. Can the pettiness, which is thought, can that pettiness, shallowness, superficial thing, can that open the door to the universe?
25:32 It cannot. Then what will? Well, sir? Come on, discuss with me.
25:46 Q: But when we are asking what will, aren't we again using thought to try to find out?

K: Yes.
25:55 K: But we can ask that question, though it is the outcome of thought, and find out if there is a different kind of movement, 'movement' in quotes, which is not thought.
26:22 Q: What do you mean by a different kind of movement?
26:25 K: We are going to find out. So, let's find out. You and I find out, together. First, one must see very clearly, definitely, irrevocably that thought is limited, thought cannot bring this about.
26:48 That is an absolute fact. If that is so, then what takes place?
27:07 Go on, sir, examine it.
27:16 Q: Isn't it so that thought must see itself, see by itself that it is not right to prevail, to be predominant?
27:36 K: Sir, you have agreed, both of us, after this examination for nearly an hour or half an hour, and the other day we spent an hour and 20 minutes going into this question – unless we are really obstinate and not observing, we came to the point that thought is limited.
28:07 Q: Sir, it seems that, in listening to this I feel that with the use of logic we are seeing that thought is limited without actually having a perception of it.
28:21 K: We have not only used reason, logic, sanity, you see it is a fact.
28:30 Thought has divided you as an Indian and me as a Christian.
28:39 Thought has invented your God and my God, my Christianity and your Hinduism. You are a Hindu, I am a Muslim.
28:55 It is the result of propaganda, of tradition, of thought wanting security in the family, in the community, in a group – says, I am an Indian, I am a Muslim, I am this.
29:16 Therefore, thought has divided you and me into certain categories of nationalities, beliefs, etc.
29:30 Q: It doesn't seem to be enough to simply see the external fact of that.
29:37 That is the external fact.

K: Yes, those are external facts. External facts which thought has produced.

Q: Yes.
29:48 K: So thought then says what: there is the inner world.
29:55 There is the outer and the inner.
30:00 Q: Yes, but Shankar raised the question, because we can see, very readily, that thought produces this division, but it may still be going on in our brains.
30:19 K: Of course, it will go on in your brain, if you don't drop it. If the thought says, how absurd this is. And says, all right, I won't be a Hindu or a Muslim, Jew or a Christian, Arab and so on.
30:36 Q: But it can go on in more subtle ways.
30:38 K: No, that is a different matter. Of course, it can go on differently.
30:49 It can go on inwardly, more subtly, by having ideals, being attached to a particular form of experience and not moving away from that experience.
31:10 That experience gives one a great sense of security.
31:17 Thought is working all the time, isn't it?
31:25 It may not express itself outwardly, but it is going on – jealousy, anxiety, fear, and all the rest of it is going on.
31:45 Now, let us for the moment keep to the point, which is, can thought, even outwardly, bring about this harmony?
32:03 If it cannot, what will?
32:36 Who will answer this question?
32:51 Probably nobody has put this question, nobody has written books about it.
33:01 Even if they have, it is still the operation of thought, the function, thought, writing. So, what is your answer to that?
33:40 Wouldn't you answer that question or find – not an answer...
33:52 All right, let me put it differently. How do you approach this question?
34:01 Q: Sir, this question, perhaps, can only be approached by...
34:09 There are thoughts going through my mind, constantly.
34:16 And perhaps the question can be approached only by quietening that.

