Krishnamurti Subtitles home


BR81DT5 - What is the quality of your mind?
Brockwood Park, UK - 20 June 1981
Discussion with Teachers 5



0:18 Krishnamurti: Shall we go on, have a dialogue between ourselves? I would like to ask, if I may, and I am asking this with respect, is your mind – I am using 'mind' in the sense, for the moment, not the brain but the whole of the mind. I don't want to go into the mind and brain for the moment. I am asking, is your mind defensive? I mean by that word, having carved out for itself a certain position, entrenched itself in an assertion that I can't do this, or it is beyond my capacity, and so on, or is your mind investigating and moving from that investigation, discovering something and moving, not go back all the time and remain in a certain entrenched position? If I may ask, what is the quality of your mind? A defensive mind is really an aggressive mind. Like a nation that says, we are arming ourselves for our defence, there is no such thing as defence. It is always offensive – naturally. So I am asking, what is the nature of our minds? Is it that we have entrenched ourselves in knowledge, in a particular career, specialised or greatly interested in a particular subject and not being able to move out of it? So, to have a dialogue on that. Could we? Would it be worthwhile? Please, would you tell me? Investigate. Is your mind like that?
3:55 Scott Forbes: Could you say more, Krishnaji, about a mind being defensive when it says, I can't do this or I am incapable of that, because that does not readily appear to be a defensive mind.
4:08 K: Because it says, I can't do it, and stops there.
4:13 SF: Yes, that might only be a statement of experience though. Why is that defensive?
4:18 K: I can't fly, obviously. I can't become a minister or any of those things, obviously. But I say to myself, I am safely in a position, psychologically, and I am comfortable there. And I remain there, finding excuses, this or that, but I am entrenched in there. And so, all my life is just going round in a circle. What would you say to that? Could we have a dialogue about it?
5:09 Questioner: When I look at this, what seems to happen is that the mind tends to want to get entrenched in something, have something solid and secure that it can build around, and yet there is also a movement that is not comfortable with that, so there is a movement for security, for being defensive, as you put it. But there is also something that is not completely comfortable with that.
5:32 K: Yes, but what does it do with it? You have stated it likes to be secure in a position and yet wants to move out of it, and keeps this security in a certain position or belief, all that, and at the same time wanting to get out of it. Now, what is the quality of such a mind? I am not talking about you personally, please. I see something to be true and I am incapable of putting into action. It is the same thing. And I keep this going. I am incapable of living that which I have perceived. And that becomes a very defensive, nice, comfortable position. I see it and I can't do it. Is that what our minds are doing?
7:01 Wendy Agnew: I don't know that it is comfortable though. I think that is true but I wouldn't say that it is comfortable.
7:07 K: It may not be comfortable. Use your own word.
7:11 WA: Well, actually it seems to cause of lot of tension between the two, rather than something that is comfortable.
7:16 K: Is it tension? Or disinclination? Or – what does it matter. General slackness.
7:34 SF: There seem to be large elements of fear involved.
7:38 K: Don't enter into fear just yet. Examine the quality of your mind, if you don't mind. Could we? Would you look at your mind and find out if it is anchored to something and knows that that anchorage is really a very destructive process and says, I must get out of it, but never gets out of it? Do you understand my question? Is your mind like that?
8:20 Mary Zimbalist: Isn't it like a layer of two tension-causing things? The surface one makes you perhaps uncomfortable but because there is a worse threat underneath if you did change, you take the lesser of the two.
8:43 K: Join me.
8:44 Stephen Smith: Perhaps it is also not knowing how to change, in a sense. It is perhaps also not knowing how to change. Seeing the need for some change but not knowing...
8:53 K: Is that it, how to change? Just a minute, is that so? You see something direct to be done. You see the truth of it, the actuality of it, and you say, all right, it is so, but I am going on my own way.
9:14 Q: But you don't seem to say, I will go on my own way. It just seems to have its own momentum.
9:20 K: Which?

Q: The habit of going on your own way.
9:24 K: So, is that the quality of your mind? Is that what is happening?
9:31 Q: Yes.
9:32 K: Why? Don't say you don't know. Let's examine it, please. Why? Is it slackness, laziness, indifference, or the old habit is so strong?
9:52 Q: It seems that it is so strong. If someone could tell me what I could do to stop it I would do it.
9:58 K: Wait, let's look at it.
10:11 Shakuntala Narayan: Also, when the mind sees the necessity for change, it doesn't seem as though the mind can do it effortlessly. It doesn't seem as though the mind can do it without effort.
10:26 K: But, how do you know anything about it? You see, you have already come to a conclusion.
10:35 SN: Because one begins to put in effort...
10:38 K: All right, put an effort into it.
10:42 MZ: Do we tend to think that we must do something else in order to do that? Instead of doing that, doing A. We think we have to do B in order to do A. Is that so?
10:57 K: Go on, join.
11:01 Q: I see that I am capable of doing more, my mind is capable of more, but I do fear that I may take on more than it is capable of. There is a fear very often to try, in case I get swamped.
11:21 K: Is that it? Lack of strength, lack of vitality?
11:28 SF: Krishnaji, it might be incorrect but when I have looked at this in myself it has seemed more to me a lack of courage.
11:37 K: Courage.

