Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR78DSS1.3 - What is the essence of relationship?
Brockwood Park, UK - 21 May 1978
Discussion with Staff and Students 1.3



0:19 Krishnamurti: What shall we talk about this morning? Questioner: I would like to bring up the question of sorrow.
0:30 K: The question of sorrow.

Q: Yes.
0:35 Q: Sir, I would like to ask, we have talked together many times and very often there is an intellectual understanding of what you are saying, but a real, much deeper understanding than that doesn't come through very often.
1:00 I wonder if you could also you bring that in. If you could talk about real understanding and the energy for that to happen?
1:11 K: We understand intellectually, but nothing happens deeply – is that it?
1:19 There is no radical change. Is that it, sir?
1:24 Q: Yes.
1:27 K: Anything else?
1:29 Q: Can we talk about what makes someone care or not care?
1:39 K: Care.

Q: Yes.
1:44 K: Also, the other day we raised the question, I think you did but we have never gone into it – relationship and sex, what is the difference between the two?
2:11 Shall we talk about that, or about the understanding intellectually but never deeply going into it, fundamentally.
2:22 And what does it mean to care for people, for things, for the whole of nature and so on. Right?
2:39 Q: Could we perhaps start with one of them and then proceed on?
2:48 K: Yes. What shall we choose?
2:54 Q: I think we could start with understanding. The intellectual understanding.

K: Yes, intellectual understanding and not going into it much more deeply than that.
3:17 I wonder what we mean by intellectual understanding.
3:26 We really mean, don't we, that we understand the meaning of words, their interrelationship – either it is logical or illogical, reasonable or insane or sane, intellectual concept of a thing. Is that it?
3:57 Hearing a statement, understanding that statement intellectually, verbally, and drawing a conclusion from that understanding, from that intellectual grasp, and forming an abstraction of it into an idea.
4:22 Would you say that is what we mean by intellectual understanding?
4:28 Q: Sir, could we put it a little more simply and say that when we see – I am using the word 'see' rather loosely – when we see that some action that we are performing is futile or silly, that seeing does not seem to stop us from repeating that action, knowing that it is not a sensible thing to do, either from previous experience or from talking it over with somebody.
5:12 K: And yet you keep on doing it.