K: No.
34:28 K: So, here is a question. Thought cannot produce that. How do you approach the question? How do you say, now, what next?
34:41 How do you come to it? You understand my question? Do you? Look, we have spent several hours over this, when you come to the final point, how do you receive it?
35:11 How do you approach it?
35:19 Because your approach may dictate the answer, your approach may reveal the answer.
35:34 Not somebody will answer you, but after enquiry, after exploration, you are approaching it, aren't you, with quite a different quality of mind – are you?
36:08 All right, may I explain a little more?
36:19 I said, I see clearly that being committed to a particular thing, a particular career, committed to a family, a child, to this or that, does bring about disharmony.
36:41 I see that very clearly. And I say, am I committed to a particular thing?
36:55 Right? To becoming an artist, an engineer, to this or that. And I see if I am committed that way I must live in disharmony, therefore I must live in conflict, anxiety, fear, sorrow – all that follows, inevitably.
37:24 Though I pretend it will not, but it will produce unfortunate reactions.
37:34 I see that very clearly. And I also see very clearly there must be no attachment of any kind to an experience, to a person, and so on.
37:52 I see that very clearly. And am I attached, do I hold on to a particular experience, thinking it is most marvellously spiritual?
38:15 So, there must be freedom from all those, otherwise, I am caught in a particular direction, therefore, that will breed disharmony.
38:30 So, there must be freedom from it. Then, I realise thought is, under all circumstances, limited.
38:44 I am very clear on that point. Nobody – no logic, no guru, no saint, no god, nothing will alter that.
38:57 Right?
39:04 So, what is harmony? I said, complete, total relationship with the mind, that is harmony, and thought cannot bring it about. Now, how do I come to that point?
39:25 What has been my approach to that point? You understand what I am saying? Do I want to find an answer? Do I want to find a way out of my disharmony, something that will bring about this harmony?
39:53 So, I must be very clear how I am approaching this question.
40:00 Have you got what I am talking about?
40:10 Now, how do you approach it?
40:17 Do you want to live a harmonious life?
40:28 If you do, it is still the operation of thought, because that way thought says, by jove, that is a rewarding thing, it will be marvellous, it will be beautiful, it will be this and that.
40:52 So, how do you approach it? You can only approach it when thought has understood its limitation and doesn't move out of that limitation.
41:20 Thought cannot produce this harmony.
41:28 And thought has built the 'me', the ego, the personality, and that centre says, I must have that harmony.
41:47 It is a most marvellous way of living, therefore I must get it.
42:03 So, am I committed to anything?
42:13 Committed to a particular action, the family, the child, the mother, the father, the career, and so on.
42:24 If I am, then I live and I cultivate disharmony, which is going to produce ugly things in my life.
42:41 If I give emphasis to sex, as most young people do, and most people in the world do, even the older generation, then they live, obviously, in great misery.
43:14 So, what is one to do? You understand my question, now?
43:21 So, can thought do anything about it? Can 'I', which is the result of thought, do anything about that?
43:37 Can I practice harmony?
43:44 You say, ah yes, I will have a good mind, I will love people, I will have a good body – that is probably possible, eat properly, no smoking, no alcohol, no drugs, etc. – but the other factors, thought cannot bring it about.
44:13 So, having that very clear, then what takes place?
44:41 The movement of thought will not answer this question.
44:49 Therefore, thought ceases to project itself into the approach.
45:02 I wonder if I am making myself clear. Am I? Then what is the approach?
45:21 If thought is not creating the wave, then what is taking place, which is, the approach?
45:38 I don't know if I am making myself clear. Am I? Am I? Yes?
45:57 Let's put the question differently: can thought stop?
46:13 Not thought saying to itself, I must stop. You understand the point?
46:26 Then that is the exercise of thought suppressing thought, but thought still remains.
46:34 Is that clear? So can thought realise itself and stop?
46:59 You know, we are entering into something very complex: this is real meditation – but I won't go into all that unless you want me to.
47:07 This is the essence of meditation, for thought to realise for itself that it is limited and therefore it has no movement other than what is involved in that little corner.
47:40 Therefore, one asks – not one asks – can thought stop itself?
47:48 Therefore, can time come to an end? Not science fiction time, but in our life, in daily life, can time come to an end?
48:06 Not think about what you will be or what you must be in the future, or what you have been in the past, but all that movement come to an end, stop.
48:20 Which is time. I wonder if you get all this.
48:28 You say, what the dickens has all this to do with our daily life?
48:37 Mary Zimbalist: You have said that thought is always partial, and I think we have seen that.
48:44 Now, this particular realisation on the part of thought that it cannot do anything, that it stops, is this, perhaps, also partial because it is the action of thought and therefore we get into trouble with this?
49:13 K: It may become a little too abstract or too subtle or whatever it is.
49:32 Do you know what insight is?
49:40 Wait a minute. You have said thought is limited – right?
49:48 How did you come to that? By reason?
49:55 By logic? By explanation? By example?
50:04 Or – just listen, find out – or you had an insight into it.
50:11 You saw the truth of it instantly. That insight is unrelated to memory. Therefore it is not the product of thought.
50:27 MZ: What is its relation to logic? What is the relationship of insight to logic?
50:34 K: Nothing. It has no relationship to logic, to reason, to memory.
50:42 MZ: But we have come to this realisation about thought perhaps very largely, through logic.
50:49 We have used logic to come to this realisation.
50:53 K: No, we have used logic to point out, to explain, but that logic, reason, cannot bring about insight.
51:11 That is why I asked you if you see the truth of it.
51:20 To see something – wait a minute, let's take an example – to have an insight into the whole structure of religion, as it now exists, as it has existed, to have a quick insight into it.
51:51 From that insight you can use logic, reason, and point out, clearly.
51:58 But the other way, it won't work. I wonder if I am making myself clear. Now, wait a minute. If you belong to an institution – what is implied in belonging to an institution?
52:25 What is an institution?
52:33 Based on authority, rules, routine – all that.
52:42 To be free, not to belong to an institution, you can reason against it or for it, but to see the inward structure and nature of institutions, to have an insight into that, you are free of institutions, though you may function.
53:08 But the belonging to something, whether it is the institution of Catholicism or Protestantism or communism – it is finished. To have an insight into it is to observe without...
53:37 – I don't want to go into all this – observe without the observer.
53:44 It becomes too complex.
53:46 MZ: How does that differ from the observation of something ordinary? That red car out there will only go so fast. I can realise its limitation just through the ordinary accumulation of knowledge and process of thought, but how, when you are talking about insight, is this realisation of the limitations of abstract things...
54:16 K: Madame, excuse me – I didn't want to go into this because it is too difficult.