SF: It seems to me.
11:40 K: Yes. What do you mean by that word courage?
11:42 SF: Well, Krishnaji, for instance, one sees the truth of something and yet to completely abandon some of these things, which are the 'me', it is frightening.
12:00 K: No, I am asking, Scott, what is the quality of your mind? Just hold a minute. Quality: the feeling of it, the capacity, the energy, the vitality of the brain, of the mind – what is it like with you? Don't explain in words, just feel it for the moment. What is the quality of our mind? I am not talking quantitative but the quality – what is it?
12:57 WA: It seems like an endless struggle. It is more like a battlefield than anything else.
13:03 K: Is that the quality of your mind? To fight, fight, fight, struggle, struggle – is that your quality? And then what?
13:24 WA: Never getting anywhere.
13:28 K: You see that, then why don't you break that? Through will – doesn't matter what it is – break it.
13:39 WA: But that seems to be another struggle, you see.
13:42 K: All right, make a struggle and break it. Enter into a new struggle, don't repeat the same thing. You follow? I am just asking.
14:02 SS: Maybe one is wanting an experience. Wanting an experience that is more illuminating or more big than what happens day by day.
14:19 K: So is your mind a grasping mind, wanting more, more, more? More experience, more knowledge, more capacity, more and more – you follow?
14:41 SS: Something bigger than 'what is'.

K: Yes. Is that what the quality of your mind is?
14:52 Brian Jenkins: I am not sure that is the whole of the mind.
14:59 K: Don't enlarge it yet, just stick to one thing. That may be the whole of your mind: grasping, wanting, pushing, desires. Do we know the quality of our own minds?
15:19 SN: Well, that seems to be quite an important factor.
15:23 K: Which?
15:26 SN: That one always seems to have a motive. I mean, when you see the truth of something you don't just see it as the truth, you seem to want to, as Steve says, hold on to it or want something bigger.
15:47 K: You put that question to me. You ask me what is the quality of my mind. I really don't know. I have never even asked that question of myself. You put it to me and I am watching. Right? Are you doing that? I am watching, or rather aware – I am using 'watching' for the moment – watching what the depth of the mind is, what the quality is, the movement. You understand what I am saying? I am watching it and presently I will put it into words. But you are ready to put it into words right away. I am not criticising, please, I am just asking. I want to find out the quality of all of our minds. Is it cooperative? Quality. Or individualistic? Or grasping, wanting, driving, pushing in its wanting? Is the quality of the mind to say, I can do this but I can't do that?
17:42 Ingrid Porter: It seems to be all those things, Krishnaji.
17:44 K: Yes, so what is yours?
17:50 IP: It is moving from being cooperative to being selfish and grasping. It seems to be going from one thing to another.
18:01 K: So are you saying it is a mixture?
18:03 IP: Yes.
18:06 K: Is that it? Are you sure? I am not questioning it, I am just discussing it, dialogue.
18:11 IP: You can observe all these things at any one time.
18:26 K: That mixture is really a confused mind.
18:29 IP: Yes.
18:32 K: Is that the quality of your mind? It is confused?
18:41 Q: I think right now the quality of the mind is enquiring. It is not confused. It is just looking into itself right now.
19:04 Giselle Balleys: But why do we say it is confused if it is moving from one side to the other?
19:17 K: You tell me, please. Don't ask me questions. I am asking: what is the nature of our mind?
19:34 GB: We see the expression. Are we capable of seeing the nature?
19:42 K: Would you listen to my question, or you are ready to answer it? The nature of my mind is: wanting, grasping, cooperating, all that. It is a terrible mixture. Is that all?
20:45 Q: There is also a constant dissatisfaction. Dissatisfaction, in my mind.
20:58 Q: There is also an awareness of all this since we are talking about.
21:02 K: Yes. Am I aware that I am confused? Or I say, I am confused? You follow the difference?
21:15 Q: There seems to be an awareness of whatever word you have just used.
21:17 K: No, am I aware of this mixture? Am I aware of that? Or I have already come to a conclusion that I am confused. You follow what I am saying? Now, which is it that is happening to us now?
21:45 MZ: Doesn't one bump against the confusion immediately so that it is not just something you have decided upon in the past? You encounter it in your own looking.
22:08 K: No, I am not getting anywhere. All right, you discuss. Talk to me.
22:22 SS: Are you saying that if there is an awareness of confusion then we are looking at it freshly or we are looking at it anew, so to speak, whereas if I say, I am confused, I have a fixed point where I am stuck?
22:38 K: Yes, that is all. Move from there. You have stated something, move from there. If I may put it bluntly – don't say, I am confused. You are confused, but move. You follow? You understand?
23:19 SF: It doesn't seem that the confusion is just a random confusion. It seems that when there is cooperation, when there is individuality, when there is all these things, those are simply expressions of something much deeper that the mind is trying to do. There is also a certain amount of enquiry. But when the enquiry comes too close to this very central thing that the mind is trying to do, a certain kind of protection, then there is a fear, then the enquiry stops.
24:03 K: Sir, before you enquire, I want to find out what I am. Which is – what am I? All this? Go on, answer me. Am I? Are you?

