Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR80DCO2 - Are you aware that your mind is functioning in a groove?
Brockwood Park, UK - 19 September 1980
Committees Discussion 2



0:18 Krishnamurti: May I suggest that this morning, instead of my talking, if you would kindly ask questions, then we will have a dialogue between us. Would that be all right? Right, start it. Questioner: Sir, when I was walking this morning, I was questioning myself why it is why I don’t change, and suddenly I realised that I didn’t see the sun and I didn’t feel the wind blowing. So is that this questioning prevents us, you know, from living or seeing the more simple things in life?
1:06 K: Je n’ai pas compris; non capite.
1:10 Q: Is it that I am too worried thinking why do I not change, that I cannot simply live, you know, like seeing the sun shining? I was too worried questioning myself why do I not change. I didn’t feel the sun, the wind blowing and I didn’t hear the birds singing.
1:36 Brian Jenkins: Is it clear, Krishnaji?
1:38 K: Not quite clear.
1:39 Mary Zimbalist: What is he asking?

BJ: I think his question is this: this morning he was asking himself the question, why don’t I change…
1:46 K: Yes, I understood that.
1:47 BJ: …and while he was thinking about it and wondering about it he also noticed that he wasn’t aware of the wind, of the beauty around him.

K: Aha, bene, bene.
1:57 BJ: Now, is he too worried about this question? Isn’t that it? Isn’t that what you’re saying?
2:12 K: Could we start to answer this question by having a dialogue, a discussion, exchange? What do we mean by awareness? Could we start with that? Bene? Do we a give an extraordinary meaning to that word, some superhuman awareness, or begin very simply? We are aware of this room in which we are sitting. Right? You are aware as you look out of that window – the Mercedes there and the garden out there – you are aware of that, aren’t you? No? That’s simple, isn’t it? Aware of the walls, the colour of the walls, the ceiling and the garden around it. Then are you aware… is one aware of one’s own thinking? You understand my question? You understand my question? Aware of what you are thinking, what you are feeling, and what is your attitude to others, and so on – are you aware of all the reactions that go on? You understand? I wonder if you… are we meeting each other?
4:14 Q: We are not always aware of our relationship or our attitude to others.
4:21 K: Are you aware of our relationships?
4:26 Q: Sometimes we are.
4:28 K: No, you see, I think we are giving certain extraordinary meaning to that word ‘awareness’. It’s really quite simple: to be aware of one’s surroundings, to be aware of one’s room, the dress. You are aware of your attitudes, opinions, judgments, are you? Avanti per favor – let’s get on with it.
5:16 Q: Sometimes we may be very critical and not realise at the point. We may come back and realise that we have been critical.
5:24 K: No, just to be aware. Begin very simply first. To be aware of these curtains, to be aware of the ceiling, how it looks, to be aware of the garden around it, that’s very simple, isn’t it? Now, can one be equally simple, simply be aware of what is going on inside?
5:52 Mary Zimbalist: Sir, is it possibly that the awareness is fleeting and shallow?
5:59 K: Yes, maybe. I accept that.
6:01 MZ: So one says, ‘Oh, I’m aware of my…’
6:03 K: Accepted. Let’s accept that the awareness is fleeting, shallow. Let’s begin from there, not imagine some fantastic things. To be aware of one’s environment, politically, what is happening in the world, economically, socially, and so on, in the outside world, outside of you, and then move from the outer to the inner. That’s very simple, isn’t it? Right? Will you do… can we do that? Simply, not make such a complex problem out of it.
6:47 Q: But it is complex, it’s moving, and there is so much that escapes us. We are only partially aware.

K: Let it… let things escape. Are we aware of simple things? You follow? Begin simply, not elaborately, then move from the outer to the inner. If you are not aware of the outer, you have no criterion for the inner. You understand what I mean? You understand? I wish I could speak Spanish, sir. I used to but I’ve forgotten it. How can we put this very, very simply? You see, if you have no guide in yourself of what it means to be aware, unless you begin with the outer – vous compris? – you understand? – the politics, you know, what is happening in the world – and then from there move to the inner. No? Right? Because you have a criteria. You know what is happening there. You can judge what is happening there. You can observe, you can take the left people, the right, centre, and so on, the Labour Party, all that is happening, so you have… you can observe what is happening out there. So, can you observe what is happening here, inside? That’s all. Begin very simply. Bene? Can we move from there?
8:49 Q: I think that we have that level of awareness. That simple level of awareness, we have it, I think. To see things as they happen, no?
9:01 K: We’ll complicate it, sir. Begin simply. Right, sir?
9:06 Q: Yes.
9:07 K: Then, if you are aware what is happening inside, are you aware of the movement and the changes, the shallowness, or the demand for deeper, and so on, so on? Are you aware of all that? You understand what I am saying?
9:35 MZ: Is that perhaps the moment when the awareness stops? We are aware when we read something about the Labour Party, or somebody says something that we react to, the causes, and we are aware of that voice or that disagreement, but we stop with that, as though that is the fact. We don’t go on to what’s happening in ourselves, in response to that.
10:02 K: Is that the trouble? We are aware of what is happening in the world.
10:07 MZ: Yes.
10:09 K: Russia, China, India, and all that. And am I aware what are my reactions? Are we?
10:27 Q: Yes.