MZ: But we are already in it.
54:22 K: I brought it in, unfortunately. I shouldn't have. Does the word 'insight' help you to see this?
54:37 Though we have used reason, logic, example, pointed out this and that, do you suddenly see, in spite of the reason and logic, see the truth of it?
54:53 The quick perception of it is to have an insight into it.
55:09 And if you have insight into it, you can never go wrong.
55:16 It is – what it is.
55:23 Say for instance, if you have an insight into anger – I am taking a silly example – to have an insight into it, from that insight you can be extraordinarily logical.
55:43 You can be logical, but you may not have insight into it.
55:52 Q: Sir, even if there is no direct connection between thought and insight, when one gives attention to a problem because that problem is important to that person, you said that when one gives too much attention to family or job, that is disharmony.
56:11 K: No, not too much attention – I didn't say that.
56:15 Q: You are right, you didn't say that. When one is out of harmony, if that becomes very important...
56:25 K: No, perhaps you weren't here the other day. When one makes the family the most important thing, gives priority to it, or to the child, to the husband, to the wife, to a job, that does bring disharmony. That is all.
56:50 Q: But suppose that there is importance in one's life to getting to the bottom of thought.
57:02 K: No, are you – not you, I am not asking you, personally – are you giving importance, priority, to one thing over all the others?
57:19 It may be sex, it may be a husband, it may be a wife, it may be a child, it may be a career, so on.
57:32 And if one does, why does one do it? This is what the world has done. Every human being, more or less, does it, because he says, I can't give priority to everything.
57:57 Q: Sir, we went into it the other day, and we saw that it was thought's or the mind's way of playing a trick on itself, making itself the most important thing by giving importance to something else.
58:16 K: Yes, we went into it. So where are we at the end of it? Have you an insight – I am using the word 'insight' rather carefully and hesitantly – into the nature of harmony?
58:59 Have you? That if I am attached to my husband, wife, girl, child, that I will have no insight into the nature of harmony – obviously – will I?
59:31 If I am attached to my career as a politician – God forbid – can I have harmony? You follow? It is impossible.
59:48 So, will I abandon my career as a politician?
1:00:00 If I can't, then I won't talk about harmony, it is meaningless.
1:00:07 I may talk about it intellectually, play with it – that is silly.
1:00:16 So, can I drop my becoming a politician?
1:00:27 That will give me position, that will give me power, that will give me money and so on.
1:00:38 But if I saw the nature of harmony, saw clearly, have an insight into the beauty of it, this thing has no meaning – it is gone.
1:00:55 I am no longer a politician.
1:01:00 Q: I am still approaching the harmony and insight both through thought, as I have no other instrument to try and understand.
1:01:09 The issue of harmony and insight, both of these I am trying to understand through thought.
1:01:16 K: No, not through thought. Sorry.
1:01:23 Q: Is there a difference between the nature of harmony and the harmony of nature?