SF: That and more.
24:28 K: You are all this?
24:43 SS: All this and the desire to change it, obviously.
24:47 K: What are you, sir?
24:58 Harsh Tanka: There is also something that is looking at all this, that is aware of all this.
25:05 K: You are the watcher and you are watching all this?
25:11 HT: Yes.

K: Is that what you are?
25:14 Q: Yes.
25:18 K: Don't quickly agree, just look at what I am asking you.
25:22 SN: Yes.
25:26 K: So you are all that? The watcher who is watching what he is. Is that it? Come on, join in, please.
25:44 Q: Krishnaji, then you asked the question, what are you?
25:48 K: What am I? No.
25:51 Q: What am I – when I asked it, an immediate response was to go to my past and what I have been, which is all this. A moment later, again the question I asked, what am I?
26:12 K: I am asking you, what are you? All this?

Q: I don't know what I am.
26:28 K: Are you the form, the name, the thought, the confusion? What are you? Who are you? What are you? Please.
26:49 SF: All of that, Krishnaji, and much more as well.
26:53 K: Yes, all right. At one time something predominates, another time, that which has been dormant comes out, and you keep this going. Is that what you are, this constant struggle within a narrow, limited space? Is that what you are? Is that what your mind is? Sorry, I have got hay fever.
27:32 Q: That is what I thought I was.
27:38 K: I am asking you now, what are you? Listen, Rajesh, I am asking you what is the quality of your mind and what are you – what am I? Have you asked this question ever? Not, who am I, but what am I? What is my nature? What is my quality? You understand?
28:59 IP: It seems when we ask that question, Krishnaji, we come up with whatever is predominant at that moment.
29:07 K: And another moment something else. Is that what you are? The name, the form, the body and so on physically, and all this melange, this mixture of all that – is that what you are?
29:29 Q: We are the name, the form, the body, our identification with all sorts of things, but we are also, it seems, this mind that is asking the question.
29:42 K: So you have identified yourself with your body, with your name, with all the things which you have just said – a mixture – and you say that identity with all that is what you are. Is that it?
30:07 SF: We began the conversation by you asking whether the nature of our mind was defensive, which I have been looking at. It seems to me that most profoundly I am that which I want to defend, that little thing which feels threatened.
30:29 K: No. Discuss with me, please.
30:41 SF: Well, you asked the question. Because all of the confusion, all of that, it just seems to be an expression of this thing which is this ego, this very profound 'me', this thing which is afraid.
30:54 K: Yes, so you are saying, are you, the quality of my mind, quality, is this confusion, and also the source of the confusion is there. You have stated it – now, what will you do with that? You understand what I mean? What is your next move?
31:34 SF: Well, at the moment I am just looking at that as we have talked about it.
31:38 K: You have stated it, you have looked at it. What is your next step?
31:46 SF: Well, Krishnaji, the next step is the step that one always backs away from.
31:52 K: Why?
31:54 SF: Because it would mean...
31:57 K: Those are all conclusions.
32:00 SF: I am just saying what has happened in the past.
32:02 K: No, look at it now. You say, I am all that, and also deeper down, deeper at its source, there is this entity that is creating all this. You are saying that. Now, enquire into that source. Don't remain with the confusion and say, there is the source. Now enquire into the source. What is that source? Is that source different from this? Different from confusion, all that? Is that so – no, just hold it a minute – is that source different?
33:06 SF: The confusion is generally the expression of that source.
33:09 K: Maybe it is. Sir, look, a source of a river of water is water. It is not the source and water. You are dividing it.
33:42 Frances McCann: But it seems to alternate between the controller and then something...
33:47 K: Yes, but you see, I am asking Scott. He said, there is the source and the confusion. He said the expression of the source is confusion. So I am asking him, are they two different things? Or like any source of water, it is water.
34:15 SF: All right. But Krishnaji...
34:17 K: Not 'all right' – no, don't move from there for a minute.
34:20 SF: Can I just ask a question about it then?