K: Are you?
10:34 Q: That’s the most difficult thing.

K: No. Don’t, if I may point out kindly, don’t use the word ‘difficult’ – that means you have already made it difficult. Keep it simple. Am I aware of my reactions? That is, you say something and I don’t like what you are saying, therefore I am antagonistic to you. I am putting it rather extravagantly. Or you are asserting yourself all the time, trying to dominate me, trying to bully me. So, am I aware of that? That’s all.
11:25 MZ: But somehow the focus remains on you, on the thing that annoyed you. It doesn’t go into oneself.

K: All right. You, in a meeting like this kind, someone speaks up, and you say, ‘No, you should not speak up’. Right? ‘You have spoken too often’, and you are against that already. Now, are we aware that we are creating antagonism, building it up about that person? Come on, sirs, this is so…
12:14 Ingrid Porter: Then there comes a moment when you see yourself watching that and then you are stuck. It’s somehow…

K: No, go a little further. You say something to me which annoys me. Now, am I aware, not of what you have said but the reaction to what you have said? The reaction is that I get annoyed. Am I aware of that annoyance? If I am aware of that annoyance, then how shall I proceed from there? Now I will go into it, if you will… You understand? What you have said to me has irritated me, and I blame you; whereas I say: look, why am I irritated? What is the movement in there? You understand? I am examining it. You are following this?
13:21 Q: Yes.

K: Why am I irritated? Go on, sir, answer me – why? Perhaps I don’t like you. Right? Perhaps the way you put… you used the words have irritated me. Perhaps I am irritated because I am depressed about something else, or I got up rather tired and I am superficially irritated. Now, what shall I do with that irritation? Can we go on into it?
14:07 Q: Yes.

K: All right. My God! What shall I do with that irritation? I know what has caused it, perhaps. You understand? My laziness; being tired after having talked two times yesterday, and I get slightly irritated. And I say: why am I irritated? Not by what you said, but why? I am irritated because… for these reasons. Right? And what shall I do with that irritation, which is now, which is taking place now? Right? What shall I do? Can I look at that irritation without any reaction to the irritation? I wonder if I am making myself clear. Can I look at that irritation and not say, ‘I mustn’t be irritated; it is really quite wrong; I must suppress it; I must do something about it’, but without doing any of that, can I observe that irritation? Do you understand? Just observe, not direct it, correct it or suppress it or escape from it, just to observe that irritation. Right? Will you? Don’t agree with me.
15:50 Q: Well, if one gave a name to that irritation, if one can, one sees it’s vanity, for instance… Is it right or is it already separating?
15:59 K: Vanity?

Q: For instance.
16:06 K: Why do you… May I finish? Don’t bring in another word, because we move away from… I see I am irritated, and I observe that my mind doesn’t want to resolve that irritation. Perhaps it likes it. But it says either I must suppress it, run away from it, or, ‘Why shouldn’t I be irritated?’ because you have said some silly thing and I get irritated. So in observing that irritation, what is my reaction to that? Vous avez compris? You understand? What’s my reaction to that irritation? Be actual.
17:17 Q: We want to escape from it. We don’t want to be irritated, so we want to get from irritation.
17:23 K: Yes, so which means what? Which means what? We want to get away from it.
17:29 Q: Yes.
17:31 K: That’s your…
17:31 MZ: Or we defend it.

K: Or we defend it.
17:34 Q: Yes.
17:35 K: Either we defend it or avoid it. Now, is that your reaction? Find out your reaction.
17:49 Q: But if mind remains quiet…
17:51 K: Ah, no. No, écouter, monsieur. You see, you start with “quiet mind”. I don’t know what “quiet mind” is. I am irritated; that’s all I know. Forgive me. You understand, sir? All that I know is, at the moment I am irritated.
18:13 Q: Yes.

K: That’s all. Now, what is my reaction, my response to that irritation? As he said, I want to get away from it, avoid it, or I defend it: ‘Why shouldn’t I be irritated?’ So, I discover my reaction to another reaction. Right? I wonder if you… You are all so… Your mind isn’t on this, I see. Cor lummy! Are you interested in this?