K: Between?
1:01:29 Q: The nature of harmony and the harmony of nature.
1:01:35 K: No! It is the same thing, isn't it?
1:01:56 Does one realise the contradiction between what you think, what you feel, do you realise actually, not theoretically, the interaction or the lack of interaction between the three – mind, body, heart. I have used the word 'heart' to convey a great deal, which we have gone into.
1:02:32 Does one see a harmonious interrelationship between the three?
1:02:46 Or there is no relationship between the three. One is operating much more than the other. Intellect may be highly developed, or romantically feeling sentimental and emotional and becoming rather gooey.
1:03:13 Or giving emphasis to the soma, the body, which says, I must have tasty food, drink, smoke, sex – sensation.
1:03:36 Do we realise this?
1:03:56 Then, if we realise that there is a break between the three, then thought says, I must relate it, I must bring about an interrelationship, interaction, which will be even, which will flow smoothly.
1:04:23 Therefore it says, I must control my body, I mustn't eat more than I should, I must restrict my emotions – it is still the movement of thought.
1:04:36 I wonder if you get this.
1:04:43 Now, wait a minute. How do you see this? Is it an idea?
1:04:55 A description which you are accepting?
1:05:07 The words with their meaning, you say, yes, that is perfectly right, it is true, and from there you move to an idea.
1:05:18 Or do you see it actually in your life?
1:05:29 Q: Sir, do you mean that tomorrow when I come upon this again, I don't think about the words that we said about it today and face it, as it is, in my life?

K: Shankar, look at it, please.
1:05:43 Give a minute's thought. I am not being personal with you.
1:05:51 Do you realise that there is a contradiction between the three?
1:05:59 Do you? If you realise – and what do you mean by that word realise?
1:06:16 Is it an actual fact or is it an idea that there is a division?
1:06:28 Q: No, it is happening to me now.
1:06:36 I am sitting here and I am trying to listen to you, at the same time something tells me it is lunchtime and I am hungry and I want to go and eat.
1:06:45 K: Yes, give another five minutes more before we get really hungry!
1:06:54 But I am asking you, Shankar, a simple question, which is, how do you listen to this statement, to my question, which is, do you find in yourself a break between the intellect, the heart and so on?
1:07:15 Is there a gap between them, and so contradiction? Now, wait a minute. How do you see that? How are you aware of that fact that there is a division, a break?
1:07:34 Is that an idea, or you say, yes, there is a break?
1:07:48 Because we live so much in ideas, and then try to put that idea into action.
1:08:03 So, we have moved away from the fact.
1:08:10 Right? Is it time to stop? Is your hunger dominating, predominant?
1:08:30 Right, we had better stop, don't you think? Yes? Right, we must stop.