K: Yes.
34:23 SF: There are moments when apparently that confusion is not there.
34:30 K: That is not my point.
34:33 SF: Well, I am sorry, but my question is: is the source no longer there then?
34:38 K: No. You see, you have gone off to something else. Forgive me. The source and the confusion – we will use that word 'confusion' – are they two different things or there is only that, confusion, not the source of confusion.
35:04 MZ: Krishnaji, it is the quality about the so-called source which is confusion, that seems innate to it, and that is this need to defend it, hold on to it, perpetuate at all costs.

K: Yes.
35:20 K: I don't admit for myself the source is separate from the confusion.
35:27 MZ: But the quality of holding on to it is...
35:30 K: No, I want to find out. Am I holding on to it?
35:40 Q: Krishnaji, you say you will not admit that the source is different from the confusion. Do you admit confusion at all? Do you admit confusion?
35:50 K: Wholly.

Q: Do you?
35:53 K: Personally?

Q: Yes.

K: Don't bother. No.
35:57 Q: You say there is no confusion at all?
36:00 K: For me? Are you asking me a direct question?

Q: Yes.
36:05 K: I say, yes, there is none. What value does that have?
36:08 Q: Then the question of enquiry into the source, or the enquiry into the confusion which you are raising...
36:14 K: No, sir, wait. Either you ask me: are you confused?
36:23 Q: I am not asking are you confused.
36:25 K: Then what are you asking me?
36:29 Q: You made a statement. You said that the source and the confusion...

K: Are one. Yes.
36:38 Q: And you also make a statement that for you there is no confusion.
36:44 K: Sir, Scott asked a question, which is: there is the source, centre, and the confusion. I say, are they two different things, and he hasn't answered that question yet.
37:06 SN: I think this is where a great deal of the difficulty lies. You say the source and the confusion are one.
37:17 K: Forget it.
37:19 SN: Yes, but you have said it, and I have listened to it and I see logically that it is absolutely so, but there is something in my mind that doesn't actually touch it wholly, you know?
37:31 K: Why not? Go into it!
37:36 SF: Krishnaji, when I look at this, that does not appear to be so. It appears, for instance, that the source of this confusion might be qualitatively the same as all of the confusion that it creates.
37:50 K: So what, then what?
37:52 SF: But it seems that there is something which one has inherited as being human that is a tremendous conditioning.
38:00 K: So is the confusion, which I have, inherited?
38:03 SF: It is the nature of thought. There seems to be so much.
38:06 K: No, I don't want to enter into thought and all that. A little bit, sir. You are missing it.
38:13 HT: I can see the confusion but I can't see the source.
38:20 K: Would you say – I am just asking – would you say your entire mind is confused?
38:33 SF: No.

K: Why?
38:36 SF: Well, otherwise it would be pointless for me to even engage in this conversation.

K: Wait.
38:45 K: Why not? No, listen, Scott, for God's sake just listen. Is your mind – I am asking – is your mind entirely confused or part of it is not confused?
39:09 WA: I think one can do certain things without confusion. One can cook a soufflé without confusion. I can do that without confusion.
39:20 K: Wait a minute, if you are making a soufflé – I heard last night Mrs Smith, the cook, you know, on the television. 'I will tell you how to make bread' – what is it?
39:47 MZ: Summer pudding.
39:55 K: Please, come back. Please, this is a serious question I am asking you: are you totally confused or only partially confused?
40:13 BJ: Krishnaji, I understood we were saying that the centre is confused and there is also confusion.
40:19 K: No, that is what he was saying.
40:22 BJ: But you were saying, as I understood, that the centre is confusion.
40:26 K: No, I am asking – just listen quietly, if you don't mind – is your mind totally confused or is there a part of it that is not confused? This is not a trick question.
40:39 BJ: No, I understand. To me it seems it is totally confused.
40:42 K: Be careful when you say that. Be very careful, in the sense you are aware your whole being, mind is confused. There is not somewhere in a corner it is not confused. When you say the whole mind is confused, that is an actual realisation that there is no corner. Or you say, well, it is not totally confused, but there is a corner which is full of light. Wait. I am not going to move from it, for a minute. Hold it for a minute. Forgive me, I am not being assertive or wanting my opinion or anything. I am asking you a question. Please answer that question. Answer that question.
41:45 Q: Your second description of a feeling of there being confusion but also this corner, is certainly the feeling that I have.
41:52 K: So to you there is a corner, or there is part which is not confused. Right?
42:03 SF: That might be...