Q: Yes.
19:07 K: Don’t…
19:12 Q: It seems to be a chain where we feel this reaction, then we try to act again, you see, all the time.
19:20 K: Yes. My reaction is that I don’t like to be irritated. Right? So what have I done? Irritation is a reaction and I have another reaction to it, which is I don’t like to be irritated. What does that mean?
19:48 Q: I’m avoiding the fact.
19:49 Q: There are two movements of thought, one against the other.

K: No. Look, sir…
19:54 Q: The mind observes that.
19:56 K: I am irritated, and the response to that irritation is, ‘I must not be irritated’. Right? Right? Now, what makes me say, I must not be irritated?
20:16 Q: The recognition of the movement of the irritation.
20:19 K: No, sir.
20:20 Q: My conditioning.

Q: Education?
20:24 K: No, you are not…
20:25 Q: My conditioning that this is something bad, that it shouldn’t be there.
20:29 K: Why do I say, I must not be irritated?
20:34 Q: Because I find it’s something wrong.
20:36 K: Why? No.
20:37 Q: Because I am the self.
20:41 Q: Because it’s uncomfortable.
20:42 K: Yes, I have an idea that I mustn’t be irritated. I have a principle, a concept that I must not be irritated. Right? This concept is the past – right? – which denies the present. Are you following?

Q: Yes.
21:11 K: So, why do I have concepts? Why do I have… saying this must not, this must be? Go slowly, sir. We will go very carefully into this. Is it my mind is guided by previous knowledge? Right? My mind is taking the easiest line, which is to follow what has happened before. All right? Is this clear? So, which means what? The past is my life and the past is dictating what should be. Right? Right, sir? So I am living in the past, not only with regard to that irritation, but if I observe, I am always living in the past: past knowledge, past information, past hurts, past memories, and so on, so on. So the past is dictating the present irritation. Right? It says you must not be irritated. Can we go on from there? Are you quite sure we are together in this? Please, just follow this a little while, the sequence of this, the logic of it, and we’ll come to the end of it presently and we’ll abolish logic. You say something that irritates me. To that irritation I react, and the reaction says, ‘Don’t be irritated’. ‘Don’t be irritated’ may be my snobbism – you understand? – that I am better, I must not be irritated, I have studied, I have learnt – you know, this peculiar snobbism of being somebody. Right?
24:21 MZ: Also, sir, the peculiar pleasure for some in having a principle.

K: Oh, yes. Yes, another pleasure – all that. So, why does my mind always react to the present from the past? You understand my question? You have understood my question, sir? Will you translate it? My mind, your mind, my mind, is reacting to the present from a past knowledge, from a past state. I wonder if you are… Vous avez compris? You understand this, sir? Please, tell him.
25:18 Q: You want me to translate into Spanish?
25:19 K: Yes, sir.
25:20 Q: Nuestra mente reacciona.
25:24 K: Bene, bene. Andiamo. So why does my mind always… doing this? Go on, investigate it, sir, with me. Why is my mind, your mind, my mind, living in the past and dictating from the past what should be the present? Right?
26:09 Q: I’m just… may I say something there?
26:10 K: Sir, go.
26:10 Q: Can it be that in the past we were threatened from the outside; I mean physically and we had to respond because… and that response is from the past, that we… I mean, run into a cave and…
26:26 K: Yes, sir, from the cave – yes.
26:27 Q: I mean, something, and then we take this into the psychological, that we want to take the past…

K: No, I want to… That’s all understood, sir. That is, the past has become very important for us. Right? That past may be the result of centuries of man’s thinking, centuries of suppression, centuries of… all that’s going on. Now, I am asking a question. The mind is doing this all the time – right? – which is, moving from knowledge. Right?

Q: Names.
27:22 K: Look, sir: I am irritated. My reaction to that is, ‘I must not be irritated’. Why do I say that? Is it because I have an idea or a feeling or my conditioning says, ‘Never be irritated, that means you have no love’. Right? You understand? So I have an idea, an image that a person who loves has no irritation. Right? Right? So, proceed further. Now, why does that image always say what I should do, what I should not do? Go on, sir.
28:30 Q: This is the whole educational system.
28:32 K: It’s the whole educational system, society, the priests, the religion, all that we know. The whole thing says to me ‘you must not be’ or ‘you must be’. Right? Right? And that has conditioned my mind. Right? Now, am I aware that my mind is conditioned to that? Would you please…
29:21 MZ: Doesn’t one have to be aware of the pleasure that the mind is taking in the certainty?
29:27 K: Yes, yes, yes. Now, I am coming to that. Please, follow slowly. Irritation; I must not be; which is a certain form of pleasure and a certain form of discipline, and that gives me pleasure: ‘I am getting better every day’.
29:48 MZ: I know what to do.