Q: You keep on doing it.
5:15 Q: So there must be some other quality of seeing.
5:18 K: That is what we are trying to get at, isn't it? Is there another quality of seeing – that is what you are asking – which brings about an immediate action, not based on some conclusion, on some belief or some ideal, but that action, would it be intellectual?
5:55 That is right, sir? Let's first understand what we mean by intellectually understanding. What does it mean to you?
6:12 One knows that one shouldn't smoke – it is harmful, bad for your health, dangerous, cancer of the lung and so on, but one has become so accustomed to smoking, nicotine, and it is very difficult to stop it.
6:39 Intellectually, you understand it, that you should stop it but the whole craving, desire, the habit is so strong that you carry on, in spite of your intellectual understanding that you shouldn't.
7:02 Is that what you mean, sir, by intellectually understanding something?
7:09 We must be clear on that point, not come back to it again.
7:18 Intellectually, one understands the ugliness of anger, violence, and all the logic of it, the reason for it, the sanity for it, and yet this tremendous feeling of anger, hatred, violence, surges up, bursts up.
7:51 So, what is the relationship of the intellect – if we understand what we mean by the intellect – between the intellect and this enormous feeling of anger, violence?
8:10 Is there any relationship between the conclusion of the intellect, saying, I should not be angry, but that conclusion has no value whatsoever because the anger still comes.
8:33 So what is the relationship of intellect to the thing that we call anger?
8:46 Is that the right way to proceed? I don't know, please.
8:57 One feels violent, emotionally. Anger, one hates somebody. But, intellectually, we see the insanity of hating somebody.
9:19 But yet this goes on. So we say, I understand it intellectually that one should not be violent, but one is violent.
9:34 Can that word understand be applied to this state of contradiction?
9:54 Why do we say that intellectually I understand?
10:01 Why do we say that even? Does that give us a certain comfort, a certain sense of, yes, I am following what you are saying, a sense of verbal communication without much depth to it?
10:28 Q: Also, there seems to be a certain difference – if I use the word 'intellectual' and say, I have understood this intellectually, the next time I do get angry I tell myself, hey, this is silly.
10:42 But I still get angry.
10:44 K: But Shankar, I am asking you, why do we ever say, I understand intellectually? What is the necessity of saying such a thing? Why do we say it? Doesn't that create a division?
11:08 Intellectually understanding, the actual fact, which contradicts that understanding. Why do we say that thing at all? Wouldn't it be much simpler to say, one remains only with the fact that I am violent'?
11:27 Not, intellectually I understand why I should not be violent.
11:35 Doesn't that create a duality, a division, the opposites?
11:44 You understand?
11:48 Q: And then you try and conform to the intellectual picture.
11:53 K: Yes. Why have we always said, I grasp something intellectually?
12:02 Q: Many times when I use the word 'intellectually, I tend to remove from it feelings, the feeling aspect.
12:11 I tend to remove from it the aspect of emotions. What I am asking is, when we are using the word 'intellect' are we just using it as though we were doing a maths problem?
12:24 For instance, suppose you read something in the newspaper, about some war or some horrible thing that happened, I sometimes feel emotionally affected by that, too – is that also just intellectual understanding?
12:38 Do we use intellect to mean the emotions and the feelings, also?
12:42 K: I am asking, madame, why we say, intellectually, I understand. That is my question first. What is the need for such a statement?
12:54 Q: Is it perhaps that I am trying to excuse myself for not understanding?
13:00 K: Is that a form of polite agreement?
13:06 Q: No, there is a logical connection.
13:10 K: Yes, but why do we say, I understand, intellectually?
13:16 Q: Sir, many people say they understand, just understand, and if you examine it, it is only an intellectual understanding.
13:24 They think they have really understood, all the way.
13:34 Q: It seems that we have ideas about what we should do with the anger.
13:39 K: So, you set a standard. Intellectually, you set a standard and try to conform to that standard – is that it?
13:49 Q: We think that we will overcome our problems by having an intellectual understanding and trying to conform.
13:58 K: I rather shrink from that, saying, I understand, intellectually – it sounds such nonsense. Personally. I may be wrong.
14:06 For me, I never say I understand something intellectually.
14:10 Q: It is quite clear it is nonsense because nothing happens.
14:16 K: Nothing happens, that is why it is polite conversation. It has no meaning. Whereas, if we say, look, the fact is I am violent. That is a fact. Why don't we start from that?
14:46 Does this block us from further conversation?
14:52 Q: I think this is connected with another question which has been brought up a lot lately, to what extent is there value in verbal communication, in discussion, because so often it seems to lead only to what we call...
15:14 K: Are you asking what is the value of a discussion, of a dialogue?
15:19 Q: Yes, to what extent?