K: Wait – not 'might be'. You see, Scott, you are verbalising too much. Just look at the question first. The question first, which is, is your whole mind confused or there is some part which is not?
42:31 MZ: Krishnaji, can one say, not a part, but there are moments that are not confused.
42:38 K: Yes, all right. There are moments you are not confused but most of the time you are confused.
42:47 MZ: Well, I am nervous in that little corner.
42:51 Q: Yes, exactly.
42:54 K: You are not answering my question. This is a really serious question. Give a little attention to it, please.
43:04 SS: I feel now, at the moment, that one holds that there is a part that is clear, and that seems to me to be part of defence that we were talking about in the beginning.
43:21 K: That is just what I am coming to. Do I say to myself honestly, accurately, that I am really totally confused? Or I say, yes, sometimes I am clear, the rest of the time I am not clear. And that clarity, a rare clarity, I am holding on to. And therefore I say to myself, no, I am not confused totally. Wait, just hold it, please. Is that what we are doing?
44:12 Many: Yes.
44:20 K: Right? Now, what is the next step? Go on, what is the next step?
44:29 MZ: Krishnaji, if one is totally confused one doesn't know one is totally confused.
44:35 K: Oh yes, one does.
44:36 MZ: How? What is the perception that you are totally confused, if you are?
44:42 K: I am confused – politics, science, government, myself, my relationship with another – I am confused.
44:50 MZ: But you said totally.
44:54 K: I am asking you – don't turn the thing back to me.
45:00 SF: May I ask a question though, which is confusing for me. If the mind is totally confused and it says it is totally confused...
45:14 K: Are you aware, is the mind aware that it is confused, or you are saying, I am confused. No, wait, have you answered that question?
45:30 SF: I haven't got to my question though.
45:33 K: All right, have your question.
45:38 SF: If the mind sees that it is totally confused is it in fact totally confused?
45:44 K: No, you have put a wrong question.
45:50 SF: What I am trying to say is that if the mind is totally confused, if there is nothing other than confusion...
45:55 K: Stop there.
46:00 SF: That is the end, all right.

K: Stop there.
46:03 K: No. You are missing a tremendous thing in this. I am confused. Is that an actuality? Am I really confused? Or occasionally I am not?
46:34 Q: Krishnaji, aren't you asking a leading question? By suggesting that most of the time one is confused and occasionally one is not confused – isn't that a leading question?
46:48 K: What is the question then?
46:50 Q: If you are asking that, if most of the time one is confused and occasionally one is not, one may feel that, ok, one is confused and occasionally not.
47:00 K: All right. You are saying that – occasionally, rarely, I am not confused.
47:06 Q: No, I am not saying that. I am suggesting this is a leading question. That by saying that one is saying, well, maybe I am confused all the time. One is identifying with the question. One is saying, yes, that is true. But is it so? Is one confused all the time, most of the time?
47:26 K: I understand what you are saying.
47:32 Q: I think it is quite a big thing to say.
47:36 K: Why doesn't the mind stay with the rare clarity, rare moments, why doesn't it stay there? Please do give your attention to my question a little bit. I say I am confused, and I also say, on rare occasions I am not. So the mind is now divided. Right? Would you agree to that?
48:20 Q: Yes.

K: Don't agree – do you see that?
48:25 K: Please. Why doesn't the mind then stay with clarity? Even though it is rare, stay there. You are not meeting my point.
48:48 BJ: Well, perhaps we are not meeting your point, Krishnaji, because we are all confused.
48:52 K: Right. Are you confused totally?
48:57 BJ: Yes.

K: Now, wait a minute, just look. If you are totally confused what do you do? Whatever you do will be confusing. Right? Are you sure?
49:21 BJ: Yes.

K: If I am completely confused, whatever I do will be further confusion. Right? That is obvious, isn't it, logical. So what shall I do? What will you do? So what is the quality of your mind that says – listen – what is the quality of my mind, of your mind, that says, I am really totally confused about everything?
50:30 WA: For some reason I still can't say that. There is something in me that can't say that.
50:35 K: What is that?
50:36 WA: That I am totally confused about everything.
50:38 K: What is that something that won't allow you to say that?
50:42 WA: Just the bits when I don't feel confused. I mean, there are bits.
50:47 SS: That is the source, surely, isn't it?
50:54 K: You see, you are not facing the thing at all. You are trying to move away from it.
51:04 SS: Does it help to say...
51:06 K: I don't want to help you.
51:11 MZ: Perception, if you are confused, logically is not confusion.
51:16 K: No, Maria, just listen to me. If my brain, mind, is confused there is a stoppage. Right? There is no movement to do something about it. I realise, if I am confused totally, whatever I do will bring more confusion, because it is born out of confusion. So, there is complete cessation of all action. Are you frightened of that? Hold, hold – I am asking. Are you frightened of that? Forget the school – we are not talking of it for the moment, we will come back to that. Are you frightened of non-action?
52:29 MZ: What do you mean in this instance by non-action?
52:33 K: You know what it means. I am confused. Whatever I do will bring about further confusion. So there is complete cessation of all movement.
52:45 MZ: Presumably you mean any movement of the mind at all, not just that I won't do something outwardly physically.
52:53 K: No, physically. Please, don't divide it.
52:57 MZ: Which do you mean? It is possible to do nothing physically but the difficulty comes when the mind is not immobile.
53:08 K: I am. It is.