K: Yes, I know what to do. Now, which means what? My mind is always functioning along a certain path, along a certain groove. Right? Are you aware of that?

Q: Yes.
30:11 Q: It seems that we have to have recognition…
30:14 K: No, no, please, madame, don’t go off to something else. You see, you are all… Are you aware that your mind is functioning along this particular line? ‘I must not’ – which is a line – right? – a direction; or ‘I must’. Are you aware that your mind is functioning this way? Are you aware when you are functioning that way, you are offering opinions all the time? Right? Right? ‘I must not’, ‘I must’ – on that principle you say, ‘No, you are…’ – you follow? – my whole life is functioning along that way. Right? Are you aware that you are doing this?
31:28 Q: It seems to be that we are aware of it, of this, but we don’t know where it comes from, it’s just there.
31:33 K: No, we have explained where it comes from.
31:36 Q: But we don’t see it, it’s just… it’s there, sir.
31:39 K: Look, sir, my mother told me, ‘You must not do that’, or my mother told me – father or mother – that you must be like your elder brother who is clever, who is intelligent, who passes examinations, who has got a good job; you must be like him. It’s very simple. And in education, in schools, it’s always comparison. Right? Better marks, you are not as good as – all the rest of it. So we are so conditioned. Are we aware of that? That’s all I am asking. I am aware of this room. I am aware of the garden outside. I am aware that I am irritated. I see when there is irritation, I say, ‘No, I must not be irritated; that indicates I have no love in my heart, and it’s terrible not to have love in your heart’ – right? – ‘because I am going to be a saint’. So, gradually the pattern is established. Right? Right, sir? Right? What are you objecting to?
33:24 Q: I don’t know.

K: Allez-y, allez-y. Go ahead, sir.
33:34 Q: It seems that we can see this, that we have these reactions.
33:40 K: We don’t see it?

Q: We see that.
33:42 K: Now, when you see that reaction, find out why you have that reaction. You have that reaction because from childhood you have been told, you must not, you must, or you must be like… – comparison, measurement has been so deeply embedded.
34:24 MZ: Isn’t there also the quality of laziness there?
34:27 K: Of course, I have said that too: laziness, indifference, callousness.
34:32 MZ: Well, it’s much easier to not think it out but to say, ‘Oh, it’s wrong to do that’, or, ‘It’s right to do that’.
34:37 K: I know, it’s easier and also gives a certain sense of slackness.
34:44 MZ: You don’t have to examine it.
34:45 K: Yes, quite right. So, we know all that. Let’s move! So, am I aware when I am irritated, the reaction to that irritation, which is, ‘I must not’? Or I say, ‘Why shouldn’t I be irritated? You said something harsh and I don’t like what you are saying, you are stupid’ – you follow? – and just wander off. But if I am aware, I say: just a minute, why am I irritated? Is it because I think I should never be irritated? So, I gradually find out, or quickly find out, that my mind is functioning in a groove. Right? Right, sir? Can we proceed further? Are you aware that your mind is functioning in a groove? Listen, sir. The older we get, the groove gets stronger and stronger and stronger. It’s obvious. Are you aware that you are functioning in a groove? I am a Catholic; I have been brought up from childhood to believe in Jesus and the rituals, the Pope, and all that business, and it’s so deeply sown in, this propaganda. That’s my line. Right? Or I reject that, all that nonsense, and I invent another nonsense. Right? So I realize that I am always functioning, it may be moment variation, but the line is established, like a tramcar that’s always moving along those rails. It goes from different places to different places but it’s along the same line. Right? I am glad you are examining yourself. Now, I am aware of that. Being aware of that, that I am functioning, what is my reaction to that? You understand what I’ve said? My mind is functioning along grooves – right? – must, must not, this is right, this is wrong, I get irritated, I must not get irritated. Right? This is the line. Now, when I discover that, what is my reaction to it?
38:31 Q: I want to get out of the groove.
38:32 K: That is a reaction. Now, wait, wait, wait. I want to break down the lines, I want to get away from this. Why?
38:47 Q: Can we get out of it? I mean, if all reactions we have in the past, we have learned that we have to go away from it, but…
38:58 K: Yes, sir. So you found your reaction is: don’t follow grooves.
39:05 Q: Yes.
39:07 K: Now, just stop there a minute. Just stop there before you go further. Right? Right? Who says that you must get out of it? Vous avez compris?
39:26 Q: It’s again the censor.
39:27 K: No, wait, sir, go slowly; I am not accepting anything. Go very slowly. Who says I must get out of that, out of these grooves? Go on, you are all… you have heard me for umpteen years – tell me.
39:48 Q: It’s still the past response.
39:51 K: No, no, don’t… Go into it, sir, a little more. Go into it a little. Who tells me that I must get out of it?
40:02 Q: Thought.
40:05 K: Is it thought? Go on.
40:22 Q: It’s the image about myself.
40:26 K: Allez-y, encore.
40:28 Q: It is very strong.