K: Yes, what is the value, to what extent has dialogue any significance.
15:27 Q: I think it is connected with what you were saying.
15:30 K: Hasn't it a meaning, if I have a problem and you are a friend of mine, and I come to you and talk it over with you?
15:40 It might, in talking over my problem with you, the problem becomes very clear.
15:50 And from that clarity, there is action. And dialogue is meant for that kind of thing.
16:01 I would like to have a dialogue with you about relationship and sex. I don't understand it, what is the relationship? Must you have sex and then have a relationship, or is there a relationship and then sex, or has relationship nothing to do with sex?
16:27 So, I would like to talk this thing over with you.
16:34 That is the meaning of a dialogue, the meaning of a good, friendly, communicable discussion.
16:43 Q: Sir, but a lot of people who are here now, have felt that we have had a lot of discussions, dialogues, both with you and without you, with Dr Bohm, etc., and there has been no action.
16:59 K: No action? Then what is one to do?
17:08 For myself, I don't want to discuss with somebody who is not serious.
17:17 I don't want to have a dialogue about my personal problem, or problems of the universe or the world, with somebody who says, look, I am really not deeply interested in what you are talking about – for God's sake, shut up.
17:31 That is very simple. But as we are rather serious – at least I hope we are serious – then I would like to have a dialogue with you about relationship and sex.
17:49 What is wrong with it? I would like to expose what I think, what seems to me to be true or false, and I would like you to criticise it, I would like you to examine it, I would like to explore together into this very complex problem.
18:14 Q: But usually after discussions, we end up having more ideas about it.
18:19 K: No. I have no ideas, it is a problem to me.
18:23 Q: No, but I am saying in my discussions with other people we end up making more concepts about what we should be doing.
18:30 K: Because we don't remain with the fact, we wander off, make an abstraction of the fact.
18:39 We don't say, what is relationship, I want to find out.
18:46 Must it be always connected with sex? Or, if it is not, then what is the meaning of relationship?
18:59 Not only between two people, but with nature, with humanity, with the world, with the universe, with all the extraordinary things that happen in the world.
19:09 What is my relationship to all that?
19:17 What is my relationship to somebody who is tremendously in sorrow?
19:25 Somebody who is dying, somebody who is ill, somebody who is anxious, in great sorrow – what is my relationship to him?
19:38 Or is it just sympathy, affectionately saying, I am awfully sorry, old boy, you are going through a beastly time, I hope you will be better, I will send you some flowers, and I want to step out of the room as quickly as possible.
20:00 So, it is very important, it seems to me, to find out. And I want to discuss with you.
20:12 K: No, this is a problem.

Q: I mean that.
20:17 Q: At the moment, I think there are two discussions – some people want to discuss discussion...
20:25 K: Somebody wants to discuss discussion. All right. Do you?
20:28 Q: I think we have done that. Can we get on with discussing relationship and sex?
20:38 K: Do you want to discuss this, go into it? Not with my girlfriend or boyfriend, with my wife or husband, that is also important, but I want to understand relationship in a much wider, deeper sense – my relationship to people who suffer, starve, who are uneducated, who are ignorant, who are brutal, who are violent, what is my relationship with them? Have I any?
21:21 Or do I limit my relationship to my girl or to my boy, or to my husband or wife, or to my children?
21:31 And I really don't care what is happening, whether people are killing whales or baby seals or destroying each other.
21:49 So, shall we talk about it? Talk about it, not intellectually but try to find out what actually is my relationship with another – is it so small, limited? Right?
22:17 Or have I any relationship to the world at large, which includes nationalism, race, all the things that are going on?
22:33 Go on, sir.
22:35 Q: Sir, can we start by saying what we mean when we say relationship?
22:41 K: Yes, what do you mean by relationship? Come on, what do you mean by relationship? You are related, your parents, so on – what do you mean by that word?
23:06 Q: That there is some contact.