MZ: That is our difficulty.
53:11 K: You are dodging, you are not facing the thing which I am asking you. If my mind is totally confused, any action will bring further confusion. So I say, all right, can that state of confusion be there without any movement? You understand what I am saying, verbally? I

P: Yes.
53:48 SN: Are you saying, can the mind not move? Is that what you are saying?

K: No.
53:58 SN: I don't quite understand.

K: All right, I will explain. I am a mixture of everything. Sometimes I am happy, sometimes I am unhappy, depressed, I act out of confusion, sometimes I am clear, I am fear – I am all that, confusion. Right? I am that confusion. My mind is that confusion. Right? I don't say to myself, there is a corner, a part of me that is not confused. That may be my defensive mechanism. Right? So what do I do? So I don't defend. This clarity may be a reaction to confusion. Are you following this? So, my question then is: am I aware that I am totally confused? And not move from there. Is that what causes such fear? Which is, my God, how can I remain in this state of total confusion? So the mind says no, move, get somewhere. You follow?
55:58 BJ: Krishnaji, it is not that I am aware of fear but I notice that this movement towards conclusion is so quick.
56:05 K: Yes, that is what I am saying – the same thing. That is my point – we never stay with anything completely. If I am jealous, I stay with that, look at it, not try to change it and argue with it and rationalise it. I never stay with jealousy. Right?
56:51 SF: Sir, I am afraid I have trouble with all this. Krishnaji, if I am completely in confusion how can I stay with jealousy? How can I stay with jealousy if I am completely confused.
57:08 K: No, you have misunderstood. I said we never stay with anything completely.
57:14 SF: How can we if we are confused?
57:17 K: Oh, Jesus. All right, stay with confusion completely, don't move out of it. Then what happens if you do that? Go on.
57:56 SN: I can say what makes me not stay. There is a problem in staying with the confusion.
58:04 K: Why?
58:05 MZ: Because you are confused about it. The very fact of confusion makes it impossible. The nature of confusion makes it impossible to stay with it. Is that what you are saying?

K: I don't know. You are asking.
58:19 SN: I can say what happens. It is not just confusion. Anything – when I have tried staying with it there is an accompanying pain.
58:31 K: Why? Why?
58:43 SN: I think that is the nature of...
58:45 K: You see how you are answering it? You have said it – that is the nature of things – and leave it. That is a defensive mechanism. Whereas if you say: Why? Why is there pain? Go on, examine it. Go into it, move!
59:38 SS: Is pain the product of resistance in some way?
59:42 K: No, look – I am confused and I say, by Jove, that realisation that I am confused causes pain – that is what she is saying. Why pain? Because I don't like the idea of confusion. Right? As simple as that. Is that right? S

N: Yes.
1:00:12 K: Which means what? You have moved out of confusion. My God. Right? Then the battle begins – pain and confusion, how am I to get over it.
1:00:34 You understand? S

N: Yes, I understand.
1:00:36 K: No, not verbally. Break it, go out. That means you are really not aware that you are totally confused and any movement, further movement, is still confusion. You haven't held that cup. What is your difficulty?
1:01:18 SF: I am trying to understand what you are saying, Krishnaji.
1:01:20 K: I am saying something very simple, what I am saying is very simple. That is: I am confused – stay there.
1:01:30 Q: Krishnaji, are you saying that the clarity we think we have is just the other side of the confusion we don't know what to do with?