K: Go on, sir, go on. Put all of us… let’s all of us explain. Come on, please.
40:37 MZ: Isn’t the danger that the groove, another groove comes along to say that it’s wrong to be in a groove? In which case you are…
40:46 K: No, no, Maria, I am asking: the desire to be free of the grooves.
40:52 MZ: If you really…

K: Wait, listen to me, please. Desire to be out of those grooves.
41:03 IP: It’s in the desire for a better life…
41:05 K: Yes, which means what? Not "better life". Please. I have being following all my life – twenty, thirty, forty years; I am old – or eighty – I have always followed certain grooves, well-established, recognised, respectable grooves. Right? Now I discover that; I say, ‘By Jove, I am doing this, like a tramcar, always going along the same line’. Now, then I say to myself, ‘I must get out of it’. Which means what?
41:54 Q: I am not staying with the fact of the groove.
41:57 K: Yes.
41:58 Q: The moment I say I want something else.
42:00 K: But, you see, the moment you have said, ‘I must get out of it’, you are not watching the grooves. Oh, for God’s sake!
42:09 Q: I think it is still the same thing.
42:13 Q: It’s still, ‘I must, I must not’.
42:15 K: No, sir, just slowly. Look, sir, I realise I am in a groove, in a rut, repeating the same thing over and over and over again, offering opinions from… it is the same movement. Do I know that? Is this a fact to me? Or somebody pointed out to me the grooves, and I say, ‘Yes, by Jove, I am following this’. You understand, sir? You understand? Is it an idea or a fact? You understand what I mean, sir? An idea, which you have given to me and therefore I accept it; or is it a real fact to me that I move in grooves? My mind has become old, my mind is lazy, or I am quite young, but I have well-established grooves; it’s very respectable, accepted, normal, and I say, ‘Yes, I’m in those’. Do I realise that? And having those grooves, I always respond according to those grooves. Right?
43:58 BJ: Krishnaji, I feel it’s so much a fact to me that even now as you are speaking I am responding with opinions.
44:04 K: Yes, I know, because you are not listening. Sorry, not you, sir. So, what shall I do? That is the fact, that I function in grooves. Right? Right?
44:27 Shakuntala Narayan: It seems as though it’s the mind that is in grooves, that is, you know, functioning on the grooves.
44:34 K: Yes, yes, we said it. The grooves and the trolley or the tramcar are the same; and the rider in the tramcar is the same.
44:50 SN: So, it seems you are just endlessly going round.
44:52 K: Wait. Yes, that’s what you are doing.
45:04 Q: Does it mean that we cannot act to go out of it? I mean, we can’t do anything?