K: Go on, sir. To be in contact. Are you in contact with anybody? Not only physically – holding hands, sex and all that – but contact with somebody, actually?
23:27 With your father, with your mother, with your girlfriend, are you in contact?
23:37 I want to use the words contact with yourself – that sounds rather silly, but it is involved in that.
23:45 Which means, do you know yourself?
23:52 I can only be in contact with somebody, when I know somebody.
24:02 Would you agree to that? I have met you, I have talked to you, I have listened to what you have to say, we have walked together, looked at the stars, the birds together, and I say, yes, I know you more or less.
24:22 Then, in that knowing or in that knowledge, I have a certain kind of relationship with you.
24:39 And that knowledge is based on memory. That knowledge is the cultivation of memory, of walking together, seeing each other or sleeping with each other, or enjoying, crying together or laughing together, going to a cinema, reading the same book, appreciating the same picture, listening to the same symphony and so on.
25:04 That is based on knowledge. Right? So, my knowledge tells me I have some kind of relationship with you.
25:21 Right? I am talking – won't you join me in this game?
25:32 I don't actually know you but I have knowledge of you, very limited.
25:45 That limited knowledge, does it bring about a relationship?
25:59 Can relationship be based on knowledge?
26:07 You are following? Not intellectually. I want to find out, I will shed my tears, blood, to find out what it means to be related.
26:20 I don't just sit down and have a friendly talk over a drink – that means nothing.
26:29 But I want to find out, it is a tremendous thing to find out. I will give my blood, my life to find out.
26:41 Then I am serious, and if you are equally serious then there is a marvellous dialogue between us two.
26:51 But if you say, sorry, it's alright, let's talk about it intellectually, then it has no meaning.
27:04 Q: I am not sure if everyone really feels that their relationship deals so much with thought – that we are really aware of that word.
27:17 K: We will go into that presently. First see what we do. Are we serious enough to find out for ourselves what relationship means?
27:32 I want to find out, explore it with you, because to me it is a burning problem.
27:48 So, is my relationship with another based on knowledge?
28:01 Q: When you have a relationship with something, is there a certain amount of care involved?
28:07 K: I haven't gone into it, I haven't gone into care, etc., yet. I want to know what the word relationship means.
28:21 I see I have a certain kind of relationship with you, because we have walked together, we have seen each other, not only here but in India, in Rishi Valley, and so on.
28:35 We have been to the cinema together, etc. That is, I have accumulated knowledge about you, that you like the same thing, you probably have the same kind of taste, same kind of book, and so on.
28:56 That is a certain type of relationship.
29:06 And is relationship based on knowledge? That is my question. Or is it something much more?
29:19 I really don't know you, but I have knowledge of you.
29:29 See the difference? I don't know you but we have knowledge about each other because we have gone to the cinema and so on.
29:42 So where does deep relationship begin?
29:51 You understand my question? Am I making it clear? No, please don't agree, we are exploring together.
30:05 I am attracted to you. You look nice, clean skin, nice hair, etc.
30:15 – I am attracted to you, and that attraction is based on sensation.
30:22 And because of that sensation, I begin to translate that sensation into a form of affection, into a form of love. At the end of a month or two, or a year, I say, I love you.
30:41 So I say to myself, relationship based on sensation, can that be called love?
30:53 You understand? So I want to find out. Not find out intellectually, that has no meaning to me, that is a silly game for superficial people, who remain in their armchair and want to discuss about relationship.
31:22 Right? So I say to myself – I am talking with you as a friend – it is a problem to me, because I want to find out.
31:43 I want to find out because there may be a different way of living, not the eternal routine of relationship, sex and no sex, then get bored with the woman or go off to divorce – all the rest of the nonsense begins.
31:58 So, I want to find out. Not find out intellectually, I want to find out in action, in living.
32:20 Is my relationship with another based on sensation, sexual or otherwise?
32:32 I like her, or him. I am attracted, it gives me a certain sense of well-being.
32:56 If my relationship is based on sensation, then that sensation begins to wither.
33:07 I get used to you. I have slept with you a hundred times. That is a sensation, gradually I say for goodness sake, I'm bored.
33:23 So, I am asking you and myself, in dialogue with each other, is relationship based on sensation?
33:35 Apparently, it is.
33:43 Come on, sirs, what do you say?
33:51 Sensation being experience. That is what we want, we want more experience, which is more sensation, but we use that lovely word experience.
34:13 So, is relationship based on knowledge?
34:23 Is relationship based on knowing each other? And can I know you? You understand? Can I know you at all, ever?
34:44 Because you are a living thing, you are changing, you are moving, one day you are saying this, one day that – constant movement.
34:55 I can't know the living waters, which are flowing.
35:02 I can only know something that is static, that is dead. Then I say, yes, I know my wife, because it is based on something, a remembrance, which is dead.
35:21 So I am discovering for myself, in action, because I am living with a person or with people, I want to find out what that relationship is.
35:38 And if it is based on sensation – apparently, most people live that way in their relationship – then it becomes sensuous, and when those sensory reactions are fulfilled, then I have nothing left.
36:12 Then we sit in opposite chairs and look at the TV.
36:28 Q: It seems that a real relationship has something eternal about it.
36:36 K: We are going to find out. Don't ever state it. Then I transfer – I understand intellectually. I don't want to state it – we will discover it.
36:53 Q: Are you asking whether we can have a relationship which is not based on memory?
37:00 K: I am not asking you, we are going to find out. If my relationship with you is based on memory, it is a dead relationship.
37:14 Because memory is the past, something which I have accumulated.
37:23 Q: But if I have never seen you before, I don't have any relationship with you.