K: Yes, sir.
1:01:40 Q: And then we try to work on that confusion with our clarity, and of course we move.
1:01:45 K: So, for me – suppose I was a person – I say, I am confused. And he says to me, don't move away from that actuality. I won't move away from that actuality. That is the quality of my brain which says, this is so – hold. And I say, all right, I hold it. Then what happens? Are you doing that? Don't play tricks with this, otherwise there is no point in it. I took jealousy – can I stay with jealousy as an example. Not rationalise it, suppress it, why shouldn't I, etc. – just, I am jealous.
1:02:59 WA: But when you say 'staying with it', also involved in that is watching how one is moving out of it. When you talk about staying with something, do you mean that you are watching... When I am doing it and I start seeing I am trying to move out of it all the time, and I am sort of watching that as well. Is that also staying with it?
1:03:24 K: Do we realise, if I am confused any action from that is still confusion?
1:03:33 WA: Yes, but all I can see is me trying to act. No, I am not acting, but I am trying. Do you see what I mean? I just see all this movement going on.
1:03:49 K: Isn't it logical that when I am confused, if I act out of that confusion, it is confusion? That is logical. Right? Agree? Logical, verbally clear. Now, is that clarity, verbal clarity, actuality to you?
1:04:22 WA: Yes, I can see it all going on, but I suppose I am expecting something to happen.
1:04:35 K: Expecting, wanting, trying to change it – it is still part of the same thing. Do I realise in my bones, this thing, or it is just words?
1:05:01 Q: You are trying to get us to explore silence and we don't seem to want to.
1:05:07 K: No. I am going to go into it if you will come with me a little bit. I will show it to you.
1:05:17 BJ: Krishnaji, what do you mean by 'stay with it'?
1:05:20 K: I have explained it, sir.
1:05:23 BJ: But for me, staying with it means...
1:05:24 K: Staying – I will show you – not do anything about it, there it is. Now, wait a minute. Is it not a waste of energy when I realise I am really confused and I say to myself, I must not be confused, why am I confused, enquire into the cause of confusion, all that is a wastage of energy. Do we realise that? Do we realise it actually, or are you just verbally saying yes? Do I realise that analysing the cause of confusion, and then the problem arises: who is the analyser, who is the analysed, and the problem of constant analysis, which is time – all the other problems arise from that. So, do I see very clearly for myself that I am confused, and no movement? And any movement is a wastage of energy which will not clarify the confusion. Right? Would you agree to that? What is the difficulty?
1:07:24 FM: It is the pressure.
1:07:26 IP: It is not difficult. It seems quite clear.
1:07:30 K: Clear verbally or actually? Do you understand what you have done? When you are not wasting energy your whole attention is focused on confusion. Right?
1:07:58 FM: It feels like pressure.
1:08:02 K: Please, Ms McCann, just listen. Aren't you in that state? I am confused. I am not moving at all in any direction. Moving – you understand what I mean? Say why should I, why should I not, what shall I do, tell me what to do, and so on and so on – which I realise is a total waste of energy. Not only verbally realise but I won't play that game. Right? Are you like that? What do you say? Are you like that? That you are not wasting your energy, dissipating it by saying, no, I am partially this, that, the other thing. Right? Which means what? Not wasting energy implies that your whole energy is with this confusion. Is it?
1:09:48 Q: I wonder if it is, because I wonder if we are actually seeing the confusion or if the confusion is just an assumption.
1:09:56 K: No, sir, I am asking you a question. Is it your whole attention focused on this confusion? Is there confusion when you give your entire attention to it? Of course not. If you give your whole attention to jealousy, it is not. What are you talking about?
1:10:45 Jim Fowler: For that moment, yes. For that particular moment.
1:10:50 K: Ah! When you say that, what has happened? Go on, sir, tell me. When I say, yes, at that particular moment when I give my whole attention to jealousy, it is gone, and I say, it will come up again and I never want jealousy to occur again. So that is a motive. When you say, for the moment it has gone, it means it will come back.
1:11:35 JF: No, I don't say for the moment. I don't say to myself, for the moment, it is gone.
1:11:42 K: All right, it is gone. Now, when you give your whole attention to confusion – not 'give' – when there is total attention with regard to the thing called confusion, which is me, is there confusion? Or confusion arises only when you are partly attentive about anything.
1:12:13 JF: But that implies that we have got to be completely attentive all the time. Doesn't that imply that we have got to be completely attentive all the time?
1:12:23 K: No. Look, I am confused. I give my energy. Or take a much simpler case – I am jealous. I give my attention to it, not dissipate it, not say, well, why shouldn't I, and all that – just pay complete attention. It goes. Right? Are you sure? Or am I telling you it is so, you accept it?
1:13:04 JF: No, it does. But it doesn't happen permanently.
1:13:11 K: Wait, sir, I am coming to that. I am jealous. I give complete attention to it – it is gone. Now, I am inquiring: what is attention that makes it go? Not whether it will come back. What is the quality of attention that dissipates this thing? So I am concerned with attention, not with recurring jealousy. You understand what I am saying? Am I making myself clear? So I say, what is this attention? Do I ever give complete attention to anything, or it is always partial? And is the partial inattention not attention? You understand? You see, you have all gone to sleep. I am not concerned about jealousy. I want now to enquire into attention. And when there is no attention am I aware that there is no attention? You understand my question? I wonder. No, I must make it clear. When I am attentive, life becomes very simple. It is only when I am not attentive that inattention, lack of attention creates problems. Right? Am I aware of this inattention? You understand? Yes, sir?
1:15:38 JF: Well, you can't be. You can't possibly be.
1:15:40 K: Why not? JF: Because one is inattentive.
1:15:44 K: Why not, sir? I am attentive one moment, next moment I am not. Which is important?