K: You are going to do… You will find out, sir. Wait. We will find out what to do a little later. First of all, I must know, be aware of the fact that my mind functions in grooves. I am the head, the president of this blinking foundation, and I must… You follow? When I go to India, everybody kind of salutes me with great respect. I say, ‘That’s my line’. If somebody doesn’t, I feel annoyed, or I feel belittled, and so I bully somebody else to make me bigger. You follow? That kind of thing. So, do I and you realise – realise, not merely an idea of it – realise, feel, know, aware, conscious that we are functioning in grooves? If I am surgeon, I function very well along those lines. Right? If I am a painter, I am all… it’s always there. And so on. Are we aware of it, as I am aware of that green lawn? The green lawn is a fact. It is called "green" because we all accept it as green. If we all say that is mauve, we’ll all say, ‘That is mauve’. So, am I aware that I am functioning in a groove? Right? Can we move from there? Right, sir? Right. Then what is my reaction to the discovery – discovery by me, by you – that you are functioning in a groove? What’s my reaction to that? As you have said, ‘I must get out’. Right? Who is it that says that I must get out? Don’t answer too quickly. I know. Who says to me, ‘Get out of that’? I was irritated. Reaction says, ‘Don’t be irritated’, and I find myself in grooves, and somebody says, ‘Get out of it’. It is the same movement. I wonder if you understand this. You have understood this? It is the same movement: irritation; don’t be irritated, if you are irritated, it shows you have no love, and so on. That is one groove. And when I react to that groove, I say I must get out of it. It is the same thing operating from the beginning to the end. Bene? Right? Right, sir? So I have discovered something. I have discovered something as you are discovering, that our reactions are always the same, whether it is to somebody you like, whether it is somebody you don’t like, whether you are eating – it’s all the same: do, don’t, this is right – you follow? – the same reaction. Right? Is this all right, sir? Can we proceed from there?
49:56 Q: Yes.
50:10 K: I hope I am not bullying you. Am I? So, I have discovered something for myself: the constant repetition of reactions to everything. So, the reactions are more or less the same. Right? So then arises: what’s wrong with these reactions? A mind that is functioning in grooves is a mechanical mind. Right? Right? Why has my mind become so extraordinarily mechanical? ‘I can’t stand too much noise’, ‘I must like jazz’ – you follow? Go on, sirs. So my mind from childhood is trained and disciplined and forced and encouraged to be mechanical. Right? Right? Do we see this? Sirs, if you are bored, let’s stop it and we can all go home. But if you are not bored, let’s go on with it. Now, why has my mind become mechanical? I find being mechanical is a great sense of protection, safety, security. I am – what? – angry. That’s a great security. You follow? Or I am hysterical. In that, I am established. So why does my mind seek security in these grooves? Why is my mind mechanical and finds safety in it? Is such safety a reality or illusion? Go on, sirs, move with… No, you are not… I am the head of an organisation, and I have certain power, and that certain position flatters, all the rest of it, and I have established this groove, this pattern, which has become mechanical. Right? When I go to India, there… When I go to… all the same thing repeated, and I say, ‘My God, how good it is’. So, is there security in all this? Vous avez compris? Sir, the mechanical mind must always be satisfied with security. Right? Right? Security meaning being safe, not to be disturbed, not to be… if any new idea comes, throw it out, because that… You follow? ‘I am not clever’, ‘Oh, just leave me alone, this is all right for somebody else, not for me’. It is this sense of not wanting to be disturbed and to always function in grooves, which is mechanical. If I believe in God – from childhood I have been told that there is God – and you come along and say, ‘Look, don’t be silly, look at it’, I won’t look at it because it is very disturbing. If you come along and say, ‘Don’t be a Frenchman’ – sorry! – or British or an Indian – being an Indian, it has given me certain comfort and power – you know, all that business – and it disturbs me, and I don’t want to be disturbed. So I say, ‘All right, my mind has lived in this mechanical way. Please, leave it alone’. Right? But you can’t be left alone. Right? There is my wife who is telling me all the time, ‘Don’t be an ass’. Somebody tells me, ‘Don’t be silly’. So I am always defending my grooves, my mechanical mind. Now, what is the next thing? Obviously, a mechanical mind is not a fresh mind. Right? It’s not a mind that’s alive, it’s not a mind that is free, move, go north, east, west, but always in the same direction. So my mind itself says, ‘For God’s sake, get out’. You understand what I am saying? No, no, you don’t. My mind says… first it says, ‘I want to get out of the grooves, but I don’t know how, please, tell me how to do it, give me a system, give me a pattern’. Right? Which establishes another pattern. You are following all this? So, I have come to the point when I say… when the mind says – what does it say, I won’t tell you. What does it say? Avanti, sir. Go on, sir. What does your mind say, that is… that is, when it finds itself being mechanical, repetitive, keep on holding onto your own particular reaction of hysteria, pleasure, this or that, and you realise you are doing that, then what is the next reaction to that? To get out of it? And if you want to get out of it, how to get out of it, who will tell you, who will help you? So you go off from the main issue that your mind is mechanical. Right? May I go on?

Q: Yes.
58:51 K: Now, what next? Do you realise that your mind is mechanical?
59:06 Q: You don’t try to escape.

K: So you try to escape?
59:10 Q: No. You don’t try to escape.

K: Then what do you do? My mind is mechanical: defending, aggressive or submissive; and the submissiveness, that is my line, or my line is aggressive, or I want to defend everything: that is right, this is wrong. So my mind is functioning that way, which is in grooves. I realise it is a fact, not an idea. To me, it’s a burning fact. Now, I realise any reaction to the fact is the same repetition of the same pattern. Right? Right? Am I right in this?
1:00:37 Q: Yes.

K: You are following this?
1:00:39 Q: Yes.
1:00:40 K: Now, so I see, by Jove, yes, quite right. So what shall I… what is the next thing? Every action is a reaction. Right?

Q: Yes.
1:01:03 K: No, no, feel it, go through it deeply in yourself and you will see something. Every reaction is another reaction. So the mind says: is there an end to this, or must it always be controlled, shaped, react, act, react. You follow? May I go on from there? You are clear? All of us?