K: Do you?
37:28 K: As you walk down the street, lots people you have never seen, do you have any relationship with them?

Q: I don't think so.
37:33 K: Therefore, that is it.
37:34 Q: So, if I don't have any memory of any relationship with you, how can you say that there is still a relationship?
37:45 K: You have a sister, you have a brother, you know each other.
37:52 You know each other because you live in the same house and play together, etc., and your mother tells you he is your brother, and you are the older boy, so on.
38:06 That is based on memory, isn't it?
38:13 You have played together, teased each other, quarrelled with each other, hit each other.
38:28 So that has been accumulated. The remembrance of all that is memory. No? So, when you say, he is my brother or sister, that is based on past memories.
38:45 There is nothing complicated about it.
38:52 Q: Krishnaji, such a relationship obviously includes memory, but it may not necessarily be based on memory.
39:01 It may not be limited or based upon memory.
39:06 K: I don't know, I am asking. When relationship is based on memory, memory being sensation, accumulation of insults, hurts and all the rest of it, which is in the past, in that relationship, there is always the past impinging on the present – whatever the present is.
39:40 So, my relationship with you is based on the past. And the past is a very small affair. No? What do you say?
39:58 Q: Sir, why do I stick to it?

K: Just see it. First, see it.
40:07 Don't say, why do I stick to it – first see the obvious fact.
40:21 Not my fact or your fact, but the fact that in investigating, in exploring, we have come together to see.
40:32 Therefore, it is not yours or mine, it is that.
40:42 If I don't see it, tell me I don't, explain to me that I don't see it. Help me to see it. Not your fact – fact is neither yours nor mine, it is a fact.
41:04 Q: What is our relationship if we are attached to someone?
41:12 If I am attached to somebody, what is our relationship?
41:16 K: What is your relationship if you are attached to somebody? Go on, explore it. One is attached to a person. Why? Why are you attached?
41:34 Q: Are we making a differentiation between a relationship that is based on memory but is not one where there is attachment?
41:42 K: No, don't say that. Isn't attachment also based on memory?
41:55 You have satisfied me, sexually or given me something.
42:02 You have comforted me, you have fed me with apples, comforted me with apples – out of the Bible – and I remember that, that you have been so nice to me, you have helped me, you have comforted me.
42:29 That gives me great satisfaction, and I am attached to you.
42:38 I don't want to lose you, because you have given me something.
42:47 I am attached to you. Now, in that attachment, is there relationship?
43:02 Go on, sir.
43:04 Q: But apparently, that is what we call relationship.
43:08 K: I know what we call it. That is what everybody says, I am attached to you because you have given me so much and I don't want to lose you.
43:32 And that attachment is called relationship. Now, I question it. If I am not attached, would I be responsible without guilt, towards her or him?
44:00 The word responsibility entails, has in it the sense of guilt.
44:07 Right? If I feel I am not responsible – you have made me responsible, I can't completely fulfil it, therefore I feel guilty.
44:22 Therefore, I am using the word 'responsible' without awakening that ugly feeling of guilt.
44:34 Q: Is that possible, sir?
44:37 K: Why not? I am responsible. I am responsible for Brockwood. I will do everything I can.
44:52 Why should I have guilt about it if it doesn't come out right? Why should I feel guilty?
45:04 Q: In such a situation, aren't you just holding the guilt in abeyance?
45:17 Q: Shankar, I think most of us can use that word 'responsibility' without bringing up feelings of guilt. We can do that.
45:32 I mean, I think so anyway.
45:38 K: Sir, you understand how complex this question is?
45:45 So, what is the root or the essence of relationship?
45:52 If I can find that, then everything has its right place.
46:01 You understand what I am saying? Am I explaining myself? That is, I want to find out what is the true nature of relationship.
46:17 I know society, everybody says relationship is this.
46:25 What the world, you, or what everybody says relationship is. I don't easily accept it. I say, I don't know, that may not be it. It may be something most extraordinary, not this stupid thing of attachment, quarrels and jealousies and hatreds and divorces – all that is involved.
46:51 I want to find out what is the real beauty of relationship?
47:04 Not duty, but beauty.
47:13 When two people, a man and a woman quarrel, is that the beauty of relationship?
47:24 Don't intellectually say, no, but if you are a girl or a boy and attached, find out.
47:43 If you quarrel, there is no relationship. The beauty of that extraordinary thing is gone. You can't recapture it and say, let's start it all over again.
48:05 A thing that is broken cannot be repaired. When it is repaired, it is not the thing it was before it was broken.
48:17 I wonder if you capture all this.
48:24 In examining all this, in examining my relationship with regard to nature, the beauty of nature, my relationship to it, and also, relationship between people who suffer, who are ignorant, who are starving, who are brutal, violent, ugly – have I no relationship with a man who is ignorant?
49:01 Not about books, I don't mean being ignorant, not knowing Latin or Greek or modern explanation of science and life, I am using the word 'ignorance' in a much deeper, wider sense.
49:28 So, taking all that, all the complexity of it, I want to find out the deep abiding, lasting essence of relationship.
49:59 Q: Is the essence of relationship to nature the same as the essence of a relationship of one person to another?