1:15:56 JF: The attention, being attentive.
1:15:59 K: No. You see, this is it. I wonder if you see this. I am attentive now, next moment I am not. Which is important for me? The moment I am not attentive – I have forgotten attention. I wonder if you see this point.
1:16:23 SS: That is the point of learning.
1:16:28 K: Don't use that word for the moment. I am sticking to one thing. I am attentive and the thing goes. A few minutes later I am inattentive – inattentive. So I say to myself, which is most important, the past attention or the present inattention?
1:16:59 JF: One can't be aware of one's present inattention. It becomes attention immediately.
1:17:04 K: I am not concerned about attention. I wonder if I am making myself clear. I am not concerned about attention. I know yesterday I was attentive and a certain problem dissolved, gone. Today I am not attentive. To me, the lack of attention today is far more important than the experience of attention which dissipated a certain problem. Right? That is simple enough. No? What is the problem, sir?
1:17:48 JF: It is my state of inattention at that particular point in time.
1:17:52 K: I don't quite follow.
1:17:58 IP: Are you saying Jim, that if you know that you are inattentive you are in fact attentive?
1:18:04 JF: That is what I am saying, yes.
1:18:05 MZ: If you are inattentive you don't know you are inattentive, and if you do you are attentive.
1:18:11 K: No. You see what our mind is doing? My mind has experienced. An experience which sees dissipation of a certain problem through attention. It has recorded that as memory. Now, that memory says, I must have that, repeat that attention. Then that repetition is not attention. I wonder if you get this. Attention means at the moment, given moment, not continuous attention. You can't have it.
1:19:01 WA: So the very striving for attention is inattention. The very striving for attention is itself inattention. The moment you start striving for it that in itself is not attention.
1:19:12 K: Yes. See what lies behind it. Having recorded an experience of attention and dissipation of a problem, that has been recorded, and the memory says, I must continue with that. Break it. Finished! I wonder if you see this. So let's come back. What is the quality of your mind? Is it still saying, I am confused, there is part of me not confused, and wanting the part which is not confused, pursuing that? Or the mind says, look, that is a game I am playing, because that becomes my defensive mechanism, my anchor, which is not actual – the actual is I am confused. Right? And can I stay with that? Can the mind without any movement hold that? Not look out of the window or anything, just hold it. Which means when you do hold it so completely you have brought all your energy to that thing. Energy means total attention. Right, sir? And that total attention dissipates whatever the problem is. A problem continues because you haven't given it total attention. You will tell me next year, I have no capacity. That is a defensive mechanism. Right? I am sorry, I am not criticising – it is up to you. So, a mind that is moving, living, not anchored to something. Right, sir? It is half past six, we had better stop. You see, there is no dialogue in this – I have talked. Sir, a problem arises from this, a question: can you convey this to those students, what attention is? No? Why? Why? Is it because I haven't really attended to anything? Would you say? You are my student for a minute, if you don't mind. You are my student. I want to help you to totally attend. Not only to what I am saying but attend, learn the quality of attention. I want to teach you. You are my student. You don't mind? If you don't, say so, I will go to somebody else.
1:24:30 Q: I would like to learn it.
1:24:40 K: All right, sir. You. You two. Have you ever attended to anything completely? Have you?
1:25:02 SF: Well, one would say yes, but that may be a mistake.
1:25:08 K: Find out, find out. Find out when you say, I have, find out, if you have, what happens. You are my student, and you. I say now, I am asking you – have you attended, given your whole attention to something? That means all your energy, all your heart and mind, everything given to something. Have you? If you say no, let's discuss it. Why not? What do we mean by attention? Right? I am giving it a special meaning and you may be giving it another meaning. So I say, let's find out together what attention is.
1:26:11 SF: What is your meaning then?
1:26:16 K: No, put out what you mean and I will tell you what I mean. Don't just be silent. What do you mean by attention?
1:26:29 SF: Well, a moment ago you were talking about confusion and I was following that.
1:26:37 K: No, forget that. I am asking you. You are my student, with those students. I say, have you attended to anything completely? When you are cleaning your teeth, have you given your whole attention to that? Or it is merely a habit, quick. You follow? Find out. Have you given your attention to anger when you are angry? When you are angry, of course, not at that moment, but you know what the feeling of anger is. Give your whole attention to that. Will you? Do it now. I will tell you what I mean by attention. It is not concentration, it is not fixing your mind on a certain point, a certain direction. But to give, without any motive and so on, to give your whole energy to look. Right? Will you do that? Move, move, don't take time – move. Which means, is your mind slack at this present moment, tired? I have been bombarding you for an hour and a half. Is it tired? Therefore you can't pay attention, so let go. Let go, move. You follow?
1:28:58 SF: Move where, Krishnaji? Move to where?
1:29:01 K: Why are you tired? Couldn't sleep well last night? Too much work all day? Or you are facing something which you have not faced before and therefore the body, the nerves, is resisting? Unwilling? So, being unwilling therefore you get tired. If you say, by Jove, let's move, you have plenty of energy. Personally, I can go on like this. So, forget that. So I am asking you: have you ever given your whole attention to something? If you have, you know what it means. And how will you convey this to the student? Because that is why they are here – to live or to understand the wholeness of life. I won't go into all that.
1:30:25 Q: May I ask, is attention always fixed to an object that you attend to?
1:30:31 K: I said that concentration is that, to bring all your thought to a certain point. Attention is not a movement of thought – you are attending. Right? I had better stop.