Q: Yes.
1:01:40 K: Please, don’t agree unless you do it. My next question is: am I observing the reaction? You understand my question? Am I observing the grooves and the reactions to the grooves? Am I observing it? Right? Are you? Now, is the observer different from the observed? You understand my question, sir? That is, I am observing the grooves in my mind. How am I observing it? Something different from the observer. Right? Be clear on that point. Right? Right?
1:03:27 BJ: Krishnaji, is it that we think that there is a clear observer…
1:03:33 K: Ah, ah, I am not saying anything about… I don’t know anything. I only come to a point: I say I am living in grooves. Who says I am living in grooves? The observer. Right? Right? That’s all I am saying. Up to there, let’s hold together. We are thinking together up to that point. Right? Now, is the observer who says, ‘I am in grooves’, is he different from the grooves? Vous avez compris? You’ve understood, sir? I am angry. Is anger different from me?
1:04:28 Q: They are different when we react. They are different when we are trying to react.
1:04:32 K: No, sir. No, I am asking a question. I am angry… you are angry. Is that anger different from you who says, ‘I am angry’?
1:04:45 Q: It is the same.
1:04:52 K: You are greedy. You see a nice… etc. You are greedy, envious. Is that envy different from you?
1:05:04 Q: It is the same.
1:05:04 K: Be simple, sir. For God’s sake, be simple.
1:05:07 Q: It is the same. Maybe when begins the duality, no? Be a duality.
1:05:15 K: So, you are saying greed and anger is me.
1:05:20 Q: Is me, yes.

K: Right? There is no difference between greed and me – I am… Right? You are sure of this? You are all so hesitant, for God’s sake! Look, I observe that tree, that oak tree. That oak tree is obviously different from me. Right? Fortunately. But what? There is a distance between that tree and me. The distance: one hundred feet. And is there a distance – please, listen – is there distance between the realisation that I function in grooves and me who is watching the grooves? Look, sir, it’s your brain. Don’t go to sleep, for God’s sake.
1:06:53 Q: That’s the problem. We feel there is a distance although we know there isn’t.
1:06:57 K: No, madame, écoutez, please. There is a distance between that tree and me. Obviously, I hope. There is actual distance. The nearer I get to that tree, the less the distance. But I can’t see the whole of that tree if I am very close to it, so I move away to look at the whole thing. Now, is there a distance between the grooves, which my mind is functioning in, and I who have said, ‘Yes, I realise my mind is functioning in grooves’? Is there a distance?
1:07:48 Q: Because I may recognise…
1:07:51 K: No, not recognise.
1:07:56 Q: If I don’t name, then it is silence that is not…
1:07:59 K: Look, sir, don’t repeat anything unless you know, you realise. Obviously, sir, there is a distance. You say, ‘I am not those grooves’. Right? Is that a fact? You agreed greed is you. Right? You agreed just now. Why not the grooves also?
1:08:50 Q: Je peux répondre en Français? [Can I answer in French?]
1:08:52 K: Oui, madame.
1:08:56 Q: If we were... ...ourselves with the ego, there is still the distance, because if our ego disappears…
1:09:03 K: Ah, no, madame, écoutez.

Q: …we are always here.
1:09:05 K: Mais notre ego n’a pas disparu. [But our ego has not disappeared.]
1:09:08 Q: That is true.
1:09:11 K: Don’t madame… Ecoutez. No, don’t… Please, stick to this one thing, don’t go off to ego and all that. Which is, is there a distance between the grooves which my mind is living in and me who is looking at those grooves?
1:09:34 IP: There can’t be. You are actually in the grooves. How can you…
1:09:37 K: Obviously. Obviously. But you are not… You see, you are all… So you are the grooves.
1:09:43 Q: Yes.

Q: We are the grooves.
1:09:48 K: Right?

Q: Yes, obviously.
1:09:50 K: No, sir, you are rather hesitant. You are the…
1:09:58 IP: If you were out of the grooves, there’d be no problem. You are obviously in them.
1:10:02 K: Not ‘in them’ – you are. I

P: You are the grooves.
1:10:04 K: Yes, that’s just it. You are the grooves. Is that a reality or you have been forced to acknowledge it?
1:10:19 Q: It’s a reality.
1:10:24 SN: I feel it, but actually we don’t see this, because if we really saw it, we’d be out of the grooves.
1:10:30 K: No, wait! You see, you see, you see, you are all playing, you don’t… First, Shakuntala, you don’t realise that you are functioning in grooves. Right? Right? Do you realise it?
1:10:50 SN: Well, I think I probably don’t realise it completely.
1:10:53 K: No, no, don’t play around with ‘I don’t, probably, I do a little bit’ – do you realise you function in grooves? See how reluctant we are to admit this?
1:11:09 Q: Ah yes, well and truly.
1:11:12 K: I am not bullying, I am not getting irritated. Just watch it. Your thinking is in grooves. Right? All thinking is in grooves.
1:11:26 SN: Yes. That’s not the problem, but I feel I am stuck.
1:11:29 K: Where?
1:11:30 SN: When you say you are the grooves.
1:11:33 K: Be stuck. S