K: Maybe.
50:09 K: If I have no relationship with all this marvellous beauty, what relationship can I have with another, which is not based on beauty?
50:25 Not beauty of form, beauty of face and proportion – Greek, etc.
50:34 Sorry to interrupt.
50:36 Q: Aren't we then saying that relationship can be based on the actions or the perceptions of just one person?
50:45 In other words, it doesn't have to be reciprocal.
50:46 K: No, Mr Scott, I want to look at it differently. I see I am related to one person. Good enough. I start with that.
50:58 And I start with that because that is the nearest thing. I ask there, is my relationship with you based on sensation?
51:12 Q: No, we have said relationship based on sensation or knowledge or experience, is out. K. I must be clear, I must cut it.
51:20 Q: Right, that is out.

K: I must be surgical about it, not just say, I agree with you.
51:30 If it is cancerous, I must operate on it.
51:39 So, I see that. Right? From that, I move, and I say, what is the essence of relationship?
51:57 Q: It seems to be something to do with perception, something to do with the immediate, the present.
52:06 With the present, with perception.

K: What is the present?
52:15 Can I know the present, can I be aware of the present? What do you mean, the present?
52:26 Q: With what is actually occurring, right now.
52:30 K: No, Scott, go into it, find out. What is the present? Is the present a movement of the past, going through the present, modifying itself, and future?
52:47 Is that the present? Or is the present a non-movement of the past?
53:00 And therefore the present is the ending of time. I am sorry, we will discuss it.
53:08 Q: Thinking about the present, or any ideas of the present...
53:12 K: We are here, we are sitting here together, at present.
53:18 Q: But any ideas...
53:21 K: That is merely gathering together for a meeting, talking together. But when we use the word 'present', with its depth, with the enormity of that word present – like the word action. Action is always now.
53:50 Not I have acted or will act – that has no meaning. When you say, I have not been good, but I will be good, that has no meaning. I am good.
54:10 Sorry. I am not deviating, I hope. So, I am asking, what is the essence of relationship?
54:25 Q: Could it be the relationship itself?
54:28 K: What does that mean? Go on, sir, it may be right. I am not doubting, I am only questioning it. I am not saying you are right or wrong, I am saying, what do you mean by that?
54:41 I think I understand what you mean but I want to be clear what you mean.
54:45 Q: The relationship itself is such a relationship that it takes care of everything.
54:55 K: Yes, but what do you mean by that?
54:58 Q: I mean it isn't limited.
55:01 K: No, are you speculating about it?
55:08 Are you imagining or are you saying, it is limited now, it must not be limited, therefore, it is something extraordinary, unlimited.
55:27 I am not trying to block you, I am not trying to stop you, but I am asking you what you mean by that.
55:42 Is this what you mean? When you use the word relationship, there is always a duality inherent in that word. I am related to you – you and I.
56:03 That division we call relationship, generally. But are you trying to say that relationship inherently means no you or I?
56:18 Q: A certain oneness.