N: I feel that somehow… I mean, I see it but I feel I don’t see it completely, I don’t see it… I see it intellectually.
1:11:43 K: No. I know what is the trouble – you want to be out of it. You don’t say, ‘Yes, I’m in grooves’, and stay there for a minute, because that’s a most uncomfortable state, to realise that you are basically living in grooves. To admit that to oneself is to become very humble. We are so vain about not living in grooves. Right, sir? I am in grooves; that’s a fact. Now, do I really see that or I say, ‘No, partly I see it, partly not, occasionally I am out of it, sometimes I feel free from all grooves; oh, it’s so lovely’? You follow? Playing. Or you say, ‘Yes, all my being is functioning in grooves’. That is a fact. To admit that fact makes you – I won’t go into it – it makes you tremendously aware. You won’t move from that. Because if you move away from it, you are again back into the old reaction. Right? So, do you actually realise that you are that? Your thinking is in grooves. All thinking, whether it is the philosopher’s thinking, science, or the religious or the businessman or the carpenter; wherever there is thinking, it must be in grooves. Because thinking, as we said, is the outcome of knowledge, and knowledge is the essence of all grooves. Sorry! Now, let’s go back. I realise as a fact, an immutable fact, that I am living in grooves. I won’t move away from that fact. It is very uncomfortable. I thought I was free, I was free to express my opinions, my judgments, my this and my that, I could be irritated, but all the movement is still within the grooves. Right? You won’t acknowledge this. Unless you really feel this, there is no movement out of it. Right? Then what happens, sir? When you, who are the observer, are the grooves, what happens? Haven’t you eliminated altogether all reaction? Do you understand?
1:16:04 BJ: No, what do you mean by that, Krishnaji?
1:16:06 K: Oh, no, no, no. I realise – please, I realise I live in grooves. I am those grooves. My thinking is in grooves. Grooves are me. Right? Before, I tried to do something about the grooves, I said I must get out of it, I must not get out of it, please, tell me what to do, please, help me, ‘Oh, God’, I pray to God – all that nonsense. Right? Now I realise that I am that. Any reaction to that is still another groove – right? – or grooves. So when I completely realise I am grooves, there is no reaction. Oh, come on, what’s the matter with all of you? No? There is complete elimination of reaction. Only when there is a division there is reaction. So what happens to a mind that has observed, has realised it’s the grooves and there is no reaction?
1:17:57 Oh, come on!

Q: It’s in silence.
1:17:59 K: No, no, don’t! You are not doing it.
1:18:16 Q: We are all so…

K: No, madame, no. Tout ça c’est une blague. [This is a joke.]
1:18:23 Q: Full of energy, no?
1:18:27 K: You are not… Sir, all right, begin again. I am irritated and I react to that irritation – ‘you must not be’ or ‘you must be’ – and I begin to see that all my reactions and responses are based on grooves. Right? And I say to… and I see that my mind – my mind, my heart, my whole being is always functioning in grooves. Right? Sometimes I think it is not functioning and I am… how happy that moment, but that moment is a reaction, which is again forming another groove. Right? I have explained all this. So, I have come to the point, I realise… there is the realisation that I am the grooves. Any reaction to that is slipping back into another pattern. You understand that? That’s simple. No? Irritation: the reaction to that is ‘I must not’. The reaction to my realisation that I function in: ‘I must be free’. It is the same response. Bene? Right? So, what happens? When there is… when I am blind, when I am the groove, I have no reaction; it is so. Right? When I don’t… when there is no reaction, there are no rails. Oh, come! I know you are bored. Is this all right? Do you see the logic of it? Logic. Irritation was a reaction. To that irritation there is another reaction, which is, ‘I must not’ or ‘I must’, and pushing it, pushing it, pushing it, I suddenly realise my mind is functioning in grooves. Right? Reaction is a groove. So – and I see: am I different from those rails? I am not. I am those rails. My mind is those rails. If I have a reaction to those rails, I am again… begin again: irritation. Right? You get it?

BJ: Yes, sir.
1:22:11 K: So, when there is an observation of the rails without reaction, where are the rails? Oh, you people don’t see this.
1:22:43 We’d better stop – ten to one. And tomorrow Dr Bohm and I. And what after that? No more, the shop is closed. Right? Right.