K: No, don't!
56:20 K: Don't use words unless you understand. First, begin to see this clearly. Generally, when we use the word relationship, duality is implied – you and I.
56:38 She and I, we and they.
56:51 When we use that word relationship, that is implied. But are you trying to say that the word itself has this dualistic meaning which it may not have – relationship may mean non-duality.
57:22 Are you getting it? I am trying to interpret or grasp, inwardly, the meaning of that word.
57:39 Q: Krishnaji, could it in one way mean getting close? And when you get so close...

K: No, not close.
57:52 K: I can't get closer to you. Perhaps if you are a woman or a man, in sex, I can get very close to you.
58:05 But I am trying to get at the word itself. The word itself generally implies we and they, I and you.
58:23 And in using that word, this division takes place.
58:30 I want to go beyond the accepted meaning of that word.
58:40 In that word, there may inherently be a non-dualistic state.
58:58 Am I meeting somebody?
59:07 You used the word 'care' earlier. You used the word, didn't you? You used the word care. You care for the plant, you water it, you look after it, put it out, etc. – you care for it. You care for your dog.
59:28 If you have a dog, you brush it, comb it, take it out for a walk, feed it, etc. You care for your wife, for your girl. Now, what is the meaning of care, in that sense?
59:49 I care for the dog, I care for my wife.
59:57 Would that be an insult, using I care for my dog, I care for my wife?
1:00:06 You understand what I am saying? Putting it in juxtaposition, so close together, may be an insult. I won't put it so close together. So, I say, I care for my wife. What do you mean by that word?
1:00:31 Go on, sirs. I care for my baby, I have a new baby – I mean, all babies are new – I care for my baby. What does that mean?
1:00:52 Q: I look after it, I feed it.
1:00:54 K: Yes, all that. Go further. Deeply, go on, move. You are responsible for it. Does that responsibility cease after a certain age?
1:01:17 Don't say, no. It does. In the modern world, the responsibility comes to an end at a certain age.
1:01:28 You say, please go out of the house, marry, lead your own life.
1:01:36 Come occasionally for a weekend but don't bring your children, they are a damn bore.
1:01:44 I want to be quiet. Bring you and your wife and send the children to your aunt.
1:01:53 So, what does it all mean?
1:01:56 Q: We could discuss care in the way that we discuss relationships, but it will lead us to the same difficulty, that the word itself carries the connotation – myself and another.
1:02:06 K: Every word that we use with regard to relationship has this sense of duality, which I feel inherently, in exploring, that is essentially wrong.
1:02:23 So, I want to explore and discover, not verbally, not through dictionaries, through dialogue, find out at the very depth of that word, the essence of it.
1:02:49 You see, when I am attached, it is a wastage of energy. You know?
1:02:56 When I say, I am related to you, I must protect you, I must guard you, you are mine – it is a waste.
1:03:13 Therefore, a relationship may imply non-wastage of energy.
1:03:32 Q: Yes, but when we say that...
1:03:35 K: Look at it, first! Listen to it.
1:03:41 Q: Well, I know...
1:03:42 K: Look, old boy. It came out, I may be wrong. First listen, find out. It may be an idiotic statement, without meaning.
1:04:01 Because perhaps it is uncovering something more and more.
1:04:09 So, I say love is not wastage of energy.
1:04:16 Q: But what does that mean? What does that mean to somebody whose life is a wastage of energy?
1:04:33 Q: I make it into another concept.

K: Oh no, it is not a concept to me.
1:04:38 Q: No, but to me.

K: It is a concept to you – I am not criticising you, I am just saying you have made a concept.
1:04:54 What I am saying is not a concept to me. But what I am telling you, of that you have made a concept, an idea, a symbol, something projected in the future.
1:05:21 Tura agreed. When I said attachment is a wastage of energy, she agreed. You shook your head. Why?
1:05:41 In that attachment, I must protect you, I must guard you, I mustn't lose you, so I am frightened of losing you, and you mustn't look at anybody else, I am anxious, I become jealous.
1:06:00 Out of jealousy, I begin to hate the person you look at, and so on – which is absolute wastage of energy.
1:06:12 That is not a concept.
1:06:15 Q: But you emphasise seeing the wastage of energy.
1:06:22 To someone like myself who is wasting the energy, you would emphasise to me to stay with that, and not make a concept.
1:06:33 How can I not make a concept of it?
1:06:43 K: What will prevent you from making a concept of a statement, a statement of this kind?
1:06:54 First of all, why do you make a concept?
1:07:02 Why do you make a concept when I say, I love you, why do you make a concept of it?
1:07:22 Our difficulty is we don't actually listen to what is being said.
1:07:34 That is one of our difficulties. I am not preaching to you what you should do or not do, but apparently, right throughout the world, it is one of the most difficult things, to listen.
1:07:51 Not say, yes, I understand intellectually, this and that, what you say is true, just listen to what the poor chap is talking about.
1:08:11 So, I want to find out – sorry to go back to it – what is the essence of relationship, the depth of it, meaning of it, the beauty of it, the eternality of it?
1:08:30 What is my relationship to the universe the cosmos, this enormous world?
1:08:43 Q: Sir, is it possible to inquire into that, while my relationships are still cluttered up with the past and memory and all that?
1:08:54 K: Of course not. As I said, when I see something true, finished.
1:09:00 Q: That hasn't happened to me yet.

K: Because you won't look, you won't examine, you won't explore, you just say, yes, let's talk about it.
1:09:15 You do act when something touches you deeply. You want to go to Cambridge or Oxford or somewhere. Somebody says, no, you can't, then you struggle, then you fight, then you do everything to go where you want.
1:09:39 In the same way, if you applied the same energy, you wouldn't create concepts and all the rest of it.
1:10:03 Have you, at the end of an hour and a quarter, found out for yourself what is the essence of relationship?
1:10:22 Obviously, it is not attachment. So, if I am attached, I say, cut, finished because it is more important to find out the essence.
1:10:42 If I am stuck in sensation, calling it experience, etc., that is also finished.
1:10:51 Because to me, the understanding of the essence covers the whole thing.
1:11:02 It may answer all my questions.
1:11:18 If I am attached, it is like saying, I will inquire what freedom is.
1:11:26 It is like a donkey tied to a post and saying, I am going to inquire into freedom.
1:11:37 Q: The same action in exploring attachment, is that the same action that will end attachment?
1:11:51 The same action in exploring attachment is what ends attachment, by discovering.

K: No, no.
1:11:58 If you see something dangerous, don't you act?
1:12:08 If you see it will prevent you from seeing the essence of relationship, that any form of attachment is destructive to that, won't you drop it?
1:12:23 Because you are burning to find that out. You will give up everything to find that out. If you found it, it may cover all things. It may bring you, with your girl or your boy, etc., an extraordinary relationship.
1:12:51 But we want to be quite sure that we will have the other essence before we will let this go.
1:13:04 That is our trouble. Right?
1:13:11 We are trained like a lot of monkeys to accept reward and punishment.
1:13:19 If I give this up, please, I want the other.
1:13:34 Have you found for yourself the essence of relationship?
1:13:44 If I say it, you will make it into a concept, an idea, and say, but that is not so.
1:13:53 And you will begin to discuss your conclusions. But I have no conclusions. I have only the fact of the essence.
1:14:20 And you can't ever come to that essence, if you are tethered to a post.
1:14:35 You may talk everlastingly about the essence and hold onto somebody's hand.
1:14:45 It is like these marvellous intellectual saints, completely conditioned by Jesus, all the rest of it, and talk about – you know.
1:15:10 So, that is enough for this morning, isn't it? Right.